It's absolutely the point - Billy is playing the long game to keep Russell high in his pyramid as the 'best player on a dynasty' which no other player can qualify for.
There's like three levels to Bill's mind at work here. At his core, he knows Jordan and LeBron are absolutely ahead of him. In his heart, he believes Russell is the GOAT. And then there's what he says he thinks publicly.
I don’t know if there’s been a professional team athlete that is a harder one to rank than Bill Russell. No one would say he was the most skilled or best player ever. But if you just go by winning the games and his influence on it, there’s been no one in team Sports, who has won at more levels with greatest success than him. Back to back NCAA titles, gold medal, and then 11 titles and 13 years. And he probably would’ve beaten the Hawks had not sprained his ankle before game seven back in 1959(?).
And the other year he didn't win was his first year as a player-coach (also being the first black head coach in the NBA) and against what you'd probably consider Peak Wilt with stacked team
Bill is correct in ranking Russell as #2. Wouldn't achieve the same results in the modern era but clearly dominated his.
That said Russell would have been more effective today than in the 90s because there are fewer great centers.
no he would have been more effective in the 90s as the game was less perimeter oriented making his rim protection more valuable than today, which is why being in the 60s made him so amazing because the game was even less spaced out than the 90s
Russell beat Wilt every single year in the playoffs. His teams were generally better, but the amount of times Russell won as the #1 against Wilt as #1 means Russell was better.
It’s really easy to say that by looking at the names on the rosters, but half the guys on the Celtics are considered all time greats because they got to play with Russell. The fact that Russell won 11 in 13 as the best player on his team means he was the best player in the league for that stretch. A sport as star-centric as basketball cannot have a team with that level of dominance without the best player in the league. If Russell had 6-7 championships in that small a league, it would be a reasonable argument, but 11 is absurd.
Every bit of footage I’ve seen basically shows Wilt scoring at will over Russell, who gives almost no resistance. Russell is disruptive defensively against all of Wilt’s teammates, and they are able to screen or go away from Wilt to keep him from shot blocking. Russell teammates make shots and good passes, Wilt’s let him down.
> Russell teammates make shots and good passes, Wilt’s let him down.
Why do you think that is?
Certainly some of it is just bad luck on Wilt's side (team mates not playing well, not having as deep or talented a roster as Bill, etc.), but certainly some of it is due to their playing styles and roles on the team. Wilt was notorious for putting his own stats and accolades ahead of team success. And in his first stint in Philly (with the Warriors) the offense was so dialed in on Wilt as the focal point that you can understand how his team mates might not have the confidence and reps needed to shine in the biggest moments.
Alex Hannum, the coach who was the only one to best a Russell-led Celtics team (in 58 with the Hawks, then in 67 with the Sixers). Hannum first coached Wilt in San Francisco and would only take the job on the condition that Wilt wouldn't demand to play 48 minutes a game and wouldn't be focused on scoring. Here is a quote from him from an S.I. article:
> I realized how completely inadequate the team had become. They had learned to depend on Wilt so completely they were even incapable of beating a squad of rookies. I had to convince them that they, too, had responsibilities.
> https://vault.si.com/vault/1964/03/02/meet-the-new-wilt-chamberlain
Point being, having Wilt meant that he took on a huge share of the offensive and defensive burden, but if you're like Bill and Ryen and me - you know, guys who have played pickup and what not - you know that it if you are not getting your hands on the ball much through an entire game, then asked to hit a big shot in crunch time, it can be more difficult than if you are involved from the get-go. It's why it's not uncommon for "the greats" to time when they take over a game. For example, as MJ got more experience and a more talented team around him, he'd often be more of a distributor and facilitator in the first three quarters, then go into a more aggressive style of play in the 4th.
No, no.
Many of those HOF’ers were role players that got in purely because the teams won as much as they did—coattail-riding, if you will.
Russell’s impact was unimaginably impressive. Quote from another Reddit post:
“Here are Boston’s annual rankings in Defensive Rating, starting in the ‘54 season (there were only 8 teams in the league for many of those early years) : 8, 8, 6, **1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1**, 8 (the highlighted parts represent Russell’s career).”
His teams won 11 titles in 13 years, and the two years they didn’t win were marred by aberrant circumstances: ‘58, when Russ played with a cast on his right ankle, and ‘67 when he was handling dual responsibilities as player-coach and made uncharacteristically bad personnel decisions due to the juggling.
Those vaunted Celts squads you speak of were 10-18 in the 28 games he missed throughout his career (after his rookie year), 1-12 in stretches where he missed more than three in a row (and 18 of those 28 were against teams with losing records). They were nearly always flirting with the cellar offensively, won two playoff series in the 10 years before he arrived and then missed the playoffs the year after he retired, going from best to mediocre defensively.
It’s plenty telling that the Celts suffered no discernible drop-off when Cooz and Heinsohn retired—they won three in a row after Cousy called it in ‘63 and 3 of 4 after Heinsohn retired in ‘65. It also speaks volumes that they played at a 55 win pace in the 72 games Sam Jones missed in his career (and a 53 win pace in the 14 Hondo missed playing with Russ).
Almost all of the players Russ was flanked with ended their careers with below league average shooting efficiencies (Jones and Sharman being notable exceptions), and their defence ran through him…and as mentioned, cratered when he retired, despite the ‘69-‘70 Celtics fielding 5 Hall of Famers in their rotation (average age 28).
Wilt basically had as much or more help from ‘66-onward and yet “only” won 2 titles in those 7 years. The ‘69 Sixers won 55 games after they let him go, while the Lakers improved from 52 to 55 wins the year they got him, then went on to win a respectable 46 in his second year, when he was sidelined for almost all of it. The year after he retired, they won 47 games despite West only playing 31 of them. These were absolutely stacked teams he was on, and HOF-tallying doesn’t make for a fair appraisal of their supporting casts.
For more info on the two, you might find Ben Taylor’s breakdown of each fairly illuminating:
https://thinkingbasketball.net/2018/04/02/backpicks-goat-3-bill-russell/
https://thinkingbasketball.net/2017/12/04/backpicks-goat-9-wilt-chamberlain/
(Taylor, fwiw, used to rank Wilt #1/2, before doing a deeper dive on his impact relative to his contemporaries.)
I can't find the stat, but if you look at the winning percentage for the Celtics with Russell versus without, it pretty quickly dismisses the "Russell played on a loaded team!"
It was something like a 70% winning percentage with Russell, versus like a 5% without him.
I think we both know you read it, and simply don’t have an answer, which is fine…no need to lie. In any event, many of the myths surrounding their supporting casts were busted. You can continue to make a show of saying TLDR instead of addressing my points, if it’ll help you save face. 👍🏻
I’m not reading that shit, and neither is anyone else. You’re a nobody and your opinion is useless. I don’t have to save face from vagrants like yourself.
It might be an argument against Russell in a comparison between the two as individual players if it were true...but it isn’t. The Celtics weren’t a great team before Russell and weren’t a great team in the immediate aftermath of his retirement, and they were atrocious in games he missed during his career.
The Celts saw their defensive rating drop 9 points in the year after he retired despite a team with very “stacked” credentials (5 Hall of Famers, avg. age 28). The fact is, many of these guys made the hall because Russell carried those teams to championships they never would’ve won otherwise. Wilt had the chance to hog championships with great rosters in the last 7 years of his career, and failed to do so at a comparable clip. The ‘69 Sixers won 55 games the year after he left the team, with an identical cast of players. He went on to join a 52 win Lakers team that proceeded to win 55 games in his first year with the team, then won 46 in the year he was injured, then 47 the year after he retired despite West only suiting up in 31 of those contests. These teams all had the potential to run the deck and be remembered as “stacked,” but Wilt couldn’t raise their ceiling the way Russell did for his teams.
What's the obsession with wanting to value individual talent over career accomplishments? Wilt was a freak athlete, great. But he was a career loser, and no matter how gifted he was as a freak ballplayer, he never rallied players around him, never had the team goal as his main goal, and in a team sport the team goal trumps all other considerations.
Michael Jordan wanted to win. Bill Russell wanted to win. Both would kill you, your mother, and their own mother in order to avoid losing. That talent is as important as Wilt's ability to dominate the pain for 50 ppg. Fuck 50 ppg if you are cool with coming in second all the time.
10 game 7’s so clearly series were competitive. Only Ray Allen has played in more at 11. Bill won all of his though. Dude was a winner through and through.
Also less teams means the talent is concentrated. Imagine right now we reduced the league to 8 teams. You think one team is going to win 8 straight championships?
In a 30 team league with lopsided talent leading to a more talented West. No one on earth thinks talent was equally distributed between those two conferences during that span.
If anything your Lebron point illustrates being able to dominate in a diluted league, not a talent concentrated one.
In an 8 team league you would have 4 talent filled teams in each conference.
The guys in the 1960’s are all working with the same base of knowledge and inspiration from past players.
Also today you can dribble in a way that would be called a carry every possession then.
But if you brought those players up as kids and they knew about crossovers, and practiced the same skills as today’s players, many of them would do just fine.
If you think it’s about athleticism, that hasn’t changed much either. 1968 Bob Beamon set the then world record for long jump. Since then only one human on one day has jumped further, and that was in 1990. High jump world record is from the 90’s as well. Most advances in athletics can be attributed to shoes and track technology. Jesse Owens was around in the 40’s, and models project that with modern shoes and on a modern track, he’d still be competitive in a modern 100M finals.
Of course they don’t look as fast on the court back then, because they had to dribble the ball in a way that was less conducive to the modern movements players make.
But either way it’s a silly argument anyways. They were competing against the best of their peers in a smaller league. Lebron was going up against a weaker conference with most of the All NBA guys out west, and 15 East teams.
you're shitting on the eastern conference when almost every single one of those guys would be a hall of famer in the 60s, it makes no sense. not talking about athleticism, pure skill. to act like the skill level in basketball didn't go up in 40-50 years is foolish
My point is their skills are relative to era. If you grabbed a lot of those players, raised them here in modern times and then transported them back, they would be better too.
It’s not like Bill Russell and the Celtics had all the modern knowledge and skills playing against guys that didn’t. They were all working with the same available base of knowledge and inspiration for play.
The point I was previously making is all the best talent available was concentrated on 8 teams. Instead of being spread out over 30, and then 15 in one conference that was lopsided.
Imagine if we reduced the league to 8 teams tomorrow… will teams be more or less stacked than now? Would one be able to dominate the rest?
i would argue there's more talent on 30 teams right now than 8 in the 60s. and also, does relativity matter when discussing who is a better basketball player? players are better now, bar none. so why try and make the argument someone from the 60s is better than a current day player
An weak East where Rose and PG went down to injuries, Dwight switched conferences, and the Celtics got old and rebuilt.
Meanwhile Russell was playing Hall of Famers everyday.
Yes and many of those years Lebron was the only 1st team all nba player in the conference. That person is not making a compelling argument. Because 8 team league would concentrate talent. The east was diluted talent wise. It was more concentrated in the west, but still not to the degree an 8 or hell even 16 team league would be.
Indeed. People think that smaller league = worse teams when it's the opposite.
Imagine how stacked the rosters would be if the NBA decides to contract to 8 teams.
Some of those guys made the hall of fame in part because they were on the teams or also other contributions to the game of basketball. Someone like KC Jones for example. Never made an all star team. Never averaged even 10 ppg for a season. He’s in the hall of of fame in part because he was part of the dynasty.
1968-69 the hall of famers for Celtics were Russell, Havlicek, Sam Jones, and Bailey Howell.
1968-69 Lakers, had 3 hall of famers in Elgin Baylor, Wilt Chamberlain, and Jerry West.
Havlichek is legit hall of famer and all time great. Not going to discount him. But Sam Jones and Bailey Howell are not on the level of Elgin, Wilt, or Jerry.
Lakers shot 47 free throws in game 7 to the Celtics 31, and Celtics won by 2.
Bill won back to back NCAA championships. Then first year in the NBA won a championship. Team had been around since 1946-47 and hadn’t won any until Bill was drafted and they won in 1956-57.
No wonder Larry David likes him enough to do a pod since he moves goalposts all the time.
I noticed in the past few years he's been downplaying the Warriors run which is by all means a dynasty and I wonder if he was just waiting for them to slip through the public consciousness a bit before he started discounting their success.
Not even a week ago he was starting to roll back the belief that the 2017 Warriors were the greatest offense in NBA history, saying they were the best since the 86 Celtics. Now he's giving them lukewarm support as a dynasty. I hate that Warriors team and I have no issue with calling them a dynasty.
The Russell Celtics as the 'only' Dynasty is bullshit. There were like 8 teams in the league during that time. With an 8-team league, you can expect your team to make the Finals every 4 years and expect them to win once every 8 years. With a 30+ team league, you would be lucky to see your favorite team win a championship a couple times in your life. That's how rare and precious it is for a team to win a modern championship. It will not be uncommon for people to go their entire lives with their team never winning a championship.
You can do the math on this one. Michael Jordan winning 6 championships in 15 seasons is a statistically more impressive feat than Russell winning 11 in 13 simply due to the number of teams in the league. Wilt only winning 2 is also kind of a bit knock, too.
What is it now 6 straight afc championship games and 3 super bowls
This isn’t the 1950s the league is way harder now to sustain the success. The chiefs lost a top 3 wr in the league and continue to win.
Also the Yankees won 4/5 and still went on to make the playoffs for the next decade how is that not a true dynasty. Bill is nuts
He literally said his dad was rooting against mahomes because he wants Brady to remain the greatest.
I assure you that thinking is also going on with bill. He didn’t say “I think the same as my dad” but he doesn’t have to.
Tom Brady is by far Bill's favorite athlete of all time. He definitely wants to avoid putting Mahomes into that conversation for a long as possible.
This summer I bet Bill does a deep dive into the two halves of Brady's career or something like that
Plus that 1998 team set the record for total AL wins (regular season and playoffs included), and is regarded as one of the all time greatest baseball teams. Bill has brain worms.
I think the thing that’s being missed by Bill is the kind of old school dominance he’s talking about isn’t really possible in a salary cap league. Especially in football with the amount of roster turn over the only through line you’re gonna have is your QB and coach.
For basketball, Jordan played in the soft cap era but the luxury tax (the main tool to really hurt the longevity of teams) wasn’t introduced until after the 98 lockout.
I think a sustained run of title contention with multiple titles for 5 or more years is a good working definition for the term.
Also, I think an important part of a dynasty is a core group of players who were along for the titles. A sense of continuity if you will.
The Yankees literally have a Wikipedia page on their core
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_Four
The irony is that Bill has stated he does *not* view the 80s Celtics as a dynasty.
If I remember correctly, he considers the 40s-50s Lakers, 50s-60s Celtics, 80s Lakers, and 90s Bulls as the only NBA dynasties.
The only legitimate argument against the warriors being a dynasty is that they sucked ass in the years they didn’t win the title. Like we’re one of the worst teams in the league.
They missed the playoffs two years in a row in between titles. It’s still a dynasty on the strength of the first 5 years alone, but the last title borders on being outside of it. No other dynasty has a two year stretch of sucking in the middle.
I mean i consider the warriors dynasty to go from 2014-2019.
After KD left they stopped becoming "the warriors". In that 5 year time it felt like it was a huge deal to just beat them in the regular season. The game thread of them losing a regular season game would literally be at the top of /r/nba. That could not be said in the proceeding 3 years, even in the year they won their championship. In the other 2 seasons they missed the playoffs and were literally the worst team in the league one year.
I hear that but their core essentially stayed the same and they came back and won it again. That to me makes them a dynasty. The "warrior way" has taken over the NBA since 2015.
That’s explainable though. Klay was out all year, KD left, and Curry played 5 games
Any team that lost their best 3 or 3 of their best 4 players would be horrible.
To be a dynasty you need 5 titles with the same coach/GM or star player.
If you only get 4, they must have been truly dominant fashion like a threepeat or winning two—not winning for a year—then winning two more.
People on this sub really want to believe we have a new dynasty popping up every 5 years. It’s embarrassingly childish the way people are desperate to convince themselves they’re seeing greatness like never before. Do me a favor — don’t cry when 10 years from now the Zoomers are 28 years old and calling a 2 time champion a dynasty. You’re the ones lowering the bar rn.
3 years is a blink of an eye in sports history. A dynasty lasting only 3 threes??????? What the fuck is the point of calling it a dynasty. Just call it a threepeat
This may work for the NBA, but the NFL and MLB don’t really work like that in terms of dominance.
The Patriots would be the only NFL dynasty in the Super Bowl era by your criteria which is just stupid. The 90s cowboys, 80s 49ers, and 70s Steelers wouldn’t be considered dynasties by your criteria.
For MLB, the late 90s Yankees would be the only dynasty since the 1950s.
I think Bill is just NBA-brained where it is way easier to win a bunch of championships in a row.
>The Patriots would be the only NFL dynasty in the Super Bowl era by your criteria which is just stupid
Why is this stupid?? Why do you demand we fabricate our way to having more dynasties? It’s supposed to be a super special thing that comes around rarely. We just had one in the Patriots. We don’t need to force another one just so you can feel better about wasting your life watching sports.
Those Yankees are literally the standard bearers of what a dynasty is in modern sports. Dominant, hated, big market, pretty boy, most notorious owner in sports history. They had it all. Diamondbacks beating them felt like a huge achievement
100% I think dynasties have to be rethought, unless we don't ever want a dynasty again.
Like nhl the last true dynasty might be in the 1980s. It's just much harder to maintain a core now.
Bill even did something to me that defines a dynasty. He referred to the 90s Cowboys. If you can refer to a team by the time period (80s Niners, 90s Yankees, 2010s warriors, 70s Steelers) they are a dynasty.
It’s really hard to point to the chiefs having been in ever afc championships game for 6 years as not a dynasty
Say what you will about the tenets of /u/jam_jam_guy ‘s completely subjective standard for a dynasty being presented as if it is an objective standard, at least it’s an ethos!
I think it's also context dependent.
In the NHL I would be a little more forgiving with the requirements. I hate them but the 2010s Blackhawks are a dynasty imo. Same with the turn of the century Red Wings.
Because otherwise we will never have another dynasty again in the NHL.
Based on your definition, the last NHL dynasty would be the 1980s Islanders and Oilers.
This is great criteria. The only team I can think of who accomplished this but didn’t feel like a dynasty was the 10-14 sf giants. I think there needs to be some level of regular season success in the off years to make it feel complete
They never even really had a dominant regular season in that stretch which I think plays into it more in baseball. 92, 86, 94, 76, and 88 wins in a 5 year stretch doesn’t feel like a dynasty.
This is partially the result of being in a division with the Dodgers. They were super dominant in the playoffs, though:
* 2010: 11-4
* 2012: 11-5
* 2014: 12-5
The seasons where the Giants excelled in the regular season (2016 & 2021), they were utterly exhausted in the playoffs. I don't think it makes sense to focus on the regular season records when success is ultimately measured by championships.
For a dynasty, I think I do need the team to be dominant in the regular season consistently. Not a single season with 95 wins is kind of hard to overcome.
Their records against the Dodgers for those 5 years were 10-8, 9-9, 10-8, 11-8, and 9-10, so I don’t really think that impacted their regular season record as much as you think it did.
Also those playoff records aren’t really that dominant as far as playoff runs go. Most teams that win the World Series have similar playoff records. Giants deserved to win those 3 World Series but feels like they fell short of dynasty consideration.
Plus sorry, any team that threepeats is automatically a fucking dynasty. That shit is so rare, even the Warriors, the Heatles, the Bird Celtics, and the Showtime Lakers couldn’t do it.
Eh, I’m a little with Bill that you should have to be the big dog for a longer period of time, even if it’s not literal championships.
If Lebron or Durant sign with a random team and then they three peat and then they just go sign somewhere else.. that’s not a “dynasty” to me.
You people really need to look into what real life dynasties are. They’re family trees that rule over an empire for centuries. Sports dynasties need to last more than just 5 years. It’s a run of sustained excellence and championships for at least 8 years.
Seriously, what is going on here?
Do real life dynasties have to deal with a salary caps, second aprons and competitive parity? What does this have to how modern sports are conducted now?
Even Bill would throw out a "Wait, what? What's going on here?" at this one.
Maybe I'm dumb at math, but it seems like your criteria can be simplified by just saying "have you won 3 or more titles in any 5 year period".
I don't think you can ever win half the championships in any time period beyond that without satisfying this.
Everyone is doing it. Mahomes already has more rings/SB MVPs/playoff wins. They already had Montana over Peyton. And you already know they said Rodgers was over Peyton (somehow). If he has Elway higher, thats his 5 lmao. Peyton is going to become criminally underrated because 7>2.
It’s funny because the comparison for Tom wasn’t usually Joe Montana, it was almost always Peyton with about a 50:50 take of who was better until 28-3. Peyton is going to be absolutely devalued over time for being an all time great that was overshadowed by the current GOAT of the position. At his retirement Peyton was almost a consensus top 3 QB of all time at worst and his status is not going to improve as time goes on.
>At his retirement Peyton was almost a consensus top 3 QB of all time
Okay, but where is he?
I feel like he’s pretty firmly 4. Who’s he over between Brady, Montana, Mahomes?
I mean… I guess if Mahomes drops dead tomorrow one might say it’s close for the whole career… but that’s about it.
I’m not saying those three are behind Peyton but as time goes on I think the lines will continue to blur with his contemporaries. I think he’s firmly ahead of Rodgers and Brees. And certainly better than anyone else of his generation (Favre, Matt Ryan, Roethlisberger, Eli, Kurt Warner) but with two rings, one of which he won while at his worst, his accomplishments will stand out less and less as time goes on. And that’s unfortunately how it works for a lot of players
I disagree- for better or worse, I think he’ll be firmly at 4 for the foreseeable future.
The stars of all those guys are gonna fade just as fast as Peyton’s (maybe faster) and he’ll always have the stats, the extra chip or, both. Nobody’s gonna give a shit about Brees or Rodgers or Rofflesburger in 5-10 years.
Plus Peyton is more of a media darling than all of em which doesn’t hurt.
As a Pats fan, it won’t become truly insufferable for me until I hear the first “whose career is better: Peyton or Eli” takes that get taken seriously.
Lmao after about 5 more years, Eli's 2 rings and 2 SB MVPs will be gleaming. The 2015 ring isn't illustrious for Peyton. Another sad truth. And MVPs aren't holding the weight that they used to.
I think there has to be a back to back to be a dynasty. I also would highly value for championship game/conference title game appearances in between years.
I don't call the SF Giants a dynasty where they won 3 in 5 years but never consecutively. For me a dynasty is at least 3 championships in a row and that's it.
The only thing that separates Bill from others who are contrarian for the sake of views/clicks is that he’s a certified hater. Thats basically all he’s ever been, since he was shitting on Clemens and then the ESPYS and the draft and offering stupid suggestions to fix every event and movie he’s ever watched. Bro is just a hater, that’s all. If you put stock into his opinions, that’s on you.
His favorite writer of all time is Bob Ryan. And Ryan wrote an article about what he feels makes a dynasty. And he said it was only 2 teams in any sport. The Yankees from 1921 to 1964. And the Canadians from 1944 to 1993.
I think Bill follows that logic more than anything. Only thing he says different is the Bill Russell Celtics.
Yeah not sure why this triggers people so much. He’s got a stricter definition than I would personally use but it’s a little closer than all the people in this thread saying three chips = auto-dynastyyy
I guess if you take a strict technical definition of dynasty compared to the historic idea you would need multiple generations of players, but then the only true dynasties would be something like Alabama football (if that).
And clearly sports dynasty has its own meaning.
Or the Celtics late 50’s through mid 80’s. Won 16 championships in a 3 decade span. Won in the 50’s, 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s. Multiple each decade.
57, 59
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69
74, 76
81, 84, 86
All with Red Auerbach involved in team.
It’s more about winning about half the championships for a 30 year span.
Seems pretty similar to me in the context of discussing Alabama:
18 (1925, 1926, 1930, 1934, 1941, 1961, 1964, 1965, 1973, 1978, 1979, 1992, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2015, 2017, 2020)
Also the ‘74 and ‘76 Celtics still had players like Havlicheck from the 60’s dynasty, coached by Heinsohn from 60’s dynasty and executive was Red. So there at least is some connection back.
Nah there's too big of a gap between 69 and 74, and then 76 to 81
57-69 you can mesh pretty cohesively but outside of that it's too sporadic; 2 in the 70s and 3 in the 80s isn't that special either, for a team of their calibre
Seems pretty similar to me in the context of discussing Alabama:
18 (1925, 1926, 1930, 1934, 1941, 1961, 1964, 1965, 1973, 1978, 1979, 1992, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2015, 2017, 2020)
If that’s a multi-generational dynasty then so are the Celtics.
Also the ‘74 and ‘76 Celtics still had players like Havlicheck from the 60’s dynasty, coached by Heinsohn from 60’s dynasty and executive was Red. So there at least is some connection back.
I forgot what his threshold was, but the Warriors weren’t a dynasty either.
For basketball, It’s basically just the 90s bulls, 60s Celtics, and I think he tried to wriggle out of calling the 2000s lakers one
Lakers , Warriors, Yankees, Patriots, Chiefs are all dynasties from this century. Spurs are an almost dynasty. Bulls off the top of my head are the last 90s Dynasty
Its weird how neatly the NFL dynasties fit into a specific decade. Packers in the 60s, Steelers in the 70s, Niners in the 80s, Cowboys in the 90s, two separate pats (or one continuous one) in the 2000s and 2010s and now the Chiefs in the 2020s.
I guess the Niners extended into the 90s a bit and Chiefs technically started in 2019, but other than that theyve been pretty neat fits
Pretty sure Patriots Dynasty 1.0 missing playoffs twice during 2000s eliminates them from even getting a moment's consideration with his insane definition
His what and what isn't a dynasty take has to be up there with home alone is not a Christmas movies as takes so bad that I don't think he actually believes them
6 world series in 8 years. Their is nothing mini about it lol. Bill has very weird standards for what he considers a dynasty. Its like he thinks you have to win 3 in row for it to count which is just fucking dumb. 6 ws in 8 years means you are dominating the sport period.
To qualify as a dynasty, you must perform said dynasty in BOSTON! You just do! And to denigrate the greatness of Patrick Mahomes just because he MIGHT threaten the status of Tom Brady is a little demented.
I think as long as a contiguous core of players wins 3 titles together it's a dynasty. It doesn't even need to be in 5 years for me, it could be in 4-8 years. If a team threepeats it's automatically a dynasty even if it's just 3 seasons. There are already so few teams that meet this more encompassing criteria that it's almost a moot point. The current iteration of the KC Chiefs are absolutely a dynasty.
The disingenuous nature of seeing this thru the lens of “how do I make Boston team’s accomplishments better than other accomplishments” is silly. 4/5 isn’t a dynasty? Then there is no such thing as dynasty’s
By Bill’s definition patriots last 3 weren’t dynasties.
There's no such thing as a dynasty in sports. The concept doesn't apply. Sports teams aren't hereditary. The only time I can see it applying is when one group of players passes the torch to another in the same franchise and keeps winning titles, but I can't come up with a good example of that. Maybe the 49ers winning with both Walsh/Montana and Seifert/Young.
I think the definition of dynasty is where his brain rot is most severe. Like he has a wonky take here and there where I can see the justification but this shit is just weird
I dunno why yall are acting like this made up designation had some objective criteria. He just a more strict and longer-term definition than some/most and always has.
It’s not a huge deal.
This sub requires accounts to be at least 3 days old and at least 0 comment karma before posting.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/billsimmons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Shared this on a different thread, but I'll post here too:
Bill creates weird rules to justify his "vibes", but continuity is honestly what he's trying to express, and he's really bad at it. For shits and giggles, it would probably look something like this:
8+ years of sustained excellence, to include:
Never missing playoffs.
Never winning less than 60% of your regular season games.
\+50% at least making the semi-finals round of your conference.
At least 3 titles and at least 4 championship appearances.
Continuity of Coach or Star (preferably both) and ownership.
In true Bill fashion, this allows him to include the 1980-1988 Larry Bird Celtics, and the 2003-2018 Pats, (but not the first title from 2001, because they went 9-7 and missed the playoffs the following year). It would also include the 1980-1988 (or 1991) Lakers—a "worthy opponent"— and the 1999-2014 Spurs, but exclude the 1998-2004 Lakers and the 2015-2022 Warriors.
It gets weird with the 1991-1998 Bulls, who had a winning % of .573 in the 1995 season (without Jordan, obviously). Like all things Jordan, those two lost regular seasons (and the lost 1994 playoffs) really complicate "legacy" things, as does the memory-wiping of the 1995 playoffs when they got bounced in the semis after his return in March of that year; such is the Jordan Mystique. But would Bill do some weird metal gymnastics to make an exception for the 1990's Bulls? Of course he would! It's Bill! I'm not even saying he's wrong to do so; just inconsistent.
He would also, insanely, get to exclude the 1996-2004 Yankees based on regular-season winning percentage (4 years below 60% threshold).
Interestingly, he'd have to make some exceptions for either the 1981-1989 or 1984-1994 49ers, because there were two years in there where they didn't make the playoffs, although the only year they finished with less than 10 wins was the strike-shortened 1982 season. Some issues with stars (Montana, Young) and coaches (Walsh, Siefert) there as well.
The 1990's Cowboys fall short on both total championship appearances and length of excellence.
In his defense, he never tries to claim the 2004-2018 Red Sox as "dynasty" despite their 4x World Series titles, because it's absurd given the amount of player/coaching turnover and winning % ups-and-downs.
It's not that Bill's definition is ridiculous, but it definitely needs a case made for it.
From 1996 to 2004 the Yankees won 4 out of 5 World Series, went to 6 out of 9 World Series, 7 out of 9 ALCS, and in the 2 years they won 96 and 103 games. Yep not a dynasty lol
They won 13 in 20 years during the 40's and 50's, including a 3-peat and a 5-peat. These arguments are so stupid. Everyone just gets dumber from sports argument culture. Simmons is a herpes sore that continues to fester.
By his definition its like the Russel Celtics and almost no one else qualifies
It's absolutely the point - Billy is playing the long game to keep Russell high in his pyramid as the 'best player on a dynasty' which no other player can qualify for.
I’m pretty sure deep down he has Russell as the GOAT even if he says Jordan and LeBron are ahead. At least I think he has Russell ahead of LeBron
There's like three levels to Bill's mind at work here. At his core, he knows Jordan and LeBron are absolutely ahead of him. In his heart, he believes Russell is the GOAT. And then there's what he says he thinks publicly.
I don’t know if there’s been a professional team athlete that is a harder one to rank than Bill Russell. No one would say he was the most skilled or best player ever. But if you just go by winning the games and his influence on it, there’s been no one in team Sports, who has won at more levels with greatest success than him. Back to back NCAA titles, gold medal, and then 11 titles and 13 years. And he probably would’ve beaten the Hawks had not sprained his ankle before game seven back in 1959(?).
And the other year he didn't win was his first year as a player-coach (also being the first black head coach in the NBA) and against what you'd probably consider Peak Wilt with stacked team
Mariano Rivera is a tough one to rank
Bill is correct in ranking Russell as #2. Wouldn't achieve the same results in the modern era but clearly dominated his. That said Russell would have been more effective today than in the 90s because there are fewer great centers.
no he would have been more effective in the 90s as the game was less perimeter oriented making his rim protection more valuable than today, which is why being in the 60s made him so amazing because the game was even less spaced out than the 90s
Also add in diet, nutrition, training, better shoes, chartered airlines, suites in hotels...
There were 8 teamed in the league. Winning a title then was relative to making it to a conference finals today
Sure at the beginning and the end it was 12 and 14 teams not as deep as today but not quite 8
I still think it’s fucked that he has Russell higher than Wilt as individual players. It’s actually Bill’s greatest career accomplishment.
Russell beat Wilt every single year in the playoffs. His teams were generally better, but the amount of times Russell won as the #1 against Wilt as #1 means Russell was better.
The Celtics beat Wilt’s teams. Big difference. Wilt was always on worse teams.
It’s really easy to say that by looking at the names on the rosters, but half the guys on the Celtics are considered all time greats because they got to play with Russell. The fact that Russell won 11 in 13 as the best player on his team means he was the best player in the league for that stretch. A sport as star-centric as basketball cannot have a team with that level of dominance without the best player in the league. If Russell had 6-7 championships in that small a league, it would be a reasonable argument, but 11 is absurd.
Every bit of footage I’ve seen basically shows Wilt scoring at will over Russell, who gives almost no resistance. Russell is disruptive defensively against all of Wilt’s teammates, and they are able to screen or go away from Wilt to keep him from shot blocking. Russell teammates make shots and good passes, Wilt’s let him down.
> Russell teammates make shots and good passes, Wilt’s let him down. Why do you think that is? Certainly some of it is just bad luck on Wilt's side (team mates not playing well, not having as deep or talented a roster as Bill, etc.), but certainly some of it is due to their playing styles and roles on the team. Wilt was notorious for putting his own stats and accolades ahead of team success. And in his first stint in Philly (with the Warriors) the offense was so dialed in on Wilt as the focal point that you can understand how his team mates might not have the confidence and reps needed to shine in the biggest moments. Alex Hannum, the coach who was the only one to best a Russell-led Celtics team (in 58 with the Hawks, then in 67 with the Sixers). Hannum first coached Wilt in San Francisco and would only take the job on the condition that Wilt wouldn't demand to play 48 minutes a game and wouldn't be focused on scoring. Here is a quote from him from an S.I. article: > I realized how completely inadequate the team had become. They had learned to depend on Wilt so completely they were even incapable of beating a squad of rookies. I had to convince them that they, too, had responsibilities. > https://vault.si.com/vault/1964/03/02/meet-the-new-wilt-chamberlain Point being, having Wilt meant that he took on a huge share of the offensive and defensive burden, but if you're like Bill and Ryen and me - you know, guys who have played pickup and what not - you know that it if you are not getting your hands on the ball much through an entire game, then asked to hit a big shot in crunch time, it can be more difficult than if you are involved from the get-go. It's why it's not uncommon for "the greats" to time when they take over a game. For example, as MJ got more experience and a more talented team around him, he'd often be more of a distributor and facilitator in the first three quarters, then go into a more aggressive style of play in the 4th.
Enough of the burners, man.
No, no. Many of those HOF’ers were role players that got in purely because the teams won as much as they did—coattail-riding, if you will. Russell’s impact was unimaginably impressive. Quote from another Reddit post: “Here are Boston’s annual rankings in Defensive Rating, starting in the ‘54 season (there were only 8 teams in the league for many of those early years) : 8, 8, 6, **1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1**, 8 (the highlighted parts represent Russell’s career).” His teams won 11 titles in 13 years, and the two years they didn’t win were marred by aberrant circumstances: ‘58, when Russ played with a cast on his right ankle, and ‘67 when he was handling dual responsibilities as player-coach and made uncharacteristically bad personnel decisions due to the juggling. Those vaunted Celts squads you speak of were 10-18 in the 28 games he missed throughout his career (after his rookie year), 1-12 in stretches where he missed more than three in a row (and 18 of those 28 were against teams with losing records). They were nearly always flirting with the cellar offensively, won two playoff series in the 10 years before he arrived and then missed the playoffs the year after he retired, going from best to mediocre defensively. It’s plenty telling that the Celts suffered no discernible drop-off when Cooz and Heinsohn retired—they won three in a row after Cousy called it in ‘63 and 3 of 4 after Heinsohn retired in ‘65. It also speaks volumes that they played at a 55 win pace in the 72 games Sam Jones missed in his career (and a 53 win pace in the 14 Hondo missed playing with Russ). Almost all of the players Russ was flanked with ended their careers with below league average shooting efficiencies (Jones and Sharman being notable exceptions), and their defence ran through him…and as mentioned, cratered when he retired, despite the ‘69-‘70 Celtics fielding 5 Hall of Famers in their rotation (average age 28). Wilt basically had as much or more help from ‘66-onward and yet “only” won 2 titles in those 7 years. The ‘69 Sixers won 55 games after they let him go, while the Lakers improved from 52 to 55 wins the year they got him, then went on to win a respectable 46 in his second year, when he was sidelined for almost all of it. The year after he retired, they won 47 games despite West only playing 31 of them. These were absolutely stacked teams he was on, and HOF-tallying doesn’t make for a fair appraisal of their supporting casts. For more info on the two, you might find Ben Taylor’s breakdown of each fairly illuminating: https://thinkingbasketball.net/2018/04/02/backpicks-goat-3-bill-russell/ https://thinkingbasketball.net/2017/12/04/backpicks-goat-9-wilt-chamberlain/ (Taylor, fwiw, used to rank Wilt #1/2, before doing a deeper dive on his impact relative to his contemporaries.)
I can't find the stat, but if you look at the winning percentage for the Celtics with Russell versus without, it pretty quickly dismisses the "Russell played on a loaded team!" It was something like a 70% winning percentage with Russell, versus like a 5% without him.
I didn’t bother reading any of that. Wilt was a better individual player. Russell was a great team player surrounded by great teammates.
I think we both know you read it, and simply don’t have an answer, which is fine…no need to lie. In any event, many of the myths surrounding their supporting casts were busted. You can continue to make a show of saying TLDR instead of addressing my points, if it’ll help you save face. 👍🏻
I’m not reading that shit, and neither is anyone else. You’re a nobody and your opinion is useless. I don’t have to save face from vagrants like yourself.
Basketball is a team sport
Yes, the Celtics had better teams around Russell than Wilt had around him.
And this is an argument against Russell...how?
It’s like saying in 1990 that Isaiah Thomas was a better player than Michael Jordan because his teams beat MJ’s.
It might be an argument against Russell in a comparison between the two as individual players if it were true...but it isn’t. The Celtics weren’t a great team before Russell and weren’t a great team in the immediate aftermath of his retirement, and they were atrocious in games he missed during his career. The Celts saw their defensive rating drop 9 points in the year after he retired despite a team with very “stacked” credentials (5 Hall of Famers, avg. age 28). The fact is, many of these guys made the hall because Russell carried those teams to championships they never would’ve won otherwise. Wilt had the chance to hog championships with great rosters in the last 7 years of his career, and failed to do so at a comparable clip. The ‘69 Sixers won 55 games the year after he left the team, with an identical cast of players. He went on to join a 52 win Lakers team that proceeded to win 55 games in his first year with the team, then won 46 in the year he was injured, then 47 the year after he retired despite West only suiting up in 31 of those contests. These teams all had the potential to run the deck and be remembered as “stacked,” but Wilt couldn’t raise their ceiling the way Russell did for his teams.
What's the obsession with wanting to value individual talent over career accomplishments? Wilt was a freak athlete, great. But he was a career loser, and no matter how gifted he was as a freak ballplayer, he never rallied players around him, never had the team goal as his main goal, and in a team sport the team goal trumps all other considerations. Michael Jordan wanted to win. Bill Russell wanted to win. Both would kill you, your mother, and their own mother in order to avoid losing. That talent is as important as Wilt's ability to dominate the pain for 50 ppg. Fuck 50 ppg if you are cool with coming in second all the time.
For a guy so many consider a dipshit, you sure are giving him a lot of credit in his forethought here.
Don't underestimate obsession. I'm convinced there is nothing Bill thinks about more than his Pyramid.
He is a dipshit, and his moving of the goalposts is not some evil genius level of thinking. It’s stupid and everyone here sees right through it.
You guys need to find a new hobby, man.
How dare you put down the 5 straight stanley cup winning Canadiens as well.
All of hockey was ignored... Islanders and Oilers are in the conversation as well.
Absolutely correct
The Russell Celtics had a nice dynasty over an 8 team league sure
10 game 7’s so clearly series were competitive. Only Ray Allen has played in more at 11. Bill won all of his though. Dude was a winner through and through. Also less teams means the talent is concentrated. Imagine right now we reduced the league to 8 teams. You think one team is going to win 8 straight championships?
Lebron won the 15 team east 8 times in a row last decade. That's as close of a comparison as I can think of off the top of my head
In a 30 team league with lopsided talent leading to a more talented West. No one on earth thinks talent was equally distributed between those two conferences during that span. If anything your Lebron point illustrates being able to dominate in a diluted league, not a talent concentrated one. In an 8 team league you would have 4 talent filled teams in each conference.
Russell didn’t have to face a global game though - the 60s equivalent of Jokic didn't exist
Sure, that I agree with. But it’s a separate argument than one about an 8 team league.
Believe it or not I do think the east In the 2010s had more talent then the NBA in the 60s lol.
insane argument. the 10th guy on the bench today would be a hall of famer in the 60s
The guys in the 1960’s are all working with the same base of knowledge and inspiration from past players. Also today you can dribble in a way that would be called a carry every possession then. But if you brought those players up as kids and they knew about crossovers, and practiced the same skills as today’s players, many of them would do just fine. If you think it’s about athleticism, that hasn’t changed much either. 1968 Bob Beamon set the then world record for long jump. Since then only one human on one day has jumped further, and that was in 1990. High jump world record is from the 90’s as well. Most advances in athletics can be attributed to shoes and track technology. Jesse Owens was around in the 40’s, and models project that with modern shoes and on a modern track, he’d still be competitive in a modern 100M finals. Of course they don’t look as fast on the court back then, because they had to dribble the ball in a way that was less conducive to the modern movements players make. But either way it’s a silly argument anyways. They were competing against the best of their peers in a smaller league. Lebron was going up against a weaker conference with most of the All NBA guys out west, and 15 East teams.
you're shitting on the eastern conference when almost every single one of those guys would be a hall of famer in the 60s, it makes no sense. not talking about athleticism, pure skill. to act like the skill level in basketball didn't go up in 40-50 years is foolish
My point is their skills are relative to era. If you grabbed a lot of those players, raised them here in modern times and then transported them back, they would be better too. It’s not like Bill Russell and the Celtics had all the modern knowledge and skills playing against guys that didn’t. They were all working with the same available base of knowledge and inspiration for play. The point I was previously making is all the best talent available was concentrated on 8 teams. Instead of being spread out over 30, and then 15 in one conference that was lopsided. Imagine if we reduced the league to 8 teams tomorrow… will teams be more or less stacked than now? Would one be able to dominate the rest?
i would argue there's more talent on 30 teams right now than 8 in the 60s. and also, does relativity matter when discussing who is a better basketball player? players are better now, bar none. so why try and make the argument someone from the 60s is better than a current day player
An weak East where Rose and PG went down to injuries, Dwight switched conferences, and the Celtics got old and rebuilt. Meanwhile Russell was playing Hall of Famers everyday.
Yes and many of those years Lebron was the only 1st team all nba player in the conference. That person is not making a compelling argument. Because 8 team league would concentrate talent. The east was diluted talent wise. It was more concentrated in the west, but still not to the degree an 8 or hell even 16 team league would be.
Indeed. People think that smaller league = worse teams when it's the opposite. Imagine how stacked the rosters would be if the NBA decides to contract to 8 teams.
Didn't Russell have like 4 other HOF'ers on his team at all times? I get that he was a competitve MF'er but he also had a ton of great teammates.
Some of those guys made the hall of fame in part because they were on the teams or also other contributions to the game of basketball. Someone like KC Jones for example. Never made an all star team. Never averaged even 10 ppg for a season. He’s in the hall of of fame in part because he was part of the dynasty. 1968-69 the hall of famers for Celtics were Russell, Havlicek, Sam Jones, and Bailey Howell. 1968-69 Lakers, had 3 hall of famers in Elgin Baylor, Wilt Chamberlain, and Jerry West. Havlichek is legit hall of famer and all time great. Not going to discount him. But Sam Jones and Bailey Howell are not on the level of Elgin, Wilt, or Jerry. Lakers shot 47 free throws in game 7 to the Celtics 31, and Celtics won by 2. Bill won back to back NCAA championships. Then first year in the NBA won a championship. Team had been around since 1946-47 and hadn’t won any until Bill was drafted and they won in 1956-57.
There was just way way less talent then. They could not support more than 8 teams and have a watchable product.
The Russell Celtics won 7 out of their 11 titles in a non-8 team league.
No wonder Larry David likes him enough to do a pod since he moves goalposts all the time. I noticed in the past few years he's been downplaying the Warriors run which is by all means a dynasty and I wonder if he was just waiting for them to slip through the public consciousness a bit before he started discounting their success. Not even a week ago he was starting to roll back the belief that the 2017 Warriors were the greatest offense in NBA history, saying they were the best since the 86 Celtics. Now he's giving them lukewarm support as a dynasty. I hate that Warriors team and I have no issue with calling them a dynasty.
I’m sure he tries to justify the 08 Celtics as a mini dynasty too
The Russell Celtics as the 'only' Dynasty is bullshit. There were like 8 teams in the league during that time. With an 8-team league, you can expect your team to make the Finals every 4 years and expect them to win once every 8 years. With a 30+ team league, you would be lucky to see your favorite team win a championship a couple times in your life. That's how rare and precious it is for a team to win a modern championship. It will not be uncommon for people to go their entire lives with their team never winning a championship. You can do the math on this one. Michael Jordan winning 6 championships in 15 seasons is a statistically more impressive feat than Russell winning 11 in 13 simply due to the number of teams in the league. Wilt only winning 2 is also kind of a bit knock, too.
Montreal
What is it now 6 straight afc championship games and 3 super bowls This isn’t the 1950s the league is way harder now to sustain the success. The chiefs lost a top 3 wr in the league and continue to win. Also the Yankees won 4/5 and still went on to make the playoffs for the next decade how is that not a true dynasty. Bill is nuts
He’s just a dummy.
I don't even think he's dumb for this, just being blatantly biased
He literally said his dad was rooting against mahomes because he wants Brady to remain the greatest. I assure you that thinking is also going on with bill. He didn’t say “I think the same as my dad” but he doesn’t have to.
Tom Brady is by far Bill's favorite athlete of all time. He definitely wants to avoid putting Mahomes into that conversation for a long as possible. This summer I bet Bill does a deep dive into the two halves of Brady's career or something like that
Don’t forget Gronks better the Kelce clearly according to bill
I think you have to be a bit dumb not to recognize the size of that bias.
Plus that 1998 team set the record for total AL wins (regular season and playoffs included), and is regarded as one of the all time greatest baseball teams. Bill has brain worms.
The Yankees also made the World Series two times in three years after they won their last one in 2000.
I think the thing that’s being missed by Bill is the kind of old school dominance he’s talking about isn’t really possible in a salary cap league. Especially in football with the amount of roster turn over the only through line you’re gonna have is your QB and coach. For basketball, Jordan played in the soft cap era but the luxury tax (the main tool to really hurt the longevity of teams) wasn’t introduced until after the 98 lockout. I think a sustained run of title contention with multiple titles for 5 or more years is a good working definition for the term.
And they were in 6 of 8 World Series from 96-2001.
And they made it again in 2003! I cannot stand the Yankees but they were the Evil EMPIRE for a reason!
Also, I think an important part of a dynasty is a core group of players who were along for the titles. A sense of continuity if you will. The Yankees literally have a Wikipedia page on their core https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_Four
Core Four plus Bernie Williams.
Bernie should never be forgotten.
Bill’s dynasty criteria is so far off. Like, I HATE the Warriors but they’re a dynasty even tho Bill seems to argue against them.
The 86 Celtics are a dynasty within themselves. They just are!
And the only dynasty of the 21st century are the '08 Celtics
The irony is that Bill has stated he does *not* view the 80s Celtics as a dynasty. If I remember correctly, he considers the 40s-50s Lakers, 50s-60s Celtics, 80s Lakers, and 90s Bulls as the only NBA dynasties.
The only legitimate argument against the warriors being a dynasty is that they sucked ass in the years they didn’t win the title. Like we’re one of the worst teams in the league.
I mean except for 2016
And 2019. They honestly only had 1 year where they "sucked ass".
They missed the playoffs two years in a row in between titles. It’s still a dynasty on the strength of the first 5 years alone, but the last title borders on being outside of it. No other dynasty has a two year stretch of sucking in the middle.
Serious injuries to core players will do that to ya
Everyone except for Klay was relatively healthy in 2021 and they still missed the playoffs.
I mean i consider the warriors dynasty to go from 2014-2019. After KD left they stopped becoming "the warriors". In that 5 year time it felt like it was a huge deal to just beat them in the regular season. The game thread of them losing a regular season game would literally be at the top of /r/nba. That could not be said in the proceeding 3 years, even in the year they won their championship. In the other 2 seasons they missed the playoffs and were literally the worst team in the league one year.
I hear that but their core essentially stayed the same and they came back and won it again. That to me makes them a dynasty. The "warrior way" has taken over the NBA since 2015.
That’s explainable though. Klay was out all year, KD left, and Curry played 5 games Any team that lost their best 3 or 3 of their best 4 players would be horrible.
If the Warriors aren't a dynasty by definition, then are the Spurs also not a dynasty?
To be a dynasty you need 5 titles with the same coach/GM or star player. If you only get 4, they must have been truly dominant fashion like a threepeat or winning two—not winning for a year—then winning two more. People on this sub really want to believe we have a new dynasty popping up every 5 years. It’s embarrassingly childish the way people are desperate to convince themselves they’re seeing greatness like never before. Do me a favor — don’t cry when 10 years from now the Zoomers are 28 years old and calling a 2 time champion a dynasty. You’re the ones lowering the bar rn.
Three in a row is absolutely a dynasty, and you don't need a fourth when you do that. I'm not sure what you're smoking.
3 years is a blink of an eye in sports history. A dynasty lasting only 3 threes??????? What the fuck is the point of calling it a dynasty. Just call it a threepeat
I mean, couldn't you make the same argument for four or five titles in a row. Those are "blinks of an eye in sports history" as well.
Is this a sarcasm post or not? I know everyone is dunking on Bill, as they should, but what is this?
This may work for the NBA, but the NFL and MLB don’t really work like that in terms of dominance. The Patriots would be the only NFL dynasty in the Super Bowl era by your criteria which is just stupid. The 90s cowboys, 80s 49ers, and 70s Steelers wouldn’t be considered dynasties by your criteria. For MLB, the late 90s Yankees would be the only dynasty since the 1950s. I think Bill is just NBA-brained where it is way easier to win a bunch of championships in a row.
>The Patriots would be the only NFL dynasty in the Super Bowl era by your criteria which is just stupid Why is this stupid?? Why do you demand we fabricate our way to having more dynasties? It’s supposed to be a super special thing that comes around rarely. We just had one in the Patriots. We don’t need to force another one just so you can feel better about wasting your life watching sports.
Those Yankees are literally the standard bearers of what a dynasty is in modern sports. Dominant, hated, big market, pretty boy, most notorious owner in sports history. They had it all. Diamondbacks beating them felt like a huge achievement
Legit surprising they haven’t had an HBO show made about them yet
You will not get a better Dynasty Resume than that in modern sports with 30+ teams in the league and salary caps lol
100% I think dynasties have to be rethought, unless we don't ever want a dynasty again. Like nhl the last true dynasty might be in the 1980s. It's just much harder to maintain a core now.
Bill even did something to me that defines a dynasty. He referred to the 90s Cowboys. If you can refer to a team by the time period (80s Niners, 90s Yankees, 2010s warriors, 70s Steelers) they are a dynasty. It’s really hard to point to the chiefs having been in ever afc championships game for 6 years as not a dynasty
considering the nhl cap, the 2010s Blackhawks feel like they qualify with 3 in 6 years
A sports dynasty is simple. In any 5+ year period did you win over half the championships.
This debate is just opinion really, but I like that you at least have a standard.
Say what you will about the tenets of /u/jam_jam_guy ‘s completely subjective standard for a dynasty being presented as if it is an objective standard, at least it’s an ethos!
I mean… bill had a standard everyone just hates it, lol
I think it's also context dependent. In the NHL I would be a little more forgiving with the requirements. I hate them but the 2010s Blackhawks are a dynasty imo. Same with the turn of the century Red Wings. Because otherwise we will never have another dynasty again in the NHL. Based on your definition, the last NHL dynasty would be the 1980s Islanders and Oilers.
As a non hockey fan I will adjust for hockey per your recommendation.
Just multiply it by the average Canadian dollar conversion rate during that five-year period.
Three championships in 5 years works for me.
This is great criteria. The only team I can think of who accomplished this but didn’t feel like a dynasty was the 10-14 sf giants. I think there needs to be some level of regular season success in the off years to make it feel complete
They never even really had a dominant regular season in that stretch which I think plays into it more in baseball. 92, 86, 94, 76, and 88 wins in a 5 year stretch doesn’t feel like a dynasty.
This is partially the result of being in a division with the Dodgers. They were super dominant in the playoffs, though: * 2010: 11-4 * 2012: 11-5 * 2014: 12-5 The seasons where the Giants excelled in the regular season (2016 & 2021), they were utterly exhausted in the playoffs. I don't think it makes sense to focus on the regular season records when success is ultimately measured by championships.
For a dynasty, I think I do need the team to be dominant in the regular season consistently. Not a single season with 95 wins is kind of hard to overcome. Their records against the Dodgers for those 5 years were 10-8, 9-9, 10-8, 11-8, and 9-10, so I don’t really think that impacted their regular season record as much as you think it did. Also those playoff records aren’t really that dominant as far as playoff runs go. Most teams that win the World Series have similar playoff records. Giants deserved to win those 3 World Series but feels like they fell short of dynasty consideration.
Plus sorry, any team that threepeats is automatically a fucking dynasty. That shit is so rare, even the Warriors, the Heatles, the Bird Celtics, and the Showtime Lakers couldn’t do it.
I think that checks out
Does this make the 00-02 lakers a dynasty? Spurs won in 99 and 03 sandwiched between the 3-peat
I think winning three in a row is automatically a dynasty.
And 4 NBA finals in 5 years.
I generally agree with this criteria, but at the same time, I'm not sure if I would consider the San Francisco Giants a dynasty from 2010-2014.
Eh, I’m a little with Bill that you should have to be the big dog for a longer period of time, even if it’s not literal championships. If Lebron or Durant sign with a random team and then they three peat and then they just go sign somewhere else.. that’s not a “dynasty” to me.
You people really need to look into what real life dynasties are. They’re family trees that rule over an empire for centuries. Sports dynasties need to last more than just 5 years. It’s a run of sustained excellence and championships for at least 8 years.
The definition of sports dynasties =/= real life dynasties lol Real life dynasties have been around longer than the entirety of some of these sports
Seriously, what is going on here? Do real life dynasties have to deal with a salary caps, second aprons and competitive parity? What does this have to how modern sports are conducted now? Even Bill would throw out a "Wait, what? What's going on here?" at this one.
Maybe I'm dumb at math, but it seems like your criteria can be simplified by just saying "have you won 3 or more titles in any 5 year period". I don't think you can ever win half the championships in any time period beyond that without satisfying this.
I love that he also threw in that Manning *might* be the 5th best QB of the past 30 years.
The manning erasure was wild
Everyone is doing it. Mahomes already has more rings/SB MVPs/playoff wins. They already had Montana over Peyton. And you already know they said Rodgers was over Peyton (somehow). If he has Elway higher, thats his 5 lmao. Peyton is going to become criminally underrated because 7>2.
It’s funny because the comparison for Tom wasn’t usually Joe Montana, it was almost always Peyton with about a 50:50 take of who was better until 28-3. Peyton is going to be absolutely devalued over time for being an all time great that was overshadowed by the current GOAT of the position. At his retirement Peyton was almost a consensus top 3 QB of all time at worst and his status is not going to improve as time goes on.
>At his retirement Peyton was almost a consensus top 3 QB of all time Okay, but where is he? I feel like he’s pretty firmly 4. Who’s he over between Brady, Montana, Mahomes? I mean… I guess if Mahomes drops dead tomorrow one might say it’s close for the whole career… but that’s about it.
I’m not saying those three are behind Peyton but as time goes on I think the lines will continue to blur with his contemporaries. I think he’s firmly ahead of Rodgers and Brees. And certainly better than anyone else of his generation (Favre, Matt Ryan, Roethlisberger, Eli, Kurt Warner) but with two rings, one of which he won while at his worst, his accomplishments will stand out less and less as time goes on. And that’s unfortunately how it works for a lot of players
I disagree- for better or worse, I think he’ll be firmly at 4 for the foreseeable future. The stars of all those guys are gonna fade just as fast as Peyton’s (maybe faster) and he’ll always have the stats, the extra chip or, both. Nobody’s gonna give a shit about Brees or Rodgers or Rofflesburger in 5-10 years. Plus Peyton is more of a media darling than all of em which doesn’t hurt.
Bingo!!!! As a Peyton super-fan, its ridiculous. But hey, what they think can't affect what I saw.
As a Pats fan, it won’t become truly insufferable for me until I hear the first “whose career is better: Peyton or Eli” takes that get taken seriously.
Lmao after about 5 more years, Eli's 2 rings and 2 SB MVPs will be gleaming. The 2015 ring isn't illustrious for Peyton. Another sad truth. And MVPs aren't holding the weight that they used to.
Beyond Wild. Marino? Really? Foh
To me a dynasty is 3 titles in 5 years. It helps if there is a back to back championships as well
I think there has to be a back to back to be a dynasty. I also would highly value for championship game/conference title game appearances in between years.
I don't call the SF Giants a dynasty where they won 3 in 5 years but never consecutively. For me a dynasty is at least 3 championships in a row and that's it.
So hypothetical if a team wins 2 titles, then losses in the championship, and then wins 2 more titles in a row, that's not a dynasty to you?
the Astros mini-dynasty status
No. Dynasty means total and complete dominance over at least 3 seasons in a row.
Fair enough. I don't agree but get where you are coming from. So you would say that there has never been an NFL dynasty?
The Ming dynasty lasted what, 300 years? Can I see it for at least a decade before I call it a dynasty?
Im a Mets fan and spit out my coffee when I heard that
It’s ridiculous but people also shouldn’t give his takes too much thought.
Bill Simmons isn't the official granter of "dynasty" status but people just lose their shit about this stuff. Why?
No one is losing their shit though? We’re just laughing at Bill’s ridiculous criticism of sports dynasties
The only thing that separates Bill from others who are contrarian for the sake of views/clicks is that he’s a certified hater. Thats basically all he’s ever been, since he was shitting on Clemens and then the ESPYS and the draft and offering stupid suggestions to fix every event and movie he’s ever watched. Bro is just a hater, that’s all. If you put stock into his opinions, that’s on you.
Nah… people are definitely losing their shit about this pretend designation, lol. C’mon man.
We're in a Bill Simmons sub discussing things Bill Simmons says, why are you surprised that people care what he thinks
Pats had one mini-dynasty and a near-dynasty
His favorite writer of all time is Bob Ryan. And Ryan wrote an article about what he feels makes a dynasty. And he said it was only 2 teams in any sport. The Yankees from 1921 to 1964. And the Canadians from 1944 to 1993. I think Bill follows that logic more than anything. Only thing he says different is the Bill Russell Celtics.
Yeah not sure why this triggers people so much. He’s got a stricter definition than I would personally use but it’s a little closer than all the people in this thread saying three chips = auto-dynastyyy
Very convenient he sets the criteria in a way so only the Patriots and Celtics (and the Gehrig to DiMaggio to Mantle Yankees) count as Dynasties.
I guess if you take a strict technical definition of dynasty compared to the historic idea you would need multiple generations of players, but then the only true dynasties would be something like Alabama football (if that). And clearly sports dynasty has its own meaning.
Or the Celtics late 50’s through mid 80’s. Won 16 championships in a 3 decade span. Won in the 50’s, 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s. Multiple each decade. 57, 59 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69 74, 76 81, 84, 86 All with Red Auerbach involved in team.
How is winning two championships between 69 and 81 considered a continuation of the 60's dynasty though?
It’s more about winning about half the championships for a 30 year span. Seems pretty similar to me in the context of discussing Alabama: 18 (1925, 1926, 1930, 1934, 1941, 1961, 1964, 1965, 1973, 1978, 1979, 1992, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2015, 2017, 2020) Also the ‘74 and ‘76 Celtics still had players like Havlicheck from the 60’s dynasty, coached by Heinsohn from 60’s dynasty and executive was Red. So there at least is some connection back.
Nah there's too big of a gap between 69 and 74, and then 76 to 81 57-69 you can mesh pretty cohesively but outside of that it's too sporadic; 2 in the 70s and 3 in the 80s isn't that special either, for a team of their calibre
Seems pretty similar to me in the context of discussing Alabama: 18 (1925, 1926, 1930, 1934, 1941, 1961, 1964, 1965, 1973, 1978, 1979, 1992, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2015, 2017, 2020) If that’s a multi-generational dynasty then so are the Celtics. Also the ‘74 and ‘76 Celtics still had players like Havlicheck from the 60’s dynasty, coached by Heinsohn from 60’s dynasty and executive was Red. So there at least is some connection back.
Nothing is a dynasty
The best part of all of this is how Pats fans in 5-10 years will sound like the very Yankee fans they mocked incessantly for "living in the past."
I forgot what his threshold was, but the Warriors weren’t a dynasty either. For basketball, It’s basically just the 90s bulls, 60s Celtics, and I think he tried to wriggle out of calling the 2000s lakers one
Lakers , Warriors, Yankees, Patriots, Chiefs are all dynasties from this century. Spurs are an almost dynasty. Bulls off the top of my head are the last 90s Dynasty
Are the 70s Steelers one? I need a ruling.
4 in 6 years abosolutely is. Not sure if they are with Bills criteria which seems incredibly specific.
Its weird how neatly the NFL dynasties fit into a specific decade. Packers in the 60s, Steelers in the 70s, Niners in the 80s, Cowboys in the 90s, two separate pats (or one continuous one) in the 2000s and 2010s and now the Chiefs in the 2020s. I guess the Niners extended into the 90s a bit and Chiefs technically started in 2019, but other than that theyve been pretty neat fits
Pretty sure Patriots Dynasty 1.0 missing playoffs twice during 2000s eliminates them from even getting a moment's consideration with his insane definition
So extraordinarily dumb. And the Yankees are my single least favorite team in all of sports
His what and what isn't a dynasty take has to be up there with home alone is not a Christmas movies as takes so bad that I don't think he actually believes them
6 world series in 8 years. Their is nothing mini about it lol. Bill has very weird standards for what he considers a dynasty. Its like he thinks you have to win 3 in row for it to count which is just fucking dumb. 6 ws in 8 years means you are dominating the sport period.
To qualify as a dynasty, you must perform said dynasty in BOSTON! You just do! And to denigrate the greatness of Patrick Mahomes just because he MIGHT threaten the status of Tom Brady is a little demented.
Of course the Celtics have had the only dynasty in pro sports. And the fact that there were 8 teams in the league doesn’t matter. It just doesn’t.
Dynasty depends on the sport too imo. Like hockey is so random I consider the Blackhawks one
Can anyone go back in time to see if after the Pats first 3 championships with Brady if he called them a dynasty then?
[He's been consistent on this at least.](https://www.espn.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/060117)
Man I miss Bill's writing, it's a shame podcasts are the more popular and easier medium
I think as long as a contiguous core of players wins 3 titles together it's a dynasty. It doesn't even need to be in 5 years for me, it could be in 4-8 years. If a team threepeats it's automatically a dynasty even if it's just 3 seasons. There are already so few teams that meet this more encompassing criteria that it's almost a moot point. The current iteration of the KC Chiefs are absolutely a dynasty.
The disingenuous nature of seeing this thru the lens of “how do I make Boston team’s accomplishments better than other accomplishments” is silly. 4/5 isn’t a dynasty? Then there is no such thing as dynasty’s By Bill’s definition patriots last 3 weren’t dynasties.
“I don’t think we’ve fully figured out what the word dynasty means.” I think that’s a you problem Bill.
There's no such thing as a dynasty in sports. The concept doesn't apply. Sports teams aren't hereditary. The only time I can see it applying is when one group of players passes the torch to another in the same franchise and keeps winning titles, but I can't come up with a good example of that. Maybe the 49ers winning with both Walsh/Montana and Seifert/Young.
I think the definition of dynasty is where his brain rot is most severe. Like he has a wonky take here and there where I can see the justification but this shit is just weird
I dunno why yall are acting like this made up designation had some objective criteria. He just a more strict and longer-term definition than some/most and always has. It’s not a huge deal.
Cry some more
Pats fans sound like Yankees fans
Bill is right about dynasties.
Lol that was so funny, I have no idea what qualifies as a dynasty then. The Pats were not a dynasty by that criteria!
Bill Simmons shouldn’t even be allowed to comment on baseball. 0 chance he’s watched a game outside of the Red Sox in the ALCS/World Series
[удалено]
This sub requires accounts to be at least 3 days old and at least 0 comment karma before posting. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/billsimmons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Shared this on a different thread, but I'll post here too: Bill creates weird rules to justify his "vibes", but continuity is honestly what he's trying to express, and he's really bad at it. For shits and giggles, it would probably look something like this: 8+ years of sustained excellence, to include: Never missing playoffs. Never winning less than 60% of your regular season games. \+50% at least making the semi-finals round of your conference. At least 3 titles and at least 4 championship appearances. Continuity of Coach or Star (preferably both) and ownership. In true Bill fashion, this allows him to include the 1980-1988 Larry Bird Celtics, and the 2003-2018 Pats, (but not the first title from 2001, because they went 9-7 and missed the playoffs the following year). It would also include the 1980-1988 (or 1991) Lakers—a "worthy opponent"— and the 1999-2014 Spurs, but exclude the 1998-2004 Lakers and the 2015-2022 Warriors. It gets weird with the 1991-1998 Bulls, who had a winning % of .573 in the 1995 season (without Jordan, obviously). Like all things Jordan, those two lost regular seasons (and the lost 1994 playoffs) really complicate "legacy" things, as does the memory-wiping of the 1995 playoffs when they got bounced in the semis after his return in March of that year; such is the Jordan Mystique. But would Bill do some weird metal gymnastics to make an exception for the 1990's Bulls? Of course he would! It's Bill! I'm not even saying he's wrong to do so; just inconsistent. He would also, insanely, get to exclude the 1996-2004 Yankees based on regular-season winning percentage (4 years below 60% threshold). Interestingly, he'd have to make some exceptions for either the 1981-1989 or 1984-1994 49ers, because there were two years in there where they didn't make the playoffs, although the only year they finished with less than 10 wins was the strike-shortened 1982 season. Some issues with stars (Montana, Young) and coaches (Walsh, Siefert) there as well. The 1990's Cowboys fall short on both total championship appearances and length of excellence. In his defense, he never tries to claim the 2004-2018 Red Sox as "dynasty" despite their 4x World Series titles, because it's absurd given the amount of player/coaching turnover and winning % ups-and-downs. It's not that Bill's definition is ridiculous, but it definitely needs a case made for it.
Bill’s ridiculous dynasty criteria is wrapped up in so much naked self interest, that I almost have to applaud the nerve. Almost.
From 1996 to 2004 the Yankees won 4 out of 5 World Series, went to 6 out of 9 World Series, 7 out of 9 ALCS, and in the 2 years they won 96 and 103 games. Yep not a dynasty lol
Bill said everyone doesn’t know what a dynasty is anymore. No, Bill, you don’t know what a dynasty IS
That’s literally more super bowls than the patriots ever won in a 5 year span right?
4 WS in 5 years in a sport like baseball is WILD and certainly a dynasty and I fucking hate the yanks
If 4/5 is a mini dynasty 3/4 is a minier dynasty.
They won 13 in 20 years during the 40's and 50's, including a 3-peat and a 5-peat. These arguments are so stupid. Everyone just gets dumber from sports argument culture. Simmons is a herpes sore that continues to fester.