Edit: Simmons looks at

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7883334/the-footnote-title

In the wake of the Derrick Rose injury, how can we properly frame this season? Simmons: A "footnote title" respects the champion while also acknowledging that, "Look, SOMETHING funky happened and you can't discuss that postseason in detail without mentioning that one funky thing."

Legitimate NBA Champions:
2011 Mavs (took down the reigning dynasty, 4 of the top 5 players in the world, Dirk's redemption, etc. Clearly one of the greatest stories in sports history)

Top 20 NBA Champions with a footnote:
#14 2003 Spurs* (Webber, Dirk injuries)
#13 2007 Spurs* (Suns suspensions)
#11 2006 Heat* (refs)
#10 2005 Spurs* (Artest melee, Wade injury, Joe Johnson injury)
#9 2012 champ* Pre-emptively whoever wins this year (Rose injury)
#8 1995 Rockets* (Jordan rusty)
#2 1999 Spurs* (ridiculous lockout)
#1 1994 Rockets* (Jordan suspended/retired)

[This message has been edited by InternetFan02 (edited 5/3/2012 12:23p).]

all four of SA's titles. lullllzzz

All four San Antonio titles and both Houston titles (with the first taking the number one spot).

Is Dallas' championship the best championship in Texas?

quote:

---

#11 2006 Heat* (refs)

---

Agree with that one.

So much butthurt from one person towards a franchise. Awesome.

what a ridiculous column. Virtually every title can have a footnote if people want to start looking for reasons.

I like Simmons half the time. This is not that half.

[This message has been edited by Bunk Moreland (edited 5/3/2012 1:18p).]

quote:

---

#14 2003 Spurs* (Webber, Dirk injuries)
#13 2007 Spurs* (Suns suspensions)
#10 2005 Spurs* (Artest melee, Wade injury, Joe Johnson injury)
#9 2012 champ* Pre-emptively whoever wins this year (Rose injury)
#2 1999 Spurs* (ridiculous lockout)

---

Injuries are part of the game. The Suns weren't going to beat the Spurs anyway. Everyone had the same lockout, so the playing field was even.

Refs/scandals/cheating are the only reasons championships should get asterisks, and they have to be really bad.

[This message has been edited by Ulrich (edited 5/3/2012 1:27p).]

For any of those to make sense, you have to operate under the assumption that there was a better team "out there" than the eventual champion. I think '07 is the only time you can make that argument against the Spurs. Dallas likely would have beaten SA in a playoff series that year. In both '03 and '05, San Antonio was the best team in the league (as well as 1999).

quote:

---

#14 2003 Spurs* (Webber, Dirk injuries)

---

Fuggin lame. The Spurs did the exact same thing that the 2011 Mavs did. Took down a MUCH BETTER DYNASTY, with 2 of the top 10 players EVER in the league, on the SAME TEAM, one of the most clutch people in sports history ever (Horry), and arguably the greatest coach of all time. Nobody in the league was saying ANYTHING about how "old the lakers had gotten" until the Spurs punked them in the '03 playoffs, yet injuries to Dirk and CWebb somehow matter? Give me a freaking break. Get a freakin' clue "sports guy".

quote:

---

#13 2007 Spurs* (Suns suspensions)

---

Stupid. The Suns weren't even the toughest competition in the playoffs that year. The Mavs were. And if I remember correctly, this series didn't even go to 7 games.

quote:

---

#10 2005 Spurs* (Artest melee, Wade injury, Joe Johnson injury)

---

Sorry. I never bought the fact that the Pacers were legit this year. Ron Artest was their best player. I'll say that again. Ron Artest was their best player.

Sour m'fing grapes. Period. He can whine and cry about the Celtics not landing Duncan all he wants. Everyone else in the league would love to have the luxury of signing Garnett, Allen and Pierce all at the same time and then falling back-asswards into Rondo and Perkins.

[This message has been edited by MassAggie97 (edited 5/3/2012 1:38p).]

I agree with Houston's, but the Spurs won with some great teams. There's a big difference between one conference simply sucking for a decade and the best player in history "deciding" to "retire" for a couple years only to come back and promptly continue butt****ing the rest of the league.

quote:

---

Dallas likely would have beaten SA in a playoff series that year.

---

Maybe. Also vice versa last year.

Actually the '99 asterick is the biggest joke. The Spurs had the overall #1 seed and went 16-2 in the playoffs. They destroyed everyone that year and had Robinson and Duncan on all cylinders.

You can find excuses for every championship if you try hard enough, what a joke.

quote:

---

the best player in history "deciding" to "retire" for a couple years only to come back and promptly continue butt****ing the rest of the league.

---

Except that's not what happened. Jordan was playing when the Bulls were bounced in '95.

They lost to the #8 seed, who then lost to OKC. Dallas wouldnt have beaten SA in 2003 (they were already losing game 3 and going to go down 1-2 anyway) and SA wasnt going to beat Dallas last year.

quote:

---

Except that's not what happened. Jordan was playing when the Bulls were bounced in '95.

---

He played in the final 17 games that year, played with an injured calf in the postseason and they STILL made the Eastern semis. They then came back and beat three teams superior to the '94 and '95 Rockets for their second three-peat.

Everyone outside of Houston realizes they would have won eight straight if not for Jordan's gambl...retirement and poor career choice.

[This message has been edited by Dr. Robert Doback (edited 5/3/2012 1:53p).]

How is it sour grapes? He's not singling out any team, and he has plenty of Celtics teams on the list.

quote:

---

The Spurs did the exact same thing that the 2011 Mavs did. Took down a MUCH BETTER DYNASTY, with 2 of the top 10 players EVER in the league, on the SAME TEAM, one of the most clutch people in sports history ever (Horry), and arguably the greatest coach of all time. Nobody in the league was saying ANYTHING about how "old the lakers had gotten" until the Spurs punked them in the '03 playoffs,

---

Not true. The 03 Lakers were in total chaos over te Kobe-Shaq feud. They weren't even in th top 8 for a lot of the season and then barely made it to the 5 seed. This was they year Stern changed the 1st round to 7 games, and the thought was that it was to allow the Lakers a decent chance to at least advance to round 2. The TWolves ended up giving them a great series in round 1.

quote:

---

They lost to the #8 seed, who then lost to OKC. Dallas wouldnt have beaten SA in 2003 (they were already losing game 3 and going to go down 1-2 anyway) and SA wasnt going to beat Dallas last year.

---

We were talking about 2007, when the Mavs were the #1 seed and lost to #8 GS.

Same situation last year. Just a terrible matchup (plus a Manu injury).

But if the Spurs had gotten by and had Manu healthy, no reason to think Spurs couldn't have taken the Mavs out last year. The same can be said of 2007 about the Mavs.

Either way, it balances out.

quote:

---

For any of those to make sense, you have to operate under the assumption that there was a better team "out there" than the eventual champion

---

I do agree here, which covers the Spurs for all of their titles, even 2007. And if the Heat blow through the EC then the Rose injury wont mean much more than the Webber injury historically. But Simmons point stands that there is at least SOMETHING about all those seasons that deserves to be mentioned.

quote:

---

He played in the final 17 games that year, was playing hurt half the postseason and they STILL the Eastern semis.

---

Quit whining. Lots of people play hurt in the postseason. Jordan was playing. They lost. End of story.

Missing:
2004 Lakers (Derek Fisher 0.4s shot)
2011 Mavericks (Ginobili broken elbow)

Hey I can do this too.

The Spurs are never supposed to win a title if you look at it with mainstream bias. How else are we "under the radar" for over a decade?

quote:

---

But if the Spurs had gotten by and had Manu healthy, no reason to think Spurs couldn't have taken the Mavs out last year. The same can be said of 2007 about the Mavs.

---

Not at all. The 2007 Spurs were the best team in te league by the stats, and as Simmons showed was one of the best teams of the era.

The 2011 Spurs were heavily flawed. There's no reason to assume they could have taken down the team of destiny if they even made it that far.

wow. I guess Simmons got you guys hook, line, and sinker. What a troll of a column by him....and it appears it worked.

quote:

---

I agree with Houston's, but the Spurs won with some great teams

---

And the Rockets didn't win with great teams? Gimme a break....

Complete troll job on that article. Any title won when Jordan wasn't playing whether it be when he was playing baseball or after retirement (not including Washington days because that was a joke) could theoretically have an "asterisk" next to it....

you're kidding yourself if you think simmons trolls. his columns are his opinions. rick reilly trolls.

quote:

---

rick reilly trolls

---

THIS.

When Simmons writes ANYTHING, this board loves him. When he questions their favorite teams/players, he trolls.

Regardless, the only things I've ever really enjoyed from him were his mailbags and his LeBron columns.

quote:

---

The 03 Lakers were in total chaos over te Kobe-Shaq feud. They weren't even in th top 8 for a lot of the season and then barely made it to the 5 seed. This was they year Stern changed the 1st round to 7 games, and the thought was that it was to allow the Lakers a decent chance to at least advance to round 2. The TWolves ended up giving them a great series in round 1.

---

This is revisionist. a) the lakers had Kobe/Shaq issues going back 2 years prior to 2003 yet still made it work, b) they finished 3 games out of first in '02 and still steamrolled through the playoffs, c) despite an up/down season in 02-03 (they started 19-23) they still finished the year on a 31-9 clip and were one of the hottest teams going into the playoffs, and d) the "great series" you reference with the TWolves ended with the Lakers curb-stomping them by a combined 46 points in games 5 & 6.

The Lakers were without a doubt the favorites going into the playoffs that year despite their positioning in the standings, their slow start notwithstanding.

quote:

---

How is it sour grapes? He's not singling out any team, and he has plenty of Celtics teams on the list.

---

Is there any other team on there that has ALL of their championships on the list? And some of those SA championships are really a stretch, you yourself admitted. I don't think it is unfair to say the guy is not fond of the Spurs organization.

[This message has been edited by MassAggie97 (edited 5/3/2012 2:49p).]

of course Rick Reilly trolls.

I don't have a NBA team, and I think this article is one of his crap articles. As I said above, I like Simmons 50% of the time, think he's crap 50% of the time. Writing his opinions can also troll as well. This article was stupid from the outset, and designed to get people *****ing at each other on how their team's title is more "earned" than a rivals or others.

quote:

---

Any title won when Jordan wasn't playing whether it be when he was playing baseball or after retirement (not including Washington days because that was a joke) could theoretically have an "asterisk" next to it....

---

Nah. The only Jordan asterick years were the 93-94 and 94-95 seasons. The Bulls were on their last legs when they won in 97-98. They maybe could have won again in a strike shortened 98-99 season, but I'll cut the Spurs 98-99 title some slack because it already has enough astericks (kidding).

[This message has been edited by Deluxe (edited 5/3/2012 2:54p).]

Knew this thread was going to be gold - didn't disappoint.

Also, why does nobody seem to remember that the Mavs 2nd best player in 2011 was hurt for most of the season and all of the playoffs?

Reverse asterisk!

quote:

---

The Footnote: David Stern suspended Jordan for gambling Jordan retired before the season,

---

enjoyed.

quote:

---

The Lakers were without a doubt the favorites going into the playoffs that year despite their positioning in the standings, their slow start notwithstanding.

---

Sure they went on a hot streak at the end which wore them out and exposed their lack of depth in the playoffs. They were not favored to win 4 straight road series. You're selling the Spurs short, ironically.

quote:

---

Is there any other team on there that has ALL of their championships on the list? And some of those SA championships are really a stretch, you yourself admitted. I don't think it is unfair to say the guy is not fond of the Spurs organization.

---

Every Rockets title is on there. Clearly he has a bias against every Texas team except Dallas. Just another national columnist that hates the Spurs

quote:

---

#8 1995 Rockets* (Jordan rusty)

---

Didn't have home court advantage for any series.

Houston's two titles really pissed of the butthurt metroplex fans...lol.

They all hate us I tell you!!!

But, ironically, Simmons' BS report podcast is full of pro-spurs material. He is always talking about his love of Duncan and Pop.

People need to chill with this article. You can put footnotes on every Championship run. Each and every one.