Panda, Although there are championship teams that are not as good as other championship teams... It's still a fact that the team that won the championship during THAT YEAR, deserve it (for that YEAR). An asterisks * usually denotes that the team in question did not deserve it (comparable to *other* years/teams in the past). Although, you may want to place a asterisks on a team/year for informational purposes (aberration), that's not how it comes across. IMO, Asterisks are used for any opposing fan(s) to place on *other* teams in order to make them feel better about themselves for not winning it all. "The only reason you won the title that year was because...blah, blah, blah..." * So and so player did not play that year ** Coach had fight with wife before game *** The moon was inline with mars and venus Sour grapes!
Who said this was my "final" judgement on Tim Duncan? I'm simply calling it like I see it at this point in his career. I think the unbelievable praise is manufactured and not earned at this point. Sure Tim can change that before the end of his career ala Olajuwon.
I agree, Duncan was the man in game 6 of that game. Where the hell was he the rest of the playoffs though? I mean one, two, or even three games showing up in the clutch do not make up for his seeming avoidance of taking control in the clutch for the majority of his team's playoff games the past few years.
I know about every stat you mentioned in the above post. I just don't allow my allegiances cloud my perception like you, and the majority of the posters on this site I may add, do. Call me a chump all you want. Just ask any non Rocket fan what they think of the Rockets championships and I think you'll find the majority see it my way. I guess in your eyes that makes me a bad fan so feel free to bash. And I'm tired of the "Hey the Rockets won 7 of 8 from the Bulls in the regular season" justification for why the Rockets would have beaten Chicago head to head those years. Guys be fair. The regular season is absolutely meaningless. If the 94' Rockets got the Jordan Bulls in the finals it would have been ugly for the Rockets. The 95' team would have competed, but I think the end result would have been the same. Wake up, take off your blinders, when you see things through the eyes of a fan only you tend to cloud the facts. Using your line of logic I could make a case for almost any team winning the championship at some point. The regular season.......puleassseeeee!!!!!!
Can you answer this question? What the hell is Duncan doing in the high post in the 4th quarters of close playoff games? The Spurs got to the playoffs on Duncan's back, but it seems to me that Duncan prefers to allow the Ginobili's, Jackosn's, and Parker's take control of the team in the clutch. That's a sign of weakness any way you slice it and like I told another poster, one or two times accepting the challenge does not make up for 10 when he didn't. The freakin' Nets and Mavs took this team to game 7 and the Mavs did it minus Nowitski and if you want to know why you need look no further than one Tim Duncan. I'm amazed this guy now has two rings as weak as he plays under pressure which is the point I've been trying to make here.
Maxwell gauarding Jordan.......................put me down for $1000 on Jordan please thank you. Playoffs Jordan and regular season Jordan are two different Jordan's in my book.
I think we should put an asterisk on all the Bulls titles because the Rockets were too unlucky to make it to the Finals where they could beat Jordan and co.
Absolutely. The fact that the Sonics team that beat Houston that year did not even reach the finals had the Bulls biting their finger nails at the thought of playing that Rockets team. With that said, if only Maxwell had passed to a wide open Dream instead of lobbing up that awful three at the end of regulation.......
Maybe because thats part of the spurs offense? Also, the spurs beat the mavs and nets in 6 games, but i'm sure you knew that. so here are the criteria to be a great player as you have defined it. a) you must go to the low blocks every time or you will be deemed as someone who shies away from the spotlight. b) your team full of young, erratic role players must sweep every team that Duece Rings judges to be inferior to your team c) clutch play in the biggest game of the playoffs is not good enough, nor is a near quadruple double in the clinching game of the finals. a couple other things. Duncan has proven what he can do against single coverage in the '99 finals. If it is so widely known that Duncan is a coward who shies away from the spot light, why didn't NJ just guard him with single coverage and let him proceed to choke? Also, i'm guessing that Shaq is not in your category of great players because the lakers rarely give him the ball in the closing minutes of a close game. What more could have Tim duncan done last year? he was constantly double teamed and he opted to pass to a wide open steve kerr for multiple bombs. He played basketball the way it was meant to be played, and he has two rings. I've said about all i can say on this subject.
I hope you are being sarcastic...The Bulls were not "biting their nails." The Rox, with the burden of never winning a title in the History of Houston (minus AFL) city sports? No. The presure was on us.
Wow, what a long thread it has become ! My comment about Francis earlier in this thread is just in a spirit of "healthy" antagonism -to borrow the phrase of my fellow Spur fan that chiming in later on. Francis is a VERY good player, but IMHO, he's overrated the way Rox fans put him among other superstars of the league. You may not agree with my opinion, but i'm ENTITLED to it -the way you're entitled on yours over DRob wussiness issue, Francis greatness up to the level of Jordan opinion, etc. Plus, i just don't like guys who like to run the smacktalk then unable to back it up -like Francis comment over Parker that he didn't belong in this league as a starter in TP first season, then got BURNED time and time again by that "unbelonged" player while watching him got a ring earlier than the supposed "Superstar PG" himself. YES, i put Yao on HIGHER class compared to Steve, because he IS that good IMHO. The way i can acknowledge Hakeem talent & greatness, i can see the same thing over Yao, and fact that he's just about "CLASS" give me even more admiration & RESPECT toward him. Just some clarification over the issue, fact that i RESPECT the Rockets franchise now & then, that WILL not stop me from disrespecting some certain player which i don't think DESERVED my respect.
Hey lay of Crisco. I love what he's sayin...The Spurs do suck and they are nothing without TD. They are a bunch of scrubs unlike the Rockets.
I give the Spurs full credit for their two championships, no asterisks. That doesn't change the fact that Tim Duncan and David Robinson are two of the most boring superstar athletes of all time. Add that DRob still owes Hakeem one '95 MVP trophy and his favorite movie is "The Little Mermaid" and you have one hell of a pu$$y greatest player in franchise history.
Um. Dude. The Rockets were nothing without one player for many, many years. That's a pretty dumb argument to make.
Name calling does not change the fact that the Spurs were the champions of 99 and 03. And don't you discredit the effort it takes to win one, let alone two- ask the other 28 teams who failed in those years. Luck is part of the game, which IMO shouldn't be, but it is because we can do nothing about it. I am watching basketball for BASKETBALL, not to comparing who have got better luck! If you think that win by incredible luck to the extent of severely diminishing good basketball and overall NBA competition is acceptable that's fine but don't impose it on me. [/QUOTE] Luck does have a role to play in sports and it can be subtle or obvious and takes many shapes and forms. However unlike your definition I don't see luck happening each possession. Luck can and does occur in that defining moment that changes the complexion of a game or the series. There is no better recent example than the title winning Rockets of 95. What if Elie missed that Kiss of Death trey? What if KJ hit all his FT's? Same with Anderson. What if Horry bricked those game winning shots against SA and Orl? To me being Clutch is equal parts guts, heart and a sprinkling of luck from above. Lady luck was definitely on the Rox that year. Clearly we have different standards here. To me a shortened season is something remarkable. The Rockets was once the No.1 or No.2 seed in that lockout season around 20 games into it IIRC. If that season is shortened to 20 games we might just have won a championship too LOL. Then in this stupid playoffs none of the powerhouses but Spurs remained injury free and came out like a bandit. The true face of the Spurs is that it takes them six games to finish the Nets with a weak frontcourt and without anyone that can consistently create shots.[/QUOTE] It's all about the end result. In both cases, it lead to the trophy. Why quible over regular season details? They still played the full 4 rounds of the play-offs. Would you diminish the achievement if instead of the Spurs in 99, it was the Rockets? A shortened season deserves an asterisk, a championship that's won because God banned all rivals from playing at top condition deserves an asterisk, and being the lamest champs in history is also asterisk worthy. Let me reiterate, the 94' and 95' Rockets deserve asterisks too, for being one of, if not the most, resilient teams in title runs in history. Unlike the SA ASSES who just waltz to it with their lame duck luck. [/QUOTE] I disagree. Like I said, go and survey the other 28 teams who came off ringless in those years. A Ring is a Ring and the opportunities to compete are limited let alone win one. Even better, go ask the Yankees how it feels to dominate a 162 game regular season and come out nought. Go ask the Marlins if they don't deserve the Ring despite winning only what 85 games? It's not how you start, it's how you finish.
LOL! Don't forget that Robinson used to be in the Navy. Just kidding. As much as people think Robinson was soft when he played, I always admired him for his skills and character. I think he definately is an NBA great. The man scored 70 points in a game once. Not many players have done that. Kobe has yet to do that. Michael Jordan came close. Next to Karl Malone, I would say he was the best built player in the league, even at his waning age. Robinson was a great player and leader. But the SPURs are NOT a dynasty team. I repeat: the Spurs are NOT a dynasty team. They won their first title after the Bulls dynasty ended. ANd they won their second title after the Laker's mini (wannabe) dynasty ended. They're the type of team who wins the interim title between the passing of one dynasty of the rising of another. The next dynasty will not be the Spurs. They'll always be that team that everyone cheered on when they were champions, but then forget about completely (as if it never happened) when a different team wins the next season and then goes on to three-peat. The bulls three-peat (for the second time). Then the Spurs win. The Lakers three-peat. Then the SPurs win. Another team will three-peat. It won't be San Antonio. They'll win another title three years from now. That's right, every three years. In about 30 years, they'll have a small dynasty.
