Hypothetically speaking, Where will the Spurs place in history if they don't repeat?

[LakeShow]

I've seen all the scenarios where the Spurs should place in history if they defend their title.

How about, Where would they place if they failed to defend their title? They certainly would trail the,

1948-50 Minneapolis Lakers
1952-54 Minneapolis Lakers
1958-66 Boston Celtics
1967-69 Boston Celtics
1987-88 Los Angeles Lakers
1988-89 Detroit Pistons
1990-93 Chicago Bulls
1994-95 Houston Rockets
1995-98 Chicago Bulls
2000-02 Los Angeles Lakers

Because those teams were successful in defending their titles. History tells us that defending your title is the greatest accomplishment by a NBA champion. How will the Spurs be remembered? Will they or should they be included in the conversation with those teams above or will they be forgotten like so many One and Out NBA Champions? Your Thoughts?

[Cry Havoc]

Yawn.

Troll thread is that way. >>>>

[LakeShow]

Yawn.

Troll thread is that way. >>>>

Ok, don't want to talk about that, huh? I don't blame you! My bad!

:fro

[saporvida]

i'll always remember the spurs as being champs and doing what they do best... winning when it matters most regardless if they never repeat. support the spurs till i die.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I think they will be remembered as one of only 4 franchises to win 5 NBA championships..

[LakeShow]

I think they will be remembered as one of only 4 franchises to win 5 NBA championships..

What if they do not win 5? Will 4 put them on a pedestal as well?

Let's face it, 4 titles is a great accomplishment and not too many teams have won as many. I just wondered if that would be enough, even without a repeat to be mentioned with the others. In your opinion

[George Gervin's Afro]

What if they do not win 5? Will 4 put them on a pedestal as well?

Let's face it, 4 titles is a great accomplishment and not too many teams have won as many. I just wondered if that would be enough, even without a repeat to be mentioned with the others. In your opinion

does it really ,atter what the preception of the franchise will be? I am sure that there will be about 26 fanchises and fans that would love to take our place..

[picnroll]

I think someone who has created a definition of great teams that excludes the Bird, McHale Celtics is a few crayons short of a full box.

[vander]

they would rate as the luckiest, most cheatingest, most overrated shitty franchise that ever existed, DUH!!!



oh wait, I'm not Fast Dunk:oops




Spurs will rate behind only Boston and LA as far as being at or near the top for so long, people won't remember the lack of back-to-backs as much as the sustained greatness with so many different players (and Duncan)

personally, I think we won't win next year, but we will again in 08-09, making a decade of off 'n on championships

[Kori Ellis]

Unless some other team wins the next 3-4 titles, the Spurs will be remembered as the best team of this decade. But nice troll job anyway.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Their place in NBA history would be around 1977-2007 right now. Is that what you were looking for?

[Warlord23]

The winningest team in the post-Jordan era.

Most titles after 1998.
Highest winning % not just in the NBA but in all pro sports since 1998.
Home of the best forward of all time and the best player post Jordan.

All in all, not a bad decade. :hat :smokin

[barbacoataco]

Anyone who thinks the 1994-95 Rockets rate higher than the 1999-2007 Spurs is crazy.

[LakeShow]

Unless some other team wins the next 3-4 titles, the Spurs will be remembered as the best team of this decade. But nice troll job anyway.

uh, there's already a team that has done that in this decade! As is, the spurs are not considered the best team of the decade right now. The 2000-02 Lakers win that title with being one of only 3 times to ever win 3 straight titles!

[LakeShow]

I think someone who has created a definition of great teams that excludes the Bird, McHale Celtics is a few crayons short of a full box.

They're in a different category, as is the Lakers during that time. The Lakers are recognized for being the first team in 20 years to successfully defend their title.

[picnroll]

They're in a different category, ....

What category is that, the one the Spurs are in? I guess if you want to say the Duncan Spurs are in the same group greatness-wise as the Bird, McHael Celtics, yeah I'd agree. And I guess that would make them greater than the Thomas Pistons, Hakeem Rockets and for that matter the Shaq/Kobe Lakers and there 4-5 years of being good.


btw you missed the Knicks who were better than either the Pistons or the Rockets imo.

[LakeShow]

What category is that, the one the Spurs are in? I guess if you want to say the Duncan Spurs are in the same group greatness-wise as the Bird, McHael Celtics, yeah I'd agree. And I guess that would make them greater than the Thomas Pistons, Hakeem Rockets and for that matter the Shaq/Kobe Lakers and there 4-5 years of being good.


btw you missed the Knicks who were better than either the Pistons or the Rockets imo.

Yes, the category of One and Out Champions.

Every Champion that has repeated will tell you that it is much harder to repeat than it is to win a title. Repeat Champions are in a league of their own.

[FromWayDowntown]

I think without a Spurs repeat, they'll be somewhere between the Magic-Kareem-Worthy Lakers and the Bird-Parish-McHale Celtics. Winning 4 titles in a decade, with or without a repeat should be enough to put a team among the greats.

A huge difference, of course, is that the Spurs of this era don't have an ironclad core like either of those teams -- only Duncan has played for all 4 title winners. I think that makes them unique and makes their accomplishments that much more impressive; no other franchise that I can think of had to make such radical adjustments to its roster in the midst of a spate of titles like these Spurs have.

Then again, if the Spurs win in 2008 and do repeat, they'll be in almost exactly the same position as the Showtime Lakers -- 5 titles in about a 10 year stretch with a single repeat (LA won in 1980, 1982, 1985, 1987, and 1988) -- but Laker fans are going to scream like crazy if these Spurs are ever compared favorably to those Lakers.

[picnroll]

Yes, the category of One and Out Champions.

Every Champion that has repeated will tell you that it is much harder to repeat than it is to win a title. Repeat Champions are in a league of their own.
Yes the category of repeat champions.

And guys that think the Rockets champs or Pistons champs teams are better than the Bird champ teams are also in a league of their own, the dumbshits league.

[Reggie Miller]

WARNING: Long post follows.

As one who follows a team that hasn't won an NBA title, I can't decide if I am less or more qualified to answer.

On the face of it, this is a foolish question, because the league has changed too much to make meaningful comparisons between Mikan's Lakers and Russell's Celtics, much less comparing the eras of Mikan and Duncan.

So first, I must change this to a questions that is susceptible to being answered. How do the Spurs compare to the more recent consecutive title runs of the Pistons, Bulls, Rockets, and Lakers?

I think we all can agree that the current NBA suffers from overexpansion and the gradual erosion of its free minor league system (NCAA Div. I). In this context, it is becoming obvious that the salary cap has largely failed. If the intent of the cap was to guarantee parity, foster financial security or at least stability, and hold down player salaries, then the salary cap has failed.

In every sport to have a salary cap, player salaries have continued to inflate at previous rates or even higher, particularly since most sports also have a "floor" or minimum payroll under their cap system. (In other words, the cap may force certain powerhouses to spend less, but it also forces the Clippers and AZ Cardinals of the world to spend more than they would have without a cap.) MLB, which does not have a cap, continues to see player salaries spiral out of control as well. At best, we might say that the salary cap has not really made a significant impact one way or the other; certainly, the caps have not held down salaries as intended.

The cap appears to encourage mediocrity rather than parity. To me, "parity" means all of the teams are equally good or at least can compete in a realistic sense. In contrast, "mediocrity" means that all of the teams are equally bad, and a small handful of teams can compete due to the intrinsic advantages of their franchises. (I will explain this better below.)

At least in the NBA, the cap is too soft to guarantee financial stability. Also, NBA revenues have altered drastically in the salary cap period. All this has resulted in a succession of CBAs and a handful of veterans with max contracts that will not be surpassed by any player under the new CBA, or at least not in this decade. Is this last point very important? Probably not, but it certainly affected who could compete in the Shaq and KG sweepstakes, for example.

The Spurs won all of their championships in this "modern" NBA era. Many detractors will gleefully bring up all that I have just mentioned, as if this somehow lessens these titles. However, they complete ignore or deliberately distort a vital fact: The Spurs also play in this era and suffer from all of the same inherent disadvantages or problems that the modern NBA faces. Many detractors of the Spurs will discuss these issues as if the SA team was somehow transplanted to a basketball dystopia from an alternate universe.

Furthermore, the Spurs' franchise must struggle to win in a market that has major disadvantages. Not only is SA not a major media market and producer like Los Angeles, it is not even the largest NBA city in its own state. Before the Spurs' began winning regularly, the organization had little to offer free agents more interested in larger cities. The cap penalizes teams for outspending the others, but it can't completely prevent it. (See: Knicks, New York.) Even if a true "hard" cap existed, the major media markets would still have advantages in free agency. Therefore, you must consider the fact that the Spurs have been able to emerge as one of the handful of dominant franchises in the entire history of the league.

Say what you want, but the fact that the Lakers have played in nearly 50% of all Finals says more about the dysfunction of the NBA than the greatness of that franchise.

This, then is the context of the four Spurs' championships. Notice that I haven't even addressed the complete disparity between the two Conferences, which probably should be mentioned. With the possible exception of 1999, the Spurs' real challenge has been making the Finals. Once there, they are more or less automatic with the current state of the two Conferences. I would have to think that playing the most difficult series in the second or third round, year after year, is a little more challenging than working up to the pinnacle as intended/designed.

To be frank, I have never found the Bulls' title run as impressive as the rest of the world. As Craig Ehlo can tell you, it makes it a little easier to win when the entire world is backing you. During the second title run in particular, Jordan would have had to shiv a guy, urinate on him, and give the referees an autographed picture of the incident before a foul was called. It is difficult for me to call MJ the greatest ever in light of the blatant favoritism he received for most of his career. That said, 6 titles in 8 years is obviously a more impressive achievement.

The Rockets two titles are sort of strange. They didn't have to worry about the Jordanaires, and Shaq was still coming into his own. In other words, the Rockets didn't face the two best players of the era: MJ was retired and Shaq wasn't quite in that league yet. By the same token, the Rockets completely owned the Magic in the 1995 Finals, so saying that Shaq wasn't really Shaq yet is sort of silly. The Spurs' run is actually more impressive to me, becuase they did eventually unseat the Lakers. The Rockets never really competed again, even after adding Barkley in 1996. After the MJ free window, they were done.

I see the Pistons two consecutive titles as almost an anomaly. The Pistons were ahead of the curve in terms of defense and psychological warfare. When the league adapted to their tactics (and Jordan and Pippen came into their own), they were also done. The Pacers and Magic quickly supplanted Detroit as the "other" EC contenders.

As much as I hate to admit it, the Lakers' run of 2000-2002 is probably the measuring stick for the moment. Repeat just once, and the Spurs' record compares very favorably, especially since the Spurs ended the last Laker title run. Also, the Spurs have been consistently successful for a decade or so, while none of these other teams (except the '90s Bulls) can really claim that. Without Shaq, the Lakers have been very average.

In conclusion, I would say that only the Celtics can really claim a "dynasty" in the sense of the word's original meaning. To my mind, a threepeat is very impressive, but it is not a dynasty. (For example, in English history and heraldry the Planagenets and Tudors are "dynasties," but the current House of Windsor is not.) Therefore, the Spurs are not a dynasty (no repeat), but neither are many of the teams considered dynasties (repeats, but no real longevity). A repeat does not somehow magically make the Spurs relevant, becuase they are already relevant to NBA history. It would be the last thing new for this team to accomplish, and it certainly won't hurt their status!

[LakeShow]

Yes the category of repeat champions.

And guys that think the Rockets champs or Pistons champs teams are better than the Bird champ teams are also in a league of their own, the dumbshits league.

The Rockets team of the 94-95 has to be considered better than the Boston team of Bird. They were able to defend their title and the celtics were not. Any team can luck up and win one title but to defend your title deserves recognition for being one of the best champions ever. Any idiot knows that!

[picnroll]

The Rockets team of the 94-95 has to be considered better than the Boston team of Bird. Any idiot knows that!
No, not just any idiot. It takes a special idiot.

[LakeShow]

I think without a Spurs repeat, they'll be somewhere between the Magic-Kareem-Worthy Lakers and the Bird-Parish-McHale Celtics. Winning 4 titles in a decade, with or without a repeat should be enough to put a team among the greats.

A huge difference, of course, is that the Spurs of this era don't have an ironclad core like either of those teams -- only Duncan has played for all 4 title winners. I think that makes them unique and makes their accomplishments that much more impressive; no other franchise that I can think of had to make such radical adjustments to its roster in the midst of a spate of titles like these Spurs have.

Then again, if the Spurs win in 2008 and do repeat, they'll be in almost exactly the same position as the Showtime Lakers -- 5 titles in about a 10 year stretch with a single repeat (LA won in 1980, 1982, 1985, 1987, and 1988) -- but Laker fans are going to scream like crazy if these Spurs are ever compared favorably to those Lakers.

I wouldn't scream because I would think that they deserved to be with the lakers of the 80's. I might not like it, but I could not dispute it!

[picnroll]

Given the current salary cap restrictions would the show time Lakers or the Bird Celtics been able to retain their talent to have those long impressvie runs? Spurs are one hell of a team to sustain as well as those teams did given current limitations.

[LakeShow]

[QUOTE=Reggie Miller]WARNING: Long post follows.

QUOTE]

I'm not going to discredit those teams and titles because of the era they played. Believe me, I would love to say that about the Celtics early titles but I will not. Regardless of the Era, those teams defended their titles and it takes a lot out of teams to do so.

[Reggie Miller]

I'm not going to discredit those teams and titles because of the era they played. Believe me, I would love to say that about the Celtics early titles but I will not. Regardless of the Era, those teams defended their titles and it takes a lot out of teams to do so.

Nor would I. I just choose not to include them in the discussion, particularly since these sorts of discussions already generate more heat than light.

The Celtics great run is the only unquestioned dynasty in the NBA. Again, the fact that no one else even comes close to approaching this mark may say more about the league than the team at some point. I won't pretend that it wasn't incredibly difficult and impressive. The problem is how impressive? As all 30+ pages of the Duncan v. Hakeem thread show, comparing the '90s to right now is difficult enough.

[Cry Havoc]

The Rockets team of the 94-95 has to be considered better than the Boston team of Bird. They were able to defend their title and the celtics were not. Any team can luck up and win one title but to defend your title deserves recognition for being one of the best champions ever. Any idiot knows that!

I love this logic.

Because using this logic, a team could win 8 titles in 16 years and it wouldn't be as impressive as winning 2 titles back to back.

Keep enjoying that repeat that happened half a decade ago. We were winning rings before Kobe came to town, and we're still winning them, long after the sun has set on your run of titles.

[sandman]

I wouldn't scream because I would think that they deserved to be with the lakers of the 80's. I might not like it, but I could not dispute it!

Interesting that the "team of the 80's" failed three times to defend their title and only had one back to back.

The Celtics won three championships in that same time frame, yet none back to back. The Spurs have won 4 championships in roughly the same number of years, yet none back to back.

Maybe it is just me, but your blatant homerism shows when you so willingly dismiss two of the greatest teams of the modern era simply for not being able to do what your favorite team was able to do only once. Your blatant ignorance shows when you consider "relevant only in their back-to-back years" teams like the Pistons and Rockets as dynasties simply because of that one criteria.

You say anyone can be lucky for a year, but the same applies for two years as well. Greatness is based on sustainable excellence. The Lakers of the 80's were great. But so were the Celtics. The Lakers of the 00's were great (and would have stayed great if not for the drama). But so are the Spurs. Only someone with a myopically Laker viewpoint can even attempt to argue otherwise.

[samikeyp]

Will 4 put them on a pedestal as well?

yes because what you said is true:


Let's face it, 4 titles is a great accomplishment and not too many teams have won as many.

I disagree with them being behind any of those back to back teams that all they did was just those two back to back. I would imagine those teams who just won the two in a row would trade for 3 in 5 years or 4 in 9.

On your list, I would put:

58-69 Celtics (10 in 11 years)
48-54 Lakers (4 in 5 years)
90-98 Bulls (6 in 8 years)
80-88 Lakers (5 in 9 years)
99-07 Spurs (4 in 9 years)
00-02 Lakers (three in a row)


The Pistons and Rockets got two in a row...but its still just two.

[baseline bum]

Comparing the Celtics of the 80s to the Lakers of the 80s is nowhere near as cut and dry as 5>3 and 8 finals > 5 finals would lead you to believe. The West was a joke in the 80s, and the Lakers were pretty much automatics every year to be representing the conferences. They blew two series to Houston, but one of those Rockets teams was awful (80-81), and the other was pretty average (85-86). In contrast, Boston had to compete with two of the league's greatest champions to get to the Finals. They had to go through a team that went 12-1 to a championship (the 76ers) for the first half of the decade, and then a repeat champion (Detroit) in the second half. LA never had anything close to that kind of competition in the West. I know they beat the defending champ Sonics in 80, but that Seattle team is considered one of the worst champions ever; surely nothing close to the Sixers or Pistons.

If you moved the Celtics to the West and the Lakers to the East I bet Boston would have won 5 and LA 3. Surely it would benefit the hell out of Boston to get to just chill and beat down teams like the Kings, Rockets, Spurs, Suns, and Nuggets while the Lakers would be in dogfights with the Sixers and Pistons every year, not to mention the Bulls at the tail end of the decade.

[Scola Trade]

I've seen all the scenarios where the Spurs should place in history if they defend their title.

How about, Where would they place if they failed to defend their title? They certainly would trail the,

1948-50 Minneapolis Lakers
1952-54 Minneapolis Lakers
1958-66 Boston Celtics
1967-69 Boston Celtics
1987-88 Los Angeles Lakers
1988-89 Detroit Pistons
1990-93 Chicago Bulls
1994-95 Houston Rockets
1995-98 Chicago Bulls
2000-02 Los Angeles Lakers

Because those teams were successful in defending their titles. History tells us that defending your title is the greatest accomplishment by a NBA champion. How will the Spurs be remembered? Will they or should they be included in the conversation with those teams above or will they be forgotten like so many One and Out NBA Champions? Your Thoughts?

Easy answer, add these to your list:

1999-99 San Antonio Spurs
2003-03 San Antonio Spurs
2005-05 San Antonio Spurs
2007-07 San Antonio Spurs


:lol

[barbacoataco]

Great point about the changes the salary cap have brought to the NBA. The Showtime Lakers would never have been able to keep together basically an All-Star team in the salary cap era. After they paid Kareem and Magic, they wouldn't have had much money left. This is an important point because the 2003 Spurs basically had to let Stephen Jackson go for salary reasons, then his replacements were ineffective in 2004. That is only one example.
Another point about the Spurs lack of repeat, in 2000 Tim Duncan was hurt and did not play in the playoffs. In 2004 the Spurs lost Robinson and Stephen Jackson, so they did not have the same team. In 2006 Duncan was hurt and had plantar fasciatis. Repeating has more to do with staying healthy and the stroke of luck than the quality of the franchise. Why do you think the 80's Lakers and Celtics went back and forth winning championships? In each year different players were healthy, and role players change.
Also, the 2000-2002 Lakers were a franchise that had a lot of help from the league.

[LakeShow]

yes because what you said is true:



I disagree with them being behind any of those back to back teams that all they did was just those two back to back. I would imagine those teams who just won the two in a row would trade for 3 in 5 years or 4 in 9.

On your list, I would put:

58-69 Celtics (10 in 11 years)
48-54 Lakers (4 in 5 years)
90-98 Bulls (6 in 8 years)
80-88 Lakers (5 in 9 years)
99-07 Spurs (4 in 9 years)
00-02 Lakers (three in a row)


The Pistons and Rockets got two in a row...but its still just two.

I think I need to clarify. The Celtics of the 80's and the Lakers of the 80's were very good champions but I'm talking about the best of the best champions. In my opinion, you only get that label defending your title, which is something very few champions have done. The Spurs 4 titles are a great accomplishment but I'm talking about the greatest championship teams! If you noticed I made no mention of the 1972 Lakers that won a record 33 straight games, a mark that will never be match or surpassed. For that one season they were a very good Champion but they failed to repeat, so I can not list them amongst the GREATEST Champions!

[exstatic]

How about those 60's Lakers, though, huh? :lmao

[RC's Boss]

The Rockets team of the 94-95 has to be considered better than the Boston team of Bird. They were able to defend their title and the celtics were not. Any team can luck up and win one title but to defend your title deserves recognition for being one of the best champions ever. Any idiot knows that!
You r either 2 young 2 remember, or out of ur emineffin' mind :rolleyes :donkey

[LakeShow]

Got Damn, One of you fucking idiots re-post where I said that the Celtics were not a good team. Please!

They did nothing to separate themselves from the pack of all the previous NBA champions. For twenty fucking years teams were winning a title here, a title there. Big Shit! That’s not what this is about. I’m talking about the greatest championship team. I’m not talking about what team did what over time. I am not talking about Dynasties. I am talking about true Champion. All former NBA champions will tell you that the hardest thing to do as a champion is to defend their titles. A team that does so has beat the odds. Respect and greatness should be attributed to those who Successfully defend their titles. It was too hard for the Celtics, it was too hard for the 76ers, lt's too fucking hard for the Spurs, it was too hard for the early eighties lakers, etc..but it was not too hard for the 87-88. They did it! Pat Riley guaranteed that the Lakers would repeat after winning the first title. That put a lot of pressure on the lakers but they were up for the challenge. They played with the heart of a champion and refused to be denied. That team was special! Something the league had not seen from a team in 20 freaking years! Hell ya that was a special team and one of the Greatest NBA Champions!

The Rockets too showed great determination and the heart of a Champion. They had a very bad season the year after winning their first title. They pulled together in the playoffs with an attitude of not being denied. They showed the heart of a champion.....

You know what? Fuck this thread and :flipoff the Spurs!

[samikeyp]

I think I need to clarify. The Celtics of the 80's and the Lakers of the 80's were very good champions but I'm talking about the best of the best champions. In my opinion, you only get that label defending your title, which is something very few champions have done. The Spurs 4 titles are a great accomplishment but I'm talking about the greatest championship teams! If you noticed I made no mention of the 1972 Lakers that won a record 33 straight games, a mark that will never be match or surpassed. For that one season they were a very good Champion but they failed to repeat, so I can not list them amongst the GREATEST Champions!

No need to clarify...I understand perfectly what you said. My opinion just differs.

[picnroll]

It would be nice to think Lakeshow was just trolling out of waiting for the season to start boredom but sadly he appears to really belives in th crap he's posting.

[RC's Boss]

Got Damn, One of you fucking idiots re-post where I said that the Celtics were not a good team. Please!

They did nothing to separate themselves from the pack of all the previous NBA champions. For twenty fucking years teams were winning a title here, a title there. Big Shit! That’s not what this is about. I’m talking about the greatest championship team. I’m not talking about what team did what over time. I am not talking about Dynasties. I am talking about true Champion. All former NBA champions will tell you that the hardest thing to do as a champion is to defend their titles. A team that does so has beat the odds. Respect and greatness should be attributed to those who Successfully defend their titles. It was too hard for the Celtics, it was too hard for the 76ers, lt's too fucking hard for the Spurs, it was too hard for the early eighties lakers, etc..but it was not too hard for the 87-88. They did it! Pat Riley guaranteed that the Lakers would repeat after winning the first title. That put a lot of pressure on the lakers but they were up for the challenge. They played with the heart of a champion and refused to be denied. That team was special! Something the league had not seen from a team in 20 freaking years! Hell ya that was a special team and one of the Greatest NBA Champions!

The Rockets too showed great determination and the heart of a Champion. They had a very bad season the year after winning their first title. They pulled together in the playoffs with an attitude of not being denied. They showed the heart of a champion.....

You know what? Fuck this thread and :flipoff the Spurs!
Does that mean you will never return to Spursdom again? :clap :elephant

[Solid D]

Will 4 put them on a pedestal as well?


It already has put them on a pedestal. What exists, exists. It is what it is. One cannot replace history, one can only remember and continue on, hopefully drawing from history and what it can teach us.

[Trainwreck2100]

Hypothetically speaking if they do people will say that they are not a good as the teams the were able to three peat.

[dbreiden83080]

If they go back to back and win 5 in 10 years they will be seen as one of the great dynasties in NBA history. If they don't they still will be seen as a dynasty but probably not a legendary one.

[Solid D]

If they go back to back and win 5 in 10 years they will be seen as one of the great dynasties in NBA history. If they don't they still will be seen as a dynasty but probably not a legendary one.

link?

[tlongII]

They will be remembered as the only team in league history with two asterisk championships! (*)

[dbreiden83080]

They will be remembered as the only team in league history with two asterisk championships! (*)

No but the people that still whine about that shit will be long forgotten that is for sure.

[LakeShow]

No need to clarify...I understand perfectly what you said. My opinion just differs.

Respect

[LakeShow]

Does that mean you will never return to Spursdom again? :clap :elephant

It means i will ignore idiots like you in the future!

[LakeShow]

It would be nice to think Lakeshow was just trolling out of waiting for the season to start boredom but sadly he appears to really belives in th crap he's posting.

Damn right i believe it! Some of you assholes think your shit doesnt stink. It is my opinion! Something that has been discussed by other fans outside of SA. Debateable? Yes! Stupid? Fuck you!

[zepn]

Lakeshow1 is defining the parameters of his argument to support his bias and favor his teams' accomplishments, while diminishing those of others, specifically the Spurs. In other words, it's a set-up.

[Solid D]

Lakers are on a downswing right now. It's normally therapeutic to talk yourself through the down times by remembering the more prosperous times. It is a normal reaction when there is a failure to thrive.

[picnroll]

Damn right i believe it! Some of you assholes think your shit doesnt stink.it is my opinion! Something that has been discussed by other fans outside of sa. Debateable? Yes! Stuoid? Fuck you!
Yeah he has his panties wadded up that we reject his premise which he says has to be accepted and defines the starting point of the argument.

[LakeShow]

Lakeshow1 is defining the parameters of his argument to support his bias and favor his teams' accomplishments, while diminishing those of others, specifically the Spurs. In other words, it's a set-up.

True to a point but Lakeshow is defining the parameters set by the Celtics. The Lakers did not get that respect until it repeated.

[zepn]

That may have been relevant, or even special, when nobody had done it in twenty years. But it has been done several times since then. What would be relevant - and special - these days is not a team that just won for two or three years and then disappeared, but a team that is consistently vying for and/or winning the championship for a decade. Yep, that's what's special these days...

[LakeShow]

That may have been relevant, or even special, when nobody had done it in twenty years. But it has been done several times since then. What would be relevant - and special - these days is not a team that just won for two or three years and then disappeared, but a team that is consistently vying for and/or winning the championship for a decade. Yep, that's what's special these days...

Maybe so, but any scenario I discuss about Champions would favor the Lakers. You can't get any better than 48% of all finals played. That is much better than a team that wins and is consistent for a decade.

[LakeShow]

I would put the Spurs in the first group if they repeat, if they don't, I wouldnt!

[zepn]

I was just playing with you to prove the point that you can prove almost Any point if you allow only the right set of circumstances. That being the case, the conditions you apply to your arguments says more about who you are / what your bias is, than it ever could to prove your argument. Of course, with a name like Lakeshow, you aren't really hiding that...

[LakeShow]

I was just playing with you to prove the point that you can prove almost Any point if you allow only the right set of circumstances. That being the case, the conditions you apply to your arguments says more about who you are / what your bias is, than it ever could to prove your argument. Of course, with a name like Lakeshow, you aren't really hiding that...

Well I always believe that a team that defends its title is one of the best. That's just my opinion though.

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

After winning their fourth title in nine years, you better believe that the Spurs have cemented themselves among the league's greatest franchises and definitely as the best team of the past decade. Regardless of what end of the spectrum one believes the Spurs rank in all time dynasties, they definitely are in that discussion. We are only one of four teams that have won four or more championships - the Spurs are in elite company along with the Bulls, Celtics and Lakers. Not repeating hasn't diminished what the Spurs have accomplished but it would certainly validate their position as one of professional sports greatest franchises.

In the 10 years since Duncan arrived they are pro sports winningest franchise, they are 2nd only behind the Lakers for the highest winning percentage in NBA history. They have the highest NBA finals winning percentage and as a club they've only missed the playoffs in four years. And since the NBA merger in 1977 the Spurs are tied with the Atlanta Braves for the most division titles in pro sports with 15. More then the Lakers with 14. Not bad for a small market team.

It's good to be a Spurs fan.

[SpursDynasty]

Any teams that went back-to-back but ONLY won those championships, are below the Spurs. So they're already above the Pistons winning it in 1989 and 1990, as well as the Rockets winning it in 1994 and 1995. In 1969, the league had 14 teams, so the Celtics of that year and others before then, as well as the Minneapolis Lakers are below the Spurs in terms of difficulty of winning multiple championships. Bird's Celtics never went back to back and they only won three, so the Spurs with four are above them. The Lakers from 2000-2002 went back to back to back, but Shaq and Kobe didn't win anything else. 4 > 3 so that puts the Spurs above them.

So in conclusion:

1. Jordan's Bulls - 1991, 1992, 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998
2. Magic/Kareem's Lakers - 1980, 1982, 1985, 1987, 1988
3. Duncan's Spurs - 1999, 2003, 2005, 2007

There's how teams rank. You could rank franchises but then Boston and L.A. would have a bunch of meaningless championships from an era in which the NBA had only 13 teams.

[zepn]

I respect your opinion Lakeshow. But my opinion is that in the Spurs case, "defending the championship" is particularly irrelevant. The reason most commonly given for it to be more difficult to repeat is that "everyone is gunning for you". It would be irresponsible for any team in the NBA to change their teams to specifically "gun" for the Heat and Pistons for winning their individual titles in the same time-frame that the Spurs have won three of the last five championships. Any GM worth his salt knows that, unless he is lucky, he will have to beat the Spurs on his way to a championship. In fact, several teams have practically looted the Spurs organization and openly admit to emulating them. And, of course, more GM's pick the Spurs to win the championship than any other team, year in and year out. Why would they "gun" for anyone else? They wouldn't, and they don't. The Spurs have been facing opponents who have literally been "gunning for them" For Years, so in effect the '05 and '07 championships were at least as difficult as any other teams' repeat, if not more so.

[LakeShow]

I respect your opinion Lakeshow. But my opinion is that in the Spurs case, "defending the championship" is particularly irrelevant. The reason most commonly given for it to be more difficult to repeat is that "everyone is gunning for you". It would be irresponsible for any team in the NBA to change their teams to specifically "gun" for the Heat and Pistons for winning their individual titles in the same time-frame that the Spurs have won three of the last five championships. Any GM worth his salt knows that, unless he is lucky, he will have to beat the Spurs on his way to a championship. In fact, several teams have practically looted the Spurs organization and openly admit to emulating them. And, of course, more GM's pick the Spurs to win the championship than any other team, year in and year out. Why would they "gun" for anyone else? They wouldn't, and they don't. The Spurs have been facing opponents who have literally been "gunning for them" For Years, so in effect the '05 and '07 championships were at least as difficult as any other teams' repeat, if not more so.

As I do your!

I disagree with the back to back being irrelevent. I think it's very relevent! In my opinion, that is the only thing that would save face for the Spurs. If they don't win next year you might as well :hang lol. Your title would be tarnished! Some will look at the fact that the official cheated for you. Some will say that is the only reason you won. The talk would be that the Suns were the best team last season. True or not, the talk has substance that can not be ignored. Win it again, no Donaghy, with Joey(I Some say Stern got rid of the only ref that would not be favorable to the Spurs) shuts everybody up! Otherwise you'll have people like me clowning your asses! :lol

[SpursDynasty]

The Spurs have been the top team in the NBA since October 2002. They dethroned the Lakers' three-year run. They have three out of the last five, and the teams that eliminated them in 2004 and 2006 were flukes. The Lakers didn't win it in 2004 against the favored Pistons and Dallas didn't in 2006 against the favored Heat.

[SpursDynasty]

The Suns can hardly be thought to have been the favorites for the championship when the 2nd round started.

The Spurs were 25-3 going into their game in which Crawford ejected Duncan. The two games after that were garbage games with the starters resting. They were 2-1 vs. Phoenix and had a better West record than Phoenix. Just because Phoenix can run and gun and go 25-5 vs. the East doesn't mean shit.

Phoenix had a 25-5 vs. the East record.
SA had a 20-10 vs. the East record.

Yet, SA had a 38-14 record vs. the West
While Phoenix had a 36-16 record vs. the West

But then again, Phoenix fans are incapable of using logic.

[zepn]

As I do your!

I disagree with the back to back being irrelevent. I think it's very relevent! In my opinion, that is the only thing that would save face for the Spurs. If they don't win next year you might as well :hang lol. Your title would be tarnished! Some will look at the fact that the official cheated for you. Some will say that is the only reason you won. The talk would be that the Suns were the best team last season. True or not, the talk has substance that can not be ignored. Win it again, no Donaghy, with Joey(I Some say Stern got rid of the only ref that would not be favorable to the Spurs) shuts everybody up! Otherwise you'll have people like me clowning your asses! :lol

Unfortunately you abandoned logic for rhetoric, probably because that was all you had left.

I systematically destroyed any pretense for the faulty logic behind the "Spurs must repeat" argument.

That argument is DEAD - unless you can give a logical, meaningful reason that you have so far failed to present.

I have no time for the "You Suck" type of rhetoric.

[Dalhoop]

1. Jordan's Bulls - 1991, 1992, 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998
2. Magic/Kareem's Lakers - 1980, 1982, 1985, 1987, 1988
3. Duncan's Spurs - 1999, 2003, 2005, 2007

I think this is close to being correct, though obviously Russells Celtics should be at the top, bumping the Spurs down to #4 team of all time. In my opinion, they (Spurs) would have to win this year to equal the Lakers, the back-to-back does matter. Having said that, I think that the Spurs will eventually pass the Lakers as their window still has 3-4 years and at their every-other-year pace, they have two more championships to win.

[zepn]

I think this is close to being correct, though obviously Russells Celtics should be at the top, bumping the Spurs down to #4 team of all time. In my opinion, they (Spurs) would have to win this year to equal the Lakers, the back-to-back does matter. Having said that, I think that the Spurs will eventually pass the Lakers as their window still has 3-4 years and at their every-other-year pace, they have two more championships to win.

Give your reasons, with proof, that back to back matters in regards to the Spurs over the last five years. Else it remains disproven and a dead argument.

[picnroll]

As I do your!

I disagree with the back to back being irrelevent. I think it's very relevent! In my opinion, that is the only thing that would save face for the Spurs. If they don't win next year you might as well :hang lol. Your title would be tarnished! Some will look at the fact that the official cheated for you. Some will say that is the only reason you won. The talk would be that the Suns were the best team last season. True or not, the talk has substance that can not be ignored. Win it again, no Donaghy, with Joey(I Some say Stern got rid of the only ref that would not be favorable to the Spurs) shuts everybody up! Otherwise you'll have people like me clowning your asses! :lol
And some say the Kings got ripped off and the Shaq/Kobe Lakers back to back is a fraud. Who give a shit what some say. I guess if the Spurs win there will be no dumbshits (maybe you're one?) who will say the Spurs have an asterisk for the shortened season, or that the Suns got screwed or Dirk got injured or the Stern loves the Spurs. What counts is what the other teams players, coaches and FO think, the guys who actually know something, not a bunch of whiny bitch fans of other teams. And the players, coaches and GMs of the othr teams for nearly ten years have been saying the Spurs are a great team, in fact the standard they would like to have their team emulate. Better than the Shaq/Kobe Lakers. Better than the Bad Boys, the out of nowhere and back to nowhere Rockets and a great but short lived Knicks team. Spurs are in a class only with the Showtime Lakers, Celtics and Bulls and every year of success moves them higher up the ranks. One or two more titles and they'll be ahead of every team but the Russell Celtics, and it's still possible.

[HJNTX]

Ho Hummm.. I knew this was started by someone other than a SPURS fan .. Yawwwwwwwwnnnnnn

[Dalhoop]

Give your reasons, with proof, that back to back matters in regards to the Spurs over the last five years. Else it remains disproven and a dead argument.

Because of this

Lakers won one, then another, then another, then went back to back
Spurs won one, then another, then another, then ... One.

You see the difference is that I didn't type "Then went back to back" I only typed "then ... One". There is a diffenece between "Back to Back" and Then ... One"

You see, they would have to win another in order for me to be able to type "back to back" but sense that have only won one .... They are not to that level.

I hate to put it that simply but five with a back-to-back beats four without a back-to-back, by a wide margin if truth be told.

[Dalhoop]

The talk about back-to-back is insane. Because if do look at it, it matters a great deal. A team, most of the time, can be championship good for a limited time ... Say ten years. If a team fails to go back-to-back, their maximum number of Championships become limited to five.

If you can only win five during your teams run, any team that wins more then five will be able to say "But we have six"

So when talking about "best teams", if your going to be on top, you had best win back to back, because if not, you will not pass the Bulls with Six rings. Let alone come close to the Celtics

[zepn]

The talk about back-to-back is insane. Because if do look at it, it matters a great deal. A team, most of the time, can be championship good for a limited time ... Say ten years. If a team fails to go back-to-back, their maximum number of Championships become limited to five.

If you can only win five during your teams run, any team that wins more then five will be able to say "But we have six"

So when talking about "best teams", if your going to be on top, you had best win back to back, because if not, you will not pass the Bulls with Six rings. Let alone come close to the Celtics

You're right, it is insane - because it is meaningless. You can say the Lakers won one more championship. That is relevant. The fact that any of them were back to back and that somehow makes them better is irrelevant. See my previous post where I shot a giant hole in that argument. It is very possible that back to back championsips are NOT better, but in fact, worse. Let's call them "Cookie-Cutter championships", because these teams simply did the same thing they did the year before, they didn't have to overcome anything new, they just plugged in the same old formula - big deal. And absolute number of championships mathematically possible during your pre-selected time-span does not in any way infer validity upon the argumentative fallacy that is "back to back".

[itzsoweezee]

out of those, better than the rockets, that's it

[Dalhoop]

You're right, it is insane - because it is meaningless.

How can the total number of Championships be meaningless in an arguement of "which is better"?

Oh, I see, your looking at a single championship season and not the body of work ... Well, the topic is about body of work for one team, not one season. Over time, If a team is going to win alot of Championships, they are going to have to win Back-to-back.

You see to think that one is better then the other and in the long run, one is better. You want as a team to win as many Championship as you can before having to "reload". Now you can win every other year and get five in ten years, but by that time, your star players are starting to show their age ... Or you can win back-to-back once or twice and win even more championship over the same period of time.

You don't see the advantage of winning as many Championships as you can while your players are still at their peak? You don't see that back-to-backs, or triples would be far better then to win one and loose one as your stars age?

Using your logic the Bulls would have been see as the same team if they only won only four Championships over their seven year run. I disagree, they would not have been seen as dominate if they didn't have their two triples. That they so much so fast is why everyone hold them so high. The Spurs are winning Championship, but not at the same pace of other great teams. It is a testiment to their skill level and style of play, but in these years that they are not winning they are not adding the the thing that seperates them from those teams listed.

I'm not talking down about the Spurs Championship teams, only pointing out simple mathmatics that you don't seem to understand. If they are going to win alot of Championship, they need to win them in bunches to equal what the other teams that are seen as better have already done.

[zepn]

How can the total number of Championships be meaningless in an arguement of "which is better"?

Oh, I see, your looking at a single championship season and not the body of work ... Well, the topic is about body of work for one team, not one season. Over time, If a team is going to win alot of Championships, they are going to have to win Back-to-back.

You see to think that one is better then the other and in the long run, one is better. You want as a team to win as many Championship as you can before having to "reload". Now you can win every other year and get five in ten years, but by that time, your star players are starting to show their age ... Or you can win back-to-back once or twice and win even more championship over the same period of time.

You don't see the advantage of winning as many Championships as you can while your players are still at their peak? You don't see that back-to-backs, or triples would be far better then to win one and loose one as your stars age?

Using your logic the Bulls would have been see as the same team if they only won only four Championships over their seven year run. I disagree, they would not have been seen as dominate if they didn't have their two triples. That they so much so fast is why everyone hold them so high. The Spurs are winning Championship, but not at the same pace of other great teams. It is a testiment to their skill level and style of play, but in these years that they are not winning they are not adding the the thing that seperates them from those teams listed.

I'm not talking down about the Spurs Championship teams, only pointing out simple mathmatics that you don't seem to understand. If they are going to win alot of Championship, they need to win them in bunches to equal what the other teams that are seen as better have already done.


You don't read very well do you?

You said: The talk about back-to-back is insane.
I said: You're right, it is insane - because it is meaningless.

Yes, absolutely, winning more championships is better. Do you really think you are going to get an argument otherwise? Well maybe from Dirk...

Yes, everyone knows that a championship every other year = exactly half of the championships over a specific timeframe. That is the "given" part of the issue that everyone else here has long since taken for granted.

But you missed the point entirely, Professor Mathquiz...

The issue regarding Back to Back is QUALITATIVE not Quantitative.

There is NO intrinsic qualitative value in winning championships "back to back", especially for the Spurs - they don't face any stiffer competition because all of the other teams are already "gunning for them" anyway, whether it is a championship year, or an "off" year.

[samikeyp]

Back to back is better than just one.

But three in 5 is better than just one back to back.

The more titles, the better.

[HighLowLobForBig-50]

barring an unexpected breach of character, the Spurs will go down as the most well run franchise in sports HISTORY. period

[LakeShow]

And some say the Kings got ripped off and the Shaq/Kobe Lakers back to back is a fraud. Who give a shit what some say. I guess if the Spurs win there will be no dumbshits (maybe you're one?) who will say the Spurs have an asterisk for the shortened season, or that the Suns got screwed or Dirk got injured or the Stern loves the Spurs. What counts is what the other teams players, coaches and FO think, the guys who actually know something, not a bunch of whiny bitch fans of other teams. And the players, coaches and GMs of the othr teams for nearly ten years have been saying the Spurs are a great team, in fact the standard they would like to have their team emulate. Better than the Shaq/Kobe Lakers. Better than the Bad Boys, the out of nowhere and back to nowhere Rockets and a great but short lived Knicks team. Spurs are in a class only with the Showtime Lakers, Celtics and Bulls and every year of success moves them higher up the ranks. One or two more titles and they'll be ahead of every team but the Russell Celtics, and it's still possible.

Anyone who says that the lakers back to back was a fraud is Insane (are you that?) the lakers validated their greatness with the greatest run in the history of the NBA in the Playoffs. The best record ever in the playoff! That's how you validate a title! The Threepeat Lakers were much better than the Spurs.

[LakeShow]

The Suns can hardly be thought to have been the favorites for the championship when the 2nd round started.

The Spurs were 25-3 going into their game in which Crawford ejected Duncan. The two games after that were garbage games with the starters resting. They were 2-1 vs. Phoenix and had a better West record than Phoenix. Just because Phoenix can run and gun and go 25-5 vs. the East doesn't mean shit.

Phoenix had a 25-5 vs. the East record.
SA had a 20-10 vs. the East record.

Yet, SA had a 38-14 record vs. the West
While Phoenix had a 36-16 record vs. the West

But then again, Phoenix fans are incapable of using logic.

Good Post! :tu

[LakeShow]

You're right, it is insane - because it is meaningless. You can say the Lakers won one more championship. That is relevant. The fact that any of them were back to back and that somehow makes them better is irrelevant. See my previous post where I shot a giant hole in that argument. It is very possible that back to back championsips are NOT better, but in fact, worse. Let's call them "Cookie-Cutter championships", because these teams simply did the same thing they did the year before, they didn't have to overcome anything new, they just plugged in the same old formula - big deal. And absolute number of championships mathematically possible during your pre-selected time-span does not in any way infer validity upon the argumentative fallacy that is "back to back".

Why do you keep saying that? You did not shoot down anything! You made a very good argument, but the fact remains that teams shoot for the NBA champions! They tend to play their best to gauge how far they've come in the league and to see if they can really compete with the best! This season teams will circle the date of your game but when you're not the champs, wgaf! Who do you think you are? The Lakers? They circle LA's game because they're coming to LA. :fro

[LakeShow]

The Spurs have been the top team in the NBA since October 2002. They dethroned the Lakers' three-year run. They have three out of the last five, and the teams that eliminated them in 2004 and 2006 were flukes. The Lakers didn't win it in 2004 against the favored Pistons and Dallas didn't in 2006 against the favored Heat.

I don't get that one. How could they be the top team if the Lakers and Dallas won the WC?

2003
http://espn.go.com/page2/s/rosen/030615.html

[jman3000]

lakers 3 peat was impressive... but people forget that they should have lost both of those game 7 WCF games against portland in 00 and sac in 02. both games had some pretty questionable calls from what i remember.... 01 they just fucked everyone in the ass and dominated without question though.

[Dalhoop]

You don't read very well do you?

You said: The talk about back-to-back is insane.
I said: You're right, it is insane - because it is meaningless.

Yes, absolutely, winning more championships is better. Do you really think you are going to get an argument otherwise? Well maybe from Dirk...

Yes, everyone knows that a championship every other year = exactly half of the championships over a specific timeframe. That is the "given" part of the issue that everyone else here has long since taken for granted.

But you missed the point entirely, Professor Mathquiz...

The issue regarding Back to Back is QUALITATIVE not Quantitative.

There is NO intrinsic qualitative value in winning championships "back to back", especially for the Spurs - they don't face any stiffer competition because all of the other teams are already "gunning for them" anyway, whether it is a championship year, or an "off" year.

And apparently you like to argue even after you have lost the arguement. Who cares about the "quality" of a back-to-back Championship run. The words 'Back-to-back Championship' speaks for itself, If means that no team could beat you when it mattered most for two years running.

Can the Spurs say that? No they cannot. Because over the course of their run, someone stepped up to a level that the Spurs were not able to equal. They seem to be doing it with the same regularity as the Spurs themselves stepping up.

Obviously as you put it "More Championships are better" and sense you cannot to the really big "more" numbers without going back-to-back, that is what every team is shooting for. they are not shooting to win one every other year, they are shooting to win one every year. If that doesn't tell you that one is better then nothing will.

If you agree that a Back-to-back is better then one every other year, then you are agreeing with the fact that there is a different between the two. If you agree that that one of the two (back-to-back or every other year) is better, then there is a difference.


The issue regarding Back to Back is QUALITATIVE not Quantitative.

Only to you, because you have already admitted that a team would rather win in a back-to-back fashion, as you stated here ...


That is the "given" part of the issue that everyone else here has long since taken for granted

That a team has not won in a back-to-back fashion doesn't lesson any of the Championships that they do win, but when looking back at the body of work that that team had accomplished .. It will dimish the final product because they were not Championship dominate during any streatch of time lasting more then one season.

It is better to say 'We won a lot of Championships and nobody beat us when it mattered for two years in a row' then to say 'We won a lot Championships, but someone always stepped up to beat us everytime we were on top of the mountain'

Do you think that those two statements are equal? Because that is the crux of the arguement. One team has won Championships with a back-to-back the other hasn't. One can say the first statement, the other cannot ... Are the statements equal in your opinion, if they are explain why please.

[zepn]

Why do you keep saying that? You did not shoot down anything! You made a very good argument, but the fact remains that teams shoot for the NBA champions! They tend to play their best to gauge how far they've come in the league and to see if they can really compete with the best! This season teams will circle the date of your game but when you're not the champs, wgaf! Who do you think you are? The Lakers? They circle LA's game because they're coming to LA. :fro

Back to Back has been destroyed. Nobody has been able to refute my argument in a logical way. And poor Dalhoop can't even understand the question...

[zepn]

...and sense you cannot to the really big "more" numbers...

What??? Yoda, is that you? You can't write either I see...

I love this. Soundly defeated, now you invent the concept of "when it matters most". Not only that, YOU get to define it as the year after a championship. Just off-hand I would say that if such a concept did exist, and wasn't just a comical attempt to dig yourself out of a hole, most teams would say their First championship was when it mattered most.

"They seem to be doing it with the same regularity as the Spurs". They? Who is they? Pistons? Sorry, one win. Heat? One win. Your arguments confuse even yourself, although apparently that is not very difficult...

Oh God, the math lecture truism from you again...
Yes, we can all add. Yes, we all like championships. Yes, more championships are better than fewer championships. We not only get it, we agree. We not only agree, we have already assumed that Everyone agreed with this so long ago that there is no reason to mention it, much less try to argue over it. Stop already, it's annoying. "Hey, hey, guys listen, listen to this, hey guys..." Yes, Dalhoop?... "Hey, hey, guys listen, listen to this, hey guys...uh, breathing is good" Yes, Dalhoop, we know...

What supposedly makes "back to back" special is that it is harder to accomplish because everyone is "gunning" for you, NOT because it looks good on paper or makes a neat-o slogan. Everyone is Already gunning for the Spurs, so IT IS IRRELEVANT. Every years' competition is the same as a back to back for the Spurs BECAUSE they have been winners over a long period of time, and they are not some two-and-done, flash in the pan, back to back team you never hear from again.

[Cry Havoc]

What??? Yoda, is that you? You can't write either I see...

I love this. Soundly defeated, now you invent the concept of "when it matters most". Not only that, YOU get to define it as the year after a championship. Just off-hand I would say that if such a concept did exist, and wasn't just a comical attempt to dig yourself out of a hole, most teams would say their First championship was when it mattered most.

"They seem to be doing it with the same regularity as the Spurs". They? Who is they? Pistons? Sorry, one win. Heat? One win. Your arguments confuse even yourself, although apparently that is not very difficult...

Oh God, the math lecture truism from you again...
Yes, we can all add. Yes, we all like championships. Yes, more championships are better than fewer championships. We not only get it, we agree. We not only agree, we have already assumed that Everyone agreed with this so long ago that there is no reason to mention it, much less try to argue over it. Stop already, it's annoying. "Hey, hey, guys listen, listen to this, hey guys..." Yes, Dalhoop?... "Hey, hey, guys listen, listen to this, hey guys...uh, breathing is good" Yes, Dalhoop, we know...

What supposedly makes "back to back" special is that it is harder to accomplish because everyone is "gunning" for you, NOT because it looks good on paper or makes a neat-o slogan. Everyone is Already gunning for the Spurs, so IT IS IRRELEVANT. Every years' competition is the same as a back to back for the Spurs BECAUSE they have been winners over a long period of time, and they are not some two-and-done, flash in the pan, back to back team you never hear from again.

I think it's also important to note the difference between winning 2 titles in three years compares to a back-to-back, and how that is completely different from what the Spurs have accomplished.

2 titles in 3 years is commendable. 3 titles in 5 years is pretty good as well. However, with four titles now, the Spurs have held a pattern of sustained dominance that is far different from a typical team who wins a couple before fading to obscurity. Consider the fact that the Spurs might end up winning 6 or 7 titles over a period of 13-14 years. That is absolutely unheard of in the modern era of sports with the lone exception of Michael Jordan. To even have a chance at 5+ titles is nearly without equal in the modern sports area.

The Spurs, if they have a little luck, and do everything right, could even win more than 7. Probably won't happen, and every Spurs fan would probably be more than happy with 2 more titles, but even so... the bottom line is that you have to go a long, long way back in ANY sport to find a team who has been as dominant for as long as these Spurs have been. That is far greater than any repeat title, and the way our four championships have come, I'll take that over a 3 peat any day. Especially considering we have a chance at several more with Duncan in his prime or very close to it.

[LakeShow]

lakers 3 peat was impressive... but people forget that they should have lost both of those game 7 WCF games against portland in 00 and sac in 02. both games had some pretty questionable calls from what i remember.... 01 they just fucked everyone in the ass and dominated without question though.

I don't believe there were any questionable calls against Portland, it was just a massive meltdown by the blazers. There definitely were not any questionable calls against Sac in game 7. I think you're thinking about game 6.

[samikeyp]

I don't believe there were any questionable calls against Portland, it was just a massive meltdown by the blazers. There definitely were not any questionable calls against Sac in game 7. I think you're thinking about game 6.

I agree with that. A win is a win period. The Kings still could have won that series. Hell, if they would have covered Horry a little better, they might have.

[LakeShow]

Back to Back has been destroyed. Nobody has been able to refute my argument in a logical way. And poor Dalhoop can't even understand the question...

I don't see how? Dalhoop made an excellent point that titles are won every year, not every 4, or other year.

As far as your logic, it's flawed. If teams are out for the Spurs every year, they should have no problem repeating by your logic. It seems to make sense that teams are only after the Spurs when they're champions. That's why they fail time and time again.

[picnroll]

I don't see how? Dalhoop made an excellent point that titles are won every year, not every 4, or other year.

As far as your logic, it's flawed. If teams are out for the Spurs every year, they should have no problem repeating by your logic. It seems to make sense that teams are only after the Spurs when they're champions. That's why they fail time and time again.
So if a team isn't a championship team from the previous year another team doesn't try as hard to win and advance playing against them in the playoffs? Makes sense to me. :rolleyes

[Cry Havoc]

So if a team isn't a championship team from the previous year another team doesn't try as hard to win and advance playing against them in the playoffs? Makes sense to me. :rolleyes

Yeah, from what I've heard, teams are treating the Patriots like they're pushovers this year.

[LakeShow]

So if a team isn't a championship team from the previous year another team doesn't try as hard to win and advance playing against them in the playoffs? Makes sense to me. :rolleyes

They try harder and look forward to playing teams when they're the Champs! Makes plenty of sense to me!

[zepn]

If teams are out for the Spurs every year, they should have no problem repeating by your logic.

Uh, no.

It is just as difficult for the Spurs to win the championship every year, whether they have just won the championship or not.

Do you really think all the other teams are simply letting the Spurs win every other year because those teams just don't feel like trying as hard because the Spurs didn't win the championship the year before?

[LakeShow]

Uh, no.

It is just as difficult for the Spurs to win the championship every year, whether they have just won the championship or not.

Do you really think all the other teams are simply letting the Spurs win every other year because those teams just don't feel like trying as hard because the Spurs didn't win the championship the year before?

Of course not, but every team is not circling the date on their calenders. When you've lost, you're no different than the other 15 playoff teams that didn't win the title.

[zepn]

They try harder and look forward to playing teams when they're the Champs! Makes plenty of sense to me!

I will grant you that normally this might make sense, but NOT in the Spurs case.

The Spurs have won three of the last five championships, and every year the vast majority of NBA GM's pick the Spurs to win it all yet again. These teams have spent literally years building their teams to beat the Spurs, and their biggest games of the year are always against the Spurs. If anything, these teams should play the Spurs harder after non-championship seasons, because that's when they have historically won yet another championship.

[zepn]

Of course not, but every team is not circling the date on their calenders. When you've lost, you're no different than the other 15 playoff teams that didn't win the title.

That's complete BS. See the post above for the reasons. If you honestly believe that the Mavs and Suns will play the Spurs the same way as the Griz in years when the Spurs haven't won the championship then I am done talking to you.

[picnroll]

Of course not, but every team is not circling the date on their calenders. When you've lost, you're no different than the other 15 playoff teams that didn't win the title.
Fans circle the date. Coaches undertand that each win counts toward playoff seedings equally. There are a group of legimate contenders each year and during the year they face each other focusing on game planning, probing, holding back some, showing some in prepration for the real saeson. In the real season, the playoffs, they bust their asses to win each round in as few a games as possible. The only thing the two finalists have going against them the following year is they've played a few more games than the other legitimate contenders the year before. Do you seriously think by March when things really heat up teams were all fired up to play the championship Heat more than the Mavs or Suns? You probably do.

[Dr. Cox]

Of course not, but every team is not circling the date on their calenders. When you've lost, you're no different than the other 15 playoff teams that didn't win the title.

You're WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG...

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG...

You're WRONG, YOU'RE WRONG, YOU'RE WRONG!!!

[Reggie Miller]

No one outside of Old dirty San Antonio cares!!!!!!!!!!


Actually, quite a lot of people outside of SA care. Most fans of dysfunctional franchises definitely care and even watch the Spurs primarily for this reason. I should know...

[LakeShow]

Fans circle the date. Coaches undertand that each win counts toward playoff seedings equally. There are a group of legimate contenders each year and during the year they face each other focusing on game planning, probing, holding back some, showing some in prepration for the real saeson. In the real season, the playoffs, they bust their asses to win each round in as few a games as possible. The only thing the two finalists have the other legitimate contenders the year before. Do you seriously think by March when things really heat up teams were all fired up to play the championship Heat more than the Mavs or Suns? You probably do.

Great! :rolleyes

The playoffs are a different ball game where teams have time to plan to play their opponents. Teams do not have that luxury in the regular season. It's the regular season where teams whether they make the playoffs or not, take something from their season in defeating the World Champions.

Of course it makes no difference when you get into the playoffs. You want every series you can win no matter who you're playing. :rolleyes

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

Of course not, but every team is not circling the date on their calenders. When you've lost, you're no different than the other 15 playoff teams that didn't win the title.

That just doesn't fly. I'm of the opinion that these men are paid professionals and they're playing for their basketball lives. I'm assuming that they have all games circled. And they try as hard whether their playing Toronto or the Spurs.

[LakeShow]

That's complete BS. See the post above for the reasons. If you honestly believe that the Mavs and Suns will play the Spurs the same way as the Griz in years when the Spurs haven't won the championship then I am done talking to you.

You might as well be done then because the Mavs and the Suns do not make up the entire NBA. Of course those teams want to beat you bad, you have a rivalry with them. You can expect every team to want to do well against you because you set the standard last season as NBA Champs! Teams will judge where they are by how well they play against you.

[LakeShow]

That just doesn't fly. I'm of the opinion that these men are paid professionals and they're playing for their basketball lives. I'm assuming that they have all games circled. And they try as hard whether their playing Toronto or the Spurs.

Why would they circle any games if that's the case?

Have you ever notice how teams react when they defeat the spurs after they've won the title? I've noticed it on several occasions with the lakers. They act like they won the NBA title.

[Obstructed_View]

The Rockets team of the 94-95 has to be considered better than the Boston team of Bird. They were able to defend their title and the celtics were not. Any team can luck up and win one title but to defend your title deserves recognition for being one of the best champions ever. Any idiot knows that!
Ah, don't sell yourself short; you're not just any idiot...

[LakeShow]

Ah, don't sell yourself short; you're not just any idiot...

:lol I love how pussys like you try to play internet thug on the net. When you have no take or knowledge on the game, resort to insults! :flipoff

[zepn]

You might as well be done then because the Mavs and the Suns do not make up the entire NBA. Of course those teams want to beat you bad, you have a rivalry with them. You can expect every team to want to do well against you because you set the standard last season as NBA Champs! Teams will judge where they are by how well they play against you.

I named them because they are the second and third best teams in the NBA.

The Spurs can expect every team to want to do well against them because they set the standard every season as the NBA's model of a professional, successful franchise. Teams will judge where they are by how well they play against the Spurs.

[LakeShow]

I named them because they are the second and third best teams in the NBA.

The Spurs can expect every team to want to do well against them because they set the standard every season as the NBA's model of a professional, successful franchise. Teams will judge where they are by how well they play against the Spurs.

Set the standard? Okay,l that's a whole different subject which I wont address here.

[Cry Havoc]

:lol I love how pussys like you try to play internet thug on the net. When you have no take or knowledge on the game, resort to insults! :flipoff


And I love people who proclaim themselves above such chatter and then use the flipoff emote.

Secondly, I love people who set their own guidelines for what make a team great and then use those completely arbitrary statements to "prove" others wrong.

[LakeShow]

And I love people who proclaim themselves above such chatter and then use the flipoff emote

There you go again putting words in my mouth again. What's up with that? I do not proclaim myself above insulting. I'm from the old school, you have to give respect to get it! I can insult with the best of them, when I'm in the mood for that bullshit but I also realize that I'm on a short leash here. Some of you go crying to Kori to have me banned. Most can dish it out but can't take it!


Secondly, I love people who set their own guidelines for what make a team great and then use those completely arbitrary statements to "prove" others wrong.

Yeah, I like that too! :lol

[zepn]

Set the standard? Okay,l that's a whole different subject which I wont address here.

Ummm, I was paraphrasing, and throwing your own words back at you...

[LakeShow]

Ummm, I was paraphrasing, and throwing your own words back at you...

uhh, that the Celtics set the standard?

[zepn]

uhh, that the Celtics set the standard?

Please note that it's in present tense...

[LakeShow]

Please note that it's in present tense...

oh, so forget about what other teams have done in the past? It only matters what the spurs have done this decade? :rolleyes

[zepn]

oh, so forget about what other teams have done in the past? It only matters what the spurs have done this decade? :rolleyes

I have really been trying not to call you a moron, but jeez you make it difficult! Hopefully you are just trying to pick a fight and aren't really that dumb...

The statement -which YOU originally wrote, and which I only paraphrased, is in present tense. Meaning the Spurs currently set the standard. It says nothing about who or what may have set any other standard in any other timeframe.

[LakeShow]

I have really been trying not to call you a moron, but jeez you make it difficult! Hopefully you are just trying to pick a fight and aren't really that dumb...

The statement -which YOU originally wrote, and which I only paraphrased, is in present tense. Meaning the Spurs currently set the standard. It says nothing about who or what may have set any other standard in any other timeframe.

Okay, you got me on that one. Never thought about calling you a moron for your takes.. the spurs set the standard in 2003 to 2007. 3 in 5. Got ya!

[zepn]

Okay, you got me on that one. Never thought about calling you a moron for your takes.. the spurs set the standard in 2003 to 2007. 3 in 5. Got ya!

As Stephen Colbert would say, I accept your apology!

[Man In Black]

Have you ever notice how teams react when they defeat the spurs after they've won the title? I've noticed it on several occasions with the lakers. They act like they won the NBA title.
For the last 2 seasons, when teams beat the Lakers, I've seen them react not with shock and amazement but mostly with glee. They didn't expect for it to be that easy but despite #24's greatness, there are a myriad of teams who circle a date with the Lakers as a chance to get an easy victory provided that they can disrupt the Lakers into imploding, and you all know that that isn't that hard to do right?

[greyforest]

pop answered this so eloquently


i really don't give a shit

[Obstructed_View]

:lol I love how pussys like you try to play internet thug on the net.
:cry I love how you feign righteous indignation after you make such a ridiculously stupid statement like suggesting that a team that won two titles in a row (Hakeem's Rockets) is somehow superior to a team that won three titles (one of which came against Hakeem's Rockets). You have no moral high ground on which to stand when you start a stupid troll thread like this.


When you have no take or knowledge on the game, resort to insults! :flipoff
Have someone look up "ironic" in the dictionary for you.

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

What if they do not win 5? Will 4 put them on a pedestal as well?

Let's face it, 4 titles is a great accomplishment and not too many teams have won as many. I just wondered if that would be enough, even without a repeat to be mentioned with the others. In your opinion

IMO, Spurs are already historically relevant. We have the resume to be mentioned in the same breath as all the all time great teams. Not worried about that. We are what we are. The neat thing about this is that the Spurs probably are not done adding to their resume.

Can't say the same thing about your laker team. They were great once but it doesn't look like their going to be accomplishing much of anything anytime soon. Break out all your old championship parade videos because that is all you may have. Couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch.!