What people forget about this all-time great game in the 1993 Playoffs is that the Hornets came VERY close to blowing a 19-point lead heading into the 4th..at the famed "Hive" no less..let's be honest though..neither of these teams were gonna have any shot at beating the world champion Bulls or the #1 seed in the East, the New York Knicks..this was Boston's last gasp..McHale's final game of his HOF career..and, oddly enough, Parish would become a Hornet in '94-95..
kevin mchale had a shattered foot 2blow out ankles and back spasms from 90-93. He had no business playing basketball on a rec league. Parish was 10yrs past his prime and the rest of our team were avg to poor role players. Bostons best player was an avid drug user who was over rated as it was
The hornets should have swept BOS in 3straight blow outs but as we now know no one on that hornet team ever amounted to anything but busts and underachievers who put together one good year in 93'
@FavreianVengeance There was only 17secs left on the shot clock when Boston called the timeout. Meaning they only had 3secs left to get the ball over half-court. Fox took longer than 3secs to get over half-court....
Nope - Fox catches @ 2:40 and passes half court @ 2:42 - 2 seconds. As I said, the whistle comes long after Fox passed half court. -- Another rigged game by the company men.
You could be right on that technically. But just count to 3 and you'll see. And don't count when he catches the ball. Count when he catches the ball. Count 1 when he catches and then 1 again a second later then right at 2 he crosses the court. It was only 2 seconds dude. Like I said - rigged. The ref even called it after Fox had passed the line.
@FavreianVengeance There was 17secs left on the shot clock, but the shot clock doesn't show how many tenths are left. Fox most likely had less than 3secs to cross half-court. Add to the fact that Fox catches the ball with his left hand @ 2:39, and doesn't cross half-court until 2:42. As for the ref. If you slow down the vid you'll see the ref start to signal for the violation when Fox is still a step away from half-court. Boston was dumb for letting Fox handle the ball in that situation.
@704CarolinaBlue704 The refs are taught not to look at the clock but to use an actual manual count. If there was 17 on the clock then the ref knows its 3 more on the manual count. That was not 3 seconds. It was 2. And yes the ref started to motion while Fox was just before half court (that's what corrupt refs do). But the whistle would have came while he was still in the back court if it was really a violation. That's terrible officiating and I knew it when I watched the game live.
@FavreianVengeance You're counting way too slow if you think that was 2secs. I got 2.921 seconds with my stop watch. And NBA refs do use the shot clock for 10sec and now the 8sec violation. You can even see the ref getting himself in position to see Fox and the shot clock on the other end of the court because he knew it was going to be close. As soon the clock hits 14secs, that's a 10sec violation. You don't get extra time after calling a timeout in the form of a full 3sec manual count.
@704CarolinaBlue704 I was going to say break out your stop watch. And its not even 2.921. You're probably clicking when Mchale throws and/or click after Fox has already passed and adding time. It's a shade over 2 at the most. And no, the refs are explicitly taught to manual count so that they can monitor the action and not look at the clock. YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG ON THAT. And who's saying extra time. The ref would be at 3 seconds and as you pointed out, they made the wrong call. Thanks.
@FavreianVengeance I started as soon Fox touches the ball with his left hand and stopped as soon as the ball passed half-court. I ran it 5 times and got between 2.85 and 3.00 every time. The shot clock doesn't show how many tenths are left. There is likely less than 17secs on the shot clock(16.9-16.1). But you're suggesting the refs would have ignored this and given Fox a full 3sec manual count, which would have given BOS more than 10secs in total time to cross half-court. Doesn't work like that
@704CarolinaBlue704 LOL - Now you're upping to 3.00 after I explained the rule to you. Dude it wasn't 3 seconds by the manual count. There is no tenth involved by the standards of reffing so you really need to get off that dig. Once the ref sees 17 on the shot clock there is a full 3 second manual count given. No tenths are involved PERIOD. That's the standard of reffing even if it actually would give Boston a 10.4 or 10.5 hypothetically. And that is how it works so stop talking out your ass.
@FavreianVengeance So Boston should have been given more than 10 sec? LOL... I know for a fact that NBA refs glance at the shot clock once a team is in trouble of not getting across half-court in time, just to make sure their count is on point. This situation is no different. On the inbound, the ref would have glanced at the shot clock to get a reference for how much time Fox had left. It's the refs job to call a violation as soon as the shot clock reaches 14 sec. Not 13.5 or 13.6.
@704CarolinaBlue704 - That's the freaking rule dude. Refs are taught to manual count else they miss potential fouls. When Fox took it out with 17 on the clock the ref knows to do 3 seconds and not worry about whether it's 2.3 or whatever. That is standard procedure. Your theoretical nonsense is just smoke to detract from that reality. That was a weak call. Teams shouldn't be winning on such nonsense.
@FavreianVengeance There is nothing theoretical about NBA refs using the shot clock as a point of reference. I've seen them do it many times in person. There is also nothing theoretical about it being the refs job to call a 10 sec violation as soon as the shot clock hits 14. There were 2 refs watching the action in backcourt on this play. They were not going to miss a potential foul because one of them decided to glance at the shot clock. I laugh at your notion that Stern rigged this game.
Yes. The point of reference is 17 out of bounds, do a manual 3 count. Again, they are taught to use the manual count and not look at the clock. If they don't do it that way, they miss potential fouls. Your citing refs using the clock is bunk. Maybe some have in certain instances, but that is not proper procedure. And you shouldn't laugh at Stern rigging anything. The dude is a master marketer and manipulator to that end. He makes millions off of doing it such a way.
@FavreianVengeance .Please tell me more about your Stern conspiracy theories. LOL... For years I have watched NBA refs use the shot clock as a point of reference. Fact! And let me be clear. I never said NBA refs don't use a manual count at all, I said they use the shot clock as a point reference to make sure their count is on point. Meaning they glance at the shot clock once or twice. And whenever a team is pressed, there's always 2 refs watching the action. No fouls will be missed.
@704CarolinaBlue704 - I explained that shot clock as a point of reference is only on out of bounds plays. They are specifically taught to direct their attention to the court at all times, hence the manual count as a standard. That is a fact. You're in denial dude if you think otherwise. And that includes all 3 refs looking at the action (1 counting). Also a fact.
As for Stern conspiracies - YT 'Greatest Tragedy In Sports' - There's an awesome 9 part series covering Stern's corruption....
@FavreianVengeance I was being sarcastic. I'm not interested in your Stern conspiracy theories. You're the only one in denial here. You keep saying NBA refs are told to not use the shot clock. Yet, I can't find any source that backs up your claim. If you don't believe me when I tell you refs glance at the shot clock, just watch an NBA game in HD. Better yet, go to a game in person where it's even clearer. When a team struggles to get across half-court they almost always glance @ the shot clock.
@FavreianVengeance Sure... I my eyes are totally ignorant. David Stern rigged this game because he wanted the Charlotte Hornets to advance, seeing as they were a big market team with a large fanbase and a storied history. He knew they would bring in more ratings. Oh, wait. None of that is true. You must delusional to think Stern would favor CHA over BOS. From Stern's perspective, BOS advancing would have benefited the league more than CHA, And I still can't fine a source that backs up your claim
How the fuck would Boston advancing be better? Do you have any fucking idea how the NBA operates? They market 'stars.' And Charlotte had 2 of them, 'Grandma-ma and Zo.' I mean I can respect the hell out of McHale and Lewis and the Chief but they were not part of the plan at that point. Anyways. I told you to yt 'greatest tragedy in sports.' It's a 9 part series that takes an hour or so and we'll show you exactly the b.s Stern pulls.
@FavreianVengeance Charlotte even with their two young "stars" would not bring as many viewers in as the Celtics. BOS vs. NYK in the conference semi finals = big ratings. And I saw that video a long time ago. I also watched that whole Lakers vs. Kings series. Kings' fans actually have a reason to feel like they got screwed. You however... LOL. When Lewis got injured in game 1, that pretty much ended Boston's chance. CHA was a better team than BOS without Lewis. It had nothing to do with Stern.
That's not true at all. The Celts were better or about the same. Had they won this, there was no way they were losing Game 5 in Boston. And the Kings didn't merely get screwed b/c the refs had a bad game. And no - the Hornets vs. Bulls is what the league wanted. Again, they market stars. The 04 Pistons and 05 Spurs were great teams but death for ratings. THE NBA MARKETS STARS. Regional market size is a secondary factor.
@FavreianVengeance Right... Boston got blown out in game 3 by 30pts because of the refs and Stern. Anyone who watched this series without being complete homer such as yourself, could see that Boston was fighting a losing battle. Had Lewis played, I would agree with you that BOS was little better. And whenever Boston has a decent team they bring in big viewers. Boston brings in the casual viewers. Fans see BOS vs NYK they tune in. Stern loves big ratings more than anything.
Haha. You calling me a homer? That's a joke. Your name is Carolina lol. And when I explain reffing procedures you just argue for your team. Big deal if Boston got blown out by 30. They were on the road w/o their best player. They put it back together for game 4. They still had the perfect mix of CHAMPIONSHIP vets and young players to go out win game 4 and come back and win game 5. There's a reason Charlotte got their asses handed to them in the next Chicago series.
@FavreianVengeance CHA never played CHI in '93. They played the Knicks you idiot. The Knicks won the series 4-1, but every game except 1 was decided by 4pts or less. The Knicks were a 60 win team and CHA gave them a fight. Without Lewis, BOS did not have enough. They played from behind in games 2, 3, and 4. In game 4 they needed to outscore CHA 33-16 in the 4th just to make it close. It's not a coincidence that only game BOS won was game 1 when Lewis played. Keep riding your conspiracy theories
@704CarolinaBlue704 Oh for fuck's sake. I went off the top of my head. What does it matter if Chicago spanked em a year later? Ok then, so the freaking Knicks spanked the Hornets. Either way those Hornets were never that good. And you're full of shit about Boston not having enough. Just coz Mourning closed his eyes and made a shot that he missed 9 out of 10 times doesn't make Charlotte shit. If that thing went back to Boston, the C's would have buried the Hornets. They just weren't that good.
@FavreianVengeance I never claimed the Hornets were THAT good. But Boston even with Lewis (especially without him) weren't THAT good either. BOS won 48 games in 93. The Hornets won 44. Neither team was going to make it past the 2nd round. You're kidding yourself if you think BOS was a darkhorse contender. You see that's why I called you a homer. I'm the one who is talking out of my ass, yet here you are talking about conspiracy theories and making claims that aren't backed by any source.
Maybe Boston wasn't THAT good. But a team with Kevin McHale is always going to make it interesting. And yes Boston was a darkhorse contender. Reggie Lewis was a top ten player and Kevin McHale had been there before and he still had some juice. When Reggie went down in the 2Q of Gm 1, he already had 17 points. He was a money player. The C's had a solid 8 man rotation, the Hornets did not. The C's had what it took to compete. The Hornets wr lucky to squeak out Gm 20t.n Gm 4.
@FavreianVengeance Lewis was a top 10 player? LOL. You just keep exposing yourself as a homer. Lewis was a nice player. But come on. The Knicks where 4-1 against BOS in the '93 regular season. And 3 of those 4 wins weren't even close games. BOS had no chance of taking down NYK. They were not a darkhorse contender with or w/o Lewis. Fox, Douglas, Brown, McDaniel, all struggled from the field against CHA. What do you think they would have done against NY who had the best defense in the league?
@FavreianVengeance Lewis was a top 10 player? LOL. You just keep exposing yourself as a homer. Lewis was a nice player. But come on. The Knicks where 4-1 against BOS in the '93 regular season. And 3 of those 4 wins weren't even close games. BOS had no chance of taking down NYK. They were not a darkhorse contender with or w/o Lewis. Fox, Douglas, Brown, McDaniel, all struggled from the field against CHA. What do you think they would have done against NY who had the best defense in the league?
Lewis went down in the first Q of gm 1. The Celts still won. The C's were a darkhorse contender with Lewis. How good would have the Hornets been without LJ. They were barely shit with him. The C's had Dee Brown, McHale, Chief, Klein, Bagley, Douglas, Shaw, Fox, Gamble, Pickney. Plenty of quality players so stop talking out of your ass.
Your Bos/NY example is bunk. NY, LA, Chicago are the markets that attract national attention. Boston is merely the biggest regional market beyond that. Again, I don't know if you're just sticking your head in the sand, but the NBA markets stars. It's always been that way and it'll always be that way. The NBA had Grandmama/Zo vs. Jordan/Pippen. Do you really think they wanted the grandpas McHale/Parrish vs. Jordan/Pippen. I say that with all respect. But check your head.
As for the rest, there's historical examples. Bird complained in 84 about the Knicks getting more calls coz the league wanted NY/LA series. It's hard to refind that on google though. Look at the Jordan bs in the 90s (particularly the Jazz series). YT Game 3 of the 06 finals and see Wade getting a ghost foul to take a series from the Mavs. Look at Joey Crawford income tax evasion but hes Sterns goto guy Gm 1,4,7 of 10 Final (pivotal gms)....
Look at the refs making more money in playoffs than entire reg season so they have motivation to ref the way Stern wants as he hand picks refs. Look at the refs not being an independent entity. Look at Stern 'recalling' there were some bad calls gm 6 of the 02 WCF. The dude is sick and pathological.
so was it a goal tend at the end of the game or not? great play the celtics drew to try and win it at the buzzer. I can't blame them for being that heated if there actually was goal tending.
THIS WAS (to me at least) one of the BIGGEST UPSETS in playoffs history!
That was a RARE that a 7-footer shooting a three and MAKE IT COUULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED AT A BETTER TIME!!
Zo's SHOT WILL BE REMEMBERED FOREVER, but moments like that overshadow the play AFTER! The alley-oop that they missed WOULDVE CHANGED THE COURSE OF THAT SERIES, but this DEFINITELY ENDED BOSTON's DYNASTY FOR GOOD at least til Paul Pierce came along
@bdungan This is where Charlotte sports peaked in popularity. There will never be a team in Charlotte that will ever be as popular as the early to mid 90s Hornets. Ever. The Panthers can try, but they will fail.
Hornets were tight back in the day, Grandma-ma, Bogues, Mourning, and Gill. Incredible ballclub
ImSkywalkerBitch 5 days ago
What people forget about this all-time great game in the 1993 Playoffs is that the Hornets came VERY close to blowing a 19-point lead heading into the 4th..at the famed "Hive" no less..let's be honest though..neither of these teams were gonna have any shot at beating the world champion Bulls or the #1 seed in the East, the New York Knicks..this was Boston's last gasp..McHale's final game of his HOF career..and, oddly enough, Parish would become a Hornet in '94-95..
LuigiLaker 4 months ago
kevin mchale had a shattered foot 2blow out ankles and back spasms from 90-93. He had no business playing basketball on a rec league. Parish was 10yrs past his prime and the rest of our team were avg to poor role players. Bostons best player was an avid drug user who was over rated as it was
The hornets should have swept BOS in 3straight blow outs but as we now know no one on that hornet team ever amounted to anything but busts and underachievers who put together one good year in 93'
BCH19821091 4 months ago
That 3 was too crazy I remember watching this and my balls dropping that day.
MrGrammyWhammy 4 months ago
I just knew that the Hornets were going to be the team of the future in the East. Boy was I wrong, and disappointed.
jonbap426 4 months ago
@jonbap426 Larry Johnson and Alonzo Mourning hated each other's guts and that that was the reason of the downfall of the Hornets. It's quite sad.
MaztalNetwork 1 month ago
That wasn't a 10 second call by my count and the ref even called it when Rick Fox had passed half court. Another rigged game by Stern.
FavreianVengeance 6 months ago
@FavreianVengeance There was only 17secs left on the shot clock when Boston called the timeout. Meaning they only had 3secs left to get the ball over half-court. Fox took longer than 3secs to get over half-court....
704CarolinaBlue704 6 months ago
@704CarolinaBlue704
Nope - Fox catches @ 2:40 and passes half court @ 2:42 - 2 seconds. As I said, the whistle comes long after Fox passed half court. -- Another rigged game by the company men.
FavreianVengeance 6 months ago
@FavreianVengeance He actually catches the ball at 2:39....
704CarolinaBlue704 6 months ago
@704CarolinaBlue704
You could be right on that technically. But just count to 3 and you'll see. And don't count when he catches the ball. Count when he catches the ball. Count 1 when he catches and then 1 again a second later then right at 2 he crosses the court. It was only 2 seconds dude. Like I said - rigged. The ref even called it after Fox had passed the line.
FavreianVengeance 6 months ago
@FavreianVengeance There was 17secs left on the shot clock, but the shot clock doesn't show how many tenths are left. Fox most likely had less than 3secs to cross half-court. Add to the fact that Fox catches the ball with his left hand @ 2:39, and doesn't cross half-court until 2:42. As for the ref. If you slow down the vid you'll see the ref start to signal for the violation when Fox is still a step away from half-court. Boston was dumb for letting Fox handle the ball in that situation.
704CarolinaBlue704 6 months ago
@704CarolinaBlue704 The refs are taught not to look at the clock but to use an actual manual count. If there was 17 on the clock then the ref knows its 3 more on the manual count. That was not 3 seconds. It was 2. And yes the ref started to motion while Fox was just before half court (that's what corrupt refs do). But the whistle would have came while he was still in the back court if it was really a violation. That's terrible officiating and I knew it when I watched the game live.
FavreianVengeance 6 months ago
@FavreianVengeance You're counting way too slow if you think that was 2secs. I got 2.921 seconds with my stop watch. And NBA refs do use the shot clock for 10sec and now the 8sec violation. You can even see the ref getting himself in position to see Fox and the shot clock on the other end of the court because he knew it was going to be close. As soon the clock hits 14secs, that's a 10sec violation. You don't get extra time after calling a timeout in the form of a full 3sec manual count.
704CarolinaBlue704 6 months ago
@704CarolinaBlue704 I was going to say break out your stop watch. And its not even 2.921. You're probably clicking when Mchale throws and/or click after Fox has already passed and adding time. It's a shade over 2 at the most. And no, the refs are explicitly taught to manual count so that they can monitor the action and not look at the clock. YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG ON THAT. And who's saying extra time. The ref would be at 3 seconds and as you pointed out, they made the wrong call. Thanks.
FavreianVengeance 6 months ago
@FavreianVengeance I started as soon Fox touches the ball with his left hand and stopped as soon as the ball passed half-court. I ran it 5 times and got between 2.85 and 3.00 every time. The shot clock doesn't show how many tenths are left. There is likely less than 17secs on the shot clock(16.9-16.1). But you're suggesting the refs would have ignored this and given Fox a full 3sec manual count, which would have given BOS more than 10secs in total time to cross half-court. Doesn't work like that
704CarolinaBlue704 6 months ago
@704CarolinaBlue704 LOL - Now you're upping to 3.00 after I explained the rule to you. Dude it wasn't 3 seconds by the manual count. There is no tenth involved by the standards of reffing so you really need to get off that dig. Once the ref sees 17 on the shot clock there is a full 3 second manual count given. No tenths are involved PERIOD. That's the standard of reffing even if it actually would give Boston a 10.4 or 10.5 hypothetically. And that is how it works so stop talking out your ass.
FavreianVengeance 6 months ago
@FavreianVengeance So Boston should have been given more than 10 sec? LOL... I know for a fact that NBA refs glance at the shot clock once a team is in trouble of not getting across half-court in time, just to make sure their count is on point. This situation is no different. On the inbound, the ref would have glanced at the shot clock to get a reference for how much time Fox had left. It's the refs job to call a violation as soon as the shot clock reaches 14 sec. Not 13.5 or 13.6.
704CarolinaBlue704 6 months ago
@704CarolinaBlue704 - That's the freaking rule dude. Refs are taught to manual count else they miss potential fouls. When Fox took it out with 17 on the clock the ref knows to do 3 seconds and not worry about whether it's 2.3 or whatever. That is standard procedure. Your theoretical nonsense is just smoke to detract from that reality. That was a weak call. Teams shouldn't be winning on such nonsense.
FavreianVengeance 6 months ago
@FavreianVengeance There is nothing theoretical about NBA refs using the shot clock as a point of reference. I've seen them do it many times in person. There is also nothing theoretical about it being the refs job to call a 10 sec violation as soon as the shot clock hits 14. There were 2 refs watching the action in backcourt on this play. They were not going to miss a potential foul because one of them decided to glance at the shot clock. I laugh at your notion that Stern rigged this game.
704CarolinaBlue704 6 months ago
@704CarolinaBlue704
Yes. The point of reference is 17 out of bounds, do a manual 3 count. Again, they are taught to use the manual count and not look at the clock. If they don't do it that way, they miss potential fouls. Your citing refs using the clock is bunk. Maybe some have in certain instances, but that is not proper procedure. And you shouldn't laugh at Stern rigging anything. The dude is a master marketer and manipulator to that end. He makes millions off of doing it such a way.
FavreianVengeance 6 months ago
@FavreianVengeance .Please tell me more about your Stern conspiracy theories. LOL... For years I have watched NBA refs use the shot clock as a point of reference. Fact! And let me be clear. I never said NBA refs don't use a manual count at all, I said they use the shot clock as a point reference to make sure their count is on point. Meaning they glance at the shot clock once or twice. And whenever a team is pressed, there's always 2 refs watching the action. No fouls will be missed.
704CarolinaBlue704 6 months ago
@704CarolinaBlue704 - I explained that shot clock as a point of reference is only on out of bounds plays. They are specifically taught to direct their attention to the court at all times, hence the manual count as a standard. That is a fact. You're in denial dude if you think otherwise. And that includes all 3 refs looking at the action (1 counting). Also a fact.
As for Stern conspiracies - YT 'Greatest Tragedy In Sports' - There's an awesome 9 part series covering Stern's corruption....
FavreianVengeance 6 months ago
@FavreianVengeance I was being sarcastic. I'm not interested in your Stern conspiracy theories. You're the only one in denial here. You keep saying NBA refs are told to not use the shot clock. Yet, I can't find any source that backs up your claim. If you don't believe me when I tell you refs glance at the shot clock, just watch an NBA game in HD. Better yet, go to a game in person where it's even clearer. When a team struggles to get across half-court they almost always glance @ the shot clock.
704CarolinaBlue704 6 months ago
@704CarolinaBlue704
Your a total fucktard that can't handle fucking reality. You want to be ignorant stay ignorant. I don't give a fuck loosuh.
FavreianVengeance 6 months ago
@FavreianVengeance Sure... I my eyes are totally ignorant. David Stern rigged this game because he wanted the Charlotte Hornets to advance, seeing as they were a big market team with a large fanbase and a storied history. He knew they would bring in more ratings. Oh, wait. None of that is true. You must delusional to think Stern would favor CHA over BOS. From Stern's perspective, BOS advancing would have benefited the league more than CHA, And I still can't fine a source that backs up your claim
704CarolinaBlue704 6 months ago
@704CarolinaBlue704
How the fuck would Boston advancing be better? Do you have any fucking idea how the NBA operates? They market 'stars.' And Charlotte had 2 of them, 'Grandma-ma and Zo.' I mean I can respect the hell out of McHale and Lewis and the Chief but they were not part of the plan at that point. Anyways. I told you to yt 'greatest tragedy in sports.' It's a 9 part series that takes an hour or so and we'll show you exactly the b.s Stern pulls.
FavreianVengeance 6 months ago
@FavreianVengeance Charlotte even with their two young "stars" would not bring as many viewers in as the Celtics. BOS vs. NYK in the conference semi finals = big ratings. And I saw that video a long time ago. I also watched that whole Lakers vs. Kings series. Kings' fans actually have a reason to feel like they got screwed. You however... LOL. When Lewis got injured in game 1, that pretty much ended Boston's chance. CHA was a better team than BOS without Lewis. It had nothing to do with Stern.
704CarolinaBlue704 6 months ago
@704CarolinaBlue704
That's not true at all. The Celts were better or about the same. Had they won this, there was no way they were losing Game 5 in Boston. And the Kings didn't merely get screwed b/c the refs had a bad game. And no - the Hornets vs. Bulls is what the league wanted. Again, they market stars. The 04 Pistons and 05 Spurs were great teams but death for ratings. THE NBA MARKETS STARS. Regional market size is a secondary factor.
FavreianVengeance 6 months ago
@FavreianVengeance Right... Boston got blown out in game 3 by 30pts because of the refs and Stern. Anyone who watched this series without being complete homer such as yourself, could see that Boston was fighting a losing battle. Had Lewis played, I would agree with you that BOS was little better. And whenever Boston has a decent team they bring in big viewers. Boston brings in the casual viewers. Fans see BOS vs NYK they tune in. Stern loves big ratings more than anything.
704CarolinaBlue704 6 months ago
@704CarolinaBlue704
Haha. You calling me a homer? That's a joke. Your name is Carolina lol. And when I explain reffing procedures you just argue for your team. Big deal if Boston got blown out by 30. They were on the road w/o their best player. They put it back together for game 4. They still had the perfect mix of CHAMPIONSHIP vets and young players to go out win game 4 and come back and win game 5. There's a reason Charlotte got their asses handed to them in the next Chicago series.
FavreianVengeance 6 months ago
@FavreianVengeance CHA never played CHI in '93. They played the Knicks you idiot. The Knicks won the series 4-1, but every game except 1 was decided by 4pts or less. The Knicks were a 60 win team and CHA gave them a fight. Without Lewis, BOS did not have enough. They played from behind in games 2, 3, and 4. In game 4 they needed to outscore CHA 33-16 in the 4th just to make it close. It's not a coincidence that only game BOS won was game 1 when Lewis played. Keep riding your conspiracy theories
704CarolinaBlue704 6 months ago
@704CarolinaBlue704 Oh for fuck's sake. I went off the top of my head. What does it matter if Chicago spanked em a year later? Ok then, so the freaking Knicks spanked the Hornets. Either way those Hornets were never that good. And you're full of shit about Boston not having enough. Just coz Mourning closed his eyes and made a shot that he missed 9 out of 10 times doesn't make Charlotte shit. If that thing went back to Boston, the C's would have buried the Hornets. They just weren't that good.
FavreianVengeance 6 months ago
@FavreianVengeance I never claimed the Hornets were THAT good. But Boston even with Lewis (especially without him) weren't THAT good either. BOS won 48 games in 93. The Hornets won 44. Neither team was going to make it past the 2nd round. You're kidding yourself if you think BOS was a darkhorse contender. You see that's why I called you a homer. I'm the one who is talking out of my ass, yet here you are talking about conspiracy theories and making claims that aren't backed by any source.
704CarolinaBlue704 6 months ago
@704CarolinaBlue704
Maybe Boston wasn't THAT good. But a team with Kevin McHale is always going to make it interesting. And yes Boston was a darkhorse contender. Reggie Lewis was a top ten player and Kevin McHale had been there before and he still had some juice. When Reggie went down in the 2Q of Gm 1, he already had 17 points. He was a money player. The C's had a solid 8 man rotation, the Hornets did not. The C's had what it took to compete. The Hornets wr lucky to squeak out Gm 20t.n Gm 4.
FavreianVengeance 6 months ago
@FavreianVengeance Lewis was a top 10 player? LOL. You just keep exposing yourself as a homer. Lewis was a nice player. But come on. The Knicks where 4-1 against BOS in the '93 regular season. And 3 of those 4 wins weren't even close games. BOS had no chance of taking down NYK. They were not a darkhorse contender with or w/o Lewis. Fox, Douglas, Brown, McDaniel, all struggled from the field against CHA. What do you think they would have done against NY who had the best defense in the league?
704CarolinaBlue704 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FavreianVengeance Lewis was a top 10 player? LOL. You just keep exposing yourself as a homer. Lewis was a nice player. But come on. The Knicks where 4-1 against BOS in the '93 regular season. And 3 of those 4 wins weren't even close games. BOS had no chance of taking down NYK. They were not a darkhorse contender with or w/o Lewis. Fox, Douglas, Brown, McDaniel, all struggled from the field against CHA. What do you think they would have done against NY who had the best defense in the league?
704CarolinaBlue704 6 months ago
@704CarolinaBlue704
Lewis went down in the first Q of gm 1. The Celts still won. The C's were a darkhorse contender with Lewis. How good would have the Hornets been without LJ. They were barely shit with him. The C's had Dee Brown, McHale, Chief, Klein, Bagley, Douglas, Shaw, Fox, Gamble, Pickney. Plenty of quality players so stop talking out of your ass.
FavreianVengeance 6 months ago
@704CarolinaBlue704
Your Bos/NY example is bunk. NY, LA, Chicago are the markets that attract national attention. Boston is merely the biggest regional market beyond that. Again, I don't know if you're just sticking your head in the sand, but the NBA markets stars. It's always been that way and it'll always be that way. The NBA had Grandmama/Zo vs. Jordan/Pippen. Do you really think they wanted the grandpas McHale/Parrish vs. Jordan/Pippen. I say that with all respect. But check your head.
FavreianVengeance 6 months ago
@704CarolinaBlue704
As for the rest, there's historical examples. Bird complained in 84 about the Knicks getting more calls coz the league wanted NY/LA series. It's hard to refind that on google though. Look at the Jordan bs in the 90s (particularly the Jazz series). YT Game 3 of the 06 finals and see Wade getting a ghost foul to take a series from the Mavs. Look at Joey Crawford income tax evasion but hes Sterns goto guy Gm 1,4,7 of 10 Final (pivotal gms)....
FavreianVengeance 6 months ago
@704CarolinaBlue704
Look at the refs making more money in playoffs than entire reg season so they have motivation to ref the way Stern wants as he hand picks refs. Look at the refs not being an independent entity. Look at Stern 'recalling' there were some bad calls gm 6 of the 02 WCF. The dude is sick and pathological.
FavreianVengeance 6 months ago
That was goal tending at the end! Home town hall by the Refs!
SWALE1984 7 months ago
@SWALE1984 I don't think goaltending should be allowed in the instance where a shot has no arc. Blocking that attempt is like blocking a dunk.
ChuckyFE 7 months ago
Steve Martin does an excellent job announcing. No wonder he's pretty much been the Charlotte NBA team's only play-by-play guy, on radio and TV.
sctvhound 10 months ago
Comment removed
XCarolinaPantherX 1 year ago
Wow even back then, The Celtics got screwed by the refs
kevinc1001 1 year ago
so was it a goal tend at the end of the game or not? great play the celtics drew to try and win it at the buzzer. I can't blame them for being that heated if there actually was goal tending.
billny33 1 year ago
one word...CLASSIC!
THIS WAS (to me at least) one of the BIGGEST UPSETS in playoffs history!
That was a RARE that a 7-footer shooting a three and MAKE IT COUULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED AT A BETTER TIME!!
Zo's SHOT WILL BE REMEMBERED FOREVER, but moments like that overshadow the play AFTER! The alley-oop that they missed WOULDVE CHANGED THE COURSE OF THAT SERIES, but this DEFINITELY ENDED BOSTON's DYNASTY FOR GOOD at least til Paul Pierce came along
muntzman4sho 1 year ago
If Reggie Lewis had been playing this series the Celtics would have won easily!!!!
thebig1 1 year ago
@thebig1 Nah, wouldn't have been easy. They only won 47 games that year and never really replaced Bird. Charlotte deserved to win.
KHayes666 9 months ago
Did U know that Kevin Mchale retired after this game?
Gimperman 1 year ago
if Dee Brown won on that lob it would have been LEGENDARY
xmuscularghandix 1 year ago
is the clock supposed to stop as soon as it goes through the net or as soon as it hits the floor?
slydawg221 1 year ago
sherman douglas leaped like a fairy at halfcourt after that steal+layup off larry johnson...big shot by zo though.
MrSlik25 1 year ago
@MrSlik25 what is sherman doing? LMAO
MrHoopsFanatic 1 year ago
i was in 8th
jaecourt 1 year ago
MAn. I miss the Hornets back in Charlotte.
Rucks90 1 year ago
@Rucks90 me too.
bull864 1 year ago
The first NBA game I ever saw... I was a Hornets fan before, but after this I became a fanatic
neondiscogod 2 years ago
Is this where the Hornets peaked in their popularity?
bdungan 2 years ago 7
@bdungan This is where Charlotte sports peaked in popularity. There will never be a team in Charlotte that will ever be as popular as the early to mid 90s Hornets. Ever. The Panthers can try, but they will fail.
MaztalNetwork 1 month ago
@MaztalNetwork I don't know...that Panther's season in 2003 was pretty exciting...
bdungan 1 month ago
This was classic I remembering being in the 6th grade watching this!!!
jaboo82681 2 years ago 5