Would the Bulls have 4peated if Hue Hollins didn't call a foul?

Moderators: Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal

User avatar
IlikeSHAIguys
Junior
Posts: 359
And1: 174
Joined: Nov 27, 2023
 

Would the Bulls have 4peated if Hue Hollins didn't call a foul? 

Post#1 » by IlikeSHAIguys » Sun Dec 3, 2023 5:43 pm

I know, I know. Ugh, another 94 post? But I saw this video yesterday and I don't know Ive seen people talk about what happened at the end

It's easy to say no now, but if Hue Hollins doesn't blow and the Bulls beat the Knicks in 6 wouldn't they be the favorites to win?
User avatar
prolific passer
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,149
And1: 1,459
Joined: Mar 11, 2009
     

Re: Would the Bulls have 4peated if Hue Hollins didn't call a foul? 

Post#2 » by prolific passer » Sun Dec 3, 2023 5:51 pm

Idk. Bulls always had problems with Hakeem and the rockets when they had Jordan.
SportsGuru08
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,762
And1: 1,464
Joined: Dec 23, 2023
Location: Clearwater, FL
       

Re: Would the Bulls have 4peated if Hue Hollins didn't call a foul? 

Post#3 » by SportsGuru08 » Mon Dec 25, 2023 3:56 am

IlikeSHAIguys wrote:I know, I know. Ugh, another 94 post? But I saw this video yesterday and I don't know Ive seen people talk about what happened at the end

It's easy to say no now, but if Hue Hollins doesn't blow and the Bulls beat the Knicks in 6 wouldn't they be the favorites to win?


The Bulls didn't lose this series because of one call in one game. They lost because they couldn't score points in the 4th quarter to save their lives. Pippen became Houdini in crunch time all series.

There's a case to be made that the Bulls get swept if Kukoc doesn't hit that buzzer beater. The Bulls had blown a 15 point lead and all the momentum was on the Knicks side.

The Bulls winning Game 3 helped them to brush aside Pippen's antics at the end. But what if they had lost that game? That's the kind of distraction that would have killed their season right there.
OhayoKD
Head Coach
Posts: 6,042
And1: 3,930
Joined: Jun 22, 2022

Re: Would the Bulls have 4peated if Hue Hollins didn't call a foul? 

Post#4 » by OhayoKD » Mon Dec 25, 2023 4:12 am

SportsGuru08 wrote:
IlikeSHAIguys wrote:I know, I know. Ugh, another 94 post? But I saw this video yesterday and I don't know Ive seen people talk about what happened at the end

It's easy to say no now, but if Hue Hollins doesn't blow and the Bulls beat the Knicks in 6 wouldn't they be the favorites to win?


The Bulls didn't lose this series because of one call in one game. They lost because they couldn't score points in the 4th quarter to save their lives. Pippen became Houdini in crunch time all series.

There's a case to be made that the Bulls get swept if Kukoc doesn't hit that buzzer beater. The Bulls had blown a 15 point lead and all the momentum was on the Knicks side.

The Bulls winning Game 3 helped them to brush aside Pippen's antics at the end. But what if they had lost that game? That's the kind of distraction that would have killed their season right there.

There's also a "case to be made" that the Bulls sweep if Pippen doesn't get injured and they secure home-court considering that they entered with a 4th quarter lead in their first 2 away games and were more dominant at home than the knicks were(hence outscoring them overall).

We can engage in what could have been or what is. Chicago clearly levelled up from their 55-win regular season(55-win srs with pippen) in the playoffs and played near-title level ball in the big dance. Then the next year they posted a 53-win srs despite grant leaving and pippen filing a trade request before Jordan's return.

It is not reasonable to assume Chicago would win it all if that call is oveturned(though perhaps more reasonable than assuming a team that demonstrated parity all season would be swept because a game went to overtime)

That said, I think any reasonable interpretation would acknowledge the bulls 55-wins potentially undersold them as a team in 1994. Which is fine. Making a contender/near-title cast into one of the best teams ever is excellent lift and evidences an all-time player.

It does not evidence being the very best player ever(or even come close to). As can be said for floor-raising a 30ish win team to 50ish

Hence the decades of sad revisionism and baseless theory crafting that have followed.
SportsGuru08
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,762
And1: 1,464
Joined: Dec 23, 2023
Location: Clearwater, FL
       

Re: Would the Bulls have 4peated if Hue Hollins didn't call a foul? 

Post#5 » by SportsGuru08 » Mon Dec 25, 2023 4:24 am

OhayoKD wrote:
SportsGuru08 wrote:
IlikeSHAIguys wrote:I know, I know. Ugh, another 94 post? But I saw this video yesterday and I don't know Ive seen people talk about what happened at the end

It's easy to say no now, but if Hue Hollins doesn't blow and the Bulls beat the Knicks in 6 wouldn't they be the favorites to win?


The Bulls didn't lose this series because of one call in one game. They lost because they couldn't score points in the 4th quarter to save their lives. Pippen became Houdini in crunch time all series.

There's a case to be made that the Bulls get swept if Kukoc doesn't hit that buzzer beater. The Bulls had blown a 15 point lead and all the momentum was on the Knicks side.

The Bulls winning Game 3 helped them to brush aside Pippen's antics at the end. But what if they had lost that game? That's the kind of distraction that would have killed their season right there.

There's also a "case to be made" that the Bulls sweep if Pippen doesn't get injured and they secure home-court considering that they entered with a 4th quarter lead in their first 2 away games and were more dominant at home than the knicks were(hence outscoring them overall).

We can engage in what could have been or what is. Chicago clearly levelled up from their 55-win regular season(55-win srs with pippen) in the playoffs and played near-title level ball in the big dance. Then the next year they posted a 53-win srs despite grant leaving and pippen filing a trade request before Jordan's return.

It is not reasonable to assume Chicago would win it all if that call is oveturned(though perhaps more reasonable than assuming a team that demonstrated parity all season would be swept because a game went to overtime)

That said, I think any reasonable interpretation would acknowledge the bulls 55-wins potentially undersold them as a team in 1994. Which is fine. Making a contender/near-title cast into one of the best teams ever is excellent lift and evidences an all-time player.

It does not evidence being the very best player ever(or even come close to).

Hence the decades of sad revisionism and baseless theory crafting that have followed.


Remember LeBron's pouting at the end of regulation in 2018? It rubbed off on his teammates and they lost in overtime. With Kukoc hitting that buzzer beater, the Bulls avoided having to play an additional period, and given Scottie's antics that's exactly what they needed.

As for injuries, Chicago's first round opponent was missing 3 of its Top 4 players and was bitten by injuries all season. I mean, what if Cleveland had stayed healthy? They too would have had a higher seeding and a healthy Cleveland team probably beats Chicago in the playoffs.

In the end, this woulda coulda shoulda doesn't mean that much. Chicago lost and they lost primarily because they couldn't close out games.
OhayoKD
Head Coach
Posts: 6,042
And1: 3,930
Joined: Jun 22, 2022

Re: Would the Bulls have 4peated if Hue Hollins didn't call a foul? 

Post#6 » by OhayoKD » Mon Dec 25, 2023 4:33 am

SportsGuru08 wrote:
OhayoKD wrote:
SportsGuru08 wrote:
The Bulls didn't lose this series because of one call in one game. They lost because they couldn't score points in the 4th quarter to save their lives. Pippen became Houdini in crunch time all series.

There's a case to be made that the Bulls get swept if Kukoc doesn't hit that buzzer beater. The Bulls had blown a 15 point lead and all the momentum was on the Knicks side.

The Bulls winning Game 3 helped them to brush aside Pippen's antics at the end. But what if they had lost that game? That's the kind of distraction that would have killed their season right there.

There's also a "case to be made" that the Bulls sweep if Pippen doesn't get injured and they secure home-court considering that they entered with a 4th quarter lead in their first 2 away games and were more dominant at home than the knicks were(hence outscoring them overall).

We can engage in what could have been or what is. Chicago clearly levelled up from their 55-win regular season(55-win srs with pippen) in the playoffs and played near-title level ball in the big dance. Then the next year they posted a 53-win srs despite grant leaving and pippen filing a trade request before Jordan's return.

It is not reasonable to assume Chicago would win it all if that call is oveturned(though perhaps more reasonable than assuming a team that demonstrated parity all season would be swept because a game went to overtime)

That said, I think any reasonable interpretation would acknowledge the bulls 55-wins potentially undersold them as a team in 1994. Which is fine. Making a contender/near-title cast into one of the best teams ever is excellent lift and evidences an all-time player.

It does not evidence being the very best player ever(or even come close to).

Hence the decades of sad revisionism and baseless theory crafting that have followed.


Remember LeBron's pouting at the end of regulation in 2018? It rubbed off on his teammates and they lost in overtime. With Kukoc hitting that buzzer beater, the Bulls avoided having to play an additional period, and given Scottie's antics that's exactly what they needed.

As for injuries, Chicago's first round opponent was missing 3 of its Top 4 players and was bitten by injuries all season. I mean, what if Cleveland had stayed healthy? They too would have had a higher seeding and a healthy Cleveland team probably beats Chicago in the playoffs.

In the end, this woulda coulda shoulda doesn't mean that much. Chicago lost and they lost primarily because they couldn't close out games.

If Chicago's first round opponent was comparably good in the regular season, had outscored the bulls with home court, or played them to a close 7-game series as opposed to getting rofl stomped in a sweep this might be closer to an interesting hypothetical.

Unfortunately none of those three things actually happened so I may as well speculate the 2018 cavs were on pace to sweeping the warriors and thus healthy Lebron is literally a bill russell+ championship generator.

The Bulls winning in 6 was on the table with a call and them not performing dramatically worse in the folllowing game. You would need to make alot more leaps to get that series into a new york sweep. I don't care much for either hypothetical, but i'd say the former has far more potential analytical value than the latter.

All said to answer the OP's question I can certainly them being considered favorites to win(perhaps meaningful for those who disingenuously use championship odds as a descriptive on-court proxy), but I think the buck stops with Hakeem's Rockets regardless of the raw statistics entering that matchup.

They were shockingly effective vs the Bulls with Jordan in the regular season and I do not think replacing him with pete myers made them better equipped to handle Hakeem.
SportsGuru08
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,762
And1: 1,464
Joined: Dec 23, 2023
Location: Clearwater, FL
       

Re: Would the Bulls have 4peated if Hue Hollins didn't call a foul? 

Post#7 » by SportsGuru08 » Mon Dec 25, 2023 4:59 am

If Chicago's first round opponent was comparably good in the regular season, had outscored the bulls with home court, or played them to a close 7-game series as opposed to getting rofl stomped in a sweep this might be closer to an interesting hypothetical.


Except Cleveland didn't get "stomped" in that first round series. Every game was decided by single digits and they needed overtime to win the last game.

And again, this is a team that was missing 3 of its 4 top players

Unfortunately none of those three things actually happened so I may as well speculate the 2018 cavs were on pace to sweeping the warriors and thus healthy Lebron is literally a bill russell+ championship generator.


That wasn't the argument I was making. My point was that whining and pouting from your team leader in crunch time rubs off and can easily cost your team a game. Regardless of how the Cavs played for the rest of that series, LeBron's childish behavior after JR's mistake definitely cost them that particular game.

Given how Pippen was acting, playing an additional period was the last thing Chicago needed when they were already behind 2-0 and all the confidence and momentum was on the Knicks' side.

The Bulls winning in 6 was on the table with a call and them not performing dramatically worse in the folllowing game. You would need to make alot more leaps to get that series into a new york sweep. I don't care much for either hypothetical, but i'd say the former has far more potential analytical value than the latter.


Or maybe the Bulls should have scored more than 15 points in the 4th quarter.

New York sweeping without Kukoc's buzzer beater is not some Evel Knievel leap of logic for all the reasons I've stated.
OhayoKD
Head Coach
Posts: 6,042
And1: 3,930
Joined: Jun 22, 2022

Re: Would the Bulls have 4peated if Hue Hollins didn't call a foul? 

Post#8 » by OhayoKD » Mon Dec 25, 2023 5:33 am

New York sweeping without Kukoc's buzzer beater is not some Evel Knievel leap of logic for all the reasons I've stated.

Not sure what evel knievel has to do with anything.

In the op's hypothetical a single possession is changed and we assume that off a win the bulls do not perform massively worse in a game they actually won.

In your hypothetical, the Knicks have to win overtime, and then win an extra game. You tell me which one is the bigger leap?

Moreover, the buzzer-beater was a basketball-action made by a player on the Chicago bulls. The call by the ref was a...call by a ref. This is a nonsense equivalency.
SportsGuru08 wrote:
If Chicago's first round opponent was comparably good in the regular season, had outscored the bulls with home court, or played them to a close 7-game series as opposed to getting rofl stomped in a sweep this might be closer to an interesting hypothetical.


Except Cleveland didn't get "stomped" in that first round series. Every game was decided by single digits and they needed overtime to win the last game.

And again, this is a team that was missing 3 of its 4 top players

Yeah, hyperbole on my part. 6 points mov still isn't really a close series even by modern standards, much less in the 90's with two defensively slanted opponents and for your hypothetical we need to grant cleveland 2 additional wins as well as the overtime against an opponent that was stronger at full-health over with all their starters over a larger regular-season sample and then outperformed their rs selves vs the 2nd best team in the league. Not really anywhere close to swapping the outcome of a singular possession.
Unfortunately none of those three things actually happened so I may as well speculate the 2018 cavs were on pace to sweeping the warriors and thus healthy Lebron is literally a bill russell+ championship generator.


That wasn't the argument I was making. My point was that whining and pouting from your team leader in crunch time rubs off and can easily cost your team a game. Regardless of how the Cavs played for the rest of that series, LeBron's childish behavior after JR's mistake definitely cost them that particular game.
[/quote]
Or Lebron doesn't act chidlishly and the cavs lose anyway. The Warriors were always likelier winners given a clean-slate. Chicago's best players was always prone to pouting and whining, even when they were winning championships. Okay, let's say the zen-master can't keep a lid and they lose in game 3, knicks still need to win game 4 away.
SportsGuru08
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,762
And1: 1,464
Joined: Dec 23, 2023
Location: Clearwater, FL
       

Re: Would the Bulls have 4peated if Hue Hollins didn't call a foul? 

Post#9 » by SportsGuru08 » Mon Dec 25, 2023 5:55 am

In the op's hypothetical a single possession is changed and we assume that off a win the bulls do not perform massively worse in a game they actually won.

In your hypothetical, the Knicks have to win overtime, and then win an extra game. You tell me which one is the bigger leap?


Okay, let's say Hollins doesn't make that call and the Bulls win Game 5. You're assuming the Bulls would still win Game 6 if the Knicks had their backs against the wall instead of a slight cushion. For all we know, the Knicks might have come out guns blazing and won Game 6 by double digits if they were trailing 3-2 instead of leading 3-2.

Then you're also assuming that Bulls wouldn't lay an egg against the Indiana Pacers in the ECF. So in your hypothetical, they have to win FIVE games whereas my hypothetical only requires one. Now who's making big leaps?

Moreover, the buzzer-beater was a basketball-action made by a player on the Chicago bulls. The call by the ref was a...call by a ref. This is a nonsense equivalency.


No it's not. Because in the end, this is just a big game of "what if." You're just moving the goalposts.

Yeah, hyperbole on my part. 6 points mov still isn't really a close series even by modern standards, much less in the 90's with two defensively slanted opponents and for your hypothetical we need to grant cleveland 2 additional wins as well as the overtime against an opponent that was stronger at full-health over with all their starters over a larger regular-season sample and then outperformed their rs selves vs the 2nd best team in the league. Not really anywhere close to swapping the outcome of a singular possession.


In most cases, 6 points mov isn't that close. But when your opponent is down three of its top 4 players and you have all your guys available, it most certainly is.


Or Lebron doesn't act chidlishly and the cavs lose anyway. The Warriors were always likelier winners given a clean-slate. Chicago's best players was always prone to pouting and whining, even when they were winning championships. Okay, let's say the zen-master can't keep a lid and they lose in game 3, knicks still need to win game 4 away.


Yes, the Cavs likely lose the series anyway but they might have at least won that game if LeBron didn't throw a tantrum. Pippen's incident is also in a singular game, except this particular game puts them in a 3-0 hole with a loss.

As for your "knicks need to win 4 comment", do you really think that team is coming back from 3-0? Please.
OhayoKD
Head Coach
Posts: 6,042
And1: 3,930
Joined: Jun 22, 2022

Re: Would the Bulls have 4peated if Hue Hollins didn't call a foul? 

Post#10 » by OhayoKD » Mon Dec 25, 2023 6:21 am

Or Lebron doesn't act chidlishly and the cavs lose anyway. The Warriors were always likelier winners given a clean-slate. Chicago's best players was always prone to pouting and whining, even when they were winning championships. Okay, let's say the zen-master can't keep a lid and they lose in game 3, knicks still need to win game 4 away.


Yes, the Cavs likely lose the series anyway but they might have at least won that game if LeBron didn't throw a tantrum. Pippen's incident is also in a singular game, except this particular game puts them in a 3-0 hole with a loss.

As for your "knicks need to win 4 comment", do you really think that team is coming back from 3-0? Please.

Please follow the conversation. I said "the knicks sweep the bulls" is a bigger leap, not "the knicks win". The cavs likely lose that game anyway and that is with Lebron being a dramatically less volatile lockeroom off-court presence than Jordan, Pippen, or Rodman were during, before, and after their stint with Phil Jackson.

The Bulls did not win because their players were uniquely cool, calm, and collected and unlike Lebron vs the warriors, they were not facing an overwhelmingly more talented opponent, and their best player hadn't just injured his arm(before which he started shooting uncharacteristically poorly).

I am not sure what you are trying to achieve here.
SportsGuru08 wrote:
In the op's hypothetical a single possession is changed and we assume that off a win the bulls do not perform massively worse in a game they actually won.

In your hypothetical, the Knicks have to win overtime, and then win an extra game. You tell me which one is the bigger leap?

Then you're also assuming that Bulls wouldn't lay an egg against the Indiana Pacers in the ECF. So in your hypothetical, they have to win FIVE games whereas my hypothetical only requires one. Now who's making big leaps?

Or...the pacers lay an egg? The OP would be weighing the likelihood one teams wins 5 games against the likelihood they lose a game they won and lose 4 games in the next. You are turning a 7 game series into a sweep on the basis of an overtime that was not played and a game that was not played even though the full series would suggest to us the bulls should be favored at home-court.

You keep assuming the worst for chicago and the best for their opponents. Speaking of which...
Okay, let's say Hollins doesn't make that call and the Bulls win Game 5. You're assuming the Bulls would still win Game 6 if the Knicks had their backs against the wall instead of a slight cushion. For all we know, the Knicks might have come out guns blazing and won Game 6 by double digits if they were trailing 3-2 instead of leading 3-2.

And for all we know, the Knicks buckle like they did in 93 and got blown out by an even larger margin or laughably choke a way a should-be-win like they did in game 6 of the finals.

The point is the game that actually happened ended up with the Bulls winning by 14-points. You have no reason to assume the Knicks are more likely to come out blazing as opposed to buckle, let alone that the difference leads to a 7-point swing. The Bulls actually won game 6. The Knicks did not game 3 or 4. That is why the OP's hypothetical is more reasonable. It has some tie to reality. Yours is little more than pure fan-fiction.

I am content just using what actually happened, but you are taking a wilder swing for no discernible reason.
Yeah, hyperbole on my part. 6 points mov still isn't really a close series even by modern standards, much less in the 90's with two defensively slanted opponents and for your hypothetical we need to grant cleveland 2 additional wins as well as the overtime against an opponent that was stronger at full-health over with all their starters over a larger regular-season sample and then outperformed their rs selves vs the 2nd best team in the league. Not really anywhere close to swapping the outcome of a singular possession.


When the opponent is down 3 of its 4 best players and you're only winning by single digits, it absolutely makes a hell of a difference if those guys are available.

The question is does the hell of a difference turn a comfortable sweep into a win. And you have not bothered to attempt answering that so...again, what is your point?
SportsGuru08
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,762
And1: 1,464
Joined: Dec 23, 2023
Location: Clearwater, FL
       

Re: Would the Bulls have 4peated if Hue Hollins didn't call a foul? 

Post#11 » by SportsGuru08 » Mon Dec 25, 2023 6:50 am

The cavs likely lose that game anyway


So you can say "cavs likely lose anyway" but if I dare to suggest New York likely wins in OT without Kukoc's buzzer beater, it's a gigantic leap of logic. Give me a break.

and that is with Lebron being a dramatically less volatile lockeroom off-court presence than Jordan, Pippen, or Rodman were during, before, and after their stint with Phil Jackson.


Just because LeBron is passive-aggressive rather than in-your-face doesn't he wasn't volatile in the locker room or off the court.

and their best player hadn't just injured his arm(before which he started shooting uncharacteristically poorly).


Wait, you actually fell for the "basically broken hand" nonsense? I'm done with this conversation after this post.

You keep assuming the worst for chicago and the best for their opponents.


And you keep assuming the worst for their opponents and the best for Chicago. Whoopie. But for some reason, only your hypotheticals are acceptable.

The Bulls actually won game 6. The Knicks did not game 3 or 4.


And the Bulls didn't actually win Games 1 & 2, yet earlier in this same convo, you were talking about hypotheticals on the Bulls having a higher seed and hosting Games 1 and 2 and winning them instead of losing them.

Well, that didn't happen. So clearly you are not just content to stick with what actually happened.

Which means my speculation about Game 6 if the Knicks are trailing is perfectly valid and reasonable.


The question is does the hell of a difference turn a comfortable sweep into a win. And you have not bothered to attempt answering that so...again, what is your point?


When you have that much of a man-advantage and you're only winning by single digits, yes it does.

But in the end, none of it matters. The Cavs weren't healthy. The Bulls didn't win against the Knicks because they stunk in the 4th quarter the whole series, not because of one moment in one game.
lessthanjake
Analyst
Posts: 3,051
And1: 2,800
Joined: Apr 13, 2013

Re: Would the Bulls have 4peated if Hue Hollins didn't call a foul? 

Post#12 » by lessthanjake » Mon Dec 25, 2023 5:41 pm

A few points about this:

1. The actual foul call wasn’t really wrong. It was a foul. It just was a type of foul not called very often back then (it’s called much more nowadays), even though by the rules it was a foul at the time. This doesn’t really matter for the hypothetical, but I just want to note that the hypothetical isn’t “What if this incorrect call wasn’t made” but rather is “What if this foul that could’ve definitely been discretionarily not called wasn’t made.”

2. If the call isn’t made and the Bulls win game 5, there is no telling who wins game 6 (or game 7). In reality, the Bulls went on to win game 6. But everything would’ve been completely different if the outcome of game 5 had been different, and game 6 would’ve played out completely differently. The Bulls played game 6 at home, so we’d give them an edge in the game, but we don’t know. Bottom line is that if the Bulls win game 5 it is more likely than not that they win the series, but it’s far from guaranteed.

3. If they’d made the conference finals, the Bulls would’ve been slight favorites against the Pacers—who were the 6th seed and not considered all that great (for reference, the Knicks were -200 in betting odds for that series, so the Bulls probably would’ve likely been slightly lesser favorites than that, considering that the Knicks had been given better odds than the Bulls previously). That said, it’s worth noting that we are positing that the whole world is different from May 18, 1994 onwards, so maybe in that world the favored Hawks manage to win the series against the Pacers. And the Hawks would’ve been a little favored over the Bulls and would’ve had home court advantage. So in this hypothetical, again, assuming they made it to the conference finals, we can say that the Bulls probably win the conference finals, but the chances are not all that much above 50% (which is also consistent with the Knicks struggling against the Pacers in reality).

4. Then we get to the finals. It’s not entirely clear they’d be playing the Rockets. Again, we are positing a world where everything is different from May 18, 1994 onwards. If they play the Rockets, the Rockets would’ve been the favorites. Out of the other teams that could’ve made the Finals in this alternate universe, the Bulls would’ve been disfavored against the Suns as well (probably moreso than against the Rockets). They probably would’ve been favorites over the Jazz or Nuggets (Nuggets the most, obviously), though it seems unlikely either of those teams would’ve been the ones to make it through to the Finals in this alternate universe. So we are left with the Bulls likely playing the Rockets (who were up 3-2 on the Suns at the time and highly favored against either team after that), possibly playing the Suns (who needed to win two in a row on Houston, but then would’ve been highly favored to make the Finals after that), and a distant chance of playing Jazz and even more distant chance of playing the Nuggets. So, if the Bulls got that far, they would likely have lost to the Rockets (or Suns). But, of course, we don’t know for sure, and neither of those two teams were total juggernauts.

So, ultimately, the bottom line is this: For the Bulls to have won the title after winning game 5 against the Knicks, they’d need to have closed out the Knicks, won the conference finals, and won the finals. They’d have likely closed out the Knicks, though that was far from certain. Assuming they made it to the conference finals, they’d have then likely won the conference finals, though the chances of that aren’t much above 50%. And then if they’d made it that far, they’d have likely lost in the Finals. So, overall, I’d say we are looking at roughly a 15-20% chance that they win the title if that call hadn’t happened. And again, we are talking about a call that was correct but just easily could’ve not been called.
OhayoKD wrote:Lebron contributes more to all the phases of play than Messi does. And he is of course a defensive anchor unlike messi.
User avatar
homecourtloss
RealGM
Posts: 11,341
And1: 18,748
Joined: Dec 29, 2012

Re: Would the Bulls have 4peated if Hue Hollins didn't call a foul? 

Post#13 » by homecourtloss » Mon Dec 25, 2023 6:36 pm

Maybe, and I think that speaks to how good Pippen and Grant were, how great of a coach Jackson was, and how ell that entire team played together.

I think it’s highly likely they’d finish off the Knicks and then be favored vs. Indiana, i.e., they’d have home court and were a better team overall that played the Pacers well. The Pacers were on a roll at the end of the 1994 season, and that roll carried over into the post season, so it wouldn’t be easy since nothing was easy for that Bulls team as it was weighed down with a negative player anchor in Pete Myers that affected their overall talent. Toni Kukoc improving as the season went on played a large part in all this.

That leaves the Finals. The Rockets were a better team, and the Bulls would have a challenge in dealing with Hakeem, of course, so I think it’s likely they lose that series, BUT there was one big advantage that the Bulls had and that was a possession advantage. The Rockets did not rebound the ball offensively and were prone to turnovers. Because of this, the Rockets were at a large possession disadvantage during the season and didn’t really get foul calls in their favor (Hakeem and Kareem never really did in their respective careers)

1994 Rockets

27th in ORB%, 20th in TOV%, 22nd in creating TOV%, 5th in DREB%, -5.2 FGA/g (-5 in the playoffs), +1.3 FTA/g (-1.3 in the playoffs)

1994 Bulls

11th in ORB%, 16th in TOV%, 6th in creating TOV%, 2nd in DREB%, +3.3 FGA/g, -1.5 FTA/g

The Sonics were a nemesis for Hakeem on that they could induce these turnovers from him—would Chicago able to do so?

Honestly, if you replace Myers with a reasonably positive player, you’re likely looking at a 60+ win, top 2 type of team.
lessthanjake wrote:Kyrie was extremely impactful without LeBron, and basically had zero impact whatsoever if LeBron was on the court.

lessthanjake wrote: By playing in a way that prevents Kyrie from getting much impact, LeBron ensures that controlling for Kyrie has limited effect…
User avatar
OdomFan
General Manager
Posts: 8,549
And1: 6,946
Joined: Jan 07, 2017
Location: Maryland
   

Re: Would the Bulls have 4peated if Hue Hollins didn't call a foul? 

Post#14 » by OdomFan » Mon Dec 25, 2023 9:16 pm

Not a guaruntee. If the Bulls beat the Knicks in the 2nd round. Maybe the Pacers beat the Bulls in the ECF and go on to beat the Rockets in the FInals.
Image
mysticOscar
Starter
Posts: 2,455
And1: 1,555
Joined: Jul 05, 2015
 

Re: Would the Bulls have 4peated if Hue Hollins didn't call a foul? 

Post#15 » by mysticOscar » Wed Dec 27, 2023 6:41 am

Didn't know that in '94 the Bulls were going to be given the chip if they beat the knicks in game 5 of the 2nd round in the playoffs.

I learn something everyday.
User avatar
Ron Swanson
RealGM
Posts: 25,519
And1: 29,345
Joined: May 15, 2013

Re: Would the Bulls have 4peated if Hue Hollins didn't call a foul? 

Post#16 » by Ron Swanson » Wed Dec 27, 2023 10:41 pm

I mean, anything's possible I guess? Likely? No, doubt it even changes the outcome of that series, let alone magically gives that squad the juice to beat two additional superior teams en route to another championship. The continued suggestion that the '94 Bulls were a legit top-tier title contender is weird to me. They were 11th in net-rating/SRS with a painfully mediocre half-court offense that relied on throttling pace down to grind out wins. They were closer to a version of the 2010's Grit and Grind Grizz, or maybe even the 2019-20 Raptors.

Their defensive identity was intact thanks to Pippen, Grant, and Jackson's coaching, but even their "sweep" of the Cavs only looks impressive on a surface level before you realize, as someone else pointed out, that Cleveland was literally without their starting frontcourt that series.
OhayoKD
Head Coach
Posts: 6,042
And1: 3,930
Joined: Jun 22, 2022

Re: Would the Bulls have 4peated if Hue Hollins didn't call a foul? 

Post#17 » by OhayoKD » Thu Dec 28, 2023 5:33 am

Ron Swanson wrote:I mean, anything's possible I guess? Likely? No, doubt it even changes the outcome of that series, let alone magically gives that squad the juice to beat two additional superior teams en route to another championship. The continued suggestion that the '94 Bulls were a legit top-tier title contender is weird to me. They were 11th in net-rating/SRS with a painfully mediocre half-court offense that relied on throttling pace down to grind out wins.

The continued decision to disregard

A. their srs matched their record with Pippen on the floor
B. they started their season slow adapting to Jordan's absence(pippen was tried at SG to much chagrin)
C. they were coming off a three-peat(and thus might be expected to save up for the playoffs)
D. they bettered their net/rating srs the next year despite grant leaving and Pippen filing a trade-request
E. regardless of context vs the cavs, they played much better vs the Knicks

so we can pretend the "11th in net-rating/srs" is representative is wierd to me.

They were going for a four-peat and played like a top-contender in the games that mattered. Just like the 93 Bulls played like a champion in the games that mattered and thus we don't care they weren't the best regular-season team.

But since a certain player was not on the 94 version of the team we need to downplay what happened, even if it's inconsistent with how we contextualized 1993.
FrogBros4Life
Sophomore
Posts: 138
And1: 155
Joined: Dec 30, 2018

Re: Would the Bulls have 4peated if Hue Hollins didn't call a foul? 

Post#18 » by FrogBros4Life » Thu Dec 28, 2023 7:32 am

It seems like at least once or twice a year, the topic of "The 1994 Chicago Bulls If Hue Hollins Doesn't Call A Foul On Pippen" is sure to come up in some form or fashion.

Here is a bit of background info + some general ruminations about these two teams meeting up in the playoffs that year: The Knicks took the regular season series with the Bulls 3-1, with Chicago only winning the first matchup under extremely favorable conditions. Doc Rivers, the starting point guard on the NY squad that made the ECF the year prior, tore his ACL on Dec 16 vs. the Lakers. The Knicks opponent on Dec 17? The Chicago Bulls (@ Chicago). So, for the record, the only victory the Bulls managed over the Knicks in the regular season was a contest that featured NY on the road, on the second half of a back to back (and their 3rd game in 4 nights), the day after losing their starting point guard for the remainder of the season and having to adjust on the fly. The Knicks were also missing starting SF Charles Smith that game (more on his absences later) on top of being without their starting point guard, Rivers. I think we can forgive NY for losing this one. They would absolve themselves by winning the next 3 games against Chicago that regular season by an average of 14.3 points, including a game in which they held Chicago to a season low of 68. Aside from that first tilt, New York had little trouble dispatching Chicago over the course of this season, and did so quite comfortably, at that. And I think this certainly established NY as the favorite going into the series.

I won't even get into Kukoc needing to hit an historical buzzer beater for his team to avoid going down 0-3, as I think it's fairly self evident what happens if he had missed that shot. What I will say about if the Bulls had somehow managed to win Game FIVE (skipping ahead) and went into Game 6 with a 3-2 series lead, is that this same year, in the ECF against Indiana, the Knicks found themselves down 2-3, with game 6 on the opponent's home floor and walked away with a victory, then returned home for Game 7 to wrap up the series.

I think since we actually saw the Knicks overcome a 2-3 deficit, under the same scenario (Game 6 on the road, Game 7 at home), with another series worth of minutes and fatigue under their belts, that there is no reason to NOT give the Knicks the benefit of the doubt if they had fallen in a 2-3 hole against Chicago, one round earlier, with homecourt advantage and with a fresher set of legs.


The Bulls first round matchup with Cleveland and the Cavs being without several of their key pieces was brought up, so I'm going to also touch on an aspect of this particular Bulls vs. Knicks matchup that seems to often get overlooked: player availability. Let's consider this.....Starting SG John Starks injured his knee, had surgery, and missed the last ~6 weeks of the regular season that year. Game 1 against the NJ Nets in Round 1 of the playoffs was his first game back after having said surgery. He would come off the bench and remain on a minutes limit for the entirety of the NJ series and for the first half of the Chicago series. Charles Smith, the Knicks starting SF the previous year, and the starting SF for all 7 games of both the subsequent 1994 ECF against Indiana & The 94 NBA Finals vs. The Rockets, came off the bench for 3 games against Chicago as he too was dealing with a lingering injury. For comparative purposes, Smith, who played in 81 games and started 68 games for NY in 1992-93, was reduced to 43 total games played and 21 games started as he battled various maladies this season.

Derek Harper, the Knicks starting point guard after losing Rivers, would be ejected in Game 3 (The Kukoc buzzer beat game) after getting into a brawl with Bulls 12th man Jo Jo English. He would play 13 minutes in the game before being tossed and would additionally be suspended for the next TWO games, effectively taking him out of 3 of the 7 games in the series. He would also come off of the bench in Game 6 as an added team-level disciplinary measure. This all adds up to the fact that the Knicks had THREE of their five best players (Starks, Harper & Smith --- or, at least, three of their starting five, if you consider Mason more valuable than Smith) either completely absent or only available in a limited/diminished capacity for the majority of the series. In fact, Game 7 was the FIRST AND ONLY game of the series where the Knicks trotted out their true starting line-up of Harper, Starks, Smith, Oakley & Ewing. The Bulls, by contrast, had their preferred starting line-up + 6th man available for all 7 games.

Three of the seven games this series, the Knicks started some combination of Greg Anthony, Hubert Davis and Anthony Bonner (I mean...yuck), yet still managed to go up 2-0, and again, only DIDN'T go up 3-0 because Kukoc made an all-time great shot (credit to him for stepping up when Pippen stepped down). Who's to say though, that if Harper doesn't get ejected in Game 3, that this particular game no longer comes down to a last second situation -- with instead the Knicks winning comfortably? And that's before we even talk about a healthy Starks & Smith. I won't even really get into Phil Jackson intentionally sending 12th man Jo Jo English out there in a goon role to muck up the game and create an imbalance of talent on his team's behalf, though if you were alive and aware at this time you'll remember it was a very real point of contention, and something that the press not only didn't shy away from, but somewhat took Jackson to task for.

The Bulls had as many breaks fall in their favor this series as one can ask for: the opponent's starting SG is rusty, coming off the bench and on a minutes limit for the first half of the series. The opponent's starting PG is ejected after 13 min in Game 3 and suspended for the next 2 games with the Bulls suffering no equivocal losses. The Bulls hit a contested, very difficult (and fortunate) buzzer beater to avoid going down 0-3. The opponent's starting SF only started 4 games and was dealing with a nagging injury. The opponent is only able to play their ideal starting five in a single game, out of the 7 total games, etc.

It seems most probable then, that since the Knicks won ANYWAY despite these deficiencies, that if they had their starting PG, SG, and SF for the duration of the series that NY wouldn't have needed 7 games to advance. I mean, even WITH the rotational deficiencies, the Knicks likely pull off the 4-0 sweep if Kukoc doesn't sing hallelujah in Game 3.

Also, let's take a moment to give Hubert Davis some props for delivering in the biggest moment of his career. Yes, the refs made a somewhat controversial call that we are still talking about 30 years later, but none of that matters if Davis whiffs on those 2 FT's. Cosmically, perhaps these two events (Kukoc's "impossible" buzzer beater & Hubert Davis' "allegedly" ill-gotten free throws), cancel each other out. If nothing else, I think both of those events actually make the final outcome more digestible for all parties. Knicks fans might say Kukoc got lucky, Bulls fans might say Davis got lucky, and for both sides it all comes out in the wash. This wasn't a lopsided series, both teams had their chances, both teams had their moments, and in the end, the better team won. In fact, the better team didn't just win, they won despite a slate of baked in disadvantages.

To follow up on that statement....The Knicks were, for multiple years, on the cusp of knocking off the Bulls WITH Jordan (falling short, obviously). I don't think it's much of a leap to come to the conclusion that removing Jordan from the roster tips the scales in New York's favor, though I see some comments about the Bulls (without home court advantage) potentially sweeping the Knicks this year. Sure, every series is different, and I suppose if you are looking at this matchup through the lens of what happened in 93 (Knicks have homecourt, win the first two, lose the next four) I can see some sort of argument for picking the Bulls in 6 if Chicago wins game 5 -- however, what the Bulls did in 93 was already unlikely; for it to happen again the following season without Jordan seems improbable. But Chicago sweeping New York this year just seems unrealistic.
OhayoKD
Head Coach
Posts: 6,042
And1: 3,930
Joined: Jun 22, 2022

Re: Would the Bulls have 4peated if Hue Hollins didn't call a foul? 

Post#19 » by OhayoKD » Thu Dec 28, 2023 8:15 am

FrogBros4Life wrote:I think since we actually saw the Knicks overcome a 2-3 deficit, under the same scenario (Game 6 on the road, Game 7 at home), with another series worth of minutes and fatigue under their belts, that there is no reason to NOT give the Knicks the benefit of the doubt if they had fallen in a 2-3 hole against Chicago, one round earlier, with homecourt advantage and with a fresher set of legs.

Aside from the small matter of them actually losing the actual game by 15...
The Bulls hit a contested, very difficult (and fortunate) buzzer beater to avoid going down 0-3.

Wrong. He hit a buzzer-beater to avoid over-time. The knicks would need to win over-time and an additional game they actually lost to 4-0.

And of course no variance was involved with the 2 close home-wins where the Bulls carried a lead into the 4th...
I mean, even WITH the rotational deficiencies, the Knicks likely pull off the 4-0 sweep if Kukoc doesn't sing hallelujah in Game 3.

No, that is not how likelihood works.
and in the end, the better team won. In fact, the better team didn't just win, they won despite a slate of baked in disadvantages.

And the arguably bigger baked-in advantage of having home-court...
for it to happen again the following season without Jordan seems improbable. But Chicago sweeping New York this year just seems unrealistic.

I would say the 7-game series where the home-team was outscored ending up as a sweep because of multiple actual away losses turning into away wins is about as unrealistic. But maybe I didn't account for variance only possibly favoring Chicago and any hypothetical definitely favoring new york
FrogBros4Life
Sophomore
Posts: 138
And1: 155
Joined: Dec 30, 2018

Re: Would the Bulls have 4peated if Hue Hollins didn't call a foul? 

Post#20 » by FrogBros4Life » Thu Dec 28, 2023 9:07 am

Aside from the small matter of them actually losing the actual game by 15...


I guess we disagree on the chances of each team to advance after Game 5, irrespective of its outcome. You seem to be taking the position that Chicago was going to win Game 6 no matter what (if the Knicks win game 5, the Bulls win game 6 because - hey, that's what actually happened, but if the Bulls hypothetically won Game 5 then it's a foregone conclusion that they'd also win Game 6 as well). That seems a bit privileged in Chicago's favor. Game 6 wasn't a must win for New York and it didn't cost them the series. Chicago needed to win that game to stay alive and they did -- credit to them for being a tough out. If the Knicks needed to win Game 6 on the road to avoid elimination, I personally wouldn't write them off so quickly as we saw them do just that the following round.

Wrong. He hit a buzzer-beater to avoid over-time. The knicks would need to win over-time and an additional game they actually lost to 4-0.


Had Kukoc missed that shot and the game went into overtime after the Pippen fiasco, what does Jackson even do? Does he bench Pippen for the rest of the game? Does Pippen just sit out the entire overtime even if Jackson asks him to go back in? The Knicks ended the game on a 10-0 run to tie the score and would have had all the momentum going into the extra period had Kukoc missed that shot. If Kukoc doesn't hit that shot it's quite hard to imagine them winning in overtime under any circumstances.

And of course no variance was involved with the 2 close home-wins where the Bulls carried a lead into the 4th...


You keep saying the first 2 games were close, but only the first game was ever up for grabs down the stretch. In Game 2
The Knicks retook the lead with about 9:20 left in the 4th quarter and never trailed again. New York was up 9 with about 2:30 left in the game, still up 9 with 40 seconds left, then up 7 with about 10 seconds left before Ewing hits two free throws to put them back up by 9 with the shot clock turned off. Pippen had fouled out earlier in the quarter. BJ Armstrong made a technical free throw at the end and Horace Grant banked in a desperation transition 3 pointer (the Bulls were out of timeouts) right before the buzzer to make the final margin look closer than it actually was. One of the first two games was close. The second game was a pretty sound defeat.

Return to Player Comparisons