posted by KidUterus
vote down
flag
-
tziller Lack of regular season dominance? Compared to the recent Lakers dynasty? -
BullsBlogger I can't decide whether I'd rather read about what makes a 'dynasty', or get kicked in the throat.-
RedBaron Hear, hear! The term has no real meaning in sports, so these debates are pretty much pointless.
That said, WTB is right, and Will Perdue dissing the Spurs is hilarious.
-
SAINT ANDREW'S NET: A BONNIE LASS!
With Leather - Sports news and gossip, panda sex, and the occasional Toonces the driving cat Photoshop —
... Winning the Turnover Battle tells you why the Spurs are not a dynasty. But didn't Charles II ascend to the English throne after a hiatus in Stuart dynastic succession due to the Civil War? Spurs = Stuarts. After all, they have Duncan. (Hmm, Stuarts→Duncan→Macbeth→Scottish→
Morning Paper: Spurs a Dynasty?
Larry Brown Sports —
... Five reasons why the Spurs aren’t a dynasty [Winning the Turnover Battle]
NBA Finals: NBA Finals Blogdome: Spurs Win The Title
Deadspin —
... • Winning The Turnover Battle. "Repeating is what separates the men from the boys when it comes to dynasty and greatest of all time talk. The Spurs being called a dynasty without ever repeating is like someone running for President without ever holding public office. The two just go hand in hand. That is why the phrase dynastic succession exists. A dynasty, by definition, implies succession, and the Spurs have never accomplished that. Case closed."
The San Antonio Spurs are 2007 NBA Champs
Empty the Bench —
... - Winning the Turnover Battle argues that the Spurs are not a dynasty.
The Big Story: Crowning The Spurs
The Feed —
... As much as the media wants to make this story, the point of a dynasty is that is both historic and difficult. That is why there has only ever been one team in baseball to have a true dynasty (Three different runs by the Yankees), only four teams to do it in hockey (Toronto 44-51, Montreal 65-79, New York 80-83, and Edmonton 84-90), and arguably one in the NFL (The Steelers 4 in 6 during the '70s). Now here is my one caveat: if the Spurs do repeat next season, all will be forgiven in the dynasty discussion. Winning 4 titles in 6 years, with the essential repeat present in this case, along with the same core of players present, would indeed make the Spurs a dynasty. Even in that scenario however, there is no way that the '99 title should be included in any dynasty discussion. Calling the Spurs current run a dynasty does nothing but fill newspaper copy and cheapen the term. (Winning The Turnover
Bloggers React: Spurs put the Cavs, Fans out of their misery
FanIQ Blog —
...
Underappreciated in this series: Manu Ginobili. This is one of those instances when plus/minus can make you aware of something that wasn't othewise evident. Consider this: over the four games of this series, the Spurs outscored the Cavaliers when Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, and Bruce Bowen was on the bench. But when Manu Ginobili was on the bench, they were -18. In total, the Spurs were 64 with Ginobili on the floor compared to when he was off, 22 with Duncan, 18 with Bowen, and 12 with Parker. (Even in his "miserable" 0-7 Game 3, Ginobili was 11, second only to Brent Barry.) Yet somehow Manu Ginobili didn't even enter the MVP discussion.Linked to this last night, but Winning the Turnover Battle says this ISN'T a dynasty ...
Try Picking Against the Spurs Next Year
FanHouse —
... : Duncan, Parker, Pop and Manu are locked in long-term, and the front office has no problem filling out the rest of the roster. Nor is there any sort of simmering internal drama that could knock them off balance, like the fate that befell the Three-Peat Lakers. While there are any number of objections that can be raised , the Spurs fit the basic criteria: a perennial contender that goes all the way with some regularity. Are they the favorites for next season? The better question is, why wouldn't they be? Here's the dirty little secret of the Spurs: They like to Shaq it up a little. Lay relatively low through most of the regular season, only round into form down the stretch. Rest Duncan, save that extra gear for when they really need it. Then in the playoffs, they just kind of hang around until it's time to seal the deal. I'm not calling the Spurs lazy, but they certainly are deceptive. Th
Blog Roundup for 6-15-07
Sportable.com —
... Why the Spurs are NOT a Dynasty [Winning the Turnover Battle]: Hank is a frequent reader of Sportable and his blog, Winning the Turnover Battle, is a good one. We share the same opinion on the matter of the Spurs now being considered a dynasty. He makes a hell of a point in arguing that the 1999 team was far, far different than the other three. Mario Elie? Avery Johnson? Sean Elliot?
Mets not yet Kings of the City
Valentine's Views —
... • Why the Spurs are not a dynasty. Winning The Turnover Battle
Lancelot Links
Josh Q. Public —
... 1. The Spurs Are No Dynasty: Winning the Turnover Battle
Today's Top Five: Closer to [Shamm]god
D.C. Sports Bog —
... (Funny or Die) The Spurs are not a dynasty (Winning the Turnover Battle), and the Spurs
It's Been a Great Run, San Antonio, But You're Not Yet a Dynasty
FanHouse —
... By winning their third title in four years (and their fourth title in nine), the Spurs have clearly established themselves as one of the dominant teams of their era. But are they a dynasty? No disrespect to the newly-crowned champs, but there's not a chance. Why not? The blog Winning the Turnover Battle details the most compelling points to the argument, and I'm going to stress two of them. First, they've never won consecutive titles, and in fact have never made consecutive NBA Finals appearances. They've won three titles in five years ... but in the years in between, they failed to make it out of the second round. In fact, those two seasons were also years in which an Eastern Conference team went on to win the title (Detroit in 2004, Miami in 2006), so you could make a strong case that those years the the Spurs weren't even among the top five teams in the league. Secondly, the Lakers won
