NBA Champions and the "Asterisk"

[Andrew]

When the San Antonio Spurs captured their first NBA championship in 1999, many people felt it was worthy of an asterisk in the record books. Sure, they had won 15 games in the 1999 NBA Playoffs to capture the crown, but the 1998/1999 season had no 1998.

Only a few teams had been training during the lockout, and quite a few stars from the 90s showed up out of shape when the season finally began. A lot of people felt that whoever won the 1999 championship would not have overcome the same kind of obstacles or endured the some kind of challenge as they would in a regular NBA season.

The lockout season should have an asterisk, no question. There needs to be some explanation in the records as to why the league played a 50 game schedule for one season during the 90s. But should that asterisk take away from San Antonio's accomplishment?

I was one of the people who accepted the whole asterisk idea at first. It's not a new concept in sport. But as the years have passed, I've changed my mind about the infamous asterisk. After all, the Spurs did come back from a 6-8 start to take the league's best record. They won 12 straight during the playoffs. They may not have had to battle their way through 82 games, but they still had to play 50 games in 89 days after a long lockout. They still faced challenges on the way to the NBA title.

So is the "asterisk" fair? And could it be applied to other NBA champions? And if the whole idea of asterisks next to titles is fair, how far can we go before we're simply making excuses and using double standards?

Could these titles be given an asterisk?

1958 (St Louis Hawks) - Bill Russell injured his ankle in Game 3, which the Hawks won 111-108. Though Boston would take Game 4, the Hawks eventually took the series in six.

Why I don't think it should have an asterisk: Even without Russell to contend with, the Hawks still didn't blow out the Celtics in Games 3, 5 and 6, and dropped Game 4. Sure, it's worth noting Russell went down with injury, but the Celtics had plenty of talent. The Hawks still had their hands full, and rose to the challenge.

1957, 1959-1966 (Boston Celtics) - The first nine Celtics titles were each won in only two playoff series - the Eastern Conference Finals (the Celtics had a bye in the Semifinals in each of these years. The Celtics had to win 8 playoff games to win the title in those years, a total of 72. In contrast, the Bulls of the 90s had to win a total of 90 games to capture their six titles. Using the same format of the 50s and 60s, the Bulls would have won 11 titles had the numbers of wins in their championship seasons still totalled 90.

Why the dynasty is still great: It's a convenient way of dimissing what is the greatest dynasty in the history of American professional sport. It's something that's worth noting, especially when comparing eras and other great teams, but the fact remains that the Celtics won the games they had to given the format at the time.

1988 (Los Angeles Lakers) - Though Isiah Thomas scored 25 third quarter points to propel the Pistons to a Game 6 victory despite a badly twisted ankle, he scored only 10 points in the decisive seventh game, on 4/12 shooting. Perhaps if he had not been hobbled, the Pistons could have taken the series in seven.

Why we shouldn't rewrite the record book for the 80s: Who's to say the Lakers wouldn't have won Game 7 anyway? James Worthy's only triple double came in Game 7. Big Game James had 36 points, 16 rebounds and 10 assists in the final contest.

1998 (Chicago Bulls) - MJ's final shot as a Chicago Bull is criticised as much as it is heralded as an example of his ability to take over games. Had an offensive foul been called on MJ, the series might have ended quite differently; at the time, winning a seventh game in Utah, most likely without Pippen would have been quite a task.

Why the shot isn't waved off in our minds: Where are the complaints about Reggie Miller's two-handed shove of Michael Jordan that lead to a game winning three for the Pacers in the 1998 Eastern Conference Finals? If we're going to go back and make calls, let's go back to the Bulls/Pacers series. If the Bulls had gone up 3-0, that series might not have been so close and the aging Bulls could have been a little more rested in time for the Finals.

2002 (Los Angeles Lakers) - The complaints about calls in the Western Conference Finals earned the Sacramento Kings an unflattering nickname, but the Kings and their fans weren't the only ones who felt some of the calls were a little suspect.

Why the Lakers deserved to three-peat: Even though the Kings had a right to be upset about some of the calls, ultimately you have to play to the referee's officiating. The Kings still had a chance to win the series, but ran out of steam while the Lakers were building momentum.

2003 (San Antonio Spurs) - The Spurs' second title has also received the asterisk treatment at times, though nowhere near as much as their 1999 championship. Two of the Spurs' playoff opponents - the Lakers and Mavericks - were missing key players due to injury. The Lakers were not only missing a starter (Fox), one of their two superstars (Kobe) was suffering from a shoulder injury. The Mavericks were without Dirk Nowitzki.

Why the Spurs should have at least one untainted title: The Mavericks still had a decent team and pushed the Spurs to six games. The absence of Fox was a blow, but Kobe still managed to put up pretty good numbers despite his ailing shoulder. The Lakers could have won the series, but the Spurs finally managed to topple them after being swept by Los Angeles in 2000 and falling 4-1 in 2002.

Where does it end? Can the Bulls of the 90s and the Lakers of 2000-2002 be faulted for not facing more dominant centres in the NBA Finals? Do you take away Hakeem's titles because MJ wasn't playing or was rusty during those two seasons? Does every title since 1972 deserve an asterisk as the league is different to "the good old days"? The Timberwolves were missing Hudson during this year's playoff run, and Cassell wasn't available for the entire series with the Lakers - does that warrant an asterisk if the Lakers win the title as expected?

Perhaps asterisks aren't completely irrelevant. After all, it's important to note some of the important events and contributing factors to the outcome of playoff series and in particular the NBA Finals. But I believe they should not take anything away from the accomplishments of a championship team. Even with all of the good luck they might encounter, they've still had to overcome many obstacles on their way to the NBA's ultimate prize.

Your thoughts?

[Bang]

The question is where you draw the line. The ONLY championship that should have an asterisk is the lock out season. 32 games make a lot of difference. Teams can improve/fall in 32 games. And who knows if some team that didn't make the playoffs would have made it if there was a full season. It was a short season, and that should be known.
In every other case, however, the aterisks seem kind of ridiculous. All these other circumstances such as injuries and refereeing are all part of the game. I didn't like the Spurs winning last year, but oh well, injuries are part of the game. Wouldn't Magic like to suspend the season or not count their past two seasons because Hill was injured for most of it? So you have to draw the line somewhere. I say the lockout season is the only one since it wasn't a full season, and that should be known.

[Ben-le-ouf]

I agree with Bangyounh. Injuries and refereeing are part of the game.
So no asterisk for these case, otherwise every game would have an asterisk. You can find a million excuses\reasons when you lose...

But I think the 1998-1999 championship should have an asterisk, because the season was shorter so it's like if the rules were different.

32 games make a lot of difference. Teams can improve/fall in 32 games

True.
And there were less games... but teams also had to play these 50 games on a very short period of time, which I think did not turn out to old players' advantage.
I think UTAH and INDIANA would have been in Finals if the season had been normal.

[magius]

if the lakers win the championship this year (detroit in 7) their should be an asterisk because cassell and hudson were injured, and because it was an 82 game long season giving all their superstars much needed recuperation time, and kobe time to get the hang of pretending like he's innocent (anyone notice the case his defence is presenting is basically the defence all rape defences present? hello, wake up, seriously, tell me a different defence he couldve presented other than he said she said.), maybe if the lakers win their should be an asterisk because the scheduling against sa and minny was immensely in their favor to a fault. maybe utah should have asterisks for not winning championships because that was during the mj reign (what a dumb excuse, utah only made the finals twice and only faced mj twice, the rest of the time they choked just like they did against mj). maybe the houston championships should have asterisks because jordan was retired. right?

p.s. im mostly being ironic. and it was a 50 game season for everyone. a championships a championship and excuses are for chokers and sore losers. winners dont make excuses, thats what makes them winners. wouldve could shouldve yadda yadda yadda

ciao! i go now! dont bother berating me for breaking my pact of silence because I WONT BE AROUND TO READ IT! muahahahahahaahaha bye bye!

[matmat8]

I didn't even know they put asterisks everywhere like that
This is totally ridiculous and unfair (except for 1999) what kind of sport is it if they do this.
No excuses this is sport!

[hmm]

.

[Andrew]

I didn't even know they put asterisks everywhere like that
This is totally ridiculous and unfair (except for 1999) what kind of sport is it if they do this.
No excuses this is sport!

Officially there's no asterisk next to the record, only in the mind/popular opinion of sports fans.

can i ask what Asteriks mean except those blonde cartoon character ? couldnt find on my 1000 pages dictionary

It's actually this symbol: * It's often used in conjunction with additional notes about a topic mentioned in a paragraph of writing. When sports are concerned, it basically means a note about a certain event that should always be taken into consideration. Usually "asterisks" are attached to events such as championship victories that people consider would not have happened had it not been for a certain event.

[hmm]

.

[Fresh8]

It isn't fair to put asterixs next to championships. Whoever wins wins...if u get wat i mean. You cant blame injuries or officiating. Bad luck if you get injured- you're great if you win a game injured... look at Willis Reed and MJ...

I think everyones heard of the line, "Play by the whistle"
You cant blame the refs for bad calls unless they are blatantly bias!

ANd with Kobe and his shoulder last year...he still averaged 33ppg....u trying to tell me he would have had 40ppg in the series?

[.]

I agree, the best teams wins. I dont really like to complain about losses because of injuries (Unlike Sam ET Cassell), but last year the Spurs were clearly a better all around team then the Lakers where, even with Kobe Bryant and Rick Fox on full strenght, the Spurs won because they were better and more hungry then the Lakers, not because the Lakers were injured.

[DipSetVC]

Andrew, you can add the 2004 Lakers to that list soon enough.

[Jackal]

Andrew, you can add the 2004 Lakers to that list soon enough.

Don't care to elaborate, you're not supposed to be posting anyways, unless you're not a man of your word.

I really didnt hear anything about last years champions having an asterisk behind their names after winning the championship...seriously, I've never heard of it.

As Seb put it, the better team wins. Kobe was already getting 33 something points per game, him averaging 40 wouldn't make that much of a difference. Fox was already old, his absence is no excuse. There were/are simply no excuses for the Spurs winning the title last year, they had the leagues best record (correct me if I'm wrong) plus they had the back to back MVP winner in Tim Duncan. They had a solid team, this asterisk talk only takes away from them as champions. I think who ever fabricates these rumours are just envious. Stop the bullshit, what, is Fox the greatest player of all time? No, he wouldnt make THAT much of a difference.

The Spurs won because they were the better team last year. Stop taking away from them. Don't take away from the Lakers this year either, they are the better team upto now, stop making excuses. They came back to beat last years champions 4 games to 2 after being down 0-2, come on...four straight games, that's an accomplishment, I doubt anything would have been mentioned about an asterisk had it been the other way around. The Timberwolves had bad luck, just bad luck. Yet they managed to win 2. That's saying something, that team is good...but the Lakers turned out to be better.

*sigh* Whatever, put an asterisk wherever you all feel like it, a win is a win and a ring is a ring. 4 Championships in 5 years, that's some good shit, and aint no body taking that away from the Lakers.

Remember, the slogan is: Win or go home.

[.]

You should ignore him Sagar, he is clearly fooling himself, because he was dumb enough to think the Spurs would win , he got a little upset now that the Lakers proved him wrong again.

And adding the 2004 Lakers to the list is bullcrap, why? because they *cheated* the league by signing both Gary Payton & Karl Malone? Or because they are lucky enough not to be injured in the post season? thats bull poop, I think the Lakers would still defeat the Timberwolves even with Sam ET Cassell on the injured list, and they did defeated the defending champions San Antonio Spurs didnt they? and I dont see that team having major injuries?

The Lakers are just the best team in the west...period, like it or not, there was no cheating, or lucky that they had healthy players, I mean...this happens in basketball, the Wolves were just sadly having their injuries after their great season.

[Gripni]

Having asteriks is like saying "They're better than us, it's not fair." It is fair. Everyone had to deal with the short season and the Spurs were the best team that year. There are no excuses because everyone plays by the same rules.

[Amphatoast]

eh post too long..will finish reading later
all i gotta say is NO, only 1999 should have a asterisk, cuz it was short. I doubt the knicks would of made the playoffs that year if the season was 10 games longer and it was the knicks who some how got into the championship..then again maybe Patrick Ewing might of cameback and the knicks still reach all the way and would of had a chance probably with a big man to slow down the twin towers if the season was 82 games...too many if ands or buts about that shorten season..

injuries are all a part of the game. Thats no excuse to put a asterisk, next to the lakers title this year although it helped. They beat a healthy spur team if i'm correct?

[Andrew]

I really didnt hear anything about last years champions having an asterisk behind their names after winning the championship...seriously, I've never heard of it.

It's not as widespread as the 1999 title asterisk talk, but last year a few people were making excuses for the Lakers and were kind of placing an asterisk next to the Spurs' 2003 championship.

I should point out that the examples I gave aren't necessarily given asterisks by sportswriters and fans, I just used them as examples of how far we could go to place asterisks next to championships. I do not believe there should be an asterisk next to the 2004 championship if/when the Lakers win it.

Having asteriks is like saying "They're better than us, it's not fair." It is fair. Everyone had to deal with the short season and the Spurs were the best team that year. There are no excuses because everyone plays by the same rules.

I agree, though whoever won the 1999 championship would have been given an asterisk. The tighter schedule offered a different kind of challenge, with a long layoff, hasty offseason, shorter training camps and then 50 games in 89 days. As I said before, it's only fair to note that the championship came in a lockout shortened season, but I believe it's unfair to say that the Spurs did not deserve the title, or that they do not deserve credit for it. They still accomplished something that 28 other teams, all in the same boat, could not that season.

[MVP]

I think putting an asterisk next to the Spurs 1999 championship is "BS"! Why would you do that? Sure there was a lockout, but EVERBODY went through the same thing. Who cares some people were not ready at the start of the season, EVERYBODY faced the same thing. It's not like some teams knew ahead that the season was gonna start at particular point in time.

If you are gonna put an asterisk, why don't you put an asterisk on the Houston Rocket's 2 championships at the same time?? Those were the 2 seasons Michael Jordan was in retirement mode. Could Houston have won the championship facing MJ and the Bulls. It's the same thing.

[PRoPuLsiOnDJ]

I don't agree with the astericks.
The championship is not won in the regular season.
It is won in the playoffs.
In the 1999 playoffs, the Spurs worked harder than the other teams and they won the title.
It's just an excuse for other people as a reason to why the spurs were winners. Yes other teams might have improved over the next 30 games of the season. But that doesn't matter. That's like saying the Lakers would have won last year if they played 120 games in the season because they would have more time to build team chemistry. There's always going to be what if's ... but its just an excuse for other teams to explain why they lost that year. Now I'm an avid Laker fan and I know that Phil Jackson has talked about and supported the asterick being there. As much as I respect Phil, I don't agree with him ... And I know that he doesnt agree either. He just says it to get into other coaches' heads.

[Ben-le-ouf]

I think when all the seasons are 82 games and there is only one season with 50 games, people must be informed that this season was especially different (for every team though).
To put an asterisk next to the 1999 championship does not mean the Spurs did not deserve wonsideration.
If all seasons were 50 games and one season is 82 games, then the 82 games season should have an asterisk.

[Andrew]

That's pretty much my point of view. There needs to be a footnote explaining why each team played only 50 games, but the title itself should not be considered any less of an accomplishment, which is what an asterisk generally implies.

[Steve04]

The only asterisk should be the 1999 season. Now does that take away the Spurs accomplishment? No it doesn't. It merely denotes that what they accomplished took place in a different set of circumstances than the league norm. The Spurs deserved that title ofcourse, they worked harder and played better than anyone else to get it. However, they did not do it with a full regulation NBA Season. Thus, it deserves an asterisk.

As for that Kings Lakers series in '02..Kings fans should shut up..You know why? There were questionable calls on BOTH sides..And then what happens in game 7? The Kings had all the oppurtunity in the world. A LEAD in the final minutes of the game, then came the bricks, from 3, the airball, the missed FT's..and the collaspe in OT. If you want to win a championship you must have a tougher mental edge than that. The Kings lost that series because mentally they were still trying to blame other people for their losses than take the blame themselves. If they had said let's ignore what the ref's do, and play to the ref's officiating(Which was horrible, but was still capable of being adjusted to) they probably would have won that series. They were probably better talent wise. But they didn't, and their whining showed they weren't ready. Granted, everyone whines pretty much, but the great players and great teams aren't content with saying it's not fair, they go out and make it fair.