Printable View
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.