I, probably like most of you, have been wondering lately and often times aloud walking the torpid and torrid streets of Singapore, “What exactly makes a dynasty?”
So, I referenced God Online, otherwise known as Wikipedia, and came up with the following analysis:
| YEARS | DYNASTIC TEAM | ANALYSIS |
| ’49-`54 | Minneapolis Lakers | 5 Championships in 6 years |
| ’57-’69 | Boston Celtics I | 11 Championships in 13 years |
| ’80-’90 | Los Angeles Lakers | 5 Championships in 11 years |
| ’80-’90 | Boston Celtics II | 3 Championships in 11 years |
| ’91-’98 | Chicago Bulls | 6 Championships in 8 years |
The only exception here is the Celtics II dynasty (’80-’90). Even though they only won 3 championships in that 11 year period, they appeared 5 times in that same period. I think they still deserve to be called a dynasty. This still begs the question, and makes it even more difficult, “What exactly makes a dynasty?”
So, at a loss, I decided to ignore all the human and sometimes superhuman elements that go into winning a championship and reduce the whole damn thing to quantitative analysis… a simple mathematical average.
With the exception of the Celtics II dynasty, there seems to be a minimum of 5 championships and a maximum span of 13 years. Using those parameters and the Celtics II “exception”, because they are only human after all, I came up with the following rules we can use to define a dynasty:
1. There should be a minimum of at least 5 wins
2. A team should win 6 championships in 10 years
3. A team should have a win-rate of 60% of its championships in a 13-year period (max.)
Of course, this is only a half-ass attempt at regressive analysis and some might say, anally regressive, but I have opened the doors to discussion.
Will 4 Spurs championships in 9 years qualify as a dynasty?
Probably not, but it beats the Celtics II dynasty doesn’t it? Will 5 in 10 years? Close but no cigar! So, to be an undisputed dynasty with no asterisk beside us and to be considered one of the greatest, undisputed NBA teams of all time we would have to 3-peat starting this year.
However, I’ll take a dynasty better than Celtics II with 4 in 9, but I’d feel a lot better with a 3-peat.
So the final analysis is this…. Do you include Celtics II in the math? If so, the Spurs will be a dynasty if we win the ’07 championship, but not if we don’t.
I always liked the Celtics!
ABC said it, “Four titles in nine years would cement Tim Duncan’s Spurs as a basketball dynasty.”
So there you go.