Sam Amick on Run It Back discussing the 65-game rule: “Adam [Silver]’s tone has been borderline defiant… They could make an exception (for Luka Doncic), but bigger picture… I think they’re sticking to their guns.”
Playing 65 games is not some crazy high bar
I mean, it’s 80%. I don’t think it’s that wild to say you have to do your job for 80% of the time.
You have to do your job 80% of the time in order to receive an award lol. They’re still getting 100% of their pay, this is just for accolades (yes I know it impacts contracts)
This is the part everyone seems to be missing lol. I saw a comment a few days ago talking about how the NBA lacks humanity by “punishing” Luka for being there for the birth of his child… As if he didn’t get paid over $1m for those two missed games.
I mean this is basketball, technically nothing about it really matters that much in the grand scheme of things
Doesn’t mean we can’t discuss it. I’m against the rule because the voters deciding without a cutoff was completely fine for the entire history of the league
The point was to make stars load manage less and yet stars are missing more time than ever
Really puts it into perspective. The rest of us lose our JOB if we only do 80%. These players are absolute cry babies tbh
comparing it to regular people never makes any sense. regular people also couldnt get up and down the court if they tried and would gas out after 2 seconds
You realize these guys aren’t just rolling up to games for 2.5 hours right? Their job entails being around the team constantly regardless of whether there’s a game that they’re playing in that night.
Why do people do this reductive argument? Professional basketball is not a desk job.
It’s a fucking stupid comparison and it’s not even the right one when it comes to 65 game rule anyway.
They didn’t compare it to a desk job lol. Since this is literally only relevant for end of year awards, I still don’t think this is an unreasonable bar.
I don’t like when people try to make it a moralizing thing about how the players lack character instead of something based on health science.
Most of our jobs don’t come with the injury risk they have. It is easier to get hurt doing what they’re doing compare to us.
I’m sorry, are they not getting paid their entire multimillion dollar salary anyway? They just can’t get some incentives and awards because they didn’t play. That’s far from unfair.
What does that have to do with you comparing them being healthy for their job compared to our normal jobs? They have a more physical and injury risk job than most people. So it isn’t surprising 80 percent is the threshold. If this was accounting or some shit then yes 80 percent would look bad.
yea the only reason its getting so much push back rn is the crazy amount of potential all nba players that r gonna miss the mark by a few games
That’s literally the problem with the rule though. An arbitrary cutoff is just silly
Yes, NBA players should just not get injured, why didn’t they think of that it’s so obvious. I feel ridiculous having to point out that playing a high speed, physical game damn near every other night for 6-8 months at a time against genetic freaks makes it harder to stay on the court than just clocking into your 9-5
Edit: This comment isn’t meant to oppose the 65 game rule. I simply hate the fuckass sentiment that some people love to use saying shit like “If I showed up to work 80% of the time I’d be fired” Right, because your office job is totally comparable to being an NBA player.
Counterpoint: Availability is the best ability
sure but this also skews towards younger stars who’s body haven’t been put through the woodworks. the older guys who’re still performing at an all nba level will be left off main accolades
Throwing out empty platitudes isn’t a counterpoint lmao.
The entire reason we’re having this debate is that there are multiple players who deserve these awards but are going to miss out due to an arbitrary games played number.
Guys like Luka or Edwards or Cade have had demonstrably better seasons than the guys who would take their spot if they are ineligible, that doesn’t magically change just because they were slightly less available.
The reason we’re having this debate is because the NBA finally made a rule to force stars to play games. Tough shit you missed the cut off.
Okay, if you support the rule because it forces guys to play, just say that.
But don’t pretend it has anything to do with merit by saying shit like “availability is the best ability.” 30⁄30 teams would have preferred to have Luka’s performance for 63 games this season vs whoever gets an all NBA spot instead of him.
The rule literally exists because stars constantly sat out games. It shouldn’t need to be said when it’s the entire reason for its existence.
Also, availability IS the best ability
Ah okay man now that you said this again, you’re so right. I just needed to see it one more time. Ability is in the word availability so there’s simply no more discussion to be had here.
Luka’s 64 games this season are definitely less deserving of rewards than any other player who played 65+ games. My new goat is now Mikal Bridges.
I said it again because it’s obviously triggering you. Do better
Mikal Bridges better than Wemby confirmed.
They are getting paid whether they play or not. This is about superlative awards.
We get paid for clocking in/out of our 9-5s… They get paid regardless of if they play or not. If I don’t show up to work 80% of time… Yeah, I’m probably not going to get superlative awards for being the most valuable person in my office or anything.
Comparing NBA economics to normal work life has never made any sense. To me it shows people’s inability to be nuanced. There are way too many differences and variables to even consider comparing the 2 situations.
Shhhh. You’re making too much sense. Stop that.
I agree injuries suck BUT load management became too rampant and obvious, paying customers where paying premium to see stars doing their craft.
I think the 65 game rule is fine, most of the awards fall into players that have played 65 games or more even before it was a written rule.
The data, at least according to Thinking Basketball, suggests otherwise. The video on this subject implied big men of today have a similar profile of actions to Reggie Miller of the 90’s which is kind of insane.
The data also suggested that 65 games is indeed a high bar, as players are roughly around 50-58 games IIRC. And it’s not because of load management as much as players are just injured.
I’ll say it for the millionth time with the way people talk about playing pace and back to backs just go to a 1 game a week for 82 weeks.
You would think these guys were running into the burning twin towers every night the way they talk about it.
You know why MJ played every night? Cause he was being paid and fans paid to see him play.
What you’re saying doesn’t quite map to my comment at all. It’s not about pace. It’s not about back-to-backs. It’s the actions, the range of motions players make today. And how frequently those actions are happening.
The rules of the 90’s and before allowed for bigs and non-ball handlers to be more stationary compared with all of the actions of the modern game.
Additionally, players have gotten more creative with how they gather the ball. The euro steps, delay gathers, etc. These sudden acceleration, deceleration movements that players make at positions 1-5 is just different.
The game of yesterday isn’t comparable from an arbitrary games played standpoint. The amount of strain the players exert on their bodies is different now. And the rules don’t account for that.
You just need to look at the amount of acl injuries in high school to confirm this.
An actually good comment here. So many people don’t get this.
Players are getting injured left and right because of how demanding the modern game is. Look at all the games players have missed this season due to injury, including players that suffered serious injuries last season that carried into this season.
People aren’t exaggerating, they’re just explaining the reality of all these missed games. MJ wouldn’t be able to will himself to play through a torn achilles to make fans happy.
MJ played 18 games in ‘86
ItIt didn’t used to be because the pace and demands on the body were so much lower. These players aren’t missing games because they want to. It’s ridiculous to think otherwise.
I mean that’s 1 bad ankle sprain from being eliminated. We’ve seen multiple cases of players getting 1 semi serious injury and being in danger of not being eligible. Also pace of play is rising which is going to mean guys will get hurt more often
You’re definitely right, but when we’re talking about season awards we’re talking about the best of the best for that season. It depends on whether we measure “best” as the players with the highest per-game averages regardless of sample size, or whether we measure the overall impact they have on the season and their team’s success.
If a player misses 20 games then their overall positive impact for their team is going to be limited by default, regardless of how good they play when available.
This is why I like measurements of per 82 games including missed games as 0s, it reflects the impact on the season well.
To me these awards should be something ppl are able to look back on to see who the 15ish best guys in the league were. Guys like Cade and Luka not being there because they were off by a couple of games just feels dumb. Despite their missed games those were 2 of the 10 best guys in the league.
65 isnt the problem, hard cutoff is. if you lower it or higher it there’s still gonna be guys that are just off. a hard cutoff means 65 games of Cade Cunningham is MVP top 5, All-NBA 1st worthy but 64 games of Cade Cunningham is not even All-NBA 3rd worthy, and 1 game just should not make that difference. Lower it or higher it, same difference for the border guys. hard cutoffs are the stupid part.
I mean it clearly is. Just, like, look around?
I think some players will have to start playing less minutes to make sure they can do thay
The league would absolutely prefer stars playing 20 minutes for 80 games than playing 35+ minutes for 60 games
And it’s not an unreasonable strategy for teams to balance per-game minutes a bit better.
It’s like pitchers in baseball or running backs in football. You could leave your starter in for 8 innings per outing or feed your RB 30 carries per game, but you’re likely trading season longevity for single game success.
I’d be curious to see what the NBA looked like if teams mixed up regular season rotations to aim for around 25 minutes per game from starters.
If stars are playing 20 minutes/game the scoring title is going to go to someone averaging barely 20, if that. The league would not like it if its best players are averaging 16-18ppg; nobody is getting compared to the greats of the past if they’re stuck under 20 ppg.
It’s funny because Lamelo ball who’s joints and bones are made of paper mache is doing this and will hit the 65 games. Think teams need to function more like OKC and really try and limit minutes where they can for stars
It’s not about the games played, it’s about the infantilization of voters as if they can’t determine who is more valuable or worthy of All-NBA, 63 games of Luka or 80 games of Scotty Barnes. And if you don’t trust the voters to make that distinction and decide for themselves, then they shouldn’t be voting for awards in the first place
It’s not about the voters, it never has been.
The entire purpose of the rule is to try and make sure that star players are playing as often as possible bc that’s what the fans and the networks want. The rule exists to curb load management. Thats why the minutes played alternative rule that people love to propose will likely never be implemented too.
We can argue about the efficacy of the rule, any tweaks that we think might work, etc, but the league trusts its voters, that’s not why we have this.
It is when a 3 week injury forces the player to play pretty the rest of the games available. The season is too condensed for a 65 game limit.
it should’ve always been 50.
50 is wildly low in my opinion. When a star player is out their team isn’t just missing that player, they’re also missing out of the salary cap equivalent that the player holds, and that has a huge impact on the team’s season.
If a player plays 50 games and his team goes 35-15 during that span then that’s excellent, but then the team is playing 32 games without both that player and the cap availability. If the team goes 10-22 over those 32 games and the team ends up with a record of 45-37, can we really say that player was more impactful than a guy who plays in 75 games with a record of 50-25, even if the first player’s per game stats are higher?
There’s obviously some room to improve the rule without eliminating it. It should be 65 games, or a minimum amount of minutes played+minutes per a game.
If you’re playing 38mpg all year and are leading the league in minutes but just miss the 65 game mark, you should still qualify for awards.
The spirit of the rule is to push players to play and not load manage. Someone putting in big minutes all year is clearly not the target of this rule
They would prefer players play less minutes but suit up for every game, though.
They’d be happier with Wemby playing 80 games at 30mpg than 70 games at 36mpg.
Except with this rule, it largely guarantees Wemby will play exactly 65 if his team record can accommodate
Then he’s in the clear because he crosses the 65 game mark? So it’s a non issue
My point is they aren’t going to lower the games played requirement or add some minute-based exceptions because they want these guys to play in as many games as possible. The point is to prevent fans from being disappointed
I disagree. I think weighing the minutes played is the next logical step to this.
65 games was clearly calculated and a good number to start with. They didn’t account for very high minute mvp caliber guys slightly missing that mark and so they’ll make the change to help fringe cases like Luka, or Cade still get rewards for their play.
65 games for MVP and like 55 for All NBA?
A minutes addendum is the only thing needed
82-65 games is 17 games missed. Maybe something like games missed due to injury count as half a game missed. Games missed due to load management or suspensions count as 1 game missed. If you hit above 17 for whatever reason, you are out.
This is one. The spirit of the rule is what’s more important than an arbitrary number I think.
Teams load manage. The players don’t make that call.
I think some players are definitely okay with sitting out games. And I don’t blame them, why wouldn’t they to try and stay healthy? But if a superstar really, truly wanted to play then they would.
I think Lukas case about being overseas for childbirth makes sense
The 65-game rule *should* already take into account all factors in which a player might miss games, including personal and life reasons. Making further exceptions just opens up Pandora’s box and you might one year have to decide between two players both trying to apply for the exception.
I think it’s fine that they have an “extraordinary circumstances” exception, now whether taking games off for personal reasons should qualify is another question.
what else could extraordinary circumstances be though? Icy Roads? I feel like childbirth in another damn country is as close as it gets outside of a family death
what else could extraordinary circumstances be though? Icy Roads?
yeah actually. i think ayton’s icy roads situation is a perfect example of extraordinary circumstances
Yeah I agree attending his child’s birth should count. Someone (KAT maybe?) missed games for the death of a family member which should also count as an exception.
That’s the problem. It’s up to interpretation. I could argue that players miss games due to personal reasons all the time.
Just get rid of the rule.
The alternative is that childbirth is extremely not extraordinary given people do it every day, and it would not be that complex to target a birth to coincide with the 5ish months long off season.
Certainly couples can have difficulty getting it maintaining pregnancy, but there is some amount of control over that unlike an unexpected death or accident.
Tell me you are a family-less virgin without telling me.
unbelievable comment
Since you arguement is so fucking dumb I’m going to give you an adequate analogy in hopes you understand:
Winning lotteries happens everyday, does that make YOU winning a lottery not extraordinary?
Agreed you have an idea of when it is going to happen and can make normal preparations for that. Sudden deaths and adverse weather events are completely different beasts.
I could see an exception for child birth if the situation was something like the child coming extremely early/late, or a significant deviation from what is expected there occurs. However, if you just decide at the last minute that you want to attend the child’s birth that you have been aware is going to happen for months, how would that qualify as an extraordinary circumstance?
I wouldn’t even mind if they allowed absences for birth, but I imagine they will require you to announce your intent to be present for the birth at least months in advance so there is a significant notice.
They need to make the process fast but I think extraordinary circumstances need to be given or at least applied for before the absence. Even like 10 minutes before. Part of the problem here is the last minute scrambling we’re doing for it.
then why the fuck did they establish these parameters for exceptions already? They made the rule sure, but this is part of the rule they made.
It was very clearly stated during the time what he was gone for, and he did not spend extra time away or anything. I would argue its closer to going AGAINST the rule they made to not give him the exception.
This is fine.
The point of the rule is to encourage players to play.
Luka has never needed that encouragement, so he should get a pass.
What about him missing a game because he racked up 16 techs
Nobody is trying to appeal that missed game lol This argument makes no sense.
It makes perfect sense if you have a normal functioning brain
No it doesn’t because he got suspend for techs
That exception rule was made for literally his exact scenario. So I would be surprised if they don’t honor it.
Otherwise why even make it an exception option
It was not made for that scenario and he is going to lose.
Family matters are qualifying such as a death or birth are they not?
They are not it states they are reserved for extraordinary circumstances that are uncontrollable. Having a child is not uncontrollable, it’s ok he missed the game but sorry you missed the game
Then what is an example of something uncontrollable?
Use your imagination
Wouldn’t he have made the cutoff if he didnt get suspended.
Or he would have made the cut off if he didn’t have a child and go overseas for the birth 🤷🏾♂️ that “would have” argument could be made both ways
Also people taking the suspension as a reason for him not to qualify for awards is kind of silly too. The league has that because they want money back. That’s why when you get a tech you have a fine. When they suspend him he didn’t get paid for that game. It’s all about money lol
I think its perfectly fair to argue that the missed games for his child’s birth would qualify for an exemption if thats what kept him out in addition to injury. But when he missed a game due to not being able to control his temper I think that should be considered. Even with the injury and games off for personal reasons, he still would have made the cut without the suspension.
I really don’t understand the controversy with this rule. If you can’t play in ~80% of your team’s games then you shouldn’t get awards and accolades.
Injuries are up across the board. The controversy is that players mostly sit due to injuries caused by increased pace, and the 65 game rule does nothing to address that.
Thank you for this reasonable comment. I’m losing my mind by the other comments here.
What if you play 80% of your team’s minutes?
The point is that paying fans are turning up to see a skeleton crew of shitters all the time
Playing 48 minutes 1 game and 0 the next is still the same level of shit for fans who are paying good money to be there just to not see guys play
I’d be fine if they added that so it becomes hitting at least one or the other. It also might actually make more sense in the end because I could see situations where guys start or check in for a few games just to hit 65 GP but not really play any minutes, which screws over the fans.
I could see situations where guys start or check in for a few games just to hit 65 GP but not really play any minutes, which screws over the fans.
That’s not how the rule works, lol. They got to play 20 minutes for the game to count.
The controversy is the hardline cutoff. 65, you’re fine. 64 you’re not getting anything.
Literally what people don’t get. Availability matters. A hard cutoff off ain’t it.
Jokic is one game away from receiving 0 votes for All NBA but if he plays he’s easy first team.
How does that make sense.
The moment you get rid of hard cutoffs is the moment you start getting “you approved this one players exception but denied the other players” rage fests. With how this subreddit has a meltdown around gambling, they are 100% going to claim that the nba was getting paid by the betting apps to make the call on who gets the exception or not.
Hard cutoffs, no exceptions is always the best option if you ever want to fight against claims of impropriety or favoritism.
Voters already were taking this into account pretty much, so it sort of just limits their options. MVP for example I believe only had one player miss the 65 game mark for an 82 game season (Bill Walton). But it’s limiting because what if a player misses 20% of their season but is 25% more impactful than the next best player? I’d argue we’re very close to that with Wemby’s DPOY case. 65 game rule just makes it so voters may not even get to consider the question. And then with all-NBA 3rd team, it makes no sense at all. Like, good for you James Harden for play like 7 more games, but you didn’t have a better season than Cade or Luka.
But the biggest issue is the NBA is trying to solve the problem by having players play more. Modern NBA players have years of AAU under their belt before they get to an NBA game that’s faster paced than ever. The 82 game schedule just doesn’t work anymore. But the NBA won’t lower it because profit is more important than improving the product.
The real problem as to why players miss games ain’t excessive load management.
It’s the injuries themselves. You are right, 82 games and expecting star players to show up close to that just isn’t realistic. Times have changed.
Do you think players would vote for a shorter season knowing that they’d also get paid less? It’s not just the owners. The players compensation is also tied to league revenue.
You’re 100% right, which is why I say it’s an issue of the NBA choosing profit over quality. When I say NBA I mean owners and players.
It pointlessly destroys the ability of the All-NBA team to accurately document the history of this season.
The teams are the one holding these guys out, man
People who have this take are like braindead. You cant understand why 64 games of Luka should get an award of 66 games of Pascal Siakam or 68 games of Deni Avdija?
You can’t understand why 64 games of Wembanyama still deserves the DPOY?
Now tell me, what award or accolade are either of those guys going to win because Luka doesn’t qualify?
All-NBA…..?
It’s not even about All NBA.
If Wemby misses I think the last 2 games, then the Dpoy goes to Chet or whatever.
I wouldn’t like that. It just does not make sense to make someone ineligible.
Literally All-NBA lol
You won’t get a reasonable response from this lol.
All NBA, easy.
HOW IS THIS DOWNVOTED lmao. Y’all take Mikal Bridges instead of Wemby and Ant or what.
Right? This is not hard to understand. Wemby plays 65 and gets to be unanimous DPoY.
He plays 64 and gets 0 votes lol. Makes sense.
I’m so confused how people don’t get this.
Obviously we want starts to play and playing adds value. The point is a hard cutoff doesn’t make any rational sense from the accolade side of things
Obviously Luka Ant and Cade should all be on all-nba but won’t because of 1,3 or 4 missed games
Dude, I have no fucking clue how someone can say stuff like Ant or Luka should not be eligible just because they didnt play 65 games. Did y’all watch the season they were having? Y’all think Mikal Bridges and his 82 games make him more valuable???
The owners really wanted this rule even though it doesn’t predictably help them in any way, and nobody wants to discuss why that is. They wanted leverage over players, plain and simple. They hated that a star like Kawhi could tell them when he’d be available and when he wouldn’t. So they tied awards (something players want) to games played (something the owners want). They aren’t going to back away from this without the NBAPA giving up something significant.
I mean they do get paid regardless. This is for awards.(even though it does affect their pay) if you’re not able to play 80% of the games you don’t get an award isn’t particularly unfair… though there should also be a games played/minutes played stipulation.
The owners wanted it bc the networks wanted it. Having this rule in place helped increase the $$ for the new TV deal, meaning more money for ownership.
It’s also not like Kawhi was deciding to load manage all by himself. That’s a team decision, the entire coaching/medical staff is involved in that. No way that happens if the owner is completely against it.
This is separate from the player participation policy for nationally televised games.
I’m well aware, it’s still been an express interest of the fans, networks, and the league to have the star players play as often as possible.
Nobody wants to watch the benches play, and the entire point of the 65-game rule is to have the stars on the court consistently
Looking very red Mr. Parsons
Didn’t even recognize him til Amick said “Chandler”
Fans pay to see stars. Idk why people care about the rewards aspect when owners care about fans not showing up.
Why pay for tickets in advance if you don’t know if Luka will play?
As they should. If it’s something that bothers the players, then it’s an actually functional incentive to get them to play the games.
I personally think it will be extremely unfortunate if Cade and Luka don’t qualify.
Not only do they deserve it, but this rule was not made for them. They haven’t been load managing
And they lead top of the league in minutes played.
The point was stop people sitting out for “injury management”. That’s not what these players have been doing
Just feel like context matters and I’m afraid they’re going to let their own stubbornness and not wanting to go back on what they already said be a deciding factor lol
They should stick to their guns. I miss when players just played the fucking game. Obviously actual injuries happen sometimes and it’s a shame but I hate that the media and “smart” fans have decided the regular season doesn’t matter.
The amount of resting happening the next three days is illuminates my exact point.
There needs to be a process for league medical evaluation (independent of the team) of players to allow for official exemptions.
I still don’t have a problem with it. If Kawhi hit a lower games played he’d be in a 3rd team.
Maybe move the rule to 2nd team players only need 60, 3rd team 55.
giving a league exception to a guy whos out here choosing to miss games for technical fouls is fuckin stupid
I think the rule is dumb, and should be gotten rid of, but I also think if the nba is going to stick to this very dumb rule then none of those players will get exceptions.
The nba could literally just say to Luka that he missed 65 games because of his suspension due to technical fouls.
It’s a good rule that doesn’t need exceptions.
Part of the rule they made is having exceptions. They put it out there. Follow the rule
It doesn’t need exceptions just because your favorite player can’t meet the rule.
No one is saying that, buddy.
Are we surprised that a rule that could keep good players from being paid as much is going to stick around?
Okay last game of the season. Put Luka in there for 20 minutes and not move from a spot lol
Ok, but why is Luka getting a waiver if the rule is set in stone? It’s an arbitrary cutoff and Silver knows it
Good. Although i think it should be relaxed for 2nd & 3rd team all-nba. Superstars could miss 17 games & still be more valuable that some others at that level
Good. If he didn’t miss a game for all his techs, then I think it’s fair to consider.
But a good reason he missed is because of his behavior
Weird how some seem to think this rule makes players injuries just go away. Clearly everyone that does meet this requirement is faking it.
Too bad maybe he shouldn’t have gotten all those techs then
If they allow players to sit out half of the season and still get the major awards, they should allow all stars to be entirely picked by votes. It makes it all meaningless.
Awards are made even more meaningless with this rule. There will forever be asterisks on these All-NBA selections and some Awards because the most deserving players weren’t able to be voted for.
💯 and not to mention the climbing ticket prices as fans get suckered into buying tickets to not watch players play.
even if they make the exception, Luka isn’t winning it this year…so why make the exception.
if a hypothetical player is god’s gift to the game of basketball, scoring 50 every night on 100% from the field with 10 blocks, 5 steals and 20 assists,
BUT, only plays 40 games due to health and is a question come playoffs, then this hypothetical player cannot be MVP. the "Most VALUABLE Player" not "Best Player" has to be on the floor to be valuable.
say we have a shit year with injuries riddled across the league and none of the top 10 guys hit 65 games, then none of them deserve MVP regardless if their stats in the games they play in. gimme a Dylan Brooks or Luke Kennard MVP if they play lights out for 65+ games.
Luka isn’t winning it this year…so why make the exception
You do realize this affect more than only mvp right??
Let the voters decide. Get rid of this silly rule.
I am ok with allowing some wiggle room for extraordinary circumstances, death of a family member birth of a child that sort of thing.
Otherwise, no. 65-games is not some crazy high bar.
all Luka had to do was not be a bitch to the refs so he wouldn’t be suspended for the Wizards game he missed.
The 65 game limit was put into place because teams were resting their stars, something that the league has been haranguing tanking teams for this season.
Because it’s been working. It’s crazy we’re in a position where we’re arguing against a rule that has gotten top players to play more while bitching about tanking because it brings players to sit.
It hasn’t definitively bene proven to work though?
Players are playing this year. I don’t have the statistics on hand but over previous years there is definitely less load management going on.
https://youtu.be/s5_ysUr9iEk?si=yWwKM610jubdFBOR
It’s just much harder to play as many games as before, with the increase stress on players bodies.
Not to old head, but remember that guys used to ride a bus or fly coach to games, check into crappy hotels with regular sized beds, do coke all night, and still pretty much always met the minimum game threshold. “Nobody wants to work anymore” but unironically.
They also played a fundamentally different game.
The game today looks nothing like the game from even 20 years ago. When you talk about the era of flying coach (or buses) it’s not even borderline recognizable.
That’s what they don’t understand. The skill of these players today is vastly greater than before. Movement changes everything, the pace changes everything, nothing is similar
Skill may be greater but the product has rarely been worse.
Something has to give.
We still talking about the 65 game rule here or are you talking about something else
Luka shouldn’t get an exception out of respect for Kobe.
No rest for fathers and rapists
I’m just never gonna be able to take Amick seriously again after the ‘Bam should have checked out to respect Kobe’ article.