Spurs Named NBA Team of the Decade by Sporting News

[spursdotcom]

And Pop coach of the decade.

http://www.nba.com/spurs/news/090925_teamofdecade.html

:toast

[alamo50]

:king

[Pero]

Game of the decade: Game 4, 2008 NBA Finals, Celtics 97, Lakers 91

LMAO.

[benefactor]

Game of the decade: Game 4, 2008 NBA Finals, Celtics 97, Lakers 91

LMAO.
Indeed. There are quite a few with just the Spurs that I could name that were better. The Duncan three pointer against the Suns game and the Horry game against Detroit in the Finals are two right off the top of my head.

[benefactor]

Don't bring this bullshit thread to the NBA LAKER FORUM or its getting shredded. You've been warned.
lol sub .500
lol missing the playoffs
lol refusing to shoot in a game 7

[Muser]

Don't bring this bullshit thread to the NBA LAKER FORUM or its getting shredded. You've been warned.


It's on the official NBA website, so suck it.

[bugoy]

game of the decade should be game 5 2005 finals

[EricB]

Don't bring this bullshit thread to the NBA LAKER FORUM or its getting shredded. You've been warned.


Hence the reason why I hardly venture into the NBA forum anymore.

Laker fucktards like this have brought it down to steamy sewer levels.

[Brazil]

lol lakers fans

[Doug Collins]

Don't bring this bullshit thread to the NBA LAKER FORUM or its getting shredded. You've been warned.

Did we just get served?

[Shastafarian]

Did we just get served?

No I think we've been put on notice.

[iManu]

Where is the Laker Forum?

Is it near the river Styx?

[024]

LOL where's that dumbass laker fan who put the lakers as the "team of the decade" in larget font as his signature? better take that down now. i've disabled all sigs and avatars so i don't remember who it was.

anyways, team of the decade is irrelevant as the athlete of the decade. i've said it many times before, the NBA goes by eras and it's still in the duncan/kobe/shaq era as all of them have won 4 rings and are still on championship contenders. it's premature to start claiming one winner.

[anonoftheinternets]

Don't bring this bullshit thread to the NBA LAKER FORUM or its getting shredded. You've been warned.

lol internet "tuf" guy.

[Ditty]

sean Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_

[DJB]

Don't bring this bullshit thread to the NBA LAKER FORUM or its getting shredded. You've been warned.

kill yourself

[z0sa]

the Spurs are absolutely the team of the decade, its no contest all things considered.

[crc21209]

And Pop coach of the decade.

http://www.nba.com/spurs/news/090925_teamofdecade.html

:toast

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it BSPN....the Spurs...not the Lakers...are the team of the decade bitches.

[NoOptionB]

lol @ Kobe drama during the summers.

That's like Dallas Cowboys embarrassing.

[Spursfan092120]

Don't bring this bullshit thread to the NBA LAKER FORUM or its getting shredded. You've been warned.
That's why this is the Spurs forum...Sub .500 record..missing the playoffs...let's not go here again.

[Spursfan092120]

Lakaluva =

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i288/The_Game21/E-thug2.jpg

[Mitch Cumsteen]

Executive of the decade: Joe Dumars, Pistons president

Dude who drafted Darko over Carmelo, Wade and Bosh gets executive of the decade?

[xellos88330]

is there no story to accomany this?

[TIMMYD!]

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it BSPN....the Spurs...not the Lakers...are the team of the decade bitches.


Yeah suck it bitches.

[LakeShow]

Let me see,...

Lakers - 4 NBA Titles, 6 appearances
6 WCF Championships
3-Peat 2000-2002, back to back title appearances 2008-09
2001 Champs - Best Playoff team in the History of the NBA
Head to Head - Lakers 4-wins, 1 loss, 4-0, 4-1, 4-2, 4-2
Phil 4 wins, 1 loss Head to Head vs. Pop

Spurs - 3 NBA titles, 3 appearances
3 WCF champions
Failed to defend title all 3 times
2003 Champs - Worst NBA Champion of all time http://espn.go.com/page2/s/rosen/030615.html
Head to Head - Spurs 1 win, 4 losses
Pop 1 win, 4 losses vs. Phil Jackson

hmmm, makes sense to me. :lol

[Dro210]

I don't give a fuck what ESPN, or anyone else thinks... That 2003 team was one of the all-time greats.

[Pero]

Let me see,...

Lakers - 4 NBA Titles, 6 appearances
6 WCF Championships
3-Peat 2000-2002, back to back title appearances 2008-09
2001 Champs - Best Playoff team in the History of the NBA
Head to Head - Lakers 4-wins, 1 loss, 4-0, 4-1, 4-2, 4-2
Phil 4 wins, 1 loss Head to Head vs. Pop




Lakers won only 3 titles this decade as well, you also forget to mention they missed the playoffs, and sucked in regular season(s).

[JWest596]

Let me see,...

Lakers - 4 NBA Titles, 6 appearances
6 WCF Championships
3-Peat 2000-2002, back to back title appearances 2008-09
2001 Champs - Best Playoff team in the History of the NBA
Head to Head - Lakers 4-wins, 1 loss, 4-0, 4-1, 4-2, 4-2
Phil 4 wins, 1 loss Head to Head vs. Pop

Spurs - 3 NBA titles, 3 appearances
3 WCF champions
Failed to defend title all 3 times
2003 Champs - Worst NBA Champion of all time http://espn.go.com/page2/s/rosen/030615.html
Head to Head - Spurs 1 win, 4 losses
Pop 1 win, 4 losses vs. Phil Jackson

hmmm, makes sense to me. :lol

LOTTERY TEAMS do not make Team of the Team. Call me old school.

[Rummpd]

The Lakers went onto the finals after the disputed 0.4 bizarre call and the very nebulous win over the Kings in their run - the Lakers have surely had their share of gifts from the zebras in the past decade yet the Spurs are still the team of the decade hands down.

[Blackjack]

I conceeded that the Lakers were the team of the decade in the past, giving the rationale of 4 titles and 6 Finals appearances, but I'm starting to think it's not such a lock anymore.

See, in my eyes, the decade should start with the '00-'01 season and not the '99-'00 season that would give the Lakers 4 titles. The decade can't start with the remnants of the '90's and can't end with the beginning of th '10's.

The decade should be from the start of the '00-'01 season to the end of the '09-'10 season, which would give both the Spurs and the Lakers 3 titles, 5 WC. Finals, but the Lakers with one more Finals appearance.

The Spurs were also never a lottery team and only failed to make it out of the first-round this last year.

So, just basing it on actual accomplishments during what should be the proper timeline..

I'd say, the 'Team of the Decade' title remains pending.

[Shastafarian]

lol 2004-2005

[LakeShow]

Lakers won only 3 titles this decade as well, you also forget to mention they missed the playoffs, and sucked in regular season(s).

The Sporting news decade ends now. Why else would they name the spurs that team.

Missing the playoffs has nothing to do with it. Regular season? If it's a regular season award, my vote goes to the Mavs.

The Teams of the Decade were all that because of the number of titles and appearances during that stretch.

The Team of the Decade in the 70's, the Boston Celtics won 2 titles and had 2 title appearances. The NY Knicks also won 2 titles and 2 TA's. The Celtics missed the Playoffs 4 times in the 70's. Why were they the team of the 70's again?

The Team of the Decade in the 80's. The Los Angeles Lakers won 5 titles and 8 title appearances. They are the only perfect team in any Decade to win the most titles, have the most title appearances and not miss the playoffs. UNDISPUTED

The Team of the Decade in the 90's. The Chicago Bulls won 6 titles, 6 title appearances. The Bulls also missed the playoffs in the 90's.

When you look at the history of the NBA and how teams were determined in the past, it was all about titles and appearances. How the sporting News justifies not naming the Lakers team of the decade when they have more titles and double the title appearances, who knows.

Awards in which the media and sportswriters vote on are meaningless with no method to their madness. Nash 2 mvp's and now this. :rolleyes

[alchemist]

This is a pity award and a slap in the face to Duncan.

[Fabbs]

This is a pity award and a slap in the face to Duncan.
After giving Kobme the award over Duncan does Sporting News hold any credibility?

:lol at *away* games being played at Staples vs the Clippers.
Imagine if we got 6 games a year at home vs San Antonio Jr college.
And colluded Gasol for Bonner.

Flamer posters are a joke.
Nice internet tough guy picture of Wankerluva. :lol

[Pero]

The Sporting news decade ends now. Why else would they name the spurs that team.


Well you're right, they're morons. After all, they did put Kobe ahead of Duncan which is ridiculous. :D

[LakeShow]

Well you're right, they're morons. After all, they did put Kobe ahead of Duncan which is ridiculous. :D

:lol

[Spursfan092120]

Let me see,...

Lakers - 4 NBA Titles, 6 appearances
6 WCF Championships
3-Peat 2000-2002, back to back title appearances 2008-09
2001 Champs - Best Playoff team in the History of the NBA
Head to Head - Lakers 4-wins, 1 loss, 4-0, 4-1, 4-2, 4-2
Phil 4 wins, 1 loss Head to Head vs. Pop

Spurs - 3 NBA titles, 3 appearances
3 WCF champions
Failed to defend title all 3 times
2003 Champs - Worst NBA Champion of all time http://espn.go.com/page2/s/rosen/030615.html
Head to Head - Spurs 1 win, 4 losses
Pop 1 win, 4 losses vs. Phil Jackson

hmmm, makes sense to me. :lol
I'm sorry...when you're the team of the decade, you have to be dominant for the entire decade...that would include making the playoffs every season...one team did..one didn't...I'll let you figure that one out. You can't base it on Finals alone...it's an overall thing. But if you want to base it on Finals alone, and you're going to only throw in stats that you deem worthy, we're undefeated in the Finals..I think that's better than your percentage. This could go on and on. The bottom line is this. At the end of the day, and the end of the season, to find the best team, you find the best record.
Spurs record over the last decade - 523-191
Lakers record over the last decade - 463-275

You have two seasons in that span hovering right at .500 and one season at an abysmal 34-48. Team of the decade? I think not.

[Spursfan092120]

Nice internet tough guy picture of Wankerluva. :lol
Thanks...happened to notice it and he came to mind..lol

[LakeShow]

I'm sorry...when you're the team of the decade, you have to be dominant for the entire decade...that would include making the playoffs every season...one team did..one didn't...I'll let you figure that one out. You can't base it on Finals alone...it's an overall thing. But if you want to base it on Finals alone, and you're going to only throw in stats that you deem worthy, we're undefeated in the Finals..I think that's better than your percentage. This could go on and on. The bottom line is this. At the end of the day, and the end of the season, to find the best team, you find the best record.
Spurs record over the last decade - 523-191
Lakers record over the last decade - 463-275

You have two seasons in that span hovering right at .500 and one season at an abysmal 34-48. Team of the decade? I think not.


The Sporting news decade ends now. Why else would they name the spurs that team.

Missing the playoffs has nothing to do with it. Regular season? If it's a regular season award, my vote goes to the Mavs.

The Teams of the Decade were all that because of the number of titles and appearances during that stretch.

The Team of the Decade in the 70's, the Boston Celtics won 2 titles and had 2 title appearances. The NY Knicks also won 2 titles and 2 TA's. The Celtics missed the Playoffs 4 times in the 70's. Why were they the team of the 70's again?

The Team of the Decade in the 80's. The Los Angeles Lakers won 5 titles and 8 title appearances. They are the only perfect team in any Decade to win the most titles, have the most title appearances and not miss the playoffs. UNDISPUTED

The Team of the Decade in the 90's. The Chicago Bulls won 6 titles, 6 title appearances. The Bulls also missed the playoffs in the 90's.

When you look at the history of the NBA and how teams were determined in the past, it was all about titles and appearances. How the sporting News justifies not naming the Lakers team of the decade when they have more titles and double the title appearances, who knows.

Awards in which the media and sportswriters vote on are meaningless with no method to their madness. Nash 2 mvp's and now this. :rolleyes

[HarlemHeat37]

I disagree with the article, and I do think the Lakers are the team of the decade..it doesn't really mean anything though..as I've said before, the Lakers always have the advantage over other teams(see: Kareem, Shaq, Kobe)..

The key here is the Gasol trade..

the Lakers were falling into a spiral of mediocrity, Kobe asked for a trade and was threatening the entire organization, going all over the media and crying..the league doesn't do anything at first, because it looks like Andrew Bynum is breaking out as a star player..Bynum goes down(since he always does), and obviously the Lakers get Pau Gasol from a Jerry West-affiliated team(yes I know he wasn't "officially" with Memphis here, but what a coincidence that he just left them, isn't it?) for Crittenton(ceiling: scrub), Marc Gasol(ceiling: middle-tier role player), and cap space that was later used on Allen Iverson and Zach Randolph(LOL)..

the Lakers are the only team that gets those types of benefits, and any non-biased person realizes that the league had something to do with it, unless you're extremely naive..

without the Gasol trade, Kobe isn't a member of the Lakers right now, the Spurs have another Finals appearance and possible title, and the Lakers probably don't even make the playoffs the last few years..

it's funny how things work and how the media ignores it when it's a certain team involved..a top 15 player is handed to them, it changes the entire complexion of the entire league, but we're supposed to believe it was a great move by a GM that was heavily criticized for not bringing Kobe any help in the few years before that..all of a sudden he became a genius..

[superbigtime]

Don't bring this bullshit thread to the NBA LAKER FORUM or its getting shredded. You've been warned.

Why are you here? :sleep

[antimvp]

its because the sporting news knows the spurs win the titles while the media, refs, league try to keep them down.

and the lakers win because everyone (wink, wink) wants them too.....you know its good for ratings and the pocketbook (wink, wink).

[BillMc]

In a literal sense a decade begins with year 1 and ends with ten. So the decade is from 2001 to 2010. Thus one of the Lakers championships actually came in the last year of the 90's. Of course, in common usage people think it is from 0 to 9, not 1 to 10. This is wrong, but it doesn't make any difference to me. Finding a way to lop off a Laker's Championship because of math is as lame as ignoring the 1999 Spurs. The fact is since the Jordan Bulls, the Lakers and Spurs have won 4 each, Pistons, Celtics and Heat 1 each. Spurs fans can say the Lakers were awful in the middle of the decade, Lakers fans can point to a 4 to 2 playoff record advantage. (Remember Lakers fans, the 99 Spurs swept Kobe and Shaq right out of the playoffs.) The way I think of it is as really, really close and will be interesting to see as we head down to the wire who Duncan, Shaq or Kobe ends up with the most of the rings.

I would agree that the Spurs are the team of the decade because it is 3 to 3 this decade (literal) and the Spurs had a better winning percentage. Howver this year will settle a lot as there is one more year in the actual decade.

As for the 2003 team, I think the old article grossly underates Manu and Bowen, and while Tony was making mistakes at that time (and in 2005) he was on his way to dominance. History will show that the 2003 team may have had 4 Future HOF'ers, another player who was an 8 Time All Defense who may get his jersey retired, as well as Rose, Jackson, etc. A lot of talent, and they ended the Laker's 3-peat.

So, in the end, 2010 is the last year of the decade. Let the best team, Lakers or Spurs, win it...

[temujin]

Let me see,...

Lakers - 4 NBA Titles, 6 appearances
6 WCF Championships
3-Peat 2000-2002, back to back title appearances 2008-09
2001 Champs - Best Playoff team in the History of the NBA
Head to Head - Lakers 4-wins, 1 loss, 4-0, 4-1, 4-2, 4-2
Phil 4 wins, 1 loss Head to Head vs. Pop

Spurs - 3 NBA titles, 3 appearances
3 WCF champions
Failed to defend title all 3 times
2003 Champs - Worst NBA Champion of all time http://espn.go.com/page2/s/rosen/030615.html
Head to Head - Spurs 1 win, 4 losses
Pop 1 win, 4 losses vs. Phil Jackson

hmmm, makes sense to me. :lol


Top 50 Metropolitan Areas Ranked by Population, 2003
Rank Population (in 000s) Name
1 18,641 New York, Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY- NJ, PA
2 12,829 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA
3 9,334 Chicago, IL-IN-WI
4 5,773 Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE
5 5,590 Dallas-Fort Worth, TX
6 5,289 Miami-Fort Lauderdale, FL
7 5,090 Washington, DC-VA-MD-WV
8 5,076 Houston, TX
9 4,610 Atlanta, GA
10 4,484 Detroit, MI
11 4,440 Boston, MA-NH
12 4,157 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA
13 3,642 Riverside-San Bernaardino-Ontario, CA
14 3,593 Phoenix, AZ
15 3,142 Seattle-Tacoma, WA
16 3,084 Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI
17 2,931 San Diego, CA
18 2,759 St. Louis, MO-IL
19 2,616 Baltimore, MD
20 2,532 Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL
21 2,410 Pittsburgh, PA
22 2,301 Denver, CO
23 2,140 Cleveland, OH
24 2,047 CIncinnati, OH-KY-IN
25 2,040 Portland, OR-WA
26 1,975 Sacramento, CA
27 1,905 Kansas City, MO-KS
28 1,821 San Antonio, TX



Yes, LA did better than the poor Knicks.

[completely deck]

Top 50 Metropolitan Areas Ranked by Population, 2003
Rank Population (in 000s) Name
1 18,641 New York, Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY- NJ, PA
2 12,829 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA
3 9,334 Chicago, IL-IN-WI
4 5,773 Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE
5 5,590 Dallas-Fort Worth, TX
6 5,289 Miami-Fort Lauderdale, FL
7 5,090 Washington, DC-VA-MD-WV
8 5,076 Houston, TX
9 4,610 Atlanta, GA
10 4,484 Detroit, MI
11 4,440 Boston, MA-NH
12 4,157 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA
13 3,642 Riverside-San Bernaardino-Ontario, CA
14 3,593 Phoenix, AZ
15 3,142 Seattle-Tacoma, WA
16 3,084 Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI
17 2,931 San Diego, CA
18 2,759 St. Louis, MO-IL
19 2,616 Baltimore, MD
20 2,532 Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL
21 2,410 Pittsburgh, PA
22 2,301 Denver, CO
23 2,140 Cleveland, OH
24 2,047 CIncinnati, OH-KY-IN
25 2,040 Portland, OR-WA
26 1,975 Sacramento, CA
27 1,905 Kansas City, MO-KS
28 1,821 San Antonio, TX



Yes, LA did better than the poor Knicks.

wait what

[da_suns_fan]

So the Lakers made it to the finals six times out of ten and won it four times.

The Spurs made it three and won it three.

Yet people are really gonna say the Spurs are the team of the decade?


The only reason I could see the Spurs is because of their international presence and this will no doubt be remembered as the decade where the international "player" arrived.

[Agloco]

Don't bring this bullshit thread to the NBA LAKER FORUM or its getting shredded. You've been warned.

:lmao

The smell of fear. I love it.

[NoiNoiPinoy]

Say what you want about how they did it, but the Lakers did a fine job 'rebuilding' so quickly after blowing up the team. The Lakers should be the team of the decade.

BUT, Timmy should be the NBA athlete of the decade for sure. If that 2003 team was 'so bad', then that makes Tim Duncan that much better. Funny how toppling a 3-time champion still doesn't get that team some respect.

[LakeShow]

Top 50 Metropolitan Areas Ranked by Population, 2003
Rank Population (in 000s) Name
1 18,641 New York, Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY- NJ, PA
2 12,829 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA
3 9,334 Chicago, IL-IN-WI
4 5,773 Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE
5 5,590 Dallas-Fort Worth, TX
6 5,289 Miami-Fort Lauderdale, FL
7 5,090 Washington, DC-VA-MD-WV
8 5,076 Houston, TX
9 4,610 Atlanta, GA
10 4,484 Detroit, MI
11 4,440 Boston, MA-NH
12 4,157 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA
13 3,642 Riverside-San Bernaardino-Ontario, CA
14 3,593 Phoenix, AZ
15 3,142 Seattle-Tacoma, WA
16 3,084 Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI
17 2,931 San Diego, CA
18 2,759 St. Louis, MO-IL
19 2,616 Baltimore, MD
20 2,532 Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL
21 2,410 Pittsburgh, PA
22 2,301 Denver, CO
23 2,140 Cleveland, OH
24 2,047 CIncinnati, OH-KY-IN
25 2,040 Portland, OR-WA
26 1,975 Sacramento, CA
27 1,905 Kansas City, MO-KS
28 1,821 San Antonio, TX



Yes, LA did better than the poor Knicks.

:wtf

[LakeShow]

In a literal sense a decade begins with year 1 and ends with ten. So the decade is from 2001 to 2010. Thus one of the Lakers championships actually came in the last year of the 90's. Of course, in common usage people think it is from 0 to 9, not 1 to 10. This is wrong, but it doesn't make any difference to me. Finding a way to lop off a Laker's Championship because of math is as lame as ignoring the 1999 Spurs. The fact is since the Jordan Bulls, the Lakers and Spurs have won 4 each, Pistons, Celtics and Heat 1 each. Spurs fans can say the Lakers were awful in the middle of the decade, Lakers fans can point to a 4 to 2 playoff record advantage. (Remember Lakers fans, the 99 Spurs swept Kobe and Shaq right out of the playoffs.) The way I think of it is as really, really close and will be interesting to see as we head down to the wire who Duncan, Shaq or Kobe ends up with the most of the rings.

I would agree that the Spurs are the team of the decade because it is 3 to 3 this decade (literal) and the Spurs had a better winning percentage. Howver this year will settle a lot as there is one more year in the actual decade.

As for the 2003 team, I think the old article grossly underates Manu and Bowen, and while Tony was making mistakes at that time (and in 2005) he was on his way to dominance. History will show that the 2003 team may have had 4 Future HOF'ers, another player who was an 8 Time All Defense who may get his jersey retired, as well as Rose, Jackson, etc. A lot of talent, and they ended the Laker's 3-peat.

So, in the end, 2010 is the last year of the decade. Let the best team, Lakers or Spurs, win it...

99 was not in this decade. Unless the decade begins at 99 now. :lol

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

99 was not in this decade. Unless the decade begins at 99 now. :lol

In that sense, though, you could argue that this 'decade' should be the years 2001 through 2010, in which case it's one season too early to crown the team of this 'decade'. The last decade actually ended with the year 2000, so you can lop off one Lakers title as well.

I guess this year decides it.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

Sorry, BillMc, I just read your post and realized that you were making the same point I was. My bad. :lol

[LakeShow]

I do not have a problem with 1-10 as a decade. Sporting News apparently does though.

This season, winner takes all! :toast

[rascal]

I conceeded that the Lakers were the team of the decade in the past, giving the rationale of 4 titles and 6 Finals appearances, but I'm starting to think it's not such a lock anymore.

See, in my eyes, the decade should start with the '00-'01 season and not the '99-'00 season that would give the Lakers 4 titles. The decade can't start with the remnants of the '90's and can't end with the beginning of th '10's.

The decade should be from the start of the '00-'01 season to the end of the '09-'10 season, which would give both the Spurs and the Lakers 3 titles, 5 WC. Finals, but the Lakers with one more Finals appearance.

The Spurs were also never a lottery team and only failed to make it out of the first-round this last year.

So, just basing it on actual accomplishments during what should be the proper timeline..

I'd say, the 'Team of the Decade' title remains pending.


No, the 2009 - 2010 season is the next decade. More of the basketball season will be played in 2010 and the playoffs are played in 2010. This nba season starts the next decade, 2010s. I don't see the logic that claims 2009-2010 is in the decade of the 2000s other than Spur fans trying to diminish the lakers 4 titles of the 2000s.

[rascal]

In that sense, though, you could argue that this 'decade' should be the years 2001 through 2010, in which case it's one season too early to crown the team of this 'decade'. The last decade actually ended with the year 2000, so you can lop off one Lakers title as well.

I guess this year decides it.


The decade of the 2000s starts on Jan 1st 2000 and runs until Dec 31 2009. Thats exactly 10 years and includes every day of the 2000s. Since most of the NBA regular season including the playoffs are played after Jan 1st , the year 2000 champions is the start of the decade of the 2000s. I don't see how this could be so confusing to so many.

But the team of the decade claim is all meaningless anyways.

[LakeShow]

Maybe they should just stick to the Team of the 70's, 80's, 90's etc.

I will say that I have always considered 0-9 as a decade.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

The decade of the 2000s starts on Jan 1st 2000 and runs until Dec 31 2009. Thats exactly 10 years and includes every day of the 2000s. Since most of the NBA regular season including the playoffs are played after Jan 1st , the year 2000 champions is the start of the decade of the 2000s. I don't see how this could be so confusing to so many.

But the team of the decade claim is all meaningless anyways.

How old were you when you completed your first decade...9?

There are basically three ways you can argue and defend the definition of what constitutes a decade, hence all the different viewpoints.

[clambake]

why is there no mention of the mavs in this thread?

[LakeShow]

why is there no mention of the mavs in this thread?


The Sporting news decade ends now. Why else would they name the spurs that team.

Missing the playoffs has nothing to do with it. Regular season? If it's a regular season award, my vote goes to the Mavs.

[clambake]

The Sporting news decade ends now. Why else would they name the spurs that team.

Missing the playoffs has nothing to do with it. Regular season? If it's a regular season award, my vote goes to the Mavs.

i'm sorry, i didn't see that. thank you for reminding everyone about the line in the sand......the line that the spurs cannot cross.
:bang the mavs are the little red wall to the spurs.

[BillMc]

99 was not in this decade. Unless the decade begins at 99 now. :lol

If you read the whole paragraph Lakeshow you'd see that the 99 inclusion referred to the post Jordan Bulls era, not the decade per se.

But I am glad you (and others) agree that a decade is ten years starting from one and ending in ten. (And yes, that is the proper use.) How many of you were a decade old when you turned 9?

I am a Spurs fan forever, but I do believe this year will determine the team of the decade. If the Lakers win it, I would admit them team of the decade. If we win it, we are. If neither win it, it is still muddy.

[BillMc]

Sorry, BillMc, I just read your post and realized that you were making the same point I was. My bad. :lol

No problem. Great minds think alike!:toast

[rascal]

How old were you when you completed your first decade...9?

There are basically three ways you can argue and defend the definition of what constitutes a decade, hence all the different viewpoints.

Your 1'st decade ends on the last day just before your 10th birthday so you will be 9 years and 365 days(add extra day in leap years) and still be in your 1st decade. On your 10th birthday you are beginning your 2nd decade so on your 10th birthday is the start of the next decade.

[SpurCharger]

Mavs Dont Deserve Anything..... 1 finals Appearance, 1 Loss..... They even Have The Best record in a regular season, to Lose to the Sorry No defense Playin Warriors.... So, if that is Team of the Decade, then imma vote for Clippers....

[Blackjack]

Your 1'st decade ends on the last day just before your 10th birthday so you will be 9 years and 365 days(add extra day in leap years) and still be in your 1st decade. On your 10th birthday you are beginning your 2nd decade so on your 10th birthday is the start of the next decade.

What number constitutes a decade?

The only thing I screwed up in my original post was shorting the Lakers there '04 Finals appearance. Thus, giving them a 5-3 advantage in Finals appearances, a tie of 5-5 in Western-Conference Finals appearances, and a tie of 3-3 in actual titles.

Look, I'm not some homer trying to find a way to call the Spurs the 'Team of the Decade' -- as mentioned, I've actually made the argument for the Lakers on more than one occasion. -- but I came to that conclusion on what I believe was a failed premise.

'90-'91 to '99-'00; Decade.

'00-'01 to '09-'10; Decade.

'10-'11 to '19-'20; Decade; not that it matters..

At least if you're to believe the Mayans.

[rascal]

What number constitutes a decade?

The only thing I screwed up in my original post was shorting the Lakers there '04 Finals appearance. Thus, giving them a 5-3 advantage in Finals appearances, a tie of 5-5 in Western-Conference Finals appearances, and a tie of 3-3 in actual titles.

Look, I'm not some homer trying to find a way to call the Spurs the 'Team of the Decade' -- as mentioned, I've actually made the argument for the Lakers on more than one occasion. -- but I came to that conclusion on what I believe was a failed premise.

'90-'91 to '99-'00; Decade.

'00-'01 to '09-'10; Decade.

'10-'11 to '19-'20; Decade; not that it matters..

At least if you're to believe the Mayans.

1999-2000 would be the nba season that concludes in 2000 so that would go under the start of the new decade of the 2000s. More of the NBA season and all of the playoffs are played in 2000 for the 1999-2000 season so the NBA champions for the year 2000 are the champions of the 1999-2000 season. The decade runs from 2000-2009, the 2010 champions are the start of the next decade.

[Agloco]

why is there no mention of the mavs in this thread?

No shit.....they did win it all in 2006, AND they dominated the hell out of the regular season in 2007.

[Blackjack]

1999-2000 would be the nba season that concludes in 2000 so that would go under the start of the new decade of the 2000s. More of the NBA season and all of the playoffs are played in 2000 for the 1999-2000 season so the NBA champions for the year 2000 are the champions of the 1999-2000 season. The decade runs from 2000-2009, the 2010 champions are the start of the next decade.

Look, we're getting into semantics here. I understand the notion of the '99-'00 seasons champion claiming their title in the year '00 and I understand where you and some others are coming from. I just don't share the same view.

The title might be claimed in the year '00 but the season starts in the '90's. It's just my opinion that there shouldn't be the remnants of a past decade when starting a new. When I think team of the decade I think '70's, '80's, and '90's. To say a team that won a title from a season that starts in the prior decade should get credit for it, in the terms of this discussion, just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me..

To be quite honest, the 'Team of the Decade' moniker, while I wouldn't mind the Spurs being recognized as, is something I couldn't care much less about. If the Lakers win it this year, they'll be no question about who it is. And if the Spurs do?

I suspect we'll see oppossing, legitimate viewpoints, like the ones we've discussed, debated from here to the end of time.

[BillMc]

It's really not subjective. It's how historians use chronolgy. The first year of this era (AD as opposed to BC or B.C.E) was year 1. There was no year 0. Thus the first decade was Year 1 to Year 10. Fastforward 2000 years and you're still at 2001 to 2010.

Regardless, obviously the Sporting News is using their own chronology or buys into the fact that most people don't really know the time frame of decade. None of it matters. My greater point, is Spurs fans shouldn't shave the 2000 Championship off the Lakers, just like Lakers fans shouldn't ignore the 99 Spurs. It's all trying to use the chronology to political advantages to boost your point. My greater point is since these modern teams have been assembled, since the Duncan and Kobe Eras began, and since the Jordan Bulls team broke up, its 4 to 4. We've got a great rivalry.

[TheMACHINE]

lol...using BilMc and Hellicopter Jones logic, since I was born in 1980, i can tell people i was born in the 70's. haha

[Blackjack]

It's really not subjective. It's how historians use chronolgy. The first year of this era (AD as opposed to BC or B.C.E) was year 1. There was no year 0. Thus the first decade was Year 1 to Year 10. Fastforward 2000 years and you're still at 2001 to 2010.

That would be, from day-one to the year '10.

In other words, and in terms of how an NBA season begins and ends: '00-'01 season to the '09-'10 season.

And it can be subjective, basketball-wise, because the seasons don't begin and end in the same calendar year. The argument can be made that the Lakers in the '99-'00 season technically were the only NBA champion to be crowned in the year '00. Thus, going by that logic, the tenth champion would be crowned at the end of the '08-'09 season. -- Logic I obviously don't ascribe to, but it's an argument nonetheless. --

The success of the Spurs and Lakers obviously fueled this debate going the way it did, because of the time in which the Duncan, Shaq and Kobe's reign began. Seeing as Duncan claimed his first title in the '98-'99 season and the Lakers began their latest reign during the '99-'00 season, this was obviously viewed as the beginning of their decade, in a lot of sports writers eyes.

The thing they failed to acknowledge, however, - well, at least most -- is that the Spurs started off this run of dominance in '98-'99. And if they're really looking to coin a 'Team of the Decade' because of each teams' respective success, and to claim whom is actually deserving of the moniker...

The decade would have ended during the '07-'08 season and the Spurs would no doubt be the "Team of that Decade."

It really is so much easier to use common, chronological logic, though..

Don't you think?:hat

[Nathan Explosion]

The Spurs have never had to rebuild. They've never missed the playoffs. The lowest winning percentage they had was this year and a "shockingly bad" .659 (.646 if using the 99-00 season). The Spurs cracked .700 6 times since 2000 (if you want to start there). Using the 99-00 season as a starting point, the Spurs winning percentage is .702 (winning percentages added together and then divided by 10).

The Lakers' worst winning percentage was .415. The Lakers have cracked .700 twice (3 times if you want 1999-2000 which is still half of the times the Spurs did). The Lakers winning percentage over the same time is .646.