No one load manages 17 games a year.

It's hard to play large minutes in an NBA game 3 or even 4 times in a week. There are also more injuries due to the schedule.

I think load management is a real problem for the NBA, but I would prefer to solve it by reducing the schedule. This was a perfect opportunity with the new TV deal to reduce games while not making anyone take a pay cut. Not doing so represents a failure of vision.

The NFL absolutely load manages. RB get less carries per game. They are also more effective. This is not a coincidence.

Defenses substitute along the line more. They are also more effective. This is not a coincidence.

Reducing games is never, ever, going to happen. I am not even sure why it would be a good thing. But players are not going to play all of the games, because it is smart for them not to play all of the games. If you want your team to win you should also want your team to not play their players every game.

Rosters should expand, similar to European soccer clubs. If load management is intrinsic to your operation, and it is, then you need the roster flexibility to manage it. Expecting players to play every game is no different than expecting a pitcher to pitch every game.

Even the NHL sort of load manages, though they are too dumb to realize it. In the seventies a two minute shift was not uncommon for someone like Phil Esposito. Now, it only happens if you are trapped. And the reason is obvious, more rest means you can play harder. Playing harder means you play better, but it also means you need more rest. Repeat.

I think the NBA is just more dramatically different now than people think. The 3-pointer is forcing defenses to sprint and stop, sprint and stop, more than ever. The NFL still huddles up between every play, baseball still lets you sit during your half-inning at bat, etc. But in the NBA, there's no pounding post game where you can take a few seconds off, and you can't back off and dare someone to shoot from 24 feet anymore. Players aren't weaker in either body or mind, guys aren't more hurt more often because we're breeding a weaker brand of human. The game is just different.

People who believe there is only one correct point of view on an issue - and it's always, always their own view that is correct, by the way - undermine my faith in human intelligence.

There are always multiple perspectives on an issue, but that doesn't mean we can't sort through and rank those perspectives. The fan who shells out the money to see the stars, also wants their team to win, in both the short and long term. These are contradictory desires, they can't have both. This is a perspective that fans have but it is an irrational one, not according to my perspective, but according to their own. They don't even agree with themselves, that makes their perspective of a lower order. \

Unless, you think that increased rest does not reduce injuries and increase performance. I know that some people say this but they are either con-men or fools.

I think the NBA is just more dramatically different now than people think. The 3-pointer is forcing defenses to sprint and stop, sprint and stop, more than ever. The NFL still huddles up between every play, baseball still lets you sit during your half-inning at bat, etc. But in the NBA, there's no pounding post game where you can take a few seconds off, and you can't back off and dare someone to shoot from 24 feet anymore. Players aren't weaker in either body or mind, guys aren't more hurt more often because we're breeding a weaker brand of human. The game is just different.

This. Players today play harder than ever before. It is not even close.

Though of course, MLB And NFL load manage too, just in different ways.

In addition to the game changing, there's also just been a schedule scrunching since the pandemic that a lot of sports have dealt with. I don't know how much every sport has dealt with it, but it's been a real issue in European soccer.

The compression of the 19-20 season and the 20-21 season, plus a couple of international tournaments that shorten the summer for many top stars - I think we're just asking more from these players than the human body can potentially handle. I'm not sure if that starts to steady out or not. In soccer, I don't think it will - there's too many different associations who all want their piece of the pie so players are essentially playing year round in competitive matches.

I think there are long-term benefits to the load management beyond just those players who are resting. The Spurs, who started this, won a lot of those games they did that. It is good for the role players to both be shown the confidence and required to play in bigger roles in ways they may be asked to do in the playoffs.

Starting pitchers ought to be the prime example of the evolution of load management. Running backs, of course. Guys on the defensive front 7 in the NFL sub in and out in a way I never remember happening back in the day.

I don't think any of the sports are worse for the changes that have occurred, they're just different. I DO think the 65-game rule will blow up in the league's face. At some point, you're gonna start seeing guys take the rest of a season off for, you know, "injuries" as soon as they hit the 65-game minimum.

Or starting the game, playing 5 minutes, and then resting for load management.

I didn't even think of that, you're totally right. Yuck.

5.5 million viewers for last night's Iowa-SC WFF semi-final. That's more than double the Iowa-Louisville quarter final game, which clocked 2.5 million viewers.

The most watched NBA game on ESPN this year has been Knicks-Celtics, with 2.14 million viewers.

Per The Athletic, national games on ABC, ESPN and TNT are averaging 1.6 million viewers, which the NBA said is up 1 percent over last season.

This year, no Curry, no Lillard, no Davis, no Leonard, no Lebron, no Haliburton. Those are five, I think pretty clear choices for All-NBA players that wouldn't be eligible.

Curry and Lillard are the only guys here I would probably vote for if I had a ballot. Maybe the 65-game threshold is too high, maybe voters should just be allowed to use their discretion (I tend to think so), but guys who play 50-ish games for teams that *might* make the playoffs generally don't belong on All-NBA, IMHO.

Sounds like per Woj the second tax level is 17.5 above the tax. 3 teams on average are there a year, and there’s other limits to what they can do/trade as well. Don’t love it, but so it goes.

I DO think the 65-game rule will blow up in the league's face.

However bad we think it is going to be, it is going to be worse.

If that applied to contract bonuses ...

Incentives can be written based on either totals or per-game stats. It's also common for incentives to have games played minimums.

MLS doesn't do it (I don't think).

During the 2022 MLS season, 13 players started all 34 matches per FBref.com, just six of them outfield players:
https://fbref.com/en/comps/22/2022/playingtime/2022-Major-League-Soccer-Stats#stats_playing_time::12

Brandon Ingram is playing at a really high level right now.

Looks like Dallas is about done now as they continue to collapse.

Brandon just went toe-to-toe with Kawhi in a really fun fourth quarter, Kawhi blinked first. Even Kawhi couldn't guard him. This week or so might be him becoming a superstar. He couldn't be guarded in the fourth.

The 2018 Lakers had Ingram, Julius Randle, Lonzo Ball, Alex Caruso, Ivica Zubac, and Kyle Kuzma. In an alternate timeline, that group got to grow up together.

The only real concessions that players seem to have gotten are:

Status quo on BRI. Doesn't seem like much.

Eliminate testing for pot. Again, not that big a deal given that no one gets suspended and the whole league basically smokes.

Extra two way spot.

This CBA really seems to have been more contentious between owners than between players and owners. Weird strategy by the players. Weird strategy by the owners.

I get why Indiana or whoever wants to keep teams closer to the cap, but it's not in their financial interest or in the leagues interest to make it harder to form dynasties.

Active players being able to invest in NBA and WNBA teams is interesting.

When does the new CBA go into effect?

That is, do I have to learn some new rules before the next BBTF mock draft/offseason?

.

Hope anyone unhappy with NBA officiating is watching the women's title game.

Sitting Clark because of that 3rd foul was a terrible move.

Reese’s second foul and Clark’s second and third were trash calls. These refs are so bad.

This fourth foul and tech on Clark is so terrible, people going to remember it.

Hope anyone unhappy with NBA officiating is watching the women's title game.

It is awful, yes, and has decided this game. But this is not worse than an NBA game, this is an NBA game. Calls without contact, and arbitrary distinctions between what is and is not a foul, combined with insane technicals happen all the time in the NBA. The difference is that with 48 minute games and six fouls to foul out, the calls themselves matter less.

It’s not an exaggeration to say the refs ruined this game, which has been played at a high level and could easily have been a landmark game for when’s basketball

Woj and Bobby Marks reporting that team and league licensing is being included in BRI for the first time.

That's a huge win for players worth about 80 million plus per year (@50%).

Players also able to own teams and invest in pot and gambling companies (yikes!).

I think players may have done much better than I thought. Particularly if players like LeBron, Luka or KD could leverage ownership stakes into contracts.

Those techs and free throws took the air out of the game. How does that even happen? It's the National Championship Game, and the refs are demanding the players be nice? GTFOOH.

I think the gambling thing is not good for the game.

Feel bad for Iowa.

That's a bad loss for the Wolves against the Blazers.

Terrible loss for the Wolves. If the Lakers win tonight, they'll be tied with NO and only .5 games behind the Clips and the 6th seed.

If the Lakers win out and the Warriors lose one game, the Lakers will be the 5th seed. That said, I think I'd rather the Lakers be the 6th seed honestly. I think I'd rather them face the Kings than the Suns.

The Lakers do have 3 games they should win, two against Utah and one against the Rockets. They do have the Clippers, on the second game of a back to back, and Phoenix as their toughest games left.

I'd love for them to avoid the play-in if they could. Brandon Ingram is playing really well right now and the Wolves would be scary. In a series, I think the Lakers are better but in a single game, anything can happen.

I told my wife that the reffing in the women's game was terrible, and with such a huge audience, I hoped people's takeaways weren't "women games have bad refs".

Then they showed a replay of Clark's 4th/technical, and she couldn't believe that was anything.

By the way, why wasn't Mulkey getting technicals? She was on the court during a lot of plays. Maybe I just don't notice other coaches doing it, but I couldn't believe the refs didn't give a warning then a technical.

Carson was on fire with her shots. Nice form.


Wow, didn't know the Twolves lost. How can they lose that game at home, when ahead, when Portland doesn't have 5? 6? 7? of their best players in the game AND the Blazers went ten deep. I guess the Wolves flu bout is hitting them hard?

The Lakers win easily, the Warriors are about to lose. The Thunder lose. The Wolves lose. The Jazz lose.

ItsHappening.gif

Calling the Portland loss by the Wolves bad is an insult to every bad thing that has ever happened. It is the poster loss for one of the worst professional sports franchises in North America. They should just fire everyone, turn out the lights and lock the doors to Target Center.

I just can’t. What a dogshit performance. Just contract them already.

Everyone wants to play the Kings (and be on the side of the bracket away from Nuggets and Suns), but who do folks think the Kings prefer to play in the first round? Clippers, Lakers, Warriors, or Pelicans?

Everyone wants to play the Kings (and be on the side of the bracket away from Nuggets and Suns), but who do folks think the Kings prefer to play in the first round? Clippers, Lakers, Warriors, or Pelicans?

This is a good, fun question.

I think in that group, particularly in the first round, you prefer Pelicans, with the idea that at least some of the games don't have Zion.

I think you probably want the Warriors last. Not really based on their play this year, but based on some nebulous "respect" thing.

I think you want the Clippers as your #2 choice. They've scored 134 per game on the Clippers this year, and there's a reasonable chance that Paul George could be out or limited.

So I think it goes:
1. Pelicans without Zion
2. Clippers
3. Lakers
4. Pelicans with Zion
5. Warriors

Calling the Portland loss by the Wolves bad is an insult to every bad thing that has ever happened. It is the poster loss for one of the worst professional sports franchises in North America. They should just fire everyone, turn out the lights and lock the doors to Target Center.

I didn't realize how bad it was until I read something that it was the biggest upset from a bettling line in like 25 years. That's not a good look although there was some mention of physical illness affecting the team.

there was some mention of physical illness affecting the team.

Everything I have read suggests it was pretty bad, but it primarily hit them prior to that, especially against the Lakers. Yes, some virus has, with typical Wolves timing, barged in and assaulted the Wolves end season, but there is no excuse for losing to Portland like that. None.

KAT made some "I know what is wrong and I am going to fix things for the team" comments after the Lakers game and then played like a turd yesterday and fled without speaking to the press.

I am thankful the NBA streaming subscription delays my watching their games by three days. It makes it easy to never set eyes on such an abomination of a game.

I pay real Canadian money for the dubious pleasure of watching the Wovles and it is getting harder and harder to justify.

Legit amazing stat:

John Hollinger
@johnhollinger
Hawks now 39-39. They have scored 9,209 points and allowed 9,210. They are 24-24 against the East and 15-15 against the West. They have been within one game of .500 for 72 consecutive days.
5:53 PM · Apr 2, 2023

Game 24 (video link: Here)

Bulls (Willard) 1-2 @ Suns (Obscura) 1-2

Starting Lineups:

Bulls

Isiah Thomas
Michael Jordan
Vince Carter
Dirk Nowitzki
Patrick Ewing

Suns

Tim Hardaway
Ray Allen
Billy Cunningham
Tim Duncan
Bill Russell

Synopsis:

The two teams started relatively slow and were evenly matched. The Suns didn’t shoot well in the first quarter (35%), but they grabbed six more offensive rebounds than the Bulls, which helped keep things close until Allen Iverson checked in. AI had 8 points to spark a late run, giving the Bulls a 29-22 lead. Ray Allen led the way for the Suns with 8 points. Quarter two was a reversal of fortunes, as the Bulls shot just 28%, seemingly content to fire away from deep (2-12) with a bunch of guys who aren’t particularly adept at the three. Ray Allen is particularly adept at the three, however, and he added 11 more points to help create a 56-47 advantage for the Suns at the half. The Bulls stormed back in the third, with Dirk Nowitzki making long ball after long ball on his way to 18 points in the quarter. After three quarters, the Bulls held a slim 83-80 lead. Lead changes were plentiful in the final quarter, with the Suns maintaining a 3 point lead with 4 or 5 minutes to go. Unable to consistently make shots and/or play containment defense, the Suns succumbed to a 19-7 Bulls run to close out the game and were eliminated. Final score: Bulls 114 (2-2), Suns 105 (1-3).

Key stat:

The Bulls went 17/19 from the free throw line, while the Suns only managed 8/12.

Nail in the coffin:

With 1:38 left and up six points, Dirk drew a Tim Duncan foul and sunk both foul shots to make it a three possession game.

Player of the game:

Dirk had 34 points and 16 rebounds, as he drained 10 of 23 attempts from long range.

Strong in defeat:

Jesus Shuttleworth had game, scoring 27 points (7-15 from three) and grabbing 6 rebounds.

Point guard combo:

The Bulls coach has shown indecision throughout the season, sometimes starting Isiah Thomas at the point, sometimes starting Gary Payton. This game, Zeke got the nod, but the two players had remarkably similar output and they combined for 18 points and 17 assists.

Lost in space:

Bill Russell looked like a highly valuable asset during most of his tournament games. Matched against a largely ornamental center in Patrick Ewing, however, left Russell’s defensive impact muted. Russell had a 8/12/4 line, with one steal, zero blocks, and a -23 +/- rating.

The AI revolution:

Iverson was impactful in low minutes, going 14/3/5 (6-10 shooting) and +17

Suns post mortem:

The Suns were statistically average, currently sitting 26-23 in the simulation league, with a -0.1 point differential per game. The team is, not surprisingly, the best rebounding team in the league but give away some of that advantage by struggling to get to the line, as the Suns rank last in free throws made per game.

Were they screwed by 2K?

You can make a case that they were. Two things jump out. First, Tim Duncan appeared to be effective (averaging 16/8/5), but he only shot 50.1% from the field. Second, Luka had strong advanced stats (highest PER on the team) but didn’t crack the starting lineup. I’m not sure the game saw him as a viable point guard option. A different approach might have unlocked more offense for the Suns.

Next up is a matchup between two 2-1 teams as the Spurs (Stiggles) take on the Warriors (JTSports). Likely to drop on Wednesday…

There are always multiple perspectives on an issue, but that doesn't mean we can't sort through and rank those perspectives. The fan who shells out the money to see the stars, also wants their team to win, in both the short and long term. These are contradictory desires, they can't have both. This is a perspective that fans have but it is an irrational one, not according to my perspective, but according to their own.

but you are avoiding the elephant in the room - ticket buyers not getting the product they have a right to expect. sure, if a player is actually injured, then that's no difference than the star of the Broadway show coming down with a case of laryngitis and you are stuck with an understudy.

Now, if you to say both that you support load management AND also reimbursement and/or other compensation for fans not getting the product they were advertised, then we are getting somewhere. I mean, I guess you can say that any prospective ticket buyer who doesn't factor in this new possibility is a chump who deserves to get screwed - "they had it coming to them."

That strikes me as a bit cruel, though.

I mean, there has never been an explicit contract that you pay your money and you get to dictate who exactly shows up on the court, and I think that privileging the fans here, when it's the players' bodies and careers on the line, is a pretty big ask.

Imagine choosing Jalen Brunson instead of Steph Curry on the basis of this season? That makes a mockery of the idea of awards.

Now, this was obviously a piping hot take, but the counterpoint dovetails neatly with what is to me the most interesting and underserved tangent from the load management discussion (tbf the degree to which it's actually interesting is proportional to the validity you're willing to grant anti-load-management positions): let's compare the loads they actually managed to produce, with no regard for minutes or games played nor any rate stats [1][2].



[1] I hope the disclaimer that this is, at best, one interesting input among many and a flawed, partial analysis is unnecessary, but just in case: this is, at best, one interesting input among many and a flawed, partial analysis.

[2] I actually think this is most interesting in the context of All-NBA and MVP discussions, which are the natural places to parse "how much total value did $PLAYER produce this season vs how much value did $PLAYER produce per game", but quite frankly I don't want to start those discussions: I like that those topics are still pending here.

As for load management per se, while there are a fair number of points I agree with all around, [1447] is the most central to my own position. Players and team staffers alike deserve more grace than they get, especially given how many of the important details are unavailable to us outside observers.

To be clear, I absolutely understand the reasons that teams and fans push back on the load management. It is a situation where there isn't a right answer, just a variety of positions that satisfy all parties to different degrees. Personally, I think you "solve" this problem by reducing the number of games, and possibly also increasing roster sizes.

Dirk gets 20 open looks per game in this league. Here's one. Here's one. Look how open. All day. All night. It was embarrassing.

Allen had a few answers. Off the curl.

Jordan with the and 1.

Dumars tried to answer back. From mid-range.

Rare transition buckets: Luka to Russell. Cunningham to Duncan.

Luka was the only Sun to force the action. From long range. Into the lane.

Bulls guards at work:
Iverson is too fast. AI goes right at the big man. Zeke into the lane, and again late.

Half man, half amazing.

Key sequence: Chicago takes the lead. ♫ Sometimes I dream ♫ that he is me ♫. Ewing pushes the lead to 3. After a Duncan make, Zeke with an answer. Jordan sets up Dirk. After two Dirk FTs and a stop, Jordan pushes the lead to 10.

I mean, there has never been an explicit contract that you pay your money and you get to dictate who exactly shows up on the court, and I think that privileging the fans here, when it's the players' bodies and careers on the line, is a pretty big ask.

Eventually, the marketplace will decide - and if fewer fans pay to see games where stars sit out for load management (and given what they want to see vs. what they get, presumably some will or already have), then the byproduct would be lower total revenue that gets translated into lower salaries.

that decline won't necessarily be large. but when you have a consumer product and don't deliver what the consumer wants consistently enough, you have to accept that there could be financial consequences to that decision.

With all the talk here of how much the game has changed the last few decades - and they are valid, relevant points - consumer behavior has changed as well.

In the 1980s, the percentage of fans who used to just root, root, root for the home team, it seems to me, was much higher than today. plus while a game against the Lakers or any other very good team might attract more interest, with few exceptions the allure was your team trying to beat their team.

Young fans today are fans of, say, LeBron James and they migrate with him from team to team. Many of their parents pay significant premiums so their kid can get his one two chances all season to see his favorite player (since his favorite player isn't that likely to play for the local team).

There's a certain irony in all this. With a tiny number of exceptions, BITD there would have been a lot less pushback on load management for the above reasons. If the hated Bulls showed up in Detroit - or anywhere - and Jordan or Pippen sat out for rest, the fans in the stands mostly would be celebrating. "Now we have a better chance to win - woot!"

but the new philosophy - which has merits, of course - is in direct contradiction at times to the desires of their customer base.

Eventually, the marketplace will decide - and if fewer fans pay to see games where stars sit out for load management (and given what they want to see vs. what they get, presumably some will or already have), then the byproduct would be lower total revenue that gets translated into lower salaries.

Gate makes up such a monumentally smaller portion of total revenue that this is unlikely to ever occur.

For 19/20 (so pre-COVID), NBA made 19% of its revenue from gate. Since 2001, gate revenue has only gone up 30%. Total revenue has more than quadrupled during the same period.

All the incentives are different. If load management makes it more likely that all the national TV they scheduled games feature LeBron, then Adam Silver cheers every time there's a b2b where he sits.

Well, if part of the league's agreement with the players is that the stars don't sit out the nationally-televised games, that could work.

I'm decades behind on NBA revenue streams. aside from the national TV contracts, what are the other key sources of revenue?

Well, if part of the league's agreement with the players is that the stars don't sit out the nationally-televised games, that could work.

I don't know that it's spelled out in the CBA, but everyone knows the score.

I'm decades behind on NBA revenue streams. aside from the national TV contracts, what are the other key sources of revenue?

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the show?

Here's a decent source.

The national TV deal makes up about 2.4 billion (24% of the 10 billion total). Sponsorship is another 1.6 billion. Next is merchandise, which makes up about another billion or so. Notably, gate fell precipitously during COVID (for obvious reasons), but total revenue surpassed the 2019 peak this year.

edit: I think this was one of only a handful of double posts I've ever made on this horribly built site.

ok, then I think the NBA is safe on this front.

there could be a modest decline in attendance via disgruntled fans and even in local TV ratings (very casual fan only tunes in to see Steph Curry play the local team, is told he's DNP for load management, and flips to another channel), but agree that it doesn't seem like it would make any significant dent.

so it's more an aesthetic argument than a financial one.

I have no piping hot load management takes (other than I think it is a widely overrated topic, from both sides, well and Ant Edwards thinks players should play more), so instead I will comment about this ...

The Bulls coach has shown indecision throughout the season, sometimes starting Isiah Thomas at the point, sometimes starting Gary Payton. This game, Zeke got the nod, but the two players had remarkably similar output and they combined for 18 points and 17 assists.

The Bulls Coach is a moron. Thomas is a worthy Hall of Fame player, but the Glove is just flat-out a better player and IMO a better fit with Jordan, especially in the current wide-open game where perimeter defense is likely more important than it has ever been.

Not to be too critical though, these team games have been wildly entertaining - not just the games, but the write-ups and highlights. Thanks again.

Load management has been a thing for a while, before COVID. It was even worse several years ago when the schedule had even more "schedule losses" built into it. I do really feel for the fans who pay $100-200/ticket where that is a lot of their disposable income, and the players they wanted to see aren't there. But, there isn't a good solution. Those fans would be best off buying tickets day-of. That's also tricky with scheduling, but at least can be done. But point being, if the fans were going to stop showing up because of this, it'd have already happened.

But, using the Bucks as an example because I follow their game-by-game injury status reports. Middleton and Giannis have both had knee soreness almost all season. There's going to be a level of unpredictability with when someone like that plays in a regular season game. And I don't think trying to "force" them to play is good for either the short term or long term. I agree that lightening the schedule would probably help some, but that's a long-term benefit and is likely opaque - it's not going to change the individual fan experiences who see 1 of the top 2 players for each team sitting - that is always going to happen.

And since we're talking about the schedule, I don't like how much they backload the schedule post-ASB. I don't know if the goal is to have games come fast and furious before the playoffs. But it seems backwards.

Shams updates from The Athletic:

Wiggins is back with the team, and nearing an on-court return.

Zion is expected to "ramp up toward a possible return for the playoffs". That one I'll believe when I see it. Amazingly, the Pelicans have climbed back to #8 and look safely in the play-in at least.

these team games have been wildly entertaining - not just the games, but the write-ups and highlights. Thanks again.

Agreed, this has been absolutely awesome!

I was trying to explain this to my wife last night: "a bunch of guys on a baseball message board took turns picking real basketball players from the past 75 years. Then one guy took those lists, and created those fake teams on his PlayStation. Then the PlayStation games get played on YouTube, where another guy reports on the best moments."

I was trying to explain this to my wife last night: "a bunch of guys on a baseball message board took turns picking real basketball players from the past 75 years. Then one guy took those lists, and created those fake teams on his PlayStation. Then the PlayStation games get played on YouTube, where another guy reports on the best moments."

This is the most satisfying thing I've ever read.

A bunch of guys on a baseball message board will literally take turns picking real basketball players from the past 75 years. Then one guy will take those lists, and create those fake teams on his PlayStation. Then the PlayStation games get played on YouTube, where another guy reports on the best moments.....in order to avoid going to therapy.

This is the most unironically true thing I've ever read.

Now, if you to say both that you support load management AND also reimbursement and/or other compensation for fans not getting the product they were advertised, then we are getting somewhere. I mean, I guess you can say that any prospective ticket buyer who doesn't factor in this new possibility is a chump who deserves to get screwed - "they had it coming to them."

What percentage of tickets are sold as single game purchases compared to partial plans? There's gotta be a way to price adjust load management games. Maybe teams should have to announce a LM game x days in advance. Or there could be a rule saying no LM on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays. Or the first home game of every homestand. Reimbursement after the fact isn't happening, but based on how wildly differently priced my 20 game MLB ticket package is, there's an algorithm that can solve this.

EDIT: To clarify my partial-plan question. If you're a 10 game ticket holder, and you have enough notice regarding load management, you can sell those tickets on the secondary market. As the original ticket holder, you know what you're getting with your original purchase (90% good games, 10% LM games). If the packages is still worth it to you, you get it. The secondary purchaser knows what they are getting: a lower priced LM game. There are no surprises.

Bucks win which is great. But encouraging to see Johnny Davis 9-17 from field including 2-5 from 3. 5 boards and 4 assists. Been on a little run of late.

Grant Williams has cost himself a lot of money these last few months.

I think Giannis is a better player than Embiid, but Embiid is definitely a better offensive player. When he has this midrange working this like he has this year, he's almost unguardable. Boston has no ####### idea what to do with him.

I imagine Embiid probably clinched the MVP tonight?

The refs certainly tried to win that game for Boston. Boston's willingness to flop around like dying fish and the refs ability to mostly fall for it is kind of infuriating.

1465:

I appreciate your viewpoints, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

What percentage of tickets are sold as single game purchases compared to partial plans? There's gotta be a way to price adjust load management games. Maybe teams should have to announce a LM game x days in advance. Or there could be a rule saying no LM on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays. Or the first home game of every homestand. Reimbursement after the fact isn't happening, but based on how wildly differently priced my 20 game MLB ticket package is, there's an algorithm that can solve this.

Why would a team ever do this? You guys are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist for the team or the fan.

The only reason a team would ever do this would be to raise the price of games that have a non-load manage guarantee. This doesn't ever work out the way you think it will.

I used to consult on arena ops for the NBA (in the 2013-2015 time frame, so outside of NDA). Here are three truths about that area:

1. Most arenas and ticket sales operations are poorly run and treated as an afterthought. This is the lowest prestige area of the organization and is treated like a low priority. The majority of teams treat season ticket sales as a "first job opportunity" and staff it with people who are willing to work for peanuts.
2. There are only a handful of teams who think about the season ticket-holder experience in the way that is common in MLB or the NFL. (The Spurs and the Bulls stand out here, the TrailBlazers were trying to get there when I quit.)
3. Parking is more important than "load management." You would have incredibly greater ROI, even if you did care about season ticket holder experience, which most teams don't, by paying attention to parking for fans. Next most important would be food. "Load management" ticket policy is probably less important than lost and found or the t-shirt cannon.

The Lakers managed to blow a 10-point lead with 2:30 left. OW. Overtime basketball.

Tank Commander Horton-Tucker took over in the OT period. 1-4 from the field in extras, 1-2 from the line. No Double OT tonight, not on Talen's watch.

The Lakers managed to blow a 10-point lead with 2:30 left.

It was even worse than that, they were up 124-114 after Reaves hit a three pointer with 1:43 left in the game and it still went to overtimes. Despite their best efforts, the Lakers were unable to snap defeat from the jaws of victory tonight.

AD has been playing so well overall but there's one more thing that's kind of concerning me right now other than the always worrisome health issues. He continues to struggle to hit free throws in close and late situations despite being a pretty good free throw shooter in general. He missed two free throws in OT that could have been really costly.

I think Giannis is a better player than Embiid

I was actually just thinking about this the other day while hearing people on numerous podcasts say the same thing: Giannis's status as the consensus best player in the league is "just" because they won it all a couple years ago, right? Like isn't Embiid clearly the better all around player?

"Just" is in quotes for obvious reasons, the title is a big deal and Embiid's teams have done essentially nothing to date in the postseason, which matters. But "I'd take Giannis over Embiid for a playoff run" is, I think, a little different than "best player in the game." I might take a healthy Durant over Embiid for a playoff run, maybe even Curry or LeBron or any number of guys, I haven't thought about it.

Isn't "best" entirely context-dependent?

Isn't "best" entirely context-dependent?

Hmmmm. My initial instinct is no? Like most very good players are context-dependent, but like LeBron went to 8 straight Finals with a bunch of different teammates for a reason (yes I realize using LeBron is cheating a bit).

I've maybe started a different conversation which is totally fine, I was mostly just thinking recently about how quick people are to say things like "well Giannis is the best player in the league but Embiid is the MVP this year," or Jokic, whoever. And I'm wondering a. if that's true and b. how it became the consensus (and I think the answer there is the Finals run, which is fair enough!).

Arguing with myself: if Embiid is the best player in the league and has decent teammates they probably should not be in 3rd place in the conference.

Pretty good article on load management: https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/story/_/id/36057880/why-nba-load-management-problem-unfixable

The idea that fans are somehow owed the best players every game is something I have a hard time understanding. This isn't a concert where you buy a ticket to a particular person or band, and they had better show up. I went to see Jason Isbell last month, if he hadn't played there wouldn't have been a concert at all. If Lebron James doesn't play, you still get an NBA game.

No one buys a ticket for a particular player. You buy a ticket for an NBA game, and that is what you get. Now that ticket may be overpriced (I think so), but that isn't what we are talking about. The complaints don't make any sense to me.

Resting players so that they get injured less and play better, that makes a great deal of sense to me.

I was actually just thinking about this the other day while hearing people on numerous podcasts say the same thing: Giannis's status as the consensus best player in the league is "just" because they won it all a couple years ago, right? Like isn't Embiid clearly the better all around player?


A lot of it is the playoffs. The NBA discourse has a very hard time saying someone is the best if they've not shown success in the playoffs. So the title is definitely a big factor, but also they've been to a conference finals vs. Toronto that was pretty even, and the series against Boston last year I think despite his weak efficiency given they were undermanned helped his case. They've also put up a couple of +10 Net Ratings, 60 win seasons with him as the best player. Philly has never had anything close to that. Embiid's teams have had limited success in the playoffs, including matchups they should have won.

Also, I think Embiid's defensive impact comes and goes, especially in the regular season. I think Giannis is generally thought of as a better and more versatile defender - though I think Giannis may get a bit too much credit for versatility. He's not particularly effective on ball against top wings, which was a big factor in the recent Celtics game.

Then health + fitness. I don't know if this super heavily weighted, but Embiid is seen as a bit unreliable, which I think is fair criticism.

But I also don't think people appreciate how good Embiid is at scoring now. He's a 47% midrange shooter the last 3 years. I think Giannis is more schemable against than Embiid. Embiid has been clearly better than Giannis this year.

Hmmmm. My initial instinct is no? Like most very good players are context-dependent, but like LeBron went to 8 straight Finals with a bunch of different teammates for a reason (yes I realize using LeBron is cheating a bit).

It's more, what are you measuring, such that there is a total order and a "best" player? Best right now? Best for the next five years? Best to win you one game? Best to win you 16?

It's more, what are you measuring, such that there is a total order and a "best" player? Best right now? Best for the next five years? Best to win you one game? Best to win you 16?

Oh sure, okay, yeah I agree with that. Different answers to most of those at the current moment, definitely. Which, to reference LeBron again, was not the case in his prime (he was the answer to all of those!).

Previously, the best NBA players defined the context of the game. Michael Jordan was playing and the game was about whether you could defend him on the drive. Shaq defined the context. You were going to have three stiffs on your roster to have a shot.

LeBron and then Steph defined the context. How were you going to hold up against LeBron and shooters? How were you going to defend Steph coming off a screen?

Jokic, Embiid and Giannis don't define the context of the game. Or at least they haven't yet. Giannis is more versatile than the other two guys, but Giannis is a question that can be answered more than Lebron was.

Jokic has been the least successful in part because teams are able to force him to play their game. Spread out the Nuggets and make Jokic guard in the PnR.

Embiid is a harder thing to analyze because there's always a thing. He broke his face. He's playing next to Simmons. We will see this playoffs if he will get to that level where he's undeniable.

Game 25 (video link: Here)

Spurs (Stiggles) 2-1 @ Warriors (JTSports) 2-1

Starting Lineups:

Spurs

Kyrie Irving
Drazen Petrovic
Kawhi Leonard
Giannis Antekounmpo
Yao Ming

Warriors

Walt Frazier
Sidney Moncrief
Larry Bird
Anthony Davis
Nikola Jokic

Synopsis:

The Spurs’ creatures, great and small, burst out of the starting gate. Kyrie Irving (13 points, 3 assists, 5-6 shooting) and Drazen Petrovic (12 points on 4 made threes) handled the offense while Yao Ming controlled the paint defensively. Larry Bird put in six points to lead the Warriors, but overall the team struggled, shooting just 33% and the Spurs jumped out to a 33-21 lead. The second quarter for the Spurs was highlighted by failed Brent Barry drives and bricked Dame Lillard shots, but they stabilized and surged when Giannis and Kawhi re-entered the game. Both teams combined for 2-15 from deep. Ugly. At the half, the Spurs led 55-42. In the third, Sidney Moncrief played extremely well (12/5/5) while the Spurs couldn’t throw the proverbial ball in the proverbial ocean, continuing to shoot from deep as the Warriors crept all the way back and then some, taking a 85-78 lead into the final quarter. From there, the Spurs just couldn’t make baskets and Larry Bird hit four triples to make sure there was no funny business. Final score: Warriors 115 (3-1), Spurs 98 (2-2).

Key stat:

Despite the length and size of the Spurs big men, the Warriors kept attacking the paint and finished with a 56-38 advantage on points in the paint.

Nail in the coffin:

The Warriors were on an extended scoreless stretch in the middle of the fourth. Down 12, with under five minutes left, Lillard missed four consecutive shots to keep the deficit at arm’s reach.

Player of the game:

Sidney Moncrief posted a 25/8/6 line on 10-18 shooting.

Strong in defeat:

Taking only 8 shots, Yao Ming still managed to score 17 points to accompany his 17 rebounds, 2 steals, and 6 blocks.

Unsung:

Nate Thurmond is one of the few players in this league for whom I have no mental image. He’s not the only player who played before I was basketball conscious, but I don’t even think I’ve ever seen a highlight reel of the guy. In this game, an observer had to notice: 14 points, 15 rebounds, 2 blocks…19 minutes.

Sus, as the kids say:

Damian Lillard was so bad, Tim Donaghy had questions: 11/2/2, 3-29 shooting (3-22 from behind the arc).

AD, A1:

Anthony Davis was not a focal point of the Warriors offense, but he stuffed the stat sheet all the same: 9/16/8 with two steals.

Next up is a matchup between two 2-1 teams as the 76ers (Harlond) take on the Thunder (NJ). Probably coming tomorrow…

I've maybe started a different conversation which is totally fine, I was mostly just thinking recently about how quick people are to say things like "well Giannis is the best player in the league but Embiid is the MVP this year," or Jokic, whoever. And I'm wondering a. if that's true and b. how it became the consensus (and I think the answer there is the Finals run, which is fair enough!)

giannis is more better than the average forward than embiid is more better than the average center. imo.

(or to say it in a way that sounds marginally less psychotic: the floor for talent at center is much higher than the floor at forward)

Also, I think Embiid's defensive impact comes and goes, especially in the regular season. I think Giannis is generally thought of as a better and more versatile defender - though I think Giannis may get a bit too much credit for versatility. He's not particularly effective on ball against top wings, which was a big factor in the recent Celtics game.

for as much as embiid's offensive skillset has blossomed over the years (anyone else remember his 95 shot, 0 assist preseason stat line as a rookie?), his defense has not improved at all since he's been in the NBA.

i wouldn't put it past embiid to address that failing in the near future. especially his unremarkable defending against the pick and roll.

Previously, the best NBA players defined the context of the game. Michael Jordan was playing and the game was about whether you could defend him on the drive. Shaq defined the context. You were going to have three stiffs on your roster to have a shot.

LeBron and then Steph defined the context. How were you going to hold up against LeBron and shooters? How were you going to defend Steph coming off a screen?

the sixers wasted so much ammunition failing to build an ideal roster around embiid that they're now only able to bodge around him a roster filled with castoffs and misfits.

Embiid is a harder thing to analyze because there's always a thing. He broke his face. He's playing next to Simmons. We will see this playoffs if he will get to that level where he's undeniable.

there was also the year he had uncontrollable diarrhea against TOR. and then the bubble year, where simmons missed the playoffs with a back.

No one buys a ticket for a particular player.

I get more amazed every time I read that sentence again. wtf

I personally know at least a half-dozen people who only take their kid or grandkid to a Knicks or Nets game so the kid can see their favorite visiting team player - usually LeBron or Steph Curry. If they're not going to play, the parents don't buy tickets. it's that simple.

I get more amazed every time I read that sentence again. wtf

I personally know at least a half-dozen people who only take their kid or grandkid to a Knicks or Nets game so the kid can see their favorite visiting team player - usually LeBron or Steph Curry. If they're not going to play, the parents don't buy tickets. it's that simple.

I think he's just making a technical point that your ticket says Lakers-Knicks not LeBron vs Knicks.

I think he's just making a technical point that your ticket says Lakers-Knicks not LeBron vs Knicks.

I am making the technical point, but I am not just making the technical point. If I buy a ticket for Jason Isbell, it is Jason Isbell or bust. It would be nice if Amanda Shires was in the band, but I didn't buy a ticket for Amanda Shires, I bought a ticket for Jason Isbell.

Everyone knows that when you buy a ticket for a sporting event there is a chance that player x will not play, or will not play as much as you would like. Injury, suspension, two technicals, the flu, etc. Players not playing is normal and always has been.

That said, what I expect is driving a lot of the frustration around this is surge or variable pricing for select opponents. That is bullshit.

If I buy a ticket for Jason Isbell, it is Jason Isbell or bust. It would be nice if Amanda Shires was in the band, but I didn't buy a ticket for Amanda Shires, I bought a ticket for Jason Isbell.

Everyone knows that when you buy a ticket for a sporting event there is a chance that player x will not play, or will not play as much as you would like. Injury, suspension, two technicals, the flu, etc. Players not playing is normal and always has been.

And if you buy a ticket for Jason Isbell and the show is canceled, the announcement will include some sort of (possibly bull ####) excuse such as illness or a family emergency. No performer would dare to say, "I figured I'd cancel that show you wanted to attend, because I wanted to be at my peak for the upcoming concerts in bigger cities that I care much more about. I'm all about 'load management."

That's in spite of the fact that you get a refund. Kind of interesting.

And for cases where the star is missing and you get stuck with an understudy, the same excuses get made. It's never 'load management' in that field of entertainment, either.

Yao Ming is big at both ends. Really tall.

Joker runs the break.

Bird on the break.

Kyrie for 3. For 3.

Moncrief best game of the tourney. He got to the line a bunch when he wasn't doing this. PnR with Elton Brand. Jamming on Kyrie. Sweet dime to Nate. Beats the clock.

GSW was great from distance. Mullin off the curl. Nate Thurmond taps the ORB back to Moncrief, and he finds the open shooter. Bird uses the screen, then off AD's skip pass, from the corner, just for the hell of it.

Thurmond really working this game. ORB and putback. Flushes the oop from Mullin

Petro loses his man.

Not a lot of SA highlights -- just 43 second half points -- but here's Kyrie from deep to cut the lead to 15.

You misunderstood my point. I was not making an analogy, I was saying the situations are not analogous, I was saying that you were reasoning from a false analogy that a sporting event is somehow analogous to a concert, which of course it isn't.

Tim MacMahon @espn_macmahon
Mark Cuban is blaming Rick Brunson for the Mavs losing Jalen Brunson in free agency, saying “things went south when the parents got involved.”

Damian Lillard was so bad, Tim Donaghy had questions: 11/2/2, 3-29 shooting (3-22 from behind the arc).

live by the 3; die by the 3.

if a backup PG missing 26 shots is what it takes for my team to lose...well, i've got questions about the coaching...but i think i'm okay with that.

Must be tough to be Mark Cuban, where nothing is ever your fault and yet despite that fact the Mavs can't quite get it together somehow.

I was saying that you were reasoning from a false analogy that a sporting event is somehow analogous to a concert, which of course it isn't.

let's see:

- it's entertainment
- you pay good money with hopes of seeing the best
- you realize that life happens, but typically consumers have expected that - if there are no health obstacles - they will get what they paid for

the divergence is:
- the concert gets cancelled, you get a refund, and an announcement that there was no way for the concert to happen
- the Broadway show, you get an understudy, no refund, and an announcement that there was no way for the star performer to perform
- the NBA game, you (if you bought tickets more than a week in advance, as you likely would if this was the one time all year that the preferred performer would be in town) get no star player, no refund, and an announcement that while the player was healthy enough to perform - hey, it's a long season so suck it up, buttercup !

oddly enough, not everyone appreciates the distinction.

I asked before if you ever had spent a few hundred dollars to go to an NBA game mainly to see a particular player - only to get ramrodded by "load management."

I believe that you have not, because you seem to be under the impression that this is still the 1980s and most/all fans only want to go to games to see teams - and not want to go to games only to see the utmost popular players.

It used to be unheard of for someone to be a fan of LeBron's team - say, the Cavaliers - and then hopscotch from rooting for one team to another. they aren't Cavaliers or Heat or Lakers fans - they are LeBron fans.

it's a foreign concept to me, but it's undeniable. at least, I thought it was.

I think a better approach here, as some have suggested, is to figure out how many games modern superstars are comfortable playing with in a regular season - and work toward that.

instead, the NBA these days reminds me of thoroughbred horse racing.

it used to be that almost all the best horses raced in all the Triple Crown races - tons of drama.
then, thanks to aggressive breeding and the soaring value of stud fees, I don't think any horse has even run all 3 races (much less won) since American Pharoah almost a decade ago. and I personally know that owner - he had well-publicized gambling problems, or he might have scheduled differently.

the obvious change for horse racing is first to figure out how much time is needed between races until owners would be comfortable considering a run at the Triple Crown.

currently it's Derby, two weeks off, Preakness, three weeks off, Belmont.

obviously that makes zero sense in 2023.

now, if the top horses need four weeks off, and then six weeks off, all you do is change the racing schedule accordingly. and as has happened with golf majors schedule changes, everyone else will have to get out of the way to accommodate this.

as I noted earlier, if almost all fans still rooted for the home team and weren't obsessed with seeing the visiting superstar - whose attendance becomes more important than the game itself, to many - there wouldn't be such a problem. but better to recognize a new reality, and adjust accordingly.

I don't think any horse has even run all 3 races (much less won) since American Pharoah almost a decade ago

Except of course Justify who won the triple crown three years after Pharoah

And War of Will ran all three races in 2019

let's see:

- it's entertainment
- you pay good money with hopes of seeing the best
- you realize that life happens, but typically consumers have expected that - if there are no health obstacles - they will get what they paid for

the divergence is:
- the concert gets cancelled, you get a refund, and an announcement that there was no way for the concert to happen
- the Broadway show, you get an understudy, no refund, and an announcement that there was no way for the star performer to perform
- the NBA game, you (if you bought tickets more than a week in advance, as you likely would if this was the one time all year that the preferred performer would be in town) get no star player, no refund, and an announcement that while the player was healthy enough to perform - hey, it's a long season so suck it up, buttercup !

The better analogy is if you buy a ticket to a concert because you hope that the artist will play your favorite song. Sometimes they don't play the songs you want, and you go home disappointed.

as I noted earlier, if almost all fans still rooted for the home team and weren't obsessed with seeing the visiting superstar - whose attendance becomes more important than the game itself, to many - there wouldn't be such a problem. but better to recognize a new reality, and adjust accordingly.

What? This is incoherent. Every NBA season has 41 home games. Teams try to sell tickets for all of those games. I promise you that teams do not care about single game ticket sales. If they did, you would see a much greater extent of dynamic pricing. Instead, teams try to sell packages of 10 games that include the high profile games.

There just is no problem to solve here.

Except of course Justify who won the triple crown three years after Pharoah

And War of Will ran all three races in 2019

I came thisclose to a note of "and someone who knows more about horse racing might need to correct me"

so this is appreciated.

and now I will defer to your expertise, because I am genuinely curious about your opinion on whether the current Triple Crown scheduling is ideal.

I'm pretty sure that far fewer horses run all 3 races than ever before, but I'm not going to make such a claim very confidently at this point.

The better analogy is if you buy a ticket to a concert because you hope that the artist will play your favorite song. Sometimes they don't play the songs you want, and you go home disappointed.

I don't think that's a better analogy.
that would be more like, "I hope LeBron scores 40 tonight, but he only scored 15 points. he had 11 assists, but I wanted to seem him dunk a lot" so you go home disappointed.

you still got the performer you want.

look, you have made a very compelling case that this is not a serious concern for NBA revenue, and I agree with it.

but just because you can get away with something - and the NBA can, I concede the point - doesn't always mean you should.

I get that NBA teams don't give a crap about that starry-eyed 11-year-old whose parents spent money they kind of don't have because the kid's dream is to see a LeBron or Curry in person - only to leave the family crestfallen because of load management.

And I have had my eyes opened over the years about the percentage of BBTF regulars who are not from blue-collar backgrounds and, understandably, might have a more difficult time relating to that comment, because they might subsequently have no familiarity with not being set for life financially. and this is absolutely NOT directed at any particular poster - I don't have anybody's bank records, and I don't care to see them. I'm just making a more abstract point that for a poster whose is in that catbird seat, that would it take a very large dollop of empathy to put themselves in that family's shoes. we all have our blind spots, including me.

but if there is a way to at least partially alleviate this "non-problem" - is it such a terrible idea?