Reply With Quote
the spurs are 4-0 in finals appearances IN THE LAST DECADE. (decade = 10 years 1999-2009 is 10 years)
the lakers are 3-3 in finals appearances.
i say the spurs are doing better.
I didn't write the following saw it posted by a Laker fan.
Actually Spurs don't have 4 championships this decade (their first one was in 1999). Only 3 championships this decade... tied with the Lakers.
But the Lakers made it to the finals 6 times, compared to only 3 times for the Spurs this decade.
Compared to the 4 major sport in America, they are the TEAM of the DECADE.
(Tiger Woods is the individual Athlete of the Decade).
Aren't the Spurs 4 for 4 when going to the Finals?
Aren't the Lakers the ref's darlings (2001 and 2002)?
What you think?
the spurs are 4-0 in finals appearances IN THE LAST DECADE. (decade = 10 years 1999-2009 is 10 years)
the lakers are 3-3 in finals appearances.
i say the spurs are doing better.
2000-2009 is a decade (that's 10 seasons)
I think you mean 3-2 in Finals appearances.
03/04 stern rig that fkn fakers team to the finals, cause he thought ppl wanted to see 4 future HOFs win a ring....fkn failed.
last year with the gasol trade and the celtics getting garnett at the start of the season....failed again
integrity of the sport? integrity...viewership ratings is what matters....
Lakers didnt make the playoffs in 05.
They lost in the first round the next 2 years.
They had 3 bad years. They also lost in the finals twice this decade.
Sure the Lakers had a 3 peat, but the Spurs up until this year had a consistent playoff run always making it to the second round. After the Lakers lost in 03, they went lower and lower until Gasoft was given to them. Every year this decade, the Spurs were always championship contenders.
The Team of the Decade makes the playoffs every year.
They do not have lottery teams.
Jordan, Bird, Magic, Duncan never did.
The Kobe-led Lakers failed to make the playoffs in ths decade. .
Case closed.
All the rest are apologies and excuses .
It also depends when you start the decade. Is it the first season to be fully within the 00 decade (2000-01) or do you include a season that includes only part of the decade? (1999-00)?
There is no "Team of the Decade" award except in the minds of fans so I guess it can be tweaked anyway you want it to be.
what about the winning percentage? the 10 season with 50+ plus wins?
I'd say spurs is team of the decade
There is only one criterium, and that is the ring count. Its 3-3 now, its tied at this moment ( for a few more weeks). Everything else is just bull , but if u like to talk bs, then for sure Lakersfans have better bull material(repeat, 3-peat, 3 more times in the finals) then Spursfans do (regular season stats....rofl to people arguing this makes us better while laughing at Mavs fan for their 2007 PO fiasco with GSW in another thread ).
In no way shape or form are the Spurs the better franchise on paper this decade and that is that.
I don't know who the team of the decade is but I can tell you who the winningest (if that is even a word) is.
Number of total wins (playoffs and regular season)
If you start the decade with the 99-00 season:
SA: 659
LA: 624
If you start with the 00-01 season:
SA: 605
LA: 542
The thing that matters the most in sports is winning your next game and the Spurs have done that the most over the period of time in question.
I couldn't really give a about the team of the decade.
If you want to get technical, any decade starts with the '1' year and ends with the '0' year. 'This' decade will run from 2001 thru 2010. That gives the Lakers 2 les 'this' decade to the Spurs 3. It also means they have one missed playoff and 2 first round outs to our 1 first round out.
If you want to get technical, any decade starts with the '1' year and ends with the '0' year. 'This' decade will run from 2001 thru 2010. That gives the Lakers 2 les 'this' decade to the Spurs 3. It also means they have 1 missed playoff and 2 first round outs to our 1 first round out.
Plus remember that one first round LA exit where Kobe acted like a dying fetus and did not even take a shot attempt in the fourth quarter of the elimination game?
The Spurs have been a Championship contender with a real shot to win the le every season this decade. The Lakers have had three seasons where they had no shot at all to win the Championship. So if it's tied at 3-3 wouldn't you say the Spurs who have been the most consistent team should be ranked higher? Why do the Lakers get a pass for three mediocre seasons? Plus in two of those seasons the Spurs could have easily won another two Championships. Fisher BS 0.4 and the Manu foul. You gotta weigh all that up.
Lakers are only back in it because of that ridiculous Gasol trade.
I think you can take it one step further. The Lakers are the team in history in all sports. That is the greatest choke team in history as they have lost more championship games that any other team in basketball, football or baseball.
That right there seals it for me, the Spurs were among the favorites every year. lakers were up and down.
off go suck kobe !
My response: so what and who cares other than semantics for smack talk?
My view the Spurs have been successful for the most part since '99 season....winning seasons, playoffs, conference crowns, championships.....
nothing to discuss unless as I stated above one wants to get into semantics of smacktalk.
Rings or bust. Both true Lakers and Spurs fans know that's all its about.
Whoever has the most rings wins - just as it should be.
F t l!
If the Lakers win it all this season they are team of the decade.
4 les ('00, '01, '02, '09)
6 Finals appearances ('00, '01, '02, '04, '08, '09)
The Spurs will have 3 les and 3 Finals appearances by the end of this decade ('00-'09).
3 les ('03, '05, '07)
3 Finals appearances ('03, '05, '07)
Head to head matchups go to the Lakers 4-1.
The Spurs appear to be on the tail end of their run. Injuries might slam that window completely shut within a year or two.
Nope.
that sums it up perfectly
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
