Hakeem Olajuwon or Tim Duncan - Start a franchise

[therealbig3]

Rockets average playoff competition vs Spurs average playoff competition:

94 Rockets: 4.74 opponent SRS

Blazers (4 games): 2.59 SRS
Suns (7 games): 4.68 SRS
Jazz (5 games): 4.10 SRS
Knicks (7 games): 6.48 SRS


95 Rockets: 5.77 opponent SRS

Jazz (5 games): 7.75 SRS
Suns (7 games): 3.85 SRS
Spurs (6 games): 5.90 SRS
Magic (4 games): 6.44 SRS


Won't include 99, because Ewing missed the Finals, and impossible to really know how he changed the Knicks SRS.


03 Spurs: 3.62 opponent SRS

Suns (6 games): 1.57 SRS
Lakers (6 games): 2.71 SRS
Mavs (3 games): 7.91 SRS
Nets (6 games): 4.42 SRS


05 Spurs: 3.70 opponent SRS

Nuggets (5 games): 2.22 SRS
Sonics (6 games): 2.59 SRS
Suns (5 games): 7.08 SRS
Pistons (7 games): 3.31 SRS


07 Spurs: 4.03 opponent SRS

Nuggets (5 games): 1.69 SRS
Suns (6 games): 7.27 SRS
Jazz (5 games): 3.06 SRS
Cavs (4 games): 3.33 SRS


The Spurs did face slightly weaker competition during their championship runs than the Rockets did, but like I said...slightly. The Spurs did face some legitimate competition on their way to titles. The 03 Mavs (who they were up 2-1 on before Dirk was out for the series), the 05 Suns, and the 07 Suns.

[baki]

San Antonio defeated the defending NBA Champion Spurs in 2005.

What?

[E-Balla]

Yet this same Lakers team went back to the Finals the very next year.

If the Lakers beat the Spurs in 2003 they are huge favorites over the Mavs and Nets to win the NBA title.

That's what we mean by championship caliber teams.

You can't say that about any of the teams that Houston beat. They were all perennial underachievers in the playoffs.

None of those teams the Rockets beat ever won a title.

Well all the teams San Antonio beat would've lost to the 90's Bulls too.

The Rockets beat the 94 Knicks (best defense of the modern era) and the 95 Magic (led by the MVP runner up in 95, the 3rd MVP runner up in 96, and one of the top 5 third wheels ever). Those are 2 great teams to beat with a pretty crappy supporting cast and outside of the Suns I think they'd beat any team the Spurs beat in those years even counting this year where the Spurs beat OKC without Serge twice before they came back and made it a series.

The 1994 New York Knicks and the 1995 Orlando Magic were not great teams.

How many other years did those teams ever make the Finals?

So because they ran into one of the 2 best dynasties ever they aren't great? That Magic team was steamrolled by the team with the best record, point differential, and player ever (the 96 Bulls) and lost Shaq the year after (they still were on pace for 54 wins the year after when Penny played and 58 wins when Penny and Horace played).

The Knicks (who literally fell a shot away from taking the title from Houston) lost the Conference Finals to the championship Bulls in 93 (gave the Bulls their hardest win too), and they lost to the champion Bulls in 7 in 92 (and the 92 Bulls is the best of those 90's championship teams IMO).

If Detroit had to play any good teams they would've never made the Finals and the Lakers teams San Antonio beat weren't the same as the teams that won.

[baki]

[quote="Jonny Blaze]What championship caliber teams did the Rockets beat in 1994 and 1995?
The answer is none.

These reasons are a large reason why a lot of people (not me) don't respect the Rockets two titles.[/quote]


And what ones did SAS beat during their runs?

99 - None
2003 - Struggling Laker team that was also hit by injury? Dallas team with no Dirk? - None
2005 - Nope, none
2007 - Nope, none
2014 - first year they actually faced stiff competition on their way to the title and the year Duncan was likely the least critical.

And you can't respect a team that goes through Portland, Phoenix, Utah, Knicks, SAS and Orlando. There's no way you respect most of SAS's titles if you keep the same standards.[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

" And you can't respect a team that goes through Portland, Phoenix, Utah, Knicks, SAS and Orlando. There's no way you respect most of SAS's titles if you keep the same standards"

Im sorry my man....I am telling you the reasons why the average person(not me) on the street does not respect the Rockets titles.

The Rockets didn't play anyone that great in 1994 or 1995. They didn't beat any championship caliber teams.

Lets break down how many NBA titles and immediate Finals appearances the teams the Rockets beat

1994
Portland- 0 NBA titles. 1 Finals appearance in 1992
Phoenix Suns-0 NBA titles. 1 Finals appearance in 1993
Utah Jazz-0 NBA titles.
New York Knicks- 0 NBA titles. 1 Finals appearance in 1994

1995
Utah Jazz- See above- 0 NBA titles. 2 Finals appearances in 1997 and 1998
Phoenix Suns- 0 NBA titles. 1 Finals Appearance in 1993
San Antonio- 0 NBA titles. 0 Finals Appearances. This would of course change in 1999 after drafting Tim Duncan.
Orlando- 0 NBA titles. 1 Finals appearance in 1995.

The Rockets didn't beat a single team that ever won an NBA title. The teams they beat were not considered great playoff teams.

San Antonio defeated the Shaq/Kobe Lakers in 1999. The Lakers would go on to win the next three NBA Champions.
The Shaq/Kobe Lakers were stopped in 2003 by the Spurs again.
The Lakers would go back to the Finals in 2004.
The Spurs stopped the Lakers from potentially going to the Finals 6 years in a row.

San Antonio defeated the defending NBA Champion Spurs in 2005.
They defeated the Mavs the year before they won the title in 2011.

In 2014 They just demolished the 2x NBA champion Miami Heat.[/quote]

That is a good point, playing a good team with championship experience is a lot tougher than a team that hasn't won it before.

[therealbig3]

I must say, I was REALLY looking forward to the 05 Heat and the 05 Spurs matching up, I think that would have been an epic series. Sucks that Wade got hurt in the ECF though...a healthy Heat were better than the Pistons imo.

[E-Balla]

Rockets average playoff competition vs Spurs average playoff competition:

94 Rockets: 4.74 opponent SRS

Blazers (4 games): 2.59 SRS
Suns (7 games): 4.68 SRS
Jazz (5 games): 4.10 SRS
Knicks (7 games): 6.48 SRS


95 Rockets: 5.77 opponent SRS

Jazz (5 games): 7.75 SRS
Suns (7 games): 3.85 SRS
Spurs (6 games): 5.90 SRS
Magic (4 games): 6.44 SRS


Won't include 99, because Ewing missed the Finals, and impossible to really know how he changed the Knicks SRS.


03 Spurs: 3.62 opponent SRS

Suns (6 games): 1.57 SRS
Lakers (6 games): 2.71 SRS
Mavs (3 games): 7.91 SRS
Nets (6 games): 4.42 SRS


05 Spurs: 3.70 opponent SRS

Nuggets (5 games): 2.22 SRS
Sonics (6 games): 2.59 SRS
Suns (5 games): 7.08 SRS
Pistons (7 games): 3.31 SRS


07 Spurs: 4.03 opponent SRS

Nuggets (5 games): 1.69 SRS
Suns (6 games): 7.27 SRS
Jazz (5 games): 3.06 SRS
Cavs (4 games): 3.33 SRS


The Spurs did face slightly weaker competition during their championship runs than the Rockets did, but like I said...slightly. The Spurs did face some legitimate competition on their way to titles. The 03 Mavs (who they were up 2-1 on before Dirk was out for the series), the 05 Suns, and the 07 Suns.

I completely forgot about the 95 Jazz who lost the WCF in 7 the next season before making 2 straight Finals appearances and becoming one of the best teams to never win it (another point for Hakeem).

Also I don't count the Mavs because like you said Dirk went down and if you count only 3 of those games like you did you have to remember they lost 2 of those games.

I do agree that the Suns teams were good but honestly that's the only team they beat that I can say should've won a title. The Rockets on the other hand have the Jazz, Knicks, and the Magic.

[Jonny Blaze]

Well all the teams San Antonio beat would've lost to the 90's Bulls too.

The Rockets beat the 94 Knicks (best defense of the modern era) and the 95 Magic (led by the MVP runner up in 95, the 3rd MVP runner up in 96, and one of the top 5 third wheels ever). Those are 2 great teams to beat with a pretty crappy supporting cast and outside of the Suns I think they'd beat any team the Spurs beat in those years even counting this year where the Spurs beat OKC without Serge twice before they came back and made it a series.

The 1994 New York Knicks and the 1995 Orlando Magic were not great teams.

How many other years did those teams ever make the Finals?

So because they ran into one of the 2 best dynasties ever they aren't great?

Yes.

Those two teams are not great.

The fact they could never beat the Bulls are not points in their favor.

Those Knick and Magic teams only made the Finals the year Jordan didn't play.

The Spurs could have used Shaq/Kobe dynasty as an excuse, but they beat them twice.

The Spurs could have used the Lebron/Wade/Bosh Super team as an excuse, but they just finished demolishing the Heat.

The Lakers and the Heat each won multiple titles.

None of the teams the Rockets beat ever came close to winning the title.

People would respect the Rockets a lot more if they didn't just fall of the face of the Earth after 1995.

[E-Balla]

The 1994 New York Knicks and the 1995 Orlando Magic were not great teams.

How many other years did those teams ever make the Finals?

So because they ran into one of the 2 best dynasties ever they aren't great?

Yes.

Those two teams are not great.

The fact they could never beat the Bulls are not points in their favor.

Those Knick and Magic teams only made the Finals the year Jordan didn't play.

The Spurs could have used Shaq/Kobe dynasty as an excuse, but they beat them twice.

The Spurs could have used the Lebron/Wade/Bosh Super team as an excuse, but they just finished demolishing the Heat.

The Lakers and the Heat each won multiple titles.

None of the teams the Rockets beat ever came close to winning the title.

People would respect the Rockets a lot more if they didn't just fall of the face of the Earth after 1995.

in 96 the Rockets had the most banged up team in the league and they lost to the team that lost the Finals in 6 and won 64 games. In 97 they won 57 games and lost against Utah in the Conference Finals (one of the most clutch shots ever won the series for Utah). They didn't fall off the map they just had one bad season.

Also what are you talking about anymore? What does the Spurs beating Shaq/Kobe have to do with the strength of Detroit/LA? None of those teams the Spurs beat would've beat Chicago and you know it. You're being disingenuous.

[therealbig3]

Rockets average playoff competition vs Spurs average playoff competition:

94 Rockets: 4.74 opponent SRS

Blazers (4 games): 2.59 SRS
Suns (7 games): 4.68 SRS
Jazz (5 games): 4.10 SRS
Knicks (7 games): 6.48 SRS


95 Rockets: 5.77 opponent SRS

Jazz (5 games): 7.75 SRS
Suns (7 games): 3.85 SRS
Spurs (6 games): 5.90 SRS
Magic (4 games): 6.44 SRS


Won't include 99, because Ewing missed the Finals, and impossible to really know how he changed the Knicks SRS.


03 Spurs: 3.62 opponent SRS

Suns (6 games): 1.57 SRS
Lakers (6 games): 2.71 SRS
Mavs (3 games): 7.91 SRS
Nets (6 games): 4.42 SRS


05 Spurs: 3.70 opponent SRS

Nuggets (5 games): 2.22 SRS
Sonics (6 games): 2.59 SRS
Suns (5 games): 7.08 SRS
Pistons (7 games): 3.31 SRS


07 Spurs: 4.03 opponent SRS

Nuggets (5 games): 1.69 SRS
Suns (6 games): 7.27 SRS
Jazz (5 games): 3.06 SRS
Cavs (4 games): 3.33 SRS


The Spurs did face slightly weaker competition during their championship runs than the Rockets did, but like I said...slightly. The Spurs did face some legitimate competition on their way to titles. The 03 Mavs (who they were up 2-1 on before Dirk was out for the series), the 05 Suns, and the 07 Suns.

I completely forgot about the 95 Jazz who lost the WCF in 7 the next season before making 2 straight Finals appearances and becoming one of the best teams to never win it (another point for Hakeem).

Also I don't count the Mavs because like you said Dirk went down and if you count only 3 of those games like you did you have to remember they lost 2 of those games.

I do agree that the Suns teams were good but honestly that's the only team they beat that I can say should've won a title. The Rockets on the other hand have the Jazz, Knicks, and the Magic.

The SPURS won 2 of those games. On paper, if Dirk never goes down, the Mavs should have won that series, because of their superior SRS...but statistically, the Spurs were in great position to win that series regardless of Dirk. They were up 2-1 with HCA the rest of the way.

If we look at only 7+ SRS teams...the Rockets only played one of those teams during their 2 championship runs, the 95 Jazz. The Spurs played a 7+ SRS team every year they won during 03-07 (03 Mavs, 05 Suns, 07 Suns). After that, yeah, their competition fell off pretty steeply, but overall, their average level of competition was only slightly worse than the 94 and 95 Rockets.

I don't even dispute the fact that Hakeem during this time was a superior player than Duncan ever was, so I have no problem saying that the 94 and 95 Rockets' championship runs were more impressive than any of SA's. I just don't agree with the idea that SA got lucky and only faced a bunch of bums on their way to titles. They were facing some historically great teams too.

[E-Balla]

Rockets average playoff competition vs Spurs average playoff competition:

94 Rockets: 4.74 opponent SRS

Blazers (4 games): 2.59 SRS
Suns (7 games): 4.68 SRS
Jazz (5 games): 4.10 SRS
Knicks (7 games): 6.48 SRS


95 Rockets: 5.77 opponent SRS

Jazz (5 games): 7.75 SRS
Suns (7 games): 3.85 SRS
Spurs (6 games): 5.90 SRS
Magic (4 games): 6.44 SRS


Won't include 99, because Ewing missed the Finals, and impossible to really know how he changed the Knicks SRS.


03 Spurs: 3.62 opponent SRS

Suns (6 games): 1.57 SRS
Lakers (6 games): 2.71 SRS
Mavs (3 games): 7.91 SRS
Nets (6 games): 4.42 SRS


05 Spurs: 3.70 opponent SRS

Nuggets (5 games): 2.22 SRS
Sonics (6 games): 2.59 SRS
Suns (5 games): 7.08 SRS
Pistons (7 games): 3.31 SRS


07 Spurs: 4.03 opponent SRS

Nuggets (5 games): 1.69 SRS
Suns (6 games): 7.27 SRS
Jazz (5 games): 3.06 SRS
Cavs (4 games): 3.33 SRS


The Spurs did face slightly weaker competition during their championship runs than the Rockets did, but like I said...slightly. The Spurs did face some legitimate competition on their way to titles. The 03 Mavs (who they were up 2-1 on before Dirk was out for the series), the 05 Suns, and the 07 Suns.

I completely forgot about the 95 Jazz who lost the WCF in 7 the next season before making 2 straight Finals appearances and becoming one of the best teams to never win it (another point for Hakeem).

Also I don't count the Mavs because like you said Dirk went down and if you count only 3 of those games like you did you have to remember they lost 2 of those games.

I do agree that the Suns teams were good but honestly that's the only team they beat that I can say should've won a title. The Rockets on the other hand have the Jazz, Knicks, and the Magic.

The SPURS won 2 of those games. On paper, if Dirk never goes down, the Mavs should have won that series, because of their superior SRS...but statistically, the Spurs were in great position to win that series regardless of Dirk. They were up 2-1 with HCA the rest of the way.

If we look at only 7+ SRS teams...the Rockets only played one of those teams during their 2 championship runs, the 95 Jazz. The Spurs played a 7+ SRS team every year they won during 03-07 (03 Mavs, 05 Suns, 07 Suns). After that, yeah, their competition fell off pretty steeply, but overall, their average level of competition was only slightly worse than the 94 and 95 Rockets.

I don't even dispute the fact that Hakeem during this time was a superior player than Duncan ever was, so I have no problem saying that the 94 and 95 Rockets' championship runs were more impressive than any of SA's. I just don't agree with the idea that SA got lucky and only faced a bunch of bums on their way to titles. They were facing some historically great teams too.

I'm not saying they got lucky either and I love both players. Just disputing the poster saying Hakeem only beat bad teams.

[ronnymac2]

I must say, I was REALLY looking forward to the 05 Heat and the 05 Spurs matching up, I think that would have been an epic series. Sucks that Wade got hurt in the ECF though...a healthy Heat were better than the Pistons imo.

Shaq vs. Duncan without another great big man next to either...Duncan always had Robinson, and Shaq had Malone in 2004. Both were banged up in the 2005 playoffs — Shaq had a thigh injury, Duncan with the ankle — but they were both playing well when they were needed. Then you have early prime Manu vs. early prime Wade. Tony Parker and Eddie Jones. Haslem and Damon Jones were really good that year for MIA. Spurs of course had good role players as well.

DET vs. SAS was pretty sweet just because of the defense and the emergence of Manu, but Miami vs. San Antonio would have been an era-defining showdown in my opinion...

[Shot Clock]

Yet this same Lakers team went back to the Finals the very next year.

Do you honestly feel the 2003 Lakers team the Spurs faced was the same team as LA 2004?

If the Lakers beat the Spurs in 2003 they are huge favorites over the Mavs and Nets to win the NBA title.

Again do you really believe this?

[Jonny Blaze]

If the Lakers beat the Spurs in 2003 they are huge favorites over the Mavs and Nets to win the NBA title.

Again do you really believe this?

Do I really believe this?

Of Course I Believe it.
I wouldn't have said it if I didn't believe it.

If the Lakers get by Spurs who else was going to beat them in 2003?

What other team would have been favored against the Los Angeles Lakers?

[baki]

in 96 the Rockets had the most banged up team in the league and they lost to the team that lost the Finals in 6 and won 64 games. In 97 they won 57 games and lost against Utah in the Conference Finals (one of the most clutch shots ever won the series for Utah). They didn't fall off the map they just had one bad season.

Also what are you talking about anymore? What does the Spurs beating Shaq/Kobe have to do with the strength of Detroit/LA? None of those teams the Spurs beat would've beat Chicago and you know it. You're being disingenuous.

In 96 Seattle was Houston's toughest opponent, if they had met in the previous 2 seasons I'm certain Houston may not have won those 2 titles.

Barkley joined the team in 97 but lost 2-4 to a virtually unchanged Utah, considering that Houston had a more loaded roster (Olajuwon, Barkley, Smith, Bullard, Elie, Eddie Johnson, Kevin Willis, Sedale Threatt).

[ronnymac2]

Yet this same Lakers team went back to the Finals the very next year.

Do you honestly feel the 2003 Lakers team the Spurs faced was the same team as LA 2004?

If the Lakers beat the Spurs in 2003 they are huge favorites over the Mavs and Nets to win the NBA title.

Again do you really believe this?

Man, that would have been awesome if LA faced Dallas. The Lakers never played Dallas in the playoffs in any of those years. It would have been extremely interesting given the matchup advantages each team had over the other. Shaq was free to basically destroy Dallas in the middle, because even with Bradley being a defensive force at his peak, that matchup just sucks for him because Shaq's massive lower body strength advantage buckles him and locks him to the floor.

But LA always sucked against the PFs of the West, and most of the PFs they faced were guys who could hit them with mid-range games or post games or shooting (KG, Duncan, Webber, Sheed). Now they are faced with a 3-point shooting big man who can drop 25-30 in Dirk. The Nash/Dirk pick-n-roll would be incredibly difficult for LA to stop, and Finley makes Kobe expend energy. Thing is, Kobe had a lot of energy back then, so maybe it doesn't matter. Dallas has nobody to defend Kobe with either. I think LA's offense would be lethal against Dallas in a playoff series.

2003, with LA in a weakened state...if Dirk stayed healthy, I think Dallas may have beaten them in the WCF. I wish those teams had met up at least one year...

[Shot Clock]

Again do you really believe this?

Do I really believe this?

Of Course I Believe it.
I wouldn't have said it if I didn't believe it.

If the Lakers get by Spurs who else was going to beat them in 2003?

What other team would have been favored against the Los Angeles Lakers?

So you believe the Lakers were the same team in 2004 despite the makeover they did.

And you think a 50 win LA team that was beat to crap, lost their starting SF, Horry couldn't make a shot with a gun to his head were going to be "huge" favorites over the team with the best redord in the league.

[Shot Clock]

Yet this same Lakers team went back to the Finals the very next year.

Do you honestly feel the 2003 Lakers team the Spurs faced was the same team as LA 2004?

If the Lakers beat the Spurs in 2003 they are huge favorites over the Mavs and Nets to win the NBA title.

Again do you really believe this?

Man, that would have been awesome if LA faced Dallas. The Lakers never played Dallas in the playoffs in any of those years. It would have been extremely interesting given the matchup advantages each team had over the other. Shaq was free to basically destroy Dallas in the middle, because even with Bradley being a defensive force at his peak, that matchup just sucks for him because Shaq's massive lower body strength advantage buckles him and locks him to the floor.

But LA always sucked against the PFs of the West, and most of the PFs they faced were guys who could hit them with mid-range games or post games or shooting (KG, Duncan, Webber, Sheed). Now they are faced with a 3-point shooting big man who can drop 25-30 in Dirk. The Nash/Dirk pick-n-roll would be incredibly difficult for LA to stop, and Finley makes Kobe expend energy. Thing is, Kobe had a lot of energy back then, so maybe it doesn't matter. Dallas has nobody to defend Kobe with either. I think LA's offense would be lethal against Dallas in a playoff series.

2003, with LA in a weakened state...if Dirk stayed healthy, I think Dallas may have beaten them in the WCF. I wish those teams had met up at least one year...

I agree with you, it would have been a blast. I'm disputing the absurd " huge favorites" comment.

[baki]

Yet this same Lakers team went back to the Finals the very next year.

Do you honestly feel the 2003 Lakers team the Spurs faced was the same team as LA 2004?

If the Lakers beat the Spurs in 2003 they are huge favorites over the Mavs and Nets to win the NBA title.

Again do you really believe this?

Well they added Malone and Payton in 2004, but they were virtually the same team in 2002 when they won the title.

[Jonny Blaze]

Do I really believe this?

Of Course I Believe it.
I wouldn't have said it if I didn't believe it.

If the Lakers get by Spurs who else was going to beat them in 2003?

What other team would have been favored against the Los Angeles Lakers?

And you think a 50 win LA team that was beat to crap, lost their starting SF, Horry couldn't make a shot with a gun to his head were going to be "huge" favorites over the team with the best redord in the league.

Im a Mavericks fan.

Yes.... the Lakers would have been huge favorites over the Mavs and the Nets.
The Lakers would have kicked our ass in 2003.

We had absolutely no answer for Shaq back in those days.

This was when Raef LaFrentz and Shawn Bradley were our starting centers.
This was back in the day when the Western Conference Finals was the real NBA Finals.


If the Lakers beat the Spurs they are winning the 2003 NBA title.

[Shot Clock]

Yet this same Lakers team went back to the Finals the very next year.

Do you honestly feel the 2003 Lakers team the Spurs faced was the same team as LA 2004?

If the Lakers beat the Spurs in 2003 they are huge favorites over the Mavs and Nets to win the NBA title.

Again do you really believe this?

Well they added Malone and Payton in 2004, but they were virtually the same team in 2002 when they won the title.

Only if you ignore everything else except for the names on the roster sheet.