ESPN has been making a big deal all day that the Spurs were going to play their regular lineup for tonight's game against the Warriors. This after Spurs Coach Gregg Popovich made it a point to say that he cared more about his starters getting rest for the playoffs than getting the No. 1 seed in the playoffs, which the Warriors are probably going to get anyway. Am I the only one wondering why it's news that a team is planning on playing its regular starters for a game?
Unless they're injured or suspended or missing the game for some other reason, shouldn't the regular starters start every game? Yet, in the NBA, we see way more often than we should "DNP-Rest" for the stars. It may be the "Rest" part that bothers me the most, but, as a fan, I find that entire idea extremely irritating. Personally, I think it would be better if they didn't say anything at all, at least not until after the game.
What benefit is there in advertising that your top players won't be in the lineup? You're giving the other team a strategic advantage by knowing that they don't have to game plan for your best player. And you're sparing the fans from wasting their time by going to a game where they know the only guys they've ever actually heard of aren't going to play. Which kills the attendance.
Imagine for a second that kid whose favorite player is, to just pick somebody at random, Kevin Durant. He lives in Boston, so he only gets a chance to see Durant live once a year. He's all excited for the Celtics-Thunder game. Then he finds out Durant isn't going to play. Not because he's hurt, but because he needs "rest." Is that fair to that kid?
Joe DiMaggio once famously said that he gave his all every time out because some kid might be seeing him for the first time. That quote says a lot. It was a different time, but DiMaggio never took any games off because he needed to "rest."
There are plenty of people who don't have a problem with this. They'll point to football and baseball, and even hockey, and say that starters sit for "rest" in those sports, too. But there's a big difference between "resting" in those sports and basketball's version of "resting." In baseball, it might mean a guy doesn't start (or DH's) the day game after a night game. But that doesn't mean he's unavailable entirely. Yes, baseball teams do sit starters in September to prepare for the playoffs, which usually means they're lining up their pitching rotation. In baseball, you play virtually every day for six months, though. And guys will still need to get their at-bats, so you won't have a Spring Training game completely break out (unless it's a game like Phillies-Reds that completely doesn't matter).
Same thing in hockey. Rarely do goalies start both games of a back-to-back. But if a skater sits out, there's probably some sort of injury-related reason. The Montreal Canadiens just announced that goalie Carey Price and defenseman P.K. Subban won't play again for the rest of the season. They've both been dealing with injuries for a while and Montreal's out of the playoffs, so I don't see the problem with that.
And in football, the only time you'll ever find a team purposely not playing its starters would possibly be in Week 17 when their playoff seeding is already clinched. Do you know how many teams that actually applies to a season? This year, it was about three. And that includes the Arizona Cardinals, who took their starters out at halftime when they were getting crushed by the Seahawks.
The argument that those who have no problem with the Spurs sitting their starters make is that they're doing the same thing football teams do in advance of the playoffs. But a football team consists of 53 guys. On a basketball team, there's only 12. Sitting even two starters has a much bigger impact. That's 40 percent of your lineup! And, if he's really not going to play at all, that leaves you with just five guys on the bench. You're basically flat out saying that you don't care whether or not you win that game, compromising its integrity.
Really, I think my problem with it in the NBA is that it seems to be every star player. On every team. All season. If it was just the Spurs, you could write it off as Popovich. Or if it was just at the end of the season, you could say "OK, they're getting ready for the playoffs." But it's not. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to it...other than that guys need "rest."
For some people, there's a simple solution to this problem. If you get rid of the back-to-backs (or the back-to-back-to-backs), then guys wouldn't need to take games off. I have no doubt that the NBA season can be a grind, and players do get banged up, so sometimes they do need to sit out because of legitimate injuries. But you're telling me, that for the millions of dollars these guys are making, they can't play three times in four days without needing a break? Please. (The rest they get in the playoffs, where it's like three days between games, is ridiculous, too.)
Don't chalk this up as another "Joe hates the NBA" rant. Because it goes beyond that. There's just something about seeing "DNP-Rest" in a box score that rubs me the wrong way. If a guy's not going to play in a particular game, that's his, the coach's and the team's prerogative.
But think about the fans who might want to see him play, potentially for the first (or last) time. Think about him. Does he want to see LeBron play or LeBron sit on the bench and "rest?" That's what I thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment