Is it a dynasty

[SamuraiSWISH]

Dynasty isn't just about winning the title a certain amount of times. It's about winning titles + also being a consistent contender.

No it isn't. It's plain, and simple about winning championships. That's the end game. No one gets points, or hardware for "contending" or "trying" ... every year there is multiple contenders. Usually consistently, too. Are the 2008 - 2012 Celtics a dynasty?

[Jacks3]

never even made back-to-back finals. hell no.

[Milbuck]

Dynasty isn't just about winning the title a certain amount of times. It's about winning titles + also being a consistent contender.

No, it's actually not. It is absolutely about championships. If you're not winning it all, you're not the best. And the definition of dynasty is ruling over something for a long period of time, being the BEST for a long period of time. Never repeating as champions, with 4 chips in 15 years is not ruling over the league or being the best for a long period of time. It's being consistently elite with a few seasons of being the best.

The Spurs organization in the past 20 years have proved themselves to be one of the classiest, most well organized, elite organizations in the league. The Timmy-Tony-Manu-Pop core will be remembered for a long time. But they are not a dynasty. Just consistently elite.

[SamuraiSWISH]

And the definition of dynasty is ruling over something for a long period of time, being the BEST for a long period of time.

Exactly. The literal definition. NumberSix is a moron of the first degree.

[buddha]

I would say the Spurs had a dynasty though. I mean they won 3 championships in a 5 year period. That's better then repeating and 1 notch below a 3 peat. Then when you consider they won 4 'ships in a 9 year period? that's pretty rare and dominant. I'd consider them a dynasty for sure.

[NumberSix]

No it isn't. It's plain, and simple about winning championships. That's the end game. No one gets points, or hardware for "contending" or "trying" ... every year there is multiple contenders. Usually consistently, too. Are the 2008 - 2012 Celtics a dynasty?

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying.

I'm saying that you can't be a dynasty if you're a non-factor in the years you don't win.

If the heat win this year, you wouldn't say the Heat from 2005-2014 were a dynasty. That would be a 9 season stretch where they went to 5 finals and won 4 championships. The problem though is that there is a gap of 4 years where they were pretty much irrelevant.

What I'm saying is for it to be a dynasty, you have to win titles, but in between titles, you have to still be contending.

[iamgine]

In many cases, whether a team has achieved a dynasty is often subjective, and can be a frequent topic of debate among sports fans.

San Antonio Spurs of 1999 to 2008 led by Tim Duncan. (4 NBA championships (1999, 2003, 2005, 2007) in 9 seasons) are considered a dynasty by some, but not by others because they did not win consecutive titles.

[SamuraiSWISH]

No the Shaq / Kobe Lakers are a dynasty because they won 3 straight chips. The Jordan Bulls are a dynasty because they won 3 straight chips, then came back to win 3 more straight chips. The Bad Boy Pistons are an all time great team but they're not a dynasty even though they won back to back.

[NumberSix]

No, it's actually not. It is absolutely about championships. If you're not winning it all, you're not the best. And the definition of dynasty is ruling over something for a long period of time, being the BEST for a long period of time. Never repeating as champions, with 4 chips in 15 years is not ruling over the league or being the best for a long period of time. It's being consistently elite with a few seasons of being the best.

The Spurs organization in the past 20 years have proved themselves to be one of the classiest, most well organized, elite organizations in the league. The Timmy-Tony-Manu-Pop core will be remembered for a long time. But they are not a dynasty. Just consistently elite.

You agreeing with my exact point. In between titles, there where times when they weren't really contending.

[Hamtaro CP3KDKG]

ITT mid90s Rockets are more of a dynasty than Birds Celtics

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

No the Shaq / Kobe Lakers are a dynasty because they won 3 straight chips. The Jordan Bulls are a dynasty because they won 3 straight chips, then came back to win 3 more straight chips. The Bad Boy Pistons are an all time great team but they're not a dynasty even though they won back to back.

What's your take on the 80's Lakers? They won b2b TWICE in one decade.

[NumberSix]

No the Shaq / Kobe Lakers are a dynasty because they won 3 straight chips. The Jordan Bulls are a dynasty because they won 3 straight chips, then came back to win 3 more straight chips. The Bad Boy Pistons are an all time great team but they're not a dynasty even though they won back to back.

So you're definition of dynasty is simply = 3peat?

What about the Magic Lakers? That's not a dynasty? They won titles and in the years they didn't, they were still top contenders.

[NumberSix]

What's your take on the 80's Lakers? They won b2b TWICE in one decade.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I'm REALLY tired right now. Lets just pretend I didn't say that.

Anyway, they did go to like 8 finals in 10 years...they gotta be some sorta dynasty.

[NumberSix]

I'm REALLY tired right now. Lets just pretend I didn't say that.

Anyway, they did go to like 8 finals in 10 years...they gotta be some sorta dynasty.

Of course they were a dynasty. They wouldn't be if they were irrelevant between their title years though.