The greatest NBA dynasty of all time is...

[TampaDude]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bill-russells-celtics-were-great-tim-duncans-spurs-have-been-better/

:hat

[Mitch]

No repeats, no dynasty.

[TampaDude]

No repeats, no dynasty.

The facts disagree with your personal opinion.

[Mitch]

The facts disagree with your personal opinion.

No they don't

Full Definition of DYNASTY

1
: a succession of rulers of the same line of descent

2
: a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time

[TampaDude]

No they don't

Full Definition of DYNASTY

1
: a succession of rulers of the same line of descent

2
: a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time






Fool, did you even read the article?

[Mitch]

Fool, did you even read the article?

Article = Opinion and skewed statistics to support opinion

Facts = Dynasty has to maintain its position ie repeat.

[TampaDude]

Article = Opinion and skewed statistics to support opinion

Facts = Dynasty has to maintain its position ie repeat.

If the Spurs repeated, you'd cry "Spurs didn't threepeat", and if they threepeated, you'd cry something else equally inane, just like all the other butthurt Laker fans.

The Duncan Spurs have never missed the playoffs, yet the Kobe Lakers have. What's that about "maintaining position"? :lol

Numbers don't lie, bucko. The Kobe Lakers aren't even the greatest Laker dynasty, anyway. The Showtime Lakers are. But even they are far below the Duncan Spurs.

Spurs = GOAT, and nothing you say will change that fact.

Deal with it. :hat

[Buddy Mignon]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bill-russells-celtics-were-great-tim-duncans-spurs-have-been-better/

:hat


https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/natesilver2_light.jpg?w=150

So we're talking hoops with this guy?

[Buddy Mignon]

If the Spurs repeated, you'd cry "Spurs didn't threepeat", and if they threepeated, you'd cry something else equally inane, just like all the other butthurt Laker fans.

The Duncan Spurs have never missed the playoffs, yet the Kobe Lakers have. What's that about "maintaining position"? :lol

Numbers don't lie, bucko. The Kobe Lakers aren't even the greatest Laker dynasty, anyway. The Showtime Lakers are. But even they are far below the Duncan Spurs.

Spurs = GOAT, and nothing you say will change that fact.

Deal with it. :hat

So in essence... you saying making the playoffs consecutively is greater than defending your title.

[Koolaid_Man]

Article = Opinion and skewed statistics to support opinion

Facts = Dynasty has to maintain its position ie repeat.

AND Dynasties dont adorn their palaces with bronze and fat ugly mexican bitches....

[Thebesteva]

You have to repeat to be a dynasty

[ambchang]

No they don't

Full Definition of DYNASTY

1
: a succession of rulers of the same line of descent

2
: a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time






Duncan and Pop, and to an extent Manu, Parker and Robinson, was the same line of descent.
The Spurs maintains the position as an elite team in the league for a considerable time.

The Spurs fit both criterion using your quoted definition of dynasty.

[TampaDude]

So in essence... you saying making the playoffs consecutively is greater than defending your title.

Over the long term, yes. Remember the 1994-1995 Rockets? They repeated (mainly because DK was playing baseball), but then quickly faded into obscurity.

The Spurs have the greatest sustained run of excellence in NBA history. It's basically a fluke that they didn't repeat during that time. There were some pretty bullshit calls/non-calls that did them in over the years, but it is what it is.

[Infinite_limit]

The cut-off years are ridiculous. Why is 1999 being calculated for Jordan? 1987-1990 okay but still an odd cut off

Shaq makes no sense. Why would you include 1995 and 2005 when he wasn't even playing for the Lakers at the time

[TampaDude]

AND Dynasties dont adorn their palaces with bronze and fat ugly mexican bitches....

Dynasties do whatever the fuck they want to, choad boy.

[TampaDude]

You have to repeat to be a dynasty

Where does it say that, besides your own mind?

[TampaDude]

Duncan and Pop, and to an extent Manu, Parker and Robinson, was the same line of descent.
The Spurs maintains the position as an elite team in the league for a considerable time.

The Spurs fit both criterion using your quoted definition of dynasty.

Precisely. Game, Set, Match, Spurs.

[Mitch]

Duncan and Pop, and to an extent Manu, Parker and Robinson, was the same line of descent.
The Spurs maintains the position as an elite team in the league for a considerable time.

The Spurs fit both criterion using your quoted definition of dynasty.

If I'm a 2000,2001 and 2002 champion, I've maintained it for 2 or 3 years depending on how you look at it.

If I'm a 2003,2005,2007 champion, I've never maintained it.

Maintain - cause to continue

Spurs never continued.

[Buddy Mignon]

Over the long term, yes. Remember the 1994-1995 Rockets? They repeated (mainly because DK was playing baseball), but then quickly faded into obscurity.

The Spurs have the greatest sustained run of excellence in NBA history. It's basically a fluke that they didn't repeat during that time. There were some pretty bullshit calls/non-calls that did them in over the years, but it is what it is.

Its no fluke... his name was Kobe. No Kobe and Jim has 10 titles... no less.

[Mitch]

Where does it say that, besides your own mind?

In a dictionary, under "dynasty"

[Infinite_limit]

The way the statistics are skewed really makes no sense

- Shaq played against the Lakers in 1995 and 2005

But they use the Lakers performance to represent Shaq's time there. So let's assume Shaq played and dominated the Lakers in 1995 and 2005. They are using Shaq's dominance to argue against his dominance :lol

[Medvedenko]

Not repeating=no dynasty

[Buddy Mignon]

All of these dynasties defended their titles.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/397548-the-ten-most-dominant-dynasties-in-sports-history/page/2



A sports dynasty is a team that dominates their sport or league for an extraordinary length of time. The definition of dynasty by academics implies a single leader over the bulk of that period, a great example being John Wooden who led the college basketball powerhouse UCLA Bruins.

Dynasty (sports) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty_%28sports%29)en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty_(sports)Wikipedia

[ambchang]

If I'm a 2000,2001 and 2002 champion, I've maintained it for 2 or 3 years depending on how you look at it.

If I'm a 2003,2005,2007 champion, I've never maintained it.

Maintain - cause to continue

Spurs never continued.

You have just decided to define it that way.

The Spurs have maintained a level of excellence over 17 years.

Come to think of it, using your definition, no franchise can be called a dynasty. They were never a succession of rulers, it's always the same core group.

[Mitch]

You have just decided to define it that way.

The Spurs have maintained a level of excellence over 17 years.

Come to think of it, using your definition, no franchise can be called a dynasty. They were never a succession of rulers, it's always the same core group.

Teams may be similar or the same, but the 2000 Lakers succeeded the 2001 Lakers. They are defined as different squads.

The Spurs never had a dynasty when referring to being the best of the best for their given years. They maintained excellence, but not championships.

[The Gemini Method]

Why does it even matter what's defined as a dynasty in sports? It' is just as bad in Human History. Do you get extra bragging rights because you franchise was one of the chosen few that actually got lucky and won a few titles? It never made sense. Oooh my team was dynastic in nature. Just be glad you're not the Clippers.

[TampaDude]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dynasty

1.
a sequence of rulers from the same family, stock, or group:
the Ming dynasty.
2.
the rule of such a sequence.
3.
a series of members of a family who are distinguished for their success, wealth, etc.

The Duncan-era Spurs are a family (more so than any other NBA franchise) and nobody can deny their long run of success (never missing the playoffs), so the Spurs are, by definition, a dynasty.

[TampaDude]

Why does it even matter what's defined as a dynasty in sports? It' is just as bad in Human History. Do you get extra bragging rights because you franchise was one of the chosen few that actually got lucky and won a few titles? It never made sense. Oooh my team was dynastic in nature. Just be glad you're not the Clippers.

Heh...yeah, when you're talking about the majority of human history, there are two groups of people: those in the lucky sperm club, and everyone else who was ruled by those in the lucky sperm club.

[Buddy Mignon]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dynasty

1.
a sequence of rulers from the same family, stock, or group:
the Ming dynasty.
2.
the rule of such a sequence.
3.
a series of members of a family who are distinguished for their success, wealth, etc.

The Duncan-era Spurs are a family (more so than any other NBA franchise) and nobody can deny their long run of success (never missing the playoffs), so the Spurs are, by definition, a dynasty.

So the Buffalo Bills were a dynasty. The Utah Jazz were a dynasty. The Mavs were a dynasty.

[Thread]

...you were compelled to give an NBA Title back (your 1st 5th).

That was your death knell.

[spurraider21]

https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/natesilver2_light.jpg?w=150

So we're talking hoops with this guy?
yeah i'd much rather talk hoops with a paki in naruto PJ's

[Buddy Mignon]

yeah i'd much rather talk hoops with a paki in naruto PJ's

This is what I imagine most of you to look like. Which is why I stay in bully mode.

[TampaDude]

So the Buffalo Bills were a dynasty. The Utah Jazz were a dynasty. The Mavs were a dynasty.

Perhaps...but if they are, they're still not as great as the Spurs dynasty.

[ambchang]

Teams may be similar or the same, but the 2000 Lakers succeeded the 2001 Lakers. They are defined as different squads.

The Spurs never had a dynasty when referring to being the best of the best for their given years. They maintained excellence, but not championships.

That's like saying the kings are the same but the generals and soldiers are different. The definition of dynasty referred to the rulers, and the rulers to me are either the coach or the best players, and it's always the same core for pretty michael every franchise.

And you just decided to add in additional definitions to fit your agenda. Either stick with the definition that you put in or admit you are just twisting and turning every which way to avoid defining the Spurs as a dynasty.

Btw, I can give two shits about the term dynasty, it's arbitrary and meaningless.

Btw2, Hakeem rockets is a dynasty and the bird celtics weren't. What does that really mean?

[Thread]

Btw2, Hakeem rockets is a dynasty and the bird celtics weren't. What does that really mean?

...all the while Bird thought he was setting up Magic? Magic was measuring him for a coffin.

By the time Bird had it figured out Magic "was on the beach, earning 20%."

[Mitch]

That's like saying the kings are the same but the generals and soldiers are different. The definition of dynasty referred to the rulers, and the rulers to me are either the coach or the best players, and it's always the same core for pretty michael every franchise.

And you just decided to add in additional definitions to fit your agenda. Either stick with the definition that you put in or admit you are just twisting and turning every which way to avoid defining the Spurs as a dynasty.

Btw, I can give two shits about the term dynasty, it's arbitrary and meaningless.

Btw2, Hakeem rockets is a dynasty and the bird celtics weren't. What does that really mean?

Then it just comes down to one of changing our perspective and neither of us will.

Take it easy, Chang.

[whitemamba]

Minimum 3 in a row - if u can't defenend your title it's a fluke win.

[spurraider21]

Minimum 3 in a row - if u can't defenend your title it's a fluke win.
so the lakers in 2010 were a fluke because they didn't defend in 2011?

[TampaDude]

so the lakers in 2010 were a fluke because they didn't defend in 2011?

Apparently so, not that 6-24 had anything to do with 2010...we all know that 'Test bailed him out, and that's only after Perkins went down, otherwise it's a parade in Boston that June. Real talk.

[ambchang]

Then it just comes down to one of changing our perspective and neither of us will.

Take it easy, Chang.

My issue isn't whether the Spurs are a dynasty or not, it's not really that important.

My issue is your inconsistency in defining the term dynasty, and just randomly add in definitions after feigning objectivity by coming up with a definition from a 3rd party that you thought supported your point.

[ambchang]

...all the while Bird thought he was setting up Magic? Magic was measuring him for a coffin.

By the time Bird had it figured out Magic "was on the beach, earning 20%."

The virus multiplies by 20% a year? That's really potent.

[TampaDude]

My issue isn't whether the Spurs are a dynasty or not, it's not really that important.

My issue is your inconsistency in defining the term dynasty, and just randomly add in definitions after feigning objectivity by coming up with a definition from a 3rd party that you thought supported your point.

It's called "moving the goalposts", a common tactic used by trolls and faggots. :lol

[Mitch]

My issue isn't whether the Spurs are a dynasty or not, it's not really that important.

My issue is your inconsistency in defining the term dynasty, and just randomly add in definitions after feigning objectivity by coming up with a definition from a 3rd party that you thought supported your point.

Now Chang, I did support my provided definition

Dynasties maintain, is what I cited. What differs between us is what they maintain.

I cite championships, you cite excellence. When you bring up the subject of succession that was a gray area because squads are defined by years, not identity, in basketball.

[Thread]

The virus multiplies by 20% a year? That's really potent.

According to "Hans."

[Dex]

No they don't

Full Definition of DYNASTY

1
: a succession of rulers of the same line of descent

2
: a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time






:lol Quoting the dictionary for sports jargon.

[ambchang]

Now Chang, I did support my provided definition

Dynasties maintain, is what I cited. What differs between us is what they maintain.

I cite championships, you cite excellence. When you bring up the subject of succession that was a gray area because squads are defined by years, not identity, in basketball.

So all in all, there is no way to confirm or deny whether the Spurs were a dynasty, and is at the interpreter's whim. Much like where we started without your posted definition, which means that your posted definition, for its intents and purposes, was useless.

[Splits]

Obviously the Spurs were a dynasty if the day's most accurate statistician puts them at #1 all time using, ya know, stats.

[Thread]

Obviously the Spurs were a dynasty if the day's most accurate statistician puts them at #1 all time using, ya know, stats.

Your 1st 5th is sittin' out there somewhere with a forehead like a drive in movie theatre screen. It's twin, your 2nd 5th? It's in your fuckin' case.

[Silver&Black]

:lol Quoting the dictionary for sports jargon.

:lmao I thought the same exact thing

[Mitch]

So all in all, there is no way to confirm or deny whether the Spurs were a dynasty, and is at the interpreter's whim. Much like where we started without your posted definition, which means that your posted definition, for its intents and purposes, was useless.

Not quite, Chang. I used it to invalidate the original post - it proved useful and I stand by it without any provided reasoning to doubt it.

[BatManu20]

Ironic that lakerfan uses the "no repeat = no dynasty" argument when without an admitted inside-job from NBA officials in 2002, they wouldn't have repeated either. :lol Good thing nobody that matters (basketball players, former players, professional analysts, etc.) feels the same way.

Spurs are a dynasty, whether you like it or not, tbqh.

[Thread]

Ironic that lakerfan uses the "no repeat = no dynasty" argument when without an admitted inside-job from NBA officials in 2002, they wouldn't have repeated either. :lol Good thing nobody that matters (basketball players, former players, professional analysts, etc.) feels the same way.

Spurs are a dynasty, whether you like it or not, tbqh.

You fucked up and were made to give your 1st 5th back. That was a big fuck up. You take care of your shit & your womenfolk there and now, NOW, well now you're a fortnight & a bit from a Three Peat. Then we can talk turkey. But, that ain't what happened. They sold your shit in '13 and you have to answer for that. You have to stand tall before the man.

Signed,

- The Man

[Kool Bob Love]

Greatest team of all time. :worthy::flag:


NBA ain't the same without the Spurs. Proof is in the pudding.

[LakerHater]

Spurs maintained a winning season for 19 years!!

NEVER fell off, NEVER were in the draft lottery!

[Thread]

Spurs maintained a winning season for 19 years!!

NEVER fell off, NEVER were in the draft lottery!

But, you had to repudiate your 1st 5th. That fact can't be diminished. If you didn't have to waste a year getting your 2nd 5th, you'd be a little over two weeks out from your initial Three Peat.

Fancy that. Roll that fact around in that empty head of yours, LH. Now, go watch cartoons.

[K...]

The main part of the article is the way it deals with titles in the smaller pre-modern nba days vs todays bigger, more talented league. First, he imagined that instead of 10 teams there were three leagues of 10 each. in that world the spurs win 10 titles (4 in the late 70's early 80's).

Then he discounted the pre-modern titles and still the spurs came out on top.








on another point, after shitting heavy on Lebron for only winning two titles, in Silver's model he wins 6. in some ways i'm obviously being harsh, but only in the context of placing Lebron in the top 10 all time. I still maintain that his accomplishments pale to Duncan, Kobe, and Shaq. You can argue he's more talented and had a better gross career but at some point you have to admit he did not meet his expectations and ability.

[LakerHater]

But, you had to repudiate your 1st 5th. That fact can't be diminished. If you didn't have to waste a year getting your 2nd 5th, you'd be a little over two weeks out from your initial Three Peat.

Fancy that. Roll that fact around in that empty head of yours, LH. Now, go watch cartoons.
Why?
Maintained a winning season! Didnt win a few then roll off the face of the Earth!
Maintained!

[whitemamba]

so the lakers in 2010 were a fluke because they didn't defend in 2011?

God damn ur retarded. They defended their title from the year before that laker team wasn't a dynasty but they were back to back champs u salty fuck.

[Thread]

Why?
Maintained a winning season! Didnt win a few then roll off the face of the Earth!
Maintained!

You gave back an NBA Title. That's serious shit. Just because Media let you get away Scot free doesn't count for shit on this Forum. Here we take our punishment. If you can't do that, LH, go back upstairs.

[TampaDude]

The main part of the article is the way it deals with titles in the smaller pre-modern nba days vs todays bigger, more talented league. First, he imagined that instead of 10 teams there were three leagues of 10 each. in that world the spurs win 10 titles (4 in the late 70's early 80's).

Then he discounted the pre-modern titles and still the spurs came out on top.








on another point, after shitting heavy on Lebron for only winning two titles, in Silver's model he wins 6. in some ways i'm obviously being harsh, but only in the context of placing Lebron in the top 10 all time. I still maintain that his accomplishments pale to Duncan, Kobe, and Shaq. You can argue he's more talented and had a better gross career but at some point you have to admit he did not meet his expectations and ability.

LeBron is like KG, a superior player that was stuck on a shitty team and had to jump ship to win a title.

[Thread]

LeBron is like KG, a superior player that was stuck on a shitty team and had to jump ship to win a title.

& a had that (a) title cept you couldn't hang onto your 1st 5th and now he's sittin' pretty with 2.

You

[LakerHater]

didnt the lakers do it in '66?

[spurraider21]

You gave back an NBA Title. That's serious shit. Just because Media let you get away Scot free doesn't count for shit on this Forum. Here we take our punishment. If you can't do that, LH, go back upstairs.
2009 was legit because they defended it. 2010 musta been a fluke because they lost in 2011

[LakerHater]

2009 was legit because they defended it. 2010 musta been a fluke because they lost in 2011

'02 was the act of Tim Donaghy

[mkurts]

Celtics are the greatest dynasty bar none.

Lakers are somewhere in the top 10 mix, Spurs top 5

[DMC]

Why does it even matter what's defined as a dynasty in sports? It' is just as bad in Human History. Do you get extra bragging rights because you franchise was one of the chosen few that actually got lucky and won a few titles? It never made sense. Oooh my team was dynastic in nature. Just be glad you're not the Clippers.

True, and it's not even your team. The bulk of you hopped aboard a team that was already considered the best in the league. So your team didn't have a dynasty period, you picked a dynasty to support. Hell anyone can do that. Try picking a small market team that never won shit like most of the Spurs fan base did and see how that goes.

[ambchang]

Not quite, Chang. I used it to invalidate the original post - it proved useful and I stand by it without any provided reasoning to doubt it.

Not really, the original post quoted an article that said Spurs were the greatest dynasty (I think it's beyond stupid), but you pulled a definition of dynasty to "prove" that the Spurs wasn't even a dynasty.

It wasn't even conclusive, so it served no purpose.

Unless I got the intent of your definition of dynasty all wrong.

[DMC]

& a had that (a) title cept you couldn't hang onto your 1st 5th and now he's sittin' pretty with 2.

You
You had your chance to stop it but you ran all your help off and overpaid a crippled chucker. YOU

Don't get mad at what someone else didn't do when you had your opportunity. Hell, you were a b2b champ during Lebron's rise. We beat him down the 1st time he rose up, but you let US sweep your stacked team out of the playoffs the year Lebron won his 1st. How many times did you expect us to stop him? We've met him thrice, and beaten him twice. You can't even muster a 130m dollar team worthy of competing.

[Mitch]

Not really, the original post quoted an article that said Spurs were the greatest dynasty (I think it's beyond stupid), but you pulled a definition of dynasty to "prove" that the Spurs wasn't even a dynasty.

It wasn't even conclusive, so it served no purpose.

Unless I got the intent of your definition of dynasty all wrong.

If somethings existence is questionable, it is far from the greatest.

[midnightpulp]

Everyone with a brain knows this. Repeats are an antiquated and arbitrary definition of dynasty. It was invented by Red Auerbach to shit on the Lakers when they couldn't defend.

To be a consistent contender and threat to win to the championship for almost 20 years (while also winning 5 titles) is more impressive than winning a couple in bunches and then visiting the lottery every few years.

And yes, making the playoffs, especially in the West, is an impressive feat. You first have to get to the playoffs to have a chance to win a coveted title. Lakers fans will soon understand the difficulty of this when they miss the playoffs for the next 3-5 years and celebrate their first playoff appearance in 6-8 years like they just won number 17 :lol

[Venti Quattro]

The Lakers and the Celtics -- the NBA's dynasty franchises -- have been great since the NBA began. Okay, maybe not so much during the 90's. They'll be great again soon.

The Spurs are like the nouveau riche of the league. When Tim and Pop retire they're going to go back to being shit and dirty like the Riverwalk.

[Alex's foreskin]

Everyone with a brain knows this. Repeats are an antiquated and arbitrary definition of dynasty. It was invented by Red Auerbach to shit on the Lakers when they couldn't defend.

To be a consistent contender and threat to win to the championship for almost 20 years (while also winning 5 titles) is more impressive than winning a couple in bunches and then visiting the lottery every few years.

And yes, making the playoffs, especially in the West, is an impressive feat. You first have to get to the playoffs to have a chance to win a coveted title. Lakers fans will soon understand the difficulty of this when they miss the playoffs for the next 3-5 years and celebrate their first playoff appearance in 6-8 years like they just won number 17 :lol

:lmao Spurfan making it seem like repeating isn't impressive because they have never done it.

[Mikeanaro]

Lakers fans now will learn how Bobcats/Hornets/Timberwolves fans feel :lmao

[midnightpulp]

The Lakers and the Celtics -- the NBA's dynasty franchises -- have been great since the NBA began. Okay, maybe not so much during the 90's. They'll be great again soon.

Yeah, cause they played 30% of their history in an era where there were 8 teams and the talent pool was considerably small.

[Venti Quattro]

:lmao Spurfan making it seem like repeating isn't impressive because they have never done it.

Good teams win 50-60 games.

Great teams win the title.

Dynasties win the title... and follow it up with another one.

[ambchang]

If somethings existence is questionable, it is far from the greatest.

It's only questionable using your definition.

And different definitions can't exclude every single team in the history of the league as being a dynasty (except maybe the 60s Celtics and maybe the 80s Lakers), one way or another.

[HI-FI]

The Lakers and the Celtics -- the NBA's dynasty franchises -- have been great since the NBA began. Okay, maybe not so much during the 90's. They'll be great again soon.

The Spurs are like the nouveau riche of the league. When Tim and Pop retire they're going to go back to being shit and dirty like the Riverwalk.
What about when LA is devastated by drought and you guys are drinking bean3r cum to survive? Will Lakers still be great or back to Minnesota?

[DMC]

:lmao Spurfan making it seem like repeating isn't impressive because they have never done it.
It's impressive for a team but not for a franchise, at least not as impressive as the success that the Spurs have had. How many coaches have the Lakers had in the past 15 years? The Spurs have had 1. That's because successful coaches don't get fired.

[Venti Quattro]

Btw, it's laughable that Spurs fans consider consecutive 50-win seasons an achievement and :cry Dynasty :cry but when other teams like Dallas do it, they're a faggot annoying team. Aren't they like the feminists of the NBA -- too self-righteous and too hypocritical.

[Venti Quattro]

What about when LA is devastated by drought and you guys are drinking bean3r cum to survive? Will Lakers still be great or back to Minnesota?

Would still live in LA rather than San Antonio, that's for sure.

[Mitch]

It's only questionable using your definition.

And different definitions can't exclude every single team in the history of the league as being a dynasty (except maybe the 60s Celtics and maybe the 80s Lakers), one way or another.

My definition is not mine, Chang, it's dictionary. The only subjectivity is the context.

[HI-FI]

So according to Lakerfan the Rockets are more of a dynasty than the Spurs. seems like bandwagoner logic but whatever works for ya.

[midnightpulp]

:lmao Spurfan making it seem like repeating isn't impressive because they have never done it.

It's not.

The only thing that matters is the final championship count. I wouldn't trade 10 titles over 20 years, winning one every other year, for a 9 peat and then being irrelevant for the next 11 years.

This is where the "repeat is important" argument breaks down, as no sane fan would trade more titles for a repeat.

The repeat argument can also easily be defeated logically and statistically, since you don't win additional titles for repeating. The Celtics 8 peated once-upon-time, something the Lakers have never come close to doing, but they are only 1 championship ahead in the total championship count. If you manage to pass the Celtics in overall titles, Celtic fan saying, "Y-Yeah, but we 8 peated!" holds absolutely no weight whatsoever and you'd laugh them out of the argument.

Until the NBA starts handing out additional hardware for repeating and such, it's a meaningless "accomplishment."

[spurraider21]

Btw, it's laughable that Spurs fans consider consecutive 50-win seasons an achievement and :cry Dynasty :cry but when other teams like Dallas do it, they're a faggot annoying team. Aren't they like the feminists of the NBA -- too self-righteous and too hypocritical.
because the spurs have won 5 titles along the way during that streak. its a dynasty because they're a constant. Duncan and Pop have been doing the same thing for nearly 2 decades now

its not like the phoenix suns who were really really good for a while but never won anything... or the 2000's pistons who were really really good for a long time but only had 1 ring to show for it.

[midnightpulp]

Btw, it's laughable that Spurs fans consider consecutive 50-win seasons an achievement and :cry Dynasty :cry but when other teams like Dallas do it, they're a faggot annoying team. Aren't they like the feminists of the NBA -- too self-righteous and too hypocritical.

No one has shitted on Dallas fans for celebrating their amazing consistency.

[Alex's foreskin]

Good teams win 50-60 games.

Great teams win the title.

Dynasties win the title... and follow it up with another one.

Want to know what Duncan followed his titles up with? Losing in the first round twice, Losing in the second round twice, and losing in the conference finals. :lmao

[spurraider21]

interesting to know that only 3 of kobe's titles "count" because he didn't repeat to validate the 2002 or 2010 flukes

[ambchang]

My definition is not mine, Chang, it's dictionary. The only subjectivity is the context.

And the dictionary did not exclude the Spurs from a dynasty. It only excludes it after you put in additional criteria to further your agenda.

[Alex's foreskin]

It's not.

The only thing that matters is the final championship count. I wouldn't trade 10 titles over 20 years, winning one every other year, for a 9 peat and then being irrelevant for the next 11 years.

This is where the "repeat is important" argument breaks down, as no sane fan would trade more titles for a repeat.

The repeat argument can also easily be defeated logically and statistically, since you don't win additional titles for repeating. The Celtics 8 peated once-upon-time, something the Lakers have never come close to doing, but they are only 1 championship ahead in the total championship count. If you manage to pass the Celtics in overall titles, Celtic fan saying, "Y-Yeah, but we 8 peated!" holds absolutely no weight whatsoever and you'd laugh them out of the argument.

Until the NBA starts handing out additional hardware for repeating and such, it's a meaningless "accomplishment."

Just admit Duncan was never mentally tough enough to defend his title.

[Venti Quattro]

Want to know what Duncan followed his titles up with? Losing in the first round twice, Losing in the second round twice, and losing in the conference finals. :lmao

Maybe he'll lose in the Finals next time when he's 48

[ElNono]

The way the statistics are skewed really makes no sense

- Shaq played against the Lakers in 1995 and 2005

But they use the Lakers performance to represent Shaq's time there. So let's assume Shaq played and dominated the Lakers in 1995 and 2005. They are using Shaq's dominance to argue against his dominance :lol

:lol the stats has nothing to do with individual players. It's each team's streak of consecutive games with above average ELO play.

[Venti Quattro]

interesting to know that only 3 of kobe's titles "count" because he didn't repeat to validate the 2002 or 2010 flukes

1999* - nobody gives a shit about that season
2007* - injuring Nash and baiting Amare to a reaction that got him suspended right after they have stolen homecourt advantage

[Venti Quattro]

No one has shitted on Dallas fans for celebrating their amazing consistency.

Oh how quick you are to forget "4 rings, faggot" and ":lmao Dallas Chokericks"

[monosylab1k]

This thread only shows the depths Laker fans have fallen. Their franchise is so godawful and shitty, they have to desperately establish what is and isn't a dynasty in order to remember how great it was years ago. They know full well that the death of Jerry and the retirement of Fuhrer Stern has changed everything, and that everyone else in the NBA is going to hold them down and fuck them in the ass and shit down their throats for the long foreseeable future, and there isn't a goddamn fucking thing they can do but clutch their antique metal trophies and reminisce about their "dynasty".

[monosylab1k]

That said, I don't know that I'd call the Spurs a dynasty, mainly because of never repeating. But I do know that 5 titles in 15 years is amazing and a hell of a lot more fun than 1 or 0 in that same time period.

[midnightpulp]

So according to Lakerfan the Rockets are more of a dynasty than the Spurs. seems like bandwagoner logic but whatever works for ya.

Also according to "Lakerfan logic," Magic has 3 fluke titles. And Jerry West never ostensibly won one.

Lakerfan is so monumentally retarded, they can't see how the "repeat" argument hurts the worth of their franchise's accomplishments (vis a vis the Celtics, especially) more than helps it. If Lakerfan is going to assign arbitrary value to a defended title, then Celticfan can basically issue the ultimate value on their 8-peat and claim superiority as a franchise even if the Lakers pass the Celtics in overall title count.

[Venti Quattro]

That said, I don't know that I'd call the Spurs a dynasty, mainly because of never repeating. But I do know that 5 titles in 15 years is amazing and a hell of a lot more fun than 1 or 0 in that same time period.

Bastion of consistency in the NBA. Dynasty? No. Dynasties rule, they don't build up everyone and then come up short.

[midnightpulp]

Just admit Duncan was never mentally tough enough to defend his title.

His playoff impact/stats during title defense campaigns is superior to Kobe's, as I've demonstrated.

And his clutch stats during title defense stats are actually far superior.

[Mikeanaro]

Also according to "Lakerfan logic," Magic has 3 fluke titles. And Jerry West never ostensibly won one.

Lakerfan is so monumentally retarded, they can't see how the "repeat" argument hurts the worth of their franchise's accomplishments (vis a vis the Celtics, especially) more than helps it. If Lakerfan is going to assign arbitrary value to a defended title, then Celticfan can basically issue the ultimate value on their 8-peat and claim superiority as a franchise even if the Lakers pass the Celtics in overall title count.
You know 3 in a row is not the same than 8, so Celts are a truly legitimate dynasty in the Ming kind of way and the Lamekers are a cheap Taiwanese copy.

[Alex's foreskin]

His playoff impact/stats during title defense campaigns is superior to Kobe's, as I've demonstrated.

And his clutch stats during title defense stats are actually far superior.

KobeRepeatedPERIOD. He beat the best. He didn't need extreme circumstances to win like Duncan. (Shortened season, Major injuries to his main competition-Westbrook, Ibaka, Shaq)

[spurraider21]

KobeRepeatedPERIOD. He beat the best. He didn't need extreme circumstances to win like Duncan. (Shortened season, Major injuries to his main competition-Westbrook, Ibaka, Shaq)
you mean like Duncan missing the 2000 playoffs, stopping their repeat bid... or KG missing the 2009 playoffs to stop the celtics from repeating? like that?

so kobe needed injury help during 2000 and 2009. those don't count.

kobe couldn't win in 2003 to validate the 2002 ring, so that one doesn't count. he also couldn't seal the deal in 2011 to validate the 2010 ring.

so basically kobe only won in 2001 against iverson

[HI-FI]

This thread only shows the depths Laker fans have fallen. Their franchise is so godawful and shitty, they have to desperately establish what is and isn't a dynasty in order to remember how great it was years ago. They know full well that the death of Jerry and the retirement of Fuhrer Stern has changed everything, and that everyone else in the NBA is going to hold them down and fuck them in the ass and shit down their throats for the long foreseeable future, and there isn't a goddamn fucking thing they can do but clutch their antique metal trophies and reminisce about their "dynasty".
http://www.bio-rad.com/webroot/web/images/cdg/products/microbiology/product_detail/global/cmd_25183_pdp.jpg

[Mitch]

And the dictionary did not exclude the Spurs from a dynasty. It only excludes it after you put in additional criteria to further your agenda.

Spurs are not a family.

[spurraider21]

http://www.bio-rad.com/webroot/web/images/cdg/products/microbiology/product_detail/global/cmd_25183_pdp.jpg
:lmao

[Mikeanaro]

KobeRepeatedPERIOD. He beat the best. He didn't need extreme circumstances to win like Duncan. (Shortened season, Major injuries to his main competition-Westbrook, Ibaka, Shaq)
How a shortened season helped the Spurs? did the other teams play 82 games?:lmao

[midnightpulp]

Bastion of consistency in the NBA. Dynasty? No. Dynasties rule, they don't build up everyone and then come up short.

The Lakers never ruled, really.

The only franchises we can bestow the dynasty label on are the 60's Celtics and Jordan's Bulls (6 in 8).

Another key feature of "dynasties" is the ability to regain power after being challenged or losing it for a brief period. And no franchise since those Bulls has done that more effectively than the Spurs.

That said, I don't like the dynasty term applied to sports, but the Spurs actually embody the qualities of a historical dynasty more accurately than the modern Lakers. Read history, and you'll discover than the "rule" of a dynasty is never unchallenged and power/rule changes hands quite frequently. Dynasties were simply able to cumulatively remain "on top" for longer period of time, which was not always "consecutively."

[Venti Quattro]

The Lakers never ruled, really.
I stopped reading.

[midnightpulp]

KobeRepeatedPERIOD. He beat the best. He didn't need extreme circumstances to win like Duncan. (Shortened season, Major injuries to his main competition-Westbrook, Ibaka, Shaq)

Seriously, Tit?

Duncan in '00, Peja in '02, Yao, T-Mac, KG, Jameer Nelson in '09. Perkins in '10.

And when was Shaq ever injured? :lol

[midnightpulp]

I stopped reading.

Ruling teams don't visit the lottery during their supposed rule and then lose in the first round consecutively.

If you think that 3 peat was a "rule," :lmao

"Ruling" is what the 60's Celtics and Jordan's Bulls did, and to some extent, Magic's Lakers (a threat to win the title during the entire decade of the 80's). You have low standards if you think winning a couple in bunches and then visiting the lottery constitutes "rule."

[CitizenDwayne]

That said, I don't like the dynasty term applied to sports, but the Spurs actually embody the qualities of a historical dynasty more accurately than the modern Lakers. Read history, and you'll discover than the "rule" of a dynasty is never unchallenged and power/rule changes hands quite frequently. Dynasties were simply able to cumulatively remain "on top" for longer period of time, which was not always "consecutively."

Finally a logical approach to the 'sports dynasty' issue.

That being said, Lakerfan will continue arguing this point as long as their team is in the doldrums despite all available evidence pointing to the contrary.

[Alex's foreskin]

Seriously, Tit?

Duncan in '00, Peja in '02, Yao, T-Mac, KG, Jameer Nelson in '09. Perkins in '10.

And when was Shaq ever injured? :lol

Crofl Duncan. Shaq and Kobe would have dominated his asshole like they usually did. Lol counting Yao and Tmac, those broke motherfuckers were always hurt. And lmao Jameer Nelson.

[Sean Cagney]

You have to repeat to be a dynastyWho wrote the rule and where is it written besides an opinion?

I think longevity can mean a dynasty as well, nobody has done it as long as the Spurs in recent memory. Hate them or love them that is a great feat what they have done honestly.
How a shortened season helped the Spurs? did the other teams play 82 games?:lmao
Nope, it's their bullshit excuse for getting swept that year to make them feel better. Any fan of a team who did not win that year or got beaten by the Spurs in the playoffs uses that to hate on them.

[midnightpulp]

Crofl Duncan. Shaq and Kobe would have dominated his asshole like they usually did. Lol counting Yao and Tmac, those broke motherfuckers were always hurt. And lmao Jameer Nelson.

Yeah, Yao and T-Mac were only the Rockets' best players. Kirbs got pushed to 7 by Aaron Brooks :lmao If you want to appeal to hypotheticals, then we can hypothesize that the Rockets having their two best players would be too much for the Lakers, who needed 7 games to beat Aar:loln Br:lol:lolks.

And Shaq was never hurt. When we killed the 3 peat, Shaq performed better than Kirby in that series. Duncan was just too good for both of them.

[Arcadian]

No they don't

Full Definition of DYNASTY

1
: a succession of rulers of the same line of descent

2
: a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time


Let me stop you right there. The word "dynasty" is applied to sports metaphorically, so citing the literal definition is irrelevant. There is no biological line of descent in sport dynasties. There are no biological families. So just cut the shit.

[Koolaid_Man]

This thread only shows the depths Laker fans have fallen. Their franchise is so godawful and shitty, they have to desperately establish what is and isn't a dynasty in order to remember how great it was years ago. They know full well that the death of Jerry and the retirement of Fuhrer Stern has changed everything, and that everyone else in the NBA is going to hold them down and fuck them in the ass and shit down their throats for the long foreseeable future, and there isn't a goddamn fucking thing they can do but clutch their antique metal trophies and reminisce about their "dynasty".

With you it used to be 0 and Forever...now it's just one and done :lol

[Thread]

The Lakers never ruled, really.

The only franchises we can bestow the dynasty label on are the 60's Celtics and Jordan's Bulls (6 in 8).

True, we could never get settled enough to exert any rule. There was always tremendous tumult during ringage. One never knew if we were going to win OR lose even in our heyday.

---

Now, just an aside but what's it been since Midst has had a cogent point? At least a month, maybe 2.

Congratulations, sweetheart.

[HI-FI]

How a shortened season helped the Spurs? did the other teams play 82 games?:lmao
Yeah, it's just another Lakerfan Mensa moment. They say 99 is an asterisk but 2002 was deserving and kosher. Bunch of frauds.

[midnightpulp]

True, we could never get settled enough to exert any rule. There was always tremendous tumult during ringage. One never knew if we were going to win OR lose even in our heyday.

---

Now, just an aside but what's it been since Midst has had a cogent point? At least a month, maybe 2.

Congratulations, sweetheart.

I'm just checkin' assholes in this thread. I don't buy into "rule" or "dynasties" or any of that media bullshit narrative.

End of the day, the count is all that matters. The Celtics 8 peating does nothing for them if you should reach 18.

[Thread]

You had your chance to stop it but you ran all your help off and overpaid a crippled chucker. YOU

Don't get mad at what someone else didn't do when you had your opportunity. Hell, you were a b2b champ during Lebron's rise. We beat him down the 1st time he rose up, but you let US sweep your stacked team out of the playoffs the year Lebron won his 1st. How many times did you expect us to stop him? We've met him thrice, and beaten him twice. You can't even muster a 130m dollar team worthy of competing.

We never played him in the Finals. This is on you & you alone.

& you've met him 3 times and beaten him 3 times. Yet he has 2 gd Titles.

[DMC]

We never played him in the Finals. This is on you & you alone.

& you've met him 3 times and beaten him 3 times. Yet he has 2 gd Titles.

So failing to even reach the Finals is better than getting there and not winning. Caveat Dale

"Yeah we really really sucked, but you're better than us so... well... you're worse than us" -Caveat Dale

[DarrinS]

Lots of salty Laker faggots in this thread :lmao

[Mikeanaro]

Who wrote the rule and where is it written besides an opinion?
Nope, it's their bullshit excuse for getting swept that year to make them feel better. Any fan of a team who did not win that year or got beaten by the Spurs in the playoffs uses that to hate on them.
Lol, so to put if briefly it only counts when they win, no matter what **Rigged**

[Mikeanaro]

Yeah, it's just another Lakerfan Mensa moment. They say 99 is an asterisk but 2002 was deserving and kosher. Bunch of frauds.
I think those last 2 Kobe rings should be removed since he has been missing in action for 2 seasons, champions show up to face the game thats the only way to keep your championships, its no bullshit the dictionary say so.

[Alex's foreskin]

Lol Only Spurfan would say winning back to back titles isn't impressive. But had Duncan done it they would say "Repeat title faggots"

[Thread]

Lol Only Spurfan would say winning back to back titles isn't impressive. But had Duncan done it they would say "Repeat title faggots"

Head cheese

[TampaDude]

Spurs are not a family.

The Spurs are a family. More so than any other NBA franchise, in fact.

[Thebesteva]

I've never seen so much spur faggotry in one thread

[TampaDude]

I've never seen so much spur faggotry in one thread

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/62107876.jpg

[sprrs]

Seems that the Laker Fans are the ones most adamantly fighting against the Spur dynasty. Makes sense, they're the most threatened by the idea.

[midnightpulp]

Seems that the Laker Fans are the ones most adamantly fighting against the Spur dynasty. Makes sense, they're the most threatened by the idea.

And they shouldn't be. The Lakers are the most successful franchise of all-time, despite having one less than Boston. Their consistency (something they give us shit for admiring in the Spurs) is what puts them over Boston, who had multiple years as a bottom feeder, something Lakerfans haven't experienced until now.

But the best NBA franchise post-Jordan's Bulls is the Spurs. There's no argument against it. They can't stand the idea because it diminishes Kobe vis a vis Duncan.

[dav4463]

And they shouldn't be. The Lakers are the most successful franchise of all-time, despite having one less than Boston. Their consistency (something they give us shit for admiring in the Spurs) is what puts them over Boston, who had multiple years as a bottom feeder, something Lakerfans haven't experienced until now.

But the best NBA franchise post-Jordan's Bulls is the Spurs. There's no argument against it. They can't stand the idea because it diminishes Kobe vis a vis Duncan.


And weren't there only 10 teams in the league during Russell's run? That is what makes the Spurs dynasty even better.

[Thebesteva]

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/62107876.jpg


Seems that the Laker Fans are the ones most adamantly fighting against the Spur dynasty. Makes sense, they're the most threatened by the idea.

Not really, literally no one considers the Spurs a dynasty outside of that shit article and this dying forum.

[midnightpulp]

Not really, literally no one considers the Spurs a dynasty outside of that shit article and this dying forum.

Dynasty is a meaningless term in this context, though.

One thing that is factually proven and can't be argued against is that the Spurs are the best NBA franchise of the past 18 years, and pretty much everyone agrees with that aside from the Beaners in LA.

[Robz4000]

No they don't

Full Definition of DYNASTY

1
: a succession of rulers of the same line of descent

2
: a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time






Haven't read the whole thread yet, but that second definition fits the Spurs imvho.

[midnightpulp]

Haven't read the whole thread yet, but that second definition fits the Spurs imvho.

Pretty much. Definition 2 never said, "Consecutive."

[Robz4000]

Pretty much. Definition 2 never said, "Consecutive."

That and the fact the Spurs have been one of the elite teams in virtually every NBA facet the past 19 years or so.

[Robz4000]

That said, I don't know that I'd call the Spurs a dynasty, mainly because of never repeating. But I do know that 5 titles in 15 years is amazing and a hell of a lot more fun than 1 or 0 in that same time period.

mono with the goods. Basically this, but I know if we're going by Mitch's first definition the Lakers would never classify as a dynasty either as they've never remained consistent champs ala the Russell Celtics or Jordan Bulls.

[z0sa]

No they don't

Full Definition of DYNASTY

1
: a succession of rulers of the same line of descent

2
: a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time






... is this real life?

[Silver&Black]

Not really, literally no one considers the Spurs a dynasty outside of that shit article and this dying forum.

I can see your point on not repeating =/= Dynasty....it's a fair argument.

How bout this...when they talk about the Spurs they always use the phrase "model franchise". That to me is just as important as being called a dynasty. We're the organization that everyone tries to copy.

[Splits]

This thread only shows the depths Laker fans have fallen. Their franchise is so godawful and shitty, they have to desperately establish what is and isn't a dynasty in order to remember how great it was years ago. They know full well that the death of Jerry and the retirement of Fuhrer Stern has changed everything, and that everyone else in the NBA is going to hold them down and fuck them in the ass and shit down their throats for the long foreseeable future, and there isn't a goddamn fucking thing they can do but clutch their antique metal trophies and reminisce about their "dynasty".

/thread

[Splits]

Mono owning bitches while not taking sides

How about this definition of "dynasty": last playoff game played at age 33?

[Proxy]

Lots of salty Laker faggots in this thread :lmao

[Sean Cagney]

Lol, so to put if briefly it only counts when they win, no matter what **Rigged**

If LA won in 99 no doubt they claim it as legit. No talk of asterisk until Phil said that shit, then there was an excuse.

[Sean Cagney]

Not really, literally no one considers the Spurs a dynasty outside of that shit article and this dying forum.

So I guess the SI issue was biased in 07 when they had the Spurs on the cover which said the Quiet Dynasty and other sports writers who have wrote on it since???

[Thebesteva]

So I guess the SI issue was biased in 07 when they had the Spurs on the cover which said the Quiet Dynasty and other sports writers who have wrote on it since???

:lol Sports Illustrated just said tranny Rousey is the most dominant athlete in the world over Mayweather and Lebron...calm the fuck down

http://cdn.mmaweekly.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Ronda-Rousey-SI-Cover-Unbreakable-747x370.jpg

[ambchang]

1999* - nobody gives a shit about that season

Especially Laker fans after the 2nd round. :lol-4


2007* - injuring Nash and baiting Amare to a reaction that got him suspended right after they have stolen homecourt advantage

First, Nash was never injured
Second, Amare was too stupid not to not get baited.
Third, the Lakers 87 and 88 *titles were possible not because players were suspended for two games, but because the league suspended half the Houston roster and Roy Tarpley for life because the Rockets and the Mavs were the Lakers biggest threat.
Fourth, 37 FTs in a game 7, most of them coming after they were down 15
Fifth, 27 FTs in the fourth quarter
Sixth, Another 37 FTs in a game 7, and again after they were down big in the fourth, this time in the finals.
Seventh, Injuring Thomas and he STILL scored 25 pts in the fourth
Eighth, nobody cares about the 82 championship
Ninth, claiming 5 titles from Minneapolis

[ambchang]

Spurs are not a family.

Neither were the Lakers.

Which further shows how inaccurate and useless your dictionary definition is.

[sprrs]

Not really, literally no one considers the Spurs a dynasty outside of that shit article and this dying forum.

Doesn't seem that way. Just a cursory search will prove other

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/blair-kerkhoff/article8945531.html
http://www.complex.com/sports/2014/06/nba-dynasties/chicago-bulls
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-last-ride-of-the-spurs-dynasty/
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/05/san-antonio-spurs-oklahoma-city-thunder-tim-duncan-manu-ginobili-tony-parker-nba-playoffs
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2097234-dominant-nba-finals-triumph-makes-spurs-greatest-dynasty-of-modern-era
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/16/sports/basketball/spurs-rally-to-rout-heat-and-win-the-nba-title.html?_r=0
http://hangtime.blogs.nba.com/2014/06/17/spurs-belong-with-all-time-elites/
http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2012/05/san_antonio_spurs_2012_the_nba_s_most_successful_f ranchise_reveals_that_america_is_a_nation_of_hypoc rites_.html
http://reboundmagazine.com/the-spurs-the-sport-dynasty/
http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/blair-kerkhoff/article8945531.html
http://hoopshabit.com/2015/01/25/end-near-san-antonio-spurs-dynasty/

[TampaDude]

Doesn't seem that way. Just a cursory search will prove other

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/blair-kerkhoff/article8945531.html
http://www.complex.com/sports/2014/06/nba-dynasties/chicago-bulls
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-last-ride-of-the-spurs-dynasty/
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/05/san-antonio-spurs-oklahoma-city-thunder-tim-duncan-manu-ginobili-tony-parker-nba-playoffs
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2097234-dominant-nba-finals-triumph-makes-spurs-greatest-dynasty-of-modern-era
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/16/sports/basketball/spurs-rally-to-rout-heat-and-win-the-nba-title.html?_r=0
http://hangtime.blogs.nba.com/2014/06/17/spurs-belong-with-all-time-elites/
http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2012/05/san_antonio_spurs_2012_the_nba_s_most_successful_f ranchise_reveals_that_america_is_a_nation_of_hypoc rites_.html
http://reboundmagazine.com/the-spurs-the-sport-dynasty/
http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/blair-kerkhoff/article8945531.html
http://hoopshabit.com/2015/01/25/end-near-san-antonio-spurs-dynasty/

Facts don't matter to a Laker fan unless they prove the Lakers are #1, which they don't, because they aren't. :lol

[da_suns_fan]

Thats some dynasty when your team gets swept in the conference finals, the semi finals, loses to an 8th seed as a 1 seed and never repeats.

Spurs = paper champs

[da_suns_fan]

Lost all respect for the Spurs when they got curb-stomped by the Lakers in 2001 in WCF.

I remember the "build up" of these two undefeated teams (both had completed sweeps in the first two rounds) having a "showdown". They were also the last two years respective champions. The Spurs had the best record in the league and thus HCA.

The Spurs lost both games at home and got spanked so hard in LA their asses must STILL be red (I believe they lost one game by 40 points).

And this is part of their "dynasty"? The Spurs were just never really THAT good.

[da_suns_fan]

Jesus:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_2001_WCF_LAL-SAS.html

[ambchang]

Thats some dynasty when your team gets swept in the conference finals, the semi finals, loses to an 8th seed as a 1 seed and never repeats.

Spurs = paper champs

And the Lakers dynasty missed the playoffs and got knocked out by the Suns (aka Spurs doormat) in the first round two years in a row.

[ambchang]

Lost all respect for the Spurs when they got curb-stomped by the Lakers in 2001 in WCF.

I remember the "build up" of these two undefeated teams (both had completed sweeps in the first two rounds) having a "showdown". They were also the last two years respective champions. The Spurs had the best record in the league and thus HCA.

The Spurs lost both games at home and got spanked so hard in LA their asses must STILL be red (I believe they lost one game by 40 points).

And this is part of their "dynasty"? The Spurs were just never really THAT good.

Vs. the 2003 Lakers losing on their home floor by 28 to the Spurs, or losing by 39 to the Celtics in 2008, or getting swept by Dallas in 2011?

You lost respect for the Spurs when they curb-stomped the Suns year after year after year.

[midnightpulp]

Thats some dynasty when your team gets swept in the conference finals, the semi finals, loses to an 8th seed as a 1 seed and never repeats.

Spurs = paper champs

Suns :lol
Throwing a parade for second place :lol
Never even good enough to be "paper champs" :lol
Eternally the Spurs's stepping stone :lol

[Thread]

Suns :lol
Throwing a parade for second place :lol
Never even good enough to be "paper champs" :lol
Eternally the Spurs's stepping stone :lol

& your old dad was their with ya every step of the way. After the rape I needed somebody to stand in the breach and hold the line. You did that, Midst.

I'll never forget it.

- Dad

[midnightpulp]

& your old dad was their with ya every step of the way. After the rape I needed somebody to stand in the breach and hold the line. You did that, Midst.

I'll never forget it.

- Dad

Does it get any lower than throwing that dog and pony show parade for Barkley?

[Thread]

Does it get any lower than throwing that dog and pony show parade for Barkley?

& his car broke down in the middle of it.

And they defended that parade here. Would not back down. Not one of 'em. Brazened it out to this very day.

[Killakobe81]

LOL there is only one answer and that's the Celts. I would love to say Lakers because we have more Finals appearances and have been the more consistent franchise. But only one number truly matters.

[baseline bum]

Throwing a parade for second place :lol


Wait, what? :lol

[Killakobe81]

17 is all that matters ... cute stories like this should beneath Spur fans at this point. Spurs went from 0-5 in duncan's tenure passing Sixers, Pistons, Knicks, and only one down from Bulls ... the goal should be passing Bulls on the way to 17 ...

[baseline bum]

Lost all respect for the Spurs when they got curb-stomped by the Lakers in 2001 in WCF.

I remember the "build up" of these two undefeated teams (both had completed sweeps in the first two rounds) having a "showdown". They were also the last two years respective champions. The Spurs had the best record in the league and thus HCA.

The Spurs lost both games at home and got spanked so hard in LA their asses must STILL be red (I believe they lost one game by 40 points).

And this is part of their "dynasty"? The Spurs were just never really THAT good.

Holy fuck, you faggots had a parade for being losers? :rollin

http://www.nba.com/media/suns/parade_ainge_car.jpg

http://www.nba.com/media/suns/93parade_barkley_800.jpg

[baseline bum]

& his car broke down in the middle of it.

And they defended that parade here. Would not back down. Not one of 'em. Brazened it out to this very day.

I bet you went to that parade, happy to be a loser.

[Thread]

I bet you went to that parade, happy to be a loser.

I don't do parades, but, I was overjoyed to be a loser.

[Mitch]

mono with the goods. Basically this, but I know if we're going by Mitch (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=36270)'s first definition the Lakers would never classify as a dynasty either as they've never remained consistent champs ala the Russell Celtics or Jordan Bulls.

A true dynasty? Maybe 1980s being the closest for repeating + owning half of the titles during the decade. I would not cite them as an example before the Celtics or Bulls. Everybody thinks I say this because I have that Laker logo on the left, but it's simply because I don't see any hard evidence to consider them a dynasty. I would not argue for the Lakers, unless it were the Minneapolis team.

[da_suns_fan]

And the Lakers dynasty missed the playoffs and got knocked out by the Suns (aka Spurs doormat) in the first round two years in a row.

I would say the Lakers "Dynasty" was simply their three peat (wouldnt include 09 and 10).

And they WERE dominant. They lost A game in the 2001 playoffs. Shaq was so dominant the rest of the league basically cried "this isnt fair".

[da_suns_fan]

Suns :lol
Throwing a parade for second place :lol
Never even good enough to be "paper champs" :lol
Eternally the Spurs's stepping stone :lol


Holy fuck, you faggots had a parade for being losers? :rollin

http://www.nba.com/media/suns/parade_ainge_car.jpg

http://www.nba.com/media/suns/93parade_barkley_800.jpg


& your old dad was their with ya every step of the way. After the rape I needed somebody to stand in the breach and hold the line. You did that, Midst.

I'll never forget it.

- Dad


I don't do parades, but, I was overjoyed to be a loser.

There was good article the other day about how, despite losing, that finals appearance put Phoenix on the map:

http://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/2015/05/18/bickley-valley-can-learn-lot-republics-history/27560829/

Within 5 years we had all four major sports franchises and have hosted three super bowls since. It was a loss, but still changed Phoenix in a big way.

[ambchang]

I would say the Lakers "Dynasty" was simply their three peat (wouldnt include 09 and 10).

And they WERE dominant. They lost A game in the 2001 playoffs. Shaq was so dominant the rest of the league basically cried "this isnt fair".

Game 7 vs. the Blazers and Game 6 vs. the Kings disagree.

Getting swept in 1999 by the Spurs and then humiliated in 2003 on their home floor as well.

[da_suns_fan]

Game 7 vs. the Blazers and Game 6 vs. the Kings disagree.

Getting swept in 1999 by the Spurs and then humiliated in 2003 on their home floor as well.

Lol..if they were "humiliated" in 2003 what were the Spurs in 2004 and in 2008?

That 2001 run was unbelievable. I remember the narrative by Spurs fans in Phoenix was that the Spurs were the only team in 99-2000 to win their season series against the Lakers. They honestly believed if Duncan hadnt been hurt, they could have beaten the Lakers.

Then 2001 comes and they get their chance. A chance to prove they were the true champions.

The result made Tyson vs McNealy look like a fair fight. I mean it was a DEVASTATING defeat. What a reality check for Spurs fans, eh?

[Ashy Larry]

Classic

[Mikeanaro]

There was good article the other day about how, despite losing, that finals appearance put Phoenix on the map:

http://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/2015/05/18/bickley-valley-can-learn-lot-republics-history/27560829/

Within 5 years we had all four major sports franchises and have hosted three super bowls since. It was a loss, but still changed Phoenix in a big way.
Who cares, they are on the map for what?:lmao
Once in the Finals, forever losers :lmao
I lost the little respect I had for Phoenix thats like a gay parade now I understand why Charles got fatter and fatter and I blame that dirty city.

[Thread]

Once in the Finals, forever losers

Twice in the Finals, '76, forever losers.

[ambchang]

Lol..if they were "humiliated" in 2003 what were the Spurs in 2004 and in 2008?

That 2001 run was unbelievable. I remember the narrative by Spurs fans in Phoenix was that the Spurs were the only team in 99-2000 to win their season series against the Lakers. They honestly believed if Duncan hadnt been hurt, they could have beaten the Lakers.

Then 2001 comes and they get their chance. A chance to prove they were the true champions.

The result made Tyson vs McNealy look like a fair fight. I mean it was a DEVASTATING defeat. What a reality check for Spurs fans, eh?

The Spurs were humiliated. Losing 4 straight after up 2-0? It was just embarrassing.

As for 2008, the Spurs never really had a legit chance, the Spurs were horrible from 08 to around 10 (based on Spurs standards).

The Lakers won 2001 fair and square, not qualms about it at all, but how that is relevant to 2000 is beyond me. One thing of note though, was how Derek Anderson was hurt made the series a lot less competitive. Yes, it was just Anderson, but he was the only Spurs player who could create on the perimeter, without that the Spurs were toast. Besides, the Spurs got their revenge in 2003 (causing the break-up of the Lakers and forced them into one year rentals of Malone and Payton), and went on the ring in a rebuilding year.

The Lakers 2001 postseason was phenomenal, but the 2000 and 2002 titles? Huge asterisks besides them.

[Caltex2]

Holy fuck, you faggots had a parade for being losers? :rollin

http://www.nba.com/media/suns/parade_ainge_car.jpg

http://www.nba.com/media/suns/93parade_barkley_800.jpg

Could be worse. Houston once threw a parade for Astros finishing tied for 3rd (2004).

[Clipper Nation]

Thats some dynasty when your team gets swept in the conference finals, the semi finals, loses to an 8th seed as a 1 seed and never repeats.

Spurs = paper champs
Suns... need I say more :lmao

[da_suns_fan]

The Spurs were humiliated. Losing 4 straight after up 2-0? It was just embarrassing.

As for 2008, the Spurs never really had a legit chance, the Spurs were horrible from 08 to around 10 (based on Spurs standards).

The Lakers won 2001 fair and square, not qualms about it at all, but how that is relevant to 2000 is beyond me. One thing of note though, was how Derek Anderson was hurt made the series a lot less competitive. Yes, it was just Anderson, but he was the only Spurs player who could create on the perimeter, without that the Spurs were toast. Besides, the Spurs got their revenge in 2003 (causing the break-up of the Lakers and forced them into one year rentals of Malone and Payton), and went on the ring in a rebuilding year.

The Lakers 2001 postseason was phenomenal, but the 2000 and 2002 titles? Huge asterisks besides them.

So much garbage there...the SPurs were "horrible" in 2008 despite having the exact same team that won in 2007? Who was hurt? Did they have a healthy Duncan, Ginobili and Parker? Likewise losing in 03 didnt "break-up the Lakers", they regrouped and made it back to the finals the very next year. The Shaq-Kobe feud and age broke up the Lakers' Shaq/Kobe dynasty. It certainly wasnt the Spurs whom they managed to beat AGAIN in 04.

I dont know why 2000 and 2002 were "asterisk" championships. They were CLEARLY the best team in each respective year. Portland had about as much depth as any GM could possibly dream and they still couldnt overcome the Shaq/Kobe combo. Sacramento proved they had no one who wanted to shoot with the game on the line when they choked in overtime.

[da_suns_fan]

Suns... need I say more :lmao

You know youre a clippers fan, right?

[Malik Hairston]

I agree that the 2003/2005/2007 Spurs were nowhere near historically great, nor were they comparable to the 2001 Lakers(althoughtheir perimeter competition in the playoffs was historically bad, which is often overlooked), the Heat teams, etc, but regardless, it should be considered a dynastic run..a team in San Antonio, a market that can't draw FAs and no prestige, has somehow managed to have a run of unrivaled consistency and 5 titles, despite only having 1 superstar and Parker/Ginobili only being stars for short periods of time(in relation to conventional stars)..

The 2014 team was one of the greatest teams in league history, and the organization itself has changed basketball in many ways(which has been echoed by many people), though, can't ignore that..

There's virtually nothing impressive about winning titles in LA, tbh:lol..their organization hasn't changed, at all, they're still relying on the "luring Free Agents to LA and spending more $" strategy in 2015, which is fine and has been the correct strategy, but only doable in Los Angeles..

Celtics have been a joke for most of my lifetime, and the Bulls, while dominant, had a short window that coincided with the dark ages of the NBA(like the early 2000s Spurs)..

[Clipper Nation]

You know youre a clippers fan, right?
Same ring count.

Suns :lmao

[da_suns_fan]

I agree that the 2003/2005/2007 Spurs were nowhere near historically great, nor were they comparable to the 2001 Lakers(althoughtheir perimeter competition in the playoffs was historically bad, which is often overlooked), the Heat teams, etc, but regardless, it should be considered a dynastic run..a team in San Antonio, a market that can't draw FAs and no prestige, has somehow managed to have a run of unrivaled consistency and 5 titles, despite only having 1 superstar and Parker/Ginobili only being stars for short periods of time(in relation to conventional stars)..

The 2014 team was one of the greatest teams in league history, and the organization itself has changed basketball in many ways(which has been echoed by many people), though, can't ignore that..

There's virtually nothing impressive about winning titles in LA, tbh:lol..their organization hasn't changed, at all, they're still relying on the "luring Free Agents to LA and spending more $" strategy in 2015, which is fine and has been the correct strategy, but only doable in Los Angeles..

Celtics have been a joke for most of my lifetime, and the Bulls, while dominant, had a short window that coincided with the dark ages of the NBA(like the early 2000s Spurs)..



Did you REALLY just call the 90s the "dark ages" of the NBA? The Bulls had a "short window"? WTF?

THe NBA reached its peak popularity in the 90s. The Bulls won six titles in 8 years. Thats not a short window. Thats called dominating the decade. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant?

[Malik Hairston]

Did you REALLY just call the 90s the "dark ages" of the NBA? The Bulls had a "short window"? WTF?

THe NBA reached its peak popularity in the 90s. The Bulls won six titles in 8 years. Thats not a short window. Thats called dominating the decade. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant?

I meant short window compared to the Spurs from a longevity standpoint..Bulls were far more dominant, probably the most dominant run of all-time in relation to competition, but began their run in 1991, missed 2 years, and it all ended in 1998..they have been a joke of a team, since..

The NBA reached it's peak popularity because of Jordan's presence, obviously:lol..It's considered by many to be the dark ages of the NBA, as Bob Ryan said the other day(an unbiased writer that has been covering the NBA nationally since the 60s, so isn't clouded by 90s nostalgia), although it's skewed because the current generation of analysts and media are mostly from that era, affected by nostalgia..expansion era, watered down league, White American players as stars, after the Celtics/Lakers/Pistons teams finished their runs, the Bulls competition in the East was the Knicks led by John Starks(:lmao) and the Indiana Pacers:lol..

[100%duncan]

Dynasty of Tim Duncan. The greatest basketball player of his generation :worthy:

[midnightpulp]

Lol..if they were "humiliated" in 2003 what were the Spurs in 2004 and in 2008?

That 2001 run was unbelievable. I remember the narrative by Spurs fans in Phoenix was that the Spurs were the only team in 99-2000 to win their season series against the Lakers. They honestly believed if Duncan hadnt been hurt, they could have beaten the Lakers.

Then 2001 comes and they get their chance. A chance to prove they were the true champions.

The result made Tyson vs McNealy look like a fair fight. I mean it was a DEVASTATING defeat. What a reality check for Spurs fans, eh?

That's a fair argument, since the Spurs swept them in '99, and also swept that Trailblazer team that wound up pushing the Lakers to 7. I don't like hypothetical scenarios like this (much like idiot Suns fans such as yourself believe "if Amare wouldn't have been suspended, we woulda won :cry") because it just comes down to speculation of something that has too much variance, but it's not a "given" the Lakers beat the Spurs in '00.

Invoking the '01 Spurs team as "proof" the Lakers would've beaten the Spurs in '00 is also nonsensical. The '01 Lakers were much better than '00 Lakers. Kobe had the peak playoff run of his career, as did Fisher, who averaged a career playoff high 13ppg and shot a ridiculous 51% from 3. And the Spurs were much worse. Derek Anderson was the second offensive option on that team (think about that for a moment) and after he got hurt, the Spurs wings consisted of Terry Porter, Danny Ferry, and Sean Elliott, all far past their primes. And an overall the hill Avery Johnson was the starting PG. That team was collection of garbage around Tim Duncan and an aging David Robinson. No reality check needed. Maybe the Phoenix Spurs fans "believed," but I knew we were gonna get rocked, especially after Anderson went down.

I think we should've beaten them in '02, though. The Spurs got Bowen, Steve Smith (still capable), and drafted Parker, all significant upgrades over the trash perimeter we had in '01. The Spurs actually led all 4th quarters in the series, but simply choked. No excuses.

I also find it funny that when the Lakers (or some other Spur opponent) lose, Spurs haters such as yourself (understandable, since we've used your shit team as a stepping stone for 3 titles) you excuse it with, "Well, that wasn't their best team/lineup! They were feuding and worn out!" but Spurs fans aren't granted the same leeway, every Spurs team that was beaten was a "great team" at its peak, completely healthy and energized.

[da_suns_fan]

I meant short window compared to the Spurs from a longevity standpoint..Bulls were far more dominant, probably the most dominant run of all-time in relation to competition, but began their run in 1991, missed 2 years, and it all ended in 1998..they have been a joke of a team, since..

The NBA reached it's peak popularity because of Jordan's presence, obviously:lol..It's considered by many to be the dark ages of the NBA, as Bob Ryan said the other day(an unbiased writer that has been covering the NBA nationally since the 60s, so isn't clouded by 90s nostalgia), although it's skewed because the current generation of analysts and media are mostly from that era, affected by nostalgia..expansion era, watered down league, White American players as stars, after the Celtics/Lakers/Pistons teams finished their runs, the Bulls competition in the East was the Knicks led by John Starks(:lmao) and the Indiana Pacers:lol..

This is just ridiculous. Jordan, Barkley, Shaq, Penny, Malone, Stockton, Ewing, Robinson, Alonzo, Kemp, Payton, even freaking Mugsy Bogues. NBA on NBC, starter jackets, NBA Jam, the Dream team, Hoop Dreams, Space Jam etc.

Thats not "nostalgia", the NBA was KING in the 90s (it is now dwarfed by the NFL).

btw - Jordan and the Bulls lost to Shaq and Penny in 95. The early 90s Knicks were very tough, and the Eastern Conference in the 90s was LIGHT YEARS better than it is today. Who the hell is Lebron James' competition in the east?

[ambchang]

So much garbage there...the SPurs were "horrible" in 2008 despite having the exact same team that won in 2007? Who was hurt? Did they have a healthy Duncan, Ginobili and Parker? Likewise losing in 03 didnt "break-up the Lakers", they regrouped and made it back to the finals the very next year. The Shaq-Kobe feud and age broke up the Lakers' Shaq/Kobe dynasty. It certainly wasnt the Spurs whom they managed to beat AGAIN in 04.

Exact same team? Ime Udoka and Kurt Thomas got semi-major roles in 2008, the Spurs went through a slew of nagging injuries throughout the season, and was never really clicking on offense at any point in the season. They went from 5th in offensive efficiency to 15th. The major role players, like Bowen, Finley, Oberto all had drop off in production due to age.

Besides, the 2007 team was the worst of the 4 championship team the Spurs had. I will admit it, they got lucky. if they faced the Mavs, the Mavs would have beat them, and beat them quite handily. They may not be able to go through the Pistons either. They just got lucky that both teams were taken out before they faced each other.

The 03 and 04 Lakers team was totally different, and the lakers went with that direction because they theorized that the role players weren't good enough, so they went out for 1 year rentals. They didn't get over the hump, and the Lakers were dismantled the following year.


I dont know why 2000 and 2002 were "asterisk" championships. They were CLEARLY the best team in each respective year. Portland had about as much depth as any GM could possibly dream and they still couldnt overcome the Shaq/Kobe combo. Sacramento proved they had no one who wanted to shoot with the game on the line when they choked in overtime.

They were not the clearly the best team in their respective years. Both championships were shrouded by controversy.

[monosylab1k]

Holy fuck, you faggots had a parade for being losers? :rollin

http://www.nba.com/media/suns/parade_ainge_car.jpg

http://www.nba.com/media/suns/93parade_barkley_800.jpg
:lmao this is the saddest thing i've ever seen. LMAO phoenix

[100%duncan]

Celebrating cos they lost to Jordan :lmao
Nash flop costing them their own players :lmao
Suns :lmao
Losers :lmao
Cubby :lmao

[Thread]

Celebrating cos they lost to Jordan :lmao
Nash flop costing them their own players :lmao
Suns :lmao
Losers :lmao
Cubby :lmao

WTF are you laughing at me for?