tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33624629.post393742944958793752..comments2024-03-17T03:18:56.070-04:00Comments on Dan Shanoff: Spurs: Great Dynasty...or the Greatest Dynasty?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33624629.post-45542740493199651612008-03-11T21:11:00.000-04:002008-03-11T21:11:00.000-04:00The Spurs are not a dynasty. For one thing, they h...The Spurs are not a dynasty. For one thing, they have never won successive NBA titles, which is something a team has to do to even be considered a dynasty. In fact, they have been lucky in winning their four NBA titles. These lucky breaks are why most real NBA experts don't really respect the Spurs and don’t consider them a dynasty.<BR/><BR/>In 1998-99, a season tainted by being reduced to 50 regular season games, the Spurs were lucky that they only had to play the Eastern Conference’s 8th seeded team, the Knicks, in the finals, as the Knicks upset the top-seeded Heat. <BR/><BR/>In 2002-03, the Spurs were lucky that the Eastern Conference was so poor that its top-seeded team, Detroit, only won 50 games. The Spurs were also lucky that Detroit was upset by the second-seeded Nets.<BR/><BR/>In 2004-05, the Spurs were lucky that Phoenix key player Joe Johnson missed most of the Western conference finals with a fractured orbital bone. The Spurs were lucky to face the second-seeded team from the East, Detroit, in the NBA finals. <BR/><BR/>In 2006-07, the Spurs probably had more luck than in any of their other previous “championship” years. They were lucky that they did not face Dallas in the playoffs, as the Mavs were the top seed in the West and had knocked the Spurs out of the playoffs in 2005-06. <BR/><BR/>In Game One of the real NBA finals against the Suns, the Spurs were lucky that Phoenix guard Steve Nash missed most of the last minute of the game with a bloody cut on his nose. When Nash went out, the Suns were only down by two points, and he had scored the team’s previous seven points. By the time Nash returned, the Spurs were winning by four points with only nine seconds left.<BR/>In Game 3, the Spurs were lucky in having key officiating calls go their way against Phoenix, as Tim Donaghy, who was caught in a gambling scandal, was one of the refs. The Spurs were lucky that the NBA commissioner’s office took away Phoenix’s momentum after the Suns won Game 4 to tie the series by suspending two key players, Stoudemire and Diaw, for going on the court during an altercation, even though Stoudemire and Diaw did not get near the altercation. The Spurs were lucky that Duncan, who went on the court during another near altercation in the same Game 4, was not suspended. The Spurs were lucky that they only had to play Utah in the Western conference finals and Cleveland in the NBA finals, rather than top-seeded Dallas and Detroit, which were both upset in the playoffs. <BR/><BR/>For more on refuting the Spurs as dynasty myth, see<BR/>http://winningtheturnoverbattle.blogspot.com/2007/06/why-spurs-are-not-dynasty.htmlJackson Thoreauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10026972095752558676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33624629.post-40332535535525742242007-06-15T11:28:00.000-04:002007-06-15T11:28:00.000-04:00Plexxx...If the Blazers win the WC. If the officia...Plexxx...<BR/>If the Blazers win the WC. If the officials weren't on the bulls side. If the Suns didn't have horrendous decision making. If the Jazz had a decent center. Or if Jordan was on the Jazz . Or if the Knicks had Drexler. Or if the Sonics and Jazz joined rosters.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Yeah and if Jordan didn't leave they would have had 8 titles in a row. Like someone pointed out they almost made it to the finals without Jordan(taking the eventual EC champs to 7), what else could possibly be the outcome WITH Jordan. Please don't tell me you think that Knicks team would have ever beat a Jordan team. And they took the Rockets to 7. <BR/><BR/>That's a lot of ifs. You can't deal with ifs. IF you did it would be an endless debate. You can only deal with what happened. With all those ifs, a full strength Jordan won 6 straight titles. <BR/><BR/>The will to win just outweighed everything and would continue to do so against this Spurs team.<BR/><BR/>PF/C, PG arugment. In 1995-96 season you could have traded Pre Injury Penny, a PG, or Shaq, a C, for anyone in the League. <BR/><BR/>That Magic team was 7-1 and won by an average of 14 ppg in the playoffs before the Conference finals. <BR/><BR/>They were young but don't forget they had Horace Grant(13.4 ppg), Nick Anderson (14.7), and Dennis Scott(17.5). Not to mention beat a Rusty Jordan team and went to the finals the year before.<BR/><BR/>You know what happened to those Bulls who were weak at the PF/C and PG positions. They let them each score over 25.5 ppg and SWEPT them by an average of 16 ppg. <BR/><BR/>Grant Scott and Anderson combined for 2 (that is 1 plus 1 equals 2) points in 84 minutes. After that game Grant was so embarrased by this that he sat out the rest of the series like the pussy he was.<BR/><BR/>Rodman was a much more than capable defender and would have played Duncan just as well as he played Malone or Shaq. Rodman would have Duncan's eyes fully popped out of his head. Don't forget they had the three headed monster of Longley Wennington and Purdue. That is 18 fouls.<BR/><BR/>I don't argue that Duncan would have gotten his 26/11 and Parker got his 25 or whatever. That's only 51 points. The rest of the team gets shut down. <BR/><BR/>The 98 Bulls had 5 people with 1 steal or more per game. Jordan Pippen Kukoc Harper and Randy Brown who only played 16 mpg. He matches up with Parker very well. <BR/><BR/>98 Bulls vs. 07 Spurs team is no contest. Duncan is used to controlling the glass. Who do you think would have gotten more rebounnds? Duncan who averaged 10.6 or Rodman who averaged 15.0. <BR/><BR/>Put Bowen on Jordan? Ha Ha Ha oh did I mention Ha yet. You could put Oscar Robertson on Jordan and he is still going to get his 31 ppg(96-98) that he averaged in the Finals.<BR/><BR/>Now who guards Pippen. There is nobody left. Please don't say Manu. Imagine a Manu vs. Pip matchup. Oh Lord that would be fun.<BR/><BR/>It's obviously not close. <BR/><BR/>Now for the Zone Comment. You seem to think that would favor the Spurs. Where would Parker go when you have 3 guys over 6'6 on the perimeter with those long arm spans. That takes the "problem" the Bulls have with PG's and lessens it. <BR/><BR/>Please reconsider Dan. I have lost faith in you recently and this is not helping the cause.<BR/><BR/>At that point in his career you just weren't beating Jordan in a 7 game series. No debate. He is the epitome of will, heart, and determination. <BR/><BR/>2 more things<BR/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7MhY93dXX0<BR/><BR/>Watch that video. At about 3:40 Jordan "pushes" off. They are on the Jazz side of the court. I want you to picture yourself on the bench of the Jazz. Coach of the Jazz. How are you not screaming at the referee? How is the entire team not yelling at the refs. The crowd is not chanting BULL SHIT BULL SHIT. He didn't push him.<BR/><BR/>Finally 2 quotes to leave everyone with. First by Larry Bird<BR/>"God disguised as Michael Jordan." <BR/>The second by what many people think is the 2nd best player and some even think he is the best in the past 30 years. <BR/>Magic Johnson said "There's Michael Jordan and then there is the rest of us."<BR/><BR/>Two pretty reliable sources who you would think knew what they were talking about....<BR/><BR/>There is absolutely no possible way that "God" loses a 7 game series to one of the "rest of us"<BR/><BR/>Greatest. Ever. Period.Precourthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13128335172041536732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33624629.post-77939109050173969832007-06-15T10:41:00.000-04:002007-06-15T10:41:00.000-04:00OK, while you should never take these things as th...OK, while you should never take these things as the gospel truth, I ran the 1998 Bulls vs 2007 Spurs through the WhatIfSports Simulator.<BR/>Since the Bulls had the better record (Bulls 62-20 vs Spurs 58-24), I gave them the first two home games. The results? Chicago sweeps:<BR/><BR/>Game 1 (in Chicago):<BR/>San Antonio 96 - Chicago 99<BR/>Game 2 (in Chicago):<BR/>San Antonio 99 - Chicago 105<BR/>Game 3 (in San Antonio):<BR/>Chicago 101 - San Antonio 90<BR/>Game 4 (in San Antonio):<BR/>Chicago 101 - San Antonio 80Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12248955983406253359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33624629.post-14372569818386616812007-06-15T10:30:00.000-04:002007-06-15T10:30:00.000-04:00Why does everyone keep saying the Spurs never beat...Why does everyone keep saying the Spurs never beat the Lakers during the Lakers' dynasty???<BR/><BR/>How hard is it to remember 2003, when the Spurs, after being knocked out by the Lakers in '01 and '02, eliminated the 3-time defending champion 'dynastic' Lakers in the Western Conference Semis? Shaq and Kobe were both healthy, as were Duncan and Robinson. You can't count '00, because Duncan was injured that year.<BR/><BR/>And then '04, the Lakers beat them on a freaking miracle 0.04 shot. <BR/><BR/>I just don't see the problem with a 'dynastic' team having one major foil or rival in the playoffs. The difference over the 80's, is that the Lakers and Spurs are in the same conference....in the 80's, the Lakers and Celtics were always able to meet up in the Finals. (The 80's Lakers had NO competition in the West)<BR/><BR/>So if you leave out 2000, in 01, 02, and 04, the Lakers knocked out the Spurs en route to the Finals, and in 03 the Spurs knocked off the champs to win it all.<BR/><BR/>I'll leave with this point. Everyone makes a big deal of not repeating, and that does have validity in this argument. But you can easily argue that the Spurs were the best (and always the overall favorite) team from 2003-2007. They may not have made it back to the Finals in 04 and 06, but each time they were knocked out by the eventual West representative. They've never been knocked out by a #8 seed or some fluke team. From 2001-2007, they've either lost to the eventual champ or West rep, or they've won it all. To me, that's as close to a dynasty as you can get.stormshadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00431488020569681936noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33624629.post-78165549963121889212007-06-15T10:09:00.000-04:002007-06-15T10:09:00.000-04:00roboninja - I agree with you that the Oilers were ...roboninja - I agree with you that the Oilers were a dynasty even if they didn't win 3 in a row. That's why I qualified my statement that there are exceptions if a team can manage to win four titles in five years (or five in seven years as the case may be).<BR/><BR/>They won more titles than the Spurs in a shorter amount of time, and you can't really point to another dominant team during that span (unlike with the Spurs where you have the Lakers who won three in a row).<BR/><BR/>It's definitely a subjective thing (otherwise it would be so boring to talk about). I just really take issue with the people who change the definition of a dynasty because it's more difficult to string together multiple championships with the way leagues are structured these days.holtzabhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04481904483428338179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33624629.post-29634553532604187442007-06-15T10:02:00.000-04:002007-06-15T10:02:00.000-04:00I love the pedantic arguements over such a subject...I love the pedantic arguements over such a subjective word as "dynasty". Really fascinating stuff (not being sarcastic). I owuld tkae issue with the people claiming it takes 3 titles in a row to be a dynasty. The 80' Oilers did not do that, but are often considered one of the best teams ever. They did win 5 championships in 7 years, but not 3 in a row.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11315016895444029563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33624629.post-56597570206397173082007-06-15T09:24:00.000-04:002007-06-15T09:24:00.000-04:00What rules are we using when saying these teams wo...What rules are we using when saying these teams would beat each other? I think if this Spurs dynasty plays the Bulls dynasty using 1990s rules, the Bulls win hands down since zone defense is illegal and no one on the Spurs would be able to stop MJ 1-on-1. If they use today's rules, I think S.A. gives them a run in 7 games. Just the same way I believe if zone defense were illegal, LeBron would've been able to take the series to 6 games just based on the fact no one on S.A. would stop him 1-on-1 (I admit, Bowen did a great job, but its easier to do a great job when you know you have help behind you rather than being on an island alone vs. LBJ).bmajorashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00873242005340816123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33624629.post-10808467181430005062007-06-15T09:08:00.000-04:002007-06-15T09:08:00.000-04:00As Erik said, I don't know how they qualify as a d...As Erik said, I don't know how they qualify as a dynasty. I think to truly be called a dynasty, you have to win at LEAST 3 titles in a row (I could possibly make an exception if a team won 4 titles in 5 years).<BR/><BR/>That's not to take anything away from the Spurs. They've been the most dominant team of the past decade, but that doesn't automatically qualify them for as a dynasty.<BR/><BR/>To me a dynasty is a long, uninterrupted string of dominance. I don't see how the Spurs qualify for this when the Lakers won three straight titles in the middle of the "dynasty."holtzabhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04481904483428338179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33624629.post-74790925956994673942007-06-15T09:07:00.000-04:002007-06-15T09:07:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.holtzabhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04481904483428338179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33624629.post-26472429556288986172007-06-15T08:40:00.000-04:002007-06-15T08:40:00.000-04:00I have to agree with the comments that those Laker...I have to agree with the comments that those Laker teams of the mid 2000s were better than this Spurs "dynasty." Until the Lakers traded Shaq, this Spurs team couldnt beat the Lakers head to head, so I cant see how the Spurs could be considered better.Mikepcflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08980600874603719777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33624629.post-8125742017708689352007-06-15T08:33:00.000-04:002007-06-15T08:33:00.000-04:00Everyone forgets that Ron Harper was on the '98 Bu...Everyone forgets that Ron Harper was on the '98 Bulls team. He could light it up from anywhere and was just as good defensively as Bowen is.<BR/><BR/>He averaged approx. 20 pts a game for his 1st 9 seasons and then he became a defensive stopper and deferred all the scoring to Jordan, Pippen, and Toni Kukoc.<BR/><BR/>http://www.nba.com/bulls/stats/1997/index.htmlDarklawdoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10060727121837662812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33624629.post-38086002931914825532007-06-15T08:20:00.000-04:002007-06-15T08:20:00.000-04:00You know...to me a Dynasty has to include consecut...You know...to me a Dynasty has to include consecutive titles (3+). So no, I don't think the Spurs are a dynasty. They are, however, the most consistent team in the last 10 years which is just as good, since they have played at a high level.rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09286062038193331350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33624629.post-84226430895661676842007-06-15T08:06:00.000-04:002007-06-15T08:06:00.000-04:00was this cavs team the worst ever finals team?was this cavs team the worst ever finals team?bkelly126https://www.blogger.com/profile/03831591199417893293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33624629.post-81905457791839708042007-06-15T01:40:00.000-04:002007-06-15T01:40:00.000-04:00I really don't understand how anyone can consider ...I really don't understand how anyone can consider this Spurs run to be a dynasty when there was a Lakers dynasty inside it. As someone else said, dominant, yes, the Spurs are. A n all-time top dynasty? Even a dynasty at all? I think not.Erik Tylczakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17301913715276280809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33624629.post-90133013247674263842007-06-15T01:03:00.000-04:002007-06-15T01:03:00.000-04:00Of course the Spurs could beat the 98 Bulls team. ...Of course the Spurs could beat the 98 Bulls team. People dont remember how they had a fight in every single round. That's why I was one of the few people that wasn't mad when the bulls were broken up. That 98 team was still great, but looked like they were running on fumes.Nelvishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01922299685415111336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33624629.post-32470765132963367122007-06-15T00:25:00.000-04:002007-06-15T00:25:00.000-04:00Special thanks to the Spurs D for allowing a 3 poi...Special thanks to the Spurs D for allowing a 3 pointer with 0:00 left<BR/><BR/>@#$@%@<BR/><BR/>Marco 6 - Bookie 1. Net gain $0<BR/><BR/>O well. I suppose that's what i get for going 'all or nothing' on the spurs -3.marcomarcohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17507640418000407851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33624629.post-6926491865151738382007-06-14T23:18:00.000-04:002007-06-14T23:18:00.000-04:00My greatest disappointment as a Rockets fan living...My greatest disappointment as a Rockets fan living in the Chicago area was that the Bulls (with Jordan, mind you) lost to the Magic in the 1995 playoffs, and thus didn't get the chance to lose to the Rockets in the NBA Finals.<BR/><BR/>On MJ and the refs, it says something to me about the relationship that one of the iconic images, of Jordan hitting the game-winning shot in Game 6 of the 98 Finals, would have been a personal foul if it had been Byron Russell pushing off against Jordan, rather than the other way around.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13417694490938544948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33624629.post-44191993094660494642007-06-14T22:10:00.000-04:002007-06-14T22:10:00.000-04:00If the Spurs are such a great dynasty, why couldn'...If the Spurs are such a great dynasty, why couldn't they beat the Lakers for those three years in a row? And if it wasn't for Karl Malone getting injured in 2004, the Lakers would have had 4 titles in 5 years. Like other people have been saying, until the Spurs can defend their title, I don't believe they're as good as the other teams.d_helms32https://www.blogger.com/profile/03635955103570882831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33624629.post-28478088239560056842007-06-14T18:10:00.000-04:002007-06-14T18:10:00.000-04:00The 1998 Bulls were still a great defensive team a...The 1998 Bulls were still a great defensive team and they didn't need a great center to disrupt one. Pippen and Rodman wreaked havoc down low because they were quick, athletic, and long. <BR/><BR/>When the Bulls needed offense, Kukoc and Kerr provided points when opposing teams focused on Jordan. As a result, the Bulls would cause matchup problems for the Spurs - not the other way around. <BR/><BR/>1998 Bulls in 6 over Spurs - no doubtUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17604798221765823148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33624629.post-66514013191802798312007-06-14T17:04:00.000-04:002007-06-14T17:04:00.000-04:00All I can say is I would have loved to see the Sun...All I can say is I would have loved to see the Suns v. Spurs this yeear with No Suspensions (which was total BS by the way).<BR/><BR/>had it not been for for those suspensions we wouldnt even be talking about this right now. <BR/><BR/>And along the lines of bad-ratings this is what Stern gets for such a total and ridiculous idea suspending them. It could have been the Suns and Cavs..and that I would have loved to seen..Shaggyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03424965106886127108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33624629.post-40967309686530348682007-06-14T16:19:00.000-04:002007-06-14T16:19:00.000-04:00By the way, I have substantially altered my origin...By the way, I have substantially altered my original thesis, based on the fact that I COMPLETELY SCREWED UP one key fact: The 80s Lakers won 5 titles in 9 years, not four -- so they should definitely stay ahead of the Spurs (for now).<BR/><BR/>(1) 90s Bulls<BR/>(2) 80s Lakers<BR/>(3) 00s Spurs<BR/><BR/>My apologies to everyone: Obviously, I am an idiot.<BR/><BR/>I continue to appreciate everyone taking this as the thought exercise that it is, and not as some sort of gospel.<BR/><BR/>As with most of my arguments, I'm often thinking about these things in real time, putting them out there -- half-baked, to be sure -- and letting me and everyone else (meaning: you) kick the tires on them (sometimes slash the tires on them) to work through the various layered issues.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, thanks for the great discussion on this.Dan Shanoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126386161198401693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33624629.post-17901630016933498712007-06-14T16:16:00.000-04:002007-06-14T16:16:00.000-04:00Alan, my point about the Bird thing was that, in t...Alan, my point about the Bird thing was that, in this day and age, they would never have been the only team to recognize the loophole. Scouting is just an infinitely more efficient machine than it was back then... although you could say the same thing about the Spurs being able to draft Parker at the end of Round 1 and Ginobili in the 2nd Round.Dan Shanoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126386161198401693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33624629.post-23406881691607881332007-06-14T16:01:00.000-04:002007-06-14T16:01:00.000-04:00"snuck in the Larry Bird pick" ?? C'mon Dan, you ..."snuck in the Larry Bird pick" ?? <BR/><BR/>C'mon Dan, you are better than that. All the Celtics did back then, as all teams did, was play by the rules and expose any advantage they could. Tell me this; you were trying to compare the 98 Bulls and the Spurs, saying how they wouldn't match up... okay, under that premise, who guards McHale? (given that Parish guards Duncan) -- Who guards Bird? Bowen? Bowen wouldn't stop Bird -- Ainge was not as quick as Parker, but the C's inside defense would have stopped some of those drive penetrations. I could go on with the Lakers team comparison, but I hope I don't need to. Just because the Spurs are doing it now doesn't make them greater than teams who have done it in different competitive environments. I am looking forward to tomorrows withdrawal/reevaluation of your list.Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12078573150142957094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33624629.post-31633191192471715612007-06-14T15:35:00.000-04:002007-06-14T15:35:00.000-04:00can we consider them a dynasty if 3 of 4 champions...can we consider them a dynasty if 3 of 4 championships many consider with an asterisk (the short season, the year kobe was injured, and after this year's phoenix debacle)?bkelly126https://www.blogger.com/profile/03831591199417893293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33624629.post-91208356138156650062007-06-14T15:34:00.000-04:002007-06-14T15:34:00.000-04:00Will you and the rest of the sports world please s...Will you and the rest of the sports world please stop with this dynasty crap? Four championships in 9 years does not make the spurs a dynasty. They are just the most dominant team of this dynasty-less era. Dominant, absolutely, irrefutably. But a dynasty? Absolutely not. Please, I know it goes against your nature, but cut out the hyperbole.apochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05161850554034839181noreply@blogger.com