Reply With Quote
yeah, what a , Lakers have two es named Kobe and Vuja .
There is no team of the decade.
My criteria is five rings in a ten year span.
If the Lake Show gets back to back this year and next..they are it..but not before.
yeah, what a , Lakers have two es named Kobe and Vuja .
7 seed losing to the 2 seed? Nope.
No they aren't, moron. Playoff appearances don't mean , else Portland would be the 90's Team of the Decade you stupid re .
Try graduating High School before you post.
I think the three year window beginning from Shaq's Departure to Kobe's public demand for a trade pretty much dismisses the Lakers from any SERIOUS consideration.
A team of the decade can't be a punching bag for 3 seasons in the middle of the decade.
I like how 21 Palins just ignores the aborted fetus that was 2004-2007, when they missed the playoffs one year, choked a 3-1 deficit away another, then got curbstomped by the Suns in the other season.
lol, 24 point lead in game 4 of last years NBA finals
lol, Vuja is the property of Ray Allen
lol, Kobe whining like a little to management
lol, 4 All-stars=no championship
lol, missing playoffs in 2005
lol, owned by Suns two straight years
lol, 21_blessings
I'd rather be a Mavericks fan and feel like Charlie Brown after trying to kick the football every spring than be 21 Palins.
However...................
I sometimes forget the Lakers made the finals in 04.
5 finals appearances...and probably six....in ten years.
Sigh......mathematically it has to be the Lakers.
What is the timeline?
Are we talking the last 10 years?
Are we talking about the 2000s?
If so, when does this particular decade start? The 1999-2000 season or the 2000-01 season? Does it end this season or next season?
Depending on the parameters, the answer may change.
Good question.
1999-2000
2008-2009
See, I feel the decade starts on a 1 year, so the 2000-01 season. When you count to 10, you don't start at 0. You start at 1. I say this decade starts at the 2000-01 season and ends on the 2009-10 season. If that's the case, the Lakers only have two NBA championships in this decade so far.
Last edited by JamStone; 04-29-2009 at 07:23 PM.
Yes it does make sense. Defense reigns in the EC. Head-to-head, in single game match ups, the offensive team will have an edge. But in a 7 game series, defensive teams can make adjustments. We saw this exageraged last season against the Cavs, but it was true the other seasons as well. The only teams from the West to make it to the Finals played EC style defense. With the exception of 2002, where the East didn't even play much D either, the 2 conferences as a whole were equivalent.
Remember, it took an EC team to beat the Lakers in their 16-1 playoff run...
This isn't the topic I wanted to cover in this subject, but I brought it up because of the faulty logic you are invoking: By acknowledging that a Finals Berth is significantly > than a Conference Finals Exit, you are contradicting yourself. Either the East was the Least, or it was another important obstacle on the journey of winning a championship.
What wasn't embarrassing about it? The Lakers were healthy, had an opportunity to beat Phx by taking HCA, and lost. The fact they were even a lower seed does not bode well for this particular Team of the Decade argument.
Spurs were injured. There is a possibility that Dallas is coming together as had been expected, with a coach of Carlisle's caliber. Dallas is not devoid of talent, and were obviously good enough to take out a team missing a core piece.
Bynum was out for the '08 Finals. That series wasn't embarrassing for that reason alone. They came up against a more complete defensive team in the Celtics.
I think you are putting too much weight on back-to-backs when you are looking at a whole decade. Pistons had a back-to-back. Were they better than the Celtics from 81-90? Were they a DYNASTY? I think not.
If you are arguing who had a better contiguous run, I don't think anyone doubts the Lakers get that merit. But it is quan y of les, when looking over a long period of time, not when you won them. In a way, the fact they were down for a year and came back shows some great resilience. Few other teams have won so many les after such tumult in their rosters...
I don't believe San Antonio 'choked' in Dallas. Dallas had no business being in that Finals to begin with. Dallas was practically being handed the keys to the Finals by the referees, and Dallas STILL had to take the series to 7 on a last second shot, by Dirk of all people (IIRC)...
Unless you can directly define Dynasty (a term loosely thrown around, without much thought) it is difficult to make any arguments about it. Most say that if you don't win 4 in a decade, you are not a dynasty. Lakers and Spurs both have 3. In a single 10 year span, the Spurs have 4. Unless the Lakers meet both criteria, I think both the Spurs and the Lakers will be debated forever. Lakers still have a shot to do that, but until they do, 3 les is iffy on the Dynasty thing... Doesn't mean both teams were not great. Almost every champion won because they were among the BEST that season, for an 82 game marathon and 14-16 game playoff...
Again, this might be flawed based on my previous example.
Team of the decade kind of changed definition with the introduction of Free Agency. Just throwing that out there...
I think one other thing that stands out more as far as the Spurs is concerned, is that they're a small market compared to LA (thus being less attractive to attract free agents and even more so older stars), and they did most of this run mostly being under the cap (being a small market obviously had a lot to do with it).
I also agree that the abortion that the Lakers were between 04-07 is a serious detriment to their claims. The head to head between the Spurs and the Lakers would look a lot different if they would have played the Spurs instead of the Suns in the first round those years. The Spurs have been consistently dominant for the last 10 years, the Lakers simply have not. That they have had to rebuild their team midway through the decade says a lot of their decline. That they were successful rebuilding doesn't invalidate that assertion.
Only if they win the le this year. Until then, you kind of jumped the gun.
Why does that matter? les is the measuring stick.
And as you will soon find out to the contrary, 3 years to get your team back into a contender is nothing.
Official: 21_ gots is still a bandwagoning who doesn't know how many NBA les the Lakers have won
Official: 21_ gots still takes it up the poophole
The Lakers won 2 les this decade. Real talk.
Not yet.
About mid-June, yes.
Stupid thread.
Spurs are the most consistent team of this decade. We're probably looking at the end of their era though unless they can pull a rabbit out of the hat in the offseason.
...all about stirring the pot.....kicking a wounded duck that has already expired.......
The end results = championships. With the exception of the Pistons, Heat and Celtics, the Spurs or the Lakers have won the les this decade; the Spurs 4 and the Lakers 3. Lakers are expected to win the le this year so they'd be even....in this decade therefore it is a draw......so be it.
1999 was last decade hence the 9 is the three spot not a 0, so if the Lakers were to win the championship this year it would be Lakers 4, Spurs 3 for this decade, sorry....all about stirring the pot.....kicking a wounded duck that has already expired.......
The end results = championships. With the exception of the Pistons, Heat and Celtics, the Spurs or the Lakers have won the les this decade; the Spurs 4 and the Lakers 3. Lakers are expected to win the le this year so they'd be even....in this decade therefore it is a draw......so be it.
The 2000 le is for the 1999-2000 season. That's still the 90s to me.
The current NBA decade should start 2000-01.
Lakers have two les this decade. The Spurs have three.
The Lakers won their first le in June of 2000, they have three rings this decade.
No, its not amazing when you have Pau Gasol handed right to you. Pau Gasol for not even ONE of your TOP TEN players. SERIOUSLY? Any team would've offered more. Spurs would offer their next FIVE first rounders for Pau Gasol! That trade made zero sense for the Grizzlies.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
