Why The Spurs Are NOT A Dynasty

[Fast Dunk]

I found this note, There are a lot of people that can not accept the Spurs as a Dynasty (even Tony Parker)

Discuss:


I'm sure if you watched Game 4 of the NBA Finals...or read a newspaper...or watched ESPN at all today...you were hit over the head with sportswriters and pundints telling you how the Spurs were on the verge of becoming a dynasty. Well, let me tell you the truth about that claim: it is false. Simply, truly, and completely false. There are a number of reasons why, and I am more than happy to share them with you.

1. The Spurs never won consecutive titles: Will Perdue said it best in an interview earlier today:

"(Consistency) carries a little bit more weight," said Perdue, now an NBA analyst for ESPN Radio. "Isn't repeating supposed to be the hardest thing to do for all the necessary factors?

Yes Will, it is. Repeating is what seperates the men from the boys when it comes to dynasty and greatest of all time talk. The Spurs being called a dynasty without ever repeating is like someone running for President without ever holding public office. The two just go hand in hand. That is why the phrase dynastic succession exists. A dynasty, by definition, implies succession, and the Spurs have never accomplished that. Case closed.

2. The Lakers 3-Peat: There is also the pesky little fact of, oh, the Lakers winning three titles in the midst of the Spurs run. Can you name any other run that is termed a dynasty that not only had a three year run without a title, much less a three year run where the same team won in each of those three years. Here is the real deal: The Lakers three peat was closer to a dynasty than the Spurs run, and only Kobe's force out of Shaq prevented two or three more Laker's titles. The three peat alone keeps the Spurs from being a dynasty.

3. 1999 doesn't really count: The first title in this run does not really fit in with the rest for two reasons. First, the season was tainted because of the strike, which made the season only 50 games long and cheapened the entire enterprise. Secondly, other than a very young Duncan, that team has no relation to the current squad that has won 3 titles in 4 years. That team was Duncan and David Robinson. This team is Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili and is an entirely different team that is three years detached from that '99 squad.

4. The regular season: I might, might, be willing to give the Spurs the dynasty nod if it was a situation where they were dominating in the regular season every year and then choking in the playoffs. But do you know how many years the Spurs stood alone atop the regular season standings during this 9 year stretch? Once. Next please.

5. Simple math: Name a single other run designated as a dynasty where the dynasty team won less than half of the championships during the dynasty period. Yup, that's right: it has never happened.

As much as the media wants to make this story, the point of a dynasty is that is both historic and difficult. That is why there has only ever been one team in baseball to have a true dynasty (Three different runs by the Yankees), only four teams to do it in hockey (Toronto 44-51, Montreal 65-79, New York 80-83, and Edmonton 84-90), and arguably one in the NFL (The Steelers 4 in 6 during the '70s). Now here is my one caveat: if the Spurs do repeat next season, all will be forgiven in the dynasty discussion. Winning 4 titles in 6 years, with the essential repeat present in this case, along with the same core of players present, would indeed make the Spurs a dynasty. Even in that scenario however, there is no way that the '99 title should be included in any dynasty discussion. Calling the Spurs current run a dynasty does nothing but fill newspaper copy and cheapen the term.



http://winningtheturnoverbattle.blogspot.com/2007/06/why-spurs-are-not-dynasty.html

[Axl Van Dam]

I found this note, There are a lot of people that can not accept the Spurs as a Dynasty (even Tony Parker)

Discuss:


I'm sure if you watched Game 4 of the NBA Finals...or read a newspaper...or watched ESPN at all today...you were hit over the head with sportswriters and pundints telling you how the Spurs were on the verge of becoming a dynasty. Well, let me tell you the truth about that claim: it is false. Simply, truly, and completely false. There are a number of reasons why, and I am more than happy to share them with you.

1. The Spurs never won consecutive titles: Will Perdue said it best in an interview earlier today:

"(Consistency) carries a little bit more weight," said Perdue, now an NBA analyst for ESPN Radio. "Isn't repeating supposed to be the hardest thing to do for all the necessary factors?

Yes Will, it is. Repeating is what seperates the men from the boys when it comes to dynasty and greatest of all time talk. The Spurs being called a dynasty without ever repeating is like someone running for President without ever holding public office. The two just go hand in hand. That is why the phrase dynastic succession exists. A dynasty, by definition, implies succession, and the Spurs have never accomplished that. Case closed.

2. The Lakers 3-Peat: There is also the pesky little fact of, oh, the Lakers winning three titles in the midst of the Spurs run. Can you name any other run that is termed a dynasty that not only had a three year run without a title, much less a three year run where the same team won in each of those three years. Here is the real deal: The Lakers three peat was closer to a dynasty than the Spurs run, and only Kobe's force out of Shaq prevented two or three more Laker's titles. The three peat alone keeps the Spurs from being a dynasty.

3. 1999 doesn't really count: The first title in this run does not really fit in with the rest for two reasons. First, the season was tainted because of the strike, which made the season only 50 games long and cheapened the entire enterprise. Secondly, other than a very young Duncan, that team has no relation to the current squad that has won 3 titles in 4 years. That team was Duncan and David Robinson. This team is Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili and is an entirely different team that is three years detached from that '99 squad.

4. The regular season: I might, might, be willing to give the Spurs the dynasty nod if it was a situation where they were dominating in the regular season every year and then choking in the playoffs. But do you know how many years the Spurs stood alone atop the regular season standings during this 9 year stretch? Once. Next please.

5. Simple math: Name a single other run designated as a dynasty where the dynasty team won less than half of the championships during the dynasty period. Yup, that's right: it has never happened.

As much as the media wants to make this story, the point of a dynasty is that is both historic and difficult. That is why there has only ever been one team in baseball to have a true dynasty (Three different runs by the Yankees), only four teams to do it in hockey (Toronto 44-51, Montreal 65-79, New York 80-83, and Edmonton 84-90), and arguably one in the NFL (The Steelers 4 in 6 during the '70s). Now here is my one caveat: if the Spurs do repeat next season, all will be forgiven in the dynasty discussion. Winning 4 titles in 6 years, with the essential repeat present in this case, along with the same core of players present, would indeed make the Spurs a dynasty. Even in that scenario however, there is no way that the '99 title should be included in any dynasty discussion. Calling the Spurs current run a dynasty does nothing but fill newspaper copy and cheapen the term.



http://winningtheturnoverbattle.blogspot.com/2007/06/why-spurs-are-not-dynasty.html

:wakeup Still can't accept the fact you got swept huh? :wakeup

[Fast Dunk]

I do, but the subject is about the Spurs as a dynasty..

[Amuseddaysleeper]

i don't buy into the bullshit that the '99 season shouldn't count just because the season was shortened. Not the Spurs fault. Had the PLAYOFFS been shortened, then yes, by all means, put an asterisk, but they still had to get 16 (or 15, at the time) wins to go all the way. So that is a very poor excuse to play that trophy down.


I will however agree that the lakers early 2000's run was far more impressive and that yes, the spurs do need to win consecutive championships at least once.

[Fast Dunk]

More about the so-called "Spurs Dynasty"

CLEVELAND -- All right, let's get all the reasons we would not consider the San Antonio Spurs one of history's most successful franchises out of the way immediately.

• They never had to win a championship against Michael Jordan, a notorious spoiler of the Clyde Drexler Trail Blazers, the Charles Barkley Suns, the Gary Payton SuperSonics and the John Stockton-Karl Malone Jazz.

• They play in a league diluted by expansion.

• Their first title, in 1999, occurred in a lockout-shortened season.

• Their most recent championship came against what was surely one of the worst Finals teams ever, LeBron James' individual brilliance notwithstanding.

OK, that said, San Antonio's fourth title in nine years, completed Thursday night at Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, is a monumental accomplishment that should give the Spurs a permanent place in sports history.

Let's just not bring up the "D" word. The Spurs are not a dynasty. They haven't suggested that about themselves. To me, a dynasty means this: A team must win more than half the championships over a decade and be considered the clear favorite in most of those seasons. A decade is a ---- measure, of course, but dynasty-dom has to be demonstrated over an extended period of time; the Mings, after all, lasted from 1368 to 1644. (Not the Yao Mings.)

In my view, only two franchises truly qualify as a dynasty -- the Boston Celtics, who, absurdly, won 11 championships in 13 seasons from 1957 to 1969 during the Bill Russell days, and Jordan's Chicago Bulls, who won six titles in eight years (the franchise's only championships) from '91 to '98.

Overall, the Celtics have won 16 titles (though a contemporary cynic would have to note that not a single one has come since '86). That career record is challenged only by the Lakers, who have 14 championships, five of them when the team was in Minneapolis, which was the dominant franchise in the NBA's first decade. But the Lakers have never had a true dynasty. They won five titles from '80 to '88, a tremendous achievement to be sure, but they clearly shared the decade with the Celtics, who won three titles in seven seasons. And they would've needed a couple more with the Shaquille O'Neal-Kobe Bryant combo to meet the dynasty standard in the early years of this century.

Which brings us to the Spurs. Four titles in nine years in an era of free agency and revolving-door coaches is a monumental accomplishment. Tim Duncan and Gregg Popovich have been around for all four. Duncan's complementary pieces (Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, Bruce Bowen) have been there for the last three. One thing the Spurs have not done, however, is repeat, a fact pointed out to Popovich on Thursday night.


"Will that be extra motivation for next season?" he was asked.

"I don't give a shit," Pop said with a smile.

My guess is, he does. And if the Spurs win again, we'll resume this conversation.

[Fast Dunk]

More about the so-called "Spurs Dynasty"



"Will that be extra motivation for next season?" he was asked.

"I don't give a shit," Pop said with a smile.

My guess is, he does. And if the Spurs win again, we'll resume this conversation.

"I don't give a shit" meaning "We probably won't repeat" (as usual)

[Amuseddaysleeper]

and even if they don't, who gives a shit

still 4 more rings than cleveland

[spurs4real]

More about the so-called "Spurs Dynasty"

CLEVELAND -- All right, let's get all the reasons we would not consider the San Antonio Spurs one of history's most successful franchises out of the way immediately.

• They never had to win a championship against Michael Jordan, a notorious spoiler of the Clyde Drexler Trail Blazers, the Charles Barkley Suns, the Gary Payton SuperSonics and the John Stockton-Karl Malone Jazz.

• They play in a league diluted by expansion.

• Their first title, in 1999, occurred in a lockout-shortened season.

• Their most recent championship came against what was surely one of the worst Finals teams ever, LeBron James' individual brilliance notwithstanding.

OK, that said, San Antonio's fourth title in nine years, completed Thursday night at Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, is a monumental accomplishment that should give the Spurs a permanent place in sports history.

Let's just not bring up the "D" word. The Spurs are not a dynasty. They haven't suggested that about themselves. To me, a dynasty means this: A team must win more than half the championships over a decade and be considered the clear favorite in most of those seasons. A decade is a ---- measure, of course, but dynasty-dom has to be demonstrated over an extended period of time; the Mings, after all, lasted from 1368 to 1644. (Not the Yao Mings.)

In my view, only two franchises truly qualify as a dynasty -- the Boston Celtics, who, absurdly, won 11 championships in 13 seasons from 1957 to 1969 during the Bill Russell days, and Jordan's Chicago Bulls, who won six titles in eight years (the franchise's only championships) from '91 to '98.

Overall, the Celtics have won 16 titles (though a contemporary cynic would have to note that not a single one has come since '86). That career record is challenged only by the Lakers, who have 14 championships, five of them when the team was in Minneapolis, which was the dominant franchise in the NBA's first decade. But the Lakers have never had a true dynasty. They won five titles from '80 to '88, a tremendous achievement to be sure, but they clearly shared the decade with the Celtics, who won three titles in seven seasons. And they would've needed a couple more with the Shaquille O'Neal-Kobe Bryant combo to meet the dynasty standard in the early years of this century.

Which brings us to the Spurs. Four titles in nine years in an era of free agency and revolving-door coaches is a monumental accomplishment. Tim Duncan and Gregg Popovich have been around for all four. Duncan's complementary pieces (Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, Bruce Bowen) have been there for the last three. One thing the Spurs have not done, however, is repeat, a fact pointed out to Popovich on Thursday night.


"Will that be extra motivation for next season?" he was asked.

"I don't give a shit," Pop said with a smile.

My guess is, he does. And if the Spurs win again, we'll resume this conversation.
LMAO, damn bro let it go. Just let it go. its over, dynasty or not you got beat and you make yourself look pathetic over here @ 2 in the morning crying about anything else but your team. Focus on your Cavs and how they can get better. Dynasty, is just a word. who cares, we abviously dont care what the rest of the world or shall i say the States think of us. Serioulsy bro just let it go, youre embarassing yourself.
Facts are for Nerds, Rings are for CHAMPIONS.

[Leetonidas]

:cry

[Fast Dunk]

Next year:

Don't expect the Mavs to get knocked out in the First round.

Don't expect suspensions on Suns players...

[ChumpDumper]

Don't expect me to give a shit.

[Fast Dunk]

Don't expect me to give a shit.

:lol :drunk

[spurs4real]

Next year:

Don't expect the Mavs to get knocked out in the First round.

Don't expect suspensions on Suns players...
right ok, what else?
anymore before you yawn again?

cause i just yawned all over that post.

[Fillmoe]

as much as i hate the spurs and think they are a snoozefest to watch..... you gotta give respect where respect is due...... and winning 4 titles in a 10 year period is pretty good.... i would say they have achieved dynasty status

[spurs4real]

Next year:

Don't expect the Mavs to get knocked out in the First round.

Don't expect suspensions on Suns players...
by the way, mavs and suns would have rolled all over the cavs just like the spurs did. beat it or come with something stronger than that.

[TDMVPDPOY]

4rings is better than not winnin any :D

[Fast Dunk]

People, people!!!

We're not talking about the Cavs here, I know you want to get back at me but the subject here is about the national consensus, the Spurs are NOT a dynasty, only dumb people would think they are...

[ChumpDumper]

Actually the national ESPN poll says they were.

ESPN poll respondents > bitter cavfan

[Fast Dunk]

How about the NBA.com poll?

60% voted No

[ChumpDumper]

ESPN > NBA

Nobody watches the NBA.

[Fast Dunk]

Really?

Then why Spurs fans always complain about ESPN/ABC?

[ChumpDumper]

Shouldn't cavfans be complaining about them too?

[Fast Dunk]

No, why should we?

[ChumpDumper]

Why should we?

[Fast Dunk]

yes why should we complain?

[ChumpDumper]

Why should we complain? They declared us a dynasty!

[Fast Dunk]

Ok...

So you think the spurs are a dynasty?

[Fast Dunk]

I'm not surprised!

[ChumpDumper]

Me?

I don't give a shit.

I'm glad we swept the Cavs.

[Fast Dunk]

uh...ok!

[SpurForLife]

Dude, go back to the Cav boards now. You sound more like a retard with each post!!!!

[IceColdBrewski]

Awww. Wook at the bitter Cavs fan twying to make himself feel better. There there now...it be otay [pat-pat-pat]

[spursfan09]

Dynasty or not, who gives a shit. Spurs won 4 titles in 9 years 3 in the past 5. Only team in the last decade to do something like this. We've been the best in our era thats all that matters.

[exstatic]

Cleveland probably shouldn't enter the talk of dynasty, since they have nothing.

[lebomb]

I love Lebron.....class act.....and I also like the Cavaliers....nice organization....but Fuck Fast Dunk....dude is an absolute idiot.

/thread

[hsxvvd]

The Lakers three peat was closer to a dynasty than the Spurs run, and only Kobe's force out of Shaq prevented two or three more Laker's titles. The three peat alone keeps the Spurs from being a dynasty.

I'm sick of hearing this one... Are people forgetting the Spurs beat the Lakers 4-2 (Conference Finals) in 2003 and then they lost to the Pistons 4-1 in the finals in 2004... BOTH TEAMS WITH SHAQ & KOBE!!!

They blew the team up because it wasn't getting it done! They failed to win it twice, so all this talk about them still winning championships is rubbish.

[Extra Stout]

Dude, go back to the Cav boards now. You sound more like a retard with each post!!!!
Fast Dunk is probably not actually a Cavs fan, but rather a Spurstalk regular posting under a troll alias to stir the pot.

I've done that myself with a couple of different usernames. Since on a Spurs board one is guaranteed a few dozen indignant responses, it can be fairly enjoyable.

[IceColdBrewski]

Seems like all the major sports networks are giving them the nod for a "Dynasty" tag. I couldn't care less myself, but I'm sure that's good enough for those who do. Maybe if the Spurs had played a worthy opponent in the Finals, more average Joe's would probably be doing the same. But alas, we (yes I'm on the team) were stuck with what might go down as the worst Finals team in NBA history. Oh well. I'm sure it wasn't the first choice of the Spurs, but you gotta play the cards you were dealt at that point. I'd have much rather seen a competive series against Detroit or Miami. You know. Against team that has actually WON a Championship in the last few years, and knows what it takes to compete at that level. Not some Leastern Conference srcub that's never been there.

Que Sera, Sera.

4 Championships in 9 years was good enough for the 49ers to be declared a "sports dynasty" according to Wikipedia. If it's good enough for the 9ers, it's good enough for the Spurs. Sorry bitter Cavs fan. You lose this one. Come back when one of your sports teams has actually accomplished 4 Championships in 9 years. Maybe then we'll consider you worthy enough of entering a conversation with us about sports dynasties.

[IceColdBrewski]

Fast Dunk is probably not actually a Cavs fan, but rather a Spurstalk regular posting under a troll alias to stir the pot.

I've done that myself with a couple of different usernames. Since on a Spurs board one is guaranteed a few dozen indignant responses, it can be fairly enjoyable.


I considered that possibility. He's probably not a Cavs fan or a Spurs fan. Just some Spurs hater who doesn't have the guts to admit what his real favorite team is. Most likely a bitter Mavs fan who knows he's lost all rights of smack talking after their monumental choke jobs over the past 2 seasons. :lol

[Clutch20]

The Spurs are not a Dynasty.............because they themselves say they are not!

And that's ok with me.
Dynasties do not declare themselves.
Through their span of dominance, they simply are.

[Homeland Security]

I considered that possibility. He's probably not a Cavs fan or a Spurs fan. Just some Spurs hater who doesn't have the guts to admit what his real favorite team is. Most likely a bitter Mavs fan who knows he's lost all rights of smack talking after their monumental choke jobs over the past 2 seasons. :lol
We have determined that Fast Dunk is an alias of ChumpDumper. We are sending him to Gitmo for torture, er, debriefing.

[JustSpurs]

Ok...

So you think the spurs are a dynasty?

A: Yes and you're a tool.

[Marcus Bryant]

• They play in a league diluted by expansion.




...and more than stiffened by the wave of international talent that has entered the league since '98. But, I know, most of that talent doesn't have dark skin.

America cannot accept the Spurs because they are every thing a pro team should be.

[VinnyTestesVerde]

what kind of credibility does the "Winning the Turnover Battle" blog have?

consider the source of your info :lol

[manubili]

I agree that "Dinasty" doesn't apply as a term for the Spurs. You need consecutive championships. i'm cool with it, It's nice to have a goal for next years.
But winning four championships in nine years needs some sort of new word, choose whatever you want: dominance,
Some people take the chance to disminish Spurs props, and that's just delusional.
Four championships in nine years, baby. Deal with it.

[FromWayDowntown]

I don't disagree with the notion that the Spurs aren't a dynasty. But the reasoning (and facts) used in this discussion to support that idea are mostly nonsense.



1. The Spurs never won consecutive titles: Will Perdue said it best in an interview earlier today:

"(Consistency) carries a little bit more weight," said Perdue, now an NBA analyst for ESPN Radio. "Isn't repeating supposed to be the hardest thing to do for all the necessary factors?

Yes Will, it is. Repeating is what seperates the men from the boys when it comes to dynasty and greatest of all time talk. The Spurs being called a dynasty without ever repeating is like someone running for President without ever holding public office. The two just go hand in hand. That is why the phrase dynastic succession exists. A dynasty, by definition, implies succession, and the Spurs have never accomplished that. Case closed.

* * * *

3. 1999 doesn't really count: The first title in this run does not really fit in with the rest for two reasons. First, the season was tainted because of the strike, which made the season only 50 games long and cheapened the entire enterprise. Secondly, other than a very young Duncan, that team has no relation to the current squad that has won 3 titles in 4 years. That team was Duncan and David Robinson. This team is Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili and is an entirely different team that is three years detached from that '99 squad.

The logic here is completely inconsistent. If a dynasty, "by definition, implies succession," then the Spurs last 3 titles are proof positive of that by virtue of the fact that "other than a very young Duncan, that team has no relation to the current squad that has won 3 titles in 4 [sic] years." During the Duncan/Popovich era, the Spurs are close to being dynastic in a very strict sense because one team has now succeeded another and is again atop the NBA. And I think that the notion that there is no correlation between the last 3 Spurs champions and the first is nonsense. The 2003 Spurs had a number of holdovers from the 1999 team: Tim Duncan, David Robinson, Malik Rose, Steve Kerr, and Popovich. The 2007 team has a number of holdovers from the 2003 Spurs: Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, Bruce Bowen, Manu Ginobili, and Popovich. At least 7 players from the early days of the Spurs run and the current days of the Spurs run won a championship together -- it's not as if there's a complete disconnect there.


2. The Lakers 3-Peat: There is also the pesky little fact of, oh, the Lakers winning three titles in the midst of the Spurs run. Can you name any other run that is termed a dynasty that not only had a three year run without a title, much less a three year run where the same team won in each of those three years. Here is the real deal: The Lakers three peat was closer to a dynasty than the Spurs run, and only Kobe's force out of Shaq prevented two or three more Laker's titles. The three peat alone keeps the Spurs from being a dynasty.

The notion that "only Kobe's force out of Shaq prevented two or three more Laker's [sic] titles," is equally ridiculous. One reason the Lakers didn't win at least two more titles in the Kobe-Shaq era is that the Spurs beat their asses in the playoffs in 1999 and 2003. And since the author is willing to deal in hypotheticals: but for Fisher's ridiculous shot in 2004, it's quite likely that the Spurs would have beaten the Lakers a 3rd time in 2004. As it was, during the 1999-2004 stretch (roughly coinciding with the Lakers "dynasty") those teams played 5 playoff series with LA winning 3 and SA winning 2. LA lead the cumulative game total by 14-11 -- great, but hardly dominating.

Besides, suggesting that the Lakers were somehow the only thing that could stop themselves from winning titles gives short-shrift to the 2004 Pistons who did a marvelous job of keeping a title away from the Kobe-Shaq Lakers. I can understand that "Winning the Turnover Battle" has some axe to grind with the Spurs, but you cannot ignore what that Pistons team did in 2004.


4. The regular season: I might, might, be willing to give the Spurs the dynasty nod if it was a situation where they were dominating in the regular season every year and then choking in the playoffs. But do you know how many years the Spurs stood alone atop the regular season standings during this 9 year stretch? Once. Next please.

During the stretch from 1999-2007, the Spurs have been the #1 overall seed in the NBA playoffs on 3 occasions. During that time, no other NBA franchise has had the #1 overall seed more than once:

1999 -- SA
2000 -- LA
2001 -- SA
2002 -- SAC
2003 -- SA
2004 -- IND
2005 -- PNX
2006 -- DET
2007 -- DAL

During that stretch, the Spurs have finished with the 2nd best record in the league another 3 times, meaning they've had one of the top 2 records in the NBA in 6 of the last 9 seasons.

The Spurs have won 60 games (or the equivalent) 3 times since 1999, have won 59 games once, have won 58 games 3 times, and have won 57 games once. In 9 seasons, the Spurs have won at least 57 games (or the equivalent) in 8 of 9 seasons.

As importantly, when you compare year-to-year winning percentages, it becomes fairly clear that the Spurs have set themselves apart from the rest of the league during this era. The Spurs worst season during the stretch was the 1999-2000 season, in which they won 65% of their games (.646). The Spurs have reached that winning percentage in every season since 1998-99, for a total of 9 seasons. During the same stretch, the most by any other franchise is 6 by Dallas. But for elite NBA teams, .646 (a 53-29 season) is fairly pedestrian. A .700 season (57 wins) is a bit more of a benchmark. During the same stretch of time, the Spurs have reached at least a .700 winning percentage in 7 of 9 seasons. The only other teams to have done that more than twice during the same stretch are the Mavericks (4 times) and the Suns (3 times). That is to say that the Spurs have reached .700 almost twice as frequently as any other franchise during this era.

If you aggregate winning percentages over that time, the Spurs are 503-203 since 1999, a .712 winning percentage. No other team in the league has won as many as 470 games (Dallas has won 466) and no other team has a winning percentage exceeding .660 (Dallas has that winning percentage).

To say that the Spurs haven't dominated the NBA regular seasons is ridiculous.


-------

Again, I don't disagree with the notion that these Spurs aren't a dynasty, but I think this particular argument in support of that notion is basically asinine.

[samikeyp]

• They never had to win a championship against Michael Jordan, a notorious spoiler of the Clyde Drexler Trail Blazers, the Charles Barkley Suns, the Gary Payton SuperSonics and the John Stockton-Karl Malone Jazz.

• They play in a league diluted by expansion.

If these are factors then the 90's Bulls were the last dynasty ever because every team from that point forward will have these same two qualities.


So I am to just accept that the Spurs are not a dynasty simply because a few writers are bored and screaming for attention and a Cavs fan is still bent because his team got their collective asses handed to them in the Finals?

:lmao

Since their is no set definition on what determines a "Sports Dynasty" I could care less. The only thing that matters is what has been accomplished and the Spurs have accomplished 4 titles in 9 years. People can argue dynasty, asterisk or whatever until they are blue in the face but facts are facts. The Spurs are the champion and they have won 4 titles since and including 1999. As someone who has been a Spurs fan for 30+ years and who has lived through the good times, bad times and good but not good enough times....no one, no matter how hard they try, can diminish how happy I am about the Spurs latest achievement. So troll away, haters. Your attempts to change my mind about the way I feel toward my hometown team will never work.

:flipoff

[ArgSpursFan]

Fast Dunk is probably not actually a Cavs fan, but rather a Spurstalk regular posting under a troll alias to stir the pot.

I've done that myself with a couple of different usernames. Since on a Spurs board one is guaranteed a few dozen indignant responses, it can be fairly enjoyable.

look who´s talking now.Mr.Right. :lol

[L.I.T]

I've always been confused by this. In the NFL, a league that is diluted by free agency and expansion and has an even more restrictive cap than the NBA, teams like the Patriots are hailed as a modern day dynasty for winning 3 in 4 years. Their roster turnover is incredible as well. However, through savvy front-office moves and believing in their system they have continued to win.

The Spurs have even more success than the Patriots, over a longer period of time in a league "diluted" by expansion and a (less-restrictive) salary cap. Through savvy front-office moves and believing in their system they have won...and won running away.

But, I guess one team is up North and has a photogenic playboy as the face of the franchise, while the other is deep in the South and doesn't really have a face of the franchise...maybe a nose, though.

[dmac]

Let it go, dude. Grab a beer and go watch the best team in the AL central. You won't have far to drive.:toast

[fyatuk]

2. The Lakers 3-Peat: There is also the pesky little fact of, oh, the Lakers winning three titles in the midst of the Spurs run. Can you name any other run that is termed a dynasty that not only had a three year run without a title, much less a three year run where the same team won in each of those three years. Here is the real deal: The Lakers three peat was closer to a dynasty than the Spurs run, and only Kobe's force out of Shaq prevented two or three more Laker's titles. The three peat alone keeps the Spurs from being a dynasty.

3. 1999 doesn't really count: The first title in this run does not really fit in with the rest for two reasons. First, the season was tainted because of the strike, which made the season only 50 games long and cheapened the entire enterprise. Secondly, other than a very young Duncan, that team has no relation to the current squad that has won 3 titles in 4 years. That team was Duncan and David Robinson. This team is Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili and is an entirely different team that is three years detached from that '99 squad.


I love that both of these are listed. If 1999 doesn't count, then the lakers 3-peat is irrelevant because the Spurs counter would start afterwards. To me, the Laker's 3 peat means 1999 shouldn't be counted in dynasty talks, but that's just me.

Personally I don't care about dynasty talk. Having the most dominant winning percentage in profession sports over the last decade is more than enough for me!

[Strike]

More about the so-called "Spurs Dynasty"

CLEVELAND -- All right, let's get all the reasons we would not consider the San Antonio Spurs one of history's most successful franchises out of the way immediately.

• They never had to win a championship against Michael Jordan, a notorious spoiler of the Clyde Drexler Trail Blazers,
Exactly how is it the Spurs fault that Jerry Reinsdorf blew up his championship team?

the Charles Barkley Suns,I'm sorry, but did the Barkley Suns ever beat ANYONE to win a title? No.


the Gary Payton SuperSonics and the John Stockton-Karl Malone Jazz.Once again, who did either of these teams beat to win a championship? Nobody. What does this have to do with the Spurs success?


• They play in a league diluted by expansion.
"Diluted by expansion" incinuates parity. The Spurs have a 70% winning percentage since the 1998 season. If the rest of the league was diluted by expansion, wouldn't that mean the Spurs would be diluted as well?


• Their first title, in 1999, occurred in a lockout-shortened season.
Another classic reason given by haters and whiners.

Did the Spurs play less games than the rest of the league? No. EVERY TEAM PLAYED 50 GAMES. The Spurs won 15 games in the playoffs to win the championship just like many teams did for many years before them. This argument does not hold water. The Spurs had no advantage over any other team. Also, the lockout was not the fault of the Spurs organization.



• Their most recent championship came against what was surely one of the worst Finals teams ever, LeBron James' individual brilliance notwithstanding.
So, is it the Spurs fault that the Eastern Conference is weak? Nope.




OK, that said, San Antonio's fourth title in nine years, completed Thursday night at Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, is a monumental accomplishment that should give the Spurs a permanent place in sports history.

Let's just not bring up the "D" word. The Spurs are not a dynasty. They haven't suggested that about themselves. To me, a dynasty means this: A team must win more than half the championships over a decade and be considered the clear favorite in most of those seasons. A decade is a ---- measure, of course, but dynasty-dom has to be demonstrated over an extended period of time; the Mings, after all, lasted from 1368 to 1644. (Not the Yao Mings.)
By the way, I couldn't care less whether or not media hacks use a meaningless word to describe the team of which I have been a fan for 20 years.



In my view, This is not YOUR view, turd. I've read this article before you posted it. You could at least give credit to the person who wrote it.


only two franchises truly qualify as a dynasty -- the Boston Celtics, who, absurdly, won 11 championships in 13 seasons from 1957 to 1969 during the Bill Russell days, and Jordan's Chicago Bulls, who won six titles in eight years (the franchise's only championships) from '91 to '98.

Overall, the Celtics have won 16 titles (though a contemporary cynic would have to note that not a single one has come since '86). That career record is challenged only by the Lakers, who have 14 championships, five of them when the team was in Minneapolis, which was the dominant franchise in the NBA's first decade. But the Lakers have never had a true dynasty. They won five titles from '80 to '88, a tremendous achievement to be sure, but they clearly shared the decade with the Celtics, who won three titles in seven seasons. And they would've needed a couple more with the Shaquille O'Neal-Kobe Bryant combo to meet the dynasty standard in the early years of this century.

Which brings us to the Spurs. Four titles in nine years in an era of free agency and revolving-door coaches is a monumental accomplishment. Tim Duncan and Gregg Popovich have been around for all four. Duncan's complementary pieces (Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, Bruce Bowen) have been there for the last three. One thing the Spurs have not done, however, is repeat, a fact pointed out to Popovich on Thursday night.


"Will that be extra motivation for next season?" he was asked.

"I don't give a shit," Pop said with a smile.

My guess is, he does. And if the Spurs win again, we'll resume this conversation.

Do you have any takes of your own? Or do you just plagiarize other peoples' articles?

[Ocotillo]

The book on the Spurs dynasty is incomplete.

There is more to come, wait and see. Once Tim retires if they slip into the lottery, then will be the time to consider whether they were a dynasty or not. At this time, it's looking pretty dang good.

[SAGambler]

Next year:

Don't expect the Mavs to get knocked out in the First round.

Don't expect suspensions on Suns players...

On Mavs....Why not? After the choke job last year, and the early elimination this year, who's to say after all that that the Mavs will even make playoffs next year?

As far as the Suns go, they were beaten three times at full strength. Why does everyone just assume that the loss of two players for one game cost them the series? What was their excuse for losing 3 with a full squad? Fact is, Spurs own the Suns. They are like the little brother that keeps trying to measure up, but can't ever get r done.

As for Dynasty. Hell, it's just a word. Who really cares whether they are crowned a Dynasty by the media or not, just as long as the trophies keep rolling in?

But remember that winning percentage? The best in all major sports that the Spurs have going on? Why do they conveniently forget that, when giving all the reasons why the Spurs aren't considered a "Dynasty" of their era?

But hell, just keep the O brians and the Finals MVPs headed our way, and call the Spurs whatever the hell it is they want to call them. We will all be happy.

[SpurYank]

Okay, FastDunk, our team is not a "dynasty." What I want to know is: Can you spell broom? You know, as in "sweep."

[gaKNOW!blee]

The book on the Spurs dynasty is incomplete.

There is more to come, wait and see. Once Tim retires if they slip into the lottery, then will be the time to consider whether they were a dynasty or not. At this time, it's looking pretty dang good.^ correct


You cant call "it" a dynasty because "it" is not completed yet. Everyone acts like we should be looking BACK on what the Spurs did and fail to realize we are right in the middle of it. Tim has 5-6 more good years left in him, and Tony and Manu are just hitting thier primes, IMO the Spurs should be considered the favorites to win the titles for each of the next 5 years. And im predicting they will get atleast 2 more.

[samikeyp]

You cant call "it" a dynasty because "it" is not completed yet.

Good point.

[Duff McCartney]

• They never had to win a championship against Michael Jordan, a notorious spoiler of the Clyde Drexler Trail Blazers, the Charles Barkley Suns, the Gary Payton SuperSonics and the John Stockton-Karl Malone Jazz.

• They play in a league diluted by expansion.

• Their first title, in 1999, occurred in a lockout-shortened season.

• Their most recent championship came against what was surely one of the worst Finals teams ever, LeBron James' individual brilliance notwithstanding.

What does that have to do with the Spurs? We might as well discount the Lakers titles too because they never played against Michael Jordan.

Houston's titles didn't mean shit cause they never played against Michael Jordan who wasn't in the league.

It's ridiculous that they are holding things against the Spurs that they have no control over.

[Ocotillo]

No one can claim a legitimate title anymore since they can't play against Jordan.

I thought James was the second coming of Jordan?

[DarrinS]

Why do people care if the Spurs are labeled a "dynasty"?

As Spurs fans, we've enjoyed watching our team win 4 titles in 9 years.

Works for me.

[IceColdBrewski]

People can call them whatever they want for all I care. Call em' dirty. Call em' boring. Call em' a non-dynasty. Go crazy and call em' every name in the book. But when all is said and done, they have no choice but to call them 4 time Champs.

[spursfan09]

I don't even think the Spurs are even done yet.

[coachmac87]

ok i am tired of this bs about the dynasty...ok...look i hate it when people say 99 does not count...u think barkley, malone and stockton would take a 99 ring??? i think so....and if people really do not want to count it...then fuck em..they are haters and they wouldve loved it if their team wouldve won..what if the lakers won it in 99...would their "four peat" be tarnished?? i doubt that....and whatever anybody says counting 99 or not 3 out of 5 is fucking pretty impressive...i mean look how the spurs were eliminated those years... a .4 miracle shot that was totally bs( i used tivo) and a dumbe fould by manu...what if the spurs went to the finals those years would they be considered a dynasty then??? i dont care what anybody says the spurs are 4 for 4 when it comes to getting to the finals and walkin away with the o'brien....all this talk will end next year when the spurs win their 4th in 6 years and 5 out of the last 10...unless another miracle happens not allowing them to accomplish it...dont care if they are a dynasty...were the champs once again and nobody can take that away from us..no matter how hard they try!!! FUCK THE HATERS....and to all cavs fans!! what were we supposed to witness??

[spurQ]

This message is cavsfan. Why are you here on this site trolling?? You should be on your own site worried about what your weak rookie team is going to do next year. Your team got slapped with a sweep. Spurs have more rings then any team in your city...Oh wait..cleveland never won any championships. Sorry for the mishap.. Lol!!

[Reggie Miller]

Example of Circular Reasoning:

The Spurs aren't any good, becuase they never beat MJ and the Bulls for a title.

Hypothetical: The Spurs beat MJ and the Bulls for 1-3 titles in the '90s. Therefore, Michael Jordan must be overrated.


My point: Michael Jordan wouldn't be viewed as he is today without six titles. If the Bulls had actually lost a few times in the Finals, his legacy would be diminished. Therefore, beating him wouldn't be such a remarkable thing. Most of these fools don't seem to understand that sports are a zero-sum game.

[Guajalote]

I agree with Pop. There have been two dynasties in basketball. The Celtics and the UCLA Bruins. Let's leave it at that.

[spurQ]

I agree with Guajalote

[Budkin]

Hey troll... your pathetic one man show team got its ass stomped by the champs. Get the fuck over it and go away.

[DawgMilkX]

People, people!!!

We're not talking about the Cavs here, I know you want to get back at me but the subject here is about the national consensus, the Spurs are NOT a dynasty, only dumb people would think they are...


No offense but LEBRON JAMES is NOT KING. Good player but way overated. We were all witnesses.

[ArgSpursFan]

the spurs aint no dynasty.they are not done just yet.
I would call them the next generation of a franshise prototype with fans all over the world and the perfect mix of Domectics and International players.
Leave the Dynasty tittle to the Celtics,Bulls ect. who have won shit in a long fucking time.

[dbreiden83080]

Who cares take out you NBA books and look it up dynasty or not it is one of the great runs in the history of the NBA to win 4 in 9 years. The Bad Boy Pistons did not do that, the Bird Celtics did not do that, Shaq and Kobe Lakers did not do that the list goes on and on.

[dbreiden83080]

What does that have to do with the Spurs? We might as well discount the Lakers titles too because they never played against Michael Jordan.

Houston's titles didn't mean shit cause they never played against Michael Jordan who wasn't in the league.

It's ridiculous that they are holding things against the Spurs that they have no control over.

Exactly and while you are at it don't call MJ the best of all time because he no way has 6 rings if he played in the era where Magic and Bird were in their primes. Those Laker and Celtic teams would have killed his Bulls.

[pjjrfan]

Alone? Why quibble, the Spurs had or were tied for the best record in the NBA 3 times. In fact the only time they were not tied they got swept by the Lakers. But why all the handwringing, what does it matter. the Spurs themselves don't consider themselves a dynasty and if writers want to say they are more power to them, where was all this nitpicking when most of the press were calling them boring? I just think it's all whining cause some people don't want to admit that the Spur's in Pop's words kicked ass!!!!!!!

[Cleveland Steamer]

When I hear 4 in 9 years, I think to myself no. When I hear 3 in 5 years, I think yes

[Extra Stout]

Exactly and while you are at it don't call MJ the best of all time because he no way has 6 rings if he played in the era where Magic and Bird were in their primes. Those Laker and Celtic teams would have killed his Bulls.
Er... Michael played Magic in his prime, and the Bulls beat the Lakers 4-1. Magic's career was cut short in his prime because he contracted HIV.

[ArgSpursFan]

Er... Michael played Magic in his prime, and the Bulls beat the Lakers 4-1. Magic's career was cut short in his prime because he contracted HIV.

Yes,The Bulls beated the Lakers that year,and Magic was playing at a high level,but not the same level he had against the Bird´s Celtics.That Lakers team wasn´t even half as good as the 80´s Lakers.

[dbreiden83080]

Er... Michael played Magic in his prime, and the Bulls beat the Lakers 4-1. Magic's career was cut short in his prime because he contracted HIV.

Er and that Laker team was how good compared to the ones that dominated the NBA in the 80's? They had Vlade at Center not exactly Kareem my man. Please tell me you don't think MJ's bulls are beating those 80's Laker teams or the Celtics.

[dbreiden83080]

Yes,The Bulls beated the Lakers that year,and Magic was playing at a high level,but not the same level he had against the Bird´s Celtics.That Lakers team wasn´t even half as good as the 80´s Lakers.

Exactly none of those Bulls teams not even the 96 one would have a shot against Magic's best Laker team or Bird's best celtic team.

[ArgSpursFan]

Magic,B.Scott,J.Worthy,A.C Green,Kareem
that was the best ever lakers lineup

[cherylsteele]

"I don't give a shit" meaning "We probably won't repeat" (as usual)
Meaning how much I think of your opinion.

[TampaDude]

http://i.cnn.net/si/si_online/covers/images/2007/0625_large.jpg

[mardigan]

By Marc Stein | ESPN.com
SAN ANTONIO -- Put Pat Riley in the camp that says the San Antonio Spurs don't have to win back-to-back championships -- as Riley did with the Los Angeles Lakers in 1987 and 1988 -- to be regarded as a team for the ages.

"I don't think so," Riley said Wednesday before Miami's 88-78 loss in San Antonio.

"That's media folly. Just lays a little more pressure on them, that's all it is. 'You're not going to be any good unless you go back-to-back.' That's our war cry [in the league nowadays].

"They have the opportunity to do that. But why they haven't done it is because of the depth out here in the West. You just talk about the three teams here: Houston, Dallas and San Antonio. They could be the three best teams in the league. To be able to get through that is going to be harrowing.

"In the [past] nine years, winning four titles and close to 60 games a year, they have a dynastic quality. [And] there's probably some more world championships ahead of them."


http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailydime?page=dime-071108

[703 Spurz]

I do, but the subject is about the Spurs as a dynasty..

Ok so by posting this what is it you are trying to do?

Example 1

We win 4 titles, yes 4 b/c 1999 did in fact count. You win these 4 and are called a dynasty.

Example 2

We win 4 titles, yes 4 b/c 1999 still did in fact count. You win these 4 and are not called a dynasty.

The result?

You still win 4 titles with either a cute nickname (dynasty) or no cute nickname at all.

I'd rather win 4 titles :toast

[703 Spurz]

More about the so-called "Spurs Dynasty"

CLEVELAND -- All right, let's get all the reasons we would not consider the San Antonio Spurs one of history's most successful franchises out of the way immediately.

• They never had to win a championship against Michael Jordan, a notorious spoiler of the Clyde Drexler Trail Blazers, the Charles Barkley Suns, the Gary Payton SuperSonics and the John Stockton-Karl Malone Jazz.

• They play in a league diluted by expansion.

• Their first title, in 1999, occurred in a lockout-shortened season.

• Their most recent championship came against what was surely one of the worst Finals teams ever, LeBron James' individual brilliance notwithstanding.

OK, that said, San Antonio's fourth title in nine years, completed Thursday night at Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, is a monumental accomplishment that should give the Spurs a permanent place in sports history.

Let's just not bring up the "D" word. The Spurs are not a dynasty. They haven't suggested that about themselves. To me, a dynasty means this: A team must win more than half the championships over a decade and be considered the clear favorite in most of those seasons. A decade is a ---- measure, of course, but dynasty-dom has to be demonstrated over an extended period of time; the Mings, after all, lasted from 1368 to 1644. (Not the Yao Mings.)

In my view, only two franchises truly qualify as a dynasty -- the Boston Celtics, who, absurdly, won 11 championships in 13 seasons from 1957 to 1969 during the Bill Russell days, and Jordan's Chicago Bulls, who won six titles in eight years (the franchise's only championships) from '91 to '98.

Overall, the Celtics have won 16 titles (though a contemporary cynic would have to note that not a single one has come since '86). That career record is challenged only by the Lakers, who have 14 championships, five of them when the team was in Minneapolis, which was the dominant franchise in the NBA's first decade. But the Lakers have never had a true dynasty. They won five titles from '80 to '88, a tremendous achievement to be sure, but they clearly shared the decade with the Celtics, who won three titles in seven seasons. And they would've needed a couple more with the Shaquille O'Neal-Kobe Bryant combo to meet the dynasty standard in the early years of this century.

Which brings us to the Spurs. Four titles in nine years in an era of free agency and revolving-door coaches is a monumental accomplishment. Tim Duncan and Gregg Popovich have been around for all four. Duncan's complementary pieces (Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, Bruce Bowen) have been there for the last three. One thing the Spurs have not done, however, is repeat, a fact pointed out to Popovich on Thursday night.


"Will that be extra motivation for next season?" he was asked.

"I don't give a shit," Pop said with a smile.

My guess is, he does. And if the Spurs win again, we'll resume this conversation.

Yet we've still won 4 titles. You can shove all this dynasty talk up your ass dude. 4 championships :fro

[703 Spurz]

"I don't give a shit" meaning "We probably won't repeat" (as usual)

And? We'll win it again next year :lol

I'd rather have 5 titles in 11 years then be a fan of your team anyday bitch :blah :blah :blah

[703 Spurz]

as much as i hate the spurs and think they are a snoozefest to watch..... you gotta give respect where respect is due...... and winning 4 titles in a 10 year period is pretty good.... i would say they have achieved dynasty status

4 in 9 years friend :nope

[703 Spurz]

How about the NBA.com poll?

60% voted No

So you're saying the fans don't think the Spurs are a dynasty? :lol

I can't believe that you're actually trying to troll here and your smack is that the fans in the U.S. don't think our team is a dynasty.

Oh man that gave me a nice chuckle.

Thanks

[E20]

• They never had to win a championship against Michael Jordan, a notorious spoiler of the Clyde Drexler Trail Blazers, the Charles Barkley Suns, the Gary Payton SuperSonics and the John Stockton-Karl Malone Jazz.
So I guess the Lakers championships and Celts and all other titles don't count, because they didn't play Micheal Jordan's Bulls. These two articles pretty much sucked major ass and decided to leave logic, if they had any, out of this. The writer even goes on to cap on his own team (The Cavs). :lol

Sorry excuse for an article(s). :td

[hater]

Will Perdue :lol

he was the goofiest MOFO in NBA history

[hater]

Will Perdue :lol

he was the goofiest MOFO in NBA history

[hater]

Will Perdue :lol

he was the goofiest MOFO in NBA history

Manute Bol >>> Perdue

[hater]

:lmao what the fuck?

[1Parker1]

Does it really matter?? If the biggest argument or complaint you have against a team that has won 4 championships in a 9 year span is whether or not they can repeat or are a dynasty, then that is a great complaint to have. Just ask the Mavericks, Suns, Garnett, etc. what they would do just for ONE championship ring....let along 4.

[Ronaldo McDonald]

[QUOTE=Fast Dunk]More about the so-called "Spurs Dynasty"

CLEVELAND -- All right, let's get all the reasons we would not consider the San Antonio Spurs one of history's most successful franchises out of the way immediately.

• They never had to win a championship against Michael Jordan, a notorious spoiler of the Clyde Drexler Trail Blazers, the Charles Barkley Suns, the Gary Payton SuperSonics and the John Stockton-Karl Malone Jazz.

• They play in a league diluted by expansion.

• Their first title, in 1999, occurred in a lockout-shortened season.

• Their most recent championship came against what was surely one of the worst Finals teams ever, LeBron James' individual brilliance notwithstanding.

i think i'm going to puke.

the fact of the matter is, this guy, like every other "expert" is an idiot.

if the four things that he points out in the article are all contributers to making them not qualify as a " real" dynasty, than we all might as well throw away the word dynasty in basketball. because as far as I can tell no one will be playing against mj ever again.

his argument has been relegated to criticism of the spurs over stuff they cannot control... like diluted league, competition in finals, lock out.
etc and that is pure bullshit. so all of a sudden dynasty is conditional?

and if he's going too bring up comepetition and other irrelevent, outside shit to try to dimminish spurs success than i think that leaves us room to argue about the actual legitimacy of other teams championships. examples:

spurs never got to defend their title after in 2000 with duncan injured...
ever hear of speurs fans dimminishing what the lakers did. fuck no (not that i know of at least...)

what about the small amount of teams/game in regular season in the league back in the day for the archaic boston teams?

theres probably more but i'm tired and out of ideas...

basically, you can argue anything...try to illegitimize anything... and it's so far passed the point of being silly and ridiculous by now

[word]

The fact that this discussion exists shows that they are in fact, a dynasty, imho.

[Ronaldo McDonald]

oh and how could i forgot the ultimate example of the spurs being fucked over when the fuck face managing the clock in 04 against he lakers had his fingers up his ass?

u cant catch and shott with .4 seconds...

[kingmalaki]

Exactly none of those Bulls teams not even the 96 one would have a shot against Magic's best Laker team or Bird's best celtic team.

And neither would any of the Spurs title teams (this goes for the title teams of the 80’s and the Bulls title teams). That doesn’t mean either team was bad….it’s just that the 80’s teams had more talent on them than MJ’s Bulls, and the same applies to MJ’s teams compared to the ones today.

The answer is yes and no. In basketball terms the answer is yes. The 80’s Celtics have always been considered a dynasty and they never repeated. The 80’s Lakers were considered one before they repeated.

As far as all sports, the answer is no by “definition” (i.e. Tiger winning all Majors in a row but not in the same year hence no “slam”). I can’t think of any teams in baseball, football or hockey that were considered dynasties without a repeat. Also add in the fact that LA won 3 in a row during your reign (fits the dynasty “definition” better).

Either way, 4 titles is 4 titles is damn impressive, so who cares what people call it…..

Edit...I stand corrected. I believe folks consider the 49ers a dynasty...did they repeat?

[mavs>spurs2]

oh and how could i forgot the ultimate example of the spurs being fucked over when the fuck face managing the clock in 04 against he lakers had his fingers up his ass?

u cant catch and shott with .4 seconds...

Check the rulebook.

[zepn]

2. The Lakers 3-Peat: There is also the pesky little fact of, oh, the Lakers winning three titles in the midst of the Spurs run. Can you name any other run that is termed a dynasty that not only had a three year run without a title, much less a three year run where the same team won in each of those three years. Here is the real deal: The Lakers three peat was closer to a dynasty than the Spurs run, and only Kobe's force out of Shaq prevented two or three more Laker's titles. The three peat alone keeps the Spurs from being a dynasty.

3. 1999 doesn't really count: The first title in this run does not really fit in with the rest for two reasons. First, the season was tainted because of the strike, which made the season only 50 games long and cheapened the entire enterprise. Secondly, other than a very young Duncan, that team has no relation to the current squad that has won 3 titles in 4 years. That team was Duncan and David Robinson. This team is Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili and is an entirely different team that is three years detached from that '99 squad.

4. The regular season: I might, might, be willing to give the Spurs the dynasty nod if it was a situation where they were dominating in the regular season every year and then choking in the playoffs. But do you know how many years the Spurs stood alone atop the regular season standings during this 9 year stretch? Once. Next please.

5. Simple math: Name a single other run designated as a dynasty where the dynasty team won less than half of the championships during the dynasty period. Yup, that's right: it has never happened.



If #3 is true, then #2, #5, and half of #4 are not true.

That leaves you with 2 1/2 points, which seems pretty close to your IQ...

[Walter Craparita]

I'll take 4 rings in 9 years and 10 years of being in the elite over 3 years of back to back to back and a quick fizzle out.

If we are not a dynasty, it has still been awesome not being a dynasty haha.

[nfg3]

4 in the bank and counting. :clap Probably end up with 5 - 7 before TD retires. Love to have 7 but 5 or 6 is much more realistic.

Anyway many have called the Spurs a dynasty and many not. No big deal to me. But the Spurs can shut this down with a repeat. That's what I expect this year. :smokin

[coachmac87]

3 out of 5 yrs....its pretty dominant...and what they gotta make it 4 out of 6 to get credit??? thats bs spurs are a dynasty

[inspurated]

"San Antonio..where dynasties happen"
David Stern NBA commissioner.

Good enough for me...Dickhead.

[The Genius]

Thread starter is made of fail.

[Mister Sinister]

Fail thread is faaaaaaaaail.

[MrChug]

"Why your Mom is NOT a whore":

#1. She's only screwed 91 guys. That is CLEARLY not in the triple digits.
#2. The numbers of your possible fathers have been narrowed down to 6. That means she remembers their names. Good for her.
#3. She is home right now. The local bar IS home to her.
#4. That guy that brings her home after 3 is JUST her friend. She's just his friend...he's just HER friend *they're friends*. Just keep telling yourself that.
#5. When you were 5 and she smelled like body spray and a fog machine that was just because she was passing BY a strip club and her car's alignment went wrong.


#6...I can't help you, you Mom IS a whore. Sorry FastDunk. :depressed

[TampaDude]

"Why your Mom is NOT a whore":

#1. She's only screwed 91 guys. That is CLEARLY not in the triple digits.
#2. The numbers of your possible fathers have been narrowed down to 6. That means she remembers their names. Good for her.
#3. She is home right now. The local bar IS home to her.
#4. That guy that brings her home after 3 is JUST her friend. She's just his friend...he's just HER friend *they're friends*. Just keep telling yourself that.
#5. When you were 5 and she smelled like body spray and a fog machine that was just because she was passing BY a strip club and her car's alignment went wrong.


#6...I can't help you, you Mom IS a whore. Sorry FastDunk. :depressed

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

[ambchang]

It's pretty nice to have a favourite team where all the trolls can throw out is:
1) You are boring.
2) I know you beat the crap out of my favourite team, but your's is not a dynasty.
Good times.