Done as a dynasty, if that's what some considered them to be

Which begs the question: What is a dynasty in the NBA?

Its a lot more than one championship.

Its a lot more than one championship.

That's what is going to be the hardest part of this for me, "what could have been".

If things had broken just right, we could be looking at a threepeat, with a decent shot at more.

So does 2 titles = dynasty?

3? 4? How fucking many?

Lakers with Shaq and Kobe is called a dynasty by the press, but they now nothing so fuck 'em.

I wanna know what true fans think a dynasty is.

My opinion would be two consecutive titles or 3 within 4 years, minimum.

Thanks GD.

BTW, is anyone surprised by the big twist?

All along we were watching thinking we were the Good guys and the Heat were Evil.

Now it's revealed in the final scenes that we're the Evil fuckers that have no heart or pride.

My opinion would be two consecutive titles or 3 within 4 years, minimum.

The Rockets were not a Dynasty. Its more than repeating (IMO).

So does 2 titles = dynasty?

3? 4? How fucking many?

Lakers with Shaq and Kobe is called a dynasty by the press, but they now nothing so fuck 'em.

I wanna know what true fans think a dynasty is.

The Celtics of the 60's. The Yankees of the 50's. The Oilers and Lakers of the 80's.

I don't think one team could be considered a "dynasty" unless it can consistently win over an entire decade. I'd say at the minimum 4 titles over ten years, and making it deep into the playoffs most of the remaining six years.

No, the Pistons are NOT a dynasty. Nor were the Rockets in the mid-90's.

Dynasty? We're about 4 letters short. We're no more a dynasty than the St. Louis Rams.

I think dynasty can be measured in two ways:

Current dynasties - so many championships in a few year period - Bulls.

Historic dynasties - Celtics and their 198,000 championships, Pistons with 3 in 15 years?!?!?!?!, Lakers, etc. Pittsburgh Steelers, etc.

I think the criteria for judging dynasties has to be changed (lowered) with free agency, expansion and parody that just weren't a factor back in the 50's, 60's, etc.

Winning two in a row or 3 out of 4 now is just as difficult as winning 5 or 6 titles back in the day when there was no player movement and only 12-16 teams (or fewer) in the league.



Note: Split off from the Pistons-Heat OGT into a new thread.

IMO you don't redefine the term, you just don't use it if it doesn't fit.

IMO you don't redefine the term, you just don't use it if it doesn't fit.

Cool.

Let's lock this sumbitch up and ship it off to The Stands.

Dynasty comes from the latin word 'Dyna' or Dynia'. Dyna was used in increments of counting, normally 10. Dynia was actually used by astronomers plotting voyages by using the stars in increments of 10.

Nah, I was just bullshitin. To me its a 10 year span where the team should be near the top for 10 years and winning it all 3 or 4 times. Thats a tough go, but then when someone does it, they are set apart, imo.

Dynasty used to compete against Dallas for ratings. Maybe our players need to wear big shoulder pads and throw each other over balconies. Is Stephen gay? And where's Heather Locklear when you really need her...

I like DM's take. 3 titles in 10 years with consistant winning the rest of the time (ie always in contention). The Wings and Devils could be considered dynasties in the late 90's, etc...while the Pistons and Rockets are not. The Spurs are close to being one, but they'll have to continue to be contenders for a few more years and possibly win another title.

Dynasty used to compete against Dallas for ratings. Maybe our players need to wear big shoulder pads and throw each other over balconies. Is Stephen gay? And where's Heather Locklear when you really need her...

Agreed:D

Three or more titles within a five-ten year period.

The Pistons are not even close to a dynasty. One championship? Pffffft. Then I guess the Marlins are a dynasty.

The Pistons are just this decades version of the 90s Packers.

I thought they were the Atlanta Braves.