Let me explain why. Ottoman leaders were well aware they had to reform and they fell behind Europe in at least late 17th century.
Bernard Lewis says Ottoman leaders actually had good ideas on reforming the empire but the problem was the large dilapidated imperial bureucracy, traditionalism such as of janissaries and the bankrupt economy was destroying any wave of innovation/reform coming from Europe.
Now when you say ‘if it had reformed itself earlier’ you oversee the problems above. So you mean Ottomans wont have a bankrupt economy, regressive traditionalism and mentality and a dilapidated bureucracy in this hypothetical situation.
Well it isnt Ottoman Empire anymore. Might as well add it industrial revolution and you can keep continuing this until you get British Empire of 19th century.
Because Ottomans had the luggage of all the lands, all the communities, all the socities, nations, all the structures and traditionalist groups within the state, all that bureucracy and a locked economy and of course constant war. I think Ottomans even did well for their situation except for Balkan wars and joining WW1, that was a dumb move.
Those traditionalist groups and islamic clerics could only be convinced in 19th century after the gap was completely undeniable. When Muhammad 2 made European reforms in as late as 19th century they still called him ‘gavur padishah’: infidel king.
I think so that Ottoman empire was the group of different cultures, societies, religious groups and languages. Because of this the Arabs were stand against the Ottoman by the help of British when they acquire the Islamic Holly Places the sovereignty of Ottoman's disputed and The Ottoman Empire come to an end.