Lol, you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm sure you have some point you are trying to make but you are reaching pretty hard here. Let me know when you actually do some research on this I would love to listen to your argument then.
Haberstroh: 82 Games Season Dead
- Thread starter Saint Cy of JFC
- Start date
I'm just trying to figure out what your hundreds of studies are. I mean do you think a study on the NHL, or the NFL or the MLB are relevant to the NBA? How is that reaching? To me that's being prudent and not just glossing over.
And I believe that's what Adam Silver is trying to do, take a prudent approach instead of just relying on 'common sense' or studies on other sports that's not relevant to the NBA.
Why don't you look into it and let me know.
But to answer your question yes they can be relevant but not by themselves. There are a lot of factors but this one is pretty simple and straight forward. You can look at the data from host the NBA and it comes to the same conclusion.
Let's start with a simple question. Do you increase your chance of injury by playing basketball? Do they get injured more or less than the average person the same age and physical shape?
But what if they extend the season by 2 weeks and give players more rest in between? What happens then? Would that have the same affect as taking out 10 games in a season? That's the kind of not-so-clear-cut question you've got to consider as well.
If you have your heart set on shortening the season, then yeah it's clear cut, but if you're Adam Silver he has to answer to the Board and 30 owners, then he's keeping an open mind about what he's going to be recommending, as well as having the 'relevant' studies to back up his recommendation.
Because when you're proposing a radical change such as taking out games, you better be damn sure that what you're doing is the right thing. This is not a 5th grade homework we're talking about, this is now a billion dollar business you're dealing with here.
I don't have my heart set on anything. I think you are projecting something on me. I am not arguing whether or not we should play less games. Yes more rest would also reduce injuries. But playing less will reduce injuries in the long haul. The less you put yourself in harm's way the less likely you are to get hurt.
Silver has many factors to look at but most important to him and the owners is money. I'm not arguing all of his factors. But if you want to trust his agenda then go for it. Clearly you don't want to do any research for yourself. Personally I have written multiple papers on this subject for my masters degree and been spent about a decade researching topics related to this singular issue not the other topics you are trying to turn it into.
I've said all I can, to me Adam Silver is doing the right thing in not rushing into anything and keeping his options open and looking at all the studies and deciding which studies are relevant which are not and how he can present a well informed solution to the Board.
Never argued that looking into it is a bad idea. I argued the conclusion he is trying to claim. I firmly believe his claims are incorrect. You tried to dispute that by leading the discussion to other things or that his claim might be right.
He hasn't concluded anything, he just said he's been looking into the evidence, but he wasn't definitive about anything.
Did you see the press conference?
Nope just responding to your quotes about it.
That sounds like he is claiming the data does not support reducing games to reduce injuries. I disagree with that statement. If that quote you posted is out of context or incorrectly quoted by you and he is not claiming that, then I take back my argument against him.
Going to assume sore muscles = more likely to get injured
Well I can't post the whole transcript of what he said, that's why I put the source there for you to go and listen if you want to.
I just listened to it. It clearly sounds like PR spinning things the way they want and he does say in context that "As a league we can look into reducing games, but the data is not supporting that" in reference to reducing injuries. So ill stick to what I said about this one statement. Reducing games is a very complex issue with many factors but not if you only want to reduce injuries. Reducing games played will reduce injuries over time.
And I'm pretty sure there is a lot of data that suggest players just play better when they are given 2 days (especially for older players) or more of rest between games. I think wanting a high quality, consistent product should be something the NBA strives for. Back to backs (which I know they are reducing thankfully) and 1 day rest dont really provide that.
I still think the NBA would more likely consider increasing the season by 1-2 weeks (on top of the 1 extra week we'll have next year), and eliminate back-to-backs, and re-gather data and re-assess, before they even look at reducing the number of games. To me that's the most prudent approach.
But that's just me being a business person and thinking what I would do if the NBA is my business.
But that's just me being a business person and thinking what I would do if the NBA is my business.
I agree that would be better for business. I also think they should cut out pre-season or have it be 2 games or something.
Also lost in the conversation is star power vs depth.
If you reduce the number of games to say 50 games, teams with super stars are gonna be better off, they don't need to rest their stars and can play them in every single game. Whereas if you stick with 82, it gives teams that don't necessarily have stars but are very deep a chance to get good seeding in the playoffs.
Reducing games is going to tip the scale to the likes of Cleveland, GSW, Clippers, etc, and that's not good for the Jazz or smaller market teams, or teams that don't have 3-4 All Stars on their teams.
What the super teams wants is go straight to playoffs with minimal wear and tear during the regular season as possible, and by reducing games, it's gonna play right into their hands.
If you reduce the number of games to say 50 games, teams with super stars are gonna be better off, they don't need to rest their stars and can play them in every single game. Whereas if you stick with 82, it gives teams that don't necessarily have stars but are very deep a chance to get good seeding in the playoffs.
Reducing games is going to tip the scale to the likes of Cleveland, GSW, Clippers, etc, and that's not good for the Jazz or smaller market teams, or teams that don't have 3-4 All Stars on their teams.
What the super teams wants is go straight to playoffs with minimal wear and tear during the regular season as possible, and by reducing games, it's gonna play right into their hands.
Uhh, not really. It helps everyone pretty much equally. The Jazz rely on two stars if you havent noticed.
Maybe it's just me, but I think it's gonna help teams that rely more on super stars, if I were the Jazz owner I'd vote against reducing games.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Except that small market teams rely on number of games for revenue more than larger markets do. If you drop 20 games you drop 100k tickets while at the same time reducing the number of games for their local tv contract. LA would be fine but smaller markets can't afford to lose the revenue. As far as the scarcity argument it only holds true if you actually make the product scarce. The NBA would have to go to much fewer games than 50 to accomplish that.
They understand their business better than you do or the dude who wrote this article. If they would make more money playing 50 games they would have done it by now.
Agreed.
And this issue reminds me of the vote to change the lottery system a few years back (to deter tanking), where 23 votes were needed to change the lottery system but only got 17 votes in support. And the motion to change the lottery system to reduce the incentive to 'tanking' was voted down. I remembered the Jazz voting against the change at the time even though we did not 'tank' and we were on the up and won't be in the lottery much longer in the future (this was 2014), we still voted against the change.
I think if we're gonna reduce games, small market teams that don't currently have 2-3 super stars are gonna vote it down, because to me it tips the scale to the 'Super Teams', their stars won't have to play as many games during the regular season, keeping them fresh for the playoffs. Also the reason you mentioned above is also a good reason for smaller market teams to not support it.
If I were the Jazz owner, even though we have Hayward and Gobert (but Hayward can still walk), I think we will vote against the change.