Ranking the Dynasties

[msgkings322]

By the definition of the word, I think we're being shortsighted here. A dynasty is a succession of rulers of the same line of descent, which implies multiple eras, not just the career length of one important player (Bulls, Patriots, Warriors). For NBA, that pulls it back to Celtics and Lakers, the tried and true (or boring and tired, lol) true examples of dynasty in pro basketball.

But in this context (sports) that is not the definition of that word

 

[shopson67]

But in this context (sports) that is not the definition of that word

It should still mean more than the length of your star player's career though.

 

[msgkings322]

It should still mean more than the length of your star player's career though.

It does. These dynasties tend to have other continuity like one coach and/or more than one player. It's a franchise thing, if a franchise wins 3+ titles bunched up, that's a sports dynasty. What's wrong with that?

 

[shopson67]

It does. These dynasties tend to have other continuity like one coach and/or more than one player. It's a franchise thing, if a franchise wins 3+ titles bunched up, that's a sports dynasty. What's wrong with that?

Just a misuse of the term I guess.

 

[msgkings322]

Just a misuse of the term I guess.

You guess wrong. Words (especially in English) have different meanings depending on the context, and sports has a lot of those.

Sports dynasty is not the same thing as a political/royal one. Sports hate is not the same as actual hate hate (I sports hate Kyrie, but I don't actually hate the man). How about other words we use describing sports, like "war"?

 

[shopson67]

You guess wrong. Words (especially in English) have different meanings depending on the context, and sports has a lot of those.

Sports dynasty is not the same thing as a political/royal one. Sports hate is not the same as actual hate hate (I sports hate Kyrie, but I don't actually hate the man). How about other words we use describing sports, like "war"?

Unnecessarily flowery language used to overstate the importance of sports, nothing more. The idea of a dynasty lasting 5 years strips the implied importance from the word.

 

[msgkings322]

Unnecessarily flowery language used to overstate the importance of sports, nothing more. The idea of a dynasty lasting 5 years strips the implied importance from the word.

 

[tlance]

Unnecessarily flowery language used to overstate the importance of sports, nothing more. The idea of a dynasty lasting 5 years strips the implied importance from the word.

Quite the contrary.

Your notion that dynasties need to span multiple generations is far too exclusive.

 

[trojanfan12]

It should still mean more than the length of your star player's career though.

I get what you're saying. It makes for some interesting questions.

After Magic retired, ending the Showtime era, they still made the playoffs every season except 1 before the Shaq/Kobe era. The even made the conference semifinals twice. So, does that mean that the Lakers had a dynasty that lasted from 1980 - 2004 when Shaq left?

 

[msgkings322]

I get what you're saying. It makes for some interesting questions.

After Magic retired, ending the Showtime era, they still made the playoffs every season except 1 before the Shaq/Kobe era. The even made the conference semifinals twice. So, does that mean that the Lakers had a dynasty that lasted from 1980 - 2004 when Shaq left?

The person you are asking thinks the Lakers 'dynasty' is the entire length of their existence, as is the Celtics one.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

1. Jordan Bulls. 6 titles in 8 years. Greatest player.

2. Showtime Lakers. 5 titles and 8 Finals appearances in the '80s.

3. Russell Celtics. Absolute domination in the late '50s through the '60s. The only reason they're not no. 1 is because I'm persuaded by the argument about there being fewer teams back then.

4. Duncan Spurs. 5 titles and 6 Finals appearances. Won 50 at least 50 games every year except for shortened seasons.

5. Kobe/Shaq Lakers. 5 titles and 7 Finals appearances, but I put them below Duncan Spurs because of some down years.

6. Curry Warriors. 4 titles and 8 Finals appearances. Will move up to 4th for me if they add another title.

7. Bird Celtics. 3 titles and 5 Finals appearances. Unfortunate for them that they existed at the same time as the second greatest dynasty. Still such great memories of them in the '80s doing battle with the Lakers and Pistons (I wasn't a sports fan yet when they battled Philly, but those must've been great, too).

8. LeBron/Wade Heat. Late addition I just thought of. 3 titles and 5 Finals appearances in a 9 season period has to count as a dynasty, right? Bird Celtics get the edge because of nostalgia and roster continuity?

Is this fair? Am I missing a great dynasty? I'm guessing that the Duncan Spurs v. Kobe/Shaq Lakers will be the biggest debate.

I think you're missing The Spurs Dynasty with Tony Parker and Tim Duncan - they dominated with five championships out of ten years and made it in the playoffs every year, not to mention the Duncan took less money so that the Spurs organization could hire better players to play with him. In fact, I think they were better than the Warriors as of right now. It remains to be seen if the Warriors will pass the Spurs, but are capable of it and likely will.

 

[trojanfan12]

The person you are asking thinks the Lakers 'dynasty' is the entire length of their existence, as is the Celtics one.

Which begs another question...Between 1960 and 1973 that Lakers made it to the NBA finals 9 times, but only won once. Dynasty?

 

[msgkings322]

I think you're missing The Spurs Dynasty with Tony Parker and Tim Duncan - they dominated with five championships out of ten years and made it in the playoffs every year, not to mention the Duncan took less money so that the Spurs organization could hire better players to play with him. In fact, I think they were better than the Warriors as of right now. It remains to be seen if the Warriors will pass the Spurs, but are capable of it and likely will.

Yes that Spurs dynasty is a big one but make no mistake, the 2017 Warriors would beat any Spurs team in any of those years in a 7 game series.

And you said he was 'missing' them, he listed that dynasty 4th.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

Which begs another question...Between 1960 and 1973 that Lakers made it to the NBA finals 9 times, but only won once. Dynasty?

Depends on who you ask

If you ask a Lakers fan - one time in ten years is a dynasty

If you ask anyone else - ten championships in ten years would not be a dynasty

 

[shopson67]

Quite the contrary.

Your notion that dynasties need to span multiple generations is far too exclusive.

I expect more out of something considered a dynasty. Otherwise, the weight that word holds is weakened IMO. Semantics ultimately, I just think a more appropriate word could be found, but ultimately most don't care anyway lol.

 

[shopson67]

Depends on who you ask

If you ask a Lakers fan - one time in ten years is a dynasty

If you ask anyone else - ten championships in ten years would not be a dynasty

32 finals and 17 rings since 1947 is a dynasty

 

[Robotech]

Which begs another question...Between 1960 and 1973 that Lakers made it to the NBA finals 9 times, but only won once. Dynasty?

I think I said that those Lakers were a near dynasty, so I'll stick with that.

 

[Robotech]

32 finals and 17 rings since 1947 is a dynasty

But under your desired use of the word dynasty, wouldn't you require that Magic Johnson was the son of George Mikan, and that Kobe and Shaq were the sons of Magic Johnson? I guess it's possible, but it's very unlikely.