The Spurs have one of the greatest dynasties in NBA History. But with the exception of the 80s Celtics, the Spurs are the only dynasty to never win back to back championships. But why?
*Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
No copyright infringement intended. Uncle Hays makes no claim of ownership. All rights belong to their respective owners.
#nba #spurs #playoffs #championship
In 2000, I think Pop recognized that they probably weren't prepped to beat that behemoth Lakers team and thought sitting Duncan for long-term health was the sensible decision. Can't say he was wrong. By the way, the Pop/Duncan Spurs are an interesting case study of a squad that both under- and overachieved. They probably kick themselves for blowing a 2-0 lead in 2004, blowing a late lead against Dallas in game 7 in 2006, losing to an 8th seed in 2011, blowing another 2-0 lead in 2012, not closing out the Clippers at home in 2015, and having the best statistical team in franchise history losing in 2016. On the other hand, they won five titles.
But no one talks about how they were rigged to win in 2007, basically as a way to reward them for 2006. So it kinda evens out.
@@holdmyweight3597 Guessing you're talking about the Amare/Boris Diaw suspensions for game 5. In my head, that series is still sitting at San Antonio 3-2 with two games in PHX left to play. Game 5 was so close and Kurt Thomas was the only big man available that game that you have to figure PHX would've had the advantage if Stat/Diaw were available. But even so, PHX still had to beat SAS twice and there's no guarantee they'd have won game 7.
I hear what you're saying, but the Spurs never overachieved. They never had a cakewalk to any of their Finals appearances-championships, nor did they have to form a super team in order to win any of their titles. And they won their five titles relatively close to one another, with the middle three being won two years apart, respectively. Plus, I'll take the "unrepeatable" championship Spurs of 1999-2014 over the "repeated" Rockets of 1994-95, the Pistons of 1989-90, the Heat of 2012-13, and the Warriors of 2017-18 (the last team/franchise to date to repeat as NBA champions) any day! The Spurs' success was much more consistent even if they never repeated as champions. To make the playoffs 22 years in a row and have regular seasons showcasing 50+ wins for each of the first 20 of those years is unbeatable!
@@munimathbypeterfelton6251true. They the best team that never repeated but has multiple rings. Even betting every repeating but literally couldn’t beat Phil Jackson.
@@blakeunderwood1075 I respect Duncan, and have him and Kobe as co-owners of - to me - the toughest Conference ever : the West from '99 - '14....they combined to go to 13 of 16 Finals, winning 10...Dirk went to 2, and OKC one. A lot of people put Duncan over Kobe, but even though he had greater overall team success (never missed the playoffs, better teammate, etc), Kobe was usually the dominant player in the Lakers-Spurs matchups (yes, that's including Shaq!), and owns a 4-2 W-L record against Duncan (though Duncan swept him in '99, Kobe hadn't fully matured/"arrived" yet-BUT, a win is a win)....and yes, I know that the Spurs swept the Lakers in 2013, but Kobe had snapped his achilles, and didn't play. Those Spurs - Lakers seiries were tremendous....even the blowouts!
It took a loss by the Heat, to then get back to beat the Heat. 2013 was the one that got away to repeat for 2014 because they had actually made it TO the finals, unlike those other years. Just didn't bounce their way.
Duncan would have as many rings as Jordan and Kareem as well.
@@gm2407He'd be 6 for 6. The biggest argument by MJ fans for him being the 🐐
@@drewlavaythe sirs wouldn’t have had enough motivation to win in 2014 the heat would win in 2014
They ran into Ray Allen
True, but Pop took TD out of the game with 15+ seconds off the clock which was bizarre to begin with, so the Spurs couldn't secure rebounds and overall paint protection other than a rookie Kawahi, so that whole sequence freed up Ray in the key moment.
Even if the Spurs never won back to back, both either The Lakers or The Spurs were in the finals from 1999-2010 (except for one year when Dallas made it). That’s crazy impressive for both franchises.
That's like the Celtics and Lakers in the 80s where one of them was in every final from 80 to 89. Just crazy domination.
Warriors or heat have made all but 1 final since 2011
@@darryelphillip5219Yupp that Suns/Bucks series
1. kobe and shaq, plus tougher western teams as compared to the east 2. ray allen shot woulda loved to see spurs vs celtics big3 in the finals
Lebron had 16 Pts in the 4th Q for Miami to even have a chance of winning
It's impressive that even in the mid 2010s Tim Duncan was getting 20+ points in playoff games, in his late 30s, playing in the post instead of on the perimeter shooting uncontested 3s.
I feel like he would’ve adapted well if he did had to transition to a spot up shooter lol
@@akeme25tim didnt need that. He left as a dominant role player, his efficency was just the same he just played less minutes due to age. He played 19 years bro
Lakers-Spurs was the basketball equivalent of El Clasico in Football. Great matchup. I relished it more whenever the Lakers beat the Spurs.
And still Tim Duncan won 5 rings. A huge reason why the Spurs didn't win back to back were Kobe n Shaquille, Kobe w/o Shaquille. And, yes, tinsel head Dwayne Wade and LBJ. And Dirk in 2011.
Dwayne ( bad dad) wade
@@lukesmith9692We're talking ball here. Don't bring D Wades off court situation into the conversation.
@@Sterling_holmesThank you. These gosipping ass 'men' give me a fit. Who cares what they do as long as they arent a menace to society?
Dirk and the Mavs didn't beat the Spurs in the playoffs in 2011. The Grizzles beat the Spurs that year, in the first round.
How can you forget fisher jumping on Barry's neck in 08, with Joey Crawford just shaking his head?
It's crazy to see that duncan won 5 but could have won more. If it weren't for injuries he could probably have 8 or so. Especially in 2016 when Lenard got injured in the GSW series.
And he'd be 6/6 like MJ if not for Ray Allen
@jordanjenkins1671 If they won in 2013 you don’t know if they return and repeat back in 2014. Pointless argument cause it’s just your hypothetical
Leonard actually got injured in the Western Conference Finals against the Warriors in 2017, the year after Duncan retired. The Spurs lost to the Thunder of Westbrook/Durant in the second round of the 2016 playoffs, with the Thunder then blowing a 3-1 lead against the Warriors in the Western Conference Finals, only for the Warriors to then blow their 3-1 lead against the Cavs in that year's Finals.
@@holdmyweight3597exactly they even said that loss motivated them so who knew if gonna have same drive.
Losing stephen jackson in the 2003 offseason to the pacers was a loss as well. The lakers had a better frontcourt adding malone and pair him up with shaq a another interior scorer and defensive big instead of Horry who was getting cooked by Duncan. The spurs were up 2-0 but after that duncan struggled because of malone defense also they added payton who clamped parker.
Jackson didn’t go to the Pacers that off-season he went to the Hawks, then was traded to the Pacers for Al Harrington a year later.
the only thing you have correct is the defense Karl plyed on Timmy, it was stellar... he was old schooling the kid pulling the rug out from under him when ever he tried to back him up to the basket.... payton didn't clamp ANYTHING down lol tony was lighting him up for 2 games until Phil called the double and had Kobe take up the assignment which from that point totally eliminated Tony Parkers production.... it was a great series and one of my favorites of all time
@@billybadass3056the mail man was a legend throughout his career, wow! Guys never have a possible career defining moment at the end of the career, such great work ethic.
Dirk played only half the series vs the spurs in 2003. Different story in 2006.
And Dirk and the Mavs lost to the Heat.
@@connormacleod1490 Cute. The league had to bail out both the heat (2006 vs Mavs) and spurs (2007 vs Suns) during this era.
@@connormacleod1490 Plus spurs started load management. You can thank them for the reason no one plays in the regular season anymore.
@@JamesHardenoverKobe mavs choke 2006 that is their fault.
@@JamesHardenoverKobe load management abuse started with LBJ player empowerment movement, Spurs barely used it.
Luck in early to mid 2000s after 2007 they where old until they where rejuvenate by pieces like Patty Mills ; Boris Diaw ; Gary Neal ; Tiago Splitter ; Danny Green and that young monster Kawhi Leonard who was in his defensive peak but even they where cursed by luck ray allen and chris paul buzzer beater
Greg subbed out duncan
The 2006 WCF was one of my favorite playoff series of all timrv
This makes me wonder even more about how things would have gone if Doc Rivers lied to Timmy about family not being able to fly on the team plane and he left for Orlando in free agency.
The Spurs should have won in 2013 but in game 6, the only person worse than LeBron James in the final two minutes was Greg Popovich. There's no way I'm allowing Miami to shoot two threes to tie the game. And guess who I would've deliberately fouled? LEBRON JAMES
They win 2013 without game 6 Ray
@@holdmyweight3597 Why didn't Popovich deliberately foul Lebron?
Because he didn't want to give Lebron an opportunity to be the hero of that game upon LBJ shooting two free throws. @@choward5430
That’s why I can’t put them on the top as the greatest dynasty- because they never repeated. However, the ball movement in that system was very effective and fun to watch.
I always loved seeing the pick n rolls and the 3s the guys mainly manu n Bowen wud take man I was on the edge of my seat watching those guys also loved the defense side 2 with the twin towers they wud usually run in the post blocking n deflecting shots. Jus awesome ball from my favorite team growing up
True, the Spurs never repeated. But their titles in '03, '05, and '07 were won pretty close together. They also dethroned the defending champion Pistons in seven games in '05, which was no easy task. But that series proved that the Spurs dynasty of the 2000s-2010s was better than the Lakers dynasty of the 2000s-2010s because the 2004 Lakers couldn't beat the Pistons in that year's Finals despite them being the favorite to win the championship that postseason given their loaded lineup of Shaq, Kobe, Gary Payton, Karl Malone, Derek Fisher, and co.
@@munimathbypeterfelton6251some good points, however, the Spurs won when other teams were on the decline, like the 90s Bulls separating, and the Lakers when Shaq turned into Fat Shaq. Also, the Spurs did some load management (like around 2013) to rest their starters. (Questionable but effective). That’s why I favor teams prior to 2000 simply because guys like Wilt and MJ didn’t load manage. Despite their load management tactics, I still enjoyed their ball movement, unselfish b-ball.
Never imagined castlevania OST would go so well with a basketball video lmao
Great video, you're gonna blow up 👍
5 Chips > Back 2 Back 💀
Got a minute in before I had to watch another channel with that background noise playing the whole time
I think they're best chance of repeating would've been in that window between 2003 and 2008.
They almost did repeat since their titles in 2003, 2005, and 2007 were each won with only won year separating them apart, respectively.
Kobe Bryant. Also Manu fouling Dirk in game 7
I never forget that Horry 3 because I thought it was in! Especially with me screamin yeah nooooo
That derrik fisher shot is so bullshit. The clock didn't start when fischer got the ball. Refs have always been sucking the lakers off
This channel is criminally underrated it's not even funny
Kobe killed them a lot. With that being said, I wish Kobe joined the Spurs post Achilles injury. I really think he would have made a difference there instead of getting the Lakers lottery picks.
He was way too riddled with injuries the year spurs won and 2015 was just a hard time for Kobe to do anything spectacular as well as 2016. But I believe he would offer solid veteran scoring and leadership but would be a miss for the team than a beneficial
Background music made me quit video at 30 sec
React to MLS 2016 finals A heart stopping save for the ages
I see you 👀 forgot again Sean Elliott hit the same shot on his tip toes
Castlevania music for an intro is crazy bruh we got a nerd making videos 🙏
*4:57** Not only was it improbable but, it’s impossible. Observe when the shot clock started then look at the location of the ball.* *#GOSPURS*
Can’t be a dynasty if you never won back to back
It's interesting I never really watched specifically Spurs related content. But it's interesting to see some comments with Spurs fans trying to diminish the accomplishment of repeating. The Spurs are still one of the NBA's dynasties but them not repeating is definitely a major blow in comparison to the 00s Lakers, 90s Bulls, 80s Lakers and the Warriors. They're definitely below those teams, the hardest thing to do in basketball is win back to back,and unfortunately the Spurs could never manage to make that happen unlike those other teams. And that's ok you guys are still up there just can never be at the top.
I wonder why this fact is never brought up for Larry Bird. He never won back-to-back and he had the Lakers as competition
@@elijahbruno2814 Maybe people are biased because it's the Celtics idk. But I do know for me that's why I view the 80s Lakers above the Celtics. They repeated and the Celtics didn't.
@@JD-ny3vz I respect your stance and your opinion
@@elijahbruno2814 I appreciate you for not attacking me bro.
@@elijahbruno2814 Also not sure if your a Spurs fan but I respect the hell out of the Spurs entire organization and run, that 2014 Spurs team is my favorite team to watch ever. Just calling it like I see it.
They had realistically two chances in 2006 if manu didn’t commit a dumb foul and in 2013 if Ray Allen didn’t hit that 3 You could argue 04 but I think the pistons beat them regardless 08 they weren’t good enough to beat that lakers team. 2000 Duncan if he was healthy might've posed an interesting challenge to the lakers but idk
The Spurs beat the Pistons in '05 though, and it was the same Detroit team as the year before in '04.
Thanks now they were a real good team playing as a team
The Spurs were never a dynasty. No back to back means no dynasty.
If David Robinson played, with Tim Duncan and they were both Rookies so they'd be together until retirement, and the Spurs still draft Parker and 2nd round pick legend Manu Ginobili, the Spurs would have dominated the 2000s by the time Robinson gets injured they tank the season before Kawhi comes along, and trade picks plus players to get a top 3 pick and draft Him again, by the time Robinson returns the Spurs would win atleast 2 more and Robinson retires in a blaze of glory just like he did in real life in 2003, but if this fantasy had legit really happened, the Spurs from 1997-98 to 2013-14 the Spurs are winning atleast 7 or 8 rings Parker came in 2001 Manu in 2003 so by 2004 of they haven't won atleast 1 yet, from 04 to 2012 they are winning 6 titles. David Robinson in his prime at the same time Tim Duncan in his prime with Parker, Manu and years later with Kawhi,................It would not be fair. San Antonio would have passed mj in rings won without a doubt. I don't see the pistons winning in 2004, the Lakers aren't getting 3 with Shaq, Kobe might get 1 of his 2 that he won back 2 back, Boston certainly ain't getting theirs nor is Dallas in 11, Miami in 06 definitely not too.
Still mad at the dude running the clock in 2004. Wheres the home court advantage??
Bruh the "H" in Horry is silent btw.
dawg kobe torched the spurs in every playoffs Lmfaoo I feel so bad for timmy man
How do the Spurs have the highest finals win percentage with 5 for 6 when Chicago went 6 for 6 in the finals?
Spurs had alot of gentleman sweeps, where the bulls usually went to 6 games
The Spurs swept the Cavs in '07, and beat the Knicks in '99 and the Heat in '14 in five games each. Only their championships in '03 and '05 required 6-7 games to achieve their ultimate victories in each series, respectively.
What’s your favorite Castlevania?
And Le flop what happened
Shaq & Kobe !!!!
People who have Tim Duncan over Kobe literally must’ve never watched their careers.
no they are just smart people who understand basketball
@@rafikz77 super team system player on one hand, closest thing to the goat on the other, the smart people are taking the latter
Besides the fact that Kobe owned the spurs that whole era
Trust me, I watched both careers & any basketball fan with half a brain would choose Duncan. Duncan being selfless allowed the Spurs to remain title contenders EVERY year for 20 years & that's no exaggeration. Kobes selfishness allowed Shaq to leave town, making the Lakers absolutely irrelevant until they got Gasol. There are other factors besides numbers that make Duncan 10X better to choose over Kobe, & being an incredible teammate is one of them.
@@slimypickle19lmao
Basically when the lakers figured it out they weren’t winning titles. With the exception of 03
tim duncan traveled in that false gamewinner after 03
No back to back chips. Reason #3 why I rank Kobe higher than Timmy.
Kobe aint even top 10.
That’s a horrible argument
Big deal. They had a 2 decade strong stretch, if not pure dominance. Better than a repeat or even 3 peat. Had a solid chance almost every year.
@@Amick44 Kobe has decade worth of dominating Tim Duncan in the post season. Timmy could barely make it out of the first round while Kobe was carrying the Lakers back to back in 09, and 10.
@@SojiRo23 there is a guy named shaq in the lakers.
It didn't seem that the NBA was cheating in San Antonios favor, opposed to the Lakers but if I'm wrong, show me.
Short answer Kobe 😂😂😂
I didn't know diop destroyed Duncan
Kobe has a winning record against Duncan in the playoffs. As long as Smush Parker wasn’t his running m8, Lakers handled the Spurs
Thanks Shaq
@rafikz77 kobe was always the best player against the spurs, and in 08 he destroyed them by himself in 5 games.
Repeating is overrated. Most of the time it means no team got better
Imagine if Duncan had prime Shaq and was playing in a big market
imagine if u actually hooped. imagine if u know basketball. but u don't sad
@@pogi5290 thank you for proving you have never played organized basketball
I know u never hooped nerdy boy
Because it's hard to win one
It’s pronounced Orry btw
Because ginobili fouled😢
0-18. Not so Big Shot Bob.
It's always struck me as odd to hear people go "this is why I rank Kobe over Duncan" or "this is why I rank [x dynasty] over the Spurs." Like, there are legit arguments for certain individual players or dynasties being better, but I don't really get why repeats are given so much weight. In many ways, there are more factors in favor of a team repeating rather than winning a few years down the line: The conditions that let them win the first time are more likely to be the same/similar. They're more likely to have the same players who won, there's less time for age/injuries to take a toll, or opposing teams to make adjustments and become stronger. I mean, you can easily flip things and ask "why couldn't Kobe/Jordan win outside of an 8-10-year window? Duncan could."
I completely disagree, repeating in sports is the single most difficult task to do hence why most teams can't or never do it. This sounds like more of an excuse to not criticize the Spurs. As far as dynasties go them not ever repeating is a knock against them compared to the ones that have.
@@JD-ny3vzi agree Lakers is still the only team to three peat since the bulls no other team have done it not just the NBA but NFL MLB and NHL also kobe still the only player since jordan to repeat as champ two diffrent times something Tim never did
@@JD-ny3vzBasically the Celtics of the 80s aren't a dynasty because they never repeated like the Spurs right?
@@elijahbruno2814 Reading comprehension is key and I love how you thought you got me. I never said the Spurs weren't a dynasty I said when compared to OTHER dynasties they are lower than the dynasties that did repeat. So the Spurs and 80s Celtics are lower than the 90s Bulls, 60s Celtics, 80s Lakers, 00s Lakers and 10s Warriors in my book.
I agree! The fact that the Spurs still kept winning even though they never repeated as champions said everything. The Lakers had a major dry spell from 2005-2007 with either zero playoffs or early playoff exits during that timespan, respectively. Plus, the fact that the Spurs kept returning to the Finals even in nonconsecutive postseasons meant that they could still be counted as contenders for the title each and every season. It's not like they won their five titles every eight years or so.
I think they could've 3 peated in 06 07 08 cause if you think about in 06 the mavs lost to the heat in the finals and in 08 the lakers lost to Boston in the finals so if you think about it if the spurs were in it would have been different.
The best chance was 2008, but I think age was getting to them, and they came off a 7 game series against New orleans so they were pretty tired against the lakers in wcf
Kobe bullied Duncan in 08 lmao. Destroyed them in 5
Did u not see my other comment above. And yes ik I was born yesterday.
Maybe because they’re not as good as what others are saying, they’re just lucky champs.
In hindsight, every professional sports champions involves a bit of luck. But none of the Spurs' titles were flukes. It's not like they won each of their five championships and never made the playoffs in any of the other surrounding NBA postseasons.
Simple answer Tha Lakers was also Winning
People for get Lakers still the only team to three peat since the bulls also Kobe is the only player since jordan to win back to back two diffrent times
Kobe Bryant?
because they are not super team 😮
Why The Spurs Never Won Back To Back Titles? Lakers
People put way too much emphasis on back to back titles. 5 is 5, Spurs & Lakers were dead even from '97-'14. Let's twist the argument & ask why the Lakers had droughts from '97-'99 & from '03-'08 & again nothing from '11-'14?
Not a dynasty if u can't repeat
Facts.
I'm a Spurs fan and I agree with this.
From 1998-2014, the Spurs: • won 1,099 games (117 more than any other team) • outscored their opponents by 9,394 points (next best was the Lakers at 5,008) • never won less than 50 games (or the strike-shortened equivalent) • won five NBA titles (no team in the era won more, and only MJ's Bulls and Russell’s Celtics have ever won more as a group) They were easily a dynasty, in my opinion.
The 80's Celtics never repeated. That's not a dynasty?
I actually never knew that the spurs won 2 titles in a row!
They didn't.....
Why the spurs never won back2back cause they're not the best team. Simple.
The Spurs *could have* won 5 straight from 2003-07, but they didn't. No back-to-back championships means I just can't call them a dynasty. A really good team, competitive for 15 years, but could never defend their title. Not a dynasty. P.S. Consider this: What kind of 'dynasty' has another team three-peating between their 1st and 2nd title? Also, can a 'dynasty' have a 7 year gap with no titles? if you restricted the 'dynasty' to 03-07, I'd at least consider it reasonable, even if I disagree
SPURS ARENT A TRUE DYNASTY!
By that notion neither are the Larry Bird Celtics
The spurs couldve easily have like 10 or 11 rings by now of they won back to back.
Cause they are in the west lol