Reply With Quote
When people analyze the history of the NBA and the greatness of teams, do they ask questions like, "who was the best team from 1967 to 1977?" Or do they ask questions like, "who was the best team of the 80s or the 90s?"
I thought we were referring to the last decade, as in the last 10 years.
When people analyze the history of the NBA and the greatness of teams, do they ask questions like, "who was the best team from 1967 to 1977?" Or do they ask questions like, "who was the best team of the 80s or the 90s?"
Because the 3peat is the tiebreaker and I'm even being nice and including your 1999 strike shortened le.
Yeah a decade is 70's, 80's, 90's etc. That's pretty much for all sports.
When saying a decade and acknowledging the time from when the Spurs got Duncan, it would seem that where I was coming from made sense. Obviously the Lakers have more history.
But fair enough. Even if we keep it only in the 2000's, it is not clearly the Lakers. Although the Lakers 3-peated (which is amazing) the Spurs have been more consistent in always competing for a le and winning les in the same time frame.
puhs eee
Lakers with more head to head wins.
You can point to teams the Lakers have worse records than compared to the Spurs.
That would be like saying the Warriors are better than the Mavs because of head to head. A bad match up does not = better.
3peat is the tiebreaker the spurs can't even win back to back.
So head to head wins mean nothing? Jesus. I wont even waste my time.
Sure it does, when it means that bad match-up is the result of one team beating the other team head-to-head.
The Warriors were the better team than the Mavs in 2007.
The Lakers had 3 sub 50 win seasons in a row (05,06,07), got knocked out of the first round twice (06,07) and did not even make the playoffs once (05) which was a season in which they had a losing record.
The Spurs have never won less than 53 games and have only not made it out of the first round once (when Duncan did not play).
I do not know how you can weight the 3 peat more than that.
Who said it means nothing? I said that is not the end all be all.
You are saying the Warriors would beat more teams overall than the Mavs that year?
No, what I'm saying is that the Warriors beating the Mavs in a playoff series made them the better team.
LeBron has always been soft when it comes to head/facial contact.
That is what I disagree with. It is about teams that are good and can compete for a le. Just because the Lakers have been a bad match up for the Spurs does not automatically make them a better team.
The Bucks are the only team in the league over the last 10 years with a winning record against the Spurs. If the Bucks (hypothetically) beat the Spurs in the first round of the playoffs, would you really think they are better?
Yes. Because if the Bucks were facing the Spurs in the first round, then the Spurs wouldn't have been winning championships.
But, with what you've been discussing anyway, the Lakers versus the Spurs, your examples of Mavs/Warriors and Spurs/Bucks are not at the root of the point of contention anyway. With the Lakers and the Spurs, one team isn't a perennial 50-60 win team and multiple championship winner and the other an on-and-off again lottery team that hasn't won anything and got lucky once in the playoffs.
The Lakers and the Spurs have both won multiple championships over the last 10 years and both have been powerhouse regular season teams, with the Lakers dropping off for a couple years. But, they have similar resumes over the last 10 years. Without that discrepancy you see between the Warriors and the Mavs and the Spurs and the Bucks, something like how the two teams have fared in head-to-head playoff match-ups does carry a great deal of weight when determining and evaluating which is the better team over the course of a given period of time.
Re: Team of he decade: decade goes from 2000-01 season to 2009-10 season. At this point, too close to call.
Spurs have 3 les, Lakers 2., but 4 finals appearances. 2 full seasons to fight it out yet. Detroit Pistons can stake a claim if they can win this year, next, or both. Doubtful the Heat can, they weren't consistent this decade.
That's my opinion on how it stands.
I can agree with that. My only point was that determining what weighs more on the discussion is hard to prove.
The 3peat weighs 1 BILLION times more than that...how many teams in ALL of NBA history have won 3 in a row? Think about it...it's not even close.
How many teams in history have had that many 50+ win seasons along with consecutive playoff apperances and les in the same time span?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
