Recreating '94 Rockets today with Hakeem - How far would they go?

Hakeem Olajuwon
Cam Johnson
Max Strus
Malik Beasley
Spencer Dinwiddie

To me this seems like pretty good equivalent of how good the '94 Rockets core were compared to their competition at the time. How far would this team go?

Lol that's a first round exit at best.

[QUOTE=RRR3;14858478]Lol that's a first round exit at best.[/QUOTE]

That's what you'd say about the 94 roster too. But Hakeem made it happen.

So Cam supposed to be Otis Thorpe and Malik is Mad Max?

You have a gross misjudgment of defensive ability.

Malik Beasley is a below average defender while Vernon Maxwell was a good defender. Max Strus is an average at best defender while Horry was a good defender. Cam Johnson is an average defender while Thorpe was a good defender.

The OP seems to make the false assumption that the Rockets became the 2nd overall defense solely on the impact of Hakeem which is plain wrong.

Swap Beasley, Strus, and Johnson with Derrick White, Dillon Brooks, and OG Anunoby. I'm fine with the Dinwiddie placement.

They're winning the chip. : )

Hakeem would probably be a 1.10+ PPP post-up scorer on 10+ post-up possessions per game. A RealGM-tracked sample of 58 games from 1993-1995 had him at 1.13 PPP on 16.7 post-up possessions per game.

Embiid did 1.08 PPP on 9.3 post-up possessions per game in 2021. I think it's reasonable to think Hakeem does at least 1.10 PPP on 10+ post-up possessions.

[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14858527]They're winning the chip. : )[/QUOTE]
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:







:facepalm

Hakeem playing at the same level? Would go deep

[QUOTE=beasted;14858521]You have a gross misjudgment of defensive ability.

Malik Beasley is a below average defender while Vernon Maxwell was a good defender. Max Strus is an average at best defender while Horry was a good defender. Cam Johnson is an average defender while Thorpe was a good defender.

The OP seems to make the false assumption that the Rockets became the 2nd overall defense solely on the impact of Hakeem which is plain wrong.

Swap Beasley, Strus, and Johnson with Derrick White, Dillon Brooks, and OG Anunoby. I'm fine with the Dinwiddie placement.[/QUOTE]

Well hell, that'd be a great team! Way better than what Dream had. Except Dillon Brooks. **** that guy.

[QUOTE=RRR3;14858544]:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:







:facepalm[/QUOTE]

I'm joking lol

[QUOTE=meat;14858588]Well hell, that'd be a great team! Way better than what Dream had. Except Dillon Brooks. **** that guy.[/QUOTE]

Are they really though?

These guys average 15 or less in a much faster paced game, in an era with rules that assist offense.

Without trying to find modern equivalents...

The 94 Rockets' role players played good defense and could really knock down threes. They wouldn't be the title favorite but they would be a dangerous underdog like they were back then. You definitely don't want to face playoff Hakeem surrounded by a bunch of 3&D guys.

[QUOTE=Im Still Ballin;14858536]Hakeem would probably be a 1.10+ PPP post-up scorer on 10+ post-up possessions per game. A RealGM-tracked sample of 58 games from 1993-1995 had him at 1.13 PPP on 16.7 post-up possessions per game.

Embiid did 1.08 PPP on 9.3 post-up possessions per game in 2021. I think it's reasonable to think Hakeem does at least 1.10 PPP on 10+ post-up possessions.[/QUOTE]

His PPP would be lower than what it was in the 90s. It's too easy to force a big to pick up the dribble for no cost. Guys can stand anywhere between their man and you for as long as they want and the decision making gets more complicated for the guy posting up. Back in the day if a guy got too close you could easily dump it back out and re-establish. That almost never happens now because the defense barely has to budge while the offense just wasted clock. Hakeem's unique in that unlike most bigs he could make a quick first move and was great at the face up. But the PPP would still be lower I think.

[QUOTE=dankok8;14858723]Without trying to find modern equivalents...

The 94 Rockets' role players played good defense and could really knock down threes. They wouldn't be the title favorite but they would be a dangerous underdog like they were back then. You definitely don't want to face playoff Hakeem surrounded by a bunch of 3&D guys.[/QUOTE]

The Rockets role players would be even more dangerous today. It's why it's hard to create 1:1 comparisons. You can't just pick the X'th best PPG or Y'th best shooter and plug him in.

[QUOTE=FKAri;14858747]His PPP would be lower than what it was in the 90s. It's too easy to force a big to pick up the dribble for no cost. Guys can stand anywhere between their man and you for as long as they want and the decision making gets more complicated for the guy posting up. Back in the day if a guy got too close you could easily dump it back out and re-establish. That almost never happens now because the defense barely has to budge while the offense just wasted clock. Hakeem's unique in that unlike most bigs he could make a quick first move and was great at the face up. But the PPP would still be lower I think.



The Rockets role players would be even more dangerous today. It's why it's hard to create 1:1 comparisons. You can't just pick the X'th best PPG or Y'th best shooter and plug him in.[/QUOTE]

But Embiid did 1.08 PPP on 9.3 post-up possessions per game. Hakeem's tracked numbers from 1993-1995 aren't that far off that. Only the volume is 55-56% higher.

I stand by my claim. Hakeem passes the eye test on footage. What spacing and ease of post entry that was lost with the removal of the Illegal Defense rule is mediated by the improved spacing from the increased shooting.

[QUOTE=Im Still Ballin;14858749]But Embiid did 1.08 PPP on 9.3 post-up possessions per game. Hakeem's tracked numbers from 1993-1995 aren't that far off that. Only the volume is 55-56% higher.

I stand by my claim. Hakeem passes the eye test on footage. What spacing and ease of post entry that was lost with the removal of the Illegal Defense rule is mediated by the improved spacing from the increased shooting.[/QUOTE]

Thing is Hakeem would play a bit differently today. Even if you time traveled him here. So those numbers aren't too meaningful.

One would think that due to the rule changes he'd utilize his great face up more but then he wouldn't be taking advantage of the more frequent strength advantage he'd have in today's league. So what wins out? back to the basket game to exploit his strength or face up game to exploit the rules? These kinda things have to be played out to find out. The great thing about Hakeem is that he was versatile enough that he'd dominate in any era. But would he dominate more, less or about the same? Hard to say. The best analysts can't even predict how good a guy playing right now will be in the NBA.

You can try to find comparable players but the Rockets cast had something else you can't replace. They were perhaps the most clutch collection of role players I've ever seen on one team. We got gamewinners from what seems like half the team.

They were ahead of their time with the 3s, so why wouldn't they translate to this era well. I know the game changed for typical bigs but Dream wasn't typical at all.

[QUOTE=sdot_thadon;14859605]You can try to find comparable players but the Rockets cast had something else you can't replace. They were perhaps the most clutch collection of role players I've ever seen on one team. We got gamewinners from what seems like half the team.

They were ahead of their time with the 3s, so why wouldn't they translate to this era well. I know the game changed for typical bigs but Dream wasn't typical at all.[/QUOTE]

the biggest thing that happened with that squad is they didn't have to go through the GOAT

[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;14859631]the biggest thing that happened with that squad is they didn't have to go through the GOAT[/QUOTE]

Well here in Houston there ihas always been the belief that had Mj not retired, we still win both chips. I'm an Mj fan too so I was always torn on the subject( and the fact that we could have had Mj and Dream, but that's another story). The unanswerable question always was what could the Bulls do with Hakeem? Any version of them? We always played them tough in the regular season.

Oh and having to go through Mj or not wasn't the change that allowed us to chip, they hadn't made the finals yet, because the Sonics had our number and then some amongst other things. Also was the 2nd full season under Tomjanovich who turned us around.

[QUOTE=sdot_thadon;14859673]Well here in Houston there ihas always been the belief that had Mj not retired, we still win both chips. I'm an Mj fan too so I was always torn on the subject( and the fact that we could have had Mj and Dream, but that's another story). The unanswerable question always was what could the Bulls do with Hakeem? Any version of them? We always played them tough in the regular season.

Oh and having to go through Mj or not wasn't the change that allowed us to chip, they hadn't made the finals yet, because the Sonics had our number and then some amongst other things. Also was the 2nd full season under Tomjanovich who turned us around.[/QUOTE]

The way Hakeem played they may have won anyway but it would certainly mean a lot more if they'd gone through the champs.

How would they have had Hakeem and MJ? Could have had Sampson and MJ which may have gotten them a ring sooner before Ralph's body failed him

[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;14859707]The way Hakeem played they may have won anyway but it would certainly mean a lot more if they'd gone through the champs.

How would they have had Hakeem and MJ? Could have had Sampson and MJ which may have gotten them a ring sooner before Ralph's body failed him[/QUOTE]

I agree and it would have solidified Dreams career even more had he beaten the Bulls. But if.....

So I wanna say I heard it the 1st time the season we traded for Clyde (95), the college teammate reunion with Hakeem was a big selling point of the story. They brought up the fact the Rockets had the opportunity to reunite them in Hakeems rookie season but passed on it. Portland wanted Sampson and was willing to give up Drexler and their pick in the draft, the 2nd Pick that became the infamous Sam Bowie. The Rockets would have had Drexler, the 1st and 2nd picks in the draft and would have drafted that next guy after Bowie. Portland only took Bowie themselves because they were desperate to draft a big man. So the Rockets start 1985 with a core of Clyde, Hakeem,......and Jordan. What could have been lol. Somehow I wonder would they still have screwed it up and drafted Bowie 2nd.

[QUOTE=sdot_thadon;14859768]I agree and it would have solidified Dreams career even more had he beaten the Bulls. But if.....

So I wanna say I heard it the 1st time the season we traded for Clyde (95), the college teammate reunion with Hakeem was a big selling point of the story. They brought up the fact the Rockets had the opportunity to reunite them in Hakeems rookie season but passed on it. Portland wanted Sampson and was willing to give up Drexler and their pick in the draft, the 2nd Pick that became the infamous Sam Bowie. The Rockets would have had Drexler, the 1st and 2nd picks in the draft and would have drafted that next guy after Bowie. Portland only took Bowie themselves because they were desperate to draft a big man. So the Rockets start 1985 with a core of Clyde, Hakeem,......and Jordan. What could have been lol. Somehow I wonder would they still have screwed it up and drafted Bowie 2nd.[/QUOTE]

If they get Drexler they may have taken Bowie not MJ

[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;14859770]If they get Drexler they may have taken Bowie not MJ[/QUOTE]

Well the way it was told at the time they would have picked up Mj, but maybe that was said in hindsight, who knows.

Barkley would have worked too

Alot further than if you swapped Hakeem with Ruby.

[QUOTE=Phoenix;14859782]Alot further than if you swapped Hakeem with Ruby.[/QUOTE]

Ruby Tuesday?

[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;14859785]Ruby Tuesday?[/QUOTE]

[IMG]https://media1.tenor.com/m/QStZC4Wbz6oAAAAd/playing-catch-fetch.gif[/IMG]

Too easy.

Good catch on the name. Would have better remembered if the player in question mattered.

That team wouldn't go far at all. In today's game Olajuwon STILL would be arguably the best player in the league. Because he would be the most skilled on the block among the bigs, could switch out on the perimeter players on switches, and defend the paint better than any center in today's game. As great as Joker and Embid are in today's game, I can't say they are better than a peak Olajuwon.

The problem is the supporting cast of the team the OP laid out. People sleep on how good that three guard rotation was of Kenny, Maxwell, and Cassell. And Robert Horry was a athletic 6'10 who could defend damn near any position on the court. And for that era stretch the court good enough for a player his size. The squad the OP laid out DOESN"T MEASURE UP to the guards and Horry.

[QUOTE=bizil;14859908]That team wouldn't go far at all. In today's game Olajuwon STILL would be arguably the best player in the league. Because he would be the most skilled on the block among the bigs, could switch out on the perimeter players on switches, and defend the paint better than any center in today's game. As great as Joker and Embid are in today's game, I can't say they are better than a peak Olajuwon.

The problem is the supporting cast of the team the OP laid out. People sleep on how good that three guard rotation was of Kenny, Maxwell, and Cassell. And Robert Horry was a athletic 6'10 who could defend damn near any position on the court. And for that era stretch the court good enough for a player his size. The squad the OP laid out DOESN"T MEASURE UP to the guards and Horry.[/QUOTE]

Really think Kenny was more than a Dinwiddie level player? Horry didnt even average 10 ppg although I do think he's the 2nd best player in that team. Stop the overrating.

[QUOTE=iamgine;14860020]Really think Kenny was more than a Dinwiddie level player? Horry didnt even average 10 ppg although I do think he's the 2nd best player in that team. Stop the overrating.[/QUOTE]

There is a side of the court CALLED DEFENSE!!!!! Kenny Smith was a better long ball shooter AND defender than Dinwiddie. And the thing with Horry ONCE AGAIN IS DEFENSE!!!! Would Dinwiddie BE WILLING TO PLAY largely a floor space role often like the Houston trio of guards?? That team functioned best LIKE THAT!! That Rockets team was built A CERTAIN WAY around the Dream to win rings. Plus Kenny, Mad Max, and Casell COULD ALL RUN THE PG! AS WELL AS play off the ball. So EVEN THOUGH none of those guys were superstar or perennial All Star type players, they had MORE FLEXIBILITY in that regard than most guard rotations in the league at that time!!!

When Drexler came in for the 2nd ring, they added a living legend in the backend of his prime to give them them another guy who could takeover games along with Dream. But in the grand scheme the Rockets title teams WEREN'T CLOSE to being the most talented team in the league on paper. BUT they had the best player in the world (since MJ was playing baseball) in Dream. And FROM THERE had the perfect role players around them WHO KNEW THEIR PLACE!!!! The role players the OP laid out DOESN'T CHECK ALL THOSE BOXES!

Even though ON PAPER somebody like a Dinwiddie is more talented than Kenny. But Kenny LEVELED down his scoring to become more of a floor space on those Rockets teams. It comes down to if it ain't broke DON'T FIX IT! The 93-94 title team ALSO had an underrated hoss in Otis T. as well. Who was an All Star only a couple of years prior to them winning a chip. So when you use the word RECREATE, that means MIMIMICKING to a large extent something from the past. THE TEAM the OP laid out DOESN'T DO THAT!!!

[QUOTE=iamgine;14860020]Really think Kenny was more than a Dinwiddie level player? Horry didnt even average 10 ppg although I do think he's the 2nd best player in that team. Stop the overrating.[/QUOTE]

The important question is could the roster you put together be the 2nd ranked defense over an 82-game season?

**** no.

[QUOTE=bizil;14860170]There is a side of the court CALLED DEFENSE!!!!! Kenny Smith was a better long ball shooter AND defender than Dinwiddie. And the thing with Horry ONCE AGAIN IS DEFENSE!!!! Would Dinwiddie BE WILLING TO PLAY largely a floor space role often like the Houston trio of guards?? That team functioned best LIKE THAT!! That Rockets team was built A CERTAIN WAY around the Dream to win rings. Plus Kenny, Mad Max, and Casell COULD ALL RUN THE PG! AS WELL AS play off the ball. So EVEN THOUGH none of those guys were superstar or perennial All Star type players, they had MORE FLEXIBILITY in that regard than most guard rotations in the league at that time!!!

When Drexler came in for the 2nd ring, they added a living legend in the backend of his prime to give them them another guy who could takeover games along with Dream. But in the grand scheme the Rockets title teams WEREN'T CLOSE to being the most talented team in the league on paper. BUT they had the best player in the world (since MJ was playing baseball) in Dream. And FROM THERE had the perfect role players around them WHO KNEW THEIR PLACE!!!! The role players the OP laid out DOESN'T CHECK ALL THOSE BOXES!

Even though ON PAPER somebody like a Dinwiddie is more talented than Kenny. But Kenny LEVELED down his scoring to become more of a floor space on those Rockets teams. It comes down to if it ain't broke DON'T FIX IT! The 93-94 title team ALSO had an underrated hoss in Otis T. as well. Who was an All Star only a couple of years prior to them winning a chip. So when you use the word RECREATE, that means MIMIMICKING to a large extent something from the past. THE TEAM the OP laid out DOESN'T DO THAT!!![/QUOTE]

Well you can't just recreate it 1 to 1. The team would be horrible since that Rockets team only had Vernon and Kenny as 3pt shooters. Kenny was decent but Vernon was horrible. In a shortened line era no less. He'd be way worse than last season Dillon Brooks.

A modern equivalent would naturally have more shooting and less defense.

[QUOTE=iamgine;14860280]Well you can't just recreate it 1 to 1. The team would be horrible since that Rockets team only had Vernon and Kenny as 3pt shooters. Kenny was decent but Vernon was horrible. In a shortened line era no less. He'd be way worse than last season Dillon Brooks.

A modern equivalent would naturally have more shooting and less defense.[/QUOTE]

Check out their 3 point shooting in the postseason, they picked it up quite a bit.

[QUOTE=sdot_thadon;14860310]Check out their 3 point shooting in the postseason, they picked it up quite a bit.[/QUOTE]
Sure. Cant base it on that alone though. Also Vernon's still horrible.

[QUOTE=iamgine;14860280]Well you can't just recreate it 1 to 1. The team would be horrible since that Rockets team only had Vernon and Kenny as 3pt shooters. Kenny was decent but Vernon was horrible. In a shortened line era no less. He'd be way worse than last season Dillon Brooks.

[B]A modern equivalent would naturally have more shooting and less defense.[/b][/QUOTE]

This is such an unintelligent analysis.

This is the same as recreating the 2004 Pistons team who was also the 2nd ranked defense and greatly reducing their defense at the expense of shooting and then claiming they are the equivalent.

You're literally stripping the team's identity.

[QUOTE=iamgine;14860315]Sure. Cant base it on that alone though. Also Vernon's still horrible.[/QUOTE]

Ironically Vernon was a big heart guy for the team. Some of these things you can't replicate with facsimiles. That old saying "greater than the sum of.their parts" was a perfect way to describe this team.