http://proxy.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2007/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=Finalists1-10 It's unfathomable that he could put the Rockets championship teams so low and have the Spurs asterick 1999 team as the 8th best in the last 60 years
Are they based off his stat rankings? The same stat rankings that had us ahead of the Suns all year? Hollinger and Levano have everyone fooled into thinking their mad scientist equations are somewhat credible.
I would go with the best rockets championship teams from best to worst - 1. 1995 2. 1986 3. 1994 4. 1981
bhahahahahahahahaha! Spurs 1999 team as 8th best? The guy should be fired for saying that. Seriously, has there ever been a worse season of NBA basketball?
you realized that if the KNICKS WON, they'd rank in the top 10. In fact,they DID MAKE a Knicks Sports Illustrated Championship Edition magazine. When the Rockets won, HOUSTON FANS threatened to cancel their subscriptions and finally the came out with one. This was FORGETTABLE cause the KNICKS lost. This is the greatest team known to mankind. Dream, OT, Vernon, a more athletic and less dirty Robert Horry, Kenny, Sam, Mario, Herrera, Bullard Its not Houston's team. It was God's team.
list of the top 50 players that have bitten the Dust thanks to the Rockets two championships John Stockton Karl Malone Patrick Ewing Clyde Drexler (1st) Charles Barkley David Robinson Shaq oh did you see the list of dumbest sports writer of all time? 1. Hollinger 2. Hollinger 3. Hollinger 4. Hollinger 5. Hollinger 6. Hollinger 7. Hollinger 8. Hollinger 9. Hollinger 10. Hollinger ......................... 100. Hollinger
I guess this is a balancing act or something. Hollinger showed us love throughout this past season, so I guess to even it out, he just wants to take a huge dump on the city's largest sense of pride... maybe ESPN forced him to? conspiracy theorists unite!
WOW talk about people getting overly defensive... allow me to show yall how he got the rankings... because that explains why the Rockets teams were farther down than yall think they should be. He is taking the statistics of Wins/Losses and point differentials as the main factor of calculating the overall points to figure out who ranks where. The Rockets regular seasons weren't spectacular when they won 94-95 championships and their point differential was lower, which is why they are moved down in the rankings. If you were going for entertainment value they would move up... but we are talking statistics. Hollinger may not be the best writer ever, but he knows how to show things statistically. I know some of yall couldn't read the whole article so you didn't understand, that's why I wanted to post the "why" for ya.
here are my statistics: list of the top 50 players that have bitten the Dust thanks to the Rockets two championships John Stockton Karl Malone Patrick Ewing Clyde Drexler (1st) Charles Barkley David Robinson Shaq
What does that have to do with statistically ranking the teams? The stats aren't saying that the Rockets beat bad teams to get their championship, they are saying that the were close series and statistically were not as much of a blowout. If you look at the teams at the top of the list... they were most of them had a high winning percentage in the regular season and a point differential 7+ Which is why they are so high on the list.. The only exception being the Spurs team which was prorated up to 82 games... inflating their ranking. It has nothing to do with who their competition was.. and everything to do with how much better than performed than the rest of the league in the reg season and playoffs. Close series gain you less points in the statistical rankings.
See, I just don't get this stuff. The second best team of all time, according to this dude's stats, was flattened the year before by the Rockets. The 3rd best team (it should be #1) beat the Rockets in the Finals in 6 games, the same team that flattened those Lakers I mentioned. Yet that same Rockets team is WAY down there in his ranking. Stupid.
Since I saw most of those teams that ranked high, I actually agree with the top of his list. those, bulls, celtics, and pistons, teams were dominant teams when they won those championships. And the statistics reflect it. I'm surprised some of russell's teams didn't make the top ten. the only problem I have with his statisics, there should be some kind of normalizing effect according to the opponents. the san antonio spurs are a bit of an outlier considering they played an 8th seeded knicks team that barely got there and it was a strike shortened season. but even if you accounted for the opponents I believe the rest of that top ten list would remain relatively the same, considering the lakers had to beat the pistons, the pistons had to beat the celtics and lakers, and the bulls had to beat the pistons. they were all great team.
I didn't even have to read the article to know that regualr season performance would figure heavily - of course the 1995 rockets would finish low as they had a miserable regular season and were effectively a different team by May.
IIRC, the original issue had the World Cup on the cover. Then they put out a "collector's edition" with the Hakeem and the Rox on the cover.
How can Hollinger rank the 1995 team so low? He even says that they became the first team to beat 4 50-plus win teams in the playoffs. I guess it is much more impressive to beat the 8th seeded Knicks in the finals in 5 games then to sweep Shaq out of the finals. I hate Hollinger and all of his stupid rankings. Thank God that sports aren't decided by these stat freaks.
Uhhh... so the top 10 finals teams ever are all magically from 1983 and later? Is this some kind of sick joke? Any top ten finals teams list that doesn't include the 66-67 Sixers or any one of the Celtics dynasty teams is just worthless. Totally worthless. Any respect I might've had for Hollinger just went out the window.
