After the disappointing news of Steven Adams season-ending knee surgery, it got me thinking about how we would see less injuries if the season were made shorter, and players had more time to recover and rest.

So in this extreme hypothetical example, would you rather see a usual 82 game season, or a 41 game season spread over the same 6 months, where players are physically incapable of being injured? Less basketball, but potentially more games played by injury-prone players who usually sit out a large chunk of the season.

  • antipistonsandsixers@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I would take the invincible route and when it’s established that nothing hurts these players I yearly increase until they play 260.

  • AdorableBackground83@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    As controversial as this may sound I believe that less is more.

    Less games means every game has more ramifications added to it so load managing would not be a wise choice.

    Plus the NBA product is at its best when it’s main characters are playing so I’ll chose the latter.

  • yungtoni@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    bro if every player is guaranteed to be healthy i’ll take a 30 game season imagine every game being so important. that’s good basketball.

  • EGarrett@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Invincibility. Zion and Wemby knowing they can’t get injured would be terrifying to watch.

  • Ok_Assumption5734@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    NBA players are pussies. I say match the 162 that the MLB has, no signing new players once it starts. Whoever can still field a complete team by the end of the playoffs wins.

  • SportyNewsBear@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Explain to me again why 82-games is so much harder on players now than it used to be? I say shorten the playoffs, instead.

  • Jspeed35@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Injuries are part of the game, any sport. Can’t stay healthy? Then it’s unfortunate for you, your team, and fans. But it is what it is. Give me 82 games so I have something to watch.

  • HazelKittenDude@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    No, because we would have the same 2-3 superteams win all the time. drafts and trades wouldn’t matter anymoer b/c your superstars are invincible, so why would you need anyone else.

  • seloun@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    41 games. Then the nba will franchise every person on earth onto a team and make everyone invincible forever

  • wrongerontheinternet@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    41 game season would be better even if they weren’t literally invincible, it would be more exciting and there would be no need for back to backs etc. And basketball is really deterministic, it’s barely less deterministic than the NFL, there’s no need to play almost 5x more games.