Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:I think a simple fix would be, if you sit a player out a game for any reason, then he must stay out for a minimum of 2-3 games. If he's actually injured, that would be just fine; and if you're fake resting him, now you have to sit him out for multiple games and it's risky to do that. Problem solved.
How does this work with DNP-CDs? If Watson decides Price won't play in a game, he has to sit the next 2 as well? What happens if another guard gets injured in one of those games? I don't think you can prevent this with such a rule. At least not in a sane way. An understanding, as ShelC said, seems to me the most likely solution. I don't see a scheduling change significant enough to fix this happening, because there are just too many games. Maybe they could find a way to reward road wins a bit more. Or winning the season series against a team.
As for resting the stars at once, it's annoying, but maybe coaches rather sacrifice their chances in 1 game instead of 3.
Letting players play just one quarter will never work because they are vain and care about their stats and averages.
Resting stars at once, what Hermen said.
There's really no good solution. Maybe feature the marquee teams on national TV less in general and allow them to rest players during those games that don't bring in the greatest ad revenue.
Zeratul wrote:I guess the Warriors losing in the finals after winning 73 games in the regular season doesn't help much either...
Rewarding regular season wins somehow could fix things but I don't think that will ever happen.
Exactly. They put on a show last year in the regular season which was great for the NBA business, but they then lost in the finals and were mocked a bit for it. It's often said that championships are all that matters, so regular season doesn't matter much to good teams (rest) and bad teams are rewarded for losing (tanking). Given this, it's hard to expect much from the 82 games.
As for the rewarding, maybe there could be a prize pool, that is distributed to the teams weighted somehow by their winning percentages at the end of the season. It would take some tuning to figure out the amount though, it should be big enough to make teams care, but not so big that we get more ring-chasers that replace their lower salaries with those prizes.
Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:I think a simple fix would be, if you sit a player out a game for any reason, then he must stay out for a minimum of 2-3 games. If he's actually injured, that would be just fine; and if you're fake resting him, now you have to sit him out for multiple games and it's risky to do that. Problem solved.
How does this work with DNP-CDs? If Watson decides Price won't play in a game, he has to sit the next 2 as well? What happens if another guard gets injured in one of those games? I don't think you can prevent this with such a rule. At least not in a sane way. An understanding, as ShelC said, seems to me the most likely solution. I don't see a scheduling change significant enough to fix this happening, because there are just too many games. Maybe they could find a way to reward road wins a bit more. Or winning the season series against a team.
As for resting the stars at once, it's annoying, but maybe coaches rather sacrifice their chances in 1 game instead of 3.
A DNP-CD is different. In that case, the player has to actually fly with the team, get dressed in their uniform, and sit on the bench. I actually don't think you would find teams doing that very much.
Portland beat Denver last night. Uninteresting as that game was, it may have decided the 8th seed in the west. Portland is on a bit of a run (12-3), and winning this one not only puts them ahead of Denver, but it gives them some breathing room over the New Orleans, who is on a run of their own.
The Pels and Blazers face eachother on the last game of the season, so that has the potential to be a huge game if the Pels continue to win and the Blazers stumble a bit. It's an unlikely scenario, and this win by the Blazers makes it even less likely.
Before we get too far from Denver, how about that Jokic, eh? Just one more great big man who can't win in today's NBA. I am really looking forward to seeing how the next decade plays out with all of these young bigs who are so good on paper. Will coaches figure out how to use them on a winning team? Will the NBA tweak the rules?
The league needs heroes, villains... and clowns. -- Aztec Sunsfan
I don't know exactly when they put the ball in Jokic's hands, but Denver has been playing about .500 ball going back through December. Now they're 2-4 in their last 6 with losses to the two biggest threats to beat them to that playoff spot. We'll see! I hope we can see some good bigs in the the playoffs again soon.
The league needs heroes, villains... and clowns. -- Aztec Sunsfan
True, that trade was a head scratcher for Denver and a robbery for Portland. Nurkic and a 1st...crazy. I get they needed to move on from nurkic, but they made a poor trade
Interestingly, with time running out and one second between the shot clock and game clock, Westbrook chose to dribble it out and take the 24-second violation instead of shooting the meaningless three. He would have been perfectly justified in shooting, but I guess being able to say "triple double with sixty" isn't a big deal to him.
Why did the Pacers give Lance Stephenson 4 million per year for 3 years, when no one else in the league wants him? I hope there are some team options / non-guaranteed years there. Didn't he take less money from the Hornets because he wanted out of Indiana?
Hermen wrote:Why did the Pacers give Lance Stephenson 4 million per year for 3 years, when no one else in the league wants him? I hope there are some team options / non-guaranteed years there. Didn't he take less money from the Hornets because he wanted out of Indiana?
No he didn't get the $$ he wanted from Indiana so he hit FA and then reality hit him and he ended up having to take the low offer from the Hornets.
And the Pacers have a team option for the last season in Stephenson's deal.
Split T wrote:True, that trade was a head scratcher for Denver and a robbery for Portland. Nurkic and a 1st...crazy. I get they needed to move on from nurkic, but they made a poor trade
I was just telling someone the other day that it's almost worse than the Knight deal. I wonder if they will overpay to extend Plumlee like we did with Knight.
Unfortunately the pick that Denver gave up won't be anywhere near as valuable as the Lakers unprotected 1st next season
I don't get that Stephenson deal, but I think the thought process is, it's guaranteed for the rest of this season plus all of next season, then the "third" year is non-guaranteed. So basically they gave him a one-year contract for next year. I don't like Stephenson and wouldn't have signed him, but I don't think that is all that bad.
