Phil Jackson still hammering Spurs about 1999

[Legends66NBA7]

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/spursnation/2011/11/04/phil-jackson-still-hammering-spurs-about-1999-asterisk-season/#comments

[QUOTE]

[D-Wade316]

All teams played exactly the same games. So why should he doubt? He seems to be understating that the schedule was far brutal than the 82-games season.

BTW, how many back-to-back-to-back games occurred in the shortened season?

[305Baller]

Please, the players coast on 40% of the games anyways... pfft.

[ZenMaster]

All teams played exactly the same games. So why should he doubt? He seems to be understating that the schedule was far brutal than the 82-games season.

BTW, how many back-to-back-to-back games occurred in the shortened season?



When teams would play 18-19 games in the last month of the season it broke down some of the older steady teams because of that impact of a heavy schedule.


...

[ConanRulesNBC]

I completely agree. I wouldn't really count the winner if a season started soon but it was only 50 games.

The regular season is 82 games. Not playing that many and winning a championship should have an asterik next to it.

[824]

People are well aware of the season, that's enough.

[Marquis Daniels]

da fukk y he still mad? :mad:




:facepalm




get over it dawg

[G-train]

Trust me, if the Heat won a title in a 50 game season it would be asterisked.

If the knicks or lakers won the 99 it would be asterisked.

Cos its the spurs no one really cares.

[jlip]

The season didn't become 82 games until '67-'68.
The team with the best record in the conference often got a first round bye until '83-'84. Therefore many champions including Russell's Celtics, Wilt's Sixers, early Showtime Lakers, and early Bird's Celtics only played 2 or 3 rounds as opposed to the 4 rounds that are played today.
The first round used to be a best of 3 mini series. Then it became a best of 5 in '83-'84. Then it became a best of 7 in '02-'03.

The point is, there have always been changes to either the regular and/ or most importantly the post season. If there is an asterisk by the Spurs title in '99 because of the regular season, Phil should be reminded that the '99 Spurs played more postseason rounds than his '73 Knicks in route to their respective titles.

As long as all teams play by the same rules, a champion is a champion.

[G-train]

The season didn't become 82 games until '67-'68.
The team with the best record in the conference often got a first round bye until '83-'84. Therefore many champions including Russell's Celtics, Wilt's Sixers, early Showtime Lakers, and early Bird's Celtics only played 2 or 3 rounds as opposed to the 4 rounds that are played today.
The first round used to be a best of 3 mini series. Then it became a best of 5 in '83-'84. Then it became a best of 7 in '02-'03.

The point is, there have always been changes to either the regular and/ or most importantly the post season. If there is an asterisk by the Spurs title in '99 because of the regular season, Phil should be reminded that the '99 Spurs played more postseason rounds than his '73 Knicks in route to their respective titles.

As long as all teams play by the same rules, a champion is a champion.

Logically yes, but we are not dealing with logical fans, more so emotional.

[32Dayz]

That 99 Spurs team was really good.

Didn't they almost sweep the playoffs?

[Nero Tulip]

The season didn't become 82 games until '67-'68.
The team with the best record in the conference often got a first round bye until '83-'84. Therefore many champions including Russell's Celtics, Wilt's Sixers, early Showtime Lakers, and early Bird's Celtics only played 2 or 3 rounds as opposed to the 4 rounds that are played today.
The first round used to be a best of 3 mini series. Then it became a best of 5 in '83-'84. Then it became a best of 7 in '02-'03.

The point is, there have always been changes to either the regular and/ or most importantly the post season. If there is an asterisk by the Spurs title in '99 because of the regular season, Phil should be reminded that the '99 Spurs played more postseason rounds than his '73 Knicks in route to their respective titles.

As long as all teams play by the same rules, a champion is a champion.

I hate to be one of these morons that write /thread, but...

/thread

[Kurosawa0]

If you win 16 (or 15 at the time) playoff games, you're NBA Champions. Period.

[ConanRulesNBC]

The season didn't become 82 games until '67-'68.
The team with the best record in the conference often got a first round bye until '83-'84. Therefore many champions including Russell's Celtics, Wilt's Sixers, early Showtime Lakers, and early Bird's Celtics only played 2 or 3 rounds as opposed to the 4 rounds that are played today.
The first round used to be a best of 3 mini series. Then it became a best of 5 in '83-'84. Then it became a best of 7 in '02-'03.

The point is, there have always been changes to either the regular and/ or most importantly the post season. If there is an asterisk by the Spurs title in '99 because of the regular season, Phil should be reminded that the '99 Spurs played more postseason rounds than his '73 Knicks in route to their respective titles.

As long as all teams play by the same rules, a champion is a champion.

How long were the seasons before the 82 games?

My point is it's one thing to say "Okay, we're changing the rules. Now it's going to be this many games from now on". That's fine. But that wasn't the case during the lockout year. It was played during a time when the league had 82 game seasons. The year before the Spurs won, the Bulls played in all 82 games and won the title. A year after the Spurs won the Lakers played in all 82 games and won the title. The Spurs played a shortened season where the norm was 82 games.

So no back then the teams shouldn't have an asterik next to their names because those were the rules back then. Just like changing the first round from a best of 5 to a best of 7.

[ConanRulesNBC]

If you win 16 (or 15 at the time) playoff games, you're NBA Champions. Period.

That's just dumb. So they should just get rid of the entire regular season? Every single team should make the playoffs?

[Smoke117]

I dunno about any asterisk but I do believe if the bulls COULD have been brought back considering how weak the league was they would have won. Frankly a lot of people put a lot of shit on scottie pippen that his game really lowered after left the bulls but it really didn't till after 2000. On the Rockets the game plan was basically throw it into Hakeem or throw it into barkley and he was unhappy with the style of play...when you are a slasher and have NEVER played that kind of style of ball and when you are 33 years old are you really going to be able to be able to really change much? They didn't use him to his capabilities. On the Blazers they had a lot of talent and frankly he just took a back seat. I'm a huge Pippen fan my all time favorite player and had nba ticket so I saw those games and he basically just took a back seat but in the playoffs he exerted himself. Go on youtube and look up blazer games vs the tpups (lol)...funny remembering them as that...since KG is so old now, but he ****ing USED wally's world like a little girl the entire series and vs the Jazz he was aggressive and vs the Lakers he was big until that final game when instead of throwing it into Wallace he should have took the initiative...even now it haunts him he says that he should have took it on his shoulders, but what can you say.

What Im saying though, is I"m pretty sure, if the Bulls team of Jordan, Pippen, Rodman, Kukoc could have been kept together, they would have easily won the 99 championship.

[32Dayz]

What Im saying though, is I"m pretty sure, if the Bulls team of Jordan, Pippen, Rodman, Kukoc could have been kept together, they would have easily won the 99 championship.

Dont usually agree with you but I agree with this.

They definitely could have contended and like you said Pippen was still pretty good in 99 and 00 I didn't see much of a decline in his athleticism and his game only got better skillwise.

Damn.. Jordan with 7 Rings and 7FMVPs?

Wasnt the reason Jordan retired cause the Bulls owner was jealous of Phil Jackson and refused to resign him?

[Smoke117]

Dont usually agree with you but I agree with this.

They definitely could have contended and like you said Pippen was still pretty good in 99 and 00 I didn't see much of a decline in his athleticism and his game only got better skillwise.

Damn.. Jordan with 7 Rings and 7FMVPs?

Wasnt the reason Jordan retired cause the Bulls owner was jealous of Phil Jackson and refused to resign him?

Well Jordan said he wouldn't come back if Pippen wouldn't come back and Pippen wasn't coming back if he wasn't going to finally going to get a deal he deserved. He had signed a deal in 90, 91 that paid him shit and had been trying to resign it for a long time with jerry krause who refused to and thats why he ****ing hated his guts, so when the 98 season was over and they weren't willing to pay him he was GONE. Jordan basically said if Pippen is leaving I'm retiring and if Jordan and Pippen were going can see how Phil thought about it. Frankly that makes me respect Phil less. That's why I feel larry Brown is the greatest coach of all time. He actually goes to BUILD TEAMS...doesn't just go to a good situation. I'm sorry but you can't deny Phil Jackson just wants a situation where he can win in he doesn't want to actually COACH IE TEACH HIS TEAMS...he just wants to bring together great players and bring them championships. Sorry I can't respect that more than someone like Larry Brown who goes to teams that are shit and goes to teach and build them up and actually teach them and mentor them.

[The_Yearning]

By Phils logic lets discredit all of Russells rings as well.

[ZenMaster]

By Phils logic lets discredit all of Russells rings as well.

Not at all.

The point he makes is that teams build their rosters for 82 games seasons, then all of the sudden in 1 year you have a 50 game season and it changes which teams stand to benefit.

If all teams played lesser games every year in but in a more cramped schedule it would change how teams built their rosters. But obv it would still be fair because it would be what all teams prepared for.

[Rake2204]

I didn't take Phil's most recent quotes as a hammering, so to speak. He explains himself quite well, but that doesn't mean we all have to agree. If he was heading a team in '99, I don't think he would have had an issue with winning that championship. He'd say a ring is a ring. And that's not to call him a hypocrite. Rather, I don't think he cares as much as we think he does about the "asterisk" theory. I think the initial thought was more psychological warfare than anything else.

[rmt]

Phil Jackson uses every mind trick in the book - how do you think the man won so many rings with egos like Jordan, Shaq and Kobe?

If his or (your) team won, you bet there would be no thought of *.

[D-Wade316]

Well Jordan said he wouldn't come back if Pippen wouldn't come back and Pippen wasn't coming back if he wasn't going to finally going to get a deal he deserved. He had signed a deal in 90, 91 that paid him shit and had been trying to resign it for a long time with jerry krause who refused to and thats why he ****ing hated his guts, so when the 98 season was over and they weren't willing to pay him he was GONE. Jordan basically said if Pippen is leaving I'm retiring and if Jordan and Pippen were going can see how Phil thought about it. Frankly that makes me respect Phil less. That's why I feel larry Brown is the greatest coach of all time. He actually goes to BUILD TEAMS...doesn't just go to a good situation. I'm sorry but you can't deny Phil Jackson just wants a situation where he can win in he doesn't want to actually COACH IE TEACH HIS TEAMS...he just wants to bring together great players and bring them championships. Sorry I can't respect that more than someone like Larry Brown who goes to teams that are shit and goes to teach and build them up and actually teach them and mentor them.
How about Red? He was the architect of the Celtics dynasty. Hannum, Riley, and Daley should deserve mention too.

[Kurosawa0]

That's just dumb. So they should just get rid of the entire regular season? Every single team should make the playoffs?

No, that's dumb. The whole point of the regular season is determine playoff positioning for worthy teams (and to make money). The idea that somehow if you only play 50 games your championship means less than any other is ridiculous. You bested every team in the year you played. You're the NBA Champion. Period.

[SayTownRy]

yeah all those spring chickens on that 99 spurs roster contributing solid minutes...

33 year old d rob (31 mpg)
33 year old aj (33 mpg)
30 year old elliott (30 mpg)
35 year old elie (27 mpg)
31 year old jaren jackson (18 mpg)
33 year old steve kerr (16 mpg)
36 year old jerome kersey (15 mpg)
33 year old will perdue (12 mpg)

really played right into their hands didn't it.

99 spurs avg age = 29
99 lakers avg age = 27, yet they were swept?? maybe that team should have been built even younger...

and he's crying about 18-19 games in a month... spurs just did that back in march of 08. who knows how many times that's worked out like that for teams over the years.

[Andrei89]

If the Spurs and Timmy didn't win other 3 championships I would put an asterix to it.

But they did, so Phil you need to STFU and aknowledge the Spurs and Duncan were a great fuking squad!

[DMV2]

Phil wasn't coaching that year, why the f--k should he even care?

[ConanRulesNBC]

By Phils logic lets discredit all of Russells rings as well.

Why? Back then they were playing less games every season. I don't know why some people don't get it... the Spurs won a championship in a 50 game season during a time when a regular season was 82 games.

If every season back when the Spurs won was 50 games then there would be no argument. There would be no * next to their championship.

[Myth]

This is the most logical Phil has sounded about the 1999 season, and even admits he uses the term "asterisk" to poke fun at the rival Spurs.

[AMISTILLILL]

Well Jordan said he wouldn't come back if Pippen wouldn't come back and Pippen wasn't coming back if he wasn't going to finally going to get a deal he deserved. He had signed a deal in 90, 91 that paid him shit and had been trying to resign it for a long time with jerry krause who refused to and thats why he ****ing hated his guts, so when the 98 season was over and they weren't willing to pay him he was GONE. Jordan basically said if Pippen is leaving I'm retiring and if Jordan and Pippen were going can see how Phil thought about it. Frankly that makes me respect Phil less. That's why I feel larry Brown is the greatest coach of all time. He actually goes to BUILD TEAMS...doesn't just go to a good situation. I'm sorry but you can't deny Phil Jackson just wants a situation where he can win in he doesn't want to actually COACH IE TEACH HIS TEAMS...he just wants to bring together great players and bring them championships. Sorry I can't respect that more than someone like Larry Brown who goes to teams that are shit and goes to teach and build them up and actually teach them and mentor them.

So, does he go to teach them? It's unclear.

[ZenMaster]

If the Spurs and Timmy didn't win other 3 championships I would put an asterix to it.

But they did, so Phil you need to STFU and aknowledge the Spurs and Duncan were a great fuking squad!


It's always, this guy needs to STFU or Phil is mad bla bla bla

How about you reading what he says instead.


an up-and-coming San Antonio team, which turned out to be quite a great team

[WeGetRing2012]

The season didn't become 82 games until '67-'68.
The team with the best record in the conference often got a first round bye until '83-'84. Therefore many champions including Russell's Celtics, Wilt's Sixers, early Showtime Lakers, and early Bird's Celtics only played 2 or 3 rounds as opposed to the 4 rounds that are played today.
The first round used to be a best of 3 mini series. Then it became a best of 5 in '83-'84. Then it became a best of 7 in '02-'03.

The point is, there have always been changes to either the regular and/ or most importantly the post season. If there is an asterisk by the Spurs title in '99 because of the regular season, Phil should be reminded that the '99 Spurs played more postseason rounds than his '73 Knicks in route to their respective titles.

As long as all teams play by the same rules, a champion is a champion.

But those teams did play 4 rounds they were in the 80's

[TheMarkMadsen]

Phil has a good point.

However, if the lock out doesn't happen we most likely see the bulls go for a 4peat, and it's tough to bet against Jordan.

[GimmeThat]

Phil has a good point.

However, if the lock out doesn't happen we most likely see the bulls go for a 4peat, and it's tough to bet against Jordan.


That he's fighting for his players, and not for himself?

Every coaches does that


Know what I'm saying?

[SamuraiSWISH]

100% real talk from Phil Jackson. Same goes for the 2012 season. Though players weren't coming into that season AS grossly out of shape. 1999 was the most disgusting NBA ball I've ever witnessed. Also the 2012 season due to that condensed schedule is where we saw a rash of injuries league wide. It works against veterans, and in favor of youth. Kind of unfair pacing of the games. Spurs only have 4 legit rings in my book as well.

[GimmeThat]

100% real talk from Phil Jackson. Same goes for the 2012 season. Though players weren't coming into that season AS grossly out of shape. 1999 was the most disgusting NBA ball I've ever witnessed. Also the 2012 season due to that condensed schedule is where we saw a rash of injuries league wide. It works against veterans, and in favor of youth. Kind of unfair pacing of the games. Spurs only have 4 legit rings in my book as well.


well, the players should have the balls to put that in the lockout agreement. I mean, if they already put an asterick on the ring already, I guess that's that. If they didn't....


clearly, whoever won that year was going to get b*tched at.

[Mr Feeny]

100% real talk from Phil Jackson. Same goes for the 2012 season. Though players weren't coming into that season AS grossly out of shape. 1999 was the most disgusting NBA ball I've ever witnessed. Also the 2012 season due to that condensed schedule is where we saw a rash of injuries league wide. It works against veterans, and in favor of youth. Kind of unfair pacing of the games. Spurs only have 4 legit rings in my book as well.

I really doubt the Spurs care what Swish on ISH considers legitimate rings. The fact is that they have 5 rings and the Miami Heat have 3. Cry me a river.

[dgaras]

100% real talk from Phil Jackson. Same goes for the 2012 season. Though players weren't coming into that season AS grossly out of shape. 1999 was the most disgusting NBA ball I've ever witnessed. Also the 2012 season due to that condensed schedule is where we saw a rash of injuries league wide. It works against veterans, and in favor of youth. Kind of unfair pacing of the games. Spurs only have 4 legit rings in my book as well.

who cares. theyre millionaires and youve been posting on same bball forum for the past 8 years

[Threethrows]

Not at all.

The point he makes is that teams build their rosters for 82 games seasons, then all of the sudden in 1 year you have a 50 game season and it changes which teams stand to benefit.

If all teams played lesser games every year in but in a more cramped schedule it would change how teams built their rosters. But obv it would still be fair because it would be what all teams prepared for.

Oh please, that reasoning is asinine. You build your roster to assemble as much talent as you can to win in the playoffs, period. Saying otherwise is just... dumb. You build a team for a 50 game season the same as you do an 82 game season, to win games.

"Sorry Bob, we were going to sign you but it turns out the regular season will only be 50 games, so we're going with this 50 game specialist here you see... The Spurs built themselves to win in a shortened season on the chance that it happened."

[BoutPractice]

Stupid then, stupid now.

Everyone knows that Jackson would've had no problem putting another ring on his finger had he won that year. He's only saying that because he lost.

If we want to play the asterisk game, the 2002 Lakers and 2006 Heat have a much, much stronger case anyway... and neither are asterisks in my book.

[Myth]

When teams would play 18-19 games in the last month of the season it broke down some of the older steady teams because of that impact of a heavy schedule... You have to have young players and you have to have healthy players to win.

Wait, did Phil forget that outside of Tim, the Spurs were built around vets? The Spurs had 8 players playing 15+ mpg and Duncan was the only one of those 8 to be under the age of 30.

Age of Spurs top 8 in playing time (played 15+ mpg in season):
Duncan 22
Avery Johnson 34
David Robinson 33
Sean Elliot 31
Mario Ellie 36
Jaren Jackson 31
Steve Kerr 33
Jerome Kersey 36

For comparison sake, here is the Lakers (10 players over 15+ mpg):
Kobe 20
Glen Rice 32
Eddie Jones 27
Shaq 27
Derek Harper 37
Derek Fisher 24
Rick Fox 29
Robert Horry 28
Elden Campbell 30
JR Reid 31

If Phil's theory is correct, Lakers should have been way better off than the Spurs.

[Myth]

Stupid then, stupid now.

Everyone knows that Jackson would've had no problem putting another ring on his finger had he won that year. He's only saying that because he lost.

If we want to play the asterisk game, the 2002 Lakers and 2006 Heat have a much, much stronger case anyway... and neither are asterisks in my book.

He didn't win or lose that season, he didn't coach.

His complaints make sense in theory, but the thing is, Spurs won with a veteran team when Phil was saying it benefited youthful teams, and all the contenders avoided serious injuries with the exception of Patrick Ewing (and Phil seems to think Knicks benefited too).

[Anaximandro1]

2000 Duncan missed the playoffs with a knee injury -> Spurs had no chance to defend their NBA title

2002 The mother of all asterisks

2009 Garnett missed the playoff with a knee injury -> Celtics had no chance to defend their NBA title



When teams would play 18-19 games in the last month of the season it broke down some of the older steady teams because of that impact of a heavy schedule.

You have to have young players and you have to have healthy players to win

the Spurs were an old team (Robinson 33, Avery 33, Elie 35, Kersey 36, Kerr 33, Jackson 31, Elliot 30)


Las Vegas - Favorites to win 1999 NBA title (Feb 6, 1999)
(http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1999-02-06/sports/9902060234_1_scott-magic-outlaw)
The favorites are the Utah Jazz and Indiana Pacers at 7-2. The Lakers are at 3-1, followed by the New York Knicks and San Antonio Spurs at 5-1, and the Houston Rockets at 6-1.


In 1999 the Jazz (old team) and the Lakers (young team) were heavily favored to win the NBA title.


Spurs (6 - 8) got destroyed by the Jazz (11 -2) early in the 1998-99 NBA season (http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199902280SAS.html)


Pop was going to be fired ... Spurs' players knew that the game in Houston was Pop's last chance (http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199903020HOU.html)


It was the turning point for the franchise.


Jazz (32-8) dominated the regular season until the Spurs (28-12) visited the Delta Center ... Utah had beaten San Antonio in eight of the last nine meetings. The Jazz had eliminated the Spurs from the playoffs in 1994, 1996 and 1998.

Spurs defeated the Jazz (http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199904200UTA.html)


The Spurs beat the Jazz again just a week later... (http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199905020SAS.html)


Jazz still finished with the league's best record at 37-13, but the Spurs matched that mark and won the No. 1 seed in the West by beating Utah 2-1 in the season series.

Moreover, the Lakers won their regular-season series with the Spurs 2-1 ... Lakers had beaten San Antonio in five of the last six meetings.

The Spurs swept the Lakers in the 1998-99 season playoffs (4-0) (http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_1999_WCS.html#SAS-LAL)

[Myth]

the Spurs were an old team (Robinson 33, Avery 33, Elie 35, Kersey 36, Kerr 33, Jackson 31, Elliot 30)


And those were their beginning of the season ages.

[Breezy]

Wait, did Phil forget that outside of Tim, the Spurs were built around vets? The Spurs had 8 players playing 15+ mpg and Duncan was the only one of those 8 to be under the age of 30.

Age of Spurs top 8 in playing time (played 15+ mpg in season):
Duncan 22
Avery Johnson 34
David Robinson 33
Sean Elliot 31
Mario Ellie 36
Jaren Jackson 31
Steve Kerr 33
Jerome Kersey 36

For comparison sake, here is the Lakers (10 players over 15+ mpg):
Kobe 20
Glen Rice 32
Eddie Jones 27
Shaq 27
Derek Harper 37
Derek Fisher 24
Rick Fox 29
Robert Horry 28
Elden Campbell 30
JR Reid 31

If Phil's theory is correct, Lakers should have been way better off than the Spurs.
:cheers:

The 99 title counts for more since it was so much harder to get through the season.

So it's official... Duncan has 5.5 titles.

[Mr. Jabbar]

People are well aware of the season, that's enough.

:biggums: This post from the first page doesnt have a clickable name nor post count :biggums: :biggums:

could it be a higher being than jeff himself? check it out

[Rodmantheman]

[QUOTE=Anaximandro1]2000 Duncan missed the playoffs with a knee injury -> Spurs had no chance to defend their NBA title

2002 The mother of all asterisks

:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

[Rubio2Gasol]

I think Stern did it wrong.

Have how many games there is time for, not.how many you think the best players can survive.

[BoutPractice]

He didn't win or lose that season, he didn't coach.

His complaints make sense in theory, but the thing is, Spurs won with a veteran team when Phil was saying it benefited youthful teams, and all the contenders avoided serious injuries with the exception of Patrick Ewing (and Phil seems to think Knicks benefited too).
Right.

My point stands: if he'd won a title during a lockout shortened season, he would consider it legitimate, as would 100% of people in that situation.

That, to me, invalidates this argument, whoever makes it, once and for all.

[ArbitraryWater]

100% real talk from Phil Jackson. Same goes for the 2012 season. Though players weren't coming into that season AS grossly out of shape. 1999 was the most disgusting NBA ball I've ever witnessed. Also the 2012 season due to that condensed schedule is where we saw a rash of injuries league wide. It works against veterans, and in favor of youth. Kind of unfair pacing of the games. Spurs only have 4 legit rings in my book as well.

I don't see how the same goes for 2012.... 66 games, SIXTEEN more, and which teams benefited? We had the same teams as we did the previous and following season battling it out..

Injuries are a part of the game.

[ArbitraryWater]

I actually agree with Phil... 2007 title was a bit fluky as well. Perhaps the worst of the 4 Spurs title teams, and the officiating against the Suns was very questionable, then to have the luck of the 1st seed being gone, and then to play arguably the woat finals team?

[Rubio2Gasol]

I actually agree with Phil... 2007 title was a bit fluky as well. Perhaps the worst of the 4 Spurs title teams, and the officiating against the Suns was very questionable, then to have the luck of the 1st seed being gone, and then to play arguably the woat finals team?

As much as I like the Spurs, Suns = 2007 NBA Champions. Point Blank, Period.

[stanlove1111]

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/spursnation/2011/11/04/phil-jackson-still-hammering-spurs-about-1999-asterisk-season/#comments

Silly logic. Only 50 games huh...Like teams don't get worn out by 82 game schedule.They all played the same amount..


Now if Phil wants to talk about undeserved and don't count titles lets talk about the 2002 Lakers title when a ref went to jail for saving the Lakers from elimination...

[Real Men Wear Green]

People care less every day. Of late we have seen plenty of talk about how TD is a 5-time Champion, very little mention of the "asterisk" season. Bottom line, everyone had to play the same hurried schedule so it's not truly unfair.

[ILLsmak]

Right.

My point stands: if he'd won a title during a lockout shortened season, he would consider it legitimate, as would 100% of people in that situation.

That, to me, invalidates this argument, whoever makes it, once and for all.

How u know that?

I think he'd take the ring, but he'd definitely know it was a lockout ring. All he's saying is that it's not worth as much as another ring in a full season. Which is true. Is it worth 1/2 that? No, probably more, but... let's use LeBron as an example.

Do you think if Bron won 1 ring in his career and it was the lockout that people wouldn't always bring that up? Cuz they would. It's still a ring though, obviously. They played for the championship.

Edit: Fairness is not the issue lol. The issue is that it was an abnormal situation.

-Smak

[kentatm]

The season didn't become 82 games until '67-'68.
The team with the best record in the conference often got a first round bye until '83-'84. Therefore many champions including Russell's Celtics, Wilt's Sixers, early Showtime Lakers, and early Bird's Celtics only played 2 or 3 rounds as opposed to the 4 rounds that are played today.
The first round used to be a best of 3 mini series. Then it became a best of 5 in '83-'84. Then it became a best of 7 in '02-'03.

The point is, there have always been changes to either the regular and/ or most importantly the post season. If there is an asterisk by the Spurs title in '99 because of the regular season, Phil should be reminded that the '99 Spurs played more postseason rounds than his '73 Knicks in route to their respective titles.

As long as all teams play by the same rules, a champion is a champion.

:applause:


or... maybe we should just start putting asterisks next to Phil's titles since using his logic they aren't as impressive :lol

[SamuraiSWISH]

who cares. theyre millionaires and youve been posting on same bball forum for the past 8 years
What's your point? I wasn't arguing otherwise, my opinion coincides w/ Phil Jackson. Let the sand drip out your undies, and realize that's all we're talking about here. You know one has hit a cord when they go after you personally. So what I've been posting here 8 years, you say that like it's a bad thing. My love of the game runs deep.

[Artillery]

2002 is even more of an asterisk. I still consider the Kings champion that year.

2009 is pretty bad too. Weakest run to a title since the '87 Lakers. No KG. Yao-less Rockets. Injured Jazz team. Injured Magic team.

Thank god the NBA improved in the following years. Phil Jackson teams always played some of the ugliest basketball I've ever seen.

Very fitting that Rick Carlisle swept his ass into retirement playing beautiful team ball. Phil was just unable to adapt to the modern NBA.

[SamuraiSWISH]

I don't see how the same goes for 2012.... 66 games, SIXTEEN more, and which teams benefited?
Did you not read the part where I said it isn't as bad as 1999? That was literally the worst season for NBA ball I've ever seen by a country mile. Were you even watching the game then?


Injuries are a part of the game.
Dude that condensed schedule heavily favors the insanely athletic, and youthful teams. It isn't fair across the board just because everyone had the play the same schedule. There is an unfair competitive advantage in that situation. That is what Phil Jackson intelligently points out here.

[Hotlantadude81]

Who cares? Phil did not win shit without a top 3 player on his team.

[GoSpursGo1984]

Did you not read the part where I said it isn't as bad as 1999? That was literally the worst season for NBA ball I've ever seen by a country mile. Were you even watching the game then?


Dude that condensed schedule heavily favors the insanely athletic, and youthful teams. It isn't fair across the board just because everyone had the play the same schedule. There is an unfair competitive advantage in that situation. That is what Phil Jackson intelligently points out here.

So we should cater schedules to fit every teams need that is unrealistic. Great teams should be able to adapt to whatever situation they face.