Reply With Quote
Sorry, BillMc, I just read your post and realized that you were making the same point I was. My bad.
In that sense, though, you could argue that this 'decade' should be the years 2001 through 2010, in which case it's one season too early to crown the team of this 'decade'. The last decade actually ended with the year 2000, so you can lop off one Lakers le as well.99 was not in this decade. Unless the decade begins at 99 now.
I guess this year decides it.
Sorry, BillMc, I just read your post and realized that you were making the same point I was. My bad.
I do not have a problem with 1-10 as a decade. Sporting News apparently does though.
This season, winner takes all!
No, the 2009 - 2010 season is the next decade. More of the basketball season will be played in 2010 and the playoffs are played in 2010. This nba season starts the next decade, 2010s. I don't see the logic that claims 2009-2010 is in the decade of the 2000s other than Spur fans trying to diminish the lakers 4 les of the 2000s.
The decade of the 2000s starts on Jan 1st 2000 and runs until Dec 31 2009. Thats exactly 10 years and includes every day of the 2000s. Since most of the NBA regular season including the playoffs are played after Jan 1st , the year 2000 champions is the start of the decade of the 2000s. I don't see how this could be so confusing to so many.
But the team of the decade claim is all meaningless anyways.
Maybe they should just stick to the Team of the 70's, 80's, 90's etc.
I will say that I have always considered 0-9 as a decade.
How old were you when you completed your first decade...9?
There are basically three ways you can argue and defend the definition of what cons utes a decade, hence all the different viewpoints.
why is there no mention of the mavs in this thread?
[quote=LakeShow;3708538]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.[/quote]
[QUOTE=LakeShow;3713022]i'm sorry, i didn't see that. thank you for reminding everyone about the line in the sand......the line that the spurs cannot cross.
the mavs are the little red wall to the spurs.
If you read the whole paragraph Lakeshow you'd see that the 99 inclusion referred to the post Jordan Bulls era, not the decade per se.99 was not in this decade. Unless the decade begins at 99 now.
But I am glad you (and others) agree that a decade is ten years starting from one and ending in ten. (And yes, that is the proper use.) How many of you were a decade old when you turned 9?
I am a Spurs fan forever, but I do believe this year will determine the team of the decade. If the Lakers win it, I would admit them team of the decade. If we win it, we are. If neither win it, it is still muddy.
No problem. Great minds think alike!Sorry, BillMc, I just read your post and realized that you were making the same point I was. My bad.
Your 1'st decade ends on the last day just before your 10th birthday so you will be 9 years and 365 days(add extra day in leap years) and still be in your 1st decade. On your 10th birthday you are beginning your 2nd decade so on your 10th birthday is the start of the next decade.
Last edited by rascal; 09-29-2009 at 02:00 PM.
Mavs Dont Deserve Anything..... 1 finals Appearance, 1 Loss..... They even Have The Best record in a regular season, to Lose to the Sorry No defense Playin Warriors.... So, if that is Team of the Decade, then imma vote for Clippers....
What number cons utes a decade?
The only thing I screwed up in my original post was shorting the Lakers there '04 Finals appearance. Thus, giving them a 5-3 advantage in Finals appearances, a tie of 5-5 in Western-Conference Finals appearances, and a tie of 3-3 in actual les.
Look, I'm not some homer trying to find a way to call the Spurs the 'Team of the Decade' -- as mentioned, I've actually made the argument for the Lakers on more than one occasion. -- but I came to that conclusion on what I believe was a failed premise.
'90-'91 to '99-'00; Decade.
'00-'01 to '09-'10; Decade.
'10-'11 to '19-'20; Decade; not that it matters..
At least if you're to believe the Mayans.
1999-2000 would be the nba season that concludes in 2000 so that would go under the start of the new decade of the 2000s. More of the NBA season and all of the playoffs are played in 2000 for the 1999-2000 season so the NBA champions for the year 2000 are the champions of the 1999-2000 season. The decade runs from 2000-2009, the 2010 champions are the start of the next decade.
No .....they did win it all in 2006, AND they dominated the out of the regular season in 2007.
Look, we're getting into semantics here. I understand the notion of the '99-'00 seasons champion claiming their le in the year '00 and I understand where you and some others are coming from. I just don't share the same view.
The le might be claimed in the year '00 but the season starts in the '90's. It's just my opinion that there shouldn't be the remnants of a past decade when starting a new. When I think team of the decade I think '70's, '80's, and '90's. To say a team that won a le from a season that starts in the prior decade should get credit for it, in the terms of this discussion, just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me..
To be quite honest, the 'Team of the Decade' moniker, while I wouldn't mind the Spurs being recognized as, is something I couldn't care much less about. If the Lakers win it this year, they'll be no question about who it is. And if the Spurs do?
I suspect we'll see oppossing, legitimate viewpoints, like the ones we've discussed, debated from here to the end of time.
It's really not subjective. It's how historians use chronolgy. The first year of this era (AD as opposed to BC or B.C.E) was year 1. There was no year 0. Thus the first decade was Year 1 to Year 10. Fastforward 2000 years and you're still at 2001 to 2010.
Regardless, obviously the Sporting News is using their own chronology or buys into the fact that most people don't really know the time frame of decade. None of it matters. My greater point, is Spurs fans shouldn't shave the 2000 Championship off the Lakers, just like Lakers fans shouldn't ignore the 99 Spurs. It's all trying to use the chronology to political advantages to boost your point. My greater point is since these modern teams have been assembled, since the Duncan and Kobe Eras began, and since the Jordan Bulls team broke up, its 4 to 4. We've got a great rivalry.
lol...using BilMc and icopter Jones logic, since I was born in 1980, i can tell people i was born in the 70's. haha
That would be, from day-one to the year '10.
In other words, and in terms of how an NBA season begins and ends: '00-'01 season to the '09-'10 season.
And it can be subjective, basketball-wise, because the seasons don't begin and end in the same calendar year. The argument can be made that the Lakers in the '99-'00 season technically were the only NBA champion to be crowned in the year '00. Thus, going by that logic, the tenth champion would be crowned at the end of the '08-'09 season. -- Logic I obviously don't ascribe to, but it's an argument nonetheless. --
The success of the Spurs and Lakers obviously fueled this debate going the way it did, because of the time in which the Duncan, Shaq and Kobe's reign began. Seeing as Duncan claimed his first le in the '98-'99 season and the Lakers began their latest reign during the '99-'00 season, this was obviously viewed as the beginning of their decade, in a lot of sports writers eyes.
The thing they failed to acknowledge, however, - well, at least most -- is that the Spurs started off this run of dominance in '98-'99. And if they're really looking to coin a 'Team of the Decade' because of each teams' respective success, and to claim whom is actually deserving of the moniker...
The decade would have ended during the '07-'08 season and the Spurs would no doubt be the "Team of that Decade."
It really is so much easier to use common, chronological logic, though..
Don't you think?
The Spurs have never had to rebuild. They've never missed the playoffs. The lowest winning percentage they had was this year and a "shockingly bad" .659 (.646 if using the 99-00 season). The Spurs cracked .700 6 times since 2000 (if you want to start there). Using the 99-00 season as a starting point, the Spurs winning percentage is .702 (winning percentages added together and then divided by 10).
The Lakers' worst winning percentage was .415. The Lakers have cracked .700 twice (3 times if you want 1999-2000 which is still half of the times the Spurs did). The Lakers winning percentage over the same time is .646.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions