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.

  • SportyNewsBearBEnglish
    1·
    11 months 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.

  • AdorableBackground83BEnglish
    1·
    11 months 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.

  • yungtoniBEnglish
    1·
    11 months 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.

  • EGarrettBEnglish
    1·
    11 months ago

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

  • HazelKittenDudeBEnglish
    1·
    11 months 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.