They’re very close, and a great team over a number of years, but, the San Antonio Spurs need to do me one thing —
Repeat.
Since Bill Russell retired in 1969, five/six different teams have repeated as champions: The mid-’80s Lakers, the late-’80s Pistons (who were one cheap foul call away from beating the Lakers in game 6, 1988, and thus getting the first of a three-peat); the 1990s Bulls (two separate incarnations, if you will), the mid-’90s Rockets, and the 2000s Lakers.
Heck, the Spurs haven’t even BEEN to the Finals back-to-back, let alone repeated. By that standard, the ’80s Celtics are more a dynasty than the Spurs.
Until the Spurs can at least make two consecutive visits, let alone repeat, no, they don’t count.
2 comments:
regarding the spurs dynasty conversation, i am amused by two points: 1) the arbitrary nature of the criteria of what constitutes a so-called dynasty; and 2) the shifting of said criteria when the spurs fulfill what's asked of them, case in point: this "repeat" canard. what's obvious is the total lack of respect for the accomplishments of this small market team, an unwillingness by the pundits to recognize any merit from a team outside of l.a., new york, chicago, or boston. this will all become clear again next season should the spurs in fact repeat. then a new criteria will suddenly emerge to keep any pesky outsiders from sulliying the ranks of the holy trinity of lakers, celtics, and bulls.
Little bit of a persecution complex? I never mentioned the phrases "large market"or "small market" in my blog, nor did I say I was a fan of any particular team.
But, if the Spurs can't even MAKE two consecutive Finals, let alone win two, they're not a dynasty in my book.
The Lakers won back-to-back twice as the "small-market" Minneapolis Lakers. They were a dynasty. Period. City size has nothing to do with it.
Post a Comment