Why A Condensed NBA Schedule Poses A Threat To Veteran Teams
Kevin Durant & Russell Westbrook (photo. Rob Hammer)
Over the past few seasons, Spurs head coach Gregg Popovich has had the strategy of limiting his stars’ minutes over the course of the regular season in order to keep them fresh for the playoffs. He frequently has held Tim Duncan out of games on the second night of back-to-backs in order for him to rest his balky knees, and has done a good job of monitoring the minutes of Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker as well. However, this year Popovich may have to rethink that strategy. With the Spurs and every team playing more back-to-backs than in previous seasons, will Popovich be able to sit Duncan on the second night of back-to-backs anymore? Let’s say the Spurs have 18 back-to-backs which is 36 games played on consecutive days. How many of those can Popovich afford to have Duncan sit, especially in the ultra-competitive Western Conference? And that is not even taking into account games Duncan might have to miss because of an injury.
The same thing can be said of the Celtics and Mavericks. In years past, when a veteran player like Kevin Garnett got injured, the Celtics might be slow to bring him back knowing that they would make the playoffs so they might as well get him healthy for that time. This year the Celtics can’t afford to do that. With a shorter schedule, the competition for playoff spots will be much tighter than it would be during an 82-game season. Veteran teams like the Celtics, who two years ago played like they were on cruise control just waiting for the postseason, won’t be able to do that this year. Talent alone is not enough to get you to the playoffs in a shortened season.
On the other end of the spectrum, teams loaded with young talent will have an advantage in the condensed season. Younger players (other than Greg Oden) tend to be more durable and able to sustain playing more minutes than older players, and younger teams will experience the benefits of that this year. A team like the Grizzlies, with a core of Mike Conley, Zach Randolph, Marc Gasol (all signs point to him returning), and Rudy Gay, will be able to absorb the condensed schedule more than the veteran teams mentioned above. Other teams, like the Heat, Bulls, Hawks, and Thunder with young cores will also likely have success and be seeded higher than some veteran teams.
So while at the end of the day, it is likely that the eight most talented teams from each conference will make the playoffs this year, the scheduling advantage provided to younger teams cannot be ignored. With that advantage comes the fact that the nonchalant attitude we have seen toward the regular season by some playoff teams in the past few years will likely be diminished this season, as every game takes on a little more importance.
What problems do you see with the NBA’s 66-game schedule?
Follow Daniel on Twitter at @dgm591.
Follow Dime on Twitter at @DimeMag.
Become a fan of Dime Magazine on Facebook HERE.
-->
December 5th, 2011 at 1:16 pm
Aron Phillips says:
With this in mind, I hope Jeff Green agrees to a qualifying offer in Boston.
December 5th, 2011 at 1:25 pm
jon says:
I dont see how this is a huge problem because 90% of them grew up playing 3-4 games a day during aau so 1 game a day over 3 days is not that bad especially at home if it was away that would suck lol
December 5th, 2011 at 1:33 pm
BRUCE says:
C”Mon Man, that is in their bloods, their founding fathers were slaves. They should be used to hard work but this time they are getting PAID.
December 5th, 2011 at 1:41 pm
stefan says:
lol @BRUCE
after reading this article I have the impression that this season might turn out to more fun than a normal one. it’s true that younger teams will have an edge on the likes of celtics and spurs so we might see a change towards college style of play. I could see the thunder playing the mavs full court after halftime and winning by 30…
December 5th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
Buddahfan says:
Playing five games in six days is also tough on the team’s announcers LOL
How about season ticket holders, if those five games in six days are at home?
What about the older refs?
Sponsors on TV also loose out with over exposure.
December 5th, 2011 at 1:52 pm
Austin Burton says:
Good piece, Marks. I was thinking before that the shorter schedule would obviously benefit teams like San Antonio and Boston because (1) less games means less wear-and-tear, and (2) they’re veteran teams that don’t need as much time to gel, but you made me look at another angle I hadn’t considered.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:02 pm
Ryan Desmarais says:
Another thing to consider is that a team like Boston, with only six players currently under contract, will have to bring in more veterans to solidify their roster. That means more practice time will be needed in order for them to get comfortable in the system. If you combine the consolidation of games with the practices that will be needed in order to form some sense of cohesion, you get a lot of older Celtics who will have some tired legs and won’t get the necessary time off in order to recover from bumps, bruises or possibly something even more serious.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:26 pm
Aron Phillips says:
It’s interesting that Lamond Murray actually has this to say:
“Back in 1998, we saw the veteran teams are always the ones that do best in the shortened season, because they’re better equipped, they stayed ready, they know each other’s games. So it’s an easier adjustment for them than for teams that are rebuilding.”
I do agree that rebuilding teams – whether they’re young or old – are at a significant disadvantage, as well as teams with new coaches. For example, no one is talking about the learning curve in L.A. with new head coach Mike Brown.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:36 pm
karmatic says:
many nba athletes in their late 30s are producing at unheard of rates, back to back games or no. many nba athletes in their early 20s are in turrible shape, and hacking up furballs after 6 minutes without a tv timeout. a compressed 66 game season, with a fair distribution of back to backs (look real close, and i’m sure there will be some scheduling winners and losers), will favor the teams in the best shape that go 10 players deep every night, and coaches who don’t play anyone more than 30-35 minutes a night.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:42 pm
First & Foremost says:
Hold up… I swear I wrote this entire article in a comment section. And I digress…
All the NBA did was spread 1 month of games throughout the remaining schedule. This will benefit deeper and/or younger teams. With that being said, F*** being clutch. Knowing you had 2 days of rest, a team could try to mount a double digit comeback. Now, huge leads in the 3rd quarter will wrap a game up. No coach would be willing to go all out just to TRY to win a game, then have to fly out for another 2 games in 3 nights. It will be interesting to see how SA & Boston pick and choose games.
Mon-Pacers; Tues-Bulls; Thur-Pistons. Do you play the Pacers tough, let the bulls have 1 and then go after the pistons? Do you rest vs the Pacers, try to steal one from the bulls, and the hope to recover for the pistons? How many days of rest will each team be on when we play them? Did they have to travel?
Let us enjoy these chess matches.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:48 pm
First & Foremost says:
Do you risk trading players? Look at Jeff Green, it took him forever and a day to get comfortable in Boston. If you have a complex system, do you waste your time trying to incorporate a player when he will ahve very little practice time?
December 5th, 2011 at 6:05 pm
H-man says:
Good piece, especially the last paragraph. I totally agree that it will be much more difficult for teams to be “nonchalant” during the regular season with such a compressed schedule, to the NBA fan’s benefit.