You calling out anyone else in the world for a lack of objectivity is hilarious. Talk about irony. I appreciate the laugh.
A Dynasty implies a team that dominates. Truth be told, every year the Spurs have taken the crown the league has been in a slump, thats why they won four championships and not four in a row. When they do that, then we'll talk dyansty. MJ, that was a dynasty, Timmy is just a lucky son of a b****. If the Spurs are considered a dynasty then Robert Horry is the greatest player to grace the game.
I would call the Spurs 3 titles in 5 years as a mini-dynasty. I agree that never really even having a chance to successfully defend, i.e. they have never even made the finals in consecutive years, makes it difficult to fully claim that as a dynasty. The 4 titles in 9 years is impressive, but not a dynasty. Like the earlier poster said, they were owned by the Lakers for 3 years there. You cannot have a dynasty over the time span another team won almost as many championships in that you did. That is why the 80's is neither known as a Lakers or a Celtics dynasty. Everyone arguing about getting lucky in series, and having a play or injury "allowing you" to win a title is shortsighted and pointless. Years where a team rolls throughout the entire playoffs are rare. And times when the same team does in in succession is even rare. EVER CHAMPIONSHIP TEAM HAS SOME LUCK AND CLOSE CALLS. Everyone knows this, its part of the game, how the ball bounces. No one really remembers those bounces that "allowed" the teams in 80's to win it all, and in 10 years, few people will remember what the bounces were that helped the Spurs, Lakers, etc. to win their titles. Heck, most will forget what years their titles were in. What people will remember will be if titles were in consecutive years, and number of titles/number of years ratio is that high and away better than other teams during that time span. Frankly, another thing about dynasties that people haven't said is the unmistakable sense of dominance that those teams have over that span. Generally that dominance is enough that many people who are not even into sports know about the team and are aware that they are something special. Most common people know something about the Lakers/Celtics in 80's (though many might think it was in the 70's), and everyone who has paid any attention to the news in the 90's knows about the Bulls. I do realize that Duncan's lack of publicity and namesake pales in comparison to Jordan, Magic, & Bird of those teams and hurts this. But when a team is a dynasty, it is not just the crazed sports fans who remember them as defining the league for a period of time, but the non-sports fans too.
the Spurs have lucked out when they have won their championships. The only one they have earned was when they played Detroit and beat them in 7. All the other times they have played bogus teams from the East and or got some type of benefit from the league( suspension, lockout). Tim Duncan is a great player there is no argument about that. I wouldn't call them a dynasty because they have not won consistently.
So using that logic, was the rest of the league just lucky when Duncan got hurt in 2000, when D.Anderson got hurt in 2001 or 2002 (forget which year), when Fisher hit his .4 shot since it shouldn't have counted (since you say they were lucky Horry missed a clutch 3, as if that never happens), or when Manu fouled Dirk like an idiot when they were up three and Dirk was taking a 2 point shot?
This is the silliest argument ever coming from a smart poster. I'm sure most if not all past dynasties were "dependent" on a star player.
Yeah, every championship is a result of luck. That's why we should put an asterisk on every one of them. I am not a Spurs fan. But I'm tired of people keep saying the 99 champ didn't really count. It's just silly jealousy. It's as silly as saying the Rockets won their rings because MJ was not there. To me, what counts is not winning championships, but being an elite team year in year out. I agree with the poster who said that it's better to have a contender over a decade than winning 3-peat and flaming out. I'd rather getting excited about my team every year knowing that we have a chance to win it all, then say, "Well, we'd have accomplished something if we could get out of the 1st round this year" for half a decade.
I brought up the close calls for Spurs wins because other said they easily could have had 5 or 6 titles. They could just as easily had 1 title as had 6, that was my point. And not every team has close calls. The 99 Spurs team wasn't taken deep any series. The middle Laker team wasn't challenged at all. Some Bulls teams rolled, some Lakers teams rolled. The Moses Phily team absolutely rolled. None of the recent 3 Spurs winners have rolled anything like that--this doesn't mean they didn't deserve it any less than the Rockets 2 wins did, but I wouldn't use the word dominate to describe, more like survive and be the last guy standing. And the fact is the Rockets did get a nice boon from the Nuggets as did the Spurs from the Warriors, as teams that matched up the best against them got knocked out early in huge upsets when those teams went into funks.
Just like the Lakers could only have 1 title if: 1) Duncan wasn't injured in 2000 2) Bavetta not being a complete idiot I like how Horry missing a 3 somehow means LA should've won, when the Spurs won in SIX GAMES. Why don't you look at Horry's shooting percentages for that entire series and get back to me.
Fanboys will be fanboys, but that doesn't mean anything. I wouldn't agree with the use of "dynasty" if it was the Rockets winning 4 titles in 9 years either. I'm not being jealous of the Spurs. I just question the logic of claiming a "dynasty" over 9 years that included a Lakers 3-peat, in which the Spurs failed to win the championship more often than they succeeded.
Don't forget D.Anderson being hurt or Divac tipping the ball to Horry for a winning 3 in the crucial Game 5. I'm sure we could think of many instances like this for every championship team. The luck argument would carry more weight in football where one game sends you home, but not in a 7 game series. There is also no way you can convince me that a team gets lucky and wins 4 championships.
Ok, lets use your logic. The Houston Rockets 2nd title run was lucky because it took a Mario Elie 3 in the corner with little time left to win it right? The Bulls title runs were lucky because it took numerous guys hitting shots during that run to win it. It took a John Paxson 3 to avoid a decisive Game 7 in Phoenix, it took a Steve Kerr 3 to avoid the Bulls losing control of a series, it took Michael Jordan hitting game winning shots TWICE to survive. It took Kobe Bryant hitting clutch shots against Indiana to avoid a 7 game series, I mean I could go on and on. It is incredibly stupid to write the Spurs title run as "lucky". How do you get lucky and win four world championships?
How are Bird's Celtics a dynasty? They won 3 championship and didn't win any of them back-to-back and they were as spread out as San Antonio's 4 championships.
Well we don't know because, unlike the Bulls and Lakers, their superstar is alway there. It's idiotic to penalize a team because their superstar is healthy or playing. Besides, Phil Jackson only called it an asterick championship because the Lakers got their asses kicked. I guarantee that if the Lakers had won the title he wouldn't have called it an asterick. Bottomline, it is unbelievably ridiculously to criticize a team because they have actually been healthy and together. Saying they might not be a playoff team without Duncan thus they're not a dynasty is ridiculous.
Exactly. Especially in Game 6 when San Antonio ran the Lakers off the Lakers homecourt. The Spurs were just clearly the superior team, whether Horry hit that shot or not. What would have happened if Horry hit that shot? The Spurs would have destroyed the Lakers in Game 6 and then took them apart in Game 7 at San Antonio most likely.
Yes they are, and it is going to make it all the sweeter when we bury their dynasty and start the Ming Dynasty next year baby ! DD
Tony Parker sounds like Rocky. 10 years ago, if you told me the Spurs would double the Rockets titles, I would have called you insane. F.
I dont think the spurs are a dynasty...they are a boring team to watch ther's nothing exciting to them TD sucks he gets dominated by yao he cant really use the back board on yao because he would have to shot it to high...Bruce bowen always puts his foot in the way when u jump so u can twist ur ankle (steve Francis,almost jamal crawford,Almost ray allen,steve francis again, almost t-mac)
