NBATV - Stu Jackson on Resting Players (Spurs)

[ace3g]

Steve Smith asked Stu Jackson about Spurs resting players and is it fair to the fans?

Basically the highlights:

He said he wasn't in position to question Pop, a coach that has won 4 rings.

It is a team decision.

Odd year because of the lockout season, an aberration, so things changed the way teams manged players/conditioning.

But he understands the fans concerns.

[Dr Cox]

This whole resting players thing is really not a big deal. It happens in baseball and football too. Sometimes teams put it as "sat out" or "flu like symptoms".

Get over it fans, no need to put players in risk after playing so many games consecutively.

Pop knows what he is doing, NBA fans do not.

[Buddy Holly]

If fans can choose to buy tickets or not buy them, a team can choose to rest players or not rest them.

[Arcadian]

I think it's a slippery slope to argue that resting players is good and fans just don't understand. How far are you willing to take that argument? Is it OK to rest healthy players 10 games a year? How about 20? How about 30? Where do you draw the line, and what keeps it from being arbitrary? You could argue that it depends on the situation, but injuries are so unpredictable that even that argument collapses under pressure. For example, most players say they would rather play every game because missing games hurts your conditioning, which increases the probability for later injury. You can't control for injuries. Tim Duncan could have a career-ending injury in game 1 of the playoffs. Should he sit out that game and wait for a more important one? You see, this approach becomes increasingly difficult to defend.

So perhaps the best approach is to not worry about injuries. They should be viewed as random events which can't be accounted for. You can't worry about them while playing, because that will make you play timidly. You also can't worry about them a priori, because they are random. Therefore, it's best to let nature run its course and just play basketball.

[SA210]

I think it's a slippery slope to argue that resting players is good and fans just don't understand. How far are you willing to take that argument? Is it OK to rest healthy players 10 games a year? How about 20? How about 30? Where do you draw the line, and what keeps it from being arbitrary? You could argue that it depends on the situation, but injuries are so unpredictable that even that argument collapses under pressure. For example, most players say they would rather play every game because missing games hurts your conditioning, which increases the probability for later injury. You can't control for injuries. Tim Duncan could have a career-ending injury in game 1 of the playoffs. Should he sit out that game and wait for a more important one? You see, this approach becomes increasingly difficult to defend.

So perhaps the best approach is to not worry about injuries. They should be viewed as random events which can't be accounted for. You can't worry about them while playing, because that will make you play timidly. You also can't worry about them a priori, because they are random. Therefore, it's best to let nature run its course and just play basketball.

This

[SequSpur]

I don't know..I am not for it but I understand it.

The only thing guaranteed about the entertainment of the NBA is little girls from some local dance academy taking up time during the halftime show...The rest is hit and miss....

Shit, I sat courtside, 1st row this year...kings vs. spurs and the spurs didn't show up...but the little kids did....wtf?

[Sec24Row7]

Pop's job is to win championships. He's doing what he thinks is best to win. You can bitch about what he is doing all you want, but it's not going to stop you going downtown and honking your horn or buying Spurs 2012 shirts if they win a ring.

Other teams buy players to fill seats. Our team fills seats... we play for rings. Be happy you are in SA and have the privilege to watch a team without its COACH or TOP 4 SCORERS beat a team that was eliminated from the playoffs 3 games from the end of the season.

[Seventyniner]

So perhaps the best approach is to not worry about injuries. They should be viewed as random events which can't be accounted for. You can't worry about them while playing, because that will make you play timidly. You also can't worry about them a priori, because they are random. Therefore, it's best to let nature run its course and just play basketball.

You're right about viewing injuries as random events, but players getting fewer minutes will still lower their chance of injury, especially when you consider players that are older and/or injury prone. There's a reason that Pop limits Duncan and Ginobili's minutes, while still giving Parker 34 per game.

[therealtruth]

You're right about viewing injuries as random events, but players getting fewer minutes will still lower their chance of injury, especially when you consider players that are older and/or injury prone. There's a reason that Pop limits Duncan and Ginobili's minutes, while still giving Parker 34 per game.

I don't think it's linear that less time means less injuries outside of injuries that are caused by fatigue. Freak injuries will be independent of that.

[greyforest]

like pop says, it's not fair to fans to schedule back-to-backs because the product produced on the court on the second game isn't the best it could be.

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

Stu Jackson, just another Popsucking sheep falling back on that tired four rings argument.

[T Park]

Pop has an obligation to his boss, Peter Holt to win championships.

He has no obligation to the media nor the fans.

[Keepin' it real]

Pop has an obligation to his boss, Peter Holt to win championships.

He has no obligation to the media nor the fans.

I agree that a coach has no obligation to the fans. But the league does (or should), if it wants to keep the fans.

Sadly, my argument would only be valid if ticket buyers stood up for their rights as consumers. Instead, morons will keep buying tickets and tolerate basically being told to eat shit.

This topic reminds me about college football and the BCS. So many fans complain about the BCS and about college football teams that play nonconference games against subpar competition. But 100,000+ fans will still go to DKR in Austin for bullshit games like Texas vs. Louisiana-Monroe, and fans still attend BCS bowl games every year, despite claiming to hate the BCS.

Until fans stand up for their rights (with their pocketbooks), nothing will change.

[Wild Cobra Kai]

I think it's a slippery slope to argue that resting players is good and fans just don't understand. How far are you willing to take that argument? Is it OK to rest healthy players 10 games a year? How about 20? How about 30? Where do you draw the line, and what keeps it from being arbitrary? You could argue that it depends on the situation, but injuries are so unpredictable that even that argument collapses under pressure. For example, most players say they would rather play every game because missing games hurts your conditioning, which increases the probability for later injury. You can't control for injuries. Tim Duncan could have a career-ending injury in game 1 of the playoffs. Should he sit out that game and wait for a more important one? You see, this approach becomes increasingly difficult to defend.

So perhaps the best approach is to not worry about injuries. They should be viewed as random events which can't be accounted for. You can't worry about them while playing, because that will make you play timidly. You also can't worry about them a priori, because they are random. Therefore, it's best to let nature run its course and just play basketball.

Part of nature running it's course is the fact that older players are more readily injured and take longer to heal. That's a fact that you have to deal with as a coach. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

[Slomo]

...

So perhaps the best approach is to not worry about injuries. They should be viewed as random events which can't be accounted for. You can't worry about them while playing, because that will make you play timidly. You also can't worry about them a priori, because they are random. Therefore, it's best to let nature run its course and just play basketball.

Las Vegas really likes your way of thinking.



I agree that a coach has no obligation to the fans. But the league does (or should), if it wants to keep the fans.

Sadly, my argument would only be valid if ticket buyers stood up for their rights as consumers. Instead, morons will keep buying tickets and tolerate basically being told to eat shit.

This topic reminds me about college football and the BCS. So many fans complain about the BCS and about college football teams that play nonconference games against subpar competition. But 100,000+ fans will still go to DKR in Austin for bullshit games like Texas vs. Louisiana-Monroe, and fans still attend BCS bowl games every year, despite claiming to hate the BCS.

Until fans stand up for their rights (with their pocketbooks), nothing will change.

Stupid argument.

What is the job definition of the team? Win championships or put on a nightly show for bored "fans" who think dunking is the epitome of basketball?

You should become a Lakers fan, plenty of celebrity to gawk at in the Staples center, just don't get distracted by the basketball game going on at the same time.

According to you Pop is slightly more than a trained monkey who has to do a back flip every time somebody throws a coin into the little tin cup.

[Venti Quattro]

The fans should understand too. It's really not a big deal to rest stars. It's just okay to rest your stars if you're in the right circumstance.

[Blue Duck]

I can't believe this is even a point of contention for spurs fans. I love watching the steady improvement and increasing reliability of the youngsters while the old guys sit. Besides, its not random injuries that arr the problem, It's wear and tear. Duncan just can't go on those knees every night anymore, it's not fair to him!!! Did anyone see his high level of play this season following rest???? Beautiful. And on the randomness of injuries, due to Manu's style of play, injuries for him are inevitable. Watching him go down in the last game of the year last year was a kick in the groin. Unfair to the fans?????? Let's worry about the big picture. I would have no.problem going to a game with the old guys on the bench.

[Keepin' it real]

Stupid argument.

:wakeup

No, my argument is rather sound. If you think it's stupid, then you have too many marbles rolling around up there.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

:wakeup

No, my argument is rather sound. If you think it's stupid, then you have too many marbles rolling around up there.

How is it sound when what you're saying has no practical way of being enforced or controlled? Teams have rested, rest and will rest players when they find appropriate. If fans can't grasp the concept, then neither the league nor the teams can help them.

[Keepin' it real]

How is it sound when what you're saying has no practical way of being enforced or controlled? Teams have rested, rest and will rest players when they find appropriate. If fans can't grasp the concept, then neither the league nor the teams can help them.

I agree this would be difficult to enforce, but that doesn't make it stupid to try to do something about it. If we as a society chose to do nothing about tough issues that are difficult to enforce, we'd live in anarchy.

As a lifelong sports fan, I know that after teams have clinched a playoff spot/home court/home field, they often rest their stars. So as a ticket buyer, you know that those late-season games may be nothing more than exhibition games. But games throughout the rest of the season (historically) are a completely different story. If players are healthy, they don't rest, they play. Fans pay top money to see top competition between the best players in the world. To be deprived of that after paying for it is BS.

I think an analogy is in order here. Imagine if you paid top dollar for a Metallica concert (back in the day :toast), but on the day of the concert, you found out that James Hetfield and Lars Ulrich decided to "rest." Would you be ok with that? Do you think everyone else who paid to watch Metallica in concert would be ok with that? Hell no, people would be beyond pissed because they paid top dollar for a top-notch product but received an inferior product instead.

That's why the league needs to look at this tough issue and come up with some kind of resolution for the fans who actually pay for tickets. And this one is actually not difficult ... in fact, it's rather simple:



Offer refunds on nights that uninjured stars don't play.

This would indirectly put more pressure on coaches to do the right thing, and it would compel owners to take this matter seriously because it could cost them millions of dollars over the course of an 82-game season, especially when their coaches make a habit out of "resting" healthy players.

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

Are they going to run polygraph tests on the players when they say, "I have a sore knee"?

[DMC]

I see both sides of the argument. Imagine going to a Broadway musical where the stars are replaced by backups, though you paid the full price, and the excuse is "well, it's a long running show and we're winding down this year so we are resting a few guys for the big one". The big 3 are the face of the franchise, and they are used ad nauseum to sell tickets, so naturally many fans will want to see them on the floor when they buy the tickets. It's almost a form of bait and switch.

On the flip side, team fans understand it, and we want our guys rested because it's about the big picture. Player fans just want to see the player, win or lose. Game fans can still enjoy whomever is on the floor. For example, I consider myself a fan of the game first, so I enjoyed watching the GS rookies play their asses off last night. Some probably didn't even watch the game since the stars weren't playing and the game was "meaningless".

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

I agree this would be difficult to enforce, but that doesn't make it stupid to try to do something about it. If we as a society chose to do nothing about tough issues that are difficult to enforce, we'd live in anarchy.

As a lifelong sports fan, I know that after teams have clinched a playoff spot/home court/home field, they often rest their stars. So as a ticket buyer, you know that those late-season games may be nothing more than exhibition games. But games throughout the rest of the season (historically) are a completely different story. If players are healthy, they don't rest, they play. Fans pay top money to see top competition between the best players in the world. To be deprived of that after paying for it is BS.

I think an analogy is in order here. Imagine if you paid top dollar for a Metallica concert (back in the day :toast), but on the day of the concert, you found out that James Hetfield and Lars Ulrich decided to "rest." Would you be ok with that? Do you think everyone else who paid to watch Metallica in concert would be ok with that? Hell no, people would be beyond pissed because they paid top dollar for a top-notch product but received an inferior product instead.

That's why the league needs to look at this tough issue and come up with some kind of resolution for the fans who actually pay for tickets. And this one is actually not difficult ... in fact, it's rather simple:



Offer refunds on nights that uninjured stars don't play.
This would indirectly put more pressure on coaches to do the right thing, and it would compel owners to take this matter seriously because it could cost them millions of dollars over the course of an 82-game season, especially when their coaches make a habit out of "resting" healthy players.

Don't necessarily disagree with any of your points when you take each game in isolation, however, you'd have no ground to claim a refund as players very often play through a lot of minor injuries, that could be used for justifying rest, such as sore knees, sore backs, flu symptoms, etc. It'd just open a proper can of worms. How about teams who tank hard? Should they offer refunds every night? When buying a ticket a fan should consider these factors.

Its nothing like going to a concert, though I wouldn't mind Metallica playing in my hometown 40+ times a year. I wouldn't mind if a couple of these were with stunt musicians too. :toast

[Mal]

And tanking on purpose is good ? Playing 5 rookies in starting lineup ? Making up injuries, only to shut down your core players.

Spurs still won this game.

[maverick1948]

How do you justify calling out the Spurs when Derrick Rose missed a bunch of games with "injuries" this season? How about the Heat with their big 3 missing a couple of games? How about the other teams like Dallas, Lakers, and a few others who sat players? How about teams who have had many years to put together teams that would be playoff worthy yet they are going fishing with Chuck this year? Does putting a team on the court that wins 7 of 66 mean you are putting the best product for your fans?

Playoff teams are playing additional games for their fans. The Spurs are likely to go a long way in the playoffs. If the Spurs have homecourt advantage throughout the playoffs they will play minimum of 8 additional home games for their fans, if they sweep all the series. So what if Duncan sits 4 games this season, then plays in 16 additional games for the fans? So what if Steve A Smith is a CSing little weasel who has no desire to see the Spurs win anything. Next he will be saying that the Spurs-Nuggets third round will be boring because the Spurs dont play offense. Or any series

[watertorture]

It's silly to say ho many games is it okay to rest star players.
Coaches want to win and will rest them as much as they need to to keep winning.
If it were a bad team without playoff hopes, I might understand a fan being upset -- that said the NBA's lottery is a better guard against this then say the NFL (Colts/Luck).

[Slutter McGee]

I don't think it's linear that less time means less injuries outside of injuries that are caused by fatigue. Freak injuries will be independent of that.

Of course it is linear. Less Playing time equals less chance of injury. Walking to work every other day for the rest of my life equals half the chances of me being killed in a car wreck on the way to work.

This seems like basic math,

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[Seventyniner]

Of course it is linear. Less Playing time equals less chance of injury. Walking to work every other day for the rest of my life equals half the chances of me being killed in a car wreck on the way to work.

This seems like basic math,

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

No, you're confusing "linear" with "monotonically increasing." Injuries do rise with minutes played, but it's not necessarily a straight line.