Rank The NBA's Dynasties

[dickface]

real dynasties, not the trolls.

I'm listing these teams as dynasties.

60's Celtics
80's Lakers
80's Celtics
90's Bulls
00's Lakers
00's Spurs

I'm not expecting partial responses from certain fanbases, but whatever.

here's my rankings

1. 90's Bulls
2. 00's Spurs
3. 80's Lakers
4. 00's Lakers
5. 60's Celtics
6. 80's Celtics

[MaNuMaNiAc]

1. 90's Bulls
2. 80's Celtics
3. 80's Lakers
4. 60's Celtics
5. 00's Spurs
6. 00's Lakers

[LakeShow]

You know you're going to get nothing but homer opinions. I'm not going to give you one of those opinions. The #1 Ranked NBA Dynasty in my opinion would be the 90's Bulls.

[AZLouis]

1. 60s Celtics (8 championships in a row will never be topped*)
2. 90s Bulls (*would've tied if 23 was around)
3. 80s Celtics
4. 80s Lakers
5. 00s Spurs
6. 00s Lakers

[tlongII]

1. 10's Blazers
2. 60's Celtics
3. 90's Bulls
4. 00's Lakers

[Spurminator]

1. 60s Celtics
2. 90s Bulls
3. 80s Lakers
4. 00s Spurs
5. 80s Celtics
6. 00s Lakers

And for the record, I only consider the top two to be true "dynasties"

I'm also interested in how a couple of you can rate the 80's Celtics above the 80's Lakers... given that they both happened at the same time and the Lakers clearly got the better of the Celtics in both les and head-to-head matchups.

[ancestron]

1- 60's Celtics
2- 90's Bulls
3- 80's Lakers
4- 00's Spurs
5- 80's Celtics
6- 00's Lakers

[baseline bum]

1. 90's Bulls
2. 80's Lakers
3. 80's Celtics
4. 00's Spurs
5. 00's Lakers
6. 60's Celtics

[baseline bum]

1. 60s Celtics
2. 90s Bulls
3. 80s Lakers
4. 00s Spurs
5. 80s Celtics
6. 00s Lakers

And for the record, I only consider the top two to be true "dynasties"

I'm also interested in how a couple of you can rate the 80's Celtics above the 80's Lakers... given that they both happened at the same time and the Lakers clearly got the better of the Celtics in both les and head-to-head matchups.

It's not as clear cut as that. The Celtics had dogfights with some of the greatest teams ever assembled against the Sixers in the early years and the Pistons in the later years to make the Finals.

The Lakers played soft teams like Denver, San Antonio, Houston, and Phoenix every year in a watered down conference, and thus had both more opportunities and were likely a lot fresher and less beat-up than their eastern conference foes.

I rank them above the Celtics because they got the job done five times and it's not their fault their conference sucked. Still, one could make the argument that if LA and Boston switched conferences, the Celtics would have 5 rings and 8 Finals appearances and the Lakers would have been dropped by Detroit and Philly a couple of times.

[JamStone]

1. 80s Lakers - in the golden age of basketball, won 5 championships, went to three more Finals, and beat three teams in the Finals that were also NBA championship teams in the 1980s (Philly, Boston, Detroit)

2. 60s Celtics - hard to beat 9 les in a decade. Compe ion was not the same as in the 80s and after but still that's crazy dominance.

3. 90s Bulls - nearly as dominant as the top 2.

4. 00s Lakers - three-peat secures the greatness.

5. 00s Spurs - another le this year, and I would bump them up over the 00s Lakers.

6. 80s Celtics - still a great team, but I view the other 5 as greater dynasties.

[Findog]

Can we rank the forum dynasties instead?

[fyatuk]

1 60's Celtics
2 90's Bulls
3 80's Lakers
4 00's Spurs
5 00's Lakers
6 80's Celtics

[samikeyp]

1. 60's Celtics
2. 80's Lakers
3. 90's Bulls
4. 00's Spurs
5. 00's Lakers
6. 80's Celtics

[Spurminator]

It's not as clear cut as that. The Celtics had dogfights with some of the greatest teams ever assembled against the Sixers in the early years and the Pistons in the later years to make the Finals.

The Lakers played soft teams like Denver, San Antonio, Houston, and Phoenix every year in a watered down conference, and thus had both more opportunities and were likely a lot fresher and less beat-up than their eastern conference foes.

I rank them above the Celtics because they got the job done five times and it's not their fault their conference sucked. Still, one could make the argument that if LA and Boston switched conferences, the Celtics would have 5 rings and 8 Finals appearances and the Lakers would have been dropped by Detroit and Philly a couple of times.

Great points. I guess it's hard for me to justify when the results are so clear but you've certainly made the case that it's at least arguable.

I wonder if there were Celtics fans who ed and moaned as much as some Spurs fans do.

[monosylab1k]

I'm surprised to see Spurs fans ranking the Spurs as lowly as they are.

I really put them ahead of the Kobe/Shaq Lakers because while the Lakers may have been more dominant, that entire dynasty imploded well before it should have. They ruined their own greatness with selfishness.

I think the 80's were an overrated decade of basketball where defense, while not nonexistent, had far less emphasis put on it until the Pistons came around.

And the 60's had a bunch of crappy white guys playing in it.

I really think the 00's Spurs are the 2nd greatest dynasty after the Bulls.

[ancestron]

And the 60's had a bunch of crappy white guys playing in it.

Lenny Wilkens, Oscar Robertson, Bill Russell, Willis Reed, Jerry West, Bob Pet , Elgin Baylor, Wilt Chamberlain....

buncha crappy white guys?

The NBA has always had its fair share of crappy white guys, but there was some serious basketball played even way back in the 60's. Don't kid yourself.

[remingtonbo2001]

1. 10's Blazers

They played basketball back in 1910?


IMO, the 60's Celtics is beyond comparison. You have put the time period into context. To compare dynasties seperated by a significant amount of time, straight up, isn't really fair. The rules have changed, the dynamics of the game have changed.

[SA Gunslinger]

Lenny Wilkens, Oscar Robertson, Bill Russell, Willis Reed, Jerry West, Bob Pet , Elgin Baylor, Wilt Chamberlain....

buncha crappy white guys?

The NBA has always had its fair share of crappy white guys, but there was some serious basketball played even way back in the 60's. Don't kid yourself.

I'm not sure if Connie Hawkins played in the 60's but he was definitely a pioneer of the game.

[DazedAndConfused]

1. 80s Lakers - in the golden age of basketball, won 5 championships, went to three more Finals, and beat three teams in the Finals that were also NBA championship teams in the 1980s (Philly, Boston, Detroit)

2. 60s Celtics - hard to beat 9 les in a decade. Compe ion was not the same as in the 80s and after but still that's crazy dominance.

3. 90s Bulls - nearly as dominant as the top 2.

4. 00s Lakers - three-peat secures the greatness.

5. 00s Spurs - another le this year, and I would bump them up over the 00s Lakers.

6. 80s Celtics - still a great team, but I view the other 5 as greater dynasties.

Couldn't agree more. I think the Showtime Lakers were the greatest NBA team ever assembled.

As far as the Spurs go, 1 more le puts them above the '00 Lakers.

[BonnerDynasty]

Gotta get that repeat.

[Matchman]

Rockets Dynasty 1994-1995

[Brutalis]

How many teams where there in the 60s? Like 10? Give me a ing break.

[ancestron]

There were 18.

9 in East, 9 in West.

[TampaDude]

The '60s Celtics (1957-1969), hands down...8 in a row and 11 of 13...nobody else compares except maybe the '90s Bulls...they would probably have won 8 in a row too if MJ didn't take two years off...the Spurs 3 of 5 and 4 of 9 is impressive, and while they are the most successful pro franchise of the past decade, they need a repeat to cement themselves as one of the great dynasties of all time.

[Brutalis]

There were 18.

9 in East, 9 in West.

Oh I was wrong.

Regardless though there wasn't 5% of the talent the NBA had since the elites since the 80s. I just don't understand how the old old Celts even rank.