Why The Spurs Are NOT A Dynasty

[ArgSpursFan]

Er... Michael played Magic in his prime, and the Bulls beat the Lakers 4-1. Magic's career was cut short in his prime because he contracted HIV.

Yes,The Bulls beated the Lakers that year,and Magic was playing at a high level,but not the same level he had against the Bird´s Celtics.That Lakers team wasn´t even half as good as the 80´s Lakers.

[dbreiden83080]

Er... Michael played Magic in his prime, and the Bulls beat the Lakers 4-1. Magic's career was cut short in his prime because he contracted HIV.

Er and that Laker team was how good compared to the ones that dominated the NBA in the 80's? They had Vlade at Center not exactly Kareem my man. Please tell me you don't think MJ's bulls are beating those 80's Laker teams or the Celtics.

[dbreiden83080]

Yes,The Bulls beated the Lakers that year,and Magic was playing at a high level,but not the same level he had against the Bird´s Celtics.That Lakers team wasn´t even half as good as the 80´s Lakers.

Exactly none of those Bulls teams not even the 96 one would have a shot against Magic's best Laker team or Bird's best celtic team.

[ArgSpursFan]

Magic,B.Scott,J.Worthy,A.C Green,Kareem
that was the best ever lakers lineup

[cherylsteele]

"I don't give a " meaning "We probably won't repeat" (as usual)

Meaning how much I think of your opinion.

[TampaDude]

[mardigan]

By Marc Stein | ESPN.com
SAN ANTONIO -- Put Pat Riley in the camp that says the San Antonio Spurs don't have to win back-to-back championships -- as Riley did with the Los Angeles Lakers in 1987 and 1988 -- to be regarded as a team for the ages.

"I don't think so," Riley said Wednesday before Miami's 88-78 loss in San Antonio.

"That's media folly. Just lays a little more pressure on them, that's all it is. 'You're not going to be any good unless you go back-to-back.' That's our war cry [in the league nowadays].

"They have the opportunity to do that. But why they haven't done it is because of the depth out here in the West. You just talk about the three teams here: Houston, Dallas and San Antonio. They could be the three best teams in the league. To be able to get through that is going to be harrowing.

"In the [past] nine years, winning four les and close to 60 games a year, they have a dynastic quality. [And] there's probably some more world championships ahead of them."


http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailyd...ge=dime-071108

[703 Spurz]

I do, but the subject is about the Spurs as a dynasty..

Ok so by posting this what is it you are trying to do?

Example 1

We win 4 les, yes 4 b/c 1999 did in fact count. You win these 4 and are called a dynasty.

Example 2

We win 4 les, yes 4 b/c 1999 still did in fact count. You win these 4 and are not called a dynasty.

The result?

You still win 4 les with either a cute nickname (dynasty) or no cute nickname at all.

I'd rather win 4 les

[703 Spurz]

More about the so-called "Spurs Dynasty"

CLEVELAND -- All right, let's get all the reasons we would not consider the San Antonio Spurs one of history's most successful franchises out of the way immediately.

• 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.

• Their first le, in 1999, occurred in a lockout-shortened season.

• Their most recent championship came against what was surely one of the worst Finals teams ever, LeBron James' individual brilliance notwithstanding.

OK, that said, San Antonio's fourth le in nine years, completed Thursday night at Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, is a monumental accomplishment that should give the Spurs a permanent place in sports history.

Let's just not bring up the "D" word. The Spurs are not a dynasty. They haven't suggested that about themselves. To me, a dynasty means this: A team must win more than half the championships over a decade and be considered the clear favorite in most of those seasons. A decade is a ---- measure, of course, but dynasty-dom has to be demonstrated over an extended period of time; the Mings, after all, lasted from 1368 to 1644. (Not the Yao Mings.)

In my view, only two franchises truly qualify as a dynasty -- the Boston Celtics, who, absurdly, won 11 championships in 13 seasons from 1957 to 1969 during the Bill Russell days, and Jordan's Chicago Bulls, who won six les in eight years (the franchise's only championships) from '91 to '98.

Overall, the Celtics have won 16 les (though a contemporary cynic would have to note that not a single one has come since '86). That career record is challenged only by the Lakers, who have 14 championships, five of them when the team was in Minneapolis, which was the dominant franchise in the NBA's first decade. But the Lakers have never had a true dynasty. They won five les from '80 to '88, a tremendous achievement to be sure, but they clearly shared the decade with the Celtics, who won three les in seven seasons. And they would've needed a couple more with the Shaquille O'Neal-Kobe Bryant combo to meet the dynasty standard in the early years of this century.

Which brings us to the Spurs. Four les in nine years in an era of free agency and revolving-door coaches is a monumental accomplishment. Tim Duncan and Gregg Popovich have been around for all four. Duncan's complementary pieces (Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, Bruce Bowen) have been there for the last three. One thing the Spurs have not done, however, is repeat, a fact pointed out to Popovich on Thursday night.


"Will that be extra motivation for next season?" he was asked.

"I don't give a ," Pop said with a smile.

My guess is, he does. And if the Spurs win again, we'll resume this conversation.

Yet we've still won 4 les. You can shove all this dynasty talk up your ass dude. 4 championships

[703 Spurz]

"I don't give a " meaning "We probably won't repeat" (as usual)

And? We'll win it again next year

I'd rather have 5 les in 11 years then be a fan of your team anyday

[703 Spurz]

as much as i hate the spurs and think they are a snoozefest to watch..... you gotta give respect where respect is due...... and winning 4 les in a 10 year period is pretty good.... i would say they have achieved dynasty status

4 in 9 years friend

[703 Spurz]

How about the NBA.com poll?

60% voted No

So you're saying the fans don't think the Spurs are a dynasty?

I can't believe that you're actually trying to troll here and your smack is that the fans in the U.S. don't think our team is a dynasty.

Oh man that gave me a nice chuckle.

Thanks

[E20]

• 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.

So I guess the Lakers championships and Celts and all other les don't count, because they didn't play Micheal Jordan's Bulls. These two articles pretty much sucked major ass and decided to leave logic, if they had any, out of this. The writer even goes on to cap on his own team (The Cavs).

Sorry excuse for an article(s).

[hater]

Will Perdue

he was the goofiest MOFO in NBA history

[hater]

Will Perdue

he was the goofiest MOFO in NBA history

[hater]

Will Perdue

he was the goofiest MOFO in NBA history

Manute Bol >>> Perdue

[hater]

what the ?

[1Parker1]

Does it really matter?? If the biggest argument or complaint you have against a team that has won 4 championships in a 9 year span is whether or not they can repeat or are a dynasty, then that is a great complaint to have. Just ask the Mavericks, Suns, Garnett, etc. what they would do just for ONE championship ring....let along 4.

[Ronaldo McDonald]

[QUOTE=Fast Dunk]More about the so-called "Spurs Dynasty"

CLEVELAND -- All right, let's get all the reasons we would not consider the San Antonio Spurs one of history's most successful franchises out of the way immediately.

• 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.

• Their first le, in 1999, occurred in a lockout-shortened season.

• Their most recent championship came against what was surely one of the worst Finals teams ever, LeBron James' individual brilliance notwithstanding.

i think i'm going to puke.

the fact of the matter is, this guy, like every other "expert" is an idiot.

if the four things that he points out in the article are all contributers to making them not qualify as a " real" dynasty, than we all might as well throw away the word dynasty in basketball. because as far as I can tell no one will be playing against mj ever again.

his argument has been relegated to criticism of the spurs over stuff they cannot control... like diluted league, compe ion in finals, lock out.
etc and that is pure bull . so all of a sudden dynasty is conditional?

and if he's going too bring up comepe ion and other irrelevent, outside to try to dimminish spurs success than i think that leaves us room to argue about the actual legitimacy of other teams championships. examples:

spurs never got to defend their le after in 2000 with duncan injured...
ever hear of speurs fans dimminishing what the lakers did. no (not that i know of at least...)

what about the small amount of teams/game in regular season in the league back in the day for the archaic boston teams?

theres probably more but i'm tired and out of ideas...

basically, you can argue anything...try to illegitimize anything... and it's so far passed the point of being silly and ridiculous by now

[word]

The fact that this discussion exists shows that they are in fact, a dynasty, imho.

[Ronaldo McDonald]

oh and how could i forgot the ultimate example of the spurs being ed over when the face managing the clock in 04 against he lakers had his fingers up his ass?

u cant catch and shott with .4 seconds...

[kingmalaki]

Exactly none of those Bulls teams not even the 96 one would have a shot against Magic's best Laker team or Bird's best celtic team.

And neither would any of the Spurs le teams (this goes for the le teams of the 80’s and the Bulls le teams). That doesn’t mean either team was bad….it’s just that the 80’s teams had more talent on them than MJ’s Bulls, and the same applies to MJ’s teams compared to the ones today.

The answer is yes and no. In basketball terms the answer is yes. The 80’s Celtics have always been considered a dynasty and they never repeated. The 80’s Lakers were considered one before they repeated.

As far as all sports, the answer is no by “definition” (i.e. Tiger winning all Majors in a row but not in the same year hence no “slam”). I can’t think of any teams in baseball, football or hockey that were considered dynasties without a repeat. Also add in the fact that LA won 3 in a row during your reign (fits the dynasty “definition” better).

Either way, 4 les is 4 les is damn impressive, so who cares what people call it…..

Edit...I stand corrected. I believe folks consider the 49ers a dynasty...did they repeat?

[mavs>spurs2]

oh and how could i forgot the ultimate example of the spurs being ed over when the face managing the clock in 04 against he lakers had his fingers up his ass?

u cant catch and shott with .4 seconds...

Check the rulebook.

[zepn]

2. The Lakers 3-Peat: There is also the pesky little fact of, oh, the Lakers winning three les in the midst of the Spurs run. Can you name any other run that is termed a dynasty that not only had a three year run without a le, much less a three year run where the same team won in each of those three years. Here is the real deal: 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.

3. 1999 doesn't really count: The first le in this run does not really fit in with the rest for two reasons. First, the season was tainted because of the strike, which made the season only 50 games long and cheapened the entire enterprise. Secondly, other than a very young Duncan, that team has no relation to the current squad that has won 3 les in 4 years. That team was Duncan and David Robinson. This team is Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili and is an entirely different team that is three years detached from that '99 squad.

4. The regular season: I might, might, be willing to give the Spurs the dynasty nod if it was a situation where they were dominating in the regular season every year and then choking in the playoffs. But do you know how many years the Spurs stood alone atop the regular season standings during this 9 year stretch? Once. Next please.

5. Simple math: Name a single other run designated as a dynasty where the dynasty team won less than half of the championships during the dynasty period. Yup, that's right: it has never happened.

If #3 is true, then #2, #5, and half of #4 are not true.

That leaves you with 2 1/2 points, which seems pretty close to your IQ...

[Walter Craparita]

I'll take 4 rings in 9 years and 10 years of being in the elite over 3 years of back to back to back and a quick fizzle out.

If we are not a dynasty, it has still been awesome not being a dynasty haha.