Small markets vs Eastern (NY) writers writing? Read on: The Knicks' two championships are still the stuff of lore. The Spurs' two? It's no coincidence that among the worst champions over the past 25 years, according to ESPN.com, two are from Houston and San Antonio. http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/spurs/story.cfm?xla=saen&xlb=211&xlc=1013152 Buck Harvey: The worst champions? Take a look back San Antonio Express-News Web Posted : 06/17/2003 12:00 AM They brought David Thompson into San Antonio on Sunday as one of those NBA legends on parade, and he paraded out a less-than-legendary theme. "It's really kind of boring to see the game being played this way," Thompson told reporters after watching the Nets and Spurs. "When a team has trouble scoring 33 points in a half, that's pretty ridiculous. And I think fans of basketball don't like watching it." Others have happily chimed in. The Spurs are either the worst champions ever, or their superstar has the worst personality ever, or their coach has the worst wardrobe ever (the last one is tough to argue). "Where have you gone, David Thompson?" a newspaper columnist asked after Sunday's game. "A sport with no shot, zero finesse and even less excitement turns its lonely eyes to you." Thompson, after all, once scored 73 points in a game all by himself, in 1978, and the Nets struggled to do the same Sunday. But go back to those days of glory, when Thompson was stuffing baskets, as well as cocaine up his nose. The NBA was so exciting in the late '70s that television put it on tape delay. The sport was as dead then as Kenyon Martin was driving on two 7-footers Sunday. Only when twin saviors named Bird and Magic arrived the next year did things change, followed by Jordan and the invention of the $150 sneaker. Thus began unprecedented commercial windfall, and Jordan's mass appeal obscured everything, including what happened Sunday. Then Tim Duncan put on one the greatest performances in league history, combining the best of anyone in any era, and yet a large portion of America chose to see it as boring. Zero finesse? Legendary hooey. David Stern has a problem with his product, all right, but it's with perception. Much of his audience somehow sniffs at a 19-0 fourth-quarter title run. Everyone instead longs for the days when the NBA was sexier than Jim Furyk with his cap off. But, again, go back to those days and take a look. Go back to Jordan's final championship in Chicago. In 1998 neither the Bulls nor the Jazz scored more than 100 points in any of their Finals games. The Spurs and Nets combined for some ugly hoops at times, all right. But how's this for a score that no doubt kept America on the edge of its seat: Chicago 96, Utah 54. The scores weren't any higher the year before when the Bulls and Jazz also played, and 1996 was more telling. Is there a great difference between Bulls 87, Sonics 75 in that clinching Game 6, as opposed to Spurs 88, Nets 77 in theirs? To the large markets, there is. Asked last weekend if this is the beginning of a Spurs' dynasty, New York columnist Mike Lupica said, "Oh God, I hope not." Good line. But if Duncan were a Knick, Lupica and his big-city brothers would hail Duncan as perhaps the greatest big man ever after winning his second title by the age of 27. The Knicks' two championships are still the stuff of lore. The Spurs' two? It's no coincidence that among the worst champions over the past 25 years, according to ESPN.com, two are from Houston and San Antonio. These Spurs can't be as good as the other champions, right? They only won 60 games in the best conference, then pulled out four tight series, beating the three-time defending champs in the process. Sunday night didn't change many minds. "New Jersey was stuck on 72 points for a yawn-inducing stretch of 51/2 minutes in the fourth quarter," a columnist wrote, "when the Spurs went on an overwhelming 19-0 run, as the Nets looked on without a clue." This yawn-inducing stretch started with Manu Ginobili stripping Richard Jefferson at mid-court, as slick a swipe as anything Jordan ever did. There's also a reason Martin and the other Nets didn't have a clue. They kept finding Duncan and David Robinson waiting at the rim, and blocked shots, when done by those in bigger cities, can be exciting. "The dreadfully decaffeinated NBA playoffs," a New York columnist wrote, "are nothing more or less than the logical conclusion to what the NBA game has become ? the minimalist, motionless game that reflects modern coaching mindsets that boil games down to games of two-on-two or one-on-one." Jordan spent a career going one-on-one. Duncan spent a postseason going mostly one-on-two. But that's the way it is. Ratings don't lie, even if poor memories do. Eventually America might appreciate Duncan and those around him, but until then San Antonio has no choice but to take what is there. Another boring. Awful. Yawn-inducing. Title.
Hmmm... to me, the magic of a Championship is not about who shows themselves to be the most dominant team.. It's about heart, it's about do-or-die, it's about magic, impossible miracles, and destiny.. While many ignorant people have demonstrated they have no understanding or appreciation of Houston's two NBA Championships, in MY mind, there has never been a greater playoff run than the Houston Rockets drive to the title for the 2nd time. I have never before or since seen such heart-pounding magic, so many from-the-brink-of-the-abyss miracles, so many come-from-behind-against-impossible-odds gut-checks, or ever seen so many complete strangers come together and cheer in pure joy . Funny thing is now - even when the Rockets win their next championships, I don't see how anything the team ever does could ever top the feelings of that second title run. Not that we won't love it, but how on Earth can they top it? Ah well.. it'll be fun to watch them try... ciao
It certainly isn't about gaining the approval of some NY blowhard writer either. Nothing against you xiki, but I've gotten over the whole "Rockets get no respect" perception a long time ago. It just doesn't bother me anymore. We won 2 championships and I don't care what some fishwrap hack from NY or anywhere else thinks about it.
You know, if you take a positive review by a New York sports writer, roll it up, and wrap it around your finger, it kind of looks like a ring.
Couldn't have said it any better, myself. A ring is a ring is a ring--especially when one comes AGAINST a "big market" team.
That's a good article. And it brings up some good points. Most notably, if all the championships were played by and won by NY and LA, they'd all be the "greatest" championships ever ... well, according to NY & LA anyway. Personally, I thought that almost-quadriple-double by Tim Duncan was masterful. Not to mention his entire playoff run.
The point of the article really is something like, 'There's no champion like a New York champion, no champion I know'. I posted the article to show how this whole lack of respect thing (for SA, for Rox) is typical of all teams not anointed by the few, the loud, the arrogant.
the thing is, it IS boring bball. those bulls scores they mentioned were a different type of bball. the NBA made all of these rule changes to up scoring and yet these 2 teams couldn't hit a shot for L O N G stretches. a 19-0 run is great, but no championship team should ever allow that to happen. i wont say that these spurs are the worst champs by any means, but the way they won it takes a little bit of luster off the trophy (IMHO). God, I just hope that JVG doesn't bring in slowdown bball a la Fratello's Cavs teams.
Most can't understand that. They only look at the total points, not how those points were scored (style of play; offensive philosophy) Spurs problem? Lack of outside shooters. Nets? Need more scoring options. Also, if your star scorer is a post player, then you'll play more a half-court game. At least the Rockets have both (backcourt and frontcourt) this time around: Francis and Yao.
Do you actually believe that New York loves LA, just because they are LA? NO. It's about Shaq and his overpowering dominance that gets good ratings. The people just want to see him. Same with Yao (yet to write his name in history).
It's interesting we associate Fratello's Cav's with boring, low-scoring play. At their worst those Cavs averaged 88 points a game during the season as I remember. This year, the Nuggets average less than 84 a game. As times continue to change it seems we're heading to even slower paced "boring" games. It all goes back to the mid 1990s when players started coming out very early.
It was boring! I didn't even bother to watch it and only spurs and nets fans tuned in. I'm sure spurs fans didn't think it was boring since they won.
Oh, come on, it was boring as hell. That's the first Finals that I've watched less than half the games since the 92. I watched the first, then didn't again until 6. If those two were representative, which they seem to have been, the quality of basketball was awful. The Spurs, to me, are an almost identical replica of the 93-94 Rockets. The only difference: 1. I don't like the Spurs and 2. Tim Duncan isn't as graceful or as good of a shot blocker as Hakeem but can rebound a bit better. The Spurs had 1 great player, two decent ones, and a few "useful" guys. The Nets had one almost-great player, two decent Eastern conference players, and fewer "useful" players. Neither was exactly The Lakers circa 2000. Or the Bulls circa 1996. Or The Celtics circa 1986. Or any # of teams. It was a bad year. Maybe next year Webber won't get hurt. Maybe Dallas will learn to play defense. I really wish that the SA papers would stop confusing "deserving title winners" with "great team that's fun to watch." They're not the same damned thing.
Well, at least that shows how far the NBA has suffered over the last few years. As younger and younger players come in, we'll see this type of play. No matter how good their natural athletic ability. By the way, what skill do you think Rich Jefferson practiced most of his youth? I guess he didn't think that shooting was very important. He's a good example of what kids think is "cool" and "exciting." In the end, it degrades the game.
If you take a positive review by a New York sports writer, wad it up, and throw it in the garbage, it looks like trash. Of course, the same thing can be said if you just leave it as is.
Good article. It pointed out the stupidity or bias of NY writers ... but its conclusion reveals the sad fact: "Ratings don't lie, even if poor memories do. " Right or wrong, the bottom line is that people just don't watch these players/ these teams. You need a combination of marquee players, big market teams or high scoring, exciting games. I imagine the NBA and David Stern are waiting for the day the Rockets play in the finals. Yao Ming may not be a top 10 player but his draw is certainly top-notch.
