John Salley Says Spurs Will Win the Championship

[BillMc]

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:15348148

Take it for what's it worth (nothing) but still a less annoying media supporter than Skip Bayless.

[coachmac87]

He also said Warriors without Steph can beat the Cavs...


Dude had good moments this morning but he got a little annoying lol

[Keepin' it real]

Stephen A. Smith says if no more Curry, whoever wins the title will have an asterisk without a doubt for not playing against Curry.

[coachmac87]

Stephen A. Smith says if no more Curry, whoever wins the title will have an asterisk without a doubt for not playing against Curry.

Riiiiight. But not if LeBron wins one for the land

[hater]

Cavs are quietly rounding into championship team. They will run the table vs everyone this year.

[urunobili]

Cavs looking strong TBH

[look_at_g_shred]

lol at cavs looking strong. They played the pistons..let's take a step back for a sec :lol I bet they have a tougher time with ATL/BOS

[Obstructed_View]

Stephen A. Smith says if no more Curry, whoever wins the title will have an asterisk without a doubt for not playing against Curry.

The Spurs have a trophy case full of asterisks. I'd be super happy with another one.

[SpursFan86]

Riiiiight. But not if LeBron wins one for the land

Errr, he said "whoever wins the title"...meaning LeBron would get an asterisk as well.

And honestly he's right. If Curry can't play these playoffs, whoever ends up winning (Cleveland, SA, OKC, etc.) is going to get questioned about whether they were truly the best team or not. People will always go, "Yeah they were a great team, but there's no way they would've beaten GS if Curry didn't go down". That sort of stuff always happens to an extent when injuries are involved, but when it's the MVP of the team that just broke the single-season record for wins? You can bet your ass people are going to be throwing around the term "asterisk" quite a bit.

Luckily for me, I don't give a shit :lol I'll take an "asterisk title" over no title. I'll still enjoy it the same and 10 years from now I'll just be happy I got to see my team win one more with the big 3.

[hater]

lol at cavs looking strong. They played the pistons..let's take a step back for a sec :lol I bet they have a tougher time with ATL/BOS

Watch the games. They are healthy and light years ahead in team chemistry over last years cavs. Even delisammich is looking like a got damn problem.

Cavs will beat a healthy worriers team aleasily

[look_at_g_shred]

Watch the games. They are healthy and light years ahead in team chemistry over last years cavs. Even delisammich is looking like a got damn problem.

Cavs will beat a healthy worriers team aleasily
Na dude I have seen the games. Detroit was in almost all of them. I mean they won by one yesterday. They didn't just steamroll through the first round. Cavs do not have the defense to contain a healthy warriors team. Cavs get maybe one game...maybe.

[DMC]

Eventually the asterisk will come to mean just the opposite, that you took the toughest route and beat the best teams in the process with all their players healthy in a non-shortened year. That's because every ring otherwise has an asterisk applied to it by a fan of an opposing team, so just get rid of the asterisk and accept that every win comes with caveats that the opposition will fall back on for emotional, moral support.

* = no caveats

[hater]

Na dude I have seen the games. Detroit was in almost all of them. I mean they won by one yesterday. They didn't just steamroll through the first round. Cavs do not have the defense to contain a healthy warriors team. Cavs get maybe one game...maybe.

Cavs without their best player Irving took the worriers to 6 games last season.

Add GOAT Kyrie and they trounce everyone with complete ease.

[dbreiden83080]

Cavs without their best player Irving took the worriers to 6 games last season.

Add GOAT Kyrie and they trounce everyone with complete ease.

If Curry is healthy this is a better, more experienced team. 73 wins, they steamrolled the entire league all year.

[hater]

If Curry is healthy this is a better, more experienced team. 73 wins, they steamrolled the entire league all year.

Worriers were on as good a roll as this year last playoffs imo

Still. Cavs were missing their best player and took this same worrier team to 6 games.

[davidbowie]

i wanna get baked with this dude

[daslicer]

Eventually the asterisk will come to mean just the opposite, that you took the toughest route and beat the best teams in the process with all their players healthy in a non-shortened year. That's because every ring otherwise has an asterisk applied to it by a fan of an opposing team, so just get rid of the asterisk and accept that every win comes with caveats that the opposition will fall back on for emotional, moral support.

* = no caveats

The asterisk is only popular because of Phil Jackson using that statement in the fall of '99. The media ran with it simply because they hated the Spurs and loved the Lakers. No one gave the bulls an asterisk when they beat the '91 Lakers without Worthy and Byron Scott or in '93 when they won against the Suns without Ceballos. No one gave the Lakers an asterisk in '88 when they beat the Pistons even though Isiah Thomas played the last two games of that series on a broken ankle.

[SAGirl]

Asterisks or not, injuries are part of the playoffs, practically every season. Last season GSW had their share of questionable series wins to depleted teams + they didn't face OKC, Spurs or Clippers. Of the teams they faced, not one was whole and Cavs were severely limited with just one star.. They still won.

[Spurs 4 The Win]

The Spurs have a trophy case full of asterisks. I'd be super happy with another one.

Yeah the media always makes up some BS to try and take away from our championships.

1999: Lockout :cry
2003: Lakers exhausted mentally from 3 peat, Horry's shot rimmed out :cry
2005: If only the pistons had homecourt :cry
2007: Pheonix players suspended, Mavs upset by Warriors :cry
2014: Heat tired from 4 Finals trips in a row and Ibaka injured :cry

Give me all the asterisks in the world, you beat who is in front of you, that is it, and that is all

[SouthernFried]

Injuries to teams happen every year. It's happened to the Spurs...other teams didn't get an *, did they?

Being dependent on one player, is a weakness in putting together a basketball team. It is part of the game to build a complete team. Because of the obvious reason...injuries happen.

[K...]

Cavs without their best player Irving took the worriers to 6 games last season.

Add GOAT Kyrie and they trounce everyone with complete ease.

I feel like krie is in the too dumb to lose category and that scares me.

[testies]

I heard he has a huge cock

[DMC]

The asterisk is only popular because of Phil Jackson using that statement in the fall of '99. The media ran with it simply because they hated the Spurs and loved the Lakers. No one gave the bulls an asterisk when they beat the '91 Lakers without Worthy and Byron Scott or in '93 when they won against the Suns without Ceballos. No one gave the Lakers an asterisk in '88 when they beat the Pistons even though Isiah Thomas played the last two games of that series on a broken ankle.
Phil only applied it because of the shortened season but the slippery slope took hold and the avalanche started without regulation so now it's applied to everything which severely dilutes the original intent. Now it's simply the mark of a sore loser.

[TheDoctor]

Who?

[baseline bum]

And honestly he's right. If Curry can't play these playoffs, whoever ends up winning (Cleveland, SA, OKC, etc.) is going to get questioned about whether they were truly the best team or not. People will always go, "Yeah they were a great team, but there's no way they would've beaten GS if Curry didn't go down".

Unless it's a big market team like the Knicks. The media still sucks their dicks for winning a title they only got because Havlicek destroyed his shoulder so badly he could barely throw a pass to his teammates in the last 3 games of the ECF. That was a 68 win Celtics team those Knicks fluked into beating.

[Gervin44Silas13]

Stephen A. Smith says if no more Curry, whoever wins the title will have an asterisk without a doubt for not playing against Curry.


Guy is a total teabagger.....come on Screaming A GO Balls deep!!!!!!!

[spurs10]

Stephen A. Smith says if no more Curry, whoever wins the title will have an asterisk without a doubt for not playing against Curry.

Bullshit...whoever wins wins. GSW played Cavs missing two of there stars. Also anything Smith says is of no significance. Go Spurs and f*ck everyone!

[Horse]

Cavs without their best player Irving took the worriers to 6 games last season.

Add GOAT Kyrie and they trounce everyone with complete ease.
You discount how much better their D was without kyrie and love

[boutons_deux]

Stephen A. Smith says if no more Curry, whoever wins the title will have an asterisk without a doubt for not playing against Curry.

How about the his beloved Lakers without Malone losing to DET in '04? asterisk for DET?

[daslicer]

Stephen A. Smith says if no more Curry, whoever wins the title will have an asterisk without a doubt for not playing against Curry.

I have a feeling that statement is only reserved for the Spurs. If OKC,Cavs,Clippers, win it all he will definitely renege on those comments.

[BillMc]

I have a feeling that statement is only reserved for the Spurs. If OKC,Cavs,Clippers, win it all he will definitely renege on those comments.

This. 1) because First Take is a debate show and Skip would be taking on the role of Spurs advocate and gloating, and Stephen A would need a reason to puncture Skip's hubris, 2) Stephen A is a always a fan of "cool, popular" players first. If the general populace likes them, if they have style, he'll support them on the court or field because it gets him ratings and because he wants to maximize his chance of getting access to them and getting some scoop. Thus his over-praise of OKC and LeBron. He's had issues in the past with Durant, but I doubt he'd hang an asterisk on OKC (he loves "warrior" Westbrook. He certainly wouldn't on LeBron. The Clips probably not either, but they're the most likely outside of the Spurs.

[Solid D]

The Spurs have a trophy case full of asterisks. I'd be super happy with another one.

Amen. They have an asterisk on their logo. It's the mark for which to take special notice.

http://content.sportslogos.net/logos/6/233/full/828.gif

[tmtcsc]

What's with all the Cavs would beat Warriors talk in here? GTFO!! Spurs will beat whoever for the Championship. Take all the other hypothetical nonsense downstairs.

Hater:

http://i.imgur.com/gwIb4tm.gif

[SpursforSix]

What's with all the Cavs would beat Warriors talk in here? GTFO!! Spurs will beat whoever for the Championship. Take all the other hypothetical nonsense downstairs.

It smells like fart down there.

[mingus]

In terms of asterisks, I think there are legitimate scenarios where you can use them. Basically, if something highly unusual & out of your control happens that significantly changes the odds of who wins, it's applicable IMO.

To show that I'm not biased, I'll give you a Spurs related example: Dirk going down in game 3 of the 2003 WCF b/w the Spurs & the Mavs. He's never been particularly injury prone, he was young, and the Mavs weren't risking an injury by over-playing/stressing him during the regular season.

Basically, if a team plays its cards right, and bad shit still happens, then I'll say there's an asterisk. And some asterisks are bigger than others...

Fwiw, '99 wasn't an asterisk. Phil crying asterisk was him not being able to take not just a loss, but a pummeling. In '00 Duncan fucked his knee up. That shit WAS an asterisk. A big one.

As it concerns the Warriors, I think you know where stand given the above.

Curry's now multiple injuries are a direct result of their record-chasing to 73 wins. Especially after coming off of a deep run & championship last year, it was a risk that Kerr was willing to take--but actually didn't want to take--only to make his players happy.

You don't get to celebrate/gloat in that achievement when nothing bad happens, and then what it does not own up to the fact that it may've not been what's in the best interest of the team in the long run.

The team shot itself in the foot.

A significant part of being a championship team is mitigating the risks to players health. They took the risk, and look to be now paying a hefty price for it. It's survival of the fittest, and if you're too stupid/short-sighted to realize that, then we'll too fucking bad.

[Spurs 4 The Win]

In terms of asterisks, I think there are legitimate scenarios where you can use them. Basically, if something highly unusual & out of your control happens that significantly changes the odds of who wins, it's applicable IMO.

To show that I'm not biased, I'll give you a Spurs related example: Dirk going down in game 3 of the 2003 WCF b/w the Spurs & the Mavs. He's never been particularly injury prone, he was young, and the Mavs weren't risking an injury by over-playing/stressing him during the regular season.

Basically, if a team plays its cards right, and bad shit still happens, then I'll say there's an asterisk. And some asterisks are bigger than others...

Fwiw, '99 wasn't an asterisk. Phil crying asterisk was him not being able to take not just a loss, but a pummeling. In '00 Duncan fucked his knee up. That shit WAS an asterisk. A big one.

As it concerns the Warriors, I think you know where stand given the above.

Curry's now multiple injuries are a direct result of their record-chasing to 73 wins. Especially after coming off of a deep run & championship last year, it was a risk that Kerr was willing to take--but actually didn't want to take--only to make his players happy.

You don't get to celebrate/gloat in that achievement when nothing bad happens, and then what it does not own up to the fact that it may've not been what's in the best interest of the team in the long run.

The team shot itself in the foot.

A significant part of being a championship team is mitigating the risks to players health. They took the risk, and look to be now paying a hefty price for it. It's survival of the fittest, and if you're too stupid/short-sighted to realize that, then we'll too fucking bad.

There are no asterisks, there are winners and losers. The only reason an asterisk should ever be lodged is if a team is found to have cheated to win several years down the road. All the rest of the asterisk talk is for pussies and faggots.

[SpursforSix]

There are no asterisks, there are winners and losers. The only reason an asterisk should ever be lodged is if a team is found to have cheated to win several years down the road. All the rest of the asterisk talk is for pussies and faggots.

asterisks are like starfish...everybody has one

[BillMc]

Fwiw, '99 wasn't an asterisk. Phil crying asterisk was him not being able to take not just a loss, but a pummeling. What loss are you referring to? Phil was not yet the coach of the Lakers when we swept Kobe and Shaq in 99. I thought he brought up the whole asterisk thing to annoy a contending Spurs fans during 2000 or 2001 (years when LA would ring).


Curry's now multiple injuries are a direct result of their record-chasing to 73 wins. Especially after coming off of a deep run & championship last year, it was a risk that Kerr was willing to take--but actually didn't want to take--only to make his players happy.

You don't get to celebrate/gloat in that achievement when nothing bad happens, and then what it does not own up to the fact that it may've not been what's in the best interest of the team in the long run.

The team shot itself in the foot.

A significant part of being a championship team is mitigating the risks to players health. They took the risk, and look to be now paying a hefty price for it.

I agree they pushed themselves and took risk by going for the record.

[TXstbobcat]

What loss are you referring to? Phil was not yet the coach of the Lakers when we swept Kobe and Shaq in 99. I thought he brought up the whole asterisk thing to annoy a contending Spurs fans during 2000 or 2001 (years when LA would ring).

You are correct. I think that it was Kurt Rambis who coached the lakers in the playoffs when the Spurs swept the Lakers in '99

[james evans]

Cavs are quietly rounding into championship team. They will run the table vs everyone this year.
They struggled against Detroit and won 2 close games against them in which the officials allowed them toe beat the hell out of the pistons on the defensive end.

[Amuseddaysleeper]

I love all the asterick bullshit when Curry is injured, but when the Warriors got one injury ridden team after another then it's okay
:lol

[daslicer]

I love all the asterick bullshit when Curry is injured, but when the Warriors got one injury ridden team after another then it's okay
:lol

It's only an asterisk when you are not a popular media team.

[Chillen]

If it's one of Spurs, Warriors, OKC in the Finals, Cavs gonna be a very tough out! They are pissed that they lost the way they did last season, so they will push whoever they play.

[T Park]

Stephen A. Smith says if no more Curry, whoever wins the title will have an asterisk without a doubt for not playing against Curry.

Could care less. THey dont put asterisks on banners nor the championship gear.

[T Park]

The Spurs have a trophy case full of asterisks. I'd be super happy with another one.

Ill fill the trophy case up all day with "asterisk" championships.

[T Park]

Errr, he said "whoever wins the title"...meaning LeBron would get an asterisk as well.

And honestly he's right. If Curry can't play these playoffs, whoever ends up winning (Cleveland, SA, OKC, etc.) is going to get questioned about whether they were truly the best team or not. People will always go, "Yeah they were a great team, but there's no way they would've beaten GS if Curry didn't go down". That sort of stuff always happens to an extent when injuries are involved, but when it's the MVP of the team that just broke the single-season record for wins? You can bet your ass people are going to be throwing around the term "asterisk" quite a bit.

Luckily for me, I don't give a shit :lol I'll take an "asterisk title" over no title. I'll still enjoy it the same and 10 years from now I'll just be happy I got to see my team win one more with the big 3.


He's not right. Injuries happen and theyre not an excuse.

Thats what im always told when the Spurs had them in 2000, 08,09,11,13,15

[DPG21920]

If it's one of Spurs, Warriors, OKC in the Finals, Cavs gonna be a very tough out! They are pissed that they lost the way they did last season, so they will push whoever they play.

Yup. I think CLE pushes a healthy GS team too. CLE is really, really good. Especially if they get anything from guys like JR Smith (who's shooting crazy from 3 to start the playoffs)

[Keepin' it real]

Could care less. THey dont put asterisks on banners nor the championship gear.

Hmmm, that is a great marketing idea to razz rival fan bases. T-shirt idea:

Lakers 2000 NBA Champions*

*(Tim Duncan was injured)

[TampaDude]

The Spurs have a trophy case full of asterisks. I'd be super happy with another one.

Hellz yeah...bring on 2016*! :hat

[BillMc]

I love all the asterick bullshit when Curry is injured, but when the Warriors got one injury ridden team after another then it's okay
:lol


It's only an asterisk when you are not a popular media team.

Truth.

[Chomag]

Wait... people ate actually saying that the Cavs are looking tough? They just played the 8th seed eastern conference team...well I sure hope they looked tough against that lol

[Dro210]

Stephen A. Smith says if no more Curry, whoever wins the title will have an asterisk without a doubt for not playing against Curry.


Wish I could have been there to ask him if he cares about the asterisk on his 2000 ring.

[Kawhitstorm]

Stephen A. Smith says if no more Curry, whoever wins the title will have an asterisk without a doubt for not playing against Curry.

I guess the '15 Duds deserve an asterisk for not playing the injury riddled defending champs (Spurs) & facing a Cavs squad w/o Kyrie/Love in the Finals. Oh yeah, they also didn't have to play the team w/ the reigning MVP (KD).

[K...]

The 2015 asterisks for the warriors is held in abeyance pending this years payoffs. If they flame out badly to the spurs or cavs then the asterisks applies.

Basically the astericks is a but for standard, but for not playing the spurs and not facing Kyrie the dubs won. We can never run 2015 over but 2016 results can be useful to litigate the issue. This is why the 99 sucks. It's not but for the lock out we won. We'd win the full season just as much, but the failure to repeat was so drastic to make it stick,

[Kidd K]

Stephen A. Smith says if no more Curry, whoever wins the title will have an asterisk without a doubt for not playing against Curry.

No team in NBA history has an asterisk when players on other teams were missing players due to injury including last year's Warriors.

Many teams have lost their best player or a key player for part of or the entire postseason. No one but fans of that team even remember it or cares. Stephen A Smith is just making pre-emptive excuses.

[dbestpro]

Stephen A. Smith says if no more Curry, whoever wins the title will have an asterisk without a doubt for not playing against Curry.
Every team that ever won a championship has an asterisk of some sort.

[Obstructed_View]

Unless it's a big market team like the Knicks. The media still sucks their dicks for winning a title they only got because Havlicek destroyed his shoulder so badly he could barely throw a pass to his teammates in the last 3 games of the ECF. That was a 68 win Celtics team those Knicks fluked into beating.

I really wish someone with Twitter would ask Screamin' A about that. Isn't he a knicks fanboy?

[cutewizard]

these playoffs have become very strange

[mingus]

What loss are you referring to? Phil was not yet the coach of the Lakers when we swept Kobe and Shaq in 99. I thought he brought up the whole asterisk thing to annoy a contending Spurs fans during 2000 or 2001 (years when LA would ring).



I agree they pushed themselves and took risk by going for the record.

Yeah, my bad. I don't know why I typed that when I knew he wasn't. I'm pretty sleep-deprived...

But my point about the stupidity of calling that championship an asterisk is still true IMO, regardless.

In other news...

Now that we know Curry won't be sidelined with a major injury for the rest of the year and can still come back for Playoffs, I'm curious if GS fans and GS nut-huggers/promoters in the media will view the situation now, going into the series against the Clippers w/o him, or after should they lose to them. I'm pretty sure it's going to be a GS pity-fest. Meanwhile, last year the Thunder maybe would've been their hardest competition but they couldn't stay healthy enough to play them.

[UZER]

Unless it's a big market team like the Knicks. The media still sucks their dicks for winning a title they only got because Havlicek destroyed his shoulder so badly he could barely throw a pass to his teammates in the last 3 games of the ECF. That was a 68 win Celtics team those Knicks fluked into beating.


I really wish someone with Twitter would ask Screamin' A about that. Isn't he a knicks fanboy?

The asterisk talk is stupid, especially for a team like SA. It's not like they haven't won 5 other rings with the most recent being just 2 years ago.

That's just Stephan A being Steven A Hole.

[Obstructed_View]

The asterisk talk is stupid, especially for a team like SA. It's not like they haven't won 5 other rings with the most recent being just 2 years ago.

That's just Stephan A being Steven A Hole.
Asterisk talk is always pretty stupid. I think the Spurs could have beaten the Lakers with a healthy Derek Anderson, but it doesn't make the Lakers' title less legit somehow. Shit happens. That's supposed to be why we're sports fans in the first place.

[Sean Cagney]

Worriers were on as good a roll as this year last playoffs imo

Still. Cavs were missing their best player and took this same worrier team to 6 games.
Warriors destroyed the cavs this year both times too, by a large margin.

[Sean Cagney]

Asterisk talk is always pretty stupid. I think the Spurs could have beaten the Lakers with a healthy Derek Anderson, but it doesn't make the Lakers' title less legit somehow. Shit happens. That's supposed to be why we're sports fans in the first place.

I agree on all except if DA were healthy, nobody was beating LA in 2001.

[Thomas82]

The asterisk is only popular because of Phil Jackson using that statement in the fall of '99. The media ran with it simply because they hated the Spurs and loved the Lakers. No one gave the bulls an asterisk when they beat the '91 Lakers without Worthy and Byron Scott or in '93 when they won against the Suns without Ceballos. No one gave the Lakers an asterisk in '88 when they beat the Pistons even though Isiah Thomas played the last two games of that series on a broken ankle.

And don't forget the Pistons beating them the next year even though Magic Johnson and Byron Scott were both out with hamstring injuries.

[pgardn]

Stephen A. Smith says if no more Curry, whoever wins the title will have an asterisk without a doubt for not playing against Curry.

Then the Warriors have an * on last year's title.

[Obstructed_View]

I agree on all except if DA were healthy, nobody was beating LA in 2001.

And I disagree.

[99 Problems]

Cavs have more around Delly this season. Last season he only had Bron playing 4 other role playing positions to help. And even so he annoyed the shite out of Corrie on his own. But they not da Spurs. :blah

[Sean Cagney]

And I disagree.

I don't see how he would make up that 20 some odd ppg they lost by in record fashion to beat LA but to each their own. DA was good but he was not THAT good. Now if you had Ginobili at the time or a young prime Parker I can see your point. LA just cruised and crushed everyone though, doubt DA makes a difference sides maybe a game or two win in that series at best.

[Sean Cagney]

And don't forget the Pistons beating them the next year even though Magic Johnson and Byron Scott were both out with hamstring injuries.

Your forgetting it's only an asterisk if it involves the SPURS! That is why they are saying it already and setting it up in case SA wins. If OKC or the Cavs win it all though then it will be forgotten and swept under the rug and legit.

[Obstructed_View]

I don't see how he would make up that 20 some odd ppg they lost by in record fashion to beat LA but to each their own. DA was good but he was not THAT good. Now if you had Ginobili at the time or a young prime Parker I can see your point. LA just cruised and crushed everyone though, doubt DA makes a difference sides maybe a game or two win in that series at best.

They lost by all those points because they knew they didn't have a chance. Their season ended when Anderson crumpled to the floor. The only reason they beat the Mavericks was for revenge, but they quit. Nobody in the city, nobody rooting for the team thought they had a chance without DA. Neither did anyone on the team.

[Sean Cagney]

They lost by all those points because they knew they didn't have a chance. Their season ended when Anderson crumpled to the floor. The only reason they beat the Mavericks was for revenge, but they quit. Nobody in the city, nobody rooting for the team thought they had a chance without DA. Neither did anyone on the team.

They did do well in round two without him though if I remember right, Daniels slipped right in there and was playing some ball at the 2 against Dallas. Revenge on the Mavs? That was their first playoff match up in 2001 right? Mavs were a later seed, Spurs were always going to take them out and quite easily then because they were a younger team. Mavs and Spurs rivalry was not that intense back then though, not even close. I agree on the last part too, he was a key part of their team that year and they were not going to beat LA regardless without him. With him it would have been tough though the way they were playing, you have to admit that. LA in those playoffs looked very focused and were rolling at the right time, very good run and their best run IMO out of the 3 peat by far (The other two they should have lost to Portland and Sac IMHO).

[dg7md]

Did the Warriors get an asterisk last year when they faced LeBron and the D-Leaguers in the Finals?

[Big Empty]

Hmmm, that is a great marketing idea to razz rival fan bases. T-shirt idea:

Lakers 2000 NBA Champions*

*(Tim Duncan was injured)
This

[Fireball]

Pop always says how many things have to come together for a team to win a championship ... injuries are a factor ... no asteriks on any championship teams necessary tbh

[cutewizard]

http://www.poundingtherock.com/2016/4/29/11534716/nba-playoffs-preview-spurs-thunder

[Beaverfuzz]

The Spurs have a trophy case full of asterisks. I'd be super happy with another one.

Yep, counts the exact same.

[Beaverfuzz]

Fuck John Salley though, Arsenio's long lost twin.

[SPURt]

http://www.poundingtherock.com/2016/4/29/11534716/nba-playoffs-preview-spurs-thunder

Haha! Westbrook


On the contrary, I think of him as an artist on the basketball floor. He's like Michelangelo (http://a4.files.biography.com/image/upload/c_fit,cs_srgb,dpr_1.0,h_1200,q_80,w_1200/MTE1ODA0OTcxNzIzNjIxOTAx.jpg). Or maybe Donatello (http://www.notablebiographies.com/images/uewb_04_img0242.jpg). Could be Leonardo (http://images1.laweekly.com/imager/u/745xauto/6658319/leonardo-dicaprio-east-los-angeles-oscar.jpg). Or perhaps Raphael (http://40.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_koxqmy5MRS1qz7o2oo1_500.jpg).

[Sean Cagney]

Did the Warriors get an asterisk last year when they faced LeBron and the D-Leaguers in the Finals?

Media darlings, of course not.

[Phenomanul]

I don't see how he would make up that 20 some odd ppg they lost by in record fashion to beat LA but to each their own. DA was good but he was not THAT good. Now if you had Ginobili at the time or a young prime Parker I can see your point. LA just cruised and crushed everyone though, doubt DA makes a difference sides maybe a game or two win in that series at best.

The Spurs finished as the number one overall seed in the NBA that year...

And Derek was a part of that success because even in games when he didn't play well it forced LA to honor their man-to-man coverage on him.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200011080SAS.html
Wed Nov 8, 2000 Los Angeles Lakers @ San Antonio Spurs

Spurs Win 91 to 81

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200012010LAL.html
Fri Dec 1, 2000 San Antonio Spurs @ Los Angeles Lakers

Spurs Loss 100 to 109

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200102210SAS.html
Wed Feb 21, 2001 Los Angeles Lakers @ San Antonio Spurs

Spurs Loss 99 to 101

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200103090LAL.html
Fri Mar 9, 2001 San Antonio Spurs @ Los Angeles Lakers

Spurs Win 93 to 89 in OT

Season Summary: Series Tied 2-2 with each team taking one on the other's home court.

Derek had great games in 3 of those 4 games, and laid one egg. If you really think the number two scorer and playmaker for the Spurs that season would not have made a difference in that WCF series, and despite the fact that Derek's career was a dud after he left the Spurs --> because he was a great fit in Pop's system (but not so great out of it) --> then you weren't paying attention. Spurs also had home court advantage that year over the Lakers.

The Lakers really wanted that last game in LA and Pop outcoached Phil (Phil overplayed Shaq and Kobe) to take it from them. So even though LA's superstar duo combined for 71 points the Spurs nullified the contributions from a bench that had hurt them a month earlier in San Antonio.

So despite LA being the reigning champion at the time, to say the San Antonio had no shot at the title that year (had they been healthy) is legitimately undermining the context of that season. The Spurs would have given LA a run for their money.

[disciple]

I have a feeling that statement is only reserved for the Spurs. If OKC,Cavs,Clippers, win it all he will definitely renege on those comments.

Only losers and lazy people play an asterisk card.

[NameLess Scrub]

I think I might also be related with the perception some people have of each team.

They might view some teams as not talented enough or undeserving, so if there are injuries or other circumstances, media can put an asterisk as if they won by luck more than anything. If it's a team with recognized / hyped talent then it doesn't matter that much, like they could have won anyway.

Maybe the Spurs fall under that category some times. Didn't some people, even in this board, commented that Miami had declined when the Spurs won in '14 even when the Spurs practically beat the Heat in '13? That wasn't even injury related.

Idk, it just occurred to me..

[Sean Cagney]

The Spurs finished as the number one overall seed in the NBA that year...

And Derek was a part of that success because even in games when he didn't play well it forced LA to honor their man-to-man coverage on him.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200011080SAS.html
Wed Nov 8, 2000 Los Angeles Lakers @ San Antonio Spurs

Spurs Win 91 to 81

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200012010LAL.html
Fri Dec 1, 2000 San Antonio Spurs @ Los Angeles Lakers

Spurs Loss 100 to 109

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200102210SAS.html
Wed Feb 21, 2001 Los Angeles Lakers @ San Antonio Spurs

Spurs Loss 99 to 101

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200103090LAL.html
Fri Mar 9, 2001 San Antonio Spurs @ Los Angeles Lakers

Spurs Win 93 to 89 in OT

Season Summary: Series Tied 2-2 with each team taking one on the other's home court.

Derek had great games in 3 of those 4 games, and laid one egg. If you really think the number two scorer and playmaker for the Spurs that season would not have made a difference in that WCF series, and despite the fact that Derek's career was a dud after he left the Spurs --> because he was a great fit in Pop's system (but not so great out of it) --> then you weren't paying attention. Spurs also had home court advantage that year over the Lakers.

The Lakers really wanted that last game in LA and Pop outcoached Phil (Phil overplayed Shaq and Kobe) to take it from them. So even though LA's superstar duo combined for 71 points the Spurs nullified the contributions from a bench that had hurt them a month earlier in San Antonio.

So despite LA being the reigning champion at the time, to say the San Antonio had no shot at the title that year (had they been healthy) is legitimately undermining the context of that season. The Spurs would have given LA a run for their money.
Season series, playoffs LA got rolling on another level. Okc swept the Spurs in 014, Spurs turn it up in the playoffs and win in 6, regular season is no indicator of later on. LA was on another level that playoffs, period.

[Sean Cagney]

Only losers and lazy people play an asterisk card.

Hence the fans of the team the Spurs beat that year....

[Phenomanul]

Season series, playoffs LA got rolling on another level. Okc swept the Spurs in 014, Spurs turn it up in the playoffs and win in 6, regular season is no indicator of later on. LA was on another level that playoffs, period.

All of this is a rather subjective argument... I'm simply trying to point out that Derek Anderson meant THAT much to the Spurs that season... You blow the Spurs off as if the Lakers were unbeatable... Duncan was playing MVP-level basketball, Robinson's back was still more than serviceable in 2001 (in fact there were some games that very season where Robinson played Shaq to a standstill)... Without an athletic perimeter threat, Anderson's absence hurt the effectiveness of of the Spur's inside/outside game... Also Kobe no longer had to expend as much energy on the defensive end, which further bolstered his effectiveness...

[Sean Cagney]

All of this is a rather subjective argument... I'm simply trying to point out that Derek Anderson meant THAT much to the Spurs that season... You blow the Spurs off as if the Lakers were unbeatable... Duncan was playing MVP-level basketball, Robinson's back was still more than serviceable in 2001 (in fact there were some games that very season where Robinson played Shaq to a standstill)... Without an athletic perimeter threat, Anderson's absence hurt the effectiveness of of the Spur's inside/outside game... Also Kobe no longer had to expend as much energy on the defensive end, which further bolstered his effectiveness...

The Lakers steamrolled in those playoffs man, the Spurs did the same in 2014 with the point differential and I don't think honestly either team was going to be beat by ANYONE those years. Some teams just get on a roll at the right time man, it is what it is and the rest is history. I agree on DA being a part of that team that year though, without him their chances went from a okay shot to nothing at all against the Lakers (I still think they lose but not in a sweep). I can see and agree with what you said, no arguments there on your points you made.

[Obstructed_View]

Revenge on the Mavs? That was their first playoff match up in 2001 right?

In game 1 of that series, Juwan Howard took out DA with a flagrant 2 that was as bad a flagrant foul as I've ever seen. The Spurs held focus long enough to punish Dallas, but that was their championship. They weren't going anywhere without Anderson.

[Obstructed_View]

All of this is a rather subjective argument... I'm simply trying to point out that Derek Anderson meant THAT much to the Spurs that season... You blow the Spurs off as if the Lakers were unbeatable... Duncan was playing MVP-level basketball, Robinson's back was still more than serviceable in 2001 (in fact there were some games that very season where Robinson played Shaq to a standstill)... Without an athletic perimeter threat, Anderson's absence hurt the effectiveness of of the Spur's inside/outside game... Also Kobe no longer had to expend as much energy on the defensive end, which further bolstered his effectiveness...

Anderson meant more to the Spurs than Kobe did to the Lakers in 2001. Without him their offense and defense just came to a crashing halt. People forget what a great fit he was with the team, probably because he never really amounted to anything after he left.

[Phenomanul]

Anderson meant more to the Spurs than Kobe did to the Lakers in 2001. Without him their offense and defense just came to a crashing halt. People forget what a great fit he was with the team, probably because he never really amounted to anything after he left.

I had a chance to see the Spurs 3 times that season... Derek was a monster in each of those games... His game was graceful and he developed such great chemistry with Duncan, and DRob in such a short amount of time... it's a shame he bolted... And yes, I'm still pissed about Juwan Howard's dirty play that resulted in Anderson's separated shoulder, particularly because Laker fan never remembers it happened...

[Obstructed_View]

I had a chance to see the Spurs 3 times that season... Derek was a monster in each of those games... His game was graceful and he developed such great chemistry with Duncan, and DRob in such a short amount of time... it's a shame he bolted... And yes, I'm still pissed about Juwan Howard's dirty play that resulted in Anderson's separated shoulder, particularly because Laker fan never remembers it happened...

I don't mind that Laker fan doesn't remember it, as they had a championship to celebrate. What annoys me is that Spurs fans seem not to remember it.

[Phenomanul]

I don't mind that Laker fan doesn't remember it, as they had a championship to celebrate. What annoys me is that Spurs fans seem not to remember it.

yeah... just as bad...

[baseline bum]

Anderson meant more to the Spurs than Kobe did to the Lakers in 2001. Without him their offense and defense just came to a crashing halt. People forget what a great fit he was with the team, probably because he never really amounted to anything after he left.

I thought DA was a terrible fit, every other guard in the league went off of him that year. DA is one of the worst defenders I have ever seen. I remember Kobe averaged 38 a game on him that year.

[spurraider21]

who the fuck is john salley? is he that actor from Eddie?

[baseline bum]

Season series, playoffs LA got rolling on another level. Okc swept the Spurs in 014, Spurs turn it up in the playoffs and win in 6, regular season is no indicator of later on. LA was on another level that playoffs, period.

It wasn't just the playoffs. As soon as Fisher returned (he missed most of the season) that team became unbeatable. I laughed at all my Laker fan friends who said the team would get on track once Fisher was back, but that's exactly what happened.

[baseline bum]

who the fuck is john salley? is he that actor from Eddie?

He's the guy at the 1:20 mark in the video


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VlM1h5vwyY

[dunkman]

Yeah the media always makes up some BS to try and take away from our championships.

1999: Lockout :cry
2003: Lakers exhausted mentally from 3 peat, Horry's shot rimmed out :cry
2005: If only the pistons had homecourt :cry
2007: Pheonix players suspended, Mavs upset by Warriors :cry
2014: Heat tired from 4 Finals trips in a row and Ibaka injured :cry

Give me all the asterisks in the world, you beat who is in front of you, that is it, and that is all

99 - There was no better team in the playoffs, the Spurs peaked at the right moment. It's different to play 50 RS games versus 82, in a sense that injuries or fatigue may happen, but it wasn't Spurs fault the RS got shortened.

03 - Duncan was the best NBA player, better then Shaq from there. There was no better team and the Spurs shut down all * talk.

05 - The Spurs passed through the Pistons en route to the championship. They were the best once again.

07 - The championship was won vs the Suns, and the Pop showed that season he's the master of offense too, not just defense. The Spurs managed to outgun the Suns. Even without Horry hip checking Nash, that caused Amare to get suspended, the Spurs had the pivotal 3:2 lead and two games to close out.

14 - While the Spurs were the best NBA team in 13 too, in 14 they were clearly better then anybody else.

[Spurs 4 The Win]

99 - There was no better team in the playoffs, the Spurs peaked at the right moment. It's different to play 50 RS games versus 82, in a sense that injuries or fatigue may happen, but it wasn't Spurs fault the RS got shortened.

03 - Duncan was the best NBA player, better then Shaq from there. There was no better team and the Spurs shut down all * talk.

05 - The Spurs passed through the Pistons en route to the championship. They were the best once again.

07 - The championship was won vs the Suns, and the Pop showed that season he's the master of offense too, not just defense. The Spurs managed to outgun the Suns. Even without Horry hip checking Nash, that caused Amare to get suspended, the Spurs had the pivotal 3:2 lead and two games to close out.

14 - While the Spurs were the best NBA team in 13 too, in 14 they were clearly better then anybody else.

It was actually 2:2 when Amare got suspended and we won Game 5 coming from 20 behind on a go ahead 3 pointer by Bowen with 40 seconds left. Im not sure we win that with Amare playing. But it still doesnt deserve an asterisk because we beat their ass in Game 6 when they had everyone.

[Sean Cagney]

In game 1 of that series, Juwan Howard took out DA with a flagrant 2 that was as bad a flagrant foul as I've ever seen. The Spurs held focus long enough to punish Dallas, but that was their championship. They weren't going anywhere without Anderson.

Awww, got it.

[Sean Cagney]

It wasn't just the playoffs. As soon as Fisher returned (he missed most of the season) that team became unbeatable. I laughed at all my Laker fan friends who said the team would get on track once Fisher was back, but that's exactly what happened.

Yea, they really went on a tear late in that year and I remember later in the year saying this team looks like they are a problem.. Thing is they were really rolling then and steamrolling teams until game one of the finals in which they lost in OT.

[baseline bum]

Yea, they really went on a tear late in that year and I remember later in the year saying this team looks like they are a problem.. Thing is they were really rolling then and steamrolling teams until game one of the finals in which they lost in OT.

I think I was the only person on Sprusreport (no spurstalk back then) who thought LA was going to take that series. Of course I figured it would be in 7 and not 4. :pctoss

[Sean Cagney]

I think I was the only person on Sprusreport (no spurstalk back then) who thought LA was going to take that series. Of course I figured it would be in 7 and not 4. :pctoss

I was talking to someone outside I remember at a party the night before the series and he said that is going to be a good ass series there, most thought that would be a good series. I thought the Spurs could pull it off too being the delusional person I was back then but after game 2 I knew there was no shot the Spurs were going to win a game in that series. They were up 37-22 at home at one point in game two and it slowly slipped away, after the third Q I knew that series was done. Games 3 and 4 were a nightmare, don't even remember watching either one for more than a few minutes and leaving the house to go do other things.

[Obstructed_View]

I thought DA was a terrible fit, every other guard in the league went off of him that year. DA is one of the worst defenders I have ever seen. I remember Kobe averaged 38 a game on him that year.

Anderson was 2-1 against Kobe with a net plus, so counting points doesn't seem terribly relevant.