Discussion in 'Sports Zone' started by WoodysGirl, Jul 20, 2014.
Post the Spurs great debate here..
I'd probably rank the all-time basketball dynasties as:
1 - 1999 - 2014 Spurs
2 - 1927 - 2014 Globetrotters
3 - 1956 - 1974 Celtics
i know its not a popular opinion, but i think the celtics run is a little bit overrated. there were only 8 teams in the league back then, it was a completely different league before the merger. id rank NBA teams as so...
1) Lakers (far and away the better franchise IMO)
2)Celtics (closer to 3 than 1 IMO)
if i could give them some sort of "power level" or way to show how much better one franchise is than the other, id say we start with the lakers at 100
or something along those lines.
I agree. I made the same point here: http://cowboyszone.com/threads/nba-free-agency.292386/page-20#post-5598154
But, that was just me being a "blind homer." But, you can only play who is lined up against you, so if we're discounting that, I'd rank them similar to you. Honestly, I'd probably switch the Bulls and Spurs because 6 titles in 8 years against that level is absurd.
I would rather not compare across giant eras because of how much the game/league/sport is different. So, I'd just say that the Celtics were the best in the first 50 years, and then rank from the 70s and on. Showtime is #1, and it's not close. Then fill in however you want behind them.
yup, i think we should look at it just like we look at football, no one really looks at titles before the merger in the NFL, you only hear about super bowl titles. i think everything before the aba/nba merger is in a different era, a different, league. thats how i think of it, maybe its because of my youth, but to me the lakers are far and away the best franchise because they have far and away the most titles since the merger.
All-time Basketball Dynasties
I have to agree. Like you said, the NBA was only 8 teams back then. But there are a lot of factors. There was no 3 point line, there was no shot clock so teams would just run the time out if they had a lead, there were no black players right before Bill Russel's time, and a lot of other things. Not to mention, the NBA wasn't even clearly the best professional league. It was one of a number of leagues. A few teams came over to the NBA from other leagues and won the NBA championship their first year joining. Things did, however, start to become a little more competitive during Bill Russel's career. Teams started to be added to the league, more modern rules were enforced, the color barrier was broken, players were better athletes. But it was still nothing compared to today. Even if you take away the Lakers 5 championships in Mikan's era, they still won 11 in some of the most competitive years in NBA history. The Celtics only won 6 after Russel's time and only 3-4 were in real competitive eras.
Just out of boredom, I compiled the number of titles per team since the NBA/ABA merger of 1976. The first unofficial post-merger champion is the Blazers of 1976-77 under star Bill Walton. Also, that year Kareem Abdul won MVP. Here are the results:
*Note: The Wizards were the Washington Bullets and the Thunder were the Seattle Supersonics
The Bulls have 1 more title, but since the Merger the Spurs and the Lakers have the best franchise winning %. The Bulls had a nice 8-10 year run, but aside from that, they have been mostly mediocre. The Spurs however, have been consistently good for nearly 4 decades, only 6 losing seasons and only 4 missed playoff appearances in 38 years. Prior to Jordan, the Bulls were crap after the merger. Even after they got Jordan, they were a sub .500 team until the late 80s. Then, once they won their 6th and broke up the team, the Bulls went on a 5-6 year run of complete suckage. They finally got somewhat respectable over the last 8 years or so, but far from Championship competitor.
What the Bulls did was impressive.....but that was on the short term. Over the long haul, their franchise just doesn't add up to what the Spurs have accomplished. I put the Spurs at 3 and it isn't as close as you guys think. After this season, look for the Spurs to move from 2 to 1 in all time regular season winning %. If they are able to add #6 to that as well, then any debate about the Bulls being better than the Spurs will be moot and quite frankly dead.
after that, who really gives a rats.
I agree with you on the Spurs ahead of the Bulls for the reasons you gave. However, like the previous poster said, the Celtics' success may be a little overblown. It's not to discredit their rich history, but it's crazy to not acknowledge the differences in the NBA between then and now. When people think of the greatest NFL franchises, they don't think include the Cleveland Brown are Detroit Lions (who were some of the winningest franchise in history prior to the NFL/AFL merger). To me, everything George Mikan's Lakers and Bill Russel's Celtics did prior to 1976 was comparable to what Otto Graham's Browns and Bobby Layne's Lions did prior to 1967. You can make an argument for NBA in the late 60s/early 70s because things began to modernize and get more competitive before the official merger, but even that was after Bill Russel's reign.
If you ask me, the Celtics had a great decade in the 80's with Larry Bird where they made 5 Finals in 7 years, winning 3. However, they weren't even the most impressive team in the 80s. The Lakers made 9 championships in 12 years (spilling into the 90s), winning 5. The Celtics did compile a "big 3" in more recent years, having 4-5 relevant seasons, making 2 Finals, and winning 1. But it's still hard to argue the Celtics post-merger over the Bulls. Celtics went 4 for 7 in the NBA Finals, and the Bulls went 6 for 6. The Celtics did have more winning seasons since the merger than the Bulls (I'd have to look up the official numbers), but I don't think that's enough to put them ahead of the Bulls.
I'll put the Celtics over the Bulls if you're willing to put the Lions and Browns on par with the Patriots and Cowboys.
Out of more boredom, I felt like doing more than just titles won since the merger, so I did titles won/played since the 38 years of the merger (in order of most NBA Finals played in):
Thunder 1/4 (previously known as Sonics)
Wizards 1/2 (previously known as Bullets)
My listing was ranking the best runs - that's why I had the Bulls 90s streak above San Antonio's. But franchises as a whole (since the merger), yeah, San Antonio is over Chicago, in my opinion. But, the list is still:
And that's a huge gap between 1-2
Great points, all around.
I'd still take that Bulls team of that 8 year run over any team the Spurs, or any other team, have had in my lifetime. That's mostly due to the fact that head to head the Bulls, IMHO, would always have the advantage because they had the greatest player of all time on those teams during that run.
But as you said it was a short 8 year run compared to some very consistent play for a longer period of time from other teams.
Long but good for all Spurs fans
Spurs hire Becky Hammon as NBA's first paid female assistant coach. Pretty cool move. Will be interesting to see what type of role she's given, although I'm sure it's nothing more than the ones given to Ime Udoka and other ex-players looking to get into coaching. A chance to be around it all from a bench perspective.
She's a class act all the way around. Glad to see her get this gig.
Go spurs go!!
more on becky hammon: