RealGM

Listening to the book Blood in the Garden on tape about the '90s Knicks (good book!) and it got me thinking - could the Pacers have beat the Rockets in '94 if they advanced to the Finals? For that matter, could anybody in the East?

considering they swept the best one, probably not

In 1994? Easily. Heck, a lucky few bounces of the ball go differently, and the Knicks could have be a them. The Knicks won one fewer regular season game, while scoring +2.29 better SRS. The Knicks series went to 7 games, and the Knicks actually outscored the Rockets for the series.

The Rockets won game 6 by 2 points. Hakeem got a crazy 3 point block in the last seconds of the game (great block, and if I remember right, I think one of the broadcasts missed it). But you change one play, and the Knicks win in 6. The Rockets won game 7 by 6 points, which is another close enough game that some lucky shooting could have swayed the game either way.

That's easily a scenario where the Knicks *could* have won. Even moreso when you consider the Knick had 2/5 of their top players injured: point guard Doc Rivers missed the 2nd half of the season, and power forward Charles Oakley injured his ankle in the playoffs.

The 1994 Pacers had a worse regular season than either the Rockets or the Knicks, although they did take out the 1st seed Hawks fairly convincing, and took the (again unhealthy) Knicks to Game 7, which they lost by only 4 points. They scored evenly with the Knicks for the series. I also recall someone mentioning that the Pacers played more of a swarming, doubling defense on Hakeem which was fairly effective forcing him to be more of a passer. I may favor the Rockets in a series vs the Pacers, but I think the Pacers are certainly close enough that they could have beaten the Rockets.

In 1995, the Easter Conference is a harder sell. Like Ohayo said, the Rockets swept the Magic, the team that won the Eastern Conference title and the team that had the best easter conference record in the regular season. If you make a big enough change to shooting luck and health, it's at least mathematically possible for any team to upset another, but I think this requires more of a luck change than I'm comfortable with. In 1995, the bigger competition for the Rockets was in the west in the Jazz, Spurs, and Suns.

DraymondGold wrote:In 1994? Easily. Heck, a lucky few bounces of the ball go differently, and the Knicks could have be a them. The Knicks won one fewer regular season game, while scoring +2.29 better SRS. The Knicks series went to 7 games, and the Knicks actually outscored the Rockets for the series.

The Rockets won game 6 by 2 points. Hakeem got a crazy 3 point block in the last seconds of the game (great block, and if I remember right, I think one of the broadcasts missed it). But you change one play, and the Knicks win in 6. The Rockets won game 7 by 6 points, which is another close enough game that some lucky shooting could have swayed the game either way.

That's easily a scenario where the Knicks *could* have won. Even moreso when you consider the Knick had 2/5 of their top players injured: point guard Doc Rivers missed the 2nd half of the season, and power forward Charles Oakley injured his ankle in the playoffs.

The 1994 Pacers had a worse regular season than either the Rockets or the Knicks, although they did take out the 1st seed Hawks fairly convincing, and took the (again unhealthy) Knicks to Game 7, which they lost by only 4 points. They scored evenly with the Knicks. I also recall someone mentioning that the Pacers played more of a swarming, doubling defense on Hakeem which was fairly effective forcing him to be more of a passer. I may favor the Rockets in a series vs the Pacers, but I think the Pacers are certainly close enough that they could have beaten the Rockets.

In 1995, the Easter Conference is a harder sell. Like Ohayo said, the Rockets swept the Magic, the team that won the Eastern Conference title and the team that had the best easter conference record in the regular season. If you make a big enough change to shooting luck and health, it's at least mathematically possible for any team to upset another, but I think this requires more of a luck change than I'm comfortable with. In 1995, the bigger competition for the Rockets was in the west in the Jazz, Spurs, and Suns.

parsnips33 wrote:Listening to the book Blood in the Garden on tape about the '90s Knicks (good book!) and it got me thinking - could the Pacers have beat the Rockets in '94 if they advanced to the Finals? For that matter, could anybody in the East?

Add the 1994 Bulls to 1994 East teams that could beat the Rockets. Bulls were at least as good the Knicks in 1994 (outs-scored them) and were a controversial call away from perhaps winning the series. Matchups would be different but if we’re talking “could,” then they’re there. We can add the 1995 Bulls, too, though that 1995 Rockets’ playoffs were a better team.

"Could" ... certainly. This wasn't a dominant team.

Precise odds will vary depending on health, the short term "form" of the teams etc

DraymondGold wrote:If you make a big enough change to shooting luck and health, it's at least mathematically possible for any team to upset another, but I think this requires more of a luck change than I'm comfortable with. In 1995, the bigger competition for the Rockets was in the west in the Jazz, Spurs, and Suns.

So I would, otoh, agree with the latter ...
But the former ... remember we're in the realm of "possibility" ...
Scott and Anderson are 3rd and 4th (Scott really quite close to Penny in terms of points per 100, Anderson a way back, much closer to Grant) options that shoot .577 and .593 TS% for the regular season.

Those go down to .457 and .450 for that series. That doesn't seem like something that sustains over a large sample because it is the true nature of things, but more like randomness, noise. On the other side Houston shoot .400 from 3 ... without Chilcutt in the rotation. This isn't a team that sustains that on a large sample.

Those wings going to hell in that series matters less and could perhaps be partially avoided/managed if their primary starter at the 3 for much of the season (68 starts to Scott's 10) were still in the rotation. If Donald Royal hadn't himself played awfully and destroyed in confidence; forcing his way out of the rotation by that point. Royal wasn't great but he should have been a viable body on the wing that Orlando were comfortable with and again I would say bad luck is more likely than a change in underlying skill level or being "found out"

Another "is this sustainable" Rockets on-off was iirc, much better with Hakeem off the court iirc. My recollection is Colts did something on that series, working from what they put out and it's very small chunk of time, but Houston get a fair amount of their points margin victory without Hakeem and a much better on-off. It could happen again but it's a fair chunk of that net win margin that looks a bit lucky.

Yes it was a sweep. But with an average 7 point MOV it's not the sort of differential where it's clear that it's a sweep because one team is in an underlying way far better. It is a series with 2 games pretty comfortably in flippable range.

One is the first game in which Orlando seemed to have it in their hands and ... whilst I can't generate win probability odds ... and it depends on inputs so where the underlying data would be derived from would matter ... Houston could easily have lost. And with that early loss the 2-3-2 format means the series is now there for the taking for Houston. The psychology of the late game implosion. Then losing that third game and giving Houston 3-0 and two homecourt bites at winning (full disclosure, granting continental travel is an issue, I hate 2-3-2, I don't think the worse team should ever be ahead in number of home games, it further makes a mockery of teams trying in the RS).

On the one hand the mental stuff became a big part of the narrative and I don't want to get into the armchair psychoanalysis. But it doesn't take too much for me to see that series at 2-2 even going mostly just off what did happen to happen. 2-1 and 1-0 at points if one thinks the psychology does change things.

1994 Knicks could and should have won that series.

parsnips33 wrote:Listening to the book Blood in the Garden on tape about the '90s Knicks (good book!) and it got me thinking - could the Pacers have beat the Rockets in '94 if they advanced to the Finals? For that matter, could anybody in the East?

Happy to see a blood in the garden mention! Chris Herring is an amazing writer and even if one hated the Knicks back then it's a great read.