Heat became a dynasty, Cavs won their 1st only ring, Lakers became relevant again

[k0kakw0rld]

All because of one man... :biggums:


GOAT JAMES

https://i.postimg.cc/52678Tb1/121616519-3283158038448913-7288430797111149589-n.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

[3ba11]

Dynasties can't mostly lose for every period of time - there must be a material stretch where a dynasty mostly wins... 4 years isn't a big enough sample, since a 2-2 record doesn't prove that a team "mostly won"... Accordingly , mostly winning over a 5+ year stretch is the definition of dynasty (Bulls, Lakers, Spurs, Warriors)..

The Heat had the goat choke and the record loss, which bookended a win over babies and teammate bailout - this is the worst 2 for 4 ever and nowhere near a "dynasty"

[3ba11]

Dynasties can't mostly lose for every period of time - there must be a material stretch where a dynasty mostly wins... 4 years isn't a big enough sample, since a 2-2 record doesn't prove that a team "mostly won"... Accordingly , mostly winning over a 5+ year stretch is the definition of dynasty (Bulls, Lakers, Spurs, Warriors)..

The Heat had the goat choke and the record loss, which bookended a win over babies and teammate bailout - this is the worst 2 for 4 ever and nowhere near a "dynasty"


Every time Lebron forms a new super-team but fails to 3-peat, win 70, or have a dynasty, he proves that he can't reach MJ's level.. If he can't reach MJ's level no matter who we put around him, then he's objectively inferior to MJ (and others)... It isn't a GOOD thing when Lebron fails to 3-peat or even win 2 titles with a team because it proves he can't reach Jordan's level - so you're looking at it backwards.

Furthermore, 150+ players in history would go 1 for 6 with AD, and then 1 for 4 with Kyrie/Love, and basically 1 for 4 with Wade (except the Allen miracle)... Lebron drastically underachieved at every stop ..

Statistical proof of Lebron underachieving expectation is when he fell from preseason favorite to underdog or loser for 6 straight years (11' to 16'), except the Allen miracle - these 6 years were sandwiched between 3 upset losses from 09-11' and 1st Round upset losses with AD and Luka (and several lottery seasons).

Finally, if Magic and Bird teamed up, neither gets full credit for the ring, just like Kobe doesn't get full credit for his Shaq rings or Kareem/Magic's rings - they're all diluted rings by virtue of teaming up with opposing franchise players, rather than winning with "normal" rosters of 1 franchise player.. However, at least Kobe, Shaq, Magic and Kareem produced dynasties or 3-peats, while Lebron mostly lost at every stop and could barely win 50 games most of the time.

[Carbine]

Lebron won 3 out of 5 plus a back to back which beats any 5 year stretch for the Dynasty Spurs.

[Full Court]

OP has an incredibly low standard for "dynasty."

And the Lakers only became relevant because of AD. Before AD showed up, the Lakers were a lottery team.

Truth hurts.

:lebroncry:

[Real Men Wear Green]

James is great and all but two rings is not a Dynasty. The Heatles were formed during the last days of the Spurs dynasty and then their accomplishments were completely eclipsed by Golden State. You can't be a Dynasty when you are basically the third best champions of your era with two rings.

[highwhey]

they didn't have a cakewalk either, like teams of recent...erm...celtics.

[Real Men Wear Green]

they didn't have a cakewalk either, like teams of recent...erm...celtics.
Celtics were more dominant and yet definitely are not a dynasty even though they only have one less ring. A team has to have at least three championships with the same core to be worthy of "Dynasty" discussion and 4 to have a strong argument. Olajuwon Rockets were not a dlynasty, Thomas's Pistons were not a dynasty. How can they be a Dynasty when Curry Klay and Green got 4 rings to their 2 while their best player was still in the league? There has to be some kind of standard or else anyone can be called a Dynasty and then it doesn't mean anything.

[k0kakw0rld]

Every time Lebron forms a new super-team but fails to 3-peat, win 70, or have a dynasty, he proves that he can't reach MJ's level.. If he can't reach MJ's level no matter who we put around him, then he's objectively inferior to MJ (and others)... It isn't a GOOD thing when Lebron fails to 3-peat or even win 2 titles with a team because it proves he can't reach Jordan's level - so you're looking at it backwards.

Furthermore, 150+ players in history would go 1 for 6 with AD, and then 1 for 4 with Kyrie/Love, and basically 1 for 4 with Wade (except the Allen miracle)... Lebron drastically underachieved at every stop ..

Statistical proof of Lebron underachieving expectation is when he fell from preseason favorite to underdog or loser for 6 straight years (11' to 16'), except the Allen miracle - these 6 years were sandwiched between 3 upset losses from 09-11' and 1st Round upset losses with AD and Luka (and several lottery seasons).

Finally, if Magic and Bird teamed up, neither gets full credit for the ring, just like Kobe doesn't get full credit for his Shaq rings or Kareem/Magic's rings - they're all diluted rings by virtue of teaming up with opposing franchise players, rather than winning with "normal" rosters of 1 franchise player.. However, at least Kobe, Shaq, Magic and Kareem produced dynasties or 3-peats, while Lebron mostly lost at every stop and could barely win 50 games most of the time.
You are proving my point. Bringing the same arguments on each and every threads. Ain't you tired to read that we don't give a shit about your essays?

[rmt]

Lebron won 3 out of 5 plus a back to back which beats any 5 year stretch for the Dynasty Spurs.

I respectfully disagree. Definition of dynasty:

a group of people who are related that maintain a powerful position for a long time


Spurs had the same 4 starters (Duncan, Parker, Manu, Bowen) plus Pop for their 3 rings.

Lebron (and James Jones if you count 13, 5 and 9 mins) IMO does not fit the definition of (related/same) group of people - different team, city, coach, GM, etc.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/dynasty

[John8204]

OP has an incredibly low standard for "dynasty."

And the Lakers only became relevant because of AD. Before AD showed up, the Lakers were a lottery team.

Truth hurts.

:lebroncry:

You people are way way way way way to focused on rings. Making the finals four straight years is a really big deal.

In the history of the NBA/NBL Mikan's Lakers, Russell's Celtics, Magic's Lakers, Lebrons Heat, Curry's Warriors, and Lebrons Cav's were the only teams to do it.

If you make the finals three times in five years you've got
Mikan's Lakers
Zalovsky's Knicks
Russell's Celtics
Pettit's Hawks
West's Lakers
Frazier's Knicks
Unseld's Bullets
Erving's 76ers
Bird's Celtics
Magic's Lakers
Isiah's Pistons
Jordan's Bulls
Shaq's Lakers
Duncan's Spurs
Lebron's Heat
Lebron's Cavs
Currys Warriors

[Real Men Wear Green]

John8204 is saying the Heat were a dynasty so that pretty much proves the argument that they were not.

[3ba11]

John8204 is saying the Heat were a dynasty so that pretty much proves the argument that they were not.


And the Lakers weren't relevant in 2019 because they were lottery.

AD made them relevant again

[Hey Yo]

LeBron's 3 titles in 5yrs including 2016 where he became the first player/coach to win since Russell in 1969. People laughed at the Ty Lue hiring since he had no head coaching experience and was considered nothing more than "LeBron's puppet"

[beasted]

Lebron won 3 out of 5 plus a back to back which beats any 5 year stretch for the Dynasty Spurs.

Duncan didn't team hop hunting for his next grift.

Also, which is better 3 out of 5 or 6 out of 7?

[sdot_thadon]

LeBron's 3 titles in 5yrs including 2016 where he became the first player/coach to win since Russell in 1969. People laughed at the Ty Lue hiring since he had no head coaching experience and was considered nothing more than "LeBron's puppet"

Boy that narrative sure died a sudden death once they realized they'd have to give him even more credit for 2016 than he already deserved.

[John8204]

Duncan didn't team hop hunting for his next grift.

Also, which is better 3 out of 5 or 6 out of 7?

Spurs -
98-99 - WON the title
97-98 - 56–26 (.683)
96-97 - 20–62 (.244) - Drafted Duncan
95-96 - 59–23 (.720)
94-95 - 62–20 (.756)
93-94 - 55–27 (.671)
92-93 - 49–33 (.598)
91-92 - 47–35 (.573)
90-91 - 55–27 (.671)

Now let's look at Cleveland
06-07 - 50–32 (.610) - NBA finals
05-06 - 50–32 (.610)
04-05 - 42–40 (.512)
03-04 - 35–47 (.427)
02-03 - 17–65 (.207) - Drafted Lebron
01-02 - 29–53 (.354)
00-01 - 30–52 (.366)
99-00 - 32–50 (.390)
98-99 - 22–28 (.440)

One player helped build a team up to contend for a title, the other ended up on a contender and was able to extend the run. Both are great players but let's not pretend the situations were equitable

[Wally450]

Dynasties can't mostly lose for every period of time - there must be a material stretch where a dynasty mostly wins... 4 years isn't a big enough sample, since a 2-2 record doesn't prove that a team "mostly won"... Accordingly , mostly winning over a 5+ year stretch is the definition of dynasty (Bulls, Lakers, Spurs, Warriors)..

The Heat had the goat choke and the record loss, which bookended a win over babies and teammate bailout - this is the worst 2 for 4 ever and nowhere near a "dynasty"

By that logic the Spurs aren't a dynasty.

[beasted]

Spurs -
98-99 - WON the title
97-98 - 56–26 (.683)
96-97 - 20–62 (.244) - Drafted Duncan
95-96 - 59–23 (.720)
94-95 - 62–20 (.756)
93-94 - 55–27 (.671)
92-93 - 49–33 (.598)
91-92 - 47–35 (.573)
90-91 - 55–27 (.671)

Now let's look at Cleveland
06-07 - 50–32 (.610) - NBA finals
05-06 - 50–32 (.610)
04-05 - 42–40 (.512)
03-04 - 35–47 (.427)
02-03 - 17–65 (.207) - Drafted Lebron
01-02 - 29–53 (.354)
00-01 - 30–52 (.366)
99-00 - 32–50 (.390)
98-99 - 22–28 (.440)

One player helped build a team up to contend for a title, the other ended up on a contender and was able to extend the run. Both are great players but let's not pretend the situations were equitable

Such an amateur take. So, just so we're clear, since the Spurs were "already" a 59-win caliber team, that's the reason they were able to win 2 years later, right? The only reason they had a major drop-off in 97 is because Robinson and Elliot was injured, and them coming back allowed Duncan to naturally step into a 56-win caliber rookie team, right?

Except literally nobody from the first team was on the 2nd team, Einstein. Literally the only players across the down year that remained was Elliott who became a shell of his former self due to advancing kidney disease. Avery who was a basic role player likened to a Fisher type that is a replacement level starter. And Robinson. So literally 2 average-tier role players and then Robinson.

Total misinformed reach. The title-winning team was thrown together through free agent signings and low level trades. This was not some standing contender as you painted it to be a LeBron hopping onto a team with 2 all-star players in their prime to win his first title.

[John8204]

Such an amateur take. So, just so we're clear, since the Spurs were "already" a 59-win caliber team, that's the reason they were able to win 2 years later, right? The only reason they had a major drop-off in 97 is because Robinson and Elliot was injured, and them coming back allowed Duncan to naturally step into a 56-win caliber rookie team, right?

Except literally nobody from the first team was on the 2nd team, Einstein. Literally the only players across the down year that remained was Elliott who became a shell of his former self due to advancing kidney disease. Avery who was a basic role player likened to a Fisher type that is a replacement level starter. And Robinson. So literally 2 average-tier role players and then Robinson.

Total misinformed reach. The title-winning team was thrown together through free agent signings and low level trades. This was not some standing contender as you painted it to be a LeBron hopping onto a team with 2 all-star players in their prime to win his first title.

Dave Robinson came in second in the MVP race before he got injured. They had a solid rotation with Avery Johnson and Vinny Del Negro...yes over the years the team rotated out which is what happens when you have a great front office.

You know what team didn't have an MVP and a great front office...the f'n Cleveland Cavaliers.

[beasted]

Dave Robinson came in second in the MVP race before he got injured. They had a solid rotation with Avery Johnson and Vinny Del Negro...yes over the years the team rotated out which is what happens when you have a great front office.

You know what team didn't have an MVP and a great front office...the f'n Cleveland Cavaliers.

Total revisionist history. 1st, Spurs, while a relatively young franchise at the time, had zero track record of being a great front office up until they drafted Duncan.

What they had was a track record of immediately firing Bob Hill after a bad start. Apparently he hadn't built up enough good will over his first 2 seasons winning 62 and then 59 games respectively. About 20 games is all they needed to give him the boot despite handing him a team built around Robinson who was injured, Elliott dealing with kidney disease, and being a season detached from an arrogant move by a young Poppovich to dump their 2nd best player Rodman for pennies for a bum Will Perdue (basically gift-wrapping the Bulls dynasty). The problem was they went out that summer thinking that adding Vernon Maxwell and an aging Dominique would put them over the top, and Hill paid the price as the fall guy.

2nd, VDN was gone by the time Duncan was winning a title. Again, their core was Avery who was a replacement level starter...not a scrub, but not even as well regarded as a Blaylock caliber guy. Like I said, best comparison is probably Fisher, a really good glue guy. Elliott who was a shell, and yes, Robinson at the end of his prime.

But the problem is you didn't position it as Duncan joining a team with a top-tier #2 option, instead you positioned it as Duncan joining a ready-made contender and/or a team expected to contend. That was absolutely revisionist agenda thinking.

As for the Cavs front office, sure, they fumbled the Boozer contract, but, outside of that made multiple handicapping moves being strong-armed directly by LeBron and his camp. I would argue that their front office did what they could to build a solid supporting cast around a tyrant holding them by the balls.

[Hey Yo]

That last paragraph ^^^^^^ is nothing but speculation and feelings. :oldlol:

[Lebron23]

If lebron was drafted by the Spurs. He would have been a 10x NBA champion.

[beasted]

That last paragraph ^^^^^^ is nothing but speculation and feelings. :oldlol:

Not speculation. There is well documented and published by vetted sources pressure that Lebron put in front offices during his first Cleveland tenure.

How far it actually went I will concede is up for debate. Some forced signings and roster moves are better documented by trusted sources than others.

[John8204]

That last paragraph ^^^^^^ is nothing but speculation and feelings. :oldlol:

It's also absolutely pure Bull Hockey

1974 - 51–33 (.607)
1975 - 50–34 (.595)
1976 - 44–38 (.537)
1977 - 52–30 (.634)
1978 - 48–34 (.585)
1979 - 41–41 (.500)
1980 - 52–30 (.634)
1981 - 48–34 (.585)
1982 - 53–29 (.646)
1983 - 37–45 (.451)
1984 - 41–41 (.500)
1985 - 35–47 (.427)
1986 - 28–54 (.341)
1987 - 31–51 (.378)
1988 - 21–61 (.256)
1989 - 56–26 (.683)
1990 - 55–27 (.671)
1991 - 47–35 (.573)
1992 - 49–33 (.598)
1993 - 55–27 (.671)
1994 - 62–20 (.756)
1995 - 59–23 (.720)
1996 - 20–62 (.244)
1997 - 56–26 (.683)
1998 - 37–13 (.740)
1999 - 53–29 (.646)
2000 - 58–24 (.707)
2001 - 58–24 (.707)
2002 - 60–22 (.732)
2003 - 57–25 (.695)
2004 - 59–23 (.720)
2005 - 63–19 (.768)
2006 - 58–24 (.707)
2007 - 56–26 (.683)
2008 - 54–28 (.659)
2009 - 50–32 (.610)
2010 - 61–21 (.744)
2011 - 50–16 (.758)
2012 - 58–24 (.707)
2013 - 62–20 (.756)
2014 - 55–27 (.671)
2015 - 67–15 (.817)
2016 - 61–21 (.744)
2017 - 47–35 (.573)
2018 - 48–34 (.585)
2019 - 32–39 (.451)
2020 - 33–39 (.458)
2021 - 34–48 (.415)
2022 - 22–60 (.268)
2023 - 22–60 (.268)
2024 - 34–48 (.415)

What a terrible front office

6 - 60 win seasons
22 - 50 Win Seasons
9 - 40 win seasons

38 out 50 seasons 500 or over and half of their bad seasons were the last 6 while doing a rebuild after Kwahi left. Yeah clearly they had a terrible front office

[rmt]

One player helped build a team up to contend for a title, the other ended up on a contender and was able to extend the run. Both are great players but let's not pretend the situations were equitable

Do you really portray/downplay Duncan's arrival on the Spurs as "extend the run" and THEN post the highest winning percentage (71%) - during his 19 year stretch - across not just the NBA but major sports leagues?

[John8204]

Do you really portray/downplay Duncan's arrival on the Spurs as "extend the run" and THEN post the highest winning percentage (71%) - during his 19 year stretch - across not just the NBA but major sports leagues?

Compared to the Cav's and Lebron, your damn right. Duncan came onto a franchise that had 7 straight winning seasons before the Robinson injury. The Spurs have always been a well run organization and they will be in the future.

[warriorfan]

Do you really portray/downplay Duncan's arrival on the Spurs as "extend the run" and THEN post the highest winning percentage (71%) - during his 19 year stretch - across not just the NBA but major sports leagues?

I’ve seen this poster say some really weird shit. You might be dealing with a troll.

Beware.

[John8204]

I’ve seen this poster say some really weird shit. You might be dealing with a troll.

Beware.

Oh here we go again with the troll BS.

The San Antonio Spurs is a good franchise, the Cleveland Cavaliers is a bad franchise.

Tim Duncan went to a good team that consistently won 50 games, Lebron went to a team that consistently won 30 games.

The Spur's didn't suddenly get good when Duncan came along they had two top five players on their generations in George Gervin and David Robinson.

These are basic facts

[Axe]

LeBron's 3 titles in 5yrs including 2016 where he became the first player/coach to win since Russell in 1969. People laughed at the Ty Lue hiring since he had no head coaching experience and was considered nothing more than "LeBron's puppet"
Ty lue will always be a trash ass coach. Doesn't matter if he had lebron or not.

[beasted]

I’ve seen this poster say some really weird shit. You might be dealing with a troll.

Beware.

Yes, I realize that giving ppl the benefit of the doubt on this forum becomes a time sink.

[gengiskhan]

3 Rings for INTACT franchise means a DYNASTY (bulls, spurs, LAL, GSW)

2 Rings only makes a team ALL TIME GREAT ATG (Bad Boys, Rockets, Heat)

2010-2014 MIA only won 2 out of 4. 2006 ring belongs to Wade and Shaq. Bosh and LBJ has absolutely nothing to do with that 2006 ring.

[John8204]

3 Rings for INTACT franchise means a DYNASTY (bulls, spurs, LAL, GSW)

2 Rings only makes a team ALL TIME GREAT ATG (Bad Boys, Rockets, Heat)

2010-2014 MIA only won 2 out of 4. 2006 ring belongs to Wade and Shaq. Bosh and LBJ has absolutely nothing to do with that 2006 ring.

I think finals trips matter because look you're putting GSW on your list but half of those rings had Durant and half didn't.

Larry's Celtics made 5 trips to the finals and won 3 rings but they rotated Tiny Archibald, Bill Walton, Cedric Maxwell and Danny Ainge and those are big factors.

Pistons made it three straight years and had it not been for shady officiating they would have three rings.

I can respect the line you want to draw I just don't agree with it.

[gengiskhan]

I think finals trips matter because look you're putting GSW on your list but half of those rings had Durant and half didn't.

Larry's Celtics made 5 trips to the finals and won 3 rings but they rotated Tiny Archibald, Bill Walton, Cedric Maxwell and Danny Ainge and those are big factors.

Pistons made it three straight years and had it not been for shady officiating they would have three rings.

I can respect the line you want to draw I just don't agree with it.

Look.........Durant was added to trio of Splash bros and Draymond. hence, 4 rings that should've been 5, no thanks to draymond 2016 suspensions.

Either way, Durant addition does not negate GSW DYNASTIC status. Atleast, 3 Wins is a MUST to call a DYNASTY. reason, 1992-1996 COWBOYS are called DYNASTY. Won 3 SUPERBOWLS in 4 Yrs span.

according to your logic, 1990-1994 BUFFALO BILLS are DYNASTY because they made it to 4 Superbowls in a row despite going 0-4.

Still, Bird is credited with DYNASTIC status of 80s BOS because of QUATET of BIRD-MCHALE-PARISH-DJ. despite them never defending their ring. 3 is good enough for a DYNASTY.

LBJ-BOSH-WADE trio should've won 3 instead of 2. you can curse 2011 finals loss to DAL all you want. they are just an ATG team. Not a DYNASTY despite defending their championship.

You are nitpicking way too much bro.

1 ring is a CHAMP
2 rings is an ALL TIME GREAT teams.
3 rings is a DYNASTY.

[John8204]

according to your logic, 1990-1994 BUFFALO BILLS are DYNASTY because they made it to 4 Superbowls in a row despite going 0-4.



Yeah I'm okay with calling the Bills a dynasty, they've been a defined team for 30 years and isn't that what a dynasty should be...something that has historical resonance.

I can see the case for rings above all else but for me sustained contention means something.

[beasted]

I literally had to delete my post because I came here to say the same thing about the Bills, LOL.

Definitely not a dynasty. Anyone who says so has an agenda.

[SouBeachTalents]

You need at minimum 3 titles to claim dynasty status.

[beasted]

I think society has coddled losers for so long that they have brainwashed themselves into believe participation trophies matter.

By deductive logic, who cares that Wilt only won 2 Finals he got his team to 6. Who cares that Jerry West has won 1 single title, he went to 9. Toughen the **** up or our society is doomed with this loser participation mindset.

[Soundwave]

2 championships is a dynasty now? I don't recall anyone saying the Houston Rockets of the 90s are a dynasty.

[gengiskhan]

Yeah I'm okay with calling the Bills a dynasty, they've been a defined team for 30 years and isn't that what a dynasty should be...something that has historical resonance.

I can see the case for rings above all else but for me sustained contention means something.

I respect your opinion. To each his own I guess.

But remember one thing, you are lowering the bar way too low.

call 1990-1994 BILLS a GREAT team. no problem. they had kelly-thomas-Bruce-reed quartat. thats championship team with coach levy.

should've won that 1991 superbowl. that NYG was probably the worst loss ever in superbowl history.

what you are saying all the team needs to is become FINALIST 10 times and never win single Final and they are automatic DYNASTY.

I like to call a team like that a GREAT team but never words like CHAMPS, ATG or DYNASTY.

[gengiskhan]

2 championships is a dynasty now? I don't recall anyone saying the Houston Rockets of the 90s are a dynasty.

2 times champs have always labeled ATG team. especially, if they defended the title. BAD BOYS, ROCKETS but never DYNASTY. it always takes 3 in all forms of US sports to be called latter.

people love to confuse themselves with LBJs HEAT run. they like to count 2006 Wade's ring as LBJ-Wade-Bosh's ring. the former 2 were not there in 2006.

that 2006 ring is Wade-Shaq-Riley trios. Its amazing how Shaq gets so easily discredited from LAL DYNASTY and HEATs ring.

[Axe]

According to the homosexual Baller789 way back then, a team can only be considered a 'dynasty' if they're able to three-peat. :hammerhead:

[Full Court]

According to the homosexual Baller789 way back then, a team can only be considered a 'dynasty' if they're able to three-peat. :hammerhead:

Imagine being so stupid that you think going 2/4 and losing as a massive favorite makes you a "dynasty." :roll:


Oh wait.....Axe doesn't have to imagine.

:lebronamazed:

[Axe]

Pistons made it three straight years and had it not been for shady officiating they would have three rings.
https://i.ibb.co/XZ5qVsYf/Screenshot-20250703-235925.jpg (https://i.ibb.co/JmpGnKz/IMG-20230528-095117.jpg)

[Full Court]

^I see I struck a nerve. The truth sure hurts this stinky idiot.

You know you're a desperate Bronie fluffer when you try to say he was part of a "dynasty."

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.tenor.co%2Fimages%2F6acf377 7f1a846b2c0f265b7b455984b%2Fraw&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=b36bf2987b6e47d986259860d5e8f3c34bd8f0df1cfdbc 4daf389da8506cec6a

[Axe]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ock6zLzdY9o (https://i.ibb.co/gDsySW3/IMG-20230603-203842.jpg)

[Full Court]

^Stinky estrogen boy still throwing bitch fits.

What a loser. :lol Consensus biggest loser on ISH in fact.

:lebronamazed:

[Da_Realist]

I don’t think Duncan's Spurs were a dynasty. They had a very good run but they weren't a dynasty. To be considered a dynasty, there has to be a sense of inevitability for an extended period of time. You don’t have that when you don’t defend your championship. The Spurs would win then wouldn’t even make the Finals the next year. The Spurs didn’t even make the Western Conference Finals most of the time. And I agree, three titles has to be the starting point.

My criteria:
A team has to win at least three titles in a period where you win more than you lose.
A team has to defend their championship at least once.

That doesn’t mean the Spurs weren’t impressive in their own way. Three titles in five years is still three titles. Tim Duncan has five rings. I don’t think he stays awake at night regretting anything. Nor should he. Shaq led a dynasty but Duncan ended up with more rings. I'd be interested to know if either of them would trade their career for the other.