Reply With Quote
nobody said anything about the 00's dip , they said the last decade, which means 10 years dip . dip
Lakers
Spurs
'96 BullsI know your joking, but still, that 2001 Lakers team was one of the best 3 teams ever.
'86 Celtics
'72 Lakers
awfully hard to say the 2001 lakers are better than any one of those three.
nobody said anything about the 00's dip , they said the last decade, which means 10 years dip . dip
I'd knock the 86 C's out. I have a bias for this team(clearly), but that ass raping in the PO's is enough for me to put them in here.
i have to agree with that the 01 lakers teams is one of the greatest teams ever, they were deep and they had vets.
"this decade" means the past 10 years?
wow, you are desperately clinging to semantics to support your weak argument. kinda sad actually. People (normal people) look at static decades.
the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, etc. what don't you grasp about this? Seriously, let me know. I'm here to help
As it stands right now the Spurs are the team of the decade because they have been so consistently good in every season.
The Lakers will need to win another ring in order to move past them IMHO. That would make 4 rings and 6 Finals appearances in this decade.
a decade means 10 years amigo. so if you say this decade you must mean 1999-2009 because there has not been a 2010 yet. come 2010 then you can say that it means the 00's...comprende?
Nah, they didn't accrue the body of work over 82 games to be considered at that level. That team basically ed around for the first four months of the season.
It's not rocket science. If your talking what was the best song in the 60's... you don't name a song from 1959.
A decade is a period of ten years. The word is derived from the late Latin decas, from Greek decas, from deca. The other words for spans of years also come from Latin: lustrum (5 years), century (100 years), millennium (1000 years). The term usually refers to a period of ten years starting at a multiple of ten. For example, "the 1950s" refers to 1950 through to 1959 (inclusive).
This decade is 2000-2009.
The spurs have it now because it is tied but the tiebreaker goes to the more consistent team. If either the Lakers or Spurs win it this year, they have the most les of the decade.
I still think that their best, was better than almost everyone elses best.
but there hasnt been a full decade yet so you must count the 99 season. especially since we won!!
That I agree with completely. The greatest teams combined regular-season dominance with post-season dominance: 1972 Lake Show, '83 Sixers, '86 Celtics, '96 Bulls. But when that 2001 team decided to quit screwing around, they were up there with the best.
Spurs fans like to talk about the Lakers losing to the Celtic's last year in Game 6 but that was PEANUTS compared to the monumental ass-whooping that took place in the 2001 WCF.
I've never seen a team so utterly humiliated in my life. Not in a conference finals matchup. The beatdown that occured in the final two games was so bad I almost had to stop watching.
2001 was awesome.
Exactly. TRADITIONAL decades are as you mentioned, 70's, 80's 90's 00's and so on. Spurs fan wants to pick his own 10 years. If that's the logic you want to use, I say, '"fine then". I'll make up my own extended time periods.
If you (Spurs Fan) insist on that logic, than I throw you this:
Who's been the BEST team to win championships the last 25 years?
THE LAKERS!!
Please don't start the decade in 1999.
it was like watching baby seals get clubbed
I remember that. It was beyond humiliating. You wouldn't need to buy Magics B-ball camp DVD set. Just watch that series and it was the mother of all clinics.
The Western Conference was in the 80s. The only good team LA ever played in the WC playoffs was the '80 Sonics; a bit different than Boston's route to the Finals. Dr. J, Malone, and Toney in Philly and then the Bad Boy Pistons were a lot stiffer compe ion than the Denver Nuggets, 80s Spurs, and the Suns. Boston was in dogfights every playoffs while LA had 2-3 rounds worth of sparring partners to help train them for whoever got out of the Eastern Conference.
It's wrong.
The 1st year is Year 1 not Year 0 in the christian calendar.
The 1st decade is 1-10.
The 1st century is 1-100... etc
The 1st "official" decade of the 3rd millenium is 2001-2010...
So the 2000 le of the Lakers is the last le of the 2nd millenium.
But a decade is also a 10 years period... whatever the 1st year you take.
In 2005 you had nothing but sparring partners until the finals and 2007 you had the easiest playoff road in nba history...the only challenging series was tainted by Tim Donaghy...does that mean you didn't win les those two years? The 80s belonged to LA...anybody of sound mind can see that. Also, we beat Boston 2/3 times. Should of beat them in '84 too.
Exactly what I was thinking. Best team of the decade is spurs. Even if LA gets four this year I think it becomes even. The 4th le making up for the rebuilding years and making it 4 to 3 in terms of les for the 2000's decade
IronMexican, whether or not the 2001 Lakers were a top 3 all time team when they were playing at their best, the fact is that when comparing all time great teams you need to look at wire to wire success.
The 83 76ers had 1 playoff loss, similar to LA, but had more regular season success.
His point about the quality of the West in the '80s still stands. The West after L.A. was garbage back then. Even the Sidney Moncrief Milwaukee teams were better than anyone in the West aside from the Lake Show.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
