What-if scenarios are a fan favorite in NBA discourse. “What if the Blazers took Jordan instead of Bowie?” “What if the Kings had drafted Luka?” “What if the Hornets never traded Kobe Bryant?” They’re fun, they generate engagement, and they can shine light on poor decision-making. But a lot of these what-ifs, especially the “what if they drafted X instead of Y” ones, is they ignore the most important variable in player success: context.

Development isn’t plug-and-play. It’s not as simple as taking Player X’s current success and assuming it would’ve happened the same way on another team. NBA analysts like Mike Schmitz (formerly of ESPN) and scouts like Ryan Blake have long emphasized that landing spot matters as much (if not more) than talent. Coaching, roster fit, team culture, and even personal stability play massive roles in how a player turns out.

Take Giannis Antetokounmpo. A classic what-if is, “What if he’d gone to a big-market team instead of Milwaukee?” But Bucks assistant coach Josh Oppenheimer, who’s worked closely with Giannis from the start, has said repeatedly that the Bucks’ slow build, lack of early pressure, and full investment in Giannis’s raw potential gave him the time and space to grow. Would a team like the Knicks have been that patient? Would Giannis have had the same runway to experiment, fail, and evolve into an MVP?

Or look at Kawhi Leonard. People love to say, “What if Indiana kept him instead of trading him for George Hill?” But Kawhi went to the Spurs, arguably the best developmental system in the league at the time, where Gregg Popovich gradually expanded his role over years. Chip Engelland rebuilt his jumper. Tim Duncan and Manu Ginóbili mentored him. You think that happens in Indy, a team that at the time was built around Paul George and trying to win immediately?

Even Steph Curry, one of the greatest what-ifs in reverse history, “What if Minnesota had taken him instead of Jonny Flynn or Ricky Rubio?” Well, Warriors head coach Don Nelson was willing to play through his early struggles. Then Mark Jackson gave him full control of the offense. Then Steve Kerr unlocked the system around him. And most importantly, he had time to develop through injuries in a low-pressure market. There’s a real chance that in a different environment, Steph doesn’t become Steph.

JJ Redick recently said on The Old Man and the Three:

“We treat player outcomes like they’re inevitable, but they’re not. They’re heavily influenced by situation. If you draft a guy and don’t develop him, the ‘right pick’ still fails.”

This idea is echoed by Chauncey Billups, who said of his own early-career struggles:

“I got labeled a bust because I was drafted high, but I was on four teams in five years. It wasn’t until I got stability in Detroit that I could show what I really was.”

These types of what-ifs flatten player development into a linear path, when in reality, it’s chaotic. They assume every player reaches the same ceiling regardless of team, system, or leadership. That’s not how it works. Luka in Sacramento under Vlade Divac and Dave Joerger? That’s not Luka in Dallas with Carlisle and Dirk. Jimmy Butler on a rebuilding squad with no veterans? Probably not the same Jimmy who learned from Luol Deng and Joakim Noah in Chicago.

So while what-ifs can be entertaining, let’s be smarter about how we use them. “What if they had drafted X?” is only half the story. The real question should be: “Would X have become the same player in that environment?” And most of the time, the honest answer is probably no.