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

[NFGIII]

So a team like the Spurs that doesn't give a about the regular season is team of the decade because of their regular season success?

Look dude, simple math: 4 rings > 3 rings. 6 finals > 3 finals. 4-1 head to head. Three-peat > failure to repeat three times

Los Angeles Lakers: Team of the Decade.

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

[SA210]

NBA.com

[ElNono]

Also, the long time commissioner of the league David Stern had this to say when asked what his dream NBA Finals match-up would be, "Lakers vs. Lakers." He also said "I'd be lying if I told you there wasn't a special fascination with the Lakers."


In the end, who cares? I sure feel fortunate to have witnessed one of the finest runs in all professional sports. And hopefully we still have a season or two more to extend it.

[Strike]

Couldn't care less. Lakers, Spurs, whoever. Meaningless recognition.

[Rummpd]

Who cares but is is sublime to consider Kobe player of the Decade over Duncan. Shaq could have been in discussion but Kobe a poor 3rd as he WAS NOT THE MAN on the LAL 3 peat.

[antgomez2009]

So a team like the Spurs that doesn't give a about the regular season is team of the decade because of their regular season success?

Look dude, simple math: 4 rings > 3 rings. 6 finals > 3 finals. 4-1 head to head. Three-peat > failure to repeat three times

Los Angeles Lakers: Team of the Decade.

6 finals apperances, 2 failures for the lakers, you act like they are mad superior over the Spurs during the decade! I think you got a case of Amnesia son!!

Dont forget the Kobe tirade, adultery, quitting on your teammates, and the whole Shaqtus thing!!!

Oh yea, yall didnt make the playoffs one year! dont forget that you got smacked by like 30 to the Boston Celtics!

but yea, ill give the lakers the Edge over my team the Spurs! just a slight edge! because whether we control being healty or not, or getting a side leaning jumper with .04 seconds or get a Gasol trade for next to nothing, it just doesnt matter! All in all, Lakers 1/4th better over the Spurs!!

You got to show Shaq some love, because if it wasnt for him, and yes Kobe too, but ultimately Shaq carried the Lakers to three les! numbers dont lie, and Finals MVP dont either!!!!....So if it wasnt for him, the lakers would of won their first championship last year 2009! and the Spurs would have three more under their belt!! Real Talk!!

[Frenzy]

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

(Points at you ,aims the t-shirt cannon and fires)







oh a side note... yes shaq can the team of the decade...Pretty cool. Oh wait the lakers... right the lakers.

[jack0fspeed]

So a team like the Spurs that doesn't give a about the regular season is team of the decade because of their regular season success?

Look dude, simple math: 4 rings > 3 rings. 6 finals > 3 finals. 4-1 head to head. Three-peat > failure to repeat three times

Los Angeles Lakers: Team of the Decade.

No disrespect to Duncan and the Spurs (close second in both categories IMHO) but Lakers and Kobe are the right call.

[jack0fspeed]

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.
...

wrong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decade

...
Although any period of ten years is a decade, a convenient and frequently referenced interval is based on the tens digit of the calendar year, as in using 1960s to represent the decade from 1960 to 1969.[1][2] Often, for brevity, only the tens part is mentioned (60s or sixties), although this may leave it uncertain which century is meant. These references are frequently used to encapsulate pop culture or other widespread phenomena that dominated such a decade, as in The Great Depression of the 1930s.
...

[VBM]

wrong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decade

...
Although any period of ten years is a decade, a convenient and frequently referenced interval is based on the tens digit of the calendar year, as in using 1960s to represent the decade from 1960 to 1969.[1][2] Often, for brevity, only the tens part is mentioned (60s or sixties), although this may leave it uncertain which century is meant. These references are frequently used to encapsulate pop culture or other widespread phenomena that dominated such a decade, as in The Great Depression of the 1930s.
...

Cosign...because dammit...the Class of 2000 is the class of the millenium.

[draft87]

Who cares but is is sublime to consider Kobe player of the Decade over Duncan. Shaq could have been in discussion but Kobe a poor 3rd as he WAS NOT THE MAN on the LAL 3 peat.

what?

[lefty]

lol Amare game 6 lol

You shouldn't bite the hand that feeds ya.

You are really stupid

In Amare's case (and Diaw's), the rules were applied; those were the rules, plain and simple

The same rules that were applied during the Heat-Knicks series in 1997.


In the Laker's case, he did the opposite, bypassing basic basketball rules

[VBM]

You are really stupid

In Amare's case (and Diaw's), the rules were applied; those were the rules, plain and simple

The same rules that were applied during the Heat-Knicks series in 1997.

Those rules weren't applied to Boston in 08...if ever I felt bad for Suns fans, it was then...

[draft87]

wrong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decade

...
Although any period of ten years is a decade, a convenient and frequently referenced interval is based on the tens digit of the calendar year, as in using 1960s to represent the decade from 1960 to 1969.[1][2] Often, for brevity, only the tens part is mentioned (60s or sixties), although this may leave it uncertain which century is meant. These references are frequently used to encapsulate pop culture or other widespread phenomena that dominated such a decade, as in The Great Depression of the 1930s.
...

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

It's embarrassing when a Mavs fan 'owns' a Spurs fan....Spurs fans need to learn not to get all 'aggro' when they think the truth is evading the common board member(I too am sometimes guilty)

People won't be so quick to yell "BURN" if the post didn't get all messy

"STFU no discussion or debate. This concept isn't open to debate. Now if the debate was about who was the best team from 2000-2009"

But when you tell someone to STFU and do their research and then a Mavs fan does their research, quotes a reputable source, and makes you look like a self-righteous ding-dong it's hard not to giggle.

HOWEVER. Like all Mavs fans/owners, they only quoted the part that makes them right. The third paragraph reads:

"Some writers like to point out that since the common calendar starts from the year 1, its first full decade contained the years from 1 to 10, the second decade from 11 to 20, and so on.[3] The interval from the year 2001 to 2010 could thus be called the 201st decade, using ordinal numbers. However, contrary to practices in referencing centuries, ordinal references to decades are quite uncommon."

That supports the righteous Spurs fan's opinion.

BUT
read the final two paragraphs and you'll find that 'decade' is indeed subject to interpretation and open to debate.

"In addition to the interpretations noted above, a decade may refer to an arbitrary span of 10 years. For example, the statement "during his last decade, Mozart explored chromatic harmony to a degree rare at the time," merely refers to the last 10 years of Mozart's life without regard to which calendar years are encompassed.

Thus, an unqualified reference to, for example, "the decade" or "this decade" may strictly speaking have multiple interpretations, and one must consider whether the context is, for example, a cultural reference, an ordinal reference, or some other context."




So the Spurs fan and the Mavs fan are both right and wrong. Get over yourselves.







All they did was prove that you can manipulate the term 'decade' to support whatever point you're trying to make. The NBA wants to hype the Lakers but it's not like we didn't already know that. When you get too wrapped up in this stupid discussion, especially to try to convince feeble minds that the Lakers aren't The Team of the Decade you're being just as lame and biased as NBA.com

[Rummpd]

what?

How can a player be the best of a decade when he was not the best on his team for much of that decade? Shaq was THE consensus reason that the Lakers were that dominant and therefore the choice of player of the decade has to come down to the most dominant player on the most dominant teams for the great part of that decade - that is Shaq or Duncan NOT Kobe!

[rascal]

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

You are getting confused with years and straight numbers. If you are counting just numbers then it goes 1-10 for a decade (10) thats straight numbers. When talking about years you need to count the year 2000 as 1, so it is generally considered that the decade of the 2000's starts at the year 2000 and goes to 2009.

[lefty]

Those rules weren't applied to Boston in 08...if ever I felt bad for Suns fans, it was then...

True, what happened in 08 was outrageous

[Dex]

Surprise of the Decade!

[draft87]

How can a player be the best of a decade when he was not the best on his team for much of that decade? Shaq was THE consensus reason that the Lakers were that dominant and therefore the choice of player of the decade has to come down to the most dominant player on the most dominant teams for the great part of that decade - that is Shaq or Duncan NOT Kobe!

OH. ok yeah then I'm sorry I don't think 'sublime' is the correct word to describe the misconception that Kobe was the dominant force on the 2000-2002 era Lakers. That and the typo threw me off, I'm used to reading rants by 'newbies' who just became Spurs fans or people who the Spurs equivalent of hyped up Lakers fans. Ya know, like a pre-GED level Stephen A Smith....

no bad intentions, just didn't understand at first.

[draft87]

You are getting confused with years and straight numbers. If you are counting just numbers then it goes 1-10 for a decade (10) thats straight numbers. When talking about years you need to count the year 2000 as 1, so it is generally considered that the decade of the 2000's starts at the year 2000 and goes to 2009.

Totally. Here's a better link than the Mavs fan posted.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000%E2%80%932009

[Blackjack]

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.

[temujin]

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.

[resistanze]

Wgas.

[HarlemHeat37]

I agree that the Lakers are the team of the decade from a winning perspective, their last le put them on top..obviously they benefit from the league and collusion, but there's no actual proof that can be presented, so we have to recognize them as #1..

the Spurs have had the better run though from many perspectives..

-The same core for most of the run..

-If you include the '99 season, which we should, then the Spurs tied the streak for consecutive seasons with 50+ wins, and the team would break it this year IIRC..Magic's Lakers were the only other team here..

-No seasons where we had to see rebuilding..

-No drama from any players and they all did it with class..

-Contender for pretty much every year that Duncan was in the NBA other than last season..



Duncan is clearly player of the decade, it's actually not close..the arguments for Kobe are actually pretty weak and he benefits heavily from revisionist history in this regard..the media's opinion is irrelevant to me, since Kobe brings them better publicity and makes them more $, so naturally they're going to pick him..the arguments are weak though, the argument for Duncan is much stronger..

[GrandeDavid]

I could care less about outside opinions. As a fan emotionally invested in the San Antonio community and Spurs organization, I know this franchise's worth and excellence. I don't need nba.com or cnnsi.com to toot our horn. Let's get #5 this season. That's all that should be of interest instead of worthless chatter.