http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...footnote- le
The Footnote le
The Sports Guy ranks the 20 most fortunate breaks an NBA champion ever received
------------
This article is a blatant attack on all of the Spurs les and most of the arguments, not just for the Spurs, are pretty stupid. Basically punishes teams for having several very solid players. Of course 99 was the lockout season.
How about the early 2000 Lakers...Kobe AND Shaq in their primes? I think the article mentions the 2002 championship, but not 2000 and 2001. Don't understand the point of this stupid ass article.
I'm not sure why I'm posting it, perhaps to further prove themedia hates the Spurs
2009 was really the footnote le if there was one in the past 10 years. the lakers cruised through the playoffs because their entire roster was healthy while boston loss garnett, the magic lost jameer nelson, the spurs lost ginobili, the rockets lost mcgrady, and then yao ming went down in the playoffs. but of course, the longer time passes, the more people will forget so all that matters is the le win.
Don't sweat Bill Simmons. He had his moment but success has really killed his writing. I used to enjoy his takes on sports, it was natural, things you would discuss with friends at a bar or while just hanging out. But now everything he writes is so forced, every column has to have a witty remark, or a take that no one has thought of. So to sum up this reply, screw what Bill Simmons thinks.
Simmons usually has good things to say about the Spurs. But his "footnote" argument is an exercise in futulity. Every year there is a "footnote" that impacts how a championship is won. I'm sure that I could discount several Celtic championships, including 2008, for example, because Minnesota gave away Kevin Garnett. If not for that piss poor trade, Boston would never have won its 2008 le.
More importantly, we all must acnkowledge that winning a le takes skill, determination, talent, mind set, but most important of all LUCK.
Actually, this is the first time I've seen a national columnist this reasonable about the 2007 Spurs/Suns series.
Nobody loved watching the Seven Seconds or Less Suns more than me, and if Nash's Suns were ever beating Duncan's Spurs, it was happening that spring. Three things jump out at me, though. First, San Antonio won Game 1 in Phoenix. Great teams never blow Game 1 at home. It just shouldn't happen. Second, the Spurs led Phoenix by 11-plus points in the fourth quarters of three of the last four games; in the other (Game 5, when Phoenix threatened to go Ewing theory on us without Diaw and Stoudemire), they trailed by as many as 16 before roaring back to win. And third, the Suns had everyone for Game 6 — with their season on the line, no less — and got blown out of the building (trailing by as much as 20 in the fourth quarter). Even though the Suns could have stolen that series, they weren't better than San Antonio. So I'd almost give this a footnote for the footnote: If anything, the Diaw/Stoudemire suspensions became a little overrated over time.
(Would I ever in a million years say this in front of a large crowd at a Phoenix sports bar? No.)
, he called the '07 Spurs the third-strongest NBA champion in the last 15 years ... which kind of makes his 'footnote' argument moot.
It pissed me off. I actually sent him an email telling him that his article basically sucked. He points out all 4 of the Spurs les but fails to point out the les we lost because of injury (i.e. 2000 with Duncan, 2009/11 with Manu).
I dont understand how he can call 2003 tainted when we beat the f'in Lakers who were 3-time NBA defending champs! And 2005? He argues that the Pistons peaked in 2004 and were not the best team in the East in 2005?! WTF, they were defending champs and yes, they were really ing good.
The media just likes to create stories instead of actually doing their job and covering the game. If they did the latter then they would clearly see that SA is one of the greatest sports franchises in all of sports.
If the players had been wearing jerseys from major markets, the 2005 finals would be legendary.
The 2002 LAL le should be number one as while injuries happen all the time in sports the BLATANT officiating in the 6th game against the Kings was comical to say the least and is potentially tainted by the accusations of at least one rogue official.
Therefore, Kobe's 5 is a definite 2/4* (only two as the main main and four at most legit in total - one other was when Duncan went down vs. the Suns etc.)
Might as well turn in our banners now
stupid article on a stupid topic.
Looks like he's fishing for ideas. Too bad there is nothing interesting going on, like the playoffs.
Let me debunk this for you since you are a stupid who doesn't like reading for :
/thread
Love Bill Simmons pods and articles.
If you know him, you also know that he gives a lot of respect to our team (and a guy that hates the Lakers cant be our enemy^^).
He needs to write something! And even while I disagree, it's not like most people simply wouldn't put the 99- le first, coz of the shortened season.
No bad feelings, even while I dont agree with his statements (isn't it a sign of class to stay in shape while everyone else isnt doing it?)
Did you really think any of those teams would beat the Spurs even with those players? Think again, sucker.10. 2005 Spurs
What Happened: Somebody had to win the le.
The Footnote: Actually, there were three! The Artest Melee knocked out what should have been 2005's best team (the Pacers). Dwyane Wade suffered a rib injury near the end of Miami's Game 5 victory against Detroit that knocked out Contender no. 2 (the Heat were one win from the Finals). And Joe Johnson broke his face during the playoffs, eventually knocking out Contender no. 3 (the 62-win Suns, who had MVP Steve Nash, an emerging Amar'e Stoudemire and home court heading into the postseason).
Haha, that's ing bull . The NBA in 2003 was loaded with superstars. I wrote an article earlier this year talking about how 2003 was arguably the "year of the power forward."14. 2003 Spurs
What Happened: The champion Spurs featured Tim Duncan at his apex (playoffs: 24 games, 24.7 PPG, 15.4 RPG, 5.3 APG, 53% FG, 28.4 PER) and that's about it. David Robinson was just about washed up. Manu and Tony weren't totally Manu and Tony yet. The league itself was pretty diluted.
What an assclown.
It doesn't matter. All teams have the exact same chance to win. Injuries happen. The Spurs were a fluke and a foul (0.4 and Ginobili on Dirk) from having a shot at five in a row. Duncan tore his knee in 2000.
People can put an irrelevant asterisk on whatever season they want. The bottom line is, all the teams try to win every year. Strike shortened seasons, injury filled seasons, etc. If placing conditions on things helps them feel better, have at it. Their teams lost.
It's awesome that all the Spurs championships are so memorable.
Tbh, I hope a rival basketball league starts next week and all the teams in the NBA leave to join that league and the Spurs are awarded the 2012 championship by default.
yeah, where is Vince McMahon when you need him?
I've start to notice all of this lately, too! It's like when the Spurs are doing there thing then there's something wrong with the league! After last nite, all my friends said this and that, because they actually, WATCHED a full game and knew what I've been sayin for a month! We ballin!!!
The way this guy is thinking, EVERY year is a footnote championship. Next re ed article please...
I totally disagree. There were tons of terrible drafts from the mid-90s up to the LeBron/Melo/Wade draft. Some top picks: Glenn Robinson, Joe Smith, Olowokandi, Kenyon Martin, Kwame Brown. And it's not like there were many of those that were great drafts after the first pick was a bust.
The NBA gradually thinned out over that period. The recovery was aided by a bunch of successively better drafts -- and also by the end of the era of the ISO play.
The 2003 Spurs were an amazing team -- 4 hall of famers and stacked with role players. Probably my favorite Spurs team of all time. But the rest of the league just wasn't that deep at that point.
Imo our 99 season was the most deserved winner..
We were by far the best team (did we lose maybe 2 playoff games?) and I would argue the NBA actually played the correct number of games. In a 50 game season that is stretched out a bit more the regular season games start taking on much more importance.
Of course I would not mind each conf. only having 4 representatives along with that 50 game season. In my mind it would make for a much more compe ive, compelling, league that of course will never ever exist.
I found the article interesting from the standpoint of bringing back some memories and how diff. fans emphasize diff. incidents that turn a game and or a series.
If any team wins it from the West this year, it definitely won't be a footnote le. This season has me pretty excited because the West is entirely (relatively entirely, lol) up for grabs, there is no clear cut favorite. The Spurs, Thunder, and Lakers all have an equal shot in my opinion. I can see any of the 3 teams going to the finals, and it all depends on who plays better when they face each other. You could probably repeat the playoffs 7 or so times and have each of the 3 come out of the west at least once, so in my opinion I think it's pretty compe ive and can't wait to see how it plays out.
The Heat on the other hand....as long as Wade, Bosh, and Lebron are all on the team, all of their potential championships deserve footnotes.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
