Asterisk II

[gasolina]

The last time the NBA had a lockout, the Spurs won their very first NBA title albeit a championship that will forever be (thanks to Phil) the asterisk title.

Now with a promising roster to complement the aging Big 3, do Spurs fans feel that another shortened season will be another banner year?

:toast

[Phillip]

lol dick jefferson and matt bonner = promising roster

[spurs50_]

all of phil's championships have asterisks. now he can go back and do what he does best, kfc.

[jason1301]

lol dick jefferson and matt bonner = promising roster

:lmao

I so want to see Dick go...

[manufan10]

:lmao

I so want to see Dick go...

I bet you want to see dick... :wow



:lol

[Sean Cagney]

Only reason it is an asterisk to LA fans is to make them feel better about getting swept, thats really the only reason they use that crap.


BTW your 02 title is an asterisk.

[dbreiden83080]

If your saying the title is an asterisk that should mean you think someone else would have beat the Spurs in a full season in 99. Well who was that team? Spurs were getting more dominant as the season went on and steam-rolled through the playoffs..

50 or 82 who was beating them?

[sananspursfan21]

promising roster as in they'll make the playoffs again. promising in terms of a championship? not likely, but once the playoffs start, it's really anybodys game

[spurs1990]

1999 was completely abnormal.

The 8th seed in the East made it to the Finals that year.

I would say if a full season with full training camp were held, it would have been Chicago or Utah winning it all. Spurs would have succumed to injury just like every other year until 2003.

[Proxy]

1999 was completely abnormal.

The 8th seed in the East made it to the Finals that year.

I would say if a full season with full training camp were held, it would have been Chicago or Utah winning it all. Spurs would have succumed to injury just like every other year until 2003.

Well if the shorter season kept us from injury, doesn't that make the title even more justifiable? I don't think you'll hear any team say that they would like to beat a team not at full strength.

[gasolina]

Only reason it is an asterisk to LA fans is to make them feel better about getting swept, thats really the only reason they use that crap.


BTW your 02 title is an asterisk.

Is that because dick jefferson was on that NJ team?:ihit

[ambchang]

1999 was completely abnormal.

The 8th seed in the East made it to the Finals that year.

I would say if a full season with full training camp were held, it would have been Chicago or Utah winning it all. Spurs would have succumed to injury just like every other year until 2003.

Chicago?

[dbreiden83080]

1999 was completely abnormal.

The 8th seed in the East made it to the Finals that year.

I would say if a full season with full training camp were held, it would have been Chicago or Utah winning it all. Spurs would have succumed to injury just like every other year until 2003.

Utah??

Really Utah.. Right.. The Mailman was finally gonna stop choking i guess..

[Horse]

The asterisk is stupidest shit i've ever heard. EVERYONE PLAYED THE SAME AMOUNT OF GAMES, WITH THE SAME RULES HOW DID THAT FAVOR THE SPURS?

[Trill Clinton]

Chicago?


Exactly what I was thinking. They were horrendous that year.

[Blackjack]

A strike-shortened season is about the only chance the Spurs have of winning a title. They have zero margin for error - no top-5 player, their best have seen their best come and go and they're without a team that's sum is greater than the greatest's whole or dominant enough on one end of the court to beat the best of the best for the duration of a playoff.

Blackjack is pro-strike.

[/Back to my hole]

[TJastal]

A strike-shortened season is about the only chance the Spurs have of winning a title. They have zero margin for error - no top-5 player, their best have seen their best come and go and they're without a team that's sum is greater than the greatest's whole or dominant enough on one end of the court to beat the best of the best for the duration of a playoff.

Blackjack is pro-strike.

[/Back to my hole]

Pro-strike might might have been helpful back in '99 when the spurs had an established rotation of veterans.

In 2011 however, a strike shortened season would work against them, seeing as they have many new faces that need to be integrated into the team. Splitter, Leonard, Green, Anderson (if they even sign him), Neal (if Pop uses him as a point guard which will probably end up happening). And if the spurs integrate another young 4/5 into the rotation (like Richards for instance) ... that's alot of guys that need development and minutes.

Add in the fact that these days Pop usually takes all 82 games to figure out a decent rotation and the season would probably need to be an extra 20 or so games for him to actually set a rotation and then get it to gel.

[spurs1990]

Chicago?

Had the league not shut down in July 1998, that squad would not have been dismantled the way it was. I think Jordan still wanted to play anyway...why did he wait until January to put his papers in? Pippen, Rodman, Jackson would have remained in the fold.

As for Utah, this article entails some interesting aspects of that time frame:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/jazz/52119239-87/jazz-season-games-stockton.html.csp

[ambchang]

If memory serves right, there were tensions building up in 98 all year in the Bulls camp. Pippen never got a contract extension after the 98 season ended. Krause was bickering with Jordan and Pippen throughout, and the Bulls were going to breakup, like the 04 Lakers.

On top of that, the Bulls were running on fumes, they barely beat a Pacers team.

So there are two major assumptions here:
1) The Bulls would have been kept intact if there was not a lockout - Rodman may be gone, Pippen is likely gone, Jordan would have retired if Pippen was gone, and no way in hell would Jackson have left behind with such a mediocre team.
2) The Bulls would have been as dominant as they were in previous years if their team was kept intact - highly doubtful.

As for the Jazz, puleeeezzzzzz, that pedophile choker would miss key shots while checking out 14-year old girls during the playoffs.

[myhc]

I think if the Bulls had been kept together for that 99 season, the series would've gone 7 games, edge to the Bulls.

Luc Longley vs David Robinson: Robinson was at the end of his prime and entering the twilight of his career but still one of the top centers in the league and still a terrific defender. Robinson wins this battle decisiviely.

Dennis Rodman vs Tim Duncan: A young Timmy at this point was already one of the top 5-10 players in the league and soon on his way to top 3. But the Worm was one of the best defenders in the league. He would've given Duncan fits. At the end of the day, edge to Timmy but not as decisive as one might think.

Scottie Pippen vs Sean Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_: Both were on the tail ends of their primes but edge goes to Pippen who was still one of the top SFs in the league at the time.

Michael Jordan vs Mario Ellie: I loved Ellie's toughness but Jordan even at this late stage in his career would've easily had his way.

Ron Harper vs Avery Johnson: Harper was long, atheletic and simply a mismatch for other smaller PGs like Avery. AJ would've used his quickness and toughness to counteract. Matchup is a wash.

Bench: Toni Kukoc, Bill Wennington, Jud Buechler, and Scott Burrell vs Malik Rose, Jaren Jackson, Antonio Daniels, Will Perdue: edge to Bulls because of Kukoc. Who was going to match up with him?

Coaching: Phil vs Pop: Phil's had Pops' number time and time again and I don't see how this would've been any different.

Bulls with the edge in the backcourt, the wings, bench and coaching. Spurs with the edge on the boards, paint defense, and 3 point shooting. Bulls in a tight, hard fought 7 game series at home with Jordan taking over in the 4th quarter and Rodman giving Timmy just enough fits to keep him off balance for a few games.

[DMC]

asterisk = shortened regular season. lol regular season don't matter.

[mavsfan1000]

Lakers probably win if that season wasn't shortened. No offense to the Spurs that year. Therefore, a shortened season=asterisk.

[DMC]

Lakers probably win if that season wasn't shortened. No offense to the Spurs that year. Therefore, a shortened season=asterisk.

No, because Shaq would have broken his foot if the season went one more regular season game. Prove me wrong.

[daslicer]

Lakers probably win if that season wasn't shortened. No offense to the Spurs that year. Therefore, a shortened season=asterisk.

Actually they wouldn't have for a few reasons. The first one is their coach Dell Harris was a dumbass and they fired him 16-17 games within in the season and they probably would have still done it had it been a full season. Second they replaced Dell with another dumbass in Rambis the same Rambis that coaches the wolves. Rambis is a terrible coach and had a no clue what he was doing with the lakers. Third reason was they had horrible chemistry everybody on that team hated each other that was one of the main reasons why they choked under pressure. Number 4 the spurs were a terrible matchup for that team much like the Mavs were a bad match up for the spurs after '06. The spurs even during the full season under Phill Jackson in '00 still went 3-1 against the Lakers. They had the lakers number much like the mavs did with the spurs back in '07 but lucked out from playing the spurs that year in the playoffs due to Duncan tearing his ACL. After '00 the majority of the spurs core was old and used up. So in conclusion the Lakers wouldn't have won against the spurs in a full season they must didn't have the tools do it that year.

[Sean Cagney]

Lakers probably win if that season wasn't shortened. No offense to the Spurs that year. Therefore, a shortened season=asterisk.

Ehhhhhhhhhhhhh no, you have no proof there either :lol:lol. Season was shortened, how the hell was that an advantage for the SPURS? They played the same amount of games and streaked at the right time, nobody even came close to them those playoffs bro! NOBODY. Spurs were the best team that year and you aren't taking that away.
Actually they wouldn't have for a few reasons. The first one is their coach Dell Harris was a dumbass and they fired him 16-17 games within in the season and they probably would have still done it had it been a full season. Second they replaced Dell with another dumbass in Rambis the same Rambis that coaches the wolves. Rambis is a terrible coach and had a no clue what he was doing with the lakers. Third reason was they had horrible chemistry everybody on that team hated each other that was one of the main reasons why they choked under pressure. Number 4 the spurs were a terrible matchup for that team much like the Mavs were a bad match up for the spurs after '06. The spurs even during the full season under Phill Jackson in '00 still went 3-1 against the Lakers. They had the lakers number much like the mavs did with the spurs back in '07 but lucked out from playing the spurs that year in the playoffs due to Duncan tearing his ACL. After '00 the majority of the spurs core was old and used up. So in conclusion the Lakers wouldn't have won against the spurs in a full season they must didn't have the tools do it that year.
That is all true and he doesn't know that, at one time the Spurs had won 9 out of 10 and 10 out of 12 VS LA! I am not making that up either they had that streak at one point vs LA. He has no clue what he is talking about.

[sprrs]

The point of this thread is to make Spur fans insecure about the '99 asterisk, by asking us how we would feel about another title with an asterisk.

Would I take another title with an asterisk next to it.

Yes. Absolutely yes. Without question.

[DrSteffo]

Haha Fakers...Odumb, the Black mongo and some big retarded kid can't even remember his name...you can't even win by paying the refs anymore.

[DJ Mbenga]

chicago had no shot to win that title that year. that knick team had a ewing who looked more like the ducan of today. last stand