Winning 3 championships in a row and then falling off completely or winning 4 over a span of 9 years and being continuously competitive?
Printable View
Winning 3 championships in a row and then falling off completely or winning 4 over a span of 9 years and being continuously competitive?
Thats a good question.... I think if the Lakers would have kept their team intact... Like the Spurs they would have been competitive for years even to this day.... But I would have to say that the Spurs run to this day is incredible..... Winningist franchise since Tim Duncan came aboard.....
Not sure.. I've actually thought about that. I think I'd rather have it spread around a bit, in spite of some disappointing seasons. It's exciting to be in the Finals again after almost a decade of same. I'd rather have that than remembering a dynasty that once was (i.e., Bulls, et al)
Lets call it what it really is - the Tim Duncan dynasty, pure and simple he is and will remain the constant during this run.
You could stretch the Dynastic period to include David Robinson's tenure, as that squad usually made it the 2nd round from 90-96.
To be sure, this 20 year run will never be replicated by this or any other NBA team.
Not sure...but if the Spurs win this one and another during the td era they will without a doubt be a bonafide dynasty.
dont forget that the Lakers were already very competitive before they went on their title run, as well as a couple years afterwards. they were competitive/winning for a good 7-8 years or so as well, but unfortunately Kobe fucked everything up. if they were still together, they would still be a championship contending team (not neccesarily winning titles, but they would still be in the hunt). and dont forget, the Spurs still havent won their 4th yet. if they lose, they will be no better than the Lakers, because the Lakers lost their 4th chance in the finals as well. but repeating is a much harder feat than winning 3 in 7 years. they not only repeated, but 3-peated. the 2000-2002 Lakers 3-peat dynasty is definitely superior to the 1999*-2005 (possibly 2007) Spurs "dynasty", no question about it.
Winning 3 straight is more impressive and better than winning in odd years...
The Spurs titles are not considered a dynasty.
Win this year and then at least defend it next year then we can talk dynasty..
Meanwhile..
NOPE!
Yeah, when you think about it, it's even more impressive than a simple dynasty.
Who else has won three in seven?Quote:
but repeating is a much harder feat than winning 3 in 7 years.
Well its a little harder to 3-peat without a loaded team.
The Spurs have had only one in-his-prime hall of famer over the last nine years.
And when you think about it do you really want your team to win three and then completely flame out (who cares why they flamed out, team chemistry is part of the game as well)?
More specifically, which teams won three titles in seven years with only one player common to all three championship rosters?
I await mavcavsunfan's answer.
It's a dynasty no less. Not as recognizable as the Bulls 6 year run until after the entire run is looked at in retrospect. The fact that just about everyone in the media hates us and wants us to lose and claims we're killing the game of basketball - reminds me everyday that we are a dynasty. Surrounded of course by the biggest bunch of crybabies and bad attitude losers that think the wave of the future is a slam dunkathon flash fest. That itself is the true death to basketball, see modern day "Dream Teams" vs. anyone in the European leagues. Our days of winning olympic basketball are O-V-E-R.
Congrats to the crybabies and loser rooters though, looks like they will ultimately prevail as the years go on and basketball will become the WWE here in the US. Just wait until they start putting vaultolines in the floor at arena's and play flaming basketball sounds as guys launch from the half court to get a dunk.
:lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
4 > 3
Look, take away the first Laker Championship in 2000(TD was hurt), and you only have the Lakers beating the Spurs on the way to a Championship TWICE.
That's not a Dynasty. That's the Pistons or Rockets.
That said, I would like for the Spurs to repeat at least once this decade, then there can be no excuses.
Call it whatever you want, I'm enjoying it. :smokin
Remember, the Lakers Championship in 2000 has a * in it, Duncan was injured.
:rolleyes
4 > 3
-Mars
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 14 (5 members and 9 guests)Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
ChumpDumper, ImpartialObserver, Josh810, Fast Dunk, greenroom
tik-tock....
Yeah, I think that's the bottom line right there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
I'm more impressed with the Spurs. They have made the playoffs so many times that it just keeps getting better...
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 10 (7 members and 3 guests)
ChumpDumper, Spurminator, BigBeezie, tim_duncan_fan, exstatic, GroundHogDay, Fast Dunk
Three in a row is a "run."Quote:
Originally Posted by tim_duncan_fan
Winning 4 in nine while always making it into the second round, normally making the conference title and never losing in the finals is a "dynasty."
i would not cosider a team a dynasty when it even cant defend the ship a least 1 year.
If Spurs win again this year its definitely a dynasty. Its a "non-conforming" dynasty. It doesn't have to be three in a row to be considered one, that is just stupid and grasping at straws.
What makes the Spurs un-conventional is how they have re-tooled and have won with different role players. Thats pretty amazing.
As much as I respect what the Spurs have done and are doing, a dynasty implies being reigning champs for a period of time greater than one season. Even if the Spurs win this year, they won't be a dynasty to me unless they win next year too. If it doesn't happen, no biggie. You don't need to be a dynasty to enjoy the bling from three rings.
Weakest troll smack ever is the "yeah but the Spurs can't win back to back rings" smack. :lol
Funny, cavs and dallas fans going 100% sure it is not a dynasty. You just can't make an opinion on this subject since you see this thru your spurs-hatred eyes. We, spurs fans, just don't say anythign else, we enjoy the whole thing.
You are not prepared to make an opinion.
If David Stern called us a dynasty, that pretty much sums it up since he runs the league.
:clap
3 in arow > 4 not in a row - in nine yearsQuote:
Originally Posted by ClingingMars
Weird. I was taught at the school that 4 is more than 3 all the time. I think they are rewriting the manuals in Cleveland.Quote:
Originally Posted by thewatcher
:rolleyes
whats harder (therefore more valuable) for you?, win 3 ships in a row or win 4 not in a row in nine years?
The difference is between the shorter term excellence of a single team and the sustained excellence of an organization. Which one is "more of a dynasty" depends on which of those two descriptions better fits with your own definition of what a dynasty is.
The Lakers team during their 3-peat was virtually the same, and I would therefore qualify that team's accomplishments as more impressive than any of the Spurs teams' accomplishments, even with the big three.
However, from an organizational standpoint, the ability to rebuild championship caliber teams over and over around the excellence of a single player speaks more highly of the Spurs' management and Tim Duncan than the three-peat Lakers' accomplishments do of LA managment or Kobe/Shaq.
So its a "take your pick" kind of question. Is a dynasty based on the performance of a single team of players, or on a whole organization? If its the former, than the Lakers are the "better dynasty". If it's the latter, than the Spurs are.
If the Spurs win the championship this year, they will have gone, in one decade, from zero championships to the fourth most of any team in NBA history. During that time, they have maintained the best winning percentage of any team in any of the four major professional sports in this country. Clearly they are an excellent team. So, what do we mean by dynasty? The two sides of this argument seem to be:
A) A dynasty in basketball is a sustained period of excellence with many (three or more) championships.
B) A dynasty in basketball is a sustained period of excellence with many (three or more) championships characterized by consecutive championships.
If you use definition A, then the Spurs are probably a dynasty already and are unquestionably so if they win this year. If you use definition B, they obviously aren't.
Dynasties under def. A: The Bill Russell Celtics, the Micahel Jordan Bulls, the Magic Johnson Lakers, The Larry Bird Celtics, the Shaquille O'Neal Lakers, and the Tim Duncan Spurs.
Dynasties under def. B: The Bill Russell Celtics, the Micahel Jordan Bulls, the Magic Johnson Lakers, and the Shaquille O'Neal Lakers.
I would argue that definition A is superior. If one accepts definition B, then one must consider the Shaq Lakers a dynasty, but the Bird Celtics not a dynasty. The Bird Celtics had 3 championships and 5 finals appearances, the Shaq Lakers had 3 championships and 4 finals appearances. It therefore seems unreasonable to consider the Shaq Lakers a dynasty without considering the Bird Celtics a dynasty. Additionally, consider a comparison of the two Laker dynasties, with one chage: assume that the results of 1988 and 1989 were switched. Then we would have the following:
Magic Lakers: 5 championships, 9 finals appearances.
Shaq Lakers: 3 championships, 4 finals appearances.
And yet, definition B would say that Shaq was part of a dynasty and Magic wasn't!
I think the only reason def. B is attractive to people is that we happen to be lucky enough to have seen three of the four strings of three-plus consecutive championships occur in the last twenty years.