Resting on B2B's

[SPURt]

I've noticed Pop hasn't been resting players in the same way as years past, obviously due to injuries. Now that the team is at full strength I think Pop will start considering rest during B2B's. Would you rather push hard for home court or rest players?

Also, why do NBA teams rest guys on the second night of back to back games? Wouldn't it be better to rest on the first night? That way the backups or younger players are fresher for game 1 then bring back the guys that rested on the second night to be the calvary. Is it a momentum issue?

[imagump1313]

It all depends on what happens in that first game. Its not set in stone that guys rest the 2nd. night. Foul trouble, injuries, a blowout, overtime...etc could all be factors. I think the reason we have seen everyone play both ends of B2B's lately is because the front ends have usually been blowouts and players are logging low minutes. I notice that Pop ideally likes to keep everyone around 30 minutes at most.

The reason you don't sit a player on the front end of a B2B is because you don't want to make yourself short. Say for instance we announce Tim Duncan is out for tonight's game so he can definitely play tomorrow. What happens if Splitter and Diaw get injured during the game and Bonner, Ayres and Baynes all foul out. The NBA would have a problem with that. The idea is to make players available as much as possible. You play the first game out and see what happens. If someone logs alot of minutes, gets hurt or whatever, you can rest him the next night without much repercussion. The league still doesn't like it but you can get away with it.

[SPURt]

It's true Tim/Manu/Tony have not been needed but for the beginnings of games. That has been really good for us and will hopefully lead to a freshness in June. I don't know if saying the possibility of injuries contributes to always playing the first night. I would think the foul/injury roster decimation would be greater on the second night. Everyone is tired/sore, they would be at a greater risk for injury and sloppier because of fatigue leading to more fouls.

If the league allows a player to be rested on the second night of back to backs they shouldn't have a problem on the first night. If a team chooses to not play a player they are paying it should be the teams prerogative. I think the fine against the Spurs last year was an extreme example of resting players that really should be able to play (Danny Green). But if the Spurs rested Duncan on night one then Manu on night two, that just seems like it gives the Spurs a better chance to win.

[imagump1313]

It's true Tim/Manu/Tony have not been needed but for the beginnings of games. That has been really good for us and will hopefully lead to a freshness in June. I don't know if saying the possibility of injuries contributes to always playing the first night. I would think the foul/injury roster decimation would be greater on the second night. Everyone is tired/sore, they would be at a greater risk for injury and sloppier because of fatigue leading to more fouls.

If the league allows a player to be rested on the second night of back to backs they shouldn't have a problem on the first night. If a team chooses to not play a player they are paying it should be the teams prerogative. I think the fine against the Spurs last year was an extreme example of resting players that really should be able to play (Danny Green). But if the Spurs rested Duncan on night one then Manu on night two, that just seems like it gives the Spurs a better chance to win.

The league doesn't want teams to rest players under any circumstance. However, more and more teams are doing it with their older players so the league has to adapt. I find it hypocritical that teams like us get fined for resting players for playoff runs while the league almost welcomes other teams to try and purposely lose games to get better draft picks.

I see your point on maybe splitting up who gets sat, but I still think the league would complain if you sat players just in the name of rest. Teams would probably have to pose fake injuries or something like they already do.

[SPURt]

If teams are over .500 they should be able to sit stars whenever they want. The biggest problem with sitting players are teams tanking. I still think the NBA fining the Spurs sets a dangerous precedent. We are the only team, to my knowledge, to be disciplined for managing their roster. It's pretty ridiculous.

[co_laper]

I think the important thing is having the West 1 seed locked up. I don't care if it's about having homecourt for the NBA finals. As long as OKC is still a threat for the number 1 seed, we should be pushing for homecourt. But that doesn't mean playing Duncan 40 minutes back to back in consecutive games. Just the usual way we do things.

As for resting guys in the 2nd game, I don't agree with that. Even if we're playing Utah in the first game and OKC the 2nd game, I think we should play everybody in the first game. If that first game ends up with our big 3 playing huge minutes, then we should forfeit the second game. If it was a blowout or we got blown out, then everybody plays the 2nd game.

Also, as for being fined, I don't think the issue really is about resting players.

Obviously, for Stern, he was mad that it happened in a nationally televised game againts Miami. His mind is mostly on the business side. Not that he's mad the team rests players. It wasn't the first time. If it wasn't a nationally televised game, he wouldn't care.

And the message Pop got from Stern was that he had to announce it before the game. Since that game, Pop always makes it official when Tim or Manu or TP isn't playing and they make up their own fake injuries. But that Miami game, TD and everyone else was practicing, and everybody thought they were playing. When the ball tips, they're not playing. Seems like that's what Stern got mad about. If Stern knew before hand that Spurs aren't playing guys, ESPN might have tune it for other matchups that are more interesting.