Reply With Quote
agreed.Phil Jackson really opened a can of worms with the * talk in 1999. Now you hear it about almost every team that wins a le at some point in their run. It's just gotten out of hand.
Exactly.1999 - It was a shorter regular season. It was a FULL playoffs where everyone had the same chance. No one heard any "asterisk" talk until Phil Jackson said it.
Those who bleat in support of the Jacksonian asterisk would sing a different tune if it was their team.
If the Spurs were only able to win the le because of the shortened season, what does that say of the teams who weren't even able to do it despite the shortened season as was mentioned earlier?
An asterisk in sports denotes some advantage that the team or player with said asterisk has over others. For example..when MLB originally put an asterisk on Roger Maris setting the regular season HR record. They put the asterisk there because the commish at the time felt Maris had an advantage over Ruth because Maris had 162 games to break it and Ruth did it in 154...thankfully that was removed years later.
The bottom line is that officially, per the NBA, there is no asterisk on the Spurs 1999 le. If ignorant and uneducated fools wish to live in a fantasy world....let them, they obviously have enough issues.
agreed.Phil Jackson really opened a can of worms with the * talk in 1999. Now you hear it about almost every team that wins a le at some point in their run. It's just gotten out of hand.
So what if it was a short season, Why didn't your damn team win the le then.
It's the Spurs fault that those 2 don't know how to stand still.
And what are the Kings working on?
"Kobe misses, Vlade tips it to Horry, the shot goes up........IN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Credit Vlade with the assist, head.
And the Kings haven't even started working on their first. Unless they are making plans while sitting at home watching the 2007 NBA Playoffs.
i dont know if someone has already mentioned this, but the playoffs is a whole other season from the reglar season. some argue that the 82 game season is too long. plus we were OBVIOUSLY the best team that year. we were 16-2 in the playoffs and we still hold the record for the longest winning streak in the playoffs (12). so if any one wants to argue because the 82 game season was way too short is a flawed argument because the argument has nothing to do with the playoffs.
Part of being a good basketball player is presence of mind and not getting stupid suspensions.
Suns scored 100+ in 5 of the 6 games, I believe, which is supposed to be their "can't-lose" threshold. But, like always, we outran them and we still beat them.
They were only missing Amare for one game...and they did well and choked to lose that game...like we had done the game before.
We beat them to 4 games fair and square. It's no one else's fault that they lost game 6.
I don't believe the asterisk argument would have had any legs if the Spurs had defeated a Jordan led Bulls team.
That said, the first retort I would use is had Jordan not retired and the Bulls won again, would anyone have said that the Bulls championship deserved an asterisk? The second retort I would use is that the Spurs played a full slate of playoff games like every other champion and really, in the NBA, the playoffs are all that matter as the Mavs proved this year.
No one's even gonna remember who won the le outside of SA.
Seems like EVERY ONE of the 3s and long jumpers by the Jazz go in...we can't beat them if they keep doing that.
Spurs are cracking...wheels coming off...Jazz got this one.
This is just like Game 4 against the Suns...Spurs got in foul trouble early and just got OWNED.
TampaDude...wrong thread.
There were 30 teams competing for the Championship, playing by the same rules. we were the team that won it all. Where's the contention again?
My best comeback has been something like:
"True or False: the champion of the league is always the winner of the LAST GAME played right? Celtics, Lakers, Bulls, etc? Didn't they win the last game of the season, as well as every other NBA champion before and after them? Yes? Well...let me ask you WHO won the last game in the 98-99 NBA season??"
...then let them coil and "Uhhh...ummm...uuhhhh" their way to shutting the up.
Which, with that logic, is worse than having no trophies or rings, like Sacramento?
And you're praying that no one remembers your epic choke jobs the past two seasons.No one's even gonna remember who won the le outside of SA.
So what you're saying here is...that...the Spurs will have to wait 20 years for THE ASTERISK to be forgotten.
Maybe, but it'll take about 20 min. for the Pistons' sorry butts to be forgotten, after they've lost -- again -- to the Spurs in the Finals. Enjoy Cleveland while you've got em.
1. where was your comment when your team was fighting for that championship?
2. 1999 was different and tough. spurs were the toughest team that season.
3. sour grapes
4. ignore them, it turned out they were just trying to annoy me.
Get pass the Jazz first then you can talk...
Here is my argument against the 1999 asterisk. It contains elements of other arguments made in this thread.
1) To say that the Spurs deserve an asterisk for that le is to suggest that they had some sort of an advantage, as if they played 50 games while the other teams had to play 82 - and of course that wasn't the case. In fact, the Spurs actually made it tougher on themselves, starting 6-8 in a 50 game season. Maybe the other teams get the asterisk for not keeping the Spurs out of the picture after a bad start.
2) All of the top players and coaches participated in the season except for Michael Jordan and Phil Jackson. Neither Jackson nor Jordan sat out because of some sort of objection to a shortened season, and Jordan retired. (Of course, this was back when athlete retirements still meant something. Since it was Jordan retiring, we should have known better) Anyway, Shaq played and Kobe played. Malone played and Stockton played. Iverson played and won a scoring le. Vince Carter was the Rookie of the Year. Grant Hill had a great season then, one of his last. Penny Hardaway had one of his last good years. Shawn Kemp had his last good season. Alonzo Mourning went 20/10 and led the league in blocks. Gary Payton had a good individual season. Charles Barkley was second in rebounding to Chris Webber, who went 20/13 and had his first truly great season as a pro. Pre-injury Antonio McDyess was an elite force, averaging 20/10 for Denver. An aging Hakeem still put up 19/9 and finished 8th in blocks. Gay-basher Hardaway put up 17/7 for Miami. Kevin Garnett had his first 20/10 season. Old Man Ewing averaged 17/9 and 2 blocks. Jason Kidd averaged 17/11 and 6 boards.
For an asterisk season, that's an awful lot of names we know and production we're used to. I don't see any scabs, nobodies, or omissions on that list.
3) The playoffs weren't shorter, although I guess they were real short for the Lakers and Blazers. By the way, the Forum is closed, mother ers!
I continue on with my busy, fun life and could care less because its sports. Smack will always be talked by insecure losers. Its like if you asterisk the Rockets' two championships because Jordan decided to take a two year hiatus from the game. A championship is still a championship. Someone has to win them!
Great post!Excuses, excuses.
It's not the Spurs fault that the Lakers haven't won since 2002.
2000 champions* - Tim Duncan injured, Portland gave the WCF's to you all
2001 champions** - Spurs not at full strength
2002 champions*** - Vlade Divac gave the ball to Horry so he could hit the winning shot
1999 was a half season. Okay, so what's the point of having a season at all if the championship doesn't mean anything?
Dirk injured in 2003 was the reason SA won?
Please, it's 4 years later and Dirk still hasn't won with his ty soft team.
2007 - Amare will learn to stay on the bench next year before storming out there like some high school kid wanting to fight.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
