ah i see what the debate here is. it's not that these current stars and their reasons for load management are not valid. what is the root of these arguments is stuff like when we start comparing these guys doing load management, to previous era guys who didnt do that, like kobe. so now, the stat heads are going to throw efficiency numbers around and use these to do the debates around "who is better".
So your takeaway is that people are thinking: "I want load management to catch on so Zion Williamson will have a highly efficient career and 15 years from now I can go on Lakerground and use that to argue that he's better than Tim Duncan, because that's super super super important to me."
Your mind goes down weird corridors, Superboy
Guy literally said, "Real basketball doesn't give a flying F about efficiency."
That is a real quote. Unbelievable. _________________ “Christ did not die to forgive sinners who go on treasuring anything above seeing and savoring God. And people who would be happy in heaven if Christ were not there, will not be there."
- John Piper
Why not just announce the dates when superstars will be load managing before the season starts? And cap it to perhaps 8 games a season(10%) per player. Don't allow changes midseason.
That way, it's gonna be up to the management whether they would allow their stars to rest or not in exchange of possible loss of ticket revenue.
Not gonna happen I'm sure but this would be fair to players playing heavy minutes as they won't have to play the full season if management allows and customers would be able to make sure that their favorite players would be playing in the games that they buy tickets for barring injury or other unforseen circumstance.
Because it isn't necessarily predetermined when they'll sit. Not to mention that they don't know when certain games will become more important based on numerous other factors that aren't predictable. A December game against a lesser opponent might not seem like a big deal now, but say AD goes down with an ankle injury and will be out for a week- suddenly that game and the ones after it that week will matter a whole lot more because they'll be short handed. But if they decided months in advance that LeBron would sit that game out, then what? Just take the L? There are just too many factors involved to make predetermined decisions on it. _________________ “Christ did not die to forgive sinners who go on treasuring anything above seeing and savoring God. And people who would be happy in heaven if Christ were not there, will not be there."
- John Piper
Why not just announce the dates when superstars will be load managing before the season starts? And cap it to perhaps 8 games a season(10%) per player. Don't allow changes midseason.
That way, it's gonna be up to the management whether they would allow their stars to rest or not in exchange of possible loss of ticket revenue.
Not gonna happen I'm sure but this would be fair to players playing heavy minutes as they won't have to play the full season if management allows and customers would be able to make sure that their favorite players would be playing in the games that they buy tickets for barring injury or other unforseen circumstance.
Because it isn't necessarily predetermined when they'll sit. Not to mention that they don't know when certain games will become more important based on numerous other factors that aren't predictable. A December game against a lesser opponent might not seem like a big deal now, but say AD goes down with an ankle injury and will be out for a week- suddenly that game and the ones after it that week will matter a whole lot more because they'll be short handed. But if they decided months in advance that LeBron would sit that game out, then what? Just take the L? There are just too many factors involved to make predetermined decisions on it.
Allow the players to play on the pre-determined load managing dates if they change their minds for whatever reason mid-season.
In your example, LBJ can still play on the game he was supposed to sit out. But they can't move that rest-day to another one just because he was unexpectedly forced to play.
Truly I understand the teams and player's perspective on this issue. But you gotta take the paying customers and fan's perspective into consideration as well. Teams and players can't reap all the benefits(team success, competitive edge, potential additional revenue) of load managing at the expense of paying customers and totally risk-free.
Least that teams can do is strategize and plan ahead of time which games they're gonna allow their stars to skip so fans can choose which games they're gonna spend their hard-earned money on.
Why not just announce the dates when superstars will be load managing before the season starts? And cap it to perhaps 8 games a season(10%) per player. Don't allow changes midseason.
That way, it's gonna be up to the management whether they would allow their stars to rest or not in exchange of possible loss of ticket revenue.
Not gonna happen I'm sure but this would be fair to players playing heavy minutes as they won't have to play the full season if management allows and customers would be able to make sure that their favorite players would be playing in the games that they buy tickets for barring injury or other unforseen circumstance.
Because it isn't necessarily predetermined when they'll sit. Not to mention that they don't know when certain games will become more important based on numerous other factors that aren't predictable. A December game against a lesser opponent might not seem like a big deal now, but say AD goes down with an ankle injury and will be out for a week- suddenly that game and the ones after it that week will matter a whole lot more because they'll be short handed. But if they decided months in advance that LeBron would sit that game out, then what? Just take the L? There are just too many factors involved to make predetermined decisions on it.
Allow the players to play on the pre-determined load managing dates if they change their minds for whatever reason mid-season.
In your example, LBJ can still play on the game he was supposed to sit out. But they can't move that rest-day to another one just because he was unexpectedly forced to play.
Truly I understand the teams and player's perspective on this issue. But you gotta take the paying customers and fan's perspective into consideration as well. Teams and players can't reap all the benefits(team success, competitive edge, potential additional revenue) of load managing at the expense of paying customers and totally risk-free.
Least that teams can do is strategize and plan ahead of time which games they're gonna allow their stars to skip so fans can choose which games they're gonna spend their hard-earned money on.
A more simple approach would be to allow fans to get a refund and not go to a game when it was announced a star wouldn't play.
More likely, teams will just announce which players are on a load management and warn fans that they take a chance the player might be sitting.
ah i see what the debate here is. it's not that these current stars and their reasons for load management are not valid. what is the root of these arguments is stuff like when we start comparing these guys doing load management, to previous era guys who didnt do that, like kobe. so now, the stat heads are going to throw efficiency numbers around and use these to do the debates around "who is better".
So your takeaway is that people are thinking: "I want load management to catch on so Zion Williamson will have a highly efficient career and 15 years from now I can go on Lakerground and use that to argue that he's better than Tim Duncan, because that's super super super important to me."
Your mind goes down weird corridors, Superboy
Guy literally said, "Real basketball doesn't give a flying F about efficiency."
That is a real quote. Unbelievable.
thats right. i dont think a lot of you have played the game very seriously. if the ball is in your hand and you are thinking about efficiencies, you will not do well.
ah i see what the debate here is. it's not that these current stars and their reasons for load management are not valid. what is the root of these arguments is stuff like when we start comparing these guys doing load management, to previous era guys who didnt do that, like kobe. so now, the stat heads are going to throw efficiency numbers around and use these to do the debates around "who is better".
So your takeaway is that people are thinking: "I want load management to catch on so Zion Williamson will have a highly efficient career and 15 years from now I can go on Lakerground and use that to argue that he's better than Tim Duncan, because that's super super super important to me."
Your mind goes down weird corridors, Superboy
Guy literally said, "Real basketball doesn't give a flying F about efficiency."
That is a real quote. Unbelievable.
thats right. i dont think a lot of you have played the game very seriously. if the ball is in your hand and you are thinking about efficiencies, you will not do well.
I apologize that I made the mistake of talking about individual posters rather than the topic of the thread, the science of load management.
nothing wrong with the science of load management.
the only thing "wrong" with it is comparing the players today with those of yesterday. there are going to be all these reasons why players today are better, due to better stats or whatever quantitative thing people think is better.
so let's assume that we are not comparing to guys in the past. which is ridiculous, because thats all we do here...
just standalone...nothing wrong with load management. but this term "load management" is a highly politicized term. what does this mean? the "science" of it, the way is spoken of in the media and fans community (NOT actual scientists behind the scenes, or academic articles) is really wacky. there is this idea that a player has a certain number of good minutes in his nba life. or a certain number of shot attempts etc. like some total, that when exceeded, is going to be physically harmful to the player. this is nonsense, there is no such thing. but this is how it is talked about.
but whats really behind the whole load management movement are these things:
--much more money players are making
--devastating injuries of late, to superstars no less
--the concept of parity being not realized due to recent wave of superteams
the injuries are not likely due to what is happening on the court during nba games. those 35 minutes or 40 minutes is not at all what is doing anything regarding physical injuries to players. much more likely that the rest of their behind the scenes training and practice is far more critical to analyzing these injuries. but again, its not really about that. so thats why i say its highly politicized.
fans here and around the net will talk about these minutes. theyll argue about the number of minutes they should or shouldnt play. it doesnt matter. what are they doing during practice? it could very well be that the players are obsessed with having nice big, good looking muscles, and maybe that is not the optimal way to be as an nba player. it might be more healthy to be skinnier or have stronger legs instead of the skinny normal nba legs. etc. the nfl is much better at this than the nba, probably because their muscles dont show so much on tv due to uniforms and padding. nba players would be beter served doing training that running backs do rather than whatever they are doing.
load management is a thing kawhi used to get from spurs to toronto to ring and to LA. it was a politcal tool. just like all the nonsense lbj does to get what he wants.
these players are most likely not training properly. they might be using too much "data" tech and optimization, and the results might appear to be good, but in the long run, it may turn out to not be great. again, these injuries recently are a red flag to me. this is not due to nba minutes. this is due to training or other things. there very well may be some counter intuitive ideas here that are not being addressed.
HOWEVER, instead of this discussion...its going to be about limiting playing minutes. and that normally has other things going on. take us last year....did lbj have a groin injury? or were we tanking to get a high pick? thats what load management is really about.
the only thing "wrong" with it is comparing the players today with those of yesterday. there are going to be all these reasons why players today are better, due to better stats or whatever quantitative thing people think is better.
I don't see this as a load management issue. People have always compared players across generations. They were doing it before we were born, and will be doing it long after we have both shuffled off this mortal coil. That's just part of the fun some people get from sports.
SuperboyReformed wrote:
the "science" of it, the way is spoken of in the media and fans community (NOT actual scientists behind the scenes, or academic articles) is really wacky. there is this idea that a player has a certain number of good minutes in his nba life. or a certain number of shot attempts etc. like some total, that when exceeded, is going to be physically harmful to the player. this is nonsense, there is no such thing. but this is how it is talked about.
The concept is pretty simple: At a certain point, a human body encounters more physical stress than it is able to handle, and reducing stress will improve performance and reduce the chance of injury. The concept seems pretty logical to me; the specifics are very difficult. The science of load management is in its infancy and it will take many years before we know much about it.
SuperboyReformed wrote:
these players are most likely not training properly. they might be using too much "data" tech and optimization, and the results might appear to be good, but in the long run, it may turn out to not be great.
You officially lost me here. You're just making some dubious sweeping generalizations that aren't based on any evidence, as far as I can make out.
if i were to spout numbers here like you all want, it would be no more based on evidence than what i am saying. just because numbers are thrown in doesnt make it based on evidence.
ur treating this discussion like a courtroom.
i am saying load management is a term that is bad due to its vague nature, and people are throwing the word around a lot without any clue about what is going on about it. to assume load management is ONLY about the science of how many minutes a player should play in a game is...just not accurate.
just like when they were throwing around "parity" from mid 90s to 2011. That would appear to mean how to give all teams a fair chance of winning a ring. when really what it meant was, the lakers are winning too much, we would like some other teams winning. and all that turned into was lebron and warriors winning everything instead of the lakers.
this is the same kind of term and same kind of situation.
one of the great examples people bring up regarding load management is the kobe injury and what led to it...MDA, the minutes, etc. and the narrative goes...kobe played too many minutes and exceeded a certain threshold and that led to his injury. and furthermore, if kobe had played like 5-7 minutes per game less, it would have been better. this is an insane idea to me. this load management is full of narratives like this, they are nonsense.
also reminds of people calling bynum's body as "fragile" when all his devastating injuries were freak physical accidents. many stories like this regarding players who have had injuries. to me it feels like people are thinking about these things the way a video game would present. a progress showing when the player will get tired. programmed injuries when certain events happen. real game is not like that. that kobe injury could have been more related to what dahntay jones did to kobe a few games earlier, or some of those earlier incidents with hard fouls during that warriors game, much more so than the number of minutes he was playing.
you continue to accuse me of certain things like sweeping generalizations whatever. im not going to win any points on the internet with this stuff. but its likely i am far more adept at this discussion than you are picturing.
if i were to spout numbers here like you all want, it would be no more based on evidence than what i am saying. just because numbers are thrown in doesnt make it based on evidence.
ur treating this discussion like a courtroom.
i am saying load management is a term that is bad due to its vague nature, and people are throwing the word around a lot without any clue about what is going on about it. to assume load management is ONLY about the science of how many minutes a player should play in a game is...just not accurate.
just like when they were throwing around "parity" from mid 90s to 2011. That would appear to mean how to give all teams a fair chance of winning a ring. when really what it meant was, the lakers are winning too much, we would like some other teams winning. and all that turned into was lebron and warriors winning everything instead of the lakers.
this is the same kind of term and same kind of situation.
one of the great examples people bring up regarding load management is the kobe injury and what led to it...MDA, the minutes, etc. and the narrative goes...kobe played too many minutes and exceeded a certain threshold and that led to his injury. and furthermore, if kobe had played like 5-7 minutes per game less, it would have been better. this is an insane idea to me. this load management is full of narratives like this, they are nonsense.
also reminds of people calling bynum's body as "fragile" when all his devastating injuries were freak physical accidents. many stories like this regarding players who have had injuries. to me it feels like people are thinking about these things the way a video game would present. a progress showing when the player will get tired. programmed injuries when certain events happen. real game is not like that. that kobe injury could have been more related to what dahntay jones did to kobe a few games earlier, or some of those earlier incidents with hard fouls during that warriors game, much more so than the number of minutes he was playing.
you continue to accuse me of certain things like sweeping generalizations whatever. im not going to win any points on the internet with this stuff. but its likely i am far more adept at this discussion than you are picturing.
if i were to spout numbers here like you all want, it would be no more based on evidence than what i am saying. just because numbers are thrown in doesnt make it based on evidence.
ur treating this discussion like a courtroom.
i am saying load management is a term that is bad due to its vague nature, and people are throwing the word around a lot without any clue about what is going on about it. to assume load management is ONLY about the science of how many minutes a player should play in a game is...just not accurate.
just like when they were throwing around "parity" from mid 90s to 2011. That would appear to mean how to give all teams a fair chance of winning a ring. when really what it meant was, the lakers are winning too much, we would like some other teams winning. and all that turned into was lebron and warriors winning everything instead of the lakers.
this is the same kind of term and same kind of situation.
one of the great examples people bring up regarding load management is the kobe injury and what led to it...MDA, the minutes, etc. and the narrative goes...kobe played too many minutes and exceeded a certain threshold and that led to his injury. and furthermore, if kobe had played like 5-7 minutes per game less, it would have been better. this is an insane idea to me. this load management is full of narratives like this, they are nonsense.
also reminds of people calling bynum's body as "fragile" when all his devastating injuries were freak physical accidents. many stories like this regarding players who have had injuries. to me it feels like people are thinking about these things the way a video game would present. a progress showing when the player will get tired. programmed injuries when certain events happen. real game is not like that. that kobe injury could have been more related to what dahntay jones did to kobe a few games earlier, or some of those earlier incidents with hard fouls during that warriors game, much more so than the number of minutes he was playing.
you continue to accuse me of certain things like sweeping generalizations whatever. im not going to win any points on the internet with this stuff. but its likely i am far more adept at this discussion than you are picturing.
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 35750 Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Ithaca, NY -≥≥≥≥≥Berkeley, CA
Posted: Sun Sep 29, 2019 2:41 pm Post subject:
If D’Antoni has load managed Kobe and Kobe had listened, he wouldn’t have torn his Achilles. _________________ Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:
If D’Antoni has load managed Kobe and Kobe had listened, he wouldn’t have torn his Achilles.
this is a massive assumption. and i know most are thinking like this and think what i am saying is "gibberish". kd just tore his achilles after not even playing for a long time. so is it playing a lot, or not playing? oh but that one is explained because he hadnt healed yet.
these conclusions that are being assumed as the correct one...in this case that kobe got injured due to playing too many minutes (which is what most people think)...is not necessarily true, nor would anyone have any way of knowing based on what "evidence" has been publicly revealed lol.
to me, that game and a few games before...kobe was racking up injuries to his legs. the dahntay jones incident, and there were lik 2-3 very bad moments in that same warrior game. all those could have weakened his ligaments/tendons far more significantly than any minutes of regular playing that was racking up, which is the story everyone thinks.
gibberish of course! BAH!! can you believe this idiot?!?! show me the evidence! but science 100% says its the minutes! do you dare battle against SCIENCE!!??
If D’Antoni has load managed Kobe and Kobe had listened, he wouldn’t have torn his Achilles.
There's no way to know that.
Load management doesn't guarantee an outcome. It simply improves the chances of a desired outcome.
again, im not necessarily convinced the nba game minutes are the thing to focus on and ignore all the hours spent in training and practice. there is something very disingenuous about this load management topic.
If D’Antoni has load managed Kobe and Kobe had listened, he wouldn’t have torn his Achilles.
There's no way to know that.
Load management doesn't guarantee an outcome. It simply improves the chances of a desired outcome.
again, im not necessarily convinced the nba game minutes are the thing to focus on and ignore all the hours spent in training and practice. there is something very disingenuous about this load management topic.
Load management is actually fascinating if you get into beyond the superficial level that fans tend to discuss it at (no offense).
The things you mention aren't ignored by the people actually doing the real work. For example, load management examines how the body is stressed differently during actual games than in practice. It's not so simplistic as "an NBA player only has so many shots in him" -- not even close.
Joined: 07 May 2014 Posts: 13811 Location: Boulder ;)
Posted: Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:51 am Post subject:
Quote:
BRYANT: I've played with IVs before, during and after games. I've played with a broken hand, a sprained ankle, a torn shoulder, a fractured tooth, a severed lip, and a knee the size of a softball. I don't miss 15 games because of a toe injury that everybody knows wasn't that serious in the first place.
BRYANT: I've played with IVs before, during and after games. I've played with a broken hand, a sprained ankle, a torn shoulder, a fractured tooth, a severed lip, and a knee the size of a softball. I don't miss 15 games because of a toe injury that everybody knows wasn't that serious in the first place.
2003^^ on load management
On the other hand, Kobe missed about 15 or more games in 40% of his seasons, and his career was effectively over at age 34.
It's the kind of macho philosophy that a lot of people like. But it wouldn't shock me if 20 years from now it's the kind of quote people bring up to show how clueless we were in the past, along the lines of "bacon, hashbrowns and eggs is a hearty, healthy breakfast."
That's not a criticism of Kobe. He's an athlete, not a scientist or doctor, so I don't expect him to think like a scientist or doctor.
BRYANT: I've played with IVs before, during and after games. I've played with a broken hand, a sprained ankle, a torn shoulder, a fractured tooth, a severed lip, and a knee the size of a softball. I don't miss 15 games because of a toe injury that everybody knows wasn't that serious in the first place.
2003^^ on load management
On the other hand, Kobe missed about 15 or more games in 40% of his seasons, and his career was effectively over at age 34.
It's the kind of macho philosophy that a lot of people like. But it wouldn't shock me if 20 years from now it's the kind of quote people bring up to show how clueless we were in the past, along the lines of "bacon, hashbrowns and eggs is a hearty, healthy breakfast."
That's not a criticism of Kobe. He's an athlete, not a scientist or doctor, so I don't expect him to think like a scientist or doctor.
i dont know what kind of smack you are talking, but id point the finger to the refs and nba who let kobe get hit and hit and hit and hit constantly, more so than some faulty macho philosophy. lol. geezus.
BRYANT: I've played with IVs before, during and after games. I've played with a broken hand, a sprained ankle, a torn shoulder, a fractured tooth, a severed lip, and a knee the size of a softball. I don't miss 15 games because of a toe injury that everybody knows wasn't that serious in the first place.
2003^^ on load management
On the other hand, Kobe missed about 15 or more games in 40% of his seasons, and his career was effectively over at age 34.
It's the kind of macho philosophy that a lot of people like. But it wouldn't shock me if 20 years from now it's the kind of quote people bring up to show how clueless we were in the past, along the lines of "bacon, hashbrowns and eggs is a hearty, healthy breakfast."
That's not a criticism of Kobe. He's an athlete, not a scientist or doctor, so I don't expect him to think like a scientist or doctor.
i dont know what kind of smack you are talking, but id point the finger to the refs and nba who let kobe get hit and hit and hit and hit constantly, more so than some faulty macho philosophy. lol. geezus.
And that, children, is an example of a non-sequitur.
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