RANT - New York Knicks (& other similar franchises you can guess who they are) & the sports media

Let me just start by saying I have nothing against New York, LA, and other big name franchises in general, but some of their fans and media personalities suck, though.

To my point, I came across another popular NBA channel and it listed the Rockets upsetting the Knicks in the 1994 NBA Finals as one of the major upsets in NBA history. Granted, there was a little push back, but the most popular comments agree with what the video said or how much the Knicks should’ve won the title in 1994.

Which either tells me most of these people are “too young,” “too braindead/brainwashed,” “not actual NBA fans,” and “wear rosy colored nostalgia glasses.” The Knicks had a great squad in 94. They had a good 10 year run from 91-2001. But, they mostly “overachieved.”

I’m going to catch hell for this, mostly non-Houston and Chicago/New York fans. 90s fans.

I don’t think the Knicks were a particularly great squad from the 91-96 years. I think they were mostly carried by Patrick Ewing, Riley/Van Gundy, and their abilities to bring out the best of their team’s overall defense.

In the 93-94 season, they didn’t even have the best record in the East, rather a tie with a team with a lot of identity issues at the time…the Atlanta Hawks. The East had some good teams towards the top, but it was a step behind the West where a good number of the more powerhouse teams reigned, like Seattle, Phoenix, and Utah. They were just another level. They were great at many different facets of the game with pretty good rosters. Then, you had a very overlooked team in the Houston Rockets. A team not a lot of people picked to win at the time, because they had no superstars outside of maybe Hakeem Olajuwon.

Here’s the thing, Olajuwon was easily the most valuable player overall without question on both ends of the floor. While, Houston had good mixture of guys who could create their own offense, hit 3 pointers, hit clutch shots, and play good defense. They also had guys who didn’t mind sharing the ball. Still, people saw them as a B-level team, even today.

The Rockets were still a better team than the next before the season and after. The Rockets, not only had a better record in a much tougher conference. They had a better superstar and surrounding pieces.

The Knicks often got a lot of praise for going toe-to-toe with the Bulls. Which they rightfully and completely deserve. They played with a lot of grit and iron-fisted basketball, but they weren’t going to beat any team with Michael Jordan and the Bulls had the personnel/strategy across the court to beat Knicks, even without MJ.

The reason they couldn’t actually win was they never had a second guy who could create his own offense, nor a lot of offensively gifted playmakers. The odd irony is they kinda did Anthony Mason, but they wanted him to play more like brute or bull. Which he could do beyond well, but he was actually a pretty gifted ball handler and passer for his size. It’s one of the few things that doomed them against the Bulls, Rockets, and Pacers.

Starks was a very good guard and gutsy player, but the Knicks needed a guy, like Allan Houston, Latrell Sprewell, and Larry “Grandmama” Johnson. If they could have had that team together along with maybe Camby and semi-healthier Patrick Ewing. A team like that would’ve stood a way better chance against Chicago. Even, in 99, I’d like their chances against the Bulls as well. Though, the Spurs were pretty heavyweight. It was one of the better Knicks rosters over the last 45 years.

Here’s the thing with New York, their own media and high profile do not do them any kind of favors. I saw this in 2010/2012/2021, they’ll win a few games or get into the playoffs with a pretty good record. People will proclaim them as contenders or “world-beaters” when they actually aren’t. The one New York team outside of the Yankees, like the Giants. I could actually see why, because when they are good or decent enough they’ll win or make things interesting.

It doesn’t happen with the Knicks, I guess people, especially their fans and the media say they “choked” or are “chokers.” Fans even pointed to what Charles Oakley said about the teams from the 90s.

I completely disagree, the Knicks simply lost to better teams. Constructed, strategy wise, etc. In 94, the Rockets were clearly a better team. They finished with a better record in a tougher conference and swept the Knicks handily, during the season.

The Knicks couldn’t even win a conference where one team’s superstar retired, another team traded their’s, and a one where one guy was literally one of team’s only offensive weapon. Weirdly, they were getting exposed by these different teams and style of play. The Knicks could win the low scoring slug fest, but if another team started to get hot, especially from 3 and beat them with offensive spacing. The Knicks were pretty much cooked. It’s weird how all of these old heads and great basketball knowledge guys can’t even see that in 2023. It’s not even a GS level type team that you’d need to beat them with. The one thing old timers moaned about is the one thing you can beat Knicks-type of team with - jump shooting. The three teams, along with the Heat pretty much used that strategy to a minimum to beat them. They’d be shell-shocked at a team shooting 15-20+ and only needing to shoot about 35%-38% in a period where almost everyone can shoot 3s decently.

 

I would’ve thought so, too. I agree it certainly was the case in 94. But, in historical sense, the Rockets had a way better team than the Knicks on individual level and achievement wise.

Sam Cassell, Otis Thorpe, and even Kenny Smith were all basically borderline all-star players for most of their careers. Especially, in Sam Cassell’s case, where he might’ve had one greatest stretches of years where he played an all-star level, but did not make the all-star.

All of these players with Mario Elie, Vernon Maxwell, and Robert Horry had pretty long NBA careers and they were for the most part positive metric players meaning they helped a lot of their teams win.

It’s not to say the Knicks didn’t, because they did. But, the thing where they falter at is historical offensive production. Meaning the Rockets had stronger offensive players like by a mile. We could say the Knicks had better defenders, but the gap is not as wide as people think.

The Knicks played out of their minds, during that era and even metrics showed that they grossly overachieved. Their reputation is just overestimated by fans and NBA media personnel. I actually think they could’ve easily one or two titles by beating the Bulls, Rockets, and Pacers.

From what I saw, when I rewatched those series, they did not have a consistent second punch after Ewing. If they defeated the Bulls in 92 or 93, maybe the Rockets or Pacers. Their team’s would’ve been one of the weakest champions in NBA history, roster wise. There’s no way to matchup against those 76ers or Celtics from the 80s. I’m not even sure they’d be allowed to play Showtime, because it would get ugly pretty quickly.

People often compared them to the Pistons, but they never had as many offensive weapons and higher achieving guys the Bad Boys. The Knicks, most capable offensive player was Patrick Ewing often by himself or a declining 2nd or 3rd tier player. He really only had this very early and very late in his Knicks years. He was not healthy in those periods. People often focused on him getting bested by Olajuwon. Which certainly happened, but the Knicks were not a very strong offensive team. If they won the championship, they would’ve been one of the weakest offensive teams in history.

On the other hand, the Rockets are beyond overlooked. They are almost disrespected by fans and the media, but their metrics are pretty strong historically. They completed the toughest playoff schedule in history as a 6th seed. Their players’ individual careers stake up much better than most people think to some highly regarded all-time great teams. Our guys got the job done in other places in so many different periods of their career.