Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Managing Minutes - short term vs long term or short sightedness vs vision?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A big part of limiting per game minutes isn't about making a player less 'tired' or 'worn out' come playoff time. It's about reducing the risk of getting an injury (or aggravating an existing injury) because the odds of this happening go way up when you're playing tired.
    "Stop eating your sushi."
    "I do actually have a pair of Uggs."
    "I've had three cups of green tea tonight. I'm wired. I'm absolutely wired."
    - Jack Armstrong

    Comment


    • JimiCliff wrote: View Post
      A big part of limiting per game minutes isn't about making a player less 'tired' or 'worn out' come playoff time. It's about reducing the risk of getting an injury (or aggravating an existing injury) because the odds of this happening go way up when you're playing tired.
      Even ignoring the tired = injury-prone aspect (which is true to at least some degree), a 10% decrease in minutes is a 10% decrease in minutes in which you can get injured, and as such a 10% decrease in injury risk. Even that seems like a good idea. And that's ignoring the tired aspect, which should make that ratio go way up.
      twitter.com/dhackett1565

      Comment


      • That's why everyone praises Casey for keeping JV healthy the past few years.
        If we knew half as much about coaching an NBA team as we think, we"d know twice as much as we do.

        Comment


        • DanH wrote: View Post
          Even ignoring the tired = injury-prone aspect (which is true to at least some degree), a 10% decrease in minutes is a 10% decrease in minutes in which you can get injured, and as such a 10% decrease in injury risk. Even that seems like a good idea. And that's ignoring the tired aspect, which should make that ratio go way up.
          True. Should be noted, though, that the way that you've framed this is a little distorting. I.E. if a player's actual risk for being injured in a game is 2%, then a 10% reduction in minutes will only bring this down to 1.8%.
          Last edited by JimiCliff; Wed Feb 10, 2016, 02:32 PM.
          "Stop eating your sushi."
          "I do actually have a pair of Uggs."
          "I've had three cups of green tea tonight. I'm wired. I'm absolutely wired."
          - Jack Armstrong

          Comment


          • Primer wrote: View Post
            Lowry was completely worn out in the playoffs last year due to high minutes and usage. I'm sure the better conditioning this year will help, but you can't pretend that players don't get worn out as the season goes on. If Casey isn't going to limit his minutes now, then whenever we lock up the 1/2 seed, he better start playing Lowry a lot lot less to get him fresh for the playoffs.
            But look at where we are in the season. We're through the gruelling opening third of the season, and have established our cushion for the 2nd spot in the second third. Then the London trip gave us a lot of days off. Then the homestand and lots of rest in recent weeks. Next up is the allstar break, which, responsibilities aside, is not a killer when you now get mon/tues/wed off especially. The end result is basically being fully rested for the home stretch, with the team playing great and being in a favourable position, and when the resting of players for the playoffs becomes more imperative. Finally, by this time where Kyle actually needs the rest, Delon will be that much closer to game-ready, and Kyle can be sat out for entire games, avoiding back-to-backs. Which I'd argue (since that's what Pop does) is just as valuable as a minutes-reduction.

            Bottomline, all is not doom and gloom.

            PS - As far as I know, Kyle struggled in the playoffs from lingering effects of his back injury, not from general fatigue.
            Last edited by SkywalkerAC; Wed Feb 10, 2016, 02:38 PM.

            Comment


            • JimiCliff wrote: View Post
              True. Should be noted, though, that the way that you've framed this is a little distorting. I.E. if a player's actual risk for being injured in a game is 2%, then a 10% reduction in minutes will only bring this down to 1.8%.
              I'd argue that is most of the risk mitigation for NBA-level conditioned athletes. It's still a 10% reduction in the risk.

              Comment


              • SkywalkerAC wrote: View Post
                I'd argue that is most of the risk mitigation for NBA-level conditioned athletes. It's still a 10% reduction in the risk.
                Obviously it's still a 10% reduction in the risk. But in absolute terms, it's minimal. And then, of course, you have to factor how the minute reduction will affect the success of your team.

                As for "NBA-level conditioned athletes", Jonas couldn't even speak at the halftime interview in the game against the Pistons. These guys get tired.
                Last edited by JimiCliff; Wed Feb 10, 2016, 02:52 PM.
                "Stop eating your sushi."
                "I do actually have a pair of Uggs."
                "I've had three cups of green tea tonight. I'm wired. I'm absolutely wired."
                - Jack Armstrong

                Comment


                • JimiCliff wrote: View Post
                  Obviously it's still a 10% reduction in the risk. But in absolute terms, it's minimal. And then, of course, you have to factor how the minute reduction will affect the success of your team.
                  A 2% injury risk is a mean of 50 games for an injury. 1.8% injury risk is a mean of 55.6 games for an injury.

                  That's not an insignificant difference.
                  twitter.com/anthonysmdoyle

                  Comment


                  • JimiCliff wrote: View Post
                    True. Should be noted, though, that the way that you've framed this is a little distorting. I.E. if a player's actual risk for being injured in a game is 2%, then a 10% reduction in minutes will only bring this down to 1.8%.
                    Indeed! Of course, players play 82 games, so a 0.2 raw % reduction in risk 82 times over is a 16.4% season long reduction in injury risk to the player.
                    twitter.com/dhackett1565

                    Comment


                    • Barolt wrote: View Post
                      A 2% injury risk is a mean of 50 games for an injury. 1.8% injury risk is a mean of 55.6 games for an injury.

                      That's not an insignificant difference.
                      I pulled the 2% out of the air, who knows what it really is.
                      "Stop eating your sushi."
                      "I do actually have a pair of Uggs."
                      "I've had three cups of green tea tonight. I'm wired. I'm absolutely wired."
                      - Jack Armstrong

                      Comment


                      • CNinja26 wrote: View Post
                        Everyone is getting injured these days in the NBA - high minutes players, low minutes players. Guys can find other ways to rest than just mpg in a basketball game. They do have frequent practices with scrimmages, intense workout sessions, etc. Taking it easier in some of these physically-demanding tasks can easily mitigate what would translate into a few minutes a game. It's not like Kyle plays in summer leagues or international basketball, and has had years of deep playoff runs. A major part of Kyle's issue last year was that he was out of shape. This year, he is very much in shape and is prepared for the grind. I do think his minutes should eventually go down as the year progresses, but I don't think it's that big of deal.
                        Really good point here about there being other ways to rest than just in game minutes.

                        Guys like Kyle spend 35+ minutes on the court for games every 2 or 3 days or so. They spend a lot more time exerting themselves in practice sessions and workouts. Maybe not as high impact or intense, but still make significant contributions to fatigue.

                        Not sure if anyone here really follows soccer, but Manchester United has been plagued by injuries the past two seasons. And obviously in soccer it's hard to blame that on minutes because 8 guys out of 11 are going to play all 90 minutes of a match (since you only have 3 subs). Many blamed the injuries on a combination of bad luck and Louis Van Gaal's intense training practices on off-days throughout the week. Soccer's different though since you don't play games as frequently, but still interesting to take a look at.

                        Comment


                        • JimiCliff wrote: View Post
                          I pulled the 2% out of the air, who knows what it really is.
                          I was pointing out that while the difference between 2% and 1.8% might not seem that large, it's definitely impactful.
                          twitter.com/anthonysmdoyle

                          Comment


                          • DanH wrote: View Post
                            Indeed! Of course, players play 82 games, so a 0.2 raw % reduction in risk 82 times over is a 16.4% season long reduction in injury risk to the player.
                            Right. A 16.4% reduction...of 2%

                            Again - nice framing
                            "Stop eating your sushi."
                            "I do actually have a pair of Uggs."
                            "I've had three cups of green tea tonight. I'm wired. I'm absolutely wired."
                            - Jack Armstrong

                            Comment


                            • JimiCliff wrote: View Post
                              Right. A 16.4% reduction...of 2%

                              Again - nice framing
                              If you have a 2% risk of injury, then you would expect a player to get injured 1.64 times in an 82 game season (assuming they don't miss any games, which makes no sense but I digress). If you reduce that risk to 1.8%, then you would expect a player to get injured 1.47 times in an 82 game season.

                              Or if a player plays 1000 games (around 12 seasons) you'd expect them to get injured 20 times in the first scenario and 18 in the second. It's not really a big difference, reduces your injury risk by like 1 injury every 6 seasons.

                              Comment


                              • JWash wrote: View Post
                                If you have a 2% risk of injury, then you would expect a player to get injured 1.64 times in an 82 game season (assuming they don't miss any games, which makes no sense but I digress). If you reduce that risk to 1.8%, then you would expect a player to get injured 1.47 times in an 82 game season.

                                Or if a player plays 1000 games (around 12 seasons) you'd expect them to get injured 20 times in the first scenario and 18 in the second. It's not really a big difference, reduces your injury risk by like 1 injury every 6 seasons.
                                Or do injuries tend to compound?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X