Is there any point to comparing NBA dynasties between eras?

Dynasties in the NBA are defined by a player or players. Bill Russell won 11 championships from 1959-1969, but that was when the NBA was a of collection 8 teams growing to 12 and before the merger of the ABA, a salary cap and free agency.

After the merger, the 1976/77 season had 24 teams, making it more difficult for one team to dominate and parity ensued.

I believe the modern era and pont from which comparisons can be made began in 1984/85 when the salary cap/free agency came into effect with 23 teams. With that assumption, Jordan's Bulls & their 6 championships in the 90's would have to be #1.

Today, there are 30 teams and two teams have dominated since 1999. In a close second to the Bulls, come Kobe's Lakers with 5 championships. This year, Duncan's Spurs can tie the Lakers if they take the title. Go Spurs Go!!!

I think even more impressive than the number of titles is that, if they win one this season, they'll be the first team to win titles 13 years apart.

Yeah, 5 titles would be nice. But even bigger is 13 straight 50-win seasons. The consistent quality of the product on and off the court is what has set this organization apart from the others.

The Bulls were good when they had Jordan. The Lakers are good when Kobe has a decent post player.

San Antonio has made the playoffs 21 of the last 22 seasons. 31 times in its 35 years as an NBA franchise.

The only other team never to lose an NBA finals series is Chicago.

You can say that they've had good luck, getting David Robinson and Tim Duncan. But that will only take you so far. Fact is, it's the best organization in sports, from the top down, and the numbers back it up.

It is hard to compare the Spurs to those other dynasties, because none of their championships have been back-to-back. They have had some near misses (2004, 2006 come to mind), but have never dominated the way that Chicago did in the 90's and LA did for the first 3 years of the previous decade.

They've just been steady and systematic. Their "dynasty" has been written by a long string of being at or near the top, rather than a short burst of being "the best of the best". I honestly can't think of any other team in sports that has been this good, for this long, and won multiple championships yet failed to win any of them back-to-back.

[This message has been edited by MassAggie97 (edited 5/3/2012 11:29a).]

And now I'm pissed off at Manu for that mindless foul on Dirk in '06.

I've never heard of starting the modern era in 1985. Did the salary cap/free agency changes *really* make more of a difference than the 1977 merger? Not only did they add all those teams in 1977, but also many of the best players in the world came over from the ABA. I think 1977 is the standard date for the modern NBA, and so the Lakers and Celtics are factored in.

Using OP standards..... I would put an * to the Kobe Lakers. The first two were Shaq's. He was the one of if not the best player in the League those two years.

quote:

---

Fact is, it's the best organization in sports, from the top down, and the numbers back it up.

---

quote:

---

And now I'm pissed off at Manu for that mindless foul on Dirk in '06.

---

Still not over that. Good chance we'd have back to back to back titles from 05-07.

Internet fan:

Celtics won 3, Lakers won 5 in the 80's. We can include them in the lists of dyanasties.

I think the salary cap changed things significantly, but you are absolutely correct that the NBA/ABA merger raised the bar just by significantly increasing the number of teams. Boston & LA had a leg up on everyone in the 80's because they started their runs with the talent & the Larry Bird Rule when the salary cap began. So, they could hang on to the talent they already had signed until they retired.

quote:

---

Still not over that. Good chance we'd have back to back to back titles from 05-07.

---

That one hurts me more than the 0.4 second shot. The Spurs were struggling in that Laker series in '04 anyway, and there was no guarantee that they would have won that series. If Manu doesn't commit that foul in '06, the game is essentially over on the inbound play after the shot.

Yup. Manu's dumb foul cost them the 06 title.

What is the dumbest argument to me though is that a team that wins 3 titles in 3 years is a dynasty, but a team that won 3 titles in 5 years (and barely missed the other 2 years) is not? That's just idiotic no matter how you look at it. Hell, they won about half of the NBA championships from 1999-2007. How is that not a dynasty?

One thing about the Magic era Laker dynasty. They could have had more had it not been for the quality of their foes, especially the Boston Celtics, but also the Sixers.

The era of the Bulls never had any other great teams for them to conquer.

quote:

---

I think even more impressive than the number of titles is that, if they win one this season, they'll be the first team to win titles 13 years apart.

Yeah, 5 titles would be nice. But even bigger is 13 straight 50-win seasons. The consistent quality of the product on and off the court is what has set this organization apart from the others.

The Bulls were good when they had Jordan. The Lakers are good when Kobe has a decent post player.

San Antonio has made the playoffs 21 of the last 22 seasons. 31 times in its 35 years as an NBA franchise.

The only other team never to lose an NBA finals series is Chicago.

You can say that they've had good luck, getting David Robinson and Tim Duncan. But that will only take you so far. Fact is, it's the best organization in sports, from the top down, and the numbers back it up.

---

HORSE****

Titles are the only thing that matters. Making the playoffs in the nba is not an impressive accomplishment. Over half the teams in the league make the playofs for christ sakes!

Boston, LA, and Chicago are all better organizations, with Boston and LA being head and shoulders better than everyone else with 17 and 16 titles respectively

You are kidding yourself if you think that Boston and Chicago have run better organizations in the past 20 years. I'll give you LA, but Boston was pathetic after Bird until a few years ago, and Chicago has done absolutely nothing since Jordan left. Spurs have at least been in the conversation every single year as one of the teams to beat since 94, excluding about 4 years.

[This message has been edited by Dr. Ag 2015 (edited 5/3/2012 8:52p).]

quote:

---

Titles are the only thing that matters.

---

So, in the past 20 years, the Spurs have been approximately four times the organization the Celtics have been. Is my math right?

quote:

---

Chicago has done absolutely nothing since Jordan left.

---

Lots of nonsense on this thread.

Only team to win titles 13 years apart? That's idiotic.

Why not string the Russell Celtics to the Havlicek/Cowen Celtics and then to the Bird Celtics?

Or Mikan Lakers to West Lakers to Showtime Lakers and to Shaq/Bryant Lakers?

The Lakers and Celtics weren't awesome dynasties in 1980s? One of them was in Finals in all ten years. They went head to head three times.

Lakers in Shaq/Bryant era have had much better organization. Besides the titles, they've had other Finals appearances.

quote:

---

Boston, LA, and Chicago are all better organizations, with Boston and LA being head and shoulders better than everyone else with 17 and 16 titles respectively

---

OK, yeah, Boston has a slew of titles. But they have only one more than the Spurs do since the ABA/NBA merger in 1975. The Spurs have twice as many championships than the Celts do since the institution of a salary cap for the 84-85 season.

Chicago was good for the Jordan era and that's it. That's not the sign of a great organization, it's dumb luck that Portland drafted Sam Bowie. Granted that Phil Jackson is a great coach, but it's only because he has the wherewithal to manage the egos of the game's biggest stars.

LA, well, **** LA. Even with all the resources they have, they won't win unless they have a healthy Kobe AND a hall-of-fame coach AND a dominant big man AND an above-average PG. If they miss one of those pieces, they are liable to fall out of the playoffs entirely.

[This message has been edited by Ditka (edited 5/3/2012 9:30p).]

quote:

---

Only team to win titles 13 years apart? That's idiotic.

Why not string the Russell Celtics to the Havlicek/Cowen Celtics and then to the Bird Celtics?

Or Mikan Lakers to West Lakers to Showtime Lakers and to Shaq/Bryant Lakers?

---

Should have qualified. Only player/coach combo to do so, referencing Duncan/Popovich.

Junk, do you disagree? They've made the conference finals once since and it took them 13 years to get into the conversation again. Krause ran that team into the ground after Jordan left. They were great with MJ but that was purely because of Jordan, not the organization.

quote:

---

They were great with MJ but that was purely because of Jordan, not the organization.

---

I loved Jordan's Bulls and I agree with this.

Jerry Kraus did three things correctly. It might have been the only three things they got right.

1. Fall into MJ in draft
2. Draft Pippen
3. Get Phil Jackson

The only free agent that I remember doing well was post-injury Ron Harper. They might have signed Paxson, Kerr as free agents too.

MJ and Pippen were awesome combo. But they were no comparison to teams of 1980s. The rules of NBA were stifling and led to nearly unwatchable basketball.

I personally don't think the 2009-2010 Laker championships shoul be considered with the 2000-2002 championships as one dynasty. Too far apart....completely different teams. Same for Spurs. 1999 should not be paired with 2003, 2005, 2007 as part of the dynasty. Same for if they win this year...too far apart.

All of these of course help Kobe and Duncan's legacies of course.

Agree with 99, but if they win it this year, I think having the Big 3 and Pop qualifies it as part of the 03-07 dynasty.

Jordan's Bulls beat a lot of quality teams. 93 knicks, 93 suns, 96 Sonics, 97-98 jazz with Stockon-Malone-Sloan in their primes. The great teams don't become great by beating scrubs. They become great by overcoming the best.

quote:

---

I've never heard of starting the modern era in 1985. Did the salary cap/free agency changes *really* make more of a difference than the 1977 merger? Not only did they add all those teams in 1977, but also many of the best players in the world came over from the ABA. I think 1977 is the standard date for the modern NBA, and so the Lakers and Celtics are factored in.

---

I've always used either the Merger in 77 or the 3-point line in 80. I prefer the 3-point line because Portland/Washington/Seattle have proven to be kinda outliers and the 80 Lakers are really when the NBA came to its modern form.

quote:

---

Yup. Manu's dumb foul cost them the 06 title.

---

I don't hate Manu because of it. Look through the videos in the Manu thread and he is always the guy that goes for the play. More times than not, he makes it. And he almost made it on that play. He came up short on that one, but I will take that one miss with all the makes he has made that made the Spurs run possible.

quote:

---

Only team to win titles 13 years apart? That's idiotic.

---

It would be the only team to win titles 13 years apart with the same coach and same star player. And it would be impressive.

quote:

---

I've always used either the Merger in 77 or the 3-point line in 80. I prefer the 3-point line because Portland/Washington/Seattle have proven to be kinda outliers and the 80 Lakers are really when the NBA came to its modern form.

---

That's just picking a year that you like and finding a random reason. I've also seen 1984 used due to Stern ascending to commissioner and the 1st Lakers-Celtics series. Or 1982 when they stopped tape-delaying the Finals

quote:

---

I don't hate Manu because of it. Look through the videos in the Manu thread and he is always the guy that goes for the play.

---

Yep if he gets 2 more inches of extension and blocks that shot than history is completely altered. Ginobili becomes the consensus greatest international player, Dirk likely gets traded, etc.

quote:

---

That's just picking a year that you like and finding a random reason. I've also seen 1984 used due to Stern ascending to commissioner and the 1st Lakers-Celtics series. Or 1982 when they stopped tape-delaying the Finals

---

When would you pick? I'm good with ABA merger or 3-point line. I think 84 is kinda late, personally.

77 merger... similar to analyzing NFL based on Super Bowl era and MLB based on Post expansion era

IF the Spurs can win this year, I think that has to put them on par with the 80's Lakers. The Lakers did it over less years, but careers were shorter then (and the Magic/HIV thing was sort of an extraordinary event), but in sustained success with the same core over about a decade those two would have the most in common.

As for comparing the 2000s Spurs and Lakers, it's kind of hard because of how different the organizations have been. The Lakers had higher peaks, but much lower lows as well.

[This message has been edited by amercer (edited 5/3/2012 11:17p).]

I just have to ask...why does it matter? If the Spurs win the championship this year, then celebrate another trophy, add to the legacy of the big 3 (especially when most had thought their time had passed) and enjoy it for the accomplishment it is.

What does it even matter if they are or aren't considered on par with some of the legendary teams of the 70's, 80's, 90's or whenever? Does that matter all that much? Does it lessen the joy of the title?

Who gives a crap what the supposed experts or historians consider to be a "dynasty" or whatever? Just enjoy the accomplishment, dude. Most fans will never know what it's like to even celebrate one title.

It matters to me. **** you simplebay. **** you internetfan02.

Drive for five, mother ****ers.

And yet, no one in America gives a rats ass about the Spurs.

Small market team that's maybe the 8th-9th most popular sports team in its own state. Stern hates you, the rest of the NBA hates you, and Texas hates you. And who can blame us when this is the face 99% of America associates with your franchise:



FWIW, I think there is no question about the accusations thrown around by Spurs fans about closing the season with so many games in so few days, playoff scheduling, and any other manipulation by the league offices.

The Spurs product is a boring product that nobody is interested in and the NBA is a money making business. Somebody look it up, but I'm pretty sure the Spurs are responsible for all of the least watched Finals in the modern era. Why wouldn't Stern protect his asset?

But hey, nobody can take away what they've done on the court, so for that I applaud them. As for you guys, the fans, you're easily the worst of the worst, but I get it - nobody else wants to bring a franchise of any sort to that cesspool (despite building a stadium) and you feel slighted, and in turn obligated to scream from the rooftops that you're relevant.

Serious question, if the Spurs win it all this year, which they very well could, will anyone even notice?