Kobe / Lebron fans: Do you feel that the 2012 Heat title should be asterisked?

[Baby Arm Johnso]

Like I said above, the playoffs were AFFECTED by the irregular season.
2012 Season was played from Jan to April in 66 games (VERY rushed).
This played into the placing, homecourt advantage, and injuries. The regular season shaped the playoffs, so you can't really pull them apart.

The asterisk should stay with whatever is related with the 2012 season, including the NBA 2012 Champions - because they played 66 games in the regular season, and played in a playoffs that was determined by 66 games.

Also, didn't someone on the previous page said this is the first time back to back has happened in the playoffs? So the shortened season and schedule did affect into the scheduling of the playoffs as well.

The reason I will still disagree is that every single team faced the same circumstances. Should Miami get an asterisk because OKC played really poorly in the finals?

[Ruutu]

So it was not a real NBA season ? WTF ? So it didnt matter ? If Lakers had won then Kobe wouldnt had 6 rings then ? Only 5 n half ?

This is stupid! Everybody had same amount of games. The season was even harder cos they had back to back to back games and teams which had bigger bench could avoid injuries better!

[Jax]

It SHOULD read like this:
*First NBA championship won by the GOAT.

[ripthekik]

The reason I will still disagree is that every single team faced the same circumstances. Should Miami get an asterisk because OKC played really poorly in the finals?

No, Miami shouldn't. They shouldn't get it because they are Miami. OKC also has nothing to do with it. It has NOTHING to do with the team, it only has to do with the SEASON.

Every single team faced the same circumstances THIS season. But they face DIFFERENT circumstances from the 40 other seasons since 1970. Hence the asterisk.

So it was not a real NBA season ? WTF ? So it didnt matter ? If Lakers had won then Kobe wouldnt had 6 rings then ? Only 5 n half ?

This is stupid! Everybody had same amount of games. The season was even harder cos they had back to back to back games and teams which had bigger bench could avoid injuries better!

It is a real NBA season, and Heat will get their rings. The asterisk is just to denote the difference and irregularity that the 2012 season had.

True, everyone had the same amount of games in 2012. But the 2012 teams didn't have the same amount of games as the other 40 seasons, get it? Let me make it clearer:


1970: 82 games
1971: 82 games
......
......
......
2001: 82 games
2002: 82 games
2003: 82 games
2004: 82 games
2005: 82 games
2006: 82 games
2007: 82 games
2008: 82 games
2009: 82 games
2010: 82 games
2011: 82 games
2012*: 66 games


Is there anything wrong with this? Most of the time we will only list that season's champions, and forgot that it was played in 66 games. Hence the asterisk is to remind us of the difference.

[longtime lurker]

Imagine if Lebron only wins 1 championship. good lord just think how much more emphasis would be placed on this championship being an asterisk.

[Freedom Kid7]

I don't see why it should be in my opinion. Yeah maybe there were a couple of sketchy calls and some injuries, but really, stuff like that happens a lot. And there wasn't a big enough injury/sketchy call to change everything. I think even with the Rondo call called correctly, heat win the series. I think if even Rose was healthy, Heat win.

[red1]

No, Miami shouldn't. They shouldn't get it because they are Miami. OKC also has nothing to do with it. It has NOTHING to do with the team, it only has to do with the SEASON.

Every single team faced the same circumstances THIS season. But they face DIFFERENT circumstances from the 40 other seasons since 1970. Hence the asterisk.


It is a real NBA season, and Heat will get their rings. The asterisk is just to denote the difference and irregularity that the 2012 season had.

True, everyone had the same amount of games in 2012. But the 2012 teams didn't have the same amount of games as the other 40 seasons, get it? Let me make it clearer:


1970: 82 games
1971: 82 games
......
......
......
2001: 82 games
2002: 82 games
2003: 82 games
2004: 82 games
2005: 82 games
2006: 82 games
2007: 82 games
2008: 82 games
2009: 82 games
2010: 82 games
2011: 82 games
2012*: 66 games


Is there anything wrong with this? Most of the time we will only list that season's champions, and forgot that it was played in 66 games. Hence the asterisk is to remind us of the difference.

You're right, this year's regular season was different from other seasons. Since this year was 20 games shorter how about we put an asterisk on the regular season.

Regular Season
2002: 82 games
2003: 82 games
2004: 82 games
2005: 82 games
2006: 82 games
2007: 82 games
2008: 82 games
2009: 82 games
2010: 82 games
2011: 82 games
2012*: 66 games <------ asterisk

Playoffs (number of games won by the champion)
2002: 16 games
2003: 16 games
2004: 16 games
2005: 16 games
2006: 16 games
2007: 16 games
2008: 16 games
2009: 16 games
2010: 16 games
2011: 16 games
2012: 16 games <----- no asterisk

How does that look?

[Freedom Kid7]

You're right, this year's regular season was different from other seasons. Since this year was 20 games shorter how about we put an asterisk on the regular season.

Regular Season
2002: 82 games
2003: 82 games
2004: 82 games
2005: 82 games
2006: 82 games
2007: 82 games
2008: 82 games
2009: 82 games
2010: 82 games
2011: 82 games
2012*: 66 games <------ asterisk

Playoffs (number of games won by the champion)
2002: 16 games
2003: 16 games
2004: 16 games
2005: 16 games
2006: 16 games
2007: 16 games
2008: 16 games
2009: 16 games
2010: 16 games
2011: 16 games
2012: 16 games <----- no asterisk

How does that look?

2002 actually had 15 wins.

[red1]

2002 actually had 15 wins.

Hey ripthekik, should we put an asterisk here?

[ripthekik]

You're right, this year's regular season was different from other seasons. Since this year was 20 games shorter how about we put an asterisk on the regular season.

Regular Season
2002: 82 games
2003: 82 games
2004: 82 games
2005: 82 games
2006: 82 games
2007: 82 games
2008: 82 games
2009: 82 games
2010: 82 games
2011: 82 games
2012*: 66 games <------ asterisk

Playoffs (number of games won by the champion)
2002: 16 games
2003: 16 games
2004: 16 games
2005: 16 games
2006: 16 games
2007: 16 games
2008: 16 games
2009: 16 games
2010: 16 games
2011: 16 games
2012: 16 games <----- no asterisk

How does that look?

I already answered this question.
The playoffs ARE AFFECTED by the 66 games in the regular season. 2012 Playoffs were affected by the short schedule of the 66 games - which determined the placing, HCA, and injuries in the playoffs. The schedule of the playoffs were even affected, and a back to back had to be played - the first time in NBA history.

So no, these playoffs weren't like previous playoffs. Past playoffs were determined by 82 games. The 2012 playoffs were determined by 66 games in a very hectic schedule.

[ripthekik]

Hey ripthekik, should we put an asterisk here?

So you want to bring up the fact that playoffs changed in 2002 from 5 games to 7 games in the first round.

Yes, this is a very obvious change and should be noted in NBA history. However, place an asterisk? How? There has been no occurrence in rarity of data. The change has been made - and it has stayed on til today. If it was changed for 1 season, and gotten rid of one season later, then yes you can asterisk it.

But for the current situation? No. It was a change, but it has been consistent:

1998: 15
1999: 15
2000: 15
2001: 15
2002: 16
2003: 16
2005: 16
2006: 16
2007: 16
2008: 16

People should know that there was a change in playoff format. However, an asterisk is not needed- because it was a change that is consistent til today, not an rarity, a one time occurrence. What happened in 2012 only happened 1 other time in the last 40 years. That is a rarity that deserves an asterisk.

And you don't split Regular season and Playoffs. The 2012 Champions include both seasons and playoffs -which were both affected, and that is where the asterisk should be.

[LakersReign]

The fact of the matter is, whether the FAKE Heat fans, aka Lebronytes want to admit it, or not, the Heat did benefit from the shortened season. Wade's knee began to be more of an issue during the Finals. It was even reported that it was going him trouble throughout the season. If it had been a regular 82 game season, the possibility of him going down before the Finals was a reality. Regardless of how "great" Lebron is, take away Wade and the Heat maybe lose to the Pacers or the Celtics.

[Burgz V2]

all this thread does is incite a flame war between Kobe and LeBron fans

[ripthekik]

all this thread does is incite a flame war between Kobe and LeBron fans

Not really.

It has nothing to do with Kobe or Lebron.
2012 is played in 66 games, an irregularity from the other 40 seasons since 1970, so an asterisk is necessary. I don't know why people keep going to the points of saying "every team went through the same thing" or "heat was special". No, none of that. It was asterisked simply because of data keeping.

2012 NBA Champions *

[Nash]

Affected? You do know that the schedule was even tougher in this regular season? Teams basically played back to back every night and sometimes even back to back to back. If anything, the shortened regular season was more of a bad thing than a good thing for the teams.

I think all players would much rather play a regular 82 games regular season than play 66 games the way they did this season. Every player was talking about how hard and tough this regular season was.