Best team of this decade?

[Jacob1983]

I'm a new poster on here but I've been a fan of this board for a few years. I hope it's okay to make a thread about this. I've just been thinking a lot about who has been the best team of this decade. I have down to two teams: Lakers and Spurs. Some people could say that it's the Spurs because they played in 3 Finals and won all of them. Some could say that it's the Lakers because they played in 5 Finals and won 3 of them but they won 3 championships in a row. So who has been the best team of this decade: Lakers or Spurs? I know that the decade technically isn't over yet but since there is only year left, I figured it would be okay to ask the question.

[Unholy Turkey]

Spurs.

IMO, best team assembled in this decade was the 07-08 Celtics.

[dallaskd]

this is a spurs board...

[Xylus]

this is a spurs board...

Doesn't matter. The correct answer is the Spurs, and should be on any board.

[dallaskd]

idk... those Shaq-Laker teams were so good. We have to see how this year plays out.

[Xylus]

idk... those Shaq-Laker teams were so good. We have to see how this year plays out.

I suppose if the Lakers win this year, you have to re-evaluate. Right now, though, the Spurs have to be team of the decade. They've competed at a very high level for many years straight now. The Lakers had a 3-year dip in the middle of the decade.

[jack sommerset]

Lakers and with a title this year will close the door if there are any doubters.

[dallaskd]

True. Could someone pull up records, stats, awards? That would be pretty interesting to see.

[Ghazi]

Close debate.

Same # of titles, 2 more appearances for Lakers thugh.

But Spurs have won 55+ every year whereas the Lakers had a dip of 34-48, 45-37, and 42-40.

[Spursmania]

I suppose if the Lakers win this year, you have to re-evaluate. Right now, though, the Spurs have to be team of the decade. They've competed at a very high level for many years straight now. The Lakers had a 3-year dip in the middle of the decade.

X, you're my fav Sun fan. And, I really do hope the Suns make the playoffs.
Not that I don't think the Spurs will beat them, but I'll miss seeing the whole drama of it played out. Hope your Suns can pull it out for a spot.
:toast

[MambaJuice2408]

Best Franchise of the decade would be Spurs.



Who do you guys think was the best team for any given year?

I think the best team was the 00-02 Lakers. The best of those teams being the '01 Lakers who went 15-1 in the postseason. But one can argue because they coasted through the regular season and didn't dominate in the regular season.

After them I'd put the '05 Spurs next, followed by the '07 Celtics

[poop]

the Lakers havent even ben the same team this decade, the only person on all teams was kobe. the shaq-kobe lakers team was completely different than the '05-'08 lakers teams and the current kobe-gasol lakers is itself a completely different team. the spurs have had the same core (been the same team)pretty much all decade and have been THE STANDARD of consistency, winning 55+ games every single season

[mabrignani]

first off decade means last ten years and we have been to 4 finals and won 4, so spurs easily

[j-money24]

1999 doesn't count. Thats MJ's decade

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

It's the Spurs. Same # of titles but Spurs have been more consistent throughout. Obviously if the Lakers win it all this year the Lakers become the better team.

[mabrignani]

1999 doesn't count. Thats MJ's decade

no its not...he retired before that. a decade is a period of ten years, does not mean it has to be say 2000-2010, it can be 1999-2009 which is what we are currently in. you cant say best team of this decade when the year is 2009 and not count 1999.

[j-money24]

spurs as of now, lakers will take the lead if they win the title this year, if spurs win the title than they clinch the team of the decade even if the lakers win it in 2010 because of the lakers 2-3 building years.

[Allanon]

Spurs have the edge being the more consistently great team of the decade and tied with the Lakers with 3 titles.

But the decade ain't over yet.

[mabrignani]

Lakers and with a title this year will close the door if there are any doubters.

lets see, lakers have three rings in the last decade and the almighty spurs have four. if they win this year it will make them the best bc of the repeat but until then GO SPURS GO
:flag:

[mabrignani]

what do yall people not understand about decade being 10 years?

[Allanon]

what do yall people not understand about decade being 10 years?

When you look at NBA decades, you have the 80's, 90's and 2000's. The Spurs '99 championship belongs in the 90's.

80's - Laker/Celtics
90's - Jordan - 6 championships
00's - Spurs 3 championships/Lakers 3-peat

[DeadlyDynasty]

Lakers...after this year (the last of this decade) the Lakers will have 4 rings in 6 appearances w/ a 3-peat to boot.

[DeadlyDynasty]

When you look at NBA decades, you have the 80's, 90's and 2000's. The Spurs '99 championship belongs in the 90's.

80's - Laker/Celtics
90's - Jordan - 6 championships
00's - Spurs 3 championships/Lakers 3

80's belong to LA...Boston had 3 titles, but LA had 5 titles and EIGHT appearances...f'n amazing.

[21_Blessings]

3 rings + 2 final appearances > 3 rings. Lakers already have it wrapped up without even counting this post season.

[mabrignani]

When you look at NBA decades, you have the 80's, 90's and 2000's. The Spurs '99 championship belongs in the 90's.

80's - Laker/Celtics
90's - Jordan - 6 championships
00's - Spurs 3 championships/Lakers 3-peat

but when you are in 2009 a decade means last 10

[resistanze]

'99 doesn't count if we're talking about team of the decade.

Even without that title, it's still the Spurs, unless the Lakers win it all this year.

[lil_penny]

best team of this decade has been the spurs.. however the best team assembled this decade is in my opinion the 01 lakers.

[mabrignani]

3 rings + 2 final appearances > 3 rings. Lakers already have it wrapped up without even counting this post season.

lakers lost to detroit in the finals, spurs beat detroit in the finals.....spurs>lakers

[21_Blessings]

lakers lost to detroit in the finals, spurs beat detroit in the finals.....spurs>lakers

Lakers eliminated the Spurs from the playoffs 4 times this decade, compared to the Spurs 1. Lakers > Spurs.

p.s. The Lakers were riddled with injuries in the finals against Detroit. Use your brain.

[DeadlyDynasty]

Exactly 21....Lakers and Spurs have same amount of titles this decade but LA has 2 more appearances and has owned SA in head-to-head matchups

[sook]

Rockets woohoo!

[anonoftheinternets]

Exactly 21....Lakers and Spurs have same amount of titles this decade but LA has 2 more appearances and has owned SA in head-to-head matchups

does a lottery team really have any claim to best of decade???? you have to atleast make the playoffs every year.

[JoeTait75]

Team of the Decade thus far is the Spurs.

Best individual team of the decade is the 2000-01 Lakers. I've never seen an elite team annihilated the way the Spurs were annihilated by that Laker team in the WCF.

[IronMexican]

It's the Spurs, right now. Lakers have time to make this the P&G's.

[21_Blessings]

It's the Spurs, right now.

Why? Or are you just sucking up?

[21_Blessings]

Exactly 21....Lakers and Spurs have same amount of titles this decade but LA has 2 more appearances and has owned SA in head-to-head matchups

:flag::flag::flag:

[IronMexican]

Why? Or are you just sucking up?

No, brah. I just think those three years of sucking are what made the difference. If the Lakers win one more title, 4>3 determines it.

[DeadlyDynasty]

does a lottery team really have any claim to best of decade???? you have to atleast make the playoffs every year.

wrong, but thanks for trying to set the parameters on what YOU feel is the criteria. We are 3/5 and you are 3/3 this decade. Furthermore, we have repeated and the Spurs have shown an inability to defend a title--why is this?

Lastly, stop ignoring the fact that Phil Jackson owns Gregg Popovich: 4-1.

How bout we just agree to wait for this year to play out (and watch Phillip best Pop for a fifth time) to make a final judgment...how does that sound?

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

The 2001 Lakers will never be considered as good as the 2002 Lakers and here's why:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/2005/06/23/gallery.nbafashion/samakiwalker.draft.jpg

[IronMexican]

2001 Lakers were better than any team this decade.

[DeadlyDynasty]

Team of the Decade thus far is the Spurs.

Best individual team of the decade is the 2000-01 Lakers. I've never seen an elite team annihilated the way the Spurs were annihilated by that Laker team in the WCF.

I still love that moment in Game 2 where Phil gets ejected and is on his way off the court when a Spurs fan acts like a dumbass trying to get his attention. Phil looks at him, gives him a smug smile, then laughs his way off the court. From that point on LA controlled that game. You thought Game 6 for LA was bad last year? Games 3 and 4 of that 2001 series made that loss to Boston look like a nail-biter

[Spursmania]

3 rings + 2 final appearances > 3 rings. Lakers already have it wrapped up without even counting this post season.

Final Appearances mean shit-nada-nothing. Only Championships mean something... Also, regular season games mean nothing, in case you want to pretend you won a Larry for having the best regular season record too...

At least other Laker fans are realistic and truthful. You should try to take their lead it makes for a more interesting debate. lol...:whine

[mabrignani]

haha spurs have more titles in the last decade aka the last ten years. and the spurs were rattled by injuries as well...use your brain. point is 4>3. if not for shaq they would have never won those 3

[DeadlyDynasty]

2001 was a great year...as soon as Fish came back LA's only loss was Game 1 of the Finals in overtime. was a stretch of around 25 games I think.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

2001 Lakers were better than any team this decade.

Samaki Walker made the 2002 Lakers the 2001 Lakers on steroids. People say the Lakers haven't won a title since Shaq left, but the truth is they haven't won a title since Samaki Walker left.

[DeadlyDynasty]

4-1...it's a Lakers-Spurs argument right? 4-1 bitches, you aint got nothin' on that. Pure Ownage

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

if not for shaq they would have never won those 3

Hate to hurt the argument I agree with but the same can be said for the Spurs and Duncan.

[IronMexican]

haha spurs have more titles in the last decade aka the last ten years. and the spurs were rattled by injuries as well...use your brain. point is 4>3. if not for shaq they would have never won those 3

If the Spurs never had Duncan, they wouldn't have any.

[dirk4mvp]

haha spurs have more titles in the last decade aka the last ten years. and the spurs were rattled by injuries as well...use your brain. point is 4>3. if not for shaq they would have never won those 3

ok, so if not for Duncan, the spurs wouldn't have any either?

Best team of a decade isn't decided like, dipshit. 99 is not in the 00's, dipshit.

[IronMexican]

Samaki Walker made the 2002 Lakers the 2001 Lakers on steroids. People say the Lakers haven't won a title since Shaq left, but the truth is they haven't won a title since Samaki Walker left.

:lol I know your joking, but still, that 2001 Lakers team was one of the best 3 teams ever.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

:lol I know your joking, but still, that 2001 Lakers team was one of the best 3 teams ever.

'96 Bulls
'86 Celtics
'72 Lakers

awfully hard to say the 2001 lakers are better than any one of those three.

[mabrignani]

ok, so if not for Duncan, the spurs wouldn't have any either?

Best team of a decade isn't decided like, dipshit. 99 is not in the 00's, dipshit.

nobody said anything about the 00's dipshit, they said the last decade, which means 10 years dipshit. dipshit

[IronMexican]

'96 Bulls
'86 Celtics
'72 Lakers

awfully hard to say the 2001 lakers are better than any one of those three.

I'd knock the 86 C's out. I have a bias for this team(clearly), but that ass raping in the PO's is enough for me to put them in here.

[mabrignani]

i have to agree with that the 01 lakers teams is one of the greatest teams ever, they were deep and they had vets.

[IronMexican]

nobody said anything about the 00's dipshit, they said the last decade, which means 10 years dipshit. dipshit

"this decade" means the past 10 years?

[DeadlyDynasty]

nobody said anything about the 00's dipshit, they said the last decade, which means 10 years dipshit. dipshit

wow, you are desperately clinging to semantics to support your weak argument. kinda sad actually. People (normal people) look at static decades.
the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, etc. what don't you grasp about this? Seriously, let me know. I'm here to help

[DrHouse]

As it stands right now the Spurs are the team of the decade because they have been so consistently good in every season.

The Lakers will need to win another ring in order to move past them IMHO. That would make 4 rings and 6 Finals appearances in this decade.

[mabrignani]

"this decade" means the past 10 years?

a decade means 10 years amigo. so if you say this decade you must mean 1999-2009 because there has not been a 2010 yet. come 2010 then you can say that it means the 00's...comprende?

[JoeTait75]

:lol I know your joking, but still, that 2001 Lakers team was one of the best 3 teams ever.

Nah, they didn't accrue the body of work over 82 games to be considered at that level. That team basically dicked around for the first four months of the season.

[cobbler]

what do yall people not understand about decade being 10 years?

It's not rocket science. If your talking what was the best song in the 60's... you don't name a song from 1959.

A decade is a period of ten years. The word is derived from the late Latin decas, from Greek decas, from deca. The other words for spans of years also come from Latin: lustrum (5 years), century (100 years), 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).

This decade is 2000-2009.

The spurs have it now because it is tied but the tiebreaker goes to the more consistent team. If either the Lakers or Spurs win it this year, they have the most titles of the decade.

[IronMexican]

Nah, they didn't accrue the body of work over 82 games to be considered at that level. That team basically dicked around for the first four months of the season.

I still think that their best, was better than almost everyone elses best.

[mabrignani]

but there hasnt been a full decade yet so you must count the 99 season. especially since we won!!

[JoeTait75]

I still think that their best, was better than almost everyone elses best.

That I agree with completely. The greatest teams combined regular-season dominance with post-season dominance: 1972 Lake Show, '83 Sixers, '86 Celtics, '96 Bulls. But when that 2001 team decided to quit screwing around, they were up there with the best.

[DrHouse]

Spurs fans like to talk shit about the Lakers losing to the Celtic's last year in Game 6 but that was PEANUTS compared to the monumental ass-whooping that took place in the 2001 WCF.

I've never seen a team so utterly humiliated in my life. Not in a conference finals matchup. The beatdown that occured in the final two games was so bad I almost had to stop watching.

[IronMexican]

2001 was awesome.

[TheManFromAcme]

When you look at NBA decades, you have the 80's, 90's and 2000's. The Spurs '99 championship belongs in the 90's.

80's - Laker/Celtics
90's - Jordan - 6 championships
00's - Spurs 3 championships/Lakers 3-peat

Exactly. TRADITIONAL decades are as you mentioned, 70's, 80's 90's 00's and so on. Spurs fan wants to pick his own 10 years. If that's the logic you want to use, I say, '"fine then". I'll make up my own extended time periods.

If you (Spurs Fan) insist on that logic, than I throw you this:

Who's been the BEST team to win championships the last 25 years?
THE LAKERS!!

Please don't start the decade in 1999.

[DeadlyDynasty]

Spurs fans like to talk shit about the Lakers losing to the Celtic's last year in Game 6 but that was PEANUTS compared to the monumental ass-whooping that took place in the 2001 WCF.

I've never seen a team so utterly humiliated in my life. Not in a conference finals matchup. The beatdown that occured in the final two games was so bad I almost had to stop watching.

it was like watching baby seals get clubbed

[TheManFromAcme]

Spurs fans like to talk shit about the Lakers losing to the Celtic's last year in Game 6 but that was PEANUTS compared to the monumental ass-whooping that took place in the 2001 WCF.

I've never seen a team so utterly humiliated in my life. Not in a conference finals matchup. The beatdown that occured in the final two games was so bad I almost had to stop watching.


I remember that. It was beyond humiliating. You wouldn't need to buy Magics B-ball camp DVD set. Just watch that series and it was the mother of all clinics. :downspin:

[baseline bum]

80's belong to LA...Boston had 3 titles, but LA had 5 titles and EIGHT appearances...f'n amazing.

The Western Conference was shit in the 80s. The only good team LA ever played in the WC playoffs was the '80 Sonics; a bit different than Boston's route to the Finals. Dr. J, Malone, and Toney in Philly and then the Bad Boy Pistons were a lot stiffer competition than the Denver Nuggets, 80s Spurs, and the shit Suns. Boston was in dogfights every playoffs while LA had 2-3 rounds worth of sparring partners to help train them for whoever got out of the Eastern Conference.

[timaios]

It's not rocket science. If your talking what was the best song in the 60's... you don't name a song from 1959.

A decade is a period of ten years. The word is derived from the late Latin decas, from Greek decas, from deca. The other words for spans of years also come from Latin: lustrum (5 years), century (100 years), 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).

This decade is 2000-2009.

The spurs have it now because it is tied but the tiebreaker goes to the more consistent team. If either the Lakers or Spurs win it this year, they have the most titles of the decade.

It's wrong.
The 1st year is Year 1 not Year 0 in the christian calendar.
The 1st decade is 1-10.
The 1st century is 1-100... etc

The 1st "official" decade of the 3rd millenium is 2001-2010...
So the 2000 title of the Lakers is the last title of the 2nd millenium.

But a decade is also a 10 years period... whatever the 1st year you take.

[DeadlyDynasty]

The Western Conference was shit in the 80s. The only good team LA ever played in the WC playoffs was the '80 Sonics; a bit different than Boston's route to the Finals. Dr. J, Malone, and Toney in Philly and then the Bad Boy Pistons were a lot stiffer competition than the Denver Nuggets, 80s Spurs, and the shit Suns. Boston was in dogfights every playoffs while LA had 2-3 rounds worth of sparring partners to help train them for whoever got out of the Eastern Conference.

In 2005 you had nothing but sparring partners until the finals and 2007 you had the easiest playoff road in nba history...the only challenging series was tainted by Tim Donaghy...does that mean you didn't win titles those two years? The 80s belonged to LA...anybody of sound mind can see that. Also, we beat Boston 2/3 times. Should of beat them in '84 too.

[MambaJuice2408]

Team of the Decade thus far is the Spurs.

Best individual team of the decade is the 2000-01 Lakers. I've never seen an elite team annihilated the way the Spurs were annihilated by that Laker team in the WCF.

Exactly what I was thinking. Best team of the decade is spurs. Even if LA gets four this year I think it becomes even. The 4th title making up for the rebuilding years and making it 4 to 3 in terms of titles for the 2000's decade

[Brazil]

As it stands right now the Spurs are the team of the decade because they have been so consistently good in every season.

The Lakers will need to win another ring in order to move past them IMHO. That would make 4 rings and 6 Finals appearances in this decade.

:toast

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

IronMexican, whether or not the 2001 Lakers were a top 3 all time team when they were playing at their best, the fact is that when comparing all time great teams you need to look at wire to wire success.

The 83 76ers had 1 playoff loss, similar to LA, but had more regular season success.

[JoeTait75]

In 2005 you had nothing but sparring partners until the finals and 2007 you had the easiest playoff road in nba history...the only challenging series was tainted by Tim Donaghy...does that mean you didn't win titles those two years? The 80s belonged to LA...anybody of sound mind can see that. Also, we beat Boston 2/3 times. Should of beat them in '84 too.

His point about the quality of the West in the '80s still stands. The West after L.A. was garbage back then. Even the Sidney Moncrief Milwaukee teams were better than anyone in the West aside from the Lake Show.

[DeadlyDynasty]

His point about the quality of the West in the '80s still stands. The West after L.A. was garbage back then. Even the Sidney Moncrief Milwaukee teams were better than anyone in the West aside from the Lake Show.

yeah, the Eastern conference was tougher in the 80s, just as the West is this decade, but LA still beat all comers (meaning they also beat the 3 teams they lost to) and definitively owned the 80s (5 out of 8). What about Russell's Celtics in the 60's or Jordan's Bulls in the 90's...they had crap competition too (especially the Bulls...who had the Knicks and that was about it). It's not LA's fault their conference was weak in the 80s--they took care of business, just as the others did.

[Jacob1983]

I would say I'm about 50/50 on who the best team of this decade is. Spurs have 3 championships and 3 Western Conference championships. The Lakers have 3 championships and 5 Western Conference championships. I would definitely say that probably the Lakers have been the best team of the Western Conference this decade. If the Lakers win the championship this year, then that probably puts them over the Spurs as the best team of the 2000s or whatever you call the current decade that we're in.

[monosylab1k]

3-peat > 3

and the spurs have 4 total

[adidas11]

That 2001 team would have stomped any individual year team in NBA history with the way they were playing in those playoffs. What they did that spring was unreal.

[baseline bum]

His point about the quality of the West in the '80s still stands. The West after L.A. was garbage back then. Even the Sidney Moncrief Milwaukee teams were better than anyone in the West aside from the Lake Show.

The West was awful in the 80s. Here's the records of the best teams LA played in the WC playoffs in the 80s, year by year:

'80 - Seattle: 56-26
'81 - Houston: 40-42
'82 - San Antonio: 48-34
'83 - San Antonio: 53-29
'84 - Dallas: 43-39
'85 - Denver: 52-30
'86 - Houston: 51-31
'87 - Golden State: 42-40
'88 - Dallas: 53-29
'89 - Phoenix: 55-27

That's pathetic, and shows how unbelievably weak the West was. LMAO @ calling the Spurs competition in '07 weak when LA made the Finals one year beating one team over .500 (and only one game over .500), and doing it a second time with its best competition 2 games over .500. :lol

LMAO @ calling the Spurs '05 or '07 playoff opponents sparring partners. Phoenix won 62 games in '05 and was tearing through the league. Then they won 61 in '07. Also, Laker fan can talk no shit about Donaghy with the calls they got in game 6 of '02.

The Spurs competition in the West in the '00s was far far superior to what LA went through in the 80s. Here's a listing of the Spurs' best opponent each season:

'00 - Phoenix: 53-29
'01 - LAL: 56-26
'02 - LAL: 58-24
'03 - Dallas: 60-22
'04 - LAL: 56-26
'05 - Phoenix: 62-20
'06 - Dallas: 60-22
'07 - Phoenix: 61-21
'08 - LAL: 57-25

[baseline bum]

yeah, the Eastern conference was tougher in the 80s, just as the West is this decade, but LA still beat all comers (meaning they also beat the 3 teams they lost to) and definitively owned the 80s (5 out of 8). What about Russell's Celtics in the 60's or Jordan's Bulls in the 90's...they had crap competition too (especially the Bulls...who had the Knicks and that was about it). It's not LA's fault their conference was weak in the 80s--they took care of business, just as the others did.

Not even comparable. Here's their best EC playoff opponent in their 6 titles:

'91 - Detroit: 50-32 (record was shit, but they were the defending champs)
'92 - Cleveland: 57-25
'93 - New York: 60-22
'96 - Orlando: 60-22
'97 - Miami: 61-21
'98 - Indiana: 58-24

LA had one hard round every year in the playoffs, and that was it.

[JoeTait75]

The West was awful in the 80s. Here's the records of the best teams LA played in the WC playoffs in the 80s, year by year:

'80 - Seattle: 56-26
'81 - Houston: 40-42
'82 - San Antonio: 48-34
'83 - San Antonio: 53-29
'84 - Dallas: 43-39
'85 - Denver: 52-30
'86 - Houston: 51-31
'87 - Golden State: 42-40
'88 - Dallas: 53-29
'89 - Phoenix: 55-27

That's pathetic, and shows how unbelievably weak the West was. LMAO @ calling the Spurs competition in '07 weak when LA made the Finals one year beating one team over .500 (and only one game over .500), and doing it a second time with its best competition 2 games over .500. :lol

LMAO @ calling the Spurs '05 or '07 playoff opponents sparring partners. Phoenix won 62 games in '05 and was tearing through the league. Then they won 61 in '07. Also, Laker fan can talk no shit about Donaghy with the calls they got in game 6 of '02.

The Spurs competition in the West in the '00s was far far superior to what LA went through in the 80s. Here's a listing of the Spurs' best opponent each season:

'00 - Phoenix: 53-29
'01 - LAL: 56-26
'02 - LAL: 58-24
'03 - Dallas: 60-22
'04 - LAL: 56-26
'05 - Phoenix: 62-20
'06 - Dallas: 60-22
'07 - Phoenix: 61-21
'08 - LAL: 57-25

What made it even more lopsided for the Showtime teams was that pretty much everyone else out West played up-tempo, which meant they were playing right into L.A.'s hands. And nobody could outrun that Laker team.

The only team in the West at the time that had the ability to match up with Kareem and control the pace against L.A. was Houston with Moses Malone and then with Akeem- and the Rockets didn't have it together enough in that decade to put up a consistent challenge. San Antonio with Artis put up a pretty stiff fight against the Lake Show in the '83 WCF, but that team turned out to have a very small window.

[Jacob1983]

I don't think the Spurs' championship in 1999 can be included in the 2000s. The thing that has always hurt the Spurs' place in history is the fact that they have never repeated. They best they have done after winning a championship was last year when they got to the WCF.

[Spursmania]

I don't think the Spurs' championship in 1999 can be included in the 2000s. The thing that has always hurt the Spurs' place in history is the fact that they have never repeated. They best they have done after winning a championship was last year when they got to the WCF.

I don't really buy into that commercial branding of what constitues dominace in a decade. Saying the Spurs haven't repeated thus they are not dominant is simply an illogical argument. Since when is there an asterik under dynasty or dominant that states, "winning team must win two times in a row to be considered dominant or a dynasty,etc..." That's just the media or commercialism hyping things up.

Based on your illogical summation that it hurts the Spurs for not repeating, a team can win 5 titles in a decade and still not be considered dominant because they did not repeat?

Please-what a crock, sounds like another lame attempt to just ignore the obvious because the round peg won't fit into the square you have unilaterally prescribed for it.

LOL though, you're entitled to your opinion...:lol

[Jacob1983]

The Lakers' three peat was way more dominant than the 3 Spurs' championship years. I will admit that the Spurs were dominant during the years they won their 3 championships in the 200s but they don't come close to the Shaq and Kobe Lakers from 2000-2002. The 2001 WCF was a clear example of the Lakers' dominance. They demolished the Spurs in that series. I would give the Spurs more props if they had been more successful during the years of their title defense.

[4 Rings F_gg_t]

hi laker fans

[21_Blessings]

Final Appearances mean shit-nada-nothing. Only Championships mean something... Also, regular season games mean nothing, in case you want to pretend you won a Larry for having the best regular season record too...

Thanks for making my argument for me. Regular season games mean nothing, then so do playoff appearances. Since the Spurs and Lakers are tied at 3 championships a piece you go to the tiebreaker which is always - HEAD TO HEAD. Advantage Lakers 4-1. Thanks for playing.

Lakers have the best team of the decade (2001). They have a three-peat, which is something only two other teams have done in basketball history. And they raped the shit out of SA in the playoffs time and time again.

Lakers: Team of the Decade. Icing on the cake will be the Lakers closing the Spurs window for good this post-season

[ElNono]

Thanks for making my argument for me. Regular season games mean nothing, then so do playoff appearances. Since the Spurs and Lakers are tied at 3 championships a piece you go to the tiebreaker which is always - HEAD TO HEAD. Advantage Lakers 4-1. Thanks for playing.

Lakers have the best team of the decade (2001). They have a three-peat, which is something only two other teams have done in basketball history. And they raped the shit out of SA in the playoffs time and time again.

Lakers: Team of the Decade. Icing on the cake will be the Lakers closing the Spurs window for good this post-season

The only reason Lakers and Spurs are 4-1 in playoff series is that the Lakers were non-existent between 2005 and 2007. Could just as easily been 4-4 by now. The ONLY team to remain consistently deep in the playoffs each and every year has been the Spurs.
This year won't be any different.

[DrHouse]

I think the Lakers will ultimately end up being the team that overshadows the incredible decade that the Spurs have had. I know I would hate the Lakers if I were a Spur fan. They're just so consistently good it's incredible. Even when they're down you know they will find their way to the top quickly.

[ElNono]

I think the Lakers will ultimately end up being the team that overshadows the incredible decade that the Spurs have had. I know I would hate the Lakers if I were a Spur fan. They're just so consistently good it's incredible. Even when they're down you know they will find their way to the top quickly.

In order to do that, your team needs to start winning something, and quick. So far, other than pandering from the fans, they got nothing to show for it.

[DrHouse]

In order to do that, your team needs to start winning something, and quick. So far, other than pandering from the fans, they got nothing to show for it.

14 > 4.

4-1 this decade.

NEXT.

[ElNono]

14 > 4.

4-1 this decade.

NEXT.

14 this decade? You need to learn to count. And it's 4 > 3 this decade. A decade *is* 10 years after all.

NEXT

[DrHouse]

14 this decade? You need to learn to count. And it's 4 > 3 this decade. A decade *is* 10 years after all.

NEXT

14 rings > 4 rings.

9-2 Lifetime playoff record vs the Spurs.

NEXT

Spurs = LAKER'S RED HEADED STEP CHILD BITCH when it counts

[ElNono]

14 rings > 4 rings.

9-2 Lifetime playoff record vs the Spurs.

NEXT

Spurs = LAKER'S RED HEADED STEP CHILD BITCH when it counts

Lakers this decade:
- 0 rings since Shaq left: CHECK
- 2 flameouts in the first round: CHECK
- Have not won anything in 6 years: CHECK
- Choked the last 2 NBA Finals appearances: CHECK
- Has yet to win anything with a lopsided roster: CHECK
- Overrated: CHECK

NEXT

[DrHouse]

Lakers this decade:
- 0 rings since Shaq left: CHECK
- 2 flameouts in the first round: CHECK
- Have not won anything in 6 years: CHECK
- Choked the last 2 NBA Finals appearances: CHECK
- Has yet to win anything with a lopsided roster: CHECK
- Overrated: CHECK

NEXT

And the Spurs have accounted for NONE OF THAT. Keep this discussion on target, SPURS VS. LAKERS.

14 rings > 4 rings.
Best winning percentage of any team in NBA history > Not the best winning percentage of any team in NBA history

9 PLAYOFF WINS OVER THE SPURS > 2 PLAYOFF WINS OVER THE LAKERS

SPURS = LAKER'S BITCH

[Harry Callahan]

Same # of titles - 3

I give the edge to SA because the only time they did not get out of the first round of teh playoffs in the 2000s is when Duncan missed the playoffs in 2000 due to injury. LA missed the playoffs entirely once and was beaten in the 1st round twice. It's close.

[ElNono]

And the Spurs have accounted for NONE OF THAT. Keep this discussion on target, SPURS VS. LAKERS.


You need to keep this discussion on target... THIS DECADE (1999-2009)



14 rings > 4 rings.


This decade: Spurs 4 rings - Lakers 3 rings



Best winning percentage of any team in NBA history > Not the best winning percentage of any team in NBA history


This decade: Best winning percentage of ANY TEAM IN ANY PRO SPORTS.



9 PLAYOFF WINS OVER THE SPURS > 2 PLAYOFF WINS OVER THE LAKERS


This Decade: Spurs playoff series wins total > Lakers playoff series wins total. Lakers miss playoffs or flameout in the 1st round 3 times.


SPURS = LAKER'S BITCH

LAKERS = Second fiddle to the Spurs.

[DrHouse]

You need to keep this discussion on target... THIS DECADE (1999-2009)



This decade: Spurs 4 rings - Lakers 3 rings



This decade: Best winning percentage of ANY TEAM IN ANY PRO SPORTS.



This Decade: Spurs playoff series wins total > Lakers playoff series wins total. Lakers miss playoffs or flameout in the 1st round 3 times.



LAKERS = Second fiddle to the Spurs.

No, no, no.

9-2 playoff record. The Lakers own the Spurs.

Next.

[ElNono]

No, no, no.

9-2 playoff record. The Lakers own the Spurs.

Next.

Keep on reaching Laker fan... 9-2 playoff record in a 10 year span? Really? How dumb are you? :lol

And playoff records mean shit if you can't win it all. Did you real good to beat us in '04 to choke in the Finals. Same thing for last year.

4 rings > 3 rings... THIS DECADE...

Suck on it.

Neeeexxxxttttt.....

[DrHouse]

Keep on reaching Laker fan... 9-2 playoff record in a 10 year span? Really? How dumb are you? :lol

And playoff records mean shit if you can't win it all. Did you real good to beat us in '04 to choke in the Finals. Same thing for last year.

4 rings > 3 rings... THIS DECADE...

Suck on it.

Neeeexxxxttttt.....

Nope you can't talk shit.

The Lakers have owned the Spurs 4-1 in this decade alone.

The Spurs can't beat the Lakers when it counts. You have nothing to say about this. You can't counter this with anything. This is indisputable fact. Your team simply cannot win against the Lakers when it matters most. End of discussion.

NEXT.

[ElNono]

Nope you can't talk shit.

The Lakers have owned the Spurs 4-1 in this decade alone.

The Spurs can't beat the Lakers when it counts. You have nothing to say about this. You can't counter this with anything. This is indisputable fact. Your team simply cannot win against the Lakers when it matters most. End of discussion.

NEXT.

We already did beat you when it counts, with Phil, Kobe, Shaq... we know we can get it done. And it's 4-1 because your team was FORTUNATE enough not to cross paths with the Spurs between '05 and '07. Not our problem the Lakers sucked back then.

The indisputable fact is that the Lakers have not won shit in 6 years and counting, while the Spurs have won 3 titles. Suck on that for a while, and STFU while you do it.

Neeeexxxxtttt...

[DrHouse]

We already did beat you when it counts, with Phil, Kobe, Shaq... we know we can get it done. And it's 4-1 because your team was FORTUNATE enough not to cross paths with the Spurs between '05 and '07. Not our problem the Lakers sucked back then.

The indisputable fact is that the Lakers have not won shit in 6 years and counting, while the Spurs have won 3 titles. Suck on that for a while, and STFU while you do it.

Neeeexxxxtttt...

Suck on 14 titles bitch. Suck on the best winning percentage of any franchise in NBA history. Suck on the most Finals appearances of any team in NBA history.

SUCK ON A 9-2 OVERALL PLAYOFF RECORD AGAINS YOUR TEAM BITCH.

You can't win this argument. You're done. Wipe the cum stains off your face and go have a nap.

[ElNono]

Suck on 14 titles bitch. Suck on the best winning percentage of any franchise in NBA history. Suck on the most Finals appearances of any team in NBA history.


You FAIL for this decade. Didn't you want to stay on topic? Don't get too heated up now... I know the Lakers have sucked for so long you can't help yourself, but hey, truth hurts.



SUCK ON A 9-2 OVERALL PLAYOFF RECORD AGAINS YOUR TEAM BITCH.

You can't win this argument. You're done. Wipe the cum stains off your face and go have a nap.

I already won this argument. This decade, no team is anywhere near the Spurs. Not the Lakers, not the Pistons, not anybody else. How could you even compare the ever contending Spurs against as team that missed the playoffs entirely in a season? There's nothing to compare here...

NEXT...

[DrHouse]

SUCK ON A 9-2 OVERALL PLAYOFF RECORD AGAINST YOUR TEAM BITCH. 4-1 in this decade.

You can't win this argument. You're done. Wipe the cum stains off your face and go have a nap.

[ElNono]

I reach to the past because the present sucks...

Is that all you got? I can play the quote game too...



This decade: Spurs 4 rings - Lakers 3 rings

This decade: Best winning percentage of ANY TEAM IN ANY PRO SPORTS.

This Decade: Spurs playoff series wins total > Lakers playoff series wins total. Lakers miss playoffs or flameout in the 1st round 3 times.

LAKERS = Second fiddle to the Spurs.

[DrHouse]

SUCK ON A 9-2 OVERALL PLAYOFF RECORD AGAINST YOUR TEAM BITCH. 4-1 in this decade.

You can't win this argument. You're done. Wipe the cum stains off your face and go have a nap.

[ElNono]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/06/10/sports/10horry.1.600.jpg

Was that when the Lakers used to win something? :lmao

[anonoftheinternets]

Was that when the Lakers used to win something? :lmao

lol epic ownage by el nono, forget lakers and spurs, house is el nono's bitch

[DrHouse]

The Spurs haven't won shit since '07. Don't act like they are relevant anymore either.

They got their pussies fucked by the Lakers last season 4-1.

[z0sa]

Spurs are clearly best team this decade, there's no questioning it. Best win percentage, most championships, didn't lose 70% of the fanbase from 05-07. Yep pretty easily said the Spurs are better than the Lakers this decade.

Shit, spurs were better in the 90's as well. Besides Stern winning 2.5 championships for them 00-02, the Lakers have pretty much had 20 straight years of mediocrity.

[ElNono]

The Spurs haven't won shit since '07. Don't act like they are relevant anymore either.

They got their pussies fucked by the Lakers last season 4-1.

For all the Lakers hype this season, by the end of this week we can be only 5 games behind you, and we're not even trying to catch you guys up. Not to mention we've been plagued by injuries all season long.
We'll see how irrelevant we are if we make it to May all healthy...

[washingtonwizard]

this is not even close. Spurs >>>>>> Lakers this decade. why even post this poll??

Up until last year, when Lakers robbed the bank by taking Gasol, Lakers were a perenial 1st round exit team. next

[urunobili]

3 rings + 2 final appearances > 3 rings. Lakers already have it wrapped up without even counting this post season.

100% winning percentage in the Finals> 60% Winning percentage in the Finals... :flag:

[Phenomanul]

Technically the ring count for the current decade (the first of the new millenium) is:

Spurs 3: 2002-2003, 2004-2005, 2006-2007
Lakers 2: 2000-2001, 2001-2002*(Kings). The 1999-2000 title belongs to the 90's

Were it not for a Derek Fisher shot that should not have counted... and a Derek Fisher foul that should have been called by Joey Crawford (of all people) Phil would not be able to gloat about the Laker's 'edge over' the Spurs.

As for the 2001 WC beatdown... Lakerfan conveniently forgets that the Spurs lost their 2nd highest scorer, and assist playmaker in Derek Anderson a game before that series tipped-off (Juwan's Howards flagrant foul), and that David Robinson was playing without any sensation in his legs due to a floating particle in his back...

The only time the teams have matched up at full strength the Spurs brought down the LA Forum. LA couldn't even make it far enough to challenge the Spurs from 2005-2007.

[21_Blessings]

Same # of titles - 3

I give the edge to SA because the only time they did not get out of the first round of teh playoffs in the 2000s is when Duncan missed the playoffs in 2000 due to injury. LA missed the playoffs entirely once and was beaten in the 1st round twice. It's close.

Haha. So first round exits count more than a final appearance.

Fact is, final appearance > 1st round, 2nd round, WCF. Simple as that. Lakers went to the dance two more times than the Spurs. Own them in head to head and three-peated.

The team of the decade is pretty clear - Lakers

[21_Blessings]

Spurs 3: 2002-2003, 2004-2005, 2006-2007
Lakers 2: 2000-2001, 2001-2002*(Kings). The 1999-2000 title belongs to the 90's

.

2006-2007 has a much bigger * considering Donaghy himself fucking handed game 3 to the Spurs. Oh yea and the suspensions. Dumbass.

[Phenomanul]

2006-2007 has a much bigger * considering Donaghy himself fucking handed game 3 to the Spurs. Oh yea and the suspensions. Dumbass.

Spurs 3 > Lakers 2

/Thread.

[Phenomanul]

2006-2007 has a much bigger * considering Donaghy himself fucking handed game 3 to the Spurs. Oh yea and the suspensions. Dumbass.

San Antonio would have beat Phoenix without the suspensions... the Spurs simply own the Suns...

As for Donaghy.... umm... did you actually read the affidavits for his involvement??? Did you even see the game?? He didn't even blow the whistle for the two most controversial calls in the game...

Typical ill-informed troll... :rolleyes

If you're going to troll at least get your facts straight...

[demosthenes247]

Interesting debate. Let’s try to address all the basic issues of that have been raised throughout the course of this discussion at the same time in order to clear things up a bit.

This decade almost certainly refers to the decade that began in 2000 and will end at the end of this year 2009. Properly speaking, this would not include the 1999 Spurs championship, and thus during this decade the Spurs and the Lakers have an equal number of championships (3).

Yet at the same time, I think it would make sense to refer to “eras” rather than to the artificial temporal constructs that decades represent. We could thus refer to the Kobe and Duncan eras of their respective teams since those are basically the only players that have been with their teams from the “beginning.” From this perspective, Duncan’s Spurs have 4 championships in this era to Kobe’s 3. I think thus that the number of championships is more a less a wash with respect to the question of the best team of the decade or era, nonetheless with an advantage going to the Spurs.

I think that head to head playoff matchups are less important when it comes to the overall question because as Spurs fans have pointed out, the Lakers have missed the playoffs on several occasions when they certainly would have been beaten by the Spurs. In terms of questionable calls that went against either the Spurs or the Lakers, I think that likely should not figure too heavily in favor of either team with respect to the original question.

The Lakers’ 3-peat deserves mention because if only for the fact that the Spurs did not manage a title defense in the decade/era thus far. However, the Spurs do hold the edge in terms of consistent regular season excellence.
In sum, I believe the body of work presented by both teams in this decade/era is fairly similar with a slight edge going to the Spurs for having 1 more championship and more consistent excellence in the Duncan era as opposed to the Kobe era. That said, there still remains one more year in this decade at least and I think that should either the Lakers or Spurs win this year, then that team would decisively demonstrate that they deserve to be called the best team of the decade.

[21_Blessings]

San Antonio would have beat Phoenix without the suspensions... the Spurs simply own the Suns...

As for Donaghy.... umm... did you actually read the affidavits for his involvement??? Did you even see the game?? He didn't even blow the whistle for the two most controversial calls in the game...

He blew the whistle on that Ginobili play where nobody even touched him. And you're stupid if you think Donaghy is going to admit to more incidents that the feds didn't have evidence for. Fact is, Donaghy was dirty. Admitted to cheating and was part of the reason why the Spurs won that series. You lose.

As for 2002, the Lakers were completely screwed by the refs in games 2/3 and 5 against the Kings. So it evened out in the end. At least a convicted felon was officiating that series :lol




If you're going to troll at least get your facts straight...

Ok facts; Head to head: Lakers. Final appearances: Lakers. Threpeat vs nopeat: Lakers. Best indvidual team: Lakers. Team of the decade: Lakers

Enjoy watching the Lakers shut down SA's championship window for good this post season. Surely, end of an era. The era of the second best team of this decade. :flag:

[BRHornet45]

clearly its the Grizzlies sons

[21_Blessings]

Spurs for having 1 more championship and more consistent excellence in the Duncan era as opposed to the Kobe era.

Huh?

This isn't the team of the last 5 years, it's the entire decade. The Lakers missed the playoffs ONCE due to injuries and only have two first round exits compared to the Spurs 1. If we're talking about consistent excellence, the Lakers win that as well. They have been in the NBA finals 5 times out of the last 9.

[dirk4mvp]

clearly its the Grizzlies sons

They've accomplished about as much as the Hornets this decade, so I'd be inclined to agree.

[ElNono]

However, the Spurs do hold the edge in terms of consistent regular season excellence.
In sum, I believe the body of work presented by both teams in this decade/era is fairly similar with a slight edge going to the Spurs for having 1 more championship and more consistent excellence in the Duncan era as opposed to the Kobe era.

You mean the Shaq era...

[Phenomanul]

Interesting debate. Let’s try to address all the basic issues of that have been raised throughout the course of this discussion at the same time in order to clear things up a bit.

This decade almost certainly refers to the decade that began in 2000 and will end at the end of this year 2009. Properly speaking, this would not include the 1999 Spurs championship, and thus during this decade the Spurs and the Lakers have an equal number of championships (3).

Yet at the same time, I think it would make sense to refer to “eras” rather than to the artificial temporal constructs that decades represent. We could thus refer to the Kobe and Duncan eras of their respective teams since those are basically the only players that have been with their teams from the “beginning.” From this perspective, Duncan’s Spurs have 4 championships in this era to Kobe’s 3. I think thus that the number of championships is more a less a wash with respect to the question of the best team of the decade or era, nonetheless with an advantage going to the Spurs.

I think that head to head playoff matchups are less important when it comes to the overall question because as Spurs fans have pointed out, the Lakers have missed the playoffs on several occasions when they certainly would have been beaten by the Spurs. In terms of questionable calls that went against either the Spurs or the Lakers, I think that likely should not figure too heavily in favor of either team with respect to the original question.

The Lakers’ 3-peat deserves mention because if only for the fact that the Spurs did not manage a title defense in the decade/era thus far. However, the Spurs do hold the edge in terms of consistent regular season excellence.
In sum, I believe the body of work presented by both teams in this decade/era is fairly similar with a slight edge going to the Spurs for having 1 more championship and more consistent excellence in the Duncan era as opposed to the Kobe era. That said, there still remains one more year in this decade at least and I think that should either the Lakers or Spurs win this year, then that team would decisively demonstrate that they deserve to be called the best team of the decade.

Decades don't start at zero... they start at 1.

Either way you slice it up however, the Spurs have one more title than the Lakers (over the past 10 years)....

[Phenomanul]

He blew the whistle on that Ginobili play where nobody even touched him.

That Ginobili play? So you're using some obscure Ginobili flop as an argument to suggest the whole game was handed to the Spurs by Donaghy? You don't say???... This was the same game where Nash was credited for having drawn two offensive fouls on Duncan despite the fact that he was moving on both occasions??? Both calls whistled by your man, no less... The same game where where Parker was thrown on his back by Marion with no whistle.... Clearly, it was a poorly officiated game for both squads...

Besides... Amare's foul trouble was the most controversial aspect of that game... and unfortunately for your argument it wasn't Donaghy that put him in that predicament.


And you're stupid if you think Donaghy is going to admit to more incidents that the feds didn't have evidence for. Fact is, Donaghy was dirty. Admitted to cheating and was part of the reason why the Spurs won that series. You lose.

If anything, he was merely toying with the spread... not the outcome... Spurs would have won that game despite his alleged meddling... because that's all it is... an allegation...



As for 2002, the Lakers were completely screwed by the refs in games 2/3 and 5 against the Kings. So it evened out in the end. At least a convicted felon was officiating that series :lol

I believe all NBA-nation pretty much saw the robbery that was commited that day by the league (Game 6 against the Kings)... Every one except for Lakers' homers knows this is true... not lost on the theme is the fact that LA also got away with murder in Game 7 against the Blazers two years before.




Ok facts; Head to head: Lakers. Final appearances: Lakers. Threpeat vs nopeat: Lakers. Best indvidual team: Lakers. Team of the decade: Lakers

Enjoy watching the Lakers shut down SA's championship window for good this post season. Surely, end of an era. The era of the second best team of this decade. :flag:

Spurs 3 > Lakers 2

[21_Blessings]

That Ginobili play?

So you agree? Exactly. The game was fixed by a convicted felon. Keep digging your grave.


Besides... Amare's foul trouble was the most controversial aspect of that game... and unfortunately for your argument it wasn't Donaghy that put him in that predicament.

Yeah worse, it was Stern.



I believe all NBA-nation pretty much saw the robbery that was commited that day by the league (Game 6 against the Kings)... Every one except for Lakers' homers knows this is true... not lost on the theme is the fact that LA also got away with murder in Game 7 against the Blazers two years before.

Same thing happened to Lakers in game 5, you retard. Got away with murder in game 7? Are you fucking dumb?



Spurs 3 > Lakers 2

Lakers 3, +2 finals, + 4-1 head to head > Spurs 3

It's all moot anyways. The Lakers are already the team of decade and they are going to cement that fact in a couple months.

[demosthenes247]

Huh?

This isn't the team of the last 5 years, it's the entire decade. The Lakers missed the playoffs ONCE due to injuries and only have two first round exits compared to the Spurs 1. If we're talking about consistent excellence, the Lakers win that as well. They have been in the NBA finals 5 times out of the last 9.

I didn't say decade in the sentence that you quoted. But anyway, I think that the playoff success for both the Spurs and the Lakers is essentially a wash with 3 championships each. What I found to be convincing was that the Spurs' nadir was never as low as the Lakers' (34, 45, 42 win seasons). The Spurs never missed the playoffs and only lost in the first round without Duncan. The Lakers had their best player in both of their first round exits.

Then again, the Spurs never defended their championships which is why I think the debate is extremely close with me only giving the slightest of nods to the Spurs. When writing my original post, I actually did mean to say that the Lakers were the better team of the decade but on further reflection, went the other way.

[jack sommerset]

After giving this more thought I think it is a two team race but the Spews are not 1 of the two teams. The topic is the best team of the decade. You put the team that had Shaq,Kobe,Fox,Horry,Horrace Grant, Isaiah Rider,Ron Harper,Derek Fisher,Devean George against any of the teams of this decade they would destroy them except for 1 team. The Celtics with Garnett,Pierce and Allen. They might have a chance. If the Celtics can win two in a row this decade I would increase that chance of beating the Lakers 2001 team. As of right now its the 2001 Lakers , the best team of the decade.

[demosthenes247]

You mean the Shaq era...

Of course Shaq was the most important player in their 3 championships so far, but Shaq is no longer there, Kobe still is.

[demosthenes247]

After giving this more thought I think it is a two team race but the Spews are not 1 of the two teams. The topic is the best team of the decade. You put the team that had Shaq,Kobe,Fox,Horry,Horrace Grant, Isaiah Rider,Ron Harper,Derek Fisher,Devean George against any of the teams of this decade they would destroy them except for 1 team. The Celtics with Garnett,Pierce and Allen. They might have a chance. If the Celtics can win two in a row this decade I would increase that chance of beating the Lakers 2001 team. As of right now its the 2001 Lakers , the best team of the decade.

No way these Celtics beat the 2001 Lakers. The Celtics absolutely could not stop Shaq whereas I think the Lakers could do a very good job of containing Pierce and Allen.

[demosthenes247]

Decades don't start at zero... they start at 1.

Either way you slice it up however, the Spurs have one more title than the Lakers (over the past 10 years)....

Yes it's very troublesome that there was no year 0, nonetheless in Sports we usually refer to things like the decade of the 80s or the 60s (of which 1990 was not a part of the 80s nor 1970 of the 60s).

[jack sommerset]

No way these Celtics beat the 2001 Lakers. The Celtics absolutely could not stop Shaq whereas I think the Lakers could do a very good job of containing Pierce and Allen.

I am thinking the same thing. I would like to see this Celtic team against any of the Spews teams this decade. I know they would destroy them and should be considered the second best team of this decade. I like the Pistons but they lost all thoses Eastern Championship games plus they lost to the Spews. Miami Heat only can thank those Mavs for choking so they are not even in the talk.

My list

2001 Lakers
2008 Celtics
2005 Spews
2004 Pistons
2002 Kings
2005 Suns
2006 Heat
2006 Mavericks

I did not put any team on twice. I thinks it Obvious any of the champion years the Lakers had would have killed anyone on the list.

[Phenomanul]

So you agree? Exactly. The game was fixed by a convicted felon. Keep digging your grave.

Yeah worse, it was Stern.

Unbelievable.... Stern??? Now you're reaching. Stern wants nothing to do with the Donaghy scandal....



Same thing happened to Lakers in game 5, you retard. Got away with murder in game 7?

Yeah... you keep looking the other way... Typical.






Lakers 3, +2 finals, + 4-1 head to head > Spurs 3

It's all moot anyways. The Lakers are already the team of decade and they are going to cement that fact in a couple months.

The fact that you have to place so many qualifiers on your criteria says it all...

It doesn't take away the fact that this decade, the first of the new millenium, the:

Spurs have 3 titles compared to the Lakers 2

3 > 2 any day of the week

[Pero]

I am thinking the same thing. I would like to see this Celtic team against any of the Spews teams this decade. I know they would destroy them and should be considered the second best team of this decade.

LOL....... You sure you aren't a Laker fan?

Anyway, it's clear it's the Spurs, they've been contenders the whole decade, while the Lakers weren't. If the Lakers win it this year, then it's the Lakers.

[jack sommerset]

LOL....... You sure you aren't a Laker fan?

Anyway, it's clear it's the Spurs, they've been contenders the whole decade, while the Lakers weren't. If the Lakers win it this year, then it's the Lakers.

Are u kidding me. "Its clear." HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I am looking at this two ways.

What world do you live in thinking the 2001 Lakers with Kobe,Shaq,Fox,Fisher,Horry,Harper,Rider,George and more could lose to the Spews. Seriously. Only in Spewland. That years team could beat any of the teams of the decade.

Now for the team that has the most success this decade. Its the Lakers. 3 rings. Went 4 straight freaken years to the finals. Spews won 3 rings and went 3 times to final. Very important to know the Spews had help along the way each year they won. Teams that were better than them lost their top players while playing the Spews in the Playoffs or right before they played them.

If it was not for that and The Shaq/Kobe fighting, the Spews would not have won shit.

[DrHouse]

It has to kill Spur fan inside knowing that his team's great run could potentially be overshadowed by the Lakers.

[jack sommerset]

It has to kill Spur fan inside knowing that his team's great run could potentially be overshadowed by the Lakers.

Honestly I don't think you can even call what they did a great run. Sure they cheated to get Duncan and he has made all the players look great. You don't see to many former Spew players making a difference on any other team plus other teams best players went down durning the runs. They never won back to back, thats because teams got healthy.

Look who the beat in the finals. The Nets,Cavilairs and the Pistons. I give Pistons some credit but fact is Pistons got beat in the Eastern Championship quit a few times. The did win one ring thanks to Kobe and Shaq fighting like two lil bitches.

People know this so noone can say the Spews are overrated but to think they were a dynasty or the best team of the decade is silly. I ranked them 3rd this decade because I'm a nice guy. If I were being honest I would put them down to 6-7-8.

[Spursfan092120]

Since 1999 (one decade)
Spurs 559-229 4 Titles
Lakers 496-292 3 titles...

Where's the question?

[Spursfan092120]

It has to kill Spur fan inside knowing that his team's great run could potentially be overshadowed by the Lakers.
House..you've already said this several times..be more creative and original, please? If we were being outshadowed, it wouldn't be all over ESPN and Sports Illustrated wouldn't be writing articles about one of the smallest sports markets having the best record over the last decade in all sports. Get over yourself.

[Pero]

What world do you live in thinking the 2001 Lakers with Kobe,Shaq,Fox,Fisher,Horry,Harper,Rider,George and more could lose to the Spews. Seriously. Only in Spewland. That years team could beat any of the teams of the decade.

Uh, I thought this was about a team of the decade as in the team through the decade, not the best in one year or two etc. of the decade.



Now for the team that has the most success this decade. Its the Lakers. 3 rings. Went 4 straight freaken years to the finals. Spews won 3 rings and went 3 times to final. Very important to know the Spews had help along the way each year they won. Teams that were better than them lost their top players while playing the Spews in the Playoffs or right before they played them.

LOL, in this case lets not forget getting bailed out by the refs against the Kings, a fluke shot, the Lakers/Memphis fraud, and Ginobilli playing hurt (and his stupid foul on Dirk).
With that, Lakers didn't make the playoffs one season and were mediocre two others.

Also either Phenomaul is right or that other person whose name I can't remember right now. Since this other person has been mostly taken as wrong, it means Lakers have two titles against the Spurs three (and they're 1:1 in the previous decade).


Sure they cheated to get Duncan

Yeah, they broke Robinson's foot intentionaly. :lmao


and he has made all the players look great.

You don't say? :lmao



I ranked them 3rd this decade because I'm a nice guy. If I were being honest I would put them down to 6-7-8.

So when you're a liar you're just dumb, but when you're honest you're very dumb? :lmao

[Pero]

Oh yeah, one more thing.



Look who the beat in the finals. The Nets,Cavilairs and the Pistons. ..

And the Lakers beat the Sixers and the Nets and lost to the Pistons (and Celtics). :lol

[jack sommerset]

Oh yeah, one more thing.



And the Lakers beat the Sixers and the Nets and lost to the Pistons (and Celtics). :lol

Thats right I forgot they went to 5 championship games this decade. Man the Lakers are cleary the best team of the decade in two ways, no arguement what so ever. They have the single greatest team of the decades, the 2001 Kobe/Shaq Lakers and have been to 5 championship games. Silly rabbit, trips are for kids.

[jack sommerset]

Uh, I thought this was about a team of the decade as in the team through the decade, not the best in one year or two etc. of the decade.



LOL, in this case lets not forget getting bailed out by the refs against the Kings, a fluke shot, the Lakers/Memphis fraud, and Ginobilli playing hurt (and his stupid foul on Dirk).
With that, Lakers didn't make the playoffs one season and were mediocre two others.

Also either Phenomaul is right or that other person whose name I can't remember right now. Since this other person has been mostly taken as wrong, it means Lakers have two titles against the Spurs three (and they're 1:1 in the previous decade).



Yeah, they broke Robinson's foot intentionaly. :lmao



You don't say? :lmao



So when you're a liar you're just dumb, but when you're honest you're very dumb? :lmao


Sir you have no idea what you are talking about concerning this subject. I know its hard being a homer. When I was 7 I was a homer. It clouded my mind and made me think crazy thoughts. I decided back then to just enjoy sports for what it is. Fact is the Lakers are the best team of the decade from two positions. 5 championships trips and 3 wins. For the single greatest team the 2001 Lakers win that one to. Case closed

[Spursfan092120]

Sir you have no idea what you are talking about concerning this subject. I know its hard being a homer. When I was 7 I was a homer. It clouded my mind and made me think crazy thoughts. I decided back then to just enjoy sports for what it is. Fact is the Lakers are the best team of the decade from two positions. 5 championships trips and 3 wins. For the single greatest team the 2001 Lakers win that one two. Case closed

Dude..do you even pay attention, or are you simply mentally incapacitated? The post was about what team has been the best this decade...not what single team is the best of the decade, but what team has had the best decade...that would be the Spurs.

[mabrignani]

Since 1999 (one decade)
Spurs 559-229 4 Titles
Lakers 496-292 3 titles...

Where's the question?

thank you thank you thank you for aknowledging that this decade includes 99.
and there is no question with that stat. more wins, less losses, more rings...one who would argue against that would be a fool

[Spursfan092120]

thank you thank you thank you for aknowledging that this decade includes 99.
and there is no question with that stat. more wins, less losses, more rings...one who would argue against that would be a fool
:toast

[jack sommerset]

Dude..do you even pay attention, or are you simply mentally incapacitated? The post was about what team has been the best this decade...not what single team is the best of the decade, but what team has had the best decade...that would be the Spurs.

I read the title fool. Did you. It can be interpreted two ways. Seriously, THINK about it. You reply "Dude do you even pay attention" How bout you pay attention. Wow unreal. Whatever gets you through the day bro.

I am going to help you bro. Cause you don't get it. Some dude ask "what do you think the best team of the decade is". You say "Spews" Some other dude says "lakers" Some other guy says "Celtics" You and the other fool say "Man Celtics aren't the best team of the decade, they only won once" You both giggle like school girls because you think you made a funny. Anyways the guy says "Yup thats right but that years Celtic team could have beaten any of those teams you two fools said so that makes them the best team of the decade" GOD I hope you get this. Its really easy to understand.

[Spursfan092120]

I read the title fool. Did you. It can be interpreted two ways. Seriously, THINK about it. You reply "Dude do you even pay attention" How bout you pay attention. Wow unreal. Whatever gets you through the day bro.

I am going to help you bro. Cause you don't get it. Some dude ask "what do you think the best team of the decade is". You say "Spews" Some other dude says "lakers" Some other guy says "Celtics" You and the other fool say "Man Celtics aren't the best team of the decade, they only won once" You both giggle like school girls because you think you made a funny. Anyways the guy says "Yup thats right but that years Celtic team could have beaten any of those teams you two fools said so that makes them the best team of the decade" GOD I hope you get this. Its really easy to understand.
lol..hilarious...you completely contradicted yourself. Saying it could be interpreted two ways and then at the end acting like only your way matters, and it's "easy to understand." You're unbelievably ignorant. The post clearly reads What team is the best of the decade...Spurs or Lakers...not Spurs of 2003 or Lakers of 2001. It's obvious what he's saying. Because the answer is clearly the Spurs, you choose to change the interpretation to whatever the hell you want. But, whatever gets you through the day BRO

[jack sommerset]

lol..hilarious...you completely contradicted yourself. Saying it could be interpreted two ways and then at the end acting like only your way matters, and it's "easy to understand." You're unbelievably ignorant. The post clearly reads What team is the best of the decade...Spurs or Lakers...not Spurs of 2003 or Lakers of 2001. It's obvious what he's saying. Because the answer is clearly the Spurs, you choose to change the interpretation to whatever the hell you want. But, whatever gets you through the day BRO

:lmao

okie dokie doggie daddy. you should pull ur head out of your ass and think a bit but whatever. I am not explaining this no more. if you don't get it, you don't get it.

[poop]

this is all pointless becasue the '95 Houston Rockets would have beat anyone haha.

[Spursfan092120]

:lmao

okie dokie doggie daddy. You should pull ur head out of your ass and think a bit but whatever. I am not explaining this no more. If you don't get it, you don't get it.

ftl

[Jacob1983]

So do the 2 losses that the Lakers in the Finals this decade help or hurt their case? Is it possible to say that they were the best team in the West in 2003-2004 and 2007-2008 but just played a better team in the Finals? You could say that the Spurs' are the better team but the Lakers were probably more dominant.

The 2008 Celtics are one of the most overrated teams to ever win the NBA championship. The Atlanta Hawks, who were 37-45, took them to 7 games. A great team would have swept that Hawks' team. And let's not forget that the Celtics also struggled against the Cavs in the second round last year too.

[Pero]

5 championships trips and 3 wins.

LOL at calling me homer, you couldn't be more wrong.
Anyway, Spurs 4 championship trips and 4 wins > Lakers 5 trips 3 wins
Spurs contenders every year > Lakers not contenders every year.



Thats right I forgot they went to 5 championship games this decade. Man the Lakers are cleary the best team of the decade in two ways, no arguement what so ever. They have the single greatest team of the decades, the 2001 Kobe/Shaq Lakers and have been to 5 championship games.

LOL, the point was that the Lakers played weak teams too. They lost against the two really good teams.



Silly rabbit, trips are for kids.

See you even agree with me, two Laker trips to the finals without a championship are for kids.

[21_Blessings]

Unbelievable.... Stern??? Now you're reaching. Stern wants nothing to do with the Donaghy scandal....

Stern handed the Spurs game 6. Time to accept reality.


Yeah... you keep looking the other way... Typical.

Just the facts. Heres another fact: Donaghy fixed NBA games, including game 3 of that series. You lose.



Spurs have 3 titles compared to the Lakers 2

3 > 2 any day of the week

Look how stupid you are. Can't even count.

[exstatic]

Actually, the count is correct: Spurs 3, Lakers 2.

Any decade begins with the '1' year and ends with the '0' year. It's like counting to ten: You never start with '0', you start with '1', and end with '10'. The Lakers 99-00 LoB was last decade.