Load management has become in chic for the NBA the last few years, with star players getting night's off to simply rest.
Imagine, if you will, that in the following video, my viewpoint relates loosely to the words of Joey (Rossie Harris). And the opposing viewpoint relates to the words of the immortal Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. And even if the correlation doesn't ring true, at least enjoy the clip of Airplane!
Today's NBA, while highly entertaining, has a simple flaw that occasionally frustrates fans. Tanking is certainly a big problem (ask current fans of the New York Knicks) and creating super teams is something on the radar of fans as well. But it is stars sitting out games for the simple fact of rest that can be irksome. (Rest, or load management, as the Los Angeles Lakers labeled the reason why LeBron James sat out a game against the Golden State Warriors.)
In this instance of James sitting out -- in a marquee Saturday night matchup against the Golden State Warriors -- I sort of get it. He was coming off an injury that kept him out the six weeks prior and he played 40 minutes in his first game back. The Lakers organization was simply looking to take care of their prize player in hopes of keeping him healthy for a playoff run. (The Lakers currently sit in tenth-place in the West, 11.5 games out of first and 2 back of the 8th seed.)
Too many games, however, are seeing stars take a day off for the non-injury related reason of rest. And it started long before the idea of James and "load management" came into play. James did play in all 82 games in 2017-18, though he did find moments of rest in the seasons prior.
In my recollection, this fad started with Gregg Popovich and the San Antonio Spurs.
Benching the big three
Strategy comes into play, especially during an 82-game regular season and playoffs that can stretch 2.5 months. In that regard, Popovich needed to find an upper hand in keeping the Spurs successful and reaching the NBA Finals.
This strategy involved sitting Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, and Manu Ginobili in various games, sometimes all at the same time.
It was hard to argue with 'Pop' as the Spurs continued to have success. And having key players, especially your superstars, rested for the playoffs is a must.
Looking at it from the coach's point-of-view, we can see how this works. And why the Golden State Warriors rest their stars -- outside of injuries/personal reasons -- from time-to-time.
Has this been something that has always been done and I'd just forgotten about it? A small sample size provides the following.
- Michael Jordan: Played in 82 games in 9 of 15 seasons, including his final season. Take away an injured 2nd season and 1994 season in which he came back in March, Jordan had only one other season in which he missed more than four games.
- Karl Malone: Played in at least 80 regular season games in 17 of his 19 seasons.
A small sample size, yes, but it's hard to fathom these two taking off games for the simple reason of rest.
The NBA has made efforts to curtail the resting of stars by scheduling less games on back-to-back nights. But the idea of load management is still a minor issue seen in today's NBA.
Imagine a family, whose child (or children) worshiped Jordan, saved up a money to attend the game and showed up to find out their favorite player was sitting out the game to rest. Where does that leave the family? And does this affect their love of this player or the NBA itself?
Subject to change
Going to a game might carry with the inherent risk that a star player suffers an injury -- major or otherwise -- prior to attending. It can happen in the prior game or, in the unfortunate case of John Wall -- happen outside of the gym. These are excusable actions, one's that as a fan I'd be understanding of in the event of the star missing the game.
But what about the case of load management? In the end, it's our entertainment vs the health of the player and future of the franchise.
Imagine going to an NFL game to see Patrick Mahomes and it's decided that Mahomes, after throwing five straight games with 300 yards, is benched for rest. Fans and pundits would have a field day with this.
Granted, the NFL plays only 16 games and the NBA is 82 so a basketball team has more margin for error in attaining their goal of reaching the playoffs.
In the case of rest and load management, watching a game or not watching is controllable for the fans at home. They can simply change the channel or internet site and decide to not watch that specific game.
However, for that family able to only see one game a season or one game every few years, maybe even traveled hundreds of miles, to find out their favorite player is resting can be disappointing. To what regard do these franchises weight their bottom line versus that of the fans? Does the disappointment of the family outweigh the possibility of hoisting the Larry O'Brien trophy?
The NBA is thriving, with popularity, social media interactions and top-flight stars who are incredibly marketable. Do little things like players sitting out eventually stack up to create a ripple effect of disdain? Things like super teams and tanking might be bigger issues at the moment, but at some point fans might use all of these things to validate walking away.
Coaches and owners have their say and could be the very reason these players are sitting out. In some instances, fans aren't sure whether it's a player's request or a coach's decision. It's an argument I can see both sides of. On one hand, I want my favorite team to be as healthy and rested as possible for the playoffs. On the other hand, if I went to a game to see my favorite play, saved up for a whole year to go to a game, and that player sat out for rest, I would be a bit disappointed.
A balance must be found. Until then, maybe it's safe to treat going to a NBA game as the WWE does for its shows: card subject to change.
photo credit: pixabay.com
photo credit: pixabay.com
Comments