If Magic never retired? Could the 92 Lakers beat the Buils

[B-Scott]

What if Magic never got the HIV virus and ended up playing a couple of more seasons? Would the Lakers have been able to challenge the Bulls. One of the problems with that 1991 Laker team was of course there was no Kareem, Michael Cooper and Worthy had sprained his ankle in the WCF in the Portland series. Worthy still played solid the 1st couple of games, but you can clearly tell he was limping Game 1 at Chicago. His athletic ability was limited. And Magic was still great, but not the Magic of 1987.

Even with that, i thought they had chances to win Games 3 and 5. Especially Game 3 in which they were up by 15 in the 3rd quarter and had full control of the game. Had they won that game they go up 2-1 and it's a completely different series from a mental standpoint.

Back in 1992 i thought if the Lakers could get a PG who could take pressure off Magic having to bring the ball up the floor it would make it easier for him to go straight to the post. Without dribbling up he floor then posting up. That summer they acquired Sedalle Threat who was going to be the player to allow Magic to go to the post more without having to handle so much. Especially against a team like the Bulls and Pippen. They also drafted Anthony Peeler who brought Athletic ability to that 1992 team.

With the additions of Threat and Peeler and a healthy Worthy could that 1992 Laker team challenge the Bulls. Lakers were 44-38 that season without Magic and Sedalle had a very good season.

[celticspierce34]

doesnt matter

[Bucs80]

Getting HIV dosen't affect you until 10-15 years.

Especially for Magic Johnson who is an Athlete/NBA player and keeps his himself in tip-top condition.

[JordansBulls]

One of the problems with that 1991 Laker team was of course there was no Kareem, Michael Cooper and Worthy had sprained his ankle in the WCF in the Portland series. Worthy still played solid the 1st couple of games, but you can clearly tell he was limping Game 1 at Chicago. His athletic ability was limited. And Magic was still great, but not the Magic of 1987.

Even with that, i thought they had chances to win Games 3 and 5. Especially Game 3 in which they were up by 15 in the 3rd quarter and had full control of the game. Had they won that game they go up 2-1 and it's a completely different series from a mental standpoint.

Back in 1992 i thought if the Lakers could get a PG who could take pressure off Magic having to bring the ball up the floor it would make it easier for him to go straight to the post. Without dribbling up he floor then posting up. That summer they acquired Sedalle Threat who was going to be the player to allow Magic to go to the post more without having to handle so much. Especially against a team like the Bulls and Pippen. They also drafted Anthony Peeler who brought Athletic ability to that 1992 team.

With the additions of Threat and Peeler and a healthy Worthy could that 1992 Laker team challenge the Bulls. Lakers were 44-38 that season without Magic and Sedalle had a very good season.

Not with Worthy getting older they couldn't.

[B-Scott]

Good point about Worthy being older. 1992 Worthy even if healthy was still not as athletic as 1985 to 1988 Worthy but being healthy would still help him have more impact then in that 1991 NBA Finals where he wasn't himself because of the ankle injury. The Bulls got away with Cliff Levingston on him 1 on 1 which was shocking.

I dont think the Lakers win, but i think they could do better then that 1991 series in which they lost 4-1. Byron Scott it seemed had lost a lot of his athletisism after that 1989 hamstring injury and Threat because of his ball handling skills and ability to knock down that Mid-Range jumper off the dribble or pass would make the 1992 Lakers better then there 1991 team.

[Jordan23Forever]

No, they wouldn't have. The Bulls were a team of destiny led by a top 3 player of all time at his absolute peak. They're not losing in '92 or '93 regardless.

[mr.ankle]

The Bulls would had swept them

[No. 12]

Could of, would of, should of, but that Bulls team was just too strong.

[tsherkin]

If the basic question is "Could a Magic Johnson-led Lakers team beat the Chicago Bulls in the '92 Finals," the answer is yes.

The details of such a matchup are the important thing, however. Worthy was aging and becoming more injury-prone, B-Scott was getting up there, their perimeter defense and interior scoring prowess were waning... The Lakers were old. If he had a team and coach that were legit matchups for the Bulls, it would be a success. As I recall, Mike Dunleavy was the head coach at the time and they didn't have a great deal of offensive variety. It was more of a miracle and evidence of Magic's surpassing talent that they even got to the Finals in '91. It is worth noting that Magic Johnson totally pwn3d the league that year, averaging like 12.5 apg at a pace of 94.1, which would be comfortably middle-of-the-pack today, assuming you use b-ref's pace data and not knickerblogger (and even if the 94 translates to KnickerBlogger numbers [which it doesn't, it's lower], that's still outside of the top-5 in pace, which is very impressive).

[theTHIEF]

Getting HIV dosen't affect you until 10-15 years.

Especially for Magic Johnson who is an Athlete/NBA player and keeps his himself in tip-top condition.

WTH???

[dockingsched]

"Becoming infected with HIV and becoming sick from AIDS are two different events. For most people, it takes many years from the time someone is infected with HIV to the time that they develop symptoms of AIDS. Some people get sick sooner and others stay well longer, especially with treatment. However, there is almost always a significant period of time after infection when an HIV-positive individual will have no symptoms at all -- often 10 years or more. "

http://www.hivsymptoms.org/hiv-symptom-free-period.html

There are four main stages in the progression of an HIV infected person developing AIDS. The period following the initial HIV infection is called the window period. It is called this because this period reflects the window of time between infection with the virus and when HIV antibodies develop in the bloodstream. An HIV test that looks for antibodies taken during this time can result in a false negative, though antibodies usually appear within six months of the initial infection.

Seroconversion refers to the period of time during which your body is busy producing HIV antibodies, trying to protect itself against the virus. This is the period after the initial infection when many people experience flu-like symptoms and swollen lymph nodes – this is a highly infectious stage.

After most people seroconvert, they usually experience a symptom-free period or asymptomatic period. This stage can last anywhere from 6 months to over 10 years, varying from person to person. Although the person with HIV is experiencing no symptoms, the virus is still replicating inside the body and weakening the immune system.

http://www.hiv.com/


thats probably what he was referring to.

[tsherkin]

Yeah, WTH?

Most people who contract HIV are dead before they reach 15 years post-infection, Bucs80.

That's one of the most staggeringly ignorant statements I have ever read on these forums, and that's saying something.

[Magilla_Gorilla]

Yeah, WTH?

Most people who contract HIV are dead before they reach 15 years post-infection, Bucs80.

That's one of the most staggeringly ignorant statements I have ever read on these forums, and that's saying something.

No, it really isn't. The average lifespan now for a person who contracts HIV is 24 years. It isn't 1985 anymore, while not cureable HIV is at least become more manageable.

[TrueRain]

A lot of people on here are confusing HIV with AIDS.

[BballFanAddict]

Um, shouldn't the question really be: "Could the 1992 Lakers, with Magic, beat the Blazers in the WCF?" And, the answer is: No. The Blazers would have killed them with Magic, too.

[Magilla_Gorilla]

From Reuters:

WASHINGTON, July 25: Cocktails of HIV drugs help patients live an average of 13 years longer — if they are lucky enough to get them, researchers reported.

A person who started taking the drugs at the age of 20 could, on average, expect to live another 43 years, said the researchers in the report published in the Lancet medical journal on Thursday.

They looked at several studies of patients living in the United States, Canada and several European countries who received drug combinations known as ‘highly active antiretroviral therapy or Haart’.

Robert Hogg of the British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS in Vancouver, Canada and colleagues looked at 43,000 patients in 14 different studies.

[/b]“Between 1996-99 and 2003-05, there was a gain in life expectancy for those at age 20 years of about 13 years;[/b] similar gains in life expectancy in those aged 35 years were also seen,” they wrote.

“A person starting combination therapy can expect to live about 43 years at 20 years of age, about two-thirds as long as the general population in these countries.”

Average life expectancy for a 20-year-old without HIV in those countries would be 80, they said.

Patients treated later on in their infections and those infected via injected drug use did not live as long as those treated early, the researchers found.

The AIDS virus infects an estimated 33 million people globally and has killed about 25 million since the pandemic started in the 1980s.

Near-normal life

There is no vaccine and no cure but the drugs can suppress the virus and allow patients to lead a near-normal life.

Without treatment, the virus destroys the immune system, leaving patients susceptible to infections and cancer.

More than 20 drugs are now on the market and can be combined in various ways to control the virus, although it usually mutates eventually and patients must switch to different regimens to keep it under control.

Drug companies have come up with combination pills to make it easier to stay on therapy.

Nearly 3 million people in the developing world now get HIV drugs – about 70 per cent of those who need them, according to the United Nations. There are several pharmaceutical companies manufacturing these drugs.

HIV is passed through sex, blood, injected drug use and from mother to child at birth or through breast milk.

In a second study in Lancet, Robert Bollinger of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and an international team of colleagues found that giving the HIV drug nevirapine daily to breastfed infants up to six weeks of age could protect them.

—Reuters

Of course all of this is dependent on being diagnosed early and being treated early.


As they say in Chicago - Get tested early, get tested often.

[Dentor]

We're getting to the point where AIDS is like a bad back, you always have it, and it acts up every once in a while.

[theTHIEF]

and you eventually die from it...just like a bad back...

[Magilla_Gorilla]

We're getting to the point where AIDS is like a bad back, you always have it, and it acts up every once in a while.

You're confusing AIDS with HIV, as was mentioned earlier.

[tsherkin]

Magilla, the other dependant factor is the funds to purchase those drugs.