-How ironic coming from someone who just in the previous post said that the Bulls were better than the Rockets because they won so many more games in the regular season. So regular season is meaningless when talking about CHI-HOU matchups, but of utmost importance when it comes to season records. Yeah, there's no discrepancy or flaw in reasoning there! -The 95 Rockets were MUCH better than the Jazz teams who took Chicago to 6. Hakeem doesn't piss in his pants at the FT line in game winning situations like the Failman. -hakeem in 95 at his peak > MJ at any point in his career. Dominated in a way in 95 that no guard is simply capable of. It's too bad how much media spin influences public opinion. Hakeem was basically a 7 foot MJ in that season's playoffs. Just ask D-Rob or Shaquille.
What's pissing me off is seeing all this MJ is god stuff and that we coulden't touch the Bulls. Any of our 2 championship teams would have crushed any Bulls championship team. The team with the best big man wins and for those two years (94 and 95) Olajuwon was the best big man ever.
Bailey and Cato=Bum, look deeper...don't take everything at face value. The phrase, "regular season doesn't count" was referring to the stevel's post when he said that the Rox had a 6-2 Record against the Bulls during a three year span. This same record can be said about the 95 season in which the Magic, Spurs, Jazz could always claim that they had a better match-up record vs the Rox (The Rox were 3-10 against those teams in 95's regular season). But in the grand scheme of things, did it really affect the outcome of the play-off series? No. If you really think that the 6-2 match-up record against the Bulls would had had any meaningful affect in the Finals, that's really being shortsighted. The playoffs and Finals are a completely "new season." As far as the "regular season" referring to 72-10. Well, come on! 72-10 is referring to the WHOLE LEAGUE! That's different. That's an aggregate of ones DOMINANCE. Not just a 2-0 or 4-0 record against a particular team. Now, here's the determining factor. The Bulls had a dominate regular season against the whole league, not just individual teams, they controlled the pace of the play-offs, and they proved it in the Finals. So, the 72-10 record, or the 69 year record has merit you can't ignore. To say that just because we had a 6-2 win record in a three year span against the Bulls, and claim that is was "proof" that we could dominate the Bulls....well, that's just fooling yourself.
I gotta disagree. We went from having the one guy who consistantly gave MJ fits in Mad Max in 1994 to having the Greatest 2-Guard Not Named Michael Jordan in Clyde Drexler in 1995. And all the while the Bulls never could stop Dream. Hakeem would have averaged 40 in that series. And I'd gladly go to war with the '94 and '95 incarnations Mario Eile and Robert Horry against Pippen and Kukoc from any year. Ho Grant vs. Otis Thorpe in 1994? Guess who I'm picking. Kenny Smith and Sam Cassell vs. who? BJ Armstrong? I'll take the Rockets guards, thank you very much. "But the Bulls had Rodman," one might say. So did the Spurs in 1995, along with the MVP in David Robinson. We all know what Dream did to that combo. No contest. Rockets in 5 or 6.
The Rockets' first championship, maybe they lose to Chicago.. HOWEVER, with the roll the Rox were on the second time around, there is absolutely NO WAY the BUllS would have beaten us that year. No. Way. Our 2nd ring was the : Best. Playoff. Run. EVER. nuff said
Do you know what rose colored glasses are? Pippen, one of the 50est Greatest players. Future HOFer. Kukoc, sixth man of the year, the best Croitian league player ever, could create his own shot and pass... Thorpe over Grant? Please...at least Grant could hit the 15 footer. Nice of you to leave out Craig Hodges, Steve Kerr, and Ron Harper.
Maybe you can argue that Grant was a better man to man defender than Thorpe, but you think he was better offensively? Grant averaged 11 points a game for his career. Thorpe averaged 14. In Grants highest scoring year, 1994, with no Jordan to diminate the ball, he went for 15. Thorpe went for 20 in Sacramento one year. Who cares who had more range? OT scored more points, he was more effective scorer. End of story.
Notice the "". I was only razzing you. It worked, apparently. We'll never agree on this one, which is why I didn't back up my points. But in general, I think the sum of our role players is greater than the sum of the Bulls role players. Simply put, our guys could match up with their guys, while they had ZERO to throw at Hakeem. The Rockets presented a much greater mismatch for the Bulls than the Bulls presented for the Rockets. Which wins us the series. IMHO, of course.
The above phrase is a euphemism for, "I don't have any solid points that aren't *biased,* therefore for I wont bring any of them to table for fear that they will be refuted..." "Win the serise..." Just like that, huh? Snap your fingers, and then "presto!" ? And if Dorthy clicks her heals together and wishes real hard, "There's no place like home, there's no place like home..." She'll be magically swept away....etc....etc....
OT dunked. He was limited to 3 feet from the basket. He was a specialist. He was a defender, rebounder. Not a "scoring PF." Horace Grant was a mid-range PF, could play post, could pass if need be, could hit FT when the game was on the line (70%) and could hit the 18ft shot. Horace Grant was a tougher more durable version of CARL HERRERA. He has inside post moves, skill and shooting technique. Thorpe had toughness, rebounding and *dunking opportunities.* What you call "effective scorer" was more opportunities off of lose balls and rebounds. Not "scoring prowess" There's a difference. P.S. Caron Butler scored, 15.4 ppg last year. Guess that means he's a bettter player than Yao? Look beyond the numbers. Watch their play/skill on the court.
David, once again you eschew substance for form. Shaq outscored Yao too, albeit in a much uglier fashion and with less "skill". Who's better? This reminds me of a couple of months ago, when you were apologizing for the ugly string of low scoring Bulls Jazz finals games because of the brilliant form and teamwork required to toss up brick after brick. WHat's better offensive basketball? A put-back dunk that you make or a double back pick resulting in a jumper that you miss? You may prefer to watch one, but most coaches would prefer the former. You made the contention, that Grant was so much better than Thorpe that it wasn't even worthy of debate, citing Grant's incomparable jumper ("Please" was all you said). You really think Grant is incomparably better than Thorpe on offense? Well, history proves otherwise.
Yes, but Thorpe was limited to those "put back dunks." While Grant could do other things, not just "put back dunks." So, to answer you question. Thorpe could do the "former." Grant could do the "former" AND the "later (with the exception that Grant could MAKE those shots ,not miss them). Grant was a more complete basketball player. The issue isn't what play/result is better. The issue is whether or not a particular player KNOWS how to do BOTH and has the ability to complete both plays successfully. Not just limited to one play.
Wrong, the issue is who WAS (as in, actually WAS) better, not who was more versatile. Who cares if Grant COULD have scored in different ways. He didn't score MORE. There are no style points in this league, and his career is over. You can evaluate people on potential before they play a game, but not after their career is over. Thorpe did more on offense than Grant ever did. Who cares about who was more skilled? Thorpe put the ball in the basket. Grant did too but less so. That is undeniable.
And that's your definition of "WAS better." You think in black and white terms. You think, "Oh, look! He scored 20 ppg on a sucky team, therefore your guy only scores 14 on a good team (with Jordan), Therefore, your guy is worse!" You take one stat, and then run with it, without even watching any games without "non-biased" eyes. You never study other players besides the Rockets. Oh, and you need to go back and check the attemps per game on both players. Grant trottled back on his game because he wasn't needed as much as OT was on the 94 Rox. Put Grant on a 88' Sac team, and he'd get 18-22ppg/12rpg. So don't penlize Grant just because he never was the main focus of a team. That's why I brought up Carron Buttler. He's a perfect example of that. He's not better than Yao just because he gets more shots/points pg. You're not looking at the whole value of a particular player. The total package. The intangibles. The ability to do other things is very valuable in the flow of the game, season, and play-off series. It's the determining factor of some plays becoming successful, and others not being successful. As the odds would be in that players favor. Given the chance I would have traded Thorpe for Grant in a spit second during the 90-95 span. We would have been a better team because of it. And your Shaq/Yao example was silly. Yao his rookie. Shaq is a veteran. So, give Yao time to use his "skill" that could end up being "better than" Shaq. I know you will be riding his jock in 10 years. Of couse you will be saying, "Oh, yeah. I knew 'skill 'all along was the reason for his greatness!" Yao's weekness is his lack of strength. Not that his "skill" doesn't overcome Shaq's power and "developed skill." The who's better, "Shaq or Yao?" has yet to be written in history. No it doesn't. Your you take a stat(ppg), then claim that it defines history, without first reading between the lines, by watching how how they played, who was on their team, and what offesnse was used, the total game competence, etc...etc....
David, the team that scores more points wins the game. Ugly like Shaq, pretty like Yao, it doesn't make any difference. The gaping gulf that you see between Thorpe and Grant has no basis in reality and does not, in fact exist, evidenced by statistics, in the fact that they both made 1 all star game, and in everything else. The fact remains, that as far as productivity goes, they were at least equal, if not a slight edge to Thorpe. Productivity wins ballgames, not versatility or potential. There are other more valid arguments you have in your one man crusade to downplay the 1994 Rockets. This is not one of them.
Otis was a much more powerful player than Grant which allowed him to get in the position to dunk and put up the majority of his shots within 6-8 feet of the bucket. Your contention that Horace Friggin Grant could have scored 18-22 ppg is hilarious IMO. The guy was simply like Joe Kleine offensively. He had a money 15-18 foot jumper and that's about it. A good defender I'll give you and a nice player to have for sure. Overall, he's on a similar level as OT though. A good player who was a borderline all-star type talent. Your contention that he was some player who was clearly better than OT is far-fetched. "Complete" player sounds nice but in the end it boils down to effectiveness. Shaq isn't as complete as Duncan or Robinson or Ewing or Hakeem but overall was as good a center or better than all of them even with his style of game. Clearly, you value artistry and skill in bball which is cool and all but it shouldn't skew the reality of who was a BETTER player overall. I fail to see how Grant is clearly better than OT. OT simply could position his way to shots at close range on a consistent basis and Grant did not have that in his game. Year in and year out OT was in the FG% leaders, he also ran the court very well. -As for the Bulls, I'm not suggesting a 6-2 record or whatever is indicative of dominance and means the Rockets would have mopped up on CHI in the Finals. However, bball always comes down to matchups. The Rockets in the mid 90's were a better team which accomplished more than the Sonics but Seattle matched up very well with Houston and won most of the matchups. I'd argue Houston was much luckier not to face SEA than CHI. SEA controlled Hakeem with their triple teams and their athletic frontcourt. In a potential CHI-HOU matchup, I don't think even the staunchest MJ fan can argue that Hakeem vs. the Chicago Centers matchup isn't a bigger mismatch than Maxwell or Clyde vs. MJ. Clyde dropped about 26-28 ppg in the Finals vs. MJ in 92; he was outplayed but not murdered like the Bulls 3 headed monster would have undoubtedly been by Hakeem in his prime. In a 7 game series, the team which has the biggest mismatch will typically win because the other team will have to make sacrifices in its defense to deal with the mismatch, which opens up opportunities for role players. -I hate how the MJ lovers will always point out that Hakeem never beat MJ but never talk about how the Bulls never had to face a team with a DOMINANT center like Hakeem or Shaq in the finals or Duncan. Take out the Bulls titles and these 3 have won the last 7 NBA titles. Jordan never had to face ONE of these guys in the Finals. He only had to face an underachieving Ewing whom his teams still usually struggled very hard to beat in 6 or 7 games. -MJ was great, but there's no denying he was very fortunate. A great Center or Big can just influence a game's outcome in more ways than a guard can. Want proof? Look at the 94 Rockets and 03 spurs: 2 teams with only ONE superstar and a bunch of so-so role players. What evidence is there that MJ could ever win a title without a 2nd superstar at his side?
Does productivity just come out of thin air? No. You have to have a starting point (a players skill set). Let me rephrase you statement above... Versatility (of your players) creates more opportunities for productivity. Thus, your team will gain more wins because of it. That's why the Bulls could win so easily over a long period of time. Phil structured his team to have very little weaknesses. Even Steve Kerr had the ability to drive to basket if given the opportunity, even though they used him as a 3-point shooter. Phil never wanted his players to be out of their league if put in a role they weren't used to. He wanted them to have a least *some* ability/competence to do other things well. Not just their specialty. Remember, I'm talking about role players here. The leaders of a team had more responsibility to do a lot of things very well. Not just good a one or two things. But that's another issue.
