Reply With Quote
Lighten up son. It was a joke, hence the
It wasn't, 2000 was. 2001 was the start of the new millennium.According to your logic, 1999 was not the end of the millennium
http://www.timeanddate.com/counters/mil2000.html
Lighten up son. It was a joke, hence the
That. Not surprised that Laker fan doesn't know that, though.
Wikipedia? You're really quoting Wikipedia to support an argument?
I don't have a problem with Laker fans claiming this " le" for their team. There would be tons of Spurs fans doing the same thing if SA was in the finals this year. However, because Laker fans says it doesn't make it so and I do not have to agree. It's not a matter of being stupid or being a "real" fan or even being right or wrong. It's just having a different opinion and view which by definition is neither right nor wrong.That. Not surprised that Laker fan doesn't know that, though.
Laker Fan will stretch anything to fit their convenient definition. If by some chance they lose this Finals, but win next year, they'll still be trying to shoe horn the 2000 and 2010 les into the same decade for bragging rights.
No hard feeling taken.
Tim Duncan > Tiger Woods
shouldnt decade start in 2001? meaning lakers would have 2
I think most sports fans will acknowledge that 1999 is not part of the '00 decade. I have not seen that ANYWHERE in any professional sport.
Most would agree that '00-09 is the decade in question here.
That head to heat match up is BS.
If we played the Lakers in '05, '06 and '07 then the Spurs would have won all those when we were clearly the better team.
'04 could have gone either way if you take out that Fisher BS we'd have likely won that one and taken the series lead.
'01 Derek Anderson had a seperated shoulder and was not really able to play anywhere near his best level so that was our second leading scorer injured.
Then you have '08 with Manu injured that made a big difference too. Basically the Lakers were able to play us most times when we weren't totally healthy. Too bad the Spurs couldn't have played the Lakers in their down years. The only legit year that you beat us at 100% was '02 and we had the lead in every game in the 4th quarter, but choked it up.
Laker fans think they dominated, but they didn't dominate . They got a bit of luck along the way.
WTF? Find you a zero? There is 3 zeros in year 2000. WTF is wrong with you?
No.
1980-1989 = 1980s
1990-1999 = 1990s
2000-2009 = 2000s
2010-2019 = 2010s
2020-2029 = 2020s
Is there some reason why this is hard for people to figure out?
If you need to say that to make yourself feel better please do. I seriously don't care what arrogant piece of Laker fans like you have to say anymore. You're all pretty much worthless and have no humility whatsoever.This pretty much sums it up. Its funny to see these Spurs fans trying to change the meaning of what a decade is to determine the team of the decade...
Also, it wasnt injuries that shut the door on the Spurs, it was the Lakers.
I'll take this Spurs team any day over you Lakers teams. We did it the right way with hard work and true team work. Some seasons we weren't at 100% and that may have cost us a le or two, but I don't really give a anymore as I wouldn't trade places with any Laker fan. Enjoy your 15 choke jobs in the finals and feuds to come between your great teammates and if Kobe ever wanted to play for the Spurs I'd show him the door. I wouldn't want him on the Spurs even for $1.
yes you do, hence your response
Without the Lakers the NBA would be boring
No I DO not give a anymore. Yesterday I did, now I don't. That's why I said it.yes you do, hence your response
Without the Lakers the NBA would be boring
Maybe other Spurs fans can keep entertaining you guys? I was always a Bird fan over Magic and even though I don't like KG either it's great that Boston won last season and added to those Lakers finals choke jobs..
Yes, but I don't see how you can say wow?...They have been less than .500 when making the finals...That's pretty ridiculous if you ask me?...SPURS when making the finals 100%!!!..... the Lakers!!!!!..........don't they have like 30 finals appearances in their history now?
goes to show that it just isn't that hard to build a great basketball team if you're willing to spend the $ and take the risks.
If all it took to build a great basketball team was money then why are the Knicks so consistently awful despite having the highest payroll in the league?
It takes a lot more than money. You need great ownership, GM's, coaches, etc.
90's decade (1990-1999)
2000's decade (2000-2009)
2010's decade (2010-2019)
It's not that hard people. Find me anywhere in professional sports where the above definition of a decade is not true.
Who gives a flyin mutha is all I wanna know?
It's not enough that your franchises are LUCKY enough to win 3 championships in a 10 year span, you must have the team of the decade crown too? GMAFB greedy s. As a Mav fan, I'm just grateful for the championship in 2006. I don't care about anything else.
Whats makes it confusing , I think , is the way the NBA season crosses over 2 years since its fall through spring.
maybe.
But still, take away the refs BS calls in the 3 peat as well as the Gasol B.S. trade and Lakers would still be out of the playoffs.
Not making the playoffs this decade is pretty bad ..
I dunno
2004 lakers, that was pretty bad too.
I agree with you Ghazi. I don't give a about team of the decade. I'm quite happy with what the Spurs have been able to do.
I don't care about the Lakers and their 15 choke jobs. I mean if they got to the finals that many times they were good enough to win it, but choked 15 times.
Would the Lakers have even won the 2000 Championship if Tim wasn't out for the playoffs? I don't think they would have even won that one as D-Rob was dropping 40 on the Suns in round 1 with out TD. David was in great form and if Tim didn't hurt his knee you never know the current Lakers run may have never existed.
Like I said Lakers fans are so arrogant they will not admit to anything or be humble or appreciative about anything.
I don't give a crap about nonsensical "Team of the Decade" gloss among fans. If the Spurs won 4 les from 1999 through 2007 and the Lakers win 4 les from 2000 through 2009, the real accomplishments are essentially the same (other than the Spurs having needed one less season to collect 4 les). Why it should matter that one occured within the arbitrary confines of a specific decade and the other occurred over the course of 9 seasons that spanned two different decades is beyond me.
With that said, I got to thinking that there's a very significant divide in the NBA over the post-Jordan era and it has everything to do with the dominance of 2 teams in the West and the parity among the teams in the East. Since the Jordan era ended, only 3 franchises from the West have made a Finals appearance:
San Antonio -- 1999, 2003, 2005, 2007
Los Angeles -- 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2008, 2009
Dallas -- 2006
Meanwhile, 9 different franchises have qualified for the Finals from the East over that span:
New York -- 1999
Indiana -- 2000
Philadelphia -- 2001
New Jersey -- 2002, 2003
Detroit -- 2004, 2005
Miami -- 2006
Cleveland -- 2007
Boston -- 2008
Orlando -- 2009
Whatever "Team of the Decade" means -- and whoever cares about that stuff -- it's been very clear that the West has basically been monolithic and ruled by 2 behemoths for the last 11 seasons while the East has seen a great deal of turnover at the top.
EXactly! Please people stop putting up definitions of a decade like your smart and correcting stupid people, especially you kbp with your post history you can't possibly feel comfortable doing that. Can you? well maybe, it is YOU.
Like Spurscenter said the NBA season crosses into two years so fans can interpret which one season best fits their team. That's why I say for the NBA season it starts the 00-01 season and goes till the 09-10 season with the championships being given in the years ending 01,02,03,04,05,06,07,08,10-like a person normally counts. Lakers fans and KBP want to say it starts in the 99-00 and goes till the 98-99 season with rings being given out in 00,01,02,03,04,05,06,07,08,09...The reason I think its the way I say is the other ways so called first season of the decade begins in the last decade-99! You see that right? But this debate could go on forever because the NBA season covers TWO years.
Lets just agree to disagree and leave it at that. And yea who cares, but I guess I care enough to debate-most likely boredom and insomnia.
I don't much care. The way I see things, 1999-2007 was the Duncan-Shaq era. Right now we're in the middle of something new.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
