Reply With Quote
The scary thing is that the Spurs did not miss out on five straight NBA les in a row by much. Yes, that assumes quite a bit, but man, 0.4* and Manu's grab might just have been the difference.
NBA Teams That Ruled the 2000s: A Statistical Ranking
Bleacher Report
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...stical-ranking
1. San Antonio Spurs (1,771.26 points)
Key stats: 571 wins, 10 playoff appearances, 82 playoff wins, seven-time Division Champs, three-time NBA Champs, 16 All-stars, two MVPs.
Even though I just got done making a case for the Lakers, it is really hard to argue against the Spurs at No. 1.
Yes, they are slow-paced.
Yes, they are boring.
Yes, they are TV ratings killer.
Yes, they are based in San Antonio.
Yes, Popovich is crazy.
Yes, Ginobli is a flopper.
Yes, Parker is French.
Yes, Duncan is the most un-superrish superstar ever.
Yes, Bruce Bowen is a dirty player.
And yes, you can't stand them.
But none of that matters. Their dominance is so beautiful that it trumps all of that. You cannot be a true NBA fan without appreciating and admiring the greatness of the Spurs. In an NBA era of increased parity, frequent trades, and diva personalities, the consistent dominance of the Spurs (57 wins per season average) is impossible. It is an anomaly.
The travesty behind it all is that we take it for granted. Everyone was fawning over Duncan when he entered the league, he got his MVP awards, and everyone agreed he will go down as one of the best ever...and then people stopped talking about it. Everyone loved Tony Parker his first couple years. He got the compliments, he got the girl, he got the all-star recognition...and then people stopped talking about it. It's not that people all of a sudden thought less of the two players, but they took them for granted. Start talking about the best PGs in the game today with your friends, and I guarantee you that Tony Parker will either be forgotten or mentioned well after what he deserves. He is a top three PG in the game, but you wouldn't know it, watching ESPN.
If you ask the Spurs, that's just the way they like it. Let the other teams and players have the spotlight, while they take the le (on every odd year.) The Spurs have quietly had one of the best sporting decades in modern sports history... I just hope it is remembered that way.
----------------
What's your take? Were the Lakers or Spurs the team of the 2000s?
The scary thing is that the Spurs did not miss out on five straight NBA les in a row by much. Yes, that assumes quite a bit, but man, 0.4* and Manu's grab might just have been the difference.
I agree, the Spurs are the most successful team of this decade. Even this is the Spurs-Section (but the article was posted here, thus I will put it here), I have to quote one part of the article concerning the Mavs:
"(Sidebar: Has a criminal investigation been launched over the 2006 Finals yet? I realize that Wade played out of his mind, but the only people who thought the refereeing wasn't absurd are (a) Miami fans, (b) the refs, (c) David Stern.)"
Nothing more to say...
The Spurs should be number one. The Lakers were good to start the decade........sucked ass in the middle, and just got good again in the last couple of years. The Spurs have been consistently good the entire decade.
+1
This is an argument I make quite a bit. Occasionally you'll hear analysts mention that fact as well. I do think the 2004 Pistons would have been one of a challenge though.
I think the Spurs need to win another le this year to solidify the "Team of the 2000s" notion in most peoples minds. The fact that LA also has three, in a row at that, shifts most people to that camp despite the Spurs consistency.
In that decade, who failed to make the playoffs? Who was a lottery team?What's your take? Were the Lakers or Spurs the team of the 2000s?
Not the Spurs. Case closed.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
