How much was 94 Rockets a one-man team?

No.

Celts-Hell no, they had a full arsenal with Bird, Mchale, Parish, Johnson, Ainge, and a couple others.

Pistons-Not really with Thomas, Dumars, Laimbeer, Rodman

Showtime Lakers-Again Hell no with Magic, kareem, scott, Worthy, Perkins

Bulls-This was the closest, but MJ had Pip and Grant/Kukoc

Rockets 95- No with Drex on the team we had another star.

Spurs-Duncan and Robinson. Elliot played like a star in the playoffs that season(or at least when it counted)

Lakers-Shaq, Kobe, Rice

But out of all of these we had the third deepest squad(Showtime Lakers and Celts had a higher quality of depth on their bench)

------------------
Never Underestimate the Heart of a Champion

[This message has been edited by vj23k (edited April 11, 2001).]

 

The '94 team was the least talented team to ever win a championship since at least 1980. What is really telling is looking at the careers of the starters on that team after they left Houston. Smith and Maxwell were both out of the league soon after, Thorpe never really did much with Portland, Detroit, Washington, etc., and the best thing Horry did after he left was throw a towel at Danny Ainge. This shows just how amazing Hakeem was.

 

That 94 Rockets team is getting underrated by you guys. In terms of talent, no there were no superstars outside of Dream. But the guys we had fit the system perfectly. And they weren't all scrubs: OT was an incredible dirty-work player who did make an all-star team (deservedly so). Mad Max was simply clutch. Sammy was a star in the making. And like I heard Kenny Smith say last night, Horry was a guy who consistantly produced far more in the playoffs than he did in the regular season. Kenny filled our outside shooting needs well, and Mario was a great defender/hustle player to bring off the bench. Carl Herrera is often forgotten because he got hurt in 95, but he came up big in the 94 Finals and overall was a very good backup big man.

As for their careers now, look at how many are still playing. Thorp is still going, and has played more games now than all but maybe 10 guys in the history of the league. Cassell is a star. Max continues to find work, and contribute despite his rep. Horry and Elie are still employed and contributing. Hakeem and Bull are still with the Rockets. In a league in which the average career is less than 5 years, the fact that 6 members of Dream's supposedly inferior supporting cast are even still around 7 years later is amazing.

------------------
I'm about to boldly go where many men have gone before.

 

I have to agree with Cassell. The '94 team had easily the biggest superstar of the league that year in Olajuwon and he carried the team. However, while the other guys weren't stars, they weren't scrubs either. They were solid starters and role-players (if Max had his head on straight, he'd be a star; and you could tell Cassell was going to be a star as well, but he was still a rookie). They all knew their roles; they all knew had to make the system work to their advantage. They were very good -- the best in the league -- they just weren't glamorous.


------------------
RealGM
Gafford Art
Artisan Cakes

 

There is no such thing as a one man championship team. I know there a lot of Jordan fans, and Hakeem fans, but they are deluded if they think that those players were the sole reason for a championship. If you win a championship, you're obviously talented. A team that is not talented, is not going to qualify for the playoffs and then take out 4 teams and win a championship. I don't care what kind of career a player has before or after a championship, you have to be talented to win a championship. One man doesn't win a championship.

------------------
See the three, be the three.

 

Smith, Maxwell, Elie, and Horry can credit there best years to Olajuwon. Hakeem made them by giving them open 3's to hit. Look how bad they played when they left Houston.



------------------

 

i thinks its a testimony to what rudy did with that team. i mean he took olajuwon and a bunch of good (but not great players) and won a championship. how many other teams were not expected to win in the last 10 years. i mean the lakers, spurs, bulls, and pistons teams all were expected to have a good chance of winning their championships but rudy's two champions really weren't expected in the national media (expected to contend but not win it all) - at least thats the way i remember it.

having praised rudy for those years, i will say that i think he has slipped in his handling of players over the last few.



------------------

 

Obviously Mario and Horry didn't have that bad a career, they added another ring to their collection. One player doesn't make another player's career. That is just giving to much credit to Dream and putting him at a god-like pedestal. Kenny Smith was average, even while on the Rocks, and Mad Max had a pretty good career after Houston, just that his attitude, not talent, sabatoged his career. I know I rip on Pippen and say Jordan made him. Pippen isn't nearly as good as he is hyped to be, but nobody makes a person's career. That person makes their own career.

------------------
See the three, be the three.

 

Within the last 15 years, I would say the least talented team was the Spurs two years ago. I would say their front court and ours were a wash, the 94 Hakeem, OT and Horry front line were at least equal to Robinson, Duncan, & Elliot 99 front line. I say this because Hakeem was still peaking (one of the best 4 centers ever), OT was still close to his prime, and Horry was playing at his best levels. However, if you matched the Robinson from 1994 or so with Duncan and the way Elliot played that year, I would have had to give the nod to the Spurs, but Robinson wasn't that player in 1999.

But what made the Rockets much more talented was the backcourt. The Spurs' back-court was Avery J and Elie for Pete's sake, and who was the back-up, Daniels? Now the Spurs backcourt blended quite nicely with their front court, but don't mistake that for talent. The Rockets backcourt of Kenny, Max, Sam and an Elie (in his prime) were far, far superior in talent, skill and/or whatever else to that Spurs group. I also think the 94' Knicks would have beaten the 99' Spurs in 5 or 6 games, but of course that is just speculation. I am not sure the 99' Spurs would have beaten the 95' Spurs either, unless the 95' Spurs stubbornly refused to double Duncan.

Also, one of the latter Bulls runs was really just all Jordan. Pippen and Kukoc had nagging injuries and were not consistently effective. That team was pretty close to a one man show, at least as close as the 94' Rockets.

 

You're kidding right.

Duncan got about 5 points less than Dream, but thats prett much it.

Elliot more than matched Horry's production.

And Robinson was still putting up 16, 10, and 2.4 to Thorpe's 14, 10, 2.

Not to mention that off the bench they had Rose to our Carl Herrera.

Rose is much better than Herrera was.

I think that our 93-94 teams was the least talented title-winner in the last 15 years.

Most talented-Showtime Lakers? or Bird's Celtics?

------------------
Never Underestimate the Heart of a Champion

 

No, not kidding at all. The Rockets 94' front line was very comparable if not better than the Spurs' 99 one, and I think you supported my point very well. The difference between Hakeem's 27 or so points versus Duncan's 22 is huge. Look around the league at the 27 point guys, and the 22 point guys today, and it is will apprarent they are different classess of players.

Further, I'll bet if you compare the Pts, Rbs, & Blocks of Dream, OT, Horry and Herrera (94) to Duncan, Robin., Elliot and Rose (99) they would be very, very close. I would suspect you probably couldn't make them any closer if you tried. If you can show me otherwise, I'll accept maybe I over valued the other Rocket front line players, but I am pretty sure this is not the case. If anything I think the Rockets guys would look even more favorable.

Also, I don't know where you get Rose being much better than Herrera either. Herrera that year was a good back-up, and certainly had a more refined offensive game than Rose dis then, or does now.

In sum, the Rockets 94 team was much more taleted than the 99 Spurs team. The Rockets were as good defensively, and far superior offensively because of Hakeem and the guard play. That Spurs team (99) wouldn't have beat the 94 Knicks or the 95 Spurs.

 

Garnett averages 21, Webber averages 27. Is Webber that much better than KG. Actually KG is arguably as good as C-Webb.

Other guys that have averaged 22 points during their primes-Hill, Bryant of last year, and he is most probably better than the Kobe of this year.

While the Rockets frontline was good, I don't think it was as good as the 99 San Antonio frontline of Robinson, Duncan, Elliot, Rose.

The Rockets had a respectable backcourt, which helped them alot. For San Antone-Jackson played pretty well, but was still inconsistent, Mario gave them a good outside shooter and defender, and Avery set the offense up. But I think Smith, Cassell, Elie, Mad Max was much better than the Spurs' group of guys.

------------------
Never Underestimate the Heart of a Champion

 

Here are the 5 guys between 26 and 29 PPG: Shaq, Bryant, Carter, Webber & McGrady.

Here are the 10 guys between 21 and 24 PPG:
Marbury, Malone, Walker, Payton, Duncan, Garnett, Allen, Robinson, Nowitzki & Finley.

By and large, there is a clear distinction. I don't think you could confuse the effectiveness (this year) of any of the first 5 players with all on the second list, save perhaps Garnett (though this year Webber has been better than him, IMO). If Duncan had played the first half of the season like the last half he would be there as well, but he didn't.

Also, here is a statistical comparison (at least the 3 most relevant categories) of the 4 main front lines players of the 94' Rockets and 99' Spurs (the match up discussed earlier int he thread):

**: PPG RBG BPG
Ro: 55.9 31.7 5.3
Sp: 54.7 29.6 5.8

At best (for the Spurs) is calling the match-up a "draw" on the front-court. And that is not including Elie there, though for that Rocket team he played some at SF. I also suspect FG% & FT% would tilt toward the Rockets as a group as well.

I will say the front-lines overal were quite close, whether I view it statistically or subjectively. There was no comparison between the back courts in talent or skill however (Kenny, Max, Sam & Elie VS Avery, Elie, J.Jackson & Daniels).

As a team, the 99' Spurs were clearly less talented or skilled than the 94' Rockets. I still maintain the 95' Spurs and 94' Knicks were more talented (and would have beaten)the 99' Spurs if they matched-up.

 

Desert Scar:

I actually *really* disagree with you. Duncan has been more valuable this year than anybody except Shaq and Webber. Bryant probably comes close. Carter and McGrady, imo, aren't in the same league. They just score a lot because their teams lack overall talent.

Gary Payton, also, is probably better than Carter and McGrady... and probably Bryant as well. Take him off that team... and they're lucky to win 5 games. Instead, they were a p layoff team in the West. Orlando or Toronto would have SANK out west.

Garnett... even you admit, is a superstar.

I do actually agree with you that Hakeem was substantially better than Duncan... but I think that confirms a hypothesis that the Rockets were a one-man team.

Let's be realistic: Thorpe is a lot like Clarence Weatherspoon, with a lesser shot, but slightly more athleticism. They can both average a double double on the right team... but they're not a real threat alone. Otis Thorpe benefited greatly from sharing the frontcourt with the Dream.

Cassell... he's great now. But at the time, he wasn't. He didn't even average 10pts per agme that year, and goofed up a lot. He was a major player on the 94-95 team.

Horry: He's averaging 5 points per game on a team without much depth. Flashes of brilliance... never sustained it for anybody, that includes us.

Smith: He can hit the 3. I challenge you to find anything else he could do.

Elie: Is he really any better than Anderson is now? Better shot, somewhat less athletic. Both played good D.

Hakeem put on the most dominating playoff clinic of all time, imo, that year. I've never seen anyone play that well, and that includes Jordan.

I'm *proud* that the Rockets were a one-man-team.

------------------
I would believe only in a God who could dance. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001

[This message has been edited by haven (edited April 17, 2001).]

 

I think we have a couple of debates here:

Debate #1: who is the least talented team to win an NBA championship in the last 15 years. I am arguing the Spurs 99' team. I think I made a pretty clear cut case the Rockets 94' team was substantially more talented and superior than the 99' Spurs.

Debate #2: is the Spurs 99' front court or the Rocket's 94' front court better? I say it is close to a draw, but slightly favors the Rockets. Personally, I would take Hakeem, Thorpe, Horry, & Herrera of 94' over DR, TD, Elliot and Rose of 99'. I think you are way underestimating how well Thorpe and Horry played that year. How they played after they left the Rockets isn't the issue, just like you can't include the skills of a DR in 95 in evaluating the 99' Spurs front-line's effectiveness. In fact the main difference between Thorpe of 94' (14 PPG, 10.6 RPG) and DR of 99' (15.8, 10.0 RPG) is blocks. I am not saying Thorpe was as good, but Thorpe was just below an all-star and was considered a fine low post defender despite the lack of blocks. In fact Thorpe then was better than Dale Davis is now, I don't see the comparison with Witherspoon at all. Horry of 94' was also very similar to Elliot of 99', Horry scored a little less (9.9 to 11.2), but rebounded better (5.4 to 4.3) and was a very effective weak side shot blocker that Elliot was not (Horry almost got a block per game). So in sum I'll say this, if you take out both stars from their front lines, the Spurs 99' group (DR and Elliot, don't really think Rose is worth mentioning) was somewhat better than the Rockets group, but this difference was far less than the degree Hakeem in 94' was superior than Duncan in 99'. Thus, as a front line, the Rockets were better, although I agree perhaps by a small margin.

Debate 3: While each player has his faults, if any team today had the 94' Kenny, Max, Elie and Sam, they would have among the top 4-8 sets of guards in the league. They weren't the best, but they were pretty darned good and fit the team extremely well. Kenny was a deadeye, Max was a ferocious defender (and had a penchant for big shots), Elie was another very good defender and solid shot, and Sam was a streaky scorer. The Spurs 99' group wasn't close to being as good or as talented.

Couple more minor points:

Hakeem's best years were BEFORE the 94 and 95 championship runs. Just having a great Hakeem wasn't enough, the other pieces had to be there. Of course he was the centerpiece and key player (and the best player in the league those years), but he was not alone. This takes nothing away from Hakeem's greatness, otherwise we discount his greatness from before 94 just because we didn't end on top.

Of course you can't just consider PPG in evaluating overall play. If you did Jason Kidd would be pretty average, and Magic Johnson would only be very good. But the 26-29 group on average are significantly better than the 21-24 group.