Friday, June 24, 2005

The Apologists

Ok, my last post was mainly positive and that's a rarity. So, in the spirit of equal time, here's a negative post...

Dan Shanoff, the editor of the Daily Quickie on ESPN.com's Page 2 writes:

"What's a dynasty? Sustained championship excellence. It doesn't have to be in a row. In fact, all the more credit that it's not."

I'm sorry but I can't buy that crap. That's media apologism and ass-kissing for the easy-to-like Spurs. No one made the same fawning approaches to other teams, like the Lakers, for instance.

As far as I'm concerned, the Spurs are a championship team. I'm not qualifying their 1999 title in the lockout-shortened season like others might. I'm not saying anything bad about the Spurs at all. But you just can't call it a dyansty when a) another, more dominant team reeled off a 3-peat in the period between your first and second titles and b) you defended your title as poorly in 2003 as anyone I can remember in recent NBA history. The Spurs and Pistons are the only teams in the NBA going back to 1987 to not defend their title with a back-to-back championship run.

In and of itself, that doesn't mean anything. But I just can't throw the term "dynasty" around because they've won three rings in seven years. I'd like to see them defend their title with a little more gusto than the last two times. As far as I'm concerned, dynasties are created after three or more consecutive titles, or three titles in four years as the Pats have done. That's my benchmark. After all, it wasn't the Ming Dynasty in China for a few years, then a few more years later, then again after a while.

There, I said it, the Spurs aren't a dynasty. Was this column heavy-handed enough for you?
Posted by at

5 comments:

Mighty Mike said...

I expected some underhanded sleazy generalization that intentionally smears lots of people. Wait no that Rove.

To say the Spurs are a dynasty if fairly silly. The Spurs were not anywhere close to being dominate during the Lakers 3-peat. Frankly they were stomped by the Lakers. Secondly a dynasty I think needs a little continuation. This Spurs team, besides Duncan, has almost an entirely new lineup compared to its last championship. How can it be a dynasty if its almost an entirely new team?

8:37 AM
Gutsy Goldberg said...

It's a little shaky, but I'm going to call it a dynasty IF they win one more. I think the best team I can compare their run to is the Washington Redskins. The Redskins reeled off 3 Super Bowl championships over 10 years, with 3 different QBs and mostly different players. No one ever called them a dynasty. The main difference here is that Duncan has been on every team. Other than Duncan though, everyone else is different. If the Spurs can get one more championship in the next couple of years, I'll anoint them a dynasty. 4 out of 10 would be dynastic (if that's even a word).

8:43 AM
MJ said...

The Redskins are a good example. They won 3 titles in 10 seasons and lost in the Super Bowl and the NFC Conference Championship one other time each. They were a powerful team from 1982-1992, winning 5 division titles in those 10 years. They were never a dynasty but they were a force to be reckoned with. No one wanted to go to RFK Stadium to play them back in those years.

The Spurs are the same way -- they're tough, they're consistently good every year and they're in the middle of a great period in their franchise's history. They're not a dynasty though, not even if they win a 4th title before 10 years is out. They'll need to win next year for me to even think about it.

10:04 AM
Hitman said...

I'll push it a step further - you're not a dynasty just because you win a few titles in a row. A dynasty is more than that; it is utter and complete dominance of the league, in a manner that leaves no doubt as to the dynastic team's place in history as one of the all-time greats.

So the easy choices are teams like the Yankees of the 1950s and 1996-2000, the Bulls of the 90s, the Celtics and their 8-peat. Those teams just flat-out kicked everyone's ass and made it 100% clear just how incredible and historic their accomplishments were.

The 2001-2004 Patriots? Absolutely - not only because they've won three in four years, but because they've shown that they're just head and shoulders better than anyone else now and competitive with the acknowledged greatest teams ever.

The 2000-2002 Lakers? Possibly. Three in a row is a mighty good start to laying a claim for being a dynasty. Then again, in the NBA, it's not uncommon for teams to repeat. Would we put those Shaq-Kobe teams up there with Jordan's Bulls, Russell's Celtics, or even the Nasty Boys in Detroit (a great team that certainly wasn't a dynasty)? I'm not so sure.

I'd classify these Spurs a lot like the 49ers of the late 1980s through mid 1990s. The Niners won in 1988, 1989, and 1994 - three titles in seven years. In between, they were still among the elite in the league. Classified today as one of the better runs in NFL history - and, still, not a dynasty. The Niners didn't own the league back then; they traded jabs with the Giants, and then the Cowboys, and it was never quite clear if any one team was truly the best.

So it is with San Antonio. How many of you are convinced that the Spurs are out-and-out better than the Pistons? And would you have dared to suggest that maybe the Jazz were actually better than the Bulls, or the Braves better than the Yankees?

4:48 PM
B. Hutchens said...

My question regarding dynasties centers around 1970s baseball. Do you consider the Oakland As from 1972-1975 a dynasty? They won 3 straight titles. Or the Big Red Machine of Cincinnati in the 70s who only won 2 titles but were in the series 4 of those years. I view dynasties as teams that won at least 5 titles in 10 years. I would say that the Yankees from 1949-1953 is a dynasty, the Bulls in the early 90s, the Celtics in the 60s and the Montreal Canadians from 1955-1960 and the Canadians from 1975-1979.

3:56 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)