NBA.com names Kobe player of the decade, lakers team of the decade!

[SinBAD]

http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/david_aldridge/12/21/morning.tip/index.html?ls=iref:nbahpt1

http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/vince_thomas/12/15/lakers.spurs.debate/index.html

While it is true the lakers beat us in more series, we made it to the playoffs every year so we are the team of the decade like everyone says. This is just from a pro-lakers perspective. No worries.
Go spurs

[Mel_13]

http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/david_aldridge/12/21/morning.tip/index.html?ls=iref:nbahpt1

http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/vince_thomas/12/15/lakers.spurs.debate/index.html

While it is true the lakers beat us in more series, we made it to the playoffs every year so we are the team of the decade like everyone says. This is just from a pro-lakers perspective. No worries.
Go spurs


You cite two different writers. One has the Spurs as Team of the Decade, the other has the Lakers.

[21_Blessings]

While it is true the lakers beat us in more series, we made it to the playoffs every year so we are the team of the decade like everyone says. This is just from a pro-lakers perspective. No worries.
Go spurs

So a team like the Spurs that doesn't give a shit about the regular season is team of the decade because of their regular season success? :rollin

Look dude, simple math: 4 rings > 3 rings. 6 finals > 3 finals. 4-1 head to head. Three-peat > failure to repeat three times

Los Angeles Lakers: Team of the Decade.

[mytespurs]

So a team like the Spurs that doesn't give a shit about the regular season is team of the decade because of their regular season success? :rollin

Look dude, simple math: 4 rings > 3 rings. 6 finals > 3 finals. 4-1 head to head. Three-peat > failure to repeat three times

Los Angeles Lakers: Team of the Decade.

Best ever list are subjective-whoever prepares the list will pick their best ever on whatever criteria they deem important. So nba.com picks Lakers; another organization picks spurs-no the spurs haven't 3 peated; they only have 3 rings vs. 4 but the bottom line is results and BOTH TEAMS were multi-champions and that's all that really matters.

[Tp9gospursgo]

Spurs=made playoffs every yr in the decade...can't say that much bout the Lakers who almost traded Kobe..Spurs>Lakers Spurs are the team of the decade.

[lefty]

So a team like the Spurs that doesn't give a shit about the regular season is team of the decade because of their regular season success? :rollin

Look dude, simple math: 4 rings > 3 rings. 6 finals > 3 finals. 4-1 head to head. Three-peat > failure to repeat three times

Los Angeles Lakers: Team of the Decade.

Congrats for your David Stern titles

[Duncan2177]

Kobe player of the decade? That's a bunch of horse shit.

[all_heart]

So a team like the Spurs that doesn't give a shit about the regular season is team of the decade because of their regular season success? :rollin

Look dude, simple math: 4 rings > 3 rings. 6 finals > 3 finals. 4-1 head to head. Three-peat > failure to repeat three times

Los Angeles Lakers: Team of the Decade.

So how did it feel that day when your beloved Kobe wanted to get traded and then "change his mind" later that day??! Did it feel like your daddy wanted to leave you behind?

[duncan228]

Kobe player of the decade? That's a bunch of horse shit.

SI.com picked Duncan.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=142010

PLAYER OF THE DECADE: Tim Duncan, San Antonio Spurs
The greatest power forward in NBA history, Duncan was the reason San Antonio became the only team to make the playoffs every year of the decade. He was the most valuable team player of his era, an active defender who chased pick-and-rolls out to the three-point line and yet hustled back to protect the rim and control the boards. Offensively, the Spurs played through him as a passer in the post, and his dependable mid-range jumper off the backboard will be part of his highlight reel when he checks into Springfield.

[rascal]

How many times do we have to go over this? The Lakers are the team of the deacade but so what.

[Lackluster]

my choice for team of the decade doesn't go 34-48

[namlook]

So a team like the Spurs that doesn't give a shit about the regular season is team of the decade because of their regular season success? :rollin

Look dude, simple math: 4 rings > 3 rings. 6 finals > 3 finals. 4-1 head to head. Three-peat > failure to repeat three times

Los Angeles Lakers: Team of the Decade.

Yeah it's a no brainer to me too. The Spurs had the best front office but the Lakers had the most success in the decade. More success in the post season is more valued than regular season wins.

[namlook]

my choice for team of the decade doesn't go 34-48

Team performances each year in the decade. Lakers come out on top if you look at it year by year.

99-00 Lakers: Championship / Spurs: Lost 1st round (Lakers 1 / Spurs 0)
00-01 Lakers: Championship / Spurs: Lost WCF (Lakers 2 / Spurs 0)
01-02 Lakers: Championship / Spurs: Lost 2nd round (Lakers 3 / Spurs 0)
02-03 Spurs: Championship / Lakers: Lost 2nd round (Lakers 3 / Spurs 1)
03-04 Lakers: Lost Finals / Spurs: Lost 2nd round (Lakers 4 / Spurs 1)
04-05 Spurs: Championship / Lakers: No playoffs (Lakers 4 / Spurs 2)
05-06 Spurs: Lost 2nd round / Lakers: Lost 1st round (Lakers 4 / Spurs 3)
06-07 Spurs: Championship / Lakers: Lost 1st round (Lakers 4 / Spurs 4)
07-08 Lakers: Lost finals / Spurs Lost WCF (Lakers 5 / Spurs 4)
08-09 Lakers : Championship / Spurs: Lost 1 round (Lakers 6 / Spurs 4)

[imagevo]

Who cares?

[VBM]

Hate to say it, but Lakers are the team of the decade...they have one more ring, and while we could say they missed the postseason one year, they can say we never repeated. That said, we def. did more with less, but looking at the results, LA edges San Antonio thanks to LA's 09 title.

Again, it's just a label, but something fun to argue nonetheless...

[raspsa]

It would be interesting to see the cumulative payroll of both teams for the decade.

[arodz]

Again, it's just a label, but something fun to argue nonetheless...

And that's all it is. Laker fans think they're the team of every freakin' decade. But this is our decade....period.

[crc21209]

So a team like the Spurs that doesn't give a shit about the regular season is team of the decade because of their regular season success? :rollin

Look dude, simple math: 4 rings > 3 rings. 6 finals > 3 finals. 4-1 head to head. Three-peat > failure to repeat three times

Los Angeles Lakers: Team of the Decade.

I really don't know why you or Laker fans pride yourself on those 6 Finals appearances....you fucking lost 2 of those....and it took them 7 years to finally win another Finals after 2002. The Spurs on the other hand, won 50+ games in every Season of the Decade and won every Finals series they appeared in.

[TheProfessor]

Who cares?

[Man In Black]

2 finals losses mind you in which one was classified as a 5 game sweep and the other resulted in the biggest scoring disparity in NBA finals history given to you by your most hated adversary.

Whatevs LAL fan. Spurs can say that they've NEVER been defeated in the NBA Finals :)

[ezau]

So a team like the Spurs that doesn't give a shit about the regular season is team of the decade because of their regular season success? :rollin

Look dude, simple math: 4 rings > 3 rings. 6 finals > 3 finals. 4-1 head to head. Three-peat > failure to repeat three times

Los Angeles Lakers: Team of the Decade.

Missed the playoffs <<<< A team that has made the playoffs for 10 consecutive seasons

[ezau]

2 finals losses mind you in which one was classified as a 5 game sweep and the other resulted in the biggest scoring disparity in NBA finals history given to you by your most hated adversary.

Whatevs LAL fan. Spurs can say that they've NEVER been defeated in the NBA Finals :)

Brilliant!

[21_Blessings]

Congrats for your David Stern titles

lol Amare game 6 lol

You shouldn't bite the hand that feeds ya.

[21_Blessings]

Whatevs LAL fan. Spurs can say that they've NEVER been defeated in the NBA Finals :)

Back to back to back

No repeat -- no dynasty :lol

[Man In Black]

Back to back to back

No repeat -- no dynasty :lol

Larry Legend Bird never went back to back, so why was that era called a Celtics Dynasty?

If Bean fails and becomes the first ever team leader of a Phil Jackson led team to not repeat, let alone three peat, are you going to say the same?

[NFGIII]

So a team like the Spurs that doesn't give a shit about the regular season is team of the decade because of their regular season success? :rollin

Look dude, simple math: 4 rings > 3 rings. 6 finals > 3 finals. 4-1 head to head. Three-peat > failure to repeat three times

Los Angeles Lakers: Team of the Decade.

When are people in this world going to understand what a decade/century/millenium constitute?

All start with 1 and end in 0! No dicussion or debate. PERIOD. That is what the pros say. All those who think otherwise need to do their research or STFU. This concept isn't open to debate.

Lakers - 2001/2002/2009

Spurs - 2003/2005/2007

3 Rings each and this year will be the tiebreker.

2001 - Lakers
2002 - Lakers
2003 - Spurs
2004 - Pistons
2005 - Spurs
2006 - Heat
2007 - Spurs
2008 - Celtics
2009 - Lakers
2010 - ???????

Now if the debate was about the best team from 2000 - 2009 then the Lakers have more rings - 4 to 3 and are the better team based on rings which seems to be the criteria for determining who are the better teams.

Yes, this is a pet peeve and I know that many/most will say that decades start with 0s because it is esay to understand that type of number in this particular context - but it aint so! They don't - never have and never will. Regardless of what any of you have to say about it.

Frankly so far this season the Spurs are behind the Lakers in the running for that 4th ring of the decade. Still early and the verdict is still out.

Will see.

Ramblings over

:flag:

[SA210]

NBA.com :pctoss

[ElNono]

Also, the long time commissioner of the league David Stern had this to say when asked what his dream NBA Finals match-up would be, "Lakers vs. Lakers." He also said "I'd be lying if I told you there wasn't a special fascination with the Lakers."


In the end, who cares? I sure feel fortunate to have witnessed one of the finest runs in all professional sports. And hopefully we still have a season or two more to extend it.

[Strike]

Couldn't care less. Lakers, Spurs, whoever. Meaningless recognition.

[Rummpd]

Who cares but is is sublime to consider Kobe player of the Decade over Duncan. Shaq could have been in discussion but Kobe a poor 3rd as he WAS NOT THE MAN on the LAL 3 peat.

[antgomez2009]

So a team like the Spurs that doesn't give a shit about the regular season is team of the decade because of their regular season success? :rollin

Look dude, simple math: 4 rings > 3 rings. 6 finals > 3 finals. 4-1 head to head. Three-peat > failure to repeat three times

Los Angeles Lakers: Team of the Decade.


6 finals apperances, 2 failures for the lakers, you act like they are mad superior over the Spurs during the decade! I think you got a case of Amnesia son!!

Dont forget the Kobe tirade, adultery, quitting on your teammates, and the whole Shaqtus thing!!!

Oh yea, yall didnt make the playoffs one year! dont forget that you got smacked by like 30 to the Boston Celtics!

but yea, ill give the lakers the Edge over my team the Spurs! just a slight edge! because whether we control being healty or not, or getting a side leaning jumper with .04 seconds or get a Gasol trade for next to nothing, it just doesnt matter! All in all, Lakers 1/4th better over the Spurs!!

You got to show Shaq some love, because if it wasnt for him, and yes Kobe too, but ultimately Shaq carried the Lakers to three titles! numbers dont lie, and Finals MVP dont either!!!!....So if it wasnt for him, the lakers would of won their first championship last year 2009! and the Spurs would have three more under their belt!! Real Talk!!

[Frenzy]

When are people in this world going to understand what a decade/century/millenium constitute?

All start with 1 and end in 0! No dicussion or debate. PERIOD. That is what the pros say. All those who think otherwise need to do their research or STFU. This concept isn't open to debate.

Lakers - 2001/2002/2009

Spurs - 2003/2005/2007

3 Rings each and this year will be the tiebreker.

2001 - Lakers
2002 - Lakers
2003 - Spurs
2004 - Pistons
2005 - Spurs
2006 - Heat
2007 - Spurs
2008 - Celtics
2009 - Lakers
2010 - ???????

Now if the debate was about the best team from 2000 - 2009 then the Lakers have more rings - 4 to 3 and are the better team based on rings which seems to be the criteria for determining who are the better teams.

Yes, this is a pet peeve and I know that many/most will say that decades start with 0s because it is esay to understand that type of number in this particular context - but it aint so! They don't - never have and never will. Regardless of what any of you have to say about it.

Frankly so far this season the Spurs are behind the Lakers in the running for that 4th ring of the decade. Still early and the verdict is still out.

Will see.

Ramblings over

:flag:


(Points at you ,aims the t-shirt cannon and fires) :tu







oh a side note... yes shaq can the team of the decade...Pretty cool. Oh wait the lakers... right the lakers. :wakeup

[jack0fspeed]

So a team like the Spurs that doesn't give a shit about the regular season is team of the decade because of their regular season success? :rollin

Look dude, simple math: 4 rings > 3 rings. 6 finals > 3 finals. 4-1 head to head. Three-peat > failure to repeat three times

Los Angeles Lakers: Team of the Decade.

No disrespect to Duncan and the Spurs (close second in both categories IMHO) but Lakers and Kobe are the right call.

[jack0fspeed]

When are people in this world going to understand what a decade/century/millenium constitute?

All start with 1 and end in 0! No dicussion or debate. PERIOD. That is what the pros say. All those who think otherwise need to do their research or STFU. This concept isn't open to debate.
...

:flag:

wrong

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

...
Although any period of ten years is a decade, a convenient and frequently referenced interval is based on the tens digit of the calendar year, as in using 1960s to represent the decade from 1960 to 1969.[1][2] Often, for brevity, only the tens part is mentioned (60s or sixties), although this may leave it uncertain which century is meant. These references are frequently used to encapsulate pop culture or other widespread phenomena that dominated such a decade, as in The Great Depression of the 1930s.
...

[VBM]

wrong

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

...
Although any period of ten years is a decade, a convenient and frequently referenced interval is based on the tens digit of the calendar year, as in using 1960s to represent the decade from 1960 to 1969.[1][2] Often, for brevity, only the tens part is mentioned (60s or sixties), although this may leave it uncertain which century is meant. These references are frequently used to encapsulate pop culture or other widespread phenomena that dominated such a decade, as in The Great Depression of the 1930s.
...

Cosign...because dammit...the Class of 2000 is the class of the millenium. :toast

[draft87]

Who cares but is is sublime to consider Kobe player of the Decade over Duncan. Shaq could have been in discussion but Kobe a poor 3rd as he WAS NOT THE MAN on the LAL 3 peat.


what?

[lefty]

lol Amare game 6 lol

You shouldn't bite the hand that feeds ya.
You are really stupid

In Amare's case (and Diaw's), the rules were applied; those were the rules, plain and simple

The same rules that were applied during the Heat-Knicks series in 1997.


In the Laker's case, he did the opposite, bypassing basic basketball rules

[VBM]

You are really stupid

In Amare's case (and Diaw's), the rules were applied; those were the rules, plain and simple

The same rules that were applied during the Heat-Knicks series in 1997.



Those rules weren't applied to Boston in 08...if ever I felt bad for Suns fans, it was then...

[draft87]

wrong

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

...
Although any period of ten years is a decade, a convenient and frequently referenced interval is based on the tens digit of the calendar year, as in using 1960s to represent the decade from 1960 to 1969.[1][2] Often, for brevity, only the tens part is mentioned (60s or sixties), although this may leave it uncertain which century is meant. These references are frequently used to encapsulate pop culture or other widespread phenomena that dominated such a decade, as in The Great Depression of the 1930s.
...


When are people in this world going to understand what a decade/century/millenium constitute?

All start with 1 and end in 0! No dicussion or debate. PERIOD. That is what the pros say. All those who think otherwise need to do their research or STFU. This concept isn't open to debate.

Lakers - 2001/2002/2009

Spurs - 2003/2005/2007

3 Rings each and this year will be the tiebreker.

2001 - Lakers
2002 - Lakers
2003 - Spurs
2004 - Pistons
2005 - Spurs
2006 - Heat
2007 - Spurs
2008 - Celtics
2009 - Lakers
2010 - ???????

Now if the debate was about the best team from 2000 - 2009 then the Lakers have more rings - 4 to 3 and are the better team based on rings which seems to be the criteria for determining who are the better teams.

Yes, this is a pet peeve and I know that many/most will say that decades start with 0s because it is esay to understand that type of number in this particular context - but it aint so! They don't - never have and never will. Regardless of what any of you have to say about it.

Frankly so far this season the Spurs are behind the Lakers in the running for that 4th ring of the decade. Still early and the verdict is still out.

Will see.

Ramblings over

:flag:


It's embarrassing when a Mavs fan 'owns' a Spurs fan....Spurs fans need to learn not to get all 'aggro' when they think the truth is evading the common board member(I too am sometimes guilty)

People won't be so quick to yell "BURN" if the post didn't get all messy

"STFU no discussion or debate. This concept isn't open to debate. Now if the debate was about who was the best team from 2000-2009"

But when you tell someone to STFU and do their research and then a Mavs fan does their research, quotes a reputable source, and makes you look like a self-righteous ding-dong it's hard not to giggle.

HOWEVER. Like all Mavs fans/owners, they only quoted the part that makes them right. The third paragraph reads:

"Some writers like to point out that since the common calendar starts from the year 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1), its first full decade contained the years from 1 to 10, the second decade from 11 to 20, and so on.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decade#cite_note-2) The interval from the year 2001 to 2010 could thus be called the 201st decade, using ordinal numbers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinal_number_%28linguistics%29). However, contrary to practices in referencing centuries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centuries), ordinal references to decades are quite uncommon."

That supports the righteous Spurs fan's opinion.

BUT
read the final two paragraphs and you'll find that 'decade' is indeed subject to interpretation and open to debate.

"In addition to the interpretations noted above, a decade may refer to an arbitrary span of 10 years. For example, the statement "during his last decade, Mozart explored chromatic harmony to a degree rare at the time," merely refers to the last 10 years of Mozart's life without regard to which calendar years are encompassed.

Thus, an unqualified reference to, for example, "the decade" or "this decade" may strictly speaking have multiple interpretations, and one must consider whether the context is, for example, a cultural reference, an ordinal reference, or some other context."




So the Spurs fan and the Mavs fan are both right and wrong. Get over yourselves.







All they did was prove that you can manipulate the term 'decade' to support whatever point you're trying to make. The NBA wants to hype the Lakers but it's not like we didn't already know that. When you get too wrapped up in this stupid discussion, especially to try to convince feeble minds that the Lakers aren't The Team of the Decade you're being just as lame and biased as NBA.com

[Rummpd]

what?

How can a player be the best of a decade when he was not the best on his team for much of that decade? Shaq was THE consensus reason that the Lakers were that dominant and therefore the choice of player of the decade has to come down to the most dominant player on the most dominant teams for the great part of that decade - that is Shaq or Duncan NOT Kobe!

[rascal]

When are people in this world going to understand what a decade/century/millenium constitute?

All start with 1 and end in 0! No dicussion or debate. PERIOD. That is what the pros say. All those who think otherwise need to do their research or STFU. This concept isn't open to debate.

Lakers - 2001/2002/2009

Spurs - 2003/2005/2007

3 Rings each and this year will be the tiebreker.

2001 - Lakers
2002 - Lakers
2003 - Spurs
2004 - Pistons
2005 - Spurs
2006 - Heat
2007 - Spurs
2008 - Celtics
2009 - Lakers
2010 - ???????

Now if the debate was about the best team from 2000 - 2009 then the Lakers have more rings - 4 to 3 and are the better team based on rings which seems to be the criteria for determining who are the better teams.

Yes, this is a pet peeve and I know that many/most will say that decades start with 0s because it is esay to understand that type of number in this particular context - but it aint so! They don't - never have and never will. Regardless of what any of you have to say about it.

Frankly so far this season the Spurs are behind the Lakers in the running for that 4th ring of the decade. Still early and the verdict is still out.

Will see.

Ramblings over

:flag:


You are getting confused with years and straight numbers. If you are counting just numbers then it goes 1-10 for a decade (10) thats straight numbers. When talking about years you need to count the year 2000 as 1, so it is generally considered that the decade of the 2000's starts at the year 2000 and goes to 2009.

[lefty]

Those rules weren't applied to Boston in 08...if ever I felt bad for Suns fans, it was then...
True, what happened in 08 was outrageous

[Dex]

Surprise of the Decade!

[draft87]

How can a player be the best of a decade when he was not the best on his team for much of that decade? Shaq was THE consensus reason that the Lakers were that dominant and therefore the choice of player of the decade has to come down to the most dominant player on the most dominant teams for the great part of that decade - that is Shaq or Duncan NOT Kobe!

OH. ok yeah then I'm sorry I don't think 'sublime' is the correct word to describe the misconception that Kobe was the dominant force on the 2000-2002 era Lakers. That and the typo threw me off, I'm used to reading rants by 'newbies' who just became Spurs fans or people who the Spurs equivalent of hyped up Lakers fans. Ya know, like a pre-GED level Stephen A Smith....

no bad intentions, just didn't understand at first.

[draft87]

You are getting confused with years and straight numbers. If you are counting just numbers then it goes 1-10 for a decade (10) thats straight numbers. When talking about years you need to count the year 2000 as 1, so it is generally considered that the decade of the 2000's starts at the year 2000 and goes to 2009.


Totally. Here's a better link than the Mavs fan posted.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000%E2%80%932009

[Blackjack]

draft87 is pretty spot-on, in that decades are subjective, but I'll try not to be as long-winded.

By the criteria they've set forth, the Lakers are the team of the decade; four championships and six appearances trumps the Spurs, even with the two lean years post-Shaq.

But that same criteria also leads to the conclusion that Duncan should be the player of the decade. It's an individual accomplishment and no other player has combined a more accomplished resume individually than Tim; the All-NBA's, All-Star selections, and the two league and Finals MVP's.

It's my belief that this decade began in the '00-'01 season, as it was the first full season of the '00's, and that this year should be the deciding factor when awarding these kind of honors.

And if that were the case, both the team and player, in my eyes, could very well still be up for grabs.

[temujin]

TRADE of the decade: Lakers (Gasol for nothing).

CALLS of the decade: Lakers (Several, mostly against Kings).

REFEREE of the decade: Joey Crawford (Lakers).

SLOW CLOCK of the decade: Lakers (In San Antonio!!!).

The Lakers pretty much own the decade in all categories that are relevant.


PS. To business.

[resistanze]

Wgas.

[HarlemHeat37]

I agree that the Lakers are the team of the decade from a winning perspective, their last title put them on top..obviously they benefit from the league and collusion, but there's no actual proof that can be presented, so we have to recognize them as #1..

the Spurs have had the better run though from many perspectives..

-The same core for most of the run..

-If you include the '99 season, which we should, then the Spurs tied the streak for consecutive seasons with 50+ wins, and the team would break it this year IIRC..Magic's Lakers were the only other team here..

-No seasons where we had to see rebuilding..

-No drama from any players and they all did it with class..

-Contender for pretty much every year that Duncan was in the NBA other than last season..



Duncan is clearly player of the decade, it's actually not close..the arguments for Kobe are actually pretty weak and he benefits heavily from revisionist history in this regard..the media's opinion is irrelevant to me, since Kobe brings them better publicity and makes them more $, so naturally they're going to pick him..the arguments are weak though, the argument for Duncan is much stronger..

[GrandeDavid]

I could care less about outside opinions. As a fan emotionally invested in the San Antonio community and Spurs organization, I know this franchise's worth and excellence. I don't need nba.com or cnnsi.com to toot our horn. Let's get #5 this season. That's all that should be of interest instead of worthless chatter.

[2Cleva]

http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/david_aldridge/12/21/morning.tip/index.html?ls=iref:nbahpt1

http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/vince_thomas/12/15/lakers.spurs.debate/index.html

While it is true the lakers beat us in more series, we made it to the playoffs every year so we are the team of the decade like everyone says. This is just from a pro-lakers perspective. No worries.
Go spurs

Gotta beat the man to be the man.

[rascal]

draft87 is pretty spot-on, in that decades are subjective, but I'll try not to be as long-winded.

By the criteria they've set forth, the Lakers are the team of the decade; four championships and six appearances trumps the Spurs, even with the two lean years post-Shaq.

But that same criteria also leads to the conclusion that Duncan should be the player of the decade. It's an individual accomplishment and no other player has combined a more accomplished resume individually than Tim; the All-NBA's, All-Star selections, and the two league and Finals MVP's.

It's my belief that this decade began in the '00-'01 season, as it was the first full season of the '00's, and that this year should be the deciding factor when awarding these kind of honors.

And if that were the case, both the team and player, in my eyes, could very well still be up for grabs.

The decade of the 2000s starts when the title is won and that is 2000. Only two months are played in 1999 so the majority of the season is played in 2000 and the playoffs and the title is won in 2000 so the first year of the decade is 1999-2000.

[Chillen]

It's pretty close actually, both franchises are neck to neck, but I give the edge to the Spurs. They made the playoffs every season, and kept winning NBA titles every odd year. They also made the 2005 finals and beat a very good Detroit team, which the Lakers failed to do in the 2004 NBA finals. The Lakers have that 3peat and 3 NBA finals appearences in 2004, 2008, 2009, which they won once. That is impressive but they missed the playoffs in 2005, which the Spurs never did. Edge= Spurs

[exstatic]

NBA apparatchik pimping the Lakers. Imagine that.

[exstatic]

Gotta beat the man to be the man.

Like the Lakers didn't in 2000,2001,2002? On that Score it's Spurs 2 (2003,2005), Lakers 1 (2008).

[dbestpro]

this just adds fuel the fire that the Lakers get preferential treatment from the NBA as NBA.com is the official website of the NBA. So maybe we should just say that Kobe and the Lakers are Stern's team of the decade.

[nuclearfm]

Complete BULL. You put TD on any team and they are a playoff team. You put Kobe on any team and he's begging to be traded because he can't do shit by himself.

[silverblackfan]

SI.com picked Duncan.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=142010

PLAYER OF THE DECADE: Tim Duncan, San Antonio Spurs
The greatest power forward in NBA history, Duncan was the reason San Antonio became the only team to make the playoffs every year of the decade. He was the most valuable team player of his era, an active defender who chased pick-and-rolls out to the three-point line and yet hustled back to protect the rim and control the boards. Offensively, the Spurs played through him as a passer in the post, and his dependable mid-range jumper off the backboard will be part of his highlight reel when he checks into Springfield.

Only a fan will really appreciate that sweet bank shot of his, but as video at the HOF, it is not very flashy. Like Tim. Not flashy, but gets the job done better than anyone.

[spurs2112]

LA can have their "team of the decade", at least we won with what we had. Spurs took a 28th & 57th pick, players like Bowen & Fab (who aren't the most talented bunch) & turned them into 3 time champions. We took what we had & made the most of it, sure beats buying the talent. This is just the media & the NBA patting LA's ass again. Don't argue over it Spurs fans, you know it don't bother the team & it shouldn't bother us.

[nevitt_&_smrek]

It's pretty close actually, both franchises are neck to neck, but I give the edge to the Spurs. They made the playoffs every season, and kept winning NBA titles every odd year. They also made the 2005 finals and beat a very good Detroit team, which the Lakers failed to do in the 2004 NBA finals. The Lakers have that 3peat and 3 NBA finals appearences in 2004, 2008, 2009, which they won once. That is impressive but they missed the playoffs in 2005, which the Spurs never did. Edge= Spurs

So if the Lakers and Spurs flipped results, you'd still feel the same way? Personally, I'll take 4 titles & 6 non-playoff teams vs. 3 titles & 10 playoff teams. # of titles trump all else.

In golf, I'll take a major win & 3 misse cuts over 4 r-ups.

[ynh]

When are people in this world going to understand what a decade/century/millenium constitute?

All start with 1 and end in 0! No dicussion or debate. PERIOD. That is what the pros say. All those who think otherwise need to do their research or STFU. This concept isn't open to debate.

Lakers - 2001/2002/2009

Spurs - 2003/2005/2007

3 Rings each and this year will be the tiebreker.

2001 - Lakers
2002 - Lakers
2003 - Spurs
2004 - Pistons
2005 - Spurs
2006 - Heat
2007 - Spurs
2008 - Celtics
2009 - Lakers
2010 - ???????

Now if the debate was about the best team from 2000 - 2009 then the Lakers have more rings - 4 to 3 and are the better team based on rings which seems to be the criteria for determining who are the better teams.

Yes, this is a pet peeve and I know that many/most will say that decades start with 0s because it is esay to understand that type of number in this particular context - but it aint so! They don't - never have and never will. Regardless of what any of you have to say about it.

Frankly so far this season the Spurs are behind the Lakers in the running for that 4th ring of the decade. Still early and the verdict is still out.

Will see.

Ramblings over

:flag:

That's the dumbest shit I've read in a while. I can't believe you can't grasp the basic concept that a decade starts on day one of year zero

[ynh]

Seriously.. time doesn't start at year 1.. 1 constitutes 366 days.. We started at day one not day 366.

[ynh]

Seriously thats as stupid as saying a new day starts at 1am

[ynh]

To make this simple to understand.. and "the pros" understand it too.. A decade is not just made up of years.. it is made up of months, weeks, days, hours, and seconds. So you start to count a decade at 0 year, 0 month, 0 week, 0 day, 0 hour, 0.00000000(going on for a shit load)01 seconds. It's like in math.. there are numbers between 0 and 1.. we just don't start out at 1.

[ynh]

Oh and I don't like the lakers but agree.. though I think Duncan is player of the decade.

[SA210]

TRADE of the decade: Lakers (Gasol for nothing).

CALLS of the decade: Lakers (Several, mostly against Kings).

REFEREE of the decade: Joey Crawford (Lakers).

SLOW CLOCK of the decade: Lakers (In San Antonio!!!).

The Lakers pretty much own the decade in all categories that are relevant.


PS. To business.

[galvatron3000]

Duncan is the player of the last 10 years. Kobe began to emerge in 2000 and really took off in 2001. Duncan though has been LEADING his team since 1999 and has be the focal point since 1999. Kobe has had great moments and has improved more and more but a solid 10, that's Duncan and NO other player can say that. NONE!! Kobe lovers and Lakers lovers are delusional if they say otherwise. Kobe's defense was still suspect even when he won his first 1 team selection (should have gone to Eddie Jones) yet he has improved enough now to respect his defense. I don't think Tim's Defense was ever suspect until recently and he totally anchored the 2007 defense during the playoffs.

This making of the next Michael Jordan distraction is ridiculous. Yes, Kobe is a great player but the last 10 years belong to Duncan. On so many levels. Let this one rest. The resume' speaks volumes.

[rascal]

Oh and I don't like the lakers but agree.. though I think Duncan is player of the decade.

Agree.
Lakers are the team of the decade.
Duncan is the player of the decade.

[rascal]

To make this simple to understand.. and "the pros" understand it too.. A decade is not just made up of years.. it is made up of months, weeks, days, hours, and seconds. So you start to count a decade at 0 year, 0 month, 0 week, 0 day, 0 hour, 0.00000000(going on for a shit load)01 seconds. It's like in math.. there are numbers between 0 and 1.. we just don't start out at 1.

Some people don't understand math.

[Killakobe81]

thing that is funny ...If spurs had 4 titles last decade ... and the Lakers had 3 but NEVER miseed the playoffs Spur fan knows you would say rings are ALL that matter ...
I can see Duyncan over Kobe (though) it is close ...but team wise it's us tghe Lakers in 00's just like the 80's and 50's ...

[ynh]

Some people don't understand math.


Actually I was right and wrong. The guy that thinks the decade goes from 01 to the end of 10 is in fact wrong.. But I was wrong to say there was a year zero.. there was.. but it wasn't called year 0.

With a boring day at work I looked this up and the important date that the calender is based on is not 1 A.D as the other guy assumes.. it is based off 1 B.C.

So anyways.. if anyone is bored or wanted to know that is why a decade is 00-the end of 09 and not 01- the end of 10.