by Andrew on Sat Apr 01, 2017 9:57 pm
Everything else aside, I guess it's the choice of games to rest players that puzzles me the most, at least from a competitive point of view. I mean, we're talking some big match-ups between top teams, where both teams have ended up resting their players. You'd think that teams would want to play those big games to feel each other out, to compete and test themselves against the squads they're likely to be facing in the postseason. I realise that's veering into "pride over practicality" territory, and nostalgia-fuelled grumbling of "yesteryear's players would want to compete" rhetoric, but there are drawbacks to letting those games slip because your best players are out.
After all, those games can and do have postseason implications. Those wins and losses add up, and form tiebreakers, which in turn determine seeding and home court advantage. Facing off a few times in the regular season isn't just an opportunity to work out gameplans and perhaps even get a psychological edge on an opponent. Picking up those big victories in key match-ups can be quite advantageous come the Playoffs, so you'd think those would be the games not to rest players.
Look, we can either praise old school players for priding themselves in playing every game, or call it an outdated and self-destructive mentality. We can call today's players soft, or suggest that it's a wise strategy that comes from decades of studying the strain that athletes put on their bodies. We can say "tough luck" to the fans who feel ripped off, or we can acknowledge that it's not a good look for a spectator sport, where fan interest ultimately makes players and teams a lot of money. We can discuss ideas like trying to rest players at home where the team plays 41 times a year, and players making it up to fans with additional autograph sessions, as Jeff Van Gundy suggested.
The bottom line is that there are going to be times when players absolutely need to sit, and other times when it would simply be a good idea for them to rest up. I think we can all understand and appreciate that. However, there are obviously optimal times to do that, and I wouldn't think that a big game that has potential postseason ramifications is an ideal choice. You'd think teams would pick more of the games that are winnable even with a depleted roster, against teams who aren't in contention for the Playoffs. That way, they're not gambling away crucial wins and potential tiebreakers, while looking like a D-League team on national television. As it stands, it looks like the Spurs have blown their chance for the top seed in the West, while the Cavs are now in a battle with the Celtics for home court advantage throughout the East. If that proves to be their undoing, will that rest have accomplished its goal?
Beyond fan disappointment, beyond old school mentalities, beyond questions of toughness and wise player management, I have to wonder why teams choose to rest players for what could be really important games down the line. If teams are going to rest players, you'd think they'd choose ones that aren't as potentially crucial. To choose to rest players for those big match-ups seems to be a way of thumbing their nose at the league and it's scheduling, but when they give away home court advantage, its more a case of cutting off their own nose to spite their face.