A Q: HaKeem and Rox could still win if Jordan did not quit in 1994?

Andre The Giant would cream The Big Show

 

Hakeem was quadruple teamed back in the early 90s.
Like I said, dumb argument. The Rockets played the Bulls well in the regular season, but they never met in the post season.

Plus, who gives a rats ass about Jordan vs Hakeem.

The real match up is Pippen vs Robert Horry.

 

Would not! Show's got more charisma and energy!

 

Agent, You do realize that the Bulls in 95 were quite different than the Bulls of 96, right?

So, just merely pointing out that the Magic beat the Bulls in the play-offs in 95 is not taking into account the fact that Jordan came off a retirement and was not a full stregth. He was very good. But it wasn't same as having a full season with his team.

As he proved the following year in 95-96: 72 Wins.

Jordan was impressive in 95, but was not himself. His shot was a little off as was his speed and timing; hence getting the ball stolen by Nick Anderson! That was not Jordan-like.

The 94 Rox would not beat the 94 Bulls if Jordan had not retired (regluar season record means little). It took us 7 game to beat the Knicks who elimiated the *Jordan-less* Bulls in 7 games. So, allowing Jordan a full year on that 94 Bulls team, don't ya think that he would have made that team a "little bit" better? Just a little? I think so.

IMO,
The 94 Rockets would have lost 4-2 to the Bulls.
The 95 Rockets would have won/or lost to the Bulls in 7, i.e. we'd have a chance. And it was the best chance we'd ever have. Against the 96 Bulls. No way.

The 95 Rox was the best *team* we ever had chemistry and talent wise (Hey! We had Chucky Brown; you better recognize!).

 

Are you even a Rockets fan or just a fan of certain players?

 

yes, case closed

 

Francis fan.

But still, if you ask ANY non-Rockets fans they'll all say the Bulls would win. I've been to plenty of boards who had this same argument and the Bulls were the heavy favorites. Of course Rockets fans will say the Rockets would win, because you guys are ROCKETS FANS! But like I said there's no point in arguing it because what happened happened. The Bulls won their SIX, the Rockets only got 2. It's done, it happened, no point in arguing.

 

I guess nobody is arguing that bulls have more rings. The thread was asking whether Rockets could win if MJ did not retire. And there are strong arguments for a positive answer, because the Rockets did have the Bulls numbers. If it's 2-0, you can say that regular season means less, but if it's 12-1, and if we are talking about what-ifs, then it definitely means something, coz you really don't have anything else to refer. Simply saying that MJ was the greatest is not enough. By your logic, Celtics should always have the upperhand in any of the what-if situations, coz they got what? 11 rings?

 

Like i said in my last post, I know this is a "what could have happened" thread, and that's why i said there's no point in arguing because we'll never know for sure. Rockets fans are gonna stand by the Rockets for the most part, so there's no point in trying to convince you all otherwise, but like I said, it's the past, there's no point in thinking about what MIGHT have happened.

 

you're not very good at arguments are you?



the debate isn't who had the better dynasty or who was better overall from the period 1990-1998. it's who wins a hypothetical rockets v bulls matchup in the finals.

i don't know if we would've won. i don't know if the bulls would've won. hakeem and jordan were the two best players of their era. i tend to give jordan a slight edge. and while the team with the best player tends to win, such is not always the case. the rockets/sonics of the same era is a great example. hakeem was the best player on either team, but we couldn't beat them b/c they matched up so well with us.

the rockets were 5-1 against the bulls during their first 3 peat and that is the bulls team that would be the closest approximation to who we would see in the finals. the bulls were clearly a better overall team during that 3 year stretch, and yet they could only get 1 win against us. the rockets had an above .500 record against jordan over his career (utah also did i believe) and we were also worse than the bulls over the course of that stretch. why? matchups.

we had more of an answer for mj than they did for hakeem in those games. now of course one could say the postseason is different. the rockets are proof. san antonio smoked us 5-1 in the 94-95 season and we all saw what happened in the WCF. well everyone but david robinson saw what happened.

so who knows what would happen.

but the argument that we won when he was gone and lost when he was here obviously means nothing because we never faced them. if we had been a 58 win team in 92 and 93 and strolled into the finals, got smacked by the bulls, then won in 94 and 95, then lost in 96, that would be a great argument for the bulls winning 8 in a row. us never facing them in the finals, but owning them in the regular season, and then happening to make it to the finals and having our two best teams ever just as jordan goes away is a very poor reason to give for the bulls winning. saying the bulls had 6 and we had 2 is obviously asinine also b/c they took none of the six against us and it isn't even the argument in the first place.

and as for other message boards picking the bulls? whoop-de-friggin-do. of course they would. jordan was a megastar, hakeem was a quiet superstar. the bulls got publicity out the ass and we couldn't even get a SI commemorative issue out of our first championship. i have no doubts everyone would immediately jump on the jordan bandwagon. i'd bet my life 90% of them wouldn't guess we were 5-1 against their first threepeat team either. so who really cares what they think. and why anyone is bringing up their '96 team i have no idea. unless they had rodman on their 94 or 95 team it makes no difference. no one was beating that 72 win team.

so in conclusion, i tend to think it's a very even argument and i don't begrudge anyone their choice based on sound reasoning. maybe jordan prevails b/c he's that damn good. maybe hakeem prevails b/c he's that damn good. it's just a shame we never got to see the showdown of the two best players of their era. it would've been fantastic.

 

I don't post often, but I can't believe no one has even mentioned Denver in this thread! The 93/94 and 94/95 Nuggets are my 2nd favorite team of all time and without them I have my doubts as to whether we win either of our two championships. I don't think I need to explain why.

Big props to Deke and company for doing what I don't think we could have done.

 

This only happened when MJ returned to play for the Wizards. The Rockets remain the only team with a winning record against the MJ-led Bulls.

 

I agree with the school of thought that matchups are crucial. We needed help to get Seattle out of our way, because they had our number matchup wise.

The question isn't Jordan vs Hakeem....its which is the more lethal mismatch Jordan/Maxwell or Hakeem vs Grant or those interchangable Bill guys that the Bulls used to have stand around in the paint.

Advantage Rockets IMHO

 

Q: HaKeem and Rox could still win if Jordan did not quit in 1994?

They COULD! No one will know if they would.