The case for and against Steve Kerr’s proposal to shorten the NBA season to 72 games

Shortening the season has to come with some concession

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.

“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.