I'm going to go against the grain here and say I agree with most of it, with the Spurs at #8 and Pistons at #10 being the only exceptions. Having that Spurs team at #8 is a complete joke. I've made my feelings known about the 1994 Rockets team many times and please don't hate me for it. Taking 7 games to beat that sorry Knicks team is proof positive. And thanks to Deke and the Nuggets in round 1 or we may not have even made it to the Finals.
I must disagree with everyone's disagreement about the lockout-season Spurs. That team was dominant and on such a roll heading in to the playoffs that no one could possibly stand in their way. Their statistics might be a bit inflated because of the shortened season, but the team was nevertheless very very good.
I'm not too bothered by this. Statistically the Clutchcity Rox weren't that great but that is what made them special. They came to play when it mattered and overcame the statistics. So if you are only look at stats then yes they do poorly but they showed they could transcend the stats.
So were the 2007 Mavs. 1999 Season should just be stricken from every record. The season never happened and it was a complete joke to the majority of the people. And I'll never have to think about Pippen ever on the court in a Rockets uniform.
Great post. A championship is a championship and it doesn't matter how "dominant" a team was. It was a full 82 game season and we were the team that won the last game. That is all that matters. The extra "Clutch City" drama that came along with it is much more important and satisfying than how the team stands compared to other champions.
Thats ****ed up, while you could make an argument that the 94 title win doesn't historically rank with the best runs of all time, that 95 run was ****ing incredible. To this day Houston holds the record for lowest seed to win a title. You also have to consider the difficulty coming from 6th seed and having to face 4 50+ win teams to get there, never having home court. He brings up that we only won 47 games, but conveniently forgets that Hakeem was injured for a lot of that season.
tinman, put down your homer glasses and think. Jim Valvano's NC State team that beat Olajuwon's Cougars in 1983 was one of the most storied NCAA teams of all time. Why? Because they were not supposed to be champions. They beat all odds to even get to the Final Four, let alone winning it all. The UH team was supposed to be the best in the country. But they lost. Was NC State better than UH? NO. Was that team a great team? Depends on what you mean by "great." They weren't even the top 10 team in the country. But they were "great" in the sense that they achieved way beyond anybody had expected. Same with the championship Rockets teams.
Ahhhhhhh... see, I thought that couldn't be right, but in the first post of the thread the guy said this: ...and since I don't subscribe to espn insider, I could only assume he was correct. Okay then, Hollinger gets an ounce of respect back...
Tinman might argue differently, as would I. Heck, for me, it's not as much about how low some of the Rockets teams are ranked, but why even put out a list based on such subjective forced ranking statistics anyway. Implying (which, even if its not what Holliger meant to do, is what the article indirectly does) that the 98-99 Spurs team is anywhere near one of the top 10 teams of the past 30 years is ridiculous. They were a dominating team during their season of play. But, put them up against any of the 15 championship teams before, I can't definitively say they'd be a favorite against any of them. Or something as simple as the 94 Rockets team being 27th while the 95 Rockets team is 45th. The 95 would beat the 94 team 7 times out of 10.
His criteria is very stupid. Going by his calculations, the 2001 Lakers get more credit for beating the 2001 Sixers than the 80's Lakers get for beating the Celtics, Pistons or Sixers (all MUCH better teams). His analysis completely ignores the quality of these teams opponents (as a better team would be harder to sweep)...which is very dumb. Additionally, his regular season criteria doesn't consider teams that make midseason trades (i.e. the 95 Rockets or the 04 Pistons) and have worse regular season records. And when I see the 99 Spurs ranked ahead of Sixer and Pistons teams from the 80's then I know the writer is on dat syrup!!!!
I liked it better when Hollinger inserted his personal opinion while boosting the numbers he picked out of his ass. He's turning into an overrated and overpaid sabermetrician.
Excellent. I was trying to make the same point earlier, but you did a better job. Where he ranks the 85-86 Rockets is nothing short of criminal.
Lies, damn lies, and statistics. In 1995 we beat some incredible teams. You pick any one of the teams we beat in the 1995 playoffs and put them in todays NBA and they would probably win it walking away.
Since there is so much discussion here.. I am going to post the rest of the list. (hopefully I don't get kicked off being an "insider" )
