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

[BballFanAddict]

Check this out. A Cure for Aids may be in the works. A couple large breakthrougs are being reported:

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs ... cked_t.php

[Sedale Threatt]

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.

I agree. A lot of people forget how good those Blazers teams were. They were better in 91, too; the Lakers just happened to beat them, thanks mainly to Magic's iron will and determination.

[Magilla_Gorilla]

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

I haven't disputed that, although in the US and most developed countries there are more and more avenues for individuals to obtain the necessary prescriptions.


The article mentions that up to 70% of people in developed countries obtain the necessary drug combinations.

[BitonKOBE]

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

haha im impressed that you didnt just quit after the 'hiv kills w/in 15 years' statement. i guess.

[tsherkin]

Why would I quit?

Medical advances in the last two decades have been extremely impressive and there are many treatments available that can help (Please Use More Appropriate Word) the spread of the infection but they are not cheap and are not necessarily accessible to all.

Acute HIV infection, which is two stages before full-blown AIDS (usually before a latency period) leaves the individual open to a host of secondary infections that are very difficult to handle.

Depending on where you are in the world (e.g. what kind of health care system you have) and what kind of money you have, HIV can be deadly quite quickly.

It's a pandemic and it is resource-hungry in treatment; such treatments are not universally available.

[B-Scott]

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.

The 1991 Lakers beat Portland 4-2 and Portland brought back the same team. They had problems with Sam Perkins in the low post and Worthy. Portland would never beat LA convincingly. That was a rivalry.

Also keep in mind the 1993 Lakers took Phoenix to Game 5 in the 1st round. Back in 93 the 1st round was a 5 game series.

C Vlade
PF Perkins
SF Worthy
SG Scott
PG Threat

They took Phoenix to 5 games and Phoenix came out the West that season. Lakers actually blew that series. They won the 1st 2 games AT PHOENIX and were up 2-0. The Suns came back and won 2 games in LA. Had it not been for some bad calls in Game 5 which was close Lakers would have upset the Suns.

The 1992 team is a year younger and add on Magic. If they can win 44 games (Without Magic) then im sure with him they are a 55 to 58 win team just like 1991.

[BitonKOBE]

Why would I quit?

Medical advances in the last two decades have been extremely impressive and there are many treatments available that can help (Please Use More Appropriate Word) the spread of the infection but they are not cheap and are not necessarily accessible to all.

Acute HIV infection, which is two stages before full-blown AIDS (usually before a latency period) leaves the individual open to a host of secondary infections that are very difficult to handle.

Depending on where you are in the world (e.g. what kind of health care system you have) and what kind of money you have, HIV can be deadly quite quickly.

It's a pandemic and it is resource-hungry in treatment; such treatments are not universally available.

ohhh, i dunno...bc you called someone staggeringly ignorant who was, essentially, correct? and LOL get out of here w pretending to be an expert on hiv/aids. anybody who was would never have called out that guy for being 'staggeringly ignorant,' but rather would have added any specific details about the availability of treatment that might be relevant. of course HIV can be deadly depending on where you are in the world. so can the flu. the point of that guy's post was that a human being can be almost as athletic 15 years after contracting HIV as before. which is true.

its definitely not 'staggeringly ignorant' lol where did you learn to moderate, 'tsherkin's dad's school of self-aggrandizing overreactions'?

[Sedale Threatt]

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.

The 1991 Lakers beat Portland 4-1 and Portland brought back the same team. They had problems with Sam Perkins in the low post and Worthy. Portland would never beat LA convincingly. That was a rivalry.

Also keep in mind the 1993 Lakers took Phoenix to Game 5 in the 1st round. Back in 93 the 1st round was a 5 game series.

C Vlade
PF Perkins
SF Worthy
SG Scott
PG Threat

They took Phoenix to 5 games and Phoenix came out the West that season. Lakers actually blew that series. They won the 1st 2 games AT PHOENIX and were up 2-0. The Suns came back and won 2 games in LA. Had it not been for some bad calls in Game 5 which was close Lakers would have upset the Suns.

The 1992 team is a year younger and add on Magic. If they can win 44 games (Without Magic) then im sure with him they are a 55 to 58 win team just like 1991.

No, that was a 4-2 series in 1991 with Game 6 being decided at the Forum by one point. Terry Porter had a wide open jump shot from about 20 feet in the last few seconds but couldn't knock it down. I'm sure you remember Magic grabbing the rebound and flinging it down court as the clock expired. Classic moment. So if you look at it all the factors, and you want to play the "woulda-coulda-shoulda" game, you can easily argue that the Blazers could have won that series. They blew Game 1 at home and they never got it back.

In my opinion, other than the fact that we had a true leader in Magic Johnson and they didn't, the Blazers were the better team that year, and they would been the better team in 1992 had the two met again. Plus, you can't use the Phoenix series as a gauge for anything; that was a total fluke, just like it was a total fluke that Atlanta took Boston to seven this year.

[B-Scott]

I meant to say 1992, my bad.

I don't know if the Lakers taking Phoenix to Game 5 was a fluke because they caused matchup problems for the suns undersized frontline. You would think that in Game 5 the Suns would have blown the Lakers out, but even that game was close as it went to overtime.

Im not saying they would beat Portland or the Bulls, but they would have at least had a opportunity to beat Portland and get another shot at the Bulls. Sedale Threatt brought something they didnt have in 91 and thats another guard who can bring the ball up the floor and create for himself and teammates. Magic had not had ball handling help since Michael Cooper retired in 1990. Coop allowed Magic to go straight to the post because he could bring the ball up the court at times.

[Sedale Threatt]

Well, they beat us 3-1 in 1992, so what 4-1 Lakers victory are you referring to?

The Lakers with Magic Johnson could have beaten anybody. He was that good -- as a player, and as a leader. But by the end of that 91 series I had no doubt that Chicago was the better team, just as I still felt that Portland was the better team even though the Lakers won. As good as I was, I don't think my addition was going to change much.

[B-Scott]

I meant to say 4-2 in there 1991 WCF meeting

Lakers had chances to win Games 3 and 5 in that Bulls series. The only blowouts were Games 2 and 4.

Add another guard who can create his own shot and occassionally drop 20 to 25 points and you never know. I think we win that game 3 with Sedale in there instead of Byron Scott who had slowed down a lot.

Magic would be able to take Pippen or MJ to the post without having to handle the ball as much which tired him out.

[ph1sh55]

The lakers were on the downswing and the blazers were peaking (that was probably drexler's prime year) and were a much more savvy post season team in '92 than in '91. I don't think you can assume the lakers would advance. If they did they probably would have been less competitive than Portland was in the finals considering the lakers only won one game the year before against the '91 bulls.

[B-Scott]

Here are some highlights of a 1992/1993 meeting Lakers vs Bulls. Its only regular season but Threatt and Peeler brought more talent in the backcourt that LA didnt have in 91.

Worthy had 22 points and Sedale had 19 in this game. There are certain pick and roll plays that you can run with Sedale that you cant run with Byron Scott because of Scott's poor ball handling skills. With Magic on this team he could play from the post a lot more and less ball handling duties.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6ec-JkMnL-U

[Jordan23Forever]

I meant to say 4-2 in there 1991 WCF meeting

Lakers had chances to win Games 3 and 5 in that Bulls series. The only blowouts were Games 2 and 4.

What's your point? The Bulls' only loss in that series was on a Perkins miracle 3 that Grant grazed with his fingertips. If you wanna play that game.

[tsherkin]

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.

Manageable to those with the financial wherewithal to acquire the treatments or in countries with public healthcare systems. Without medicine, the average lifespan of a person who contracts HIV is about 10 years. And of course, the particulars of a person's lifespan depend on when the infection is discovered and what kind of secondary infections are contracted before treatments are begun.

It is a large expense, one that is in fact prohibitive to many seeking treatment.

When treatments work, they can add decades onto a person's life; the last time I checked, a 2006 study suggested that a 39 year-old who contracted HIV and went on meds early could enjoy up to another four and a half decades of life, which puts him past the average age for males in North America by nearly a decade. Obviously, it made no commentary on quality of life or financial strain, but the possibility remains and I acknowledge that.

What I find especially galling is that people assume access to treatement. Not everyone can afford it.

Consider that in '92, 16 years ago, it cost $10,000 a year to treat a person with HIV, and over $38,000 to treat a person with AIDS (I'll look up the journal article with that data later, if you like).

The latter represents an entire annual salary to some people, while the former represents anywhere from 17 to 33 percent of annual gross income to many others.

ohhh, i dunno...bc you called someone staggeringly ignorant who was, essentially, correct? and LOL get out of here w pretending to be an expert on hiv/aids. anybody who was would never have called out that guy for being 'staggeringly ignorant,' but rather would have added any specific details about the availability of treatment that might be relevant. of course HIV can be deadly depending on where you are in the world. so can the flu. the point of that guy's post was that a human being can be almost as athletic 15 years after contracting HIV as before. which is true.

It is indeed 'staggeringly ignorant' to assume that everyone has access to the extremely expensive treatments, particularly in a privatized healthcare system.

Some of the objective details are posted above; I'm sorry my time spent at work did not allow me the luxury of an in-depth exploration of the costs of HIV treatment at the time.

I will go into more detail later on this evening.

EDIT: Magilla, Biton, please feel free to PM me if you wish to continue the discussion. I have further information if you are inclined to read it.

[Magilla_Gorilla]

EDIT: Magilla, Biton, please feel free to PM me if you wish to continue the discussion. I have further information if you are inclined to read it.

My wife has done work in the area, I have plenty of material at the house.


Its clear we have a different idea of what the original argument was - but I think we can both agree that it would be wonderful if there were more drugmakers like Cipla providing cheap AIDS drugs to undeveloped countries. Cipla has made a decision not to make any profit off of AIDS drugs - and they have reduced costs to about $150 per person per year.

[tsherkin]

My problem is that the original statement was thus:

"Getting HIV doesn't affect you for 10-15 years."

Even with drugs, that's an incredibly ignorant statement. It's not that people can't live long lives even after contracting the disease, but that they are indeed inimitably affected by their condition. Their sex lives alter radically, there are new costs (if they can afford them, because Cipla isn't making use of widespread practicers), there are concessions to dietary concerns and physical fitness necessary that change your lifestyle... And there's the fact that, untreated, a lot of people die within the first decade after contracting HIV, depending on the various circumstances.

I have no trouble believing that with appropriate treatment, such things are possible but Bucs' comment was dumb and then he tried to call me out on another angle, ignoring the particular meaning of what it was he actually said. See my original post, and his:

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.

dcash brought up a fairly legitimate point about the window period and the latency stage that follows acute HIV infection.

I know that Buc misconstrued my statement about being dead after 15 years by believing I meant WITH treatment rather than without, but my comment about his ignorance pertains to his own remark about HIV not affecting people for a decade to a decade and a half. Even in the latency stage, HIV affects people...

For example, by making them carriers, with or without their knowledge. And if they know, then change is imminent. Perhaps I am playing semantics and he meant just what dcash implied, that the drop in your immune system's efficacy doesn't always show tangible results (especially with treatment) after infection for that period, but even still, it's a callous statement that is overly vague and doesn't accurately describe the immediate impact HIV does actually have on a person.

Anyway, that topic is done.

Regarding Magic and the Lakers versus the Bulls, J23F, I think the point is this:

While the Lakers won their only game on a prayer, they were not being routinely dissected by Chicago for most of the series... and that's with an injured Worthy and Scott, lacking the perimeter defense and outside shooting of Cooper as well as the veteran experience and interior presence of Kareem (even in late-career form). They were also a much slower team than they had been. Remember, the Lakers played at a pace of 94.1 in the 90-91 season, which would be top-10 this year, but not top-6 in terms of pace. This, after playing over 100 possessions a game for most of Magic's career (and he still averaged 12.5 apg).

They weren't healthy and they weren't balanced; the Lakers made it to the Finals on the main force of Magic's talent, despite age, injury and retirement afflicting their team.

If Magic had never retired, could the Lakers have beaten the Bulls the year after? Chicago was the best offense and the 4th-best defense in the league by possession.

In reality, Worthy played only 54 games and missed the playoffs because of knee surgery.

Would that have really changed if Magic hadn't retired? The ankle injury he suffered the year before and the accumulated problems he had accrued over the years were already slowing him down. If Worthy wasn't available at all in the '92 playoffs, then even the addition of Sedale probably wouldn't have been enough for the Lakers.

Remember, the Lakers struggled to even grab the 8th seed in '92, not catching it until the last day and then getting smoked by the Blazers. There's no reason to believe Worthy would be healthy, or that they'd have overcome the ball-handling issues they had all year (yes, Magic would have improved their pace and the ball-handling issues but they were still a flawed, weak team).

A Magic Johnson-led team could have beaten the Bulls, but not those Lakers.

[theTHIEF]

so, from Magic Johnson not contracting HIV to RealGM's very own medical debate panel...

[Sedale Threatt]

Mind-numbing, er, fascinating stuff.