Reply With Quote
Here we go again..
This thread will discuss the NBA seasons 2000-2001 up to 2008-2009, nine seasons of this decade, with one season left to go. This does not include the 1999-2000 season, because that season carried over from the 90's. So a decade as far as the NBA goes is defined as beginning in 2000 (the 2000-2001 season) and ending in 2010 (the 2009-2010 season).
1. San Antonio Spurs - Clearly the most consistent team of the decade thus far. We started the decade with back-to-back playoff eliminations at the hands of the Lakers, but we finished at the top of the league in those seasons anyhow. The Spurs had the NBA's best record in 2000-2001, but the Lakers were hungry for revenge from getting swept by us in 1999, so they came out as the hungrier team and who could blame them...we shut down the Forum...they got us in 2001, but two years later we'd give them an even bigger crushing defeat as we closed out their three-peat. The next season we went down to the Lakers again, but finished tied for the league's second best record. Again, the Lakers just wanted it more than we did. We held 4th quarter leads in every playoff game in the 2002 series vs. the Lakers, we just missed shots. It happens. No big deal and nothing impressive by the Lakers. It was clear they had the officials on their side anyway that year.
The 2002-2003 to the 2006-2007 seasons were clearly Spurs territory. Not a single team comes close to the Spurs during this particular span, with the exception of the Detroit Pistons who appeared in the Eastern Conference Finals in every one of those seasons. The 2002-2003 season, once again the league's best record (tied for it). We won the championship, closed out the Lakers' 3 year run, had the MVP in Tim Duncan, what didn't the Spurs accomplish this season?
2003-2004, a semi-rebuilding year in which David Robinson, Steve Kerr, Danny Ferry, Speedy Claxton, and Stephen Jackson did not return from the 2003 championship team, but the team still finishes with the league's third best record. This year would have been a back-to-back championship, but a late clock start allowed Derek Fisher to get a shot off in 0.4, a shot that wouldn't have been allowed just two years earlier if the rules hadn't changed. But it's the Lakers so they can elbow people and not get called for it, or catch turn and shoot in 0.4 seconds.
2004-2005, the most dominant Spurs squad of this span. If not for a late season Duncan absence, the Spurs would clearly have finished with the league's best record, instead we finished tied with the Miami Heat for the leagues' second best record. It didn't matter, as the Spurs beat the annoying Sonics, shut down the favored Phoenix Suns 4 to 1 in the WCF, and beat the defending champion Pistons in 7. Next.
2005-2006, another dominant year as the Spurs finish with their best record in franchise history at 63-19, second to Detroit's 64-18 record. We all know what happened this year and if not for one play, this could have very well been a four-peat year if you take away Fisher's shot in 2004.
2006-2007, another routine year for Spurs fans. The Mavs hit BS shot after BS shot and finished with a 67-15 record, the Spurs finished with the 3rd best record in the league, but in the end the team that was supposed to win the championship, won it. Nothing big. The Spurs just went out did what they had been doing all decade.
2007-2008, no Manu. Enough said. 2008-2009, likewise.
The highest winning percentage in the NBA of the 2000's, three championships, the Spurs rank as the #1 team of the decade.
Here we go again..
Can't wait for part 2....
Oh, by your logic, 3 rings for the Lakers and 5 appearances trump anything you wrote.
The Lakers represented the West 5 times in 9 years.....eclipsing your Spurs who only did it 3 times. This is all that matters.
No surprise you always pick the Spurs. Then again you are a Spurs fan.
Lakers were better and it wasn't even close.
Lakers and Spurs....Co-Teams of the Decade....I can handle that. Lakers won more les, but Spurs were more consistent.
Spurs turned all the 3 times into championships, while the Lakers got eliminated twice by the eastern team. I can't agree on anything you posted but... I also expect the part two.
tl;dr
The Lakers' 2004 Finals isn't really legit. 0.4 shouldn't have counted and their WCF opponent was KG's Timberwolves.
Their 2009 Finals appearance was with an injured Yao, Manu was out so they didn't have to go through the Spurs, KG was out so they didn't have to go through a fully healthy Celtics team. Teams can find their way around things, which is what the Lakers did, doesn't make them any good...
Nothing personal against the Lakers, the Spurs are just better.
Another delusional Spur fan thinking all their team needed was a healthy Manu to beat the Lakers. The Spurs need quite a bit more then just Manu. Matt Bonner?, enough said.
So, the Lakers only had to go against KG's Timberwolves in 04, but they won this year because Boston didn't have KG?
No surprise you always pick the Lakers. Then again you are a Lakers fan.
Bull . Very close.
Pussy...
Spurs were consistently good throughout the decade, but with 1 less championship and 3 less appearance.
Lakers had more 1 championship and more 3 Finals appearance, but with a two year low in between.
Kind of like the Shaq vs. Duncan debate. One has a higher peak, the other one had consistency.
damn right.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
