Just starting in '87 for the sake of the argument:
Lakers
Lakers
Pistons
Pistons
Bulls
Bulls
Bulls
Rockets
Rockets
Bulls
Bulls
Bulls
Spurs Interregnum
Lakers
Lakers
Lakers
Spurs in 03,05,07
Lakers in the Finals 08,09,10
Heat four years in the Finals with two wins bookended by two losses
Warriors/Cavs for four consecutive years

For me, it makes it very easy to organize the various eras and to remember what the league was like at a given time. On the other hand, I have absolutely no idea off the top of my head who won the...let's say 2007 Super Bowl or World Series because it's usually just a couple of random teams that don't necessarily define an era. I know others hate seeing the same teams year after year.

MLB and the NFL have dominant teams too. They just have bad playoffs. That is if you think playoffs are about finding the best team. If you think playoffs are about increasing random chance and therefore perhaps maximizing entertainment, then maybe you like those playoffs more. Its just less meaningful.

In the NBA where only 5 players are on the court at a time and playoff rotations are only 7-8 players deep the best players can dictate the game easier and will their team to a championship.

Here's the list of best players in the league during that time period:
Magic/Bird
Magic/Jordan
Jordan
Olajuwon
Jordan
Shaq/Duncan
Kobe/Duncan
Lebron/Duncan
Lebron/Kawhi
Lebron/Curry/Durant
Lebron/Kawhi/Giannis

Notice any parallels with NBA Title list?


If I do a MLB or NFL list like that they don't parallel near the same way.

87 is a pretty damn random year to start. Unless you're purposely trying to leave out the greatest franchise.

3,300+ wins, 17 championships

Just started there so the string of multiple consecutive champions would fit. You could easily throw in the Celtics/Lakers/Sixers era from the early 80s.

Good point from Poppa.

The 80s saw three 76ers-Lakers Finals (80, 82, 83) and three Lakers-Celtics Finals (84, 85, 87) and two Rockets-Celtics Finals (81, 86)...no one could repeat, though.

Bird and Magic ('79-'80 rookie year) pretty much ushered in the modern NBA...Finals games were still being shown on tape delay when they were rookies, but this wasn't the case a couple of years later.

The NBA has seemingly always been sort of dynastic, in that there were/are fewer teams that seemed to have a legitimate chance to win a title...the teams just shifted around a bit over time.

My earliest NBA memories were mid-late 70s...Portland winning in 1977 is the first one I can remember watching. Some of the usual suspects were a bit down then, but even then the Washington Bullets made 3 Finals in 5 years (75, 78, 79).

The talent wasn't as spread out, either, since there were fewer teams. Milwaukee had some really good teams in the 80s that just couldn't get past either Philly or Boston.

I didn't mind the superteams back then, as it seemed that they were more naturally put together (players weren't going to join their buddies), and I was a fan of one of the "haves" (Dr. J was my favorite player when I was young).

Everybody likes a dynasty (to cheer for or against one), but I hated the immortality that Golden State achieved with Durant. There's a level of parity that all dynasties should still maintain and the Warriors were just so far and above every other team that it sucked all the excitement out of the season.

But in general, I'm a fan of the dynasty teams. The best tales of sports history are the rise and fall of dynasties.

Don't congratulate me but the competition was equal then as it is today. A championship meant as much in the 60s as it does today. If you disagree, fine but surely we can agree that a championship in 86 meant as much as the one in 87.

I had to speak up when someone starts a thread about nba dynasties and starts talking about the Cavs with no mention of the Celtics.

I would have started in 1980, since that's sort of the birth of the modern NBA

Fair enough. The C's have 4 banners in that period. Only the Lakers, Bulls and Spurs have more.

The title could have been phrased better. The Celtics had the greatest dynasty in professional sports in the 60s and it can be argued that the '86 Celtics were the greatest team in NBA history.

The point was not that the Cavs were anything close to anything resembling a dynasty, but rather that NBA has these neatly organized boxes of time that make it easy to remember various eras. The 03-07 era was less neatly organized, as was most of the 70s. I like being able to rattle off every NBA winner since 1960, compared to the NFL where I can barely remember who won three years ago.

86 celts are my favorite team along with 92 dream team. I appreciate the clarification and apologize for the derail.

I agree with your premise. I can't recall superbowl winners either.

CactusThomas said:

---

Don't congratulate me but the competition was equal then as it is today. A championship meant as much in the 60s as it does today. If you disagree, fine but surely we can agree that a championship in 86 meant as much as the one in 87.

I had to speak up when someone starts a thread about nba dynasties and starts talking about the Cavs with no mention of the Celtics.

---

The Celtics got Bill Russell in the draft because they traded two weeks of the Ice Capades to Rochester for them to agree to not draft him with the #1 pick.

To say the competition and league was equal to today is ridiculous.

amercer said:

---

I would have started in 1980, since that's sort of the birth of the modern NBA

---

Agree completely.

Aren't a lot of superstars that straddle both sides of that line. KAJ, Dr. J, Gervin, but most were clearly before or after.

That 1980 season brought in the 3-point line, Magic, and Bird.

We should talk about pre-1980 league similarly as how we talk about Cy Young's 511 wins. Incredible, and he's an all-time great, but it was a different league.

CactusThomas said:

---

86 celts are my favorite team along with 92 dream team. I appreciate the clarification and apologize for the derail.

I agree with your premise. I can't recall superbowl winners either.

---

Is that you, Bill?