It seems to be broken down like this...
The Argument Against:
- Players back in the day didn't take games off unless they were really banged up, and generally took pride in playing as many games as possible; players today are soft and coddled.
- Right now, teams can announce scratches from the lineup very late in the proceedings, which is unfair to opponents and fans alike.
- As Jeff Van Gundy noted, to get tickets for certain games, fans often need to buy packages, in essence having to spend more money to see a marquee game where players sit out.
- Players these days have access to better treatment facilities compared to their predecessors, who as previously noted, still toughed it out regardless.
- Players who sit because they're allegedly banged up seemingly have miraculous recoveries when they play a night later; one night of rest couldn't possibly be enough to yield such a result, making the situation questionable.
- Players are getting a lot of money to play basketball, and don't give any of that money up when they rest. Few people in other vocations could take days off as casually as they do, or are not financially secure enough to do so.
The Argument For:
- Better treatment facilities and understanding of sports medicine favours rest; we know more than we used to about these things.
- Comparisons to older generations are based on nostalgia, "young people today" grumbling rhetoric, and "Old man yells at cloud" thinking.
- Today's game is faster/more physical than it used to be, with an increased risk of injury.
- Being a professional athlete isn't like other vocations, so any comparisons regarding workload or pay are difficult/unfair.
- Player health and well-being needs to be put ahead of fan desires, both in consideration of them as human beings, and as expensive investments by owners.
- It's a long NBA season, and the Playoffs are far more important anyway.
There's probably a couple more, but that's the gist of it.
For my part, I can see the benefit of rest, and look, if a player is actually really banged up or injured, then obviously he sits out. As Van Gundy said, there's a distinction between feeling disappointed that a player isn't able to play, and feeling ripped off because a player who is relatively healthy has chosen to take the night off. I find the claim that players are more injury prone today because the league is faster, more physical, or more athletic, somewhat dubious to say the least. It's true that we can fall victim to nostalgia and place the older generations on a pedestal, but they faced the same risks and without the advances in sports medicine that players today benefit from. The pride to play in as many games as possible, to compete from start to finish, is admirable. A lot of great players who were physical and athletic sat out very few games that weren't due to suspension or serious injury. The late scratches are at least bordering on being unsportsmanlike, and not quite on the level as far as the business/entertainment side of the sport is concerned.
Basically, I'd agree that there are times when rest is appropriate, but we're seeing it too much in marquee games that stars of the past would've prided themselves in playing, and it's going beyond resting the weary of legs of veterans who are getting up there in age, and have a lot of miles on the odometer. It's a bit on the nose when players are apparently too banged up to play, but a night later, they look fresh as a daisy, fresher than they should from just one night's rest in March. Given the expense of tickets and the fact fans often do have to buy packages in order to get tickets to certain marquee games, there are things that need to be addressed.
To Adam Silver's credit, it's something the league wants to address:
NBA commissioner Adam Silver has called the practice of teams resting marquee players "an extremely signifcant issue for our league" in a memo to league owners Monday obtained by ESPN.
In the memo, Silver informed teams that the issue will be a prime topic of discussion at the next NBA Board of Governors meeting April 6 in New York and warned of "signifcant penalties" for teams that don't abide by the league's standing rules for providing "notice to the league office, their opponent, and the media immediately upon a determination that a player will not participate in a game due to rest.
Silver also warns that teams will suffer "significant penalties" if they don't provide adequate notice when it's decided that a player will not play due to rest. There are league rules that govern when and how teams must notify the league office, their opponent and the media about such decisions.
On Monday, ESPN released a statement about the teams resting their star players during nationally televised games.
"As always, our aim is to serve NBA fans with the best matchups involving the league's top stars and we share the fans' disappointment. We understand this is a complex issue and we're working closely with the NBA to best address it going forward from a media partnership standpoint, " the statement said.
I think that's fair. I remember back in the day, if a player went on the inactive list, they had to miss at least five games. The thinking was that if you're so banged up that you can't dress for a game, you probably need more than a night off.
As you might expect, older players have been outspoken about the issue. Karl Malone, not known for taking nights off during his lengthy NBA career, opined "If you don't have at least 10 years experience, get your ass playing. It's not work, it's called playing. Besides, tell our underpaid service members and police and first responders to rest." This resulted in Kelly Dwyer writing an article that kind of missed the point, made excuses, and dismissed an opinion because he didn't like it. At least he didn't use the word "hater", I guess.
It also resulted in this somewhat disrespectful, ad hominem-fuelled post on Facebook:
Look, I'm not a fan of Karl Malone. He's done and said some pretty stupid and ridiculous things, including a couple that make him kind of a garbage human being. He also did choke in some big moments, and although he went to three NBA Finals, he didn't win it all. However, all of that is irrelevant to his point, making that a rather cheap shot and tired non-argument. Are we to assume that those words would automatically carry more weight if they were said by Shaq (four championships), MJ (six championships), or Bill Russell (eleven championships)? Malone is still a Hall of Fame player, who played 19 years in the NBA and seldom missed a game until his final year with the Lakers, when injury struck. He's more than qualified to talk about this.
And on that note, if the lack of a championship disqualifies Malone from commenting on the situation, or invalidates his opinion, then Kelly Dwyer's commentary, as well as the comments from people on the article saying he should "hush up" and whatnot, are even more out of line. After all, not only do us fans and Kelly Dwyer alike lack an NBA championship, we haven't even had an NBA career! Malone's accomplishments as a professional basketball player are still more than 99.9% of the population has achieved when it comes to the sport. If he should "hush up", then the rest of us definitely have to "zip our lips". Funny how a lot of people don't see the hypocrisy, though.