Dynasty?...Puhlease!
| 13
|
by user Stumptown
For my money there have only ever been 2 NBA dynasties. If, after reading my definition, you think others fit, please let me know. The American public wants dynasties. We want to believe that we are all actual witnesses. That's what make those silly Nike adds so effective. We all want to believe our era and the things we are witnessing are historic. That's why we jumped on Lebron's "48 Special" against Detroit and started throwing around crazy labels like "best ever." It may not have even been one of the top 20 performances in playoff history, but we want to believe we're seeing the best.
That's why, every time the same team wins more than one title, we bust out the "D" word. This practice brings to mind a few other "D" words like "dubious", "doubtful", "demented" or just plain "dumb." Still, when an NBA team gets their 3rd ring in less than a decade you at least have an argument to make since you are clearly talking about a dominant team. But is dominance the real definition of dynasty? (unintended aliteration). I don't think so. I only know about 2 NBA dynasties. Maybe some older Laker teams that I'm forgetting fit this mold, but I can only think of 2.
A dynasty doesn't rule a year. It doesn't even rule for several years. It's not one of the best for a period of time. A dynasty controls an era, a generation and does it alone. A dynasty leads you to believe that no one else has a shot at the title until the king is dead. That's why the Spurs, despite 4 rings in 8 years, are not a dynasty. They were consistenly good, but not scary good. No one ever said, too bad we played in this era because no one but the Spurs can win. They aren't even clearly the most dominant team of the last 10 years as you have to put the Lakers of Shaq and Kobe in that conversation. You can't have two dynasties in the same era, by definition. There is only one king. If you have two, what you have is something different.
Don't get me wrong, the Spurs are a great team and deserving champs and all that. Duncan rightly takes his place as one of the greatest players of all time and maybe the best of the last 10 years. Same goes for the Lakers before them, but the spurs have not held the league in a strangle hold for a prolonged period. The only teams to have done that are the Jordan Bulls and the Russell Celtics. I can't count the Bird Celtics (my favorite teams of all time) or the Magic Lakers because they had each other. Niether team dominated the era because either team seemed just as likely to win the title every year and some other good franchises like the Sixers and Rockets also messed things up.
But in the 90s when MJ was on his 6 ring tear, there was a real sense that they were unbeatable. Sure they were in some battles that could have gone either way, but even now you hear talk about Karl Malone and Sir Charles that it was just unlucky they lived in the Jordan era because during his reign he could not be stopped. In fact the only player that could stop the Jordan led Bulls was Jordan as he showed when he went away to pretend to be a baseball player. That's more than half the decade of being the prohibitive favorite every year and basically owning the league. Now that's a dynasty.
The Russell Celts got 11 rings if I'm not mistaken, so that pretty much speaks for itself.
And that's the list. If the Spurs win 3 or 4 more in the next 5 years, they will be a dynasty. Otherwise, their wins are too spread out and too frequently interrupted by other teams with legit claims to the throne.
All of this is really just a plea to stop throwing around words like dynasty and genius and best ever just because we want to believe we are in the presence of historic dominance. Maybe we are just watching some good teams. Maybe the new kids on the block haven't yet matched the success of their forefathers. Maybe we should respect the history we witnessed before.
So, no more dynasty talk...ok? Thanks.
