End Chicago-centric revisionist bullhonkey--Realize the Dream

In the spirit of the NBA Finals, I've decided it's time to weigh in on a fantastical myth that abounds among a good many NBA fans--especially those from the Chicago hereabouts.

This past Saturday night as I was trailing off to sleep watching the ESPN Classic NBA Finals marathon, I was reminded of two things: 1) how incredibly awesome it was to watch Hakeem Olajuwon in his prime and 2) how wildly underappreciated his mid-'90s Rockets are.

Lots of folks--lots of loudmouthed Chicagoans, that is--will tell you that the '93-'94 and '94-'95 NBA seasons were the most "meaningless" in the league's history. They'll tell you that they were invalidated by the phantom year-and-a-half of Michael Jordan's prime that never reached the court. They'll pretend that the Rockets served as default champions while the NBA awaited the return of M-Jay.

But such is not true.

Yes, the Bulls may very well have won in '93-'94 had Jordan been playing for them. He could very well have bridged the gap between a seven-game defeat to the Knicks in the second round and an Eastern Conference title. And as good as Hakeem and the Rockets were that year, they beat those Knicks in the most closely contested seven-game Finals in history. So it's not altogether unreasonable to extrapolate that potential defeat of the Knicks into a title.

But remember that the Bulls only slipped two games in the entirely-based-on-sheer-talent regular season from '92-'93 to '93-'94, which would indicate that they were only slightly less potent compared to league average. That is to say, the Knicks were a very good team that was peaking that season and had viably threatened the Bulls in the previous year.

However, '94-'95 was an entirely different story. And it's where the "Bulls woud've won" refrain gets really insane.

First of all, Jordan was there.

"But he was still rusty!"

Garbage. He put up 55 in his third game back. I realize that he shot 26% from the field that season (exaggeration), but could he have truly re-rustified so drastically over the next 18 games leading up to the Orlando series?

More importantly, the Bulls were godawful weak down low that year. No matter how sharp Jordan could have been, he had no control over this obvious weakness. Does Kukoc and Purdue ring a bell? The Bulls barely posed a challenge to Shaq's Magic--a team that posed no challenge to Hakeem's Rockets.

The 72-win season the following year obscures how mediocre the '94-'95 team was. A 14-man roster that sees 86% turnover in a three-year span is rarely a title contender--especially when it includes such an obvious sag. '94-'95 was the sag stage of that turnover, and it would have been that way regardless of whether Jordan had retired.

There never was an eight-peat; there never could have been an eight-peat; and most importantly, THERE NEVER WAS AN EIGHT-PEAT, SO GET OVER IT, LOSERS.

Perpetuating the myth that the '94 and '95 NBA titles rightfully belonged to the Bulls only distorts some really, really obvious reality. And worse, it undermines the brilliance of one of the finest athlete primes we have ever seen.

Read more...