Not so fast: if the Lakers win this year or next, that will be 4 for them this decade, making them the best team this decade.
Ah, but they're a completely different team than the one that won earlier in the decade. The only thing left from that team is Kobe and Phil Jackson.
Well then the Spurs' first title(or half title) should be disqualified since the only links are Tim Duncan and Gregg Popovich. The reason I said winning consecutive titles is key to being considered a dynasty is because every previous dynasty in the NBA in the last 30 years has accomplished this(and no, I don't consider the Rockets among them): Showtime Lakers - Won 5 titles in 9 seasons, including consecutive championships in '87 and '88. Made it to the Finals every year in the 1980's except for '81 and '86. Jordan's Bulls - Won 6 titles in 8 seasons. Easily a dynasty. Shaq/Kobe Lakers - Won 3 straight titles and made the Finals in 4 out of 5 seasons. A dynasty. Now let's compare the Spurs since '99. They've won 4 titles. One was in a lockout-shortened season which doesn't make it illegitimate, but it does tarnish it somewhat. They've also never successfully defended any of their titles(pending this postseason's outcome) and have only been in the Finals in the 4 years they won the championship. Maybe on their own merit, they're a dynasty. But compared to what's preceded them in the last 30 years, they're not in the same class. Hell, even non-dynasties like the Bad Boy Pistons and Clutch City Rockets won consecutive titles. And the Pistons were a few free throws away from a three-peat.
if the shaq-kobe lakers are counted as a dynasty, then imo the spurs have to be counted as one, too. over the same time span, they achieved more than the lakers. and why many people like to put an * on spurs' first title? i don't understand. a title is a title. no what if's. they did play as many games as all the other championship teams. if you put an * on that one, in a sense you're acknowledging many others putting *'s on our 2 titles since we didn't face mj in the finals.
also, isn't the current spurs team the winningest team in ALL sports since duncan? that alone should make them a dynasty.
First of all, the Bird lead Celtics were not a dynasty. They weren't even the most dominant team in their era, Magic's Lakers were. I don't think "dynasty" allows room for 2nd place. The Spurs have yet to win even one back to back. They have been consistently near the top, that hardly convey's "dynasty". Consistently elite more like it. The recent Lakers champions could be called a mini-dynasty, 3 strait with a really dominant performance in between, but a slight stretch to use the word dynasty. For the NBA post 60s, off hand I can think of the Russell-Celts dynasty, Magic-Lakers dynasty, and Jordon-Bulls dynasty. Any other "dynasty" is kinda of a squishy use of the word.
I do not consider the Spurs as a dynasty, and I don't think that opinion can be supported with good arguments either. It's not because I'm hating on the Spurs, I actually respect the consistent quality they have maintained for the past decade. There is something to be said for staying at or near the top year in and year out, rather than getting a 3-peat and plummeting (before finally climbing back this year) as the Lakers have. However, 4 championships in 9 years is nowhere close to dynasty material IMO. The dictionary definition of "dynasty" is a "succession" of rulers from the same line. If we interpret this strictly, then a sports "dynasty" would have to win the championship several years straight. Even if we give an allowance of a year or two of interrupted rule, I still think that a dynasty should at least win the championship more often than not during its period of supposed rule. 4 championships in 9 years means failing to win it all for 5 of those years. The Spurs have more championship failures than wins during their "dynasty." Furthermore, the Lakers had their own 3-peat dynasty within the same period. And during the Lakers' reign, they were CLEARLY superior to the Spurs. How can the Spurs have a dynasty that encompasses another team's dynasty? Not to take anything away from the Spurs, but I think this whole "dynasty" talk that began just last year is giving them too much credit.
If the Lakers were a dynasty and the Celtics weren't then there shouldn't have been the kind of tit-for-tat year after year. You make it sound like the Celtics were like the '04 Pistons. They had an impressive roster for a long long time.
still, it all depends on how "dynasty" is defined. i'm fine with some saying you'd have to 3-peat to qualify, though i disagree. like i said, this is a loosely used term. the nba doesn't hand out a "dynasty" trophy each decade.
The Spurs are a dynasty IMO. Outside of the old school Celtics, 80's Lakers and MJ's Bulls, what other team has been as dominant over a 9 year stretch? They have won 4 championships. Of the five they lost: 99/00 - their main player missed the playoffs 00/01 - they lost to the champs in the WCF and were arguably the 2nd best team in basketball 01/02 - they lost to the WC champs in the semis and were arguably the 2nd or 3rd best team in basketball 03/04 - they lost to a team with 4 HOF players (WC champs) in the semis and were arguably the 2nd or 3rd best team in basketball (Fisher shot) 05/06 - they lost to the WC champs in the semis because of the most idiotic foul in playoff basketball history, and they were arguably the 2nd or 3rd best team in basketball They had a great chance to get back to two more Finals and were arguably two shots away (Fisher shot, Manu foul). Again, what teams have had a better run that that? They are in the WCF again this season, and have had the #1 winning % in all of sports over that timeframe. How is that not a dynasty? Folks say LA had a more dominant dynasty during the same period, however they fail to recognize that Duncan missed that first year and the Spurs were retooling over the next two (they were an older team when they won in 99). Yet they still contended every year for the ring. Compare that to other teams that rebuilt. They also fail to recognize SA was the team that dethroned the LA dynasty. Yes, I recognize LA did the same in the following season...with the superman team. Most people consider the 80's Celtics to be a dynasty. They never repeated. Someone said well at least both LA and Bos got to the Finals every year in the 80's. Well, I'm sure that woulda been the case for SA too, if they weren't in the same conference as LA. Lastly, please stop throwing the * on the 99 team. I bet every person on this board was rooting for the Rockets to win the title in 99. Every team member tried to win in 99. Unless you woulda revoked that title in your mind if our team won, then stop hating.
Doesn't mean a thing. It's like saying Shaq and Wilt missed roughly 4-5 out of every 10 shots. Still about the best in the sport. The Spurs' supposed dynasty is not on the level of what Mikan's Lakers, Russell's Celtics, Jordan's Bulls, or even the Kobe/Shaq Lakers were able to do. Furthermore, what you say here does not address my point, which is that the Spurs have not put together a succession of uninterrupted championship reigns, or even achieved a bare minimum of winning the championship the majority of years.
Dominated the west for ten years? Hmmmmmm, I could have sworn the Lakers 3-peated as well as miami and detroits wins. So since 1998-99 (strike year) its. Spurs - 4 Lakers - 3 Miami - 1 Detroit - 1 Hardly a domination. They have been the most consistent.... but not prolific.
The whole dynasty thing is used to frequently. IMO.... there have been 3. 60's Celts. 80's Lakers. 90's Bulls.
Some of you guys are in denial. If the Rockets were in the same boat as the Spurs and won 4 titles with the same type of consistency you'd say we're a dynasty.
dynasty is minimum 4 in a row at the rec center we'd win 6/7games for the night in a row then call it a dynasty on the way home losing a game in between = no dynasty.
I would argue that longevity and sustained success is more impressive than having the stars align for a consecutive (and shorter) period of time. Then again, I'm a Rockets fan and I agree with you. The Rockets back-to-back is more impressive than the Spurs 4 in 9 years. "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then; I contradict myself. I am large: I contain multitudes." Walt Whitman
why is the admiral included in this photo? http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playo...olumnist=hollinger_john&page=FinalFour-080523
