NBA has rescheduled Indy Game for March 21st.

17th and 24th are against Rockets. SHould treat those as off nights.

Mar. 15 at San Antonio 8:30
Mar. 17 Houston 7:00
Mar. 18 Boston 6:00
Mar. 20 Dallas 8:00
Mar. 21 Indianapolis
Mar. 22 Los Angeles 8:00
Mar. 24 at Houston 8:00

Mar. 27 Portland 8:00
Mar. 30 at Cleveland 8:00
Apr. 1 Oklahoma City 6:00
Apr. 4 Memphis 9:30
Apr. 6 at Phoenix 10:00
Apr. 7 at Golden State 8:30
Apr. 9 at LA 10:30
Apr. 11 San Antonio 8:00

Might as well add @Cleveland on the 30th to the list.

Screw player safety right? 7 games in 10 nights is going to lead to someone getting injured. This is insane.

Kushner agrees:

quote:

---

I completely fail to follow the logic of postponing a game due to "player safety" then picking a make-up date which forces one team to play on three consecutive nights and six times in eight days.

---

quote:

---

Though had they given our players the option of playing with the slightly buckled floor and ghetto tarp or playing 3 nights in a row, they might have just said frick it, let's go.

---

I don't see how they could have. Every time they showed the tarp I had visions of it coming lose and dumping thousands of gallons of water on the players leading to at least one hospitalization and out for 6-8 weeks.

They'll take the Indiana game off and rest players. That way they won't have to play back to back games.

frick Indy and the nba.

Really it should be played today.

Pelicans and pacers would have been back to back. Pelicans would have been 3 games in 4 days. Pacers would have been 3 games in 5 days.

Indy trying to secure a win that should have been a loss to help their playoff standings.

I agree. Fine the team a hefty sum. But don't put the players in a situation where they can get hurt. And I'd be saying the same thing if the roles were reversed. I just hate when leagues are hypocritical about player safety.

5 games in 6 days holy shiiit...

Why are so many of y'all and the people that cover the team acting like this is some huge health risk? You know who rests players? Contenders who are going to end up playing 100+ games over 8-9 months, and have been doing so for multiple years, instead of 82 games over 7 months.

This paper from the yearly NBA MIT Stat Nerd conference says that back to backs are not a significant factor in injuries. It's more the overall work load, see my example above of contenders playing 100 games a year resting players.

quote:

---

These findings support the hypothesis that individual workload and playing style can place additional strain on a player’s body. Finally, it is interesting to note variables that do not significantly contribute to the prediction of injuries, such as the number of back-­-to-­-back games and the number of games played during the 14-day aggregation window used in our model. All together these results indicate that total workload and activity, rather than the short-­-term increase of games played, are much more substantial factors to the overall risk of injury.

---

PDF link LINK

I get why Pels fans may be extra concerned about injury risk because Pels, but I'm much more concerned that Indy is setting us up to lose not only the game against them, but possibly a very winnable game against the Lakers.

quote:

---

And what does that paper say about back to back to backs?

I would bet nothing, since they never happen.

---

They didn't just conclude back to backs weren't a significant factor, they concluded the number of games in a 2 week period like your 3 in 4 and 4 in 5s weren't a significant factor.

quote:

---

it is interesting to note variables that do not significantly contribute to the prediction of injuries, such as the number of back-­-to-­-back games and the number of games played during the 14-day aggregation window used in our model.

---

Pels fans get to assume the worst case scenario, which goes against the general direction of the data, because there isn't much data on this specific scenario?