RealGM

How that would've changed the whole outlook on Kobe can't win it without Shaq and the fact that he couldn't win with Pau Gasol? What about Paul Pierce, considering that he has 3 rings now instead of 1, is his placement on the top 75 would be any higher? Also how would that affect Doc Rivers?

What if Shaq and Kobe never won any and Vince Carter lead the Raptors to a 3-peat instead?

That's the real question.

oaktownwarriors87 wrote:What if Shaq and Kobe never won any and Vince Carter lead the Raptors to a 3-peat instead?

That's the real question.

If only T-Mac would've stayed in Toronto, but I guess he wouldn't flourish into a superstar then

Is this assuming the same injuries?

If they win in 08-10, KG probably is the best player in the 09 and 10 Finals.

No if everyone's healthy, meaning Bynum is not injured in 08, KG healthy in 09, Perk isn't injured in game 7 in 10.

And vice versa, if Kobe had a second three peat in 08-10, how would that fair in the Jordan comparison? It probably wouldn't affect Phil Jackson much cause he's already one of the GOAT coaches ever.

Pharmacist wrote:No if everyone's healthy, meaning Bynum is not injured in 08, KG healthy in 09, Perk isn't injured in game 7 in 10.

If KG doesn't get injured in 09 the Celts have a great chance at a three-peat (09 favourites + KG surely doesn't drop that much in 10), but that would be mostly due to KG, who was by far their best player when healthy.

Pierce usually hovers around the 40s, maybe he gets to clinch that Pippen tier, late 20s to early 30s?

I lost a longer response to this, but to keep it shorter i’ll just say I think it’s likely that Pierce vs Kobe is a serious discussion all time.

oaktownwarriors87 wrote:What if Shaq and Kobe never won any and Vince Carter lead the Raptors to a 3-peat instead?

That's the real question.

No it isn't.

Yours is wildly implausible whereas that outlined requires turning one NBA finals game in one year, and better injury luck and the not insignificant task of actually winning from the position of "plausible contender" in a second.


To the main question I would tend to frame it more as Boston winning three titles rather than individuals winning rings and the details of what happens in this changed scenario would/should be relevant to all analyses. But regarding crude mainstream analysis, I think the ppg leader on 3 straight title teams probably benefits versus perception IRL.

Owly wrote:

oaktownwarriors87 wrote:What if Shaq and Kobe never won any and Vince Carter lead the Raptors to a 3-peat instead?

That's the real question.

No it isn't.

Yours is wildly implausible whereas that outlined requires turning one NBA finals game in one year, and better injury luck and the not insignificant task of actually winning from the position of "plausible contender" in a second.


To the main question I would tend to frame it more as Boston winning three titles rather than individuals winning rings and the details of what happens in this changed scenario would/should be relevant to all analyses. But regarding crude mainstream analysis, I think the ppg leader on 3 straight title teams probably benefits versus perception IRL.

Woosh

It would make Kobe vs. Pierce a real debate, possibly. Especially if Pierce got one more FMVP out of it.

oaktownwarriors87 wrote:

Owly wrote:

oaktownwarriors87 wrote:What if Shaq and Kobe never won any and Vince Carter lead the Raptors to a 3-peat instead?

That's the real question.

No it isn't.

Yours is wildly implausible whereas that outlined requires turning one NBA finals game in one year, and better injury luck and the not insignificant task of actually winning from the position of "plausible contender" in a second.


To the main question I would tend to frame it more as Boston winning three titles rather than individuals winning rings and the details of what happens in this changed scenario would/should be relevant to all analyses. But regarding crude mainstream analysis, I think the ppg leader on 3 straight title teams probably benefits versus perception IRL.

Woosh

Yeah you're using this wrong. Nothing went over his head, he just explained why your comp is not comparable to the other comp

KG is almost certainly (rightfully) still seen as the heart of that dynasty, so I imagine it does more for him than the others, but Pierce/Allen likely have more clear lanes into the mid 30s in a just outside Pippen as Robins tier depending on their performance.

KG cements a top 10 spot and pushes for top 5 on a lot more lists.

It would be really huge on garnett legacy perception as he was the best player of that team

Pau Gasol might just be kind of forgotten and relegated to the likes of Webber, Rasheed, Amare and Jermaine O'Neal of "solid tier-2 power forwards of the 2000s behind Garnett, Duncan or Dirk". At the moment, he seems to be in a tier of his own right now between those 3 all-time greats and "the rest".

SilentA wrote:Pau Gasol might just be kind of forgotten and relegated to the likes of Webber, Rasheed, Amare and Jermaine O'Neal of "solid tier-2 power forwards of the 2000s behind Garnett, Duncan or Dirk". At the moment, he seems to be in a tier of his own right now between those 3 all-time greats and "the rest".

I have him ahead of all of them except rasheed, prolly around even with webber(?)

eminence wrote:KG is almost certainly (rightfully) still seen as the heart of that dynasty, so I imagine it does more for him than the others, but Pierce/Allen likely have more clear lanes into the mid 30s in a just outside Pippen as Robins tier depending on their performance.

KG cements a top 10 spot and pushes for top 5 on a lot more lists.

No doubt it would be huge for Garnett, could be much closer to Tim Duncan.

falcolombardi wrote:

SilentA wrote:Pau Gasol might just be kind of forgotten and relegated to the likes of Webber, Rasheed, Amare and Jermaine O'Neal of "solid tier-2 power forwards of the 2000s behind Garnett, Duncan or Dirk". At the moment, he seems to be in a tier of his own right now between those 3 all-time greats and "the rest".

I have him ahead of all of them except rasheed, prolly around even with webber(?)

I don't know if I would have him ahead of C-Webb, Jermaine or Sheed though

Chronz wrote:

oaktownwarriors87 wrote:

Owly wrote:No it isn't.

Yours is wildly implausible whereas that outlined requires turning one NBA finals game in one year, and better injury luck and the not insignificant task of actually winning from the position of "plausible contender" in a second.


To the main question I would tend to frame it more as Boston winning three titles rather than individuals winning rings and the details of what happens in this changed scenario would/should be relevant to all analyses. But regarding crude mainstream analysis, I think the ppg leader on 3 straight title teams probably benefits versus perception IRL.

Woosh

Yeah you're using this wrong. Nothing went over his head, he just explained why your comp is not comparable to the other comp

It was a joke. Clearly it went over both of your heads.

Pharmacist wrote:

oaktownwarriors87 wrote:What if Shaq and Kobe never won any and Vince Carter lead the Raptors to a 3-peat instead?

That's the real question.

If only T-Mac would've stayed in Toronto, but I guess he wouldn't flourish into a superstar then

We make at least 1 Finals IMO. In 00-01 especially. Maybe even win a title in 03-04.

That is a big what if but at least we got one with Kawhi.

Pharmacist wrote:

eminence wrote:KG is almost certainly (rightfully) still seen as the heart of that dynasty, so I imagine it does more for him than the others, but Pierce/Allen likely have more clear lanes into the mid 30s in a just outside Pippen as Robins tier depending on their performance.

KG cements a top 10 spot and pushes for top 5 on a lot more lists.

No doubt it would be huge for Garnett, could be much closer to Tim Duncan.

It would make them further apart for me