PDA

View Full Version : Are the Spurs the most successful franchise in NBA history?



RLundi
03-14-2013, 11:54 PM
Can a case be made for them? Obviously the Celtics and Lakers have more championships but they also have a 35-year head start. Look at some of the highlights. Their dominance may surprise some:

- NBA-record 14th straight 50 win season (it would easily be more but the lockout in 1998 ruined it)

- 18 division titles in 30 years (C's have 21 in 75 years)

- Playoff berths 21 out of the last 22 seasons

- Have never lost in an NBA Finals (Bulls are the only other team to do this)

- They are the only team with a better head-to-head regular season record against every other team.

Is there a case to be made?

raiderposting
03-14-2013, 11:55 PM
K

D12 fan
03-14-2013, 11:57 PM
No that would be the Lakers/Celtics.


Close thread.

Guppyfighter
03-14-2013, 11:58 PM
In a 16 season span, yes.

JerseyPalahniuk
03-14-2013, 11:59 PM
Yes, a case can be made if you start with whatever year they joined the NBA and exclude previous history of the other teams. Read through the actual post before commenting people.

In that case its between the Bulls/Lakers/Spurs

RLundi
03-15-2013, 12:00 AM
No that would be the Lakers/Celtics.


Close thread.

Did you even read the OP?

ThaDubs
03-15-2013, 12:03 AM
Bobcats.

JerseyPalahniuk
03-15-2013, 12:07 AM
You should edit the title of you want real responses man. Maybe to "Are the Spurs the most succesfull franchise in THEIR NBA history"

D12 fan
03-15-2013, 12:09 AM
Did you even read the OP?

Change the title, then you may have a case.

You said they are the most successful team in NBA History.

JerseyPalahniuk
03-15-2013, 12:20 AM
Did you even read the OP?

Hahah apparently not. Like any other troll

Purple_n_Gold
03-15-2013, 12:24 AM
The spurs joined the NBA in 1976. The most dominant franchise since that year has easily been LAL. 10 championships since 76. Close thread. Not even close. But a very well ran successful franchise with the best head coach in the NBA right now IMO.

siix
03-15-2013, 12:27 AM
of course they are one of the most successful franchises only a idiot would say no.

LOOTERX9
03-15-2013, 12:30 AM
No but they are the most boring successful franchise in history

Guppyfighter
03-15-2013, 12:31 AM
No but they are the most boring successful franchise in history

Yes, the fourth fastest paced team in the league with a top notch offense is boring.

More-Than-Most
03-15-2013, 12:41 AM
The spurs joined the NBA in 1976. The most dominant franchise since that year has easily been LAL. 10 championships since 76. Close thread. Not even close. But a very well ran successful franchise with the best head coach in the NBA right now IMO.

Best coach by a ton... Its not even close.... Its Pop by a mile

mightybosstone
03-15-2013, 12:42 AM
If I were ranking the most successful NBA franchises of all time, I would go:

1. Celtics
2. Lakers
3. Bulls
4. Spurs
5. Pistons
6. Rockets
7. 76ers
8. Knicks
9. Heat
10. Sonics/Thunder

kdspurman
03-15-2013, 09:38 AM
Obviously they don't have as much hardware as other teams, but they came to the NBA in the mid 70's. I think their sustained success and consistency is 2nd to none. I think the fewest games they won in a full 82 game season during Duncan's era was 50.

Now we will see what comes after the Duncan era ends, but it's tough to think they'll be anything but competitive.

In NBA history, I would say no, but of the last 2 decades I think that's definitely a fair argument.

D-Leethal
03-15-2013, 09:45 AM
They've had one of the best 15 year runs in NBA history. All time, no. You need multiple runs of dominance to touch the Lakers and Celtics.

DR_1
03-15-2013, 09:52 AM
1. Celtics
2. Lakers
3. Bulls

End discussion

ATX
03-15-2013, 09:53 AM
Considering the small San Antonio market, it's amazing how successful that organization has become. Of course LA has been more succesful in terms of hardware, however it's waaaay easier to attract FA's to LA rather than SA. This obviously gives LA a huge advantage over the small markets and "Less" desirable cities. The Spurs have a great culture of team play and players that aren't all just about themselves. I don't see whats so boring about them. I love watching Parker, and if Duncan's "Fundamentals" bore some, then you probably prefer things like the dunk contest over pure basketball.

D-Leethal
03-15-2013, 09:55 AM
Considering the small San Antonio market, it's amazing how successful that organization has become. Of course LA has been more succesful in terms of hardware, however it's waaaay easier to attract FA's to LA rather than SA. This obviously gives LA a huge advantage over the small markets and "Less" desirable cities. The Spurs have a great culture of team play and players that aren't all just about themselves. I don't see whats so boring about them. I love watching Parker, and if Duncan's "Fundamentals" bore some, then you probably prefer things like the dunk contest over pure basketball.

Spurs aren't boring at all, if you think the Spurs are boring your watching basketball and sports in general for all the wrong reasons.

ATX
03-15-2013, 09:58 AM
Spurs aren't boring at all, if you think the Spurs are boring your watching basketball and sports in general for all the wrong reasons.

It looks like your saying I think the Spurs are boring, but that's the opposite of what I posted.

Dankster
03-15-2013, 10:13 AM
It's obviously the Celtics and Lakers.

Boston has won only once since the 80's and the Lakers have had several titles since than including a dynasty period throughout the 80''s and early 2000's. I'd say modern era NBA between the 2 its Los Angeles by a mile.

D-Leethal
03-15-2013, 10:20 AM
It looks like your saying I think the Spurs are boring, but that's the opposite of what I posted.

Nah, I was basically quoting your post to agree with your point. 'You' was used in a general sense didn't mean to direct it at you personally.

Kobe2324
03-15-2013, 10:25 AM
lol Lakers have almost been in half of all nba finals and celtics have the most titles by 1 over the lakers....The spur are not even close to these two teams

kdspurman
03-15-2013, 10:30 AM
I don't think a lot of people are reading the OP at all.

Sly Guy
03-15-2013, 10:34 AM
Yes, a case can be made if you start with whatever year they joined the NBA and exclude previous history of the other teams. Read through the actual post before commenting people.

In that case its between the Bulls/Lakers/Spurs

not even the bulls. They've had success through one player and one player only. Whereas the lakers and celts have had generations of great players to add the the legacies of their respective clubs. to me, a 'best franchise' is one of the few times using the rings argument makes sense. It's a question of team success, and the measure of a successful team is ultimately championships.

The spurs are up there, but only in the last ~20 years or so as was already said [again, one generation of players for the most part, duncan, manu, parker, and a few years of the old guard in d robinson, elliot etc]. You could also make the claim for the jazz for similar reasons, sloan kept that team going, and had some long-lived veterans, although without any titles that case becomes harder to make.

cdnsportsfan
03-15-2013, 10:44 AM
I don't think a lot of people are reading the OP at all.

They really aren't reading the OP, that's clear. That was a very reasonable post with some good points supported by facts and not just opinion. however it might also touch on the fact that people don't look at the sustained success of a franchise, but rather only focus on the championships.

Maybe that's a question to pose around here - what's more important, sustained success or going on a championship run every decade or two and living off your history in between?

People are also downplaying the Spurs for being created later than the Lakers and the Celtics and while history IS important absolutely, it's pretty unfair to bash a team for the date they started when they have found tremendous success within their time. That's really all they can do.

psperry34116
03-15-2013, 10:48 AM
They've had one of the best 15 year runs in NBA history. All time, no. You need multiple runs of dominance to touch the Lakers and Celtics.

Speaking of 15 year runs, how come nobodys brought up the whole 11 championships in 13 years thing. I feel like everyone needs to enjoy that number for a while :D

NYCkid12
03-15-2013, 10:59 AM
If I were ranking the most successful NBA franchises of all time, I would go:

1. Celtics
2. Lakers
3. Bulls
4. Spurs
5. Pistons
6. Rockets
7. 76ers
8. Knicks
9. Heat
10. Sonics/Thunder

I agree with your list except you probably have to put the Heat above the knicks IMO

In 24 seasons, they have 9 division titles and 2 Championships and are probably on there way to a 3rd

JiffyMix88
03-15-2013, 11:56 AM
From the 80s and up Lakers(9 Titles) Bulls(6 Titles) Spurs(4 Titles) Boston Celtics(4 Titles) I'd say Lakers are still the best Franchise

beliges
03-15-2013, 12:13 PM
The Spurs have been ONE of the best franchises during the last 25 years in the NBA but clearly it has been the Lakers and the Bulls.

Raps18-19 Champ
03-15-2013, 12:26 PM
They have a case. I wouldn't give it to them though.

LeperMessiah
03-15-2013, 12:47 PM
History will remember this moment in Spurs franchise.

todu82
03-15-2013, 12:51 PM
No, they've had a great run but give me the Lakers or the Celtics as most succesful teams in NBA history.

CityofTreez
03-15-2013, 12:53 PM
Spurs are amazing, and I am still astonished by Tim Duncan's 657 double doubles.

They're not the best, but if they sustain this success, then they have an argument.

envymamba24
03-15-2013, 02:32 PM
Had no idea skip Bayless was on PSD...

mightybosstone
03-15-2013, 03:43 PM
I agree with your list except you probably have to put the Heat above the knicks IMO

In 24 seasons, they have 9 division titles and 2 Championships and are probably on there way to a 3rd

I put the Knicks first, because I value dominance in multiple eras. The Knicks had great teams in the 70s with Frazier, Reed, Debusschere and Monroe, but were also damn good in the 90s with Ewing, Oakley and Starks. They've also been to more NBA Finals than the Heat have. However, if the Heat were to win the championship this season, I'd probably move the Heat ahead of the Knicks and maybe the 76ers.

ILLUSIONIST^248
03-15-2013, 03:45 PM
Can a case be made for them? Obviously the Celtics and Lakers have more championships but they also have a 35-year head start. Look at some of the highlights. Their dominance may surprise some:

- NBA-record 14th straight 50 win season (it would easily be more but the lockout in 1998 ruined it)

- 18 division titles in 30 years (C's have 21 in 75 years)

- Playoff berths 21 out of the last 22 seasons

- Have never lost in an NBA Finals (Bulls are the only other team to do this)

- They are the only team with a better head-to-head regular season record against every other team.

Is there a case to be made?

:laugh2:

Hellcrooner
03-15-2013, 03:45 PM
No

ILLUSIONIST^248
03-15-2013, 03:46 PM
From the 80s and up Lakers(9 Titles) Bulls(6 Titles) Spurs(4 Titles) Boston Celtics(4 Titles) I'd say Lakers are still the best Franchise

+1

ILLUSIONIST^248
03-15-2013, 03:49 PM
Speaking of 15 year runs, how come nobodys brought up the whole 11 championships in 13 years thing. I feel like everyone needs to enjoy that number for a while :D

That's because basketball was a joke in those days, Celtics championships are inflated because of their past. You guys have been a pretty terrible franchise the last 25 years or so.

tp13baby
03-15-2013, 04:09 PM
Yes, the fourth fastest paced team in the league with a top notch offense is boring.

He says this cause there isn't a superstar on the team. Just great talent all around.

b@llhog24
03-15-2013, 07:04 PM
Nah the Celtics are better. But if they could sustain a certain level of success while winning 4-5 rings then I think you could make a case for them.

I really want to see what they look like Post Duncan-Gino-Parker. Kahwi is a good start though.


He says this cause there isn't a superstar on the team. Just great talent all around.

Or because he hasn't watched a Spurs game from since 2005.

Sactown
03-15-2013, 07:44 PM
Maybe the word should be consistent, not successful... The spurs are consistently a top 5 team in the league.

ILLUSIONIST^248
03-15-2013, 08:26 PM
Nah the Celtics are better. But if they could sustain a certain level of success while winning 4-5 rings then I think you could make a case for them.

I really want to see what they look like Post Duncan-Gino-Parker. Kahwi is a good start though.



Or because he hasn't watched a Spurs game from since 2005.

Yeah leave out the Lakers. Keep on hating .

sportscrazy34
03-15-2013, 09:49 PM
Since 76. spurs have 18 division titles and 4 conference titles. The Lakers have 19 division titles and 16 conference titles. Plus the Lakers have a 10 to 4 championship edge. Spurs have 6 seasons under 500 while the Lakers have 4.

Ty Fast
03-15-2013, 09:52 PM
Can a case be made for them? Obviously the Celtics and Lakers have more championships but they also have a 35-year head start. Look at some of the highlights. Their dominance may surprise some:

- NBA-record 14th straight 50 win season (it would easily be more but the lockout in 1998 ruined it)

- 18 division titles in 30 years (C's have 21 in 75 years)

- Playoff berths 21 out of the last 22 seasons

- Have never lost in an NBA Finals (Bulls are the only other team to do this)

- They are the only team with a better head-to-head regular season record against every other team.

Is there a case to be made?

you lose your argument right there

Vinylman
03-15-2013, 09:55 PM
They really aren't reading the OP, that's clear. That was a very reasonable post with some good points supported by facts and not just opinion. however it might also touch on the fact that people don't look at the sustained success of a franchise, but rather only focus on the championships.

Maybe that's a question to pose around here - what's more important, sustained success or going on a championship run every decade or two and living off your history in between?

People are also downplaying the Spurs for being created later than the Lakers and the Celtics and while history IS important absolutely, it's pretty unfair to bash a team for the date they started when they have found tremendous success within their time. That's really all they can do.

since SA has joined the league the lakers have been to 16 finals and won 10... is this really a debate?

Vinylman
03-15-2013, 09:59 PM
Yes, a case can be made if you start with whatever year they joined the NBA and exclude previous history of the other teams. Read through the actual post before commenting people.

In that case its between the Bulls/Lakers/Spurs


wrong

b@llhog24
03-15-2013, 10:16 PM
Yeah leave out the Lakers. Keep on hating .

I left out the Bulls as well, yet I don't see your panties in a bunch about them. Guess you're just a homer. :shrug:


Why don't you provide a reasonable argument for your stance instead of resorting to juvenile tactics like calling someone a 'hater'?

Provide an argument; otherwise, shut up.

Let the guy get potty trained first before trying to overload his brain. Too much rational thinking is a bad thing.

sportscrazy34
03-15-2013, 10:21 PM
The bulls have 9 division titles and 6 conference titles with 6 championships. 17 under .500 seasons since 76.

Purple_n_Gold
03-16-2013, 12:35 AM
Speaking of 15 year runs, how come nobodys brought up the whole 11 championships in 13 years thing. I feel like everyone needs to enjoy that number for a while :D
Because there were 10 teams in the league at that time. It's a good feat none the less, but going against 30 teams as opposed to 10 is a pretty big difference.

ILLUSIONIST^248
03-16-2013, 01:31 AM
I left out the Bulls as well, yet I don't see your panties in a bunch about them. Guess you're just a homer. :shrug:



Let the guy get potty trained first before trying to overload his brain. Too much rational thinking is a bad thing.
You clowns have been owned in this thread. Nice try on the troll. Lakers>>>>>>>>>Spurs.

RLundi
03-16-2013, 02:20 AM
You clowns have been owned in this thread. Nice try on the troll. Lakers>>>>>>>>>Spurs.

Owned? Troll? Isn't school out already? Grow up. If you can't have any semblance of a basketball discussion, stay out of the thread. You scarcely provide anything relevant to a discussion besides high school, juvenile stuff. Post a counter argument. Present why your opinion is superior. Until then, please go play in a corner while the grown-ups talk.

king4day
03-16-2013, 09:40 AM
I wouldn't put them ahead of the C's and Lakers in history, but after those two, there's no way you can't put the Spurs right behind them.

MaloDaw9
03-16-2013, 11:39 AM
No. C"s, Lakers,Bulls/Spurs

enitialdee
03-16-2013, 01:33 PM
For a small market, without the glitz n glamor, you gotta give team props for the success they had..

Hellcrooner
03-16-2013, 02:34 PM
I wouldn't put them ahead of the C's and Lakers in history, but after those two, there's no way you can't put the Spurs right behind them.

id put the pistons over them.

only one less ring but they have managed to win it all with two completley different cores, instead of litching on a top 10 player all time for the lenght of his career ( TD) .

An argument that can also be held against bulls, as they were only sucesfull when they had that dude....i cant remember his name.:p

YouCan'tBeatLA
03-16-2013, 02:37 PM
1. Lakers
2. Celtics
3. Bulls
4. Spurs

BSF101
03-16-2013, 03:01 PM
My second favorite NBA team behind the Celtics.

Tony_Starks
03-16-2013, 07:01 PM
They're most definitely behind the Lakers but they've had the best coaching I've ever seen over a decade straight. They should really have a couple more rings if not for age and injuries.....

JayW_1023
03-16-2013, 07:25 PM
The past 15 years: damn straight. But all time? Naw.

HouRealCoach
03-16-2013, 07:27 PM
Celtics & Lakers are EASILY the most successful

ILLUSIONIST^248
03-18-2013, 03:19 PM
the past 15 years: Damn straight. But all time? Naw.

lols !

ILLUSIONIST^248
03-18-2013, 03:21 PM
Owned? Troll? Isn't school out already? Grow up. If you can't have any semblance of a basketball discussion, stay out of the thread. You scarcely provide anything relevant to a discussion besides high school, juvenile stuff. Post a counter argument. Present why your opinion is superior. Until then, please go play in a corner while the grown-ups talk.

I like how you steal my way of talking to you. Anyways bub, Lakers >>>>>Spurs. So try again in another fail troll thread.

Faneik
03-18-2013, 03:32 PM
I like how you steal my way of talking to you. Anyways bub, Lakers >>>>>Spurs. So try again in another fail troll thread.

he's right. all of your post are empty of basketball knowledge.

It's always:
"my franchise is better than yours"
"kobe is better than player x"

this is the nba forum, we're here to discuss basketball.

if we wanted to read how the lakers are so good and successful, we'd go to the lakers forum.

go on, tell me that i'm irrelevant and that i'm one of the worse posters in here.

when, we both know plenty of people have said that about you multiple times.

kdspurman
03-18-2013, 03:36 PM
lols !

What he said was pretty accurate actually

ILLUSIONIST^248
03-18-2013, 03:48 PM
he's right. all of your post are empty of basketball knowledge.

It's always:
"my franchise is better than yours"
"kobe is better than player x"

this is the nba forum, we're here to discuss basketball.

if we wanted to read how the lakers are so good and successful, we'd go to the lakers forum.

go on, tell me that i'm irrelevant and that i'm one of the worse posters in here.

when, we both know plenty of people have said that about you multiple times.

The only people who disagree with what i say are Lebron **** stuffers. P.S, You're are a terrible poster.

ILLUSIONIST^248
03-18-2013, 03:51 PM
What he said was pretty accurate actually

How so? The Lakers have 7 conference titles, 7 finals apperances, and 5 titles. The spurs have 4/4/4. :confused:

Hellcrooner
03-18-2013, 03:53 PM
What he said was pretty accurate actually

5/4

so...

koreancabbage
03-18-2013, 03:55 PM
no, those 50+ win seasons are nice but championships speak volumes over great individual season by any team. Lakers easily in this era and overall.

Spurs are great but the ultimate goal are championships. Lakers have a ton of those

edit: its either Lakers or Celtics but i'm leaning with the Lakers on this one.

kdspurman
03-18-2013, 03:56 PM
Never missing the playoffs, winning 50+ games every year, etc... I thought "consistent" might be the better word than successful, but I think the argument can be made for them.

Especially when you factor in the market they play in and the fact that they aren't really that appealing to "big name" free agents.

Faneik
03-18-2013, 04:01 PM
The only people who disagree with what i say are Lebron **** stuffers. P.S, You're are a terrible poster.

don't need to go far, for you to see you're wrong...again...see above

kdspurman disagreed with you, and he is a spurs fan, not a lebron fan.

btw, you forgot to "-1" his post.

ILLUSIONIST^248
03-18-2013, 04:04 PM
5/4

so...
+1

Never missing the playoffs, winning 50+ games every year, etc... I thought "consistent" might be the better word than successful, but I think the argument can be made for them.

Especially when you factor in the market they play in and the fact that they aren't really that appealing to "big name" free agents.

More consistent? Maybe, but the Lakers have more finals apperances and more titles. So the title of most "successful" goes to the Lakers.

ILLUSIONIST^248
03-18-2013, 04:13 PM
don't need to go far, for you to see you're wrong...again...see above

kdspurman disagreed with you, and he is a spurs fan, not a lebron fan.

btw, you forgot to "-1" his post.

He has an argument, but it's a losing one. I'm not going to take shots at him because he backed it up with facts. The spurs are def number 2 tho.

VikesTwinsWolve
03-18-2013, 04:18 PM
^^^^1864 +1 posts....wth

-1

JerseyPalahniuk
03-18-2013, 04:21 PM
How so? The Lakers have 7 conference titles, 7 finals apperances, and 5 titles. The spurs have 4/4/4. :confused:

hahaha you do realize those two are the same thing right?

Faneik
03-18-2013, 04:28 PM
regarding the topic at hand,

i give great credit to the spurs owners.

they found a great front office, that front office found a great coach.

that great coach is a great leader, who develops young talent.
they are the best drafters in the nba.

ILLUSIONIST^248
03-18-2013, 04:30 PM
hahaha you do realize those two are the same thing right?

Yes, It looks better this way tho lol.

#TmSmokesSachs
03-18-2013, 05:22 PM
Im no laker fan by any stretch, but that is the most successfull franchise in NBA history. Period. End of story.


Im sure you could even make a case for them being the most successful franchise in Sports History, if you were really inclined to. Then again, that would take some thinking power, which we ALL know Laker fans are clearly lacking and devoid of.


Close this rediculous thread.

ILLUSIONIST^248
03-18-2013, 05:45 PM
Im no laker fan by any stretch, but that is the most successfull franchise in NBA history. Period. End of story.


Im sure you could even make a case for them being the most successful franchise in Sports History, if you were really inclined to. Then again, that would take some thinking power, which we ALL know Laker fans are clearly lacking and devoid of.


Close this rediculous thread.

I agree up to "then" :p

OceanSpray
03-18-2013, 05:46 PM
Im no laker fan by any stretch, but that is the most successfull franchise in NBA history. Period. End of story.


Im sure you could even make a case for them being the most successful franchise in Sports History, if you were really inclined to. Then again, that would take some thinking power, which we ALL know Laker fans are clearly lacking and devoid of.


Close this rediculous thread.

Yankees are probably the most storied franchise but yeah, basketball wise, LAL and Boston are probably the top dogs due to the fact that they had an early start grabbing the best players.

DumDum
04-03-2013, 02:50 AM
Yes

JJ_JKidd
04-03-2013, 03:29 AM
Can a case be made for them? Obviously the Celtics and Lakers have more championships but they also have a 35-year head start. Look at some of the highlights. Their dominance may surprise some:

- NBA-record 14th straight 50 win season (it would easily be more but the lockout in 1998 ruined it)

- 18 division titles in 30 years (C's have 21 in 75 years)

- Playoff berths 21 out of the last 22 seasons

- Have never lost in an NBA Finals (Bulls are the only other team to do this)

- They are the only team with a better head-to-head regular season record against every other team.

Is there a case to be made?

Last time i checked, Celts, Lakers, have more Chips.

albertajaysfan
04-03-2013, 03:52 AM
I would be curious to know the differences in the salaries of the Lakers and Spurs.

When considering the time since their inception the Spurs I would say are second behind the Lakers. I bump the Bulls down to third until they can win a championship with someone other than Jordan leading the team.

They are definitely the best run franchise over that time period however. Their drafting and draft day trades are amazing. Kawhi Leonard is their most recent example.

LAcowBOMBER
04-03-2013, 03:59 AM
The spurs joined the NBA in 1976. The most dominant franchise since that year has easily been LAL. 10 championships since 76. Close thread. Not even close. But a very well ran successful franchise with the best head coach in the NBA right now IMO.

This should pretty much end this thread. The Lakers and Celtics also have better overall history

LeperMessiah
04-03-2013, 07:42 AM
Last time i checked, Celts, Lakers, have more Chips.
You'll notice it's the first thing he says in the first sentence that you obviously read.

celtisox41
04-03-2013, 08:57 AM
Im no laker fan by any stretch, but that is the most successfull franchise in NBA history. Period. End of story.


Im sure you could even make a case for them being the most successful franchise in Sports History, if you were really inclined to. Then again, that would take some thinking power, which we ALL know Laker fans are clearly lacking and devoid of.


Close this rediculous thread.

The lakers aren't even the most successful in their own sport, arguably they are but not clearly. It's them or the celtics. They're not even close to the most successful in sports, if you don't give that to the Yankees then you'd have to be insane. They are easily the best and I'm a Red Sox fan