A Deep Nuanced Discussion About the NBA 65 Game Rule | Tyrese Haliburton and JJ Redick
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 02. 2024
- We are psyched to have Tyrese Haliburton, IN PERSON, for the first time ever on the Old Man and The Three. We talk about so much including the Giannis ball, the 65 game rule, The Indiana Pacers trading for Pascal Siakam and more. In this teaser clip, Tyrese and JJ go deep on the 65 game rule and why Tyrese called it "BS."
Subscribe to The Old Man and The Three podcast w/ JJ Redick (ESPN / First Take) and Tommy Alter CZcams channel today for more NBA analysis, player interviews and highlights.
#nba #tyresehaliburton #indianapacers - Sport
![[Vowel]물고기는 물에서 살아야 해🐟🤣Fish have to live in the water #funny](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3G9MH063Cx4/mqdefault.jpg)
For those commenting w/o watching, we talk at length about the fact that the NBA had a load management problem. No question. In this vid, we brainstorm how the 65 game rule can be fixed so players don't rush back from legitimate injuries due to the steep incentives in place. How can we honor the fan and protect the player. Curious what you all think. Full episode drops tomorrow. Peace!
Stop worrying about individual accolades in a team sport. That's what I say. If you can , you can, hey, go for it! But if you get injured, then just focus on recovering, think about the bigger picture, winning a championship. Peace
Again it just seems like you guys are extremely out of touch. Most professions in America or really any country for that matter would fire you if you missed 20% of the days you were meant to work, regardless of being injured or not. For you to say ask “how do we fix this rule?” As if you guys didn’t bring this upon yourselves is hilarious imo. Even if a player misses incentives due to injury, they’re still going to to be in the top 1% of earners in the world. But that’s just how I see it. peace!
@@memoirsofalegend5472 they tie those accolades to money in a very specific way. all we're suggesting is fixing the way it's tied to contracts. Double peace.
@@JJRedicklove your content and your opinion in a lot of different topics but on this one I think I’m on the other side. Imagine getting paid extra 50 millions dollars just to play an extra 15 games. There’s no other employer in the world making that kind of money as an incentive. If you’re not producing you’re just not winning, that’s the contract and that’s how it works and that’s how it should be. He’s already making nearly 50 million dollars a year anyway.
Don’t really wanna hear the crying… the best ability is availability and that’s something that you gotta prioritize simple as. You can wipe your tears with your millions of dollars Tyrese
No fan is upset about this rule… quite the opposite actually.
Just the money hungry players
@@kkrr3677league ***
I am, it's a terrible idea. They're trying to cure a symptom instead of the disease
I don't see it as much greed as it is unprofessional. If you can't compete for mental or physical reasons to a professional level then you're not professional
what? injuries are a physical reason smh what are you on about?@@ItsJADA
There have been 4 NBA MVPs in NBA HISTORY that have played less than 65 games (2 were lockout shortened seasons and one is 1977). Availability has always been apart of the decision they just made it official now.
And the fourth one was covid season. Really just one 1977
I think you guys are missing the point. It's not just MVP it's all NBA teams as well. Players contracts are literally tied into those selections . There shouldn't be a penalty for legit injured players. Like Embid . He shouldn't be losing out 40 million because due to legit injury he played 64 instead of 65.
@@blinkonce29 and you’re missing the original point which is the 65 game rule does not impose a new penalty, it just codifies a penalty that was already there. If Embiid is playing great and misses 20 games with an injury then history indicates he wasn’t going to get the MVP (or whatever award) regardless
@@blinkonce29 it’s the same for those awards too man; do a quick google I can’t give you all your info. But the average all nba player and basically ALL award winners, historically, average more than 65 games a year. Again they just made it official and people like to have something to complain about.
so those 4 ones shouldn't have gotten the MVP?
As a fan the 65 game rule is amazing. No more shitty "load management" sitting out.
The problem is it isn't just punishing people for load management. It's punishing people like Tyrese who have a real injury that takes like 15-20 games to heal.
@@ObamaTheHedgehog That's a consequence of his colleagues abusing the rule for years. Get mad at other players in the league for taking advantage of good will instead of getting mad at the rule
How is it punishing them? Don't go back if you are injured, mvp title doesn't matter if you break your leg for it. They are getting enough money as it is. @@ObamaTheHedgehog
They can still load management all they want but now there are real consequences for once once they go past 17 games
I actually like watching role players get time in the starting lineup. But understand fans being upset with the guys who abused the load management.
I agree it sucks for players that they might miss money because of an injury - but you can't be winning awards playing less than 65 games. Fans don't want that, this year has been better, and we appreciate it. Zach Lowe said it best - the 65 game rules shouldn't be included for third team all NBA. Everything else should. 82 games of Fred Van Vleet creates more wins for a team than 41 games of Steph Curry. Therefor FVV would be more valuable to winning. However, Curry is the better player per game, and maybe he makes third all team then.
Real easy solution for this…stop putting 53 MILLION DOLLAR INCENTIVES FOR ALL NBA AWARDS.
If I missed 2 weeks of work, all the time, I'm not getting no promotion and probably fired. These dudes are pussies and it's really hard to love the NBA and see all the superstars are divas. What is this, the WNBA?
The rule simply shouldn’t apply to awards that effect a players money, money they earned n strived their whole life for.
@@calebstevens9446 I think it should to be honest. If they are players that constantly get injured, it's money for the owners to keep for having an injury riddled player. I know it sounds harsh but man, these dudes get hundreds of millions of dollars to miss half of every season
@@757Bricksquadso you think the owners should be earning more & players earning less?
Glad you guys discuss alternatives that KEEP the 65-game rule, but also fix the misaligned incentives - Hali's probably the highest profile player that's feeling the pressure of so much monetary value against his health and career. He's also more nuanced about his criticism about the rule, he clearly wants to play and the rule was meant to punish stars and orgs from resting players so much. The rule wasn't meant to punish injuries and rush players into risking their bodies more.
thanks for watching
your the goat@@JJRedick
Oh no, he's only going to make 190 million dollars iso 240, poor soul
@@maartenvz that's $50 million
@@maartenvz why don't I take a quarter of your salary pre-tax and see if you think it's fair? only bitter, envious people can't empathize with people more fortunate than themselves
65 game rule is awesome!
Agreed! No fixing needed! Only thing I want changed in the NBA are the Guaranteed Contracts! They should only get paid if they play... and if you are injured you should get a % of the contract! Wish I could go to work 65-80% of the time and take 100% of the pay!
agreed. anyone playing less than 80% of the season likely isn't winning MVP anyway. part of bringing value is being available
@@kohta20 I agree with your stance in theory the issue is they are in the small percentage of the population that are talented enough to play in the league. I think we gotta stop comparing a regular job to a job like this, the league and owners giving the superstar that guarantee makes sense.
players train harder when they re hurt to come back
@@_WeDontKnow_ don't disagree. we're talking more about tying someone's eligibility for the super-max to a single season of basketball. seems like there could be a better way.
The 65 game rule is good. If players want the awards and bonuses all they have to do it play 80% of the games. If they get injured that sucks, but that’s just the way it is. The rule is working, players are playing way more this year and are getting injured at the same rate as last year
The issue is there going to force alot of players that are injured to play through them so they can get 1st and 2nd team even mvp considerations... because of how much more money you'll make when you get those accolades... which will result in the possibility of reaggravating a serious injury or even shortening a few careers
@@ThatBoyPoppa.the majority of players are not considered for anything, and they have 15 players a team so it’s fine if people get injured for real
@@MrSeanMDolanThis is a terrible take. You say "15 players a team so it's fine" like there isn't a gigantic skill gap between players 1-2 and players 14-15 on a roster. If players 1-2 get seriously injured and play less, players 14-15 aren't going to replace their contributions. Hell, players 10-15 on most teams couldn't replace just one of players 1-2. The biggest impact would happen in the playoffs, which is exactly the worst time, for EVERYONE who cares about the NBA, for stars to be injured.
@@Scrimshaw_DuBois42 atleast someone gets it cus ole boy smokin some strong wit that response
It’s not fine when the rule is made for your stars and superstars. If this will cause then to have shorter careers it should be looked into. If you play all your games for 3 years and get injured in your 4th it’s bs that you lose out on that money.
Am I the only one that notice his voice change from start of the video to 15 seconds in??? That was super trippy
The fact that no one played 70 games is the reason they made the rule for 65 games, Availability is a thing
Exactly. That’s the whole reason why the rule is needed.
Hey, put some respect on Jayson Tatum's name. He's played 74 and 76 the last two seasons.
John Stockton played an elite level of basketball as a guard for 19 seasons. In 17 out of 19 seasons he played a full 82 games. He played in 1504 games, and missed 22 games his entire career. After he broke his leg he played 33 days later in the Olympics vs Spain.
None of his time on court playing for his team or even the fans who contributed to the meager amount of money he made was incentivized by super max or possibility of losing 50 million dollars. The term load management didn’t exist and took on a different role back then. Load management meant the opposing team watched the film and tried to figure out how to keep him from getting 20 assists that night even though he lost his leg in a tractor accident on the way to the game and had to hop on one leg until they reattached it at halftime.
Karl Malone missed 32 game in 18 seasons.
Don’t come at me with how many rings they got to show for it. No MJ they get at least 2.
Come at me with how happy their fans were to never see them sit out a game. You were the lucky one if you showed up to a game and didn’t see either of them play that night because it never happened.
Players bodies and the ability to tolerate pain haven’t changed that much in 20 years. Their mindsets, dedication to fans and the game, have.
@@whenthemaskfalls8591Tatum is such an iron man it scares me as a Celtics fan
Jayson Tatum*
As a fan that travels every year to watch games from England this is a huge plus for me, I usually have to try and pick a week when a team has 3 home games so, injury permitting, to have a better chance of seeing the players I want to see play means a lot
Even for people who live in or around the team's city it's a problem. Tickets, parking, concessions, and everything can be crazy expensive. For most people it's a pretty special occasion getting to go to an NBA game.
In the Tour de France, if you get a puncture or get injured you lose the time. In a running race if you pull up with an injury you get a DNF. In F1 they don't only consider your fastest few laps if something happens to you. Injuries happen in every sport. It's unfortunate, but it's a part of being a professional athlete that you take a risk with your body. And the ones who are managing to play 65+ games are showing huge amounts of talent/strength/conditioning to be playing at such a high level day in and day out and deserve to have that considered. The rule makes sense because the best ability is availability.
The difference is that in the examples you mention, salary isn’t arbitrarily tied to not getting a puncture or not getting injured, whereas in the NBA, it is.
There are definitely bonuses tied to how well you do in every sport. Which would include the effects of punctures, injuries etc. Also these guys are being paid more than enough
These guys are arguing the difference between 40 and 50 million like it makes a qualititative difference in your life. I get it might be a lot of money but come on dude. Your standards of living aren't going to change with that - everything you could have wanted you could already do at 40 million. It really is a case of them acting like we are going to sympathize with obscene amounts of money becoming more obscene even though you don't show up to your job 80 percent of the time. Or roughly 15 percent less than most jobs require.
JJ, I thought this was a much easier interview than Lukas. Some players will have their "defense up" when doing interviews even if it's a former players pod. Breaking down someone's defense during an interview is a learnt skill. You're solid I like u def.
Tyrese is more transparent and honest than most every player in the NBA, this isn’t Redick “breaking down defenses” or whatever. This is how he talks.
Great point from Tommy 1:27
😂
😂😂😂
How about a system where consecutive games missed are considered less costly? Ie. if a player played 64 games but missed 18 consecutive with an injury, thats deemed less egregious than someone who sporadically sat 17 games, a road game here, a b2b there. What about if the maximum was 12 games "missed", but after the first missed, each sequential game only counted for 0.5 games. So a player couldnt take micro-rests more than 12 times, but if a player got hurt for 20 games straight, they could still compete for awards, albeit with less load management henceforth.
this could be great with implementation and then reworking to get the numbers closer to perfect, I like this direction
Interesting. Appreciate the thought.
This is a very intriguing idea with numbers tweaking
@@JJRedick Teams can still appeal to the NBA for an award recognition if let’s say Joel Embiid played 62 games versus Jokic who played 68. It’s tricky but availability overall is what an MVP does.
THAT is a GREAT idea
I do not think athletes’ pay should be affected by injury they sustain on the court. That’s outside of their control. However, i think availability should be a requirement when it comes to accolades like MVP voting personally.
Thats literally why NFL contract isnt fully guaranteed though. Like if you miss the games requirement to achieve the honors, you can bet on yourself and sign a one year deal and try again next year.
@@tigera6The difference between the NBA and the NFL is that NFL organizations have much more leverage than players do in negotiations than they do in the NBA. That is for a bunch of different reasons (roster size, supply/demand, etc). Comparing the NFL to the NBA is always a mistake. The NBA is the middle ground between MLB and the NFL. Much more like the former than the latter.
@@GutsBatman thats because the NFL Owners rule with a hard fist, players arent able to cross the line against them. NFL revenue is almost doubled of NBA but they have a hard cap of only 30-35% more, why? And average player in the NFL also making much less than NBA with shorter career as well. Those things along with the lack of guaratee contract should tell you how cut-throat the NFL Owners are. Everything you said about the difference between the leagues are just excuse. The NFL Owners has almost always win the negotiation because they know how to play hardball as well as dividing the player groups.
@@tigera6They definitely know how to play hardball. The NFL is the league the NBA would love to become because of the revenue gap. The primary difference organizationally for me is that the NBA loves to be politically progressive and be on the forefront of cultural issues and the NFL openly cares mostly about making a crazy pile of money.
This is absolutely the best take. The ONLY problem with the problem is it affects the rookie extension. Even easier, just get rid of the rule for the 2nd and 3rd teams. All of the arguments are just for the first teams and individual awards anyway. If someone is 1st team all nba caliber but didn't play 65, there usually only is 1 or at most 2 guys that is close enough to leapfrog them and they can still make the 3rd team and get the bag
We're lucky to be able to see frequent rule changes based on what fans want, then see the effects of the rules, have discussions that inform the rules that come after, and so on. Helps adapt the game to the times.
Thank you for having a conversation about this. At first I wasn’t understanding the issues the players and media were having with the rule because as a fan I want to see the players play. However I definitely understand this issue more after watching this and think that contracts weren’t necessarily taken into consideration when making these new rules
I respect where you and your guests like Tyrese are coming from. Understand Ty in his thoughts about thinking about himself. I mean he wants to financially solidify the rest of his life after basketball.
For the players saying that it affects their money, don’t blame the nba or the rule change, blame the players who were sitting out games they were fine to play which forced the nba to do something!
players don’t just decide to sit lol that’s a coaching and management decision. these guys want all the stats for themselves they can get.
@@TheCoz27kawhi exhibit a, I think he’s a top player but he’s one of those “don’t threaten me with a good time” he’ll take the time off lol
One player.
BEN SIMMONS.......
These players had know this was coming.
You reep what you sow!
@@TheCoz27 James Harden also try to be out of shape and played his way out of town.
@@kdot9613 he also started under pop lol he was born into the load management strategy from san antonio, which again was a coaching decision
No one denies that a rule was needed. The Derrick Rose rule should have stricter criteria imo. His situation was extremely rare. I dont like tying the all nba selection to contracts. Increase the monetary thresholds for normal contracts throughout and make the supermax criteria stricter without ties to all nba teams.
It's papering over the cracks. The reason why load management is a problem is because the organizations understand that there's too many games to have an adverse effect over benching your best players.
jj please have more minutes of the wide angle shot of all 3 of you (like the start of the video) it is such a good shot/angle and makes the pod a lot more engaging and raw
Tatum played 74. He was the only one that played over 70 on first team last year.
The supermax angle is impossible for any fan to empathize with or care about when these dudes are getting paid outrageous money anyway, and it costs insane money (for regular people) to go to a game and not see their favourite player
The players agreed to all of this in bargaining. I don't think the 65-game limit is the problem, I don't think they should have agreed to tie contracts to awards. Bargain that incentive structure out of the contract.
Or make an allowance for teams to be able to pay guys who miss the 65 due to real injury (missing a minimum of 10 games in a row). Don't punish the teams with caps for injured players, but don't punish the great players who lead individual awards and did it by playing 75-82 games.
Look at the stats on the new Jimmy high roller video where he just got into this. Players are playing significantly more than they have over the past few seasons. Clearly it’s having a positive effect on the league. Glad the league did this
When you’re lookin at stats playing less games can juice your stats. Easier to average 35 if you play 15 less games.
it is, it’s also easier to lose your averages during a bad stretch. cuts both ways
@@TheCoz27 What you say is true. But generally speaking, if you're putting up absurd stats, you want to play fewer games, not more. Is it easier to average 40 ppg over a over a month or an entire season? A handful of players did it over a month, but only Wilt did it over a year.
LeBron averaged more PPG in his age 37 and age 38 seasons than he did throughout most of his career. He could do that because he didn't have to play through nagging injuries or fatigue, he just sat out until his body was refreshed. Age 38 LeBron wasn't a better scorer than age 27 LeBron, but if you only looked at PPG you might arrive at that wrong conclusion. LeBron hasn't scored 2000 points in a season since his last Cavs season.
Love the rule. Great job with this one Adam Silver.
Tying player pay to end of season awards voted on by the media has always been stupid and an issue that needs to be fixed in the CBA. The 65 game rule just highlights the issue of linking player pay to media awards more so than before, but there were already stupid situations before. Boston would've lost Jaylen Brown if he hadn't made all NBA because they wouldn't have been able to offer him enough money to stay if he hadn't. I think the GM's and teams like the system because they are off the hook for deciding how much to pay players, since the system basically dictates how much players can and will be paid for them.
I think that what we are seeing right now is a momentary anomaly. Much like when the salary cap jumped in 2016 and allowed a supermax player to jump to a great team (KD to warriors) a lot of players got overvalued that summer because the teams had to spend the money anyway. Mosgov to the Lakers for instance. What we are seeing now are the result of contracts that have already been signed that are being affected by an new rule that wasn't in place when they were signed. Far be it for me to tell someone don't worry about that $65 million dollars you're going to forfeit due to a bogus rule. However, all contracts that are signed going forward from this point will restructure their incentives to take into account this new rule, and players won't be as directly affected and feel pressure to return to early from injury. I definitely feel for the players who are caught in this predicament right now, but it's momentary like i said.
I feel for Haliburton cuz he’s not intentionally sitting out games and hamstring injuries are notorious for bugging you and having the potential to get worse unless you recover fully to 100%. So like there’s no option you have to sit. But this rule is absolutely necessary, if you can’t play 65/82 games you aren’t available enough and therefore shouldn’t get $57mil extra next contract
Divorce pay eligibility from industry awards. Have different pay eligibility standards that are still determined externally to the parties going for max contracts. They don't have to use industry awards as incentives or triggers. Incentivize pay packages on team success rather than individual achievements and things would change for the better in the NBA in lots of ways.
Im ngl it feels like fans lose all sense of rational and logic when it comes this rule. No one wants the load management trend to continue. It just seems weirdly unethical that in an attempt to incentivize players to play more games you make awards the collateral when awards are whats is supposed to incentivize players to play in the first place.
This rule as it is now seems like an avenue for more Steph Curry/Derrick Rose like contracts where super stars get lowballed because of a technicality.
Awards is not why they play they are bonuses.
The incentive to play is their huge guaranteed salaries and supposed love of the game wtf are you talking about.
I feel like the players union should be involved in these sorts of decisions
@@joshuadonald9383right? Why the hell would a player be going out of their way to try to win DPOY for example? What incentives would they get for that?
That new wide camera angle is fireree
Would love to see Supermax's be signed, but the "Supermax Bonus" (the actual difference between a regular max and a supermax) gets paid out the following season only if the player meets the All-NBA/MVP/FMVP criteria. If they get it one year and don't get it the next, then the 3rd year salary removes the bonus payout every paycheck. If players are on the last year of their contract, they get a lumpsum bonus. Feels fair to me, and also allows for cooler trades and front office moves year-to-year since salaries are always going to be changing, allowing for different team comps.
Keep the 65 game rule and let every team identify one franchise player every 5 years to award the supermax too regardless of awards.
There's nuance here, and so many people refuse to acknowledge it. Requiring a number of games on the whole is the only way to counter the load management that comes from the organizations, but it's equally ridiculous to punish somebody who has an extremely serious injury. Needs to be some sort of exemption or nuance to that
They can get the Most Valuable Injured Player award
they get paid what more do players need.
There's so many players that did not make it into the league because of injury. Should these guys get compensatory payment? No, right? So why do we even talk about this?
How are they being punished? They still get paid their full salary.
@neymow2242 that's a really daft comparison.
i agree jj.. it should be more of a progressional graph rather than a 1 year regulatory
i didnt expect haliburton voice to sound like that
You mean players have to play the game to be eligible for awards? No way. Outrageous. It's almost like the NBA sees the players as employees that have to do their job.
I mean if Embiid played 65 games, he'd no doubt be the MVP, unless he fell off every game, but allowing him to still be the MVP with only like 50 games played for example, where Shai, Luka, Giannis and Jokic play like 70 games and playing amazing basketball, would seem like a robbery. The same would apply to them if they played less than 65 for whatever reason.
You’re right but the media already took those kinds of absences into account. Making it a hard cutoff is just posturing that stresses players out and can cause them to play through injury
@@hb-robo Well then those players should blame the superstars who took advantage of load management for years. Every other generation of the NBA frequently had superstars playing 82 games a year, and they were paid far less are had more back to backs and worse travel.
@@hb-roboif having to play 65 out of 82 stresses out players, that’s fine?
somebody is making All-NBA no matter what, there’s always been debate among the voters anyway
I think people need to stop assuming these guys are coming back from injury just because of the rule. Perhaps these players want to come back to help their teams wins? It's making NBA discourse even worse when we immediately talk about award ramifications and a players motives when they get injured instead of how it affects their actual team.
When you budget out an entire month's savings to go to one game and the star player is held out for load management... yeah, we feel slighted as fans.
I've always liked JJ as a player. Been watching him for years. I continue to really like him and his content.
I forgot if it was Windy or Lowe that said it, but keep the 65 game requirement for individual awards like MVP, DPOY, etc.
Keep the threshold for 1st and 2nd team all pro, but everyone that plays at least 1 reg season game is eligible for 3rd team AP.
65 is more than fine, and availability troughough a season was always a thing for awards and may be the best thing you can provide to your team if you are a star player.
If availability was always a thing that affected awards why make an arbitrary rule? Why not let the voters decide if a player who played 64 games deserves All NBA 3rd team?
It seems to me you are all just defending this rule because you hate load management, rather than because the rule has any logic to it.
To make it less random ?
And if you watch all the past awards very few could be concerned by that treshold (no counting lockdown season ect)
I don't really care about load management but it was growing every year a little more we can't deny that.
Also... Most of the players crying about that rule are concerned about the money they could "lose" (while already getting hella rich anyway) if I'm correct. And soon the new CBA will be signed, the fact that load management is no longer (or less) a subject will certainly play a role in the negotiations and help enrich them even more.
So yeah I really couldn't care less and that rules is perfectly fine imo, again if you were missing 1/5 of the season you were probably not in the race for the award anyway.
@marmeus it's not "random"
What are you even saying?
I think the motivation for implementing the rule is valid however tying a players’s money to it is a slippery slope. & that only compounds when more and more players become eligible for super maxes and bigger contracts. This affects Hali and Embiid for sure but does it really affect say Jaylen Brown or Deandre Ayton?
bro tommy funny asf "too indy?" ahahaha
Stop tying contract incentives to media voted awards.
I'm fine if the NBA wants to add an exception for guys who have contract incentives tied to accolades. In my mind they would still be ineligible for the actual awards, but their contract incentives would be met if it was clear injuries caused the player to miss the 65 game threshold. But the 65 game Rule needs to stay. If you miss 20% of the season for whatever reason you shouldn't win any awards.
Im a spurs fan and missed the chance to see wemby play in portland because i got tickets to the second game of a back to back in portland and the spurs announced they werent going to let him play back to backs the test of the season just hours before the game started. He had played the last 3 games and was doing fine. He dropped like 30 in the first game of the back to back. Now the spurs dont go back to portland until next season. Im still upset over it (clearly), but i dont think they should have large money incentives tied to awards that have game quotas. Guarantee money. If they go above that then renegotiate to show love. If their is an issue and incentives are nevessary then it should be for things they can control like their weight.
Big fan of new cams
The nba needed some kind of rule. Awards need to go to the most deserving players, and availability should be considered
But, I don’t want to see someone win just bc they played 65 games instead of 64. Neither of those players are more deserving than someone that played in 80 games imo
Easy way to fix this is to remove the awards as an incentive for max salary
agree some rule was def needed
lol
Easiest way for all of this is to put the focus season totals and not per game stats when it comes to awards, then its not about games played. Very clear in value provided through production.
But you can't judge a player based on stats only.
Why would you focus on stats at all?
@@Oly1y Has to be some objective metrics to measure without performance.
I think the answer is to change the incentive structure. You cant just leave it up to a team or make it completely arbitrary however if a player puts up an all-nba, or mvp caliber season but falls short of the 65 game mark either make and HM team (5 spots + up to 3 wildcards for all nba 5 for all defense 5 for all rookie) exclusively comprised of players who would have been chosen had they not fallen short of the mark possibly combine that with other statistical milestones consistent with that of a top teir nba talent. If a team wants to pay a player they could even put it to an owners vote you can even exclude owners in their division if u want to and if a team wants to pay super max money to a player who didn't hit any of these incentives due to injury suspension etc. Id be shocked if 99.9% of the time these deals would be approved and in the off chance something suspect was going on the owners could use this vote to petition the league w a 51% vote. JJ is right no one needs to be protecting billionaires from potentially "overpaying" one player a decade entirely of their own volition.
I do understand the argument in his case about the rookie super max extension. But the 65 game rule has a lot of good side effects in other areas. For example is Luka less picking up t's because he knows a suspension or two could take him out of the mvp race.
I think the problem is it’s a hard stop at 65. There has to be a sliding scale imo.
good idea. I'm sure the nba will better adjust it after this season
65 is an excellent number that gives you a lot of cushion. Historically if you played less you are unlikely to get those rewards anyways. Whatever sliding scale you are thinking about, each game close to that threshold is going to be worth millions, so it’s the same thing.
Someone else suggested 65 just for 1st team NBA. Then maybe 60 to qualify for 2nd and 50 for 3rd. Gives people a chance to show that an unavoidable injury doesn't erase everything you did.
I agree having the 4th year be so important for contract eligibility is a mistake, the 65 game minimum is great though it has actually caused players to play more games
I understand the point about seeing this rule as being unfair due to the effects it has financially and especially about how it is placed on one individual season. Injuries as horrible and my heart goes out to each/every player that is effected. However I think your salary/value should also be tied to how durable you are as a player. there is something to be said for being durable during the times it matters. I know it is odd to draw the line at the 4th year but at least you give the players in those contracts to grow for 3 years before. A line has to be drawn somewhere but that is every career and every job. If I am up for performance review during a six month period that if I took pto and was sick for 2 weeks that would be a major problem for my performance review. It may be unfair in specific cases and it may be something to add additional clauses to protect certain individual players but that would be a mutual decision between an organization and the individual at a midway point in the contract. So 2 years into their contract.
I think my take about this rule causing contractual issues isn't necessarily a side effect of the rule itself but exposing the bonkers contractual problems the NBA has. When you look at every other major sports league in the world, no one has a contract system like the NBA and that's not saying it's unique in a good way. We reached a breaking point with load management, I don't think we will reach a breaking point with how the money is handled and until it's fixed I think there will always be an underlying issue in the NBA because everything will always revolve around money.
Everyone in these comments so quick to comment without listening to the video first
i swear lol, a bunch of people just showing how dumb they really are...
They're putting as much thought into their comments as the people who made the 65 game rule
Ultimately, NBA awards need to be based out of 82 games. So for example
Mikal bridges has played 53/53 games, his stats are 22, 5, 4
Kyrie has played 32/53 games, his stats are 25, 5, 5.
Under normal circumstances, Kyrie would be all nba over bridges. But if we did it based on total games, these would be the new stat lines
Bridges - 22, 5, 4
Kyrie - 15, 3, 3
That way, guys like bridges who play the entire season get rewarded. And we have a better perception of what impact a player is actually having over the course of a season.
Think about it, if you play 62 games, that means you had zero impact on your team for 1/4 of the season. And I don’t think that gets penalized enough since the stats we look at are only based on the games that player played in
Interesting, but numbers alone don't necessarily equate to winning. Let's say player A played 55 games and we went 38-17 with him on the court. Would you rather have player B who played 82, but we're a .500 ball club?
I think the only REAL issue with the rule is that by legislating it into practice is that it makes players feel some degree of urgency to rush back if injured because of the financial implications since most of the end of season awards have incentives tied to them for most players. As has been pointed out by others there have only ever been 4 players prior to this who won MVP on less than 65 games played and 2 of them were from shortened seasons so not sure it is necessary to just have it as an openly said thing.
And I completely agree with Halliburton regarding his point that players have thought about themselves/friends, which we can see with the way a lot of older players pushed to change the over 35 rule, which became the over 36 rule, which is now the over 38 rule.
I really am a fan of this guy after the interview!
I'm actually more concerned with how the unintended consequences of the 65 game rule weren't foreseen. I don't know the exact procedures for how the rules are agreed upon in the NBA but in most cases there's often a policy presented, debated, and most importantly, amended with special provisions before implementation. The immediate backlash from the players lets me know that there was not enough consideration before it was agreed to. On both sides.
It’s bullshit
Players would have went against it no matter what
I think the 65 game rule makes more sense for MVP as the best ability is avaliability. However, for all NBA teams you are preventing players from making more money and financially benefitting of their good performance, which is unjust
How low should all nba go? Missing every 5th game makes perfect sense. Every 4th is too much
If you can't play 80% of the games you don't deserve a supermax 🤷.
The rule protects the fans from having to watch their trash GMs give guys who don't deserve the max. The players make enough money they'll be fine...
didnt he sign this contract knowing about the rule? I really do not know so if you know pls lmk. i would assume it was after since it was a clause in which case its a risk he took
the voice change at 0:54 lmao
I miss the older nba stars that used to play for the love of game regardless of Injury s/o Kobe
There has to be some way to implement an exemption of like 10-20 games IF THERE IS AN ACTUAL INJURY WHICH HAS BEEN CHECKED.
NBA knows everything these days, they can most definitely discern a REAL injury from someone who just fakes it to load manage.
If you get injured then it sucks but tough luck. There’s somebody else who showed up to work and showed out for those 10-20 games while you weren’t available.
Most players deal with some sort of an injury all the time.
The problem here is that players are willing to load manage to expand their window of opportunity for a couple years.
It just shows how some athletes care more about individual awards. The new rule probably was implemented because some players didn’t want to play even when healthy and were under contract.
Do players play for individual awards or for team goals?
Obviously both. It's tied to financial incentives in the tens of millions to get individual awards.
Pretty simple solution, yeah.
It's always been stupid to tie contracts to All-NBA, MVP, etc... They should just allow teams to sign 1-2 players to a supermax and leave it at that. Obviously, with the same requirements that incentivise a player to stay with their team
The 65-game rule is not going to recognize the best players, it is going to recognize the most durable players
Michael Jordan played 82/82 9 seasons
How would you know a player is the best unless they’re durable enough to prove it to you?
@@knicksfannn I agree, NBA players aren’t built like they used to
This rule is necessary not because of load management but because "points per game" actually means "points per game played". If a missed game meant 0 in all stats or they just counted season totals this problem would go away
Facts, Rondo once won an assist title and only played 38 games, less than half of the season 🤦🏾♂️
@jjredick Maybe tie the supermax to making certain rounds of the playoffs? Or playoff games can be added to the 65 games? If Embid comes back and plays less than 65 games in reg seaons and they win the chip, then he should be eligible.
Haliburton is not the person this rule was made for. Sadly he has to pay for it. Blame Kawhi, Ben, Kyrie, and others for this.
*blame their front office and coaching staff for sitting them
@@TheCoz27 absolutely not…
I think JJ is ultimately right. To put such weight on a player, and then not knowing how a season will play out can really mess up opportunities. Marks and commitment to team over a career makes the most sense ultimately.
It's also cool to see Tyresse want to play 82 if he can. Which I am sure is the shared mentality of most of the NBA stars
Talk is cheap my guy.
I think the 65 game rule is a positive move and there are already stats showing that it’s working with the top 15 players in the league playing in 41 more games at this stage compared to last season. Multiply those 41 games by how many fans in attendance that got their hard earned moneys worth for the ticket price on those nights and then you see the value in the rule. If a player can’t lace up 65 games then they shouldn’t be eligible for any awards in my opinion otherwise we are rewarding unavailability rather than incentivising players to play! The issue is allowing All NBA awards to dictate salaries in the first place, not the 65 game rule. Make All NBA the same as MVP in that it’s purely an accolade not a salary dictator then teams can choose to pay players what they deserve based on performance AND availability, not based on the accolades they achieve that are subjectively voted for by sports writers and broadcasters
John Stockton played an elite level of basketball as a guard for 19 seasons. In 17 out of 19 seasons he played a full 82 games. He played in 1504 games, and missed 22 games his entire career. After he broke his leg he played 33 days later in the Olympics vs Spain.
None of his time on court playing for his team or even the fans who contributed to the meager amount of money he made was incentivized by super max or possibility of losing 50 million dollars. The term load management didn’t exist and took on a different role back then. Load management meant the opposing team watched the film and tried to figure out how to keep him from getting 20 assists that night even though he lost his leg in a tractor accident on the way to the game and had to hop on one leg until they reattached it at halftime.
Karl Malone missed 32 game in 18 seasons.
Don’t come at me with how many rings they got to show for it. No MJ they get at least 2.
Come at me with how happy their fans were to never see them sit out a game. You were the lucky one if you showed up to a game and didn’t see either of them play that night because it never happened.
Players bodies and the ability to tolerate pain haven’t changed that much in 20 years. Their mindsets, dedication to fans and the game, have.
It should be 50! 65 is too much. Some of them actually do get hurt and don’t sit out games out of laziness
60%? Yea…no
Missing 30 games and still making all NBA would be nasty work
Stop worrying about individual accolades in a team sport. That's what I say. If you can , you can, hey, go for it! But if you get injured, then just focus on recovering, think about the bigger picture, winning a championship.
@memoirsofalegend5472 They are worried about the accolades because it is going to cost them 50 million dollars.
I agree that the contract stuff tied to the rule is iffy and leads to some unfair situations but i personally love the rule in the context of awards and such, especially MVP, ROTY, and 6MOTY
I think they made this rule after Clippers load management for Kawhi.. it’s a pretty fair rule at the time but on the other hand.. a lot of players who were willing to play 82 games but got injured would get side effected. So maybe NBA can work on the details of the rule then we all happy with it.
it doesnt need any fixing, the rule is perfectly fine
not at all lmao did you not even watch the video?
@@AppreciateTheGame2200 yes at all. I don't care if Tyrese wanted MVP so bad he came off an injury early. he didn't have to do that. him, his kids, and his grandkids are all gonna eat fine, I don't care if it's a difference financially. anyone in the running for MVP has generational wealth already
anyone who can't play 70-80% of the season shouldn't win MVP. whether it's injuries or load management, part of bringing VALUE in the regular season is staying available. if one person plays less than 70-80% of the season, there's likely another player who has better availability who's playing at an MVP level
there's literally nothing wrong with the MVP rule. it's not an issue when a millionaire doesn't get a big bonus for playing less than 65 games. that's a good thing.
@@_WeDontKnow_ Seeing you're comment, it's very clear you didn't watch the video 😂
@@_WeDontKnow_it's not just MVP. It's All NBA teams, and whether you don't care or not, this is going to lead to players playing through injury and potentially hurting themselves in the process, so maybe you'll start caring then.
My favorite part of these comments are people pretending they work every minute they’re at their office at their job. You don’t, and that’s cool, but stop coping
I think they should make some type of points system. Missing a second game of a back to back, missing a stray game or two with the flu, etc. should count. If you miss maybe like 4-5+ games, each game after that game shouldn't count or should count for less "points." That means you're actually very hurt and shouldn't be risking your career. Nobody expects you to be out there at that point.
So for instance, there's 82 games. Teams average like 14 back-to-backs.
Let's say player A misses every back to back and 4 other games. He'd be at 64 games and rightfully ineligible.
Let's say player B only sits on maybe 4 back to back games but misses 14 straight games. He would also be at 64 games, but it seems like a much more reasonable 64 games played. If you miss like weeks of basketball, that shouldn't count against you if you're still close to 65 games by season's end.
I think it's a great rule and well-intentioned, but a guy like Halliburton this year seems to want to play he was genuinely injured. That's different than the way a Kawhi or Jimmy Butler have load managed over the years IMO.
I think the number of games is fine, but they probably should have an exception for players who have a medically proven injury for a certain number of games to be able to be on 3º team NBA. Also, JJ point on the contract year is very good, one year should not define a player's next contract. All NBA at any year should allow the super max for the next contract.
MORE advance health care/training
MORE skilled
MORE money
*LESSER games they want to play? WHAT!!* These entitled players are taking "the game" for granted, disrespecting "the game" itself.
If they can't or don't want to play 82 games as much as possible, if they want to be REWARDED while playing less than 65 games, maybe they should just retire and play in the park. Let other ballers with TENACITY to play in the NBA.
Fr thats why there will never be another kobe
injuries arent something you control - imainge your boss said you couldnt get a promotion because you injured your back and missed time off even though you worked ahrder than anyone else
@@subjectively_objective that's totally different bruh
Whats better? Superstars still being superstars in their late 30s with load management… or them declining at 30 and retiring at 33, like they did back in the day?
A
Nba players want to do everything except work huh?
Too much money...
The vid is six minutes old You didn’t even watch the video lmfaoo
injuries arent something you control
@@subjectively_objective then why do they load manage
NBA fans and headass takes like this. Name a more iconic duo.
I typically dont comment because youtube comments has become sensored, but i enjoy JJ & Tyrese, so here is my too sense. I agree with these comments and what the NBA did with 65 game rule, it became so bad, which is fans are pissed like you talked about in the video.
Middle ground will be found, but regardless of what you do like JJ said, always will be unintended consequences, and REAL injury always screws some people.
I want to mention 2 names, look at Kyrie Irving & Luka Doncic games played in a season, and ask yourself about the money situation.
"too sense" hahahaha
Zach Lowe asked a question that really changed my perspective on this, why set such a hard requirement on the games played when games played were ALREADY A CONSIDERATION for these major awards?
Because without the rule, you cant stop some idiot voters from putting a guy on an All-NBA team despite missing a chunk of game but has splendid average. Remember how players always call media and panel voters are idiots and doesnt know the game, maybe those players have a point?
So basically Halliburton admits hes only looking at it from his perspective as a player
Yeah, why wouldn't he? He also acknowledges why the rule was implemented and understands that the overall product is going to come first.
bruh smh
Bro, if I miss that much work I get fired. They still getting paid, which I’m cool with, but getting awards for missing work is crazy.
Lol this is a wild statement. If you get injured and lose your job for this, 99% places that is illegal. I live in an "at will" state (meaning no reason ever has to be given for termination) and if i were fired for being injured and unable to work there would be a very lucrative lawsuit in my future.
@@travisbeltztbQuestion is how would you prove that? The only thing in writing is you signing that “at will” contract, trust me I’ve signed at will contracts before out of desperation and I don’t like it but what grounds do you even have to sue? Once it’s in writing you’re already at a loss, might as well save your time and money then getting involved in a losing lawsuit, can’t be good for your work reputation either.
@@tarikwalters854 Though there are stipulations, FMLA is a federal law that gives you up to 12 weeks unpaid leave for family or medical issues before a business can terminate your employment. If you submit it properly and they violate that, it's illegal plain and simple. And that's just for family issues or an injury outside of work. If you are injured at work, it's a whole different scenario obviously. Also there is no contract in my state, it's just state law that all employment is at will.
Agree with JJ - why are contracts built on one year needing to be all nba - opposed to all nba and have 6 years to do it? Or whatever that rule is. They need to not pressure the player and push the bounds of what’s safe within 65 play game new rule. The contract rules around the Super Max is one of the issues. And Ty’s point that the PA is great but it’s easy to think big picture and lose sight of small cases that have dramatic effects to a few. The league has to do something about load management being overrun but it’s the start of the correction and perhaps an over correct if the supermax contracts are built this way.
12:50 I’m shocked JJ didn’t mention Tatum here who played 74 games
charles barkley is right on this, should've been 75. ya'll get paid handsomely for a reason. go to work
Idk if it’s fair to disqualify them from All NBA teams. Imagine you got a guy being clearly the best player for like 64 games and then they suffer a season-ending injury . Now they can’t even get All-NBA 3rd team?
“wElL, hE sHoUnDn’T hAvE gOtTeN iNjUrEd!”
exactly; injuries arent something you control - imagine your boss said you couldnt get a promotion because you injured your back and missed time off even though you worked harder than anyone else. The 65 game rule is stupid because it is not a real thing in a real workplace where people understand things happen.
What’s the point of him making the team if it’s a season ending injury LMAO
It's more unfair to include a guy who didn't play 20% of the season. These guys are competing against the top 1% of players in the league. Things like games played are going to make a huge difference because most likely the numbers are going to be very similar. There might be 2 or 3 guys in the league right now who are so much better than everyone else that they can miss 1/5th of the season and still be considered the best.
This issue has more to do w how contract bonuses are structured than requirements for awards.
They should tie bonus' to performance metrics and less emphasis on winning awards.
Tyrese HIMiburton aka Mr. Clutch 🔥