Reply With Quote
Lakers won only 3 les this decade as well, you also forget to mention they missed the playoffs, and sucked in regular season(s).
I don't give a what ESPN, or anyone else thinks... That 2003 team was one of the all-time greats.
Lakers won only 3 les this decade as well, you also forget to mention they missed the playoffs, and sucked in regular season(s).
LOTTERY TEAMS do not make Team of the Team. Call me old school.Let me see,...
Lakers - 4 NBA les, 6 appearances
6 WCF Championships
3-Peat 2000-2002, back to back le appearances 2008-09
2001 Champs - Best Playoff team in the History of the NBA
Head to Head - Lakers 4-wins, 1 loss, 4-0, 4-1, 4-2, 4-2
Phil 4 wins, 1 loss Head to Head vs. Pop
Spurs - 3 NBA les, 3 appearances
3 WCF champions
Failed to defend le all 3 times
2003 Champs - Worst NBA Champion of all time http://espn.go.com/page2/s/rosen/030615.html
Head to Head - Spurs 1 win, 4 losses
Pop 1 win, 4 losses vs. Phil Jackson
hmmm, makes sense to me.
The Lakers went onto the finals after the disputed 0.4 bizarre call and the very nebulous win over the Kings in their run - the Lakers have surely had their share of gifts from the zebras in the past decade yet the Spurs are still the team of the decade hands down.
I conceeded that the Lakers were the team of the decade in the past, giving the rationale of 4 les and 6 Finals appearances, but I'm starting to think it's not such a lock anymore.
See, in my eyes, the decade should start with the '00-'01 season and not the '99-'00 season that would give the Lakers 4 les. The decade can't start with the remnants of the '90's and can't end with the beginning of th '10's.
The decade should be from the start of the '00-'01 season to the end of the '09-'10 season, which would give both the Spurs and the Lakers 3 les, 5 WC. Finals, but the Lakers with one more Finals appearance.
The Spurs were also never a lottery team and only failed to make it out of the first-round this last year.
So, just basing it on actual accomplishments during what should be the proper timeline..
I'd say, the 'Team of the Decade' le remains pending.
lol 2004-2005
The Sporting news decade ends now. Why else would they name the spurs that team.
Missing the playoffs has nothing to do with it. Regular season? If it's a regular season award, my vote goes to the Mavs.
The Teams of the Decade were all that because of the number of les and appearances during that stretch.
The Team of the Decade in the 70's, the Boston Celtics won 2 les and had 2 le appearances. The NY Knicks also won 2 les and 2 TA's. The Celtics missed the Playoffs 4 times in the 70's. Why were they the team of the 70's again?
The Team of the Decade in the 80's. The Los Angeles Lakers won 5 les and 8 le appearances. They are the only perfect team in any Decade to win the most les, have the most le appearances and not miss the playoffs. UNDISPUTED
The Team of the Decade in the 90's. The Chicago Bulls won 6 les, 6 le appearances. The Bulls also missed the playoffs in the 90's.
When you look at the history of the NBA and how teams were determined in the past, it was all about les and appearances. How the sporting News justifies not naming the Lakers team of the decade when they have more les and double the le appearances, who knows.
Awards in which the media and sportswriters vote on are meaningless with no method to their madness. Nash 2 mvp's and now this.
This is a pity award and a slap in the face to Duncan.
After giving Kobme the award over Duncan does Sporting News hold any credibility?
at *away* games being played at Staples vs the Clippers.
Imagine if we got 6 games a year at home vs San Antonio Jr college.
And colluded Gasol for Bonner.
Flamer posters are a joke.
Nice internet tough guy picture of Wankerluva.
Well you're right, they're morons. After all, they did put Kobe ahead of Duncan which is ridiculous.
Well you're right, they're morons. After all, they did put Kobe ahead of Duncan which is ridiculous.
I'm sorry...when you're the team of the decade, you have to be dominant for the entire decade...that would include making the playoffs every season...one team did..one didn't...I'll let you figure that one out. You can't base it on Finals alone...it's an overall thing. But if you want to base it on Finals alone, and you're going to only throw in stats that you deem worthy, we're undefeated in the Finals..I think that's better than your percentage. This could go on and on. The bottom line is this. At the end of the day, and the end of the season, to find the best team, you find the best record.Let me see,...
Lakers - 4 NBA les, 6 appearances
6 WCF Championships
3-Peat 2000-2002, back to back le appearances 2008-09
2001 Champs - Best Playoff team in the History of the NBA
Head to Head - Lakers 4-wins, 1 loss, 4-0, 4-1, 4-2, 4-2
Phil 4 wins, 1 loss Head to Head vs. Pop
Spurs - 3 NBA les, 3 appearances
3 WCF champions
Failed to defend le all 3 times
2003 Champs - Worst NBA Champion of all time http://espn.go.com/page2/s/rosen/030615.html
Head to Head - Spurs 1 win, 4 losses
Pop 1 win, 4 losses vs. Phil Jackson
hmmm, makes sense to me.
Spurs record over the last decade - 523-191
Lakers record over the last decade - 463-275
You have two seasons in that span hovering right at .500 and one season at an abysmal 34-48. Team of the decade? I think not.
Thanks...happened to notice it and he came to mind..lolNice internet tough guy picture of Wankerluva.
The Sporting news decade ends now. Why else would they name the spurs that team.
Missing the playoffs has nothing to do with it. Regular season? If it's a regular season award, my vote goes to the Mavs.
The Teams of the Decade were all that because of the number of les and appearances during that stretch.
The Team of the Decade in the 70's, the Boston Celtics won 2 les and had 2 le appearances. The NY Knicks also won 2 les and 2 TA's. The Celtics missed the Playoffs 4 times in the 70's. Why were they the team of the 70's again?
The Team of the Decade in the 80's. The Los Angeles Lakers won 5 les and 8 le appearances. They are the only perfect team in any Decade to win the most les, have the most le appearances and not miss the playoffs. UNDISPUTED
The Team of the Decade in the 90's. The Chicago Bulls won 6 les, 6 le appearances. The Bulls also missed the playoffs in the 90's.
When you look at the history of the NBA and how teams were determined in the past, it was all about les and appearances. How the sporting News justifies not naming the Lakers team of the decade when they have more les and double the le appearances, who knows.
Awards in which the media and sportswriters vote on are meaningless with no method to their madness. Nash 2 mvp's and now this.
I disagree with the article, and I do think the Lakers are the team of the decade..it doesn't really mean anything though..as I've said before, the Lakers always have the advantage over other teams(see: Kareem, Shaq, Kobe)..
The key here is the Gasol trade..
the Lakers were falling into a spiral of mediocrity, Kobe asked for a trade and was threatening the entire organization, going all over the media and crying..the league doesn't do anything at first, because it looks like Andrew Bynum is breaking out as a star player..Bynum goes down(since he always does), and obviously the Lakers get Pau Gasol from a Jerry West-affiliated team(yes I know he wasn't "officially" with Memphis here, but what a coincidence that he just left them, isn't it?) for Crittenton(ceiling: scrub), Marc Gasol(ceiling: middle-tier role player), and cap space that was later used on Allen Iverson and Zach Randolph(LOL)..
the Lakers are the only team that gets those types of benefits, and any non-biased person realizes that the league had something to do with it, unless you're extremely naive..
without the Gasol trade, Kobe isn't a member of the Lakers right now, the Spurs have another Finals appearance and possible le, and the Lakers probably don't even make the playoffs the last few years..
it's funny how things work and how the media ignores it when it's a certain team involved..a top 15 player is handed to them, it changes the entire complexion of the entire league, but we're supposed to believe it was a great move by a GM that was heavily criticized for not bringing Kobe any help in the few years before that..all of a sudden he became a genius..
Why are you here?
its because the sporting news knows the spurs win the les while the media, refs, league try to keep them down.
and the lakers win because everyone (wink, wink) wants them too.....you know its good for ratings and the pocketbook (wink, wink).
In a literal sense a decade begins with year 1 and ends with ten. So the decade is from 2001 to 2010. Thus one of the Lakers championships actually came in the last year of the 90's. Of course, in common usage people think it is from 0 to 9, not 1 to 10. This is wrong, but it doesn't make any difference to me. Finding a way to lop off a Laker's Championship because of math is as lame as ignoring the 1999 Spurs. The fact is since the Jordan Bulls, the Lakers and Spurs have won 4 each, Pistons, Celtics and Heat 1 each. Spurs fans can say the Lakers were awful in the middle of the decade, Lakers fans can point to a 4 to 2 playoff record advantage. (Remember Lakers fans, the 99 Spurs swept Kobe and Shaq right out of the playoffs.) The way I think of it is as really, really close and will be interesting to see as we head down to the wire who Duncan, Shaq or Kobe ends up with the most of the rings.
I would agree that the Spurs are the team of the decade because it is 3 to 3 this decade (literal) and the Spurs had a better winning percentage. Howver this year will settle a lot as there is one more year in the actual decade.
As for the 2003 team, I think the old article grossly underates Manu and Bowen, and while Tony was making mistakes at that time (and in 2005) he was on his way to dominance. History will show that the 2003 team may have had 4 Future HOF'ers, another player who was an 8 Time All Defense who may get his jersey retired, as well as Rose, Jackson, etc. A lot of talent, and they ended the Laker's 3-peat.
So, in the end, 2010 is the last year of the decade. Let the best team, Lakers or Spurs, win it...
Let me see,...
Lakers - 4 NBA les, 6 appearances
6 WCF Championships
3-Peat 2000-2002, back to back le appearances 2008-09
2001 Champs - Best Playoff team in the History of the NBA
Head to Head - Lakers 4-wins, 1 loss, 4-0, 4-1, 4-2, 4-2
Phil 4 wins, 1 loss Head to Head vs. Pop
Spurs - 3 NBA les, 3 appearances
3 WCF champions
Failed to defend le all 3 times
2003 Champs - Worst NBA Champion of all time http://espn.go.com/page2/s/rosen/030615.html
Head to Head - Spurs 1 win, 4 losses
Pop 1 win, 4 losses vs. Phil Jackson
hmmm, makes sense to me.
Top 50 Metropolitan Areas Ranked by Population, 2003
Rank Population (in 000s) Name
1 18,641 New York, Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY- NJ, PA
2 12,829 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA
3 9,334 Chicago, IL-IN-WI
4 5,773 Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE
5 5,590 Dallas-Fort Worth, TX
6 5,289 Miami-Fort Lauderdale, FL
7 5,090 Washington, DC-VA-MD-WV
8 5,076 Houston, TX
9 4,610 Atlanta, GA
10 4,484 Detroit, MI
11 4,440 Boston, MA-NH
12 4,157 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA
13 3,642 Riverside-San Bernaardino-Ontario, CA
14 3,593 Phoenix, AZ
15 3,142 Seattle-Tacoma, WA
16 3,084 Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI
17 2,931 San Diego, CA
18 2,759 St. Louis, MO-IL
19 2,616 Baltimore, MD
20 2,532 Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL
21 2,410 Pittsburgh, PA
22 2,301 Denver, CO
23 2,140 Cleveland, OH
24 2,047 CIncinnati, OH-KY-IN
25 2,040 Portland, OR-WA
26 1,975 Sacramento, CA
27 1,905 Kansas City, MO-KS
28 1,821 San Antonio, TX
Yes, LA did better than the poor Knicks.
wait what
So the Lakers made it to the finals six times out of ten and won it four times.
The Spurs made it three and won it three.
Yet people are really gonna say the Spurs are the team of the decade?
The only reason I could see the Spurs is because of their international presence and this will no doubt be remembered as the decade where the international "player" arrived.
The smell of fear. I love it.
Say what you want about how they did it, but the Lakers did a fine job 'rebuilding' so quickly after blowing up the team. The Lakers should be the team of the decade.
BUT, Timmy should be the NBA athlete of the decade for sure. If that 2003 team was 'so bad', then that makes Tim Duncan that much better. Funny how toppling a 3-time champion still doesn't get that team some respect.
99 was not in this decade. Unless the decade begins at 99 now.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
