Should there be an asterisk next to the Lakers threepeat?

Should there be an asterisk next to the Lakers threepeat of 2000, 2001, and 2002?

The Spurs won the NBA title in 1999 and swept the Shaq-Kobe-Horry and Jackson coached Lakers 4-0, but then Duncan blew out a knee like in game #78 of the 82 game regular season in 2000 and had major knee surgery and didn't play in the 2000 playoffs. Also, in the 2001 playoffs and the 2002 playoffs in each of the Spurs last western conference round losses, Duncan's knee was giving out on him for the first time in each of those two seasons in 2001 and 2002 in the Spurs last round of the playoffs which led to the Spurs elimination from the 2001 and 2002 playoffs as Duncan hobbled around on one leg in those playoffs.

Finally, in 2003, Duncan's knee was healthy again for the first time throughout the entire playoffs and the 2003 Spurs again beat the Shaq-Kobe-Horry and Jackson coached Lakers without much of a problem as the Spurs went on to win the 2003 NBA title.

Duncan's knee = Lakers threepeat

Should there be an asterisk next to the Lakers threepeat?nba live 2008

Yeah!

They cannot do it if Tim Duncan is healthy.

Should there be an asterisk next to the Lakers threepeat?nba live 2005 ,nba teams

hell nah spurs would never compare to what the lakers where in those seasons we had KOBE SHAQ HORRY FISHER RICE FOX SHAW ETC..... ur just a sore loser like all spur fans!!! LAKERS FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!
I agree w/ 'calfan' that the Spurs title in 1999 should be the only championship that has an * next to it because of the strike shortened season. The 3-peat was completely legit and nobody should take away what Shaq accomplished during the Lakers' dynasty run.
Maybe there should be an asterisk everytime other team wins the title.

I'm putting the asterisk now,

2003: If Rick Fox and Devean George weren't injured.

2004: If the format were still 2-2-1-1-1

2005: If the refs don't call Ts on Rasheed

2006: If Dirk didn't sprained his ankle

2007: If Amare and Diaw were playing

The list could change every year.
No. Injuries are a part of sports. Should the Lakers give back the 1988 game when Isaiah Thomas sprained his ankle? Should the Bulls give back the 1991 championship because Byron Scott and James Worthy both went down with injuries in Game 3?
Doesn't matter what happened to Tim's knee the Lakers won. Could they have beat those Lakers...possibly yes. Could the Lakers have beat a healthy San Antonio...possibly yes. Either way I still think the Spurs were the better team since their core is still together dominating and winning rings, while the Laker core from that team couldn't stay together chemistry wise, which is part of being a great team, and in their last days together they were defeated multiple times. Also though that was a high powered and talented Laker team, I think they are giving more credit than due...they advanced in the playoffs against the Trailblazers and the Kings due to mainly poor game time coaching decisions...aside from those poor decisions by you guessed it ALDEMAN %26amp;DUNLEAVY....the Lakers were being handled by both the Kings and Blazers during that period.

SPURS are the team of the decade...but the Lakers did win those championships fair and square...and that's coming fom a true SPURS fan....unlike most Laker fans we can be fair and objective.
No, an asterisk isn't necessary because a player on another team was injured. The only NBA event involving the Spurs that could possibly require an asterisk would the 1999 Championship during the shortened regular season!!!
If Duncan is healthy Spurs might have won two of the three. 2002 Lakers beat a healthy Spurs. Next year they signed Manu and won that title. In '04, Derek Fisher hits the shot that shouldn't have counted (no one in the world can catch a ball turn around and shoot it in .4 seconds). In '05 Spurs win title. In '06, Manu commits stupid foul on Dirk at the end of the game. Now in '07 Spurs are champs again. If all those things went right for the Spurs this would be their 6th or 7th title.
Explain 2004. Maybe we need an asterisk by the Spurs 1999 cause Patrick Ewing never played in that post-season.

Maybe we put asterisks by Houston's 1994 and 1995 because Jordan was retired. Maybe asterisks by Bullets 79 and Lakers 80 because we all know that Portland Trailblazers would have won them if Bill Walton didn't injure himself again.

This is one of the stupid proposals ever made.
WHy would there be an asterisk just because a player got injured? That's gotta be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. It figures that its coming from arrogant Spurs fans.
If anything, there should be asterisk on the Spurs' first title, because the season was cut short because of the lock-out.
The 1998-1999 Lakers were led by Del Harris and Kurt Rambis, not Phil Jackson. Although, Del Harris did not make it to the playoffs as he was fired early in the season and Kurt Rambis took over. The Spurs (Tim Duncan) actually beat out the Lakers under an interim coaching staff. It would have been nice to see Tim Duncan go up against a Phil coached team in 1999-2000 but sometimes things just happen as it was bad decision making on behalf of the Spurs coaching staff to play #21's reconstructed knee for ALL 82 GAMES!!!

Lakers dominate at the turn of the new Millenium (that just sounds so beautiful, new Millenium Domination). It just took Duncan too long to heal completely, as we never got to see a healthy #21 against the Lakers during these years.
Nice one! They should put an asterisk next to each Lakers championship between 2000 to 2002. That's really not legit!
I'm most definitely not a Laker fan, but NO!

I hate the whole asterisk thing, it sucks that Duncan blew out his knee in 2000, but that is the breaks of the game.

We could easily say that the Heat should have an asterisk, because Amare blew out his knew last year and didn't play for the Suns, but why? Do we really think the Suns would have won it all? No!

A three-peat is phenomenal in this day in age, even with star players injured.