I thought Jeff Van Gundy brought up a great point in regards to load management the other day. It's specious reasoning to credit load management for the Raptors' championship when they weren't the only team practising it. Obviously only one team can win the championship, but if load management is the magical ingredient and the key to success, it doesn't explain why it didn't work for anyone else instead; either by yielding a championship, or allowing them to go further in the Playoffs.
The 76ers practised it with Joel Embiid, but it didn't allow them to topple the Raptors, even though they arguably had more talent. Of course, if not for a lucky bounce, the 76ers might have defeated the Raptors in the second round. But for the bounce of the ball on a handful of plays in Game 3 of the Conference Finals, the Bucks might've been up 3-0 and gone on to the Finals instead. If not for the Warriors' injuries, they might've been victorious; they put up a good fight regardless. Had any of these feasible scenarios come to pass, nobody would be hailing load management as the secret to winning it all, because the Raptors would be in the same position as every other team that practised it and didn't win the championship.
It's like that old episode of The Simpsons where Homer reasons that the new Bear Patrol is working because he's not seeing any bears (after a lone bear made a rare appearance in Springfield). Lisa demonstrates specious reasoning by claiming that - according to the same logic - a random rock on the ground keeps tigers away.
Load management is essentially the rock in this scenario, with winning the championship being keeping tigers away. To further the analogy, other teams had identical rocks on their front lawn, but the tigers came anyway, bringing into question how effective the rock actually was for the Raptors, or indeed, whether it had any impact at all. Dropping the metaphor, the fallacy here is that because the Raptors won the title and because they also practised load management, it's definitive proof that load management was a major factor or key strategy in their success; in other words,
post hoc ergo propter hoc, or "
after this, therefore because of this". By that reasoning, you could just as easily attribute their win to a pre-game ritual, or maybe Drake's enthusiastic support on the sidelines. It's something that happened and then they won.
Of course, another way to look at it is that even if it did help the Raptors, it's not for the reasons people think, or isn't applicable to other situations where the same strategy was employed (again, specious reasoning). Given that Kawhi Leonard has had some problems with injuries in recent years, keeping him out of certain games may have theoretically avoided re-injury, allowing him to be healthy and available during the Playoffs when the championship is more directly on the line. However, had he played those games and not been injured, the result could've feasibly been the same, as the worst case scenario wouldn't have presented itself. And, once again, it doesn't explain how other teams who practised load management didn't have the same success, if that is indeed the key ingredient. If the Raptors hadn't won the title, or Kawhi had played all 82 games and they'd still won, or if he'd suffered a serious injury in one of the 60 regular season games that he did play (since injuries often come down to misfortune), no one would be making implications that are a post hoc fallacy.
In short, it
may be a sound strategy for Kawhi specifically given his injury history, but it's hardly a guarantee for success, and could've easily been moot due to other factors that played a role in determining the outcome of last year's Playoffs. To say that it's an approach that all teams should definitely follow if they want to win is, to break out the term of the day once again, specious reasoning.
As far as the choice of games if teams are going to employ load management strategies, it's obviously not a good look when big names are sitting out marquee matchups. It makes those games far less of an attraction, and it also makes the players themselves look uninterested in the challenge. To use a video game analogy, it's like the levelled up players in NBA 2K online who avoid fellow high level players and instead challenge weaker squads they know they can beat up on because they're severely outmatched; it says something about you if you're actively avoiding tougher competition. You'd think stars would sit out the games that their teams are able to win more comfortably and make sure they're up for the games against stronger opponents where their talents are needed, and their mettle is tested.
And look, you can say that "Oh, it's unlikely that they'll meet in the Playoffs anyway", but there's no guarantees there. Standings and seedings change, favourites are upset by underdogs, and the results of a single series can drastically alter the bracket. There's value in squaring off against top competition at full strength so that you can devise strategies and test yourself against them, because you may well end up facing them in a seven game series and you want to be prepared. Also, regular season records determine tiebreakers and seeding, and thus homecourt advantage in the postseason. Winning the season series against a potential Playoff opponent, getting as high a seeding as possible to ensure homecourt advantage, and developing effective strategies, is all pre-planning and putting yourself in the best possible position when you're playing for all the marbles.
There are situations where resting a player is advisable and potentially beneficial, and sometimes the timing isn't going to be great. That's just the way it is. There is a risk to it though as far as future implications, and while it may be rewarding - potentially, in theory - that success can also easily be attributed to factors that aren't affected by load management. As Jeff Van Gundy said, it worked out fine for the Raptors last year, but we can't focus on the one team it worked for and ignore all the others that it didn't, and declare that it's the most important factor or strategy of all. It's not accounting for anomalies, very specific situations, and everything else that led to victory.
[Q] wrote:I would be pissed if I paid money to see my favorite player only for him to manage his load.
