My friends and I were trying to decide which teams were dynasties. We werent sure if the 80's Celtic were a Dynasty.
They won 3 and made the Finals 6 time I believe, the Lakers are considered a dynasty with 3 and 4 Finals appearances. So, yeah.
Well, from 79-88 61 wins per season 8 division titles 3 NBA titles 5 finals appearances Argueably the greatest team in NBA history (1985-86) Yeah, I'd say that qualifies, unless only one "dynasty" is allowed at one time, which would make the Lakers the 80's dynasty, as they won 5 titles. Of course, the word "dynasty" is thrown around quite a bit. Some people call the 1996-2002 Lakers a dynasty. Can a dynasty last only six seasons?
Would that Qualify San Antonio as Dynasty? If San Antonio wins this next week that would be 3 championships in 7 years and have won more games in the last 7 years than any other Professional franchise.
I say the Celtics and Lakers both shared dynasties during the 80's, considering that at least one of the two was in the NBA finals every single freaking year from 1979 till 1989 (and then the Lakers again in 1991). That's 11 out of 12 years... absolutely amazing. The Celtics won 3 championships, the Lakers won 5 championships, and they played each other for the title 3 separate times (with the Lakers winning 2 of them). I don't think a east-west rivalry could ever happen like that over an extended period of time again (or at least not w/in the next 30 years)... Bird and Magic were just that special, and inextricably linked seemingly from the very first time they both laced up a set of sneakers and started bouncing a ball. There's a reason why the NBA is so huge today... and it basically started w/ these two players and their teams (and was exploded upon by Jordan).
I'm going to go with no. It was an era, and one of the elite teams in NBA history, but not a dynasty. The Jordan Bulls would be much closer to that definition. Evan
So, you're telling me that this is not a dynasty???: Making it to the Finals in 81, 84, 85, 86, 87.... Winning it all in 81, 84, and 86..... Having the MVP in 84, 85, 86.... If that's not considered a dynasty in modern-day sports, then the word needs to be re-defined. The Pistons, Rockets, and the current Spurs teams had a good era with some good teams. The Lakers, Celtics, and Bulls are among the dynasties for the ages.
The Spurs are an bunch of floppers...led by the king of all floppers Manu. I would not say are a dynasty....just a good team.
Since there is no quantifiable way of measuring a dynasty, I'd say that the Celtics, Spurs, my sunglasses, a tin of Altoids, and Wilford Brimley's sweaty taint are all dynasties.
getting swept and dominated in the playoffs between championships does not make a dynasty, so the spurs are not a dynasty. They only team that beat the celtics were the Lakers with Magic and Kareem and sixers with Moses and Dr. J. The Celtics never got dominated.
They lost in the first round to the suns and were manhandled buy the lakers. The year they broke through, the whole laker team was decimated by injuries.
the year they lost to the suns duncan was hurt. so far the only team that has beat a healthy duncan was shaq and kobe and malone and stockton i think
But if you want to use injuries as an excuse, it goes both ways. For example, the Spurs lost to the Suns in that first round without Duncan, arguably the best player in the league. They were manhandled by the Lakers without Derek Anderson (their second best player) and with Robinson playing injured. I'm not going to make excuses, though - they lost, and that's all that matters. Likewise, however, it's pretty lame to attribute the win over the '03 Lakers to LA injuries. If Kobe or Shaq were not playing, that's one thing... but the nagging injuries they had were no different than most teams have this time of the season. You just heard a lot more about them because they were the glamour team that gets more talk from the fans and media. If you want to make a case for the '03 Spurs getting lucky with injuries, the series they got lucky in was the Dallas one, not the Lakers. The Lakers just didn't have as good of a team.
Dynasty means dynasty. It means being king of the hill for a good long time. The Russell Celtics (59-66, or 57-69 depending on your standard) were the only no-questions-about it dynasty in the NBA. Back-to-back titles means the squad was legit and all but kills any fluke talk. Three-peats constitute a run. Four-straight, and you're talking dynasty. Winning 3 titles over 6 years is a good era. Making the finals doesn't mean squat in this discussion, unless you want to amend it to "Eastern Conference Dynasty." Ask the Jazz or the Nets about that. Having the MVP likewise means squat. If the topic was whether this was one of the greatest teams assembled, sure! If you want to call it a Lakers/Celtics dynasty, sure! If you want to say we had a Lakers/Spurs dynasty, sure. The Bulls' two three-peats probably comes close enough to qualify. But Dynasty means dynasty. You have to lord of the league, and that means nothing short of titles. I say this, fully appreciating the 80s Celtics as being one of the top 5 squads in history. My point is, both the Celtics and the Lakers couldn't be having a dynasty over the same period of time. Doesn't work like that. Evan
