there's a reason the 100m dash is only 100m. your body cannot expend 100% effort for an extended period.
that's why you see lap times drop off the longer the race. limiting battle's minutes not only makes his overall play better but also benefits carey or boeheim or whoever is getting real game time minutes. it's science.
So, I'm late to this party but I think it's a fairly interesting discussion to have in general. While you're alone here there are always several posters who want to see us playing more guys and, in particular, seeing us play younger players and those considered to be Boeheimed.
What I haven't seen posted is that I think there is some common ground here, which is the following:
1) We have had some players log HUGE minutes totals the past few years and it's been suboptimal at times.
We can discuss Battle this season in a bit but last year was crazy with he and Brissett (and Frank to a large degree) never being able to come off the floor and we've been in similar type spots in 16-17 with the starting five basically being locked into playing almost all game once Frank got benched and dajuan got injured (we still played roberson but didn't seem to want to do that much either). G and Cooney were locked into big minutes in 15-16 ... so anyway, obviously having a bit more depth than the past three years four years is a key (though I think this team has a few more options).
2) Logging 40 mpg for all of the 18 conference plays has to take a toll at certain points
These are young kids and there are TV timeouts etc., but I don't think there's much of an argument against the notion that if we had a solid option, it wouldn't hurt to get battle a minute or two in each half. Why not? Same goes for Brissett.
3) Sometimes good prospects end up in JB's dog house and it can be tough to play your way out.
We've seen it before and we'll see it again. The guy needs to trust you or you aren't playing when it matters. Jalen Carey will be the lightening rod it appears for this year and let's face it -- JB can't be thrilled with him. He played sparingly against Clemson, was miserable against Tech and Duke and was a spectator for Pitt. He's a good prospect so I think it's fair to question, to a certain degree, why he wouldn't at least get a few minutes in a pretty easy win vs. Pitt. I mean Frank had a nice game vs. Duke but it's not like he lit the world on fire vs. Tech or Pitt.
So, common ground. Having said that, I feel like there are some areas where your arguments fall flat. Those are:
1) Arguing over JB being a good coach or not
I don't know, dude has won a ton of games. The man has his warts, but to suggest he's anything other than an excellent coach (outside of those moments when we all get super frustrated) is absurd and undermines any argument one might have. It's OK to criticize but I think it needs to be done in a way that acknowledges the dude can coach, generally.
2) You draw a lot of linear relationships I'm not sure really exist, and then you double-down by insinuating that it's science. Let's start with Young Player A will get better with more minutes.
I really don't buy this as science of any sort. I'm surprised Carey didn't get a few minutes vs. Pitt but generally speaking I'm not sure trying to get him 4 minutes in place of Battle and 5 or 6 minutes in place of Frank accomplishes anything in the way of Carey's development. I mean, both Brissett and Dolezaj logged at least 1000 minutes last year and each has struggled at times to play at last season's levels this year. Getting reps is good, but you don't simply develop b/c you get minutes.
3) Veteran Player A will be better with more rest
Generally having depth is nice b/c you have options and, theoretically (as I mentioned above), it would stand to reason that over an 18-game schedule there would be some three-game weeks or tough matchups where buying a minute here or there for your key guys would be great. But do we really know if that rest makes them more efficient over the course of those 18 games? And how do you balance the game or two you might lose b/c you had Battle on the bench for a four-minute stretch? Anyway, having a bit more depth is great but I'm not sure we can really say it makes those starters 'better?'
4) Investing time in young players pays dividends in future seasons
You talk a lot about planning for the future yet part of the reason we've struggled so much is earlier-than-expected departures. We all know the names so no point regurgitating all of it, but the bottom line is there is so much fluidity and so many guys changing addresses each year and jumping at the NBA at first opportunity, I think it's really tough to play a kid and just assume you'll reap the benefits of that move later on.
5) Playing more kids early, even at the expense potentially of a game or two, wins you more games late
You never sacrifice a game. You're simply not guaranteed to get that back.
6) True rotations aren't around that much in the college game
Once games matter, most coaches are down to a much, much tighter rotation. And the craze that is managing minutes is largely an NBA thing where you have four games in five nights at times or back-to-backs, etc. in an 82-game season followed by a grueling set of playoff series. In that environment (along with the fact that they control their players for long stretches at the start of their careers -- six years I think) In that environment, yes there is clearly a method to the madness of managing minutes. It's just a different game.
Anyway, there are probably more but my feeling is that what you're really arguing is that we should be recruiting better so you have more guys you have to get on the floor each game. Not sure I"m 100% in agreement with that take, but it's much closer to the reality than this take, IMO. If you're going to die on a hill, do it on the one that says we need to land more isaiah stewarts and fewer greg davises.
