Would Detroit have beaten LA in the Finals if Karl Malone had been healthy? I guess there's not much point in speculating at this point; just wondering what people thought about that.
In my opinion, the series would've extended to seven games. Because if you look at all the rebound categories, Detroit dominated almost every statistical category. Even if we had a healthy Karl Malone in this series, his offense may have looked stagnant, but he's an awesome contributor on the boards and can easily grab double digit boards at any given time.
Wouldn't of made much difference, Malone wasn't a factor when heathly and looked out of sink during this series. L.A may of won maybe 1 more game but the trophy would still be in Detroit right now. The what If's are pointless It's like saying what If Billups back didn't hurt and Sheed's foot wasn't badly injured would the Nets or Indy even won more than 1 game? It's really pointless asking what would happen if the injures had not happened. They are part of the game.
i think Detroit would have still won. malone would have given the Lakers much needed rebounds. maybe the Lakers wouldn't have gotten blown out so many times, but Detroit would have still won. on the same note, would the Lakers have beaten Minnesota if they had Cassell? it's all pointless speculation.
hmmm, NO! I think the Lakers were a year too old. They didn't even play with that much desire and I doubt Karl couldv'e compensated for their lack of desire and intensity.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting durvasa:</div><div class="quote_post">Would Detroit have beaten LA in the Finals if Karl Malone had been healthy? I guess there's not much point in speculating at this point; just wondering what people thought about that.</div> would the lakers be in the finals if Fisher had missed his .4 shot?
The Pistons won and thats all that matters. The only injuries that could have affected them a little bit is Karl Malone. Payton wasn't injured, he is just washed up, Kobe had ok games, and Shaq played the best. Their bench just can't play as good as the Pistons bench. There aren't any excuses as to why they lost. The fact is that the Pistons have the better defense. I said that they would win when the series first started on the ESPN Videogames forums. Everybody said that wouldn't but they did. There are no excuses so everybody or nobody shouldn't try to make any as to why the Lakers didn't win and as to why the Pistons did. They are the better team and the better team won. ONE.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting AllNet:</div><div class="quote_post"> It's like saying what If Billups back didn't hurt and Sheed's foot wasn't badly injured would the Nets or Indy even won more than 1 game? It's really pointless asking what would happen if the injures had not happened. </div> Yeah pretty pointless seeming that every series had a bunch of what ifs like if Jason Kidd wasnt playing on one leg would the Pistons have gotten pass the Nets at all. Pistons could barely keep up with the Nets fastbreak with the Nets floor general doing pretty much little to nothing all series due to his injury, yet the series went 7. Bt anyway from a on court stand point I would have much rather seen the Wolves vs the Pistons better matchups all around. A scoring battle between a healthy Cassell & Billups. Trenton Hassell would have been able to put all his energy into chasing around Rip. Kobe did a solid job but he was pulling double duty of offense & defense. And didnt seem to have the energy to fight thru all those Pistons screens at times, so Hamilton by the end of the series ended up getting alot of good looks. Hassell would have put 100% energy on the defense end. And KG would have a been a different task for that frontline. Shaq was pretty stationary in the post. KG would have been able to step out side the post to recieve the ball. And make plays And the key to every series for the Pistons was the fact that the Nets,Pacers, &Lakers were all pretty poor perimeter shooting teams. So they were able to sag in the lane alot which made it twice as diffcult to score inside. But they still gave up some pretty decent looks from the outside just never got burned for it. But when the Wolves full unit is there they ball movement is amongst the best in the league. And they are one of the most efficent jumpshooting teams in the league. And when both teams are healthy they have pretty good depth. Pistons would have produced alot of on court drama.but the Lakers of course would produce the ratings & off court story lines.
maybe a game difference. IF both payton and malone were healthy and payton was playing like the regular season, and the same with malone(pre-injury) THEN the Lakers would have won
I don't think it would have made a difference. Sheed was outplaying him prior to him getting hurt in the series. He was a non factor when healthy early in the series so there is nothing in me that thinks he would have been a factor later in the series if he was healthy. I don't think the Lakers would have won this series with a fully healthy Malone because they got outplayed and that's all there is to it. Nothing could have won this series for them.
What if Sam Cassell (or at least Troy Hudson) was healthy for the better part of the WCF? What if Jermaine O'Neal was 100% fit for the ECF?
There are a lot of "what ifs" surrounding this years playoffs. What if Karl was healthy? What if Cassell was healthy in the WCF? What if the DFish shot with .4 never went in? Quite frankly, you can make as many what ifs as you want, the Pistons won. Doesn't matter now. Playoffs are over. Plain and simple. Malone wasn't healthy, even when he was, didn't help them, Sheed had his way. The DFish shot DID go in and that ultimately sunk the Spurs. Cassell wasn't healthy and that might have cost the TWolves. JO didn't play healthy in the ECF and that could have cost the Pacers. But, when all is said and done, the Pistons are still the champs.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Moo2K4:</div><div class="quote_post">There are a lot of "what ifs" surrounding this years playoffs. What if Karl was healthy? What if Cassell was healthy in the WCF? What if the DFish shot with .4 never went in? Quite frankly, you can make as many what ifs as you want, the Pistons won. Doesn't matter now. Playoffs are over. Plain and simple. Malone wasn't healthy, even when he was, didn't help them, Sheed had his way. The DFish shot DID go in and that ultimately sunk the Spurs. Cassell wasn't healthy and that might have cost the TWolves. JO didn't play healthy in the ECF and that could have cost the Pacers. But, when all is said and done, the Pistons are still the champs.</div> Wow, he asked one simple question, "What if Karl Malone was healthy during the games?" what in the fugging HELL does Sam Cassel or Derek Fisher have to do with Karl Malone being healthy in the finals? He asked specifically about Karl Malone, leave the other "What ifs" out. And to answer the question: Most likely, if any bad crap don't happen. If he was healthy, he would probably score AT LEAST 12 PPG like he did in the WCF, which would probably get them at least one, if not, 2 more wins for the Lakers. Then again, Detroit might've played harder defense and whooped them more, Karl Malone could miss all his shots and leave it for fast break points for Detroit, hell, if Karl was healthy, he might trip and hit Kobe and break Kobe's leg! We will never know.
Sam Cassell's injury is relevant because if he was fit, Karl Malone may not have even got an opportunity to play in the finals. I don't see how you can only cast aside one guy's injuries, when another could have even further ramifications. You can't just discuss one "what if", because a whole host of other things could've happened like Cassell being fit in the WCF could've impacted the Lakers eventual Finals run. Sam Cassell was the best performed point guard this year, Malone is a shadow of himself... gee, I wonder why people would bring up the other situation. It's difficult to argue that the Lakers were unlucky to win when they were arguably lucky to be there.
Basically, in asking the question I just wanted people to discuss who the better team would be if both were at "full strength." I remember watching the Lakers late during the regular season playing against a Sacremento Kings team which was on a roll, and they looked pretty damn good. Unbeatable, in fact. I don't know if it was injuries, fatigue, lack of motivation, or simply better competition, but that Lakers team on the floor during the finals was a DIFFERENT TEAM. That said, I was rooting for the Pistons to win the series, though at the beginning I honestly thought Lakers would win in 5. After these playoffs, its easy to say that Malone is "washed up" and a liability on defense, but when healthy this year he provided a VERY strong contribution to the team. Would it have been enough for the Lakers to beat the Pistons in a seven game series. There are seemingly an infinite number of variables to consider, but I think a healthy and active Karl Malone really would have swung the series in the Lakers favor. He would have provided a sorely needed third option, his great passing would have drastically improved the flow of the Laker's half court offense, and he's always excelled on the fast break. Defensively, he would have been solid (I damn sure he'd have been leaps and bounds better than Medvadenko or Walton).
Sadly thats how some of the LA fans will go down...by saying they only lost cause malone wasnt there , just like last yr when they said the only reason they lost was because the Great Fox and George being injured. The answer to the question is no...Malone was not athletic , quick , and young enough to help the Lakers overcome the Pistons.Detroit was the better team , period.
A guy's injury is just as much of a physical attribute as to how good of a shooter he is or how much he weighs. I never liked these "what ifs" questions because to me they're just as ridiculous as 'what if Ben Wallace could shoot 3s' or 'what if Shaq got injured and couldn't play in the finals' or 'what if Billups and Rip were still injured like from previous games in the playoff'. You will just never know and you can argue all day long that the Lakers would've won the championships. I don't care. You can keep dreaming. For the sake of argument though, if Malone was healthy, I think Lakers would've MAYBE win 1 more game max. Don't even try to say he would've been able to save the Lakers from blowouts in game 3 and 5. Game 4, maybe, I doubt it and game 1, could be close. In the end it doesn't matter, Sheed would dominate him anyways.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting SupraJames:</div><div class="quote_post">In the end it doesn't matter, Sheed would dominate him anyways.</div> How can you say that when Malone completely contained Kevin Garnett and Tim Duncan in the last two series? Or are you quick to say Rasheed Wallace is also in their class?
