Why did the Rockets lose 1997 WCF against Utah?

[PeroAntic]

They had three ATGs in Olajuwon, Barkley and Drexler (who were the same age as MJ/Stockton & Malone).

Genuine question, its been long since then so I can't remember.

[HoopsNY]

They had three ATGs in Olajuwon, Barkley and Drexler (who were the same age as MJ/Stockton & Malone).

Genuine question, its been long since then so I can't remember.

There will be no response. Every time MJ haters bring up the Jazz and how "old" and "unathletic" with "Jeff Hornacek as the 2nd option", they simply have no answer as to why Utah was able to beat the Rockets, Lakers (twice), and the Spurs with Duncan+Robinson. Imagine, an old and un-athletic Hornacek shutting down a young and athletic Eddie Jones.

[Axe]

Was it because of injuries to the key players.

[Roundball_Rock]

They had three ATGs in Olajuwon, Barkley and Drexler (who were the same age as MJ/Stockton & Malone).

Those ATGs were all past their primes. Age doesn't capture it. Malone had the best longevity of any legend so far not named Kareem. Stockton also had great longevity.

Hakeem was 34 in 97'. He went from 28/11/4 in 95' to 23/9/3 in 97'. By 98' it was 16/10/3.

Drexler was 34 as well. His last all-NBA team was in 95'. Drexler was 18/6/6 in 97'. In 95' he was 22/6/5. At his peak in 92' he was 27/8/6.

Barkley was 33. His last all-NBA team was in 96' (3rd team). He had been declining for years. He was MVP in 93', all-NBA 2nd team in 94' and 95', all-NBA 3rd team in 96' and then never made all-NBA again.

In contrast, Malone won his first MVP in 97' and won his second in 99' at age 35. Meanwhile Barkley was done after 99'. Drexler retired after 98'. 99' was Hakeem's last gasp. By 00' he was 10/6/2. Malone was 21/8/5 as late as 03'.

Malone/Stockton didn't start making finals until Hakeem, Barkley, Drexler got past their primes and Magic was retired. They outlasted the competition. They outlasted Chicago too. Their problem was the Spurs and Lakers rose right after Chicago was removed as a contender.

[GimmeThat]

they had the shot blocker for setting up the ball handler going towards the weak side, but they didn't execute the trap enough in forcing turnovers.
They played the 3-2 and couldn't switch to the 2-3 when needed to.

[ImKobe]

There will be no response. Every time MJ haters bring up the Jazz and how "old" and "unathletic" with "Jeff Hornacek as the 2nd option", they simply have no answer as to why Utah was able to beat the Rockets, Lakers (twice), and the Spurs with Duncan+Robinson. Imagine, an old and un-athletic Hornacek shutting down a young and athletic Eddie Jones.

The Jazz didn't just beat a 61-win Lakers team that had 4 all-stars, but they SWEPT them. And they beat the Spurs in 5 that same run as well...

Hornacek is mad underrated as well. He obviously was no match against MJ/Pip, but he had great performances against other great teams and was one of the best 3rd options in the league.

[ArbitraryWater]

The Jazz didn't just beat a 61-win Lakers team that had 4 all-stars, but they SWEPT them. And they beat the Spurs in 5 that same run as well...

Hornacek is mad underrated as well. He obviously was no match against MJ/Pip, but he had great performances against other great teams and was one of the best 3rd options in the league.

The Spurs had a rookie Duncan. The Lakers were Shaq only and 3 fringe all-stars but none really with true star qualities.

Kobe was obviously a popularity pick. Van Exel was a 1-time all-star and he was no better than any other non all-star years. He wasn't a real all star. He was a nice role player.

[nayte]

There will be no response. Every time MJ haters bring up the Jazz and how "old" and "unathletic" with "Jeff Hornacek as the 2nd option", they simply have no answer as to why Utah was able to beat the Rockets, Lakers (twice), and the Spurs with Duncan+Robinson. Imagine, an old and un-athletic Hornacek shutting down a young and athletic Eddie Jones.

You called it. The regulars tried but meh

[mjbulls23]

Their big 3 was old and Stockton outplaying Maloney didn't help.

[ImKobe]

The Spurs had a rookie Duncan. The Lakers were Shaq only and 3 fringe all-stars but none really with true star qualities.

Kobe was obviously a popularity pick. Van Exel was a 1-time all-star and he was no better than any other non all-star years. He wasn't a real all star. He was a nice role player.

Duncan and Robinson were both 20+/10+ bigs that played elite defense, Duncan isn't your typical rookie at 22 years old, obviously they ran through the Playoffs with a 15 - 2 record the following year. '98 Lakers were one of our most loaded teams of the Shaq/Kobe era and it was absolutely a feat to sweep them.

[ArbitraryWater]

Duncan and Robinson were both 20+/10+ bigs that played elite defense, Duncan isn't your typical rookie at 22 years old, obviously they ran through the Playoffs with a 15 - 2 record the following year. '98 Lakers were one of our most loaded teams of the Shaq/Kobe era and it was absolutely a feat to sweep them.

No, they weren't.

Shaq, Eddie Jones, 2nd year 15 ppg Kobe isn't outrageously loaded at all.

You phrased it in a way which makes it seem like they were anywhere near as good as the 00-04 teams. They weren't.

[PeroAntic]

The 'past their prime' explanation doesn't hold. Jordan was past his prime as well, he was the same age. Even past their prime, these are three of the finest players that ever played the game. Its the original big three. And of course their individual numbers are gonna drop because of sharing the floor and the ball.

The only explanation is that the Jazz were actually that good. Which means - surprise surprise - this wasn't the meek opposition that Bron tards claim it was in order to put their hero above Jordan.

[ImKobe]

No, they weren't.

Shaq, Eddie Jones, 2nd year 15 ppg Kobe isn't outrageously loaded at all.

You phrased it in a way which makes it seem like they were anywhere near as good as the 00-04 teams. They weren't.

They were as far as 1-8 rotation goes. Phil is obviously a much better coach, but the 03 & 04 teams were poorly-constructed in comparison.

[ArbitraryWater]

The 'past their prime' explanation doesn't hold. Jordan was past his prime as well, he was the same age. Even past their prime, these are three of the finest players that ever played the game. Its the original big three. And of course their individual numbers are gonna drop because of sharing the floor and the ball.

The only explanation is that the Jazz were actually that good. Which means - surprise surprise - this wasn't the meek opposition that Bron tards claim it was in order to put their hero above Jordan.

so why did they only win 41 games the next year?

lol

[ImKobe]

so why did they only win 41 games the next year?

lol

The only time the Jazz went 41-41 in the Stockton/Malone era was in 1985, when Stockton was a rookie.

[PeroAntic]

The only time the Jazz went 41-41 in the Stockton/Malone era was in 1985, when Stockton was a rookie.

He means the Rockets.

Barkley and Olajuwon were both injured for large portions of the season (and playoffs).

[Roundball_Rock]

The 'past their prime' explanation doesn't hold. Jordan was past his prime as well, he was the same age

Sure it holds. All players don't decline at the same rate. Malone is on one end of the spectrum and Barkley on the other, even though Barkley was considered better when both were in their primes. Why are we seriously comparing Malone's aging to anyone in the 90's? The only player who is on par with him is Kareem.

I went through their careers. Hakeem was done after 99' (a role player after that), Barkley retired early in 00', Drexler retired after 98'. Meanwhile Malone was winning his 2nd MVP in 99' and still a star 21/9 player as late as 03' when he was 39

Stockton wasn't Malone but he had very good longevity as well.

Jordan also is an outlier. He took 2 years off by 98'. Hakeem, Barkley, Drexler did not have that benefit.

What is your theory on why Malone/Stockton never made a finals when Hakeem, Barkley, Drexler, Magic were around and in their primes?

[ArbitraryWater]

He means the Rockets.

Barkley and Olajuwon were both injured for large portions of the season (and playoffs).

true. my bad.

none the less, as roundball said, players obviously decline at different ages. not everyone's body make-up is or holds up the same. and the 1997 rockets, while a trio of stars, were definitely at the very back end of their prime each.

a bit like the 2010-2012 celtics, only without a young star like rondo.

[ImKobe]

He means the Rockets.

Barkley and Olajuwon were both injured for large portions of the season (and playoffs).

Yup. It's not that they underperformed, it's that they just were way beyond their primes and got hurt as well.

[HoopsNY]

The Spurs had a rookie Duncan. The Lakers were Shaq only and 3 fringe all-stars but none really with true star qualities.

Kobe was obviously a popularity pick. Van Exel was a 1-time all-star and he was no better than any other non all-star years. He wasn't a real all star. He was a nice role player.

Duncan was already a 21/11 player and you forgot the Admiral and how well he played that season, not to mention Avery Johnson who was giving 8 assists a game and in the playoffs, gave them 17+ ppg. That Spurs team was a 55 win team and according to the logic of others, should have beaten the worn out, "old," and "slow," Utah Jazz.

The same goes for LA, BOTH years, but especially 1998. I love how Manu Ginobili, Andre Iguodala, and James Harden get a lot of love for being "future HOF'ers," "sixth men of the year," and "rising stars" in their own right, but Kobe was "just a popularity pick."

Van Exel wasn't a star but he was a solid PG and his run between 1994-02 shows us this. He was a 16/8 player in that stretch.

But all of that is besides the point. By logic, the Jazz shouldn't have won. When you have young, fast, athletic players together with a prime Shaq, going up against the "old plumbers," and are a 61 win team, then by the standards set by this forum, you should dominate, not get swept.

[Roundball_Rock]

a bit like the 2010-2012 celtics, only without a young star like rondo.

Yeah great analogy. Another is KG and Dirk. They were at the same position in the same era but KG declined a lot earlier and faster than Dirk did.

Here are these players' stats over time. (Their accolades would tell you a similar story.)

Players at 30

Malone: 25/11/4
Hakeem: 26/13/4
Barkley: 22/11/5
Drexler: 20/6/6
Stockton: 15/3/12

Drexler was already declining. He peaked at 29 when he was 2nd in MVP. A knee injury was the culprit.

Players at 33

Malone: 27/10/5
Hakeem: 27/11/4
Barkley: 19/14/5
Drexler: 19/7/6
Stockton: 15/3/11

Barkley peaked 29 when he won MVP. He started declining at age 30 due to injuries, mainly back problems. Hakeem, who peaked later than most players (ages 30-32), started declining at 33 (96') too, but it did not show on the stat sheet until after 96'.

Players at 36

Malone: 26/10/4
Hakeem: 19/10/2
Barkley: 15/10/2 (career ending injury after 20 games)
Drexler: retired
Stockton: 11/3/8

Malone at 36 is the same at 33. The only difference is 1 less point. Hakeem lost 8 points and his assists were cut in half. Barklely, Drexler literally were retired.

Players at 38

Malone: 22/9/4
Hakeem: 12/7/1
Barkley: retired
Drexler: retired
Stockton: 12/3/9

It is obvious which players declined faster and which ones had better longevity.

[PeroAntic]

Yeah great analogy. Another is KG and Dirk. They were at the same position in the same era but KG declined a lot earlier and faster than Dirk did.

Here are these players' stats over time. (Their accolades would tell you a similar story.)

Players at 30

Malone: 25/11/4
Hakeem: 26/13/4
Barkley: 22/11/5
Drexler: 20/6/6
Stockton: 15/3/12

Drexler was already declining. He peaked at 29 when he was 2nd in MVP. A knee injury was the culprit.

Players at 33

Malone: 27/10/5
Hakeem: 27/11/4
Barkley: 19/14/5
Drexler: 19/7/6
Stockton: 15/3/11

Barkley peaked 29 when he won MVP. He started declining at age 30 due to injuries, mainly back problems. Hakeem, who peaked later than most players (ages 30-32), started declining at 33 (96') too, but it did not show on the stat sheet until after 96'.

Players at 36

Malone: 26/10/4
Hakeem: 19/10/2
Barkley: 15/10/2 (career ending injury after 20 games)
Drexler: retired
Stockton: 11/3/8

Malone at 36 is the same at 33. The only difference is 1 less point. Hakeem lost 8 points and his assists were cut in half. Barklely, Drexler literally were retired.

Players at 38

Malone: 22/9/4
Hakeem: 12/7/1
Barkley: retired
Drexler: retired
Stockton: 12/3/9

It is obvious which players declined faster and which ones had better longevity.

When you show the stats dropoff you keep ignoring the fact that they teamed up and stats suffered because of that.

Also, even with a decline, Houston had three stars and Utah two. Three declined stars are better than two slightly less declined stars. Unless.... the contribution of Hornacek compensates for it, which would make him not a plumber lol.

[Roundball_Rock]

Three declined stars are better than two slightly less declined stars.

Malone was the league MVP. Malone was the 2nd or 3rd best player in the league. All stars are not equal.


When you show the stats dropoff you keep ignoring the fact that they teamed up and stats suffered because of that.

That is specious. Hakeem, Drexler teamed up in 95'. Barkley came in 97'. So what explains the declines in 96', 98', 99' (and for Hakeem 00', 01', 02')? Moreover, while teaming up hurts stats it doesn't explain their decline in accolades.

Malone and Stockton were outliers, as was MJ for different reasons. I used Hakeem, Drexler, Barkley because they were being discussed but you could do the same with other players. They had natural career arcs. Ewing for example:

Ewing at 30: 24/12/2
Ewing at 33: 23/11/2
Ewing at 36: 17/10/1
Ewing at 38: 10/7/1

[HoopsNY]

When you show the stats dropoff you keep ignoring the fact that they teamed up and stats suffered because of that.

Also, even with a decline, Houston had three stars and Utah two. Three declined stars are better than two slightly less declined stars. Unless.... the contribution of Hornacek compensates for it, which would make him not a plumber lol.

Not to mention Eddie Johnson and Kevin Willis were two great role players coming off the bench, and I don't think the Jazz had the same quality of guys coming off the bench, either. On paper, the Rockets were the better team. But the Jazz had Stockton+Malone and were better coached. So it didn't matter that this Utah team played teams like San Antonio, L.A., and Houston. People don't want to give credit to them because it would, indirectly, give credit to MJ.

[r0drig0lac]

There will be no response. Every time MJ haters bring up the Jazz and how "old" and "unathletic" with "Jeff Hornacek as the 2nd option", they simply have no answer as to why Utah was able to beat the Rockets, Lakers (twice), and the Spurs with Duncan+Robinson. Imagine, an old and un-athletic Hornacek shutting down a young and athletic Eddie Jones.

this

[Horatio33]

Matt Maloney was the Houston Rockets point guard.

[Roundball_Rock]

Not to mention Eddie Johnson and Kevin Willis were two great role players coming off the bench

Willis was 34, Johnson 37. Both well past their primes.

Anyway, the issue isn't Houston not being good. They made the WCF and won 57 games. They were good. They just weren't as good as Utah, who won 64. Utah was 2nd in SRS, Houston 7th if you want to look at it another way.

You can't go by names. Kobe, Nash, Howard, Gasol. They easily won a chip right? Or KG, Pierce, Joe Johnson, Deron Williams, and Brook Lopez. 65 wins minimum, right?

[HoopsNY]

Willis was 34, Johnson 37. Both well past their primes.

That wasn't my point, though. My point was that those guys offered better support off the bench than Utah's bench players.

If Utah was indeed so washed up with Jeff Hornacek as their 2nd option, then these victories make little sense. These "plumbers" often beat teams that were "bigger, stronger, faster!" than they were.

[Roundball_Rock]

That wasn't my point, though. My point was that those guys offered better support off the bench than Utah's bench players.

If Utah was indeed so washed up with Jeff Hornacek as their 2nd option, then these victories make little sense. These "plumbers" often beat teams that were "bigger, stronger, faster!" than they were.

Who is saying Utah was washed up? We are saying the opposite: they didn't decline the same way their peers did. That is why they suddenly started making finals a decade later.

Hornacek scored 10.7 PPG in a NBA finals. That has to be a record low for a team's second highest scorer.

What is your explanation for why Houston lost?

The next year Houston went 41-41 and lost in the first round (to the Jazz as the 8 seed); Utah won 62 games and made the finals again. Hakeem missed 35 games but Houston was only 26-21 with him (45 win pace).