2014 NBA Playoffs

[Xist2inspire]

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.

Yeah, as much as I love the '90s Bulls, what the Spurs have done is far more impressive. Just think: In those 8 seasons, all the Bulls really had to worry about was giving Jordan a supporting cast. In the Spurs' decade+ of dominance, they've had to tailor their offense around Robinson, then Duncan, then Ginobili/Parker, and now they're in the process of creating something new. And all this without any drop-off whatsoever. Unlike the Patriots, they've had stiff competition every year. Think of what usually happens to teams after a big championship push. The post-MJ Bulls. The post-Larry Celtics. The post-Magic Lakers. The Cowboys. The Islanders. But in San Antonio, the post-Robinson Spurs still won. The post-Duncan (in terms of being the primary focus) Spurs still won. And the post-Ginobili/Parker Spurs are still winning. I'm betting that most franchises and their fans would take that kind of success over a quick spurt, then nothing, in a heartbeat.

Flash & substance is excellent, but substance is always better than flash. The Spurs have been a personification of substance in its highest form for 15 years. Their place among the all-time great dynasties is more than well-deserved.

EDIT: And dba totally beat me to it.

[tBBP]

^Yeah...all of that.

To add even more context to this whole Bulls/Spurs discussion...might be wise to take into account that the Spurs have managed to do this with a smaller money pot than most other teams--as a result of the deal struck between the NBA and the four ABA teams that merged into it, of which the Spurs were one and the only one of the four to have won an NBA title, they agreed to pay out a piece of their profits to the former league and it's dissolved teams...I can't remember the exact figures (though I'm willing to bet dfwabel does, so feel free to correct me here) but I think the Spurs' share calculated out to something like 15% of their profits--in other words, that much less money with which to pay out in player contracts (read: less carrots to dangle in front of high-profile free agents).

The other thing is this: the Spurs were and still are way out front of the curve in mining, signing and/or trading for international talent--Tony Parker (France) and Man Ginobili (Argentina) are enough proof of that. But there was/are also, in no particular order, Hidayet Türkoğlu (Turkey), Beno Udrih (Slovenia), and Tiago Splitter (Brazil), among others--not including the list of players to whom the Spurs currently hold the rights while allowing them to develop in overseas leagues, as has been the Spurs' MO for years now.

Right now most couldn't name another Spur players besides Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili , yet still they've managed to sustain all that success, even as their main stars continue to creep up there in age (which as evidenced by their current series with OKC doesn't really seem to be much of a detriment). How this team continues to fly under the radar year in and year out continually baffles my brain, yet come playoff time, year in and year out, there they are, always in contention. That's really a testament to the quality and character of that organization--and there's few others across any major sport that come close.

[dfwabel]

^Yeah...all of that.

To add even more context to this whole Bulls/Spurs discussion...might be wise to take into account that the Spurs have managed to do this with a smaller money pot than most other teams--as a result of the deal struck between the NBA and the four ABA teams that merged into it, of which the Spurs were one and the only one of the four to have won an NBA title, they agreed to pay out a piece of their profits to the former league and it's dissolved teams...I can't remember the exact figures (though I'm willing to bet dfwabel does, so feel free to correct me here) but I think the Spurs' share calculated out to something like 15% of their profits--in other words, that much less money with which to pay out in player contracts (read: less carrots to dangle in front of high-profile free agents).

The other thing is this: the Spurs were and still are way out front of the curve in mining, signing and/or trading for international talent--Tony Parker (France) and Man Ginobili (Argentina) are enough proof of that. But there was/are also, in no particular order, Hidayet Türkoğlu (Turkey), Beno Udrih (Slovenia), and Tiago Splitter (Brazil), among others--not including the list of players to whom the Spurs currently hold the rights while allowing them to develop in overseas leagues, as has been the Spurs' MO for years now.

Right now most couldn't name another Spur players besides Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili , yet still they've managed to sustain all that success, even as their main stars continue to creep up there in age (which as evidenced by their current series with OKC doesn't really seem to be much of a detriment). How this team continues to fly under the radar year in and year out continually baffles my brain, yet come playoff time, year in and year out, there they are, always in contention. That's really a testament to the quality and character of that organization--and there's few others across any major sport that come close.

The Spurs and the other three ABA teams only give up 15% of National TV revenue, not 15% of their profits. Teams would use even more creative accounting not to show a profit as not to pay.

Local TV contracts are negotiate by each team and is not subject to be given to the Silna Brothers.

[PhantomDreamer]

Getting back to playoff discussion, Ibaka is now listed as day-to-day.

[Xist2inspire]

Getting back to playoff discussion, Ibaka is now listed as day-to-day.

Of course he is. I wouldn't be surprised if we see a Willis Reed before this is all done.

I really like the Thunder, but goodness are they a horribly put together and coached squad. I don't care if Ibaka is the heart of your defense and an extra offensive option, he's still your third-best player. You should not fall apart if your third-best player goes down. What this tells me is the rest of the Thunder simply aren't ready, Scott Brooks is average, and Durant and Westbrook aren't Finals-quality stars yet. Durant should've learned by now that at 6'11", it's high time you put some meat on your bones and work on that defense, because there will come a time (like now) when Serge either won't be enough or won't be there at all. Westbrook needs to grow a brain, because he has the skills and attitude to be similar to Gary Payton, but insists on being the next Iverson. In fact, that's exactly who the Thunder have reminded me of this entire postseason: The Melo/AI Nuggets.

I give the Spurs a lot of credit for performing at the level they have. But the fact remains that even without Ibaka, this is a team with the league MVP and a Top 5 combo guard at the helm. They should be better.

[CubsFanBudMan]

To each their own, but I'll take 6 titles with playoff appearances in each of Jordan's years. They weren't just the "1990s Bulls" if we are expanding the discussion beyond titles.

Much like regular season MVPs, I don't much care about division titles. Just get in and you can win. And they were in every year.

But again, it's a bit apples and oranges, expanding the dynasty criteria to allow the Spurs into the discussion -- which I'm not certain is necessary to do so. But it seems like people look beyond the Spurs titles to justify that status -- or to compensate for the lack of back to backs -- even when their title haul stands pretty well on its own. It's only when you try to make 4 greater than 6 that the math gets difficult. The same happens when people try to make LeBron's career better than Jordan's right now instead of letting it play out.

Also, the Bulls went with the nuclear option, dumping Jordan, Phil and Scottie all at once. And I have no issue with those that prefer the Spurs.

Were the Atlanta Braves a dynasty? I'd argue an NL East dynasty, but not an MLB one. Just to use an extreme example. Most NFL dynasties are about titles: Steelers, 49ers, Cowboys, Patriots...

[PhantomDreamer]

After starting the 1990-91 season 0-3, through June of 1998, the Bulls with Jordan, never lost 3 consecutive games again.

[IceCap]

It's only when you try to make 4 greater than 6 that the math gets difficult. The same happens when people try to make LeBron's career better than Jordan's right now instead of letting it play out.

No one's saying four is greater then six. People are just pointing out that the Spurs, over the course of those four championships, have been consistent contenders. Considering that the first championship of theirs was in 1999? That's pretty impressive.

Consider who's risen and fallen in that time. The Lakers were pretty good, but they've fallen. The 76ers had a nice run but never really amounted to anything. The Pistons were relevant for a few years until they weren't again. The Celtics were back and then they weren't. The Heat have taken off, but have they been as consistently good for 15 years like the Spurs have been? Nope. So yeah, I think there's a case to be made that they're a dynasty.

[CubsFanBudMan]

No argument on the Spurs' credentials as a dynasty at all.

But the Bulls' run of playoff seasons between 1984-85 and 1997-98 and six titles is still my preference.

And had they not blown up the team, I'd argue the playoff run would have continued, if not the title run.

But as Barkley just said, the Bulls are stupid. True then, maybe true now. So we'll never know.

But if you tell me to make a choice between two teams with impressive extended playoff-appearance streaks and team A gets four titles and team B gets six, I know which one I'd pick. Doesn't mean everyone else has to, though.

[rams80]

If we're going to play the "Bulls made the playoffs every year with MJ" card, it bears mention that while there were 16 playoff teams, there were only 23 teams in the league. Kind of eases competition, no? The 1987-1988 Bulls (which were the first team with Pippen and Grant) were the first Jordan-Era team to even have a winning record.

[PhantomDreamer]

There were 23 teams in 1987-88, 25 the next year, 27 in 1989-90. So what? Anyone who says the Spurs' run is more impressive than Jordan's Bulls has an agenda. The Spurs have had a good run, but let's leave it at that.

[rams80]

There were 23 teams in 1987-88, 25 the next year, 27 in 1989-90. So what? Anyone who says the Spurs' run is more impressive than Jordan's Bulls has an agenda. The Spurs have a good run, but let's leave it at that.

As an example of "fewer teams=easier road to the playoffs", the 1985-86 Bulls were able to sneak into the playoffs with a 30-52 record. Yes, Jordan was hurt that season, but still...22 GAMES UNDER .500 AND YOU STILL GET A FRICKIN' PLAYOFF BERTH!

The only time Duncan's Spurs haven't won at least 50 games in a regular season the entire flippin' season was 50 games long (they merely had the best regular season record and won the NBA title that year...) This is not something Jordan's Bulls can say.

[CubsFanBudMan]

My point is still if you have to use playoff appearances and meaningless division titles to justify the belief that today's Spurs are better than the Jordan Bulls, then you're stretching. I simply don't agree.

Bottom line: I'll take six over four.

And again, aren't the '90s Atlanta Braves eventually the greatest team of all time if we keep moving these goal posts?

The Spurs are a great NBA dynasty that has extended over an impressive amount of time. It doesn't make them better than those Bulls, IMO.

[Xist2inspire]

Using titles alone to judge a dynasty is every bit as silly and as stupid as using titles alone to define a player. Not bashing anyone's preference or anything, just thought I'd put that out there.

It's not some affront to the basketball gods to say someone was, or has been, better than the Mighty Michael Jordan and his Bulls, you know. It's not a cardinal sin to question or challenge them. And this is coming from a huge 90's Bulls fan.

[TalktoChuck]

Michael Jordan was an amazing basketball player, one of the best ever. That being said, he is definitely overrated.

[PhantomDreamer]

Michael Jordan was an amazing basketball player, one of the best ever. That being said, he is definitely overrated.

This is just being a revisionist.

[Kramerica Industries]

What sells me on Chicago here is the fact, in those six championship appearances, they never lost. They have had it easier than San Antonio did with respect to the quality of their conference; Chicago had the Knicks and Pacers and for a little while the Magic were a real contender, but it's nothing compared to San Antonio's rather regular gauntlet of Western foes.

But that the Bulls were in six NBA Finals and won all six tells me that, even if they were in the West, they still probably would've enjoyed a great deal of success in terms of championships won. Even in 1994, sans MJ, if thhey had gotten past New York, that team probably wins the championship; they had owned Houston's lunch that season IIRC (4-0 head-to-head, right?). It's easy to forget that they were still a 50+ win team without arguably the greatest player ever on their roster for 1.5 seasons.

[CubsFanBudMan]

As a Cubs fan, you'd think I'd want to believe something other than titles matters. But I don't.

The Cubs of 2003-2008 weren't a dynasty.

I don't think you have a dynasty without league titles. By calling that definition "silly" you suggest they aren't essential, which is why I keep bringing up the Braves. They got one in that entire run, but they were in every year. When we rank the MLB teams of the '90s, are they ahead of the Yankees? The Blue Jays?

The Spurs are a dynasty because of their titles.

[Xist2inspire]

The reason why I said what I said is because people always use the "6!" argument to put the Bulls and Jordan on a GOAT pedestal, while forgetting that even with using that argument, the Bulls are clearly second best to Russell and the Celtics. I love MJ and those Bulls, and he and the team are among the very best, but the amount of hyperbole and incessant praise surrounding their legacy is sickening sometimes, as well as diminishing the accomplishments of others to make them look better. I've seen it time after time in discussions, every time the Bulls/MJ come up, the discussion generally takes on the feeling of "The Bulls/MJ are the best, 6 titles, end of story." Again, not to bash anyone's preference, but still. They're not the end-all, be-all, they can be questioned. It can, and should, go beyond just looking at 6.

Can we at least say that though the Jordan Bulls were arguably the better dynasty, depending on what you prefer, the Spurs are clearly the better franchise?

[TalktoChuck]

Michael Jordan was an amazing basketball player, one of the best ever. That being said, he is definitely overrated.

This is just being a revisionist.

He is most certainly overrated. Mostly because of his mass popularity. And It is blasphemy to simply suggest that he isn't the best player in NBA history (as evidenced by this thread), even though it is a perfectly legitimate discussion to have.

Jordan was a great player, but like Xist said, him and the Bulls are praised and worshipped to no end, when there are better teams and players. Jordan is definitely one of the top 3 players in history, but is he the best ever like everyone claims? No.