5 straight finals and 3 championship sounds like a dynasty, even without the fourth title. I think we need to limit it to modern NBA dynasties. No one can repeat it unless you go back to 8-10 teams and you can become a champion by winning two playoff rounds.
Consider if the Cavaliers had gone to 6 straight finals in the same exact time period and won 3 of them. It would not be impossible. Then both would "sound like a dynasty" at the same time.
I think two criteria that are important that haven’t been named: 1) you gotta win more finals than you lose and 2) there can’t be another team that’s more dominant during the same time period.
So LeBron was 4 for 9 if we go from first win to last win. In the finals for 8 of those years. I think that's a dynasty but we don't have to think the same
Funniest thing is, he used to count the Celtics as a dynasty. Cause he had an old article where he talked about the Bird Dynasty. He's changing his rules now that Steph would qualify as one. I think the article was from the early 2000's.
To me it’s either a 3peat or 3 rings with 5 finals appearances, I’d be more lenient than Bill but I’d also tier. Tier 1: Russell’s Celtics, Magic’s Lakers, Jordan’s Bulls Tier 2: Bird’s Celtics, Shaq and Kobe’s Lakers, Duncan’s Spurs, Steph’s Warriors. Then there’s other runs like Isiah’s Pistons and Lebron’s Heat but those weren’t long enough to be dynasties imo. Didn’t have quite the dominance Shaq and Kobe’s Lakers did either
@@onehand-yusuf7212 you can't compare players from different era's by how they would perform in the other players era. If Russell played in the 90s and 00s he would have access to way better coaching, medical advancements, nutrition, etc. Dudes born in the 40s learned to play basketball next to a coal factory eating potatoes and working 8 hours a day
I don't know if you count the Spurs. Did they ever even win two in a row? Shaq/Kobe absolutely a dynasty. You win three straight titles you're a dynasty.
The thing no one ever brings up in these discussions is how hard it is to keep a team together in the modern NBA. They will make every excuse (rightly so) that looking at raw stats is an inaccurate way to judge past player performance, but completely disregard the inherent disadvantage Steph and modern superstars face in that everyone is moving always. They might even lose a couple of their young guys this summer. Russell's Celtics were in part defined by Auerbach's refusal to trade anyone in the name of continuity. IMO, Steph and the Warriors bouncing back from losing one of the greatest scorers of all time by building up their role players is a huge achievement.
Durant doing a sign and trade helped the warriors that much more and then kinda perfect storm. You get Russ back for nothing. Trade him for all around better player in wiggins.Klay was out. Then Steph so they got another high draft pick. Wiggins was the second best player in the finals for the warriors
Idk how you can say the Warriors were disadvantaged by player movement when they have been the team that MOST benefitted from it with the KD signing. As you said, he is one of the greatest scorers of all time and they got him for 3 years. Not only that, he was the best player of the Warrior's best opponent in the same conference. So they effectively got rid of the one big threat. Lets not forget the Warriors pay a luxury tax that few teams are able to pay, which has all but made them unaffected by player movement. They were able to pay Klay, Steph, and Draymond handsomely. We also can't just pretend player movement affect everyone. It affects small market teams. AD left NOLA, KD left OKC, PG-13 left Indiana and OKC, Westbrook left OKC, Kyrie and Bron left Cleveland, Kawhi left San Antonio. Few players from big market leave that market. The only ones I can think of are maybe Kyrie leaving Boston and Harden leaving Houston and Brooklyn. Point is, the Warriors are a huge market so the danger for them is not really there.
Russell's Celtics also won when there were 8-10 teams in league, and when you could win a championship based on two playoff rounds. Even if you control for talent and dominance, it's much harder to win a championship with 30 teams and four playoff rounds. I'm a believer that you need to limit these comparisons to the modern NBA (1979 post ABA merger, post three point line)
I always felt you had to win 3 championships in a 5, maybe 6, year span to be a dynasty. The 3 in a row that Kobe won with Shaq is its own dynasty. So the Warriors already have a dynasty and now this championship is just adding to it.
That’s weirdly specific. If I win, retool, win, retool, win retool, etc for 2 decades, u are a dynasty. The spurs built around one superstar, constantly retooled and remained in contention every year. and won nearly every chance they got. They were contenders from the beginning to the wheels fell.
The way I'd look at it: at least four championships in a 10-year span that include one great player present for all of them. That gives you Mikan's Lakers, Russell's Celtics, Magic's Lakers, Jordan's Bulls, Kobe's Lakers, Duncan's Spurs, and Steph's Warriors. I'm pretty comfortable with that list, and with Wade's Heat and Bird's Celtics barely missing the cut.
Spurs and Kobe Lakers weren’t a dynasty, Lakers did it like 8 years apart, and they were terrible in between, Spurs were always great but started in 99 and ended in 14, way too far apart I’d say
@@KDubb-ws9zc They won 4. Lost 1 of them fair and square (can argue about draymond suspension etc but I’ll ignore that) and the other they lost because 2 of their 3 key players got injured. And they still took it to 6😂 come on
I always thought the minimum benchmark for a dynasty was 3 titles in 4 years. You need the back to back title wins and the titles can't be too far apart from each other.
There's no argument Magic won 5 in 9 GS won 4 in 8 steph was gone for a whole season KLAY was gone for 2 so that's really 4 titles in 7 and they're contenders every year. The play in year they WERE ONE OF THE BEST 8 TEAMS but the play in WHICH WAS NEVER A THING BEFORE resulted in them eliminated. There's no way GS ain't a dynasty
I think you should qualify as a dynasty automatically if you win 3 chips with the same superstar. This simple parameter would include basically all the dynasties people usually think of anyway. 1) Russell Celtics 2) Bulls 3) Bird Celtics 4) Showtime Lakers 5) Shaq-Kobe Lakers 6) Warriors
Beyond championships I think another factor is how the league has essentially had to adjust to the Warriors’ play style. That level of influence I think has to be factored in to calling them a dynasty.
Nobody cares about finals appearances, this 2022 championship is not apart of the 2015 to 2018 Warriors dynasty. This is a new one off. How can you call this 2022 Warriors team apart of a dynasty when they are 4 years removed from their 2018 title? Your criteria needs a lot of work. An NBA dynasty is 3 or more titles in a 4 year span. This 2022 Warriors team doesn't count as apart of the 2015 to 2018 Warriors.
@@QuestionEverything562 your logic is ridiculously flawed, the core of the team is the same as it was in the first title. 3 drafted stars plus the same head coach. Other pieces come and go. By your logic the rings they won with KD are not part of an original dynasty either. And your definition of a dynasty being 3 titles in 4 years is something you pulled out of your ass. There’s never been a set definition. You’re coming up with stupid parameters in your own head. Stay in school kid
I haven't watched this whole thing yet but my friends and I discussed this a few weeks ago and it came down to this. There was the side that was stricter where you need 3 titles in 3 years, and the side which more of us agreed on which is 3 titles in 5 years. Cant have a dynasty if you don't win 3 titles, and also if you don't win the majority of during that stretch.
@@rileyhaley3848 That's fair, but five years is pretty good too. If it was 3 titles in 4 years, then the 2003 to 2007 Spurs wouldn't count as a dynasty. Which is fair to me because the Spurs never even won two in a row, so how could they ever be called a dynasty?
@@rileyhaley3848 Yes, I agree with your strict criteria. Too many people throw around the term, sports dynasty. It's a rare team feat. I can understand the criteria being different in the NFL though.
Does the criteria for back to back get loosened up a bit if the time frame is greater? Like 5 championships over a 25 year span while always being a contender barring major injuries. I know that sounds oddly specific but I think both Duke and UNC fall into that category. Maybe more so for Duke since it all came under coach k and the only down year they had was when he was out after surgery.
My definition is three championships in five years. So that’s Mikan’s Minneapolis Lakers, Russell’s Celtics, the Showtime Laker’s, Jordan’s Bulls, the Shaq-Kobe Lakers, Duncan and Popovich’s Spurs, and these Golden State Warriors. That’s it.
if you have at least 3 rings and 5 finals appearances while maintaining the same core of players, i think that qualifies as a dynasty. that solidly puts russell’s celtics, magic’s lakers, bird’s celtics, jordan’s bulls, duncan’s spurs, and curry’s warriors as the only dynasties, with kobe’s lakers in a grey area because of the split in core players.
Bird's Celtics never did that feat, they won 3 titles in 6 years. You also can't count Kobe's titles in 2009 and 2010 as apart of the Shaq n Kobe 2000 to 2002 dynasty. The 2000 to 2002 Lakers were Shaq's team anyway. That's not an extended dynasty of consistent championship success. The 2009 and 2010 Kobe led Lakers were never a dynasty. No player has his own career continued dynasties, a team dynasty is actually 3 titles or more in a 5 year span. You are overly abusing the term, NBA dynasty.
He's not even stanning for his own generation. He was born at the end of the celtics dynasty in 1969. He's just an old fashioned homer. No matter what he supports boston anything. If boston fans shouted rac1st stuff at players and tossed cherry bombs at the visiting team's bench during games he'd find a way to excuse it. Oh wait, he already did excuse all that. He's just a homer piece of garbage. not worth listening to.
Only 6 dynasties have existed imo. 1. Jordan Bulls (91-98) 2. Magic Lakers (80-88) 3. Russell Celtics (57-69) 4. Bird Celtics (81-86) 5. Duncan Spurs (99-07) 6. Steph Warriors (15-22) Edit: before more ppl come for me Shaqs Lakers should definitely be on here too I wouldn't count Duncan's last chip or Kobe's 2 with Pau as part of the same dynasty. Imo the core needs to stay relatively the same, the team needs at least 5 finals appearances in 11 years and 3 championships or 3 championships in 5 years.
@@nocturne311 to me that finals appearance in 13 championship in 14 were kinda similar to the run Kobe made without Shaq. The team was so far removed from their previous championships that I would consider it a separate run.
@@TheElectronicsMan100 '81 Celtics featured Nate Archibald, Gerald Henderson, Cedric Maxwell, Chris Ford, etc... '86 Celtics had Dennis Johnson, Ainge, Bill Walton, Scott Wedman and Jerry Sichting. The coaches were even different - Fitch and K.C. Jones. You're kind of contradicting yourself. The Spurs still had Duncan, Parker, Manu and Pop as coach in 2014. If you're counting '81-'87 for Boston, then you have to count '99-'14 for San Antonio.
@@TheElectronicsMan100 Also the only members of the 2015 Warriors also on the 2022 Warriors are Curry, Thompson, Draymond and Iguodala. They also had Kevin Durant from 2017-2019. Not a whole lot of continuity there.
I think you can' t definitively evaluate it yet because it's not over - let's see how many more GSW can get, but it's trending towards being a comp with the Bulls.
Mmm no. Duncan's Spurs were always winning 50 games and they'd make the WCF consistently or win a championship. Kobe's Lakers were trash after Shaq left. They spent 3 years in the gutter which easily breaks up a dynasty. The Shaq-Kobe Lakers was a dynasty though.
@@THE_BEAR_JEW mmm yes. duncan never won back to back rings, consistently lost with home court advantage while trying to defend. kobe went to 3 straight finals and won back to back
@@THE_BEAR_JEW i can agree with this, but i do have a question, if curry’s warriors are a dynarty despite missing the playoffs for 2 yrs, should that invalidate the argument that kobe missed one yr and did not get out the first rd for the next 2?
Warriors when Steph klay and draymond are all healthy and Kerr is the coach have not lost a western conference playoff series. Bill totally glossed over klays injury like it wasn’t a big deal to have one of the 5 best 2 way players in the nba not play for 2 seasons. When they’ve been healthy they’ve won.
not all dynasties are created equally imo any 5+ year run where you win >50% of the titles (so min 3 in 5) is a dynasty obviously Jordan's Bulls rank higher than this GSW team but that doesnt mean they arent a dynasty that leaves us with 49-54 Lakers, 80-88 Lakers, 2000-2002 Lakers, 57-69 Celtics, 2015-18 GSW, 91-98 Bulls and the 03-07 Spurs and yeah some of these teams found success outside of their peak years, some made the finals and lost, GSW in 22 and SAS in 99 and 15 even won titles but the titles they won during the years i listed imo, make these teams a dynasty regardless of anything else that happened around or during that time
I think there's only been one nba dynasty, maybe: Russell's Celtics. I think we mis-use the word dynasty. In history, a dynasty is a term used for multiple kings from the same family passing down their crown to the next generation. I think to be a dynasty, you have to have the first king, and then, that king has to pass down the crown to the next generation. First half of the twentieth century New York Yankees would clearly qualify, as an example. I think Russell's Celtics only qualify if you consider the Bird-McHale-Parish era as the "next generation" of the Celtics dynasty.
Sure. So no dynasties in sports basically ever, fine. What's a better word in your opinion to distinguish between Champion and annual Champion / champion contender?
@@QuestionEverything562 I've been a warriors fan since 1990, I understand how hard of a feat one playoff SERIES win is, which is all the warriors had from 1990 until 2013 (from the time I was 12 until I was 35). My point is the way the word "dynasty" is used: in history, you can't be a dynasty if the same person is King at the start and at the end; in the field of history, a dynasty is, by definition, multi-generational. It's one pharaoh handing the crown to his son, who hands it to his son, and so on and so on, for HUNDREDS of years, minimum. We don't use the word dynasty in sports the same way it's used in history. My point really is: Bill Simmon's argument is utterly ridiculous, he can define dynasty any way he wants to, and so can I, but that's not what the common usage is.
@@SuperSupersoda I agree that a sports dynasty is different from a long lasting, historical, hierarchical dynasty given the short peak athleticism of a given group of men vs the tyrannical reign of an empire or leniage. There is no real official definition of a sports dynasty, so you can come up with your own breakdown of it, but what is commonly been said about NBA dynasties in most basketball circles is at least 3 titles in a 4 or 5 year span. I personally think a dynasty is 3 titles or more in a 4 year span. That leaves a small rare amount of teams to accomplish this feat in NBA history.
@@QuestionEverything562 And I am not disagreeing with you. At some point, when we argue about definitions of things, the principle of common usage comes into effect, and, by common usage of the word "dynasty" in sports, you're usage of it is pretty much what most people agree with. My point was that is why Bill's definition of dynasty is absurd: if he can define it to be whatever it is he wants it to be, then so can I, and my definition can be historically accurate, which gives my definition a level of historical legitimacy that his definition lacks. We can play these word games all day long, which is why common usage is so crucial.
@@hardwoodthought1213 I would count that, 5 also is an easier number to quantify and doesn’t leave the opportunity for a split open. 2 titles in 5yrs? No. 3 titles in 5yrs? Yea. 2 titlesin 4yrs? you broke even, kinda leaves it on the fence imo and 3 titles in 4yrs doesn’t have the flexibility to account for uncontrollable circumstances like injury, players retiring, etc.
@@authornahsun634 Nah if Jordan played in '94 and all of '95 they would've at least reached the finals both years to face Hakeem. Those older teams with Barkley weren't quite the same.
My general rules on sports dynasties: 1) Must be at least 3 titles. 2) The spread of titles cannot be double or more the length of time (for example, the three titles can't spread by six or more years). 3) At least three players must have been core members of the team (not the same as stars but certainly important role players). By that standard, I'd think of the 2000s Spurs or the 2010s SF Giants as dynasties. 3 rings in 5 years rather makes you the talk of your era. The Lakers certainly had their dynasty in the early 2000s but I wouldn't lump in the late 2000s victories; there's too much spread and change in between.
1960s: Bill Russell Dynasty 1970s: ???? 1980s: Larry and Magic Dynasty 1990s: MJ Dynasty 2000s: Kobe and Duncan Dynasty 2010s: LeBron and Steph Dynasty 2020s: ....
1. Winning Multiple w/ Same Core (2 or 3) 2. Time Span for Example 10 Years 3. Has Consistently Throughout 4. 8 Years, 6 Appearance, 4 Champ (Dominant) 5. Has Their Own MVP and All Stars 6. Rarely Any Team Done That All that boxes are checked. They had Steph, Klay, Draymond since 2014-2022. Both of them are All Stars. Only few like them can achieve that in Modern Era. People need to change the perspective of dinasty. You can't really compare the standart in 80s 90s; especially when today's era it's easier for someone to learn and copy the success of others (with digital, network, social media, information); everyone can learn. So to sustain the dominance is harder than back in 80s and 90s. My point is: Modern Era is more dynamic with every points above, so you can't expect like three-peat, 6 title in 8 year or whatever it is. That's why all the record holder in every industry almost always comes from 80s 90s. Michael Jackson, Queen, etc., no one can copy them they are one of a kind because the world has no other to see. You can't say today's singer or dancer are any less talented; but it's JUST BECAUSE now they had more of competition compared to 80s 90s so no one really get one of a kind spotlight. So when someone can at least different than anyone today, you can tell they're special. Put on prespective, Jordan Bulls if they played in today's regulation rule and talent pool that we have now, I can guarantee you 100% they won't be a dinasty. So dinasty is the terms that need to be adjusted in every era. You can't trapped in Boomers or Gen X era. One day Gen Z will surpass Gen Y. And we should accept the fact their challenge and obstacle is different than ours.
I'm a Suns fan so I hate saying this as they haunted us during the 7 seconds or less period but the Spurs should be considered a dynasty. Sustained dominance and 5 titles. I know they didn't win back to back but 5 titles over a sustained period in which they were good to great almost every year with one close loss to the Heat should qualify. It's really hard to be that good for that long and when you take into account injuries, modern day free agency, and just weird things that can happen from year to year, what they accomplished is special. If you disagree with me go ahead, I hate those Spurs team so I will gladly be talked out of it.
Funny thing about this topic is that it’s the same as MVP. Whoever you think is MVP, you’re right, because there’s no criteria. Same thing here, whether or not you think the Warriors are a dynasty or not fundamentally depends on the definition.
I think since the 90s. Most would Agree. MJs run. Spurs 99 thru14 is a run. They were in it almost every year. Like Bill said. They could have won 7. The Shaq/Kobe Lakers would be in it as well from 00 thru 04. 4 final appearances in 5 years and then the Warriors 15 thru 22. They are incorrect about the Bulls. 94 I think they win..they still have Horace and BJ. MJ, Scottie. Horace on this run and jump traps were a nightmare. 95 is up in the air, but obviously that potentially will change the 96 thru 98 run.
For me personally, I define Dynasty as sustained dominance over a set period of time. I believe that you can have a slip here and there but basically if you're not able to repeat or threepeat, it's a near certainty that once you get there, it's a wrap. Magic's Lakers, Jordan's Bulls, Shaq's Lakers, Curry's Warriors. Duncan's Spurs just miss it, Wade's Heat miss it cause their grand scheme netted them 2 in 4 tries. Curry's Warriors went 3 in 4 years and now are 4 in 6. I can forgive the 2019 Finals cause they didn't let this one get away. The Warriors are a team that to me, feel like a near lock so long as Curry and the core are healthy. The young pieces are likely going to keep this going long after Steph and the others step away.
Uhmm, are you counting these 2022 Warriors as apart of the 2015 to 2018 Warriors? If so, that's 4 titles in a 7 year span actually, which isn't a dynasty. The Warriors from 2015 to 2018 are a dynasty, they won 3 out of 4 years. These 2022 Warriors are 4 years removed from their title in 2018.
I don't think repeating is necessary and in the modern NBA that's incredibly hard to do. If a team say wins in 23' then in 25' then in 27' I'd consider that a Dymasty. Still 3 in 5 yrs. We're not gonna see repeats or 3peats as often ever again.
I think a fundamental component of a dynasty is the definition of the word: a ruling party. Kobe Lakers and Duncan Spurs can’t both be dynasties, so I don’t think either are. Both won 5, but both slapped each other around. Whereas Magic Lakers were convincingly dominant against Bird Celtics and everyone else, that is a dynasty. Warriors are close, I think a fifth title would really hammer it home… or at least a couple more finals appearances. 4 wins and 4 losses in 10 years would be nuts
Wiggins can make the HOF, he is still only 27. If he can go 4 or 5 1st team All Defense, 4-5 All Star Games, win a DPOY, and 1 more chip or two he’s a lock for it.
How can you say prolonged dominance is the definition of dynasty and not have the Spurs? Five championships, six Finals berths and 18 straight playoff appearancss with a 63% win percentage18 in 18 years. Easily a dynasty just like the Warriors. Four titles and five Finals in eight years with arguably the best team ever! I would have both Bulls, Spurs, Warriors, Bird and Russell Celtics teams, Showtime and Kobe & Shaq Lakers.
First you need to define the minimum number championships to even be considered a “dynasty”. To me, that magic number is 5 rings. At 3 rings you’re a great team, even in 3 straight years. Four, would be flirting with dynasty but not there. Five rings in one decade gets qualities for the conversation. The word dynasty should be the pinnacle of definition and not go light on the standard. Nothing against great and tremendous teams, but true dynasty’s are rare.
@@QuestionEverything562 25 years of dominance. 5 titles. The greatest Big 3 of all time. The greatest PF of all time. Greatest coach of all time. That’s a dynasty. Go Spurs Go.
I think it's a minimum of three titles. Two is great but not a dynasty and the time frame is six years. Is there any six year stretch where you won half the championships. Which makes it 1. Miken Lakers, 2. Russell Celtics, 3. Magic Lakers, 4, Bird Celtics, 5. Jordan Bulls, 6. Kobe/Shaq Lakers, 7. Duncan Spurs, 8. Steph Warriors. Some of those are super dynasties obviously: Miken (5 in 6), Russell (11 in 13), Magic (5 in 9), Jordan (6 in 8 really 6 in 6 1/2). I also think there's an * dynasty. The Lebron Heat/Cavs Dynasty. Arguably shouldn't count as a dynasty.
Winning percentage in championship games, more than 2 titles, and sustained excellence with a core group of players throughout the run. Identity is important in framing a dynasty. I don't think it's fair to count a bad season or a missed playoffs against a dynasty. Luck can play against any team and it happened with the Lakers, Spurs, and Warriors. I think with those criteria, you qualify as a dynasty, but anything more is a conversation about comparing dynasties. Anything less is more a conversation about dynastic teams knocking on the door. The pistons were dynastic with 1 win but sustained excellence with so many ECF wins and appearances, but they weren't a dynasty.
Everytime Kobe won he repeated, he defended the title, and has a 3 peat now is Timmy a dynasty and Kobe isn’t, Timmy won 5 in 15 year span Kobe won 5 in 11 year span
yeah modern NBA it's more about the players. Magic and Kareem's Lakers, Bird's Celtics, Jordan's Bulls, Shaq and Kobe's Lakers, Duncan's Spurs, LeBron's Heat/Cavs, and Steph's Warriors.
Requirement for Dynasty: Whether it's basketball, baseball, or football you must dominate for a decade. Team of a decade. Spurs were never best of a decade. 70s Steelers, 80s NINERS, 80s Lakers, 90s Bulls.
This whole thing is literally nitpicking in order to not give ppl credit. Warriors are definitely a dynasty, they only fell off because of injuries. Same thing with Duncan and Kobe. Duncan was in 9 conference finals, 6 finals, with 5 rings in 15 year core of his career. Kobe had 8 conference finals, 7 finals, 5 rings in his 12 year core of his career. Plus, a 3 peat is basically the modern pinnacle of sustained dominance
According to Merriam-Webster the word Dynasty means "a succession of rulers" or "a powerful group that maintains its position for a considerable time". So to me the NBA's succession of rulers that maintained their position for a considerable time would be Mikan's Lakers (5 titles in 6 years), Russell's Celtics (11 titles in 13 years), Jordan's Bulls (6 titles in 8 years) and these current Warriors (4 titles in 8 years). Any other elite run of champions featured another team that also won multiple times during "their rule". Magic's Lakers won 5 in 9 years, but Bird's Celtics won 3 in 6 years during that stretch. Duncan's Spurs won 4 in 9 years but Shaq's Lakers three-peated during the same time. So for me there have been 4 true dynasties and then several almost dynasties.
Short attention spans have caused sports fans to devalue TRUE greatness. Dynasties are the PEAK of sports dominance. Jordan's Bulls, Russell's Celtics. That's it.
Warriors with Steph is the next closest thing we have to a team dynasty. You could put LeBron in his own category as a personal dynasty. Greatness is rare.
Cos it's pretty narrow, 2 in a row lose in the finals 2 in a row is just as if not more "dynastic"/impressive than a 3 peat imo. But everyone's gonna have there own definition of what a dynasty means to them and that's fine. 🤷♂️
The sad thing is that Simmons bleeds green, so, of course, the Celtics are a dynasty. I wouldn't argue that but I'd recall that they were the first team to really embrace black players in an era when there were eight teams of mostly white guys who couldn't jump and nobody cared except the few fans in the small arenas. The world has changed dramatically, not least because of free agency and dramatically improved physical skills. Russell may have been great in any era but I don't know how many of those Celtic champions would have been. Winning in this era is much more difficult. The Warriors success is largely the result of having drafted well and committing to pay the outrageous price to keep the core together. They'd done that for eight years despite catastrophic injury and struggles on the court. Dynasty? Does that matter. They really have been a great team for a long time and promise to continue for the foreseeable future.
Basically going by Bill Simmons there is only 1 dynasty. That BOS Celtics dynasty winning a bunch of titles when NBA was under developed and not a very deep league with multiple teams and offer not much competition
I would recognize 3 dynasties: Russell's Celtics, Jordan's Bulls, Shaq/Kobe's Lakers, and Curry's warriors. Neither the Lakers or the Celtics in the 80s were dynasties, there was too much competition and neither team dominated the other to the extent that one ruled the league. A king must be unopposed.
Bill, I think you are right on the money with how strict you are with your dynasty criteria. What made the showtime lakers a dynasty wasn’t just the 5 titles, it was the 9 finals appearances in an11 year span which is dominance similar to your old Celtic teams with 11 titles and the Bulls. So that Lakers team was a top 2 team for 9 out of 11 years, just think about that. And that is probably why you didn’t say the 80s Celtics qualified because of the Lakers. What hurts the Spurs and warriors is in the middle of their supposed dynasty was the Lakers 3-peating once and almost did it again later that decade. So those Lakers teams had 5 titles and 7 appearances in 10 years, but they also sucked a few years and charged personnel. I think the Warriors can be a real dynasty if they win it again next year because then you have 5 titles, 7 finals appearances in 9 years then I feel like it meets your criteria. Am I right to think that would change your mind?
GSW, of course its a dynasty, 4 titles in less than 10 years and 2 finals losses.. the only issue is that apart from 2 (actually 1) Cleveland runs they did not have an equal opponent. For a dynasty you also need legit competition
Cause they were still competitive. They lost to the Knicks in 7 in 1994 and the Magic in 6 in 1995. I will give you 1995 being an off year, but 1994 was definitely not an off year.
I thin im pretty generous with this- and i prefer sustained excellence to blinding brief dominance (in this specific discussion ).... Also, I hear what Ryen is saying, but for me thats why this discussion is a bit different for me than the great player discussion. I think it actually slightly DETRACTS from the dynasty thing when its really just one player.... For a dynasty i want an image of 2-4 guys in a given uni together on the court in my head. So for me and again this is dynasties not 'greatest teams" Russell's Celtics [gap] Bulls (the greatest team but sort of hurt by the fact that we are kind of just describing one mans career- but the strength of Jackson, and Pippen, Rodman when he was there builds it back) Showtime gap (all about equal but) Spurs, (especially the 4 with the three guys) Warriors, Celts thats it Mikan lakers a pre history kind of dynasty Kobe Shaq the greatest non-dynasty run of all time (perhaps greater peak then many of the dynasty teams) Kobe championships later not quite the same thing really just his career in the same context Heat- an amazing run bad boys great team, rockets etc
I think that the term originally meant the sustained rule of a single line. So an important part is actually a change of the star player(s) on the team while maintaining rule, or dominance as you put it. Many of the possible teams, excluding Jordan, had a star player through all of their run but then had other players step up to be the new star of the team. Probably the best of this was the Kobe Shaq duo, with Shaq as the dominant player, which became a Kobe and Pau team with Kobe as the main star. So being an organization that has two consecutive generations of star players and supporting cast.
If you’re going to say warriors should’ve won in 2019 shouldn’t you be unbiased and say they should’ve lost in 2015? It didn’t happen but we understand why it should’ve
Maybe era is better and dynasty is reserved for the Celtics, magic lakers, Jordan bulls, Duncan spurs only. Bird magic era, Shaq Lakers era, Kobe era, lebron era. The eras are when teams and players are dominant but not always winning. I think warriors are close to a dynasty.
These arguments of sustained dominance are a little weird. Shaq was a dynasty by that definition. Stockton Malone, even though they never won, dominated for many years. I think you need other factors included.
It’s obvious there talking about dynasty because they DON’T want to call the warriors a dynasty …. Period, I mean if people are sick of seeing you in the finals and everyone rooting against you .. you’re a DYNASTY…. Warriors is a dynasty !!
How about N titles in 2N years or less, where N >= 3. such that 3+ titles in 6 years, 4+ titles in 8 years, 5+ titles in 10 years, etc. Obviously more titles means greater dynasty. So in order greatest to least, Russell Celtics, Jordan Bulls, Mikan Lakers, Showtime Lakers, Curry Warriors, Duncan Spurs, Shaq Lakers, Bird Celtics
This is bullshit man how do you call the lakers 05-07 not being a dynasty (rightfully so) and still say Steph had a dynasty they missed the playoffs twice
![Six Hundred Strike [EPIC: The Musical] Full Animatic](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zov6NXIAuow/mqdefault.jpg)
5 straight finals and 3 championship sounds like a dynasty, even without the fourth title. I think we need to limit it to modern NBA dynasties. No one can repeat it unless you go back to 8-10 teams and you can become a champion by winning two playoff rounds.
Or go to a player himself who has 12 straight and 3 rings
If KD and Klay don't get injured thats 5 straight with 4 Chips
Consider if the Cavaliers had gone to 6 straight finals in the same exact time period and won 3 of them. It would not be impossible. Then both would "sound like a dynasty" at the same time.
I think two criteria that are important that haven’t been named: 1) you gotta win more finals than you lose and 2) there can’t be another team that’s more dominant during the same time period.
So was there ever a Lebron dynasty ?
That’s pretty good. If you win more than 50% of the time it automatically means you’ve won more than the rest of the league *combined*.
@@juiceoo6906 nah there was no Lebron dynasty imho
So LeBron was 4 for 9 if we go from first win to last win. In the finals for 8 of those years. I think that's a dynasty but we don't have to think the same
@@catman-du8927 yeah I mean it’s a close call. Feel similar about the Bird Celtics.
Bill doing everything he can to delegitimize this Warriors run and the Celtics legacy.
That's why he doesn't count Bird's Celtics 😂
Bill is allergic to put anybody over his precious Celtics 😂
Funniest thing is, he used to count the Celtics as a dynasty. Cause he had an old article where he talked about the Bird Dynasty. He's changing his rules now that Steph would qualify as one. I think the article was from the early 2000's.
@@epoithenovel3095 omg you mean to tell me a person changed their opinion as they got older. Do tell more about this impossible phenomenon. imbecile.
As a Warriors fan, nah, Bill loves the Warriors and Steph. I don't think his takes are unfair or bad.
To me it’s either a 3peat or 3 rings with 5 finals appearances, I’d be more lenient than Bill but I’d also tier.
Tier 1: Russell’s Celtics, Magic’s Lakers, Jordan’s Bulls
Tier 2: Bird’s Celtics, Shaq and Kobe’s Lakers, Duncan’s Spurs, Steph’s Warriors.
Then there’s other runs like Isiah’s Pistons and Lebron’s Heat but those weren’t long enough to be dynasties imo. Didn’t have quite the dominance Shaq and Kobe’s Lakers did either
So I’m tier 2 would you class Lebron as a dynasty? Even though he didn’t do it on one team?
@@dizzile911 His run from 2011-2020 was a tier 2 dynasty but it’s only 1 guy so it isn’t an actual dynasty if that makes sense.
Duncan got 5 rings, how is he below Russel when he was playing plumbers. I don't get it 🤔
@@onehand-yusuf7212 you can't compare players from different era's by how they would perform in the other players era. If Russell played in the 90s and 00s he would have access to way better coaching, medical advancements, nutrition, etc. Dudes born in the 40s learned to play basketball next to a coal factory eating potatoes and working 8 hours a day
I don't know if you count the Spurs. Did they ever even win two in a row? Shaq/Kobe absolutely a dynasty. You win three straight titles you're a dynasty.
The thing no one ever brings up in these discussions is how hard it is to keep a team together in the modern NBA.
They will make every excuse (rightly so) that looking at raw stats is an inaccurate way to judge past player performance, but completely disregard the inherent disadvantage Steph and modern superstars face in that everyone is moving always. They might even lose a couple of their young guys this summer. Russell's Celtics were in part defined by Auerbach's refusal to trade anyone in the name of continuity.
IMO, Steph and the Warriors bouncing back from losing one of the greatest scorers of all time by building up their role players is a huge achievement.
Fax
Durant doing a sign and trade helped the warriors that much more and then kinda perfect storm. You get Russ back for nothing. Trade him for all around better player in wiggins.Klay was out. Then Steph so they got another high draft pick. Wiggins was the second best player in the finals for the warriors
Idk how you can say the Warriors were disadvantaged by player movement when they have been the team that MOST benefitted from it with the KD signing. As you said, he is one of the greatest scorers of all time and they got him for 3 years. Not only that, he was the best player of the Warrior's best opponent in the same conference. So they effectively got rid of the one big threat.
Lets not forget the Warriors pay a luxury tax that few teams are able to pay, which has all but made them unaffected by player movement. They were able to pay Klay, Steph, and Draymond handsomely.
We also can't just pretend player movement affect everyone. It affects small market teams. AD left NOLA, KD left OKC, PG-13 left Indiana and OKC, Westbrook left OKC, Kyrie and Bron left Cleveland, Kawhi left San Antonio. Few players from big market leave that market. The only ones I can think of are maybe Kyrie leaving Boston and Harden leaving Houston and Brooklyn. Point is, the Warriors are a huge market so the danger for them is not really there.
That's why LBJ has never been part of a dynasty, staying together is part of the challenge, no maintaining greatness, no dynasty 😆
Russell's Celtics also won when there were 8-10 teams in league, and when you could win a championship based on two playoff rounds. Even if you control for talent and dominance, it's much harder to win a championship with 30 teams and four playoff rounds. I'm a believer that you need to limit these comparisons to the modern NBA (1979 post ABA merger, post three point line)
I always felt you had to win 3 championships in a 5, maybe 6, year span to be a dynasty. The 3 in a row that Kobe won with Shaq is its own dynasty. So the Warriors already have a dynasty and now this championship is just adding to it.
It is theoretically possible for 2 different teams to win 3 out of 5 championships in a 6 year period.
That’s weirdly specific. If I win, retool, win, retool, win retool, etc for 2 decades, u are a dynasty. The spurs built around one superstar, constantly retooled and remained in contention every year. and won nearly every chance they got. They were contenders from the beginning to the wheels fell.
The way I'd look at it: at least four championships in a 10-year span that include one great player present for all of them. That gives you Mikan's Lakers, Russell's Celtics, Magic's Lakers, Jordan's Bulls, Kobe's Lakers, Duncan's Spurs, and Steph's Warriors. I'm pretty comfortable with that list, and with Wade's Heat and Bird's Celtics barely missing the cut.
Lebron was a dynasty
@@dparks2856 losing dynasty 😂
Spurs and Kobe Lakers weren’t a dynasty, Lakers did it like 8 years apart, and they were terrible in between, Spurs were always great but started in 99 and ended in 14, way too far apart I’d say
@@tdup191
4 titles in 8 Years
@@dparks2856 Lebron’s never been on a dynasty. That’s what happens when you jump from team to team.
When the warriors have had their key players healthy, they have been to every finals since 2015. That’s a dynasty
But did they win?
@@KDubb-ws9zc They won 4. Lost 1 of them fair and square (can argue about draymond suspension etc but I’ll ignore that) and the other they lost because 2 of their 3 key players got injured. And they still took it to 6😂 come on
@@KDubb-ws9zc then lakers and celtics in 80s are both non-dynasties
the only explanation needed literally
They were a dynasty. Any good team can say hey we were injured.
I always thought the minimum benchmark for a dynasty was 3 titles in 4 years. You need the back to back title wins and the titles can't be too far apart from each other.
Spurs never won back to back.
@@MrJACKAL97 Then they're not a dynasty. Problem solved
I think this Warriors team is a dynasty. When all 3 are healthy, they win. Plus they still have years left to win or at least compete for more titles.
Agreed. The two bad years for Golden State during this dynasty didn't have Thompson. Curry played 5 games one year.
@@TheOJObserver and those 2 years gave them ammo for the future. Just what a dynasty needs to sustain.
There's no argument
Magic won 5 in 9
GS won 4 in 8 steph was gone for a whole season KLAY was gone for 2 so that's really 4 titles in 7 and they're contenders every year. The play in year they WERE ONE OF THE BEST 8 TEAMS but the play in WHICH WAS NEVER A THING BEFORE resulted in them eliminated. There's no way GS ain't a dynasty
He makes different story. Just to escape Celtics loss to warriors in finals 😂
"Sustained dominance for a long period of time" Describes Duncan more than anyone short of LeBron.
the guy who never won back to back rings?
I think you should qualify as a dynasty automatically if you win 3 chips with the same superstar. This simple parameter would include basically all the dynasties people usually think of anyway.
1) Russell Celtics
2) Bulls
3) Bird Celtics
4) Showtime Lakers
5) Shaq-Kobe Lakers
6) Warriors
If Birds Celtics are there how is Duncan not? Even if we drop the 99 title, he won 3 in 5 years with two good playoff runs in between
@@hardwoodthought1213 my bad, I forgot them. They’re included for sure.
Beyond championships I think another factor is how the league has essentially had to adjust to the Warriors’ play style. That level of influence I think has to be factored in to calling them a dynasty.
6 finals appearances in 8 years is a dynasty
Nobody cares about finals appearances, this 2022 championship is not apart of the 2015 to 2018 Warriors dynasty. This is a new one off. How can you call this 2022 Warriors team apart of a dynasty when they are 4 years removed from their 2018 title? Your criteria needs a lot of work. An NBA dynasty is 3 or more titles in a 4 year span. This 2022 Warriors team doesn't count as apart of the 2015 to 2018 Warriors.
@@QuestionEverything562 your logic is ridiculously flawed, the core of the team is the same as it was in the first title. 3 drafted stars plus the same head coach. Other pieces come and go. By your logic the rings they won with KD are not part of an original dynasty either. And your definition of a dynasty being 3 titles in 4 years is something you pulled out of your ass. There’s never been a set definition. You’re coming up with stupid parameters in your own head. Stay in school kid
@@QuestionEverything562 so by your logic the 80’s Lakers weren’t a dynasty?
@@Roy-ml5fn The Lakers from 1985 to 1988 won 3 titles, so that's 3 titles in a 4-year span. That makes them a dynasty.
@@QuestionEverything562 Ah you right. I even looked it up beforehand and didn’t notice 😭
Shaq and Kobe hit the 3 peat. That is a dynasty 3 peats don’t go down
I haven't watched this whole thing yet but my friends and I discussed this a few weeks ago and it came down to this. There was the side that was stricter where you need 3 titles in 3 years, and the side which more of us agreed on which is 3 titles in 5 years. Cant have a dynasty if you don't win 3 titles, and also if you don't win the majority of during that stretch.
I've always thought it was 3 titles in a 4 year span.
@@rileyhaley3848 That's fair, but five years is pretty good too. If it was 3 titles in 4 years, then the 2003 to 2007 Spurs wouldn't count as a dynasty. Which is fair to me because the Spurs never even won two in a row, so how could they ever be called a dynasty?
@@QuestionEverything562 it's a crazy run but not a dynasty to me.
@@rileyhaley3848 Yes, I agree with your strict criteria. Too many people throw around the term, sports dynasty. It's a rare team feat. I can understand the criteria being different in the NFL though.
Does the criteria for back to back get loosened up a bit if the time frame is greater? Like 5 championships over a 25 year span while always being a contender barring major injuries. I know that sounds oddly specific but I think both Duke and UNC fall into that category. Maybe more so for Duke since it all came under coach k and the only down year they had was when he was out after surgery.
My definition is three championships in five years. So that’s Mikan’s Minneapolis Lakers, Russell’s Celtics, the Showtime Laker’s, Jordan’s Bulls, the Shaq-Kobe Lakers, Duncan and Popovich’s Spurs, and these Golden State Warriors. That’s it.
Your criteria is a lot better than most people, it's almost sound. One question, can a dynasty exist if it never won at least two titles in a row?
if you have at least 3 rings and 5 finals appearances while maintaining the same core of players, i think that qualifies as a dynasty. that solidly puts russell’s celtics, magic’s lakers, bird’s celtics, jordan’s bulls, duncan’s spurs, and curry’s warriors as the only dynasties, with kobe’s lakers in a grey area because of the split in core players.
Bird's Celtics never did that feat, they won 3 titles in 6 years. You also can't count Kobe's titles in 2009 and 2010 as apart of the Shaq n Kobe 2000 to 2002 dynasty. The 2000 to 2002 Lakers were Shaq's team anyway. That's not an extended dynasty of consistent championship success. The 2009 and 2010 Kobe led Lakers were never a dynasty. No player has his own career continued dynasties, a team dynasty is actually 3 titles or more in a 5 year span. You are overly abusing the term, NBA dynasty.
@QuestionEverything562 Birds Celtics are a Dynasty but I agree that Kobe's lakers weren't. If they would have won a 3rd title they would have been.
Bill Simmons is that old guy that never wants to accept he’s past this generation.
He's not even stanning for his own generation. He was born at the end of the celtics dynasty in 1969. He's just an old fashioned homer. No matter what he supports boston anything. If boston fans shouted rac1st stuff at players and tossed cherry bombs at the visiting team's bench during games he'd find a way to excuse it. Oh wait, he already did excuse all that. He's just a homer piece of garbage. not worth listening to.
I give Duncan/Spurs the dynasty label because not only did the win 5 titles, IIRC they won 50+ games every year except the shortened season in 99.
Only 6 dynasties have existed imo.
1. Jordan Bulls (91-98)
2. Magic Lakers (80-88)
3. Russell Celtics (57-69)
4. Bird Celtics (81-86)
5. Duncan Spurs (99-07)
6. Steph Warriors (15-22)
Edit: before more ppl come for me Shaqs Lakers should definitely be on here too
I wouldn't count Duncan's last chip or Kobe's 2 with Pau as part of the same dynasty. Imo the core needs to stay relatively the same, the team needs at least 5 finals appearances in 11 years and 3 championships or 3 championships in 5 years.
2014 counts for San Antonio if 1999-2007 does. The 1999 and 2007 teams only had one player in common - Tim Duncan.
@@nocturne311 to me that finals appearance in 13 championship in 14 were kinda similar to the run Kobe made without Shaq. The team was so far removed from their previous championships that I would consider it a separate run.
@@TheElectronicsMan100 how they had Duncan, manu and Parker. Your nitpicking at that point
@@TheElectronicsMan100 '81 Celtics featured Nate Archibald, Gerald Henderson, Cedric Maxwell, Chris Ford, etc... '86 Celtics had Dennis Johnson, Ainge, Bill Walton, Scott Wedman and Jerry Sichting. The coaches were even different - Fitch and K.C. Jones. You're kind of contradicting yourself. The Spurs still had Duncan, Parker, Manu and Pop as coach in 2014. If you're counting '81-'87 for Boston, then you have to count '99-'14 for San Antonio.
@@TheElectronicsMan100 Also the only members of the 2015 Warriors also on the 2022 Warriors are Curry, Thompson, Draymond and Iguodala. They also had Kevin Durant from 2017-2019. Not a whole lot of continuity there.
I think you can' t definitively evaluate it yet because it's not over - let's see how many more GSW can get, but it's trending towards being a comp with the Bulls.
If Duncan Spurs are Dynasty, Kobe's Lakers are a dynasty
Mmm no.
Duncan's Spurs were always winning 50 games and they'd make the WCF consistently or win a championship. Kobe's Lakers were trash after Shaq left. They spent 3 years in the gutter which easily breaks up a dynasty. The Shaq-Kobe Lakers was a dynasty though.
@@THE_BEAR_JEW mmm yes. duncan never won back to back rings, consistently lost with home court advantage while trying to defend. kobe went to 3 straight finals and won back to back
@@THE_BEAR_JEW i can agree with this, but i do have a question, if curry’s warriors are a dynarty despite missing the playoffs for 2 yrs, should that invalidate the argument that kobe missed one yr and did not get out the first rd for the next 2?
@@nostaljosh they Kobe haters man, a 3 peat is the ultimate dynasty, and then he won back to back later Timmy never defended the title
Warriors when Steph klay and draymond are all healthy and Kerr is the coach have not lost a western conference playoff series. Bill totally glossed over klays injury like it wasn’t a big deal to have one of the 5 best 2 way players in the nba not play for 2 seasons. When they’ve been healthy they’ve won.
not all dynasties are created equally
imo any 5+ year run where you win >50% of the titles (so min 3 in 5) is a dynasty
obviously Jordan's Bulls rank higher than this GSW team but that doesnt mean they arent a dynasty
that leaves us with 49-54 Lakers, 80-88 Lakers, 2000-2002 Lakers, 57-69 Celtics, 2015-18 GSW, 91-98 Bulls and the 03-07 Spurs
and yeah some of these teams found success outside of their peak years, some made the finals and lost, GSW in 22 and SAS in 99 and 15 even won titles but the titles they won during the years i listed imo, make these teams a dynasty regardless of anything else that happened around or during that time
I think there's only been one nba dynasty, maybe: Russell's Celtics. I think we mis-use the word dynasty. In history, a dynasty is a term used for multiple kings from the same family passing down their crown to the next generation. I think to be a dynasty, you have to have the first king, and then, that king has to pass down the crown to the next generation. First half of the twentieth century New York Yankees would clearly qualify, as an example.
I think Russell's Celtics only qualify if you consider the Bird-McHale-Parish era as the "next generation" of the Celtics dynasty.
Sure. So no dynasties in sports basically ever, fine. What's a better word in your opinion to distinguish between Champion and annual Champion / champion contender?
What a terrible take, a three-peat in any sport is an automatic dynasty. Do you understand how hard of a feat that is?
@@QuestionEverything562 I've been a warriors fan since 1990, I understand how hard of a feat one playoff SERIES win is, which is all the warriors had from 1990 until 2013 (from the time I was 12 until I was 35). My point is the way the word "dynasty" is used: in history, you can't be a dynasty if the same person is King at the start and at the end; in the field of history, a dynasty is, by definition, multi-generational. It's one pharaoh handing the crown to his son, who hands it to his son, and so on and so on, for HUNDREDS of years, minimum. We don't use the word dynasty in sports the same way it's used in history. My point really is: Bill Simmon's argument is utterly ridiculous, he can define dynasty any way he wants to, and so can I, but that's not what the common usage is.
@@SuperSupersoda I agree that a sports dynasty is different from a long lasting, historical, hierarchical dynasty given the short peak athleticism of a given group of men vs the tyrannical reign of an empire or leniage. There is no real official definition of a sports dynasty, so you can come up with your own breakdown of it, but what is commonly been said about NBA dynasties in most basketball circles is at least 3 titles in a 4 or 5 year span. I personally think a dynasty is 3 titles or more in a 4 year span. That leaves a small rare amount of teams to accomplish this feat in NBA history.
@@QuestionEverything562 And I am not disagreeing with you. At some point, when we argue about definitions of things, the principle of common usage comes into effect, and, by common usage of the word "dynasty" in sports, you're usage of it is pretty much what most people agree with. My point was that is why Bill's definition of dynasty is absurd: if he can define it to be whatever it is he wants it to be, then so can I, and my definition can be historically accurate, which gives my definition a level of historical legitimacy that his definition lacks. We can play these word games all day long, which is why common usage is so crucial.
A dynasty to me has always been if you win 3 titles in 4 years..
What about 3 in 5 with two deep playoff runs in between?
@@hardwoodthought1213 I wouldn't count it.. that is an elite run though
@@hardwoodthought1213 I would count that, 5 also is an easier number to quantify and doesn’t leave the opportunity for a split open. 2 titles in 5yrs? No. 3 titles in 5yrs? Yea. 2 titlesin 4yrs? you broke even, kinda leaves it on the fence imo and 3 titles in 4yrs doesn’t have the flexibility to account for uncontrollable circumstances like injury, players retiring, etc.
@@DJ-ys9pv I go by the NFL thought of a dynasty which is 3 in 4 years idk if the sport changes it for people.
Bulls vs Rockets would've been all-time series 😭
Thanks but no thanks to John Stockton
💯
@@authornahsun634 Nah if Jordan played in '94 and all of '95 they would've at least reached the finals both years to face Hakeem. Those older teams with Barkley weren't quite the same.
@@hockeyfan1799 True 💯
My general rules on sports dynasties:
1) Must be at least 3 titles.
2) The spread of titles cannot be double or more the length of time (for example, the three titles can't spread by six or more years).
3) At least three players must have been core members of the team (not the same as stars but certainly important role players).
By that standard, I'd think of the 2000s Spurs or the 2010s SF Giants as dynasties. 3 rings in 5 years rather makes you the talk of your era. The Lakers certainly had their dynasty in the early 2000s but I wouldn't lump in the late 2000s victories; there's too much spread and change in between.
3 titles in 6 yrs is still crazy especially in modern sports so I disagree. Winning 50% of all titles won in a 6 yr span of time is dominant.
It's better to be harsh than loose with these things
1960s: Bill Russell Dynasty
1970s: ????
1980s: Larry and Magic Dynasty
1990s: MJ Dynasty
2000s: Kobe and Duncan Dynasty
2010s: LeBron and Steph Dynasty
2020s: ....
That would be “Era” not dynasty
There were none in the 1970s. I think 9 different teams won it in that decade. Pretty awesome actually.
Dynasty time frame: 10 years
Minimum number of titles:5
Minimum number of finals appearances:6
1. Winning Multiple w/ Same Core (2 or 3)
2. Time Span for Example 10 Years
3. Has Consistently Throughout
4. 8 Years, 6 Appearance, 4 Champ (Dominant)
5. Has Their Own MVP and All Stars
6. Rarely Any Team Done That
All that boxes are checked. They had Steph, Klay, Draymond since 2014-2022. Both of them are All Stars. Only few like them can achieve that in Modern Era.
People need to change the perspective of dinasty. You can't really compare the standart in 80s 90s; especially when today's era it's easier for someone to learn and copy the success of others (with digital, network, social media, information); everyone can learn.
So to sustain the dominance is harder than back in 80s and 90s. My point is: Modern Era is more dynamic with every points above, so you can't expect like three-peat, 6 title in 8 year or whatever it is.
That's why all the record holder in every industry almost always comes from 80s 90s. Michael Jackson, Queen, etc., no one can copy them they are one of a kind because the world has no other to see.
You can't say today's singer or dancer are any less talented; but it's JUST BECAUSE now they had more of competition compared to 80s 90s so no one really get one of a kind spotlight. So when someone can at least different than anyone today, you can tell they're special.
Put on prespective, Jordan Bulls if they played in today's regulation rule and talent pool that we have now, I can guarantee you 100% they won't be a dinasty.
So dinasty is the terms that need to be adjusted in every era. You can't trapped in Boomers or Gen X era. One day Gen Z will surpass Gen Y. And we should accept the fact their challenge and obstacle is different than ours.
I disagree with Bill on a lot of shit but I generally enjoy these types of conversations.
I'm a Suns fan so I hate saying this as they haunted us during the 7 seconds or less period but the Spurs should be considered a dynasty. Sustained dominance and 5 titles. I know they didn't win back to back but 5 titles over a sustained period in which they were good to great almost every year with one close loss to the Heat should qualify. It's really hard to be that good for that long and when you take into account injuries, modern day free agency, and just weird things that can happen from year to year, what they accomplished is special. If you disagree with me go ahead, I hate those Spurs team so I will gladly be talked out of it.
Funny thing about this topic is that it’s the same as MVP. Whoever you think is MVP, you’re right, because there’s no criteria. Same thing here, whether or not you think the Warriors are a dynasty or not fundamentally depends on the definition.
I think since the 90s. Most would Agree. MJs run. Spurs 99 thru14 is a run. They were in it almost every year. Like Bill said. They could have won 7. The Shaq/Kobe Lakers would be in it as well from 00 thru 04. 4 final appearances in 5 years and then the Warriors 15 thru 22. They are incorrect about the Bulls. 94 I think they win..they still have Horace and BJ. MJ, Scottie. Horace on this run and jump traps were a nightmare. 95 is up in the air, but obviously that potentially will change the 96 thru 98 run.
duncans spurs never went back to back
For me personally, I define Dynasty as sustained dominance over a set period of time. I believe that you can have a slip here and there but basically if you're not able to repeat or threepeat, it's a near certainty that once you get there, it's a wrap.
Magic's Lakers, Jordan's Bulls, Shaq's Lakers, Curry's Warriors.
Duncan's Spurs just miss it, Wade's Heat miss it cause their grand scheme netted them 2 in 4 tries. Curry's Warriors went 3 in 4 years and now are 4 in 6. I can forgive the 2019 Finals cause they didn't let this one get away. The Warriors are a team that to me, feel like a near lock so long as Curry and the core are healthy. The young pieces are likely going to keep this going long after Steph and the others step away.
Uhmm, are you counting these 2022 Warriors as apart of the 2015 to 2018 Warriors? If so, that's 4 titles in a 7 year span actually, which isn't a dynasty. The Warriors from 2015 to 2018 are a dynasty, they won 3 out of 4 years. These 2022 Warriors are 4 years removed from their title in 2018.
I don't think repeating is necessary and in the modern NBA that's incredibly hard to do. If a team say wins in 23' then in 25' then in 27' I'd consider that a Dymasty. Still 3 in 5 yrs. We're not gonna see repeats or 3peats as often ever again.
Russell 11 in 13 years was a league with 8-12 teams gotta take that into account
I think a fundamental component of a dynasty is the definition of the word: a ruling party.
Kobe Lakers and Duncan Spurs can’t both be dynasties, so I don’t think either are. Both won 5, but both slapped each other around. Whereas Magic Lakers were convincingly dominant against Bird Celtics and everyone else, that is a dynasty.
Warriors are close, I think a fifth title would really hammer it home… or at least a couple more finals appearances. 4 wins and 4 losses in 10 years would be nuts
3 titles in 5 years is the definition of a dynasty in any sport. So yes the Warriors are a dynasty.
Wiggins can make the HOF, he is still only 27. If he can go 4 or 5 1st team All Defense, 4-5 All Star Games, win a DPOY, and 1 more chip or two he’s a lock for it.
Saying there’s only been 3 dynasties is one of the dumbest takes I’ve ever heard 😂 winning 3 straight titles is a dynasty (shaq-kobe lakers 00-02)
How can you say prolonged dominance is the definition of dynasty and not have the Spurs? Five championships, six Finals berths and 18 straight playoff appearancss with a 63% win percentage18 in 18 years. Easily a dynasty just like the Warriors. Four titles and five Finals in eight years with arguably the best team ever! I would have both Bulls, Spurs, Warriors, Bird and Russell Celtics teams, Showtime and Kobe & Shaq Lakers.
Even with two bad seasons, these Warriors are a dynasty
First you need to define the minimum number championships to even be considered a “dynasty”. To me, that magic number is 5 rings. At 3 rings you’re a great team, even in 3 straight years. Four, would be flirting with dynasty but not there. Five rings in one decade gets qualities for the conversation. The word dynasty should be the pinnacle of definition and not go light on the standard. Nothing against great and tremendous teams, but true dynasty’s are rare.
For 25 years The Spurs were not only one of the best teams in The NBA but all of professional American sports. That’s a dynasty. Go Spurs Go.
A dynasty that never won two titles in a row, yaaaa, sure bruh.....
@@QuestionEverything562 25 years of dominance. 5 titles. The greatest Big 3 of all time. The greatest PF of all time. Greatest coach of all time. That’s a dynasty. Go Spurs Go.
I think it's a minimum of three titles. Two is great but not a dynasty and the time frame is six years. Is there any six year stretch where you won half the championships. Which makes it 1. Miken Lakers, 2. Russell Celtics, 3. Magic Lakers, 4, Bird Celtics, 5. Jordan Bulls, 6. Kobe/Shaq Lakers, 7. Duncan Spurs, 8. Steph Warriors. Some of those are super dynasties obviously: Miken (5 in 6), Russell (11 in 13), Magic (5 in 9), Jordan (6 in 8 really 6 in 6 1/2). I also think there's an * dynasty. The Lebron Heat/Cavs Dynasty. Arguably shouldn't count as a dynasty.
Funny how for this discussion bill does not mention injury on warriors when they missed playoffs.
if golden state wins next year not only does Curry tie Magic with 5 rings but the warriors dynasty is 5 in 9 years matching lakers 80 - 88
3:07 Yao Ming’s dynasty was 300 years??!!
Nah meant the actual Ming dynasty that ruled over China
I can’t tell here who’s head this flew over..it can go both ways 🤣
@@lil_nameless59 Not my head... 😁
But I can see that it’s a better experience to not be able to tell.
Warriors, lakers, n spurs have been the only dynasties of the last 20 years
Perkins called the suns a dynasty after being up 2-0 😂
The definition of a dynasty is a group that maintains power over a period of time.
Not just power, but the #1 power spot on the top of the hill. The king of the castle, not just prolonged consistent excellence over 10-20 years.
Winning percentage in championship games, more than 2 titles, and sustained excellence with a core group of players throughout the run. Identity is important in framing a dynasty. I don't think it's fair to count a bad season or a missed playoffs against a dynasty. Luck can play against any team and it happened with the Lakers, Spurs, and Warriors. I think with those criteria, you qualify as a dynasty, but anything more is a conversation about comparing dynasties. Anything less is more a conversation about dynastic teams knocking on the door. The pistons were dynastic with 1 win but sustained excellence with so many ECF wins and appearances, but they weren't a dynasty.
I had to change my definition on dynasty because of Bird's Celtics. I can't say it wasn't a dynasty, and due to that Curry's Warriors are a dynasty.
Everytime Kobe won he repeated, he defended the title, and has a 3 peat now is Timmy a dynasty and Kobe isn’t, Timmy won 5 in 15 year span Kobe won 5 in 11 year span
The Ying dynasty reference lmaooo
yeah modern NBA it's more about the players. Magic and Kareem's Lakers, Bird's Celtics, Jordan's Bulls, Shaq and Kobe's Lakers, Duncan's Spurs, LeBron's Heat/Cavs, and Steph's Warriors.
I would say the vast majority of people would agree Shaq and Kobe 3 in a row is definitely a dynasty
Requirement for Dynasty: Whether it's basketball, baseball, or football you must dominate for a decade. Team of a decade. Spurs were never best of a decade. 70s Steelers, 80s NINERS, 80s Lakers, 90s Bulls.
If “if” was a 5th, we’d all be drunk.
Dynasty is whenever everyone else is seek and tired of watching the same damned team win time after time
This whole thing is literally nitpicking in order to not give ppl credit. Warriors are definitely a dynasty, they only fell off because of injuries. Same thing with Duncan and Kobe. Duncan was in 9 conference finals, 6 finals, with 5 rings in 15 year core of his career. Kobe had 8 conference finals, 7 finals, 5 rings in his 12 year core of his career. Plus, a 3 peat is basically the modern pinnacle of sustained dominance
this is the only correct comment
According to Merriam-Webster the word Dynasty means "a succession of rulers" or "a powerful group that maintains its position for a considerable time". So to me the NBA's succession of rulers that maintained their position for a considerable time would be Mikan's Lakers (5 titles in 6 years), Russell's Celtics (11 titles in 13 years), Jordan's Bulls (6 titles in 8 years) and these current Warriors (4 titles in 8 years). Any other elite run of champions featured another team that also won multiple times during "their rule". Magic's Lakers won 5 in 9 years, but Bird's Celtics won 3 in 6 years during that stretch. Duncan's Spurs won 4 in 9 years but Shaq's Lakers three-peated during the same time. So for me there have been 4 true dynasties and then several almost dynasties.
*Houston's back-to-back don't count because Jordan was out
Multiple Dynasties even historically have and can exist at the same time. So Birds Celtics and Magic's lakers can both be dynasties.
Jordan’s bulls had a 2 year gap too
Short attention spans have caused sports fans to devalue TRUE greatness. Dynasties are the PEAK of sports dominance. Jordan's Bulls, Russell's Celtics. That's it.
Warriors with Steph is the next closest thing we have to a team dynasty. You could put LeBron in his own category as a personal dynasty. Greatness is rare.
Too me a dynasty is a 3 peat. That’s the only legitimate way I can classify it because it gets tricky trying to judge it
Why not just use the 3peat as the litmus I don't get it
Cos it's pretty narrow, 2 in a row lose in the finals 2 in a row is just as if not more "dynastic"/impressive than a 3 peat imo. But everyone's gonna have there own definition of what a dynasty means to them and that's fine. 🤷♂️
The sad thing is that Simmons bleeds green, so, of course, the Celtics are a dynasty. I wouldn't argue that but I'd recall that they were the first team to really embrace black players in an era when there were eight teams of mostly white guys who couldn't jump and nobody cared except the few fans in the small arenas. The world has changed dramatically, not least because of free agency and dramatically improved physical skills. Russell may have been great in any era but I don't know how many of those Celtic champions would have been. Winning in this era is much more difficult. The Warriors success is largely the result of having drafted well and committing to pay the outrageous price to keep the core together. They'd done that for eight years despite catastrophic injury and struggles on the court. Dynasty? Does that matter. They really have been a great team for a long time and promise to continue for the foreseeable future.
Basically going by Bill Simmons there is only 1 dynasty. That BOS Celtics dynasty winning a bunch of titles when NBA was under developed and not a very deep league with multiple teams and offer not much competition
I would recognize 3 dynasties: Russell's Celtics, Jordan's Bulls, Shaq/Kobe's Lakers, and Curry's warriors. Neither the Lakers or the Celtics in the 80s were dynasties, there was too much competition and neither team dominated the other to the extent that one ruled the league. A king must be unopposed.
You listed four dynasties.
Ultimately, only one of these historical dynasties (accepted or not) still has their championship window open...
Bill, I think you are right on the money with how strict you are with your dynasty criteria. What made the showtime lakers a dynasty wasn’t just the 5 titles, it was the 9 finals appearances in an11 year span which is dominance similar to your old Celtic teams with 11 titles and the Bulls. So that Lakers team was a top 2 team for 9 out of 11 years, just think about that. And that is probably why you didn’t say the 80s Celtics qualified because of the Lakers. What hurts the Spurs and warriors is in the middle of their supposed dynasty was the Lakers 3-peating once and almost did it again later that decade. So those Lakers teams had 5 titles and 7 appearances in 10 years, but they also sucked a few years and charged personnel. I think the Warriors can be a real dynasty if they win it again next year because then you have 5 titles, 7 finals appearances in 9 years then I feel like it meets your criteria. Am I right to think that would change your mind?
He has a non 0 chance of making it, but I'd say we're still *far* from it being "likely" Wiggins makes the HoF.
GSW, of course its a dynasty, 4 titles in less than 10 years and 2 finals losses.. the only issue is that apart from 2 (actually 1) Cleveland runs they did not have an equal opponent. For a dynasty you also need legit competition
Celtics from 56-86, Lakers 80-10, Bulls 90-98, Spurs 99-14, Lebron 11-20+?, Warriors 15-22+ the nba dynasty’s
If he's complaining about off years, then why do the Bulls get a pass the two years MJ was out?
Cause they were still competitive. They lost to the Knicks in 7 in 1994 and the Magic in 6 in 1995. I will give you 1995 being an off year, but 1994 was definitely not an off year.
Warriors, Lakers, Spurs, Celtics, Bulls
Bill still fuming over the loss lol
I thin im pretty generous with this- and i prefer sustained excellence to blinding brief dominance (in this specific discussion ).... Also, I hear what Ryen is saying, but for me thats why this discussion is a bit different for me than the great player discussion. I think it actually slightly DETRACTS from the dynasty thing when its really just one player.... For a dynasty i want an image of 2-4 guys in a given uni together on the court in my head.
So for me and again this is dynasties not 'greatest teams"
Russell's Celtics
[gap]
Bulls (the greatest team but sort of hurt by the fact that we are kind of just describing one mans career- but the strength of Jackson, and Pippen, Rodman when he was there builds it back)
Showtime
gap
(all about equal but)
Spurs, (especially the 4 with the three guys)
Warriors,
Celts
thats it
Mikan lakers a pre history kind of dynasty
Kobe Shaq the greatest non-dynasty run of all time (perhaps greater peak then many of the dynasty teams)
Kobe championships later not quite the same thing really just his career in the same context
Heat- an amazing run
bad boys great team, rockets etc
if the warriors were to win another with the 3 guys they would join tier 1
This warriors trio, when all three of them start they haven't been beaten. ever
I think that the term originally meant the sustained rule of a single line. So an important part is actually a change of the star player(s) on the team while maintaining rule, or dominance as you put it. Many of the possible teams, excluding Jordan, had a star player through all of their run but then had other players step up to be the new star of the team. Probably the best of this was the Kobe Shaq duo, with Shaq as the dominant player, which became a Kobe and Pau team with Kobe as the main star. So being an organization that has two consecutive generations of star players and supporting cast.
If you’re going to say warriors should’ve won in 2019 shouldn’t you be unbiased and say they should’ve lost in 2015? It didn’t happen but we understand why it should’ve
DYNASTY = within 9 YEARS, the team must obtain a minimum of:
-6 finals appearances
-3 NBA Championships
Problem solved.
5 straight finals runs is not a dynasty?
Maybe era is better and dynasty is reserved for the Celtics, magic lakers, Jordan bulls, Duncan spurs only.
Bird magic era, Shaq Lakers era, Kobe era, lebron era. The eras are when teams and players are dominant but not always winning. I think warriors are close to a dynasty.
criteria for a dynasty
back 2 back
atleast 5 finals appearances within a decade
winning finals record
These arguments of sustained dominance are a little weird. Shaq was a dynasty by that definition.
Stockton Malone, even though they never won, dominated for many years. I think you need other factors included.
It’s obvious there talking about dynasty because they DON’T want to call the warriors a dynasty …. Period, I mean if people are sick of seeing you in the finals and everyone rooting against you .. you’re a DYNASTY…. Warriors is a dynasty !!
RIP Caleb Swanigan
Don’t minimize the raptors chip injuries is apart of the game.
How about N titles in 2N years or less, where N >= 3. such that 3+ titles in 6 years, 4+ titles in 8 years, 5+ titles in 10 years, etc. Obviously more titles means greater dynasty. So in order greatest to least, Russell Celtics, Jordan Bulls, Mikan Lakers, Showtime Lakers, Curry Warriors, Duncan Spurs, Shaq Lakers, Bird Celtics
This is bullshit man how do you call the lakers 05-07 not being a dynasty (rightfully so) and still say Steph had a dynasty they missed the playoffs twice
Lol Spurs started that playoffs 10-0. 2-0 up in WCF and then lose 4 straight. Still makes no sense.
Bill Russel played when there was like 5 teams it’s not equal to what is happening 50+ years later
They very easily could have won 5 in a row feel like that has to be a dynasty