NBA - Main

29 readers

1 users here now

Game analysis, highlights and everything else that is happening in the NBA.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

communick@nba.space

rglullis

Would you rather an 82 game season, or a 41 game season where all players are invincible? (alien.top)

submitted 2 years ago by BringBackFatMac@alien.top to c/nba@nba.space

17 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

top 17 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] antipistonsandsixers@alien.top 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

[–] mill_about_smartly@alien.top 1 points 2 years ago

This man ownerships

[–] AdorableBackground83@alien.top 1 points 2 years 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.

[–] OneOverTwoEqualsZero@alien.top 1 points 2 years ago

If they’re still healthy for the Playoffs, definitely invincible. Much more exciting and no asterisks that way.

[–] yungtoni@alien.top 1 points 2 years 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.

[–] LerrryBerrrd@alien.top 1 points 2 years ago

41 is too low but if they were invincible i would take that over what we have now

[–] EGarrett@alien.top 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

[–] sus_menik@alien.top 1 points 2 years ago

I'm not convinced that less games leads to significantly longer longevity.

[–] Ok_Assumption5734@alien.top 1 points 2 years 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.

[–] HazelKittenDude@alien.top 1 points 2 years 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.

[–] dbgager@alien.top 1 points 2 years ago

SInce it a fantasy. Why discuss it. Human beings get hurt.

[–] Millionaire007@alien.top 1 points 2 years ago

[–] SwampFlowers@alien.top 1 points 2 years ago

An invincible D. Rose would’ve given the Bulls a very different past decade, so that.

[–] seloun@alien.top 1 points 2 years ago

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

[–] wrongerontheinternet@alien.top 1 points 2 years 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.

[–] SportyNewsBear@alien.top 1 points 2 years 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.top 1 points 2 years 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.