if Cleveland beats GSW to win NBA does GSW 2015 chip get an asetrisk

[Ogaju]

since Cleveland was without 2 of their big three?

[Roy H.]

Only if we're putting asterisks next to any champion whose path was made easier due to injury. That would be a lot of asterisks.

[footey]

Lakers without Bynum in 2008.  Do we have an asterisk on our championship?

[86MaxwellSmart]

No....But The Spurs 40-1 Home record Should have one---Since they Lost TWO games at home in the playoffs--!

[86MaxwellSmart]

Lakers without Bynum in 2008.  Do we have an asterisk on our championship?

Bynum was a Nobody in 2008---and I hardly think he would have any effect on that 39 point BLOWOUT-!....Plus, we got screwed in 2010--Lakers should have an asterisk for all those 4th quarter Free Throws the league Gave them.

[dannyboy35]

I'm no gambler but I thought the cavs were gonna knock the Warriors off and after seeing the series I do believe that to be the case. It's why I'll root for the cavs to beat the warriors. It's one thing to lose a player but your 2nd AND 3rd best players is extreme.

[Ogaju]

Only if we're putting asterisks next to any champion whose path was made easier due to injury. That would be a lot of asterisks.

point taken, no asterisk, but it is worth mentioning when you compare the two teams over the course of multiple seasons. Example, if Cleveland were to beat GSW this year and lets say next year as well, will it not be worth mentioning that the only series GSW won was that without Irving and Love?

[Ogaju]

Lakers without Bynum in 2008.  Do we have an asterisk on our championship?

actually considering that they beat us when they had Bynum a couple of years later it is always worth mentioning that when we beat them they did not have him.  I still believe Rivers was lucky to win that one championship in Boston.

[PhoSita]

So I suppose the 08 Celts get an asterisk since the Lakers -- who went on to win championships the next two seasons -- were without Bynum.

[csfansince60s]

I'm no gambler but I thought the cavs were gonna knock the Warriors off and after seeing the series I do believe that to be the case. It's why I'll root for the cavs to beat the warriors. It's one thing to lose a player but your 2nd AND 3rd best players is extreme.

So you feel bad for the Caves and think they should have won? Bad Luck,Huh?

Kind of the opposite of the luck that gave them 2 of those 3 players by getting the number one pick about ten years in a row? And got Bron Bron there because they had all those assets from pure ****' luck?

Screw them.

[incoherent]

Absolutely.  It already has an asterisk.  The first thing anyone says when this is brought up is Love and Irving not playing.

No finals team in my memory has ever lost their 2nd and 3rd best player. Probably did happen long ago but definitely not in the 2000-2016 seasons.

To further the OPs point, there is no way people would not be saying "When both teams were healthy the Cavs won".  It would literally be the first thing every nba writer will put out the day after if the Cavs did beat GSW in a rematch.

[incoherent]

I'm no gambler but I thought the cavs were gonna knock the Warriors off and after seeing the series I do believe that to be the case. It's why I'll root for the cavs to beat the warriors. It's one thing to lose a player but your 2nd AND 3rd best players is extreme.

I agree with this so much.

In 2008 Bynum was clearly the Lakers 4th best player behind Kobe/Gasol/Odom.  Losing your 4th best player is massively different then your 2nd and 3rd.

[Cman]

since Cleveland was without 2 of their big three?

No. Think about all the sports titles that are riddled with asterisks. It is part of the nature of sports.

[LarBrd33]

I really hope we see a rematch.  Steph vs Lebron would be so much fun.  I say winner should get the lead in Space Jam 2.

[Ogaju]

 

So I suppose the 08 Celts get an asterisk since the Lakers -- who went on to win championships the next two seasons -- were without Bynum.

Yes, but only because we had a subpar coach.