Chuck's Definitive List of NBA Champions Not Requiring Asterisk

Post #1 » by **Texas Chuck** » Fri Sep 17, 2021 7:33 pm

Lots of talk in recent days about which titles should have asterisks. So I have undergone an exhaustive research project and present you with an undisputed list of champions who should not have their achievement marred in any way by that peskiest of special characters: *

All teams not on the below list remain open for debate to be asterisked if you can justify it, but these must forever be excluded. You are welcome, but please attribute credit.

Spoiler:

Mickey8 · Post #2 » by **Mickey8** » Fri Sep 17, 2021 7:34 pm

Well Kobe was going nowhere until Stern gifted them Pau Gasol who was one of the best big men in the game at that time .

Karate Diop · Post #3 » by **Karate Diop** » Fri Sep 17, 2021 7:36 pm

There's a difference between putting an asterik next to a championship and arguing that a certain NBA champion in a given year clearly was not the best team in the league and only wound up on top at the end because of some fortunate / dubious breaks...

Post #4 » by **Texas Chuck** » Fri Sep 17, 2021 7:37 pm

Mickey8 wrote:Well Kobe was going nowhere until Stern gifted them Pau Gasol who was one of the best big men in the game at that time .

I'm sorry but both the 09 and 10 Lakers on are the list.

* Denied

mademan · Post #5 » by **mademan** » Fri Sep 17, 2021 7:41 pm

Karate Diop wrote:There's a difference between putting an asterik next to a championship and arguing that a certain NBA champion in a given year clearly was not the best team in the league and only wound up on top at the end because of some fortunate / dubious breaks...

health is part of the game. Should the Bucks title be under-appreciated because the Nets put together a team built out of glass or that the Lakers 2 best players are either frail or old?

Cavsfansince84 · Post #6 » by **Cavsfansince84** » Fri Sep 17, 2021 7:44 pm

I take offense to you putting an asterisk on the 71 Utah Stars title. You should be ashamed.

thebigbird · Post #7 » by **thebigbird** » Fri Sep 17, 2021 7:49 pm

mademan wrote:
Karate Diop wrote:There's a difference between putting an asterik next to a championship and arguing that a certain NBA champion in a given year clearly was not the best team in the league and only wound up on top at the end because of some fortunate / dubious breaks...

health is part of the game. Should the Bucks title be under-appreciated because the Nets put together a team built out of glass or that the Lakers 2 best players are either frail or old?

However much you appreciate a given title is a decision for you and you alone. It took the Bucks 7 games + overtime to beat a Kevin Durant without Kyrie and basically without James Harden. For that reason, I see them as one of the weakest champions of the past few decades. But, to each their own. It doesn’t really matter anyway

Johnny Bball · Post #8 » by **Johnny Bball** » Fri Sep 17, 2021 7:51 pm

Facts.

mademan · Post #9 » by **mademan** » Fri Sep 17, 2021 7:56 pm

thebigbird wrote:
mademan wrote:
Karate Diop wrote:There's a difference between putting an asterik next to a championship and arguing that a certain NBA champion in a given year clearly was not the best team in the league and only wound up on top at the end because of some fortunate / dubious breaks...

health is part of the game. Should the Bucks title be under-appreciated because the Nets put together a team built out of glass or that the Lakers 2 best players are either frail or old?

However much you appreciate a given title is a decision for you and you alone. It took the Bucks 7 games + overtime to beat a Kevin Durant without Kyrie and basically without James Harden. For that reason, I see them as one of the weakest champions of the past few decades. But, to each their own. It doesn’t really matter anyway

And it took the 08 Celtics 7 games to beat a very underwhelming Hawks squad. It took the 2010 Lakers 7 games to beat a Tmac-less/Yao-less Rockets. It took the 14 Spurs, a team many hype as one of the better champions this century, 7 games to beat a meh Mavericks team in the 1st round.

Teams struggle against other squads with less talent basically every year. Not many of them face a guy playing at a GOAT like level like KD either. People have a way of forgetting these struggles but then criticize the next squad that does it.

Karate Diop · Post #10 » by **Karate Diop** » Fri Sep 17, 2021 7:58 pm

mademan wrote:
Karate Diop wrote:There's a difference between putting an asterik next to a championship and arguing that a certain NBA champion in a given year clearly was not the best team in the league and only wound up on top at the end because of some fortunate / dubious breaks...

health is part of the game. Should the Bucks title be under-appreciated because the Nets put together a team built out of glass or that the Lakers 2 best players are either frail or old?

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.

JN61 · Post #11 » by **JN61** » Fri Sep 17, 2021 8:01 pm

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

HabsAndDubs · Post #12 » by **HabsAndDubs** » Fri Sep 17, 2021 8:03 pm

Karate Diop wrote:
mademan wrote:
Karate Diop wrote:There's a difference between putting an asterik next to a championship and arguing that a certain NBA champion in a given year clearly was not the best team in the league and only wound up on top at the end because of some fortunate / dubious breaks...

health is part of the game. Should the Bucks title be under-appreciated because the Nets put together a team built out of glass or that the Lakers 2 best players are either frail or old?

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 and their victory over Golden State. The Raptors for all intents and purposes were the NBA champions that year, but if there weren't multiple injuries to Golden State it's hard to see that being the outcome...

Why does this matter though? Who cares who the best team in 2019 is? Golden state lost the finals because they had two of their three best players injured, but that doesn’t mean they still didn’t lose. If hypotheticals mattered, we wouldn’t watch the games.

mademan · Post #13 » by **mademan** » Fri Sep 17, 2021 8:03 pm

Karate Diop wrote:
mademan wrote:
Karate Diop wrote:There's a difference between putting an asterik next to a championship and arguing that a certain NBA champion in a given year clearly was not the best team in the league and only wound up on top at the end because of some fortunate / dubious breaks...

health is part of the game. Should the Bucks title be under-appreciated because the Nets put together a team built out of glass or that the Lakers 2 best players are either frail or old?

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 and their victory over Golden State. The Raptors for all intents and purposes were the NBA champions that year, but if there weren't multiple injuries to Golden State it's hard to see that being the outcome...

1. Not a Bucks fan, but it's the most recent example. Nothing telling about it, lol
2. Kyrie is injury prone, KD is coming off an achilles injury and Harden spent the entire offseason doing nothing and coming to camp out of shape to make a point.
3. Lebron's made it look easy, but guys usually begin to fall apart after playing 100+ games every year. Few players can play that many games that long without suffering injuries. It's what usually happens to most dynasties including the Warriors. It took Wade a year and half of playing 100+ games to break down in the Miami Heat big 3 too. Wade's less durable than many of the Warriors guys, but it's what usually happens

Post #14 » by **Texas Chuck** » Fri Sep 17, 2021 8:03 pm

Cavsfansince84 wrote:I take offense to you putting an asterisk on the 71 Utah Stars title. You should be ashamed.

I agree this is one of the more controversial teams, but after researching them in depth they failed to make my list. However, I am nothing if not open-minded, so feel free to present your case and if compelling they can make the list. Got my pen ready:

Post #15 » by **Texas Chuck** » Fri Sep 17, 2021 8:05 pm

JN61 wrote:2011 needs asterisk. The biggest meltdown by NBA superstar in the league history.

Sorry, 2011 Mavs are on the list.

* Denied

dirkforpres · Post #16 » by **dirkforpres** » Fri Sep 17, 2021 8:05 pm

2006 deserves the biggest asterisk possible. There’s no debate

Pelon chingon · Post #17 » by **Pelon chingon** » Fri Sep 17, 2021 8:06 pm

*2002

GregOden · Post #18 » by **GregOden** » Fri Sep 17, 2021 8:06 pm

mademan wrote:
thebigbird wrote:
mademan wrote:
health is part of the game. Should the Bucks title be under-appreciated because the Nets put together a team built out of glass or that the Lakers 2 best players are either frail or old?

However much you appreciate a given title is a decision for you and you alone. It took the Bucks 7 games + overtime to beat a Kevin Durant without Kyrie and basically without James Harden. For that reason, I see them as one of the weakest champions of the past few decades. But, to each their own. It doesn’t really matter anyway

And it took the 08 Celtics 7 games to beat a very underwhelming Hawks squad. It took the 2010 Lakers 7 games to beat a Tmac-less/Yao-less Rockets. It took the 14 Spurs, a team many hype as one of the better champions this century, 7 games to beat a meh Mavericks team in the 1st round.

Teams struggle against other squads with less talent basically every year. Not many of them face a guy playing at a GOAT like level like KD either. People have a way of forgetting these struggles but then criticize the next squad that does it.

Also I think what's missing is some teams have to prepare for a long playoff run and thus keep to their rotations, whereas other teams that have less ambitions can cut their rotation down and let their starters go all out. It's not clear the Nets could win in the Finals even if they won game 7 if KD is gassed from playing 48 minutes a game the previous series and Harden is a statue that people have multiple games of tape to plan around now.

DreamTeam09 · Post #19 » by **DreamTeam09** » Fri Sep 17, 2021 8:08 pm

Karate Diop wrote:
mademan wrote:
Karate Diop wrote:There's a difference between putting an asterik next to a championship and arguing that a certain NBA champion in a given year clearly was not the best team in the league and only wound up on top at the end because of some fortunate / dubious breaks...

health is part of the game. Should the Bucks title be under-appreciated because the Nets put together a team built out of glass or that the Lakers 2 best players are either frail or old?

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 and their victory over Golden State. The Raptors for all intents and purposes were the NBA champions that year, but if there weren't multiple injuries to Golden State it's hard to see that being the outcome...

That Raptor team was the deepest squad in the league that year
Our frontcourt and overall depth was way better than GSW
GS had no answer for the Lowry Ibaka pick and roll
Raptors had the better coach imo
Raptors were also missing OG, another excellent 3+D guy who definitely would've impacted the game on both sides of the ball

DeMarcus cousins stole game 2 for the warriors

Karate Diop · Post #20 » by **Karate Diop** » Fri Sep 17, 2021 8:08 pm

HabsAndDubs wrote:
Karate Diop wrote:
mademan wrote:
health is part of the game. Should the Bucks title be under-appreciated because the Nets put together a team built out of glass or that the Lakers 2 best players are either frail or old?

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 and their victory over Golden State. The Raptors for all intents and purposes were the NBA champions that year, but if there weren't multiple injuries to Golden State it's hard to see that being the outcome...

Why does this matter though? Who cares who the best team in 2019 is? Golden state lost the finals because they had two of their three best players injured, but that doesn’t mean they still didn’t lose. If hypotheticals mattered, we wouldn’t watch the games.

It doesn't matter when it comes to arguing who the NBA champion was that year, it is relevant when discussing who the best team in the league was that year.

My point was that people who put asterisks on championships tend to confuse the two when they're not necessarily the same.

My personal belief is that short of cheating no championship should have an asterik next to it.