RealGM

In this hypothetical situation where our goats add an extra ring to their careers in one of the years that they had a realistic chance of winning in.

How would our narratives change about them?

The present-day narrative about Wilt with a title in 1962 would now be completely different.

As he now has the most outstanding single season in NBA history and in the process completely silences any criticism of his high-volume scoring days.

He also would have three different titles with three different teams as the best player something only Lebron has matched.

Lebron winning the 2015 finals without his two all-stars in Kyrie and Love would be viewed as the Goat carry Job and he would presently be ranked above Jordan in most People's lists as a result.

Kareem winning in 1974 with an all-time carry job silences any criticism of him winning only one ring in the 1970s and gives him an even more valid Goat claim over his rivals in Jordan and Lebron.


Magic winning in 1984 completely erases the biggest black mark of his career and gives him 6 rings to Bird's now 2 effectively ending the debate between them, especially considering that Magic would now be 4 and 0 in H2H matchups with Bird in college and the Pros.


Bird winning in 1987 ensures that he ties Magic in rings with 4 each while also ensuring that he has two massive upsets over both Magic and Kareem as the underdog as a result of this.

Bird over magic all time is now the commonly held view by most people when discussing the two.

Russell winning in the 1967 title completely ends the heated debate between him and Wilt as he would have beaten him every single time while now having a 12 to 1 ring advantage plus he would have also ended his career with 11 straight titles in a row.


Jordan winning in 1990 ensures that he becomes utterly untouchable as the Goat in the eyes of the general public with seven rings to now go along with a four-peat and another three-peat.

coastalmarker99 wrote:In this hypothetical situation where our goats add an extra ring to their careers in one of the years that they had a realistic chance of winning in.

How would our narratives change about them?

The present-day narrative about Wilt with a title in 1962 would now be completely different.

As he now has the most outstanding single season in NBA history and in the process completely silences any criticism of his high-volume scoring days.

He also would have three different titles with three different teams as the best player something only Lebron has matched.

Lebron winning the 2015 finals without his two all-stars in Kyrie and Love would be viewed as the Goat carry Job and he would presently be ranked above Jordan in most People's lists as a result.

Kareem winning in 1974 with an all-time carry job silences any criticism of him winning only one ring in the 1970s and gives him an even more valid Goat claim over his rivals in Jordan and Lebron.


Magic winning in 1984 completely erases the biggest mark of his career and gives him 6 rings to Bird's now 2 effectively ending the debate between them, especially considering that Magic would now be 4 and 0 in H2H matchups with Bird in college and the Pros.


Bird winning in 1987 ensures that he ties Magic in rings with 4 each while also ensuring that he has two massive upsets over both Magic and Kareem as the underdog as a result of this.

Bird over magic all time is now the commonly held view by most people when discussing the two.

Russell winning in the 1967 title completely ends the heated debate between him and Wilt as he would have beaten him every single time while now having a 12 to 1 ring advantage plus he would have also ended his career with 11 straight titles in a row.

Think you highlighted a lot of these very well, I too have had similar thoughts about LeBron, Kareem, Magic and Bird.

But I don't agree with the last one , after a certain point more rangz don't change a thang. If an 11-2 advantage doesn't end a debate then a 12-1 advantage wouldn't either lol. If winning 8 rings in a row doesn't have people think you're the GOAT then winning 11 in a row wouldn't either. Russell is forever screwed by the absolutely **** (Please Use More Appropriate Word) "he played with a gazillion HOF'ers" argument, in addition to not being a volume scored. Russell could have played 15 years and gone 15-0 and I don't think people would change their opinion of him much.

Similarly, I like Wilt, but 99% of his legacy is basically the culmination of "he averaged 50 points a game" and "he has a 48 inch vertical/ sub 4 40 yard dash " nonsense. It's good will based on the idea that he's actually the GOAT human being and a certified demi-god who only has 2 rings because his supporting cast was way worse than Russell's. If you took away a ring I don't think it'd change where people rank him, nor do I think giving him an extra ring, especially one in 62 would help. People basically act as if he won a ring in 1962 anyway, it's like AI's 01 Season in a sense.

Also I'm gonna do general NBA opinions, not our general opinions because that'd be more interesting I think.

Kareem getting a ring in 1974 as the definitive main guy might end the Jordan Undisputed GOAT narrative, as he'd now have 7 rings as opposed to merely tying MJ's 6.

Hakeem winning in 1986 would be insane. As it stands right now, the general idea on his career is that he was basically 1993 Hakeem for 12 years straight but he didn't get a chance to prove it cuz his team sucked. Him upsetting not only two top 10 players, but arguably 2 of the 3 most iconic players in NBA history, in just his 2nd season and then having 3 championships and 3FMVP's would probably have him top 5. The 86 Championship would have similar legacy properties as Lebron's 2016 championship in terms of pure impressiveness.

Garnett winning in 04 would be big. Near singlehandedly beating Shaq and Kobe and then overcoming the best defence in NBA history in order to claim quite possibly the title of best carry job in NBA history during his MVP season, in addition to now making him a multiple time NBA champion and a FMVP? He'd likely never be ranked outside top 10 either, and would make the him V Duncan debate more contentious.

Kobe winning in 2008 would be insufferable and the "2nd best player after MJ cuz he's like MJ ennit" would be the only thing we'd ever hear about him account of his threepeat and 6 Rings. He'd never be rated outside the top 5 ever again.

LeBron winning in 2011 would either give a negligible or small boost for his legacy. If Miami won then Wade would have likely gotten MVP, and while the choker label likely never would have formed, the "LeBron had to be taught how to win", narrative would replace it. It's not as bad as as the choker narrative, but him no longer having an 100% FMVP rate a-la MJ would be seen as a negative. If he won FMVP too though then that'd be pretty good, plus he'd now have a 3Peat to his name and ala MJ and peak Shaq.

A win in 2015 as you mentioned would be absolutely massive. Biggest [Finals] carry job in NBA history with one of the biggest upsets in NBA history, with no "superteam", a year before coming back down from a 3-1 lead to a 73-9 team? The sheer amount of impossibility in B2B seasons would honestly have a lot of people have him as the GOAT over MJ. That and neither Steph nor KD would never be considered better than Lebron at any point. Steph's 2022 Championship would have extra importance to it as it'd be the first one he won without a mega stacked team.

i wonder how much lebron winning in 2015 would actually help his legacy. it should help his legacy, as it would be a massive carry job like basically none we've ever seen, but then it would set the stage that the warriors were paper tigers and, even if they won 73 next season, it would just be "yeah, but lebron's going to beat them". now coming back from 3-1 would still make it crazy, but i don't know how many more legacy points you can get than the 2016 win already got him. it would be more impressive to win both years, but it's just bad storytelling.

hakeem 1986 would be massive and might be the biggest boost. nowadays, he routinely gets left off of top 10 lists. with '86, he'd have actual GOAT credentials at that point. he'd basically be viewed as someone impossible to beat if he had even a moderately talented team. the only thing more impressive than a single star title where you lead your team in all 5 categories in the playoffs (1994) might be beating four 57 win teams, all as the road team, while demolishing the MVP (1995). and the only thing better than that would be taking down 2 of the 3 or 4 most iconic dynasties, at the peaks of their power, in the same postseason, with ralph sampson as your second best player. 1994 would be viewed as the return of the king after years in the desert on bad teams, and 1995 would just really make it seem like you couldn't kill him.

Not sure it would change the narrative about either Barkley or Chris Paul other than the Paul can't stay healthy one, but it would be massive for Karl Malone if he beat Jordan's Bulls. Probably the biggest difference maker in the top 20 for one more title.

penbeast0 wrote:Not sure it would change the narrative about either Barkley or Chris Paul other than the Paul can't stay healthy one, but it would be massive for Karl Malone if he beat Jordan's Bulls. Probably the biggest difference maker in the top 20 for one more title.

Especially if it's 98 when Jordan was definitely not as good as he used to be anymore and the Bulls were about to blow it up the next year anyway, I doubt that title would boost Malone that much up the rankings. It's not nearly as impactful as Magic winning in 91 or Barkley in 93 when Jordan was still at his peak. Like I would still struggle to see a top 10 case for him and since most already have him 15-20 that's a handful of spots at best.

I see 2017 almost more interesting than 2015 for LeBron's legacy. I am not sure if the year fits OP's statement ("[...]a realistic chance of winning"). You could make the case that no team other than the Warriors had a realistic chance. But imagine LeBron beats the 73 win Warriors and the same team plus Durant in back to back years. That would probably have been the most incredible feat in NBA history.

I disagree. Magic won plenty and the negative for Barkley is his defense (and his drinking, partying, and picking fights in the locker room). The negative against Karl Malone, at least during his career, is that he was a choke artist who couldn't take his team anywhere in the playoffs. This would dispel that. Though you are right that Jordan's mystique might take a hit.

Lebron certainly looks low if Kyrie doesn't make that shot. Ray Allen also and Duncan missing his. Could be two only for Lebron.

Garnett managing to win with Minny in 04 should (and probably would) be absolutely huge. Same with Olajuwon in 86, potentially insane championship, although that one's more far fetched.

And now imagine Russell's Celtics winning 67 as well, just for **** and giggles.

Farfetched would be Havlicek winning in 1970 after Russell retires; that would set the feathers flying. Only had to win another 40 games or so . . .

I'm not sure how far down the list we are qualifying as "a GOAT" but seeing as CP3, Barkley and Havlicek are mentioned I'll just add Scottie Pippen.

His defense is pretty universally respected. But if he won in 1994, I think he would be looked at more seriously as an offensive playmaker and number one option. If he won in 2000 in Portland, despite his decline, I think he would be looked at slightly more seriously as an era-defining player and his overall longevity may be given a bit more consideration. And that's leaving aside the public narrative around "Jordan's sidekick who failed elsewhere".

A Portland 2000 championship seems a bit more likely than a 1994 Bulls one, but I'm not 100% sure.

SilentA wrote:I'm not sure how far down the list we are qualifying as "a GOAT" but seeing as CP3, Barkley and Havlicek are mentioned I'll just add Scottie Pippen.

His defense is pretty universally respected. But if he won in 1994, I think he would be looked at more seriously as an offensive playmaker and number one option. If he won in 2000 in Portland, despite his decline, I think he would be looked at slightly more seriously as an era-defining player and his overall longevity may be given a bit more consideration. And that's leaving aside the public narrative around "Jordan's sidekick who failed elsewhere".

A Portland 2000 championship seems a bit more likely than a 1994 Bulls one, but I'm not 100% sure.

Portland was way more likely, basically a 50-50 with the Lakers. Pacers weren't pushovers but I reckon they'd be pretty decent underdogs.