Comments on: The NBA: It’s Dynastic!

By: Owen

Owen — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 05:30:13 +0000

One thing is for sure, the Knicks are nowhere near that list. Amazing that the New York franchises have been left out in the cold for nearly 40 years. Some close calls, but that is it...

By: steve norris

steve norris — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 15:57:49 +0000

what about the rockets?no dynasty i guess but they were good. i think jordan might have got 1 more ring but olajuwon proved that no big man could mess with him and the bulls didnt have rodman or grant those 2 years so....

By: Dave

Dave — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 09:10:33 +0000

Neil, Is it dynasties or players? Mikan, Russell, ..70s.., Magic v. Bird, Michael, and then Shaq v. Duncan (except since they both came out of the West for most of rivalry it didn't happen in the finals like Magic and Bird), and If the Spurs don't win it all this season, then the Shaq / Duncan era (8 of 9 titles '99 - '07) will officially be over. The 70s saw a series of flash in the pan dominant players - of which Kareem was the best, but basically because of consistency - hence the need for the Magic touch.

By: Neil Paine

Neil Paine — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 22:45:29 +0000

And the flip side of that is, did you achieve 72 wins because you were so great, or because the competition was so bad? Obviously, in real life it's a little bit of both. But that's the difficulty in comparing players and teams from closed leagues across eras with players/teams from other closed leagues. To use a baseball example: when the American League had an ERA of 2.98 in 1968, was it because the pitchers were just that good, or were the hitters that bad? Since it's a zero-sum game (for every winner, there's a loser), parity could indicate a strong league from top-to-bottom... or just mediocrity all around. And a dominant team could legitimately be great in relation to every other team in the history of the sport... Or it could just be beating up a league that happened to be filled with lousy competition. Since every league is closed, we have no way of ever really knowing for sure which is the case.

By: Jason J

Jason J — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 21:01:39 +0000

Parity is, from a certain perspective, the opposite of greatness. Do you want to be a part of a historic 72 win run and a 6 titles dynasty or a Detroit team with no recognized stars slaying a Lakers Goliath that sports 4 first ballot Hall of Famers? There's not a right answer to that question, but the former does make you feel like you are seeing something extraordinary and historic while the latter is a great underdog story but doesn't necessarily transcend the moment.

By: Eddy

Eddy — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 18:18:23 +0000

This was a fun read. Great write-up, Neil.