http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/040617a Lingering questions after the biggest NBA Finals upset in nine years ... Q: Wait a second ... nine years? Wasn't it 30 years? A: Nope. For whatever reason, everyone keeps overlooking Houston's sweep of Orlando nine years ago, since it sounds more impressive to say things like "The biggest NBA Finals upset in 30 years!" Hakeem and the Rockets were something like 4-to-1 underdogs heading into that series. Believe me. I wagered on them. You don't forget things like that.
Don't get too excited, this is later in the same article: Q: Where does this Pistons team rank against the champs from the past 30 years? A: Pretty low. They couldn't win their division. They barely escaped two playoff series. They lucked out by facing the Lakers instead of the Spurs. They didn't have a dominant player, someone who could create his own shot after everything else broke down. In the Finals, they were never favored by more than three points in any game. Along with the '99 Spurs, '94 Rockets, '78 Bullets and '75 Warriors, on paper, they were one of the weakest champions of the past 30 years.
it was an ugly finals and the 1994 team was, i'll prepare for the flameage, weak....a lot weaker than our 1995 team. thank goodness for the 1994 Nuggets and Dikembe Mutombo
He says 'on paper.' 'On paper' they were low on hype, but on the court, those teams were great. The '94 Rockets and even more so the '99 Spurs were very convincing winners.
The Knicks made '94 ugly... If you kept up with the whole season, you would have seen us display many styles of ball... Also the Knicks competed. Talent and skill are important, but the Knicks most admirable trait was their desire on defense (almost to the point of being called for fouls) I didn't think much of them coming into the series, but they earned my respect.
