Hypothetical Questions

[benji]

1. If Duncan retires with 8-10 rings and 6-8 Finals MVPs where does he rank all-time?
2. If the Jazz win in 97 and/or 98 how does that effect Malone's legacy and Jordan's? If the Suns win 93, same question but with Barkley.
3. If the Pistons win in 1988, and Kings win in 2002 how does this change the legacies of the teams and the players on them? Blazers and Pacers in 2000 could be considered too.
4. Hakeem wins in 94, but Robinson wins in 95. How do their legacies change?

[Matthew]

1. If Duncan retires with 10 rings (lol), and 8 finals mvps, he will be side by side with Russell as the games greatest winner. But he'll be lucky to get 2 more of each.
2. Me and Jae discussed this many times.. Imagine for a minute if he didnt win just back to back, but he was one quarter away from making the finals in 96 as well. The impact Malone had on the jazz was similar to that of Jordans to the bulls. Had they won 3 in a row from 96-98, he'd be a top 3 player of all time.
3. Pistons in 1988, Isiah injured and leading them, they win a 3 peat, and Isiah becomes a hero not just to detroit but to the sporting world. And he has to be in top 20 of all time. Kings in 2002, had they won they would have been as acknowledged as philly was in 83. And webber would not be criticised as much.
4. Robinson would be held in higher esteem if this happened. To b fair, it really wasnt hakeem who murderd robinson, it was horry and drexler. The spurs had no answer.

[Andrew]

1. He'd be making a strong bid for being the greatest player in history.

2. Michael Jordan would still be considered great as a four time champion amongst his other accomplishments but I don't think he'd be held in as high esteem by as many people if he was part of the losing team two straight years in the NBA Finals. Malone on the other hand wouldn't have the stigma of being a choker. If that had happened, he'd probably be talked about as a top five, maybe top three player in history.

3. Isiah Thomas' story of the explosion on the sprained ankle sheds the footnote of "but it wasn't enough". It's already a tremendous performance but with the Lakers' victory and subsequent triumph in the series, the tale is tainted by an "It was all in vain" feel, unfair as that may be. Obviously that wouldn't be the case if the Pistons won.

The Pistons of course gained redemption, whereas the 2002 Kings did not. The "Queens" label wouldn't have stuck so easily had they prevailed and as Matthew said, Chris Webber's reputation would have been a lot better. Similar with the 2000 Blazers since they wouldn't win another playoff game until 2003 and were written off as chokers.

Indiana's team of 2000 would obviously gain more recognition and respect had they won the title, that goes without saying, but I don't think they receive the same kind of criticism as the Blazers and Kings. They made the Finals and ran into the best of the Lakers' three championship teams this decade. I don't think their legacy really changes much since they don't have the chokers label nor are they considered to have fallen way short of what they might have accomplished (though Pacers fans might disagree there).

4. Only a slight drop for Hakeem with his accomplishments unable to boast leading a sixth seeded team to the championship. But the Rockets' 1994 season was impressive and when a player leads his team to a championship he's often able to climb a rung higher than other great players on his level who lack that accomplishment.

It changes a lot with the Admiral though. The knock against him was always that he couldn't get his team over the hump. Where other players would find a way to take their team on their shoulders and push them to the next level, Robinson is usually seen to have failed in that regard time after time. Unfair? Probably. But his teams were not without talent and he has to take some of the blame. So if he'd taken the Spurs to the title in 1995, you can forget about all the "soft" talk.

[J@3]

I don't think Hakeem gets enough recognition as it is. I get the feeling around here sometimes people don't even realise he won some championships, it's quite odd.

[air gordon]

ha consider that there's a number users here that wished they saw the NBA in the 90's, jae



1. uh agree with what's been said
2. the Barkley vs Malone debate would be an even better one. though i would probably be impartial to Barkely since he would have been beaten Jordan pre-"retirement"/in his prime

i guess Jordan's 'legacy' would be affected since he currently is one of the best players never to lose in a Finals appearance. how many times he lost in the finals would be a factor but regardless, he'd still be held in high regard just like Bird, Erving, etc are

3. pretty much agree with whats been said. the Pistons possibly would have gotten the 1st '3-pteat' (since the old days) instead of the Bulls. On a side note, Pat Riley probably doesn't come up with the word "3-peat'.

Probably Rasheed Wallace never gets traded if the Blazers won. Pippen would have more rings then Jordan, forcing Jordan to unretire sooner. Maybe the Lakers 3peat team stays together longer because they get humbled by both the Kings and Blazers?? No longer would we ever hear the nonsense "that team had too much talent so they lost"

4. Hakeem embarrased Robinson in their series. Houston's role players were key because Robinson couldn't hold Hakeem's jock so IIRC the Spurs defense was compromised

I refuse to elaborate on this particular question because Robinson could not stop Hakeem... well maybe in Bizarro's world. I'll never forget that one play where the Dream is faking the Admiral out of his shorts

[J@3]

ha consider that there's a number users here that wished they saw the NBA in the 90's, jae

Even still, I missed the 60's/70's but that doesn't mean I have no knowledge of the players. They should take a trip to this bizarro World you speak of lol.

[air gordon]

watch the double negatives there

but yeh- maybe a Hakeem appreciation thread is in order lol

bad idea to take a trip to bizarro's world (super friends reference )