It's amazing that the GOAT would've 4-peated twice in 94' & 99' if he never retired..

[3ba11]

before losing to Hakeem/Drexler and Shaq/Kobe respectfully..

What an amazing career for the goat . 8 chips in 10 seasons

And 99' would've been perfect for him just like the bubble was for AD/Lebron

[Hey Yo]

Your trolling ideas are getting weaker. Front office might want to hire your replacement.

[Shogon]

https://stathead.com/basketball/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&player_id1=olajuha01&player_id2=jordami01

Hakeem's Rockets had a winning record against Jordan's Bulls despite the fact that Jordan clearly had the better supporting casts. I wouldn't guarantee anything in 94.

On top of that, you want to talk about him beating rookie Duncan and the tail end of Robinson? Maybe, maybe not. The Bulls were clearly declining. I would bet on them losing both in 94 and 99.

Also OP is a troll.

[eliteballer]

If he plays full seasons in 94 and 95 he has no gas left in the tank for 96-98

[SouBeachTalents]

If he plays full seasons in 94 and 95 he has no gas left in the tank for 96-98
This. They DEF lose in ‘98 when they were clearly running on fumes

[dankok8]

https://stathead.com/basketball/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&player_id1=olajuha01&player_id2=jordami01

Hakeem's Rockets had a winning record against Jordan's Bulls despite the fact that Jordan clearly had the better supporting casts. I wouldn't guarantee anything in 94.

On top of that, you want to talk about him beating rookie Duncan and the tail end of Robinson? Maybe, maybe not. The Bulls were clearly declining. I would bet on them losing both in 94 and 99.

Also OP is a troll.

I could see the Bulls losing in 1999 to the Spurs considering Pippen's and Rodman's injuries that season when they left the Bulls. And MJ would have conceivably declined some as well. In fact I'd say making the finals in 1999 would be very doable but winning the title over the Spurs would be difficult.

1994 I can't really see the Rockets being favored over the Bulls. Hakeem would torch them but that team wouldn't have enough firepower. That Rockets team got taken to 7 games by both the Suns and Knicks. They were a 58-win +4.19 SRS team. They weren't that good. A healthy Bulls team with Jordan/Pippen/Grant fourpeats in 1994 IMO.

[Shogon]

I could see the Bulls losing in 1999 to the Spurs considering Pippen's and Rodman's injuries that season when they left the Bulls. And MJ would have conceivably declined some as well. In fact I'd say making the finals in 1999 would be very doable but winning the title over the Spurs would be difficult.

1994 I can't really see the Rockets being favored over the Bulls. Hakeem would torch them but that team wouldn't have enough firepower. That Rockets team got taken to 7 games by both the Suns and Knicks. They were a 58-win +4.19 SRS team. They weren't that good. A healthy Bulls team with Jordan/Pippen/Grant fourpeats in 1994 IMO.

The Rockets beat the Bulls both times they met in 1993.
The Rockets beat the Bulls 2 out of 3 times they met in 1992.
The Rockets beat the Bulls both times they met in 1991.

Hakeem owned those Bulls. Straight up point blank period.

This is why the very concept of "best" is asinine when talking about a team sport and hell even 1 v 1 sports... team dynamics, matchups & etc are far deeper concepts than we give them credit for.

What does it say if a guy can beat 100 guys in boxing and then loses to the same one guy 5x in a row? And if this same guy that won 5x in a row lost to the other 100? Who is the best? None of it means anything.

Best is an arbitrary and lazy term for people who are unwilling to accept that none of this matters. All of our discussions are nothing but bullshit entertainment.

[hateraid]

The Rockets beat the Bulls both times they met in 1993.
The Rockets beat the Bulls 2 out of 3 times they met in 1992.
The Rockets beat the Bulls both times they met in 1991.

Hakeem owned those Bulls. Straight up point blank period.

This is why the very concept of "best" is asinine when talking about a team sport and hell even 1 v 1 sports... team dynamics, matchups & etc are far deeper concepts than we give them credit for.

What does it say if a guy can beat 100 guys in boxing and then loses to the same one guy 5x in a row? And if this same guy that won 5x in a row lost to the other 100? Who is the best? None of it means anything.

Best is an arbitrary and lazy term for people who are unwilling to accept that none of this matters. All of our discussions are nothing but bullshit entertainment.

He doesn't understand that.

[SaintzFury13]

There is no way Bulls are beating the Rockets in 94. And it's the same reason in regards to why the Cavaliers didn't beat Orlando in 09: matchups. Bulls had no one who could realistically stop Hakeem from doing whatever he wanted. The Rockets would have been the first finals opponents the Bulls ever had who could dominate them inside. And the Rockets were a constant problem for the Bulls in the regular season too. There's a reason Jordan hated playing against them.

Of course, 3ball didn't watch basketball at the time, so how could you expect him to know that?

[Axe]

Kobe never 3-peated without shaq. :cry:

[3ba11]

If he plays full seasons in 94 and 95 he has no gas left in the tank for 96-98


This idea that he would be too tired and therefore not play due to fatigue in his prime.... is preposterous

If he lost to Barkley in 93', he would never have retired.. He only retired because his unprecedented dominance and winning gave him the luxury of retiring on top.. But he was still physically capable of playing jfc... :rolleyes:

[hateraid]

There is no way Bulls are beating the Rockets in 94. And it's the same reason in regards to why the Cavaliers didn't beat Orlando in 09: matchups. Bulls had no one who could realistically stop Hakeem from doing whatever he wanted. The Rockets would have been the first finals opponents the Bulls ever had who could dominate them inside. And the Rockets were a constant problem for the Bulls in the regular season too. There's a reason Jordan hated playing against them.

Of course, 3ball didn't watch basketball at the time, so how could you expect him to know that?

They also had Vernon Maxwell who intimidated Jordan. It was well constructed to beat the Bulls

[BigShotBob]

The Rockets beat the Bulls both times they met in 1993.
The Rockets beat the Bulls 2 out of 3 times they met in 1992.
The Rockets beat the Bulls both times they met in 1991.

Hakeem owned those Bulls. Straight up point blank period.

This is why the very concept of "best" is asinine when talking about a team sport and hell even 1 v 1 sports... team dynamics, matchups & etc are far deeper concepts than we give them credit for.

What does it say if a guy can beat 100 guys in boxing and then loses to the same one guy 5x in a row? And if this same guy that won 5x in a row lost to the other 100? Who is the best? None of it means anything.

Best is an arbitrary and lazy term for people who are unwilling to accept that none of this matters. All of our discussions are nothing but bullshit entertainment.

Regular season isn't indicative of anything concrete. The only reason it's focused now is because they never met and it's a good "what if".

Point is in a playoff series you get to hone in and even though Hakeem was unstoppable, the problem would be who can make the up the difference on the wing with Jordan, and the answer would be that there is no answer. Jordan was so elite defensively that you couldn't even run plays on his side of the court. They called him Black Cat for a reason.

You can call it matchups all you want, but there's a reason why the Rockets couldn't get out of the West, they had very real flaws that the Bulls could exploit.

[dankok8]

The Rockets beat the Bulls both times they met in 1993.
The Rockets beat the Bulls 2 out of 3 times they met in 1992.
The Rockets beat the Bulls both times they met in 1991.

Hakeem owned those Bulls. Straight up point blank period.

This is why the very concept of "best" is asinine when talking about a team sport and hell even 1 v 1 sports... team dynamics, matchups & etc are far deeper concepts than we give them credit for.

What does it say if a guy can beat 100 guys in boxing and then loses to the same one guy 5x in a row? And if this same guy that won 5x in a row lost to the other 100? Who is the best? None of it means anything.

Best is an arbitrary and lazy term for people who are unwilling to accept that none of this matters. All of our discussions are nothing but bullshit entertainment.


There is no way Bulls are beating the Rockets in 94. And it's the same reason in regards to why the Cavaliers didn't beat Orlando in 09: matchups. Bulls had no one who could realistically stop Hakeem from doing whatever he wanted. The Rockets would have been the first finals opponents the Bulls ever had who could dominate them inside. And the Rockets were a constant problem for the Bulls in the regular season too. There's a reason Jordan hated playing against them.


Those are regular season games guys.

Besides Hakeem hardly owned the Bulls offensively in these matchups.

Jan 3, 1991 20 points
March 25, 1991 13 points
January 25, 1992 17 points
January 30, 1992 24 points
December 11, 1992 28 points
January 28, 1993 18 points

Hakeem averaged 20 ppg over those six regular season games... Bulls in 1994 had Horace, Longley and Cartwright to throw at Hakeem and a swarming team defense. Great centers in the 90's like Shaq, Ewing etc. hardly ever went off on the Bulls either.

[Axe]

Kobe never 3-peated without shaq. :cry:
So true.

[ImKobe]

Kobe never 3-peated without shaq. :cry:

But Kobe did make 3 straight Finals and won 2 without Shaq. Shaq made one Finals despite going from one contender to another :kobe: .

[Axe]

But Kobe did make 3 straight Finals and won 2 without Shaq. Shaq made one Finals despite going from one contender to another :kobe: .
And he's got more finals mvps than bean also.

[3ba11]

And he's got more finals mvps than bean also.


That's a coincidence because the Lakers played the real Finals in the WCF, where Kobe was often the mvp of the team\

I never understood why Shaq got credit for beating 1-star teams in the Finals (Kidd and Iverson)

[Hey Yo]

That's a coincidence because the Lakers played the real Finals in the WCF, where Kobe was often the mvp of the team\

I never understood why Shaq got credit for beating 1-star teams in the Finals (Kidd and Iverson)

I never understood why Kobe always shot like shit against those 1 star teams.

[3ba11]

I never understood why Kobe always shot like shit against those 1 star teams.


Kobe played to the caliber of his comp

[AirBonner]

MJ wasn’t capable of 4-peating. If he was he would have done it

[Hey Yo]

Kobe played to the caliber of his comp

That's why he only has 2 rings.

[8Ball]

Jordan would be 6 wins 2 losses in finals if he didn't retire.

[Airupthere]

If they had only kept 99 intact, they would have likely 4peated.

[ImKobe]

I never understood why Kobe always shot like shit against those 1 star teams.

What? He shot 62%TS in the '02 Finals.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Definitely would of destroyed Duncan in 1999, his hangtime on his jumpers was too much for him. Kobe used to always destroy Duncan, even in 2008 without any help. Jordan is obviously the rich mans kobe, so it would of been even worse for Duncan.

The best players prime Duncan beat in the finals was allan Houston and Richard Hamilton, f'n chump

[Hey Yo]

1999 was

No Pip, I quit

[3ba11]

MJ wasn’t capable of 4-peating. If he was he would have done it


MJ didn't realize that 30 years later, people would question the goatness of his double 3-peat, so he retired a couple times

Surely if MJ could go back, he wouldn't have retired - he would break Russell's record of 8 straight (something that Kobe, Lebron, and today's player could never come close to) and then retire... but not before putting it out of reach for good.

[8Ball]

MJ needed 1.5 years of Load Management.

[chefcurry]

the retirement takes away from his story but at the same time adds to it and makes it so iconic and badass