back 2 back titles for the spurs

[duncandaman]

whats do u guys think that we never one any championships back 2 back mean for the spurs, when its all said and done, will we be in da same sentence like jordans bulls, phills lakers, or maybe it doesnt matter

[E20]

Only 5 teams have won back-to-back championships and only 5 teams have one more than two, so I don't think it doesn't really matter and the Spurs are in the latter half of that stat, so it doesn't really matter.

[ChumpDumper]

You know, I really have to fight the urge to immediately ban posters that use the article "da" as normal syntax.

[Mr. Body]

The Spurs will probably be talked about as a good team in a down period for the league. In some ways it depends on how long Sean Elliott and especially Steve Kerr are in the public eye. Kerr always jocks the Spurs in broadcasts.

[lefty]

Hey when u think about it ; it doesn't matter.

Bird era Celtics won 3 non-consecutive titles ; they were a great team.

Plus, Tim Duncan's career is similar to Larry Bird's :

-Titles : 3 each (non-consecutive in both cases ; and Tim can win a 4th before retiring)

- Regular season MVP awards : Bird has 3 and Tim has 2 ; consecutive in both cases.

- Finals MVP : 3 for Duncan, 2 for Bird

- Both were ROY

-Flashiness : 0 for both

[Extra Stout]

The Spurs should go down as having had the 7th- or 8th-greatest run in NBA history, behind the following:

Lakers of the '40s & '50s
Celtics of the '50s & '60s
Lakers of the '80s
Celtics of the '80s
Bulls of the '90s
Lakers of the '00s (the Lakers have had more than their share of these).

It is arguable whether these Spurs have been better than the Knicks of the '70s that won two titles and went to the '72 Finals as well.

[Solid D]

It's won, not one. Is there a trophy for back-to-back titles? Is a pair won consecutively better than 3 total?

[Oh, Gee!!]

What's da dealie?

[FromWayDowntown]

The Spurs should go down as having had the 7th- or 8th-greatest run in NBA history, behind the following:

Lakers of the '40s & '50s
Celtics of the '50s & '60s
Lakers of the '80s
Celtics of the '80s
Bulls of the '90s
Lakers of the '00s (the Lakers have had more than their share of these).

It is arguable whether these Spurs have been better than the Knicks of the '70s that won two titles and went to the '72 Finals as well.

I think, in some ways, the thing that makes the Spurs run more impressive than it might otherwise seem is the lack of too many figures who participated in all 3 (and, hopefully, a couple more) championship runs.

At this point, of the major team cogs (player + head coach), only 2 Spurs have participated in all 3 title runs: Duncan and Popovich. There are a handful who participated in 2 of the runs: David Robinson, Malik Rose, Steve Kerr, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, and Bruce Bowen. But the 1999 title team was a very different creature than the 2005 title team.

If you compare that to the other teams that are rightfully on Extra Stout's list, the Spurs have far less continuity over their run.

For example, there were at least 8 Lakers who were part of all 3 titles in their run: Shaq, Kobe, Horry, Fisher, Fox, George, Brian Shaw, and Phil Jackson. To some extent, continuity is an easier thing to maintain when you're winning consecutively; at the same time, it's far easier to maintain a title streak when you maintain your continuity.

There were at least 10 Bulls who were integral parts of their 2nd threepeat: Jordan, Pippen, Kukoc, Rodman, Ron Harper, Kerr, Randy Brown, Longley, Wennington, and Phil. There were as many Bulls who were a part of their first threepeat: Jordan, Pippen, Grant, Cartwright, B.J. Armstrong, Scott Williams, Stacey King, Will Perdue, John Paxson, and Phil.

The Celtics of the 80's are much closer to the Spurs of this era, but they still had 4 players who participated in all 3 of their titles: Bird, McHale, Parish, and Dennis Johnson. They also had 2 others, Danny Ainge and Scott Wedman (along with K.C. Jones) who were a part of the last 2 Celtics' champions.

The Lakers of the 80's had 3 players who participated in all 5 of their titles: Magic, Kareem, and Michael Cooper. They had another player (Rambis) and coach (Riley) who were there for 4 of those titles. They had at least 1 player (Jamaal Wilkes) there for 3 of their runs. And they had 7 other guys who participated in at least 2 runs: Norm Nixon, Mark Landsberger, Mitch Kupchak, Mike McGee, Bob McAdoo, A.C. Green, and Mychal Thompson (thanks to the Spurs).

I'm not sure that any team has ever won multiple titles over a period of time with as much turnover as these Spurs have dealt with.

[cheguevara]

If you really think about it, can you beleive if not for the .4 and dumb foul by Manu, we could be talking about 5 and 4 in a row!!! :pctoss :pctoss :pctoss

[Homeland Security]

If you really think about it, can you beleive if not for the .4 and dumb foul by Manu, we could be talking about 5 and 4 in a row!!! :pctoss :pctoss :pctoss
I dunno about .4. The Spurs lost to the team that lost to the champs. The Spurs barely held off Detroit in '05 with a stronger team than what they had in '04.

[Phenomanul]

Hey when u think about it ; it doesn't matter.

Bird era Celtics won 3 non-consecutive titles ; they were a great team.

Plus, Tim Duncan's career is similar to Larry Bird's :

-Titles : 3 each (non-consecutive in both cases ; and Tim can win a 4th before retiring)

- Regular season MVP awards : Bird has 3 and Tim has 2 ; consecutive in both cases.

- Finals MVP : 3 for Duncan, 2 for Bird

- Both were ROY

-Flashiness : 0 for both

I disagree on the last one....

Bird was a flashy player...

He must've had at least 30 game winning shots or game winning plays during his career. He lived for big, dramatic, moments -- that is outright flashy even if not done in a 'super' athletic fashion.

[G-Money]

Why isnt the bad boyz on the great teams hall of fame list??? they won 2 in a row night to mention they beat a Johnson, a bird and a jordon team to get those championships. sorry to sound like a homer.

[Phenomanul]

Why isnt the bad boyz on the great teams hall of fame list??? they won 2 in a row night to mention they beat a Johnson, a bird and a jordon team to get those championships. sorry to sound like a homer.


Cause they literally beat them.... they were a dirty bunch....
:spin :spin

[G-Money]

Cause they literally beat them.... they were a dirty bunch....
:spin :spin


buts thats what made them stand out!!! :downspin:

[lefty]

I disagree on the last one....

Bird was a flashy player...

He must've had at least 30 game winning shots or game winning plays during his career. He lived for big, dramatic, moments -- that is outright flashy even if not done in a 'super' athletic fashion.

U are right ; I should have written "charisma" ; but yes, Birdy was flashy