Should we consider the Spurs a Dynasty?

Question

Assuming they win v the Cavs... thats 4 titles in 9 years.

I say no. Only because a dynasty should dominate over a prolonged period of time. Without significant interruptions.

The Spurs had a Laker team threepeat duning this period.

What do you think?

I DO think they're a great team though.

Score1952...
great answer- even if I disagree.

first, what if is never any good. I mean, what if Jordan doesn't leave for essentially 2 seasons... you could probably lock in at least one more title. (and I think 6 out of 8 with 2 threepeats is a dynasty... you're probalbly in the vast minority if you don't count the Bulls)

second, i think you're shortchanging the 01- 03 Lakers. Some would put the 01 Lakers up with the best single season teams of all times

Answer 1

No. The titles are too spread out over too many years and line-ups. A dynasty should be with the same nucleus of players. I think If they win this year, Tim Duncan has to be looked at as a first tier all -timer though (elevating him past Malone, Barkley, Isiah, and putting him with Bird, Magic, Jordan).

Answer 2

THESE ARE DYNASTYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NOT SA SPURS
Year Western Champion1 Margin Eastern Champion
1947 Chicago Stags 1-4 Philadelphia Warriors
1948 Baltimore Bullets 4–2 Philadelphia Warriors
1949 Minneapolis Lakers 4-2 Washington Capitols
1950 Minneapolis Lakers1 4–2 Syracuse Nationals
1951 Rochester Royals 4–3 New York Knicks
1952 Minneapolis Lakers 4–3 New York Knicks
1953 Minneapolis Lakers 4–1 New York Knicks
1954 Minneapolis Lakers 4–3 Syracuse Nationals
1955 Ft. Wayne Pistons 3-4 Syracuse Nationals
1956 Ft. Wayne Pistons 1-4 Philadelphia Warriors

Year Western Champion Result Eastern Champion
1957 St. Louis Hawks 3-4 Boston Celtics
1958 St. Louis Hawks 4-2 Boston Celtics
1959 Minneapolis Lakers 0-4 Boston Celtics
1960 St. Louis Hawks 3-4 Boston Celtics
1961 St. Louis Hawks 1-4 Boston Celtics
1962 Los Angeles Lakers 3-4 Boston Celtics
1963 Los Angeles Lakers 2-4 Boston Celtics
1964 San Francisco Warriors 1-4 Boston Celtics
1965 Los Angeles Lakers 1-4 Boston Celtics
1966 Los Angeles Lakers 3-4 Boston Celtics
1967 San Francisco Warriors 2-4 Philadelphia 76ers
1968 Los Angeles Lakers 2-4 Boston Celtics
1969 Los Angeles Lakers 3-4 Boston Celtics

Year Western Champion Result Eastern Champion
1991 Los Angeles Lakers 1–4 Chicago Bulls
1992 Portland Trailblazers 2–4 Chicago Bulls
1993 Phoenix Suns 2–4 Chicago Bulls
1994 Houston Rockets 4–3 New York Knicks
1995 Houston Rockets 4–0 Orlando Magic
1996 Seattle SuperSonics 2–4 Chicago Bulls
1997 Utah Jazz 2–4 Chicago Bulls
1998 Utah Jazz 2–4 Chicago Bulls

HELLO are you guys blind check the records a dynasty is a team who dominates an Era and does it with the same core players. You can only accredit the spurs with two titles because their main core in the 1999 championship was duncan, robinson, and ellis in 2003 & 2005 their main core is duncan, parker, & ginobli they have to atleast win three more to be considered a dynasty. Also they need to dominate yes they have dominated west for the last five or six years but they have only dominated the NBA for two of those years. Look at the stats i listed what made those teams dynasty they DOMINATED year after year after year, not one year they won the championship and then the next two years they didnt they DOMINATED and the spurs have not been consistent in dominating the NBA the only team or player that could be considered a dynasty if any during this era would be the the lakers with shaq and kobe they had the west locked for three years straight with no breaks, THATS DOMINANCE it was a small reign but still a small dynasty because they would have offically been considered a dynasty if they would have won one more. I think until the SPUR can show DOMINANCE thru out the NBA they are only what i would consider a GREAT team with a GREAT COACH because the only common factor between their three championship is GREG POPOVICH AND TIM DUNCAN

Answer 3

I think that a dynasty is competitive over an extended period of time and challenges for a championship every year.

With that said I believe the Spurs qualify. Even when the Lakers had their 3-peat the Spurs were considered one of the major challengers to win the championship. The Spurs have made the playoffs ten straight years which is currently the longest active streak. During that streak they have won at least 64% of their regular season games, and only two times have they won less than 70%. They have won six division titles, had the best record in the league four times. They have the best overall record in the league during the nine year span. When Robinson retired they just kept winning.

Even with the Lakers in the middle the Spurs deserve the Dynasty title if they win another championship.

Answer 4

I think the concept of a "dynasty" has changed over time, because teams' level of competition and competency have been fairly equalized.

That being said, I think the Spurs are well on their way to a dynasty. They don't win in consecutive years, but they are a given in any playoff series. They are always The Competition, outlasting the Lakers' 3-peat, the Pistons and the Heat's one-year stints.

Answer 5

in basketball you need to keep a nucleus of players together and win over a period of time... I say if they win this series then they are a dynasty. You can't count the first one... that was more the end of the David Robinson era than the beginning of this present team... look at the rosters and starting lineups and you'll see what I mean...

like I said though.... they win this one... they're a dynasty.

I agree in large part with ajaaron above, he makes good points, but in the modern era, this might be as close as you'll find.

Answer 6

I say yes. They've won 6 of the last 9 division titles, 4 of the last 8 conference titles, and 3 of the last 7 championships. And they're going to win the championship this year.

Answer 7

OF course we whould. 4 in 9 years, that almost every other year. They're almost like the Patrious in football (within recent years)

They have been dominating the association for quite some time now, they are making their name in history. Defidently a dynasty

Answer 8

Probably not a dynasty. Shack and kobe were a 3 peat dynasty for a while. But spurs win on and off so its not really a dynasty.

Answer 9

they won this series the exact time the cavs won the eastern conference, so if the can win next yr, they are definately a dynasty

Answer 10

As much as I hate them, they may be considered a dynasty if they win this one. But it won't be cause of stupid popovich or the other idiots. It will be cause of Duncan.