Teams who won it all even after their star went down?

[nelsonmuntz]

So many things going on here.
The Celtics weren't decimated by injuries. Tatum went down when the series was basically out of reach, and before that the big issue was Porzingis, who is unreliable in the best-case scenario. Holliday and Horford were old, not injured.
The Knicks weren't completely spent. The Pacers outplayed them.
The Bucks were completely exposed. They have Giannis, Lillard got hurt and then they have not a single player that scares anyone.

With this 1990’s thinking you would fit right in on Doc Rivers’ staff.

 

[bfs3]

The Pacers didn't win it all but it got me thinking. After a pretty ridiculous online discussion of whether there needs to be an asterisk next to OKCs win because of TH absence (absolutely not. Stop with the asterisk flinging)
I started thinking of teams that lost a star or key player during the year they won it all.

This could be from any sport. Who you got?

Asterisk discussions are usually nonsense anyways. Fans can put accomplishments in context. Those that can’t, aren’t likely to be much of a fan anyways. Building a team (as husky fans we know this well) means building a starting 5 and depth, having healthy players and a coach that knows when to push them or not to avoid injury. If every Eastern Conference team had no injuries and every player was fully healthy, would the Pacers have been in the finals? I’m sure Tatum and Porzingis would have something to say about that. Maybe there should be an asterisk next to the Pacers Eastern Conference title. OKC was the better team in my opinion so I’m not mad at the results