Its simple. Massive dominance and most championships earned in as a close a time period as possible. Thats it. I dont care how many teams were in the league, or the average skill of the average player as compared to said skills in a different time and place. For better or worse, you play in the time you play in, and if thats when you dominated, its judged on that. I think its pretty simple, and in that light, I dont think there is much room for argument. Celtics. Bulls. Lakers. You want to put the Spurs 4th, Im fine with that.
Well said. I had to laugh at some of what 538 put out there with respect to dynasties. One can certainly argue that it is harder to achieve consistent success or to be a dynasty in the modern era, but that doesn't negate something like winning. I think some of these writers just like to play with numbers a bit too much.