NBA.com: Western Conference Insider: Who's The Team Of The Decade?

[duncan228]

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x282/duncan228/temp%20duncan/lead150.jpg
Harry How/Getty Images

Western Conference Insider: Who's the team of the decade? (http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/art_garcia/01/28/western.insider.20090128/index.html)
By Art Garcia, NBA.com

The view may seem a little odd for the Spurs. After all, San Antonio, the NBA's team of the last decade, isn't used to looking up.

But after four titles in the last 10 years, Gregg Popovich, Tim Duncan and the others who've earned the Silver and Black their lofty position are indeed craning their necks toward a franchise that threatens to unseat San Antonio as the team of the last decade. And that franchise has the Spurs' number right now.

"It's a hell of a team and it's going to be a hell of a team for a long time," Popovich said Sunday after falling 99-85 to the Lakers. "They're young, athletic, long, and deep, inside game, outside game. It's a hell of a squad."

The Lakers and Spurs, easily the alpha dogs of the Western Conference, are once again ahead of the pack. But Kobe Bryant, Phil Jackson and the rest of the Purple and Gold may be pulling away. The Lakers are after their sixth trip to the Finals and fourth title this millennium.

Kobe and Co. scored a convincing 4-1 knockout in last season's conference finals. (Spurs fans still lament the un-whistled foul against Derek Fisher at the end of Game 4.) And San Antonio's thrilling one-point win earlier this month in South Texas was easily trumped by the 14-point romp at Staples on Sunday. It got so bad Sunday that Popovich didn't bother playing Duncan or Tony Parker in the fourth quarter, figuring a victory was out of reach.

The Lakers are close to putting the West out of reach. The Spurs began Wednesday five games back in the race for the No. 1 seed.

"Obviously, they're out in the front and they're the best team in the West right now," Duncan acknowledged. "I don't know if anyone is going to be able to catch them. Bottom line is that everyone else is jockeying for position, so we'll continue to work in that respect, and however it ends, it ends."

The Spurs tallied a nice win Tuesday in hostile Utah and complete a challenging three-game trek Thursday at Phoenix. Southwest Division rival New Orleans looms upon San Antonio's return home before the Spurs embark on the annual Rodeo Trip.

The eight-game jaunt, mostly in the East, wraps around the All-Star break and eats up most of February. But corporate America couldn't dream up a better team-building exercise. The sheer number of miles logged, though exhausting to the team, often springboard the Spurs into the season's stretch run.

So even though the Lakers have the upper hand now, San Antonio is hardly fazed.

"Anything is possible," Spurs vet Michael Finley said. "They're playing great ball, obviously. But there are 82 games, so we just have to worry about what we can do and not worry about the Lakers."

[lefty]

The Spurs

Duh

[Shastafarian]

This guy loves baiting people. I can't really see how one finals trip and one number one seed mean the Lakers (who have missed the playoffs this decade and have the same amount of titles) are back on top. Art Garcia is a dick.

[Galileo]

If you count 1999, the Spurs are easily number one.

If you don't count 1999, then we are tied in rings 3 to 3.

We are equal in the playoffs, both teams have won 19 playoff series and won 82 playoff games.

So the tie-breaker is regular season record, the Spurs win that:

Spurs; 552 wins including this season.

Lakers; 500 wins including this season.

To be the team of the decade, you need to be a consistent winner.

Spurs - Team of the decade.

[lefty]

1999, 2003, 2005, 2007.

And we are the 2009 NBA Champions

[Allanon]

1999, 2003, 2005, 2007.

Gotta throw out 1999 I think.



And we are the 2009 NBA Champions

This year will decide team of the decade. I think the Spurs are ahead right now but a Lakers championship will tilt it in their favor.

[lefty]

Gotta throw out 1999 I think.



This year will decide team of the decade. I think the Spurs are ahead right now but a Lakers championship will tilt it in their favor.

As long as you don't you don't play the Bobcats in the playoffs :D

[Allanon]

As long as you don't you don't play the Bobcats in the playoffs :D

:bang:bang:bang:bang:bang

[Solid D]

The Spurs were the team of the past 10 years 1999-2008 with 4 Championships.

In terms of the NBA Team of the '00s. Garcia is saying the Lakers might just take it.
Lakers with 3 Championships early in the decade of the '00s.
Spurs with 3 Championships in the middle 6 seasons of the '00s.

If Boston wins it again...or Cleveland, Orlando, etc. then that would make it a tie in the '00s.

In the millennium, the Spurs have a 3-2 lead over the Lakers.

[FromWayDowntown]

Can one be the team of the decade while having missed a playoff that includes half of the league during that decade?

And what decade are we talking about? Are we discussing the last 10 years or the still 11 months away end of the stretch from 2000-2009?

I'll go Galileo here for a moment:

Assuming we're talking about the last 10 completed years (98-99 through 07-08), here are the numbers --

Wins/Winning Percentage
LA: 496-292 (.629)
SA: 559-229 (.709)

High/Low Season Wins
LA: 67/34 (51 win pace in 1999)
SA: 63/53 (61 win pace in 1999)

Playoff Appearances
LA: 9
SA: 10

Championships
LA: 3
SA: 4

Finals Appearances
LA: 5
SA: 4

Conference Finals Appearances
LA: 5
SA: 6

2nd Round Appearances
LA: 7
SA: 9

First Round Exits
LA: 2
SA: 1

DNQ's
LA: 1
SA: 0

Record in Playoff Games
LA: 85-48 (.639)
SA: 97-54 (.642)

Record in Road Playoff Games
LA: 30-35 (.462)
SA: 40-34 (.541)

[IronMexican]

Head-to-head in the playoffs 4-1.

[FromWayDowntown]

Again, can a team be "The Team of the Decade" if it missed the playoffs during that decade in a league with an extremely forgiving playoff structure?

I mean, it's one thing to miss the playoffs in baseball or the NFL, but you have to either be in an insanely competitive conference or be pretty bad to miss the NBA playoffs. The 04-05 Lakers and their 34 wins can't be said to have missed the playoffs because of the competitiveness of the conference.

Seriously, does this nonsensical team of the decade stuff require consistency or just enough flashes of brilliance?

[Galileo]

Can one be the team of the decade while having missed a playoff that includes half of the league during that decade?

And what decade are we talking about? Are we discussing the last 10 years or the still 11 months away end of the stretch from 2000-2009?

I'll go Galileo here for a moment:

Assuming we're talking about the last 10 completed years (98-99 through 07-08), here are the numbers --

Wins/Winning Percentage
LA: 496-292 (.629)
SA: 559-229 (.709)

High/Low Season Wins
LA: 67/34 (51 win pace in 1999)
SA: 63/53 (61 win pace in 1999)

Playoff Appearances
LA: 9
SA: 10

Championships
LA: 3
SA: 4

Finals Appearances
LA: 5
SA: 4

Conference Finals Appearances
LA: 5
SA: 6

2nd Round Appearances
LA: 7
SA: 9

First Round Exits
LA: 2
SA: 1

DNQ's
LA: 1
SA: 0

Record in Playoff Games
LA: 85-48 (.639)
SA: 97-54 (.642)

Record in Road Playoff Games
LA: 30-35 (.462)
SA: 40-34 (.541)

Good research.

If you can't win 50% of your road playoff games, you are NOT the team of the decade.

The Spurs are also winning an average of more than 5 games per season, that is pretty significant.

[FromWayDowntown]

Head-to-head in the playoffs 4-1.

Not true -- since 1998-99, the Spurs have won 2 playoff series against LA (1999, 2003). LA has won 4 (2001, 2002, 2004, 2008). The game count in those series is 18-12 in the Lakers' favor.

[Galileo]

Head-to-head in the playoffs 4-1.

Not relevant.

[IronMexican]

We're counting 99? 4-2 then.

[Allanon]

Again, can a team be "The Team of the Decade" if it missed the playoffs during that decade in a league with an extremely forgiving playoff structure?

A 4th ring forgives all.

It's all semantics, much like the debate over whether the Spurs are a Dynasty even though they never repeated.

[Solid D]

Head-to-head in the playoffs 4-1.

:lol Nice, but head-to-head doesn't count for much in the pantheon of Teams of Decades.

Now, winning percentage might get a vote, but not from me...unless comparing with winning percentages of other US sports teams like Yankees, Red Wings, Spurs, etc.

[IronMexican]

This is like splitting hairs, imo.

[NFGIII]

Technically speaking the Spurs have 3 rings and the Lakers have only 2 this decade. Why you ask? Simple and I didn't make the rules on this, the people who make calendars did, so don't shoot the messenger.

Decades, centuries and milleniums all start with a 1 and end in a 0. So technically the 20th century started in 1901 and ended in 2000.

Therefore the Lakers won the last championship of the 20th Century (2000) and the first of the 21st Century (2001).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decade

A decade is a period of ten years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year). The word is derived from the late Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_language) decas, from Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language) decas, from deca. The other words for spans of years also come from Latin: lustrum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lustrum) (5 years), century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century) (100 years), millennium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium) (1000 years). The term usually refers to a period of ten years starting at a multiple of ten. For example, "the 1950s" refers to 1950 through to 1959 (inclusive). In English, "decade" can also be used to specify any period of ten years. For example, "During his last decade, Mozart explored chromatic harmony to a degree rare at the time".

From Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century

End of the 20th century
It is commonly-held misconception that the 20th century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_century) ended on December 31 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_31), 1999. The 20th century actually ended on December 31 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_31), 2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000), its centennial year.

Doesn't seem right since most everyone always refer to decades as starting with a zero and ending with a 9 but it's a fact Jack!

Spurs 3 :lobt2::lobt2::lobt2:


Lakers 2 :lobt2::lobt2:

If the Lakers win it this year then it's a tie and then there is one year left to decide the Champs since the decade offically ends in 2010.

If the Lakers can't win a title then Spurs win and are the team of the decade!

:flag:

[Solid D]

NGFIII, obviously we are on the same page here.



The Spurs were the team of the past 10 years 1999-2008 with 4 Championships.

In terms of the NBA Team of the '00s. Garcia is saying the Lakers might just take it.
Lakers with 3 Championships early in the decade of the '00s.
Spurs with 3 Championships in the middle 6 seasons of the '00s.

If Boston wins it again...or Cleveland, Orlando, etc. then that would make it a tie in the '00s.

In the millennium, the Spurs have a 3-2 lead over the Lakers.


Garcia said the Lakers are trying to unseat the Spurs as the Team of the Decade. Unseat assumes the Spurs currently hold the seat.

[InK]

Decades, centuries and milleniums all start with a 1 and end in a 0. So technically the 20th century started in 1901 and ended in 2000.

Therefore the Lakers won the last championship of the 20th Century (2000) and the first of the 21st Century (2001).

For example, "the 1950s" refers to 1950 through to 1959 (inclusive). In English, "decade" can also be used to specify any period of ten years.

If the Lakers win it this year then it's a tie and then there is one year left to decide the Champs since the decade offically ends in 2010.

If the Lakers can't win a title then Spurs win and are the team of the decade!

:flag:

How many people celebrated the start of the millenium at 2000, how many 2001? Its 3-3 now in this decade, and if the Lakers win this year they clearly snatch it. Not that its even important really, its just promqueen type of a title as far as im concerned.

Saying that however, head-head in playoffs > winning percantage in the regular season, Lakers also have 2 more finals appearences which more then negate their rebuilding year. They also repeated, so id say that if anything they have a slight edge. But who gives a shit about this, really.

[Allanon]

Technically speaking the Spurs have 3 rings and the Lakers have only 2 this decade. Why you ask? Simple and I didn't make the rules on this, the people who make calendars did, so don't shoot the messenger.

A decade is a period of ten years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year). The word is derived from the late Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_language) decas, from Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language) decas, from deca. The other words for spans of years also come from Latin: lustrum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lustrum) (5 years), century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century) (100 years), millennium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium) (1000 years). The term usually refers to a period of ten years starting at a multiple of ten. For example, "the 1950s" refers to 1950 through to 1959 (inclusive).

Doesn't the bolded part in the 2nd paragraph agree that the decade started in 2000 and ends in 2009? That would make the 1999 Spurs championship* a part of the 90's?

If that's the case, it's 3 to 3.

[HarlemHeat37]

there isn't really a discussion right now IMO, since the Lakers missed the playoffs, and were eliminated in the 1st round twice with no injuries..winning a title this year would give them an argument..

[InK]

Doesn't the bolded part in the 2nd paragraph agree that the decade started in 2000 and ends in 2009?

If that's the case, it's 3 to 3.

It might look like that eh? Its allways fun when u make an argument and negate it in the same post.

[Phenomanul]

Well 'technically' the Sacramento Kings should have advanced to the finals in 2002.

:reading

:stirpot:

[FreeMason]

The Spurs are easily the team of the decade and it's not really close.

They have been an alpha dog every single year post Jordan.

I think the Spurs run is over though.

[samikeyp]

If you count 1999, the Spurs are easily number one.

If you don't count 1999, then we are tied in rings 3 to 3.

We are equal in the playoffs, both teams have won 19 playoff series and won 82 playoff games.

So the tie-breaker is regular season record, the Spurs win that:

Spurs; 552 wins including this season.

Lakers; 500 wins including this season.

To be the team of the decade, you need to be a consistent winner.

Spurs - Team of the decade.

I like that. So on those lines, whomever gets #4 wins.

That being said, it doesn't really mean anything. You don't get extra points or a Team of the Decade trophy.

[timaios]

The 1st year of the christian calendar was year 1 not year 0 !!!

The 1st decade = 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 (10 years)
1st century = 1-2-3.....98-99-100 (100 years)
1st millenium = 1-2.....998-999-1000 (1000 years)

1st decade of the 3rd millenium = 2001-2002.....2009-2010 (10 years)

:toast

[IronMexican]

I like that. So on those lines, whomever gets #4 wins.


Agreed.

[Gutter92]

The new millenium started on January 1st, 2001 at 00:00

The Spurs have 3 championships, the Lakers have 2(*2002).

Spurs: 3
Lakers:2

Simple math.

[DespЏrado]

I think team has to refer to a single core group of players. Team of the decade can't refer to two seperate and unique groups of players that just happened to wear the same uniform.

The Lakers wouldn't qualify because they've had 2 different core identities, unless we count the Lakers = Fisher and Bryant.

The Spurs have had 4 players define them for the entire decade = Parker, Manu, Bowen, Duncan.

[Strike]

If either the Spurs or the Lakers win the title this year, The answer is obvious. If another team wins the title, I'm not sure who I'd give it to. Both LA and SA have 3 championships in this decade but the Lakers have more finals appearances. But the lakers had a 3 year spurt, and then no rings since 2002. The Spurs have been in the elite class, contending every year while the Lakers had a couple of lean years.

I'd say the Spurs would, up to this point, be the team of the decade. However, if the Lakers win the championship this year, it changes everything.

[Strike]

Well 'technically' the Sacramento Kings should have advanced to the finals in 2002.

:reading

:stirpot:

Well, technically, they didn't.

[ShoogarBear]

Head-to-head in the playoffs 4-1.

Head to head in the playoffs, it's 1-0 Detroit, and 1-0 Boston.

Therefore, one of them must be the Team of the Decade.