Why the Evidence Cannot Settle It
The argument is structurally resistant to proof because the interesting outcome is unobservable. Nobody sees the injury that did not happen, so the benefit of any specific rest decision can never be demonstrated, while the cost is fully visible in an empty starting lineup and a disappointed arena. That asymmetry is enough on its own to keep the dispute alive indefinitely.
Incentives compound it. A coach who plays a fatigued star who then gets hurt faces severe criticism, while a coach who rests a healthy star faces mild criticism and no lasting consequence. When the penalties for the two errors are that unequal, behaviour drifts toward caution regardless of what any body of evidence says, and it will keep drifting until the penalty for absence is made comparable to the penalty for injury.
