Lakers
Spurs
That Ginobili play? So you're using some obscure Ginobili flop as an argument to suggest the whole game was handed to the Spurs by Donaghy? You don't say???... This was the same game where Nash was credited for having drawn two offensive fouls on Duncan despite the fact that he was moving on both occasions??? Both calls whistled by your man, no less... The same game where where Parker was thrown on his back by Marion with no whistle.... Clearly, it was a poorly officiated game for both squads...
Besides... Amare's foul trouble was the most controversial aspect of that game... and unfortunately for your argument it wasn't Donaghy that put him in that predicament.
If anything, he was merely toying with the spread... not the outcome... Spurs would have won that game despite his alleged meddling... because that's all it is... an allegation...
I believe all NBA-nation pretty much saw the robbery that was commited that day by the league (Game 6 against the Kings)... Every one except for Lakers' homers knows this is true... not lost on the theme is the fact that LA also got away with murder in Game 7 against the Blazers two years before.As for 2002, the Lakers were completely screwed by the refs in games 2/3 and 5 against the Kings. So it evened out in the end. At least a convicted felon was officiating that series
Spurs 3 > Lakers 2Ok facts; Head to head: Lakers. Final appearances: Lakers. Threpeat vs nopeat: Lakers. Best indvidual team: Lakers. Team of the decade: Lakers
Enjoy watching the Lakers shut down SA's championship window for good this post season. Surely, end of an era. The era of the second best team of this decade.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 03-10-2009 at 01:20 PM.
So you agree? Exactly. The game was fixed by a convicted felon. Keep digging your grave.
Yeah worse, it was Stern.
Same thing happened to Lakers in game 5, you re . Got away with murder in game 7? Are you ing dumb?
Lakers 3, +2 finals, + 4-1 head to head > Spurs 3
It's all moot anyways. The Lakers are already the team of decade and they are going to cement that fact in a couple months.
I didn't say decade in the sentence that you quoted. But anyway, I think that the playoff success for both the Spurs and the Lakers is essentially a wash with 3 championships each. What I found to be convincing was that the Spurs' nadir was never as low as the Lakers' (34, 45, 42 win seasons). The Spurs never missed the playoffs and only lost in the first round without Duncan. The Lakers had their best player in both of their first round exits.
Then again, the Spurs never defended their championships which is why I think the debate is extremely close with me only giving the slightest of nods to the Spurs. When writing my original post, I actually did mean to say that the Lakers were the better team of the decade but on further reflection, went the other way.
After giving this more thought I think it is a two team race but the Spews are not 1 of the two teams. The topic is the best team of the decade. You put the team that had Shaq,Kobe,Fox,Horry,Horrace Grant, Isaiah Rider,Ron Harper,Derek Fisher,Devean George against any of the teams of this decade they would destroy them except for 1 team. The Celtics with Garnett,Pierce and Allen. They might have a chance. If the Celtics can win two in a row this decade I would increase that chance of beating the Lakers 2001 team. As of right now its the 2001 Lakers , the best team of the decade.
Of course Shaq was the most important player in their 3 championships so far, but Shaq is no longer there, Kobe still is.
No way these Celtics beat the 2001 Lakers. The Celtics absolutely could not stop Shaq whereas I think the Lakers could do a very good job of containing Pierce and Allen.
Yes it's very troublesome that there was no year 0, nonetheless in Sports we usually refer to things like the decade of the 80s or the 60s (of which 1990 was not a part of the 80s nor 1970 of the 60s).
I am thinking the same thing. I would like to see this Celtic team against any of the Spews teams this decade. I know they would destroy them and should be considered the second best team of this decade. I like the Pistons but they lost all thoses Eastern Championship games plus they lost to the Spews. Miami Heat only can thank those Mavs for choking so they are not even in the talk.
My list
2001 Lakers
2008 Celtics
2005 Spews
2004 Pistons
2002 Kings
2005 Suns
2006 Heat
2006 Mavericks
I did not put any team on twice. I thinks it Obvious any of the champion years the Lakers had would have killed anyone on the list.
Unbelievable.... Stern??? Now you're reaching. Stern wants nothing to do with the Donaghy scandal....
Yeah... you keep looking the other way... Typical.
The fact that you have to place so many qualifiers on your criteria says it all...
It doesn't take away the fact that this decade, the first of the new millenium, the:
Spurs have 3 les compared to the Lakers 2
3 > 2 any day of the week
LOL....... You sure you aren't a Laker fan?
Anyway, it's clear it's the Spurs, they've been contenders the whole decade, while the Lakers weren't. If the Lakers win it this year, then it's the Lakers.
Are u kidding me. "Its clear." HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I am looking at this two ways.
What world do you live in thinking the 2001 Lakers with Kobe,Shaq,Fox,Fisher,Horry,Harper,Rider,George and more could lose to the Spews. Seriously. Only in Spewland. That years team could beat any of the teams of the decade.
Now for the team that has the most success this decade. Its the Lakers. 3 rings. Went 4 straight freaken years to the finals. Spews won 3 rings and went 3 times to final. Very important to know the Spews had help along the way each year they won. Teams that were better than them lost their top players while playing the Spews in the Playoffs or right before they played them.
If it was not for that and The Shaq/Kobe fighting, the Spews would not have won .
It has to kill Spur fan inside knowing that his team's great run could potentially be overshadowed by the Lakers.
Honestly I don't think you can even call what they did a great run. Sure they cheated to get Duncan and he has made all the players look great. You don't see to many former Spew players making a difference on any other team plus other teams best players went down durning the runs. They never won back to back, thats because teams got healthy.
Look who the beat in the finals. The Nets,Cavilairs and the Pistons. I give Pistons some credit but fact is Pistons got beat in the Eastern Championship quit a few times. The did win one ring thanks to Kobe and Shaq fighting like two lil es.
People know this so noone can say the Spews are overrated but to think they were a dynasty or the best team of the decade is silly. I ranked them 3rd this decade because I'm a nice guy. If I were being honest I would put them down to 6-7-8.
Since 1999 (one decade)
Spurs 559-229 4 les
Lakers 496-292 3 les...
Where's the question?
House..you've already said this several times..be more creative and original, please? If we were being outshadowed, it wouldn't be all over ESPN and Sports Illustrated wouldn't be writing articles about one of the smallest sports markets having the best record over the last decade in all sports. Get over yourself.
Uh, I thought this was about a team of the decade as in the team through the decade, not the best in one year or two etc. of the decade.
LOL, in this case lets not forget getting bailed out by the refs against the Kings, a fluke shot, the Lakers/Memphis fraud, and Ginobilli playing hurt (and his stupid foul on Dirk).Now for the team that has the most success this decade. Its the Lakers. 3 rings. Went 4 straight freaken years to the finals. Spews won 3 rings and went 3 times to final. Very important to know the Spews had help along the way each year they won. Teams that were better than them lost their top players while playing the Spews in the Playoffs or right before they played them.
With that, Lakers didn't make the playoffs one season and were mediocre two others.
Also either Phenomaul is right or that other person whose name I can't remember right now. Since this other person has been mostly taken as wrong, it means Lakers have two les against the Spurs three (and they're 1:1 in the previous decade).
Yeah, they broke Robinson's foot intentionaly.Sure they cheated to get Duncan
You don't say?and he has made all the players look great.
So when you're a liar you're just dumb, but when you're honest you're very dumb?I ranked them 3rd this decade because I'm a nice guy. If I were being honest I would put them down to 6-7-8.
Oh yeah, one more thing.
And the Lakers beat the Sixers and the Nets and lost to the Pistons (and Celtics).
Thats right I forgot they went to 5 championship games this decade. Man the Lakers are cleary the best team of the decade in two ways, no arguement what so ever. They have the single greatest team of the decades, the 2001 Kobe/Shaq Lakers and have been to 5 championship games. Silly rabbit, trips are for kids.Oh yeah, one more thing.
And the Lakers beat the Sixers and the Nets and lost to the Pistons (and Celtics).
Last edited by jack sommerset; 03-10-2009 at 06:23 PM.
Uh, I thought this was about a team of the decade as in the team through the decade, not the best in one year or two etc. of the decade.
LOL, in this case lets not forget getting bailed out by the refs against the Kings, a fluke shot, the Lakers/Memphis fraud, and Ginobilli playing hurt (and his stupid foul on Dirk).
With that, Lakers didn't make the playoffs one season and were mediocre two others.
Also either Phenomaul is right or that other person whose name I can't remember right now. Since this other person has been mostly taken as wrong, it means Lakers have two les against the Spurs three (and they're 1:1 in the previous decade).
Yeah, they broke Robinson's foot intentionaly.
You don't say?
So when you're a liar you're just dumb, but when you're honest you're very dumb?
Sir you have no idea what you are talking about concerning this subject. I know its hard being a homer. When I was 7 I was a homer. It clouded my mind and made me think crazy thoughts. I decided back then to just enjoy sports for what it is. Fact is the Lakers are the best team of the decade from two positions. 5 championships trips and 3 wins. For the single greatest team the 2001 Lakers win that one to. Case closed
Last edited by jack sommerset; 03-10-2009 at 06:28 PM.
Dude..do you even pay attention, or are you simply mentally incapacitated? The post was about what team has been the best this decade...not what single team is the best of the decade, but what team has had the best decade...that would be the Spurs.
thank you thank you thank you for aknowledging that this decade includes 99.
and there is no question with that stat. more wins, less losses, more rings...one who would argue against that would be a fool
I read the le fool. Did you. It can be interpreted two ways. Seriously, THINK about it. You reply "Dude do you even pay attention" How bout you pay attention. Wow unreal. Whatever gets you through the day bro.
I am going to help you bro. Cause you don't get it. Some dude ask "what do you think the best team of the decade is". You say "Spews" Some other dude says "lakers" Some other guy says "Celtics" You and the other fool say "Man Celtics aren't the best team of the decade, they only won once" You both giggle like school girls because you think you made a funny. Anyways the guy says "Yup thats right but that years Celtic team could have beaten any of those teams you two fools said so that makes them the best team of the decade" GOD I hope you get this. Its really easy to understand.
lol..hilarious...you completely contradicted yourself. Saying it could be interpreted two ways and then at the end acting like only your way matters, and it's "easy to understand." You're unbelievably ignorant. The post clearly reads What team is the best of the decade...Spurs or Lakers...not Spurs of 2003 or Lakers of 2001. It's obvious what he's saying. Because the answer is clearly the Spurs, you choose to change the interpretation to whatever the you want. But, whatever gets you through the day BRO
okie dokie doggie daddy. you should pull ur head out of your ass and think a bit but whatever. I am not explaining this no more. if you don't get it, you don't get it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
