Why do people act like both of Hakeem's titles were true underdog titles?

[tpols]

In 1995, the Houston Rockets had dominant title favorite odds at +450. Totally dominant odds. Clippers and Lakers last year had those odds for reference.

Why is there a misconception he overcame some type of enormous odds?

[guy]

I'm guessing that was going into the regular season right? They greatly underachieved during the regular season. That part is always forgotten, but they became "underdogs" as a result.

[tpols]

I'm guessing that was going into the regular season right? They greatly underachieved during the regular season. That part is always forgotten, but they became "underdogs" as a result.

That should be a knock though. You're totally right by the way. But just because you have a down regular season shouldn't mean you're a true underdog. All of Houston's best players were healthy in the playoffs so why wouldn't they be expected to dominate? And then we see them sweep the Finals and act shocked?

[Axe]

Did the rockets have hca in '95?

[Kblaze8855]

Still treating Vegas odds like basketball and not attempts at manipulating the public for casino profits I see. And doing it with all the usual context we can expect from someone who has stopped offering anything but numbers....


Anyway...94 was simply not that good a team talent wise by the standards of champions. 95 the preseason odds mean literally nothing because of the mid season trade of Thorpe for Drexler. They had a down year getting all that change situated so they were on the road 4 series in a row. But Drexler absolutely took the Jazz apart who I think were a 61ish win 2 seed then came back from 1-3 vs the Suns and they were off from there.

They were better than a 7 seed talent wise but they still knocked out like 3 60 win teams all without home court just to make the finals where people decided the Magic were gonna win.

I realize you may not remember the hype that team had but it was quite huge....and then they beat Jordan and Pippen to put it through the roof.

They were supposed to be the teams of the new era. The new Wilt in Shaq, the Magic for the “hip hop”, age and a new 3 point style with D3 and Nick Anderson.

The Rockets were supposed to be a formality. And people on both teams will tell you the same. They didn’t feel they could run with those kids....and in game one people were crowning Orlando in the first half.

I know. My cousins were clowning me for still being a Bulls fan as we watched it.

Public perception was that the Magic had the next 10 years on lock.

The talent disparity wasn’t really there considering Hakeem/Drexler and a gang of young athletic up and comers with a few vets but that was the perception.

And that’s why they play the games.

[tontoz]

I would agree that 94 team wasn't that talented. They also had issues integrating drexler the following year. If I remember right mad max threw a hissy fit and quit on the team.

Drexler had proven himself as a great player but they were like hey we won a chip without you. They had issues for sure.

[scuzzy]

Tpols gives preseason odds but unfortunately it just doesn't register how a team can be underdogs 90 games later leading up to Finals. Trades, injuries, coaching turmoil, it just doesn't click for dude

+450 says OP has no clue Drexler/Thorpe shuffle or Horry/Maxwell's injuries.

[tpols]

'95 the preseason odds mean literally nothing because of the mid season trade of Thorpe for Drexler.

Wait a second...

How does that mean the odds mean "literally nothing"...? I may need some schooling.

Clyde Drexler is a way better player than Thorpe. Reading articles, Portland traded Clyde because they were lotto and Clyde wanted to contend. So if the Rockets were +450 title odd favorites to win the title with Thorpe, that means they'd be even MORE heavily favored to win with Clyde. (who went off) I was only 4 years old at the time so forgive me, but you just provided great context. And ironically it works in opposite direction of your argument.

Please explain to me otherwise.

[scuzzy]

Step away from the Fisher Price Bookie Bar bro and stick to play money

Your intellect for understanding sports variables and betting lines is yikes

[tontoz]

They won only 47 games in the 94/95 season.

[tpols]

They won only 47 games in the 94/95 season.

The warriors with +2800 odds won 67 games in 2015.

So Houston massively underachieved then based on their expectations... imagine how easier their path could've been if they didn't do that.

[Stanley Kobrick]

tpots if i bet $10 on 95 rockets with +450 summer league odds, should i hodl?

[Kiddlovesnets]

The 95 title was talked more but honestly the 94 title was far more impressive. Hakeem won MVP/FMVP/DPOY in the same season, still the only player to ever accomplish such a feat. His second option averaged like 13-14ppg, so it was basically Hakeem’s one man show.

[scuzzy]

tpots if i bet $10 on 95 rockets with +450 summer league odds, should i hodl?
:oldlol:

Just activate muh fanduel acct breh

4r 4r, +450 would mean that you would make a profit of $450 if you bet..... wait for it.......$100!!!

Finna pull off a heist:pimp::pimp::pimp:

[1987_Lakers]

You know OP has low b-ball IQ when he uses 3ball's method of preseason odds.

The Blazers were preseason favorites to make it to the Finals in '93, they lost in the first round.

The Rockets were favorites to make the Finals in '87, they went 42-40 while the Lakers won 65 games.

Shit happens, you never really know how good of a team you have until you play, that's why sports is so entertaining, you really never know who is gonna win. Look at the super bowl, Vegas in the last 10 years is only 3-7 in predicting the winner.

[sdot_thadon]

Because you probably had to be there. After winning the title the defense campaign wasn't going well at all. What alot of people don't realize is the 94 team was a squad where everything that could go right pretty much did. We had so many guys step up and hit big shots and make big plays as role players that I kinda take offense when we say Dream won without help. He no doubt did the heavy lifting but that year those guys didn't feel like regular role players. The following year and the let down maybe told us they were overarching the title season and coming back down to earth. Title hangover, whatever it was the year was going bad. Started off fast and faded, as in couldn't keep pace with the western conference. Traded for Clyde around Valentine's Day and things still didn't really look good going into the post season, it didn't click right away and we could see Clyde was still good, but wasn't "that clyde" anymore. So that's the reason wer were seen as underdogs going into the postseason. Had a hell of a playoff run though and the rest is in the books.

[light]

1994 FINALS:

https://s2.gifyu.com/images/houston-favored-1994.png

https://s2.gifyu.com/images/houston-favorites-3.png

https://s2.gifyu.com/images/houston-favorites-2.png

1995 FINALS:

https://s2.gifyu.com/images/houston-favorites-5.png

https://s2.gifyu.com/images/houston-favorites-4.png

I don't think the Rockets were ever true underdogs.

They were favorites in 1994 and in 1995 observers seemed to think that the Magic and Shaq were too inexperienced for the defending champs despite having home court advantage. Yes, Orlando was favored slightly in 1995 but there was no confidence in that.

[tpols]

I remember in 2004 Sam Cassell was one of the leading reasons KG finally had a hope at a title with the Timberwolves. He was positive splits overall with the Rockets in 1994 and 1995, and positive in 2004 as well. Nothing crazy, but he was positive. And everybody knows how tough he was. People were probably cruel to him and he became tough as nails as a result.

[Axe]

tpots if i bet $10 on 95 rockets with +450 summer league odds, should i hodl?
Op must've feel so confident about that, since he actually said this in the recent warriors vs. nets gamethread days ago. :ohwell:


You know I'm a huge Chef fan, But I just threw 100 moneyline on my guys. I'll only make 70 bucks but whatever.... Almost even odds here is a steal.

[Kblaze8855]

Of course once they went through the 10 all stars to make the finals it wasn’t a lopsided matchup talent wise. The Knicks never had much offensive talent in Ewing’s prime. Once you factor in Hakeem being better the Rockets winning wasn’t shocking(though they were a single Hakeem blocked Starks jumper from losing).

[tpols]

Of course once they went through the 10 all stars to make the finals it wasn’t a lopsided matchup talent wise. The Knicks never had much offensive talent in Ewing’s prime. Once you factor in Hakeem being better the Rockets winning wasn’t shocking(though they were a single Hakeem blocked Starks jumper from losing).

But how many all stars do the Rockets go through and, particularly on the road, if they fulfill their regular season odds expectations? All the teams they beat had worse odds than them. People clown David Robinson, but the Spurs were more than double underdogs. Clyde and Hakeem underdogs? Really? No MJ? ...what?

[tontoz]

But how many all stars do the Rockets go through and, particularly on the road, if they fulfill their regular season odds expectations? All the teams they beat had worse odds than them. People clown David Robinson, but the Spurs were more than double underdogs. Clyde and Hakeem underdogs? Really? No MJ? ...what?

You probably don't know that hakeem and drexler were college teammates and didn't win a title. They got beat by NC State in the finals, a team that barely got into the tournament.

Google phi slama jama.

[ShawkFactory]

I don’t think the idea is that they were “true underdogs” or whatever.

Just that Hakeem was so great those years that he was able to create a formidable title squad without a typical roster that you would expect to contend for and win titles. Which isn’t all the way true but that seems to be the general sentiment.

[Kblaze8855]

This guy genuinely doesn’t understand that “People think....” in October has nothing to do with basketball in May. He genuinely doesn’t seem to see the difference between those two things so there’s a bit of an impasse.

[tpols]

You probably don't know that hakeem and drexler were college teammates and didn't win a title. They got beat by NC State in the finals, a team that barely got into the tournament.

Google phi slama jama.

I read that in the article and it furthers the argument. Clyde and Hakeem had chemistry on top of their talent. They were an absurd duo that nobody acknowledges.

[tpols]

This guy genuinely doesn’t understand that “People think....” in October has nothing to do with basketball in May. He genuinely doesn’t seem to see the difference between those two things so there’s a bit of an impasse.

Clyde and Hakeem is a souped up Kobe and Pau. Supercharged with college chemistry. And you still want to act like it was some underdog shit.

[Axe]

Clyde and Hakeem is a souped up Kobe and Pau. Supercharged with college chemistry. And you still want to act like it was some underdog shit.
Has pau ever won a ring without kobe, let alone a conference title?

[tontoz]

I read that in the article and it furthers the argument. Clyde and Hakeem had chemistry on top of their talent. They were an absurd duo that nobody acknowledges.

The problem is that there are other guys on the team with rings who didn't want to hear it when drexler spoke up.

I think 30 for 30 did a show about their two title years. The team didn't really accept drexler until he showed out in the playoffs.

[sdot_thadon]

The problem is that there are other guys on the team with rings who didn't want to hear it when drexler spoke up.

I think 30 for 30 did a show about their two title years. The team didn't really accept drexler until he showed out in the playoffs.

Yeah the chemistry wasn't good right out of the gate with Clyde, if I remember right we limped into the post season even though we acquired him. Not only did guys on the team have rings but back then guys didn't always accept the player that one of their brothers was traded for....

[warriorfan]

Good analysis from op. Agenda driven posters are fuming over this.

[tontoz]

It should be noted that Cassell was a rookie when the won their first title. Granted he was ballsy even as a rookie but he wasn't the player that he became later. Didn't average double figures until his 3rd season.

[sdot_thadon]

It should be noted that Cassell was a rookie when the won their first title. Granted he was ballsy even as a rookie but he wasn't the player that he became later. Didn't average double figures until his 3rd season.

Absolutely, but I will add as a rookie it was clear he had something to set him apart. I can't remember if it was the rookie season or the 95 run there was actually a bit of a pg controversy over the starting spot between him and Kenny Smith. He and Horry were really good young pieces on those squads.

[tontoz]

Cassell showed up big for sure. He always wanted to be the guy to take the big shots. If he had MJ and Bird on his team he would still want to be the guy taking the last shot.

[SouBeachTalents]

This is precisely why preseason title odds are complete bullshit come playoff time :lol

You really asking why a 6 seed that went through

Malone/Stockton
Barkley/KJ
Robinson/Rodman
Shaq/Penny

ALL without HCA isn't considered an underdog title? C'mon man :oldlol:

[2much_knowledge]

In 1995, the Houston Rockets had dominant title favorite odds at +450. Totally dominant odds. Clippers and Lakers last year had those odds for reference.

Why is there a misconception he overcame some type of enormous odds?

Simple , 6 seed. No home court in any round

[iamgine]

In 1995, the Houston Rockets had dominant title favorite odds at +450. Totally dominant odds. Clippers and Lakers last year had those odds for reference.

Why is there a misconception he overcame some type of enormous odds?

Well things usually change during the season. Current Utah Jazz was not considered very good. But if the playoff starts now, they'd be considered one of the serious contender.

[TheGoatest]

After Clyde Drexler joined them for the last 35 games of the 1994-95 regular season, the Houston Rockets actually had a losing record in those games.
They were living off their rep as champions from the previous year.

As for that previous championship year, Hakeem had arguably the greatest single season in history. But that was still the worst supporting cast of all time. It's not that nobody aside from Hakeem was an all-star, it's more that nobody aside from Hakeem was even close to being an all-star. The only one one to be found in the voting rankings is Kenny Smith, who was #10 among western conference guards (only the top 4 made it to the AS game):

https://www.basketball-reference.com/allstar/NBA_1994_voting.html

He was below Ricky Pierce, and received nearly twice as few votes as Kendall Gill.

It was flat out embarrassing for the Charles Barkleys, the Karl Malones, the Patrick Ewings and the Clyde Drexlers not to win that season. It shows just how weak of an era that truly was.

[2much_knowledge]

After Clyde Drexler joined them for the last 35 games of the 1994-95 regular season, the Houston Rockets actually had a losing record in those games.
They were living off their rep as champions from the previous year.

As for that previous championship year, Hakeem had arguably the greatest single season in history. But that was still the worst supporting cast of all time. It's not that nobody aside from Hakeem was an all-star, it's more that nobody aside from Hakeem was even close to being an all-star. The only one one to be found in the voting rankings is Kenny Smith, who was #10 among western conference guards (only the top 4 made it to the AS game):

https://www.basketball-reference.com/allstar/NBA_1994_voting.html

He was below Ricky Pierce, and received nearly twice as few votes as Kendall Gill.

It was flat out embarrassing for the Charles Barkleys, the Karl Malones, the Patrick Ewings and the Clyde Drexlers not to win that season. It shows just how weak of an era that truly was.

Finally makes some sense and shows knowledge.... proceeds to take the opportunity to prop up lebron's era and ruins it lol

[TheGoatest]

Finally makes some sense and shows knowledge.... proceeds to take the opportunity to prop up lebron's era and ruins it lol

Where did I mention LeBron? I only mentioned Barkley, Malone, Ewing and Drexler. It was a major choke job for them not to win that season.

[Axe]

Finally makes some sense and shows knowledge.... proceeds to take the opportunity to prop up lebron's era and ruins it lol
Oh what, an indirect way of saying the 90s were such a weak era? Lol

[warriorfan]

Finally makes some sense and shows knowledge.... proceeds to take the opportunity to prop up lebron's era and ruins it lol

That’s what happens when a broken clock that’s right twice a day meets a 100% agenda driven player stan. :lol

[Reggie43]

Losing to a Goat level talent like Olajuwon is embarassing?

[TheGoatest]

Losing to a Goat level talent like Olajuwon is embarassing?

It is when nobody else on his team was even a top 30 player in the league. Basketball is a team sport and there were always at least 4 other guys on the floor.

[Reggie43]

I guess having great chemistry/teamwork doesnt mean anything to kids now. How many top 30 players did the Spurs have when they won it all in 2014?

[tpols]

This is precisely why preseason title odds are complete bullshit come playoff time :lol

You really asking why a 6 seed that went through

Malone/Stockton
Barkley/KJ
Robinson/Rodman
Shaq/Penny

ALL without HCA isn't considered an underdog title? C'mon man :oldlol:

WHY did he not have HCA?

WHY was his path so hard?

Because they underachieved in the regular season. That's why....

[TheGoatest]

I guess having great chemistry/teamwork doesnt mean anything to kids now. How many top 30 players did the Spurs have when they won it all in 2014?

Besides Duncan probably Tony Parker + they had all-defender Bruce Bowen which the Rockets didn't have any of, but what does that have to do with the subject at hand? If you want to point out that Duncan didn't have the greatest supporting cast in 2003 either, then okay fine. Not as bad as the 1994 Rockets, but sure. And?

As for the 2014 Spurs both Duncan and Parker were top 20.

Past their #1 guy, no championship team ever was as bad as the 1994 Houston Rockets. The 1975 Warriors come the closest, but even they weren't as bad.

[tpols]

Still treating Vegas odds like basketball and not attempts at manipulating the public for casino profits I see.

This may be the craziest response to this thread. Vegas "manipulating" the public lmao. Most people that talk shit don't put money down. Most people that put (big) money down at least have some reasoning behind it.

I can give you the current odds winners at the title right now.

Please enlighten us so we can all cash out... on the discrepancies that currently exist on the below.

Lakers +250
Nets +440
Clippers +500
Bucks +700
76ers +1400
Jazz+1400

The only value pick right now is the Clippers. Given no major changes, they're the only ones worth betting on. And they have the same odds at the title as the 1995 Rockets.

[Reggie43]

Besides Duncan probably Tony Parker + they had all-defender Bruce Bowen which the Rockets didn't have any of, but what does that have to do with the subject at hand? If you want to point out that Duncan didn't have the greatest supporting cast in 2003 either, then okay fine. Not as bad as the 1994 Rockets, but sure. And?

As for the 2014 Spurs both Duncan and Parker were top 20.

Past their #1 guy, no championship team ever was as bad as the 1994 Houston Rockets. The 1975 Warriors come the closest, but even they weren't as bad.

The thing youre not getting is that the team had great chemistry/teamwork which was enough to support the Goat level talent of Olajuwon. Losing to a tough minded and smart team like that with a great coach and anchored by Hakeem is far from being "embarassing" unless you never saw them play.

[SouBeachTalents]

It seems rather odd you're using preseason odds to dictate virtually your entire argument, claiming that since Houston started out with the 3rd best title odds, we should essentially rely on that data to determine how good the Rockets really were. Then in the same breath, when those same betting odds place them as underdogs in every playoff series, you question the validity of those odds and claim they aren't accurate or reflective of what's really happening.

You can't have it both ways, you can't claim preseason odds validate your argument, then dismiss those same odds that show them as underdogs throughout the playoffs, either the odds are accurate and we should believe them or they're not

[tpols]

It seems rather odd you're using preseason odds to dictate virtually your entire argument, claiming that since Houston started out with the 3rd best title odds, we should essentially rely on that data to determine how good the Rockets really were. Then in the same breath, when those same betting odds place them as underdogs in every playoff series, you question the validity of those odds and claim they aren't accurate or reflective of what's really happening.

You can't have it both ways, you can't claim preseason odds validate your argument, then dismiss those same odds that show them as underdogs throughout the playoffs, either the odds are accurate and we should believe them or they're not

My entire argument is that they were NOT underdogs. Playoffs and regular season. It's already been established that their shaky, and under achieving regular season had an effect on their playoff odds. The 1995 Rockets dominated the WCF's and Finals... and we're predicted big favorite odds at the start of the season. That's perfectly congruent logic. This thread is here to expose the misconception that they were underdogs. They weren't. They were FAVORITES. And people won't admit it.

[iamgine]

My entire argument is that they were NOT underdogs. Playoffs and regular season. It's already been established that their shaky, and under achieving regular season had an effect on their playoff odds. The 1995 Rockets dominated the WCF's and Finals... and we're predicted big favorite odds at the start of the season. That's perfectly congruent logic. This thread is here to expose the misconception that they were underdogs. They weren't. They were FAVORITES. And people won't admit it.

They were naturally one of the favorites before the season started because they won the year before. But that changes throughout the season. By the time playoff came around, they were no longer favorites. They were underdogs throughout the playoff. That's all that happened.

[sdot_thadon]

They were naturally one of the favorites before the season started because they won the year before. But that changes throughout the season. By the time playoff came around, they were no longer favorites. They were underdogs throughout the playoff. That's all that happened.

It's insane how many people cite these odds to support their arguments and don't understand the concept of odds changing.....

[Axe]

It's insane how many people cite these odds to support their arguments and don't understand the concept of odds changing.....
Rofl

The 2012 thunder were a superteam "heavily favored" to win the finals over the 2012 heat based on vegas odds despite the latter making the finals in the year before.

The 2015 warriors were finals underdogs against the 2015 cavs due to pre-season odds despite winning 67 games and having the hca throughout the playoffs in steve kerr's rookie season as head coach.

These odds are really weird af.

[Hey Yo]

It's insane how many people cite these odds to support their arguments and don't understand the concept of odds changing.....

Just tpols following in his Daddy 3ball's footsteps making claims about pre-season odds.

[Stephonit]

It's insane how many people cite these odds to support their arguments and don't understand the concept of odds changing.....

It's insane how people don't get the concept of a least biased observation.

Is making 100 straight threes impressive? When does it seem most difficult? At the start when there are 100 threes left to go or when there is only 1 more left to make 100?

So many people here it seems would jump in at the end to say eh, that's not so tough I could do that.

[3ball]

Tpols, it's a function of the media not knowing anything, and therefore overrating regular season record like they always do, and underrating the addition of Drexler, who has always been criminally underrated by the media (again, because the media knows nothing).

Here's how dumb the media thinks - "well drexler never won, so he just isn't a winner and isn't a game-changer"

So when Drexler gets added midseason, the media doesn't realize that it's a complete game-changer and the Rockets are now a cinch to title.. instead, they foolishly abide by regular season record to make their predictions..

The exact same thing happened in 2016 btw (the media going by regular season record instead of realizing which team is actually way more talented)

[999Guy]

Tpols, it's a function of the media not knowing anything, and therefore overrating regular season record like they always do, and underrating the addition of Drexler, who has always been criminally underrated by the media (again, because the media knows nothing).

Here's how dumb the media thinks - "well drexler never won, so he just isn't a winner and isn't a game-changer"

So when Drexler gets added midseason, the media doesn't realize that it's a complete game-changer and the Rockets are now a cinch to title.. instead, they foolishly abide by regular season record to make their predictions..

The exact same thing happened in 2016 btw (the media going by regular season record instead of realizing which team is actually way more talented)
Yes if only the media were capable of coming up with dazzling takes like LeBron = Detlef Schrempf, Kelly Oubre being Klay Thompson level, and Kawhi being a mediocre defender in the 90’s.

[tpols]

Tpols, it's a function of the media not knowing anything, and therefore overrating regular season record like they always do, and underrating the addition of Drexler, who has always been criminally underrated by the media (again, because the media knows nothing).

Here's how dumb the media thinks - "well drexler never won, so he just isn't a winner and isn't a game-changer"

So when Drexler gets added midseason, the media doesn't realize that it's a complete game-changer and the Rockets are now a cinch to title.. instead, they foolishly abide by regular season record to make their predictions..

The exact same thing happened in 2016 btw (the media going by regular season record instead of realizing which team is actually way more talented)

I know the media lies and distorts the truth which affects public opinion and thus who people bet on, moving the line as the season goes on. But what the odds are on day 1 of the season, that's the purest truth you can get assuming there are no major adulterations. In Hakeem's case, his situation actually improved, so his odds were actually better than +450. I just don't know why people have lied so much and act like he was on even footing with David Robinson, whose team had +1000 odds. I guess Robinson should've played like crap in the regular season, and not overachieved so people wouldn't have the misconception that he and Hakeem had the same amount of help. I'm sure D-Rob could've played better if he had Clyde instead of Sean Elliot to distract the defense and take some pressure off him.

[jayfan]

The premise of the question is a bit off.

'94 was an underdog title. I don't think anyone characterizes '95 as an underdog title. They were the 6th seed, but no one viewed them as a 6th seed.



.

[light]

The premise of the question is a bit off.

'94 was an underdog title. I don't think anyone characterizes '95 as an underdog title. They were the 6th seed, but no one viewed them as a 6th seed.



.

1994 was not an underdog title for the Rockets.

https://s2.gifyu.com/images/2-1-favorites.png

https://s2.gifyu.com/images/knicks-underdogs-1.png

[pandiani17]

They were naturally one of the favorites before the season started because they won the year before. But that changes throughout the season. By the time playoff came around, they were no longer favorites. They were underdogs throughout the playoff. That's all that happened.

This. The Suns or the Spurs were the real favorites to come out of the West that year.

[pandiani17]

The premise of the question is a bit off.

'94 was an underdog title. I don't think anyone characterizes '95 as an underdog title. They were the 6th seed, but no one viewed them as a 6th seed.



.

It's the other way around, actually. In 1994 they had the best or one of the best regular season records, so they were one of the favorites. However, as a 6th seed in 1995 they had to play against the powerhouses of the conference without home-court advantage.

[SouBeachTalents]

The premise of the question is a bit off.

'94 was an underdog title. I don't think anyone characterizes '95 as an underdog title. They were the 6th seed, but no one viewed them as a 6th seed.



.
Talk about just blatantly making shit up :lol The Rockets were favorites in every series in '94 & underdogs in every series in '95