RealGM

Which trio was better?

'97 Rockets Trio of Hakeem, Drexler, Barkley or the '08 trio of KG, Pierce and Ray Allen

Obviously '08 Celtics considering they won the ring and the '97 Rockets didn't.

That Rockets trio was well past their prime. If we're talking about all three in their primes then I say Clyde-Hakeem-Barkley take of Pierce-Allen-Garnett fairly easily.

OdenRoyLMA2 wrote:Obviously '08 Celtics considering they won the ring and the '97 Rockets didn't.

That Rockets trio was well past their prime. If we're talking about all three in their primes then I say Clyde-Hakeem-Barkley take of Pierce-Allen-Garnett fairly easily.

I don't think any of the Celtics are in their prime either. While it may be true the Celtics trio won the title, if you look at the production you will notice that it seems the Rockets trio was better.

Here was their production

Hakeem
Season - 23.2 ppg, 9.2 rpg, 3.0 apg, 1.5 spg, 2.2 bpg on 51%, 22.7 PER
Playoffs - 23.1 ppg, 10.9 rpg, 3.4 apg, 2.1 spg, 2.6 bpg on 59% fg


Barkley
Season - 19.2 ppg, 13.5 rpg, 4.7 apg, 1.3 spg, 0.5 bpg on 48%, 23.0 PER
Playoffs - 17.9 ppg, 12.0 rpg, 3.4 apg, 1.2 spg, 0.4 bpg on 43% Fg

Drexler
Season - 18.0 ppg, 6.0 rpg, 5.7 apg, 1.9 spg, 0.6 bpg on 44%, 19.9 PER
Playoffs - 18.1 ppg, 5.6 rpg, 4.8 apg, 1.6 spg, 0.6 bpg on 44% fg



Garnett
Season - 18.8 ppg, 9.2 rpg, 3.4 apg, 1.4 spg, 1.3 bpg on 54% fg, 25.2 PER
Playoffs - 20.4 ppg, 10.5 rpg, 3.3 apg, 1.4 spg, 1.1 bpg on 50% fg


Pierce
Season - 19.6 ppg, 5.1 rpg, 4.5 apg, 1.3 spg, .5 bpg on 46% fg, 19.6 PER
Playoffs - 19.7 ppg, 5.0 rpg, 4.6 apg, 1.1 spg, .3 bpg on 44% fg

Ray Allen
Season - 17.4 ppg, 3.7 rpg, 3.1 apg, .9 spg, .22 bpg on 45% fg, 16.4 PER
Playoffs - 15.6 ppg, 3.8 rpg, 2.7 apg, .9 spg, .3 bpg on 43% fg




Season Rockets Big 3 (Hakeem, Barkley, Drexler)
60.4 ppg, 28.7 rpg, 13.4 apg, 4.7 spg, 3.3 bpg on around 46-49% fg

Season Celtics Big 3 (Garnett, Pierce, Ray Allen)
55.8 ppg, 18.0 rpg, 11.0 apg, 3.6 spg, 2.0 bpg on around 46-49% fg



Playoffs Rockets Big 3 (Hakeem, Barkley, Drexler)
59.1 ppg, 28.5 rpg, 11.6 apg, 4.9 spg, 3.6 bpg on around 48-52% fg

Playoffs Celtics Big 3 (Garnett, Pierce, Ray Allen)
55.7 ppg, 19.3 rpg, 10.6 apg, 3.4 spg, 1.7 bpg on around 46-49% fg


So from the looks of it, it looks like Houston Big 3 performed better in the season and playoffs combined than the Celtics Big 3.

Celtics just had more support overall.

2 of the Celtics are still in their prime: KG and Pierce. This may be Pierce's best season actually.

You ignore the stuff that's not in the stats sheet, the Celtics played historic team defense, which KG and Pierce are arguably Boston's best defenders.

KG was Pierce were 3rd and 14th in MVP voting. Hakeem and Barkley were 7th and 16th. Allen and Drexler weren't really in consideration.

I think the teammates argument definitely valid but the Celtics with their historic defense, wins here.

KG isn't really in his prime, he's just leaving it I'd say.

I think the FG% of Houston's 3 is telling, they really didn't mesh well.

Hakeem ALL-NBA TEAM for 1996-97.

Charles played in only 53 games, but he grabbed 33 rebs in one game of 1996.

Clyde 18 ppg but still put on nealy 6reb-6asst-2stl.
And he made 1.9 3pts per game with 3pt in 36% , considering he was not a great long-range shooter in most of his career, surely he had tried to improve his game.


Yeah they had solid big guys like Hakeem and Kevin Willis ,and monster of REBS like Charles, but they didn''t have someone like Rondo or Perkings , who were young and aggressive , espacially on D end.

Their PG was Maloney , a poor white guy; SG, Ellie, a solid shooter but not decent player.

Eddie "I WAS 37" Johnson scored 38 in western final with Jazz, but he played for 24 games in reg season.

Though injury and bench-less , Great 3 tied Jazz in western final with 2:2, beaten in game 5 by 5 and was killed by John Stockton's 3pt-buzzer-beater, which beyond Barkley's finger by only a bit...

And everyone admit that Utah Jazz in 1997 was one of the greatest loser-team in Fianl. Houston in 1997 not so far behind.

This is a tough one, that team won 56 games, prolly would have won more if Barkley played more. Also that Rockets bench was pretty great. It was a very well rounded from all angles, and Barkley fit in well, every player was at the end of their prime, Hakeem can be argued since he made the all nba 1st team while putting up 23, 9, and 2. But I think if they got to the finals that year, it would have been a better series then the Bulls-Jazz, and I think they would have put up a better fight against the Bulls then the Jazz did.

I think if they played a game against each other the 1997 Rockets would win simply due to the post players inside, but it would be a very good game. But again just like the current Rockets health was the factor, and if Barkley played all 82 games, I'm more then 100% confident that team would have won over 60 wins.

I don't like the meshing of them very well, they were all great players, even at this point, but you had two guys who wanted to work in the paint, and another guy who was much more of a slasher than a shooter adding even more to the congestion.

Still, they were talented enough where it just works...

Here are some videos of the 1997 Rockets if anyone is interested ..
http://youtube.com/watch?v=jmT5VM4eZUE
http://youtube.com/watch?v=oDjtkx5nVOk

Well the Rockets big three had better offensive numbers, but the Celtics three played better defense which is why they were champions while the Rockets lost the west in six games. KG's defense was better than any of the Rockets defense in '97 and Pierce's defense nearly as good. So i take the Celtics.

Give me the Rockets Big Three, even though they were even further past their prime than the Celtics. Let me break it down

Hakeem

Barkley/Garnett
Garnett/Barkley

Drexler

Pierce

Allen

The reason the Rockets lost, aside from a terrible no-call, was that their depth was awful. Worse than the Celtics bench was projected to be this year. And keep in mind that many frontrunning veterans chose to sign with the Celtics because they were the favorites; not the case for the Rockets in 1997.

I don't think Barkley was equal to Garnett at that point, the thing that always made the conversation close was Charles super scoring and efficiency, and at that point, Garnett was a comparable, yet more efficient scorer, and worlds better as a defender....

Garnett was even statistically a better player than Hakeem at that point(PER and all that) but Hakeem, as usual, was a playoff monster.

I'm not sure Drexler was better than Pierce either....

NO-KG-AI wrote:I don't think Barkley was equal to Garnett at that point, the thing that always made the conversation close was Charles super scoring and efficiency, and at that point, Garnett was a comparable, yet more efficient scorer, and worlds better as a defender....

Garnett was even statistically a better player than Hakeem at that point(PER and all that) but Hakeem, as usual, was a playoff monster.

I'm not sure Drexler was better than Pierce either....

Sorry. I apparently forgot to say it explicitly, but I meant in their primes. I was trying to show that prime Hakeem/Drexler/Barkley was so much better than prime KG/Pierce/Allen that their older age wasn't as relevant.

Hakeem out of the bunch was the best defender even at age 34, still very quick, at the end of his prime, and was a nasty defensive monster. Barkley was not better then KG on the defensive end, but I'd say thats about it, Barkley on that team averaged over 4 assist, and was a pretty good passer throughout his entire career, so it wasn't anything new. Barkley was also the better scorer, and rebounder. Drexlar I'd put right below Pierce, but a much higher then Allen. Pierce is still only what 30? Drexlar was around 35 years old, but still put up solid stats, I'd give the edge to Pierce due to versitlity, scoring can be matched, rebounding as well, and playmaking goes to Drexlar, only thing is that Pierce was a better defensive player. The difference between the two teams was mainly defense, one team was better defensivly then the other, but not saying that the 97' Rockets were a joke, just that the Celtics were a better on the defensive end.

Like some of the other posters said, this isn't a fair comparison since all 3 of the Rockets were past well past their prime. Drexler had been in the league since 1983 and Olajuwon and Barkely since 1985. Pierce is in his prime and Garnett and Allen just past theirs.

Baseline Runner wrote:Like some of the other posters said, this isn't a fair comparison since all 3 of the Rockets were past well past their prime. Drexler had been in the league since 1983 and Olajuwon and Barkely since 1985. Pierce is in his prime and Garnett and Allen just past theirs.

They can be compared in a similar way, because if anything the '97 Rockets were prolly about 2-3 years older at most. But even at that age, its amazing to see them produce stats like that.

The Bulls vs. Rockets in the 97 Finals would've been very entertaining, and was probably what the NBA was hoping for. And goes to show that their was no way the NBA was rigged at least back then, cause on Stockton's game-winning 3, there was clearly an offensive foul by Malone on Drexler.

It's a toss up imo.

Boston has the advantage in the perimeter. Houston has the advantage in the post. Hakeem is as bit as good as a denfeder or even better than KG. Drexler was nearing retirement.

guy1 wrote:The Bulls vs. Rockets in the 97 Finals would've been very entertaining, and was probably what the NBA was hoping for. And goes to show that their was no way the NBA was rigged at least back then, cause on Stockton's game-winning 3, there was clearly an offensive foul by Malone on Drexler.

I wanted that matchup so badly man. I even wanted to play Houston in '96 but they got handled by Seattle easily.

JordansBulls wrote:

guy1 wrote:The Bulls vs. Rockets in the 97 Finals would've been very entertaining, and was probably what the NBA was hoping for. And goes to show that their was no way the NBA was rigged at least back then, cause on Stockton's game-winning 3, there was clearly an offensive foul by Malone on Drexler.

I wanted that matchup so badly man. I even wanted to play Houston in '96 but they got handled by Seattle easily.

That would of been such an interesting matchup in 1997 and 1996. 1996 Hakeem was still in his prime to, 1997 would have been big just because of the big named stars.