How big is this Wolves-Nugget series?

[sp6r=underrated]

Russell Celtics -- 11 titles
Jordan Bulls -- 6 titles
Magic-Kareem Lakers -- 5 titles
Mikan Lakers -- 5 titles
Duncan Spurs -- 5 titles
Curry Warriors -- 4 titles

That's just off the top of my head and doesn't include three-title teams like the Shaq-Kobe Lakers.and Bird Celtics.

For each true dynasty, there are multiple other teams that look like they could get there but don't. Giannis and the Bucks looked like that after winning their title but have fizzled since. The 2008 Celtics looked like a dynasty in the making but won only once. Dirk and the Mavs, the SSOL Suns, not 2 not 3 not 4 Heat -- so many teams look like they could become dynasties but never do, whether it's injuries, guys wanting to get paid, bad luck, or whatever.

Denver has one title. They've got a long way to go to become a dynasty. They've got a long long long way to go to even be in the conversation for top three dynasties ever.

They're a really good team. I like them a lot. I love Jokic. Malone is a top coach. They have great chemistry and confidence. Leave it at that, because that's where the reality is.

Yeah, this is gonna sound harsh, but from a strictly contemporary narrative stand point, you can eliminate 2 of those dynasties from the list. Russell Celtics, and the Mikan Lakers are so far removed, and unless you're a basketball historian, which 80% of sports fans aren't, you're gonna care less and less and less about those dynasties.

The narrative goes

1. Jordan Bulls
2. Magic/Kareem Lakers
3. Duncan Spurs
4. Curry Warriors
5. Shaq Kobe 3 peat

Those are the 5 greatest dynasties and that's how the modern short attention spanned modern sports fan will see it.

Denver doesn't belong on this list until they win 4 rings imo

Don't forget the LeBron dynasty. 9 Finals in 10 seasons and 4 Championships, 5 different coaches and 3 completely different supporting casts.

That's not a dynasty. I have Lebron as the GOAT but his decision to bounce constantly precluded him from participating on a dynasty. Still the GOAT but he never contributed to a dynasty.

It appears that you're trying to change the definition just so LeBron can check another box on the greatness list. Dynasties are reserved for single teams/franchises that have a level of stability and continuity over time while winning multiple championships.

Complete agreement. I have the gap between Lebron and # 2 as bigger than #2 and #5 for best player of all-time. But you can't contribute to a dynasty if you're constantly switch teams every ~5 years.

LeBron switching teams is his right, and he is the foremost example of player empowerment in the modern NBA,

This. In a lot of ways it is his most important legacy and I mean that complimentary. He ensured we will never have another KG in Minnesota situation. It made clear to clubs they can't waste players careers. It is a super cool thing but going down this path also precludes being part of a dynasty.

The Warriors success in the teens is enough to make them a dynasty but Curry's decision to stay and another title is the cherry on the top of that club's run. Lebron wouldn't have stayed which is his right (and something I thing is fine). But that also means being part of a dynasty is basically impossible.

[sp6r=underrated]

Gap exists to divide tiers.

1. Russell's Celtics

GAP

2. Bulls (90-98): Ultra high level peak and strong longevity.
3. Warriors (15-22): Outside chance they could move up if they make a huge acquisition. I rate Chicago slightly higher because their down period (94-95) was higher than GSW.

GAP

4. SAS (99-14): Modern version of Russell's Celtics who never quite put a hammerlock on the NBA. But managing to get to 9 WCF in a time when the NBA was super lop-sided to the West is ultra impressive. I think you could make a decent case that they lasted until 17 but I'll use the last title is the end.
5. Showtime (80-01): is similar to the Duncan-Pop Spurs in that their best seasons never quite reached the patheanon level of GSW or Chi. Nor were they able to place a hammerlock grip on the league the way Russell's Celtics did. I think there is a real possibility they end up #1 all-time but for Magic's HIV.
6. 00-11 Lakers: I think the Lakers from 00 to 11 should be considered one run. Same coach for all of it. One of the top two players was there for all of it. Don't forget the Spurs from 09-11 only got out of the 1st round once (swept in 2nd) during their re-tool period. But the down of 05-07 was much lower and the hole thing nearly imploded on multiple occassions.

They rank behind Spurs due to worse longevity and below Showtime due to their weak middle.

gap

7. 80-88 Celtics: Similar to Duncan's Spurs they played in the lop-sided conference which warped their post-season outcomes. The 86 Season was a legit GOAT Season from start to end. The Spurs never got there. Nor did 00s Lakers. But weak longevity to age drops them a notch.
8. Mikan Lakers

[jalengreen]

It's obviously not a dynasty but if you're thinking about summarizing the narrative of the league chronologically, you're gonna include all those dynasties... and you're gonna include the LeBron "reign" in there. So no, he doesn't get credit for a true dynasty because that requires a single team, but he's 100% gonna be a staple of any league narrative the same way that any dynasty would be

[web123888]

It’s big but Wolves aren’t as good as they showed the first 2 games. Nuggets obviously were going to win the series.

The bigger series would be a potential Nuggets-Mavs showdown.

[eminence]

Gap exists to divide tiers.

1. Russell's Celtics

GAP

2. Bulls (90-98): Ultra high level peak and strong longevity.
3. Warriors (15-22): Outside chance they could move up if they make a huge acquisition. I rate Chicago slightly higher because their down period (94-95) was higher than GSW.

GAP

4. SAS (99-14): Modern version of Russell's Celtics who never quite put a hammerlock on the NBA. But managing to get to 9 WCF in a time when the NBA was super lop-sided to the West is ultra impressive. I think you could make a decent case that they lasted until 17 but I'll use the last title is the end.
5. Showtime (80-01): is similar to the Duncan-Pop Spurs in that their best seasons never quite reached the patheanon level of GSW or Chi. Nor were they able to place a hammerlock grip on the league the way Russell's Celtics did. I think there is a real possibility they end up #1 all-time but for Magic's HIV.
6. 00-11 Lakers: I think the Lakers from 00 to 11 should be considered one run. Same coach for all of it. One of the top two players was there for all of it. Don't forget the Spurs from 09-11 only got out of the 1st round once (swept in 2nd) during their re-tool period. But the down of 05-07 was much lower and the hole thing nearly imploded on multiple occassions.

They rank behind Spurs due to worse longevity and below Showtime due to their weak middle.

gap

7. 80-88 Celtics: Similar to Duncan's Spurs they played in the lop-sided conference which warped their post-season outcomes. The 86 Season was a legit GOAT Season from start to end. The Spurs never got there. Nor did 00s Lakers. But weak longevity to age drops them a notch.
8. Mikan Lakers

Blocking out traumatic memories of the Frank Hamblen Lakers?

[sp6r=underrated]

Gap exists to divide tiers.

1. Russell's Celtics

GAP

2. Bulls (90-98): Ultra high level peak and strong longevity.
3. Warriors (15-22): Outside chance they could move up if they make a huge acquisition. I rate Chicago slightly higher because their down period (94-95) was higher than GSW.

GAP

4. SAS (99-14): Modern version of Russell's Celtics who never quite put a hammerlock on the NBA. But managing to get to 9 WCF in a time when the NBA was super lop-sided to the West is ultra impressive. I think you could make a decent case that they lasted until 17 but I'll use the last title is the end.
5. Showtime (80-01): is similar to the Duncan-Pop Spurs in that their best seasons never quite reached the patheanon level of GSW or Chi. Nor were they able to place a hammerlock grip on the league the way Russell's Celtics did. I think there is a real possibility they end up #1 all-time but for Magic's HIV.
6. 00-11 Lakers: I think the Lakers from 00 to 11 should be considered one run. Same coach for all of it. One of the top two players was there for all of it. Don't forget the Spurs from 09-11 only got out of the 1st round once (swept in 2nd) during their re-tool period. But the down of 05-07 was much lower and the hole thing nearly imploded on multiple occassions.

They rank behind Spurs due to worse longevity and below Showtime due to their weak middle.

gap

7. 80-88 Celtics: Similar to Duncan's Spurs they played in the lop-sided conference which warped their post-season outcomes. The 86 Season was a legit GOAT Season from start to end. The Spurs never got there. Nor did 00s Lakers. But weak longevity to age drops them a notch.
8. Mikan Lakers

Blocking out traumatic memories of the Frank Hamblen Lakers?

Time flies. Who the **** is Frank Hamblen was my first thought. Clicked google and remembered Rudy T quit mid-season. Interestingly enough Lakers were running fairly decent before he quit.

[Special_Puppy]

Gap exists to divide tiers.

1. Russell's Celtics

GAP

2. Bulls (90-98): Ultra high level peak and strong longevity.
3. Warriors (15-22): Outside chance they could move up if they make a huge acquisition. I rate Chicago slightly higher because their down period (94-95) was higher than GSW.

GAP

4. SAS (99-14): Modern version of Russell's Celtics who never quite put a hammerlock on the NBA. But managing to get to 9 WCF in a time when the NBA was super lop-sided to the West is ultra impressive. I think you could make a decent case that they lasted until 17 but I'll use the last title is the end.
5. Showtime (80-01): is similar to the Duncan-Pop Spurs in that their best seasons never quite reached the patheanon level of GSW or Chi. Nor were they able to place a hammerlock grip on the league the way Russell's Celtics did. I think there is a real possibility they end up #1 all-time but for Magic's HIV.
6. 00-11 Lakers: I think the Lakers from 00 to 11 should be considered one run. Same coach for all of it. One of the top two players was there for all of it. Don't forget the Spurs from 09-11 only got out of the 1st round once (swept in 2nd) during their re-tool period. But the down of 05-07 was much lower and the hole thing nearly imploded on multiple occassions.

They rank behind Spurs due to worse longevity and below Showtime due to their weak middle.

gap

7. 80-88 Celtics: Similar to Duncan's Spurs they played in the lop-sided conference which warped their post-season outcomes. The 86 Season was a legit GOAT Season from start to end. The Spurs never got there. Nor did 00s Lakers. But weak longevity to age drops them a notch.
8. Mikan Lakers

Nah I think the Tim Duncan Spurs are the clear number 1. Averaging a +6.7 SRS over 19 seasons (1998-99 to 2016-17) is insane in a league with 30 teams.

[70sFan]

I don't know how big it is, I know that it's the most entertaining series I have watched in a very long time

[sp6r=underrated]

It's obviously not a dynasty but if you're thinking about summarizing the narrative of the league chronologically, you're gonna include all those dynasties... and you're gonna include the LeBron "reign" in there. So no, he doesn't get credit for a true dynasty because that requires a single team, but he's 100% gonna be a staple of any league narrative the same way that any dynasty would be

Lebron as a player is in there because he is the GOAT. And by a wide margin if you're objective with his reign as best player in the league being super long.

but his team is not in there as a dynasty. The best team run he had was a Bad Boys Pistons type team. If it was a reign it was an awfully short one.

[lessthanjake]

Gap exists to divide tiers.

1. Russell's Celtics

GAP

2. Bulls (90-98): Ultra high level peak and strong longevity.
3. Warriors (15-22): Outside chance they could move up if they make a huge acquisition. I rate Chicago slightly higher because their down period (94-95) was higher than GSW.

GAP

4. SAS (99-14): Modern version of Russell's Celtics who never quite put a hammerlock on the NBA. But managing to get to 9 WCF in a time when the NBA was super lop-sided to the West is ultra impressive. I think you could make a decent case that they lasted until 17 but I'll use the last title is the end.
5. Showtime (80-01): is similar to the Duncan-Pop Spurs in that their best seasons never quite reached the patheanon level of GSW or Chi. Nor were they able to place a hammerlock grip on the league the way Russell's Celtics did. I think there is a real possibility they end up #1 all-time but for Magic's HIV.
6. 00-11 Lakers: I think the Lakers from 00 to 11 should be considered one run. Same coach for all of it. One of the top two players was there for all of it. Don't forget the Spurs from 09-11 only got out of the 1st round once (swept in 2nd) during their re-tool period. But the down of 05-07 was much lower and the hole thing nearly imploded on multiple occassions.

They rank behind Spurs due to worse longevity and below Showtime due to their weak middle.

gap

7. 80-88 Celtics: Similar to Duncan's Spurs they played in the lop-sided conference which warped their post-season outcomes. The 86 Season was a legit GOAT Season from start to end. The Spurs never got there. Nor did 00s Lakers. But weak longevity to age drops them a notch.
8. Mikan Lakers

I think the only really controversial thing here is the question of whether the 2000s Lakers dynasty extends through the years Kobe won without Shaq. You include them here, but I guess I’m inclined not to include them. My reasoning is basically that Shaq was pretty clearly the team’s best player for the first three titles, which, along with the fact that the rest of the roster changed a ton and there were really lean years in the middle, I think is enough to make the Kobe-only titles a separate thing. It’s arguable, of course, for the reasons you mentioned. But to me it seems like it’s similar to if we put the Celtics’ titles in the 1970s in the same dynasty as the Russell years, on the basis that Havlicek was still there. Not a perfect analogy, of course (not the same coach, and Havlicek wasn’t there for all the Russell titles), but I think it’s at least somewhat apt—I think when you take out the clear best player on the team and retool virtually all of the rest of the roster except for the #2 player, and then they win titles after some down years, then that’s probably best thought of as a separate thing.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

I have no TV connection. I plan to watch game 7 in a bar. Game has to be pretty big for me to watch it in a bar.

[Colbinii]

I have not TV connection. I plan to watch game 7 in a bar. Game has to be pretty big for me to watch it in a bar.

Yeah I hate watching games in a bar unless it's something casual with friends like football (American) or world cup (soccer) or Olympics.

I'll be waking up at 2 AM since im overseas to watch it...hopefully it goes well because I'll be traveling all day on Monday and I'd like to be traveling on a high note

[Owly]

Gap exists to divide tiers.

1. Russell's Celtics

GAP

2. Bulls (90-98): Ultra high level peak and strong longevity.
3. Warriors (15-22): Outside chance they could move up if they make a huge acquisition. I rate Chicago slightly higher because their down period (94-95) was higher than GSW.

GAP

4. SAS (99-14): Modern version of Russell's Celtics who never quite put a hammerlock on the NBA. But managing to get to 9 WCF in a time when the NBA was super lop-sided to the West is ultra impressive. I think you could make a decent case that they lasted until 17 but I'll use the last title is the end.
5. Showtime (80-01): is similar to the Duncan-Pop Spurs in that their best seasons never quite reached the patheanon level of GSW or Chi. Nor were they able to place a hammerlock grip on the league the way Russell's Celtics did. I think there is a real possibility they end up #1 all-time but for Magic's HIV.
6. 00-11 Lakers: I think the Lakers from 00 to 11 should be considered one run. Same coach for all of it. One of the top two players was there for all of it. Don't forget the Spurs from 09-11 only got out of the 1st round once (swept in 2nd) during their re-tool period. But the down of 05-07 was much lower and the hole thing nearly imploded on multiple occassions.

They rank behind Spurs due to worse longevity and below Showtime due to their weak middle.

gap

7. 80-88 Celtics: Similar to Duncan's Spurs they played in the lop-sided conference which warped their post-season outcomes. The 86 Season was a legit GOAT Season from start to end. The Spurs never got there. Nor did 00s Lakers. But weak longevity to age drops them a notch.
8. Mikan Lakers

I think the only really controversial thing here is the question of whether the 2000s Lakers dynasty extends through the years Kobe won without Shaq. You include them here, but I guess I’m inclined not to include them. My reasoning is basically that Shaq was pretty clearly the team’s best player for the first three titles, which, along with the fact that the rest of the roster changed a ton and there were really lean years in the middle, I think is enough to make the Kobe-only titles a separate thing. It’s arguable, of course, for the reasons you mentioned. But to me it seems like it’s similar to if we put the Celtics’ titles in the 1970s in the same dynasty as the Russell years, on the basis that Havlicek was still there. Not a perfect analogy, of course (not the same coach, and Havlicek wasn’t there for all the Russell titles), but I think it’s at least somewhat apt—I think when you take out the clear best player on the team and retool virtually all of the rest of the roster except for the #2 player, and then they win titles after some down years, then that’s probably best thought of as a separate thing.

I would tend to agree regarding the Lakers but then the Spurs, at least for the duration listed in the quoted post, would tend to be in the same boat.

In terms of possible arguments for them as different.
- You could argue coaching continuity, where Phil left and came back versus Pop always being at the helm.
- Since as you note Kobe as number 2, I think most have Duncan as number 1 for the '99 team ... for me that's far from a given but regardless ... maybe that rank of the one continuous guy important? (Some have Kobe higher up the three-peat totem pole than others ... at very least for a range starting at 2000, few would argue for him as top or joint equal from then). For me, regardless, a single player isn't enough. One could argue Fisher but he isn't continuous, and probably isn't regarded as part of the "driving-force" core of the titles.
- You could argue continuity of goodness. 2005-2007 LAL are a circa 0 SRS team.
or
- Using a later start than sp6r=underrated does in the quoted post one could get to a Duncan-Manu-Pop-Parker core era.

[lessthanjake]

Gap exists to divide tiers.

1. Russell's Celtics

GAP

2. Bulls (90-98): Ultra high level peak and strong longevity.
3. Warriors (15-22): Outside chance they could move up if they make a huge acquisition. I rate Chicago slightly higher because their down period (94-95) was higher than GSW.

GAP

4. SAS (99-14): Modern version of Russell's Celtics who never quite put a hammerlock on the NBA. But managing to get to 9 WCF in a time when the NBA was super lop-sided to the West is ultra impressive. I think you could make a decent case that they lasted until 17 but I'll use the last title is the end.
5. Showtime (80-01): is similar to the Duncan-Pop Spurs in that their best seasons never quite reached the patheanon level of GSW or Chi. Nor were they able to place a hammerlock grip on the league the way Russell's Celtics did. I think there is a real possibility they end up #1 all-time but for Magic's HIV.
6. 00-11 Lakers: I think the Lakers from 00 to 11 should be considered one run. Same coach for all of it. One of the top two players was there for all of it. Don't forget the Spurs from 09-11 only got out of the 1st round once (swept in 2nd) during their re-tool period. But the down of 05-07 was much lower and the hole thing nearly imploded on multiple occassions.

They rank behind Spurs due to worse longevity and below Showtime due to their weak middle.

gap

7. 80-88 Celtics: Similar to Duncan's Spurs they played in the lop-sided conference which warped their post-season outcomes. The 86 Season was a legit GOAT Season from start to end. The Spurs never got there. Nor did 00s Lakers. But weak longevity to age drops them a notch.
8. Mikan Lakers

I think the only really controversial thing here is the question of whether the 2000s Lakers dynasty extends through the years Kobe won without Shaq. You include them here, but I guess I’m inclined not to include them. My reasoning is basically that Shaq was pretty clearly the team’s best player for the first three titles, which, along with the fact that the rest of the roster changed a ton and there were really lean years in the middle, I think is enough to make the Kobe-only titles a separate thing. It’s arguable, of course, for the reasons you mentioned. But to me it seems like it’s similar to if we put the Celtics’ titles in the 1970s in the same dynasty as the Russell years, on the basis that Havlicek was still there. Not a perfect analogy, of course (not the same coach, and Havlicek wasn’t there for all the Russell titles), but I think it’s at least somewhat apt—I think when you take out the clear best player on the team and retool virtually all of the rest of the roster except for the #2 player, and then they win titles after some down years, then that’s probably best thought of as a separate thing.

I would tend to agree regarding the Lakers but then the Spurs, at least for the duration listed in the quoted post, would tend to be in the same boat.

In terms of possible arguments for them as different.
- You could argue coaching continuity, where Phil left and came back versus Pop always being at the helm.
- Since as you note Kobe as number 2, I think most have Duncan as number 1 for the '99 team ... for me that's far from a given but regardless ... maybe that rank of the one continuous guy important? (Some have Kobe higher up the three-peat totem pole than others ... at very least for a range starting at 2000, few would argue for him as top or joint equal from then). For me, regardless, a single player isn't enough. One could argue Fisher but he isn't continuous, and probably isn't regarded as part of the "driving-force" core of the titles.
- You could argue continuity of goodness. 2005-2007 LAL are a circa 0 SRS team.
or
- Using a later start than sp6r=underrated does in the quoted post one could get to a Duncan-Manu-Pop-Parker core era.

All fair points. I guess for me a big distinction is just that Duncan remains throughout, and he was the #1 guy (or at least not clearly the #2 guy at any point, like Kobe was in my view). The other distinction with the Spurs is that they never had any real down years in the middle. The closest thing they had to down years were 2009-2011, but they still won 54, 50, and 61 games those years. To me, it’s much harder to really draw a line in the sand and say that it is the end of the team’s dynasty when they’re still winning 50+ games a year the whole time and their best player is still on the team throughout.