RealGM

I think if you changed the 2011 finals result.


Dirk suffers the most as he was regarded by most as a choker due to Dallas's previous failures.

But that one ring changed the narrative around him, coincidentally changing that result would also remove one of the most significant stains in Lebron's career.

Inverting the 2008 finals would also radically affect Garnett´s and Pierce's legacies as without that 2008 ring they would basically be regarded as career losers.


While Kobe who would now have the same number of rings as MJ and two 3peats would surely spark exciting debates online.

So this is kind of a cop out, but if the Rockets lose that Game 5 1995 to Utah Hakeem's legacy is completely changed.

I think most people would look at Wilt way differently if he won the title in 1970 as he would have been the finals MVP.

As he averaged 23PPG/24RPG/4APG on 62FG% in those finals despite coming off a serious knee injury.

coastalmarker99 wrote:I think most people would look at Wilt way differently if he won the title in 1970 as he would have been the finals MVP.

As he averaged 23PPG/24RPG/4APG on 62FG% in those finals despite coming off a serious knee injury.

That would have been very interesting, yes.

tsherkin wrote:

coastalmarker99 wrote:I think most people would look at Wilt way differently if he won the title in 1970 as he would have been the finals MVP.

As he averaged 23PPG/24RPG/4APG on 62FG% in those finals despite coming off a serious knee injury.

That would have been very interesting, yes.

If Wilt had won in 1970 he ends his career with.

3 rings
3 FMVP
4 MVP's

And a playoff record of 18 and 3 against Non-Boston teams


that In addition to all of his many other accolades.

Would most likely ensure that he would be seen as a unanimous top 5 player of all-time nowadays

wilt is a interesting case cause he has so many times where he could have won more with a bit more luck

65 if havliced doesnt steal the ball
68 is maybe a win if the sixers are healthy althoufh could still be argued as a underperformance by sixers
70 which was really close for lakers


a wilt with 5 rings would get a lot more traction in goat discussion i imagine

on the flipside he coulf have been even unluckier and lose to a healthier bucks in 72 and have only one

falcolombardi wrote:wilt is a interesting case cause he has so many times where he could have won more with a bit more luck

65 if havliced doesnt steal the ball
68 is maybe a win if the sixers are healthy althoufh could still be argued as a underperformance by sixers
70 which was really close for lakers


a wilt with 5 rings would get a lot more traction in goat discussion i imagine

on the flipside he could have been even unluckier and lost to a healthier bucks team in 72 and have only one

Don't forget that in the 1973 finals the knicks won three games in that series by 3, 4 & 4.


It is also forgotten that Jerry West pulled his hamstring in game 2 which seriously affected his performance for the rest of the series.


As he was only able to gut out 31 minutes in game 3 in which the Lakers lost by 4 points.


He also was only able to gut out 33 minutes in game 5.

You have to wonder, given three of the Lakers' four losses in the finals were by a margin of only 4-5 points, if the Lakers would've won had West been 100%.

coastalmarker99 wrote:

tsherkin wrote:

coastalmarker99 wrote:I think most people would look at Wilt way differently if he won the title in 1970 as he would have been the finals MVP.

As he averaged 23PPG/24RPG/4APG on 62FG% in those finals despite coming off a serious knee injury.

That would have been very interesting, yes.

...

Would most likely ensure that he would be seen as a unanimous top 5 player of all-time nowadays

"Unanimous" is pretty aggressive, but it would certainly be a boon to his case. I'm not sure he would have been Finals MVP in that series, personally. Still might have been West on that front, though obviously a really strong case could be made for Wilt as well. Finals MVP or not, though, having that extra ring would have been a fairly big deal for his legacy, and it would have helped to work at odds with the narrative of Wilt as stiff and challenged at adaptation for more than a year at a time. It would have meaningfully added to the weight of any pro-Wilt argument, without a doubt.

Also, minor error here:

If Wilt had won in 1970 he ends his career with.

3 rings
3 FMVP
4 MVP's

He only has 1 Finals MVP as his career played out, from 1972. So he'd have the 67 ring, the 72 ring and that 70 ring for 3 rings, he'd have the 4 MVPs, but with the 72 Finals MVP, that's 2 Finals MVPs.

tsherkin wrote:

coastalmarker99 wrote:

tsherkin wrote:
That would have been very interesting, yes.

...

Would most likely ensure that he would be seen as a unanimous top 5 player of all-time nowadays

"Unanimous" is pretty aggressive, but it would certainly be a boon to his case. I'm not sure he would have been Finals MVP in that series, personally. Still might have been West on that front, though obviously a really strong case could be made for Wilt as well. Finals MVP or not, though, having that extra ring would have been a fairly big deal for his legacy, and it would have helped to work at odds with the narrative of Wilt as stiff and challenged at adaptation for more than a year at a time. It would have meaningfully added to the weight of any pro-Wilt argument, without a doubt.

Also, minor error here:

If Wilt had won in 1970 he ends his career with.

3 rings
3 FMVP
4 MVP's

He only has 1 Finals MVP as his career played out, from 1972. So he'd have the 67 ring, the 72 ring and that 70 ring for 3 rings, he'd have the 4 MVPs, but with the 72 Finals MVP, that's 2 Finals MVPs.

I am counting 1967 as he would have been the finals MVP in that series had the award existed at the time.

coastalmarker99 wrote:I am counting 1967 as he would have been the finals MVP in that series had the award existed at the time.

Mmmm. Merely modifying who won wouldn't have changed that, so it doesn't really count towards his accolades. It would modify a lot of other people to do so retroactively as well, after all.

Add - Karl Malone, if he had ring he would be Top 12 player
subtract right now is Curry first ring. If he wins in 2022 I'd probably go with Dirk.

I think 68 and 69 would have been quite a bit more impactful for Wilt's legacy than any of the early 70s. The 76ers losing to the Celtics in 68 with pretty much the same personnel as in 67 as well as Wilt joining West and Baylor and coming up just short against Russell in his final year makes the 1967 ring feel more like an outlier year where everything came together for Wilt instead of the passing of the torch from Russell to Wilt that it looked like at the time.

I think winning the title in 2008 (assuming he still does in 2009 and 2010) makes Kobe a top 5 guy in most people's eyes. The symmetry with Jordan's career would be impossible to deny.

That's my bias of course. The real answer is likely Dirk. The 2011 title changed his legacy completely, to the point where I think most thinking fans would have him as a top 15 guy, whereas before that he was labeled a soft choker (which he wasn't in reality, but sometimes perceptions won't change without something drastic).

What about Durant if the Warriors win it in 2019?

___
Sent from my Nokia 3210 using RealGM mobile app

Another one I just thought about is 91. Magic beating MJ and then retiring, only for MJ to win his first title the next year with Magic out of the league and Bird in his last year as a part time player would be pretty disastrous for MJ's image. Instead of the most dominant force in basketball history, MJ would then probably be regarded as a transitional king in a watered down era. Magic would suddenly have a much stronger GOAT case with an extra ring without Kareem as well as many people probably believing Magic would still be racking up MVPs and titles instead of MJ if he didn't get sick.

Elgin Baylor 1962 - The Lakers lost in game 7 by 3 points with Baylor averaging 40 and 18. Winning this title probably puts him in the top 20 all time possibly ahead of both Oscar and Jerry West.

Dr. J 1977 - We all know Dr. J was the undisputed king of the ABA. Imagine if he makes the jump to the NBA and immediately wins the title. Assuming he also wins in 83 I think that puts him in the top 10 all time and makes him a GOAT candidate at least through the 80s.

Patrick Ewing 1994 - As much praise as Hakeem gets for winning in 94 & 95, and rightfully so, its easy to forget Patrick Ewing took him to a game 7. If Starks can hit even a couple of those 3 pointers we'd be looking at Ewing completely different.

Kobe 2008 - 6 rings, 3FMVPs, and 2 3peats? Top 5 lock.

Lebron James 2011 - If you remove this stain from his legacy and give him another ring and fmvp? That might actually warrant the GOAT debate.

Stephen Curry 2016 - Had the Warriors closed this out I think Steph becomes the undisputed best player in the world and potentially overtakes Lebron for best of the era. Also, if you remove that title from Lebron James there is no GOAT discussion.

Ewing is a good one. On the flip side, if Garnett never wins a ring, I think his legacy is a bit tarnished. Petit might be seen as a choker without that one GOAT closeout quarter to beat the Celtics. Walton without 77 would be basically irrelevant to the NBA (though still a monster at UCLA); I don't think the one he won as a SMOY in Boston would be enough to make up for his constant missed games.

What if Lebron and Heat lose in 2012? To Durant, Harden, Russ OKC?

Kareem in 74 for one not mentioned. Wilt is definitely one of the most interesting cases, but I agree I think it has to be Dirk. For better or I would argue worse his entire legacy is defined by that ring.

capfan33 wrote:I agree I think it has to be Dirk. For better or I would argue worse his entire legacy is defined by that ring.

For how people would view him, you're right.

But those people would be wrong.