Team W-L Win% NBA Titles
Spurs 438-186 .702 2
Lakers 413-211 .662 3
Pacers 383-241 .614 0
Kings 378-240 .606 0
Timberwolves 370-254 .593 0
Jazz 366-258 .587 0

Number of seasons above .600
Team Seasons

Spurs 8
Lakers 7
Kings 5
Mavericks 5
Heat 5

This started with Tim Duncan's first season with the San Antonio.

why 8 years?

quote:

---

why 8 years?

---

Aggietd, open your friggin' eyes.

quote:

---

This started with Tim Duncan's first season with the San Antonio.

---

It is obvious from a few of your posts the past two days that you are anti-Spurs. That is fine. But the bitterness is a little over the top. What's the matter, was your team one of the ones the Spurs have eliminated over the past 8 years?
Get over it.

Wow, that stat really points out how much they've underachieved in the playoffs. You'd think the "best team of the last 8 years" would have more than 2 titles.

Including one with an *.

haha.
haters...

Nah, no asterik in 99. The regular season was shortened, but the regular season don't mean crap. They still had to win 15 in the playoffs.

5 of 6 from the Western Conf

quote:

---

Including one with an *.

---

And remind us again, how many titles have the sonics won WITH or WITHOUT asterisks? Just wondering.

Pooooooooor nbbob!




- Don't you understand? It's not about him. To have a line as perfect as jerk store and to never use it. I couldn't live with myself.

It's smart...it's a smart line, and a smart crowd will appreciate it. And, I'm not gonna dumb it down for some bonehead mass audience!!

The infamous * championship. What a myth.

Help me remember...did they cut down the playoffs that year? Pretty sure they didn't. So, the playoffs were just as grueling as always, but the season was 50 instead of 82 games. Big deal. The teams that deserved to make the playoffs made it.

The * stands for jealousy.

There's an "*" next to all of the Sonics championships too. You just can't see them if you consult a record book that only dates the past 25 years.

Okay okay...you can call me a bitter fan or Spurs hater all you want (which I'm sure you will). But to say that the * on the 99 season doesn't matter is simply retarded. The length of the NBA season is 82 games for a reason. It tests the durabiity of a team fo a full season. Some title contenders lose valuable members due to injury. Look no further than this years Spurs. No ankle injury for Timmy = 1 seed throughout. Now it may not seem like a big deal now, but those home games are important. The regular season is played for playoff positioning. What if in 99 Tim Duncan would have went down in game 51 with a broken leg or something. Would the Spurs still haev won the title? Maybe, but I doubt it. My point is, the Spurs should be proud about what they have done over the past 8 years, but you can't negate the * in the 99 season. Hell if we only played 50 games this year, the Cavs would be in the playoffs, the Rockets wouldn't have been and so on and so forth...it does matter

tbone,

since you ahve so much time why don't you pull the winning percentages since the SA, DAL, and HOU started playing ball. It would be intereting to see.

Go ahead and pull football and baseball too.... wait does SA even have an Arena team?

sorry, BQCadet, the regular season is meaningless. The Rockets proved that in 95 by screwing around all season and then beating 4 straight 60 win teams.
Besides, every team had the same 50 game schedule. It wasn't like SA played 50, but everyone else played 75.

I agree with BQCadet.

Would you say if they had a 10 game regular season that it would have an *? A 20 game regular season? Where do you draw the line? The season is 82 games for a reason and, at the end of it, there is no doubt who the best 16 teams are. When you shorten it to 50 games in 80 nights or whatever it was, you can not compare it to other 82 game seasons. It's different and you can not deny that. It was an accomplishment for the Spurs to win it that year but it is no doubt different than other titles. The * doesn't take the ring away, it just indicates something was different that year.

No, you are missing the point. All teams have an equal playing field each year at winning the title. If its 82 games, so be it. If its 30 games so be it. As long as the league agreed to establish and play the season at 50 games, then each team theoretically had a legit shot at the title.

If for some reason the Spurs had an advantage over other teams by a shortened season then an asterisk could be warranted. No advantage that I recall hence no asterisk should accompany it.

nbob
^
|
|
|




- Don't you understand? It's not about him. To have a line as perfect as jerk store and to never use it. I couldn't live with myself.

It's smart...it's a smart line, and a smart crowd will appreciate it. And, I'm not gonna dumb it down for some bonehead mass audience!!



[This message has been edited by T-Bird01 (edited 5/31/2005 4:05p).]

quote:

---

But to say that the * on the 99 season doesn't matter is simply retarded.

---

quote:

---

The * doesn't take the ring away, it just indicates something was different that year.

---

First off boneheads, you are delusional. There isn't an asterisk. Go check an almanac.

quote:

---

The length of the NBA season is 82 games for a reason.

---

So you are saying that we should put asterisks on every NBA champion previous to 1960? Better alert the Celtics; they need to put asterisks on a lot of banners in the Fleet Center.

quote:

---

It [82 games] tests the durabiity of a team for a full season.

---

So let me see if I can get this straight. There's something wrong with saying a team is the most successful franchise over an 8-year period, because it is an odd period of time; but there's absolutely nothing wrong with saying that the number 82 is some sort of magical number that tests a teams durability moreso than 50?
It hurts to admit when there's a better team out there than yours, doesn't it?

quote:

---

Hell if we only played 50 games this year, the Cavs would be in the playoffs, the Rockets wouldn't have been and so on and so forth...it does matter

---

Probably, but the Cavs and Rockets would STILL both watching from their couch, and the Spurs would STILL be in the WCF. So what's your point?

You guys talk about Spurs fans being whiners. But this asterisk BS comes up about once a month, and to me there is nothing more pathetic than whining about something that happened 6 years ago. And I'd be willing to wager a LOT of money that when your respective teams were still in the hunt in 1999, it never even occurred to you that "if they win it all, it won't be the same".

Sour grapes, plain and simple.

50 games is enough for the best teams to make it. If you know you've only got 50 games to do it, then you're gonna take care of your business and get in the playoffs if you deserve to be there. Do you people watch the NBA first month of the NBA. It takes 15 or 20 games for the players to even act like they care. If anything, the shortened season added a sense of urgency to the regular season.

As for the *, Phil Jackson is who really got that one out there. I seriously doubt we'd ever hear anything about an * if Jordan had played that year and his Bulls had won it all. Nobody would say Jordan's Bulls had 7 titles, but one has an *. You really don't hear anything about an * except from people who want to discount the Spurs greatness over the last decade+.

Not to mention every team in the league played the same 50 games that year. If it was so much easier to win a title, how come only one team won it? Where were the Mavs? The Rockets? The Sonics?
Were they all at home nursing injuries that wouuld have healed within the 82-game span?

quote:

---

50 games is enough for the best teams to make it. If you know you've only got 50 games to do it, then you're gonna take care of your business and get in the playoffs if you deserve to be there ... If anything, the shortened season added a sense of urgency to the regular season.

---

I agree, PermianBasinAggie, especially the bolded part (my bolding, BTW).

Going back to the original post and the Spurs havin the best record since Tim Duncan joined the league, I'd like to see another element added: salary. More specifically, adherence to salary cap. I don't know the figures by heart, but I keep hearing that the Spurs continually have one of the lowest team salaries in the league. (Much less than the bloated and luxury-taxed Lakers of yesteryear... and the Mark Cuban Mavs, too.)

What that tells me is that the Spurs can follow the league rules and still take other teams' lunch money! (And don't give me any crap about the luxury tax being a league rule... yes, it's an official "rule," but its there ONLY to satisfy the prurient whims of the Dr. Buss' of the NBA world, pure and simple. It tells me he can't win without illegal cheatin'!)

Go Spurs Go!

I think you guys missed my point entirely. I'm not in any way saying that the Spurs deserve less credit for their title in 99. What I AM saying is that a lot could have happened over those last 32 gameas that season. I feel that an season in the modern age of basketball that does not go 82 games deserves an *.

Not

* This team won only because the season was 50 games and this is not the right team to win

More like...hmmm....

* This season only played 50 games compared to a regular NBA season standard of 82 games.

MY rebuttle had nothing to do with who was deserving. It had everything to do with the comment that a 50 game season is NO DIFFERENT than an 82 game season. And to that I say BS. Some stars get tired (See Shaq and T-Mac this year)and some teams suffer injury (Juwan Howard, Timmy D) that may cause their teams performance to drop and seeding to be changed. If it's no different why don't they just play 30 games. Or maybe we should shorten baseball to 80 games (no...really we should) and the Astros come in 4th place with no wild card and no chance at the world series last year. But that would mean the Cubs would have won it....ewwww

End Rant

Yeah, that '99 team definitely needs an * beside it. After all, with a 15-2 blitz through the playoffs, we really were left scratching our head who was REALLY the world champions that year.

Talk about bitter foolishness....

You know, the funny think about the shortened season is that, if anything, it was a much better test of who the BEST team really was- not who was the luckiest to survive the injuries and the wearing down of the season.


It's like saying "okay, to determine who the fastest runner is, we are going to have you all run a 400 meter race first, THEN we'll race you all in a 100 meter to determine the world's fastest human being. If we just race you in the 100, we won't REALLY know who the fastest runner is... HUH???