Reply With Quote
Ok...
So you think the spurs are a dynasty?
Why should we complain? They declared us a dynasty!
Ok...
So you think the spurs are a dynasty?
I'm not surprised!
Me?
I don't give a .
I'm glad we swept the Cavs.
uh...ok!
Dude, go back to the Cav boards now. You sound more like a re with each post!!!!
Awww. Wook at the bitter Cavs fan twying to make himself feel better. There there now...it be otay [pat-pat-pat]
Dynasty or not, who gives a . Spurs won 4 les in 9 years 3 in the past 5. Only team in the last decade to do something like this. We've been the best in our era thats all that matters.
Cleveland probably shouldn't enter the talk of dynasty, since they have nothing.
I love Lebron.....class act.....and I also like the Cavaliers....nice organization....but Fast Dunk....dude is an absolute idiot.
/thread
I'm sick of hearing this one... Are people forgetting the Spurs beat the Lakers 4-2 (Conference Finals) in 2003 and then they lost to the Pistons 4-1 in the finals in 2004... BOTH TEAMS WITH SHAQ & KOBE!!!The Lakers three peat was closer to a dynasty than the Spurs run, and only Kobe's force out of Shaq prevented two or three more Laker's les. The three peat alone keeps the Spurs from being a dynasty.
They blew the team up because it wasn't getting it done! They failed to win it twice, so all this talk about them still winning championships is rubbish.
Fast Dunk is probably not actually a Cavs fan, but rather a Spurstalk regular posting under a troll alias to stir the pot.
I've done that myself with a couple of different usernames. Since on a Spurs board one is guaranteed a few dozen indignant responses, it can be fairly enjoyable.
Seems like all the major sports networks are giving them the nod for a "Dynasty" tag. I couldn't care less myself, but I'm sure that's good enough for those who do. Maybe if the Spurs had played a worthy opponent in the Finals, more average Joe's would probably be doing the same. But alas, we (yes I'm on the team) were stuck with what might go down as the worst Finals team in NBA history. Oh well. I'm sure it wasn't the first choice of the Spurs, but you gotta play the cards you were dealt at that point. I'd have much rather seen a competive series against Detroit or Miami. You know. Against team that has actually WON a Championship in the last few years, and knows what it takes to compete at that level. Not some Leastern Conference srcub that's never been there.
Que Sera, Sera.
4 Championships in 9 years was good enough for the 49ers to be declared a "sports dynasty" according to Wikipedia. If it's good enough for the 9ers, it's good enough for the Spurs. Sorry bitter Cavs fan. You lose this one. Come back when one of your sports teams has actually accomplished 4 Championships in 9 years. Maybe then we'll consider you worthy enough of entering a conversation with us about sports dynasties.
I considered that possibility. He's probably not a Cavs fan or a Spurs fan. Just some Spurs hater who doesn't have the guts to admit what his real favorite team is. Most likely a bitter Mavs fan who knows he's lost all rights of smack talking after their monumental choke jobs over the past 2 seasons.
The Spurs are not a Dynasty.............because they themselves say they are not!
And that's ok with me.
Dynasties do not declare themselves.
Through their span of dominance, they simply are.
We have determined that Fast Dunk is an alias of ChumpDumper. We are sending him to Gitmo for torture, er, debriefing.I considered that possibility. He's probably not a Cavs fan or a Spurs fan. Just some Spurs hater who doesn't have the guts to admit what his real favorite team is. Most likely a bitter Mavs fan who knows he's lost all rights of smack talking after their monumental choke jobs over the past 2 seasons.
A: Yes and you're a tool.
...and more than stiffened by the wave of international talent that has entered the league since '98. But, I know, most of that talent doesn't have dark skin.
America cannot accept the Spurs because they are every thing a pro team should be.
what kind of credibility does the "Winning the Turnover Battle" blog have?
consider the source of your info
I agree that "Dinasty" doesn't apply as a term for the Spurs. You need consecutive championships. i'm cool with it, It's nice to have a goal for next years.
But winning four championships in nine years needs some sort of new word, choose whatever you want: dominance,
Some people take the chance to disminish Spurs props, and that's just delusional.
Four championships in nine years, baby. Deal with it.
I don't disagree with the notion that the Spurs aren't a dynasty. But the reasoning (and facts) used in this discussion to support that idea are mostly nonsense.
The logic here is completely inconsistent. If a dynasty, "by definition, implies succession," then the Spurs last 3 les are proof positive of that by virtue of the fact that "other than a very young Duncan, that team has no relation to the current squad that has won 3 les in 4 [sic] years." During the Duncan/Popovich era, the Spurs are close to being dynastic in a very strict sense because one team has now succeeded another and is again atop the NBA. And I think that the notion that there is no correlation between the last 3 Spurs champions and the first is nonsense. The 2003 Spurs had a number of holdovers from the 1999 team: Tim Duncan, David Robinson, Malik Rose, Steve Kerr, and Popovich. The 2007 team has a number of holdovers from the 2003 Spurs: Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, Bruce Bowen, Manu Ginobili, and Popovich. At least 7 players from the early days of the Spurs run and the current days of the Spurs run won a championship together -- it's not as if there's a complete disconnect there.
The notion that "only Kobe's force out of Shaq prevented two or three more Laker's [sic] les," is equally ridiculous. One reason the Lakers didn't win at least two more les in the Kobe-Shaq era is that the Spurs beat their asses in the playoffs in 1999 and 2003. And since the author is willing to deal in hypotheticals: but for Fisher's ridiculous shot in 2004, it's quite likely that the Spurs would have beaten the Lakers a 3rd time in 2004. As it was, during the 1999-2004 stretch (roughly coinciding with the Lakers "dynasty") those teams played 5 playoff series with LA winning 3 and SA winning 2. LA lead the ulative game total by 14-11 -- great, but hardly dominating.
Besides, suggesting that the Lakers were somehow the only thing that could stop themselves from winning les gives short-shrift to the 2004 Pistons who did a marvelous job of keeping a le away from the Kobe-Shaq Lakers. I can understand that "Winning the Turnover Battle" has some axe to grind with the Spurs, but you cannot ignore what that Pistons team did in 2004.
During the stretch from 1999-2007, the Spurs have been the #1 overall seed in the NBA playoffs on 3 occasions. During that time, no other NBA franchise has had the #1 overall seed more than once:
1999 -- SA
2000 -- LA
2001 -- SA
2002 -- SAC
2003 -- SA
2004 -- IND
2005 -- PNX
2006 -- DET
2007 -- DAL
During that stretch, the Spurs have finished with the 2nd best record in the league another 3 times, meaning they've had one of the top 2 records in the NBA in 6 of the last 9 seasons.
The Spurs have won 60 games (or the equivalent) 3 times since 1999, have won 59 games once, have won 58 games 3 times, and have won 57 games once. In 9 seasons, the Spurs have won at least 57 games (or the equivalent) in 8 of 9 seasons.
As importantly, when you compare year-to-year winning percentages, it becomes fairly clear that the Spurs have set themselves apart from the rest of the league during this era. The Spurs worst season during the stretch was the 1999-2000 season, in which they won 65% of their games (.646). The Spurs have reached that winning percentage in every season since 1998-99, for a total of 9 seasons. During the same stretch, the most by any other franchise is 6 by Dallas. But for elite NBA teams, .646 (a 53-29 season) is fairly pedestrian. A .700 season (57 wins) is a bit more of a benchmark. During the same stretch of time, the Spurs have reached at least a .700 winning percentage in 7 of 9 seasons. The only other teams to have done that more than twice during the same stretch are the Mavericks (4 times) and the Suns (3 times). That is to say that the Spurs have reached .700 almost twice as frequently as any other franchise during this era.
If you aggregate winning percentages over that time, the Spurs are 503-203 since 1999, a .712 winning percentage. No other team in the league has won as many as 470 games (Dallas has won 466) and no other team has a winning percentage exceeding .660 (Dallas has that winning percentage).
To say that the Spurs haven't dominated the NBA regular seasons is ridiculous.
-------
Again, I don't disagree with the notion that these Spurs aren't a dynasty, but I think this particular argument in support of that notion is basically asinine.
If these are factors then the 90's Bulls were the last dynasty ever because every team from that point forward will have these same two qualities.• They never had to win a championship against Michael Jordan, a notorious spoiler of the Clyde Drexler Trail Blazers, the Charles Barkley Suns, the Gary Payton SuperSonics and the John Stockton-Karl Malone Jazz.
• They play in a league diluted by expansion.
So I am to just accept that the Spurs are not a dynasty simply because a few writers are bored and screaming for attention and a Cavs fan is still bent because his team got their collective asses handed to them in the Finals?
Since their is no set definition on what determines a "Sports Dynasty" I could care less. The only thing that matters is what has been accomplished and the Spurs have accomplished 4 les in 9 years. People can argue dynasty, asterisk or whatever until they are blue in the face but facts are facts. The Spurs are the champion and they have won 4 les since and including 1999. As someone who has been a Spurs fan for 30+ years and who has lived through the good times, bad times and good but not good enough times....no one, no matter how hard they try, can diminish how happy I am about the Spurs latest achievement. So troll away, haters. Your attempts to change my mind about the way I feel toward my hometown team will never work.
look who´s talking now.Mr.Right.
I've always been confused by this. In the NFL, a league that is diluted by free agency and expansion and has an even more restrictive cap than the NBA, teams like the Patriots are hailed as a modern day dynasty for winning 3 in 4 years. Their roster turnover is incredible as well. However, through savvy front-office moves and believing in their system they have continued to win.
The Spurs have even more success than the Patriots, over a longer period of time in a league "diluted" by expansion and a (less-restrictive) salary cap. Through savvy front-office moves and believing in their system they have won...and won running away.
But, I guess one team is up North and has a photogenic playboy as the face of the franchise, while the other is deep in the South and doesn't really have a face of the franchise...maybe a nose, though.
Let it go, dude. Grab a beer and go watch the best team in the AL central. You won't have far to drive.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
