Reply With Quote
Yawn.
Troll thread is that way. >>>>
I've seen all the scenarios where the Spurs should place in history if they defend their le.
How about, Where would they place if they failed to defend their le? They certainly would trail the,
1948-50 Minneapolis Lakers
1952-54 Minneapolis Lakers
1958-66 Boston Celtics
1967-69 Boston Celtics
1987-88 Los Angeles Lakers
1988-89 Detroit Pistons
1990-93 Chicago Bulls
1994-95 Houston Rockets
1995-98 Chicago Bulls
2000-02 Los Angeles Lakers
Because those teams were successful in defending their les. History tells us that defending your le is the greatest accomplishment by a NBA champion. How will the Spurs be remembered? Will they or should they be included in the conversation with those teams above or will they be forgotten like so many One and Out NBA Champions? Your Thoughts?
Yawn.
Troll thread is that way. >>>>
Ok, don't want to talk about that, huh? I don't blame you! My bad!
i'll always remember the spurs as being champs and doing what they do best... winning when it matters most regardless if they never repeat. support the spurs till i die.
I think they will be remembered as one of only 4 franchises to win 5 NBA championships..
What if they do not win 5? Will 4 put them on a pedestal as well?
Let's face it, 4 les is a great accomplishment and not too many teams have won as many. I just wondered if that would be enough, even without a repeat to be mentioned with the others. In your opinion
does it really ,atter what the preception of the franchise will be? I am sure that there will be about 26 fanchises and fans that would love to take our place..
I think someone who has created a definition of great teams that excludes the Bird, McHale Celtics is a few crayons short of a full box.
they would rate as the luckiest, most cheatingest, most overrated ty franchise that ever existed, DUH!!!
oh wait, I'm not Fast Dunk
Spurs will rate behind only Boston and LA as far as being at or near the top for so long, people won't remember the lack of back-to-backs as much as the sustained greatness with so many different players (and Duncan)
personally, I think we won't win next year, but we will again in 08-09, making a decade of off 'n on championships
Last edited by vander; 09-27-2007 at 02:14 PM.
Unless some other team wins the next 3-4 les, the Spurs will be remembered as the best team of this decade. But nice troll job anyway.
Their place in NBA history would be around 1977-2007 right now. Is that what you were looking for?
The winningest team in the post-Jordan era.
Most les after 1998.
Highest winning % not just in the NBA but in all pro sports since 1998.
Home of the best forward of all time and the best player post Jordan.
All in all, not a bad decade.
Anyone who thinks the 1994-95 Rockets rate higher than the 1999-2007 Spurs is crazy.
uh, there's already a team that has done that in this decade! As is, the spurs are not considered the best team of the decade right now. The 2000-02 Lakers win that le with being one of only 3 times to ever win 3 straight les!
They're in a different category, as is the Lakers during that time. The Lakers are recognized for being the first team in 20 years to successfully defend their le.
What category is that, the one the Spurs are in? I guess if you want to say the Duncan Spurs are in the same group greatness-wise as the Bird, McHael Celtics, yeah I'd agree. And I guess that would make them greater than the Thomas Pistons, Hakeem Rockets and for that matter the Shaq/Kobe Lakers and there 4-5 years of being good.
btw you missed the Knicks who were better than either the Pistons or the Rockets imo.
Last edited by picnroll; 09-27-2007 at 02:59 PM.
Yes, the category of One and Out Champions.
Every Champion that has repeated will tell you that it is much harder to repeat than it is to win a le. Repeat Champions are in a league of their own.
I think without a Spurs repeat, they'll be somewhere between the Magic-Kareem-Worthy Lakers and the Bird-Parish-McHale Celtics. Winning 4 les in a decade, with or without a repeat should be enough to put a team among the greats.
A huge difference, of course, is that the Spurs of this era don't have an ironclad core like either of those teams -- only Duncan has played for all 4 le winners. I think that makes them unique and makes their accomplishments that much more impressive; no other franchise that I can think of had to make such radical adjustments to its roster in the midst of a spate of les like these Spurs have.
Then again, if the Spurs win in 2008 and do repeat, they'll be in almost exactly the same position as the Showtime Lakers -- 5 les in about a 10 year stretch with a single repeat (LA won in 1980, 1982, 1985, 1987, and 1988) -- but Laker fans are going to scream like crazy if these Spurs are ever compared favorably to those Lakers.
Yes the category of repeat champions.
And guys that think the Rockets champs or Pistons champs teams are better than the Bird champ teams are also in a league of their own, the dumb s league.
WARNING: Long post follows.
As one who follows a team that hasn't won an NBA le, I can't decide if I am less or more qualified to answer.
On the face of it, this is a foolish question, because the league has changed too much to make meaningful comparisons between Mikan's Lakers and Russell's Celtics, much less comparing the eras of Mikan and Duncan.
So first, I must change this to a questions that is susceptible to being answered. How do the Spurs compare to the more recent consecutive le runs of the Pistons, Bulls, Rockets, and Lakers?
I think we all can agree that the current NBA suffers from overexpansion and the gradual erosion of its free minor league system (NCAA Div. I). In this context, it is becoming obvious that the salary cap has largely failed. If the intent of the cap was to guarantee parity, foster financial security or at least stability, and hold down player salaries, then the salary cap has failed.
In every sport to have a salary cap, player salaries have continued to inflate at previous rates or even higher, particularly since most sports also have a "floor" or minimum payroll under their cap system. (In other words, the cap may force certain powerhouses to spend less, but it also forces the Clippers and AZ Cardinals of the world to spend more than they would have without a cap.) MLB, which does not have a cap, continues to see player salaries spiral out of control as well. At best, we might say that the salary cap has not really made a significant impact one way or the other; certainly, the caps have not held down salaries as intended.
The cap appears to encourage mediocrity rather than parity. To me, "parity" means all of the teams are equally good or at least can compete in a realistic sense. In contrast, "mediocrity" means that all of the teams are equally bad, and a small handful of teams can compete due to the intrinsic advantages of their franchises. (I will explain this better below.)
At least in the NBA, the cap is too soft to guarantee financial stability. Also, NBA revenues have altered drastically in the salary cap period. All this has resulted in a succession of CBAs and a handful of veterans with max contracts that will not be surpassed by any player under the new CBA, or at least not in this decade. Is this last point very important? Probably not, but it certainly affected who could compete in the Shaq and KG sweepstakes, for example.
The Spurs won all of their championships in this "modern" NBA era. Many detractors will gleefully bring up all that I have just mentioned, as if this somehow lessens these les. However, they complete ignore or deliberately distort a vital fact: The Spurs also play in this era and suffer from all of the same inherent disadvantages or problems that the modern NBA faces. Many detractors of the Spurs will discuss these issues as if the SA team was somehow transplanted to a basketball dystopia from an alternate universe.
Furthermore, the Spurs' franchise must struggle to win in a market that has major disadvantages. Not only is SA not a major media market and producer like Los Angeles, it is not even the largest NBA city in its own state. Before the Spurs' began winning regularly, the organization had little to offer free agents more interested in larger cities. The cap penalizes teams for outspending the others, but it can't completely prevent it. (See: Knicks, New York.) Even if a true "hard" cap existed, the major media markets would still have advantages in free agency. Therefore, you must consider the fact that the Spurs have been able to emerge as one of the handful of dominant franchises in the entire history of the league.
Say what you want, but the fact that the Lakers have played in nearly 50% of all Finals says more about the dysfunction of the NBA than the greatness of that franchise.
This, then is the context of the four Spurs' championships. Notice that I haven't even addressed the complete disparity between the two Conferences, which probably should be mentioned. With the possible exception of 1999, the Spurs' real challenge has been making the Finals. Once there, they are more or less automatic with the current state of the two Conferences. I would have to think that playing the most difficult series in the second or third round, year after year, is a little more challenging than working up to the pinnacle as intended/designed.
To be frank, I have never found the Bulls' le run as impressive as the rest of the world. As Craig Ehlo can tell you, it makes it a little easier to win when the entire world is backing you. During the second le run in particular, Jordan would have had to shiv a guy, urinate on him, and give the referees an autographed picture of the incident before a foul was called. It is difficult for me to call MJ the greatest ever in light of the blatant favoritism he received for most of his career. That said, 6 les in 8 years is obviously a more impressive achievement.
The Rockets two les are sort of strange. They didn't have to worry about the Jordanaires, and Shaq was still coming into his own. In other words, the Rockets didn't face the two best players of the era: MJ was retired and Shaq wasn't quite in that league yet. By the same token, the Rockets completely owned the Magic in the 1995 Finals, so saying that Shaq wasn't really Shaq yet is sort of silly. The Spurs' run is actually more impressive to me, becuase they did eventually unseat the Lakers. The Rockets never really competed again, even after adding Barkley in 1996. After the MJ free window, they were done.
I see the Pistons two consecutive les as almost an anomaly. The Pistons were ahead of the curve in terms of defense and psychological warfare. When the league adapted to their tactics (and Jordan and Pippen came into their own), they were also done. The Pacers and Magic quickly supplanted Detroit as the "other" EC contenders.
As much as I hate to admit it, the Lakers' run of 2000-2002 is probably the measuring stick for the moment. Repeat just once, and the Spurs' record compares very favorably, especially since the Spurs ended the last Laker le run. Also, the Spurs have been consistently successful for a decade or so, while none of these other teams (except the '90s Bulls) can really claim that. Without Shaq, the Lakers have been very average.
In conclusion, I would say that only the Celtics can really claim a "dynasty" in the sense of the word's original meaning. To my mind, a threepeat is very impressive, but it is not a dynasty. (For example, in English history and heraldry the Planagenets and Tudors are "dynasties," but the current House of Windsor is not.) Therefore, the Spurs are not a dynasty (no repeat), but neither are many of the teams considered dynasties (repeats, but no real longevity). A repeat does not somehow magically make the Spurs relevant, becuase they are already relevant to NBA history. It would be the last thing new for this team to accomplish, and it certainly won't hurt their status!
The Rockets team of the 94-95 has to be considered better than the Boston team of Bird. They were able to defend their le and the celtics were not. Any team can luck up and win one le but to defend your le deserves recognition for being one of the best champions ever. Any idiot knows that!
No, not just any idiot. It takes a special idiot.
I wouldn't scream because I would think that they deserved to be with the lakers of the 80's. I might not like it, but I could not dispute it!
Given the current salary cap restrictions would the show time Lakers or the Bird Celtics been able to retain their talent to have those long impressvie runs? Spurs are one of a team to sustain as well as those teams did given current limitations.
[QUOTE=Reggie Miller]WARNING: Long post follows.
QUOTE]
I'm not going to discredit those teams and les because of the era they played. Believe me, I would love to say that about the Celtics early les but I will not. Regardless of the Era, those teams defended their les and it takes a lot out of teams to do so.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
