2014 NBA Playoffs

[Nyk33]

Can we all just sit back, take a break from the usual Heat drama, and appreciate what the Spurs are doing yet again? Sure, Ibaka's out, but really, how many expected this type of throttling? It'll be a sad thing to see when the Spurs franchise has to start over post-Duncan/Ginobili/Parker/Pop.

This Spurs team is truly one of the greatest teams of all time.

To have a great team with the same core group of guys for so many years in an era where star players are constantly travelling between teams is remarkable.

[PhantomDreamer]

It's a good run, but to say they're "one of the greatest of all time" is a massive overstatement. They haven't won anything yet.

[Lee Noire]

I think he meant the franchise as a whole and he's right. Xist2inspire makes a good point as well. What are they going to do when these guys walk away in the next 2-4 years? The league as whole is going to feel a bit different with guys like Kobe and Duncan gone.

[IceCap]

It's a good run, but to say they're "one of the greatest of all time" is a massive overstatement. They haven't won anything yet.

Four NBA Championships. With the same coach and core of players.

[PhantomDreamer]

It's a good run, but to say they're "one of the greatest of all time" is a massive overstatement. They haven't won anything yet.

Four NBA Championships. With the same coach and core of players.

3 championships. Parker and Ginobli weren't on the '99 team. The Spurs have had a good run, but they have never won back to back, they've never even been to two straight Finals, this year will be the first time. It's a good run, but it doesn't qualify as a dynasty or "greatest" anything.

[See Red]

It's a good run, but to say they're "one of the greatest of all time" is a massive overstatement. They haven't won anything yet.

Four NBA Championships. With the same coach and core of players.

3 championships. Parker and Ginobli weren't on the '99 team. The Spurs have had a good run, but they have never won back to back, they've never even been to two straight Finals, this year will be the first time. It's a good run, but it doesn't qualify as a dynasty or "greatest" anything.

The differences between the two conferences has to be taken into consideration, though. The West has been stacked for the entirety of this Spurs teams run.

[rams80]

It's a good run, but to say they're "one of the greatest of all time" is a massive overstatement. They haven't won anything yet.

Four NBA Championships. With the same coach and core of players.

3 championships. Parker and Ginobli weren't on the '99 team. The Spurs have had a good run, but they have never won back to back, they've never even been to two straight Finals, this year will be the first time. It's a good run, but it doesn't qualify as a dynasty or "greatest" anything.

The consistent success of the Spurs with Duncan and Pop is staggering-they've won 11 division titles, 5 Conference titles, 4 league titles, and played in 9 Conference championship series. Yeah, that's a better run than Jordan's Bulls-especially as the NBA West has been tougher than the NBA East was for Jordan.

[PhantomDreamer]

It's a good run, but to say they're "one of the greatest of all time" is a massive overstatement. They haven't won anything yet.

Four NBA Championships. With the same coach and core of players.

3 championships. Parker and Ginobli weren't on the '99 team. The Spurs have had a good run, but they have never won back to back, they've never even been to two straight Finals, this year will be the first time. It's a good run, but it doesn't qualify as a dynasty or "greatest" anything.

The consistent success of the Spurs with Duncan and Pop is staggering-they've won 11 division titles, 5 Conference titles, 4 league titles, and played in 9 Conference championship series. Yeah, that's a better run than Jordan's Bulls-especially as the NBA West has been tougher than the NBA East was for Jordan.

Winning dvisions and conferences is better than winning actual NBA titles? Just stop it.

[rams80]

It's a good run, but to say they're "one of the greatest of all time" is a massive overstatement. They haven't won anything yet.

Four NBA Championships. With the same coach and core of players.

3 championships. Parker and Ginobli weren't on the '99 team. The Spurs have had a good run, but they have never won back to back, they've never even been to two straight Finals, this year will be the first time. It's a good run, but it doesn't qualify as a dynasty or "greatest" anything.

The consistent success of the Spurs with Duncan and Pop is staggering-they've won 11 division titles, 5 Conference titles, 4 league titles, and played in 9 Conference championship series. Yeah, that's a better run than Jordan's Bulls-especially as the NBA West has been tougher than the NBA East was for Jordan.

Winning dvisions and conferences is better than winning actual NBA titles? Just stop it.

They've been contenders for longer against tougher competition.

[See Red]

It's a good run, but to say they're "one of the greatest of all time" is a massive overstatement. They haven't won anything yet.

Four NBA Championships. With the same coach and core of players.

3 championships. Parker and Ginobli weren't on the '99 team. The Spurs have had a good run, but they have never won back to back, they've never even been to two straight Finals, this year will be the first time. It's a good run, but it doesn't qualify as a dynasty or "greatest" anything.

The consistent success of the Spurs with Duncan and Pop is staggering-they've won 11 division titles, 5 Conference titles, 4 league titles, and played in 9 Conference championship series. Yeah, that's a better run than Jordan's Bulls-especially as the NBA West has been tougher than the NBA East was for Jordan.

Winning dvisions and conferences is better than winning actual NBA titles? Just stop it.

You're clearly missing the point.

[Sport]

It's a good run, but to say they're "one of the greatest of all time" is a massive overstatement. They haven't won anything yet.

Four NBA Championships. With the same coach and core of players.

3 championships. Parker and Ginobli weren't on the '99 team. The Spurs have had a good run, but they have never won back to back, they've never even been to two straight Finals, this year will be the first time. It's a good run, but it doesn't qualify as a dynasty or "greatest" anything.

The consistent success of the Spurs with Duncan and Pop is staggering-they've won 11 division titles, 5 Conference titles, 4 league titles, and played in 9 Conference championship series. Yeah, that's a better run than Jordan's Bulls-especially as the NBA West has been tougher than the NBA East was for Jordan.

Winning dvisions and conferences is better than winning actual NBA titles? Just stop it.

umm the Spurs have 4 actual NBA titles. They could very easily add a fifth this year. They've been good for a longer period of time than Jordan's Bulls or even Bird's Celtics.

What the Spurs have done is remarkable. That they've been able to play at this level since the late 90's is one of the more impressive things I've ever seen in sports. It's more impressive than the Heat's back to back titles.

They're the model NBA organization. To say otherwise is idiotic.

[wonderbread]

It's a good run, but to say they're "one of the greatest of all time" is a massive overstatement. They haven't won anything yet.

Four NBA Championships. With the same coach and core of players.

3 championships. Parker and Ginobli weren't on the '99 team. The Spurs have had a good run, but they have never won back to back, they've never even been to two straight Finals, this year will be the first time. It's a good run, but it doesn't qualify as a dynasty or "greatest" anything.

The consistent success of the Spurs with Duncan and Pop is staggering-they've won 11 division titles, 5 Conference titles, 4 league titles, and played in 9 Conference championship series. Yeah, that's a better run than Jordan's Bulls-especially as the NBA West has been tougher than the NBA East was for Jordan.

Winning dvisions and conferences is better than winning actual NBA titles? Just stop it.

umm the Spurs have 4 actual NBA titles. They could very easily add a fifth this year. They've been good for a longer period of time than Jordan's Bulls or even Bird's Celtics.

What the Spurs have done is remarkable. That they've been able to play at this level since the late 90's is one of the more impressive things I've ever seen in sports. It's more impressive than the Heat's back to back titles.

They're the model NBA organization. To say otherwise is idiotic.

Its similar to the pats in football

Since 2001 they've

Won 3 superbowls

won 5 Afc conference champs

Been to 5 superbowls in total

Have only missed the playoffs 2x

Have the most wins of any organization

Highest winning percentage

Won over 20 playoff games

Won 11 division titles

Had a perfect regular season

Won 21 straight games in a row

And there are probably more that I am forgetting

For anyone to say they are not the model organization that everyone else wants to be would be insane

[wonderbread]

It's a good run, but to say they're "one of the greatest of all time" is a massive overstatement. They haven't won anything yet.

Four NBA Championships. With the same coach and core of players.

3 championships. Parker and Ginobli weren't on the '99 team. The Spurs have had a good run, but they have never won back to back, they've never even been to two straight Finals, this year will be the first time. It's a good run, but it doesn't qualify as a dynasty or "greatest" anything.

The consistent success of the Spurs with Duncan and Pop is staggering-they've won 11 division titles, 5 Conference titles, 4 league titles, and played in 9 Conference championship series. Yeah, that's a better run than Jordan's Bulls-especially as the NBA West has been tougher than the NBA East was for Jordan.

Winning dvisions and conferences is better than winning actual NBA titles? Just stop it.

umm the Spurs have 4 actual NBA titles. They could very easily add a fifth this year. They've been good for a longer period of time than Jordan's Bulls or even Bird's Celtics.

What the Spurs have done is remarkable. That they've been able to play at this level since the late 90's is one of the more impressive things I've ever seen in sports. It's more impressive than the Heat's back to back titles.

They're the model NBA organization. To say otherwise is idiotic.

Its similar to the pats in football

Since 2001 they've

Won 3 superbowls

won 5 Afc conference champs

Been to 5 superbowls in total

Have only missed the playoffs 2x

Have the most wins of any organization

Highest winning percentage

Won over 20 playoff games

Won 11 division titles

Had a perfect regular season

Won 21 straight games in a row

And there are probably more that I am forgetting

For anyone to say they are not the model organization that everyone else wants to be would be insane

[Nyk33]

It's a good run, but to say they're "one of the greatest of all time" is a massive overstatement. They haven't won anything yet.

Four NBA Championships. With the same coach and core of players.

3 championships. Parker and Ginobli weren't on the '99 team. The Spurs have had a good run, but they have never won back to back, they've never even been to two straight Finals, this year will be the first time. It's a good run, but it doesn't qualify as a dynasty or "greatest" anything.

The consistent success of the Spurs with Duncan and Pop is staggering-they've won 11 division titles, 5 Conference titles, 4 league titles, and played in 9 Conference championship series. Yeah, that's a better run than Jordan's Bulls-especially as the NBA West has been tougher than the NBA East was for Jordan.

I don't know if I would put them above the 90's Bulls when Jordan was there but I definitely think the Spurs are up there. Especially since they have only had one season where they were below 50 wins since Duncan was drafted and that was the lockout season.

[alxy8s]

Its similar to the pats in football

Spurs are more impressive than that. By June 20, they'll have won championships 15 years apart. Pats were 3 in 4 years, two big disappointments since then, and have capitalized on being in a weak division.

[PhantomDreamer]

Being great for 8 years > Being pretty good for 15 years.

To say that the Spurs have had tougher competition is debatable. They never won back to back, never been to 2 straight Finals until now, (sorry Thunder) and they choked last year. A very good run, but certainly not a dynasty.

[Sport]

Being great for 8 years > Being pretty good for 15 years.

To say that the Spurs have had tougher competition is debatable. They never won back to back, never been to 2 straight Finals until now, (sorry Thunder) and they choked last year. A very good run, but certainly not a dynasty.

Not a dynasty? They've been at the top of the best conference in basketball for a decade and a half. Also they've missed the playoffs once since 1990 (and that netted them Tim Duncan). They've won 50 or more games in every full season since 97. Also FOUR championships in a nine season stretch is nothing to sneeze at. And they're going to win another one this season.

If I could choose I'd take the Spurs run of dominance over what the Bulls did every day of the week.

[CubsFanBudMan]

It's always interesting that dynasties are often defined by consecutive championships, especially in the NBA, where it seems to happen more often than in other sports. However, threepeat became a thing in the '80s because it was so rare. I'd argue the Heat are now expected to win 3 in a row at minimum because of what the Bulls did twice in the '90s and the Lakers did in the early '00s. The bar has been raised.

The Spurs are just as impressive, but different. Since their "reign" hasn't followed the traditional NBA dynasty narrative, they probably don't get the credit they deserve.

Taking nothing away from the Spurs, I'd still rather have the Bulls' 6 titles. But if I were a Spurs fan, I doubt I'd be disappointed.

And it sure would have been nice if the Spurs had finished the job last year.

EDIT: And if you really want to compare the Jordan Bulls to these Spurs, you'll need to take all of their playoff years into account, too. Seems only counting the "8 years" of threepeats is unfair if you are counting playoff appearances, division titles, conference finals appearances, etc. As part of the Spurs' "dominance."

And that's why only having to rely on titles to make your case is ultimately better. Six in eight years is easy to remember. What they did before and in between isn't as important once you win, but for some reason seems essential to the Spurs argument.

[rams80]

It's always interesting that dynasties are often defined by consecutive championships, especially in the NBA, where it seems to happen more often than in other sports. However, threepeat became a thing in the '80s because it was so rare. I'd argue the Heat are now expected to win 3 in a row at minimum because of what the Bulls did twice in the '90s and the Lakers did in the early '00s. The bar has been raised.

The Spurs are just as impressive, but different. Since their "reign" hasn't followed the traditional NBA dynasty narrative, they probably don't get the credit they deserve.

Taking nothing away from the Spurs, I'd still rather have the Bulls' 6 titles. But if I were a Spurs fan, I doubt I'd be disappointed.

The ironic thing is that doing that only gives the Bulls 2 more trips to the Conference finals. There are no more division titles.

And it sure would have been nice if the Spurs had finished the job last year.

EDIT: And if you really want to compare the Jordan Bulls to these Spurs, you'll need to take all of their playoff years into account, too. Seems only counting the "8 years" of threepeats is unfair if you are counting playoff appearances, division titles, conference finals appearances, etc. As part of the Spurs' "dominance."

And that's why only having to rely on titles to make your case is ultimately better. Six in eight years is easy to remember. What they did before and in between isn't as important once you win, but for some reason seems essential to the Spurs argument.

The ironic thing is that doing that only gives the Bulls 2 more trips to the Conference finals. There are no more division titles.

[dbadefense1990]

Adding to the whole "are the Spurs a dynasty" debate, dynasties don't usually include just championships won per-se. It's more of a sustained run of competitiveness long-term. It's a term of the quality of the team over time, and their ability to maintain their quality with every passing season. So long as the core of the team remains, dynasties can be much longer and much more perceived as just "championship or bust." We collectively lump all of the Laker teams from the 1980s as the "Showtime" dynasty despite the fact that they could only repeat as champions in '87 and '88 and the teams to start the decade (Norm Nixon, Bob McAdoo, Kareem-led) were different than the teams to end it (Orlando Woolridge, Byron Scott, Magic-led). We call the Celtics of the 1980s a dynasty despite them not even repeating in championships.

What tarnishes the Spurs? I don't get it. Consider that they haven't missed the postseason since the 1998 lockout. Consider how many 50+ win seasons they've acquired. 9 times they've reached the West Finals, 5 times they've gotten to the NBA Finals, and 4 championships they've won within the last 15 years. Who knows how many more glorious San Antonio teams we'd remember had not been for Fisher's 0.4 shot, Nowitzki single-handedly beating them in 2006, and the chokejobs of 2011, 2012 and 2013.

And for those measuring them to the Bulls of the 1990s, Chicago is a perfect example of an historically-unsustained franchise. What were the Bulls to Chicago before Michael Jordan? Probably 3rd or 4th fiddle between the other teams in the city. What were they during? The home of the greatest basketball player of all time and the team with unparalleled levels of success. What were they immediately after the team broke up (and may still be to this day)? A team higing on older fans to coddle younger ones about stories of the "good old days" while miring on mediocrity in today's NBA.

No matter the laundry list of players to complement Tim Duncan over the past decade and a half (Sean Elliott, Avery Johnson, Bruce Bowen, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, Roger Mason, Kawhi Leonard, Danny Green), the San Antonio front office has been masterful at maintaining their current run of success. Personally, I'd rather have the type of sustained dynasty from San Antonio, rather than the "rise-fast-then-crash-hard" dynasty model the Bulls have.