The one that is the controvesial is the Spurs 10 years that ended in 2008 because of their lack of back to back championships which all the other NBA dynasties have.I might argue the Pistons as being a dynasty. Only 2 rings? I think at a minimum you have to have 3 rings in 5 years, but that's just me.
Depends on one's definition of dynasty, I suppose. I don't think that 2 or 3 championships out of 3 or 4 in a 5 year period, constitutes a dynasty. To me, a dynasty is more like what the Lakers, Celtics and Bulls have done. Has to be over the course of a decade or so. Like the Lakers 9 finals appearances and 5 titles in the 80's or the Bulls 6 titles in the 90's.
Heck, I think the Spurs put together something like 4 titles in about a 10 year period, so that is more of a dynasty than what we are likely to see from the Heat.
just for the sake have argument/discussion... if the Heat win the Championship this season, then when it 2 years from now, would that be considered a Dynasty? 4 Championships in a 10 year period.
I don't think the 06 team will be considered a part of the dynasty. If the Heat happens to win 3 titles with this bunch in a 4-5 yr span, without a doubt they'll be considered a dynasty
I might argue the Pistons as being a dynasty. Only 2 rings? I think at a minimum you have to have 3 rings in 5 years, but that's just me.I can see your point here, but that team was really dominant, but they were squeezed between two eras in the East, the Bird Celtics and the Jordan Bulls. They eventually got passed the Celtics. That was really the Chuck Daly period from beginning to end, with Thomas, Lambier, Dumars and Rodman. Thomas started at the early part of the 80s when the Celtics were dominant. Jordan came in the mid-eighties, but it wasn't until Phil Jackson took over that they were able to knock off the Pistons.
I do, however, think that a best of 7 series always favors the higher seeded BETTER teams. Usually the more games in a series allows for the better team to rise to the top.There, fixed it for you realdeal. Contrary to popular belief, the higher seeded teams entering the postseason aren't always necessarily better teams. The championship Dallas Mavericks team of 2011 is a great example of that. It's all about health, synergy and momentum in the springtime as the postseason gets underway. In the playoffs, postseason experience matters a lot. All it takes is an early road victory in a 7 game series to render seedings and HCA going in a completely moot point.
To be fair, I'm not sure that I consider the 2000-2010 Lakers a dynasty either. I think a better case could be made for them because you still had Kobe, D-Fish and Phil, but I'm not sure I would include them because of too many different players between the first 3 and the last 2.If this is the case, then you are also arguing against the Celtics of the 80s if you are also using your 10 year rule. You would have to start the Celtic Dynasty in 74, because the Bird Celtics were really done in 88 with their last trip to the Eastern Finals which started in 80. But they won Finals 74 and in 76. Havlicek was part of the Celtic team that won in 69 with Russell and the 74 team and with Russell, a key player on that 69 team. Are the 70's Celtics a part of the Russell Celtic dynasty that extend back to the 50s?
