Rest.

[nuraman00]

I think this is what I think about rest.

If a player asks for rest:

* Then you rest him.

If a player doesn't ask for rest, but the coach feels the need to do it:

* It shouldn't really be done with a young team.

* It can be done with an older team.

* It should be done based on data that the team has played X games in Y days, with certain travel being a factor too. This is the only way to do it. It should not matter whom the opponent is.

It should be done based on data that if a player has played these X games in Y days, then his performance will be severely degraded without rest. That player is going to have tired legs, and commit useless fouls on defense, and not have the stamina necessary. Therefore, regardless of the opponent, that player will be a negative.

* It should not be done based on looking at the opponent and trying to predict what chances there are to win the game, before the game is played.

I could be wrong, but I think this is how San Antonio does it. They seem to rest players regardless of if they're winning or losing, regardless of the caliber of the opponent. They rested players while on an 11 game winning streak before. They lost the game they rested, and the streak ended at 11.

Portland and Utah, don't seem to rest players.

* Once the playoffs start, there's 2 - 3 days off in between games anyways.

And in the 2nd and 3rd rounds, there is usually a 3 day break in between games. Especially in the conference finals, when they don't play the first Friday. And if one series is ahead, then the other one catches up.

 

[MHSL82]

It is their prerogative. If they want to use evidence or not or just don’t feel like playing, fine.

As a fan, I don’t like it because one, I like the 82 game season. I missed that guy and like to compare that. If a player only plays 79 games, I shall consider it but then I go on averages. I know that people don’t rest too many games, so it’s going to be close, but I don’t like the idea that the game is missed or not because of health. There’s a play the same number of games but missed those other games only because of injury will have worse averages. (As opposed to due to rested legs.)

Second, I feel that if everyone played the same number of games, who ends up winning the championship is the best team on equal footing. When one team rests and other team doesn’t, it’s not really equal footing.

The answer to that would be there for everybody to rest, but then that just impacts basically almost any game between the first and last week of the seasons.

I understand that resting regardless of the opponent ensures that the team is not cherry picking. But I’m not too concerned with the record of the team which I know impacts seeding, but rather the performance of the players later.

 

[MHSL82]

However, I am a bit of a hypocrite. If a team injures their star player when they have already insured the victory or insured the seeding in the playoffs, then I would be questioning them.

 

[nuraman00]

It is their prerogative. If they want to use evidence or not or just don’t feel like playing, fine.

As a fan, I don’t like it because one, I like the 82 game season. I missed that guy and like to compare that. If a player only plays 79 games, I shall consider it but then I go on averages. I know that people don’t rest too many games, so it’s going to be close, but I don’t like the idea that the game is missed or not because of health. There’s a play the same number of games but missed those other games only because of injury will have worse averages. (As opposed to due to rested legs.)

Second, I feel that if everyone played the same number of games, who ends up winning the championship is the best team on equal footing. When one team rests and other team doesn’t, it’s not really equal footing.

The answer to that would be there for everybody to rest, but then that just impacts basically almost any game between the first and last week of the seasons.

I understand that resting regardless of the opponent ensures that the team is not cherry picking. But I’m not too concerned with the record of the team which I know impacts seeding, but rather the performance of the players later.

What do you do about players that play more than 82 games in a regular season? One of my favorite stats was that when Abdur-Rahim was traded from Atlanta to Portland, he played 85 games that season, because Portland had played less games when he was traded.

Someone has probably played more than 85 games, but Abdur-Rahim was during an era I followed, so I remember it more.

 

[nuraman00]

I think resting during a game, after securing a sizable lead, is fine.

For the most part, unless a team has an older player who struggles with stamina that season, I don't like resting players.

Just play the games. Reduced minutes is better than no minutes.