They got rid of the season series tiebreaker, now they go by percentage over the whole season instead of just percentage versus the team you tied with. So margins are even more important now as a bigger margin against Sydney can still help New Zealand, whereas last year that wouldn't have been the case.

Someone posted earlier in the year that head to heads don't count aren't part of the equation anymore.

From memory the standings are determined by overall record, overall percentage... then I forget - net margin of games between tied teams?

So I think coaches leave players in to finish a game in order to maximise the team's percentage.

I get where Heal is coming from: if a coach is willing to leave their best players on-court for percentage, why not to ensure the win first and foremost?

Some coaches seem to overestimate their depth too. Getting subs in early is good for managing fouls, maintaining intensity and giving players an opportunity, but the NBL coaches seem to go overboard at times.

Fatigue in a basketball game occurs quickly and can be restored quickly, due to the fact the short-burst creative-phosphate system is the energy source predominantly used, a system that produces for a few seconds at a time but needs regular replenishment.

So when you hear someone say the 40 minute game should change sub patterns from the 48 minute game they obviously don't have any knowledge of the physiology involved.

In lay men's terms, in a game of basketball a player's ability to do things like slide laterally on defence, get up and down the floor, explode for rebounds, have a quick first step etc starts dropping away reasonably quickly, and after a few minutes is quite diminished.

However, a couple of minutes on the bench gives the body the chance to replenish and the player comes out fresher.

A good practical example was the Kings a few weeks ago when Gaze was playing his starters big minutes. They were getting smashed in fourth quarters and Randle wasn't able to step up because he hadn't had much, if any rest.

Against Brisbane this week, from memory the most minutes for a King was 33 and they were able to run out the game much better, especially Randle who was able to play the closer role he did in Adelaide when he averaged 31 mins.

Paul, of course your arguments are sound, but unsurprisingly some teams (e.g. the Pans) have few options, and more respect is due them for playing beyond their reasonable physical limitations. I don't know how they do it.
'Mazing what determination can achieve, regularly.

The Taipans are impressive Greybouy, but even with their injuries their leading minutes men are Gliddon and McCarron on 29 per game. Fearne knows his stuff and respects the high performance side of things.

Funnily enough, there are 10 players in the league averaging over 30 mins per game, four of them are from Sydney but only one is from Cairns, NZ or Perth.

Not coincidentally, they are the three best possession game teams. They are the top three in OR%, bottom three in TO% and top three in oppo TO%.

Sure there are other factors that contribute to that, but having guys playing fresh is certainly an important factor. When talented guys can't produce short-burst energy their talent becomes less influential.

Interesting.
I like the analysis.

I think it comes down to the personal preference of the coach. Some want to keep trying 100% right to the end, no matter that its a forgone conclusion 2 minutes out.
Plus, we have all seen some sensational turnarounds with less than two minutes to play.

It can also be about perception and reaction.
If you go back a few decades, in a Cricket Test Match where the result was beyond doubt with the winners batting last, it was common for the losing captain to toss the ball to non-bowlers for the last couple of overs. Often hastening the end as the got belted. Now days, I get the impression that it would be seen as disrespectful.