Spurs: The greatest NBA dynasty of all time is...

[BatManu20]

Ironic that lakerfan uses the "no repeat = no dynasty" argument when without an admitted inside-job from NBA officials in 2002, they wouldn't have repeated either. Good thing nobody that matters (basketball players, former players, professional analysts, etc.) feels the same way.

Spurs are a dynasty, whether you like it or not, tbqh.

[Thread]

Ironic that lakerfan uses the "no repeat = no dynasty" argument when without an admitted inside-job from NBA officials in 2002, they wouldn't have repeated either. Good thing nobody that matters (basketball players, former players, professional analysts, etc.) feels the same way.

Spurs are a dynasty, whether you like it or not, tbqh.

You ed up and were made to give your 1st 5th back. That was a big up. You take care of your & your womenfolk there and now, NOW, well now you're a fortnight & a bit from a Three Peat. Then we can talk turkey. But, that ain't what happened. They sold your in '13 and you have to answer for that. You have to stand tall before the man.

Signed,

- The Man

[Kool Bob Love]

Greatest team of all time.


NBA ain't the same without the Spurs. Proof is in the pudding.

[LakerHater]

Spurs maintained a winning season for 19 years!!

NEVER fell off, NEVER were in the draft lottery!

[Thread]

Spurs maintained a winning season for 19 years!!

NEVER fell off, NEVER were in the draft lottery!

But, you had to repudiate your 1st 5th. That fact can't be diminished. If you didn't have to waste a year getting your 2nd 5th, you'd be a little over two weeks out from your initial Three Peat.

Fancy that. Roll that fact around in that empty head of yours, LH. Now, go watch cartoons.

[K...]

The main part of the article is the way it deals with les in the smaller pre-modern nba days vs todays bigger, more talented league. First, he imagined that instead of 10 teams there were three leagues of 10 each. in that world the spurs win 10 les (4 in the late 70's early 80's).

Then he discounted the pre-modern les and still the spurs came out on top.








on another point, after ting heavy on Lebron for only winning two les, in Silver's model he wins 6. in some ways i'm obviously being harsh, but only in the context of placing Lebron in the top 10 all time. I still maintain that his accomplishments pale to Duncan, Kobe, and Shaq. You can argue he's more talented and had a better gross career but at some point you have to admit he did not meet his expectations and ability.

[LakerHater]

But, you had to repudiate your 1st 5th. That fact can't be diminished. If you didn't have to waste a year getting your 2nd 5th, you'd be a little over two weeks out from your initial Three Peat.

Fancy that. Roll that fact around in that empty head of yours, LH. Now, go watch cartoons.

Why?
Maintained a winning season! Didnt win a few then roll off the face of the Earth!
Maintained!

[whitemamba]

so the lakers in 2010 were a fluke because they didn't defend in 2011?

God damn ur re ed. They defended their le from the year before that laker team wasn't a dynasty but they were back to back champs u salty .

[Thread]

Why?
Maintained a winning season! Didnt win a few then roll off the face of the Earth!
Maintained!

You gave back an NBA le. That's serious . Just because Media let you get away Scot free doesn't count for on this Forum. Here we take our punishment. If you can't do that, LH, go back upstairs.

[TampaDude]

The main part of the article is the way it deals with les in the smaller pre-modern nba days vs todays bigger, more talented league. First, he imagined that instead of 10 teams there were three leagues of 10 each. in that world the spurs win 10 les (4 in the late 70's early 80's).

Then he discounted the pre-modern les and still the spurs came out on top.








on another point, after ting heavy on Lebron for only winning two les, in Silver's model he wins 6. in some ways i'm obviously being harsh, but only in the context of placing Lebron in the top 10 all time. I still maintain that his accomplishments pale to Duncan, Kobe, and Shaq. You can argue he's more talented and had a better gross career but at some point you have to admit he did not meet his expectations and ability.

LeBron is like KG, a superior player that was stuck on a ty team and had to jump ship to win a le.

[Thread]

LeBron is like KG, a superior player that was stuck on a ty team and had to jump ship to win a le.

& a had that (a) le cept you couldn't hang onto your 1st 5th and now he's sittin' pretty with 2.

You

[LakerHater]

didnt the lakers do it in '66?

[spurraider21]

You gave back an NBA le. That's serious . Just because Media let you get away Scot free doesn't count for on this Forum. Here we take our punishment. If you can't do that, LH, go back upstairs.

2009 was legit because they defended it. 2010 musta been a fluke because they lost in 2011

[LakerHater]

2009 was legit because they defended it. 2010 musta been a fluke because they lost in 2011

'02 was the act of Tim Donaghy

[mkurts]

Celtics are the greatest dynasty bar none.

Lakers are somewhere in the top 10 mix, Spurs top 5

[DMC]

Why does it even matter what's defined as a dynasty in sports? It' is just as bad in Human History. Do you get extra bragging rights because you franchise was one of the chosen few that actually got lucky and won a few les? It never made sense. Oooh my team was dynastic in nature. Just be glad you're not the Clippers.

True, and it's not even your team. The bulk of you hopped aboard a team that was already considered the best in the league. So your team didn't have a dynasty period, you picked a dynasty to support. anyone can do that. Try picking a small market team that never won like most of the Spurs fan base did and see how that goes.

[ambchang]

Not quite, Chang. I used it to invalidate the original post - it proved useful and I stand by it without any provided reasoning to doubt it.

Not really, the original post quoted an article that said Spurs were the greatest dynasty (I think it's beyond stupid), but you pulled a definition of dynasty to "prove" that the Spurs wasn't even a dynasty.

It wasn't even conclusive, so it served no purpose.

Unless I got the intent of your definition of dynasty all wrong.

[DMC]

& a had that (a) le cept you couldn't hang onto your 1st 5th and now he's sittin' pretty with 2.

You

You had your chance to stop it but you ran all your help off and overpaid a crippled chucker. YOU

Don't get mad at what someone else didn't do when you had your opportunity. , you were a b2b champ during Lebron's rise. We beat him down the 1st time he rose up, but you let US sweep your stacked team out of the playoffs the year Lebron won his 1st. How many times did you expect us to stop him? We've met him thrice, and beaten him twice. You can't even muster a 130m dollar team worthy of competing.

[Mitch]

Not really, the original post quoted an article that said Spurs were the greatest dynasty (I think it's beyond stupid), but you pulled a definition of dynasty to "prove" that the Spurs wasn't even a dynasty.

It wasn't even conclusive, so it served no purpose.

Unless I got the intent of your definition of dynasty all wrong.

If somethings existence is questionable, it is far from the greatest.

[midnightpulp]

Everyone with a brain knows this. Repeats are an antiquated and arbitrary definition of dynasty. It was invented by Red Auerbach to on the Lakers when they couldn't defend.

To be a consistent contender and threat to win to the championship for almost 20 years (while also winning 5 les) is more impressive than winning a couple in bunches and then visiting the lottery every few years.

And yes, making the playoffs, especially in the West, is an impressive feat. You first have to get to the playoffs to have a chance to win a coveted le. Lakers fans will soon understand the difficulty of this when they miss the playoffs for the next 3-5 years and celebrate their first playoff appearance in 6-8 years like they just won number 17

[Venti Quattro]

The Lakers and the Celtics -- the NBA's dynasty franchises -- have been great since the NBA began. Okay, maybe not so much during the 90's. They'll be great again soon.

The Spurs are like the nouveau riche of the league. When Tim and Pop retire they're going to go back to being and dirty like the Riverwalk.

[Alex's foreskin]

Everyone with a brain knows this. Repeats are an antiquated and arbitrary definition of dynasty. It was invented by Red Auerbach to on the Lakers when they couldn't defend.

To be a consistent contender and threat to win to the championship for almost 20 years (while also winning 5 les) is more impressive than winning a couple in bunches and then visiting the lottery every few years.

And yes, making the playoffs, especially in the West, is an impressive feat. You first have to get to the playoffs to have a chance to win a coveted le. Lakers fans will soon understand the difficulty of this when they miss the playoffs for the next 3-5 years and celebrate their first playoff appearance in 6-8 years like they just won number 17

Spurfan making it seem like repeating isn't impressive because they have never done it.

[Mikeanaro]

Lakers fans now will learn how Bobcats/Hornets/Timberwolves fans feel

[midnightpulp]

The Lakers and the Celtics -- the NBA's dynasty franchises -- have been great since the NBA began. Okay, maybe not so much during the 90's. They'll be great again soon.

Yeah, cause they played 30% of their history in an era where there were 8 teams and the talent pool was considerably small.

[Venti Quattro]

Spurfan making it seem like repeating isn't impressive because they have never done it.

Good teams win 50-60 games.

Great teams win the le.

Dynasties win the le... and follow it up with another one.