Reply With Quote
Food for the haters. WGAF.
Don't consider the Spurs a true dynasty
Boyd
By Todd Boyd
Special to Page 2
Now that the agony of watching one of the most excruciating NBA Finals in recent memory is finally over, there is much talk of the San Antonio Spurs as a contemporary dynasty. Unless the pundits are referring to the over-the-top nighttime soap opera starring Joan Collins that ran on ABC in the '80s, I'm not sure what they mean.
This reference to Blake Carrington and crew is closer to what the Spurs actually are: a fictional dynasty. To call the Spurs a real dynasty is something like calling Paris Hilton Patty Hearst. Though both are heiresses who ended up in jail, the similarities stop there. In other words, a cat can have kittens in an oven, but that doesn't make them biscuits.
The Spurs may look like a dynasty to some delusional beings, but alas, they are not. Dynasties are defined by unquestioned, sustained dominance over a significant period of time along with a larger-than-life iden y to boot, neither of which the Spurs possess. It is not just about how many championship rings you have won, it is how you went about achieving those rings.
Many want to trace the roots of this so-called dynasty back to 1999, when the franchise won its first NBA le. That squad was about as bogus as a three-dollar bill as far as champions go. The Spurs finished the shortened lockout season with a 37-13 record, eventually beating the eighth-seeded Knicks in the Finals. If you include all the playoff and Finals games, the Spurs played a whopping 67 games the entire season. Fifteen more games and you would actually have enough to complete a normal regular season.
Though it was not the Spurs' fault that the league decided to lock out its players and then play an abbreviated schedule, they should not necessarily benefit from this fact, either. It is an insult to all the champions past and present who played a full schedule to ignore that the Spurs got off real easy. I am not saying they would not have won the le -- who really knows? -- but when you consider the up-and-down nature of a normal 82-game regular season, the intensity of the playoffs and Finals, injuries, and the overall rigors of the NBA life, the '99 le should at least include an asterisk next to the Spurs' name.
How much has changed since 1999 anyway? That was eons ago. A Clinton was still in the White House, iPods didn't exist, Lauryn Hill (who?) dominated the Grammys and Superman was still a boy. The only remaining player from that '99 team is Tim Duncan, so to try and stretch that team's success into the present is in the immortal words of Mike Tyson, "ludicrous."
This means that any conversation about a possible Spurs dynasty should start in 2003, when this present incarnation of the team won the first of its three les. Even '03 seems like a long time ago now. Of all people, Stephen Jackson, the pride of Port Arthur, Texas, started at the 2-guard position. Yes, this is the same Stephen Jackson who has since become the NBA's version of thug life, even having Golden State Warriors teammate Matt Barnes pat him down like a cop conducting a search during player introductions. Imagine that.
Since that time we have watched the emergence of Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili, who along with stalwart Duncan and defensive specialist Bruce "Scissorhands" Bowen comprise the nucleus. Tony Parker and his bride-to-be Eva Longoria have become more overexposed than Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez were a few years ago; let's just call them "Toneva." Though in one sense this present team of players from around the globe -- France, Argentina, St. Croix, Slovenia and the Netherlands -- personifies the basketball version of Thomas Friedman's notion that "the world is flat," it doesn't make them any less boring to watch.
In order to be considered a dynasty, you need to dominate year after year. The Spurs haven't won back-to-back les and this is a prerequisite for what might be considered a dynasty. They were snubbed in the conference semifinals in both 2004 and 2006. That's right … semifinals. This le-every-other-year thing does not a dynasty make. Dynasties don't take time off. If the Spurs had been to the Finals in '04 and '06 and lost, I would be more sympathetic, but in both of those years they lost to teams that ultimately lost in the Finals. So I can't give them any love on this tip, either.
There have been only two real dynasties in the modern era of the NBA since 1979: the '80s Lakers and Jordan's Bulls in the '90s. No, the '80s Celtics were not a dynasty, either. Though the Celtics went to the Finals in '81, and again in 1984-87 and won three les, two of those les were against the Houston Rockets in years when the Lakers came up short. The Celtics never won back-to-back les and their opponents in '81, the Rockets, were so bad they only won 40 games, concluding the regular season with a losing record. Boston did beat the Lakers in '84, but lost to them in '85 and '87. The Celtics were very good, but ultimately they played the role of Joe Frazier to the Lakers' Muhammad Ali.
The '80s Lakers featured two of the top five players of all time in Magic and Kareem. From 1980 to 1991, the Lakers ruled the Western Conference and dominated the rest of the league. With five les and nine Finals appearances, not to mention the first back-to-back les in 19 years in '87 and '88, this team stood head and shoulders above the compe ion, year in and year out.
The Bulls won three straight les on two different occasions. It could be argued that if Jordan hadn't been chasing baseballs in '94 and most of '95, the Bulls could have been in contention for eight straight les, an achievement that would have matched Bill Russell's Celtics and their unprecedented run of eight straight. If you want to push the speculation even further, imagine if Jordan, Scottie Pippen, the Worm and Phil Jackson had returned for one more run in '99? Considering the lockout shortened season, they could have rested their old legs and made a run at nine themselves, perhaps even beating the Spurs in the process. Even if we dispense with all the speculation, the Bulls of the '90s were on an entirely different level than the Spurs are now.
Even the Shaq and Kobe Lakers are more deserving of the dynasty le than the Spurs, though the Lakers' own internal beefs keeps them from truly being considered a dynasty. This squad went to four Finals in five years and won three straight. Again, dominance and consistency are the key here, but when you compare this Lakers crew to Magic's or Jordan's teams, then it is clear they are not quite there.
The Spurs have been a good team ever since Tim Duncan suited up. They are one of the best-run franchises in the league and as long as TD can still ball, I suspect that they'll at least be in contention. But a dynasty they are not.
After all, dynasties need rivals, too. The '80s Lakers had to go through the 76ers, Celtics, and Pistons before bowing out against the new dynasty, the Bulls, in '91. The Bulls shut down any and all comers, including two straight victories over the Utah Jazz for their last two rings. The Spurs beat a mediocre New Jersey team in '03 and the not-ready-for-prime-time Cavs this year. The only real challenge the Spurs have had in the Finals was when the Pistons took them to seven games in '05. Take away a Big Shot Bob 3-pointer in Game 5 and Larry Brown's drama over his job status, and maybe the outcome here would have been different, too.
In addition to winning rings and constantly tasting champagne, there is also an intangible: Dynasties have to have a persona, an image, a swagger like no other that puts the fear of God in the hearts of opponents. The '80s Lakers had Showtime, the '90s Bulls had the greatest of all time and the Zen Master on the sideline. Both of these teams developed a national following as well. The Spurs have Duncan, who can't even sell sneakers. They are so utterly uninteresting as a team and a group of personalities that they don't even inspire hate. As the low television ratings indicate, the only thing the Spurs inspire is indifference.
Oftentimes in contemporary society people throw words around loosely. Dynasty is one of those words. But when you look at the teams from the past and recognize how high the bar has been set, the Spurs simply do not qualify. Not yet at least. This time of year accolades flow pretty freely. Two weeks ago we were all crowning LeBron, but after the Spurs bought out that broom on him and the Cavs, he seems like a kid who snuck into an adult party with a fake ID. Because this year's Finals were so bad, people got bored and distracted. It was suddenly more interesting to speculate on whether the Spurs deserved the le of a dynasty than it was to watch the games. Well, now that the bloodletting is over, maybe everyone will regain their senses.
The Spurs are a very good basketball team that has accomplished some great things, but don't let the smooth taste fool you: Four rings represent quan y, but the Spurs still have a ways to go before they deserve the quality label that true dynasties have already earned.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...ge=boyd/070615http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...ge=boyd/070615
Food for the haters. WGAF.
Haha, one of the most intelligent articles I've ever read. Facts to back up everything he says plus analogies and history to help emphasize his point. Pretty much everything he said is right. DON'T call em a dynasty.
So the Spurs are the best team outside of the Showtime Lakers and MJ's Bulls since 1980 and their top 3 players are 31, 29, and 25 years old. Works for me.
I think the Spurs are a near dynasty very close but if they win back to back they are no doubt a dynasty. However they have won 4 in 9 years which is better than your Shaq/Kobe Lakers and beats a lot of other great teams in history as well. His dumb ass remarks about the 99 le is just that dumb ass. Everyone had to deal with the same thing the Spurs did that year.
"How much has changed since 1999 anyway? That was eons ago. A Clinton was still in the White House, iPods didn't exist, Lauryn Hill (who?) dominated the Grammys and Superman was still a boy. The only remaining player from that '99 team is Tim Duncan, so to try and stretch that team's success into the present is in the immortal words of Mike Tyson, "ludicrous.""
I'm still stumped as to how he feels this is actual sportswriting. so when the Bulls won their last 2 les, did it invalidate the first two because they were "so long ago" and because he can quote Mike Tyson?
Hilarious.
I love this kind of logic. So if a team wins 10 championships every other year for 20 years, that's not a dynasty?
Well IN CONTEXT, Threepeat sounds better than 4 in NINE years. but in reality yeah their 4 in 9 years is better than the Shaq & Kobe Lakers.
When a team wins three in a row people tend to call them a dynasty, but when a team wins four in a span of nine years, even though they have more les than the threepeat did..its just still hard to refer to them as a dynasty.
Well most people are saying they are a dynasty. They also are giving them the nod over the Shaq and Kobe Lakers. I would like to see them repeat and then it is a lock for me but either way it is one of the great runs in history. Too bad Shaq and Kobe decided they could not play nice anymore. Would have been cool if the Spurs/Lakers rivalry had gone on another few years.
Who cares if they're a dynasty or not? I'd settle for four les and people debating whether or not my team was one.
if you read my posts, you can see several points that this man said in them
I don't necessarily agree or disagree with him, but by his logic, that would be two dynasties since they had two threepeats.
The dynasty label is something for unimaginative sportswriters to argue over so they don't have to actually over what happened on the floor, or the players they neglected to watch all season.
There is no official award or standard for a Dynasty, and the label won't become official because of the blessing of a Page 2 hack. The Dynastic nature of this team will be judged in hindsight, ten to twenty years from now. Spurs fans shouldn't be so quick to lap up what these hacks are feeding you; all it does is create a means to detract from what this team has done.
it. Four les.
Wait until the Spurs repeat next year, then we'll revisit that question.
Well if they can repeat then I will call them a dynasty. Otherwise they've just proven they can win les in odd numbered years within a span of nine years
But if they DO repeat, which will leave me crying..just look at the text, its amazing..
5 in the last 10 years..
I truly think this is SA's final year. Dallas is back at it, Phoenix is back at it, Houston is going to be an elite team with Rick Adelmen, Durant is in the West, Oden is in the West, the Lakers if they can keep Kobe and trade Odom and(or) Bynum and add an elite big man, Jazz proved they can be deadly, the West is just overwhelmingly compe ive.
but the Spurs just get older..
and yea the rivalry was great. During the season the OT game brought back shades of the playoffs when they faced off.
Sounds to me like someone lost a lot of money betting on the Cavs, and is trying to make himself feel better. I am curious as to when Mr. Boyd was given the monumental honor of defining what a dynasty is. And as to the Spurs being a good Team, I will remind Mr Boyd the Spurs have the best winning percentage of ANY professional sport in the last 10 years. Is that not dominance? What an idiot.
It's true the reality is in this era of expansion and free agency 4 les in 9 years is about as good as you are going to see in the NBA. The teams that won many more les than that all played in ERA where the talent was much more compressed, enabling them to stock pile super deep teams.
I kind of like Pop's response to all this.
When a reporter asked him if they thought they would be a dynasty if they beat the Cavs, Pop said, "Look, all this dynasty talk is pointless. There are no dynasties anymore. When I think of dynasty, two teams come to mind. The Celtics and the UCLA Bruins. Everything else is just noise."
I'm paraphrasing, but that's approx. what he said.
Hold on now Spurs just went 16-4 in the playoffs to win the le, that is awfully impressive. I say the core they have can do it next year for sure and then after that they will need some new younger pieces to have a shot at it in future years.
What the San Antonio Spurs have is called sustained excellence. Get used to it.
Well the older they get the more injuries they tend to get and the more all the years start to catch up to them as their body breaks down..
thats just my theory..maybe I'm a bit biased..
if Dallas doesn't choke again they can take out the Spurs. I got a mil on that.
Well if they can repeat then I will call them a dynasty. Otherwise they've just proven they can win les in odd numbered years within a span of nine years
But if they DO repeat, which will leave me crying..just look at the text, its amazing..
5 in the last 10 years..
I truly think this is SA's final year. Dallas is back at it, Phoenix is back at it, Houston is going to be an elite team with Rick Adelmen, Durant is in the West, Oden is in the West, the Lakers if they can keep Kobe and trade Odom and(or) Bynum and add an elite big man, Jazz proved they can be deadly, the West is just overwhelmingly compe ive.
but the Spurs just get older..
I agree with you, if the Spurs team stands pat. I don't see that happening.
The front office has continually revamped this team around Tim Duncan. I mean, what happens if they trade for a young center who develops well and they somehow find a diamond-in-the-rough SF who can play defense and is a quick learner? This team could be set up for 2 more le runs (at the very least) with Duncan in the lead.
Even as Timmy falls from the perch of "best player in the NBA" to "just pretty much dominant", Parker will be in his prime and probably the best point (or one of, which he already is) in the league, if he keeps developing his outside shot and his defense. It's not out of the realm of possibility to see this Spurs team win 1 or 2 les with Duncan as a second to Parker, Manu still as the 6th in limited minutes, and a collection of talent they always seem to find.
If the Spurs landed Brewer, for instance, I would say that 4 les in a row (including this one) would be very very possible. Or if they find someone along those lines.
All told, I'm guessing the Spurs could very well win 2-5 more rings, if the FO keeps it's act together. That's a really scary thought.
compe ion kids. compe ion. the nba is so devaluated since the GOAT retired in '98
So why isn't your team winning, hmm?
because we are 4 years old
"Compe ion" indeed. What was merely a trickle of international talent in the 1990s is now a flood. The growth of the pool of global basketball talent has far outstripped what expansion there has been of the league. Add to that a labor agreement designed to ensure that teams in San Antonio, Utah, Cleveland, and other smaller markets can retain their stars and build around them. True "compe ion" is the end result.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
