PDA

View Full Version : Does anybody else think the Rockets still win of MJ didn't retire?



JasonJohnHorn
08-08-2016, 08:01 PM
I hear a lot of people suggest that the Bulls would have wheeled out eight in a row had Jordan not retired. I don't think that is the case. I think the Rockets were ahead of the curve in terms of the 3pt game, and that Hakeem, being as efficient as he was, coupled with the fact he had some of the best 3pt shooters in the league on is team, would have been enough to overcome whatever the Bulls offered them. I do believe the Bulls would have been in the finals in 94, and that Grant would have likely stayed if Jordan were still around, and hence would have made it to the finals in 95 as well, but I think the Rockets were too efficient offensively.

Coupled with that, I think the reason the Rockets struggled in 96 is because the 3 pt line got brought in, which negated the advantages their roster had, and put them on equal footing with a lot of other teams, and the by the time the pushed the line back, the Rockets can transformed their roster and didn't have the inside-outside game they had in 94 and 95.

Am I alone in this, or does anybody else feel like the Rockets would have still won it even had MJ stayed?

alexander_37
08-08-2016, 08:26 PM
Maybe, dream was in his prime destroying everyone. I think they would get 1.

TheMightyHumph
08-08-2016, 08:46 PM
Have to believe Bulls take both.

McAllen Tx
08-08-2016, 09:50 PM
That Bulls team was a well oiled machine. I dont think any team beats them 4 out of 7.

If Houston were to get one I believe fatigue wouldve played a part in it.

JordansBulls
08-08-2016, 10:25 PM
1994 Bulls win handily they probably end up with like 75 wins that year with MJ. 1995 it would depend on if Grant is there PF or if they could get someone else.

europagnpilgrim
08-08-2016, 10:33 PM
They probably would have won 95' with Dream/Drexler but the league was so Jordan hyped he probably would have won both to tie the most dominant winner ever Russell with 8 in a row

But the Rockets had the Bulls number(or played them tough) in the regular season matchups with Jordan in previous seasons which would have gave them sky high confidence to face that team and Jordan would have actually faced a dominant big man in the Finals, also they had Thorpe and Horry who could defend along with the Dream and Maxwell wasn't scared at all of Jordan and he actually was quoted saying he wish they would have played the Bulls both times, those series would have went 7 both times I feel

Efficiency has nothing to do with it because the Dream was just dominant period and they always seem to hit timely key 3's regardless the percentage, they were called clutch city for a reason

micks4real
08-08-2016, 10:36 PM
Now that this topic is brought up I feel cheated. That Rockets team were by far the best team the Bulls didn't get to play in a finals. I still wouldn't bet against MJ though.

JasonJohnHorn
08-08-2016, 10:54 PM
1994 Bulls win handily they probably end up with like 75 wins that year with MJ. 1995 it would depend on if Grant is there PF or if they could get someone else.

75 wins? You think that roster is better than the one they had in 96, or that the league was just $#!tt!er?

I get people who think the Bulls would win, and I get why you in particular would think that given your screen name, but 75 wins is a bold statement. What makes you think that team would have been that dominant when the roster wasn't really any better than it had been? On Kukoc would have likely had a smaller role and Harper wouldn't have even been signed.

That team with Jordan, Harper, Pippen and Rodman along with Kukoc seems much better. I think the only difference would be Cartwright vs. Longley (clearly Cartwright is the better player there).

JordansBulls
08-08-2016, 11:44 PM
75 wins? You think that roster is better than the one they had in 96, or that the league was just $#!tt!er?

I get people who think the Bulls would win, and I get why you in particular would think that given your screen name, but 75 wins is a bold statement. What makes you think that team would have been that dominant when the roster wasn't really any better than it had been? On Kukoc would have likely had a smaller role and Harper wouldn't have even been signed.

That team with Jordan, Harper, Pippen and Rodman along with Kukoc seems much better. I think the only difference would be Cartwright vs. Longley (clearly Cartwright is the better player there).

1994 had a more prime MJ and a peak Pippen and Grant along with an actual 6th man

Htownballa1622
08-09-2016, 12:52 AM
Just wondering...

Are we going to ignore the fact that mj lost to the magic in 95 that was beaten by The Rockets?

KG2TB
08-09-2016, 01:03 AM
Just wondering...

Are we going to ignore the fact that mj lost to the magic in 95 that was beaten by The Rockets?

Yes because Jordan came back mid-season after playing baseball for the past year and a half. There's obviously an asterisk there. The Bulls came back the following season to win 72 games and sweep the Magic in the playoffs.

As to the question posed by the OP, the Rockets could have absolutely won a title if Jordan didn't retire. I don't think they would have got two, but one is a definite possibility.

IKnowHoops
08-09-2016, 01:41 AM
Bulls win both. Jordan was unstoppable lets be real here. And in peak form. Houston was very good though, and Dream was unbelievable. Would of been the toughest series of Jordans career. But I bet Jordan an Pippen take turns double down on Hakeem from his blind side all day long making it a lot tougher for him. But if I remember both Hakeem and Drob used to kill the Bulls.

BKLYNpigeon
08-09-2016, 02:16 AM
Too bad David Stern told MJ to take the year off.

aman_13
08-09-2016, 03:01 AM
Too bad David Stern told MJ to take the year off.

Don't want to derail the thread but I always found the last part of this quote odd:

MJ: " Five years down the road, if the urge comes back, if the Bulls will have me, if David Stern lets me back in the league, I may come back."*

rhino17
08-09-2016, 03:04 AM
Michael jordan played in 95, the Bulls just didn't reach the finals, they were eliminated by the Magic


The Rockets were a terrible matchup for the Bulls, they excelled at the Bulls few weaknesses and they had maybe the only player in the NBA who believed he could guard MJ. There is a reason why the Rockets were the only team MJ didn't have a winning record against. Certain matches don't work. That Rockets team couldn't beat the Sonics because they matched up terribly, but the always played Chicago well.

PhillyFaninLA
08-09-2016, 06:31 AM
I loved watching that Houston team but the Bulls teams where always more than Jordan and Pippen. They also have incredible role players that where incredibly efficient at that role. That is a big part of the success.

Those Houston teams where great and fun to watch but they didn't have the depth and role players to go along with the starters. The Jordan factor also completely changes the way a team needs to play, Houston would not have been able to do whatever it wanted, and Clyde would not have been nearly as effective.

RowBTrice
08-09-2016, 09:24 AM
Bulls would of got both of them if MJ never left.

Hawkeye15
08-09-2016, 09:28 AM
The loss of Horace Grant, Phil's whipping boy, coupled with the fact that he went to Orlando....

yes, the Bulls don't win those 2 years, Houston does. Grant was so underrated on that first 3 peat, and Rodman helped during the 2nd run.

Chronz
08-09-2016, 09:56 AM
Not only do they win, they molly whop the Bulls in 95. Maybe Grant comes back but he wanted to shine outside of Chicago and he did.

Tony_Starks
08-09-2016, 10:21 AM
The Bulls wanted no parts of that Houston squad. Phils Bulls never faced any center as skilled as the Dream, Ewing gave them a run for their money. Hakeem would've killed their Center-by-committee.

Hawkeye15
08-09-2016, 10:35 AM
Not only do they win, they molly whop the Bulls in 95. Maybe Grant comes back but he wanted to shine outside of Chicago and he did.

I don't think Grant returns. Phil basically used him as an out as much as possible late in that tenure. Never got it.

bootsy
08-09-2016, 12:25 PM
Michael jordan played in 95, the Bulls just didn't reach the finals, they were eliminated by the Magic


The Rockets were a terrible matchup for the Bulls, they excelled at the Bulls few weaknesses and they had maybe the only player in the NBA who believed he could guard MJ. There is a reason why the Rockets were the only team MJ didn't have a winning record against. Certain matches don't work. That Rockets team couldn't beat the Sonics because they matched up terribly, but the always played Chicago well.

Wow this is ridiculous, MJ played 17 games in 95 after missing an entire season and almost another complete season. So saying he played in 95 is misguided. Yeah he played but wasn't in any kind of shape to be what he was before the 94 season to make a big impact. You saw what happened in 96 when he had a full offseason and training camp to get ready. So don't give me this 'he played in 95' nonsense. You know good and well he was not full, ready and in shape MJ in 95.

Htownballa1622
08-09-2016, 12:38 PM
Yes because Jordan came back mid-season after playing baseball for the past year and a half. There's obviously an asterisk there. The Bulls came back the following season to win 72 games and sweep the Magic in the playoffs.

Sounds like an excuse


Wow this is ridiculous, MJ played 17 games in 95 after missing an entire season and almost another complete season. So saying he played in 95 is misguided. Yeah he played but wasn't in any kind of shape to be what he was before the 94 season to make a big impact. You saw what happened in 96 when he had a full offseason and training camp to get ready. So don't give me this 'he played in 95' nonsense. You know good and well he was not full, ready and in shape MJ in 95.

*DJ Khaled voice* "Anotha one"

Big Zo
08-09-2016, 01:12 PM
Maybe, but I don't think the Bulls get to 6 if MJ didn't retire, and save some wear and tear. He wasn't exactly a spring chicken at the time.

MassoDio
08-09-2016, 02:24 PM
Sounds like an excuse



*DJ Khaled voice* "Anotha one"

There is a difference between an explanation/reason, and an excuse.

Explanations help clarify the circumstances of a particular event.
Excuses are used to deflect responsibility

No one said that the Bulls lost because someone else didn't play well. (Excuse)
They are saying that Jordan came back with only 17 games to play in the season, and had not had sufficient time to get back to his peak form. (Explanation)

Just because you are a Houston fan doesn't mean you can't look at the actual circumstances without bias. Regardless of if you are on the side that says Houston wins, or the side that says the Bulls win (If Jordan never retired) using the loss to the Magic when Jordan came back with 17 games left in the season, is in no way an intelligent argument for the Bulls not being able to beat the Rockets if Jordan had never retired. It is just silly, dumb, and lazy to even try to correlate those things.

I believe the Bulls would have won both, however, I believe the Rockets were a horrible match up for the Bulls at that time, and would have had the best chance, out of everyone that the Bulls played in the playoffs and finals, to beat them.

I am not sure the Bulls win the next three after those two years though. If they win 5 straight...do they even have the same drive or energy to win those next three?

bootsy
08-09-2016, 02:39 PM
Sounds like an excuse



*DJ Khaled voice* "Anotha one"

Sounds like you don't know what you are talking about and biased. You proved that in your initial post.

Htownballa1622
08-09-2016, 02:48 PM
There is a difference between an explanation/reason, and an excuse.

Explanations help clarify the circumstances of a particular event.
Excuses are used to deflect responsibility

No one said that the Bulls lost because someone else didn't play well. (Excuse)
They are saying that Jordan came back with only 17 games to play in the season, and had not had sufficient time to get back to his peak form. (Explanation)

Just because you are a Houston fan doesn't mean you can't look at the actual circumstances without bias. Regardless of if you are on the side that says Houston wins, or the side that says the Bulls win (If Jordan never retired) using the loss to the Magic when Jordan came back with 17 games left in the season, is in no way an intelligent argument for the Bulls not being able to beat the Rockets if Jordan had never retired. It is just silly, dumb, and lazy to even try to correlate those things.

I believe the Bulls would have won both, however, I believe the Rockets were a horrible match up for the Bulls at that time, and would have had the best chance, out of everyone that the Bulls played in the playoffs and finals, to beat them.

I am not sure the Bulls win the next three after those two years though. If they win 5 straight...do they even have the same drive or energy to win those next three?

I speak with facts. You can spin it however you want. Me being a fan of the rockets is irrelevant in the convo(especially since I was about 5 years old at the time). My initial question was that if we were going to ignore the FACT that he lost to the Magic.


Sounds like you don't know what you are talking about and biased. You proved that in your initial post.
How am I being biased when I never even said which side of the argument I was on?

For all you know, I think bulls would have won the 94 championship and lost the 95. I simply asked a question because it always gets glossed right over when discussing MJ's return.

Tony_Starks
08-09-2016, 02:49 PM
Not only do they win, they molly whop the Bulls in 95. Maybe Grant comes back but he wanted to shine outside of Chicago and he did.

You thinking Rockets in 6? That's what I'm thinking....

valade16
08-09-2016, 03:03 PM
Fact: Jordan's Bulls lost to the Magic in 95.

Fact: Jordan had just returned from a hiatus and had played 17 regular season games.


Are people denying a correlation there?

MassoDio
08-09-2016, 03:05 PM
I speak with facts. You can spin it however you want. Me being a fan of the rockets is irrelevant in the convo(especially since I was about 5 years old at the time). My initial question was that if we were going to ignore the FACT that he lost to the Magic.


You can't use something that happened AFTER a key element in a hypothetical question, and use it as a fact. The Jordan that came back with 17 games left in a season, after spending the last year and a half not playing professional basketball, is not the same Jordan that would have been playing had he not retired. It is a simple thing to understand in the sports world. If you take an extended time off, you are not the same when you come back, until re-acclimate yourself to the demands of the sport, and level of the sport you are playing. It isn't a new concept, or unique to this hypothetical question.

So yes, we ignore the fact that Jordan lost to the Magic when he came back, because the circumstances would not be the same in this hypothetical situation. Again..it is lazy to use that correlation. It doesn't even make sense to use it.

Using the Rockets incredible track record against the Bulls in the years leading up to that, perfectly reasonable to use. Trying to use something that happened under the circumstances we are literally talking about NOT happening...well...that just doesn't make any sense.

Htownballa1622
08-09-2016, 03:13 PM
You can't use something that happened AFTER a key element in a hypothetical question, and use it as a fact. The Jordan that came back with 17 games left in a season, after spending the last year and a half not playing professional basketball, is not the same Jordan that would have been playing had he not retired. It is a simple thing to understand in the sports world. If you take an extended time off, you are not the same when you come back, until re-acclimating yourself to the demands of the sport, and level of the sport you are playing. It isn't a new concept, or unique to this hypothetical question.

So yes, we ignore the fact that Jordan lost to the Magic when he came back, because the circumstances would not be the same in this hypothetical situation. Again..it is lazy to use that correlation. It doesn't even make sense to use it.

Using the Rockets incredible track record against the Bulls in the years leading up to that, perfectly reasonable to use. Trying to use something that happened under the circumstances we are literally talking about NOT happening...well...that just doesn't make any sense.

I get it. Context matters.

nastynice
08-09-2016, 09:54 PM
During the span of 91-98, those rox were prob the best team, followed by the Stockton Malone jazz IMO. So it's a tough call, but damn those would have been some ****in phenomenal series

Shlumpledink
08-09-2016, 09:55 PM
Rockets win both. First series they have Maxwell guarding Jordan who always played Jordan well. Then you have that backcourt depth which would test the depth of the bulls. I think they have Jordan guard Horry and Pippen guard Maxwell.
Horry is interesting in this series because he was playing SF primarily, and was still mobile pre-knee injury. With his length and shooting it makes an interesting cover because you couldn't have hidden BJ Armstrong on him, you definitely would need Jordan or Pippen to guard him. I would stick Jordan on him.

Tough to say it in any series that has Jordan in it, but the biggest mismatch is in Olajuwon's favor here. Cartwright nor Grant pose any challenge to Olajuwon 1 on 1. Olajuwon is getting double coverage this entire series or he's routinely getting 40.

The next series I think Jordan would be especially dominant going up against Drexler. Jordan always had something to prove going up against Drexler. A constant reminder that he was far superior, and he was. Perdue are even less a match for Olajuwon though. Kukoc would have made a nice match offensively against Olajuwon, if Olajuwon had to guard him like how Perkins gave Olajuwon fits when he played for Seattle. With Perdue out there though, Olajuwon gets to play his normal defense.

The reason why Jordan lost to the Magic is not necessarily that Jordan wasn't at his GOAT level, he was still amazing as evidenced by him posting better numbers that playoffs than the next year when they won. The reason they were able to beat Shaq was because of Rodman's defense. With Rodman they might be able to beat the Rockets, but without that dominant low post defense they would suffer the wrath of Olajuwon at his offensive peak. Offensively Olajuwon was slightly less effective than O'neal, but way better defensively, especially at that stage of O'neal's career.

Shlumpledink
08-09-2016, 09:57 PM
During the span of 91-98, those rox were prob the best team, followed by the Stockton Malone jazz IMO. So it's a tough call, but damn those would have been some ****in phenomenal series

As basketball fans we were robbed. I think this helps Jordan's legacy because he gets to have a unblemished record, and fans generally give Jordan the benefit of the doubt here because of his mystique. They even excuse his loss against the magic as him being out of shape, when Jordan put up GOAT numbers in the Magic series.

JordansBulls
08-09-2016, 10:42 PM
Rockets would have lost on purpose in the West to avoid the Bulls. They went the distance in the West both years.

hidalgo
08-10-2016, 03:45 AM
no, Horace Grant would have stayed had Jordan stayed, so they win 94 & 95. then say Grant leaves after 1995, the Bulls get Rodman obviously and win 96-98. 8 straight

naps
08-10-2016, 04:39 AM
Yes. I think Bulls win both. But then again I dont think they win 97 and/or 98. That year and half break helped Jordan get rejuvenated and shed all the fatigue of past three years.

Chronz
08-10-2016, 05:01 AM
Regardless of whether anyone wants to admit that MJ needed that break in between his reign of terror, there is no denying he benefited from it.

Correct me if Im wrong but isn't MJ like .500 against Hakeem lifetime? Sure felt like it watching them play growing up. I remember Dream being the only cat able to keep up with MJ's drives without sagging off his man.

Pierzynski4Prez
08-10-2016, 07:58 AM
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Htownballa1622
08-10-2016, 09:13 AM
Regardless of whether anyone wants to admit that MJ needed that break in between his reign of terror, there is no denying he benefited from it.

Correct me if Im wrong but isn't MJ like .500 against Hakeem lifetime? Sure felt like it watching them play growing up. I remember Dream being the only cat able to keep up with MJ's drives without sagging off his man.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=olajuha01&p2=jordami01

Excluding the Jordan Wizards and Hakeem Raptors :puke:

Hakeem won 12
Jordan won 9

TylerSL
08-10-2016, 02:36 PM
I'm guessing Bulls would have won in 93-94 giving them an unprecendented 4 consecutive NBA Championships, but I don't think Hakeem would have been denied in 94-95. In 93-94, Chicago won 55 games WITHOUT Jordan, meaning they would have won between 65-70 games with him. While Hakeem would have dominated the 94 Finals, Horace Grant would have helped. I'd say Chicago would have won the 1994 NBA Finals in 7 games.

1994-95 was his highest scoring season and he averaged 28/11/3.5 on .563 TS% and in the playoffs he averaged 33/10/3 on .560 TS%. I can only assume that Hakeem may have even scored more because he in all likelihood would have been putting up more shots against the Bulls. Chicago had nobody who would have been able to deal with him, especially without Grant, and Jordan wouldn't be able to do anything about it. I would guess Houston would win the 1995 Finals in 6 games, extremely motivating Jordan in 1996 and beyond.

All in all I believe had he not retired Jordan would have finished with a 7-1 Finals record with 7 NBA Finals MVP's. While that's not a perfect 6-0 it would actually be better. Obviously 7 championships is greater than 6 but Jordan would have had 8 consecutive NBA Finals appearances, which is ridiculous.

JasonJohnHorn
08-10-2016, 08:46 PM
I'm guessing Bulls would have won in 93-94 giving them an unprecendented 4 consecutive NBA Championships,

Unprecedented? Did you not hear about the Celtics in the 60's? They won 8 in a row.

And the Warriors from 2017-2022? They won five in a row! ;-)

TylerSL
08-11-2016, 03:45 AM
Unprecedented? Did you not hear about the Celtics in the 60's? They won 8 in a row.

And the Warriors from 2017-2022? They won five in a row! ;-)

Yes greatly unprecedented because they don't compare at all. When Boston was winning championships the league had 8 teams. There was far less parity than even today and the competition wasn't even close to today's standards. Not to say it wasn't an accomplishments, but winning 4 consecutive NBA Championships in the modern era is more impressive than winning 8 in the 1960's.

With 30 teams, zone defense, a 3 point line, and a salary cap it is so much different. With having to play almost two different seasons (regular season and playoffs) in one year and having the entire season longer, is harder. If Chicago had won 4 straight in the 90's and gone to 8 consecutive Finals, possibly winning 7, that would have FAR out-shined the 60's Celtics. What Lebron is doing today is truly historic.

JasonJohnHorn
08-11-2016, 04:14 PM
Yes greatly unprecedented because they don't compare at all. When Boston was winning championships the league had 8 teams. There was far less parity than even today and the competition wasn't even close to today's standards. Not to say it wasn't an accomplishments, but winning 4 consecutive NBA Championships in the modern era is more impressive than winning 8 in the 1960's.

With 30 teams, zone defense, a 3 point line, and a salary cap it is so much different. With having to play almost two different seasons (regular season and playoffs) in one year and having the entire season longer, is harder. If Chicago had won 4 straight in the 90's and gone to 8 consecutive Finals, possibly winning 7, that would have FAR out-shined the 60's Celtics. What Lebron is doing today is truly historic.


Unprecedented? You keep using that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means.

Whether you think one is more impressive than the other doesn't matter. 4 in a row has been done before, therefore it is not unprecidented.

You might as well say that 3 in a row was 'unprecidented' then, and that when Kobe and Shaq wheeled out 3 in a row that THAT was unprecedented, because the league never has as many European players than they had then.

Whatever... 4 in a row had been done, therefore, by the ACTUAL definition of the word, was NOT unprecedented. But go ahead and make up whatever imaginary meaning you like.

Shlumpledink
08-11-2016, 05:13 PM
Yes greatly unprecedented because they don't compare at all. When Boston was winning championships the league had 8 teams. There was far less parity than even today and the competition wasn't even close to today's standards. Not to say it wasn't an accomplishments, but winning 4 consecutive NBA Championships in the modern era is more impressive than winning 8 in the 1960's.

With 30 teams, zone defense, a 3 point line, and a salary cap it is so much different. With having to play almost two different seasons (regular season and playoffs) in one year and having the entire season longer, is harder. If Chicago had won 4 straight in the 90's and gone to 8 consecutive Finals, possibly winning 7, that would have FAR out-shined the 60's Celtics. What Lebron is doing today is truly historic.

Not to mention they only had to win two rounds of the playoffs.