OT Champions with asterisks

[Orion Bailey]

So lots of talk about teams not being legit if they beat others without thier best players or key players.

If Portland advances out of the first round, how many people will have an asterisk on it because Murray is out?

if we run up against utah after that with Mitchel out and we win the series, does it get an asterisk?

In previous playoffs/finals:

lakers beat miami last yer without bam. Asterisk?

toronto beat GS without durant. Asterisk?

gsw beat houston without chris paul to get to the finals. Asterisk?

Some say if dgreen isnt suspended for gMe seven they win against cleveland.
Asterisk?

we beat the clippers who had players go down with injuries in the series. Asterisk?


Well this year our Blazers are healthy aNd most teams we may face are not.

So im curious. If we win and go deep is it because the other teams had injuries? Or is it because we are just better?

conversly how does your answer above align with the question below?

With us having our 2nd and 3rd best players out for most of the season, does that mean the teams who beat us should have an asterisk as well?

and if so, could we possibly be much better than anyone outside of Barkley and kingspeed thought when healthy?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Obviously, any team who beats the Blazers gets an asterisk since presumed starting PF Zach Collins has been out all year.

 

[Fairly-Hard]

Kind of a loaded question. This is going to parlay into "Injury Excuse" and then it will become a thread about Stotts. Does he even deserve credit?

 

[Orion Bailey]

Obviously, any team who beats the Blazers gets an asterisk since presumed starting PF Zach Collins has been out all year.

it doesnt work so well when you nail the point for me!

 

[Orion Bailey]

Kind of a loaded question. This is going to parlay into "Injury Excuse" and then it will become a thread about Stotts. Does he even deserve credit?

only a loaded question if taking you are taking the answer down an irrelevant path.
This isnt a thread anout coaching or stotts. Unless you think we dont have wnough of those?

This is about wins and losses and what is considered legit vs not.

since our coach has been here through both regardless the coach is not part of the equation on this topic.
Its about injured players and how game results are viewed in that context.
I used to be of the opinion that injuries dont matter and we beat the clips fair and square regardless of their two best players going down.

But my tune has been changing based on what I've seen of the Blazers this year.
Most teams who lose their 2nd and 3rd best players get a pass but it doesn't seem many feel the Blazers should have that pass this year.

So its got me wondering...

 

[Chris Craig]

Sure. Put an asterisk there. But, a win is a win. I would rather win a championship with an asterisk than to not win one at all.

 

[Chris Craig]

The Blazers get who they get. It's not their fault if that team is missing players due to injury. Same with any of the examples you listed.

It sucks. You want to see teams go at each other full force in the playoffs, but it is what it is. Blazers still have to try to take advantage of it. Denver isn't going to roll over because they don't have Murray though. It's still going to be a fight.

 

[Strenuus]

The Blazers get who they get. It's not their fault if that team is missing players due to injury. Same with any of the examples you listed.

It sucks. You want to see teams go at each other full force in the playoffs, but it is what it is. Blazers still have to try to take advantage of it. Denver isn't going to roll over because they don't have Murray though. It's still going to be a fight.

Murray being out is pretty much why people consider this to be a pretty even match-up. I could see this going 7 again, easy.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

LA Dodgers 2020: Never seen a bigger asterisk in my life!

 

[Orion Bailey]

Sure. Put an asterisk there. But, a win is a win. I rather win a championship with an asterisk than to not win one at all.

The Blazers get who they get. It's not their fault if that team is missing players due to injury. Same with any of the examples you listed.

It sucks. You want to see teams go at each other full force in the playoffs, but it is what it is. Blazers still have to try to take advantage of it. Denver isn't going to roll over because they don't have Murray though. It's still going to be a fight.

nah. Not needed.
My real point is rhat it seems like a team always have an issue or two and so most rings mad won games should have an asterisk if that were the case.
But then i look at this season and think how can we not use injuries aS an asterisk for our earlier losses.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Murray being out is pretty much why people consider this to be a pretty even match-up. I could see this going 7 again, easy.

not everyone is saying that though.
I listened to the radio to work and on the way home and they were saying we should tKe this. Mayne not easily but it really shouldn't go seven.

But hey. At least you didn't claim it as a fact, so at least there is that!

 

[Strenuus]

not everyone is saying that though.
I listened to the radio to work and on the way home and they were saying we should tKe this. Mayne not easily but it really shouldn't go seven.

But hey. At least you didn't claim it as a fact, so at least there is that!

When it's this evenly matched I don't understand how people say "oh, we should take this" nah... any game could go either way. A random ass player could get hot... we are portland after all. We have a great track record of letting random players have career nights.

Remember Houston? Troy Daniels? And I think this year it's even more evenly matched. So to say it's a foregone conclusion that Portland takes it... nah.

 

[Orion Bailey]

When it's this evenly matched I don't understand how people say "oh, we should take this" nah... any game could go either way. A random ass player could get hot... we are portland after all. We have a great track record of letting random players have career nights.

Remember Houston? Troy Daniels? And I think this year it's even more evenly matched. So to say it's a foregone conclusion that Portland takes it... nah.

This is where i think facts verses opinions is possibly confusing?

see i never said its a fact it will be easy.
It may very well be difficult.
See these are opinions.

mine is that we will win easily in five but 3 of the five games will be tough and one we get blown out in. So to me it wont really be easy when detailing it out. But im two years if/when people see it as a 4-1 defeat. It will look easy.

but again. Thanks for at least not claiming your stance as factual.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Asterisks don't come via injury, generally.

They come via horrible ref calls, that shift the momentum or change the course.

Or things like playing in a Bubble in Orlando. Lockout shortened season.

The teams that have asterisks are the Spurs in the shortened season due to the lockout. The Lakers last year and the L*kers team that got all the help against Sacramento in the WCFs. You could probably make a case for the L*kers team that beat the Blazers in the 2000 WCFs as well.

 

[SIeepwalker]

People forget about those asterisk after a few year. All that's left in the record books in who won it all

 

[Charcoal Filtered]

Collins is almost always out so I do not see that as a legitimate excuse.

Until we are competitive against a team that has a chance at winning a title, the criticism is justified IMO.

 

[wizenheimer]

if all it takes for an * is a timely injury to a single opposing player, most champions would have an *....especially by fans of the other team

in the case of Portland vs Denver, yeah, the Nuggets would be stronger if they had Murray. And if Barton and Dozier are out as well...ok the Blazers got lucky.

the biggest * I can remember was attached to the Laker team that the officials essentially gifted a series win over the Kings. A slightly smaller * is attached to the Miami team that won in 2005, because Dallas players couldn't even look at DWade without getting whistled. Series was tied at 2-2, and then, the officials took over and sent Wade to the FT line 46 times in the final 2 games; Miami won both games by a total of 4 points

I'd say this though: it's better to advance with an asterisk than to exit without one

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

People forget about those asterisk after a few year. All that's left in the record books in who won it all

Sez Roger Maris…….

 

[handiman]

Asterisks don't come via injury, generally.

They come via horrible ref calls, that shift the momentum or change the course.

Or things like playing in a Bubble in Orlando. Lockout shortened season.

The teams that have asterisks are the Spurs in the shortened season due to the lockout. The Lakers last year and the L*kers team that got all the help against Sacramento in the WCFs. You could probably make a case for the L*kers team that beat the Blazers in the 2000 WCFs as well.

Those are assterisks.

 

[e_blazer]

One day a large asteroid will strike the earth and wipe away all asterisks and everything else whined about by humans since the dawn of time. Such is the relative importance of asterisks vs. asteroids.

 

[Phatguysrule]

So lots of talk about teams not being legit if they beat others without thier best players or key players.

If Portland advances out of the first round, how many people will have an asterisk on it because Murray is out?

if we run up against utah after that with Mitchel out and we win the series, does it get an asterisk?

In previous playoffs/finals:

lakers beat miami last yer without bam. Asterisk?

toronto beat GS without durant. Asterisk?

gsw beat houston without chris paul to get to the finals. Asterisk?

Some say if dgreen isnt suspended for gMe seven they win against cleveland.
Asterisk?

we beat the clippers who had players go down with injuries in the series. Asterisk?


Well this year our Blazers are healthy aNd most teams we may face are not.

So im curious. If we win and go deep is it because the other teams had injuries? Or is it because we are just better?

conversly how does your answer above align with the question below?

With us having our 2nd and 3rd best players out for most of the season, does that mean the teams who beat us should have an asterisk as well?

and if so, could we possibly be much better than anyone outside of Barkley and kingspeed thought when healthy?

Every team beats somebody with injuries in the playoffs. You have to be lucky AND good to win the championship.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

KD’s Warriors are the only asterisk champs IMO.

 

[BonesJones]

So lots of talk about teams not being legit if they beat others without thier best players or key players.

If Portland advances out of the first round, how many people will have an asterisk on it because Murray is out?

if we run up against utah after that with Mitchel out and we win the series, does it get an asterisk?

In previous playoffs/finals:

lakers beat miami last yer without bam. Asterisk?

toronto beat GS without durant. Asterisk?

gsw beat houston without chris paul to get to the finals. Asterisk?

Some say if dgreen isnt suspended for gMe seven they win against cleveland.
Asterisk?

we beat the clippers who had players go down with injuries in the series. Asterisk?


Well this year our Blazers are healthy aNd most teams we may face are not.

So im curious. If we win and go deep is it because the other teams had injuries? Or is it because we are just better?

conversly how does your answer above align with the question below?

With us having our 2nd and 3rd best players out for most of the season, does that mean the teams who beat us should have an asterisk as well?

and if so, could we possibly be much better than anyone outside of Barkley and kingspeed thought when healthy?

Yeah you're looking at this wrong.

People bringing up Portland beating a lot of injured teams during their late season run are simply saying not to read too much into it in terms of expecting playoff success. Also, you have a lot of people still on the result=good coaching train with no context, so they need context added for them. The context being: The Blazers could play a poor style of basketball and still win off talent because other teams were missing their talent. They could beat Denver playing a poor style of ball too, Denver isnt built to exploit it.

The ENTIRE point when it comes to coaching and beating injured teams: The Blwzers havent consistently shown that they can play a good style of basketball that'll give them a chance against true contenders, and that is what Stotts should be evaluated on. Has nothing to do with asterisks.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Yeah you're looking at this wrong.

People bringing up Portland beating a lot of injured teams during their late season run are simply saying not to read too much into it in terms of expecting playoff success. Also, you have a lot of people still on the result=good coaching train with no context, so they need context added for them. The context being: The Blazers could play a poor style of basketball and still win off talent because other teams were missing their talent. They could beat Denver playing a poor style of ball too, Denver isnt built to exploit it.

The ENTIRE point when it comes to coaching and beating injured teams: The Blwzers havent consistently shown that they can play a good style of basketball that'll give them a chance against true contenders, and that is what Stotts should be evaluated on. Has nothing to do with asterisks.

Bones, not sure if you caught my other post but im not talking aBout coaching. So im not sure how i could be looking at this wrong?

This is irrelevant of coaching.

im just asking if teams get an asterisk or not when winning against a team with top players out due to injury.
What the opinions are, regardless of who is the coach of said teams.

Plenty of coaches threads. This is not one.

Im just asking if injuries deserve an asterisk or not.

 

[BonesJones]

Bones, not sure if you caught my other post but im not talking aBout coaching. So im not sure how i could be looking at this wrong?

This is irrelevant of coaching.

im just asking if teams get an asterisk or not when winning against a team with top players out due to injury.
What the opinions are, regardless of who is the coach of said teams.

Plenty of coaches threads. This is not one.

Im just asking if injuries deserve an asterisk or not.

Oh, I read this...

"So lots of talk about teams not being legit if they beat others without thier best players or key players"

...as you making a point against the people that have been mentioning how the Blazers have gotten away with playing team after team with a star or two injured during their hot stretch that others are reading a lot into, so my response was based on that interpretation. My bad for misinterpreting.

 

[Ed O]

Asterisks don't matter, if they even exist. Health is something that winners almost always rely on, and very few really good losing teams are ever at full strength.

 

[Tince]

I don't believe there's much value in putting asterisks on things, except this thread....

http://www.sportstwo.com/threads/this-is-the-worst-blazer-team-i-have-seen-in-my-lifetime.360756/

 

[Orion Bailey]

Oh, I read this...

"So lots of talk about teams not being legit if they beat others without thier best players or key players"

...as you making a point against the people that have been mentioning how the Blazers have gotten away with playing team after team with a star or two injured during their hot stretch that others are reading a lot into, so my response was based on that interpretation. My bad for misinterpreting.

all good. Dont read into it. Its just that. Ive heard alot of talk not just on this forum about teams beating teams with star players out.
Im kinda on the fence as to whether champs should have an asterisk or not. So I'm just looking for other takes is all.
For example. If the blazers beat denver without murray, Lakers without ad and utah without mitchell snd we win it all, would that be an asterisk considering how many injuries we had this season, or would it be legit?

 

[JoshuaHall]

So lots of talk about teams not being legit if they beat others without thier best players or key players.

If Portland advances out of the first round, how many people will have an asterisk on it because Murray is out?

if we run up against utah after that with Mitchel out and we win the series, does it get an asterisk?

In previous playoffs/finals:

lakers beat miami last yer without bam. Asterisk?

toronto beat GS without durant. Asterisk?

gsw beat houston without chris paul to get to the finals. Asterisk?

Some say if dgreen isnt suspended for gMe seven they win against cleveland.
Asterisk?

we beat the clippers who had players go down with injuries in the series. Asterisk?


Well this year our Blazers are healthy aNd most teams we may face are not.

So im curious. If we win and go deep is it because the other teams had injuries? Or is it because we are just better?

conversly how does your answer above align with the question below?

With us having our 2nd and 3rd best players out for most of the season, does that mean the teams who beat us should have an asterisk as well?

and if so, could we possibly be much better than anyone outside of Barkley and kingspeed thought when healthy?

If we advance it’s not an asterisk, but in regards to saving Stotts job it should be a consideration, depending on how that series goes. Struggle with a Murray-less Nuggets and then get swept in the next round... vs Sweep the Nuggets and competitive / win in the next round. Sweep then struggle also isn’t very promising.


Same answer as above with Murray for Mitchell. You’re not talking about low end rotation players. You’re talking about arguably the #1 guy on both teams. (I’d need to look at Murray usage vs Jokic but that’s why I said arguably, no question Jokic is the better player though.) and not sure about Conley.

No, the Lakers still had to make it out of the West.
No, Raptors still made it out of the East.
No
No
No

the difference is, we face teams in the first round who are severely injured. We win, then we get dominated.

other teams face injured teams in the finals ... after beating multiple healthy teams to get there.

So if we beat a weakened Nuggets, a weakened jazz, then get dog walked (per usual) by the first healthy team we face... I’ll say yup, probably benefited from injuries. If we smash all the teams we play and then the Nets lose Durant and Irving, nah, no asterisk. Even if *I think they’d win* healthy, we proved we belonged by beating all the teams we did to get to the dance in the first place.

Clippers series isn’t comparable to the rest at all. We won after **all their good players got hurt** then got dog walked in the next round. You bet that’s an asterisk. You know what isn’t an asterisk? Getting bombed by a New Orleans Pelicans team.

and what the hell does us missing players during the regular season have to do with the post season?

yea we were probably better than a 6 seed but what gives

why would us missing players in January matter to who we are playing right now

odd question


And Zach doesn’t even compare to the players listed so that’s laughable

 

[JoshuaHall]

it seems like you really want this to be black and white and not contextual at all

if every team we play is missing their best player, how is that not an asterisk?

conversely if we run into one team missing their best player and still win a chip — no, not an asterisk.

It also appears you’ve changed your point from playoff series to “champs” in the last couple posts.