The LEBRON JAMES Thread
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 1156, 1157, 1158 ... 1163, 1164, 1165  Next

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
LaLaLakeShow
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 04 Aug 2019
Posts: 414

PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 9:00 pm    Post subject:

Dr. Laker wrote:
LaLaLakeShow wrote:
activeverb wrote:
lakez34 wrote:
LaLaLakeShow wrote:
activeverb wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
Isn't it crazy that an in-prime Kawhi at the tender age of 27 last year was load managing and will do so for the rest of his career?


I don't think it's crazy.

It's a function of him (1) having some significant injuries and (2) greater understanding/research of the long term and short term benefits of reducing stress on athlete's bodies.

As science improves, we will likely see load management applied to even NBA rookies, and even perhaps college and high school players.

Older guys, who played in an era where you "toughed things out," will see this as weakness. But it's really just being smart about maximizing the effectiveness of players and extending their careers.


There’s no real way of knowing if this tactic will extend careers.
That is just an assumption, albeit a logical one at least


Maybe so, but I think there is real research/science that demonstrates "playing through it" or "toughing it out" contributes to injuries/career reducing events. Somebody here had posted a few articles around this recently, but I can't find them now.



There is an impressive amount of research about the effects of cumulative stress on athlete's bodies. So you can make some reasonable assumptions, or hypothesis, about the benefits of load management.

However, it will take time to gather more data to figure out how effective load management is, and what approaches to load management work best.


Fair enough points, to be sure


Larry Bird and other players were advocating for a shorter regular season (60 games-ish) back in the 80's - the issue is the owners. They want to maximize interest and revenues by having the best guys out there. If they could, the owners would have 120 game seasons.


Why shouldn’t the owners want to get the most out of the players they give these contracts to? How many other jobs allow people to “Load Manage”? Lol
Do you really think the players union would be willing to go to a shortened season knowing annual salaries would have to take a dip, on average??
I don’t think so. The players are paid to play. They should play. Seems pretty simple to me 🤷‍♂️
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Super Mega Team
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 25 Jul 2008
Posts: 3559

PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 9:05 pm    Post subject:

They would lose too much money. I bet the cable companies would sue for some big bucks as well. They have deep pockets and going against them wouldn’t be pretty. Imagine you sign a tv deal worth hundreds of millions up to a billion and you won’t get as much airtime as promised.

Too difficult to make it happen.
_________________
Formerly OC Lakerfan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LaLaLakeShow
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 04 Aug 2019
Posts: 414

PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 9:06 pm    Post subject:

Super Mega Team wrote:
They would lose too much money. I bet the cable companies would sue for some big bucks as well. They have deep pockets and going against them wouldn’t be pretty. Imagine you sign a tv deal worth hundreds of millions up to a billion and you won’t get as much airtime as promised.

Too difficult to make it happen.


Yep
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ReaListik
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 08 Jun 2008
Posts: 5925

PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 9:10 pm    Post subject:

LaLaLakeShow wrote:
Dr. Laker wrote:
LaLaLakeShow wrote:
activeverb wrote:
lakez34 wrote:
LaLaLakeShow wrote:
activeverb wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
Isn't it crazy that an in-prime Kawhi at the tender age of 27 last year was load managing and will do so for the rest of his career?


I don't think it's crazy.

It's a function of him (1) having some significant injuries and (2) greater understanding/research of the long term and short term benefits of reducing stress on athlete's bodies.

As science improves, we will likely see load management applied to even NBA rookies, and even perhaps college and high school players.

Older guys, who played in an era where you "toughed things out," will see this as weakness. But it's really just being smart about maximizing the effectiveness of players and extending their careers.


There’s no real way of knowing if this tactic will extend careers.
That is just an assumption, albeit a logical one at least


Maybe so, but I think there is real research/science that demonstrates "playing through it" or "toughing it out" contributes to injuries/career reducing events. Somebody here had posted a few articles around this recently, but I can't find them now.



There is an impressive amount of research about the effects of cumulative stress on athlete's bodies. So you can make some reasonable assumptions, or hypothesis, about the benefits of load management.

However, it will take time to gather more data to figure out how effective load management is, and what approaches to load management work best.


Fair enough points, to be sure


Larry Bird and other players were advocating for a shorter regular season (60 games-ish) back in the 80's - the issue is the owners. They want to maximize interest and revenues by having the best guys out there. If they could, the owners would have 120 game seasons.


Why shouldn’t the owners want to get the most out of the players they give these contracts to? How many other jobs allow people to “Load Manage”? Lol
Do you really think the players union would be willing to go to a shortened season knowing annual salaries would have to take a dip, on average??
I don’t think so. The players are paid to play. They should play. Seems pretty simple to me 🤷‍♂️

Yeah Kawhi is pretty unique for a player his age to be load managing like he’s in the latter stages of career coming off an injury. I can see taking a few games off but not to the degree he does.
_________________
"We are the goodest." - Shaq ESPN interview
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 28275

PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:05 pm    Post subject:

LaLaLakeShow wrote:
Why shouldn’t the owners want to get the most out of the players they give these contracts to? How many other jobs allow people to “Load Manage”? Lol
Do you really think the players union would be willing to go to a shortened season knowing annual salaries would have to take a dip, on average??
I don’t think so. The players are paid to play. They should play. Seems pretty simple to me 🤷‍♂️



You are fundamentally missing the point. The purpose of Load Management is to maximize the production of players, and to make sure they are performing at peak levels when the team needs them most.

By your perspective, players would be playing 48 minutes a game, even if that means they are performing sub-optimally and hurting their teams as a result.

Load Management isn't a way of helping players slack off. It's a realization that human beings aren't machines, and there are strategies to ensure that athletes can perform at peak efficiency.

No offense, but I am going to assume you are really young and don't know anything about how to manage people in the real world and help them be the best possible versions of themselves. That isn't accomplished by treating them like machines.


Last edited by activeverb on Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:12 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
waterman40
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Posts: 5315
Location: Central Coast

PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:12 pm    Post subject:

The NBA 82 game season I think is one of the toughest in sports. Guys are playing 3-4 games per week, traveling all over the place, starters are often running up to 6 miles a night on the court, not including practices and off the court workouts. Managing games and minutes is not only smart, but is winning basketball.
_________________
LAKERS 2019-2020: Let's do this...the Lakers are back.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LaLaLakeShow
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 04 Aug 2019
Posts: 414

PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:31 pm    Post subject:

activeverb wrote:
LaLaLakeShow wrote:
Why shouldn’t the owners want to get the most out of the players they give these contracts to? How many other jobs allow people to “Load Manage”? Lol
Do you really think the players union would be willing to go to a shortened season knowing annual salaries would have to take a dip, on average??
I don’t think so. The players are paid to play. They should play. Seems pretty simple to me 🤷‍♂️



You are fundamentally missing the point. The purpose of Load Management is to maximize the production of players, and to make sure they are performing at peak levels when the team needs them most.

By your perspective, players would be playing 48 minutes a game, even if that means they are performing sub-optimally and hurting their teams as a result.

Load Management isn't a way of helping players slack off. It's a realization that human beings aren't machines, and there are strategies to ensure that athletes can perform at peak efficiency.

No offense, but I am going to assume you are really young and don't know anything about how to manage people in the real world and help them be the best possible versions of themselves. That isn't accomplished by treating them like machines.


Assume whatever you want.
Play them less minutes here and there, sure.
I just don’t feel they should be taking so many whole games off.
Kobe once said he fought through so many injuries because he never wanted to rob the fans of what could potentially be their only time ever seeing him play. I respect that.
A whole lot more than this recent trend, THAT’s for sure
But you obviously disagree. Cool beans
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LAL1947
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 26 Dec 2018
Posts: 1810

PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:33 pm    Post subject:

Dr. Laker wrote:

Larry Bird and other players were advocating for a shorter regular season (60 games-ish) back in the 80's - the issue is the owners. They want to maximize interest and revenues by having the best guys out there. If they could, the owners would have 120 game seasons.

Well, that may have been true before some of the newer iterations of the CBA were agreed to... but I don't think you can blame this issue only on the owners now. If a player was signed to a 30% contract while the league has an 82 game season... and if moving to a 60 game season proportionately reduced the cap from $109m to $80m (60*109/82)... wouldn't it also be right that the 30% max player's salary is reduced from $32.7m to $24m... but would he agree to this or would he help stage another lock-out?

Anyway, unrelated point and this may be weird but I've never really liked the 82 number of games. The 82 and the format doesn't make sense from:
1) A mathematical perspective (29 has no direct connection with 82, neither does 14+15 nor 4+10+15... which is why we ended up with the weird format for how many times conference teams play each other).
2) A fairness perspective (not the fairest way to determine the best 8 in a conference when one team's set of 6 opponents who they play 4 times vs 3 times could be harder than another's)
3) Or a sporting/competitive perspective (why have some mini-series with an even number of games instead of all with an odd number, so we can have winners-losers instead of ties?)

I know the league only had 12 teams when they first raised the number of games to 82... and has had a differing number of teams since... it has never made sense at any point, except for being the number they agreed to with the networks in the 1960s and stuck with.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
CandyCanes
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 24 Dec 2007
Posts: 29336
Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Washington, DC

PostPosted: Fri Aug 09, 2019 4:17 am    Post subject:

Super Mega Team wrote:
They would lose too much money. I bet the cable companies would sue for some big bucks as well. They have deep pockets and going against them wouldn’t be pretty. Imagine you sign a tv deal worth hundreds of millions up to a billion and you won’t get as much airtime as promised.

Too difficult to make it happen.


It should really just be 58 to 66 games per season (twice against each team or twice against each team not in your division and four times against teams in your division). Back to backs shouldn’t be a thing.
_________________
Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZrbEjppnd4
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 28275

PostPosted: Fri Aug 09, 2019 5:37 am    Post subject:

LaLaLakeShow wrote:
activeverb wrote:
LaLaLakeShow wrote:
Why shouldn’t the owners want to get the most out of the players they give these contracts to? How many other jobs allow people to “Load Manage”? Lol
Do you really think the players union would be willing to go to a shortened season knowing annual salaries would have to take a dip, on average??
I don’t think so. The players are paid to play. They should play. Seems pretty simple to me 🤷‍♂️



You are fundamentally missing the point. The purpose of Load Management is to maximize the production of players, and to make sure they are performing at peak levels when the team needs them most.

By your perspective, players would be playing 48 minutes a game, even if that means they are performing sub-optimally and hurting their teams as a result.

Load Management isn't a way of helping players slack off. It's a realization that human beings aren't machines, and there are strategies to ensure that athletes can perform at peak efficiency.

No offense, but I am going to assume you are really young and don't know anything about how to manage people in the real world and help them be the best possible versions of themselves. That isn't accomplished by treating them like machines.


Assume whatever you want.
Play them less minutes here and there, sure.
I just don’t feel they should be taking so many whole games off.
Kobe once said he fought through so many injuries because he never wanted to rob the fans of what could potentially be their only time ever seeing him play. I respect that.
A whole lot more than this recent trend, THAT’s for sure
But you obviously disagree. Cool beans


I agree it sucks if you spend a lot of money to go see a game and your favorite player is out. Personally, I would never spend a lot of money to go to an NBA game for that reason.

That said, as a fan, I like that there's an developing science about how to preserve athlete's bodies and keep them playing most effectively. And, like it or not, doing that may mean that they have to take more games off.

Who knows. If Kobe had practiced load management maybe he wouldnt have had so many injuries and his career would have been longer. Maybe if he had sat out more games on a planned basis he actually would have played more games in the end and more people would have seen him.

Anyway, you can dislike load management, but you cant fight data and sports medicine evolution

...

Also you seem to think Load Management benefits the players and screws the owners. However both sides are doing this together. Owners and teams are using Load Management to maximize their investment in players.


Last edited by activeverb on Fri Aug 09, 2019 6:19 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 28275

PostPosted: Fri Aug 09, 2019 5:46 am    Post subject:

Super Mega Team wrote:
They would lose too much money. I bet the cable companies would sue for some big bucks as well. They have deep pockets and going against them wouldn’t be pretty. Imagine you sign a tv deal worth hundreds of millions up to a billion and you won’t get as much airtime as promised.

Too difficult to make it happen.


I suspect the TV contracts specify how many games the NBA has to provide. When you have that much money at stake both sides nail down the details of their obligations to each other.

A shortened season would affect everyone. Owners would make less. Players would make less since they earn a percentage of revenues. TV folks would get less programming and so pay less.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 28275

PostPosted: Fri Aug 09, 2019 6:02 am    Post subject:

LAL1947 wrote:
Dr. Laker wrote:

Larry Bird and other players were advocating for a shorter regular season (60 games-ish) back in the 80's - the issue is the owners. They want to maximize interest and revenues by having the best guys out there. If they could, the owners would have 120 game seasons.

Well, that may have been true before some of the newer iterations of the CBA were agreed to... but I don't think you can blame this issue only on the owners now. If a player was signed to a 30% contract while the league has an 82 game season... and if moving to a 60 game season proportionately reduced the cap from $109m to $80m (60*109/82)... wouldn't it also be right that the 30% max player's salary is reduced from $32.7m to $24m... but would he agree to this or would he help stage another lock-out?

Anyway, unrelated point and this may be weird but I've never really liked the 82 number of games. The 82 and the format doesn't make sense from:
1) A mathematical perspective (29 has no direct connection with 82, neither does 14+15 nor 4+10+15... which is why we ended up with the weird format for how many times conference teams play each other).
2) A fairness perspective (not the fairest way to determine the best 8 in a conference when one team's set of 6 opponents who they play 4 times vs 3 times could be harder than another's)
3) Or a sporting/competitive perspective (why have some mini-series with an even number of games instead of all with an odd number, so we can have winners-losers instead of ties?)

I know the league only had 12 teams when they first raised the number of games to 82... and has had a differing number of teams since... it has never made sense at any point, except for being the number they agreed to with the networks in the 1960s and stuck with.


The collective bargaining agreement already takes this into consideration. Players earn roughly 50% of the basketball-related income the league generates.

The max salaries are based on a projection of what the league expects the revenues to be. If the projections are off, the salaries are adjusted at the end of the season.

This works by having 10% of players salaries held in an escrow account. If the league makes less than expected, some of that money goes back to the owners. In the same way, if the league makes more than expected the players get more.

So a $32.7 mil max salary is based on a projection that the league will make x dollars in the upcoming season. If the league ends up making 1% more than the projections, the max player gets an additional $327,000. If the league makes 1% less, the player loses $327,000 from the escrow account.

If the league suddenly reduced games by 10% and revenues dropped by 10%, the max player would make $3.27 million less.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
RG73
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2001
Posts: 11034

PostPosted: Fri Aug 09, 2019 6:30 am    Post subject:

LaLaLakeShow wrote:


Assume whatever you want.
Play them less minutes here and there, sure.
I just don’t feel they should be taking so many whole games off.
Kobe once said he fought through so many injuries because he never wanted to rob the fans of what could potentially be their only time ever seeing him play. I respect that.
A whole lot more than this recent trend, THAT’s for sure
But you obviously disagree. Cool beans


Kobe also literally broke himself doing that, and, in doing so, did rob us seeing him continue to perform at a high level. No imagine Kawhi takes a Kobe approach this season...he could wind up with a serious injury this year, wind up losing a season over it, never return the same, and his team is stuck with an albatross of a contract with him underperforming for the majority of it because he is a shell of himself from injury. That is a very poor investment then.

I'm not sure what you find objectionable about using a player judiciously during the regular season (which is largely pointless after say the first third of the season--by then we more or less know who's a playoff team and who isn't) so that said player is available at 100% of their ability for the playoffs.

You could also alternately think of the alternatives. While the season is 82 games, the Clippers agreed to pay Kawhi $32 million for 62 of those games (and/or he gets paid vacation/sick leave for 20 games). Both parties agreed to this arrangement in their negotiations. Another alternative is that Clippers fans could have no Kawhi (and then probably no Paul George), or, they can have Kawhi for 62/82 games a season. I'm pretty sure the 5 Clippers fans in LA are ok with that arrangement as well.

Lastly, you are completely ignoring biology here. Kawhi has a degenerative disorder that involves ossification, that is, soft tissue turning into bone with too much inflammation. It's not just a pain tolerance issue--the man's leg will literally turn to bone if he pushes it too much. It's not like a broken pinky finger or something that might have some small effect on shooting percentage and mostly be a pain tolerance problem every time there is incidental or direct contact.

Your perspective, for example, would be asking BI to have played through his blood clot. Man up. Well fine, except he would literally die. And then there is no more BI (but you're still on the hook for the contract, and the lawsuit from his family). Not all injuries are the same--and, especially when the "injury" is really a degenerative disease.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 133913
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Fri Aug 09, 2019 6:40 am    Post subject:

activeverb wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
activeverb wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
Isn't it crazy that an in-prime Kawhi at the tender age of 27 last year was load managing and will do so for the rest of his career?


I don't think it's crazy.

It's a function of him (1) having some significant injuries and (2) greater understanding/research of the long term and short term benefits of reducing stress on athletes' bodies.

As science gathers even more information, I suspect we will see load management applied to even NBA rookies, and even perhaps to college and high school players.

Older guys, who played in an era where you "toughed things out," will see this as weakness. But it's really just being smart about maximizing the effectiveness of players and extending their careers.

I suspect in the future, fans will shake their heads in disbelief about the foolishness of older players who used to never take off games, played a lot of minutes, and came back too early from injuries.


I actually like the Philly idea of sitting 18 yo players for a season, getting their bodies up to NBA shape.



I'm not sure what you're talking about, except maybe Fultz? But he sat because he was injured.


Fultz, Simmons, Embiid.
_________________
Cardinals magic number is 4
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 133913
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Fri Aug 09, 2019 6:47 am    Post subject:

LaLaLakeShow wrote:
Dr. Laker wrote:
LaLaLakeShow wrote:
activeverb wrote:
lakez34 wrote:
LaLaLakeShow wrote:
activeverb wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
Isn't it crazy that an in-prime Kawhi at the tender age of 27 last year was load managing and will do so for the rest of his career?


I don't think it's crazy.

It's a function of him (1) having some significant injuries and (2) greater understanding/research of the long term and short term benefits of reducing stress on athlete's bodies.

As science improves, we will likely see load management applied to even NBA rookies, and even perhaps college and high school players.

Older guys, who played in an era where you "toughed things out," will see this as weakness. But it's really just being smart about maximizing the effectiveness of players and extending their careers.


There’s no real way of knowing if this tactic will extend careers.
That is just an assumption, albeit a logical one at least


Maybe so, but I think there is real research/science that demonstrates "playing through it" or "toughing it out" contributes to injuries/career reducing events. Somebody here had posted a few articles around this recently, but I can't find them now.



There is an impressive amount of research about the effects of cumulative stress on athlete's bodies. So you can make some reasonable assumptions, or hypothesis, about the benefits of load management.

However, it will take time to gather more data to figure out how effective load management is, and what approaches to load management work best.


Fair enough points, to be sure


Larry Bird and other players were advocating for a shorter regular season (60 games-ish) back in the 80's - the issue is the owners. They want to maximize interest and revenues by having the best guys out there. If they could, the owners would have 120 game seasons.


Why shouldn’t the owners want to get the most out of the players they give these contracts to? How many other jobs allow people to “Load Manage”? Lol
Do you really think the players union would be willing to go to a shortened season knowing annual salaries would have to take a dip, on average??
I don’t think so. The players are paid to play. They should play. Seems pretty simple to me 🤷‍♂️


In California every job has sick days
_________________
Cardinals magic number is 4
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 28275

PostPosted: Fri Aug 09, 2019 6:50 am    Post subject:

venturalakersfan wrote:
activeverb wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
activeverb wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
Isn't it crazy that an in-prime Kawhi at the tender age of 27 last year was load managing and will do so for the rest of his career?


I don't think it's crazy.

It's a function of him (1) having some significant injuries and (2) greater understanding/research of the long term and short term benefits of reducing stress on athletes' bodies.

As science gathers even more information, I suspect we will see load management applied to even NBA rookies, and even perhaps to college and high school players.

Older guys, who played in an era where you "toughed things out," will see this as weakness. But it's really just being smart about maximizing the effectiveness of players and extending their careers.

I suspect in the future, fans will shake their heads in disbelief about the foolishness of older players who used to never take off games, played a lot of minutes, and came back too early from injuries.


I actually like the Philly idea of sitting 18 yo players for a season, getting their bodies up to NBA shape.



I'm not sure what you're talking about, except maybe Fultz? But he sat because he was injured.


Fultz, Simmons, Embiid.


You're talking about something completely unrelated to load management. All three of these guys sat out the rookie year because they were injured. If they weren't injured they would have played. And it had nothing to do with their age. Embidd was 21 and Simmons was 20.

It's not like the 76ers are sitting out healthy rookies.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 133913
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Fri Aug 09, 2019 6:54 am    Post subject:

Any young player sitting the season would be considered injured. Embiid did have injuries that could have kept him out for the season but the other two should have been able to return.
_________________
Cardinals magic number is 4
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LaLaLakeShow
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 04 Aug 2019
Posts: 414

PostPosted: Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:33 am    Post subject:

RG73 wrote:
LaLaLakeShow wrote:


Assume whatever you want.
Play them less minutes here and there, sure.
I just don’t feel they should be taking so many whole games off.
Kobe once said he fought through so many injuries because he never wanted to rob the fans of what could potentially be their only time ever seeing him play. I respect that.
A whole lot more than this recent trend, THAT’s for sure
But you obviously disagree. Cool beans


Kobe also literally broke himself doing that, and, in doing so, did rob us seeing him continue to perform at a high level. No imagine Kawhi takes a Kobe approach this season...he could wind up with a serious injury this year, wind up losing a season over it, never return the same, and his team is stuck with an albatross of a contract with him underperforming for the majority of it because he is a shell of himself from injury. That is a very poor investment then.

I'm not sure what you find objectionable about using a player judiciously during the regular season (which is largely pointless after say the first third of the season--by then we more or less know who's a playoff team and who isn't) so that said player is available at 100% of their ability for the playoffs.

You could also alternately think of the alternatives. While the season is 82 games, the Clippers agreed to pay Kawhi $32 million for 62 of those games (and/or he gets paid vacation/sick leave for 20 games). Both parties agreed to this arrangement in their negotiations. Another alternative is that Clippers fans could have no Kawhi (and then probably no Paul George), or, they can have Kawhi for 62/82 games a season. I'm pretty sure the 5 Clippers fans in LA are ok with that arrangement as well.

Lastly, you are completely ignoring biology here. Kawhi has a degenerative disorder that involves ossification, that is, soft tissue turning into bone with too much inflammation. It's not just a pain tolerance issue--the man's leg will literally turn to bone if he pushes it too much. It's not like a broken pinky finger or something that might have some small effect on shooting percentage and mostly be a pain tolerance problem every time there is incidental or direct contact.

Your perspective, for example, would be asking BI to have played through his blood clot. Man up. Well fine, except he would literally die. And then there is no more BI (but you're still on the hook for the contract, and the lawsuit from his family). Not all injuries are the same--and, especially when the "injury" is really a degenerative disease.


You’re right. I want the players to die
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 28275

PostPosted: Fri Aug 09, 2019 11:30 am    Post subject:

venturalakersfan wrote:
Any young player sitting the season would be considered injured. Embiid did have injuries that could have kept him out for the season but the other two should have been able to return.



It's sad to think that the only thing that kept Fultz from winning "rookie of the year" was your lack of a medical degree so you could have told the 76ers, "He's not really hurt -- play him!"


Last edited by activeverb on Fri Aug 09, 2019 12:11 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kwase
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Posts: 2365

PostPosted: Fri Aug 09, 2019 11:33 am    Post subject:

Jerry West, Wilt Chamberlain, Jamaal Wilkes, Elgin Baylor and Kareem all had to play 82 games a season in Converse and shoes with no padding, flying commercial planes with no leg room, sometimes going from city to city in buses, no staff to give them massages, no catered food prepared by chefs and no personal trainers.

This new generation post 2000's are just soft, plain and simple. A lot of them are spoiled, entitled brats that have no appreciation for how good they have it. If an athlete is healthy enough to play he should play. Anything other than that is weak!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LAL1947
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 26 Dec 2018
Posts: 1810

PostPosted: Fri Aug 09, 2019 11:35 am    Post subject:

activeverb wrote:
LAL1947 wrote:

Well, that may have been true before some of the newer iterations of the CBA were agreed to... but I don't think you can blame this issue only on the owners now. If a player was signed to a 30% contract while the league has an 82 game season... and if moving to a 60 game season proportionately reduced the cap from $109m to $80m (60*109/82)... wouldn't it also be right that the 30% max player's salary is reduced from $32.7m to $24m... but would he agree to this or would he help stage another lock-out?

The collective bargaining agreement already takes this into consideration. Players earn roughly 50% of the basketball-related income the league generates.

The max salaries are based on a projection of what the league expects the revenues to be. If the projections are off, the salaries are adjusted at the end of the season.

This works by having 10% of players salaries held in an escrow account. If the league makes less than expected, some of that money goes back to the owners. In the same way, if the league makes more than expected the players get more.

So a $32.7 mil max salary is based on a projection that the league will make x dollars in the upcoming season. If the league ends up making 1% more than the projections, the max player gets an additional $327,000. If the league makes 1% less, the player loses $327,000 from the escrow account.

If the league suddenly reduced games by 10% and revenues dropped by 10%, the max player would make $3.27 million less.

I'm asking something different.... i.e., would the elites in the player world (those with high dollar contracts and who also lead/control the player union) voluntarily agree to reduce the season from 82 games to 60 games if it meant they earned $24m instead of $32.7m... and the reason I asked this is because @DrLaker appeared to be implying it would only be the owners who are an issue when it comes to reducing the number of games in the season.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 28275

PostPosted: Fri Aug 09, 2019 11:43 am    Post subject:

LAL1947 wrote:
activeverb wrote:
LAL1947 wrote:

Well, that may have been true before some of the newer iterations of the CBA were agreed to... but I don't think you can blame this issue only on the owners now. If a player was signed to a 30% contract while the league has an 82 game season... and if moving to a 60 game season proportionately reduced the cap from $109m to $80m (60*109/82)... wouldn't it also be right that the 30% max player's salary is reduced from $32.7m to $24m... but would he agree to this or would he help stage another lock-out?

The collective bargaining agreement already takes this into consideration. Players earn roughly 50% of the basketball-related income the league generates.

The max salaries are based on a projection of what the league expects the revenues to be. If the projections are off, the salaries are adjusted at the end of the season.

This works by having 10% of players salaries held in an escrow account. If the league makes less than expected, some of that money goes back to the owners. In the same way, if the league makes more than expected the players get more.

So a $32.7 mil max salary is based on a projection that the league will make x dollars in the upcoming season. If the league ends up making 1% more than the projections, the max player gets an additional $327,000. If the league makes 1% less, the player loses $327,000 from the escrow account.

If the league suddenly reduced games by 10% and revenues dropped by 10%, the max player would make $3.27 million less.

I'm asking something different.... i.e., would the elites in the player world (those with high dollar contracts and who also lead/control the player union) voluntarily agree to reduce the season from 82 games to 60 games if it meant they earned $24m instead of $32.7m... and the reason I asked this is because @DrLaker appeared to be implying it would only be the owners who are an issue when it comes to reducing the number of games in the season.



Well, the point is if the games and hence revenues were reduced by 25%, all the players would see their salaries go down by 25% -- from the minimum guys to the maximum guys.

So I don't see this as simply an issue of concern to or controlled by the max guys.

To your bigger point, you are absolutely right: Given revenue sharing, the owners and players would the financial pain.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 28275

PostPosted: Fri Aug 09, 2019 12:03 pm    Post subject:

kwase wrote:
Jerry West, Wilt Chamberlain, Jamaal Wilkes, Elgin Baylor and Kareem all had to play 82 games a season in Converse and shoes with no padding, flying commercial planes with no leg room, sometimes going from city to city in buses, no staff to give them massages, no catered food prepared by chefs and no personal trainers.

This new generation post 2000's are just soft, plain and simple. A lot of them are spoiled, entitled brats that have no appreciation for how good they have it. If an athlete is healthy enough to play he should play. Anything other than that is weak!



I'm not sure if your list really helps your point.

Wilkes saw his career end at age 32 because of injuries.

Elgin had knee problems at age 29 and he really wasn't the same player again.

But even that isn't the point. Cherrypicking a few guys at random doesn't tell you anything. We can find guys in every era who played a lot of minutes to no obvious detriment, as well as guys who probably would have been better off not subjecting their bodies to so much wear and tear.

You need to look at the data from a lot of players.

I get the romantic appeal of watching players "tough it out." The question is whether "toughing it out" really helps the players and team in the long run.

That's what everyone is trying to figure out.

(And, really, it's a sports cliché that fans ALWAYS think the players in whatever the current era is are spoiled and less tough than the players in the previous era. I wouldn't be surprised if fans of Mikan and Slater Martin in the 50s were saying that about Wilt and Jerry in the 60s.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LaLaLakeShow
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 04 Aug 2019
Posts: 414

PostPosted: Fri Aug 09, 2019 1:47 pm    Post subject:

activeverb wrote:
LAL1947 wrote:
activeverb wrote:
LAL1947 wrote:

Well, that may have been true before some of the newer iterations of the CBA were agreed to... but I don't think you can blame this issue only on the owners now. If a player was signed to a 30% contract while the league has an 82 game season... and if moving to a 60 game season proportionately reduced the cap from $109m to $80m (60*109/82)... wouldn't it also be right that the 30% max player's salary is reduced from $32.7m to $24m... but would he agree to this or would he help stage another lock-out?

The collective bargaining agreement already takes this into consideration. Players earn roughly 50% of the basketball-related income the league generates.

The max salaries are based on a projection of what the league expects the revenues to be. If the projections are off, the salaries are adjusted at the end of the season.

This works by having 10% of players salaries held in an escrow account. If the league makes less than expected, some of that money goes back to the owners. In the same way, if the league makes more than expected the players get more.

So a $32.7 mil max salary is based on a projection that the league will make x dollars in the upcoming season. If the league ends up making 1% more than the projections, the max player gets an additional $327,000. If the league makes 1% less, the player loses $327,000 from the escrow account.

If the league suddenly reduced games by 10% and revenues dropped by 10%, the max player would make $3.27 million less.

I'm asking something different.... i.e., would the elites in the player world (those with high dollar contracts and who also lead/control the player union) voluntarily agree to reduce the season from 82 games to 60 games if it meant they earned $24m instead of $32.7m... and the reason I asked this is because @DrLaker appeared to be implying it would only be the owners who are an issue when it comes to reducing the number of games in the season.



Well, the point is if the games and hence revenues were reduced by 25%, all the players would see their salaries go down by 25% -- from the minimum guys to the maximum guys.

So I don't see this as simply an issue of concern to or controlled by the max guys.

To your bigger point, you are absolutely right: Given revenue sharing, the owners and players would the financial pain.


The players will not give up money. So this conversation seems moot
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
RG73
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2001
Posts: 11034

PostPosted: Fri Aug 09, 2019 1:52 pm    Post subject:

LaLaLakeShow wrote:
You’re right. I want the players to die


Really, that's your response? But you do want them to risk serious, career threatening, career shortening, career destructive injuries for meaningless regular season games.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 1156, 1157, 1158 ... 1163, 1164, 1165  Next
Page 1157 of 1165
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB