Yep. Every game. And apparently all you did was listen to the announcers, namely Bill Walton, heaping unbelievable praise on the guy when he didn't deserve it. I thought Duncan shied away from the spotlight allowing his complimentary players to take charge. I'm not saying Duncan is a bad player, I'm just saying he's not as much of a winner as the Jordan's, Bird's, Magic's, Isiah's, Olajuwon's, and Russel's of the world. The media is trying to make Duncan into that type of player and he just hasn't shown that kind of killer insinct yet. A star player not wanthing the ball in the 4th quarter of the NBA Finals is pathetic.
Jordan in excellent condition???........ Somebody needs to order ESPN Classics because that 95' Bulls team featured Jordan light and there's not a soul allive that witnessed it that would disagree. With that said, you'll notice I did not put an asterisk next to the 95' Rockets team, just the 94' team.
As people yes. As players no. Both these players are very deserving of the "soft" label both of them have around the NBA.
People who share my point of view are saying that there were NO teams in the NBA last year worthy of being champion. Every year a team wins the NBA championship. Some champions win it because they are far and away the best team in the league. Others win it because they're the best of an abnormally average bunch. I think the 94' Rockets, the 99' Spurs, and the 03' Spurs fall into that second category. You can throw the 75' Warriors and 78' (or is it 79') Sonics into that category as well. As a Rockets fan, I wish that wasn't true, but I'm not the kind of person that ignores logic simply because I happen to root for a team.
not in excellent condition? the guy came back and played 40 minutes a game in those 17......the next season durring his champion ship run he played 37 mins. in that 94-95 season 27 ppg getting 7 boards and 5.3 assists...he never tops those rebound and assist numbers again. in the last 17 games of the season they went 13-4. MJ was fine. Bulls problem....they just had no size--pippen led the team in rebounding. whats the first thing they did next season? get rodman, boot purdue and move longley to starters role. what happened after that? rebounded their oppoenents significantly, shed opponents ppg by 5. no asterisk for the 95 rockets championship, bulls were just beat by the better TEAM.
Sorry for the late reply, got tangled up in some personal affairs. The Spurs didn't prove they could win through the rigors of an 82 games regular season. They proved they could win in 50 games. Less grinding, less requirement for focus. Sean Elliot was playing on a worsening kedney condition. Would he be able to stand the rigors of another 32 games without getting burnt out? I doubt it. It's not like that kidney was going to get better along with more games played . Would the scrubs Avery Johnson, Jaren Jackson and Jerome Kersey etc remain in their overachieving condition after another 32 games? One can seldom overachieve in sports forever. That's another legit question mark. Nobody knows for sure about these things. The Spurs didn't prove it like the Rockets did, like the Lakers did, like the Bulls did. All of which had taken a longer, more winding road toward the pedestal of the alluring ring. All of which fought harder, overcame more adversities than the lucky Spurs, and their prolonged strife, which makes their rings more shining, is a norm compared to the Spurs abberation. Yes, asterisk should be placed beside abberations. Especially such aberration happened not only once, but twice and each time of the Spurs lucky runs. In their second championship quest the Spurs have lopsided duel against each worthy opponent as God ordered lightning strike or a stumble over a tree twig on their counterparts, unlike the championship Lakers,Rockets, and Bulls, that had at least beat one rival in normal condition. As if a real champion should not at least beat just one rival fair and square to claim the glory, as if that's asking for too much, as if the Spurs were just another GWB, climbing up the ladder of success with their atypical luck. The Spurs didn't prove they could beat any of the West powerhouses fair and square, they proved they could dispatch a weak Eastern team in 6 games. It's not their fault but they simply didn't prove much. For those reasons I have less respect for their rings and * is well on order each time their fans talk trash.
Well, maybe you should just wait until his career is over (like the other greats that have on titles) before you make your final judgment.
Yes, TEAM was the main factor. But I'm not going to split hairs with you on how much better Jordan was prepared phisically and metally for the 96 season, vs the 95. But for Panda to use that as excuse for the Magic beating Jordan's team in 95. Well, that's not looking at the whole picture. He's only assuming that Jordan was a full strenthg, but also like he was supposed to just put a *new* team on his back (since he's superman). It was more about the Magic having a better team than the Magic beating the " great Jordan and team." They were NOT "great" that year. And yes. They did need a post presence since Grant was gone.
And the rest of the teams proved that they couldn't win in the same circumstances. It's about taking avantage of the opportunities put in front of you.
I remember clearly TD was afraid of attacking the basket when Shaq was guarding him. Jackson dare not put Shaq on TD for the whole game, but this move saved the lakers several times during the 2002 playoffs. But my friend....if you watched the 2003 WC semi Spurs- Lakers game 6... Jackson used the same trick at the 4th quarter but TD killed Shaq. If Shaq isn't a problem any more, who else could be?
There are times I'm almost rendered speechless by some of the crap I read here: THe 94' Rockets, 99' Spurs, and 03' Spurs were teams winning during a transitional year in the NBA and they didn't win because they were great. They won because greatness had left the league for a year or two allowing a second rate kind of champion to emerge. Why on earth would you lump the '94 Rockets in with the '99 Spurs?? Because Jordan didn't play? This argument has be discussed here more times than Rodman has tattoos. You must have missed it. The truth is that Jordan's legend is burnished by the fact that the Bulls didn't play the Rockets in '94 and '95. Go look at the season records the Rockets had against the Bulls in the early to mid '90's. We had their number. The Bulls were 3 and 7 against the Rockets from the 90/91 season through the 94/95 season... the first 3 Bulls championship teams and the 2 Rockets championships. If there was a team the Bulls didn't want to face in the Finals, it was the Rockets. If we had played the Bulls in the '94 Finals, we would have beaten them. It's really hard not to call you a chump, so I won't. But for someone who professes to be a fan of the Rockets, you don't know much, in my humble opinion.
let me get this straight. the first championship didnt count because they didnt prove that they could withstand the 82 game grind. I guess there are many people who would agree with you. Then, in the 2nd championship, they do exactly that. they withstood the grind of the season better than anyone else, and they win it all. But now, you say, this one doesnt count because they were lucky? this championship run, they withstood the grind of a full season, they got better as the year progressed, and beat every opponent, including the defending champs. They outlasted everyone and were the last team standing. Arent you kind of contradicting yourself?
I'm sure duncan would have loved to take Kmart or Mutombo all day long if the nets werent bringing agressive double teams. I know you're probably going to argue that the truly great players should force shots against multiple defenders, but i admire the amount of trust duncan had in his young, erratic teammates. Like Orange said, Duncan took it right at Shaq in the 4TH QUARTER of GAME 6, scoring about 4 times consecutively to increase the lead. Then, the outside shooters put the game away. i can't believe that someone who watched game 6 against the lakers, which you say you did, would argue that the spurs are unworthy champs. They kicked the crap out of the lakers on their home floor. and please dont tell me that Rick Fox was hurt.
both spurs championships are legit. their first one gets an asterick because it was a shortened season, simple as that. it has to be noted in the books but that doesn't mean it's less of an accomplishment. i'm not big on this first-tier, second tier championship stuff, if you win, you win. god how i wish jordan would have played in 94 and 95, his reign would have most likely ended to the knicks before dream had the chance to stomp them. his 2 year hiatus allowed him the rest to come back and win those next 3. is he the greatest player ever? i think so, but it's damn near impossible to win eight in a row and the bulls in 94 or 95 would have no answer for dream in his prime.
Hi Rockets fans! First, let me say thank you for quoting me extensively in the course of this thread - I spend a good deal of time on Spurs feedback, and black and silver blood runs in my veins. It's good to see you guys have a healthy antagonism towards the Spurs - I feel the same towards the Rockets. This doesn't mean we can't be friendly. But this asterisk stuff is nonsense. Especially the '03 asterisk - we were the first team to win four best of seven series, so I guess you can put an asterisk on every championship before 2003, right? But I'm an objective fan (I think), and I can see for myself that Yao Ming will soon be the real deal. And within a few years, the Rockets will be tearing it up big time. As for '04 - seventh seed. Sorry, but the West is tough.
Asterisks are silly. If the Spurs are to be discredited for their championship during the shortened season, what were the other teams doing during that period that they couldn't beat them? If the Rockets winning back-to-back championships had to do with Jordan "not being there", what was the rest of the NBA doing when the Rockets were winning the championships? Seems like everybody had a shot to win it no matter who was/wasn't there and how long the season was. The fact is 2 teams took advantage of the opportunities... the rest of the league wasn't good enough to beat them those 3 years. That being said, Go Rockets!
I think it's hilarious, really. The Spurs must be the least controversial NBA team ever - they're just do damned nice. But despite that, they've still managed to polarize everybody to ridiculous positions. I don't think they deserve an asterisk either. They were hardly a mediocre, lucky team that got lucky. And it's not like their opponent's planes crashed in the middle of a series. But I do think that things have fallen into place very nicely for them a couple of years. They're certainly not one of the best teams ever, as some Spurs-fans seem to think.
And I think he missed out on one other fact. In '94, we had Mad Max, the ONE guy in the league who could guard Jordan. Micheal Jordan was afraid of Vernon Maxwell because as we later found out, Maxwell REALLY was crazy
It doesn't make sense to deny putting asterisks beside obvious aberrations. That's what asterisks are for, indicating aberrations. It's fringe lunatic to pretend that there is no aberrations in sports, just because one is afraid of others applying asterisks to their fragile pride. Silly.
