The 94 team scored 8292 points in 82 games, which comes out to an average of over 100 points per game, so DavidS, just because it wasn't your preferred style of basketball they knew how to put the little orange ball in the hoop. We also were the Bulls nemesis. MadMax could shut down MJ as well as anyone in the league and they had no answer for Hakeem. Also Horry would give Pippen fits defensively, and madmax, OT, Smith and cassell are as good as Grant, Armstrong and Kukoc. And a few other posters already showed our record versus them during their 3 peat. For you to dismiss this team as having a chance if MJ didnt go play baseball is foolish.
Putting the orange ball in the hoop more than the other team is the key to becoming "champs." That's true... But read the title of this thread: "94 Rockets, worst nba champs?" And most basketball purist and journalist NOT from Houston agree that the 94 team was the ugliest of them all. At least since 1975. I mean hell, that's why Sports Illustrated didn't publish their NBA Champs issue nationwide. No one cared outside of Houston/NY. I think it's important to explain the definition of "worst champs." On one hand, it could be talking about the collective talent from 1 through 12 and how they were used. On the other hand it could be talking about entertainment value. Basketball is not about curing cancer. In the end, it's all about entertaining the fans. The "talent" issue of the 94' Rockets team was questionable at worst. But the entertainment value of the 94 Rockets can't be supported so easily. And that's why the 94' Rockets get such a bad rating from non-Houstonians (or Houstonians that aren't blinded by homerism). It was both "ugly-ball" and was lead by only one "star." Add the fact that Rudy didn't really know how, nor did he have the talent to incorporate a sophisticated offense, which in-turn made the 94 Rox's game a bland, predictable, iso-only style that ever was played. I dare you to watch the 1st game of the 94 Rocket/Knicks Finals. I dare you! Note: If there is anything that is impressive, and that's the fact that Hakeem single handily carried the team essentially by himself. But that still does not discount the truth of the title of this tread.
I'm not claiming the rockets played pretty ball or anything, but for a team with only one star in Dream, to go 58-24, with the best start in league history and a 100 plus point per game season average, Rudy must have done something right. Also, my point was that you seem to think the Bulls would have mopped the floor with the Rockets and you gave Rudy's offense compared to Winters(not Phillip the overrated's) triangle offense as the reason why. I decided to do some research of my own on that points per game subject and I found the numbers I just posted. That sure seems like a productive offense if you ask me. And the reason the Knicks series was so low scoring was Riles ball not Rudy-T. How exactly was a team built on a dominant center and role players going to prevent a similar team from dictating pace most of the time? Btw, as a rockets fan, it didn't matter to me if it was a 70-68 type of a game as long as we won. I was glued in front of the TV all summer watching that series, and I literally jumped into my dad's arms when game 7 ended. And you want to know the real reason people consider the Rockets the worst champ of all time? Not just the easiness of looking at the talent, but the fact is the sports media has their collective asses stuck so far up Jordan's jock that theres no way he could have ever been beaten in their minds. Just look at how ESPN treated his return to the Wizards and his retirement the 2nd time. Yes, I do not think my future profession is without flaws. You want to know something, those Jordan-bulls never once faced the type of competition the Celtics dynasty did. And MJ is not the best player ever, he just happened to be the league's darling once they realized the benefits of marketing their stars, and whenever he struggled the refs bailed him out. Hakeem didn't get half the star treatment Malone and Jordan have got throughout their career. In my opinion, we could contain the bulls star and they couldn't contain ours, and we had equal role players so it was 50-50 on who wins, but as a rockets fan I think we could have done it. But as jeff said earlier, who cares. Finally, I respected MJ the player, but you want a good idea of how much I hate him and Phillip the overrated, I rooted for Utah when they met in the NBA finals. And yes I hate the Jazzholes too, but not as much as those bulls teams.
i dont think the 94 rockets are the worst nba champs. i think the worst was the 1999 spurs. remember, the season was cut down for about half games because of some bull**** and they only have to like 40-ish games. the spurs were lucky coz it was like only half-season. what would it be like if it was an 82 game season..???
wow, so there i'm not the only one. i hate myself to this day for rooting for the spazz, but there was just no denying how much i hated jordan. i guess it's probably better this way b/c jordan would be jocked hardcore no matter what and now i can go to sleep every night knowing that flopton and karla go to sleep every night without a ring. tis a beautiful thought. oh and DV, stop being such a blind homer and saying we didn't suck. the basketball purist DavidS will show you the way. and if SI says we suck, well then we suck. i think i may have argued we were the least talented team ever to win, but DavidS's tone is extremely annoying, condesceding, and many other big words that 3 AM is making me not want to type. somehow i don't think the Bad Boys played the epitome of pretty ball and isaiah plus joe D, while two all stars, is hardly leaps and bounds ahead of hakeem when comparing it to say magic, bird, and mj.
Agent86, you should be named Agent Smith for opening up this nonsense thread. Nonetheless... Who gives a crap about that number 45 for the Bulls? Pardon me, it's number 23... sorry! What a loser...
"most basketball purist and journalist NOT from Houston agree"? List the names of this consensus, if you can. The SI thing was a consequence of the World Cup and OJ converging at the exact same time as the finals, which nobody watched cause of the OJ thing. So because OJ killed his wife that makes the Rockets the worst NBA champs? This is a distortion. The Rockets did play 96 other games besides those seven games vs. the knicks, and averaged over a hundred a game. What did the Mavericks average this year, 103 a game?
I find that to be totally amazing. My guess is, 94 was supposed to be Pat Riley and Patrick Ewing's year and the media had decided they should win in advance. By the time they get to the playoffs, it's clear that Olajuwan owns Patrick and the Knicks would need a lot of luck to win. So the NY press (and therefore history) disses the Rocks. It's really ironic, considering that the Knicks teams of the early 70s were chock full of role players as well. If those teams had a superstar, it was Walt Frasier... Of the two Rockets teams, the 94 team was better. The 95 team was a "Miracle" team, akin to Roy Hobbs hitting a home run in his last at bat... David.
This is so totally full of s**t. I'm assuming you watched the season. (s e a s o n) You did, right?? I'm really amazed that this thread is still going. I'm going back to watching the Spurs and the Mavs. Go uh, mmmm hell, whomever... I hate them both. (I think your a nice guy, otherwise... but take a Valium or something, man. )
I know it seems like I'm "trashing" the 94 Rockets, but I'm not. I just being objective about a subjective topic. Which means I'm NOT allowing my loyalty to the Rockets blind me. By the way, when I watch the Rockets play, sometimes I do need a Valium. My neighbors think I'm a crazy sports fan.
I do think many Rocket fans overestimate the degree we would have matched up with the Bulls, but DavidS I think underestimates this as well. Look at it this way: The Knicks 94 team that gave us fits gave the Bulls fits as well--I think they were a missed Charles Smith lay-up for leading 3-2 in the EC finals (93?) or something close to that. Further, the Orlando team that beat the Bulls in 95 (a Bulls team with no Grant and no Rodman--and underestimated missing component even when Jordan had returned his first year) got swept by us. The Indiana team with a chance to win in game 7 versus the Bulls would have gotten mopped up by the 94 Rockets as well. So was a vintage Bulls team likely to win against the 94 or 95 Rocket team? Probably, but it sure wouldn't have been easy. The Suns and Jazz (twice) remember were 1 possesion away from forcing game 7s at home versus the Bulls--and the best Rocket teams beat those and some times cruised through them (at least in the Jazz's case). The Rockets also would have matched up really well against the Bulls who never had a to face a center like Hakeem. The Rockets would have faired OK defensively versus the Bulls as the Knicks were able to do to the Bulls (the Knicks lost on offense). It would have been interesting, for the Bulls to win they would have had to go to a Seattle-illegal type defense--they may or may not been able to play that way, because they could match up defensively individually so well at every position except the 5 they probably didn't need to double or play that Seattle defense much. The NBA is a game of match-ups--the the match-ups favor the Rockets, so even though the Bulls teams were better in general they might nto have won such series. Still more points: Horry would have got killed by Pippen. Horry always got handled by Shrempf, and Shrempf got destroyed by Pippen. We would have to tell Robert to never dribble, just wait for the open pass, and get ready to play defense--nothing more. Back to 99 Spurs versus 94 Rockets: The 2 star > 1 star theory doesn't hold water. The 94 Rocket team had one great star. They beat teams with Barkley & KJ as well as Malone & Stockton (the following year Shaq & Penny). Those are all better combinations than TD and the 99 version of DR--who as another said was pretty close to the 94 version of OT, certainly OT was a lot closer to the 99 DR than TD has ever been to a 94 Dream--with the latter (is your lead star the best) being more important anyway. Lets break it down: best player: Hakeem >> TD 2nd best: DR > OT 3rd: SE > RH (very close though) 4th: VM > ME(99) 5th: KS > AJ bench: Cassell, Elie (94) and Herrera (I think the 8th man on that team) were all better than the Spurs 6th, 7th, 8th man. Certainly the Spurs 2nd best player was better (though not a lot), you can make a case Elliot was just slightly a better overall player than Horry--the Rockets kill them everywhere else. Again, the Rockets 7th man Elie in 94 was the starting 2 guard for the Spurs in 99. There really is no contest in the overall talent or talent in the key star.
Over-all, I think you've got a great analysis there. The one statement quoted above is the only thing I have a problem with. 99% of Rocket fans I've had this conversation with look at the match-ups, know our record against the Bulls back then, and recognize that Hakeem was so much better than Ewing and Shaq, who were the only real centers Jordan-led teams had to face. The conversation always ends with said Rocket fans agreeing that we simply had the best chance out of any team in the NBA to beat those Bulls teams. That is exactly my stance on the issue, and of course no one will ever know simply because it never happened. You rarely find these people in fans of any other team. The people who give us zero chance back then are the ones who don't know how good Maxwell was against MJ, who don't know how good Clyde Drexler was, who have no idea of our record against the Bulls. Most of these people don't even realize that MJ came back in '95 and lost to Orlando, and those who do realize that insist that he was simply "rusty." They don't know about him dropping 55 on the Knicks upon his return, or that he had half a season to shake off any rust. These people spout the same crap DavidS is spouting, saying more or less that we lucked our way into those titles and played ugly-ball the whole way through. They don't know both why and how we got the title of "Clutch City." They don't know about us steamrolling the teams that took MJ to a game 7, or at least nearly to a game 7 in NY, Phoenix, Orlando, and Utah. MJ was a great player. The greatest offensive guard to ever set foot on the court. I can't and won't deny that. And DavidS, my only problem with you is that you are giving us NO credit, just like "those" people. The Rockets were good back then, plain and simple. In fact, they were damn good. And if there was any team that could have or would have beaten the Bulls, it was the Houston Rockets.
It's crazy to say that the Spurs champs were one of the worst championship teams. The whole twin towers thing is nearly unstoppable in this era, they had the 2nd and 3rd best centers in the NBA in a league where there were only 4 or 5 star quality centers. Only Shaq was more dominant than the combo of Duncan and Robinson. They absolutely dismantled the Knicks in the finals, I don't think you can make an argument for them being one of the weakest champs. You can, however, hate them for basically shutting down their team and tanking the season when Robinson and Elliott were perfectly capable of returning to action, essentially "cheating" to add Duncan to a team that already was a playoff contender. I think the weakest champions of this era were definitely the last couple of Bulls teams. Those finals against the Jazz were UGLY. All that saved them was the long arms and steals of Pippen, Harper, and Jordan, some hot shooting by Kukoc, Malone's choke artistry, and a healthy dose of help from the referees.
We weren't talking about "getting credit," or if we "did or didn't win a tittle," or of we "had what it took, or not" to win the championship. That's another issue. We were talking about the "worst champs" in terms of talent and entertainment. Now, you might not like that. Or it may hurt your feelings. But it's the truth. Yes, we won, but that's not the topic at hand. By the way Lynus, I know full well why we won and how we got the "Clutch City" mantra. And reasons are this. In 1992-93 Rudy implemented a defensive mind-set. If we couldn't outscore them we'd stop them from scoring as well. Kenny Smith was the most consistent 3 point shooter the Rockets had ever had at the point. He didn't turn the ball over either, thus we kept him. Vernon Maxwell was a fiery, lighting quick 2 guard that could shoot game winning 3 pointers. Three seconds on the clock, down by two? No problem. Call "Mad Max." Maxwell also had a great ability to catch open court passes from Thorpe for fast break lay-ups! He was a quick defender too. Matt Bullard was our other 3 point shooter off the bench. Our Paxton. Robert "Don't call me Bob" Horry's shot selection was questioned. He refused to take open shots (fear of hurting the team). Thus we traded him to Detroit for Sean Elliot. Sean failed his physical (something we all know about) and the trade fell through. From that point on, Horry was determined to "take the shot." The rest is history. In 1994 we got Sam Cassell. He was probably pound-for-pound the most talented -- skill-wise -- on the team . He could drive, shoot the 3, and shoot and off the dribble, and shoot with both hands. Fearless! Ottis Thorpe was a solid power forward, with hands like baseball-mitts. Not a good shooter, but a strong defender and rebounded. A keeper. Mario Ellie was a tough-nosed defender that could hit the 3, even with is strange set-shot technique. Hakeem. What's to say?! All the players had a knack for hitting their FT's and 3 pointers. So, overall we were a very good shooting team. And certainly the most prolific 3 point shooting team (most attempted ever!). After losing to the Sonics in game 7 of western conference finals in 1993, we knew we had a system that could work for us. From that point on, we played using a system, that incorporated an inside outside offense. It relied on Hakeem in the post, 3 point shooting and defense. The Rockets chemistry was one of the best in the league at the time. The 1994 semi-finals against the Suns is the series that gave the Rockets the title of "Clutch City." After soundly beating the Blazers in the 1st round, the Rockets were over confident. After getting a 20 point lead in the 4th they choked and helped rally the Suns to the win. The 2nd game was the same, the Rockets got a huge lead (18) and lost it in the 4th. The Houston media and fans, tired off all the past failures from the Astros and Oilers basically said, "To hell with the Rockets!" The title "Choke City" was displayed on the newspaper for all to see. Since everyone was against the Rockets, even its own city, the only thing the players had, were themselves. And that was the beginning of "no fear." It was the beginning of "playing to win," rather than playing, "not to lose." It was the beginning of "not being afraid to lose." It was the 3rd game in the 1994 semi-finals against the Suns that gave birth to "Clutch City." It was that game that jelled the team mentally to win. From that point on, they would "refuse to lose, PERIOD!" From that point on the Rockets would never again would be called "Chokers," and lose because they "beat themselves." This mentality carried into the 95 season as well, add Drexler.
As is wont to happen on this bbs, threads go off on tangents. In this case, it went off to whether or not we deserved it, Rockets vs Bulls, etc. No one needs you to remind them of what the original topic of this thread was. That was a beautiful piece, that last post. But I still don't agree with this: I thought, and I still think, that the Rockets were very entertaining to watch back then. Either Hakeem was destroying people while it was raining 3's, or Sam was tearing to the basket. I never once thought that team wasn't entertaining, and I never once thought that team was anywhere near the bottom of of the talent pool.
Except that it is pretty obvious the Rockets 94 team was better than the Spurs 99 team, which probably wasn't as good as the 95 Spurs team that we beat in the WCF. Similar formulas, suffocating defense anchored in the middle and inside out offense--just the Rockets had a much better superstar, a much superior back-court 3 deep, and basically just more talent through 9 positions than the 99 Spurs. DavidS--I give you we can't say the Rockets 94 team was better than a Bulls champion. It is possible the Rockets could have won a series-we will never know, but no doubt the Bulls teams overall were better and more talented.
Why not? That last bulls champ team DID kind of suck, and they had a much more difficult time vs. the Jazz than did the 94 rockets, who took out the basically the same team (though younger, and without Shandon Anderson, big loss there) in 5 games.
The ironic part is that today we have all the talent in the world (offense-wise) from 1-12 (Francis, Mobley, Yao, Posey, Taylor, Griffin, Morris, Nachbar, Norris, Cato, Rice, Maddux)... And we can't seem to mesh that talent into one cohesive unit. It seems like we're in direct contrast of the 94 team. 1994 Team, one talented star, a bunch of role players. Dependent on Hakeem, defense and their roles. A system/plays that fit the players. 2002 Team, many talented stars, not many roles players. Francis plays independent from his team, no defense, and no one knows their role. No system (they improvise on the fly). What do I want? Somewhere in the middle.
