The Golden State Warriors found a way to beat the Cleveland Cavaliers on Friday night, 120-114. That was easily one of the least expected outcomes of the night.
It isn’t because the Cavaliers have just been better this season and that the Warriors stink on the road. Sure, that’s part of it. But the main thing here was that the Warriors didn’t play a single one of their stars.
Steph Curry, Draymond Green, Klay Thompson and Andrew Wiggins all sat Friday’s game against the Cavaliers out.
They’d just played an overtime thriller against the Celtics the night before in Boston. For the second leg of their back-to-back, the Warriors had to travel to Cleveland. Just as they’ve done all season long, the Warriors pulled some players to keep them well-rested.
Of course, this was probably infuriating for some fans out there. People paid money to see the Golden State Warriors and Steph Curry. They didn’t get to see that.
Kerr said he felt bad about it, but also felt it was the nature of the “brutal” business they’re in. He then used this moment to advocate for a 72-game NBA season.
Steve Kerr on the Warriors sitting their big names in Cleveland tonight
“I feel terrible for fans who bought a ticket expecting to see someone play. It’s a brutal part of the business. It’s why I’m going to continue to advocate for 72-game seasons.”
Full soundbite pic.twitter.com/P0ZGbv1DNE
— Anthony Slater (@anthonyVslater) January 20, 2023
“It’s proven that on back-to-backs, if a guy is banged up, players are much more likely to get injured and miss more games. And so that’s why you’re seeing league wide, everybody is being so cautious when a guy is banged up…I feel terrible for fans who bought a ticket expecting to see someone play. It’s a brutal part of the business. It’s why I’m going to continue to advocate for 72-game seasons.”
Kerr has a point here. Even with the reduction of back-to-back games and four-in-five-night slates for teams, the schedule can still be pretty brutal on players’ bodies.
But still, there are points to be made on the other side as well. We’ll go over both here.
The case for shortening the season
Kerr made the case himself. It’s tough playing an 82-game schedule and avoiding wear and tear — especially with the way the game is played these days.
Players at all positions can shoot and stretch the floor. Defenders have to cover all that space and it’s as difficult as it’s ever been. JJ Reddick described it on First Take in June.
.@jj_redick revisits the conversation of a potential shortened NBA season.
"The reality is the wear and tear on our bodies is very different than it was 20-30 years ago and that's a fact." pic.twitter.com/QKLTtFq92i
— First Take (@FirstTake) June 7, 2022
“The vast majority of teams, you’re playing 100, 105 possessions per game. You’re running all over the court. It’s the spacing, too. The amount of action and load that you’re putting on your body…The wear and tear on our bodies has incresed. So, yes, we do have all these medical advancements. We do have all of these sports science modules and equipment that can keep us on the court. But the reality is the wear and tear on our bodies is very different from what it was 20 and 30 years ago. And that’s a fact.”
He’s not wrong. The average pace of an NBA through the 1990s was only 93.7 possessions per game, according to data charted by Stat Muse. The number in the 2020s is up to 99.27. On top of that, teams are taking 34.6 3-pointers per game. The NBA is as stretchy as it’s ever been and nearly as fast as it was back in the 1970s and 1980s.
Of course, covering all that ground at such a rapid pace is going to have wear and tear on players’ bodies.
The case against shortening the season
There’s still another side to this thing. The most obvious thing is something Kerr mentioned, which was revenue issues. Fewer games mean fewer ticket sales.
However, that probably isn’t the biggest deal when you consider there are other ways to make up that revenue. If the season is only cut by 10 games, there are ways to minimize the damage that makes sense, as CNBC’s Jabari Young writes.
“But with fewer games, owners would save on operational costs and justify an increasing ticket prices, which could create demand via scarcity as fewer popular teams would visit cities per year with a shorter season.
And if play-in games are included, those extra contests would be revenue-generating, too.”
The NBA is also adding a mid-season tournament that could boost revenue as well via higher ticket prices and primetime television slots.
The bigger issue at hand here is that cutting the season short probably won’t actually curtail any resting efforts from coaches. Back-to-back games will still exist. Injuries won’t go away.
In the end, it’d likely be better for the player’s health. But the question of how much better it would be is a valid one. If you’re cutting games out of the season to benefit player health, cutting more than just 10 might be necessary. And no one wants to do that.
So what's the solution?
It’s hard to say right now. Ultimately, that’d have to be something that is collectively bargained.
Let’s say the NBA does choose to cut games out of the season. Would players be committed to fewer rest days overall? What does that look like? Does that even make sense from a player health standpoint?
Those are questions that will need to be answered before we have a true solution here. Ultimately, Kerr’s comments here may be a starting point. And that’s a good thing.
