Reply With Quote
Who was better? Pacers?
obviously a controversial championship, one that is deemed an asterisk le 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."“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.”
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
Last edited by IrisHockey; 05-18-2014 at 11:53 PM.
Who was better? Pacers?
Alls I'm saying is if you deem 1999 le run as an asterisk, you must deem the 2012 Heat le run one as well.
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?
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.
This irrelevant got trying so hard with this thread
Abortion of a season sandwiched between 2 great dynasties
The current, official tally is 5 to 3.. 4 unnamed members' votes have been negated.
It's all about that "*"..
An interesting excerpt from an article written by objective NBA fan Craig Kwasniewski:
http://theassociation.blogs.com/the_...terisks-f.htmlMuch like the 1982 and 1987 Washington Redskins and the 1981 LA Dodgers, the 1999 Spurs can never rank up there with le-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.
whoops I voted wrong. I meant to vote no asterisk. Your poll and your take sucks. gtfo.
I understood, didn't agree, but understood the asterisk when they won 99. But then they won 3 more and blow that out of the water.
Well since timmy almost left us for orlando in 2000 he must have believed in the asterisk too
knocking on 99 because there was no defining highlight? as opposed to the defining highlight of the lakers les in 2000, 01, or 02? heck, from all of those, the image that everyone remembers is iverson stepping over tyronn lue
10 to 10, cant believe 10 people actually believe this would warrant an asterisk lol, wtf yall smokin
Sean Ellio t says HI
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
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.
It has to be, it was a road bump to the next generation of the NBA
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.
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 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.The Spurs were not going to be beaten that year, 82 games or whatever. LA had a 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.
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 le! Your rival was upset you beat them or won the le that year so they have to hate some how, period.
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 ( les) 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."
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 le 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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
