What is more detrimental to a teams success a back to back game or

[GrayGoat]

Missing a starter and your best bench player?

[And1AllDay]

Missing a starter and your best bench player

[Ainosterhaspie]

I remember reading something a few years back where they could look at the schedule and predict certain losses (teams involved didn't even matter) based on how close games were scheduled. Can't remember the details but things like back to backs at the end of a road trip 5 games in 7 days was basically an automatic loss.

Like I said, the details escape me but some scheduling means you're going to lose. It's not all back to backs, but sometimes schedule is worse than having key players out.

** Edit: Found the article (https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/17790282/the-nba-grueling-schedule-cause-loss) if anyone's interested.*


Does it work? Cheri Mah, sleep consultant to NBA teams and a research fellow at the UC San Francisco Human Performance Center, helped construct the formula. Last season, using a similar formula, her system correctly picked losers with up to 78 percent accuracy. Those predictions were blind to the quality of the teams -- showing how strong the impact of back-to-back games is. "The reality is, if I could craft an NBA season," Mah says, "it would not have back-to-backs."

[noonereal]

Missing a starter and your best bench player?


depends on the teams depth, obviously.

There is no one correct answer.

[light]

Missing a starter and your best bench player?

Your best bench player is often better than your average starter. A team can usually afford to lose a random starter, but it can rarely afford to lose its top bench player.

[Real Men Wear Green]

It depends on who your missing. If they have alts you really can't miss them though.