^^^^^ He's referring to the 94 Rockets, and no, they wouldn't.
So? Clyde was part of the championship squad in 95. Ok, Even if you just zero in on the 94 team to try to emphasize your point you still have in addition to Otis and Kenny Smith. Vernon Maxwell, Horry, Cassell, and Mario Elie (who averaged over 9 points a game: more than Rick fox). That team was talented. We had with a young Kobe, fisher, fox, Horry, and fading vets like Harper, Horace grant, and Shaw. Prime Shaq gets more rings with that rockets squad than Hakeem gets with the lakers. Hakeem couldn't do what Shaq did in 2000-2002, no center could except maybe Wilt.
Kobe was an all-NBA and all-defensive team player every year of the threepeat. By the second ring, he was a 29-6-5 guy. By the third ring, he was 5th in the league in MVP voting. He was so superior to everyone else you're mentioning, I take the Lakers without Shaq easily over the Rockets without Hakeem.
I disagree on that one; Kobe of course is on a whole different level than anyone on that 93-94 Rockets team but as a whole, that rockets team minus Hakeem is more complete than the Shaq-less Lakers. Cassell and Smith were killers at PG, Maxwell was a star and Thorpe was better than anyone we had on our frontline minus Shaq. Just hypothetically, give Kobe Lamar also, and we have a good shot but as is without Shaq, its a toss up at best.
if you actually think Vernon Maxwell was a star, I consider it a waste of time to talk with you.
uh...maxwell was a star. he's a klay thompson level star...may not get the accolades, but that's the level he was.
enjoy
If he is a star, then what is Glen Rice?
Maxwell shot below 40% from the field to score 12 points a game. Definitely not star talent. Unless you are saying he had potential to be great and squandered it, then sure.
So did Isiah Rider then. Star player, right? 16.7 PPG on 44% shooting. His career average is better than Maxwell's best year.
^^^^^ He's referring to the 94 Rockets, and no, they wouldn't.
So? Clyde was part of the championship squad in 95. Ok, Even if you just zero in on the 94 team to try to emphasize your point you still have in addition to Otis and Kenny Smith. Vernon Maxwell, Horry, Cassell, and Mario Elie (who averaged over 9 points a game: more than Rick fox). That team was talented. We had with a young Kobe, fisher, fox, Horry, and fading vets like Harper, Horace grant, and Shaw. Prime Shaq gets more rings with that rockets squad than Hakeem gets with the lakers. Hakeem couldn't do what Shaq did in 2000-2002, no center could except maybe Wilt.
Kobe was an all-NBA and all-defensive team player every year of the threepeat. By the second ring, he was a 29-6-5 guy. By the third ring, he was 5th in the league in MVP voting. He was so superior to everyone else you're mentioning, I take the Lakers without Shaq easily over the Rockets without Hakeem.
I disagree on that one; Kobe of course is on a whole different level than anyone on that 93-94 Rockets team but as a whole, that rockets team minus Hakeem is more complete than the Shaq-less Lakers. Cassell and Smith were killers at PG, Maxwell was a star and Thorpe was better than anyone we had on our frontline minus Shaq. Just hypothetically, give Kobe Lamar also, and we have a good shot but as is without Shaq, its a toss up at best.
if you actually think Vernon Maxwell was a star, I consider it a waste of time to talk with you.
uh...maxwell was a star. he's a klay thompson level star...may not get the accolades, but that's the level he was.
enjoy
Dude, he averaged 12-13 point a game.
Klay Thompson level star?
I don't think I need to say anything else to that
he was a crazy guy that's why. i'm talking about ability. also, the numbers are meaningless. kobe averaged like 8 pts his first season, so what. try watching video a little so that number has context.
Yeah man, Rider only averaged 8 points with the Laker. Big deal. He averaged twice that for his career. Plus he was playing half his normal minutes. Double his minutes, double his points, boom he's a star player!
^^^^^ He's referring to the 94 Rockets, and no, they wouldn't.
So? Clyde was part of the championship squad in 95. Ok, Even if you just zero in on the 94 team to try to emphasize your point you still have in addition to Otis and Kenny Smith. Vernon Maxwell, Horry, Cassell, and Mario Elie (who averaged over 9 points a game: more than Rick fox). That team was talented. We had with a young Kobe, fisher, fox, Horry, and fading vets like Harper, Horace grant, and Shaw. Prime Shaq gets more rings with that rockets squad than Hakeem gets with the lakers. Hakeem couldn't do what Shaq did in 2000-2002, no center could except maybe Wilt.
Kobe was an all-NBA and all-defensive team player every year of the threepeat. By the second ring, he was a 29-6-5 guy. By the third ring, he was 5th in the league in MVP voting. He was so superior to everyone else you're mentioning, I take the Lakers without Shaq easily over the Rockets without Hakeem.
I disagree on that one; Kobe of course is on a whole different level than anyone on that 93-94 Rockets team but as a whole, that rockets team minus Hakeem is more complete than the Shaq-less Lakers. Cassell and Smith were killers at PG, Maxwell was a star and Thorpe was better than anyone we had on our frontline minus Shaq. Just hypothetically, give Kobe Lamar also, and we have a good shot but as is without Shaq, its a toss up at best.
if you actually think Vernon Maxwell was a star, I consider it a waste of time to talk with you.
uh...maxwell was a star. he's a klay thompson level star...may not get the accolades, but that's the level he was.
enjoy
In his ring year, Klay averaged 22 ppg and shot 43.9% from 3-point land.
In his ring year, Vernon averaged 14 ppg and shot 29.8% from 3-point land.
Peas in a pod!
In the year of the Houston second ring, Vernon the star became so frustrated over not playing he pretended to have a hamstring injury after the first playoff game and was given a leave of absence
It was amazing that were able to win the second ring without Vernon the star, and amazing Vernon the star never made the Hall of Fame.
PS. Kenny Smith was a SUPERSTAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (And I can post a video of him making an uncontested layup to prove it).
Last edited by activeverb on Thu Sep 29, 2016 9:36 am; edited 2 times in total
^^^^^ He's referring to the 94 Rockets, and no, they wouldn't.
So? Clyde was part of the championship squad in 95. Ok, Even if you just zero in on the 94 team to try to emphasize your point you still have in addition to Otis and Kenny Smith. Vernon Maxwell, Horry, Cassell, and
Quote:
Mario Elie (who averaged over 9 points a game: more than Rick fox)
. That team was talented. We had with a young Kobe, fisher, fox, Horry, and fading vets like Harper, Horace grant, and Shaw. Prime Shaq gets more rings with that rockets squad than Hakeem gets with the lakers. Hakeem couldn't do what Shaq did in 2000-2002, no center could except maybe Wilt.
Don't diss Fox. Fox scored 15 the year before coming to LA, and 14 the year before. More than Elie ever averaged in his career. His career averages are higher than Elie. Fox was also a better defender. Why do you guys like to discount defense so much? Fox was instrumental getting to the finals during our 3peat.
Is Glen Rice not worth bringing up? He scored more points as 3rd option than Otis Thorpe as 2nd option.
Then you had BOTH Horry and Horace Grant as bigmen for Shaq. Grant got to the finals with Shaq in Orlando fresh off of his time winning championships as the 3rd option for the Bulls for 3 championships, and another good defender. Then he came here to be our 5th option offensively, with big shot Bob coming off the bench and proved to be invaluable many times.
Vernon Maxwell didn't play for Houston after Drexler got traded, he had 16 minutes for the entire playoffs. Thorpe was traded FOR oldman Drexler so they never played together. Young Horry was okay, I liked him a lot but he was playing out of position until Thorpe got traded.
Kenny Smith played well but if you want to talk aging/decline then there you go. He retired 2 seasons later.
Sam Cassell was good, but he was a rookie for the 1st championship, 2nd year for the next year, traded in the third for Barkley with Horry. Houston management was pretty stupid.
You can argue the stats of the aging vets, I get that. Their experience in the triangle was very valuable to the team. Especially when you consider the best Coach ever (not Popovich) was implementing it. You can't dismiss systems and coaching when comparing players based on stats.
^^^^^ He's referring to the 94 Rockets, and no, they wouldn't.
So? Clyde was part of the championship squad in 95. Ok, Even if you just zero in on the 94 team to try to emphasize your point you still have in addition to Otis and Kenny Smith. Vernon Maxwell, Horry, Cassell, and
Quote:
Mario Elie (who averaged over 9 points a game: more than Rick fox)
. That team was talented. We had with a young Kobe, fisher, fox, Horry, and fading vets like Harper, Horace grant, and Shaw. Prime Shaq gets more rings with that rockets squad than Hakeem gets with the lakers. Hakeem couldn't do what Shaq did in 2000-2002, no center could except maybe Wilt.
Don't diss Fox. Fox scored 15 the year before coming to LA, and 14 the year before. More than Elie ever averaged in his career. His career averages are higher than Elie. Fox was also a better defender. Why do you guys like to discount defense so much? Fox was instrumental getting to the finals during our 3peat.
Is Glen Rice not worth bringing up? He scored more points as 3rd option than Otis Thorpe as 2nd option.
Then you had BOTH Horry and Horace Grant as bigmen for Shaq. Grant got to the finals with Shaq in Orlando fresh off of his time winning championships as the 3rd option for the Bulls for 3 championships, and another good defender. Then he came here to be our 5th option offensively, with big shot Bob coming off the bench and proved to be invaluable many times.
Vernon Maxwell didn't play for Houston after Drexler got traded, he had 16 minutes for the entire playoffs. Thorpe was traded FOR oldman Drexler so they never played together. Young Horry was okay, I liked him a lot but he was playing out of position until Thorpe got traded.
Kenny Smith played well but if you want to talk aging/decline then there you go. He retired 2 seasons later.
Sam Cassell was good, but he was a rookie for the 1st championship, 2nd year for the next year, traded in the third for Barkley with Horry. Houston management was pretty stupid.
You can argue the stats of the aging vets, I get that. Their experience in the triangle was very valuable to the team. Especially when you consider the best Coach ever (not Popovich) was implementing it. You can't dismiss systems and coaching when comparing players based on stats.
Applaud.gif
--The Rockets strength was defense, but their defense was held together by Hakeem; take him out of the equation and the other players aren't as valuable.
--Also, the Lakers stats were soaked up by Shaq and Kobe, so you can't exempt Kobe from the equation and then evaluate the other players stats in a vacuum like he didn't exist.
--Lots of time games here. Cassell was a nothing special rookie for the first ring, but the pro-Houston folks are treating him like the all-star he became years later. However, they don't go the other way and regard Horace Grant as an all-star -- he's an "aging vet."
^^^^^ He's referring to the 94 Rockets, and no, they wouldn't.
So? Clyde was part of the championship squad in 95. Ok, Even if you just zero in on the 94 team to try to emphasize your point you still have in addition to Otis and Kenny Smith. Vernon Maxwell, Horry, Cassell, and Mario Elie (who averaged over 9 points a game: more than Rick fox). That team was talented. We had with a young Kobe, fisher, fox, Horry, and fading vets like Harper, Horace grant, and Shaw. Prime Shaq gets more rings with that rockets squad than Hakeem gets with the lakers. Hakeem couldn't do what Shaq did in 2000-2002, no center could except maybe Wilt.
Kobe was an all-NBA and all-defensive team player every year of the threepeat. By the second ring, he was a 29-6-5 guy. By the third ring, he was 5th in the league in MVP voting. He was so superior to everyone else you're mentioning, I take the Lakers without Shaq easily over the Rockets without Hakeem.
I disagree on that one; Kobe of course is on a whole different level than anyone on that 93-94 Rockets team but as a whole, that rockets team minus Hakeem is more complete than the Shaq-less Lakers. Cassell and Smith were killers at PG, Maxwell was a star and Thorpe was better than anyone we had on our frontline minus Shaq. Just hypothetically, give Kobe Lamar also, and we have a good shot but as is without Shaq, its a toss up at best.
if you actually think Vernon Maxwell was a star, I consider it a waste of time to talk with you.
uh...maxwell was a star. he's a klay thompson level star...may not get the accolades, but that's the level he was.
enjoy
In his ring year, Klay averaged 22 ppg and shot 43.9% from 3-point land.
In his ring year, Vernon averaged 14 ppg and shot 29.8% from 3-point land.
Peas in a pod!
In the year of the Houston second ring, Vernon the star became so frustrated over not playing he pretended to have a hamstring injury after the first playoff game and was given a leave of absence
It was amazing that were able to win the second ring without Vernon the star, and amazing Vernon the star never made the Hall of Fame.
PS. Kenny Smith was a SUPERSTAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (And I can post a video of him making an uncontested layup to prove it).
I tried to tell them a few pages ago. What the dream did with that 94 first team to me is the greatest carrying a team to a ring by one lone superstar I have ever seen. And that was on both ends of the floor. I can't recall anything before the 80's lakers so dont fault me old schoolers.
People trying to compare kobe to any of the rockets role guys are talking crazy. This is shaq and kobe with their first ring playoff averages
There wasn't a single player on that first rockets championship team that averaged more than 14ppg in the playoffs. Hakeem drug those guys to a ring ladies and gentlemen. And I may be one of the biggest shaq homers from his LSU days, thru orlando til he left us.
The truth is. If there was one ring to win in one year and I had a choice to pick one main superstar/hall of famer. My choices were prime jordan, prime shaq, prime kobe, and prime hakeem. In the 90's era of basketball. I might choose hakeem.
this is the truth if you wanna go there...
if hakeem is as dominant and great as you say, he didn't win except for the 2 years jordan was out. and let's not forget all the chances he had in the 80s also. i don't know what point you are trying to make choosing hakeem over mj, and then on top of it emphasizing the 90s era, lol. 90s era belongs to MJ...there's no way around it, trust me I'd find it.
this is the truth if you wanna go there...
if hakeem is as dominant and great as you say, he didn't win except for the 2 years jordan was out. and let's not forget all the chances he had in the 80s also. i don't know what point you are trying to make choosing hakeem over mj, and then on top of it emphasizing the 90s era, lol. 90s era belongs to MJ...there's no way around it, trust me I'd find it.
To be fair, Hakeem played most of his career with weak teammates compared to the other guys on the GOAT short list.
He got to the finals one year with Sampson and lost to a Celtics team stacked with Hall of Famers, and then Sampson fell apart.
He had broken down Barkley and Pippen at the end of his career.
Not much inbetween.
Ironically, I think Hakeem was the one guy in the 90s who wasn't affected by the Jordan juggernaut. The Bulls simply couldn't handle the Rockets. Even when the Rockets were crappy, and couldn't get past the first round in the West, the Bulls couldn't handle them.
Hakeem is a unique guy. Amazing player, defined largely by defense, who spent more of his career with weak teammates. Because of that, some people think he's way overrated, some way underrated.
Last edited by activeverb on Thu Sep 29, 2016 11:52 am; edited 1 time in total
^^^^^ He's referring to the 94 Rockets, and no, they wouldn't.
So? Clyde was part of the championship squad in 95. Ok, Even if you just zero in on the 94 team to try to emphasize your point you still have in addition to Otis and Kenny Smith. Vernon Maxwell, Horry, Cassell, and Mario Elie (who averaged over 9 points a game: more than Rick fox). That team was talented. We had with a young Kobe, fisher, fox, Horry, and fading vets like Harper, Horace grant, and Shaw. Prime Shaq gets more rings with that rockets squad than Hakeem gets with the lakers. Hakeem couldn't do what Shaq did in 2000-2002, no center could except maybe Wilt.
Kobe was an all-NBA and all-defensive team player every year of the threepeat. By the second ring, he was a 29-6-5 guy. By the third ring, he was 5th in the league in MVP voting. He was so superior to everyone else you're mentioning, I take the Lakers without Shaq easily over the Rockets without Hakeem.
I disagree on that one; Kobe of course is on a whole different level than anyone on that 93-94 Rockets team but as a whole, that rockets team minus Hakeem is more complete than the Shaq-less Lakers. Cassell and Smith were killers at PG, Maxwell was a star and Thorpe was better than anyone we had on our frontline minus Shaq. Just hypothetically, give Kobe Lamar also, and we have a good shot but as is without Shaq, its a toss up at best.
if you actually think Vernon Maxwell was a star, I consider it a waste of time to talk with you.
uh...maxwell was a star. he's a klay thompson level star...may not get the accolades, but that's the level he was.
enjoy
If he is a star, then what is Glen Rice?
Maxwell shot below 40% from the field to score 12 points a game. Definitely not star talent. Unless you are saying he had potential to be great and squandered it, then sure.
So did Isiah Rider then. Star player, right? 16.7 PPG on 44% shooting. His career average is better than Maxwell's best year.
Just a reminder that he also thinks Julius Randle is "basically" Lebron, Scottie Pippen is better than Lebron and Tim Duncan is an average player.
^^^^^ He's referring to the 94 Rockets, and no, they wouldn't.
So? Clyde was part of the championship squad in 95. Ok, Even if you just zero in on the 94 team to try to emphasize your point you still have in addition to Otis and Kenny Smith. Vernon Maxwell, Horry, Cassell, and Mario Elie (who averaged over 9 points a game: more than Rick fox). That team was talented. We had with a young Kobe, fisher, fox, Horry, and fading vets like Harper, Horace grant, and Shaw. Prime Shaq gets more rings with that rockets squad than Hakeem gets with the lakers. Hakeem couldn't do what Shaq did in 2000-2002, no center could except maybe Wilt.
Kobe was an all-NBA and all-defensive team player every year of the threepeat. By the second ring, he was a 29-6-5 guy. By the third ring, he was 5th in the league in MVP voting. He was so superior to everyone else you're mentioning, I take the Lakers without Shaq easily over the Rockets without Hakeem.
I disagree on that one; Kobe of course is on a whole different level than anyone on that 93-94 Rockets team but as a whole, that rockets team minus Hakeem is more complete than the Shaq-less Lakers. Cassell and Smith were killers at PG, Maxwell was a star and Thorpe was better than anyone we had on our frontline minus Shaq. Just hypothetically, give Kobe Lamar also, and we have a good shot but as is without Shaq, its a toss up at best.
if you actually think Vernon Maxwell was a star, I consider it a waste of time to talk with you.
uh...maxwell was a star. he's a klay thompson level star...may not get the accolades, but that's the level he was.
enjoy
If he is a star, then what is Glen Rice?
Maxwell shot below 40% from the field to score 12 points a game. Definitely not star talent. Unless you are saying he had potential to be great and squandered it, then sure.
So did Isiah Rider then. Star player, right? 16.7 PPG on 44% shooting. His career average is better than Maxwell's best year.
Just a reminder that he also thinks Julius Randle is "basically" Lebron, Scottie Pippen is better than Lebron and Tim Duncan is an average player.
Well, Superboy's overriding concern is protecting Kobe's legacy. So he diminishes to a ridiculous degree anyone he views as a Kobe rival -- Lebron, Duncan, Curry. He likes to build up second tier players who aren't viewed as Kobe rivals.
His position is emotional, rather than logical, so he tends to diminish stats and he thinks a single video cherry-picked from a player's career proves any point. He'll say a 29% lifetime 3-point shooter is a great 3-point shooter on the basis of finding a video of him making a single 3-point shot.
He is a bit Trump-like in his aggressive opinions that ignore facts and overwhelming contradictory evidence. He thinks a fact is simply anything he believes.
this is the truth if you wanna go there...
if hakeem is as dominant and great as you say, he didn't win except for the 2 years jordan was out. and let's not forget all the chances he had in the 80s also. i don't know what point you are trying to make choosing hakeem over mj, and then on top of it emphasizing the 90s era, lol. 90s era belongs to MJ...there's no way around it, trust me I'd find it.
The Rockets on their first run to the finals where they lost against the Celtics, they did that with their starting point guard and backup point guard injured and out. One of them, Lucas, was a good player.
This is akin to the Lakers losing to the Pistons while missing their starting, and back-up powerforward. At the end of the day people blame Kobe/Shaq when really starting your 9-10th man off the bench makes for a lot of mismatches.
Then their starting SG, and their backup SG got banned for 2 years 30 games into the season for testing positive for cocaine. Lloyd was their 3rd scoring option
18 months later Ralph Samson was traded for Sleepy Floyd and Joe "barely cares" Barry Carroll. Before being traded Samson had knee surgeries, and experienced paralysis on one of side of his body after hitting his head on the court.
How many players lose their second and third option the season after going to the finals and continue to win? How is any of that Olajuwon's fault?
There is a really good article about this with quotes from everyone from Jerry West to Mitch Kupchak to Hakeem himself.
if i'm like trump, you are a bit hillary like in your shill posts allllllll over the forums. btw, dont talk about logic and stuff, you are crazy for thinking some kind of logic proves these subjective things we are discussing. if you think that the way you use numbers is more logical than whatever I'm doing, you are the one who is misinformed.
this is the truth if you wanna go there...
if hakeem is as dominant and great as you say, he didn't win except for the 2 years jordan was out. and let's not forget all the chances he had in the 80s also. i don't know what point you are trying to make choosing hakeem over mj, and then on top of it emphasizing the 90s era, lol. 90s era belongs to MJ...there's no way around it, trust me I'd find it.
The Rockets on their first run to the finals where they lost against the Celtics, they did that with their starting point guard and backup point guard injured and out. One of them, Lucas, was a good player.
This is akin to the Lakers losing to the Pistons while missing their starting, and back-up powerforward. At the end of the day people blame Kobe/Shaq when really starting your 9-10th man off the bench makes for a lot of mismatches.
Then their starting SG, and their backup SG got banned for 2 years 30 games into the season for testing positive for cocaine. Lloyd was their 3rd scoring option
18 months later Ralph Samson was traded for Sleepy Floyd and Joe "barely cares" Barry Carroll. Before being traded Samson had knee surgeries, and experienced paralysis on one of side of his body after hitting his head on the court.
How many players lose their second and third option the season after going to the finals and continue to win? How is any of that Olajuwon's fault?
There is a really good article about this with quotes from everyone from Jerry West to Mitch Kupchak to Hakeem himself.
if i'm like trump, you are a bit hillary like in your shill posts allllllll over the forums. btw, dont talk about logic and stuff, you are crazy for thinking some kind of logic proves these subjective things we are discussing. if you think that the way you use numbers is more logical than whatever I'm doing, you are the one who is misinformed.
Hilliary isn't shrill at all. Whether you agree with her or not, she states her opinions calmly, building them on a foundation of facts and logic. So to have my posting style compared to her is a compliment, and I thank you for the compliment.
That said, I think our exchanges do resemble Trump and Hilliary during the last debate. You get emotional and angry; contradict yourself; recite factual errors; and make statements no one can quite I understand. I can come off as a bit arrogant, don't get ruffled, and calmly correct the factual errors and lack of logic.
if i'm like trump, you are a bit hillary like in your shill posts allllllll over the forums. btw, dont talk about logic and stuff, you are crazy for thinking some kind of logic proves these subjective things we are discussing. if you think that the way you use numbers is more logical than whatever I'm doing, you are the one who is misinformed.
I like how you admit you don't even know what you're doing.
if i'm like trump, you are a bit hillary like in your shill posts allllllll over the forums. btw, dont talk about logic and stuff, you are crazy for thinking some kind of logic proves these subjective things we are discussing. if you think that the way you use numbers is more logical than whatever I'm doing, you are the one who is misinformed.
I like how you admit you don't even know what you're doing.
what did i admit, how about you say something clear? stop with the personal sh-- btw, talk about the thread subject.
That sounds super awesome and special if you take it out of context. I don't think there was another team out there as good as the 2000 Blazers or the 2002 Kings when the Rockets won in '94. I think if you transplanted the 1994 Rockets into 2000 or 2002 they lose in the WCF.
The 94 Suns and Sonics were just as good. I'd even say the Sonics were better than both teams. Suns were a shot away from a G7 with the Bulls a year prior.
Granted, the Rockets didn't have to play Seattle that year. But teams then were just as good as teams now. The Knicks were a good team as well. So were the Jazz with Malone/Stockton. Pacers with Miller, Smits, Jackson, the Davis boys, etc.
That sounds super awesome and special if you take it out of context. I don't think there was another team out there as good as the 2000 Blazers or the 2002 Kings when the Rockets won in '94. I think if you transplanted the 1994 Rockets into 2000 or 2002 they lose in the WCF.
The 94 Suns and Sonics were just as good. I'd even say the Sonics were better than both teams. Suns were a shot away from a G7 with the Bulls a year prior.
Granted, the Rockets didn't have to play Seattle that year. But teams then were just as good as teams now. The Knicks were a good team as well. So were the Jazz with Malone/Stockton. Pacers with Miller, Smits, Jackson, the Davis boys, etc.
no way. the jazz is the only one in that list that counts. nick van exel beat basically that same seattle team and got destroyed by the jazz. and i don't think malone/stockton team was as good as the blazers and kings.
edit
and since i brought it up, if you want to relive that glorious moment, here it is.
^^^^^ He's referring to the 94 Rockets, and no, they wouldn't.
So? Clyde was part of the championship squad in 95. Ok, Even if you just zero in on the 94 team to try to emphasize your point you still have in addition to Otis and Kenny Smith. Vernon Maxwell, Horry, Cassell, and Mario Elie (who averaged over 9 points a game: more than Rick fox). That team was talented. We had with a young Kobe, fisher, fox, Horry, and fading vets like Harper, Horace grant, and Shaw. Prime Shaq gets more rings with that rockets squad than Hakeem gets with the lakers. Hakeem couldn't do what Shaq did in 2000-2002, no center could except maybe Wilt.
Hakeem since Ralph Sampson's injury never had a player capable of putting up 20 ppg as a 2nd option till he got a 32 year old Clyde Drexler, and the year prior he lead a Rockets team whose 2nd best player was Otis Thorpe to a Championship.
That's not cherry picking, that's fact.
that's not a fact, that's cherry picking by you again. Otis Thorpe was not the best player on that team. If you remember or watched, his play and output decreased in the playoffs. Vernon Maxwell was better and was going of with a higher ppg in the playoffs. Kenny Smith and Sam Cassell also each averaged the same as thorpe in the playoffs. They were the two headed monster at PG. Also, Cassell and Mario Elie were a serious scoring punch off the bench, averaging over 21 ppg. . And Robert Horry was going off as well. All these guys were in double digit scoring, except Elie and he was 9.3. On top of that, the Rockets that year were a defensive juggernaut.
The Lakers? Outside of Kobe and Shaq, the only ones in double digits in the playoffs were Fox and Fisher (about 10 ppg) each. without Shaq, I doubt that team makes the playoffs.
Hakeem was awesome but don't try to elevate him over Shaq's 2000-2002 era by trying to say Hakeem had nothing to work with in 93-94. He had a talented very solid team around him with multiple double digit scorers, very good bench, and great defenders. Given that, let's also remember Hakeem was lucky that MJ was playing baseball that year.
You can't just go "aside from Kobe, Shaq had" and then try to act like Hakeem had anything near applicable in 93-94. His 2nd leading scorer was dripping 14 ppg.
He didn't have anot her 20 point scorer on his team after Sampson got hurt till he got a 32 year old Drexler in 95. So don't play that. Shaq had a 20 ppg scorer his rookie season and then had another in Penny's 2nd year and then when Kobe came into his own had that when the Lakers made their run.
If the 2nd leading scorer on the Lakers was scoring 14 ppg how far is Shaq taking that team?
Precisely.
Give prime Hakeem the 99-00 Lakers and give Shaq the 93-94 Rockets, which one wins a championship first?
And just as easily as you say "we'll hakeem was lucky Jordan was gone" you could say that the Lakers were lucky the Spurs were out of commission. So let's not play that game if we're talking 99-00 considering the heck Portland gave us.
I think your confusing fat Shaq with Prime Shaq....
Seriously, Are you kidding? What are you smoking? where did i say "Aside from Kobe Shaq Had"? I said "outside of Kobe and Shaq the only ones in double digits"...which is not the same thing. Hakeem was surrounded by double digit scorers and great defenders who all upped their game in the playoffs. Doesn't matter if there wasn't a 20 ppg scorer, collectively they were a formidable team - Shaq had Kobe and a bunch of role players and over the hill vets. Hakeem does not win three rings with the Lakers. He doesn't command the paint, draw the constant double and triple teams and get bigs in foul trouble like prime Shaq did.
And don't compare Jordan's absence with the Spurs . Spurs were going through down years and retooling. The Bulls were dominating the 90's and 93-94 was in the middle of their dominant era. It's almost a given that the Bulls meet the rockets if Jordan isn't on his baseball journey. And we all know what would happen then.
You try to make the claim that Hakeem is better than prime Shaq based on one Championship in 93-94 and try to act like Hakeem was leading a bunch of scrubs in a year when Jordan is playing baseball...?
Gtf out of here with that Hakeem sh**, this is supposed to be a Laker forum
^^^^^ He's referring to the 94 Rockets, and no, they wouldn't.
So? Clyde was part of the championship squad in 95. Ok, Even if you just zero in on the 94 team to try to emphasize your point you still have in addition to Otis and Kenny Smith. Vernon Maxwell, Horry, Cassell, and Mario Elie (who averaged over 9 points a game: more than Rick fox). That team was talented. We had with a young Kobe, fisher, fox, Horry, and fading vets like Harper, Horace grant, and Shaw. Prime Shaq gets more rings with that rockets squad than Hakeem gets with the lakers. Hakeem couldn't do what Shaq did in 2000-2002, no center could except maybe Wilt.
Kobe was an all-NBA and all-defensive team player every year of the threepeat. By the second ring, he was a 29-6-5 guy. By the third ring, he was 5th in the league in MVP voting. He was so superior to everyone else you're mentioning, I take the Lakers without Shaq easily over the Rockets without Hakeem.
I disagree on that one; Kobe of course is on a whole different level than anyone on that 93-94 Rockets team but as a whole, that rockets team minus Hakeem is more complete than the Shaq-less Lakers. Cassell and Smith were killers at PG, Maxwell was a star and Thorpe was better than anyone we had on our frontline minus Shaq. Just hypothetically, give Kobe Lamar also, and we have a good shot but as is without Shaq, its a toss up at best.
if you actually think Vernon Maxwell was a star, I consider it a waste of time to talk with you.
that's funny, because i just ignore your posts, since their usually not worthy of response. But since you invited yourself into this discussion i'll respond;
Maxwell led the league in made three pointers in the early 90's. He's also one of only eight NBA players who have scored at least 30 points in one quarter. and without Mad Max's clutch shooting in the 4 quarter the Rockets lose game 7. That's a star.
And don't compare Jordan's absence with the Spurs . Spurs were going through down years and retooling. The Bulls were dominating the 90's and 93-94 was in the middle of their dominant era. It's almost a given that the Bulls meet the rockets if Jordan isn't on his baseball journey. And we all know what would happen then.
Actually, the Bulls always had trouble against the Rockets and Hakeem, even when the Rockets were mediocre. During their first threepeat, the Bulls were 1-5 against the Rocket. If the Rockets meet the Bulls, there's a reasonable chance the Rockets win, and Hakeem's rep goes through the roof for dethroning MJ.
It was only after MJ left, and the Bulls completely revamped their lineup, that they did well against the Rockets. But if MJ doesn't leave, the revamping might never happen.
So the Rockets are the one team I can't rubberstamp as losing to the Bulls
^^^^^ He's referring to the 94 Rockets, and no, they wouldn't.
So? Clyde was part of the championship squad in 95. Ok, Even if you just zero in on the 94 team to try to emphasize your point you still have in addition to Otis and Kenny Smith. Vernon Maxwell, Horry, Cassell, and
Quote:
Mario Elie (who averaged over 9 points a game: more than Rick fox)
. That team was talented. We had with a young Kobe, fisher, fox, Horry, and fading vets like Harper, Horace grant, and Shaw. Prime Shaq gets more rings with that rockets squad than Hakeem gets with the lakers. Hakeem couldn't do what Shaq did in 2000-2002, no center could except maybe Wilt.
Don't diss Fox. Fox scored 15 the year before coming to LA, and 14 the year before. More than Elie ever averaged in his career. His career averages are higher than Elie. Fox was also a better defender. Why do you guys like to discount defense so much? Fox was instrumental getting to the finals during our 3peat.
Is Glen Rice not worth bringing up? He scored more points as 3rd option than Otis Thorpe as 2nd option.
Then you had BOTH Horry and Horace Grant as bigmen for Shaq. Grant got to the finals with Shaq in Orlando fresh off of his time winning championships as the 3rd option for the Bulls for 3 championships, and another good defender. Then he came here to be our 5th option offensively, with big shot Bob coming off the bench and proved to be invaluable many times.
Vernon Maxwell didn't play for Houston after Drexler got traded, he had 16 minutes for the entire playoffs. Thorpe was traded FOR oldman Drexler so they never played together. Young Horry was okay, I liked him a lot but he was playing out of position until Thorpe got traded.
Kenny Smith played well but if you want to talk aging/decline then there you go. He retired 2 seasons later.
Sam Cassell was good, but he was a rookie for the 1st championship, 2nd year for the next year, traded in the third for Barkley with Horry. Houston management was pretty stupid.
You can argue the stats of the aging vets, I get that. Their experience in the triangle was very valuable to the team. Especially when you consider the best Coach ever (not Popovich) was implementing it. You can't dismiss systems and coaching when comparing players based on stats.
I'm not dissing Fox. Rick was a great role player and hit timely shots, but Shaq and Kobe did most of the heavy lifting on that team. This poster thinks only Hakeem is great enough to lead a he thinks 'woeful' rockets team and acts like Maxwell, Cassell, Smith, and Horry were a bunch of scrubs and don't measure up to our supporting cast.
And since he and Dreamshake want to zero in on 93-94 only and ignore Clyde's major contribution to the championship in 94-95, then the least i can do is leave Glen Rice out, since he only contributed to one Laker championship.
this is the problem with stats. but be careful arguing about it here. everyone is focusing on the ppg number. because a lot of people are using stats in an unintended way. it doesn't prove what you think it proves, but it is useful as background info. you can't disagree with this because this is the fundamental principle that the field called "statistics" is based on.
someone made a great post about this a year or two ago, and then i don't think posted much anymore. i wish i still had it somewhere. he was a pro statistician.
dude the spurs in the late 90s, totally tanked and got duncan out of it. and that set them up for now 20 years counting. that was ridiculous, and i'm guessin some kind of precedent for what we saw lakers, sixers doing recently. but laker fans cant complain about that, but i'm not going to say why because there are too many texas folk here.
And don't compare Jordan's absence with the Spurs . Spurs were going through down years and retooling. The Bulls were dominating the 90's and 93-94 was in the middle of their dominant era. It's almost a given that the Bulls meet the rockets if Jordan isn't on his baseball journey. And we all know what would happen then.
Actually, the Bulls always had trouble against the Rockets and Hakeem, even when the Rockets were mediocre. During their first threepeat, the Bulls were 1-5 against the Rocket. If the Rockets meet the Bulls, there's a reasonable chance the Rockets win, and Hakeem's rep goes through the roof for dethroning MJ.
It was only after MJ left, and the Bulls completely revamped their lineup, that they did well against the Rockets. But if MJ doesn't leave, the revamping might never happen.
So the Rockets are the one team I can't rubberstamp as losing to the Bulls
Are you comparing regular season games to a championship series? Not fair
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
