Watching maybe the ugliest shooting game I've witnessed in the playoffs (granted both teams are superb defensively buuut both teams also missed a lot of open shots), my mind naturally wandered at times.
The initial question: Is this Spurs team officially a 'Dynasty'? (my heart said no for some reason but my mind couldn't justify that, it was telling me it HAD to be)
which led to... What IS a dynasty really? What ingredients go into that definition?
I've got a few ideas and I'll get them up here later (I just want my picture to start movin' on down).
4 comments:
yea everyone but bruce bowen was off. without him i think SA would've dropped that game even though lebron and boobie combined for 0-10 3pt! yuk.
good question- 'what is a dynasty?'
kind of like 'what is an MVP?'
tough to come to a concrete definition.
i can't say if this spurs team is a dynasty or not, but that one stat keeps popping into my head.. i'm sure i've cited it a million times, but i think it's worth mentioning again, as i think it speaks volumes about the team and about timmy in particular.
'the spurs winning % since T Duncan has been in the league is higher than that of any pro sports franchise during the same time period'
yankees, lakers, red wings, the list goes on...
even if they had 0 rings during this time (which would be tough) i think they may still be considered a dynasty by some (not me, but i know a guy in new braunfels...) if only because of this one stat.
of course, they're no 'backintheday celtics'* but the % of times they have won the title is about the same over the last 8 years =) ... now if they can only win 12 out of the next 22 titles... timmy's gonna need some bionic replacement legs in a few years...
*i looked it up on wikipedia and they listed a bunch of oldschool dynastys. most impressive to me is the 30 year stranglehold the celtics had on the nba. 30 years!?
Boston Celtics (1956 to 1986 16 NBA titles in 30 years overall. 26 winning seasons, 20 division titles, 18 conference titles)
yowza
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/preview?gid=2007061405&prov=ap
article about whether or not the spurs are really a dynasty right now. pretty biased towards 'yes' but still...
the best part is towards the end when they talk about the
'the Cleveantonio Spurvaliers'
yep.
Good article; hit the nail on the head. I probably should have formulated my followup before reading anything though cuz I think it just changed my stance a little.
My requirements list started with the following:
- general regular season dominance over consecutive years
- significant number of championships within the same timeline
- homogeneity of core players within the same timeline
The Spurs seem to fit that definition though I'm hesitant to include the '99-'02 in the discussion for a few reasons. The biggest of which is that so many players from the '99 champion team left the team so that the core changed almost completely (Tim & Pop were the only common players between the '99 team and the '03 team, I think). Granted, they, admirably, stayed competitive during they're rebuilding around Duncan but they rebuilt nonetheless. No more Elie and Avery. They presented the world with lightning-quick Tony P. and Gyro-Ginobili.
For the same reason, I couldn't call the 30 year span of the Celtics one Dynastic era. I think I'd divide it into one definite ('57-'69) and another possible ('80s). They won a couple others in the 70's but I don't think those two fit the bill. Even the one in the 80's I think has to be permanently tied to the Lakers of the same era. From 1980 til 1991 the Lakers or the Celtics were in the finals every year except 1990 (11 of 12). As the '91 Lakers had such different personnel than their 80s couterparts, I think I'd actually define the BosAngeles Laktics as 1980-1989. LA made an appearance 8 times in those 10 years and won it all 5. BOS made it 5 times and won 3. Just seems like you have to couple them together.
The Bulls of the 90s are the obvious successor to those two legendary squads. I'd love to have seen Houston actually beat the Bulls one (or both) of the years Mike decided to play baseball but there's something to be said about his 'break' from the game. I think it actually adds to the legend. Had he stayed, the fatigue, I believe, would have killed their playoff chances. Winning a title adds between 14 and 26 games to the end of the season. After winning 3 in a row, that team has played a significant amount more games than most teams (likely about 60, almost a whole season) in the same stretch. So... even though it didn't happen, and probably wouldn't have, most people just assume that the Bulls would have won those two as well because they won the 3 preceding and the 3 following.
What followed the Bulls was a 6 year stretch by the Lakers ('99-'04), 3 of which were fairly dominant and the other 3 seem marred by internal bickering and childishness ('99 on the court, '03&'04 off). The 2001 championship may be one of the best playoff teams ever (only lost 1 game: swept the Blazers, Kings, & Spurs and lost only game 1 to the 76ers [which was arguably due to rustiness of 10 days off as they won 4 solidly following]) so it adds a little but I don't think it's enough to push them into Dynastic territory. Had they stuck together since, maybe... even that is a big maybe.
Finally, back to the Spurs. I think what Fisher said in the yahoo article is about right. This year's show against PHX and their dominance in each of the other series has to push them up to and maybe past what the Lakers did (though this is only their 3rd during the period that I'd count and none were won back-to-back). For those reasons, I hesitate to call them a Dynasty but I believe that they will accomplish it over the next few years. I want to see them repeat. I'd love to see them threepeat. And if they can somehow manage 4 in the next 6 years (they're going to have to find a Ginobili replacement) they've got to go down as one of the best ever... easily rivaling Jordan's Bulls, Larry's Celts, & Magic's Showtime.
Maybe my final requirement to a Dynasty... you have to be able to give their accomplishments ownership by their best player, to be able to label them somebody's team.
Long live Timmy's Texans.
I would vote for dynasty right now. I think the only reason that they are not is that people have been throwing that word around and now most people are sick of it. But if SA repeats next year they are definitely a dynasty. That would be 4 titles in 6 years and back-to-back.
Post a Comment