Lakers
Spurs
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 compe ion 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.
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.
3-peat > 3
and the spurs have 4 total
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.
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 compe ion 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 compe ion 2 games over .500.
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 about Donaghy with the calls they got in game 6 of '02.
The Spurs compe ion 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
Not even comparable. Here's their best EC playoff opponent in their 6 les:
'91 - Detroit: 50-32 (record was , 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.
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 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 compe ion 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 compe ion 2 games over .500.
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 about Donaghy with the calls they got in game 6 of '02.
The Spurs compe ion 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
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.
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 cons ues 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 les 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 en led to your opinion...
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 le defense.
hi laker fans
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 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.
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.
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
14 rings > 4 rings.
9-2 Lifetime playoff record vs the Spurs.
NEXT
Spurs = LAKER'S RED HEADED STEP CHILD 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
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
Same # of les - 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.
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.
Keep on reaching Laker fan... 9-2 playoff record in a 10 year span? Really? How dumb are you?
And playoff records mean 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 .Keep on reaching Laker fan... 9-2 playoff record in a 10 year span? Really? How dumb are you?
And playoff records mean 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.....
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote