How the spurs stack up with the champs of the past 17 years

If you loom at the Championship runs throughout the late 80's to early 2000's, all of the championship teams at least repeated and even 3 peated 3 times based on experienced veteran players. only the spurs have managed to win a championship with young and unproven talent, but have so far, failed to repeat on that same inexperienced and unproven talent their first title in 99', had a justified asterisk by it, with inexperienced and unproven talent.

you had the 87' and 88' champions, the Lakers, with experienced and proven talent, the 89' and 90' champions, the Pistons, with experienced and proven talent, you had the 91, 92, and 93 champs as the Chicago bulls, with experienced and proven talent then you had the Houston rockets, 94 and 95 champs, with experienced and proven talent, the 96', 97' and 98' Chicago bulls champs, with experienced and proven talent, then you had the Lakers, the 00, 01, and 02 champs, that also won on experienced and proven talent. No champ in the past 17 years has at least repeated without experienced and proven talent. The spurs have the chance to break those trends and if they do, ill call them a legitiment champ. But if not, they were just another lucky inexperienced and young team.

Experienced and proven talent. OK. Did you get your point across. You bet.

Maybe not repeating makes the Spurs illigitimate in your eyes (maybe alot more of you feel that way), however 2 championships in 5 years with almost a complete new roster does LIGITIMIZE our championshipS. That's 2. 1999, 2003. No asterisk. Both equal. If the Lakers would have won in 1999 would it have carried an asterisk? Hell no. It would have been another banner. So why Jacksonize the asterisk?

The Spurs have the talent. Now comes the experience.

The Spurs earned this years championship... I dont think they did so in 99 cuz of the shortened season, and that season was up for grabs with any team. But in 03 they really outplayed alotta teams, and they really took advantage of injured player teams... They played hard, and they got tha ring...

Hey i'm gonna give the Spurs thier Props. They played great ball and deserved the championship. They say you have to beat the best to be the best and they did just that. They beat the Lakers and won it all. What makes me mad though is these Spurs fans who are saying that the Spurs put an end to the Laker Dynasty. Come on, you can't say that after just one season. Look at the Bulls. Won 3 lost 2 and then came back to win another 3. Would you say that they weren't a dynasty because they had two season where they didn't win a championship? 6 championships in 8 years to me is a dynasty. Were not gonna know what happens until it's over and it's far from being over. If in the next three years the Lakers don't win again than yeah maybe the dynasty is over but until then I don't think the Spurs stopped anything. They won a well deserved championship and thats all.

The '99 asterisk has nothing to do with talent or experience, or anything along those lines. It doesn't have anything to do with the team that won or lost. It has to do with the fact that the season didn't start till January and the regular season was only 50 games long. Roger Maris got an asterisk in people's eyes for his home run record cuz he had something like 12 more games than Babe. Same deal here. The feat was not as difficult for Maris or the Spurs. And yes, it would've been the same thing, even had, say, the Cavs won the title.

So all these teams 3 peated or repeated except for SA. That just shows that a title isn't hard to get, it's how it's kept. The Pistons, Lakers, and Bulls were successful at doin so, cuz it's more harder to defend a championship. That 50 game lockout season wasn't about endurance. Endurance is the about a full season, and havin the desire to play more games than any other NBA team for the past years. SA never did that. As a matter of fact for the past 2 years the Lakers and the Nets playes more games, cuz they made it to the finals. Even though the Nets didn't win, they still are the Eastern Conference 2 time defendin champs... They had the endurance to make it to the finals, but they got beaten by the better SA team.

LakersGyrl2003 wrote:So all these teams 3 peated or repeated except for SA. That just shows that a title isn't hard to get, it's how it's kept. The Pistons, Lakers, and Bulls were successful at doin so, cuz it's more harder to defend a championship. That 50 game lockout season wasn't about endurance. Endurance is the about a full season, and havin the desire to play more games than any other NBA team for the past years. SA never did that. As a matter of fact for the past 2 years the Lakers and the Nets playes more games, cuz they made it to the finals. Even though the Nets didn't win, they still are the Eastern Conference 2 time defendin champs... They had the endurance to make it to the finals, but they got beaten by the better SA team.

It is hard to get a championship. Out of all the teams in the league (the NBA keeps getting bigger due to expansion) in the past ten years how many teams have won. Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston, and San Antonio. If you go back 20 years you can add Boston, Philadelphia, and Detroit. That is 7 teams in 20 years. How can you say that it isn't all that hard to win a championship. It is very hard.
Now it is even more difficult to retain that championship. I'll agree with you on that.

I was sayin it was much harder to keep a championship, and re-peat, compared to just winning one championship. That's why in the Lakers re-peated, the Pistons re-peated, the Bulls 3-peated, the Rockets re-peated, the Bulls 3-peated, the Spurs just got one, the Lakers 3-peated, and another one for the Spurs.

See all these teams had the endurance to play more games than any other NBA team by re-peating, and3-peating. But the Spurs still have 2 titles in between the Lakers 3. So in a way, they haven't really shown anything yet, just what their capable of doin.