why the Lakers this year remind me of the 1996-97 rockets

I agree with your post except for this paragraph. If you look back to the 2002 WCF, the Kings had a better bench than the Lakers:

Bobby Jackson > Brian Shaw
Hedo Turkoglu > Devean George
Scot Pollard > Samaki Walker
Funderburk < Lindsey Hunter

The Lakers beat the Kings because their stars and coach were more battle-tested.

The Kings mojo has always been their depth. Some criticized the Miller trade because they felt the Kings would lose more depth (along with losing JJ).

Personally, I felt the 97 Rox were a team meant to beat Seattle (which they did). Too bad they forgot that our guard play is what allowed us to dominate Utah.

 

Yep. Lots of old vets, with tired knees. Except Kobe.

 

I think it still comes down to how good Shaq will be in the postseason. If he plays like he did when they won championships, they should win another one. If he plays like he has the past couple of years, they won't. The '97 Rockets were similar in that they didn't have that one guy dominating that you need. Hakeem was past championship form at that point. The Lakers actually remind me a lot of the '96 Rockets - so many injuries during the year and not enough time to put it all together.

 

I am not a Kings fan but the only reason the Lakers got over on the Kings in the WCF was the fact that Peja was injured and really hurt the team by trying to play and the Lakers got some ridiculous calls go their way in game 6. Peace.

 

The Rox lost to the Jazz because the refs didn't call a blatant foul on Karl Malone. It wasn't that we didn't have the personnel to beat the Jazz.

 

Same could be said that the series only went that far because of Eddie Johnson hitting a buzzer beater.

We may have had the personnel two years before that (mainly because the Hakeem vs. whoever matchup was such a mis-match), but we had nobody to stop Malone in 97... regardless of whether or not he was fouling Clyde by setting a moving pick.

We also lost because we couldn't win a road game in Utah... which we would have been unlikely to do in game 7... even if we had won game 6.

 

Utah won 64 games in '97 and was the better team, no question. The Rockets had no defense or point guard. Malone was the best player on the court.

 

In the playoffs, depth is overrated, unless injuries are at play.

Most teams only use an 8-man rotation.

 

And they had the better system. It's great to see Sloan doing well this year, proving that his coaching is comparable to a Phil Jackson and Larry Brown.

That 97 team was built to beat Seattle, period. That's why we traded for Barkley, to take away George Karl's defensive emphasis on Hakeem. Have you guys forgotten how many jumpers Malone made over Barkley, who just stood there watching the man while eating popcorn?

 

The Rockets didn't exactly own the Jazz before they traded for Barkley. The Jazz team regularly beat us pretty good during the regular season during the 1994-1995 and 1995-1996 season. We barely got by the Jazz during the 1995 playoffs. We were after all down 2 - 1 in the series before Drexler and Hakeem went bonkers in game 4 for 40 plus. We were also down by 10 with like 3 minutes to go in game 5 before our furious comeback put us over the top.

In 1997 were were up double digits with I want to say 4 - 5 minutes left to play, with the highlight being Hakeem swatting Shandon Anderson from behind on the breakaway. And then we just choked! We were a total collapse from taking it to game 7. I hate when people say that trading for Barkley allowed us to beat Seattle, but lose to Utah. Which is B.S.! Barkley made us a better team plain and simple.

You also got to remember with the exact same team, we were on the brink of eliminating the Jazz the very next year until Barkley tore a muscle in the game 4 elimination game.

 

Phil Jackson.....a coach......
I wouldn't let him coach a girls middle school team in Alaska.


Anyway, Rockets lost that game because we started celebrating in the third quarter when we built a nice little lead after going on a run. Everyone was high-fiving and hugging as if we already won the series. THEY LOST FOCUS.

 

kareem rush is not a bad player honestly. dude dropped 33 points in one game and is a reliable backup to kobe.

 

Did Barkley made us a better team? I agree because we won 57 games that year. His passing from the post benefited the team very much. Was he the reason we lost to Utah? Of course not. It's a culmination of factors. You could say Anderson's play, Drexler's deteriorating skills, Hornacek's clutch shots, Maloney's sudden cold streak, but from what I saw, what made a difference was the way Malone had his way with Barkley. Malone got his jumpers over Barkley with too much ease. It's not Charles' fault for being 6'4 or his listed 6'6, but Malone was doing very well, and in comparison with what Barkley did in Seattle, his productivity went down.

It was Hakeem and Eddie Johnson that did most of the hurting against the Jazz. As much as everybody remembers Eddie's game 4 shot, he also had 30-something (I think 30 or 31) to aid Hakeem's usually 20/10 statline in game 3 for that win, too.

I think Sam and Robert would have given a better chance in beating Utah? But of course we would have lost to Seattle, so... ah, forget it. It's all in the past.

 

The Seattle team that the Rockets beat in '97 was a far cry from their '96 Finals team. Having to go 7 games to beat that team wasn't very impressive.

 

"The Seattle team that the Rockets beat in '97 was a far cry from their '96 Finals team. Having to go 7 games to beat that team wasn't very impressive."

Having to go 4 games to lose 4 straight in 1996 as a two time defending champion wasn't very impressive either.

Well Seattle won 57 games that year with the exact same nucleus as the year before. They won, I believe 63 games in 1996. So they didn't get appreciably worse. In fact, I don't think their win total is representative of them declining in terms of overall team play. I think the Western Conference was considerably better in 1997, and that had something to do with the win total rising. Lakers had Shaq for the first time and a powerhouse 50 plus win team. Utah was a much better team than the year before with a 60 plus win team. Spurs were on the decline though with Robinson missing most of the season, but Seattle usually faired pretty well with Robinson there. I think the reinvented Suns with the three guard lineup of KJ, Kidd, and Chapman gave Seattle some matchup problems.

And if you think Barkley not being able to guard Malone was the primary reason we lost in that series as compared to seasons before, think again. Malone in the 1994-1995 playoff series with Houston averaged 30.2 ppg and 13.2 rpg in that series. In other words, he DOMINATED Robert Horry. How about the 1993-1994 playoff series with Houston? Don't have the exact stats, but he did average 27.1 ppg during that playoff run. But I am sure about one thing, Karl Malone had Otis Thorpe's number during the course of their entire careers. How bout the 1997 playoffs? Malone was once again average 30 plus against Horry as he dominated him the the Lakers/Jazz second round matchup.

I like to reiterate, during the 1995 playoffs, we barely beat the Jazz. We were down 10 POINTS with 3 minutes to go in game 5. It's not like we undeniably outplayed them that series. We caught a couple of breaks and squeeked by. Just like how the Jazz caught a couple of breaks in 1997 to get by us.

Barkley did a better job against Malone than Thorpe or Horry ever did. At the very least he got some calls and made Malone work on the defensive end. And once again, how bout the 1998 playoffs where he played some of the most inspired basketball I've ever seen? Barkley practically carried us to an upset before he tore that tricep muscle.

The biggest problem in the 1997 series with the Jazz is that down the stretch in most games, we couldn't get the automatic bucket like in years past by dumping it down low to Hakeem. Ostertag wore down Hakeem and defended him very well. I remember vivdly us calling Hak's number in the final minutes of game 6 numberous times, and Ostertag blocked a couple of shots. With Ostertag on the floor, Hakeem failed in that series to consistently delive. When Antoine Carr and Greg Foster on the floor, Hak went buck wild and managed a 20 plus ppg scoring average that series. To be fair, Rudy did call plays for all of the Big 3 in game 6, and they all failed. Of course Clyde committed the biggest sin of all with shooting too quickly on the last possession, which I will never forgive him.

Fact remains the same, we won 57 games in 1997 (plus 12 compared to 96). We also won 9 more games in the playoffs versus 3 in 1996. We were a better team that was more equipped to beat every team in the league, including Seattle, Utah, and Chicago. We were two wins from being able to witnessing possibly the greatest playoff matchup in the history of the NBA, with the Rockets and Bulls winning the last 6 championships. 1997 was a magical year that gave me some of the best memories ever as a Rockets fan. Without Barkley, I feel pretty confident that 1997 wouldn't have been as special.

 

Having to go 4 games to lose 4 straight in 1996 as a two time defending champion wasn't very impressive either.

Well Seattle won 57 games that year with the exact same nucleus as the year before. They won, I believe 63 games in 1996. So they didn't get appreciably worse. In fact, I don't think their win total is representative of them declining in terms of overall team play. I think the Western Conference was considerably better in 1997, and that had something to do with the win total rising. Lakers had Shaq for the first time and a powerhouse 50 plus win team. Utah was a much better team than the year before with a 60 plus win team. Spurs were on the decline though with Robinson missing most of the season, but Seattle usually faired pretty well with Robinson there. I think the reinvented Suns with the three guard lineup of KJ, Kidd, and Chapman gave Seattle some matchup problems.

Shawn Kemp wasn't near the player he was in '96. In '96, he was the 2nd-best player in the league. This is when Jordan was leading the Bulls to 72 wins. In '97, you had people claiming in the media that he was an alcoholic and him complaining about his contract. I believe he was traded for Vin Baker shortly afterward. He just wasn't close to the same player. Nate McMillan, one of the biggest Rocket-killers of all-time, didn't play in '97 - he killed them in '96. In '96, Seattle had one of the luckiest shooting streaks in playoff history, going something like 20-27 from beyond the arc, and still BARELY beat the Rockets in game 2. Had the Rockets won that game, I have no doubt it's a totally different series. The Rockets had serious injury in '96 that really hurt them in the playoffs. They never had time to get in sync. THAT is why they only won 48 that year (not 45 as you claimed Da Man).

Bottom line is that Hakeem lost the jump hook in '96 due to injury. The Rockets just weren't good enough because of that, be it '96 or '97.

 

First off, I don't think anyone was claiming Kemp was the 2nd best player in the league in 1996. I think people were talking more on the lines that Kemp was ready to make the leap into superstardom, potentially being a top 10 player in the league. Right off the bat, you've got David Robinson averaging 26 ppg, 12 rpg, and 3.2 bpg in 1996. Shaq was averaging 26.6 ppg, 11 rpg, and 2 bpg. Alonzo Mourning was averaging 23.2 ppg, 10.4 rpg, and 2.7 bpg. Grant Hill 20.2 ppg, 9.8 rpg, 6.9 apg. And of course, Penny Hardaway, 21.7 ppg, 7.1 apg, 4.3 rpg, and 1st team All-NBA honors. Those were just a few samplings off that bat that GM's would have picked over Shawn Kemp after the 1996 season. Mourning, Hill, Shaq, and Hardaway were all younger than Kemp.

Next, I do admit 1996 was his best season. But 1997 was he 2nd best season and not far from being his best. In 1996, he averaged 19.6 ppg and 11.4 rpg, not exactly 2nd best player in the league type stuff. In 1997, he averaged 18.7 ppg and 10 rpg. Not exactly a huge drop off. But he actually upped his game in the playoffs averaging 21.6 ppg, and 12.3 rpg. A nice little bump from his 1996 playoff run with 20.9 ppg and 10.4 rpg.

But in Seattle's thunder and lightning equation, you forgot to mention Gary Payton better his game in the 1996-1997 season. 21.8 ppg and 7.1 apg vs 19.3 ppg and 7.5 apg in 1996.

Well Nate McMillan was a Rockets killer. But more like in the late 80's, early 90's. The guy averaged a stunning 4.4 ppg on 40% shooting during the 1995-1996 playoff run. He only averaged 20 minutes a game during the playoffs.

On to the next point in regards to winning game 2. Yes, we had that game. No doubt about. Clyde costs us by missing the fast break layup with under 2 minutes. Would it have changed the complexion of the series. Possibly. But the fact is we got swept. We were blown out by 20 plus points in game one. We were in the process of getting blown out by 20 plus points in game 4 before our storming come back. Game 3, we pretty much wilted in the 2nd half. Even if we would have won the game 2, I'm quite sure we would have lost the series. And yeah, we can play the injury card. Clyde had a strain neck. Cassell had elbow problems. But keep in mind we were swept in the regular season too. That would mean 8 straight losses.

We can play "what if's" all day. What if the Magic had won game 1 of the 1995 Finals. They had a 20 plus point lead on us. They had a 3 point lead with seconds remaining before the Nick Anderson choke. Yeah, they should have won the game. But you what, I'm quite sure we would have won the series.

What if the Sonics didn't bow out in the 1994 and 1995 playoffs in the 1st round? Maybe our back to back championship season would have never happened.

And Hakeem didn't lose the jump hook in 1996 because of injuries. His overall skills were just declining. He played like gangbusters in the 2nd half of the season to bring his season averages in line with his previous years. But that just masked his declining athleticism. He was only averaging 24 ppg at under 50% shooting as the Rockets played the Magic on Christmas Day that year. Also, take a look at the substantial drop offs in rebounding and shot blocking. The explosiveness wasn't there consistently as it was in the past and that's why he couldn't handle the Sonics triple team as well as he did during the 1993 match up.

 

DM -

Let me say that I always was and still am in favor of the Barkley trade. We just appear to have a small disagreement on how good that '96 Seattle team was compared to the '97 edition.

As for all the players you posted with better stats than Kemp in '96 - they may have had the stats, but none of them were able to lead their teams as far as Kemp did. For instance, if Penny and Shaq were BOTH better than Kemp, how did they get swept by Chicago, while Kemp's team took them to 6 games?

Let me go back to something you said in a previous post about Seattle. I don't consider 57 wins and 64 wins to be that close to each other frankly. That right there is the difference b/t a very good team and a great team. Obviously the toughest place to increase your win total is when you get up around the 55-win range. I don't think you can just write that off to a 'weaker conference' in '97 either. Just from a quick glance, I see that in '96, there was 1 team that made the playoffs with a sub-.500 record in the West, while in '97 there were 3. (as an aside, I think it's a little contradictory to say 'Utah was a much better team than the year before with a 60 plus win team', and then not say the same about Seattle in '96 vs. '97)

On Kemp's stats - I believe in '96 he had career-Sonic bests in ppg, reb, and fg%. I think the biggest indicator of how much more dominant he was that year though is in the FG percentage - 56 percent. That's top 5, and of course you had guys up there that never shot, like Muresan and Chris Gatling. In '97 he dropped to 51 percent - again, I think that's significant.

I have to disagree on Hakeem not losing the jump hook due to injury. If you'll notice, he never even attempted the move again after '95. I specifically remember hearing repeatedly that he tweaked his knee in '96 and as a result couldn't get the lift off of it required for his jump hook. This basically prevented him from going to the middle. He never used the move again. Bottom line is whether it was injury, age, or what, he wasn't the same player after '95, and that's the main reason the team's fortunes changed - I think we're in agreement there.