On the latest edition of ESPN’s 5-on-5, a panel of writers gave their take on which player or team would benefit most from a shortened season?
This is what they have to say:
J.A. Adande, ESPN.com: The Spurs. They could’ve used a shorter season in 2010-11, when they finished off a 57-13 start by losing 12 times in their final 18 games, including a first-round series loss to the Grizzlies. They got injured and looked tired at the end. Fifty games must sound really appealing right about now.
Joe Gerrity, Hornets 247: The Spurs. They seem to be a little too old and creaky to go the distance lately. A shortened season could give them one more chance to steal a title before the dynasty fades into the distant past.
Zach Harper, Daily Dime Live: If he were on a team, I’d have a killer Eddy Curry joke right now.
Instead, I’ll say Tim Duncan. If we end up with a 50-game season again, Timmy will be able to give the Spurs more on offense. Even if the games are jammed together, he can really let opponents have it on the block.
Brendan Jackson of the Celtics Hub thinks the Miami Heat will benefit from a shortened because they are a young, athletic and streaky team and the trio of LeBron James, Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh could get it done for the Heat.
Jared Wade of 8 Points, 9 Seconds on the other hand, says that Dirk Nowitzki and the Dallas Mavericks would benefit most from it because the team have more confident right now, there a fewer games for the Heat have to coalesce and the Lakers have to get right. He believes that a short season will give the Mavericks a better chance to repeat.
Three of five ESPN analyst thinks the San Antonio Spurs have the advantage in shortened season partly because Duncan could be more effective and fresher come playoff time.
Also, it should be noted that the Spurs won their first ever NBA crown during the 1998-1999 season lockout season.
What do you think? Do you agree the Spurs will gain most from a shortened season? Share your thoughts.