Minnesota Sports Forum

WildWolf2813 wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

FNG wrote:I'm stuck in the middle on this one. I'm also disappointed when I go to a game and find out that a star that I wanted to see live isn't playing, and the "old man" in me says these guys are paid millions of dollars and need to play if they aren't really injured. But I also recognize that the goal of savvy GMs and coaches not named Tom Thibodeau is to go as deep in the playoffs as possible, not to win a specific game on January 14th, and there is a belief that a rested player is likely to perform better in the playoffs. It's a complicated issue, but I suspect it is management that decides to rest players, not the players.

And is it any different in baseball? I grew up in an era when starting pitchers regularly pitched complete games, but now it's a rarity. It's load management again. The pitcher doesn't want to come out of the game in the 6th inning (you can see the typical reaction in the dugout), but managers have concluded that limiting innings during the regular season gives his team a better chance postseason.

I don't like it in either case and I admire Ant's enthusiasm, but my suspicion is that management is right in both baseball and basketball.

I disagree a bit that it's primarily a management thing in the NBA. Even guys on bad teams have load management days.

The NBA is a player's league. If LeBron James wants to play... he's going to play. If he wants to sit out a game for rest even with his team currently out of the play-in... he's going to rest.

Yes. It's the star players who take games off, not the lesser rotation players. And it's those star players who are calling the shots, not the coaches, GMs or medical/training staff. If it were up to management, Ant would not be playing every game this season. Ant wants to play even when he's hurting or exhausted and, therefore, he plays. Speaking of Ant, as much as I don't like star players taking games off, there's a part of me that wishes Wolves management would have kept him out of some games in the interest of his longevity. On the other hand, I'm not sure how much total minutes played impact's a player's longevity. I think about players like MJ, Stockton, Malone and Kareem. They all rarely sat and piled up a lot of minutes yet they all had long careers and were playing at the high level late in their respective careers.

I think there's something to today's game being more taxing in certain ways.

I also think there's something to the old adage "give an inch, they'll take a mile" when it comes to load management and other aspects of today's NBA. Ideally, there's a happy medium.

As for Anthony Edwards, in today's NBA, it's unlikely he'll be in Minnesota when all those miles start to show on his legs anyway. So in the meantime, I enjoy his willingness to play every game and keep us in the playoff hunt stance. It's a bit different than what we see from others and adds to his likability.

Id be curious to know what you think is more taxing on the players today. They have chartered flights, better equipment (shoes), luxury hotels, less overall travel, personal assistants and massage therapists, deeper rosters, player friendly coaches, and less in-game contact. What's harder today than previous generations?

1. the pace. The movement is constant.

2. the force in how athletes land. You can make your muscles as strong as you want. Ligaments will snap regardless of how much you can avoid. Some injuries are caused by stress, but planting and slipping affect limbs.

3. Most importantly, the sneakers athletes wear now are much lighter and mainly low tops, which make you run faster and jump higher, but there's less resistance. Sneakers used to be really bulky and covered you from the ankle down. Nowadays, grip is sacrificed for being lighter on your feet, so when you land, one slip and your ankle is rolling. Land too hard, your sneaker can't handle the force put on it and your knee takes the brunt of the hit.

lipoli390 wrote:

WildWolf2813 wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

FNG wrote:I'm stuck in the middle on this one. I'm also disappointed when I go to a game and find out that a star that I wanted to see live isn't playing, and the "old man" in me says these guys are paid millions of dollars and need to play if they aren't really injured. But I also recognize that the goal of savvy GMs and coaches not named Tom Thibodeau is to go as deep in the playoffs as possible, not to win a specific game on January 14th, and there is a belief that a rested player is likely to perform better in the playoffs. It's a complicated issue, but I suspect it is management that decides to rest players, not the players.

And is it any different in baseball? I grew up in an era when starting pitchers regularly pitched complete games, but now it's a rarity. It's load management again. The pitcher doesn't want to come out of the game in the 6th inning (you can see the typical reaction in the dugout), but managers have concluded that limiting innings during the regular season gives his team a better chance postseason.

I don't like it in either case and I admire Ant's enthusiasm, but my suspicion is that management is right in both baseball and basketball.

I disagree a bit that it's primarily a management thing in the NBA. Even guys on bad teams have load management days.

The NBA is a player's league. If LeBron James wants to play... he's going to play. If he wants to sit out a game for rest even with his team currently out of the play-in... he's going to rest.

Yes. It's the star players who take games off, not the lesser rotation players. And it's those star players who are calling the shots, not the coaches, GMs or medical/training staff. If it were up to management, Ant would not be playing every game this season. Ant wants to play even when he's hurting or exhausted and, therefore, he plays. Speaking of Ant, as much as I don't like star players taking games off, there's a part of me that wishes Wolves management would have kept him out of some games in the interest of his longevity. On the other hand, I'm not sure how much total minutes played impact's a player's longevity. I think about players like MJ, Stockton, Malone and Kareem. They all rarely sat and piled up a lot of minutes yet they all had long careers and were playing at the high level late in their respective careers.

I think there's something to today's game being more taxing in certain ways.

I also think there's something to the old adage "give an inch, they'll take a mile" when it comes to load management and other aspects of today's NBA. Ideally, there's a happy medium.

As for Anthony Edwards, in today's NBA, it's unlikely he'll be in Minnesota when all those miles start to show on his legs anyway. So in the meantime, I enjoy his willingness to play every game and keep us in the playoff hunt stance. It's a bit different than what we see from others and adds to his likability.

Id be curious to know what you think is more taxing on the players today. They have chartered flights, better equipment (shoes), luxury hotels, less overall travel, personal assistants and massage therapists, deeper rosters, player friendly coaches, and less in-game contact. What's harder today than previous generations?

1. the pace. The movement is constant.

2. the force in how athletes land. You can make your muscles as strong as you want. Ligaments will snap regardless of how much you can avoid. Some injuries are caused by stress, but planting and slipping affect limbs.

3. Most importantly, the sneakers athletes wear now are much lighter and mainly low tops, which make you run faster and jump higher, but there's less resistance. Sneakers used to be really bulky and covered you from the ankle down. Nowadays, grip is sacrificed for being lighter on your feet, so when you land, one slip and your ankle is rolling. Land too hard, your sneaker can't handle the force put on it and your knee takes the brunt of the hit.

I was with you until you got to the sneakers part. :). Seriously, sneakers today are far better at reducing the force of impact. MJ commented on that fact after wearing his old shoes in his last game at Madison Square Garden as a tribute to that great arena and the Knicks rivalry.

I think Cam got it right talking about bigger and faster players and the impact that has on tendons and ligaments. If there really are more injuries today than prior eras that could be why. On the other hand, today's players have much better diets, training regimes, equipment and medical care. Moreover, players in prior eras seemed to take far more of a pounding from opposing players. And I'm just not sure there are significantly more injuries today. I think a lot of players in prior eras simply kept playing through injuries that keep today's players out of action for days or weeks.

Bottom line for me is that load management has become excessive and cheats the fans who ultimately fund the huge guaranteed contracts and perks today's star players receive.

thedoper wrote:Michael Jordan was a big load management guy. He retired twice when he still had lots of good basketball to play. Quitter. He isnt even in the top 20 in all time minutes played.

monsterpile wrote:

thedoper wrote:Michael Jordan was a big load management guy. He retired twice when he still had lots of good basketball to play. Quitter. He isnt even in the top 20 in all time minutes played.

Lol well done!

AbeVigodaLive wrote:The NBA will definitely reduce the number of games. I think they'll settle on 72.

And it's going to change very little when it comes to load management. The players will still sit near the same percentage of games. Let's say a player currently sits 21% of his games (plays 65 games out of 82).

Expect him to sit around 20% of the 72 games. That's going to be about 58 games played. Even at 15%, it's only 61 games played.

__________________

And back to my point about ALL of this player empowerment stuff in today's league ---------- how are fewer games good for the fans?

Ugh.