The Warriors are probably one of the least top heavy teams in the NBA. Because of depth and talent they could lose half their team and still be competitive. The Spurs aren't as talented or deep but Popovich has a great system and uses the entire bench to be competitive. Some teams though are very heavily reliant on one or two players and if they are replaced with "average" or "replacement level" substitute, the team might go from contender to lottery team. One such team might be Cavaliers. If they lost LeBron, they might suddenly become a lower tier team. Other teams come to mind. Which team do readers here consider as the most top heavy team in the NBA? Note that as all teams will suffer a dropoff if replacing top 1-2 player with an average player, the title goes to the team with the biggest dropoff with dropoff from losing top 1 player weighted more.
Cavs probably. I'd say the most top heavy team we'll see in awhile was Lebrons Heat. Maybe the Celtics? They're deep but take out Irving and Tatum and that team isn't good. Same with Washington if Wall or Beal isn't there.
If you replaced LeBron with a replacement level player on those LeBron-led Heat, they'd still have prime Wade, prime Bosh and lots of key role players like Allen etc. They'd go from contender to mid to high seed playoff team but not lottery team. As for today's Cavs, they'd still have Love, Thomas (when he returns) and other role players but I agree there would be a big dropoff. So they are in contention for most top heavy team for sure. Today's Celtics aren't that top heavy though. If you consider that Irving and Hayward are their top players Celtics are already succeeding without Hayward. If they lost Irving too then perhaps you have a better case but losing your top two players isn't really a great case for most top heavy team since that applies to most teams other than Warriors. It isn't clear that Celtics would have a bigger dropoff than if, say, Wizards, lost Wall and Beal. Celtics still have Horford and Tatum left.
I was thinking the same thing. CP3 goes down & the opposition double or triple teams Harden to cause a TO or get the ball out of his hands. No one else can run an offense & we then become an ISO offense. As OP mentioned, POP uses his entire bench to remain competitive. Not so with 8 man MDA. With a 20 point lead, he plays his bench 2 minutes or less. Now we're gonna pay for it! Yes, that's my pet peeve with him!
I should note that we need to separate losing top player vs top two player. And we also need to consider it relative to other teams. Almost all teams will do noticeably worse if they lost their top 1 or 2 players. The question is their relative dropoff compared to other teams also losing their top 1-2 players. Consider Bucks and Wizards. Both would do worse if they lost Giannis and Wall. Both would do even worse if they lost Giannis/Middleton and Wall/Beal. But the question is which would have the bigger dropoff with the drop-off from losing the top player weighed more heavily than the dropff from losing top two players.
Okay here is one possible algorithm. Take all top tier teams. Imagine their top player was replaced by an "average" player. What is their predicted drop off. Now do the same for substituting top two players. Weigh the dropff from losing top player at least 4x vs dropoff from losing top two. The team with the biggest "drop off score" is the NBA's most top heavy team.
Most top heavy team is definitely..the Spurs. Take away Popovic put in a brainless average nba coach, and that team would be right now in the high lottery even worse than the Grizzlies.
Rocket's and Cav's 100%. As is if you take Lebron off those Cav's a way over the hill wade becomes their best playmaker... they would immediately be worse than the bucks, celtic's, wizards, raptors and maybe even knicks. I could see a Lebronless cav's barely cracking top 10 in the east. I think mike d'antoni and cp3 would do a better job of being competitive a la run and gun compared to what Lue could do with kevin love.
lol dude the larriors are by far the most top heavy. Their bench is trash and when you say "when they lose half their team they're still competitive" did you forget they still have 2 all stars still playing??? How many teams can lose half their team and have 2 all stars? Don't be delusional.
I don't mind CP3 harden and company playing a lot of minutes. This is practically a rebuilt team and need to gel a lot to be able to compete with golden state. That takes playing together losing and winning. look how much they improved in communication and how they switch on D and they still miss on some but it's much less now. Come all star break, we'll be working in more of the bench with the core leading the way.
OKC will be the opposite ,they might do better without WB/Melo, PP/Felton with PG can take this team to the 4-5th spot
Okay but you'd have to also do the same with the Bucks, Wizards, Raptors etc for a fair comparison. IOW, what is the drop-off of Cavs vs the others if they also lost their top 1-2 players. Can't just look at effect on Cavs in isolation. Let's calculate the dropoff score such that: Dropoff Score = Dropoff_1 * n + Dropoff_2 Dropoff_1 = Dropoff in wins if top player is replaced by average player Dropoff_2 = Dropoff in wins if top two players are replaced by average player n = weight factor, probably use n=4 Example Cavs (Lebron/Love): Dropoff_1=10, Dropoff_2=30, Score=70 Bucks (Giannis/Middleton): Dropoff_1=15, Dropoff_2=30, Score=90 So if these made up numbers are reasonable, Bucks are a more top heavy team than Cavs.
Rockets: Harden scores 100 points in 2 games and lose both games. Harden needs help. Losing to freaking Clippers
