I wonder how many fans would even notice that kind of thing after knowing the fact that X player won't be playing in that game... how many would even care? Woopty ****ing do.
Well, Spurs just beat the Grizzlies in the second game of the back-to-back, in OT no less, with Duncan going for 27 and Parker 30 (both playing >40min). And the game against the Grizzlies is a against a Western Conference opponent, and the team that might fight if for #1 seed in the West this year. I'd say Pop did the right thing for the Spurs. I wouldn't say Stern was completely wrong, but if he wasn't such a hypocritical, star-biased, money-driven commissioner, he may get more agreement.
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/8695865/nba-fines-san-antonio-spurs-250000-sitting-players Teams are required to report as soon as they know a player will not travel because of injury. And I pointed a 2/21 game last year right in the middle of the season where the Spurs rested their 3 stars vs the Blazers on a national TV game, and weren't fined. Sure, the profits/fans/national TV game may all be contributing factors, but the way Pop went about it where he sent his "healthy" players home and not even travel with the team to the game is a sign of disrespect. Like I said, I'm glad Stern did what he did to stop this from becoming a trend in the NBA. Like I said, resting players isn't new. Many teams do it in all of sports. Sending players home when they are perfectly healthy and not even travel has never happened before. From Miami Herald: Gregg Popovich sent his best players home, deciding they reached the end of the road before the trip was over. For that, and for keeping it a secret, the San Antonio Spurs were fined $250,000 by the NBA on Friday.
If this is indeed a rule, I wonder how they can consistently enforce it. How do you determine when a team "know" a player will not travel? If Popovich said two hours before the game, "Oh I just made up my mind to let those guys go home." Would they use a lie detector to judge whether he's telling the truth? If they really want to make it a rule, they should specify a deadline, how much time before a game.
if you are going to disagree with me B-Bob, the least you could have done is spelled my name correctly and completely. We are Texans. We are polite and respectful in this manner. Notice I never argued with DD without typing out his full name DaDakota. you are a p***y for backing the Spurs. I will never forget your post. j/k Long live Hakeem destroying the biggest p***y in the league ever....David Robinson.
This is so freaking amazing. The Spurs beat the Grizzlies in overtime. Let us all change our schedules and build gold statues of Popovich. lol Resting Duncan is fine. Parker is 30yrs old. He doesn't need special rest. Green is 25 yrs old or sumpin Ginobody is playing 23mpg...that is Yao Ming rehab minutes. Dude is already getting Yao Ming rest, lol. The Spurs are a better team than Memphis. Shocking. Do you still believe he ducked the Heat for rest? Pops made a calculated statement to the league as Mark Cuban stated. Get off the strategy game theory. Pops simply did not like the schedule...and wanted to protest. I said this in like Page 2 of this thread. But no...heypartner hates the Spurs so much, he can't possibly to reasoned with. lol next
It's stated in the ESPN article. I don't know how that works technically either, but I'm sure if players are injured or won't play at all in the game due to certain reasons (injuries, family iusses...), the league has to be aware of it out of respect/courtesy. It's like going to work. If you know you are sick or going to be late, you need to notify your boss that you won't be able to make it on time pretty well in advanced out of courtesy. I don't think there should be a written rule. And in sports, that would be publicly made obviously way in advanced of the game. Otherwise, you have those guys as "game-time" decisions. Like I said, Pop did this in the middle of the regular season before. But he didn't go about it in this manner. He simply DNP them as coach's decision or "old"--we all read about that. I think everything boils down to having respect for the game/fans... This is where Stern believed Pop "abuse" this rest your player thing. In the same ESPN article, Stern stated he won't punish/enforce that teams do not rest their players, as long as they don't "abuse" that. And when you don't even have your perfectly healthy players travel, I'm sure he considers that abuse. If you don't play, at least show up to the game unless you physically can't (injury/family issues). Resting "at home" b/c of a tough NBA schedule is a pathetic excuse. At least show up to work (doesn't mean you have to play in the game--not every player who suits up plays in the game). If Stern didn't put a stop to this, it could potentially lead to a league-wide activity where teams can now opt to have their players sit at home when they deem them unnecessary for the game. That would portray a really bad image for the NBA, which has some holes already. PS - the Spurs can get away with this: 1) The majority of the people hate Stern 2) The Spurs' stars aren't the biggest in the NBA to the general public 3) They're the Spurs If this was the Miami Heat or the New York Knicks, you can be fully assured that they would be destroyed for their "diva" ways. And Stern is simply trying to prevent that from happening. B/c we all know the Miami Heat have their "maintenance" programs late in the season.
Basketball is a job. The players' boss is the coach. If your boss tells you not to show up for work, do you show up? The coach's boss is the team's owner. The team's owner permitted Pop's decision. End of story. The Spur's owner, as well as other owners, do not have to go to Stern for every single decision they make. That's why they have a general manager and their own front office to manage that. The goal for an organization is to win a championship, not to please some tyrant's demands. Apparently it is a lack of class if you aren't on the freaking bench if you don't play. Ridiculous.
Having no respect for the game is not showing up for practices or the game when the coach wants you to be there... A la Royce White. Big difference.
I totally agree with you, but I think this is exactly the compromise that the league would live with and teams can deal with. We always have to make kind of stupid concessions in life (especially work life.) So just have your great players travel, make up "tendonitis" for one of them (since they all have it anyway, just from playing so much), put another one into the game for a few minutes and then ask him to limp, etc. Meh. It's not much to ask of the coach and the players, and then Pop (or whoever) can manage them like he wants without causing a stink. I agree with those who said Pop did this to prove a point, in part. He definitely wants the league to discuss the schedule after this season.
Let's say a team has to play two opponents in a back-to-back situation. The first on the road is against the weaker team, the second at home is against a very strong team. Suppose some of the older players on the team play much worse in the back-to-back situations. Why can't the coach have the option of sending some of those players home early so that they can get extra rest for the second the game, instead of flying in the night before? This is a legitimate tactical decision, and teams should have the option of doing this.
You wrote "from Miami Herald"? And those words were an editorial choice, so not sure why you are bolding those words like they are an official statement from the league (kind of misleading, actually). The quotes from the league are the final word on this as far as why the fine was issued, and they do not say that the fine was because the players were sent home.
I lean towards your point of view, definitely, but I recognize the idea of the "show" for the league too. You don't go to see Skyfall, pay your money, sit down, and then see Harvey Keitel play bond for that showing instead of Daniel Craig. You'd be like, WTF? $10 for this? You'd at least want to see Daniel Craig pull a hammy in the first scene and grimly hand his gun to Harvey Keitel.
I think you are overstating this tactical strategy by assuming it actually works. But let's say it does work, and imagine a world that doesn't currently exist where many teams start doing it, drastically reducing their chance of winning the game and jeopardizing future playoff seeding. Even imagining that world, tanking games affects the playoff seeding of other teams, too. You can't look at it in isolation. In that world, you can count on other teams complaining that they are being hurt by teams tanking key games. That already exists when resting players at the end of season, no? Nearly every year there is some complaint or worry that a playoff team is hurting another's seed by not trying. Your world would multiply that greatly. I wish the league would just stop doing back to back, and pair down to a 70 game schedule. But that will never happen.
Teams should have the right "to tank" (i.e. strategically rest players) if its in their interests to do so. Its the league's responsibility to not incentivize the practice. Your suggestion of removing back to backs would be one possible solution. And if other teams are relying on the outcomes of games they're not involved in in order to make the playoffs or face favorable opponents, tough.
The league has a no tanking rule. We all know that. We could actually say that this fine falls under the umbrella rule of no tanking. Because if you start allowing ducking teams for "strategic reason," you are indeed creating a loophole for legalizing tanking. We can't allow a potential gray area loophole. Really bad teams could then claim their right to tank every back to back for reasons of resting. Thing is: you concept of this is tactical has no proof whatsoever. It's just theory, because we have no historical proof that it works. The fact is: No team that you or I can recall has ever ducked a team in mid season prior to this (discounting the lockout year). There are three possible reason for that: Coaches do not believe it is wise to tank a game because it could hurt your seeding later. Teams are not doing so because they might get fined Owners have a mutual agreement to never do this, because they want everyone to field the best product each game I have to believe 1 and 3 best state reality. Your idea that fines deter coaches from doing whats best for them is a distant third, imo. Please explain why you think coaches have rarely, if ever, used your "tactical strategy" to tank certain games.
Stopped reading there. In what world do you consider preparing your team for the playoffs, and ultimately the championship, to be an act of tanking?
