Spurs Dynasty ranks behind Lakers, Celtics and Bulls

[lefty]

http://www.faniq.com/article/Spurs-D...ulls-Blog-2989

Dan Shanoff chimed in with the inevitable debate: Who is the best Dynasty of this era (Clearly the 60s Celtics would beat everyone) and where do the Spurs rank?

If Mike Brown has anything to say about it, the San Antonio Spurs will win their 4th NBA le since 1999 tonight in Cleveland. To get a head start on the debate that will pick up full steam tonight and tomorrow, here's my Top 5 Dynasties and why they would or would not beat the Spurs.

Let me first say, my entire debate hinges on the fact that I believe the quality of basketball and quality of players was at it's height during the mid 80's to mid 90's.

1. 90's Bulls How fun would it be to see Michael Jordan against Bruce Bowen? Besides the obvious, Michael Jordan, here's why I like the Chicago over San Antonio: The Bulls would not have put up with the flopping or 'Bowen-ism.' Whether it's Dennis Rodman of latter 3-peat or Horace Grant, Bill Wennington, Scott Williams or Stacey King of the 1st 3-peat, one of them would have continually knocked Bowen and Ginobili down. There used to be enforcers in basketball that took care of the garbage plays. Now Duncan would have likely had a field day on anyone that tried to guard him, but I assume Rodman would get his fair share of boards. Oh, and so I don't sound too biased, Jordan would likely get more calls than the Spurs. That's for sure.

2. 80's Lakers Magic, Worthy, Kareem, Coop, Byron Scott, A.C. Green, Mychal Thompson ... come on, the Spurs aren't beating that lineup. I'm not entirely convinced Michael's Bulls beat this team. No one on the Spurs could guard Magic. Kareem will score with Duncan point for point, and of course Rambis will play the role of knocking down Bowen/Ginobili.

3. 80's Celtics Spurs have their fantastic foursome and these Celtics had theirs: Bird, McHale, Parish, and DJ. Simply using the argument that the overall skill level (not athleticism, but skill) was much higher back then. If the Celtics are playing, you're not going to see 90 shots missed in one game. Parish can hang with Duncan on defense. Would Bowen guard Bird? You know who you're taking that matchup.

4. Spurs

5. Shaq/Kobe Lakers That's got 7 games written all over it. Duncan/Shaq ... Bowen on Kobe. I could go either way, but I'll side with the Spurs because of the perfect assortment of role players. Plus Shaq is clearly going to get in foul trouble often.

How do you rank the Spurs against these other great dynasties?

Source: (Dan Shanoff)

[remingtonbo2001]

Depends if we stay healthy this year. The 05 Spurs were scary, considering we played with a hobbling Duncan. This year's team is deep. Rediculously DEEP! If there is a team that is capable of dethrowning the 90's Bulls, it might be this year's squad. We'll have to wait and see how everything unfolds.

Nice analysis by the way. I'll have to rethink this argument.

Basketball is played at a much faster pace and the game is called completely differently today. The Spurs are a more conditioned team (as are many) than any team from the 80's and 90's. Basketball has changed quite a bit from when it was played in the 80's and 90's...It's become less physical and more about finesse. Less about defense and more about scoring.

But that's what I like about the Spurs they're old school.
However, they can light up the scoreboard when needed.
The Spurs are the Chameleons...We mold to our opponent in order to win. None of the teams mentioned did that. They won it by playing their style.
We win it by beating you at your own game. The Spurs are incredibily versitle, and can adapt to making changes quickly. I'm not sure the other teams can say that.

[debo]

The Spurs are the Chameleons...We mold to our opponent in order to win. None of the teams mentioned did that.

even though we are capable of being chameleons, our gameplan is always to mold our opponents game to be more like ours.

[m33p0]

i would put 80's Lakers first. there's no way the bulls could beat that team. if duncan would have a field day against the 90s bulls, even more so worthy and kareem.

if the 80s celtics is considered a dynasty inspite of just winning 3 championships with no back-to-back, does that make the current spurs official?

[TDMVPDPOY]

80celtics hahaha

spurs arent afraid to give them a run for there money

mchale, parish are overrated...duncan > both combined.

[exstatic]

Spurs > 80s Celtics

The 80s Celtics just weren't that good. They were 3-2 in Finals during the 80s, but only 1-2 against the Lakers, clearly a step below. And Parrish on par with Duncan defensively? Please....

[Dave McNulla]

the best thing i can say about the celtics is they beat the lakers in 84. the second best thing is they beat the sixers a couple times too. i'd put the spurs before them. matchup, schmatchup, it's all conjecture. the spurs beat two defending champs and a lot of other teams to get their four les. that's fact.

[dbestpro]

The Jordan lead Bulls would have trouble with any of the other top 5 if he gets called for palming and traveling like everybody else. The best team I ever saw play goes back to the Lakers of the 70's with West and Chamberlin and a close second is the Lakers of Magic. The Havlichek Celtics would be third followed by the Bird Celtics. I give the Jordan Bulls spot 5, but that may change as the Spurs are not done. Also, you can't overlook Olajuwon, Drexler Rockets. I think they are very close the being better that Jordan Bulls, as well.

[urunobili]

NO DOUBT Spurs more than 80's Celtics... and i dunno how well Jordan Bulls would have matched up against us...

[ChumpDumper]

Our Chinese rocketfan posters here have better grammar than this guy.

FanIQ is an oxymoron in this case.

[Rummpd]

This is bogus - the Spurs had to deal with the stout Lakers with Shaq and Kobe and still have the highest winning percentage in the modern era in any sport + 4 championships in 9 years (4 of 8 when their mainstay player was active for playoffs).

Bowen would be able to slow down Jordan as well as anyone, Manu would be able to slow down Pippen and probably out play him, and Duncan if motivated would dominate Rodman others done low while Parker had a field day running around the slower PGs of the Bulls.

It would be a great series but the Spurs are more than capable of beating the Bulls and several computer simulations have had them winning easily.

[stretch]

1. 90's Bulls How fun would it be to see Michael Jordan torch Bruce Bowen for 40 a night with ease?

Fixed.

[stretch]

The Jordan lead Bulls would have trouble with any of the other top 5 if he gets called for palming and traveling like everybody else.

God, shut the up, please. EVERY great player gets away with little dirty tricks. Tim Duncan gets away with a lot of travels in the post. Shaq always used his elbow to push off to clear space for a monster dunk. John Stockton always scratched people when swiping for the balls. EVERYONE has their tricks that they use to their advantage that the refs don't see.

[leemajors]

i was really disappointed in this having nothing to do with jeffdrums.

[whottt]

@ Mavfan posting in a thread about champions, like he has a an informed opinion or something.

[stretch]

@ Mavfan posting in a thread about champions, like he has a an informed opinion or something.

Yup.

[dbreiden83080]

80celtics hahaha

spurs arent afraid to give them a run for there money

mchale, parish are overrated...duncan > both combined.

I tend to agree and this is an issue that seems to be about what generation of basketball you gew up watching and were a fan of. Going back even further, i have seen tons of film of Bill Russell in his heyday. I am sorry but if anyone out there thinks he is better than Tim Duncan they are friggin nuts. The man spent his whole career rebounding over and blocking the shots of 6'5 white guys. He did not have a great overall offensive game like Duncan. Yet the old crones of that era talk as if players like Russell and Wilt are GODS and Duncan and the greats of today don't measure up.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

This veteran Spurs bunch approaches the playoffs like they know they're going to win. There's no awe over the post season, just an increase in effort and intensity. The Spurs have the players in place who know how to win with the game on the line. Parker is becoming the Spurs 3rd 'clutch' weapon, not just early game weapon, and guys like Horry and Bowen play there roles to perfection in the post season.

The only team that is arguably deeper would be the 80's Lakers. They were basically an all-star team that played as a unit. The Bulls had Michael and some good role players, but not much else. None of the other teams are on par with the Spurs from a matchup standpoint.

In any case, this is a hard comparison to make. Different eras make for different lineups and styles of play. You'd probably have to distinguish what set of rules are in force, etc., before you start making comparisons.

Would Bill Russell's Celtics, the greatest sports dynasty ever, beat today's Spurs? Probably not because the game has evolved so much. Does that mean the Spurs are a better dynasty? Definitely not.

So...while this stuff is fun to argue, it's really an impossible debate to pick a winner. An unwinnable argument...must be the internet.

[callo1]

I tend to agree and this is an issue that seems to be about what generation of basketball you gew up watching and were a fan of. Going back even further, i have seen tons of film of Bill Russell in his heyday. I am sorry but if anyone out there thinks he is better than Tim Duncan they are friggin nuts. The man spent his whole career rebounding over and blocking the shots of 6'5 white guys. He did not have a great overall offensive game like Duncan. Yet the old crones of that era talk as if players like Russell and Wilt are GODS and Duncan and the greats of today don't measure up.

I totally agree.

Generation bias seems to do this in all sports. I can't help but laugh a bit when I hear the comments about Russell and his deity status. Bill Russell won those eleven rings with no more than 10 teams in the league at the time...10 friggin teams !! Odds are much better than when you only have to go through 10 teams versus 30. Right now the media is so scared to attach the Dynasty word to the Spurs because they are a small market team amongst large market, flashy fan favorites.

I'm still waiting for the people who defend the notion that basketball was being played "better" in the '80's yada yada (fill in decade here) to explain to me how when a sport gets MUCH MUCH larger and the overall talent pool expands by 200-300% that the overall quality of the players goes down. Thats like saying the best 2-A highschool football programs in Texas are superior to the 5-A programs. Larger talent pool = better average talent making the cut. Now I will agree that there are parts of the game that the more modern players are missing today...things like freethrow shooting average for example, but overall average player talent is higher today, and if the NBA continues to grow it will be higher 10 years from now.

It is my contention that the reason we have a perception of less superstars in the league now is that since the average talent level is higher now it is harder for players to stand out from the crowd so to speak...in other words there arn't as many big fish in little ponds because the pond is bigger (NBA globalization).

I am 38 years old and have been watching basketball since the Finals were tape delayed and it is absurd to say that todays NBA is inferior to the NBA of the '80's for example. Take a look at the top 50 list and you see some names on there like Walton. Even prior to Walton's foot problems Timmy would have been able to post very good numbers against him. Patrick friggin Ewing is on that list !! Ewing wasn't that great man...only reason he made the list was the market he played in a large market.

As time goes by, average talent level increases if the sport continues to grow. Look at the 1980's O-line of the Redskins in football for example. the HOGS were so named because of their massive average of 280 lbs a man Did you know that up until 1984 there were never more than 8 players in the NFL in a given year that were over 300 lbs? Now 20% of the NFL's players tip the scales at 300 lbs or more. The reason...science (roids) and nutrition.

While I will agree that the NBA does not require all of same physical attributes of the NFL, science and nutrition are still major factors. A person like Wilt dominated like he did because he was FAR ahead of his time when he came into the league in 1959. Put Wilt in todays league and he fails to stand out like he did then. He would still be a great player, but the gap wouldn't be nearly as prominent.

In 20 years we will be defending the arguement that the likes of Shaq, Timmy, Kobe, Lebron etc. were far better than the "new" crop of players and we will be wrong then too most likely.

[lefty]

Well,I think that the 2007 Spurs could have beaten the 95-98 Bulls.

Think about it, the Jazz lost in 6 games to the Bulls in 1997 and a998, and the 2007 Spurs are much better than the 97-98 Jazz

[Cry Havoc]

I totally agree.

Generation bias seems to do this in all sports. I can't help but laugh a bit when I hear the comments about Russell and his deity status. Bill Russell won those eleven rings with no more than 10 teams in the league at the time...10 friggin teams !! Odds are much better than when you only have to go through 10 teams versus 30. Right now the media is so scared to attach the Dynasty word to the Spurs because they are a small market team amongst large market, flashy fan favorites.

I'm still waiting for the people who defend the notion that basketball was being played "better" in the '80's yada yada (fill in decade here) to explain to me how when a sport gets MUCH MUCH larger and the overall talent pool expands by 200-300% that the overall quality of the players goes down. Thats like saying the best 2-A highschool football programs in Texas are superior to the 5-A programs. Larger talent pool = better average talent making the cut. Now I will agree that there are parts of the game that the more modern players are missing today...things like freethrow shooting average for example, but overall average player talent is higher today, and if the NBA continues to grow it will be higher 10 years from now.

It is my contention that the reason we have a perception of less superstars in the league now is that since the average talent level is higher now it is harder for players to stand out from the crowd so to speak...in other words there arn't as many big fish in little ponds because the pond is bigger (NBA globalization).

I am 38 years old and have been watching basketball since the Finals were tape delayed and it is absurd to say that todays NBA is inferior to the NBA of the '80's for example. Take a look at the top 50 list and you see some names on there like Walton. Even prior to Walton's foot problems Timmy would have been able to post very good numbers against him. Patrick friggin Ewing is on that list !! Ewing wasn't that great man...only reason he made the list was the market he played in a large market.

As time goes by, average talent level increases if the sport continues to grow. Look at the 1980's O-line of the Redskins in football for example. the HOGS were so named because of their massive average of 280 lbs a man Did you know that up until 1984 there were never more than 8 players in the NFL in a given year that were over 300 lbs? Now 20% of the NFL's players tip the scales at 300 lbs or more. The reason...science (roids) and nutrition.

While I will agree that the NBA does not require all of same physical attributes of the NFL, science and nutrition are still major factors. A person like Wilt dominated like he did because he was FAR ahead of his time when he came into the league in 1959. Put Wilt in todays league and he fails to stand out like he did then. He would still be a great player, but the gap wouldn't be nearly as prominent.

In 20 years we will be defending the arguement that the likes of Shaq, Timmy, Kobe, Lebron etc. were far better than the "new" crop of players and we will be wrong then too most likely.

I agree with this post completely.

It's hard for me to watch basketball from the 80s, where players routinely take entire plays or sequences off, where they stand around on defense and watch a wide open man shoot a 15-18 foot J with regularity. The defense is much better now from top to bottom than at any point in league history. I do not think that Wilt would be even the best big man in the game today, although he would probably be up there. There are tons of athletic freaks that never even make it into the league because the compe ion is so tough and it takes more than sheer talent to make it.

And this is NOT me hating on Wilt or Bill or attempting to tarnish their legacy. I'm just saying that today the game is far more compe ive than it's ever been. An average team today would be a very very good team in the 80s. Look at Houston! What would Yao Ming be doing to the NBA if he played in the 70s or 80s, or... Wilt's day and age? He'd probably average 30 rebounds per game.

[dbreiden83080]

I totally agree.

Generation bias seems to do this in all sports. I can't help but laugh a bit when I hear the comments about Russell and his deity status. Bill Russell won those eleven rings with no more than 10 teams in the league at the time...10 friggin teams !! Odds are much better than when you only have to go through 10 teams versus 30. Right now the media is so scared to attach the Dynasty word to the Spurs because they are a small market team amongst large market, flashy fan favorites.

I'm still waiting for the people who defend the notion that basketball was being played "better" in the '80's yada yada (fill in decade here) to explain to me how when a sport gets MUCH MUCH larger and the overall talent pool expands by 200-300% that the overall quality of the players goes down. Thats like saying the best 2-A highschool football programs in Texas are superior to the 5-A programs. Larger talent pool = better average talent making the cut. Now I will agree that there are parts of the game that the more modern players are missing today...things like freethrow shooting average for example, but overall average player talent is higher today, and if the NBA continues to grow it will be higher 10 years from now.

It is my contention that the reason we have a perception of less superstars in the league now is that since the average talent level is higher now it is harder for players to stand out from the crowd so to speak...in other words there arn't as many big fish in little ponds because the pond is bigger (NBA globalization).

I am 38 years old and have been watching basketball since the Finals were tape delayed and it is absurd to say that todays NBA is inferior to the NBA of the '80's for example. Take a look at the top 50 list and you see some names on there like Walton. Even prior to Walton's foot problems Timmy would have been able to post very good numbers against him. Patrick friggin Ewing is on that list !! Ewing wasn't that great man...only reason he made the list was the market he played in a large market.

As time goes by, average talent level increases if the sport continues to grow. Look at the 1980's O-line of the Redskins in football for example. the HOGS were so named because of their massive average of 280 lbs a man Did you know that up until 1984 there were never more than 8 players in the NFL in a given year that were over 300 lbs? Now 20% of the NFL's players tip the scales at 300 lbs or more. The reason...science (roids) and nutrition.

While I will agree that the NBA does not require all of same physical attributes of the NFL, science and nutrition are still major factors. A person like Wilt dominated like he did because he was FAR ahead of his time when he came into the league in 1959. Put Wilt in todays league and he fails to stand out like he did then. He would still be a great player, but the gap wouldn't be nearly as prominent.

In 20 years we will be defending the arguement that the likes of Shaq, Timmy, Kobe, Lebron etc. were far better than the "new" crop of players and we will be wrong then too most likely.

GREAT POST, i 100% agree with everything you said here.

The Gen bias is at times infuriating. I live in NY and i remember last year during the finals one of the local sports talk guys was fielding calls on the finals and he said that "Tim Duncan can win 5 more les and he will never crack his top 10" Guess who was number 10 on his list?? Bob Cousy, yeah that's right Bob Cousy. He was a great player but no GM in their right mind is taking Cousy over Duncan unless they want to be fired. I mean if he said Jabbar or Wilt i would understand but "Bob ing Cousy"

[Jimcs50]

Could SA have beaten the 80's Lakers?

No

The 80's champ had to go through that LA team to win it all. The Celtics beat them once.

Therefore, Celtics > Spurs

[Extra Stout]

Could SA have beaten the 80's Lakers?

No

The 80's champ had to go through that LA team to win it all. The Celtics beat them once.

Therefore, Celtics > Spurs

By that logic, 1985-86 Rockets > Spurs.

[urunobili]

Spurs could win a 7 games series against ANY team that EVER existed. Period