quote:

---

I'm not convinced the people beeching even read the column.

---

This. He has a footnote for pretty much every team that didn't include Larry Bird.

I thought it was mostly amusing, but a bit long. Plus his bit of breaking down games from the sixties like he was there gets a little old. I enjoyed the book, but some of the parts had to be skimmed.

I agree that 2000 Lakers should be on there based on Simmon's own injury criteria for other mentions. Not saying 2000 Spurs would have won, but they were coming off a championship year and lost one of the top 4 players in the league at the time.

If you mention Joe Johnson's injury as a reason for a *, then you sure as hell have to mention a season ending knee injury to the best player and reigning Finals MVP.

Wrong forum

[This message has been edited by Luggagecombo12345 (edited 5/3/2012 11:00p).]

quote:

---

I agree that 2000 Lakers should be on there based on Simmon's own injury criteria for other mentions. Not saying 2000 Spurs would have won, but they were coming off a championship year and lost one of the top 4 players in the league at the time.

---

But Simmons' premise is that he doesn't know how good the 1999 Spurs really were due to the lockout. So he can't really consider them as a traditional defending champion. Plus the 2000 Spurs finished a distant 4th place, with 14 less wins than the Lakers. At least with the injuries he mentioned the players were on legit elite level championship contenders

If you actually read the article, most of the championships you guys are complaining about he actually agrees with you in the "verdict" section.

The Giants Super Bowl title this year has an asterisk due to Schaub's injury. What a joke of concept.

quote:

---

But Simmons' premise is that he doesn't know how good the 1999 Spurs really were due to the lockout. So he can't really consider them as a traditional defending champion. Plus the 2000 Spurs finished a distant 4th place, with 14 less wins than the Lakers. At least with the injuries he mentioned the players were on legit elite level championship contenders

---

Yeah, sorry, bull****.

At that point, Duncan was 3-time All-Defense first team, 3-time All-NBA first team, reigning Finals MVP, had been top 5 in MVP voting every year of his career, had been top 5 in RPG every year of his career, was top 10 in scoring that year, top 10 in blocks, top 5 in PER, etc.

Duncan was clearly an elite NBA player.

But Joe Johnson breaking his face merits an * for the 05 Spurs? Never has Joe Johnson been top in in MVP voting. Only once in his career has he cracked top ten in PPG, and it was two years after this title. Hell, in 2005, he was a 17/5 player, despite playing in the SSOL Suns system. Phoenix losing Johnson was about the same as the Spurs losing Anderson.

In 2005, we didn't know DWade was a NBA-championship caliber player. He won in 06, though with a heavy *, according to Simmons and everyone in Dallas. He was a second year player that hadn't accomplished anything. If Wade gets added for what he did later, Duncan has done more before his knee injury and after it.

Chris Weber never proved he was a guy that could win it all. In fact, he retired as the guy that choked in big situations.

Some of you guys need to get your panties out of a wad.

Sheesh.

Webber, Wade, and Johnson were all on championship contending teams, and their injuries greatly effected those teams. That's what matters.

By all metrics, the 2000 Spurs were not a legitimate contender when Duncan went down. Doesn't matter how great Duncan was as an individual - he couldn't get the Spurs past 53 wins when healthy. Then add in Simmons personal bias for the 1999 lockout not vetting them as a traditional champion.

[This message has been edited by InternetFan02 (edited 5/3/2012 11:43p).]

quote:

---

e couldn't get the Spurs past 53 wins when healthy.

---

Wade's 06 team won 52 games.
Detroit's 04 team won 54 games.
Shaq's 01 team won 56 games.
79 Sonics won 52 games.
78 Bullets won 48 games.
77 Blazers won 49 games.

Wade's 06 team won 52 games ------- anomaly, refs. And the Wade injury in question was 05 when they were the 59 win 1 seed.

Detroit's 04 team won 54 games ----- anomaly. No one gave them much of a chance, and shouldn't have. If Chauncey was injured then no one would mention it either.

Shaq's 01 team won 56 games. ----- And were the 2 seed just 2 games back of the 1 seed.

79 Sonics won 52 games, 78 Bullets won 48 games, , 77 Blazers won 49 games. ------- who cares, the 70s were different.

quote:

---

Dallas's 11 team won 57 games ----- anomaly. No one gave them much of a chance, and shouldn't have.

---

FIFY...

BTW, the '04 Pistons aren't even on the list...


"First in Sight, Ready to Fight"

Try to keep up buddy. You're only expanding my point. Dallas was an outlier that was never expected to win the title - even at 57 wins they weren't seen as a true contender. If Dirk gets injured in round 1 and the Lakers/Thunder/Heat battle it out does anyone care if Dirk was injured? Same with the 04 Pistons. By and large the legitimate contenders every year are the top 2-3 seed with close to 60 wins. Just because an outlier occasionally breaks through and wins doesn't change the trend. Indiana doesn't have a superstar and is a distant 3rd seed like 04 Detroit but that doesn't mean they're considered a legit contender.

Keep fighting your good fight Internetfan. None of the Spurs titles should be Spurs titles. And the Mavs run last year was the best ever.

You're nailing it.

So would you consider the Lakers to not be contenders this year?

quote:

---

No, I can't think of any legitimate footnotes for 2011.

---

Gee, go figure.

How about the best team in the western conference lost arguably their best player in the last game of the regular season?

If you're going to throw out stupid "what ifs" for every Spurs championship, how in the WORLD can you ignore Manu Ginobili's injury last year? The Spurs were 3-1 and +15 against the Mavs in the regular season.

Oh and looky-looky. The 2011 Spurs were a top seed with 61 wins, so they fit your criteria for being a "legitimate contender".

So a "legitimate contender" in the western conference, who had won 3 straight games against the eventual champion going into the playoffs, gets their best player injured on the last game of the regular season, he can't go in game 1 (which they lose by 3 points), looks about 50% for the rest of the series, and that's not a legitimate footnote?

It is hard to play that game when you're talking about your own team, isn't it? That's about when it starts to sound like a really dumb game.

[This message has been edited by MassAggie97 (edited 5/4/2012 9:21a).]

Not really. The Mavs had a key player lost to injury as well. Except instead of choking in the first round they decided to win the championship.

Ignoring all the other fluff on this thread, are the Spurs fans really claiming an asterisk on the Mavs title last year due to Manu Ginobili's brittle bones?

That's the best thing I've heard in a while. GMAFB.

2003 Dirk was pretty much a choke artist. And the Mavs hadn't ever done jack squat up until that point, and pretty much not until 2006. It is funny to me to think that even had Dirk not gotten sand in his vagina or whatever it was, you people think that Dallas could have beaten the Spurs that year.

Yet it is on the list of footnotes.

But this is all conjecture, which is why it is stupid. I'm sure I'll have a number of you tell me why Dallas was sure to win that 2003 series, but it is stupid to think a healthy Ginobili would have been helpful for the Spurs last year. Whatever. You play your little "we deserve a trophy for 2003" game, I'll continue to wear my 4-time NBA champions ballcap. Fair enough?

No, rasher I'm not.

What were saying is, if you are going to throw out that a Joe Johnson injury is a footnote to a Spurs title, then where do you stop?

quote:

---

For the record, the three best NBA champs of the past 15 years were the '01 Lakers, '97 Bulls and '07 Spurs, in that order.

---

quote:

---

if you are going to throw out that a Joe Johnson injury is a footnote to a Spurs title, then where do you stop?

---

Apparently, at Manu Ginobili.

The 07 Spurs were a great team. I really wish Dallas wouldn't have choked against GSW, we were all deprived of a great Dallas vs. SA playoff series when both teams were extremely strong.

But we got over the choke job. Yall will get over the 2011 choke eventually.

Noting your attempt to hide your insecurity about the Mavs 2011 playoff run in the shadow of Manu's injury beneath a failed fingering of falsely assumed tenderness over the Spurs' early exit (again, in the shadow of Manu's injury).

You tried hard though.

There's a CRT 32" Sony TV somewhere that still isn't over the GS 2007 series.

2010-11 PER SGs
1. Dwayne Wade
2. Kobe Bryant
3. Manu Ginobili

2010-11 PER SGs
1. Dwayne Wade (beat by Dallas)
2. Kobe Bryant (beat by Dallas)
3. Manu Ginobili (choked in the first round against the 8 seed)

The last several titles all deserve asterisks because Greg Oden has been injured.

When did Judge become the Mavericks' Simplebay?

Hey there GS. This thread was just overflowing with rational discussion, sorry for the derailment.

quote:

---

The last several years worth of white girls in the Pac/NW who got married all deserve asterisks because Greg Oden has been injured.

---

FIFY.