Why the Spurs Are Not a Dynasty

You remember, don't you? The soap opera that was the talk of a nation? The hallmark of American primetime soap operas in the 1980s? The epitome of an era of glamour and decadence? If you figured "Dynasty," then surely you remember the primetime, Denver-based, soap opera on ABC that lasted from 1981 to 1989.

In San Antonio, they are trying to recreate their own version of the ever-popular soap opera. Except there are a few things missing, like a soap opera, national discussion, glamour, decadence, and primetime coverage. Oh, but at least they are airing this re-creation on ABC, so that counts for something, right? And what about Eva Longoria? Doesn't she count as "soap opera" or "decadence" or "glamour" or "primetime coverage?"

Well, even including Eva Longoria does not seem to be helping San Antonio, who rightfully called their version of "Dynasty" ... the Spurs.

Since 1999, the Spurs have won four NBA championships, 445 regular season games, 88 playoff games, 16 Finals games, and six division titles. No other team in the same time period could make a similar claim. During this stretch, the Spurs averaged about 55 wins per season.

The Spurs have drafted well — including David Robinson, Tim Duncan, Sean Elliot, Tony Parker, and Manu Ginobli. They have a classy, well-respected coach in Gregg Popovich. Three key players (Duncan, Parker, Ginobli) are under contract through 2011, meaning they will probably have another run at the title. Fan attendance and support is solid. Overall, the Spurs have all the makings of a dynasty. In fact, only three other franchises own more titles than the Spurs — the Celtics (16), Lakers (14), and Bulls (6), with each team considered a dynasty in their own respects.

Yet, are they really in the same class as these other dynasties?

Well, let's first compare the other franchises. During the Bulls' run in the 1990s, they won 490 regular season games, 101 playoff games, 24 Finals games, and six division titles. Included in the regular season totals are two of the greatest seasons in NBA history, in terms of wins — 72 in 1995-96 (most all-time), and 69 in 1996-97 (tied for second all-time). The Bulls averaged approximately 61 wins per season.

The Lakers' closest dynastic run (in Los Angeles) was from 1979 to 1989, where they won five championships. During that stretch, the Lakers won 591 regular season games, 111 playoff games, 20 Finals games, and nine division titles. In that same stretch, the Lakers failed to make it out of the first round only once and also advanced to the Finals eight times in 10 years. The Lakers averaged about 59 wins per season.

The Celtics' most memorable run was during the heyday of the NBA, from 1956 to 1969, where the Celtics won 11 championships, 674 regular season games, 106 playoff games, 46 Finals games, and nine division titles. The Celtics averaged about 52 wins per season (and played fewer games per season and in the playoffs).

Just comparing these stats, the Spurs would rank last in each category. Keep in mind, the Spurs' run has lasted for eight years, the Bulls' also eight years, the Lakers' 10 years, and the Celtics' 13 years.

While the Spurs did win four of the last nine championships, the years they did not win does not really support the Spurs cause. In their first chance to defend the 1999 championship, the Spurs won only one playoff game in 2000, losing to Phoenix in the first round. The following season (2001), the Spurs only mustered seven playoff wins, including being swept by the Lakers in the conference Finals. In 2002, the Spurs only won four playoffs games, losing in the second round to the Lakers, four games to one.

After winning the title in 2003, the Spurs failed to advance past the second round again, winning only six playoff games this time, before losing the Lakers in six games. The Spurs would win their third title in 2005, but failed to defend again in 2006 with yet another second round exit at the hand of the Dallas Mavericks, with a total of seven playoff wins. Of course, the Spurs would win in this year.

Looking at the history above, the Spurs are the only team to win at least four championships without repeating. The Celtics won as much as eight in a row, the Lakers won back-to-back at the end of their run, and the Bulls have consecutive three-peats. The Spurs can never seem to get past the second round as defending champions.

Yet even a closer look at each of the four championships raises questions, as well. The Spurs' first title in 1999 was a shortened season of 50 games. In addition to playing in an abridged season, they beat a very weak Eastern Conference team in the New York Knicks, who barely made the playoffs that season (the first season without Michael Jordan or Scottie Pippen playing for the Bulls).

To the Spurs' credit, they did have a stingy defense in 1999, allowing only 84.7 points per game in the playoffs, and 79.8 points allowed per game against the Knicks. The Spurs only allowed 90 or more points twice during the 1999 playoffs. Yet, even with this strong defense, playing only a 50-game season, and an NBA Finals against a team that barely qualified for the playoffs does not give much meaning to the championship.

The Eastern Conference was even more wide open in 2002, where the New Jersey Nets were the class of the watered-down conference. Beating the Nets in the Finals in 2002 does not say much, as the Nets probably would have been a lower seed out West. Keep in mind, since the Bulls' era of dominance ended in 1998, four teams out of the Eastern Conference made the Finals for the first time in franchise history, with another two (New York and Philadelphia) teams trying to reclaim a past glory. With the exception of the Detroit Pistons, no team out of the Eastern Conference ever had a reasonable chance of winning the Finals, regardless of the Western Conference opponent, which was either the Lakers or Spurs in each year except 2006 (Mavericks).

With such weak competition, the Spurs' first two titles do not appear to say much about the team itself, as much as they just played teams that just could not compete. In 2005, the Spurs may have met their match in the Detroit Pistons, who actually was good enough to beat anytime out of the West, and stretched the Finals to seven games. Many argue that had the Pistons had home-court advantage, the Pistons would've won that year, but Tim Duncan played some of his best basketball in that seventh game, scoring 25 points, grabbing 11 rebounds, blocking 2 shots, and dishing out 3 assists.

This may have been the best Finals performance of any of the Spurs — and the only year they had any true competition. The 2007 Finals was a laugher, with the Spurs sweeping an overmatched Cleveland Cavaliers.

Considering all of this, are the Spurs worthy of being in discussion to be a dynasty? Not even comparing the greatness of the players or level of competition within the Western Conference (the Lakers, Suns, Mavericks), it almost appears that the Spurs were at the right place, at the right time.

In three of the four years they won, it can easily be argued that they won the championship in a year where no other team really wanted it — almost as if the Spurs were winners by convenience. They beat an overwhelmed Knicks team in five games, a talented but average Nets team in six games, and swept a Cavs team that didn't know what hit them. That is a combined 12-3 record in three championship seasons — and the 12-3 record is more an attest to the weakness of the competition, not the greatness of the Spurs. In the one year they faced stiff competition from the East, they went seven games, and barely squeaked out of the final game in San Antonio.

With all this said, the Spurs really are not a dynasty. Not only do the numbers not compare to that of the other dynasties, but even the times they did win, it is hard to really consider the victory one of greatness. No one ever brags about the varsity team beating the junior varsity team.

Many Spurs will claim that if they played in another city, then they would clearly be considered a dynasty. However, each dynasty won consecutive championships, and each dynasty consistently made it past the second round in years they did not win the championship during the dynasty. Not to mention, the Spurs really look ugly when they are dethroned. Not to mention, there is certainly more roster stability — Tim Duncan is the only player to play on all four championship teams. Hardly a dynasty when only one player has been there through the whole process, even if he is one of the greatest players in the game. After all, at least the other dynasties had several superstars or role players that played from beginning to end, such as Bill Russell and Bob Cousy; Magic Johnson, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, James Worthy, Michael Cooper, Byron Scott; and Jordan, Pippen, and Phil Jackson.

That being said, what will it take for the Spurs to be a dynasty? Well, for starters, successfully defending their title will help, meaning they have to win in 2008, despite a deeper Western Conference. If they do, then at least they can take care of the roster stability, as well, as Parker and Ginobli would've been around for most of the championships. Additionally, the Spurs would probably have to win another title before 2011 — totaling six championships — in order for them to get over the hump and be called a dynasty. Two more championships with the same core of stars — not impossible, especially considering that their leader, Tim Duncan , is barely in his 30s — and then the Spurs can join the Celtics, Lakers, and Bulls.

Yet, until then, the Spurs are just that team who won at the right time, when nobody else wanted to win.

Related: Also see Brad Oremland's take on the Spurs as a dynasty.