NBA Institutes Harsher Penalties for Load Management
Today the NBA's Board of Governors unanimously approved a new Player Participation Policy that will replace the Player Participation Policy implemented prior to the 2017-18 season. The new policy is a six page document, but the short version is that the NBA has defined a "star" as any player who has been selected as an All-Star or as an All-NBA Team member within the past three seasons, and the NBA has set forth conditions such that teams will face financial penalties if star players are held out of games without having a documented injury. The policy includes numerous exceptions, so it will be interesting to see if teams attempt to find ways to avoid consequences for resting their star players. While this policy focuses on punishing teams, it should be noted that the new Collective Bargaining Agreement stipulates that players who appear in fewer than 65 games will be ineligible for several major awards, including regular season MVP; the NBA expects and hopes that the possibility of losing the opportunity to receive individual awards will motivate star players to earn the money that they are paid from their guaranteed contracts.
There is no credible evidence that load management works in terms of increasing a team's chances for playoff success. There is also no credible evidence that load management enhances player safety, and NBA Commissioner Adam Silver admitted this during his press conference announcing the new policy: "I said this before, if the science were clearer that players should be resting, we would be favoring it," Silver said. The NBA has been damaged by "stat gurus" who use "advanced basketball statistics" to promote load management, tanking, and the notion that the only good shots are dunks and three pointers; it is past time that the league office reassert authority over the game. The limitations of "advanced basketball statistics" have been glaringly apparent for quite some time, but the "stat gurus" who make money off of their proprietary numbers have been quite effective in squelching informed discussion about their biased and flawed thinking.
The NBA was a much better and more entertaining league when load management and tanking did not exist, because players used to consider it a badge of honor to play all 82 games. It is sad that the NBA has to keep changing policies and rules to force healthy players to play, but this is symptomatic of a larger societal problem: too many people have an inflated sense of entitlement. Playing in the NBA is a privilege, not a right, and responsibilities are attached to that privilege for each NBA player--responsibilities to the league, to the sponsors and media outlets that fund the league, to the team that pays you, to your teammates, and to the fans. Instead of taking those responsibilities seriously, too many players act as if they are entitled to receive generational wealth in exchange for minimal effort.
This sense of entitlement permeates Team USA, and goes a long way toward explaining Team USA's frequent failures in FIBA events: USA Basketball often acts as if Team USA is entitled to win as opposed to behaving as if building a winning team is a serious responsibility; it is often evident that either the coaching staff is not familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of opposing teams or that the players ignore the defensive game plan; superstar players feel entitled both to be selected to Team USA and also to skip some events (such as the FIBA World Cup) without losing their roster spots; American NBA players struggle to adjust to FIBA's physical play and to adversity in general, because in the NBA they are pampered every step of the way on and off of the court.
It has been five years since an American-born player won the NBA regular season MVP--and that player (James Harden) is vastly overrated by "stat gurus" and by media members who lack the intellectual rigor (or the courage) to push back when Daryl Morey made the ludicrous, demonstrably false assertion that Harden is a better scorer than Michael Jordan. Commentators like J.J. Redick and Amin Elhassan made ignorant, derogatory statements about the players who built the league, when the reality is that today's players would likely struggle if they were teleported into previous eras: are we supposed to believe that coddled American players who cannot win a medal in the FIBA World Cup would fare well versus Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, and other all-time greats? The excess dribbling and showboating that is praised today would have been received quite differently in decades past: referees would not have tolerated much of the nonsense that is permitted today, and any player showboating his way into the paint would be more likely to be counting his missing teeth than counting on being rewarded with two free throws.
Commissioner Silver and the team owners have the right idea that load management is a pox on the game, but the rot that has set in to the sport is so deeply rooted that I fear it will be difficult to fix.
Labels: "advanced basketball statistics", "stat gurus", Adam Silver, load management
posted by David Friedman @ 11:49 PM
15 Comments:
"The NBA was a much better and more entertaining league when load management and tanking did not exist, because players used to consider it a badge of honor to play all 82 games. It is sad that the NBA has to keep changing policies and rules to force healthy players to play, but this is symptomatic of a larger societal problem: too many people have an inflated sense of entitlement. Playing in the NBA is a privilege, not a right, and responsibilities are attached to that privilege for each NBA player--responsibilities to the league, to the sponsors and media outlets that fund the league, to the team that pays you, to your teammates, and to the fans. Instead of taking those responsibilities seriously, too many players act as if they are entitled to receive generational wealth in exchange for minimal effort."
"This sense of entitlement permeates Team USA, and goes a long way toward explaining Team USA's frequent failures in FIBA events: USA Basketball often acts as if Team USA is entitled to win as opposed to behaving as if building a winning team is a serious responsibility; it is often evident that either the coaching staff is not familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of opposing teams or that the players ignore the defensive game plan; superstar players feel entitled both to be selected to Team USA and also to skip some events (such as the FIBA World Cup) without losing their roster spots; American NBA players struggle to adjust to FIBA's physical play and to adversity in general, because in the NBA they are pampered every step of the way on and off of the court."
Perfectly said!!! What you have been describing for years in your website is one of the main reasons for people to not love this NBA game anymore.
All over the globe and in crazy and different timezones, people really loved the NBA and were glued to every NBA game or Hilite Show from the eighties, nineties, and early 2000s. Different styles, different approaches, lots of superstars who wanted to win a ring after years of disappointment and players who needed to prove they belong before earning the big bucks.
The NBA that used to be FAN-TAS-TIC is now a league in which only trees and dunks are valid, while defense is optional for those who still want to actually play a game versus those who love to rest and only wait for the playoffs.
Since players are defacto partners of the owners in the league, and the CBA is hugely strong, there is no hope for the league we used to love to change. Is that really "evolution" of the game? I believe the right word would be "Less-quality product" still enjoyed by those who completely ignore Gilmore, Erving, Dantley, Bill. Wilt, Honcho, Cap, Pistol Pete and so many greats form the past.
Kenny:
Thank you!
The game used to be played at a higher level, and it used to be more enjoyable to watch; those two factors are of course intertwined.
The downward trajectory of the NBA's level of play is sad, but I hope that this is just a bad cycle and that things will turn around eventually. I can't say that I am optimistic about that just yet, but hope springs eternal.
David, kudos for being one of the only consistent voices shining a light on the true negative impacts of load management and tanking. I agree wholeheartedly that both have had tremendously negative impacts on the game we love. I think it should also be noted that statistics and all-time rankings are adversely impacted as well. You see a guy like Anthony Davis make the top 75 list, and someone like Kawhi Leonard being compared to MJ and Kobe...which is ridiculous when considering Bryant played more games than both of them combined! In my opinion, discussions around efficiency mean nothing when comparing a player who only shows up for 50% of a season contrasted with a player who shows up for 95% of a season.
To add to your point about transporting today's players back into the days that Bill Russell played, it has to be mentioned that not only were the rules different (and more stringently enforced), but the entire culture, especially towards black players, eliminated any sense of entitlement or coddling. I know you've noted on 20secondtimeout the racial threats and treatment Russell endured and overcame as he dominated the league. You've also pointed out that players had second jobs (hence the JJ comment), traveled by bus, and often had to play 4 and sometimes 5 games a week! Kyrie Irving's NBA career would have been all of 2 games if he played back in the 60s...
@kenny, One point I'd like to gently push back against, is this idea that defense is optional today. While all of the major rule changes over the past two decades have benefitted offensive players, NBA defenses are actually way more sophisticated today. The court is spaced out more, NBA offenses have become way more efficient, and TikTok, IG and Twitter mean blown assignments are highlighted ad nauseum. So, this all creates a false sense that defenses are horrible.
In reality, defenses have to account for the additional spacing, for every player being a threat to shoot the ball, and for the rule changes that have allowed perimeter players to dominate the league offensively. Reference the NBA finals and later rounds of the playoffs to see how good defenses have to still be to overcome all of that. The importance of one-on-one defense has greatly diminished. But the harder to accomplish team defense is still one of the most important aspects to winning in the playoffs (or in Fiba). Teams that have been together for years have proven this (see the list below of the last 8 NBA finalists).
I agree that stars missing games = less quality product. But as someone who watched the tail end of the 80s, grew up on 90s hoops, and covered 2000s hoops, I just think today's game is different. I still find a lot of quality in the product, even as I am frustrated by certain aspects of how today's game is played.
There was plenty to grumble about in the 90s and 2000s as well. Hack-a-Shaq was brutal to watch, as were the 90s Knicks and Heat.
There is hope for the NBA. Silver is taking a much needed step here, as well as the changes in the CBA regarding minimum number of games played to receive end-of-season awards. The midrange is also making a strong comeback as teams (and players) that prioritized 3s and dunks have not had much success in the postseason.
The past eight NBA finals teams (Lakers, Heat, Suns, Celtics, Bucks, Warriors and Nuggets) were not great 3-point shooting teams during the playoffs and their top stars all relied heavily on midrange and floaters.
Jordan:
You're welcome!
The NBA Record Book has not been degraded into a work of fiction the way that MLB's Record Book is in the wake of rampant PED usage, but the NBA Record Book provides more attention and glory to certain players than they deserve.
Kenny can speak for himself about defense, but from my perspective I agree that defenses are more sophisticated now than they were in the past. However, I am not sure that defenses are better or more effective. Yes, modern defenses must account for greater spacing and increased usage of the three point shot, but modern defenses are not permitted to bump cutters or play with physicality in general. I can easily see Michael Jordan averaging at least 40 ppg versus today's more sophisticated but less physical defenses. Julius Erving was less relentless about scoring than Jordan but he scored 31.9 ppg in his best pro season and 26.9 ppg in his best NBA season, and I feel comfortable adding at least 5-10 ppg to those numbers if he played today and was on a team that made him the offensive focal point. Anyone who pushes back by saying that Jordan and Erving were not great three point shooters is ignoring (1) if they played today then they would practice that shot like everyone else does and (2) the wide open spacing and lack of physicality make it almost impossible to guard a player who is effective at driving to the hoop. Doncic averaged 32.4 ppg last season despite not being a more explosive athlete or a better shooter than Jordan or Erving.
There is some quality in today's NBA at times and it is true that there were some low points in the late 1990s/early 2000s (which I would not pick as the best basketball era, either), but today's low points are worse and more widespread. Only the 1990s Knicks and Heat played like the 1990s Knicks and Heat, but many teams today are load managing, tanking, and limiting their shot diets mainly to dunks and three pointers.
You are correct that the recent NBA Finalists played a better quality, more well-rounded game than other teams--and I would argue that is a main reason that those teams were successful. That is some data that other teams should look at instead of focusing on "advanced basketball statistics."
>Since players are defacto partners of the owners in the league, and the CBA is hugely strong, there is no hope for the league we used to love to change. Is that really "evolution" of the game? I believe the right word would be "Less-quality product" still enjoyed by those who completely ignore Gilmore, Erving, Dantley, Bill. Wilt, Honcho, Cap, Pistol Pete and so many greats form the past.
The owners are just as culpable as the players. First, they agreed to all the rule changes and the shift in how the teams are un. Second, it is after all they who represent predatory capitalism, and it is that malicious ideology that is ultimately behind the destruction of the game. There is a direct inverse correlation between the integrity of the sport and how much money has come to dominate it.
>The downward trajectory of the NBA's level of play is sad, but I hope that this is just a bad cycle and that things will turn around eventually. I can't say that I am optimistic about that just yet, but hope springs eternal.
Sport is a reflection of the wider society. The decline of the NBA is a result of larger trends in society. Do those look reversible any time soon?
>I can easily see Michael Jordan averaging at least 40 ppg versus today's more sophisticated but less physical defenses. Julius Erving was less relentless about scoring than Jordan but he scored 31.9 ppg in his best pro season and 26.9 ppg in his best NBA season, and I feel comfortable adding at least 5-10 ppg to those numbers if he played today and was on a team that made him the offensive focal point. Anyone who pushes back by saying that Jordan and Erving were not great three point shooters is ignoring (1) if they played today then they would practice that shot like everyone else does and (2) the wide open spacing and lack of physicality make it almost impossible to guard a player who is effective at driving to the hoop. Doncic averaged 32.4 ppg last season despite not being a more explosive athlete or a better shooter than Jordan or Erving.
To anyone who would even try to argue that scoring is not absurdly easy now, there is the following simple fact to consider -- last season there were 6 players who averaged 30+ PPG, another two at 29, and yet another two at 28.
Only one time in history has the 4th player in the PPG ranking surpassed 30 PPG, and it was Jerry West in 1961-62. That year the 5th player was over 30 PPG too -- Oscar Robertson. And that's it.
In fact, even scoring 28 PPG was very rare -- the 4th ranked player only exceeded that mark on a grand total of 7 occasions in the whole history of the league prior to 2019-2020. And that had not happened at all at number 5 other than the 1961-62 season until 2019-20. It's three such cases in the last four seasons at number 5.
Last year 43 players averaged 20+ PPG and that is just the ones that meet the minimum games played requirement, there are another half as many that were load managed to below that but still averaged 20+ PPG too.
So on average you have two 20+ PPG scorers on every team. When has that happened in the past? This is absolutely ridiculous in the historical context.
Averaging these numbers used to be hard. Now it's trivialized.
Anonymous:
I agree that the owners and players are equally culpable.
I don't understand your reference to "predatory capitalism." The NBA is not run like a true capitalist enterprise. At best, it is a hybrid between capitalism and socialism. The NBA has shared revenues, a salary cap, a salary floor, and a common draft--a truly capitalist enterprise would not share revenues, would have neither a salary cap nor a salary floor, and would enable new, young talent to pay for the highest bidder.
In terms of the decline of society as a whole, the negative tendencies that I specifically referenced are a sense of entitlement and a belief that one has privileges/rights without corresponding responsibilities/duties. Those negative tendencies are not capitalist in nature.
Perhaps you think that it would be an improvement to have a society in which everything is run by the state and, in theory, there is equity for everyone--but, of course, that has been tried before (Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, etc., etc.) and has not only failed but resulted in misery, suffering, and state-sanctioned murder on a massive scale. Capitalism is far from perfect, but I prefer working to improve capitalism as opposed to trying a system that fails spectacularly every time. I know that one response is that modern socialism is different, to which all I can say is that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Anonymous:
I agree 100% that it is much, much easier to score 20 ppg now than it has ever been. I would add that this is because defense is not as effective as it used to be, which is a result of rules changes, and style of play changes, as I mentioned above and have written about in earlier articles. The great players of the past would put up absurd numbers in today's game, but many of today's so-called stars would have a rude awakening if they were teleported back more than 20 years.
David,
On point per usual. This may be a bit off topic, but I have a question for you about youth coaching. I'm now a U.S. expat teaching English overseas at a high school and the boys don't have a coach. I see them running drills, but they have no adult supervision, someone to teach them fundamentals and practice habits conducive to, er, winning games. I am a student of the game and I played in high school several decades ago, but I've never coached basketball before. Although I have coached chess.
My question for you is:
Can you recommend two or three books for a beginner basketball coach? I plan on meeting with the boys once a week for like 45 minutes or so.
I have played pickup with them and they mostly emulate Steve Curry even though not one of them have the type of outside shot that warrants jacking up threes like that. In other words, I'd prefer that they emulate Michael Jordan or Julius Erving in terms of sound fundamentals, although they probably shouldn't try to score so "relentlessly" like Jordan, as you put it.
Thanks in advance!
>I don't understand your reference to "predatory capitalism." The NBA is not run like a true capitalist enterprise. At best, it is a hybrid between capitalism and socialism. The NBA has shared revenues, a salary cap, a salary floor, and a common draft--a truly capitalist enterprise would not share revenues, would have neither a salary cap nor a salary floor, and would enable new, young talent to pay for the highest bidder.
That's internally. Externally it is a profit-maximizing enterprise that will degrade itself in every possible way if that results in making a quick buck in the short term. And here are the consequences.
>In terms of the decline of society as a whole, the negative tendencies that I specifically referenced are a sense of entitlement and a belief that one has privileges/rights without corresponding responsibilities/duties. Those negative tendencies are not capitalist in nature.
This is laughable in the broader historic context. Capitalism inevitably evolves towards a caste society unless there is a real threat that the capitalists will find their heads rolling in ditches to keep them in check. Without that threat they concentrate wealth further and further and eventually start to openly express the view of themselves as a higher form of human being. With it they mostly keep those views to themselves.
There was that Australian CEO whose remarks are doing the rounds the last few days - "We need to remind people that they work for the employer, not the other way around" and "We need to see unemployment rise, unemployment has to jump 40-50 per cent. In my view, we need to see pain in the economy. I mean, there’s been a systematic change where employees feel the employer is extremely lucky to have them as opposed to the other way around".
As if he isn't the parasite leeching off the hard work of his employees while sitting around and not doing much real work, and as if he is some semi-deity the workers need to worship...
Lots of other such cases over the years.
In general, we have seen a return to the conditions of the late 19th century -- once the USSR was no longer there to provide an alternative and once the generations of millions of men trained to fight during the wars (and thus representing a real mass uprising threat) were gone, there was no longer any reason to keep the concessions to the masses made in the aftermath of the wars. So they were rolled back and we are back to the Gilded Age. With all its brutality towards the common man.
>Perhaps you think that it would be an improvement to have a society in which everything is run by the state and, in theory, there is equity for everyone--but, of course, that has been tried before (Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, etc., etc.) and has not only failed but resulted in misery, suffering, and state-sanctioned murder on a massive scale.
You have absolutely zero understanding of what life under communism was like (no, it wasn't a never ending horror, quite the opposite after the wars) and why communists killed so many people (in most cases it was both the necessary and the right thing to do, and if you had any idea how life was before communists took power, you would understand; but you don't). The USA right now is in dire need of such a force appearing from somewhere and exterminating the top around 5 million people in the income distribution, or the species will head towards extinction as those lunatics desperately cling to their privileges (either it will be a nuclear war they will start or it will be the slow collapse caused by them blocking any meaningful action to address the global sustainability crisis). Unfortunately, there is no such power and no prospect of it appearing because the brainwashing is too deep and thorough. But that is a long discussion on its own.
The degeneration of the NBA is just a minor second-/third-order consequences of these much grander issues.
Anonymous:
I like a book called "Stuff! Good Players Should Know" by Dick DeVenzio. You can find at it Amazon, eBay, and the usual online places. DeVenzio played for Duke in the early 1970s. His book is packed with wonderful tips about how to think the game. Some of the concepts may be advanced for your players, but I think that reading the book will give you a good foundational basis as a coach, and then you can use the drills that suit their skill level.
I have done some youth coaching before. I am big believer in the value of fundamentals (for anything, not just basketball). Make sure that your players can dribble with either hand without looking at the floor. As the old saying goes, "The ball is round and the floor is flat, so the ball will always come back to you." Make sure that your players can execute a proper chest pass and a proper bounce pass. Teach them proper shooting technique. Not everyone has to hold the ball exactly the same way, but "flick and follow" is important. Last but certainly not least, conditioning and defense are important, so running and defensive slides should be part of the program as well. Skills can be demonstrated first, and then practiced in fun ways. For example, after practicing proper shooting technique, organize games of horse, Around the World, or knockout (or have a free throw shooting contest).
If you haven't already done this, one thing you might try is to have the players organize themselves and play a 5 on 5 game while you watch. You can learn a lot about who the leaders are, and what skill sets each player has.
Coaching can be very fun and rewarding, so good luck to you and your players!
Anonymous:
Your comment speaks for itself, but I will just highlight that you complain about how degrading capitalism is for the ordinary worker and your proposed solution is the emergence of a force to kill 5 million people in the top income distribution! As I said, this has been tried before. For instance, in Cambodia the government committed genocide against millions of people, targeting the most educated (which is very similar to your proposal). At least you are honest and admit that your plan involves mass murder. Most socialists I have interacted with are either less honest than you, or lack the ability to understand what is necessary to implement full-fledged socialism. You admit that your program starts with mass murder. You are less clear about what good supposedly will happen after that, but you probably see yourself as the Stalin or Putin figure so such trivial matters don't concern you.
As for what life is like under Communist rule, have you read "The Gulag Archipelago"? I suspect that Solzhenitsyn understands it better--and writes more eloquently than you.
I have no delusions about being able to educate you about basketball, Communism, socialism, or anything else. By the way, if you are interested in living in a country that operates according to your plan, you should move to Putin's Russia if you have not already done so.
As one who lived under commmunist rule I find comments of anon completely out of touch and showing complete lack of understanding. Even though I agree current systems are going the wrong way in general.
Although my point regarding communism system is: capitalism is embedded in human nature so hard that when suppressed it shows in some ways the life in such a system goes, starting with simple barter concealed more or less to avoid any state repression. Because at the end of the day people want to live and they are dependent on each other even in the most brutal of systems. The sad consequence is that state is so powerless against it, it resorts to mass murder in extreme cases. And it still doesn't work on those who survive.
Beep:
"Out of touch" is an understatement for how demonstrably wrong Anonymous' statements are.
I agree with you that "current systems are going the wrong way in general." The solution is to reform those systems, not replace them with a system/ideology that leads to mass suffering and mass murder every time that it is implemented.
A reply to the post by Anonymous (9/14 5:55): If issues in the NBA, say for example load management, are reflective of society as a whole, why am I not hearing about load management in the NHL, MLB, NFL, etc.?
Post a Comment
<< Home