The Footnote Title

Padrino

All-Star
bill simmons just posted an interesting article about how we evaluate title runs after-the-fact, in light of recent injuries/circumstances that have re-shaped the 2012 nba playoffs. given that the kings haven't been a part of any of those kinds of postseason discussions in quite some time, i thought it'd be worth pointing out that simmons tips his hat sacramento's way on a couple of noteworthy occasions in his article:

"14. 2003 Spurs
What Happened: The champion Spurs featured Tim Duncan at his apex (playoffs: 24 games, 24.7 PPG, 15.4 RPG, 5.3 APG, 53% FG, 28.4 PER) and that's about it. David Robinson was just about washed up. Manu and Tony weren't totally Manu and Tony yet. The league itself was pretty diluted. Oh, and …

The Footnote: Sacramento's Chris Webber (23-10-5 and second-team All-NBA that year) tore knee cartilage in Round 2, knocking him out of the playoffs and mortally wounding San Antonio's biggest threat. (The Kings ended up losing to the upstart Mavericks in seven.) In the Western Finals, the Spurs caught a second break when Dirk Nowitzki injured his knee in Game 3, knocking HIM out for the playoffs.

The Verdict: For whatever reason, those Webber/Nowitzki injuries became historical blips and rarely get mentioned. My theory: After such an excruciating Finals (do you realize that New Jersey averaged just 82 points in those six games???), nobody wants to remember anything from those playoffs except for Duncan's 21/20/10/8 and the magnificent Steve Kerr Game. Regardless, all three teams in this category earned themselves a six-point Tahoma footnote and a complimentary knee brace."

"12. 2002 Lakers
What Happened: The Shaqobe Lakers whupped New Jersey for their third straight title, but not before surviving a seven-game war against Sacramento that was probably the closest anyone came to losing an NBA playoff series without actually losing it. If not for Horry's Game 4 dagger and a bunch of Game 7 breaks, the words "Maloofs" and "trophy" would have collided. And that's before we even tackle …

The Footnote: Game 6 of the Kings-Lakers series … quite simply, one of the biggest officiating travesties in any sport. You know it was bad when, years later, some Kings fan turned every shaky call into a 7:34 minute video accompanied by a Coldplay song. Six years later, that travesty gained a second life when Tim Donaghy (a convicted felon and someone who disgraced the sport more than this game ever did, but still) claimed Game 6 was rigged … but trust me, it was just as sketchy when it happened. Check out Roland Beech's breakdown for all the gory details, or you can even check out my 2002 reaction when I wrote, "from an officiating standpoint, the most one-sided game of the past decade … at least six dubious calls against the Kings in the fourth quarter alone … L.A. averaged 22 free throws a game during the first five games of the series, then attempted 27 freebies in the fourth quarter alone of Game 6 … rumors that David Stern wanted to pull a Vince McMahon and declare himself 'The special guest referee' for this game prove unfounded."9

The Verdict: I can't separate the 2002 title from Game 6's officiating. The Kings were hungrier that year; the Lakers were running on fumes because the Shaqobe relationship was running on fumes of their fumes' fumes. With that said … the Kings could have taken care of business in Game 7 at home and didn't. They only needed one more stop OR one more basket to win the game in regulation; in overtime, they were trailing by two in the final 70 seconds and botched three straight possessions to blow it. Those wide-open, season-killing bricks from Peja Stojakovic and Doug Christie shaped Sacramento's historical résumé as much as Game 6's shoddy officiating did."

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7883334/the-footnote-title
 
I really don't understand the argument that we could have won game 7 so it doesn't matter that we were completely screwed by the officials in game 6. You shouldn't have to win 5 games in a series to move on.
 
I really don't understand the argument that we could have won game 7 so it doesn't matter that we were completely screwed by the officials in game 6. You shouldn't have to win 5 games in a series to move on.

well, the entire thrust of simmons' article is, essentially, "**** happens." you can't control external forces that displace your chance at victory. but, for the '02 kings, they could control their performance in a horrid game 7. the series wasn't yet lost. they still had the home court advantage. if anything, simmons' article should help give still-ailing kings fans some perspective. we're not the only ones who've suffered. the kings had that ****er in the bag. simmons is right: the kings were hungrier. they were that team of destiny every fan of every sport hears about. had the kings won game 7, they would have risen above conspiracy theory and corruption, to a much loftier place in modern nba lore...
 
Last edited:
I really don't understand the argument that we could have won game 7 so it doesn't matter that we were completely screwed by the officials in game 6. You shouldn't have to win 5 games in a series to move on.

The point is that even after we were totally violated in game 6, we came back strong in game 7 and could/should have won. Yes, game 6 was a travesty but it wasn't the end of the end of the series. I understand what you're saying but we played strong in game 7 and lost it because of another Kings bugaboo - missed shots by good players at incredibly critical moments.
 
Back
Top