Question:
Should we consider the Spurs a Dynasty?
AgentZero
2007-06-08 08:14:22 UTC
Assuming they win v the Cavs... thats 4 titles in 9 years.

I say no. Only because a dynasty should dominate over a prolonged period of time. Without significant interruptions.

The Spurs had a Laker team threepeat duning this period.

What do you think?
Fourteen answers:
2007-06-08 08:25:35 UTC
No. The titles are too spread out over too many years and line-ups. A dynasty should be with the same nucleus of players. I think If they win this year, Tim Duncan has to be looked at as a first tier all -timer though (elevating him past Malone, Barkley, Isiah, and putting him with Bird, Magic, Jordan).
ajaaron5000
2007-06-08 15:36:17 UTC
THESE ARE DYNASTYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NOT SA SPURS

Year Western Champion1 Margin Eastern Champion

1947 Chicago Stags 1-4 Philadelphia Warriors

1948 Baltimore Bullets 4–2 Philadelphia Warriors

1949 Minneapolis Lakers 4-2 Washington Capitols

1950 Minneapolis Lakers1 4–2 Syracuse Nationals

1951 Rochester Royals 4–3 New York Knicks

1952 Minneapolis Lakers 4–3 New York Knicks

1953 Minneapolis Lakers 4–1 New York Knicks

1954 Minneapolis Lakers 4–3 Syracuse Nationals

1955 Ft. Wayne Pistons 3-4 Syracuse Nationals

1956 Ft. Wayne Pistons 1-4 Philadelphia Warriors



Year Western Champion Result Eastern Champion

1957 St. Louis Hawks 3-4 Boston Celtics

1958 St. Louis Hawks 4-2 Boston Celtics

1959 Minneapolis Lakers 0-4 Boston Celtics

1960 St. Louis Hawks 3-4 Boston Celtics

1961 St. Louis Hawks 1-4 Boston Celtics

1962 Los Angeles Lakers 3-4 Boston Celtics

1963 Los Angeles Lakers 2-4 Boston Celtics

1964 San Francisco Warriors 1-4 Boston Celtics

1965 Los Angeles Lakers 1-4 Boston Celtics

1966 Los Angeles Lakers 3-4 Boston Celtics

1967 San Francisco Warriors 2-4 Philadelphia 76ers

1968 Los Angeles Lakers 2-4 Boston Celtics

1969 Los Angeles Lakers 3-4 Boston Celtics



Year Western Champion Result Eastern Champion

1991 Los Angeles Lakers 1–4 Chicago Bulls

1992 Portland Trailblazers 2–4 Chicago Bulls

1993 Phoenix Suns 2–4 Chicago Bulls

1994 Houston Rockets 4–3 New York Knicks

1995 Houston Rockets 4–0 Orlando Magic

1996 Seattle SuperSonics 2–4 Chicago Bulls

1997 Utah Jazz 2–4 Chicago Bulls

1998 Utah Jazz 2–4 Chicago Bulls



HELLO are you guys blind check the records a dynasty is a team who dominates an Era and does it with the same core players. You can only accredit the spurs with two titles because their main core in the 1999 championship was duncan, robinson, and ellis in 2003 & 2005 their main core is duncan, parker, & ginobli they have to atleast win three more to be considered a dynasty. Also they need to dominate yes they have dominated west for the last five or six years but they have only dominated the NBA for two of those years. Look at the stats i listed what made those teams dynasty they DOMINATED year after year after year, not one year they won the championship and then the next two years they didnt they DOMINATED and the spurs have not been consistent in dominating the NBA the only team or player that could be considered a dynasty if any during this era would be the the lakers with shaq and kobe they had the west locked for three years straight with no breaks, THATS DOMINANCE it was a small reign but still a small dynasty because they would have offically been considered a dynasty if they would have won one more. I think until the SPUR can show DOMINANCE thru out the NBA they are only what i would consider a GREAT team with a GREAT COACH because the only common factor between their three championship is GREG POPOVICH AND TIM DUNCAN
arimarismacon
2007-06-08 15:48:27 UTC
I think that a dynasty is competitive over an extended period of time and challenges for a championship every year.



With that said I believe the Spurs qualify. Even when the Lakers had their 3-peat the Spurs were considered one of the major challengers to win the championship. The Spurs have made the playoffs ten straight years which is currently the longest active streak. During that streak they have won at least 64% of their regular season games, and only two times have they won less than 70%. They have won six division titles, had the best record in the league four times. They have the best overall record in the league during the nine year span. When Robinson retired they just kept winning.



Even with the Lakers in the middle the Spurs deserve the Dynasty title if they win another championship.
Cherry R
2007-06-08 18:00:35 UTC
I think the concept of a "dynasty" has changed over time, because teams' level of competition and competency have been fairly equalized.



That being said, I think the Spurs are well on their way to a dynasty. They don't win in consecutive years, but they are a given in any playoff series. They are always The Competition, outlasting the Lakers' 3-peat, the Pistons and the Heat's one-year stints.
JMac440
2007-06-08 15:44:59 UTC
in basketball you need to keep a nucleus of players together and win over a period of time... I say if they win this series then they are a dynasty. You can't count the first one... that was more the end of the David Robinson era than the beginning of this present team... look at the rosters and starting lineups and you'll see what I mean...



like I said though.... they win this one... they're a dynasty.



I agree in large part with ajaaron above, he makes good points, but in the modern era, this might be as close as you'll find.
Alice K
2007-06-08 15:33:10 UTC
I say yes. They've won 6 of the last 9 division titles, 4 of the last 8 conference titles, and 3 of the last 7 championships. And they're going to win the championship this year.
2007-06-08 15:18:34 UTC
OF course we whould. 4 in 9 years, that almost every other year. They're almost like the Patrious in football (within recent years)



They have been dominating the association for quite some time now, they are making their name in history. Defidently a dynasty
2007-06-08 15:18:20 UTC
Probably not a dynasty. Shack and kobe were a 3 peat dynasty for a while. But spurs win on and off so its not really a dynasty.
dre
2007-06-08 15:22:15 UTC
they won this series the exact time the cavs won the eastern conference, so if the can win next yr, they are definately a dynasty
Joe J
2007-06-08 15:28:37 UTC
As much as I hate them, they may be considered a dynasty if they win this one. But it won't be cause of stupid popovich or the other idiots. It will be cause of Duncan.
?
2007-06-08 18:23:12 UTC
Only two NBA/pro basketball dynasties in my opinion:



1) The George Mikan and Minneapolis Lakers dynasty which won six pro championships in seven years as the Minneapolis Lakers - 4 in the NBA and two in the NBA's predecessor pro basketball league) with only a one year where the Minneapolis Lakers were not the pro basketball champs in a seven year period.



2) The Bill Russell and Boston Celtics dynasty of 11 NBA titles in 12 NBA Finals over a 13 year period where only one year where the Boston Celtics were not in the NBA Finals in a 13 year period while winning 11 out of 12 NBA Finals championships in a 13 year period including EIGHT straight NBA titles and never going more than a year without a NBA title. Now that is a dynasty.



Only the Minneapolis Lakers and the Boston Celtics have won consistent NBA titles as neither team went more than one year between NBA titles.



As far as Duncan:



1) 1999 NBA ring

2) 2000 chance at 2000 NBA ring on a great team, but Duncan blew out a knee at the very end of the 2000 season

3) 2001 Duncan's knee held out until deep until the 2001 playoffs when the knee gave out on him as he continued to play but couldn't jump deep into the 2001 playoffs

4) 2002 Duncan's knee held out until deep until the 2002 playofffs when the knee gave out on him as he continued to play but couldn't jump deep into the 2002 playoffs

5) 2003 NBA ring

6) 2004 Duncan's knee held out until deep until the 2003 playoffs when the knee gave out on him as he continued to play but couldn't jump deep into the 2004 playoffs after three straight years of playing basketball without a layoff (2003 NBA Spurs championship, 2003 NBA Spurs World Team championship in Italy, playing on the USA Olympic Team during the pre-qualifying and the Olympics, so for 2002, 2003, and 2004 Tim Duncan played nothing but basketball without a rest

7) 2005 NBA ring

8) 2006 lost in seven games to the Western Conference finals after the playoff schedule forced the Spurs to play two entire NBA playoff games including Game One in the Western Conference Finals and fly half way across the country in less than 38 hours and played Game Two in the Western Conference Finals resulting in three NBA playoff games being played in less than an 86 hour period which NBA Commissioner David Stern apologized for saying Conference Finals scheduling like this requiring that a team, in this case be required to fly across the country and play 3 NBA playoff games all in a matter of less than 86 hours). This 2006 playoff schedule gave Dallas an unfair advantage in the 2006 Western Conference Finals as Dallas only had to play two games within a 48 hour period and no cross country flights during this same period where the Spurs, in my opinion, had the better team, but were just worn out between the beating Sacramento in California before returning to Texas and playing Game One of the Western Confernce Finals all in less than 38 hours.

9) 2007 in 2007 NBA Finals



Tim Duncan had he not had the knee injury and the 2006 Western Confernce playoff scheduling problem for which NBA Commissioner David Stern has apologized for could very well have been in nine consecutive NBA Finals had the 2000 major knee injury at the very end of the 2000 NBA regular season allowed Duncan's knee not be fully recover in 2000, 2001, and 2002.



Tim Duncan's nine years at playing at the top is a good run but due to injury technically would not call this a dynasty of the Spurs dominance of the NBA for nine years from 1999 to 2007 in the Tim Duncan era of the Spurs dominance of the NBA.



But to me dynasties are like the George Mikan Dynasty and Minneapolis Lakers dynasty (6 titles in seven years) or the Bill Russell Dynasty and the Boston Celtics dynasty (11 titles and 12 NBA Finals in thirteen years).



For Duncan and the Spurs, they have dominated the NBA for nine years and the Lakers three peat would have never happened had Duncan not had major knee surgery just days before the 2000 NBA playoffs and had Duncan's knee held out the entire 100 or 110 game plus exhibition season, regular season, and playoffs as Duncan's knee gave out deep into the Western Conference playoffs in both 2001 and 2002.



So, the Lakers three peat was somewhat handed to them as they did not have to play the injured Duncan in 2000 and in 2001 and 2002 Duncan's knee which was great during the regular season, gave out deep into the playoffs of those years, so, the Lakers three peat should have an asterisk as the 2000, 2001, 2002 Lakers either played against an out for the playoffs Duncan or a one legged Duncan.



Still, Duncan one one leg is better than the other PFs in the league but could not carry an entire team on his shoulders.



The Lakers, in my opinion, only had a three peat because of Duncan's late season 2000 major knee surgery.



But, no I do not consider the Spurs a dynasty during the Duncan era; however, the Spurs have had the best record percentage wide of any of the four major North American sports in the Duncan era if that qualifies for a dynasty which it does not with me. It just means that Duncan and the Spurs from 1997 to 2007 have just had the best ten year win loss record in major North American sports.



I think Duncan would be satisfied with that as major knee injuries do occur and you cannot play the "what if" game.
rockstarhooligan
2007-06-08 15:19:10 UTC
hahahahahahaahhahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahhaahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah you're in the wrong section dude
freedoggy77
2007-06-08 15:18:49 UTC
nah they are too boring
lebron james
2007-06-08 15:20:15 UTC
no they suck


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...