Better put an asterisk next to LA's title this year. None of their opponents had hearts. It's a wonder there's enough players with hearts to form a league. Look at all the players on the Lakers with hearts that didn't have them a few years ago. Amazing.
Didn't the Rockets rally from a 20 point 4th quarter deficit in game 4 against the Sonics? That is heart! ------------------ The Protrolls.com message boards! Protrolls.com! Home of Turn, Tweak, and all your demented favorites!
Facts are facts... our first championship was won when Jordan was playing baseball. Your argument appears to be who knows what would've happened if all teams were prepared and played a full season. Well, who knows what would've happened if Jordan had played the 93-94 season? If you don't call that an asterisked championship, don't call the Spurs championship asterisked. **** you know the rockets would have beat the bulls with or with out jordan that is why pippin came to houston he said they were the only team that could kick are ass ------------------
**** you know the rockets would have beat the bulls with or with out jordan that is why pippin came to houston he said they were the only team that could kick are ass I'm fairly sure Quitten never said that... if he did please give me some kind of link showing that he did say it. I think the Rockets would've beaten the Bulls with or without MJ-- but they never played, so you certainly can't know. The doubt is there, just as SRJ says exists with the championship the Spurs won. Imho, either ALL championships with any doubt are asterisked, or none are. Of course, no championships should be asterisked. A championship is a championship. But, if you do believe in asterisks, to say in some situations of doubt there should be an asterisk and that there shouldn't be in others is ludicrous... can't have it both ways. ------------------ President of the Mo Taylor and Jason Collier fan club! Draftsource.net-- the premier source for draft info. Profiles, rankings, mock drafts, and more!
Asterisk? The only reason there should be an asterisk in history books is to note that it was indeed a short season. In my book, however, that doesn't make their accomplishments lesser. Losing to the Lakers by an average of 22 pts does. Asterisk for the Rockets? That has nothing to do with the argument as above. BTW..could we stop using the phrase "facts are facts?" Please? =) ------------------ http://alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=CVY-051 Make Money Surfin Web
The saddest thing was that rebounding differential. Jeez, with both Duncan and Robinson in there and they were still getting killed on the boards. That has to say something about effort. And Duncan and Robinson didn't really seem to try and take it at Shaq (or at least attack the rim) like they did in '99. Clearly, the Lakers are a better team than they were then, but the Spurs barely showed any kind of hustle in this series. I'm a fan of neither team, but I was disappointed just as a basketball fan. ....although some Spurs fans can be pretty annoying.... ------------------ Proud Member of whatever Clutch City club is currently the most popular and/or controversial. [This message has been edited by Rokkit (edited May 28, 2001).]
I love the fact that the Jazz barely lost to the Mavericks, who were smashed by the Spurs, who were pounded by the Lakers. It makes you wonder.... how bad are the Jazz? ...............real bad. ------------------ Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy. [This message has been edited by RunninRaven (edited May 28, 2001).]
Freak, are you trying to argue Cat's statement that the Spurs played with no hustle? He has defined "heart" as the amount of hustle a team puts forth in a game, and the simple truth is that the Spurs put forth little effort, particularly in the last two games. I can't figure out what it is that you are arguing except Cat's choice of words and phrasing. By calling "heart" the amount of hustle a team puts forth, then they can show different amounts of "heart" on a game by game basis. Does this mean that the amount of "heart" they "had" during this series has less to do with why they lost? I don't think so, do you? Now, if you are trying to argue that you felt that the Spurs lack of effort was merely a result of the Lakers excellent play, and not a trait of the Spurs players in general, I would understand. But what I don't understand is your statement quoted above..... ------------------ Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy. [This message has been edited by RunninRaven (edited May 28, 2001).]
And how bad does that make the Rockets? ------------------ Sell crazy someplace else. We're all stocked up here...
Well.... I guess bad, by this definition, which is completely relative. But at least we are the way up, and they are on the way down, which makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. JAZZ SUCK! ------------------ Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy.
Good god, the Rockets are just trash aren't they! They lost three out of four to the Spurs, Jazz, and Suns. They lost all four to the Kings, and only split the season series with the Mavs. These teams destroyed each other, and then were destroyed by the Lakers! The Rockets are trash! AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!! ------------------ The Protrolls.com message boards! Protrolls.com! Home of Turn, Tweak, and all your demented favorites!
While an asterix may be too much, you have to admit that in 98-99 season, NBA teams in general were at their worst form. If you look at the FG%, it was a whole 2% down from the previous year, and 1+% down from the following year. There were no major rule changes around the time. Even the free throw percentage was significantly down by 2% or more. In short, players and teams did not prepare in pre-season, and some were affected by the 3-game-in-a-row stuff. Not that they did not have the endurance for that, in their mind, they just wanted to get through that mutant season quickly. And after watching the Spurs-Lakers series, I have to say I really pity Spurs' fans. That team shows no heart. No rebounds, no fire. By the 3rd quarter in game 3, Duncan had given up on the series. Apparently, he thought since he did not play well, the Spurs would die with him. And he is right. The Spurs shooters did not show up at all. What pissed me is that even if that is true, as the leader of the team, he should not give up before the whole team has given up. By the 4th quarter, the whole team were preparing their speech after the series. After every Spurs' shot attempt , Duncan would turn around to run to the other end of the floor, without even looking at the ball. I know that Spurs wanted to win on defense, but he could surely put more energy on the offensive rebounds, especially when they weren't defending well anyway. No Spurs other than Robinson fought in the paint most of the time. And as someone has suggested, since they couldn't beat Lakers on defense, they should at least try to win on getting more points. No freaking rebounds, no freaking 2nd chance points. What a disgrace, for giving up in the 3rd game. I wathched the 4th game because I wanted to see Kobe. His reverse dunk in game 3 and fallin shot that eluded Robinsons in game 4 were amazing. Portland must be laughing now: we are not the only playoff team that sucks. In an attempt to be a classy team, the Spurs have turned into nothing. They should get credit for giving Lakers' confidence. ------------------
I agree with The Cat here. Two very different teams here. Elliott was playing like a monster in those playoffs. If he had never had the kidney disorder, then the Spurs would still be working on a third straight finals appearance. ------------------ Never Underestimate the Heart of a Champion
