Greatest What If (Injury Edition)

[RJD1974]

Walton is the clear choice because he was the MVP of the NBA when he got hurt. He was young and on his way to challenging for a place in the top 10 if not top 5 players ever to play basketball.

Some other guys like Ralph Sampson or Oden might have reached that level or they might not have. Walton did reach that level. To fulfill that potential and prove he was that. The other guys are maybes / possibilities. Walton was established.

Not to quibble, but aren't "maybes / possibilities" and "what if" one and the same?

[Who]

Tracy McGrady = I feel like he is a guy who we saw the best of him and saw him for 5 years or so before the injuries wiped him out. Yes, we lost some great years and I wish we hadn't because McGrady was so fun to watch. But ....

We did see McGrady reach his peak. At his peak he was a borderline top 5 talent over those years. KG, Shaq, Duncan all superior. Kobe for me was superior.

McGrady has the talent to match or better those guys but he rarely did because of a lack of mentality. A lack of willingness to attack the rim and take the physical punishment to get to the FT line. A willingness to settle for contested jump-shots instead especially in the clutch. There was also the lack of commitment to being an elite defender despite clearly being capable of it when he put his mind to task. Oftentimes though, he did not. He coasted instead.

It weakened McGrady versus the great winners like Kobe or Jordan who would go to whatever extreme the situation required and left McGrady a level below them despite having comparable talent in terms of physical gifts & skill-level (arguably superior over Kobe).

[Who]

Walton is the clear choice because he was the MVP of the NBA when he got hurt. He was young and on his way to challenging for a place in the top 10 if not top 5 players ever to play basketball.

Some other guys like Ralph Sampson or Oden might have reached that level or they might not have. Walton did reach that level. To fulfill that potential and prove he was that. The other guys are maybes / possibilities. Walton was established.

Not to quibble, but aren't "maybes / possibilities" and "what if" one and the same?

True

[Who]

I feel the same way about Bernard King (as McGrady). We saw him at his best. We saw his peak in New York. How dominant he was. That period of his career was cut short but we saw the best he had to offer.

His best wasn't as good as some other guy's best.

Phenomenal scorer, solid defender, average rebounder, below average passer & ball-handler.

[Who]

Penny Hardaway was better than Grant Hill. I do not understand people picking Grant Hill over Penny. Grant Hill's dodgy jump-shot holds him back from challenging Penny.

Penny was so dominant offensively with his outside shooting, midrange shooting, post up play, driving game, transition game, ball-handling & exceptional vision and passing game. He was the total package. He had everything. He was the next dominant guard in the NBA after Jordan and Magic.

Plus, he had Lil Penny.

I have been watching some Magic games (Shaq years) lately. I had forgotten how awesome those ads were and how many of them there was. Plus I forgot Chris Rock was the voice of Lil Penny.

Sports ads were much better in the 90s. I really like those early 90s ones with guys playing one-on-one for the last Coke or Pepsi (whichever one it was). Great fun.

[Jvalin]

Arvydas Sabonis.

This. I don't even think it's close. Prime Sabas was a GOAT candidate in my book. If he had entered the NBA in his late teens/early 20s, I bet he would have been in the same convo with Kareem/Wilt/Russ/Dream/Shaq. Talent-wise, I think he was better than all of them. The way I see it, he was a rich man's Jokic. No disrespect to the brilliance of the Joker, but I fully believe prime Sabas was hands down the better player. Likewise, I think Jokic is a rich man's prime Walton (although Walton was definitely a better rim protector).

A couple more names:

Magic. If it weren't for the HIV diagnosis, I believe he would have had a better GOAT case than Jordan. Personally speaking, I consider him the GOAT regardless, but I realise he doesn't have the longevity of some of the other candidates.

Drazen. Imo, he was the first Steph Curry. Most elite shooters are off-ball specialists (for instance, Klay, Reggie). Drazen was a god-level shooter who could also put the ball on the floor and create his own shot. Steph is a better ball handler/facilitator, but Drazen was 3 inches taller, hence he was better at creating his own shot, especially in the clutch. He was also a ruthless competitor who thrived under pressure. The only player ever who wasn't afraid to regularly talk trash to prime Jordan and could actually back it up.

[moiso]

Penny Hardaway was better than Grant Hill. I do not understand people picking Grant Hill over Penny. Grant Hill's dodgy jump-shot holds him back from challenging Penny.

Penny was so dominant offensively with his outside shooting, midrange shooting, post up play, driving game, transition game, ball-handling & exceptional vision and passing game. He was the total package. He had everything. He was the next dominant guard in the NBA after Jordan and Magic.

Penny was more dynamic and spectacular but I think I'd take Hill.  I don't think Penny has a shooting advantage like you say.  They shot the same from 3 for their careers (31.6% and 31.4%) and Hill was significantly higher in overall fg%(48.3%- 45.8%).  I like Hill more as a defender, and he had a pretty good transition game in his prime too.  To me his game seemed more solid and consistent than Penny's did.

[Moranis]

Arvydas Sabonis.

This. I don't even think it's close. Prime Sabas was a GOAT candidate in my book. If he had entered the NBA in his late teens/early 20s, I bet he would have been in the same convo with Kareem/Wilt/Russ/Dream/Shaq. Talent-wise, I think he was better than all of them. The way I see it, he was a rich man's Jokic. No disrespect to the brilliance of the Joker, but I fully believe prime Sabas was hands down the better player. Likewise, I think Jokic is a rich man's prime Walton (although Walton was definitely a better rim protector).

A couple more names:

Magic. If it weren't for the HIV diagnosis, I believe he would have had a better GOAT case than Jordan. Personally speaking, I consider him the GOAT regardless, but I realise he doesn't have the longevity of some of the other candidates.

Drazen. Imo, he was the first Steph Curry. Most elite shooters are off-ball specialists (for instance, Klay, Reggie). Drazen was a god-level shooter who could also put the ball on the floor and create his own shot. Steph is a better ball handler/facilitator, but Drazen was 3 inches taller, hence he was better at creating his own shot, especially in the clutch. He was also a ruthless competitor who thrived under pressure. The only player ever who wasn't afraid to regularly talk trash to prime Jordan and could actually back it up.

Magic had 12 years before he had to walk away.  He was 31 and would be 32 before the next season started.  I'm not sure how much he would have had left.  He'd certainly be 1st or 2nd in assists, but I don't think his GOAT case fails because he is 6th instead of top 2, and I don't think the Lakers would have won another title.  The Bulls beat them in 5 in 91 and I don't know how much better they would have gotten as Magic and Worthy aged even with Divac coming up.  Now maybe if Shaq still would have come there, Magic could have picked up a title when he was in late 30's, but again I don't think that makes his GOAT case. 

[RJD1974]

Penny Hardaway was better than Grant Hill. I do not understand people picking Grant Hill over Penny. Grant Hill's dodgy jump-shot holds him back from challenging Penny.

Penny was so dominant offensively with his outside shooting, midrange shooting, post up play, driving game, transition game, ball-handling & exceptional vision and passing game. He was the total package. He had everything. He was the next dominant guard in the NBA after Jordan and Magic.

Plus, he had Lil Penny.

I have been watching some Magic games (Shaq years) lately. I had forgotten how awesome those ads were and how many of them there was. Plus I forgot Chris Rock was the voice of Lil Penny.

Sports ads were much better in the 90s. I really like those early 90s ones with guys playing one-on-one for the last Coke or Pepsi (whichever one it was). Great fun.

So many great NBA commercials from the 80s/90s. The Converse ones were great. Mars Blackmon. Grandmama. The hilarious Bird-Jordan game of HORSE (McDonalds, I think?). It's kinda a lost art.

EDIT TO SAY: The CP State Farm commercials are good.  Forgot about those.

[Jvalin]

Arvydas Sabonis.

This. I don't even think it's close. Prime Sabas was a GOAT candidate in my book. If he had entered the NBA in his late teens/early 20s, I bet he would have been in the same convo with Kareem/Wilt/Russ/Dream/Shaq. Talent-wise, I think he was better than all of them. The way I see it, he was a rich man's Jokic. No disrespect to the brilliance of the Joker, but I fully believe prime Sabas was hands down the better player. Likewise, I think Jokic is a rich man's prime Walton (although Walton was definitely a better rim protector).

A couple more names:

Magic. If it weren't for the HIV diagnosis, I believe he would have had a better GOAT case than Jordan. Personally speaking, I consider him the GOAT regardless, but I realise he doesn't have the longevity of some of the other candidates.

Drazen. Imo, he was the first Steph Curry. Most elite shooters are off-ball specialists (for instance, Klay, Reggie). Drazen was a god-level shooter who could also put the ball on the floor and create his own shot. Steph is a better ball handler/facilitator, but Drazen was 3 inches taller, hence he was better at creating his own shot, especially in the clutch. He was also a ruthless competitor who thrived under pressure. The only player ever who wasn't afraid to regularly talk trash to prime Jordan and could actually back it up.

Magic had 12 years before he had to walk away.  He was 31 and would be 32 before the next season started.  I'm not sure how much he would have had left.  He'd certainly be 1st or 2nd in assists, but I don't think his GOAT case fails because he is 6th instead of top 2, and I don't think the Lakers would have won another title.  The Bulls beat them in 5 in 91 and I don't know how much better they would have gotten as Magic and Worthy aged even with Divac coming up.  Now maybe if Shaq still would have come there, Magic could have picked up a title when he was in late 30's, but again I don't think that makes his GOAT case.

Jordan won 3 championships from the age of 33 to 35. Had he retired at the age of 31 (like Magic did), the ring count would have been comfortably in favour of Magic. Likewise, if Magic had won just one of MJ's five championships post 1991, the ring count would have tipped in favour of Magic.

Obviously, none of these really matter. Ring count isn't the only factor, otherwise Bill Russell would have been the undisputed GOAT. Talent-wise, I've seen enough from Magic in his 12 years to put him ahead of everybody else, including Jordan. My case is rather simple. Basketball is a team game. Maximizing the impact of the whole team is more important than maximizing the impact of an individual player. Why? Because nobody is good enough to win by himself. Magic is the GOAT at elevating his teammates, hence I believe he's the GOAT in general.

[Silas]

Easy for me.  Len Bias, the greatest what if....

[Who]

Penny Hardaway was better than Grant Hill. I do not understand people picking Grant Hill over Penny. Grant Hill's dodgy jump-shot holds him back from challenging Penny.

Penny was so dominant offensively with his outside shooting, midrange shooting, post up play, driving game, transition game, ball-handling & exceptional vision and passing game. He was the total package. He had everything. He was the next dominant guard in the NBA after Jordan and Magic.

Penny was more dynamic and spectacular but I think I'd take Hill.  I don't think Penny has a shooting advantage like you say.  They shot the same from 3 for their careers (31.6% and 31.4%) and Hill was significantly higher in overall fg%(48.3%- 45.8%).  I like Hill more as a defender, and he had a pretty good transition game in his prime too.  To me his game seemed more solid and consistent than Penny's did.

Over Penny's first 4 years, he shot 48.7% from the field. He also hit 311 threes compared to Grant Hill's 22 made threes. Grant Hill shot 47.6% over his first 6 years (about the same for first 4 years). I use these years because they were their pre-injury years.

Hill was an adequate long two point jump-shot shooter but not a high caliber one. He was lethal once he got below the foul line. He had a strong pull up midrange shot and was phenomenal going to the basket and got to the FT line a lot as well (about 8 FTAs to Penny's 6 FTAs).

In the playoffs, Penny (41 games) averaged 22ppg on 46.7% vs Grant (15 games) at 19ppg on 46.0%. Grant never really had a huge playoff showing due to his poor outside shooting which allowed opponents (the Hawks twice, Magic once) to load up on him and clog the paint to cut off his drives / easy hoops.

Penny in his one (somewhat) healthy year without Shaq put up back-to-back 40 point games on Pat Riley's defensively dominant 1997 Heat team as Penny averaged 31ppg for the series. The same Heat team that successfully contained the Bulls in the Conference Finals on D but unfortunately could not score enough on the other end to make it count.

Penny's jump-shooting and scoring variety in the halfcourt offense brought his game to another level beyond what Grant Hill could do.

[pokeKingCurtis]

Penny Hardaway was better than Grant Hill. I do not understand people picking Grant Hill over Penny. Grant Hill's dodgy jump-shot holds him back from challenging Penny.

Penny was so dominant offensively with his outside shooting, midrange shooting, post up play, driving game, transition game, ball-handling & exceptional vision and passing game. He was the total package. He had everything. He was the next dominant guard in the NBA after Jordan and Magic.

Penny was more dynamic and spectacular but I think I'd take Hill.  I don't think Penny has a shooting advantage like you say.  They shot the same from 3 for their careers (31.6% and 31.4%) and Hill was significantly higher in overall fg%(48.3%- 45.8%).  I like Hill more as a defender, and he had a pretty good transition game in his prime too.  To me his game seemed more solid and consistent than Penny's did.

Over Penny's first 4 years, he shot 48.7% from the field. He also hit 311 threes compared to Grant Hill's 22 made threes. Grant Hill shot 47.6% over his first 6 years (about the same for first 4 years). I use these years because they were their pre-injury years.

Hill was an adequate long two point jump-shot shooter but not a high caliber one. He was lethal once he got below the foul line. He had a strong pull up midrange shot and was phenomenal going to the basket and got to the FT line a lot as well (about 8 FTAs to Penny's 6 FTAs).

In the playoffs, Penny (41 games) averaged 22ppg on 46.7% vs Grant (15 games) at 19ppg on 46.0%. Grant never really had a huge playoff showing due to his poor outside shooting which allowed opponents (the Hawks twice, Magic once) to load up on him and clog the paint to cut off his drives / easy hoops.

Penny in his one (somewhat) healthy year without Shaq put up back-to-back 40 point games on Pat Riley's defensively dominant 1997 Heat team as Penny averaged 31ppg for the series. The same Heat team that successfully contained the Bulls in the Conference Finals on D but unfortunately could not score enough on the other end to make it count.

Penny's jump-shooting and scoring variety in the halfcourt offense brought his game to another level beyond what Grant Hill could do.

Slightly off topic, but do you think people should shoot more from within the 3 point arc now then?

[Moranis]

Arvydas Sabonis.

This. I don't even think it's close. Prime Sabas was a GOAT candidate in my book. If he had entered the NBA in his late teens/early 20s, I bet he would have been in the same convo with Kareem/Wilt/Russ/Dream/Shaq. Talent-wise, I think he was better than all of them. The way I see it, he was a rich man's Jokic. No disrespect to the brilliance of the Joker, but I fully believe prime Sabas was hands down the better player. Likewise, I think Jokic is a rich man's prime Walton (although Walton was definitely a better rim protector).

A couple more names:

Magic. If it weren't for the HIV diagnosis, I believe he would have had a better GOAT case than Jordan. Personally speaking, I consider him the GOAT regardless, but I realise he doesn't have the longevity of some of the other candidates.

Drazen. Imo, he was the first Steph Curry. Most elite shooters are off-ball specialists (for instance, Klay, Reggie). Drazen was a god-level shooter who could also put the ball on the floor and create his own shot. Steph is a better ball handler/facilitator, but Drazen was 3 inches taller, hence he was better at creating his own shot, especially in the clutch. He was also a ruthless competitor who thrived under pressure. The only player ever who wasn't afraid to regularly talk trash to prime Jordan and could actually back it up.

Magic had 12 years before he had to walk away.  He was 31 and would be 32 before the next season started.  I'm not sure how much he would have had left.  He'd certainly be 1st or 2nd in assists, but I don't think his GOAT case fails because he is 6th instead of top 2, and I don't think the Lakers would have won another title.  The Bulls beat them in 5 in 91 and I don't know how much better they would have gotten as Magic and Worthy aged even with Divac coming up.  Now maybe if Shaq still would have come there, Magic could have picked up a title when he was in late 30's, but again I don't think that makes his GOAT case.

Jordan won 3 championships from the age of 33 to 35. Had he retired at the age of 31 (like Magic did), the ring count would have been comfortably in favour of Magic. Likewise, if Magic had won just one of MJ's five championships post 1991, the ring count would have tipped in favour of Magic.

Obviously, none of these really matter. Ring count isn't the only factor, otherwise Bill Russell would have been the undisputed GOAT. Talent-wise, I've seen enough from Magic in his 12 years to put him ahead of everybody else, including Jordan. My case is rather simple. Basketball is a team game. Maximizing the impact of the whole team is more important than maximizing the impact of an individual player. Why? Because nobody is good enough to win by himself. Magic is the GOAT at elevating his teammates, hence I believe he's the GOAT in general.

What could Magic have done, aside from win titles, that would have altered the GOAT perception of him?  That is what I was asking about.  Jordan only played 13 seasons in Chicago (including the season he came back during).  It isn't like he played a lot longer than Magic, so longevity isn't a factor when you look at those 2.  So if Magic didn't win any more titles, do you think the added stats or seasons of solid win percentages would have actually altered the narrative?  I don't.  I think Magic would have needed more titles to really enter the discussion, and I don't' think he gets them because Worthy, quite simply, wasn't in the same class of player as Pippen and I don't think Magic's game was really conducive to be the guy the same way Jordan's was.  Magic was never a scorer, he needed scoring teammates, and I just don't think the Lakers were going to be good enough in the early 90's to overcome the Bulls (if they actually made it there), without a dramatic change in teammates for the Lakers.

[Who]

I am not certain that Magic would not have won another title if he had of kept playing.

I re-watched the entire Bulls-Lakers Finals recently and the Bulls bench was the biggest difference in that series. Lakers had no backup guards or wings that they could rely on for any type of positive contribution. Whenever they would come into the game, they would lose ground. Whenever Magic went to the bench, they would lose ground. The Lakers had 6-7 players in that series that they could rely on against a 10-11 man Bulls team. They had 4 guys above 41mpg because they could not trust their bench (one of the worst in the league).

The Lakers would solid FA additions to round out their depth would have taken that team to another level. Add in the injuries to Worthy and Byron Scott. Add in the youth and upwards trajectory of both Divac and Elden Campbell (a pup in 1991 Finals).

They had a few of the Lakers 1992 preseason games on youtube before Magic had to retire and they looked phenomenal in those games. Better understanding of when to run and when to play halfcourt. More depth. The Lakers struggled for most of 1991 learning / adapting to Mike Dunleavy's system. They caught fire late in the year and made an unexpected run to the Finals. This team could've been much better in 1992 after making that adjustment and now being able to add to and improve on that system.