NBA.com names Kobe player of the decade, lakers team of the decade!

[2Cleva]

http://www.nba.com/2009/news/feature...s=iref:nbahpt1

http://www.nba.com/2009/news/feature...ate/index.html

While it is true the lakers beat us in more series, we made it to the playoffs every year so we are the team of the decade like everyone says. This is just from a pro-lakers perspective. No worries.
Go spurs

Gotta beat the man to be the man.

[rascal]

draft87 is pretty spot-on, in that decades are subjective, but I'll try not to be as long-winded.

By the criteria they've set forth, the Lakers are the team of the decade; four championships and six appearances trumps the Spurs, even with the two lean years post-Shaq.

But that same criteria also leads to the conclusion that Duncan should be the player of the decade. It's an individual accomplishment and no other player has combined a more accomplished resume individually than Tim; the All-NBA's, All-Star selections, and the two league and Finals MVP's.

It's my belief that this decade began in the '00-'01 season, as it was the first full season of the '00's, and that this year should be the deciding factor when awarding these kind of honors.

And if that were the case, both the team and player, in my eyes, could very well still be up for grabs.

The decade of the 2000s starts when the le is won and that is 2000. Only two months are played in 1999 so the majority of the season is played in 2000 and the playoffs and the le is won in 2000 so the first year of the decade is 1999-2000.

[Chillen]

It's pretty close actually, both franchises are neck to neck, but I give the edge to the Spurs. They made the playoffs every season, and kept winning NBA les every odd year. They also made the 2005 finals and beat a very good Detroit team, which the Lakers failed to do in the 2004 NBA finals. The Lakers have that 3peat and 3 NBA finals appearences in 2004, 2008, 2009, which they won once. That is impressive but they missed the playoffs in 2005, which the Spurs never did. Edge= Spurs

[exstatic]

NBA apparatchik pimping the Lakers. Imagine that.

[exstatic]

Gotta beat the man to be the man.

Like the Lakers didn't in 2000,2001,2002? On that Score it's Spurs 2 (2003,2005), Lakers 1 (2008).

[dbestpro]

this just adds fuel the fire that the Lakers get preferential treatment from the NBA as NBA.com is the official website of the NBA. So maybe we should just say that Kobe and the Lakers are Stern's team of the decade.

[nuclearfm]

Complete BULL. You put TD on any team and they are a playoff team. You put Kobe on any team and he's begging to be traded because he can't do by himself.

[silverblackfan]

SI.com picked Duncan.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=142010

PLAYER OF THE DECADE: Tim Duncan, San Antonio Spurs
The greatest power forward in NBA history, Duncan was the reason San Antonio became the only team to make the playoffs every year of the decade. He was the most valuable team player of his era, an active defender who chased pick-and-rolls out to the three-point line and yet hustled back to protect the rim and control the boards. Offensively, the Spurs played through him as a passer in the post, and his dependable mid-range jumper off the backboard will be part of his highlight reel when he checks into Springfield.

Only a fan will really appreciate that sweet bank shot of his, but as video at the HOF, it is not very flashy. Like Tim. Not flashy, but gets the job done better than anyone.

[spurs2112]

LA can have their "team of the decade", at least we won with what we had. Spurs took a 28th & 57th pick, players like Bowen & Fab (who aren't the most talented bunch) & turned them into 3 time champions. We took what we had & made the most of it, sure beats buying the talent. This is just the media & the NBA patting LA's ass again. Don't argue over it Spurs fans, you know it don't bother the team & it shouldn't bother us.

[nevitt_&_smrek]

It's pretty close actually, both franchises are neck to neck, but I give the edge to the Spurs. They made the playoffs every season, and kept winning NBA les every odd year. They also made the 2005 finals and beat a very good Detroit team, which the Lakers failed to do in the 2004 NBA finals. The Lakers have that 3peat and 3 NBA finals appearences in 2004, 2008, 2009, which they won once. That is impressive but they missed the playoffs in 2005, which the Spurs never did. Edge= Spurs

So if the Lakers and Spurs flipped results, you'd still feel the same way? Personally, I'll take 4 les & 6 non-playoff teams vs. 3 les & 10 playoff teams. # of les trump all else.

In golf, I'll take a major win & 3 misse cuts over 4 r-ups.

[ynh]

When are people in this world going to understand what a decade/century/millenium cons ute?

All start with 1 and end in 0! No dicussion or debate. PERIOD. That is what the pros say. All those who think otherwise need to do their research or STFU. This concept isn't open to debate.

Lakers - 2001/2002/2009

Spurs - 2003/2005/2007

3 Rings each and this year will be the tiebreker.

2001 - Lakers
2002 - Lakers
2003 - Spurs
2004 - Pistons
2005 - Spurs
2006 - Heat
2007 - Spurs
2008 - Celtics
2009 - Lakers
2010 - ???????

Now if the debate was about the best team from 2000 - 2009 then the Lakers have more rings - 4 to 3 and are the better team based on rings which seems to be the criteria for determining who are the better teams.

Yes, this is a pet peeve and I know that many/most will say that decades start with 0s because it is esay to understand that type of number in this particular context - but it aint so! They don't - never have and never will. Regardless of what any of you have to say about it.

Frankly so far this season the Spurs are behind the Lakers in the running for that 4th ring of the decade. Still early and the verdict is still out.

Will see.

Ramblings over

That's the dumbest I've read in a while. I can't believe you can't grasp the basic concept that a decade starts on day one of year zero

[ynh]

Seriously.. time doesn't start at year 1.. 1 cons utes 366 days.. We started at day one not day 366.

[ynh]

Seriously thats as stupid as saying a new day starts at 1am

[ynh]

To make this simple to understand.. and "the pros" understand it too.. A decade is not just made up of years.. it is made up of months, weeks, days, hours, and seconds. So you start to count a decade at 0 year, 0 month, 0 week, 0 day, 0 hour, 0.00000000(going on for a load)01 seconds. It's like in math.. there are numbers between 0 and 1.. we just don't start out at 1.

[ynh]

Oh and I don't like the lakers but agree.. though I think Duncan is player of the decade.

[SA210]

TRADE of the decade: Lakers (Gasol for nothing).

CALLS of the decade: Lakers (Several, mostly against Kings).

REFEREE of the decade: Joey Crawford (Lakers).

SLOW CLOCK of the decade: Lakers (In San Antonio!!!).

The Lakers pretty much own the decade in all categories that are relevant.


PS. To business.

[galvatron3000]

Duncan is the player of the last 10 years. Kobe began to emerge in 2000 and really took off in 2001. Duncan though has been LEADING his team since 1999 and has be the focal point since 1999. Kobe has had great moments and has improved more and more but a solid 10, that's Duncan and NO other player can say that. NONE!! Kobe lovers and Lakers lovers are delusional if they say otherwise. Kobe's defense was still suspect even when he won his first 1 team selection (should have gone to Eddie Jones) yet he has improved enough now to respect his defense. I don't think Tim's Defense was ever suspect until recently and he totally anchored the 2007 defense during the playoffs.

This making of the next Michael Jordan distraction is ridiculous. Yes, Kobe is a great player but the last 10 years belong to Duncan. On so many levels. Let this one rest. The resume' speaks volumes.

[rascal]

Oh and I don't like the lakers but agree.. though I think Duncan is player of the decade.

Agree.
Lakers are the team of the decade.
Duncan is the player of the decade.

[rascal]

To make this simple to understand.. and "the pros" understand it too.. A decade is not just made up of years.. it is made up of months, weeks, days, hours, and seconds. So you start to count a decade at 0 year, 0 month, 0 week, 0 day, 0 hour, 0.00000000(going on for a load)01 seconds. It's like in math.. there are numbers between 0 and 1.. we just don't start out at 1.

Some people don't understand math.

[Killakobe81]

thing that is funny ...If spurs had 4 les last decade ... and the Lakers had 3 but NEVER miseed the playoffs Spur fan knows you would say rings are ALL that matter ...
I can see Duyncan over Kobe (though) it is close ...but team wise it's us tghe Lakers in 00's just like the 80's and 50's ...

[ynh]

Some people don't understand math.

Actually I was right and wrong. The guy that thinks the decade goes from 01 to the end of 10 is in fact wrong.. But I was wrong to say there was a year zero.. there was.. but it wasn't called year 0.

With a boring day at work I looked this up and the important date that the calender is based on is not 1 A.D as the other guy assumes.. it is based off 1 B.C.

So anyways.. if anyone is bored or wanted to know that is why a decade is 00-the end of 09 and not 01- the end of 10.