Tigers6884 Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 This is a pretty interesting ariticle: http://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2015/5/12/8593851/barry-bonds-collusion-grievance-selig-conspiracy-opus-dei Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unocal Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 1993 NHL Playoffs: what if the Montreal Canadiens had lost game 3 to Quebec and fell behind 0-3 instead of launching their Cup run? Who wins the Cup if Montreal goes out early? (and the Canada Cup drought is 25 years old) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2001mark Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 What if Toronto teams actually qualified for their playoffs &/or won actual playoff games. @2001mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unocal Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 2001mark- depends. If the Leafs had beat the Bruins, it's no gimme they would have beaten the Rangers/Penguins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DnBronc Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 1993 NHL Playoffs: what if the Montreal Canadiens had lost game 3 to Quebec and fell behind 0-3 instead of launching their Cup run?Who wins the Cup if Montreal goes out early? (and the Canada Cup drought is 25 years old)I think that the Nordiques end up in the Wales final, where they lose to the Islanders. Then, in the finals, the Isles lose to the Kings in six games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOldRoman Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 What if Jerry Krause and Phil Jackson hadn't had a falling out? Would Jackson have been able to lead a post-Jordan Bulls to success?Well, Michael said at the last championship rally that he would come back if Phil did. So Jordan would have come back for the lockout-shortened year. Scottie was a free agent, but he would have resigned, as well. I don't know if they would have won in 1999. The ECF was too tight for my liking that year. It took them seven games to beat an Indiana team that was good but not great. I honestly felt that 1998 was the Bulls' last stand no matter what. Another years older and I'm not sure they'd have been able to power through the season. Even with the shortened season, I think the playoffs fell around what would normally be February, when the Bulls seemingly always went through a dead-legged period. As much as I hate how that dynasty ended, I think it was best that they went out on top instead of brining everybody back and having them fall flat in the playoffs.As for post-Jordan circa 2000, I think Phil retires. At that point he was only in it as long as everybody was staying together. Pippen is an all-time great and probably the most underrated player ever, but I don't think Scottie and the Gang would have been formidable in 2000-2002 without some top talent coming in. Whenever Jordan retired, Phil would have retired and waited for his next job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unocal Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 2004 NBA Playoffs- What if the Pacers, not the Pistons, played the dysfunctional Lakers in the NBA Finals? Indiana had the league's best record and would've had homecourt against a bickering Laker team who lost in 5 games even WITH homecourt. IND's D was almost as good as LA and they could have forced Kobe into a similar disaster of a game 4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DnBronc Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 What if Jerry Krause and Phil Jackson hadn't had a falling out? Would Jackson have been able to lead a post-Jordan Bulls to success?Well, Michael said at the last championship rally that he would come back if Phil did. So Jordan would have come back for the lockout-shortened year. Scottie was a free agent, but he would have resigned, as well. I don't know if they would have won in 1999. The ECF was too tight for my liking that year. It took them seven games to beat an Indiana team that was good but not great. I honestly felt that 1998 was the Bulls' last stand no matter what. Another years older and I'm not sure they'd have been able to power through the season. Even with the shortened season, I think the playoffs fell around what would normally be February, when the Bulls seemingly always went through a dead-legged period. As much as I hate how that dynasty ended, I think it was best that they went out on top instead of brining everybody back and having them fall flat in the playoffs.As for post-Jordan circa 2000, I think Phil retires. At that point he was only in it as long as everybody was staying together. Pippen is an all-time great and probably the most underrated player ever, but I don't think Scottie and the Gang would have been formidable in 2000-2002 without some top talent coming in. Whenever Jordan retired, Phil would have retired and waited for his next job.A factor in the 1999 season would have been Dennis Rodman, and if he would have finally went out of control. It seemed like he did that year in his short stint with the Lakers, although Jordan seemed to be able to keep him in line. I heard that Dennis was afraid of 23.If he is kept in line with the team, they probably can get back to the Finals since they would have had some time to rest, and I think that they beat the Spurs in seven.If they come back for one more year, though, I think that age and attrition finally wear them down. The Pacers still make the finals. They wouldn't have been playing the Lakers, though. They would have been playing Portland since Phil Jackson wouldn't have been the Laker coach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadmanLA Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 A Spurs-Bulls Finals in 1999 would have been interesting...just like San Antonio wouldn't have an answer for Jordan, I don't think Chicago would have had an answer for Duncan and Robinson, unless Phil Jackson would have had Rodman guard either one.The Bulls, in all of their Finals appearances, never faced a team that even had a good starting center (Vlade for the Lakers in '91, and maybe Kevin Duckworth for the Blazers in '92 were about as close as it gets). That's along the same reason I believe that if Chicago (with Jordan) and Houston faced-off in either '94 or '95, the Rockets would have still won, especially with Hakeem at his absolute peak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Needschat Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Here's one from a writers' forum:For the 1932 Olympics, there was no football/soccer competition, due to hard financial times throughout all football/soccer countries and disputes between sections. It was proposed, as a writing exercise, what the sport's landscape would be if the competition had occurred. Remember, professional American football was less popular than low minor league baseball at the time.For the most part, most of us had promotion/relegation like most of the world, but we also had junior leagues like current hockey, club academies participating in them along side of independent junior clubs. Oh what could have been.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DnBronc Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 On 5/20/2015 at 2:51 PM, Needschat said: Here's one from a writers' forum: For the 1932 Olympics, there was no football/soccer competition, due to hard financial times throughout all football/soccer countries and disputes between sections. It was proposed, as a writing exercise, what the sport's landscape would be if the competition had occurred. Remember, professional American football was less popular than low minor league baseball at the time. For the most part, most of us had promotion/relegation like most of the world, but we also had junior leagues like current hockey, club academies participating in them along side of independent junior clubs. Another thing that hurt soccer back then in the U.S. was the Soccer Wars of the 20's: http://www.history.com/news/the-forgotten-golden-age-of-american-soccer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Needschat Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Here's one from a writers' forum:For the 1932 Olympics, there was no football/soccer competition, due to hard financial times throughout all football/soccer countries and disputes between sections. It was proposed, as a writing exercise, what the sport's landscape would be if the competition had occurred. Remember, professional American football was less popular than low minor league baseball at the time.For the most part, most of us had promotion/relegation like most of the world, but we also had junior leagues like current hockey, club academies participating in them along side of independent junior clubs.Another thing that hurt soccer back then in the U.S. was the Soccer Wars of the 20's and the Depression:http://www.history.com/news/the-forgotten-golden-age-of-american-soccerBaseball had a "Come together or dissolve completely" which led to the World Series. American soccer did not. Oh what could have been.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DnBronc Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 Delete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unocal Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 1999 NBA Playoffs- what if Orlando, not Miami, had been the #1 seed in the East? In the lockout-shortened 1999 NBA season, they both finished 33-17. Miami had the tiebreaker (2-1 in the season series), won the division and top-seed. Miami famously lost to the 8-seed Knicks in round 1, while Orlando went down to Philadelphia and A.I. If those spots reverse, and the Knicks face the Magic while Miami draws the Sixers, what happens in the East playoffs? This could have had major butterfly effect potential: New York- NBA Finals run may have never gotten off the ground Miami- Could have made Finals run with a different playoff road. Orlando- Easier playoff road- avoiding Allen Iverson- could have changed future for Penny Hardaway/Chuck Daly. Indiana- What becomes of them that year with no Knicks potentially in the way? Atlanta- Assuming they beat Detroit, might they have fared any better? San Antonio- How would they have fared in a potentially different NBA Finals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOldRoman Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 A Spurs-Bulls Finals in 1999 would have been interesting...just like San Antonio wouldn't have an answer for Jordan, I don't think Chicago would have had an answer for Duncan and Robinson, unless Phil Jackson would have had Rodman guard either one.The Bulls, in all of their Finals appearances, never faced a team that even had a good starting center (Vlade for the Lakers in '91, and maybe Kevin Duckworth for the Blazers in '92 were about as close as it gets). That's along the same reason I believe that if Chicago (with Jordan) and Houston faced-off in either '94 or '95, the Rockets would have still won, especially with Hakeem at his absolute peak.RE: Bulls-Rockets - I disagree with that. The Bulls had plenty of experience against top centers. They played Ewing and the Knicks in the playoffs just about every year. Hakeem would have gotten his, but I think the Bulls would have had more than enough for the Rockets. The Spurs, particularly in '99, would be more interesting. I can't think of a dominant C-F combo the Bulls faced in the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DnBronc Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 1999 NBA Playoffs- what if Orlando, not Miami, had been the #1 seed in the East?In the lockout-shortened 1999 NBA season, they both finished 33-17. Miami had the tiebreaker (2-1 in the season series), won the division and top-seed.Miami famously lost to the 8-seed Knicks in round 1, while Orlando went down to Philadelphia and A.I.If those spots reverse, and the Knicks face the Magic while Miami draws the Sixers, what happens in the East playoffs?This could have had major butterfly effect potential:New York- NBA Finals run may have never gotten off the groundMiami- Could have made Finals run with a different playoff road.Orlando- Easier playoff road- avoiding Allen Iverson- could have changed future for Penny Hardaway/Chuck Daly.Indiana- What becomes of them that year with no Knicks potentially in the way?Atlanta- Assuming they beat Detroit, might they have fared any better?San Antonio- How would they have fared in a potentially different NBA Finals?If Orlando got the first seed, I see them beating the Knicks, Hawks, and Pacers (who they split with that year, and home court makes the difference) and going to the NBA Finals. However, I think that they lose to San Antonio in six games.The next year, I can see Daly giving it one more try, with Hardaway not being traded to the Suns. In reality, Hardaway only played in 60 games in 99-00, but if he doesn't have the same injury problems with Orlando, I can see them making another run, but falling short of the Finals. I also see Chuck retiring after that season.In the Summer of 2000, things may have been interesting. That is when the Magic made a run at T-Mac, Grant Hill, and Tim Duncan. What if they got Duncan and T-Mac to add with Penny, and didn't trade Ben Wallace (and Chucky Atkins) to the Pistons for Grant Hill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unocal Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 This one may be long and complicated, but it's interesting: On the final day of the 1995-96 NHL season, two games had they gone the other way would have changed the first round Stanley Cup playoff matchups. In the East, the Penguins lost 6-5 to Boston, blowing a chance to clinch the #1 seed in the conference, which Philadelphia took advantage of by beating Tampa. What we ended up with was: #1 Philadelphia/#8 Tampa Bay, #2 Pittsburgh/#7 Washington, #3 NY Rangers/#6 Montreal, #4 Florida/#5 Boston Had the Penguins won, this is what the East playoffs would have looked like: #1 Pittsburgh/#8 Tampa Bay, #2 Philadelphia/#7 Washington, #3 NY Rangers/#6 Boston, #4 Florida/#5 Montreal (Boston and Washington would have had 89 points, but depending on tiebreakers, even if you reverse it, NY Rangers/Washington and Philadelphia/Boston also would have been completely different In the West, the Winnipeg Jets just had to get a point against Anaheim to move out of the 8 seed and avoid the 62-win, 131-point Detroit Red Wings. What we ended up with thanks to Anaheim's win was: #1 Detroit/#8 Winnipeg, #2 Colorado/#7 Vancouver, #3 Chicago/#6 Calgary, #4 Toronto/#5 St. Louis Had the Jets won against Anaheim, here's what the West Quarterfinals would have been: #1 Detroit/#8 Vancouver, #2 Colorado/#7 Calgary, #3 Chicago/#6 St. Louis, #4 Winnipeg/#5 Toronto Or if Winnipeg tied Anaheim and got a point: #1 Detroit/#8 Vancouver, #2 Colorado/#7 Calgary, #3 Chicago/#6 Winnipeg, #4 Toronto/#5 St. Louis So literally two games affected the entire Stanley Cup playoff draws. It would have been very interesting to see how this changes things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DnBronc Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 In your revamped 1996 East playoffs, Florida may have had a harder time with Montreal than they did with the Bruins, who were up 2-0 on the Rangers before losing the final four games. If the Canadiens beat the Panthers, I eventually see the Pens in the Stanley Cup Finals, where they lose a close one to the Avalanche. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unocal Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 What if the Red Sox had lost to Oakland in the 2003 ALDS? Would Grady Little have still been fired without a 'Left Pedro in the game at Yankee Stadium' flashpoint moment? And what happens with the A's or Yanks if they faced off in the ALCS? Does Oakland make a WS breakthrough? Do the Yankees win an ALCS that doesn't leave them so emotionally exhausted for the Marlins that the BOS-NYY ALCS did? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DnBronc Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 What if the Red Sox had lost to Oakland in the 2003 ALDS?Would Grady Little have still been fired without a 'Left Pedro in the game at Yankee Stadium' flashpoint moment?And what happens with the A's or Yanks if they faced off in the ALCS? Does Oakland make a WS breakthrough? Do the Yankees win an ALCS that doesn't leave them so emotionally exhausted for the Marlins that the BOS-NYY ALCS did?I think the Yanks dispatch Oakland in five or six games. I remember wanting the Sox to win the LDS because I felt that they had a better chance against the Evil Empire, and they did.As for Little, he probably doesn't get fired. That LCS loss upped the ante going into next season, and without that, Little probably stays.Now, switching gears to the NFL:http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1995-04-18/sports/9504180088_1_bears-49ers-scout-bill-tobinIn 1979, Bill Tobin, one of the people in Chicago's war room, left on the morning of the draft telling his wife that they were going to draft Joe Montana if he was there in the third. Unfortunately for the Bears, Jim Finks, the main decision maker, changed his mind at the last second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.