Discussion in 'Pistons and NBA' started by st8ofmind, Jun 13, 2007.
I say no.
I think you can. Spurs are about to win their 4th in 9 seasons, just like the 49ers did in the '80s, and everyone agrees that the Montana-led Niners were a dynasty. The one difference is that the Niners did get a back-to-back, at the end of their championship run. But if they had won in '87 and '89, instead of '88 and '89, who would have cared, in terms of whether they were a "dynasty" or not? In fact, that would given them the exact same 9-year pattern as the Spurs: winning in years 1, 5, 7, and 9. As it turned out, SF won the Super Bowl in years 1, 5, 8, and 9. I don't see why that constitutes a difference of any significance.
I say yes.
When you factor in division titles, regular season records and the award selections of the key players, you can build a compelling case.
If a team came from nowhere, won 3 straight titles and sank back into the middle of the pack, I'm not sure that is a dynasty. The key thing about a dynasty in my mind is that it spans more than one generation (Montana => Young).
In this regard, the Spurs qualify going from Johnson, Robinson, Elliott, Duncan to Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, Bowen.
In my mind, there are only 4 NBA dynasties. The Spurs, The Bulls, The Celts and the Lakers.
I think you do need a back to back. The Spurs are an excellent team, but a GREAT team....a dynasty team needs a back to back IMO.
I'd say that is a pretty big difference with respect to this discussion.
and the 99' title is a pretty weak one.
Also football has even shorter career spans and is more difficult to win due to single elimination/injuries being more common/shorter careers/more players per team/etc.
This is why I wanted the Pistons to win this year or even the Mavs if they had got there to put an end to all that Spurs Dynasty talk. I like the Spurs ( and love Barb San Ant) but it's something about David Robinson sitting on the sidelines grinning or Horry, Genobli and Bowen getting away with rough play that irks me about them. That is another reason why I wanted the Cavs to win at least a couple of games so this talk wouldn't get out of hand. Right now the Spurs are 15-5 in their four finals series with only the 2005 Pistons giving them the most trouble with 3 of those 5 losses.
Speaking of the Lakers Dynasty, I am assuming you are talking about the Magic led Lakers of 80's that sailed 5 Ships in 9 years and not the Shaq and Kobe 3 and done Lakers the at the beginning of this century that faked out superior competition in the western conference finals only to roll over the weaker competition the east thru up those three years.
Or the earlier (Minn/LA) Laker teams that went to 10 Finals in 15 years. They only won a single title, but that is a very impressive run. Transitioning from Elgin Baylor to Wilt Chamberlain.
I would think that it is not a necessity to win back-to-back, but it has to be at least 3 titles and the team has to be successful over the period of time. I agree that 3 and done Lakers do not qualify.
A title is a title. 4 titles from the same team led by one guy (Duncan) has got to be a dynasty. It's a level of excellence not seen by any other team besides the "big three".
A better way to ponder this question would be to ask yourself, if Detroit had done what San Antonio has done, would you feel they were a dynasty?
My answer is yes.
My problem with the Spurs is that we are talking about two different teams. The first two titles came with the Robinson era--not an incredibly successful era, though very good. Robinson struggles to win a ship on his own.
Yes, Duncan played on Robinson second ship but when the Spurs beat the Pistons, it was really his first Ship of that particular units in my mind. So I don't see a dynasty. If they win again next year Ok. But they seem to be maxed out this year.
I wouldn't say the Pistons have a Dynasty because they have 3 ships and have been to the East finals 10 out of 20 years or so.
The Spurs are getting the media hype of the moment.
My opinion is absolutely.
There's two conferences in the NBA and certainly the current Pistons have dominated the East for the last 4 years. There's a tendency to equate "dynasty" with the act of taking it all, from everyone. But I don't think that rings true. I think the current Spurs and Piston teams both represent "dynastys" in todays NBA world.
I don't think you can fairly compare the pre-expansion definition of the word dynasty with the post expansion reality of a diluted market. It's a different time and place and the etho of the league parent (Read NBA) is to keep the old definition of the word dynasty from ever replicating itself.
Outside of the Bulls, who really were making their last long run at the transition of the two periods, no team qualifies as an old fashioned pre expansion "dynasty".
The mechanics of building and holding talent (old method) are in opposition to the NBA's onus on marketable "super star" (todays method) over the "team". By the time you get one, you can't afford to keep him and the supporting cast around him. Especially since, in most cases, you really need three max type players to reach the finals.
From a marketing viewpoint the NBA cares more about each team having a marquee player to help sell the massess tickets and to fill that arenas corporate suites. The whole concept is about team parity from the product end. Each team needs a common commodity, the 'superstar'. If making that happens requires dumbing down the overall product, they know they (the NBA machine) will outlast our individual fading memories. Hence, we have to alter our personal views of what a dynasty in todays world really is - or there won't be any.
In fairness to teams like the Pistons and Spurs, in todays world- they have been too solid (dominant) for too long (4-5 years) to become an irrelevant afterthought simply because as individual fans we couldn't see the train coming before it hit us.
Separate names with a comma.