Reply With Quote
What about when LA is devastated by drought and you guys are drinking bean3r to survive? Will Lakers still be great or back to Minnesota?
It's only questionable using your definition.
And different definitions can't exclude every single team in the history of the league as being a dynasty (except maybe the 60s Celtics and maybe the 80s Lakers), one way or another.
What about when LA is devastated by drought and you guys are drinking bean3r to survive? Will Lakers still be great or back to Minnesota?
It's impressive for a team but not for a franchise, at least not as impressive as the success that the Spurs have had. How many coaches have the Lakers had in the past 15 years? The Spurs have had 1. That's because successful coaches don't get fired.Spurfan making it seem like repeating isn't impressive because they have never done it.
Btw, it's laughable that Spurs fans consider consecutive 50-win seasons an achievement andDynasty
Would still live in LA rather than San Antonio, that's for sure.
My definition is not mine, Chang, it's dictionary. The only subjectivity is the context.
So according to Lakerfan the Rockets are more of a dynasty than the Spurs. seems like bandwagoner logic but whatever works for ya.
It's not.
The only thing that matters is the final championship count. I wouldn't trade 10 les over 20 years, winning one every other year, for a 9 peat and then being irrelevant for the next 11 years.
This is where the "repeat is important" argument breaks down, as no sane fan would trade more les for a repeat.
The repeat argument can also easily be defeated logically and statistically, since you don't win additional les for repeating. The Celtics 8 peated once-upon-time, something the Lakers have never come close to doing, but they are only 1 championship ahead in the total championship count. If you manage to pass the Celtics in overall les, Celtic fan saying, "Y-Yeah, but we 8 peated!" holds absolutely no weight whatsoever and you'd laugh them out of the argument.
Until the NBA starts handing out additional hardware for repeating and such, it's a meaningless "accomplishment."
because the spurs have won 5 les along the way during that streak. its a dynasty because they're a constant. Duncan and Pop have been doing the same thing for nearly 2 decades nowBtw, it's laughable that Spurs fans consider consecutive 50-win seasons an achievement and
its not like the phoenix suns who were really really good for a while but never won anything... or the 2000's pistons who were really really good for a long time but only had 1 ring to show for it.
No one has ted on Dallas fans for celebrating their amazing consistency.Btw, it's laughable that Spurs fans consider consecutive 50-win seasons an achievement and
Want to know what Duncan followed his les up with? Losing in the first round twice, Losing in the second round twice, and losing in the conference finals.
interesting to know that only 3 of kobe's les "count" because he didn't repeat to validate the 2002 or 2010 flukes
And the dictionary did not exclude the Spurs from a dynasty. It only excludes it after you put in additional criteria to further your agenda.
Just admit Duncan was never mentally tough enough to defend his le.
Maybe he'll lose in the Finals next time when he's 48Want to know what Duncan followed his les up with? Losing in the first round twice, Losing in the second round twice, and losing in the conference finals.
The way the statistics are skewed really makes no sense
- Shaq played against the Lakers in 1995 and 2005
But they use the Lakers performance to represent Shaq's time there. So let's assume Shaq played and dominated the Lakers in 1995 and 2005. They are using Shaq's dominance to argue against his dominancethe stats has nothing to do with individual players. It's each team's streak of consecutive games with above average ELO play.
1999* - nobody gives a about that season
2007* - injuring Nash and baiting Amare to a reaction that got him suspended right after they have stolen homecourt advantage
Oh how quick you are to forget "4 rings, got" and "
This thread only shows the depths Laker fans have fallen. Their franchise is so godawful and ty, they have to desperately establish what is and isn't a dynasty in order to remember how great it was years ago. They know full well that the death of Jerry and the retirement of Fuhrer Stern has changed everything, and that everyone else in the NBA is going to hold them down and them in the ass and down their throats for the long foreseeable future, and there isn't a goddamn ing thing they can do but clutch their antique metal trophies and reminisce about their "dynasty".
That said, I don't know that I'd call the Spurs a dynasty, mainly because of never repeating. But I do know that 5 les in 15 years is amazing and a of a lot more fun than 1 or 0 in that same time period.
Also according to "Lakerfan logic," Magic has 3 fluke les. And Jerry West never ostensibly won one.
Lakerfan is so monumentally re ed, they can't see how the "repeat" argument hurts the worth of their franchise's accomplishments (vis a vis the Celtics, especially) more than helps it. If Lakerfan is going to assign arbitrary value to a defended le, then Celticfan can basically issue the ultimate value on their 8-peat and claim superiority as a franchise even if the Lakers pass the Celtics in overall le count.
Bastion of consistency in the NBA. Dynasty? No. Dynasties rule, they don't build up everyone and then come up short.
His playoff impact/stats during le defense campaigns is superior to Kobe's, as I've demonstrated.
And his clutch stats during le defense stats are actually far superior.
You know 3 in a row is not the same than 8, so Celts are a truly legitimate dynasty in the Ming kind of way and the Lamekers are a cheap Taiwanese copy.
KobeRepeatedPERIOD. He beat the best. He didn't need extreme cir stances to win like Duncan. (Shortened season, Major injuries to his main compe ion-Westbrook, Ibaka, Shaq)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions