PDA

View Full Version : 1998-1999 Season, who would have won NBA Title if there was a full season?



JordansBulls
03-01-2009, 01:46 AM
In the 1998-1999 Season, who would have won NBA Title if there was a full season?


Yes, we already know that San Antonio beat the Knicks in the Finals in the 1998-1999 Season.

We know that season was 50 games long, but had it been a regular season of 82 games, who would have won the Title?

Also does a shorter season have a greater impact on a veteran team or lesser impact?

What I mean by that is: Is it easier for a veteran team to get in their groove with a shortened season or regular season length?

Jaji
03-01-2009, 01:57 AM
The Pacers would have and should have. Who remembers Larry Johnson's foul, 3 steps to the left, 2 steps to the right, all without taking one dribble, 3 pointer and a fould in the deciding game in the ECF? They killed the Pacer dynasty before it even got started because they would have easily won at least the next 5 titles. :D

KB24PG16
03-01-2009, 02:02 AM
i think its a tossup between utah and the lakers

superkegger
03-01-2009, 02:05 AM
I'll still go with the Spurs.

IDB Josh M
03-01-2009, 02:10 AM
Utah. Malone and Stockton would have had way more playing time, and gotten hardened under the season, Kenny anderson and Damon Stoudemire would have fatigue set in. Malone and Stockton would be too much for "The Twin Towers."

lakers4sho
03-01-2009, 02:29 AM
Utah vs. Indiana showdown

JordansBulls
03-01-2009, 03:11 AM
Utah vs. Indiana showdown

That's exactly what I was expecting.

Hell even an Indiana vs San Antonio would have been great. I hated seeing New York against the Spurs because I knew they had no chance without Ewing. They didn't have the big men to deal with Duncan and Robinson.

abe_froman
03-01-2009, 03:14 AM
still think spurs woulda won,but pacers did have a good team

superkegger
03-01-2009, 03:18 AM
I think the Bulls had a good shot too....I mean they were the reigning world champs, and so often I see people say that the reigning champs are the best team until they're knocked off as world champs, so logic would tell you.....

ARMIN12NBA
03-01-2009, 03:21 AM
I think the Bulls had a good shot too....I mean they were the reigning world champs, and so often I see people say that the reigning champs are the best team until they're knocked off as world champs, so logic would tell you.....

:laugh:

lakers4sho
03-01-2009, 03:24 AM
I think the Bulls had a good shot too....I mean they were the reigning world champs, and so often I see people say that the reigning champs are the best team until they're knocked off as world champs, so logic would tell you.....

:laugh: :laugh:

dre1990
03-01-2009, 03:29 AM
Miami Heat or Pacers. Maybe Jazz

Joshtd1
03-01-2009, 03:34 AM
Homer pick, still going with us. Our defense was nasty that year

superkegger
03-01-2009, 03:36 AM
Homer pick, still going with us. Our defense was nasty that year

You're a homer.

(though I voted for the spurs too, IJCH)

BlondeBomber41
03-01-2009, 08:33 AM
The playoffs were still normal format, and the Spurs beat everyone they were put up against.

The Spurs went 15-2 in the playoffs to win that title, they absolutely dominated. If you really think 30 more regular season games would of somehow made another team so much better that they could beat the Spurs, or somehow the Spurs would be worse after 30 more games, you are freakin high.

JordansBulls
03-01-2009, 10:04 AM
The playoffs were still normal format, and the Spurs beat everyone they were put up against.

The Spurs went 15-2 in the playoffs to win that title, they absolutely dominated. If you really think 30 more regular season games would of somehow made another team so much better that they could beat the Spurs, or somehow the Spurs would be worse after 30 more games, you are freakin high.

I think what saved them was that they avoided Utah that season out west and avoided Indiana or Miami in the east. They could have still won, but no way in hell they sweep or beat any of those teams in 5 games.

Hawkeye15
03-01-2009, 01:07 PM
Spurs. But Utah was awesome too

18colts29
03-01-2009, 01:13 PM
I'm thinking Indiana would of played the Spurs in the Finals, we had a beast team. Not sure who would of won, but it would of not been a sweep, pluse went to the finals the next year.

NYstateofMinD
03-01-2009, 02:25 PM
That's a big what if because we can't predict injuries, or recoveries. What if the Knicks had Ewing? Who knows point is the Spurs won.

The Answer3
03-01-2009, 06:12 PM
Anyone thinks the Lakers would've had a chance had they not waived Rodman? Sure, he was a headcase but he was still playing at a high level and averaged around 12 boards that season. Not to mention, Rodman would've been key in keeping the "twin towers" away from dominating. That was also the season where Kobe became an all-star caliber player. Also had Glen Rice that year averaging 18 PPG. I expected the Lakers to win. They also went through some coaching changes that year. Team wasn't all that great defensively which was probably the reason for them not winning.

To answer the question, the Spurs would've still won. They dominated in the playoffs losing only twice to the Knicks and Minny. Jazz were getting up there in age and Stockton wasn't as effective as he was a couple of years ago. You should remember the Jazz struggled to beat the Kings in the 1st round. They also had an advantage due to some questionable officiating in game 4 that led to Stockton nailing the gamewinner and game 5 went to OT where the entire Kings' line up choked. In the east, I'd pick the Pacers to come out on top.

CHief_0_o_Wahoo
03-01-2009, 06:18 PM
I went with the Pacers.

The Panch
03-01-2009, 11:15 PM
I went with Reggie and the "Flying Dutchman" Rik Smiths, they were beasts.

Testaverde16
03-01-2009, 11:37 PM
I say Utah.... maybe the shortened season is the reason those great teams were unable to win a championship....

JordansBulls
03-02-2009, 12:04 AM
I'm thinking Indiana would of played the Spurs in the Finals, we had a beast team. Not sure who would of won, but it would of not been a sweep, pluse went to the finals the next year.

That series would have gone 7 IMO. I wonder who would have had the better record had they played a full 82 games? Heck even Utah and San Antonio had the same record that year.

xanderyear
03-02-2009, 11:17 AM
I think it would've been the spurs and pacers in the finals. Smits and Reggie were on a tear that season, along with a young Jalen Rose and Chris Mullin, and the Davis's. Would've been an excellent match up.

MAC10TIZZY
03-02-2009, 11:36 AM
the magic duh!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CHief_0_o_Wahoo
03-02-2009, 12:20 PM
I went with Reggie and the "Flying Dutchman" Rik Smiths, they were beasts.

Yeah Rik Smits was good. Add in Miller, Mullin and Rose got a solid team.

todu82
03-02-2009, 12:27 PM
Yeah, I think the Spurs would have still won.

JordansBulls
03-02-2009, 01:00 PM
the magic duh!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They did still have Penny at the time.
:)

JayW_1023
03-02-2009, 01:35 PM
I think we would've still won. Twin Towers were just dominant defensively.


I don't think a washed up Dennis Rodman would've been a difference lol...

king4day
03-02-2009, 01:57 PM
Ewing probably doesn't break his wrist (I think that was when he did it). So I'll say the Knicks.

Afridi786
03-02-2009, 01:58 PM
Chicago.

/thread

what54!?
03-02-2009, 01:59 PM
The heat would have come out on top!!! naw :pity:

I'll go with the knicks witha healthy Ewing

RodmansBulls
03-02-2009, 04:29 PM
I would have to say Pacers or Jazz

drama1386
03-02-2009, 04:48 PM
i'd still go with the spurs.

JordansBulls
03-02-2009, 10:52 PM
Ewing probably doesn't break his wrist (I think that was when he did it). So I'll say the Knicks.

But wasn't he hurt mainly the year before as well?