Why The Spurs Are NOT A Dynasty

[Fast Dunk]

I found this note, There are a lot of people that can not accept the Spurs as a Dynasty (even Tony Parker)

Discuss:


I'm sure if you watched Game 4 of the NBA Finals...or read a newspaper...or watched ESPN at all today...you were hit over the head with sportswriters and pundints telling you how the Spurs were on the verge of becoming a dynasty. Well, let me tell you the truth about that claim: it is false. Simply, truly, and completely false. There are a number of reasons why, and I am more than happy to share them with you.

1. The Spurs never won consecutive les: Will Perdue said it best in an interview earlier today:

"(Consistency) carries a little bit more weight," said Perdue, now an NBA analyst for ESPN Radio. "Isn't repeating supposed to be the hardest thing to do for all the necessary factors?

Yes Will, it is. Repeating is what seperates the men from the boys when it comes to dynasty and greatest of all time talk. The Spurs being called a dynasty without ever repeating is like someone running for President without ever holding public office. The two just go hand in hand. That is why the phrase dynastic succession exists. A dynasty, by definition, implies succession, and the Spurs have never accomplished that. Case closed.

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.

As much as the media wants to make this story, the point of a dynasty is that is both historic and difficult. That is why there has only ever been one team in baseball to have a true dynasty (Three different runs by the Yankees), only four teams to do it in hockey (Toronto 44-51, Montreal 65-79, New York 80-83, and Edmonton 84-90), and arguably one in the NFL (The Steelers 4 in 6 during the '70s). Now here is my one caveat: if the Spurs do repeat next season, all will be forgiven in the dynasty discussion. Winning 4 les in 6 years, with the essential repeat present in this case, along with the same core of players present, would indeed make the Spurs a dynasty. Even in that scenario however, there is no way that the '99 le should be included in any dynasty discussion. Calling the Spurs current run a dynasty does nothing but fill newspaper copy and cheapen the term.



http://winningtheturnoverbattle.blog...t-dynasty.html

[Axl Van Dam]

I found this note, There are a lot of people that can not accept the Spurs as a Dynasty (even Tony Parker)

Discuss:


I'm sure if you watched Game 4 of the NBA Finals...or read a newspaper...or watched ESPN at all today...you were hit over the head with sportswriters and pundints telling you how the Spurs were on the verge of becoming a dynasty. Well, let me tell you the truth about that claim: it is false. Simply, truly, and completely false. There are a number of reasons why, and I am more than happy to share them with you.

1. The Spurs never won consecutive les: Will Perdue said it best in an interview earlier today:

"(Consistency) carries a little bit more weight," said Perdue, now an NBA analyst for ESPN Radio. "Isn't repeating supposed to be the hardest thing to do for all the necessary factors?

Yes Will, it is. Repeating is what seperates the men from the boys when it comes to dynasty and greatest of all time talk. The Spurs being called a dynasty without ever repeating is like someone running for President without ever holding public office. The two just go hand in hand. That is why the phrase dynastic succession exists. A dynasty, by definition, implies succession, and the Spurs have never accomplished that. Case closed.

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.

As much as the media wants to make this story, the point of a dynasty is that is both historic and difficult. That is why there has only ever been one team in baseball to have a true dynasty (Three different runs by the Yankees), only four teams to do it in hockey (Toronto 44-51, Montreal 65-79, New York 80-83, and Edmonton 84-90), and arguably one in the NFL (The Steelers 4 in 6 during the '70s). Now here is my one caveat: if the Spurs do repeat next season, all will be forgiven in the dynasty discussion. Winning 4 les in 6 years, with the essential repeat present in this case, along with the same core of players present, would indeed make the Spurs a dynasty. Even in that scenario however, there is no way that the '99 le should be included in any dynasty discussion. Calling the Spurs current run a dynasty does nothing but fill newspaper copy and cheapen the term.



http://winningtheturnoverbattle.blog...t-dynasty.html

Still can't accept the fact you got swept huh?

[Fast Dunk]

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

[Amuseddaysleeper]

i don't buy into the bull that the '99 season shouldn't count just because the season was shortened. Not the Spurs fault. Had the PLAYOFFS been shortened, then yes, by all means, put an asterisk, but they still had to get 16 (or 15, at the time) wins to go all the way. So that is a very poor excuse to play that trophy down.


I will however agree that the lakers early 2000's run was far more impressive and that yes, the spurs do need to win consecutive championships at least once.

[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.

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.

[Fast Dunk]

More about the so-called "Spurs Dynasty"



"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.

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

[Amuseddaysleeper]

and even if they don't, who gives a

still 4 more rings than cleveland

[spurs4real]

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.

LMAO, damn bro let it go. Just let it go. its over, dynasty or not you got beat and you make yourself look pathetic over here @ 2 in the morning crying about anything else but your team. Focus on your Cavs and how they can get better. Dynasty, is just a word. who cares, we abviously dont care what the rest of the world or shall i say the States think of us. Serioulsy bro just let it go, youre embarassing yourself.
Facts are for Nerds, Rings are for CHAMPIONS.

[Leetonidas]

[Fast Dunk]

Next year:

Don't expect the Mavs to get knocked out in the First round.

Don't expect suspensions on Suns players...

[ChumpDumper]

Don't expect me to give a .

[Fast Dunk]

Don't expect me to give a .

[spurs4real]

Next year:

Don't expect the Mavs to get knocked out in the First round.

Don't expect suspensions on Suns players...

right ok, what else?
anymore before you yawn again?

cause i just yawned all over that post.

[Fillmoe]

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

[spurs4real]

Next year:

Don't expect the Mavs to get knocked out in the First round.

Don't expect suspensions on Suns players...

by the way, mavs and suns would have rolled all over the cavs just like the spurs did. beat it or come with something stronger than that.

[TDMVPDPOY]

4rings is better than not winnin any

[Fast Dunk]

People, people!!!

We're not talking about the Cavs here, I know you want to get back at me but the subject here is about the national consensus, the Spurs are NOT a dynasty, only dumb people would think they are...

[ChumpDumper]

Actually the national ESPN poll says they were.

ESPN poll respondents > bitter cavfan

[Fast Dunk]

How about the NBA.com poll?

60% voted No

[ChumpDumper]

ESPN > NBA

Nobody watches the NBA.

[Fast Dunk]

Really?

Then why Spurs fans always complain about ESPN/ABC?

[ChumpDumper]

Shouldn't cavfans be complaining about them too?

[Fast Dunk]

No, why should we?

[ChumpDumper]

Why should we?

[Fast Dunk]

yes why should we complain?