RealGM

IF the Utah Jazz had beaten Seattle in that game 7 OT WCF and beaten those Bulls in the finals, had beaten those Bulls in the finals in 97 and 98, where does Karl Malone rank alltime?

All those close games in 97 and 98 could've gone either way, suppose two or three go in favor of the Jazz and Jordan isn't the win all the time star.

Malone becomes a top ten player of all time as a result.

Stockton is most likely ranked as a top 3 point guard of all-time.


Jordan with only 3 titles most likely is ranked behind Lebron and Kareem nowadays

As Losing in 1996 and 1997 would be a huge black mark for Jordan's legacy


Also, The Bulls from 1996 to 1998 are most likely viewed as the Goat choking team in NBA history

migya wrote:IF the Utah Jazz had beaten Seattle in that game 7 OT WCF and beaten those Bulls in the finals, had beaten those Bulls in the finals in 97 and 98, where does Karl Malone rank alltime?

All those close games in 97 and 98 could've gone either way, suppose two or three go in favor of the Jazz and Jordan isn't the win all the time star.

Is it okay if I engage the hypo as 97-98-99?

Jordan losing 3 straight finals to Malone, after retirement, likely means he is largely seen as a top 5 player by most and not heralded as an untouchable God.

Malone, assuming he plays better, is seen as similar to Hakeem.

sp6r=underrated wrote:

migya wrote:IF the Utah Jazz had beaten Seattle in that game 7 OT WCF and beaten those Bulls in the finals, had beaten those Bulls in the finals in 97 and 98, where does Karl Malone rank alltime?

All those close games in 97 and 98 could've gone either way, suppose two or three go in favor of the Jazz and Jordan isn't the win all the time star.

Is it okay if I engage the hypo as 97-98-99?

99 they weren't that close and those Spurs swept the Blazers who beat Utah quite well, but you do what you want. I think 96-98 Utah was great and can be seen as a top three year run as they lost to really high winning teams.

Issue is they were never up in any of those series. They were always down at least 3-2 in each series.

I think giving them 99 makes more sense

Dr Positivity wrote:I think giving them 99 makes more sense

how so? the 96 version was arguably the best one of all and was really close to winning their series (outscored seattle for example) and that seattle team actually played bulls pretty close (

99 jazz didnt even come close to beating portland, let alone spurs if they advanced

migya wrote:IF the Utah Jazz had beaten Seattle in that game 7 OT WCF and beaten those Bulls in the finals, had beaten those Bulls in the finals in 97 and 98, where does Karl Malone rank alltime?

All those close games in 97 and 98 could've gone either way, suppose two or three go in favor of the Jazz and Jordan isn't the win all the time star.

Assuming Malone gets the Finals MVP's, this completely changes history. The 96 Sonics were a damn good team. Beating a 64 win team and a 72 win team to kick off a threepeat makes seriously elevates Malone's standing all time and hurts Jordan's. As of right now, the GOAT discussion is still a discussion, but if this becomes the new NBA history it's like returning to Hill Valley after Biff gets the sports almanac in Back to the Future 2.

Jordan no longer has the most rings of any non-early NBA Celtic.
Kobe and LeBron are no longer playing in Jordan's shadow.
Duncan, Shaq, Jordan, Malone, Magic, Kareem, etc all have similar amounts of hardware.
Assuming LeBron still comes along and has the career he's had, he has a much more convincing argument.

JordansBulls wrote:Issue is they were never up in any of those series. They were always down at least 3-2 in each series.

Who, the Jazz? They were up in 98. It's like you don't know what the word hypothetical means.

falcolombardi wrote:

Dr Positivity wrote:I think giving them 99 makes more sense

how so? the 96 version was arguably the best one of all and was really close to winning their series (outscored seattle for example) and that seattle team actually played bulls pretty close (

99 jazz didnt even come close to beating portland, let alone spurs if they advanced

Your logic here is correct, but this is a thread about the Jazz beating the 96 Bulls. Arguing that the 99 Jazz had no real shot at the championship makes this whole thread pointless.

If you give anyone in the top 20ish an extra +3 titles, they would probably move into the top 10, especially someone like Malone who has one of the best longevity careers of all time.

Sark wrote:If you give anyone in the top 20ish an extra +3 titles, they would probably move into the top 10, especially someone like Malone who has one of the best longevity careers of all time.

Some people here only site his somewhat inefficiency in the playoffs but his stats are among the best in the playoffs. Malone was the only big scorer on his team with little talent besides Stockton and those teams vswon a ton every season for so long. Lebron can't match that even and Jordan barely can.

falcolombardi wrote:

Dr Positivity wrote:I think giving them 99 makes more sense

how so? the 96 version was arguably the best one of all and was really close to winning their series (outscored seattle for example) and that seattle team actually played bulls pretty close (

99 jazz didnt even come close to beating portland, let alone spurs if they advanced

My assumption was it's harder to beat 96 Bulls, but I guess it's closer than I thought based on losing to a team that got swept in next round in 99 Blazers, and overall dominance of 99 Spurs. One additional thing to consider is that the Jazz owned the Spurs in the 90s beating them in 94, 96, and in 98 with Duncan in 5 games.