[jerf]

weaksauce's point should still be valid too, actually. Choice is power. Assume that by "star player" we're not talking Micheal Jordan but merely somebody who is the best player on the team; having them in reserve in the last quarter means the other team can't simply deploy a strategy that is built on the coach not being able to put that player back out. A bad chess analogy would be facing the choice of retreating your queen back to your home ranks or getting her captured, there is strategic value in just having her back there even if she is not currently in a powerful position. I say it's a bad analogy because basketball players are more complex than chess pieces, with more ways to be weak and strong, but the idea still holds.

[kenjackson]

Sorry for getting back to this so late. The problem is that your trading choice now (if you dogmatically apply the yank) for choice later. And unlike the queen, MJ on the bench doesn't directly affect the game on the floor. While the queen actually does, even in the backrow.

[weaksauce]

It's not quite true that having a couple key players on the bench in the middle of the game does not have a direct affect on the game. There are a few key things at play; one, the non key players might thrive during the middle of the game because there is less pressure on them to perform so they might score more than they would at the end of the game. Two, the defense during the middle of the game is not as intense as near the end where the stakes are higher. Three, the clutch players will probably sore more during the last moments of the game where there is more pressure for the win because they have years of experience at the end and generally do not fear the clutch shots.