Let's Have us a Dynasty Debate

[joseephuss]

I don't believe dynasty can be mentioned unless a team has won at least 2 in a row. To be a dynasty you should have to defend your title.

That said, there is nothing about 4 Championships in 9 years to take lightly. So when I say they are not a dynasty it isn't an insult to them for what they have done. It is an elevation of what a Dynasty is.

The Atlanta Braves had a stretch of Division Championships that is unmatched. I think 14 straight years. To me, they are not a dynasty because the 2 World Series they won in that stretch were not back to back.

The Braves only won one World Series title.

Winning division titles is nice, but sometimes it is not an indication of greatness. The Braves were in a weak division for a long time. They really didn't have to do much to win the division. Getting to the championship series and winning multiple championship series and a WS title or two is the better accomplishment and more indicative of a great franchise.

The Spurs are a dynasty. The fact that they have not won back to back titles knocks them down a notch, but it is still a dynasty.

People have no problem seeing the Shaq and Kobe's Lakers as a dynasty for winning 3 straight. It was the Spurs that won the year before and the year after those same Lakers. It was the Spurs that beat the Pistons for a 3rd title. The same Pistons that beat Shaq and Kobe's Lakers.

You can have overlapping dynasties. Saying a franchise is a dynasty doesn't mean they are the top dynasty of their era. In the NBA, the Spurs and the Lakers are the last two dynasties. Both have had a hand in determining the champs of the league. If the ball bounces differently just a couple of times in any of their match ups then either team could have 1 or more titles. The debate to me isn't that both teams are dynasties, it is which is the greater dynasty.

It is funny to me that the Pistons get so much respect from the media. I see the so called experts give them so much credit for what they have done. They go to 5 straight Eastern Conference finals, two Finals and win one title and they get lots of love. Quite a list of accomplishments, but I would not say it was dominate or greatness.

I am a Rockets fan, but I don't see their back to back titles as team dynasty. That was just a good run. It was two different styles of play once they trade for Clyde and suspended Vernon Maxwell in 1995. They weren't in the Western Conference titles in years prior to winning in 1994 and only reached them once after 1995 with a drastically different team.

Dallas in the late 60 thru the early 80s is a dynasty. It wasn't just having 20 winning seasons, it was the level at which they were competing at the end of the season. They didn't just constantly flame out in the first round of the playoffs. They would finish as a final four team several times. Two titles and multiple 2nd place finishes, 3 in the SB and two losses to the Packers for the NFL title.

 

[Hostile]

The Braves only won one World Series title.

Winning division titles is nice, but sometimes it is not an indication of greatness. The Braves were in a weak division for a long time. They really didn't have to do much to win the division. Getting to the championship series and winning multiple championship series and a WS title or two is the better accomplishment and more indicative of a great franchise.

The Spurs are a dynasty. The fact that they have not won back to back titles knocks them down a notch, but it is still a dynasty.

People have no problem seeing the Shaq and Kobe's Lakers as a dynasty for winning 3 straight. It was the Spurs that won the year before and the year after those same Lakers. It was the Spurs that beat the Pistons for a 3rd title. The same Pistons that beat Shaq and Kobe's Lakers.

You can have overlapping dynasties. Saying a franchise is a dynasty doesn't mean they are the top dynasty of their era. In the NBA, the Spurs and the Lakers are the last two dynasties. Both have had a hand in determining the champs of the league. If the ball bounces differently just a couple of times in any of their match ups then either team could have 1 or more titles. The debate to me isn't that both teams are dynasties, it is which is the greater dynasty.

It is funny to me that the Pistons get so much respect from the media. I see the so called experts give them so much credit for what they have done. They go to 5 straight Eastern Conference finals, two Finals and win one title and they get lots of love. Quite a list of accomplishments, but I would not say it was dominate or greatness.

I am a Rockets fan, but I don't see their back to back titles as team dynasty. That was just a good run. It was two different styles of play once they trade for Clyde and suspended Vernon Maxwell in 1995. They weren't in the Western Conference titles in years prior to winning in 1994 and only reached them once after 1995 with a drastically different team.

Dallas in the late 60 thru the early 80s is a dynasty. It wasn't just having 20 winning seasons, it was the level at which they were competing at the end of the season. They didn't just constantly flame out in the first round of the playoffs. They would finish as a final four team several times. Two titles and multiple 2nd place finishes, 3 in the SB and two losses to the Packers for the NFL title.

The main reason the Rockets were not a dynasty is because almost everyone alive knows if Michael Jordan had not decided to play adult fantasy baseball they win 8 in a row.

I still say you have to defend a title to be a dynasty, not just win more than one over a period of time. That seems too arbitrary to me. For example the Patriots. They won their first title in 2001. In 2002 they missed the playoffs. Then in 2003 they won their 2nd Super Bowl. 2 in 3 years is really good, especially in the NFL where it is one and done. It wasn't until 2004 and that 3rd title in 4 years, and a defense of their title that the dynasty talk began.

I find it a little hard to see a dynasty in a team that missed the playoffs in between title runs, and who went to their first title on the interpretation of a stupid rule in the first place. It gets easier for me to see them as a dynasty because of how good the 2003 and 2004 teams were and the fact that they defended their title.

 

[Yeagermeister]

My Griz are a dynasty.......of suckage

 

[peplaw06]

You may be boring and unoriginal, but don't ever let anyone say you're not consistent.

 

[Mavs Man]

I think three championships in five years is a much more convincing argument than four in nine, and should be enough to consider SA a dynasty with this last title.

Right now, in terms of NBA dynasties in the past 20 years you have to rank them as follows:

1. 90s Bulls
2. 80s Lakers
3. 00s Lakers
4. Spurs
5. 80s Celtics
6. 90s Pistons
7. 90s Rockets

But, until they win consecutive championships there will continue to be critics.

 

[Danny White]

I don't know about Dynasty... the word is too subjective.

If you're listing the Showtime Lakers and the Bird Celtics as dynasties, then I'd include the Spurs as one as well. But if you choose to employ a very strict definition of dynasty, then I can respect that as well. When you hear Popvich and Duncan interviewed, they seem to say that outside of Russell's Celtics and the old UCLA teams, there aren't many other clear dynasties.

I will observe, though, that before the playoffs I called the Spurs a "top 5 franchise" in the history of the NBA and I was pretty roundly mocked here.

How does that look now? I'd argue that I have a pretty strong argument.

I think this win places the Spurs firmly in front of franchises like the Knicks, and the Pistons... and in the "top 5" debate with teams like Philadelphia and the old Minneapolis Lakers.

The only franchises they're obviously behind are the Celtics, the Lakers and the Bulls.

 

[joseephuss]

I don't know about Dynasty... the word is too subjective.

If you're listing the Showtime Lakers and the Bird Celtics as dynasties, then I'd include the Spurs as one as well. But if you choose to employ a very strict definition of dynasty, then I can respect that as well. When you hear Popvich and Duncan interviewed, they seem to say that outside of Russell's Celtics and the old UCLA teams, there aren't many other clear dynasties.

I will observe, though, that before the playoffs I called the Spurs a "top 5 franchise" in the history of the NBA and I was pretty roundly mocked here.

How does that look now? I'd argue that I have a pretty strong argument.

I think this win places the Spurs firmly in front of franchises like the Knicks, and the Pistons... and in the "top 5" debate with teams like Philadelphia and the old Minneapolis Lakers.

The only franchises they're obviously behind are the Celtics, the Lakers and the Bulls.

Based on some of the opinions here Bird's Celtics would not be a dynasty. They didn't win back to back championships.

The showtime Lakers won in 1980, 1982, 1985 and 1987. They didn't win back to back until they got their 5th title in 1988. They were considered a dynasty before that happened.

The Dolphins of the early 70s are considered a dynasty by going to 3 straight Superbowls and winning two in a row. Quite a feat, but I don't consider those teams better than the Cowboys of the 70s. The same Cowboys that went to 5 SBs in the 70s and beat the same Miami team in one of them.

There just are different levels of dynasties. It would be difficult to expect any pro franchise to have the type of huge dynasty of a past era. Each league is much larger than in past eras and that makes it difficult to go on historical runs like the Yankees and Celtics of the past.

Or how about the UCLA Bruins? There are just many more teams to contend with now in order to win it all. A 64(65) team tournament makes it more difficult to continue winning. The more games brings about the great chance for an upset. Instead of winning 6 games to be champ, teams in the 60s had to win 4 games.

Plus talent is more distributed. There will probably never be a team like UCLA that just had all the great players. They are in every school now and some leave for the NBA.

New dynasties fall under newer definitions.

 

[carphalen5150]

The Spurs are definitely a modern day dynasty IMO. With the constant turnover of teams with FA and trades it is good to see a team that keeps a core and puts a run together like this. They do not look like they are going to slow down anytime soon either. I know Bowen and Horry are up there in age, but Popovich has shown the ability to make moves to strengthen the team from the bottom of the draft and some key FA signings. Also, it is a very desireable location for a vet at the end of his career. I mean not only is it a nice place to live by all accounts, but you know year in and year out you have a shot at the title.

 

[Mavs Man]

I don't know about Dynasty... the word is too subjective.

If you're listing the Showtime Lakers and the Bird Celtics as dynasties, then I'd include the Spurs as one as well. But if you choose to employ a very strict definition of dynasty, then I can respect that as well. When you hear Popvich and Duncan interviewed, they seem to say that outside of Russell's Celtics and the old UCLA teams, there aren't many other clear dynasties.

I will observe, though, that before the playoffs I called the Spurs a "top 5 franchise" in the history of the NBA and I was pretty roundly mocked here.

How does that look now? I'd argue that I have a pretty strong argument.

I think this win places the Spurs firmly in front of franchises like the Knicks, and the Pistons... and in the "top 5" debate with teams like Philadelphia and the old Minneapolis Lakers.

The only franchises they're obviously behind are the Celtics, the Lakers and the Bulls.

IMO, the 'top 5 franchise' statement was met with so much criticism due to comparing franchise history moreso than franchise success. I wouldn't consider the Denver Broncos or New England Patriots as top five NFL franchises. And yet, in the past 20 years those two teams have combined for 10 Super Bowl appearances and six championships; by comparing franchise success, a serious argument could be made for their inclusion.

In the same way, the Spurs definitely belong in the top five when talking about franchise success. Their four championships and winning tradition puts them in a select group, but as far as franchise history people first think of the Celtics, Lakers, Bulls (but only recently), Sixers, Knicks, and Pistons before they think Spurs.

Even so, that's only six teams ahead of the Spurs (and all in top 10 metro markets), and if they continue in the next decade having the success they've enjoyed since drafting David Robinson, the generation growing up now will put the Spurs in that class.

On that note, Boston and New York need serious help. They are killing those franchises.

 

[MC KAos]

i think it all depends on your definition of a franchise, in your definition peplaw, there have only really been 4 dynasys in the nba, the mikan minneapolis lakers, the russell celtics, the magic showtime lakers and the jordan bulls. I dont think there is any way that you can say that the success the lakers with shaq had is more impressive than the sucess that dunca's spurs have had. i mean in the next 9 years, what would you rather have your mavs do? win 4 championships, make it to the playoffs every year and be a contender, or win three in a row, four finals in five years, and then just start sucking ***?? i think its clear that the spurs have surpassed that team for this era, even derek fisher has admitted so, and they are STILL gonna be a top 3 contender for the next 2 years at least, and from what tony parker has been able to achieve and the way we draft, sign players, we should conted beyond that. I know im getting ahead of myself here but in my opinion the spurs 4 chips have surpassed the lakers 3. specially concidering the spurs were favored to win it all in 00 and tim duncan got hurt before the playoffs started and we lost in the first round, and then sean elliot, our third best player, had to get a kidney transplant. Im not arguing wether or not the spurs are a dynasty, because that all depends on your defenition, but the spurs have for sure surpassed the recent lakers and the bird celtics and if you concider them dynastys, the spurs are a dynasty as well.

as for the spurs being a top 5 franchise, of course they are!! what makes the knicks or sixers better?i mean if your saying its historically, then what did the bulls do before jordan to be a top 5 team? i can argue the spurs have been succesful all throughout their history, they have missed less playoffs than you have fingers on your right hand, and even before we were in the nba, we were contenders for aba titles. how can you say that a franchise with all thsoe credentials, also the fourth most titles and the second best winning percentage is not a top five team? if i was 70 years old, i would sure as hell have my team do what the spurs have done than what the sixers, knicks, and pistons have accomplished

 

[Mavs Man]

as for the spurs being a top 5 franchise, of course they are!! what makes the knicks or sixers better?i mean if your saying its historically, then what did the bulls do before jordan to be a top 5 team? i can argue the spurs have been succesful all throughout their history, they have missed less playoffs than you have fingers on your right hand, and even before we were in the nba, we were contenders for aba titles. how can you say that a franchise with all thsoe credentials, also the fourth most titles and the second best winning percentage is not a top five team? if i was 70 years old, i would sure as hell have my team do what the spurs have done than what the sixers, knicks, and pistons have accomplished

I don't know what else to say that I haven't already said. Outside of this state, do you really think people think Spurs before East and West coast teams? I didn't say it's based on success, just history or "status" (perhaps a better word). If it's wins, or titles, or great players, of course the Spurs are top five. But it's an East Coast/West Coast league, which is probably why even Detroit and Chicago are further down the list of teams. It's like in the NFL - the Cowboys, Commanders, Steelers, 49ers, and Packers are still the class of the league.

I did note that the Bulls are only a recent development, but it's going to take more than four titles in nine years to surpass Jordan and Da Bulls. Sorry, just the truth. Win a couple more and you have no argument from me, though.

 

[MC KAos]

I don't know what else to say that I haven't already said. Outside of this state, do you really think people think Spurs before East and West coast teams? I didn't say it's based on success, just history or "status" (perhaps a better word). If it's wins, or titles, or great players, of course the Spurs are top five. But it's an East Coast/West Coast league, which is probably why even Detroit and Chicago are further down the list of teams. It's like in the NFL - the Cowboys, Commanders, Steelers, 49ers, and Packers are still the class of the league.

I did note that the Bulls are only a recent development, but it's going to take more than four titles in nine years to surpass Jordan and Da Bulls. Sorry, just the truth. Win a couple more and you have no argument from me, though.

thats true, but i thought our argument was solely based on what happens on the court not, like you said, the "status" of the teams. i never ment to say the spurs are more successfull than the bulls, i was just stating a case against what i thought was your argument, but what IS other peoples arguments, about the spurs only being a "recent" success.

 

[Mavs Man]

thats true, but i thought our argument was solely based on what happens on the court not, like you said, the "status" of the teams. i never ment to say the spurs are more successfull than the bulls, i was just stating a case against what i thought was your argument, but what IS other peoples arguments, about the spurs only being a "recent" success.

That's why I tried to separate the two. In terms of what the franchise has accomplished from the 70s through today you have to put them in the discussion, but they get dismissed many times because they aren't historically one of the teams you think of. But that could and probably will change as today's fans grow older and consider them a great NBA team compared to teams like the Celtics and moreso the Knicks and Sixers (all of which have done next to nothing in the past 20 years, but at least the Celtics won 16 titles in a 30 year span).

 

[zrinkill]

You may be boring and unoriginal, but don't ever let anyone say you're not consistent.

Sounds like someone got their little feelings hurt ......

I just love the jealousy and bitterness of people who hate my team ....... sorry that applies to you in this instance.

Now go play woulda, coulda, shoulda, with the Sun fans ...... while we enjoy our 4th Championship :laugh2:

 

[peplaw06]

i think it all depends on your definition of a franchise, in your definition peplaw, there have only really been 4 dynasys in the nba, the mikan minneapolis lakers, the russell celtics, the magic showtime lakers and the jordan bulls. I dont think there is any way that you can say that the success the lakers with shaq had is more impressive than the sucess that dunca's spurs have had. i mean in the next 9 years, what would you rather have your mavs do? win 4 championships, make it to the playoffs every year and be a contender, or win three in a row, four finals in five years, and then just start sucking ***?? i think its clear that the spurs have surpassed that team for this era, even derek fisher has admitted so, and they are STILL gonna be a top 3 contender for the next 2 years at least, and from what tony parker has been able to achieve and the way we draft, sign players, we should conted beyond that. I know im getting ahead of myself here but in my opinion the spurs 4 chips have surpassed the lakers 3. specially concidering the spurs were favored to win it all in 00 and tim duncan got hurt before the playoffs started and we lost in the first round, and then sean elliot, our third best player, had to get a kidney transplant. Im not arguing wether or not the spurs are a dynasty, because that all depends on your defenition, but the spurs have for sure surpassed the recent lakers and the bird celtics and if you concider them dynastys, the spurs are a dynasty as well.

I definitely think the Shaq and Kobe Lakers were a dynasty. They could have had many more titles had they been able to put the team ahead of their egos. They couldn't, Shaq got traded, and then they started sucking. They still make the playoffs almost every year though. They're a dynasty, one that could have been one of the best of all-time and fell short of that, but still a dynasty.

And I never considered Bird's Celtics a dynasty. A very good team for sure, but not a dynasty. There's no shame in falling just short of being a dynasty... and the Spurs may indeed get there. Next year if they win, there's no argument IMO. But defending that title is just that important IMO.

 

[peplaw06]

Sounds like someone got their little feelings hurt ......

I just love the jealousy and bitterness of people who hate my team ....... sorry that applies to you in this instance.

Now go play woulda, coulda, shoulda, with the Sun fans ...... while we enjoy our 4th Championship :laugh2:

The consistency continues. Way to contribute to the debate... :laugh2:

 

[zrinkill]

The consistency continues. Way to contribute to the debate... :laugh2:

You know what ..... after going back and reading what I have written, I was being a jerk.

I allowed what other Mav fans (offsite) have been saying to effect how I have been answering you.

I would like to make a public apology to you and Mavsfan for my conduct and hope we can go back to rooting for the Boys together at least until next basketball season.

My sincere apologies.

zrin

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

And only 2 Modern day teams facing the same type of athletes have done it ....

This is called sour grapes ...... Suns and Mav fans are the only ones trying to make these lame arguments .....

I guarantee that if the Mavs were good enough to accomplish what the Spurs have .... you would be calling them the team of the last decade and a Dynasty.

you do realize how bitter this makes you look, right?

I am neither a suns or a mavs fan.

Not really an NBA fan since the mid 80s through the mid 90's

Suffered through Jordan and the bulls getting beat by the pistons, than the bulls finally getting over the hump and quit watching while they were still winning championships. Just could not keep watching the NBA for the way I viewed how some players got away with anything and others would get called for anything...and those players being no the same team.

So my point is I am not skewed because of what you may classify as the only people who do not see it as a dynasty.

When the Spurs win next season, if they win which I think they will, than I think that will remove any doubt as to them having a dynasty. Win a back to back championship and with the other wins they already have nobody can argue with it no matter how hard they try.

But that is just one guys, unbiased, opinion.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I don't really view the 99 Spurs as an extension of the current team either. That was a much different team, as was mentioned earlier. I would probably say that they are a dynasty, or at least as close as you will get in this day and age. I don't believe they compare with the Lakers of Shaq and Kobe but they deserve to be recognized for there 3 in 5, which to me, is much more impressive then 4 in 9. Those Shaq and Kobe Laker teams were better IMO, then these Spurs teams but that's a different discussion all together. Anymore, the league is just too watered down. You rarely see two good teams playing in the finals anymore. It happens but more often then not, you get one good team and one not so good team. The 80s really were a golden age for Pro Basketball IMO.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

I don't know about Dynasty... the word is too subjective.

If you're listing the Showtime Lakers and the Bird Celtics as dynasties, then I'd include the Spurs as one as well. But if you choose to employ a very strict definition of dynasty, then I can respect that as well. When you hear Popvich and Duncan interviewed, they seem to say that outside of Russell's Celtics and the old UCLA teams, there aren't many other clear dynasties.

I will observe, though, that before the playoffs I called the Spurs a "top 5 franchise" in the history of the NBA and I was pretty roundly mocked here.

How does that look now? I'd argue that I have a pretty strong argument.

I think this win places the Spurs firmly in front of franchises like the Knicks, and the Pistons... and in the "top 5" debate with teams like Philadelphia and the old Minneapolis Lakers.

The only franchises they're obviously behind are the Celtics, the Lakers and the Bulls.

Since I was one who argued with you on the top 5...I will now conceded. They won the title this year and that puts them up there. Now go and win next year , giving you back to back titles, and I will include Dynasty to your team.