Nor would I. I just choose not to include them in the discussion, particularly since these sorts of discussions already generate more heat than light.
The Celtics great run is the only unquestioned dynasty in the NBA. Again, the fact that no one else even comes close to approaching this mark may say more about the league than the team at some point. I won't pretend that it wasn't incredibly difficult and impressive. The problem is how impressive? As all 30+ pages of the Duncan v. Hakeem thread show, comparing the '90s to right now is difficult enough.
I love this logic.
Because using this logic, a team could win 8 les in 16 years and it wouldn't be as impressive as winning 2 les back to back.
Keep enjoying that repeat that happened half a decade ago. We were winning rings before Kobe came to town, and we're still winning them, long after the sun has set on your run of les.
Interesting that the "team of the 80's" failed three times to defend their le and only had one back to back.
The Celtics won three championships in that same time frame, yet none back to back. The Spurs have won 4 championships in roughly the same number of years, yet none back to back.
Maybe it is just me, but your blatant homerism shows when you so willingly dismiss two of the greatest teams of the modern era simply for not being able to do what your favorite team was able to do only once. Your blatant ignorance shows when you consider "relevant only in their back-to-back years" teams like the Pistons and Rockets as dynasties simply because of that one criteria.
You say anyone can be lucky for a year, but the same applies for two years as well. Greatness is based on sustainable excellence. The Lakers of the 80's were great. But so were the Celtics. The Lakers of the 00's were great (and would have stayed great if not for the drama). But so are the Spurs. Only someone with a myopically Laker viewpoint can even attempt to argue otherwise.
yes because what you said is true:Will 4 put them on a pedestal as well?
I disagree with them being behind any of those back to back teams that all they did was just those two back to back. I would imagine those teams who just won the two in a row would trade for 3 in 5 years or 4 in 9.
On your list, I would put:
58-69 Celtics (10 in 11 years)
48-54 Lakers (4 in 5 years)
90-98 Bulls (6 in 8 years)
80-88 Lakers (5 in 9 years)
99-07 Spurs (4 in 9 years)
00-02 Lakers (three in a row)
The Pistons and Rockets got two in a row...but its still just two.
Comparing the Celtics of the 80s to the Lakers of the 80s is nowhere near as cut and dry as 5>3 and 8 finals > 5 finals would lead you to believe. The West was a joke in the 80s, and the Lakers were pretty much automatics every year to be representing the conferences. They blew two series to Houston, but one of those Rockets teams was awful (80-81), and the other was pretty average (85-86). In contrast, Boston had to compete with two of the league's greatest champions to get to the Finals. They had to go through a team that went 12-1 to a championship (the 76ers) for the first half of the decade, and then a repeat champion (Detroit) in the second half. LA never had anything close to that kind of compe ion in the West. I know they beat the defending champ Sonics in 80, but that Seattle team is considered one of the worst champions ever; surely nothing close to the Sixers or Pistons.
If you moved the Celtics to the West and the Lakers to the East I bet Boston would have won 5 and LA 3. Surely it would benefit the out of Boston to get to just chill and beat down teams like the Kings, Rockets, Spurs, Suns, and Nuggets while the Lakers would be in dogfights with the Sixers and Pistons every year, not to mention the Bulls at the tail end of the decade.
Easy answer, add these to your list:
1999-99 San Antonio Spurs
2003-03 San Antonio Spurs
2005-05 San Antonio Spurs
2007-07 San Antonio Spurs
Great point about the changes the salary cap have brought to the NBA. The Showtime Lakers would never have been able to keep together basically an All-Star team in the salary cap era. After they paid Kareem and Magic, they wouldn't have had much money left. This is an important point because the 2003 Spurs basically had to let Stephen Jackson go for salary reasons, then his replacements were ineffective in 2004. That is only one example.
Another point about the Spurs lack of repeat, in 2000 Tim Duncan was hurt and did not play in the playoffs. In 2004 the Spurs lost Robinson and Stephen Jackson, so they did not have the same team. In 2006 Duncan was hurt and had plantar fasciatis. Repeating has more to do with staying healthy and the stroke of luck than the quality of the franchise. Why do you think the 80's Lakers and Celtics went back and forth winning championships? In each year different players were healthy, and role players change.
Also, the 2000-2002 Lakers were a franchise that had a lot of help from the league.
I think I need to clarify. The Celtics of the 80's and the Lakers of the 80's were very good champions but I'm talking about the best of the best champions. In my opinion, you only get that label defending your le, which is something very few champions have done. The Spurs 4 les are a great accomplishment but I'm talking about the greatest championship teams! If you noticed I made no mention of the 1972 Lakers that won a record 33 straight games, a mark that will never be match or surpassed. For that one season they were a very good Champion but they failed to repeat, so I can not list them amongst the GREATEST Champions!
How about those 60's Lakers, though, huh?
You r either 2 young 2 remember, or out of ur emineffin' mind
Got Damn, One of you ing idiots re-post where I said that the Celtics were not a good team. Please!
They did nothing to separate themselves from the pack of all the previous NBA champions. For twenty ing years teams were winning a le here, a le there. Big ! That’s not what this is about. I’m talking about the greatest championship team. I’m not talking about what team did what over time. I am not talking about Dynasties. I am talking about true Champion. All former NBA champions will tell you that the hardest thing to do as a champion is to defend their les. A team that does so has beat the odds. Respect and greatness should be attributed to those who Successfully defend their les. It was too hard for the Celtics, it was too hard for the 76ers, lt's too ing hard for the Spurs, it was too hard for the early eighties lakers, etc..but it was not too hard for the 87-88. They did it! Pat Riley guaranteed that the Lakers would repeat after winning the first le. That put a lot of pressure on the lakers but they were up for the challenge. They played with the heart of a champion and refused to be denied. That team was special! Something the league had not seen from a team in 20 freaking years! ya that was a special team and one of the Greatest NBA Champions!
The Rockets too showed great determination and the heart of a Champion. They had a very bad season the year after winning their first le. They pulled together in the playoffs with an at ude of not being denied. They showed the heart of a champion.....
You know what? this thread andthe Spurs!
No need to clarify...I understand perfectly what you said. My opinion just differs.I think I need to clarify. The Celtics of the 80's and the Lakers of the 80's were very good champions but I'm talking about the best of the best champions. In my opinion, you only get that label defending your le, which is something very few champions have done. The Spurs 4 les are a great accomplishment but I'm talking about the greatest championship teams! If you noticed I made no mention of the 1972 Lakers that won a record 33 straight games, a mark that will never be match or surpassed. For that one season they were a very good Champion but they failed to repeat, so I can not list them amongst the GREATEST Champions!
It would be nice to think Lakeshow was just trolling out of waiting for the season to start boredom but sadly he appears to really belives in th crap he's posting.
Does that mean you will never return to Spursdom again?Got Damn, One of you ing idiots re-post where I said that the Celtics were not a good team. Please!
They did nothing to separate themselves from the pack of all the previous NBA champions. For twenty ing years teams were winning a le here, a le there. Big ! That’s not what this is about. I’m talking about the greatest championship team. I’m not talking about what team did what over time. I am not talking about Dynasties. I am talking about true Champion. All former NBA champions will tell you that the hardest thing to do as a champion is to defend their les. A team that does so has beat the odds. Respect and greatness should be attributed to those who Successfully defend their les. It was too hard for the Celtics, it was too hard for the 76ers, lt's too ing hard for the Spurs, it was too hard for the early eighties lakers, etc..but it was not too hard for the 87-88. They did it! Pat Riley guaranteed that the Lakers would repeat after winning the first le. That put a lot of pressure on the lakers but they were up for the challenge. They played with the heart of a champion and refused to be denied. That team was special! Something the league had not seen from a team in 20 freaking years! ya that was a special team and one of the Greatest NBA Champions!
The Rockets too showed great determination and the heart of a Champion. They had a very bad season the year after winning their first le. They pulled together in the playoffs with an at ude of not being denied. They showed the heart of a champion.....
You know what? this thread and
It already has put them on a pedestal. What exists, exists. It is what it is. One cannot replace history, one can only remember and continue on, hopefully drawing from history and what it can teach us.
Hypothetically speaking if they do people will say that they are not a good as the teams the were able to three peat.
If they go back to back and win 5 in 10 years they will be seen as one of the great dynasties in NBA history. If they don't they still will be seen as a dynasty but probably not a legendary one.
They will be remembered as the only team in league history with two asterisk championships! (*)
No but the people that still whine about that will be long forgotten that is for sure.
Respect
It means i will ignore idiots like you in the future!Does that mean you will never return to Spursdom again?
Damn right i believe it! Some of you assholes think your doesnt stink. It is my opinion! Something that has been discussed by other fans outside of SA. Debateable? Yes! Stupid? you!
Last edited by LakeShow; 09-29-2007 at 07:33 PM.
Lakeshow1 is defining the parameters of his argument to support his bias and favor his teams' accomplishments, while diminishing those of others, specifically the Spurs. In other words, it's a set-up.
Lakers are on a downswing right now. It's normally therapeutic to talk yourself through the down times by remembering the more prosperous times. It is a normal reaction when there is a failure to thrive.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote