Are The '95 Rockets the luckiest and most opportune Champions in NBA History?

[Audio One]

James was arguably at his peak in '13, and put up a great overall year, but it seems that the Ray Allen jumpshot takes a bit of luster off this run, and makes his ring and great season seem less impressive to some. Yet Hakeem at his "peak" is a jumpshot away from also forfeiting the title, receiving the same exact help as LeBron did, but in the SECOND ROUND. Kind of a funny double-standard that's applied here

[eliteballer]

Beating what, four 50 win teams on the road is luck?

[GrapeApe]

James was arguably at his peak in '13, and put up a great overall year, but it seems that the Ray Allen jumpshot takes a bit of luster off this run, and makes his ring and great season seem less impressive to some. Yet Hakeem at his "peak" is a jumpshot away from also forfeiting the title, receiving the same exact help as LeBron did, but in the SECOND ROUND. Kind of a funny double-standard that's applied here

Why on earth would Allen's shot take luster off the title run? It was one of the greatest shots in NBA history in an epic finals series. If anything it makes that title run more legendary.

[fpliii]

[Audio One]

Why on earth would Allen's shot take luster off the title run? It was one of the greatest shots in NBA history in an epic finals series. If anything it makes that title run more legendary.

I personally don't take anything away from that run, what I'm speaking of is how each players' peaks are viewed, at least as far as these online forums is concerned. The '13 season IS a year that will be remembered as LeBron being bailed out when talked about on here, yet Olajuwon's '95 season is seem as some perfect title run, ignoring the fact Akeem needed just as many breaks as LeBron did, actually even more

[Audio One]

Beating what, four 50 win teams on the road is luck?

None of those teams were great, and it was a weak era. The fact that an expansion franchise made the NBA Finals in it's 3rd year of existence tells me all I need to know about the overall quality of the NBA at that time. The way Olajuwon is viewed on here, it makes no sense to give him extra credit for disposing of the teams he's supposed to beat, especially the teams w/ scrub centers. Dunno why he's being held in such a high regard for that, if it was Jordan or Russell, it'd be expected, and the norm

[eliteballer]

None of those teams were great, and it was a weak era. The fact that an expansion franchise made the NBA Finals in it's 3rd year of existence tells me all I need to know about the overall quality of the NBA at that time

If you're going to say something stupid at least get your facts straight

[fpliii]

None of those teams were great, and it was a weak era. The fact that an expansion franchise made the NBA Finals in it's 3rd year of existence tells me all I need to know about the overall quality of the NBA at that time. The way Olajuwon is viewed on here, it makes no sense to give him extra credit for disposing of the teams he's supposed to beat, especially the teams w/ scrub centers

The Bucks won it all in their third year...

[GrapeApe]

None of those teams were great, and it was a weak era. The fact that an expansion franchise made the NBA Finals in it's 3rd year of existence tells me all I need to know about the overall quality of the NBA at that time. The way Olajuwon is viewed on here, it makes no sense to give him extra credit for disposing of the teams he's supposed to beat, especially the teams w/ scrub centers

Orlando was in their 7th year of exsistence. They also had two top ten players and were favored in the finals.

[Audio One]

The Bucks won it all in their third year...

Sure, but a league w/ 17 teams, better talent, better depth, and better parity is better off than a league with 27 teams and a massive influx of CBA players, with the best teams of the era not coming close to matching up w/ the best teams of other eras. That Milwaukee team was actually a great team, and played in a competitive era, aganist great teams, I can't say the same about Orlando, or their competition...

[eliteballer]

Sure, but a league w/ 17 teams, better talent, better depth, and better parity is better off than a league with 27 teams and a massive influx of CBA players, with the best teams of the era not coming close to matching up w/ the best teams of other eras. That Milwaukee team was actually a great team, and played in a competitive era, aganist great teams, I can't say the same about Orlando, or their competition...

.....

Should titles, awards, and stats from 1968-1976 have asterisks?

Many argue as to the veracity of ABA stats due to the fact it played a more wide open game than the NBA as well whether it was as strong as the NBA.

Yet even if the NBA was stronger at any given time, it doesnt negate the fact that there was still another league splitting the professional talent pool regardless. Not only was the professional talent pool split between 1968 and 1976, but there was a TREMENDOUS increase in the amount of teams.

In 1968, the NBA had 10 teams. By 1972, it had 17. In 1972, the ABA had 11 teams. So in the 4 year span between 1968 and 1972, the amount of professional teams increased by 18. So not only were the leagues splitting the talent pool and not competing against each other, but in 1972 you had 28 professional teams, and in 1977 the first year after the merger you actually had LESS, with 22.

For perspective, many say the 90's were diluted because 4 teams were added at the end of the 80's and then 2 more teams in 95.

To clarify, we are not comparing the NBA and ABA but we are comparing the period of 1968-1976 to combined NBA pre ABA and post merger.

Rick Barry is a good example of the situation at the time. Not in terms of stats, but the fact that he played 2 years in the NBA, then jumped to the ABA for 4 years, then went back to the NBA.

Now, this doesnt change the fact that guys like Kareem, Dr. J, Rick Barry, Elvin Hayes etc. weren't great because they were still the best players out there, but whether players would have had the numbers they had, whether teams that were champions would have been champions in a combined league, and whether players would have won as many awards as they did in a combined league is certainly, IMO up for debate. I mean, would Dr J have snatched another MVP or two, some All-NBA teams, or won another championship if he was in the NBA during his ABA years? Obviously, very real possibilities.

Yeah, you're a moron audio.

[Audio One]

Orlando was in their 7th year of exsistence. They also had two top ten players and were favored in the finals.

So seventh, my mistake. Even so, there was nothing great about that Magic team. It was Shaquille, a good player in Anfernee, and nothing special outside of them. And Hardaway was a horrible defender at that point in time, and him, and Orlando as a whole, benefited greatly from the removal of handchecking and the shortened 3-point line that year. Again, that team didn't have quality depth, and did not play transition defense or guard the 3-point line to save their lives, they would not be title favorites during any other time. To say or imply they were a great team in an all-time sense is disingenuous..

[eliteballer]

So seventh, my mistake. Even so, there was nothing great about that Magic team. It was Shaquille, a good player in Anfernee, and nothing special outside of them. And Hardaway was a horrible defender at that point in time, and him, and Orlando as a whole, benefited greatly from the removal of handchecking and the shortened 3-point line that year. Again, that team didn't have quality depth, and did not play transition defense or guard the 3-point line to save their lives, they would not be title favorites during any other time. To say or imply they were a great team in an all-time sense is disingenuous..

Shaq only played around 50 games in 96 and they STILL won over 60 games.

and the rules applied to EVERYONE, it was an even playing field. It's not like they were specially made and only applied to the Magic

[Audio One]

.....



Yeah, you're a moron audio.

Well for one, I was not even discussing the ABA. Two, I'm not sure what that article's trying to prove: The NBA in the 70's was a league with parity, as there was no one superteam. Hell Abdul-Jabbar, a better player than Jordan imo, and having great teams himself (when they weren't injured), only came away with one ring that decade, and the year he won it, beat teams as good as he'd face during that period. Now, I'm comparing this decade to the 90's, a league that saw one team pretty much win the majority of the titles. Think about it, a sizeable pool of talent was withdrawn, and it still was a more competitive league than the 90's. Again, that Kareem, a possible GOAT, and ultimately a better player than when he was in the 80's, only won one ring during that time tells me all I need to know about the competition during that time

[Audio One]

Shaq only played around 50 games in 96 and they STILL won over 60 games.

and the rules applied to EVERYONE, it was an even playing field. It's not like they were specially made and only applied to the Magic

Who's talking about '96? And that really just proves my point about it being a weak league, that that Orlando team could still win that many games without Shaquille

That '96 team played went 17-5 without O'Neal, however they played 12 teams with sub-.500 records, 13 teams overall that didn't make the postseason, 15 teams overall that didn't win a playoff game

EDIT: Overall, I counted at least FORTY-FIVE ****ING GAMES that '96 team played that didn't have a wining record I'm no so sure '95 will look all that better, if at all...