Sorry if it has been posted: http://hoopsanalyst.com/olajuwonfaq.htm How Good Were the Champion Rockets? The Rocket champion teams carry some stigma of winning in the non-Michael Jordan environment. Is this a fair critique? I am not sure but certainly I am not overwhelmed by the depth or talent of the old Rockets. They had Hakeem, Clyde Drexler. and no other All Star type players (except a young Sam Cassell). That does not mean they were overrated, the Bulls also were not deep with All Stars. So let's look at league dominance (point spread versus opponents). Here's how the Rockets' point differential per game compares with other champs: 2002-03 Spurs +6.3 2001-02 Lakers +7.8 2000-01 Lakers +3.9 1999-00 Lakers +9.0 1998-99 Spurs +9.2 1997-98 Bulls +7.4 1996-97 Bulls +11.9 1995-96 Bulls +13.4 1994-95 Rockets +3.2 1993-94 Rockets +5.2 1992-93 Bulls +6.2 1991-92 Bulls +11.0 1990-91 Bulls +9.4 A look at all the champs since 1991 demonstrates that the Rockets were among the weakest. I know that their differential is skewed because of the big Drexler trade in mid-1994-95 but it's clear that they are worse than all the teams on this list except the 2000-01 Lakers who had some weird problems (between Kobe and Shaq). You can't take away from the two championships from the Rockets. They had two great playoff runs but the MJ Bulls at their worst were better than the Hakeem Rockets at their best.
Okay, so can they do the same thing but with points allowed? Of course they didn't win those two championships with offense. They were a better defensive team than they ever were an offensive organization. "Defense wins championships." Where was it ever said that offense does? The Rams are the only recent champion with a lack of defense. LA - Great defense SA - Superb defense Chicago - Good team defense Detroit - Superb defense Anaheim - Decent Arizona - Superb Pitching NY - Superb Overall Florida Atlanta So on.... There must've been a large portion of this article you've left off. Either that or hoopsanalyst.com should really be named poopanalyst.com. I'm betting on the latter.
The site has pretty good insight of NBA actually... they have two recent articles about DRob and Dream. decent pieces.
I wonder if they can figure out what Steve's assist-to-turnover ratio will be next season based on a stool sample.
http://hoopsanalyst.com/goodman1.htm I think you will find the order of this list (4 and 5) disturbing!
Who is this clown?? The guy is all over the map. You could find some good points hidden amongst the BS, but the BS is so overwhelming that what's the use? Here are a couple of examples: It kind of came in under the radar, but the NBA just lost probably the two best centers of All-Time in Hakeem Olajuwon and David Robinson. I'm as big a Hakeem fan as you'll ever find, having seen him play while going to UH and following him ever since. And I could probably convince myself with a few beers that he's the best of all time... but sharing that with David ****ing Robinson?? Robinson was a great center, not in Dream's class, of course, but outstanding. And this goofus is the only guy outside of SA who I've ever seen make a statement remotely like what you just read. And this one really burned my butt... After letting Moses Malone go, the Rockets really bottomed out in 1982-83. I mean really tanked to the tune of a historically bad 14-68 record. The reward was Sampson. Sampson helped (the Rockets improved to 29-53) but they were still the worst in the NBA and they got a shot at the number one pick again and they nabbed Olajuwon. It was one of the first attempts to play two "pure centers" together. And it worked. With Hakeem and Sampson, the Rockets had a nice two year run. They were a good but not great team (averaged 49.5 wins over those two years and their expected wins were slightly lower). Their shining moment was the upset of the Lakers in the 1986 playoffs. It was a great win but seemed a little fluky (who can forget Sampson's awkward fade away to clinch the series?) . So, they had a pretty good team but it was far from great. Let me repeat the part here that made my jaw drop... Their shining moment was the upset of the Lakers in the 1986 playoffs. It was a great win but seemed a little fluky (who can forget Sampson's awkward fade away to clinch the series?). Except for the first game, when the Lakers in LA had the Rockets tighter than a lip-lock from Madonna, the Rockets dominated the Lakers. It was brutal and astounding. I watched the series, was screaming my head off for the Rocks, and I was astounded. The Rocks lost that first game in LA and then swept the Showtime Lakers under Pat Riley, who scribbled on his blackboard... "Contain Olajuwon!!". They desperately tried to win game five and Ralph made his miracle shot to finish them, but there was nothing fluky about it. They took arguably the best NBA team ever, Bird's '85-'86 Celtics, to 6 games in the Finals. iOrange posted the other stupid thing that jumped out at me (thanks, iOrange ), but I was wondering... who is this chump? And what the hell is that "site"?? There. Now I feel better.
these 'analysts' guys are idiots. non-jordan environment?? jordan was back in the second year the rockets won. of course the argument here is that the bulls didnt win it that year because jordan wasnt in basketball shape or in his rhythm because he took a year and a half off from basketball. but i clearly remember that no one in the media was saying this during the season he came back, and especially not after he scored 55 pts against the knicks in MSG. i think his pts/game avg was still good that year. it was only after the bulls were eliminated that this whole excuse about jordan not being in basketball shape came up. and thats what i could never stand about jordan. whenever he had a bad game or had a bad play, there was always a ready excuse for him. it was always because he was sick the previous week or because he had some minor injury, as if no one else playing could possibly be sick or have an injury while we're on the topic of jordan, i dont really think that finals highlight of jordan they keep showing where he makes a layup where he switches hands in the air against the lakers is even that great. his shot wasnt going to be blocked. he didnt even have to switch hands.
The "defense wins championships" idea is a myth. Statistically, championship teams are actually slightly more likely to be better on offense than defense. Perhaps in the past 5 years, that statement is true (though I'm not certain)... but historically, it's just flat out inaccurate.
I would like to have seen the 97 Bulls vs the 97 Rockets. Hakeem, Clyde, Charles vs Michael, Scottie, and Dennis. How I see it is like that. Have Clyde guard Michael. Have Charles, and Rodman lock up. Have Hakeem dominate Chicagos three center. I am sure Mario Elie could guard Scottie Pippen. But I rather have Mario Elie guard MJ, and let Clyde Guard Pip.
How Good Were the Champion Rockets? Good enough to win the championship. Case closed, lights out, game over, checkmate.
man, i'm kinda getting sick of running around this forum agreeing with everything haven says lately, but thank you thank you thank you. the one constant on every title team has been the presence of an unstoppable player. and more likely than not, an offense that was extremely difficult to stop moreso than a defense that was extremely difficult to score on. you always need to be good at both, but being great on O seems more important.
and how the hell did karla get above hakeem? i actually kinda like that list except for that huge mistake (thought i think hakeem was better than jabbar). karla hasn't been a playoff guy and has no titles, why isn't he just ahead of barkley or something? and he put hakeem ahead of bird and magic, quality. ooooh, BobFinn and DavidS are gonna get me for that one (at least i think).
Dude, feel free to agree all you want . I think that offense is just too sexy. It gets all the credit among the general public, so all the "experts" react to that by stressing defense, too much. And have you ever heard of a coach saying, "my players just don't like scoring enough!"? Most players don't enjoy playing defense as much... so coaches have to stress it more. Which gives an artificial overemphasis on it. If, tomorrow, every kid wanted to be Ben Wallace when he grew up and would pay $150 bucks for his shoe... suddenly we'd hear "blocks and rebounds may look great... but it's those 3's and dunks that win championships."
see Detroit Pistons 89-90 people don't say defense wins championships to assert that the championship team is necessarily better at playing defense than offense...but rather, because so few teams seem committed to playing real defense...and playing good defense becomes a separator... also....what your statistics can't show is how good defense leads to higher scoring...get a steal...work a fast break...get an easy 2. they build on each other. they're not independent factors.
see 94-95 rockets. and i would argue a good offense pressures the other offense into forcing things and trying to catch up and thus affecting their scoring. that's a lot of what the lakers did in their 3-peat. they just kept scoring and scoring and scoring b/c their is no answer for shaq/kobe and a bunch of 3 point shooters. you have to press so hard to keep up you get out of what you like to do and towards the end shoot more 3's than you want to (probably a good reason they had such a good 3pt% defense). sure, they could lock down when they needed, but for about 3.5 quarters, they put the D on cruise control and let their O do the talking the most. plus, the fact they could always seem to score the big bucket was more crucial than their ability to stop you. it works both ways, and i tend to think the offense that can get all the big buckets is more essential than the defense that gets all the big stops.
