The Ultimate Argument That the Spurs Were Indeed a Dynasty

True, longtime fans of the San Antonio Spurs know just how special the organization has been since the late 1990s, but sometimes others need a gentle reminder.

The word "dynasty" has often been used to describe the run San Antonio had from 1999 until 2014, in which it won five NBA championships in 15 seasons to go along with three Western Conference Finals appearances and another NBA Finals showing. Some have even taken it a step further to include their spot in the 2017 Western Conference Finals.

Still, sometimes I see pushback on the use of that term when describing the Spurs in that era. Not coincidentally, the dissenting opinion is almost always from a fan of a separate dynasty, most commonly the Lakers.

I came across one particular such thought on Twitter a few days ago from user @TupacAG.

While his Kobe Bryant profile picture is already a red flag when it comes to taking him seriously, the tweet did get a decent amount of engagement, mostly from fellow Lakers fans and annoyed Spurs fans. As such, it's time to do what I do best and tear this argument apart.

How about we listen to the experts?

When you're feeling under the weather, who do you turn to for answers? Usually a medical professional, right? If your car is having problems, your next stop is likely a mechanic, I'm guessing?

This is all to establish one thing: when you want to get something right, you turn to the people qualified and with the relevant experience to be able to help you. I'm no expert myself, but I'm not sure someone with a bio that includes "Kobe defender" is someone anyone should be going to for validity.

That's why even I won't be the one to tell you the Spurs had a dynasty themselves. I'll leave it to some guys who have a lot more knowledge of the concept to explain for me.

"You have Tony. You have Manu. You have Tim," said Kobe Bryant in Tony Parker's 2021 documentary, Tony Parker: The Final Shot. "It creates a perfect storm, and that's how dynasties are formed."

I'm sure most Lakers fans didn't watch Parker's documentary, but there's something to be said about Kobe's experience with dynasties. He three-peated from 2000-2002 and then repeated in 2009-10. Still, I didn't see him trying to make this argument (see second comment):

That's all fine and dandy if the criteria for a dynasty from "mamba4evaeva" conveniently doesn't apply to the Spurs, so let's look at someone else with a tad more credibility.

Upon hearing from Stephen Jackson that the Spurs never had internal turmoil, Lakers legend Shaquille O'Neal had this to say:

"That's probably the first time I'm hearing of a dynasty that never had no problems," said O'Neal. "All the other dynasties had problems."

There's that word again, from another man who three-peated in his NBA career.

Other fanbases will continue to try discrediting the Spurs by thinking of their own qualifications for what truly constitutes a dynasty. In this Reddit thread from eight years ago, user ClippersIn6 defines a dynasty as "an era of uninterrupted dominance and sequence of control." By their definition, the Spurs don't meet the criteria, apparently.

Personally, I like to listen to experts when it comes to everything from medical advice to basketball history. If a doctor tells me I need to take a medication, I'll take it. If Kobe and Shaq tell me something about the game of basketball, I'll listen to it.

Sorry to burst so many bubbles, but nobody cares about your made-up criteria for what makes a dynasty. The experts have already spoken.