Friday, October 15th, 2010 at 2:21 pm  |  136 responses

Just A ‘Dream’

An in-depth look at why Olajuwon would not have defeated Jordan in the Finals.

by Bryan Crawford / @_BryanCrawford

It seems that ever since Michael Jordan was elected into the Hall of Fame almost two years ago, and after delivering his infamous induction speech that was neither humble nor gracious and instead made him seem like a belligerent bully, it changed people’s perception of the gentleman that Nike and Gatorade told us he was and all of sudden being “Like Mike” meant being an arrogant and insufferable a-hole instead of the best basketball player who ever lived.

Since then, shots have been taken at Jordan the man (he’s an old has been whose time is up) and at Jordan “The Legend” (he wouldn’t be able to do this or that in today’s NBA) and there has been what seems to be sort of an underground movement to attempt to “demystify” the MJ mystique.

Fifteen years ago, you would find almost no opposition to anyone holding to the belief that Jordan was the greatest basketball player who ever lived. Hell, five years ago you couldn’t find anyone to say that he wasn’t the GOAT. But since that fateful day in Springfield, MA, the love that people once had foMichael Jordan & Hakeem Olajuwonr Jordan began to fade, questions were raised, and the “what ifs” started.

The latest “what if” concerning MJ is this: What if Michael Jordan had not briefly retired from basketball to try his hand at being a professional baseball player, would he (or could he) have led the Chicago Bulls to an unprecedented eight-straight NBA titles during the ‘90s?

The notion of the Bulls winning eight straight seems ridiculous now, unlike before, to some people – many of whom reside outside of Chicago – and lately there has been a lot of speculation that had Jordan’s Bulls and Hakeem Olajuwon’s Rockets met in the NBA Finals, Olajuwon could’ve potentially defeated Jordan for the NBA crown. The primary base of logic for this line of thinking is that for all of Jordan’s accomplishments as a professional, he never had to go up against a “dominant” center to win any of his titles.

Hakeem Olajuwon is without question the best big man I’ve ever seen, but the question that no one ever seems to ask when making that assertion is this: As good as Olajuwon was, why wasn’t he leading his team to the NBA Finals during the same time that Jordan did? That’s not a knock on Hakeem, but a legitimate question that people need to ask themselves before engaging in this debate.

It’s not like there weren’t multiple opportunities for Hakeem to try and knock MJ off his pedestal in the NBA Finals.

During the Bulls two three-peat championship runs in ’91-93 and ’96-98, Olajuwon’s Rockets lost in the first and second round of the Playoffs twice, made it to the Western Conference Finals once, and missed the postseason altogether in ‘92. In fact, Hakeem’s playoff resume since coming into the NBA is littered with first and second round playoff exits. So all of a sudden people are making assumptions that Dream would’ve knocked off Jordan for a ring? I don’t think so.

And I’d be remiss for not saying this, but the fact that the Rockets had the best record against the Bulls of any other team in the ’90s means nothing. The teams only met twice a year and the Finals are a different animal entirely.

If Michael Jordan is considered to be the most dominant player of his era, then Olajuwon is holding down the No. 2 spot for sure. If Jordan is considered to be the best player at his position during the ‘80s and ‘90s, then Olajuwon is clearly wearing the crown for the best center during the same time period. Year after year he destroyed some of the best big men of his time from David Robinson, Alonzo Mourning, Patrick Ewing, and a young Shaquille O’Neal. His dominance among centers was inarguable, but the theory that his squad could’ve defeated MJ’s, is.

Both players came into the NBA at the same time and by the end of their careers there was no doubt in anyone’s mind that they couldn’t be f***ed with. By anybody. But I think the angst that people hold against Jordan now and especially against those who are still hardcore fans, has caused some people to talk as if they fell and bumped their heads or something.

I mean, come on, this is Michael freaking Jordan we’re talking about, people.

Yes, I’m a hardcore Jordan and Chicago Bulls fan, but that doesn’t mean that I can’t lay aside my personal biases and take an objective look at this ridiculous theory and debunk it with actual evidence. So let’s take a closer look…

  • Add a Comment
  • Share
  • RSS

Tags: , , , , ,

  • Michael

    Too much Bias BryanC. There is absolutely no way that you can say that the Bulls or the Rockets would of one for sure had MJ not left. In your article you talk about “what ifs”, this piece is a “what if”, its just you speculating on what would of happened. Its a nice article but and I think the bulls probably would of won at lease one of the years he was gone.

  • http://nbaforum.net/superdroid.nettodownloadthisapp Holy Karron

    maybe maybe

  • letsmotor

    the more i think about the way those championship rockets teams played, the more the current magic start to seem like a watered down version of them, with loads of three point shooters waiting to get open once someone doubles their dominant center. the difference between them, i guess, is the difference between dwight and hakeem. and until the magic realize that and come up with a new plan, or until dwight starts to really be an offensive force, they’re going to have a tough time getting over the hump…

  • http://Slamonline.com Bryan Crawford

    Teddy is just basing everything off stats because it helps his argument which is fundamentally weak. He refuses to take the entire comeback situation and view it in its proper and obvious perspective and instead chooses to focus on one aspect of it for the sake of making a point. He knows what it is though and his argument won’t hold up in any basketball conversation. But that’s his stance and he’s obviously sticking to it no matter how incoherent and like I said, fundamentally incorrect it actually is.

  • http://Slamonline.com Bryan Crawford

    To quote Jay-Z: “Please leave it alone, don’t throw rocks at the throne…”

  • http://Slamonline.com Bryan Crawford

    Michael Jordan… The best that ever lived. The best that ever did it.

  • http://twitter.com/smileyoufckers Bryan

    To expand on that , the only way Jordan loses if he had kept playing is if he lost that fire that he had. Which would have lasted at most for one season. No way he loses in the finals to someone and doesn’t turn it into motivation to destroy the NBA the following year.

  • http://Slamonline.com Bryan Crawford

    And Nick is biased to the point of ridiculousness. Vernon Maxwell and Mario Elie standing a chance against Jordan and Pippen? Be for real. Nobody in their right minds would ever say such a thing. Ever.

  • http://twitter.com/smileyoufckers Bryan

    The funny thing is , the Bulls had no business winning in 91 either. Their roster from 1-12 did not stand up to the Lakers roster. So what would be the difference? The difference is always Jordan.

  • http://Slamonline.com Bryan Crawford

    If the Rockets (and not just Hakeem) were this awesome squad like everyone here wants to suggest, how come they never made it back to the Finals after ’95? How come they didn’t dominate in the West (the weaker conference) like the Bulls did in the East and play in multiple Finals? The fact is, if Houston was really THAT good, we would’ve saw a Bulls/Rockets Finals because Jordan and his squad was present and accounted for. So no disrespect to anybody, but please, kill that noise. I’m not taking anything away from Hakeem (who was a GREAT player) and his ‘ships, but winning two while the League’s greatest player is on hiatus and then when he returns you can’t even lead your squad back to the Finals ONCE — in a weak conference — says something about how good that team WASN’T.

  • http://slamonline.com tealish

    I watched the 1991 Finals recently.
    Man, was basketball good back then.
    That is all.

  • http://Slamonline.com Bryan Crawford

    And before people start talking that ’95 crap, by “return,” I mean when MJ came back and played a FULL season. Not just 17 games.

  • http://www.scoutingthesports.com Nick

    Bryan, a couple of things: first, calling people biased when your line of argument is, to quote, ” this is Michael freaking Jordan we’re talking about, people” is likely a poor argumentative strategy. Second, don’t abstract what I said. It WOULD be rediculous and biased to say that Ellie and Maxwell could stop Jordan. No one could stop Jordan. That’s silly. My only point was that Ellie/Maxwell/Horry/Dream in the middle provide a bigger challenge to MJ than the bulls frontcourt would to Hakeem. They certainly wouldn’t stop Jordan, but Jordan would have a bigger hill to climb than Dream would against Wennington and Co.

  • http://www.scoutingthesports.com Nick

    The argument about the Rockets after 1995 is interesting but irrelevant. The hypothetical has nothing to do with post-1995. The bulls post-1995 were better than the rockets, no doubt. Hakeem was 34 at that point, and I will freely admit he didn’t age as well as Jordan (but then,who did?). Drexler slowed down too. The Rockets Front office made a mistake in trading the Rockets best young players (Horry and Cassel) for an also past-his-prime Barkley. There are a ton of reasons why the post 1995 rockets couldn’t get it done, and you’re right, but you’re also attacking a straw man that has no relevance to the discussion at hand (1994 and 1995).

  • http://www.scoutingthesports.com Nick

    In the “arguments that are relevant” category, the rockets persist to be 5-1 in the regular season against the Bulls during the first three-peat(as I mentioned before), and it’s undeniable that the rockets supporting cast improved between then and the Championship years. Yes, there is a lot of noise on both sides of the argument–but the ONLY relevant data–the head to head matchups while jordan was playing–DECISELVELY favor the Rockets.

  • http://www.scoutingthesports.com Nick

    Bryan C–I just want you to know that I mean no disrespect by this argument jihad i just went on. I coach a college debate team, so, i, uhhh, get a little excited by the whole arguing thing. I know we’ll never agree (I grew up with a dream poster on my wall, you likely had the jordan facsimile), but it’s entertaining to pontificate nonetheless.

  • http://thetroyblog.com Teddy-the-Bear

    The REAL reason the Bulls couldn’t top the Magic (or Houston) is because they didn’t have Horace Grant or Dennis Rodman. People act like Jordan could have carried the Bulls to a chip himself, without a TEAM–he played GREAT basketball during the ’95 playoffs. They just didn’t have an answer for Shaq, and they sure as heck wouldn’t have had an answer for Dream, had they somehow managed to get by Orlando. It’s no coincidence the Bulls tore the league a new one when they got Dennis.

  • http://dsgfjklf.com Jukai

    Bryan Crawford: I really feel it’s unwise to tell someone “Vernon Maxwell and Mario Elie standing a chance against Jordan and Pippen? Be for real.” when you said that Bill Wennington, Will Perdue and Luc Longley would stand a chance against Hakeem. You can’t use an argument and get defensive someone else using the same line of logic.
    Teddy really… has no argument though… really not sure what he’s doing here…
    Jordan didn’t really play great basketball in 95. He kept breaking the triangle because he wasn’t used to it and had quite a few turnovers because he couldn’t drive to the basket as easily, thicker legs. I mean, or should we pretend that didn’t happen?

  • Jay

    just gonna say.. I loved MJs HOF speech. Same as its always been, he did it his way and didnt just say the same old same old like most people.. Dude will always be the GOAT to me and that speech should of shown people that this guy is really a one of a kind!

  • KB8toSG8

    @Bryan…..first of all, Bulls didn’t win due to Jordan in 91. 91, Phil exploited the matchups and also put Pippen on Magic. And no, they weren’t worse from 1-12. Jordan was owned in the first game vs the Lakers in 91. Only after Pippen was put on Magic by Phil, the Lakers lost the edge. Sheesh,some guys always think adding MJ to any ish = Championship. No. Phil was the MAIN reason Lakers lost in the Finals that time. BOOK IT.

  • KB8toSG8

    @Bryan Crawford……that’s the best argument you could come up with? Hakeem couldn’t lead his team to the finals when MJ played a full season and hence his championships are void? Say, LBJ SUCKS. No, not his team, but LBJ. Since he didn’t bring his team to the Finals right??? Hakeem was 34-35 years old in 96 I think surrounded by a over-the hill sort of team, unlike the Bulls whose players were relatively in their prime. It also doesn’t help the fact that the Bulls were loaded from 1-12. The Rockets, due to poor front-office work couldn’t keep on.

  • KB8toSG8

    Co-sign Nick. You make great arguments. And @Bryan Crawford…..stop using the stats only when you find them advantageous. Fact is, Jordan still averaged 31 points. Isn’t that enough from MJ? Don’t tell me the Magic, which the Rockets swept in the Finals managed to shut down all the others now…..Don’t tell me that MJ could’ve done more if he had played. And to add to that, the games weren’t even close except for the first one.

  • http://Slamonline.com Bryan Crawford

    @Jukai: You are incorrect, sir. I never said that Chicago’s bigs would’ve stood a chance against Hakeem. I acknowledged on more than one occasion that he would’ve destroyed them both in the article and in the comments. I simply said that the Bulls were longer and strategically, they could’ve thrown different looks at him and potentially wear him down with fouls.

  • http://slamonline.com Bryan Crawford

    @Nick: No disrespect taken. I’m just of the impression that the MJ factor is one that can’t be overlooked because in the 90′s, there’s no proof that says otherwise. And in 95-96, the Rockets roster was the same as the championship team from the year before. Houston lost in the 2nd round. Even if by acknowledging that the roster was different in 96-97 and 97-98, you still have a back-to-back NBA championship team getting bounced in the 2nd round the season after the feat was achieved. Of all the teams in the NBA that has won consecutive titles, the following season, only the Rockets have lost in the 2nd round.

  • http://slamonline.com Bryan Crawford

    @KB8: My arguments have been stat free, sir. So what are you talking about?

  • http://slamonline.com Allenp

    Good arguments from the people supporting the Rockets. I do know that Vernon Maxwell was a very good defender and actually played Jordan well over the course of his career. I just feel like the Rockets didn’t have enough scorers around Hakeem on the perimeter to fully exploit the obvious post mismatch. I just imagine Jordan and Pippen destroying the confidence of the Rockets scorers and forcing Hakeem to have to do too much on both ends, which would wear him down. Now, the year where the Bulls didn’t have Horace Grant or Rodman, well I think the Rockeets had their best shot, but I’m not convinced that Drexler would have wanted it with Mike. I just donOh’t know.
    So given Jordan’s supporting cast (his running mate was the second best wing player in the league) I think he would have pulled it out. Not because Jordan was so great, but because he had a better overall team.
    Oh, and the Rockets were a blown pick and roll switch by Barkely away from meeting the Bulls in the Finals. It’s not like Hakeem didn’t do his thing, Chuck just failed on defense. As usual.

  • http://slamonline.com Bryan Crawford

    Allen, actually, it wasn’t a blown pick-and-roll switch by Barkley. Utah scored on an out of bounds play. Stockton got the ball and Barkley didn’t get to him in time. Dude hit a great shot. I don’t blame Chuck for that though. People get jammed up in out of bounds situations all the time.

  • http://www.scoutingthesports.com Nick

    Yeah that wasn’t chuck’s fault–Sloan drew up a good play and stockton hit a tough shot. Ugh. Nightmares.

    And in 1995-1996, the rockets had a bunch of injuries and showed some age which led to a poor regular season, and ran into a really bad matchup without home court in the Supersonics (Who always owned the rockets. It seemed like Karl was in Rudy’s head.) Still, asking why the rockets didn’t make it back to the finals is like asking why Jordan wasn’t there to meet Hakeem in the 1986 finals…it has nothing to do with 1994 or 1995, or the Rockets’ 84% regular season head-to-head win percentage against the bulls during the first 3-peat.

  • http://www.scoutingthesports.com Nick

    The more entertaining hypothetical is this: what if the rockets front office had pulled the trigger on the proposed trade of Ralph Sampson to Portland for their number 2 pick (which was discussed) and drafted Jordan and Hakeem 1-2. Muhahaha. The best gaurd and perhaps the best big of all time on the same team? No one in the Association would have stood a chance.

  • http://www.scoutingthesports.com Nick

    Also, for the record, I don’t think the Rockets beat the bulls even if they did get by the Jazz that year–Dream wasn’t the same indomitable presence he had been, and Barkley and Drexler were too old and too flawed to give him the help he needed. Oh well.

  • http://slamonline.com Bryan Crawford

    @Nick: You can’t say that the Rockets were “old” when Jordan, Drexler, Barkley, and Olajuwon were all the same age. In fact, the youngest player on both teams (in terms of key guys/superstars) was Scottie Pippen by 3 years. The average age of the Bulls in ’95-96 was 31-years-old, while the Rockets average age was 30-years-old. In ’96-97, both the Bulls and the Rockets had an average age of 31-years-old.

  • http://slamonline.com Bryan Crawford

    @Nick: Also, it was certainly fun to debate this thing with you — a college debate coach — considering — as Jukai noted and of my own self-admission — I’m absolutely horrible at debating in the comments section.

  • http://slamonline.com Allenp

    Malone set a pick on Stockton’s man, and Barkely didn’t switch on a three pointer even though that was the only shot that could hurt the team. He was stuck around the key instead of rushing stockton and forcing malone to shoot that jumper on a roll.
    It wasn’t technically a pick and roll, but the problem was a pick and Chuck not showing. As a huge Rockets fan at the time, I remember that play quite well.

  • http://slamonline.com Bryan Crawford

    @Allenp: I actually had to go back and look at the video to make sure I wasn’t “misremembering” anything. Truth be told, it was bad defense by Clyde Drexler. All Stockton did was pop out. Why was Clyde trying to fight over the top of a screen against Karl Malone (of all people)? had he gone underneath he would’ve been able to recover on Stockton because it was his man. Barkley followed his defensive assignment which was Malone and when he saw Stockton open he recovered, but it was too late. Barkley did what you teach defenders to do. Drexler, who was a terrible defender in his own right, blew it. It can be argued either way, but that one was clearly on Glide. He played it totally wrong and really left Chuck out there. It was still great shot though.

  • Earl

    So according to the writers thinking, 3 7 footers and 24 fouls would have worn down Olajuwon? Were the bulls the only team with 4 big men who each carried 6 fouls? Thats stupid reasoning, he beat the best centers in the game easily and there were MANY teams (like the Jazz) who had several big mean to use 20 fouls on him.

  • add

    man why people hatin on jordan?

Advertisement