Originally Posted by T-Bone 84
But the relevant question is, at what fatigue point do your best players become less than your bench players at full strength? Granted, the coach needs to balance fatigue vs. performance over the course of an entire season, but how often have you heard someone say “Our star player at 50% is better than his replacement at 100%”? Yesterday, Grant decided that a fatigued Crutcher was > a rested Crosby, and that a fatigued Cunningham > a rested Antetokounmpo.
Was it the right decision? Well, we lost, but we took them into double overtime, and if we had more than 3 guys contributing, we’d have won in regulation. And Cunningham and Crutcher were 2 of the 3 who played well enough to win.
You may now resume your regularly scheduled second guessing.
Posted via Mobile Device
|
If it's "winning time" at the end of regulation/overtime, absolutely I would agree with that line of thinking. It's the other stretches of the game where the bench can steal some minutes to keep the starters fresh for that final stretch. The gap between Scoochie and Crosby was even greater last year, but Crosby was able to steal enough minutes to keep Scoochie fresh at the end. I don't believe Scoochie would have been as clutch if he played the entire game.