Chuck's Definitive List of NBA Champions Not Requiring Asterisk

[Pennebaker]

All rings during the expansion era (1988-2004) should have an asterisk.

Talent was severely diluted across the league and not only that but in the middle of this period the NBA moved the three point line in closer to help poor three point shooters like Michael Jordan (who of course won rings with the shortened three point line).

So all teams playing under the same circumstances as every other team? Nothing unfair about that. And Mike didn't win any championships because they moved the line in. You must be overreacting to the Shrug Game I guess?

* Denied

Yes, because if one team is stacked like the Bulls were then they have a massive advantage, which they did in the 90s because every other team only had 1 star or 1 hall of famer, for the most part.

[Texas Chuck]

Surely, posters here understand there's more nuance to the game than "hurr they won the title that all that mattr!"

There has been a lot of hur dur going on that's for sure. That's the point of the whole thread.

But championship teams aren't responsible for who gets hurt. Or suspended. Or for global pandemics. Or Expansion. Or rule changes.

Literally all they can do is beat the teams put in front of them. Beat the required number of teams 4 times before they can do it to you and you are the NBA champion. And you owe nobody any apologies. You won the only championship available that season.

Now if you want to rank the champions that you think are the best team, go for it.
If you want to rank the champions that faced the most difficult opposition, knock yourself out.
If you want to find the team that has your personal favorite narrative, yippee ki yay

But attempting to diminish a title because some tired, pathetic, worn out agenda as we see here all too often? Nah, that's your hur durr moment. That's what absolutely sucks and isn't context though they think like you that just saying so is a magic word that fools everyone. It fools almost noone actually. Except those who want to believe for their own agenda.

Nope, every championship is earned just like the rest. Period. That's context.

[Noodlesoop]

Bucks 2021 should be on there tbf. Maybe Raptors 2019 but at least Kawhi had an all round respectable game.

* Denied on both. You didn't even try and make a case so I have to default to the sanctity of the original list.

And I'm not trolling. I honestly reviewed every single championship team and identified all the ones not deserving of an * and then I listed them. And I've been willing to engage with literally every poster who disagreed with any of my selections and even changed my mind on the 2004 Pistons when a compelling case was made that supported it.

Well you’re joking rather than trolling then as you’ve made a thread which could just say ‘none’ rather than listing them all.

For what it’s worth, I agree that no title should have an asterisk but clearly some are circumstantial (those I mentioned). I think it was Bill Simmons which recently said something like there should be no asterisks on titles, only minor footnotes which explain the circumstances etc.

Why does the 2004 title deserve an asterisk? And why do some years have two title winners listed?

[Sgt Major]

2002 shouldn't be there.

[Lunartic]

Surely, posters here understand there's more nuance to the game than "hurr they won the title that all that mattr!"

There has been a lot of hur dur going on that's for sure. That's the point of the whole thread.

But championship teams aren't responsible for who gets hurt. Or suspended. Or for global pandemics. Or Expansion. Or rule changes.

Literally all they can do is beat the teams put in front of them. Beat the required number of teams 4 times before they can do it to you and you are the NBA champion. And you owe nobody any apologies. You won the only championship available that season.

Now if you want to rank the champions that you think are the best team, go for it.
If you want to rank the champions that faced the most difficult opposition, knock yourself out.
If you want to find the team that has your personal favorite narrative, yippee ki yay

But attempting to diminish a title because some tired, pathetic, worn out agenda as we see here all too often? Nah, that's your hur durr moment. That's what absolutely sucks and isn't context though they think like you that just saying so is a magic word that fools everyone. It fools almost noone actually. Except those who want to believe for their own agenda.

Nope, every championship is earned just like the rest. Period. That's context.

That's the crux of my disagreement.

How exactly can you fool yourself into thinking that a championship played against literal walk-ons and realgmers was earned the same way a title against the Warriors would be?

Do you think every single MVP is "earned" the same way? Is Westbrook's 6th seed triple-double MVP of the same caliber as Curry's? Just because the process of being awarded something is the same - it does not mean that all awards carry the same value.

That's why I asked what "asterisk" actually means to people. If people with agendas want it to mean the team that won actually didn't win or stole the title etc then yeah they're dummies.

But in many people's minds it just refers to highly irregular circumstances that diminishes the value of the title, things like insane ref unfairness like the King v Lakers series or things like insanely stacked teams with the KD Dubs, or injuries that completely make the game unfair ala Lebron Cavs.

[QingJames]

1. I didn't specifically call out the Bucks but the fact you immediately went there is telling...
2. Kyrie is injury prone, Harden is not.
3. The first team I thought of was the Raptors. The Raptors for all intents and purposes beat the Warriors and were NBA champions in 2019, and should be remembered as such... But that doesn't mean it's irrational to believe that the Raptors would have gotten wrecked had GS been healthy. There was a noticeable difference in peaks between both teams when healthy.

Was there a noticeable in difference between the two teams? Raptors swept the Warriors in the regular season series, including slapping a full-strength Warriors in Oracle with their starting lineup of 5 all stars.

That Raptors team was one of the best defenses in the history of the game. Sad how underrated they get because of the xenophobia of some Americans.

That was uncalled for.

Not really, I suspect it’s the root reason for a lot of the hate the Raptors get. You had SAS get up on television and say plainly he wanted Kawhi out of Toronto because he didn’t want another NBA champion coming from Canada. Hard to believe he would be espousing that view on live national television if it didn’t reflect a significant sentiment in American NBA viewership. And it’s not as though the undercurrent of xenophobia in American popular sentiment hasn’t been very well charted in recent years, especially around election time.

[QingJames]

Was there a noticeable in difference between the two teams? Raptors swept the Warriors in the regular season series, including slapping a full-strength Warriors in Oracle with their starting lineup of 5 all stars.

That Raptors team was one of the best defenses in the history of the game. Sad how underrated they get because of the xenophobia of some Americans.

That was uncalled for.

Not really, I suspect it’s the root reason for a lot of the hate the Raptors get. You had SAS get up on television and say plainly he wanted Kawhi out of Toronto because he didn’t want another NBA champion coming from Canada. Hard to believe he would be espousing that view on live national television if it didn’t reflect a significant sentiment in American NBA viewership. And it’s not as though the undercurrent of xenophobia in American popular sentiment hasn’t been very well charted in recent years, especially around election time.

Saw Chuck’s post about this being off topic after I made it, apologies. Not sure how to edit a post on mobile.

[Salieri]

Surely, posters here understand there's more nuance to the game than "hurr they won the title that all that mattr!"

There has been a lot of hur dur going on that's for sure. That's the point of the whole thread.

But championship teams aren't responsible for who gets hurt. Or suspended. Or for global pandemics. Or Expansion. Or rule changes.

Literally all they can do is beat the teams put in front of them. Beat the required number of teams 4 times before they can do it to you and you are the NBA champion. And you owe nobody any apologies. You won the only championship available that season.

Now if you want to rank the champions that you think are the best team, go for it.
If you want to rank the champions that faced the most difficult opposition, knock yourself out.
If you want to find the team that has your personal favorite narrative, yippee ki yay

But attempting to diminish a title because some tired, pathetic, worn out agenda as we see here all too often? Nah, that's your hur durr moment. That's what absolutely sucks and isn't context though they think like you that just saying so is a magic word that fools everyone. It fools almost noone actually. Except those who want to believe for their own agenda.

Nope, every championship is earned just like the rest. Period. That's context.

That's the crux of my disagreement.

How exactly can you fool yourself into thinking that a championship played against literal walk-ons and realgmers was earned the same way a title against the Warriors would be?

Do you think every single MVP is "earned" the same way? Is Westbrook's 6th seed triple-double MVP of the same caliber as Curry's? Just because the process of being awarded something is the same - it does not mean that all awards carry the same value.

That's why I asked what "asterisk" actually means to people. If people with agendas want it to mean the team that won actually didn't win or stole the title etc then yeah they're dummies.

But in many people's minds it just refers to highly irregular circumstances that diminishes the value of the title, things like insane ref unfairness like the King v Lakers series or things like insanely stacked teams with the KD Dubs, or injuries that completely make the game unfair ala Lebron Cavs.

That's simply wrong.

In the case of Kings vs Lakers, that's a highly reductionist approach. Lakers' entire playoff run didn't just consist of one controversial game. They had to play against 4 different teams and they beat them all. You gotta be there and you gotta perform in order to win. At the end of the day, you still need to make buckets if you wanna come out ahead of the other team. Refs being unfair in one game is not a harder obstacle to overcome than one of your main guys having a rough shooting night, from a statistical standpoint. Is it equally "just"? No, but that's irrelevant. And keep in mind, refs are never perfect. They miss calls all the time and they call nonexistant fouls all the time too. And ironically they tend to be very consistent in how much they affect the game, there's some kind of paradoxical regularity in their imperfection. VERY rarely we see refs being responsible for more than a 10 points swing, which is a grand total of roughly 10% of the score. That's negligible. Take a look at other sports such as football where a ref might give you an unwarranted penalty kick that ends up being the only scored goal in the whole match, for example. Now that is refs deciding the outcome. In basketball? Not so much, especially given that those 6-10 points swings happen almost constantly because of the imperfect nature of reffing. What people find outrageous is how obvious those missed calls are, not how frequent. Obviousness is offensive because of perceived incompetence or corruption, but obviousness doesn't account for extra points. A missed call is a missed call. If your team is good enough, you'll beat that disadvantage same as you'll beat the disadvantage of your second star or your designated 3 point shooter having a bad night. And if you don't, it's just one game. You need 3 more just to beat that team. Go out there and win those games, or fail to do so and get eliminated. In the end, it's up to you no matter how much unexpected help you get from the refs (or a rival star player having a rough night) during any given game. Every single team has had unexpected help from the refs at some point, it was up to them to capitalize on it.

In the case of "insanely stacked teams" like the Durant Warriors, I think that's pretty much a textbook example of a non-asterisk champ. They were obviously, overpoweringly better than the competition. What is there to discuss? Do you think the best team winning the whole thing is an example of unfairness? That's pretty much the most fair thing that could have happened, the predictable outcome. If you're better than your rival, you ought to beat your rival. Case closed. And if you dispute that notion, I would then argue that NONE of the international accolades of the USA team are legit. After all, they were outrageously better than the competition, so each and every one of their victories carries a HUGE asterisk. Is this your argument? I hope not, because it couldn't be more wrong. They were better, so they won, fair and square. Does it feel fair to the other competitors? Maybe not so much, but such is the nature of sports. The better team tends to win more. I fail to see the controversy here.

In the case of injuries, again such is the nature of sports. Players are human, not robots. A well built team counts on a good bench to cover for any player suffering an injury so the team doesn't miss too much power. If your team doesn't have a plan B in case this or that player goes down, you can blame your FO, or you can blame a doctor, or you can blame that player for not taking care of himself, or you can blame Odin himself for making it happen if you want. But you cannot blame the rival team for it, that's nonsensical. Teams play whoever is in front of them. Injuries are a constant, and you'd be surprised to find out how many of the historical championship winners played against teams slowed down by injuries. In fact, I can't remember of a single basketball team that won the championship by playing all of their rivals at full strength. You don't see teams delaying the next playoff game waiting for their rival to heal out of sportsmanship, same as you don't see players missing a free throw on purpose if it comes from a bad call. In order to maximize your chances, you gotta be ruthless and capitalize on every opportunity you find. That's how you win. And it's been a constant for so long, that arguing that it now seems unfair just because you find it convenient is myopic at best, hypocritical at worst.

Overall, I couldn't agree more with Chuck: there is no such thing as an asterisk championship. Every single NBA champ is legit.

And I applaud his cunning: I thought this was a lost battle, because many among us have made this point in a serious tone before, only to be taken as a joke. Now he shows up and does it but in a joking manner, and apparently it's being taken more seriously than ever before. Appealing to the contrarian impulses in people to get your point across in a blindsiding way. From a pshychological standpoint, that's a damn fine Jedi mind trick you pulled right there, Chuck, and I tip my hat to you. Well played, sir

[Lunartic]

There has been a lot of hur dur going on that's for sure. That's the point of the whole thread.

But championship teams aren't responsible for who gets hurt. Or suspended. Or for global pandemics. Or Expansion. Or rule changes.

Literally all they can do is beat the teams put in front of them. Beat the required number of teams 4 times before they can do it to you and you are the NBA champion. And you owe nobody any apologies. You won the only championship available that season.

Now if you want to rank the champions that you think are the best team, go for it.
If you want to rank the champions that faced the most difficult opposition, knock yourself out.
If you want to find the team that has your personal favorite narrative, yippee ki yay

But attempting to diminish a title because some tired, pathetic, worn out agenda as we see here all too often? Nah, that's your hur durr moment. That's what absolutely sucks and isn't context though they think like you that just saying so is a magic word that fools everyone. It fools almost noone actually. Except those who want to believe for their own agenda.

Nope, every championship is earned just like the rest. Period. That's context.

That's the crux of my disagreement.

How exactly can you fool yourself into thinking that a championship played against literal walk-ons and realgmers was earned the same way a title against the Warriors would be?

Do you think every single MVP is "earned" the same way? Is Westbrook's 6th seed triple-double MVP of the same caliber as Curry's? Just because the process of being awarded something is the same - it does not mean that all awards carry the same value.

That's why I asked what "asterisk" actually means to people. If people with agendas want it to mean the team that won actually didn't win or stole the title etc then yeah they're dummies.

But in many people's minds it just refers to highly irregular circumstances that diminishes the value of the title, things like insane ref unfairness like the King v Lakers series or things like insanely stacked teams with the KD Dubs, or injuries that completely make the game unfair ala Lebron Cavs.

At the end of the day, you still need to make buckets if you wanna come out ahead of the other team. Refs being unfair in one game is not a harder obstacle to overcome than one of your main guys having a rough shooting night, from a statistical standpoint.

I guess we found Chuck's burner account.

The fact that you somehow think a star player having a rough shooting night is equal in terms of impact to refs intentionally being unfair makes me wonder what game you're watching.

Kobe going 10/33 FG while playing defense/playmaking/being an on court leader as well as drawing defenders is far different than a ref calling 2 quick fouls on your star player and effectively removing him from the game for quarters at a time.

What "statistical standpoint" are you even referring to? Are you saying that whether it's the refs beating you or your star player chucking, losing a game is losing a game? Sure, that's true. But when you have an entire playoff series marred by bad, one-sided reffing or even a pivotal game 6/7 in which the refs clearly are biased, it does indeed have a greater impact than one star player shooting poorly. The game is more than just shooting.

As for the actual point which is there is a hierarchy to awards in most people's minds - do you consider 2x NBA champion J.R Smith to be as much as a champ as Isiah Thomas? They both have the same titles and they both mean the same thing an context be damned right? Of course you don't, because context around "winning" is just as important as winning.

In reference to the team USA Olympics, no one cares when the US wins because of the huge talent gap so yeah winning is devalued for the US and losing is overly harped on. Hence why the greatest drama in the Olympics in years was the team losing in the pregames to lesser teams.

Define what you think "asterisk" means. To me it's simply additional context that determines the hierarchy of the value of the titles.

[KonKrete]

Was there a noticeable in difference between the two teams? Raptors swept the Warriors in the regular season series, including slapping a full-strength Warriors in Oracle with their starting lineup of 5 all stars.

That Raptors team was one of the best defenses in the history of the game. Sad how underrated they get because of the xenophobia of some Americans.

That was uncalled for.

You had SAS get up on television and say plainly he wanted Kawhi out of Toronto because he didn’t want another NBA champion coming from Canada. Hard to believe he would be espousing that view on live national television if it didn’t reflect a significant sentiment in American NBA viewership..

I don't know what is more foolish:
1. Listening to SAS
2. Actually forming a opinion based off of anything that loud-mouthed, blubbering idiot has said.

[lonniefire]

6 pages of this troll thread and OP still hasn't proven anything yet

[rockmanslim]

I had to go through the list to make sure you didn't actually leave anyone out.

Kind of disappointed.

Could've left out the 2006 Miami Heat and see if anyone caught it.

[marley game]

yo

Watch on YouTube

[MagicBagley18]

Whose Chuck?

[ellobo]

I think '70 through '76 deserve an asterisk, if only to explain why all of those years have 2 champions.

The thread title is NBA champions even though ABA champions were erroneously included in the list. My first thought when I saw the title is that there should never be an asterisk on a championship, but maybe for the ABA years, since the NBA champ wasn't the champion of all major American professional basketball.

But I think the principle of "you play the season and the playoffs under the circumstances that exist and whoever wins is the legit champ" still pertains as far as specifically being champion of the NBA.

It's Chuck's thread, so he's the judge and jury (and evidently court of appeals), but I'd still vote no asterisk.

[twyzted]

2020 should have an asterisk.

[Salieri]

I guess we found Chuck's burner account.

Okay, I guess you prefer a condescending tone to have this discussion instead of a neutral, respectful one. Let it be known I wasn't the one who picked it, but I'll oblige.

The fact that you somehow think a star player having a rough shooting night is equal in terms of impact to refs intentionally being unfair makes me wonder what game you're watching.

I'm watching the game of basketball, was it not clear? Is it my turn to wonder what words are you reading? Your snarky remark does not help your opinion at all, since you didn't even attempt to refute my point. I'll mark it as a concession of defeat, then. Moving on, and enough of the condescending tone. Let's be respectful from now on.

Kobe going 10/33 FG while playing defense/playmaking/being an on court leader as well as drawing defenders is far different than a ref calling 2 quick fouls on your star player and effectively removing him from the game for quarters at a time.

No it is not, and since this is a game of numbers, it can be easily proven. Shaq or Giannis (That statline was relatively common for Kobe, I'd rather use an example of a similarly brilliant player whose efficiency was higher than his so that statline sounds more like an outlier) missing 23 shots means 23 wasted possessions that netted 0 points for his team. How much does a star player being "removed from the game" for one whole quarter weigh? Well, we can take a look at that game's partial score with that star player being on and off the court, and extrapolate the difference. Does it equal to 23 literally wasted possessions? If the answer is yes, then yeah they're effectively equivalent. If the answer is no, then we will have to find out which of those two scenarios is more damaging to the team. It should be easy enough. And that is ONLY in the case where a star player is removed from the game by the refs, which is a not very common situation. Gifting a handful of free throws here and there and charging one player with an extra foul doesn't always equal removing him from the game. And we're talking about unfair reffing here, not legit fouls because of that player's overzealous actions. Unfairly reffed games that DECIDE the outcome of the game are more scarce than people seem to think, and the outcome is equally damaging to that team as a star player having a huge stinker: that game is gonna be lost, it can't be helped. So no, they're not "far different" from a results standpoint. Which was my point, fans' outrage notwithstanding.

What "statistical standpoint" are you even referring to? Are you saying that whether it's the refs beating you or your star player chucking, losing a game is losing a game? Sure, that's true. But when you have an entire playoff series marred by bad, one-sided reffing or even a pivotal game 6/7 in which the refs clearly are biased, it does indeed have a greater impact than one star player shooting poorly. The game is more than just shooting.

Again, no. Hostile reffing is just an extra obstacle to overcome, just as your star player playing horribly. Teams have fallen to both scenarios before, and teams have overcome both scenarios before.

And that's even before entering the conversation about whether that reffing was as one-sided and biased as claimed. In my personal experience, close to nobody is impartial and fair when it comes to judging reffing, and everyone is quick to play the ill intentions card from the refs. Bad reffing doesn't equal biased reffing, and I challenge you to find me ONE single game where a team suffered a bunch of bad calls according to its fans, where the fans of the rival team couldn't complain about one single call. Even in those games where it's universally accepted that a given team benefitted from the bad reffing, the other team also enjoyed some -although fewer- bad calls in their favor.

And finally, a bad reffed game is that. A bad reffed game. One bad game does not make an entire series unwinnable. Not if you did your homework before, or you do it afterwards. If you're better you still have the chance to prove it. Bad reffing is consubstantial to the game of basketball and it's always been there. Show me a team incapable of overcoming one badly reffed game and I'll show you a team that's not fit to compete in the NBA. Not to the point of becoming champions.

As for the actual point which is there is a hierarchy to awards in most people's minds - do you consider 2x NBA champion J.R Smith to be as much as a champ as Isiah Thomas? They both have the same titles and they both mean the same thing an context be damned right? Of course you don't, because context around "winning" is just as important as winning.

I consider both of them 2x NBA champs, which is what they are. Now, as far as context goes, of course I'll give extra merit to the player whose contribution was more essential to his team. But that doesn't magically take away the other player's rings. Both are champs, that much is self-evident.

So there is PLENTY of room for context, nuances and details to weigh in when we judge both players, but only upwards. The baseline is the same for both and it is undeniable: both are champs, period. That is a fact. Same happens with teams: every NBA champion is legit. Now, if you wanna discuss what team was the stuff of legends, and worthy of bards singing their praises for centuries to come thanks to their extremely heroic run, be my guest. But using an amazing performance as a baseline to excuse taking away the championship merit from other teams in different years, that is demagoguery. Did that team beat 3 other teams in their own conference in order to reach the finals? Did that team then beat the other finalist? Then they are that year's champions. It's just as easy as that.

In reference to the team USA Olympics, no one cares when the US wins because of the huge talent gap so yeah winning is devalued for the US and losing is overly harped on. Hence why the greatest drama in the Olympics in years was the team losing in the pregames to lesser teams.

Correction: no one IN AMERICA cares when US wins. As a spaniard, trust me we do care when we fall to your powerhouse of a team. And oddly enough, no one in USA cares if they win, but suddendly all hell breaks loose if they fail to win. Let me remind you that some people hold those "failures" against Duncan and LeBron as an example of them being overrated. And you said this much, only with other words. Which means you agree with me: being by far the best team out there only makes victory less exciting, but it doesn't put an asterisk next to it to question its validity. Those victories are as well earned as they could possibly be. Whether they are "just thursday" for them -or for you- is an entirely different question. Sure, nobody will applaud you beating your 10 years old nephew at chess, but nobody should argue you didn't actually win. There is no room for an asterisk in those victories whatsoever.

Define what you think "asterisk" means. To me it's simply additional context that determines the hierarchy of the value of the titles.

To me, asterisk literally means a fallacious narrative some people grab onto in order to diminish a title they didn't like that team winning. And I don't agree with its very existence because it casts a shadow over an achievement that is a literal fact: those teams won those titles.

If you wanna determine that hierarchy you were talking about when it comes to value, I'm all for it. But from the baseline up, as I said. I will be the first one to admit that if you give me '11 Mavs, '19 Raptors, '14 Spurs, '12 Heat and '08 Celtics (for example), I will rank them in order of perceived value, which will be obviously subjective. But never to the point of flat out negating they are real champions, which is the purpose of that damned asterisk. I would never claim any of those teams -or any other- was not an actual, a real, a legit champion. So, for me, asterisks are a weak narrative used by haters and sore losers.

[og15]

2011 needs asterisk. The biggest meltdown by NBA superstar in the league history.

The asterisk signifies that an accomplishment is tainted, a player on the opposing team playing poorly doesn't taint anything though, so how would that even work? What's the argument for it being tainted? Did the Mavs spike Lebron's food and drink? Then yes, tainted. Did Lebron meltdown on his own? That's just sports. Maybe you have some inside info though, that could change things

[Texas Chuck]

Whose Chuck?

I'm everyone's Chuck.

[gottamakeit]

Whose Chuck?

You're boy, Texas Chuck