NBA forum consensus: The 1999 San Antonio Spurs

[IrisHockey]

obviously a controversial championship, one that is deemed an asterisk title by many NBA observers... now, because this is a Spurs forum, obviously, most grey named Spurs fans and select few bold namer tallies do not count, as their opinions are irrelevant. Let's see what the NBA forum, home of many objective fans, obviously, thinks of this matter.

Vote YES- the 1999 spurs are illegitimate champions of the NBA.. you agree with Phil Jackson's philosophy:

“I always kind of term that as an asterisk season out of this fun at poking fun at San Antonio. In reality it changes the complexity of how you play the game and what you make your team up with. You have to have young players and you have to have healthy players to win. So they want to have a representative season and we have some terrific teams in the NBA right now and there are some teams that are very, very good. It should be interesting to see how a lot of them come out and a lot of teams don’t want to lose that opportunity.”

Vote NO- the 1999 spurs are legitimate. You obviously agree with Cubby's philosophical sayings, "only pussies and assholes lodge the asterisk", "Make the playoffs, Win the last game. That's it."


UPDATE 9:51 pacific time : Official poll tally is at 10-5 in favor of the asterisk. 4 of the votes from unnamed members have been negated

[Infinite_limit]

Who was better? Pacers?

[Strange Love]

Alls I'm saying is if you deem 1999 title run as an asterisk, you must deem the 2012 Heat title run one as well.

[dg7md]

They won a championship. Yes, they are champions. Duration of the season doesn't matter. Just some common knowledge here.

The 2011-2012 season began on December 25th, didn't it? Are the Heat asterisk champions, too?

[spurraider21]

the spurs were the best team in the 1998-99 season. they had the #1 overall seed in the nba, and they won their 4 playoff series 3-1, 4-0, 4-0, and 4-1. period.

[Gummi Clutch]

This irrelevant faggot trying so hard with this thread :lol

[DD]

Abortion of a season sandwiched between 2 great dynasties

[IrisHockey]

The current, official tally is 5 to 3.. 4 unnamed members' votes have been negated.

[rogues]

It's all about that "*"..

[IrisHockey]

An interesting excerpt from an article written by objective NBA fan Craig Kwasniewski:


Much like the 1982 and 1987 Washington Redskins and the 1981 LA Dodgers, the 1999 Spurs can never rank up there with title-holders from full seasons. The "highlight" from the 1999 Finals was a wide open 14-foot baseline jumper by Avery Johnson for crissake... not a key steal or a sick layup, but a W-I-D-E O-P-E-N 14-foot jumper.

http://theassociation.blogs.com/the_association/2007/07/two-asterisks-f.html

[sexinthatsx]

whoops I voted wrong. I meant to vote no asterisk. Your poll and your take sucks. gtfo.

[UZER]

I understood, didn't agree, but understood the asterisk when they won 99. But then they won 3 more and blow that shit out of the water.

[King Emmanuel]

Well since timmy almost left us for orlando in 2000 he must have believed in the asterisk too

[spurraider21]

knocking on 99 because there was no defining highlight? as opposed to the defining highlight of the lakers titles in 2000, 01, or 02? heck, from all of those, the image that everyone remembers is iverson stepping over tyronn lue

[Spurs 4 The Win]

10 to 10, cant believe 10 people actually believe this would warrant an asterisk lol, wtf yall smokin

[Spurs 4 The Win]

knocking on 99 because there was no defining highlight? as opposed to the defining highlight of the lakers titles in 2000, 01, or 02? heck, from all of those, the image that everyone remembers is iverson stepping over tyronn lue

Sean Ellio t says HI

[sexinthatsx]

knocking on 99 because there was no defining highlight? as opposed to the defining highlight of the lakers titles in 2000, 01, or 02? heck, from all of those, the image that everyone remembers is iverson stepping over tyronn lue

lol All i remember from that finals was Iverson was a one-man wrecking crew out there. Unfortunately all his teammates were pure crap and he was the only guy making shot after shot out there and it wasn't enough

[Pelicans78]

I never thought about it being an asterisk. I remember that team on fire and being very dominant in the playoffs. Not sure who could have beaten them even though the Knicks were decimated with injuries. But the Spurs were still better at full strength.

[Katherine Robinson]

It has to be, it was a road bump to the next generation of the NBA

[Jacob1983]

Of course, there has to be an asterisk. The asterisk is to tell dumbasses that there were 50 games in the 1998-1999 regular season. It still counts as a championship, just not in an 82 game regular season.

[Sean Cagney]

AL fans I tell you, they got swept that year so they will always say asterisk to make themselves feel better. Not a word before Phil said it, when he joins and says it though then it was valid and an excuse of why they go their ass whipped.

BTW Miami also won in a shortened year, you never hear shit about that though right? Phil didn't need to say that about them winning it because he just saw the Spurs as a threat and tried to troll them all the time or some fans.
I never thought about it being an asterisk. I remember that team on fire and being very dominant in the playoffs. Not sure who could have beaten them even though the Knicks were decimated with injuries. But the Spurs were still better at full strength.

The Spurs were not going to be beaten that year, 82 games or whatever. LA had a shit coach as well that year, no way they beat the Spurs. Portland had a shot but they were mentally fragile when they lost that game 2, they gave up then.

[Arcadian]

Oh ok, so the *2012 Heat were an * team too right?

[Sean Cagney]

Oh ok, so the *2012 Heat were an * team too right?

I have not heard that one time and it's funny to me, not one thing. Usually a rival fan will use that crap! Dallas fans try to use the Skins superbowls as shortened years but you never heard it from others nor again, same with LA fans on the Spurs title! Your rival was upset you beat them or won the title that year so they have to hate some how, period.

[Sean Cagney]

Lebron on the so called asterisk as well.

"I don't discredit the effort San Antonio had when they won it in '99 after the lockout," James said. "We all know Gregg Popovich is an unbelievable coach and Tim Duncan is an unbelievable player. It shouldn't matter. They won multiple (titles) after that so are we going to say that first one wasn't good enough? I don't think that's true at all."

James said he believes the opposite is true. This has been a more difficult season than usual because of the demanding schedule and therefore the eventual champion would have had a more challenging road.

"This is a tough season; this is a difficult season for everyone," James said. "This is the toughest season since my rookie year. This is very challenging to us mentally and physically."

[daslicer]

Tbh i never understood why Lakerfans are always bitter about the '99 sweep considering they didn't have any sour grapes after the Mav's swept them in '12. The Lakers from '96-'99 wasn't a team ready to win a title a full season would not have a changed anything. During that time period they were pretty much like the Nash-Amare suns, a team that relied heavily on beating you on offense but wasn't great defensively. Come playoff time they always fell apart to more disciplined teams like losing to the Jazz in 5 in '97 and then getting swept the next year by the Jazz in '98. The spurs sweeping them in '99 wasn't a fluke because the previous two years they had gone out in embarrassing fashion. You had a dumbass coach in Del Harris followed by Kurt Rambis its hard to imagine with those two idiots in charge that the Lakers would have won it all in '99 if they had played 82 games.

[Sean Cagney]

Tbh i never understood why Lakerfans are always bitter about the '99 sweep considering they didn't have any sour grapes after the Mav's swept them in '12. The Lakers from '96-'99 wasn't a team ready to win a title a full season would not have a changed anything. During that time period they were pretty much like the Nash-Amare suns, a team that relied heavily on beating you on offense but wasn't great defensively. Come playoff time they always fell apart to more disciplined teams like losing to the Jazz in 5 in '97 and then getting swept the next year by the Jazz in '98. The spurs sweeping them in '99 wasn't a fluke because the previous two years they had gone out in embarrassing fashion. You had a dumbass coach in Del Harris followed by Kurt Rambis its hard to imagine with those two idiots in charge that the Lakers would have won it all in '99 if they had played 82 games.Because their GOD Phil didn't say anything about it that year! Probably because he coached and got whipped! If he coached in 99 and lost I bet you don't hear a word, the fact he came back later to coach and had a word to say about it because he was not there is the reason he tried it! If he got beaten by the 99 Spurs not a word, guaranteed.

[DD]

Because their GOD Phil didn't say anything about it that year! Probably because he coached and got whipped! If he coached in 99 and lost I bet you don't hear a word, the fact he came back later to coach and had a word to say about it because he was not there is the reason he tried it! If he got beaten by the 99 Spurs not a word, guaranteed.
:lolThe only time Pop ever beat Phil H2H was when Phil spent part of the series in a cardiac cathlab getting an angioplasty

[ezau]

It's all about that "*"..

Heat's 2012 Title:lol

[Sean Cagney]

:lolThe only time Pop ever beat Phil H2H was when Phil spent part of the series in a cardiac cathlab getting an angioplasty

Let me guess you voted asterisk too? Although your team got swept that year? I am guessing yes. No way LA beats the Spurs in 99 regardless, period. Your fanbase uses that as an excuse though to make themselves feel better, if Phil did not say it you would never say a word about it.
It's all about that "*"..

You are one to talk in this watered down ass league and the 012 title.

Even your GOD Lebron says it's not an * as I quoted above :lol:lol

[DD]

Let me guess you voted asterisk too? Although your team got swept that year? I am guessing yes. No way LA beats the Spurs in 99 regardless, period. Your fanbase uses that as an excuse though to make themselves feel better, if Phil did not say it you would never say a word about it.

You are one to talk in this watered down ass league and the 012 title.

Even your GOD Lebron says it's not an * as I quoted above :lol:lol

I see this is a sore subject for you:lol

[Sean Cagney]

I see this is a sore subject for you:lol

Oh lord here we go with you, okay enough said now. Spurs got 3 afterwards so they avoided just that one so called asterisk, I am fine. I see you avoid truth though.

You LA fans are bored at home early for a few years now I see hating on the Spurs :lol:lol:lol

[Calispursfan11]

obviously a controversial championship, one that is deemed an asterisk title by many NBA observers... now, because this is a Spurs forum, obviously, most grey named Spurs fans and select few bold namer tallies do not count, as their opinions are irrelevant. Let's see what the NBA forum, home of many objective fans, obviously, thinks of this matter.

Vote YES- the 1999 spurs are illegitimate champions of the NBA.. you agree with Phil Jackson's philosophy:


Vote NO- the 1999 spurs are legitimate. You obviously agree with Cubby's philosophical sayings, "only pussies and assholes lodge the asterisk", "Make the playoffs, Win the last game. That's it."


UPDATE 9:51 pacific time : Official poll tally is at 10-5 in favor of the asterisk. 4 of the votes from unnamed members have been negated

Irish, since you made it on my best poster's list a long time ago, you have gone full dark side. It's not a good thing.

[DD]

Oh lord here we go with you, okay enough said now. Spurs got 3 afterwards so they avoided just that one so called asterisk, I am fine. I see you avoid truth though.

You LA fans are bored at home early for a few years now I see hating on the Spurs :lol:lol:lol

:lolA one line comment from Phil has created 15 years of saltiness from Spurfan

[daslicer]

You LA fans are bored at home early for a few years now I see hating on the Spurs :lol:lol:lol

Haven't you heard they are really confident right now since they are going to get Kevin Love. Love-Kobe = 2 more titles for them :lol

[DD]

^
I love it when nobodies try to crowbar their opinion into threads

[spurraider21]

so people on this forum mock regular season accomplishments, yet want a championship to somehow not count the same due to circumstances that affected only the regular season? k

as i said in my previous post, the spurs were the dominant team in the league that year, regardless of season length. they started the season 6-8, and proceeded to go 31-5 the rest of the way, while crushing the postseason with a cumulative 15-2 record

[Sean Cagney]

Haven't you heard they are really confident right now since they are going to get Kevin Love. Love-Kobe = 2 more titles for them :lol

LMFAO........... They always are going to get the world. The fact is their team sucks and Kobe is getting 48 Million after his injury but the idiots tried to tell me here good signing and he deserves it! At 35 or so with that injury they thought he deserved that money :lol

[DD]

and :lol at comparing the Heat and Spurs seasons. Spurs played 67 games TOTAL in 1998-99.

Heat played 66 REGULAR SEASON games.

Furthermore, what did the standings look like at the 50 game mark this year (usually AS break time)?

It was just a mistake of a season...Stern forgot to pull out, nothing more, nothing less.

[daslicer]

^
I love it when nobodies try to crowbar their opinion into threads

:lolRight I'am a nobody who doesn't have the popularity of a guy who hides behind a keyboard that posts here 24/7.

[DD]

:lolRight I'am a nobody who doesn't have the popularity of a guy who hides behind a keyboard that posts here 24/7.

:lolYou're not a nobody b/c of post count, you're a nobody cause you felt the need to come into this thread and drop cookie-cutter comebacks. Also, point me i the direction of any non-Kool/luva Laker fan post where we said Love=2 more titles.

[spurraider21]

Furthermore, what did the standings look like at the 50 game mark this year (usually AS break time)?
at the all star break this year

In the East:

1) Indiana
2) Miami
3) Toronto
4) Chicago
5) Washington
6) Brooklyn
7) Atlanta
8) Charlotte

Out West...

1) Thunder
2) Spurs
3) Rockets
4) Blazers
5) Clippers
6) Suns
7) Blazers
8) Mavs

[Sean Cagney]

at the all star break this year

In the East:

1) Indiana
2) Miami
3) Toronto
4) Chicago
5) Washington
6) Brooklyn
7) Atlanta
8) Charlotte

Out West...

1) Thunder
2) Spurs
3) Rockets
4) Blazers
5) Clippers
6) Suns
7) Blazers
8) Mavs
WOW really far off! Nobody was in contention for their spots later! Drastically changed! I am not arguing with DD anymore tonight on this shit, dude is bored because his team has sucked since 011 and he knows it, he is bored. LOL 48 Million for a broken down older guy and LA fans called it a good signing.

[Strange Love]

It's all about that "*"..

Son, what do you know about championships, asterisk or otherwise? :lol

[daslicer]

:lolYou're not a nobody b/c of post count, you're a nobody cause you felt the need to come into this thread and drop cookie-cutter comebacks. Also, point me i the direction of any non-Kool/luva Laker fan post where we said Love=2 more titles.

:lol Hey give me a reason on why the Lakers would have a won a title in '99 if it was a full season or any other team. I'm a nobody in your eyes because I didn't agree with your typical laker homerism bs propaganda that is what it comes down to and personally I don't care. For the Love=2 more titles I could direct you to lakersground that is where most of where your fans are saying that statement.

[313]

Wait, why is '99 considered an *? Everyone played the same amount of games, right? So what's the problem?

[will_spurs]

So what's the problem?

The Lakers didn't win. Lakers fans still can't get over it after 15 years.

[DD]

That 1999 title is the equivalent of having a gay son. Even though it's shameful and embarrassing, it's still yours.

[Arcadian]

:lol People will joke about the Spurs as "regular season champions" and then, in the next breath, pretend that a shorter regular season invalidates a championship. Shut up, faggots. At least be internally consistent with your bullshit.

[Strange Love]

and :lol at comparing the Heat and Spurs seasons. Spurs played 67 games TOTAL in 1998-99.

Heat played 66 REGULAR SEASON games.

Furthermore, what did the standings look like at the 50 game mark this year (usually AS break time)?

It was just a mistake of a season...Stern forgot to pull out, nothing more, nothing less.

A shortened season it's still a shortened season.

Once you're in the playoffs, you still have to play the same amount of games so it equals out.

Miami and Spurs did a similar thing during their playoff run in their respective championship year. Do I see either one as an asterisk? No

But people pick and choose what's convenient to them.

[DD]

:lolthe "but everybody played the same amount of games!:cry" argument. It was still an awkward, shitty product. Doesn't mean it's still not an asterisk year, nor does it justify why that bastardized season wasn't mercifully shelved from the get-go.

If some pharma company releases a bad batch of Hep B vaccinations, nobody's gonna justify it by saying, "well, at least they all had the same exposure...herp derp!"

[DD]

:lol Hey give me a reason on why the Lakers would have a won a title in '99 if it was a full season or any other team. I'm a nobody in your eyes because I didn't agree with your typical laker homerism bs propaganda that is what it comes down to and personally I don't care. For the Love=2 more titles I could direct you to lakersground that is where most of where your fans are saying that statement.

Missed this gem of a post...

1. I don't recognize 1999 as a season, therefore I don't envision what-if scenarios about said season.
2. I don't post on LG, but apparently you do:lol
3. You said I'm here 24/7, yet you're the one posting at 4:00 am on a monday morning--which tells me you're most likely unemployed:lol

[spurraider21]

:lolthe "but everybody played the same amount of games!:cry" argument. It was still an awkward, shitty product. Doesn't mean it's still not an asterisk year, nor does it justify why that bastardized season wasn't mercifully shelved from the get-go.

If some pharma company releases a bad batch of Hep B vaccinations, nobody's gonna justify it by saying, "well, at least they all had the same exposure...herp derp!"
you just seem to have the impression that seasons where the lakers don't make noise equate to an awkward, shitty product. if the lakers had won in 99, you'd be mighty proud of that 4peat

[Venti Quattro]

you just seem to have the impression that seasons where the lakers don't make noise equate to an awkward, shitty product. if the lakers had won in 99, you'd be mighty proud of that 4peat

No because that should have been a 6-peat. Too many what-ifs didn't fall LA's way

[DD]

you just seem to have the impression that seasons where the lakers don't make noise equate to an awkward, shitty product. if the lakers had won in 99, you'd be mighty proud of that 4peat

How'd you draw that conclusion based off 1 (or 2 seasons)?

1980-End of Jordan/Bulls era, 2000-2006, and 2008-present weren't awkward, shitty products. In hindsight people shit on 90's basketball (some with good reason)--but the NBA became globally popular in that decade.

Only 2 seasons in my lifetime have been horrible products, so again, you're wrong.

I'll give you a mulligan on that take

[ezau]

That 1999 title is the equivalent of having a gay son. Even though it's shameful and embarrassing, it's still yours.

Speaking of gay sons:

http://cdn.urbanislandz.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Magic-johnson-gay-son-EJ.jpg

[jimbo]

I don't lodge the asterisk just because of the shortened season, but rather because hardly anyone knew how to deal with it. You had few athletes actually keeping in regular season shape that year leading to shitty basketball. The 2012 lockout corrected most of the problems from the 99 lockout.

That being said, it's still a championship the Spurs won. It's just one of the least impressive ones of all time. Definitely top 2-3 in the modern era.

[benefactor]

Interesting and refreshing topic with many thoughts I have never considered. Will share these thoughts with people of influence and those I consider part of my inner circle.

[resistanze]

Meh, there's a whole lot of asterisks to give out tbh

1996 *(expansion year)
1994-1997 *(retarded 3 point line)
Before 1980 *(no 3 point line)
80s as a whole *(before defense)
60s *(8 team league)
50s *(majority white midget league)

[Franklin]

2006 *(rigged officiating)
2012 *(shortened season)
2013 *(horseshit three pointer)

[Shastafarian]

An interesting excerpt from an article written by Laker fan Craig Kwasniewski:



http://theassociation.blogs.com/the_association/2007/07/two-asterisks-f.html
fify

[Dex]

Spurs rocked the league so hard in '99, they could have won the championship after 100-game season.

Every team had the same chance they did.

[rogues]

Interesting and refreshing topic with many thoughts I have never considered. Will share these thoughts with people of influence and those I consider part of my inner circle.
I'm sure it goes beyond your reading level given your lack of education..scintillating stuff for you, partner..

[midnightpulp]

Only idiot would consider the 1999 Title illegitimate. No one was beating that team with that frontline. To add credence, the Blazers, who the Spurs swept, made the WCF in 2000 and were half a quarter away from a likely championship.

[Ricky Davis]

An interesting excerpt from an article written by objective NBA fan Craig Kwasniewski:

"Much like the 1982 and 1987 Washington Redskins and the 1981 LA Dodgers, the 1999 Spurs can never rank up there with title-holders from full seasons. The "highlight" from the 1999 Finals was a wide open 14-foot baseline jumper by Avery Johnson for crissake... not a key steal or a sick layup, but a W-I-D-E O-P-E-N 14-foot jumper."

http://theassociation.blogs.com/the_association/2007/07/two-asterisks-f.html

:lmao what kind of logic is this? Just because it was a boring Finals means the title is less legitimate?

What great Logic!

[UZER]

:lmao what kind of logic is this? Just because it was a boring Finals means the title is less legitimate?

What great Logic!

It's Lakerfan logic. Do you expect anything different?

[Blake]

That 1999 title is the equivalent of having a gay son. Even though it's shameful and embarrassing, it's still yours.

That's actually an apt analogy, imo, because in 50 years, both gays and the 99 ship will be finally be accepted by all of society as normal.

[DD]

Only idiot would consider the 1999 Title illegitimate. No one was beating that team with that frontline. To add credence, the Blazers, who the Spurs swept, made the WCF in 2000 and were half a quarter away from a likely championship.

The 2000 team was much more talented and deeper

[ambchang]

The only asterisk seasons are:
2000 - 20+ FTa in the 4 th quarter of an elimination game.
2002 - same ad 2000
2006 - dwhistle.

[baseline bum]

What's the argument about the 99 title? That the compressed schedule hurt old teams like Utah, but not old teams like SA? Shouldn't LA have ripped through the Spurs then? So the 1999 season is invalid because Karl Malone was going to nut up and win a title if not for the lockout? The same Karl Malone who needed chokes by Divac to escape the first round and who put up 8 points in an elimination game in Portland when he had a real season next year?

[Clipper Nation]

It's not the Spurs' fault that most of the league was retarded and didn't stay in shape during the lockout.... asterisks belong on "championships" like 1998, 2000, 2002, etc. that were the product of rigged officiating....

[daslicer]

Missed this gem of a post...

1. I don't recognize 1999 as a season, therefore I don't envision what-if scenarios about said season.
2. I don't post on LG, but apparently you do:lol
3. You said I'm here 24/7, yet you're the one posting at 4:00 am on a monday morning--which tells me you're most likely unemployed:lol

1. Right so your opinion basically means shit on this subject.
2. LG pretty much gives us an idea of what your fanbase thinks and yeah I read it time to time for comedy.
3. Stick to basketball takes you have no clue to what I do for a living and neither do I have an interest to find out what you do so lets leave it at that.

[DD]

3. Stick to basketball takes you have no clue to what I do for a living and neither do I

:lolwe got us a winner here

[spurraider21]

How'd you draw that conclusion based off 1 (or 2 seasons)?

1980-End of Jordan/Bulls era, 2000-2006, and 2008-present weren't awkward, shitty products. In hindsight people shit on 90's basketball (some with good reason)--but the NBA became globally popular in that decade.

Only 2 seasons in my lifetime have been horrible products, so again, you're wrong.

I'll give you a mulligan on that take
Meh, you've admitted to being a fair weather fan and you yourself said you didn't watch much ball this season. I'd find a season boring too if I didn't watch many games. I'm just assuming your fair weather fanhood isn't a new phenomenon

[spurraider21]

That's actually an apt analogy, imo, because in 50 years, both gays and the 99 ship will be finally be accepted by all of society as normal.
Gays might be accepted, but by definition will never be normal

[DD]

Meh, you've admitted to being a fair weather fan and you yourself said you didn't watch much ball this season. I'd find a season boring too if I didn't watch many games. I'm just assuming your fair weather fanhood isn't a new phenomenon

This has nothing to do with your previous point. Not "RW was great"-bad, but still pretty damn awful.

[DD]

Gays might be accepted, but by definition will never be normal

just had an argument on another sports board about this. They ain't normal, just like autism isn't normal.

[spurraider21]

This has nothing to do with your previous point. Not "RW was great"-bad, but still pretty damn awful.
It has everything to do with my previous post, which is about you finding seasons boring when the lakers struggle

[Blake]

Gays might be accepted, but by definition will never be normal

wut definition are you using

[IrisHockey]

fify

So... tbh?..

That doesn't change anything, just because he's a Laker fan..

[Leetonidas]

What a fresh topic

[benefactor]

I'm sure it goes beyond your reading level given your lack of education..scintillating stuff for you, partner..

And just like that a simple run. A couple of simple passes and made shots, wallah, an eight point lead while we've coasting for like 90% of the game.
:wakeup

[midnightpulp]

The 2000 team was much more talented and deeper

They were more talented with the addition of Pippen and Steve Smith, but not to the point where they turn a series sweep into a series win the year prior.

You had a near prime David Robinson and an emerging pre-knee surgery Tim Duncan as your frontline, surrounded by capable role players. No one was beating them that year, 50 or 82 game season.

[midnightpulp]

What's the argument about the 99 title? That the compressed schedule hurt old teams like Utah, but not old teams like SA? Shouldn't LA have ripped through the Spurs then? So the 1999 season is invalid because Karl Malone was going to nut up and win a title if not for the lockout? The same Karl Malone who needed chokes by Divac to escape the first round and who put up 8 points in an elimination game in Portland when he had a real season next year?

They have none. They just trolling.

:lol Utah beating San Antonio in '99. The year before, the Spurs nearly took both opening road games against the Jazz in the playoffs. And that was without Sean Elliott and Mario Elie and a still green Tim Duncan.

[Horse]

knocking on 99 because there was no defining highlight? as opposed to the defining highlight of the lakers titles in 2000, 01, or 02? heck, from all of those, the image that everyone remembers is iverson stepping over tyronn lue

The defining hightlight of 2000 and 2002 were the refs screwing portland and sacramento. Lots of people talk about 2002 but no way the blazers lose that 4th quarter lead without zebra help.

[RsxPiimp]

That 1999 title is the equivalent of having a gay son. Even though it's shameful and embarrassing, it's still yours.
:lmao

[RsxPiimp]

The defining hightlight of 2000 and 2002 were the refs screwing portland and sacramento. Lots of people talk about 2002 but no way the blazers lose that 4th quarter lead without zebra help.

NO one mentions the amount of a jarring 38-25 FT advantage Sacramento got in Game 2 (which they won to the score of 96-90) and the total chokejob by the queens in game 7 :lol

[baseline bum]

They have none. They just trolling.

:lol Utah beating San Antonio in '99. The year before, the Spurs nearly took both opening road games against the Jazz in the playoffs. And that was without Sean Elliott and Mario Elie and a still green Tim Duncan.

Yeah, when David Robinson got called for a foul for getting kicked in the nuts by Malone at the end. And then a Durant call to get FTs on Duncan at the end of Game 2.

[Strange Love]

Is there an expiration on this sad excuse for a poll? I think the people have spoken. :lol

[HI-FI]

The only asterisk seasons are:
2000 - 20+ FTa in the 4 th quarter of an elimination game.
2002 - same ad 2000
2006 - dwhistle.
/ thread
bing bing bang popcorn
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/__He0ZVsIA6U/TKL3lKhS93I/AAAAAAAADNg/NgP4bvwjeZI/s1600/nuts+Grocer.jpg

[elmanutres]

It's all about that "*"..
and you could've had one of your own, but instead you got your butt dusted after game 1 and have nothing.

[rogues]

and you could've had one of your own, but instead you got your butt dusted after game 1 and have nothing.
:lol What the fuck are you talking about faggot?

[The_Coyote]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_WnDdfMOgiQ4/TLCMz4CwOmI/AAAAAAAAAE4/jagizC72fMs/s1600/vonnegut-asterisk.jpg

[IrisHockey]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_WnDdfMOgiQ4/TLCMz4CwOmI/AAAAAAAAAE4/jagizC72fMs/s1600/vonnegut-asterisk.jpg

Good narrative reflection piece ya wrote there, boy.

[Aztecfan03]

and :lol at comparing the Heat and Spurs seasons. Spurs played 67 games TOTAL in 1998-99.

Heat played 66 REGULAR SEASON games.

Furthermore, what did the standings look like at the 50 game mark this year (usually AS break time)?

It was just a mistake of a season...Stern forgot to pull out, nothing more, nothing less.

So how many of those 16 extra games were needed to make the heat's title legitimate then?

[ambchang]

NO one mentions the amount of a jarring 38-25 FT advantage Sacramento got in Game 2 (which they won to the score of 96-90) and the total chokejob by the queens in game 7 :lol

Oh my god! Are you serious? One team shot 13 more FTs than the other team in an actual game? I've never seen that before! It's jus mind boggling!

What will they do next? Have one team shoot 20+ FTa in the 4th quarter in three different elimination games over 10 years while not having any of the othe 29 teams have one single game like that?