What single player in the NBA, if was stricken with a season ending injury would change the shape of the division, conference, and entire league until the next season?Is it Kobe? Wade? Dirk? LeBron?With a big name injury, one team's dreams of the playoffs dies while as many as 3 or 4 teams, it breathes life into them and gives them a significantly better chance to making the playoffs. Also gives a few other teams a better chance of winning a championship that season. Just like when David Robinson got a season ending injury back in 97, it changed the landscape of the league. It also gave an already good team the 1st pick in the draft to pick up Tim Duncan. I personally think it would be LeBron James. I'll give my reasons at a later time.
Awesome topic pj, I'm surprised it's only gotten 1 reply. But this is a tough one, there are so many great players and if any superstar gets hurt their team is basically screwed. But I'm going to have to say Dwyane Wade, and here's why:- If D-Wade went down, Miami would have to rely on Shaq and Toine for offense. Now, considering Shaq's age mixed with his "there one day, not the next" health staus, with Walker's inconsistancy, with Miami's old age as a team - they would struggle to make the playoffs.- That changes the Eastern Conference. Miami is no longer #1 without Wade (or Shaq, for that matter). The #1 seed is wide open for Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, and New Jersey to take.- The Southeast Division is now a battle between Washington, Orlando, and Indiana.- You don't get the high marketability in the playoffs with Wade out (again, if Miami might not even be in the playoffs without Wade).- And last of all, he's an NBA icon now. He's won a title, he's put up the numbers, he's still young, he's done nothing wrong for the media to pick apart, he's a role model right now. He's one of the highest marketed players in the league along with LeBron and Carmelo right now.
If Carmelo Anthony got injured the Denver Nuggets would be the worst team in the entire league. He is the only person we rely on for consistent offense. When he has it going the entire team has it going. When he has an off night, the entire team has an off night.Melo is the only consistent player on our team, We would no longer have a #1 scoring option. In the two games Melo missed last season we lost by double digits points against non playoff teams (Seattle and Golden State)Kobe Bryant is the other one. If he went down with a freak injury the Lakers would put up a battle for the worst team in the league. This would make their starting line-up Smush Parker, Sasha Vujacic, Lamar Odom, Luke Walton, and Kwame Brown/Andrew Bynum. That is a HORRIBLE line-up. One of the worst assembled in recent history.
I was thinking Allen Iverson and Paul Pierce, but it wouldn't shape the league. I agree with Kobe and Lebron. Without Kobe, the Lakers would be a lottery team, at the bottom of the Pacific. Without Lebron, the Cavs would still be trying to get the 8 seed, if Larry Hughes is 100%.
I'd say probably between Kobe and LeBron.Kobe - he basically is the Lakers. Tony listed the lineup, and that would just be horrible. They would be a lottery team and would have to rely on Lamar Odom's inconsistencies to run the offense. No team should have to start Sasha Vujacic. None.LeBron - Another guy who carries his team. Scoring, passing, rebounding. He's the nucleus of the team. I don't see the Cavs going anywhere without James.I think every team needs their superstar factor to go far in the NBA, and these are probably the biggest falls because all they have on those teams are pretty much their superstars.
Paul Pierce without a doubt.Imagine a lineup of Kendrick Perkins, Ryan Gomes, Wally, Delonte and Bassy. Without Pierce the bench all of a sudden becomes thin because you need to bump one of your better bench scorers into the starting lineup. This give TA more minutes and that usually hurts the team. Iverson, Wade, and Carmelo are good choices as well. But I think the Cavs would still be a good team if LeBron got hurt. I mean, obviously it would take them down a notch or two, but they still would have Larry Hughes who has proved throughout his career that he can be a servicable scorer.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yankshater213 @ Nov 18 2006, 07:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Paul Pierce without a doubt.Imagine a lineup of Kendrick Perkins, Ryan Gomes, Wally, Delonte and Bassy. Without Pierce the bench all of a sudden becomes thin because you need to bump one of your better bench scorers into the starting lineup. This give TA more minutes and that usually hurts the team. Iverson, Wade, and Carmelo are good choices as well. But I think the Cavs would still be a good team if LeBron got hurt. I mean, obviously it would take them down a notch or two, but they still would have Larry Hughes who has proved throughout his career that he can be a servicable scorer.</div>With no Pierce we have the #1 pick this year, no doubt, but he doesn't affect the league like a LeBron, Wade, Melo, or Kobe.And Cleveland would not be very good without LeBron. They have some solid players, and yes Hughes is servicable, but he's always hurt as well. Take LeBron off that roster as of today, you have Eric Snow, David Wesley, Donyell Marshall, Drew Gooden, and Big Z. Ouch. Not a great lineup, and no young stud.
Kobe Bryant.Lamar Odom is not a leader. He shys away from the spotlight, he doesn't like to shoot too many shots. I just dont think he's a guy you want leading your team. Besides Kobe and Lamar, they have no good scorers, their offense would suck. They would have no veteran leadership, they would just crumble, and become one of the worst teams in the League.
I'm agreeing a lot with CelticBalla on this, but just for the sake of arguement, I'm thinking Steve Nash. Think about that Suns team without Nash. I believe Nash is either slightly above or lower than James. Here's my points1. Nash is the point guard for the best offense in the league. Cut the head of the snake off and its not nearly as lethal anymore. Barbosa and Banks in my opinion aren't true point guards. Barbosa started at point in his 1st season and wasn't nearly as effective in that role as he is in his current role. Barbosa is a great player off the bench, but still struggles to run the team. If you have ever seen the Suns offense when Nash is out of the game you'll agree that it becomes stagnate. They still run, but they dont get as many easy buckets and have no offensive flow. Also, Nash is thier clutchest player on the team and they would lose plenty of close games. 2. Now I think Nash's absense would totally make it a showdown between Dallas and San Antonio for the conference finals. The West would become more to par with the East. I think in the West, the only teams with a shot of getting to the Finals are Dallas, San Antonio, and Phoenix. In the East, Pistons, Heat, Bulls, and Cavs. I think without the Suns, it'd make it a ton easier on the Texas teams. One of the powerhouse teams in the West will have to play the other two in the playoffs most likely. Without Phoenix, like I said earlier, it'll make the showdown between Dallas and San Antonio again in the WCF. Even if the Suns were able to make the playoffs, which I dont think they could in the West, they wouldnt be a threat. SA and Dallas would cruise the whole way. 3. I think the Cavs could still make the playoffs, because I feel they have a better roster than the Suns. Take away LeBron and Nash and the lineups would look similar to this. CLEC-Big ZF-Drew GoodenF-Ira Newble??G-Larry HughesG-Eric SnowBENCH-Marhshall, Varejao, Damon Jones, WesleyPHOC-AmareF-MarionF-DiawG-BellG-BarbosaBENCH-Banks, Rose, Kurt ThomasI'd take the Cavs roster in the East rather than the Suns in the West. Now, the Suns might have a better roster, but I just dont think it would be nearly effective without Nash in the there. Amare and Marion are way less effective without Nash's passes. Bell and Barbosa are able to have free reign on shooting and running because they know the defense is always watching Nash rather than them. Now I did say that the West would be taken down to about the same as the East, but the bottom of the West is still better than that of the East. It takes a couple of games over .500 record to make it as the 8th in the West while you can be the 8th with a sub.500 record in the East. I was just saying it'd be way easier for Dallas and SA becuase I just dont feel like either LA teams, the Nuggets, Jazz, Rockets, etc can beat them in a 7 game series. There are probably a few other points, but I just havent thought of them all. I'll post more when they come to me.
Joe Johnson and Paul Pierce really come to mind..Hawks would just be...wow, I can't even begin to imagine how bad we would be.Paul Pierce is the life, the leader, the everything for the Boston Celtics; they would go absolutly no where without him..
I dont think some of ya'll are understanding or reading the question all the way. I'm not asking who is the most significant player on a team, but rather the whole entire league. Yes, the Celtics would suck without Pierce, The T-Wolves would suck without KG, and the Sonics would suck without Ray Allen, but they pretty much suck with them as well. Take away KG and the Timberwolves lose maybe 10 more games. That doesn't really make a difference when your only going to win 30 games with KG. Take away Nash and the Suns will lose a ton more games and make it much easier for other teams in the West. Here is a perfect example:Michael Jordan retires from the NBA in the summer of 93. The Bulls were the best team in the league, but fall off since Jordan isnt there. That makes it possible for the Rockets to win back-to-backs. The Bulls didnt fall off that much, but it still made such a difference that the Knicks and Magic played for a ring against the Rockets rather than the Bulls. If Jordan hadnt retired I could argue all day that Hakeen would be another Karl Malone, John Stockton, Charles Barkley, Elgin Baylor. Great player, no rings. That a significant moment in basketball. Changed everything for two seasons. Now when Jordan comes back, what happens? Bulls win another 3 in a row. Perfect example. Now I agree with you that those players are the most important for thier teams, but not the entire league. They wouldnt make so much as a ripple in the water in the Ocean that is the NBA. Now if Nash, LeBron, Tim Duncan get lost for a season, it's a tidal wave.Hope that helps ya'll understand a bit more. Sorry if I didnt explain the question enough.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (kingjamez @ Nov 18 2006, 11:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Joe Johnson and Paul Pierce really come to mind..Hawks would just be...wow, I can't even begin to imagine how bad we would be.Paul Pierce is the life, the leader, the everything for the Boston Celtics; they would go absolutly no where without him..</div>But when you look at it, these teams dont have as drastic effect on the game as much as other teams do...I have no idea how this next guy hasnt been mentioned, because he may be the biggest of all, Chris Paul. Look at what his team was like before he came. They were the worst team in the league by far. As soon as he comes in, they were fighting for a playoff spot, with no real lineup adjustments. He is the fuel that runs the team. With Phoenix, they have enough talent on that team to still be a playoff contender without Nash....You take away Chris Paul, and they fall towards that bottom of the league IMO. Another one for this year (considering their team wasnt great last year) is Dwight Howard. This is not because he is one of the best players in the league, but if you look at the Magics roster, they would not have an offensive inside presence what so ever. He gets a load of the rebounds for them, blocks shots, and for the ones that he doesn't block, he changes the motion of alot more. Their starting lineup would beC-Darko MilicicPF-Tony BattieSF-Grant HillSG-Hedo TurkogluPG-Jameer NelsonIm sorry, but that team sounds awful. This is what WOULD be a possible #5 seed in the east, compared to without him, they would be near the bottom.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pjcolpitts™ @ Nov 18 2006, 10:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I dont think some of ya'll are understanding or reading the question all the way. I'm not asking who is the most significant player on a team, but rather the whole entire league. Yes, the Celtics would suck without Pierce, The T-Wolves would suck without KG, and the Sonics would suck without Ray Allen, but they pretty much suck with them as well. Take away KG and the Timberwolves lose maybe 10 more games. That doesn't really make a difference when your only going to win 30 games with KG. Take away Nash and the Suns will lose a ton more games and make it much easier for other teams in the West. Here is a perfect example:Michael Jordan retires from the NBA in the summer of 93. The Bulls were the best team in the league, but fall off since Jordan isnt there. That makes it possible for the Rockets to win back-to-backs. The Bulls didnt fall off that much, but it still made such a difference that the Knicks and Magic played for a ring against the Rockets rather than the Bulls. If Jordan hadnt retired I could argue all day that Hakeen would be another Karl Malone, John Stockton, Charles Barkley, Elgin Baylor. Great player, no rings. That a significant moment in basketball. Changed everything for two seasons. Now when Jordan comes back, what happens? Bulls win another 3 in a row. Perfect example. Hope that helps ya'll understand a bit more. Sorry if I didnt explain the question enough. Now I agree with you that those players are the most important for thier teams, but not the entire league. They wouldnt make so much as a ripple in the water in the Ocean that is the NBA. Now if Nash, LeBron, Tim Duncan get lost for a season, it's a tidal wave.</div>In that case, I would have to say Nash...He means so much to that team..He gets 10 assists constantly, every single game. He can score 30 on any given night. He makes the players around him so much better; Raja Bell, Leandro Barbosa, Amare Stoudamire, Shawn Marion, Boris Diaw, they are all having career years with the Suns, while Nash is in his prime. All of them have improved yes, but Nash does what he needs to make plays for the guys around him. Thats why I think he IS the most significant player in the league.
LeBron James means more to his team than any player in the L. Without LeBron James, the Cleveland Cavaliers are one of the worst teams in this league. Ilgauskas is inconsistent, Snow is not starting material anymore and is the worst starter in this league, Larry Hughes has not been the same player he was in Washington, and they don't have another scoring threat. The Phoenix Suns could still be a playoff team in the West without Steve Nash. Leandro Barbosa and Marcus Banks would step up to the plate with Nash's playing time and Boris Diaw, Raja Bell, Amare Stoudemire, and Shawn Marion could still be a solid team without Steve Nash.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RashadzMcCantz @ Nov 19 2006, 12:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>LeBron James means more to his team than any player in the L. Without LeBron James, the Cleveland Cavaliers are one of the worst teams in this league. Ilgauskas is inconsistent, Snow is not starting material anymore and is the worst starter in this league, Larry Hughes has not been the same player he was in Washington, and they don't have another scoring threat. The Phoenix Suns could still be a playoff team in the West without Steve Nash. Leandro Barbosa and Marcus Banks would step up to the plate with Nash's playing time and Boris Diaw, Raja Bell, Amare Stoudemire, and Shawn Marion could still be a solid team without Steve Nash.</div>Look at the game between Phoenix and Utah and you'll see what I mean. They dont have anyone to finish the game and end up loosing to the Jazz when they should of had it in the bag. I cant remember what they were last year without Nash, but it wasnt above .500.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pjcolpitts? @ Nov 19 2006, 12:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Look at the game between Phoenix and Utah and you'll see what I mean. They dont have anyone to finish the game and end up loosing to the Jazz when they should of had it in the bag. I cant remember what they were last year without Nash, but it wasnt above .500.</div>I can see where you're coming from. But I think that if Leandro Barbosa knew that he would have a full season ahead to start and earn playing time, I think he would quickly gain confidence and excell to his full potential. He can score and they would eventually get used to playing without Steve Nash. They depend on Steve Nash so much that they can't possibly play without him for a short spand. That's why if he was out for the whole season, they would find other options and I'm sure Mike D'antoni has this all planned out.
