peplaw06
That Guy
- Messages
- 13,699
- Reaction score
- 413
Alright, I was watching Sports Reporters this morning and they said something that caught my attention. John Saunders said something to the effect of, "The San Antonio Spurs are this generation's basketball dynasty."
Got me to thinkin... You know how I get in trouble when I go thinkin... but I think the Spurs "dynasty" needs some clarification -- if it is indeed a "dynasty."
Now most of you know I am not a Spurs fan, and obviously, were I a Spurs fan, I would never be making a post like this. But I would like to ask in advance that you keep this on topic. This is about the Spurs, not the Mavs or the Lakers or any other team. Speaking for myself, I won't be addressing any off-topic shots at any other team. You Spurs fans love your team, you have just won the title, you don't have to tear other teams down to prop yours up.
First question, what do you do with 1999? I actually think including that season makes the dynasty look weaker. 3 out of 5 sounds a lot better to me than 4 out of 9. The team in '99 looked a lot different than the 2003 team (the next team to win the title). Tim Duncan, David Robinson, Malik Rose, and Steve Kerr were the only guys on both the '99 and '03 teams. Robinson retired after that '03 season, and was basically a shell of his former dominant self. He had a nagging back injury, and that was the only season where Robinson averaged less than 10 points per game. Robinson is a class guy, and it was good to see him go out on top, but thems the facts. Rose and Kerr were role players, but were arguably smaller parts of the '99 team than the '03 team. Well arguably with Kerr, he averaged about the same number of points and 3Ps per game, but he was never a huge part of those championship teams. Rose was definitely more a part in '03 than in '99. So you have Duncan and Greg Popovich who are the only real constants over the '99 to '07 championship teams.
Then, another thing that raises questions about including '99 is the fact that there was a dynasty in between the '99 and '03 Spurs teams. The Lakers won 3 in a row, and were no doubt a dynasty in the early part of the decade. Can dynasties overlap? Doesn't the definition of a dynasty in and of itself depend on the fact that no other dynasty reigns while yours is going?
And I'm not going to argue the strike-shortened season made that one any less meaningful. I don't think that's a blip on the radar. The '99 Spurs still had to win 15 games once the playoffs started.
So if you take out the '99 season, which as I said makes the "dynasty" look stronger, you have 3 championships in 5 seasons and no overlapping Lakers dynasty. Looks much more like a dynasty to me. Then you have continuity in the main players. Duncan was obviously still there. Tony Parker started 83 games in '03, and Manu Ginobli was an important bench player. Bruce Bowen also started all 82 that season. Four BIG parts of the team over the past 5 seasons, and you have Popovich still there.
But is 3 out of 5 a dynasty? Dynasty in its literal meaning, typically requires some type of sequence or succession. I'm sure you can argue there are different types of dynasties, but one thing I think a dynasty MUST have is a repeat championship.
The great dynasties over the years, or the ones that are "no doubt" dynasties are as follows:
1) Minneapolis Lakers -- 1949 to 1954; 5 titles in 6 seasons, including 3 in a row from '52 to '54.
2) Boston Celtics -- 1957 to 1969; 11 titles in 13 seasons, including 8 in a row from '59 to '66.
3) Los Angeles Lakers -- 1980 to 1988; won 5 titles in 9 seasons, including back to back titles in '87 and '88.
4) Chicago Bulls -- 1991 to 1998; won 6 titles in 8 seasons, including two threepeats from '91 to '94 and '96 to '98. Without the retirement of Jordan, they may have had 8 in a row.
5) Los Angeles Lakers -- 2000 to 2002; won 3 titles in a row.
The '80s Lakers dynasty is what the Spurs could be compared to. 5 in 9 compares to 4 in 9, but the teams to win in between, were the Celtics 3 times (not in a row, in '81, '84, and '86) and the Sixers once. With the 2000-2002 Lakers in the mix, I think you have to look at the Spurs from '03 to '07 as winners of 3 out of 5 who have yet to repeat.
We all know how hard it is to repeat. And I think there is something to be said for the Spurs inability to do so as of yet. I don't know if they "sneak up" on teams, since they have won so many, but when you're the defending champs, everyone is gunning to knock you out, and there's a little extra juice there. Could this change? Sure it could, as soon as next season. But until then, I don't consider the Spurs to fit the definition of a dynasty, as long as you are operating under what seems to be the historical definition of a dynasty.
I think the word dynasty gets thrown around a lot, because it sells papers and draws in viewers. But if you look at the definition, I don't think it fits.
And I definitely don't consider them "this generation's basketball dynasty..." yet.
OK, bring it.:fight:
Got me to thinkin... You know how I get in trouble when I go thinkin... but I think the Spurs "dynasty" needs some clarification -- if it is indeed a "dynasty."
Now most of you know I am not a Spurs fan, and obviously, were I a Spurs fan, I would never be making a post like this. But I would like to ask in advance that you keep this on topic. This is about the Spurs, not the Mavs or the Lakers or any other team. Speaking for myself, I won't be addressing any off-topic shots at any other team. You Spurs fans love your team, you have just won the title, you don't have to tear other teams down to prop yours up.
First question, what do you do with 1999? I actually think including that season makes the dynasty look weaker. 3 out of 5 sounds a lot better to me than 4 out of 9. The team in '99 looked a lot different than the 2003 team (the next team to win the title). Tim Duncan, David Robinson, Malik Rose, and Steve Kerr were the only guys on both the '99 and '03 teams. Robinson retired after that '03 season, and was basically a shell of his former dominant self. He had a nagging back injury, and that was the only season where Robinson averaged less than 10 points per game. Robinson is a class guy, and it was good to see him go out on top, but thems the facts. Rose and Kerr were role players, but were arguably smaller parts of the '99 team than the '03 team. Well arguably with Kerr, he averaged about the same number of points and 3Ps per game, but he was never a huge part of those championship teams. Rose was definitely more a part in '03 than in '99. So you have Duncan and Greg Popovich who are the only real constants over the '99 to '07 championship teams.
Then, another thing that raises questions about including '99 is the fact that there was a dynasty in between the '99 and '03 Spurs teams. The Lakers won 3 in a row, and were no doubt a dynasty in the early part of the decade. Can dynasties overlap? Doesn't the definition of a dynasty in and of itself depend on the fact that no other dynasty reigns while yours is going?
And I'm not going to argue the strike-shortened season made that one any less meaningful. I don't think that's a blip on the radar. The '99 Spurs still had to win 15 games once the playoffs started.
So if you take out the '99 season, which as I said makes the "dynasty" look stronger, you have 3 championships in 5 seasons and no overlapping Lakers dynasty. Looks much more like a dynasty to me. Then you have continuity in the main players. Duncan was obviously still there. Tony Parker started 83 games in '03, and Manu Ginobli was an important bench player. Bruce Bowen also started all 82 that season. Four BIG parts of the team over the past 5 seasons, and you have Popovich still there.
But is 3 out of 5 a dynasty? Dynasty in its literal meaning, typically requires some type of sequence or succession. I'm sure you can argue there are different types of dynasties, but one thing I think a dynasty MUST have is a repeat championship.
The great dynasties over the years, or the ones that are "no doubt" dynasties are as follows:
1) Minneapolis Lakers -- 1949 to 1954; 5 titles in 6 seasons, including 3 in a row from '52 to '54.
2) Boston Celtics -- 1957 to 1969; 11 titles in 13 seasons, including 8 in a row from '59 to '66.
3) Los Angeles Lakers -- 1980 to 1988; won 5 titles in 9 seasons, including back to back titles in '87 and '88.
4) Chicago Bulls -- 1991 to 1998; won 6 titles in 8 seasons, including two threepeats from '91 to '94 and '96 to '98. Without the retirement of Jordan, they may have had 8 in a row.
5) Los Angeles Lakers -- 2000 to 2002; won 3 titles in a row.
The '80s Lakers dynasty is what the Spurs could be compared to. 5 in 9 compares to 4 in 9, but the teams to win in between, were the Celtics 3 times (not in a row, in '81, '84, and '86) and the Sixers once. With the 2000-2002 Lakers in the mix, I think you have to look at the Spurs from '03 to '07 as winners of 3 out of 5 who have yet to repeat.
We all know how hard it is to repeat. And I think there is something to be said for the Spurs inability to do so as of yet. I don't know if they "sneak up" on teams, since they have won so many, but when you're the defending champs, everyone is gunning to knock you out, and there's a little extra juice there. Could this change? Sure it could, as soon as next season. But until then, I don't consider the Spurs to fit the definition of a dynasty, as long as you are operating under what seems to be the historical definition of a dynasty.
I think the word dynasty gets thrown around a lot, because it sells papers and draws in viewers. But if you look at the definition, I don't think it fits.
And I definitely don't consider them "this generation's basketball dynasty..." yet.
OK, bring it.:fight:
