Heres your Asterick Jackson; if Duncan was healthy...

This asterisk talk is for the birds...

------------------

 

now that is funny. and the sad thing is that some people actually believe that drivel.

the fact is that the spurs didn't take care of their own business. they were facing the phoenix suns in the first round; a team never known for its interior game. a team that was missing its best player (and energizer) in jason kidd, a very good player in tom gugliotta (he hasn't been the same since that knee injury and near death experience), and a clutch player in rex chapman. you really think the spurs couldn't have found some way to dominate LUC LONGLEY at the center position with david robinson? that they couldn't find some way to exploit the suns weakened backcourt? PLEASE.

the spurs didn't take care of their own business. it's their own fault they never got to face the lakers.

and the * was attributed to the spurs not as a slight, but simply as a fact of life. they won in a SHORTENED SEASON. a season different from every other season, thus deserving of an * simply to alert people of such.

------------------

 

MLB would disagree, the asterisk was removed from Maris' record and was never applied to McGwire's, regardless of the fact that they had longer seasons than Ruth. Everyone was playing the same number of games THAT YEAR, why could the Spurs take advantage and no one else? Why could the Rockets win in Jordan's absence but no one else? A season is a season.

------------------
You can't stick a porcupine in a barn, light it on fire, and expect to get licorice.

 

the difference is that the 99 season was a fluke. it was not shortened by design, and the very next season went the full 82 games. for the other seasons, the league changed the number of games so that their accomplishments were accomplished in the newly defined "regular" season.

it is not a slight on the spurs championship when an * is attributed to it. it is simply necessary because they won it in a season that was different from every other season in history.

but i will say that while the rings they have were well earned, they still don't mean as much as a standard championship earned in a regular season. if they win this season, or in the near future then they can wipe that smudge off, but until then it does mean somewhat less than say, houston's rings.

------------------

 

word

------------------
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."-
(Aldous Huxley)

 

Injuries do not warrant an asterisk.

If so then Chicago would have in 97 because we lost to Utah due to injuries. That was one of the strongest Rocket teams in history. We should have been in the Finals. No telling what would have happened then.

Maybe SanAn deserves an * to signify that it was an abnormal season, being shortened by the lock-out and all. But that's it. They won it fair and square. They played the same amount of games as every other team. I'd say they deserved it.

How they got Duncan is a whole different story, though.

As a Rocket fan, you should be careful about saying another team deserves an asterisk. We will forever have arguements with non-Rockets fans about our 2 Championships. Of course, we all know what the outcome would have been if Jordan stayed. Let's just say that it turned out to be in MJs best interest to not be around when Hakeem was peaking.



------------------

 

As much as I loathe the Spurs for tanking it that year (they were my second fav. team), I am rooting for them against the Lakers.

BTW, does everyone think the Spurs tanked it on purpose ?

------------------
"norm, would you like to buy an indian scalp ? This deal isn't gonna make or break me Norm, so don't jerk me around." Harry Carey "Norm, if I had a mohawk scalp, I wouldn't be sitting here talking to you."

 

There is no such thing as an asterisked championship. If you won it, you won it, and thats the bottom line.

------------------
Charles Barkely on the Raptors defeating the Knicks in Round 1 :"I think it was the Lord. The Lord was with the Raptors. You know the Knicks like to talk so much about religion, but I think the Lord was a Raptor fan."

 

BTW, does everyone think the Spurs tanked it on purpose ?



I do. Why else would they have brought in 'Nique and Bad Max? But then the Rockets tanked to get Hakeem.


------------------
We used to laugh at Grandpa when he'd head off and go fishing. But we wouldn't be laughing that evening when he'd come back with some w**** he picked up in town.

 

When you opt to bring in vets instead of developing your young talent, it usually means you're trying to win games, not lose them. This doesn't mean I don't think the Spurs tanked, just that bringing in those guys is not good proof, IMO.

mhan -- I assume you put an asterisk by the '82 Redskins as well, right? That team was great, but according to you, they didn't "earn" it.

The 50 game season was actually more challenging than a regular season. In a regular season you don't play 3 games in 3 nights. If you can come out on top in that kind of situation, you clearly are the best team.

 

Robinson probably didn't have to be out the ENTIRE season, but still, I don't think it was on purpose.

I was living in San Anton that season. They had a hard time getting anyone into the Alamodome, 'cause The Admiral and Sean Elliot were out for pretty much the entire season. No one wanted to watch Avery (The Little General) and some nobodies get schooled by Big Country and the rest of the chumps in the league.

Even when the season ended, they weren't the WORST team in the league; they just got lucky the ping pong balls fell the way they did.

Firing Coach Hill on the other hand ... that was just wrong. You go an entire season without your best 2 players, get them both back for the next season as well as easily the best guy in the draft, and you don't get a chance to redeem yourself for last season's woes. That was just plain wrong.

------------------
Founding Father of the
Refs Suck Club

 

Toast, do you remember the exact moment HIll got fired ? I could have sworn it was right when Robinson was coming back.

------------------
"norm, would you like to buy an indian scalp ? This deal isn't gonna make or break me Norm, so don't jerk me around." Harry Carey "Norm, if I had a mohawk scalp, I wouldn't be sitting here talking to you."

 

One thing is for certain, the Spurs did not "tank" that season.

Elliott had surgery on his quads and played in like 30 games. DRob was coming off the Olympic back injury, then broke his foot. Charles Smith, who finally left the Spurs cap last season, was out for most of the season as well. AJ missed some games, etc.

I was pissed that season because the team that was put together was pretty deep as far as Spurs teams in the 90s went.

There was about a week during the season when the team was healthy and they did pretty well.

Dominique was a nice pickup...he could still put up good numbers, though passing was a skill he seldom exhibited. Maxwell was interesting.

Chuck P was out for the season with a back injury caused by a seat coming loose in a charter as it was taking off.

Anyways, the Spurs certainly did not "tank"...what's the gain? Seriously? Ditch the entire season to draft Chauncey Billups? Tony Battie?

Drafting Duncan wasn't a lock. I recall being pissed at the end of the season because they finished like 5-5 in the last 10 games and ended up with a better record than Boston.

Spurs did luck out by landing Duncan, but the effects of those injuries are still felt by the Spurs. Smith's contract was an albatross that messed up the Spurs' cap and of course, was one player who the Spurs weren't able to deal and get something in return.

DRob's not the same player as before the back injury. Same for Elliott.

As for Hill, his fate was sealed after a weak showing versus Utah in the previous playoffs. If there is anything to criticize Popovich and the ownership about, it is that they even kept Hill around after the '96 playoffs.



------------------

 

Well, it would've been interesting had Duncan been healthy last year. I don't think you can say that SA would've taken LA...Elliott was still in the midst of his comeback and the Spurs would've definitely needed him.

What I do know is that the Spurs' record in the last two playoffs in which Duncan has been healthy is 22-4. Throw in his rookie season in which he badly sprained his ankle in the second round versus Utah (a series in which Game 1 saw the potential Spurs winning shot rim out and Game 2 which went to overtime at the Delta Center...also another missed potential winning shot at the end of regulation) and the total Spurs playoff record with Duncan in the lineup is 26-9.

Anyways, the beauty of this season's WCF is that this should settle things once and for all about '99 Champs v. '00 Champs.



------------------

 

emoreland, that's how I read your original post and I totally agree.

 

emoreland: you still don't understand why the * was assigned to the spurs championship. it wasn't to slight or denigrate them. they earned their championships. the * is absolutely necessary because the format of the season was a fluke. totally different from the nba standard of a regular season.

the lakers' championship last season on the other hand, does not warrant a championship just because tim duncan was injured. did the pistons get an * on their 89 championship just because magic johnson went down? did the lakers get an * in 88 when thomas went down? of course not, because injuries are part of the game and just due to bad luck (or karl malone).

the * is necessary simply for record keeping purposes. it should be there, and it always will be there. what makes the spurs fans so defensive about it would have to be (imo), the question mark the * naturally implies. well, too bad for them. the doubts will always be there until the spurs win it all again in a standard season. then they will all go away.



------------------

 

the * is necessary simply for record keeping purposes. it should be there, and it always will be there.

Um, there is no asterisk.

 

Well duncan seemed healthy to me...

*********************************************



------------------
http://www.democrats.com

mgh 1924-2001