Stern Punishment

NBA Commissioner David Stern followed through with "substantial sanctions" against the San Antonio Spurs in the form of a $250K fine for their decision to rest key players in a nationally televised game against Miami last night.  Does Stern make a valid point in defense of angry fans (not to mention TNT - the station broadcasting the game) who were deprived of seeing star players they tuned in, or even paid good money, to see?  Did the Spurs make the right decision by benching their best players?  Or is this just the frosting on the cake to a larger issue facing the league?

First of all, let's just say that Stern's punishment is a wild overreaction that has no precedent.  This is hardly the first time that a team has rested healthy players - in fact, Spurs coach Gregg Popovich has a track record of doing this (just look to last season, when he did the same thing in a blow out loss to Portland).  Anyone that follows the Spurs (admittedly a disgracefully small sample size) should not be surprised that Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili and Danny Green skipped this game, which was the Spurs fourth game in five nights at the end of a six game road trip.  A marquee match up against the defending champions in Miami is one fans likely marked their calenders for, but Popovich marked this game on his calender back in July when the schedule came out as a game he planned to punt.  With an important game against division rival Memphis looming this weekend, the Spurs decided it was to their benefit to send their aging stars home early to prepare for that game instead of putting them through a grueling stretch of schedule that would have left them exhausted.

Popovich is a brilliant coach who understands better than anyone that the NBA regular season is a marathon, not a sprint.  He knows his team is more than capable of winning 50+ games every year to put them near the top of the Western Conference playoff race.  The key to making a deep playoff run is to not only get there with a high seed, but to get there with a healthy roster that isn't too worn down.  The Spurs roster is deep, with one of the better supporting casts in the league, but their title aspirations start with their core players.  Keeping them upright through the long season is the key to their success, which is why 36 year old Tim Duncan is averaging only 30 minutes per night and Ginobili (35) is coming off the bench for less than 24 minutes a game.  Even as the youngest member of their star trio, Parker is averaging the least amount of minutes (a shade under 32 per game) since his rookie year, now that he's also on the wrong side of 30 years old.

All the fuss over the Spurs lineup decision overlooks an important factor - the Spurs almost won!  Their 105-100 loss, on the road against the defending champs, wasn't decided until the thrilling final minute of the game.  You could argue that the Spurs offense was a mess down the stretch without a go to option to carry them, therefore missing their star players cost them a game they should have been able to win, but you can't deny that the game was worthy of it's nationally televised slot.  The Spurs will continue to limit the minutes of their best players, occasionally even having them sit out the tail end of a back-to-back, because they realize in the grand scheme of things it gives them the best chance to win in the end.  Despite those roster management decisions, the Spurs (13-4) are still tied with Memphis (11-2) in their division and have the third best record in the West.  Clearly, Popovich knows what he's doing.  People tend to count out the Spurs every year as their stars get older (their small market in San Antonio, combined with the insane notion that they are somehow a "boring" team certainly doesn't help), yet every year they find themselves near the top of the conference.  No team is better at building a complete roster or managing the minutes of their players.  Perhaps it's time we stop doubting them and let them do their thing.

The debate over micro managing minutes would be negated by fixing an even bigger problem facing the league.  The 82 game schedule is just too long!  It is becoming increasingly clear that players (especially those over 30) struggle through the grind of a long season.  Injuries begin to pile up and the quality of games suffers.  Teams generally struggle on the second night of a back-to-back, especially when they are on the road.  The struggles for a veteran Celtics team in this scenario over the past several years is well documented.  Teams can look at a schedule before the season even begins and point out games they can predict their teams will have a tough time with - not due to the opponent, but due to the schedule around that game.  That's why Celtics coach Doc Rivers wasn't all that surprised by a blow out loss to the lowly Pistons.  It was the team's 4th game in 5 nights, when the team had to travel to Detroit from Boston where they played a home game the previous day.

Using Boston's schedule as an example, the Celtics have 21 pairs of back-to-back's this season, many of which include road games that require travel in between.  If their opponent for that second game had the previous day off, it gives them an unfair scheduling advantage.  The one benefit of this is that it helps encourage more parity, since even the bottom feeders of the league can pull off an upset against one of the league's elite if they catch them at the right time.  But when that comes at the expense of player health and the quality of games, it's hardly worth the trade off. 

During stretches of the schedule packed with games, teams have little opportunity to allow their players to recover from the bumps and bruises that they endure throughout the season - let alone recovering from more serious injuries.  It also does not allow for much practice time.  This is particularly an issue early in the season, when teams that overhauled their rosters in the off-season are attempting to build team chemistry (think this years Lakers or the 2010 Heat), as well as later in the season when contenders are adding new pieces via trade or player buy outs.  Unless you're Allen Iverson (practice, you talkin about practice?!), it's essential for teams to have this time to work on things so they can mesh well as a unit during game action.  A compacted schedule makes that nearly impossible at times.

The solution would be to cut the schedule from 82 games down to a more manageable 70.  In doing so, they could spread out the games enough that they can essentially eliminate back-to-backs and prevent putting players through hellacious schedules.  Plenty of elite teams (Spurs, Lakers, Celtics) are known for sleep walking through the regular season, bidding their time until the postseason, knowing full well they'll make it there.  So why not let them get there sooner with less games that matter less?  70 games is a large enough sample size to determine the pecking order in the league.  If those 70 games are higher quality than the current schedule that includes at least a handful of sluggish performances from weary players, how is this a bad thing?  Sometimes less is more!

Of course, this is all a pipe dream, since owners would never agree to losing ticket sales for six home games (despite that there are plenty of ways they could make up for those lost funds), but it's solid in theory.  If they aren't willing to do something radical to improve the quality of games, then the league should not complain when a team like the Spurs works within the rules to manage their players for the long run - even if that means sacrificing in the short term here and there.

Stern fined the Spurs to appease the concerns of TNT, which pays the league a lot of money for the rights to broadcast their games.  It's all about money for the commissioner.  That's hardly Popovich's concern.  He's just trying to win - not just today, he's competing for that prize at the end of the season.  After all, isn't that what it's all about?

Remember, it's a marathon, not a sprint.  Gregg Popovich knows that better than anyone.