Reply With Quote
Yep. They ALSO lost game 1 on their home floor. Losing home court advantage in game 1 is a death sentence more often than not in a playoff series between two equal teams.
all that matters is that when the game clock has 00:00 on it, your team has more points than the other. There's no what ifs in sports.
Yep. They ALSO lost game 1 on their home floor. Losing home court advantage in game 1 is a death sentence more often than not in a playoff series between two equal teams.
Only 4 non-asterisk champs in the last 14 years? (Lakers in 2000, 2001, Pistons in 2006 and Mavs last year)
especially against Phil Jackson.
Nono, I think you mean Pistons in 2004.
Well let's see what made these teams stand out
2000 Lakers: This deserves a footnote imho. Det Game 7 of the WCF will raise a lot of questions for fans.
2001 Lakers: They just tore through the compe ion like a lawn mower cutting through grass. Not much to find.
2004 Pistons: They tore a discombobulating Lakers team apart in one of the worst showings of a Lakers finals team.
2011 Mavs: Dem Mavs went through and back to win this championship. They fought the hardest opponents en route to the le. Nothing questionable.
You could make a case for 3 of those 4 also having "asterisks" due to injuries (Tim Duncan, Karl Malone, Ginobili, etc etc). Simmons loves going back and showing he knows something about history. Only he usually just ends up sounding like an idiot.
I'd also remove the '99 Spurs. Shortened season or not, teams in shape or not, those Spurs had a near prime David Robinson and a young Duncan anchoring the paint, Avery Johnson at the point (who was one of the fastest players in the league), and a very good Sean Elliott at the 3. Let's assume every team was "in shape." Who could've beaten them? They swept the Blazers in the WCF, who made the WCF the very next season while "in shape" and were a chokejob away from winning the le. You're telling me an extra month of training camp and preseason games would've made a difference in that series or any other?
No team was on the Spurs' level that year, regardless of the cir stances. Near prime Robinson and a young Duncan + a good overall perimeter = gg NBA.
Sorry, yes
If Michael Jordan had won in 99, no one would call it an asterisked le. Huge double standard. That's why I don't call the Spur le an asterisked le.
lol Did he really discredit the strength of those 2005 teams?
Those teams were both Deadly on defense. Both top 5 in defense in the decade imo.
LOL spurs prime for another one 2012. lol
stupid ass simmons
I'd put 2006 Heat higher, but otherwise solid l*st
pre-historic asterisks:
les won by 'dynasties' (e.g., celtics) in decades lacking any parity and diluted in talent. the ABA was more exciting than 60's NBA basketball overall.
Contrary to common knowledge, the 60's NBA were stacked with talent. It become diluted during the 1970s when the NBA and the ABA were engaging in an arms race. That's also the era when the two leagues started churning out mega-size contracts for players who did not deserve it.
The merger fell through in 1976 because the ABA had run dry giving undeserving monkeys large contracts. That, and because Mikan lowballed Kareem so much that it got him fired. Kareem would have been the sure-thing talent that would've swung the balance of power to the ABA.
The whole talk of asterisk les is stupid. Anyone can go down with a injury at any time, you don't win a championship thru a fluke, you have to get past all rounds and win 16 games. Will we hear bulls fans talk about whoever wins the le this year that the le was a asterick, because Derrick Rose went down, and they would have had that le on lock if he was healthy? Will Knicks fans call it a asterisk le, because Amare went nuts and punched glass, and they would have won if he was healthy? happens, Derrick Fisher hits a .04 shot, and knocks us out. If you win the le you deserve it with play and series of events going in favor of your team moreso than any other team in the league.
Championship teams win les via good coaching, good players and good luck. You can control two of those variables but luck is somthing you cannot control. All teams fall prey to this. Since all teams are equally exposed to good or bad fortune we cannot pick or choose when 'luck' should be applied.
LOL What a troll job this is
The Verdict: Hakeem the Dream deserved to win at least one championship. (Look at this clip, for god's sake.) But winning it the season after the league's greatest player ever briefly and inexplicably retired at the peak of his powers? Come on. That's earning a 48-point WTF footnote. At least.
Give me a break..
and yet he doesn't throw in the 1984 Celtics????
Lakers practically gave them that series .......
Injuries to players on other teams isn't worth a footnote on the winning team's le. Injuries happen in every sport. If that were a legit point to make, you could easily say all 46 Super Bowl winners get asterisks because every year I'm sure there's a team that doesn't live up to its potential because of an injury.
Asterisks are for things like Spygate, Bountygate, Horry hip checks, Gasol trade collusion, etc. for the fans to talk about.
There's only a few teams I feel that can completely avoid a "footnote" since the 80's. (Wasn't old enough to watch back then)
-Any of the Jordan Bulls teams
-01 Lakers by tearing through the playoffs
-04 Pistons. Even though they played a disgruntled Lakers team, you can't hold that against them because there was nothing you could do to change it. That was the roster they had
05 Spurs I think they beat the 05 Pacers/Heat anyway
11 Mavs played all of the big dogs when healthy and had as tough a run as anybody
I dont think any le deserves an asterisk, but winning in a full season with the same core players helps to "validate" it for the most part. Its more a perception thing. The spurs didnt truly shed the asterisk talk, fair or unfair, until they won in 03.
Somebody had to win in 99 and somebbody has to win in 2012. No such thing as lesser championships or asterisks. Injuries and strikes are a normal part of sports.. The whole media is ready to celebrate Lebron's first ring. Anyone else gets them less excited and the excuses will come in.. But people's stupid opinions does not degrade any accomplishment..
I dont disagree with you. But if lebron never wins another one, the lockout season le will hang over his head. I dont thinks its fair but it will.
I have a feeling that Riles might break up the Superfriends if they don't ring this year.
x2
Build the best team possible. Injuries happen. Collect them rings.
I didn't look at the full list but did he include the year that the Mavs took out Derek Anderson so the Lakers could win?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
