I don't know what you do about this. To me it is obvious that if you wanted a system where you were actually trying to find the best team you would look to find that team over 6 months and not a week like you did in nearly all sports leagues around the world 100 years ago. But capitalism gets in the way of doing it that way. Which in the end causes the problem you are mentioning but it hurts them in the pocketbook less than doing things a more reasonable way.
Think of football or basketball and put the worst team over the last 40 years against the best. What are the chances of the 2008 Detroit Lions beating the 1985 Chicago Bears? That's a mismatch. That's close to a 100:1 shot. Now think of baseball. Baseball is a game where randomness plays a huge role. Is the worst team beating the best a big deal? No it happens all the time. In a series between them during the season a sweep by the better team maybe isn't even the most likely outcome. You'd probably think the worst team getting 1 of the 3 is just about as, if not more, likely. One game is almost totally meaningless when it comes to finding the better team. But it is also a game where you can play every day for months so you have what could be a statistically relevant 162 game season. Do you use that? No, not really. You let half the teams into the playoffs and then decide things with single game play-ins and almost meaningless 7-game series. Why intentionally decide the champion almost entirely by luck instead of actually trying to find the best team? That is very much by design. But, even in the era when all 162 games mattered for first place rather than just making the playoffs, players that were healthy all year still almost always took a few games off because even then it was beneficial to the team as a whole.
Baseball hasn't solved its revenue disparity issues. So if you actually had to field one of the very, very best teams to have a realistic shot at the title most fans would enter the season knowing that their team is probably irrelevant most years. By September 1 nearly all fans would know their team is irrelevant. Baseball has found it easier to tackle these issues by intentionally untethering the requirement for fielding an above average team to having a realistic chance at winning the championship. Football is a game where the best team usually wins so a one and done playoff system actually eliminates the mediocre better than MLB's playoffs. The NBA has 7 game series and while the best teams doesn't win one game quite as much as football it is unlikely for a mediocre team to win 4 series over 7 games in a row.
In a world where sports are competing with all sorts of other media the best way to get the eyeballs of the most casual fans is to decide it fast and dirty and maybe you can hold their attention for a few days. But you still go through the regular season which is long and drawn out to make money off of the most serious fans for half of the year. But at the same time you are intentionally selling the playoffs as the only thing that really matters. If you do that you will have this load management. The only way to stop this is to stop selling quick and dirty championships as the only thing that matters. Yes, its better to finish first than second but its also better to finish third than fourth. And it is better to outperform another team over 80 games than over 7. If you want to stop this it all has to matter. As Herm Edwards famously once said you should, "Play to win the game." IMO, my extremely analytical mind would rather see things that way. But it isn't what the league is selling on purpose and I don't see much of a way around occasionally having players take off regular season games. It is just very obviously part of the best strategy.
Last Edited: 5/23/2023 12:16:39 PM by Victory