Lakers
Spurs
We already did beat you when it counts, with Phil, Kobe, Shaq... we know we can get it done. And it's 4-1 because your team was FORTUNATE enough not to cross paths with the Spurs between '05 and '07. Not our problem the Lakers sucked back then.
The indisputable fact is that the Lakers have not won in 6 years and counting, while the Spurs have won 3 les. Suck on that for a while, and STFU while you do it.
Neeeexxxxtttt...
Suck on 14 les . Suck on the best winning percentage of any franchise in NBA history. Suck on the most Finals appearances of any team in NBA history.
SUCK ON A 9-2 OVERALL PLAYOFF RECORD AGAINS YOUR TEAM .
You can't win this argument. You're done. Wipe the stains off your face and go have a nap.
You FAIL for this decade. Didn't you want to stay on topic? Don't get too heated up now... I know the Lakers have sucked for so long you can't help yourself, but hey, truth hurts.
I already won this argument. This decade, no team is anywhere near the Spurs. Not the Lakers, not the Pistons, not anybody else. How could you even compare the ever contending Spurs against as team that missed the playoffs entirely in a season? There's nothing to compare here...
NEXT...
SUCK ON A 9-2 OVERALL PLAYOFF RECORD AGAINST YOUR TEAM . 4-1 in this decade.
You can't win this argument. You're done. Wipe the stains off your face and go have a nap.
Is that all you got? I can play the quote game too...
This decade: Spurs 4 rings - Lakers 3 rings
This decade: Best winning percentage of ANY TEAM IN ANY PRO SPORTS.
This Decade: Spurs playoff series wins total > Lakers playoff series wins total. Lakers miss playoffs or flameout in the 1st round 3 times.
LAKERS = Second fiddle to the Spurs.
SUCK ON A 9-2 OVERALL PLAYOFF RECORD AGAINST YOUR TEAM . 4-1 in this decade.
You can't win this argument. You're done. Wipe the stains off your face and go have a nap.
Was that when the Lakers used to win something?
lol epic ownage by el nono, forget lakers and spurs, house is el nono'sWas that when the Lakers used to win something?
The Spurs haven't won since '07. Don't act like they are relevant anymore either.
They got their pussies ed by the Lakers last season 4-1.
Spurs are clearly best team this decade, there's no questioning it. Best win percentage, most championships, didn't lose 70% of the fanbase from 05-07. Yep pretty easily said the Spurs are better than the Lakers this decade.
, spurs were better in the 90's as well. Besides Stern winning 2.5 championships for them 00-02, the Lakers have pretty much had 20 straight years of mediocrity.
For all the Lakers hype this season, by the end of this week we can be only 5 games behind you, and we're not even trying to catch you guys up. Not to mention we've been plagued by injuries all season long.
We'll see how irrelevant we are if we make it to May all healthy...
this is not even close. Spurs >>>>>> Lakers this decade. why even post this poll??
Up until last year, when Lakers robbed the bank by taking Gasol, Lakers were a perenial 1st round exit team. next
100% winning percentage in the Finals> 60% Winning percentage in the Finals...
Technically the ring count for the current decade (the first of the new millenium) is:
Spurs 3: 2002-2003, 2004-2005, 2006-2007
Lakers 2: 2000-2001, 2001-2002*(Kings). The 1999-2000 le belongs to the 90's
Were it not for a Derek Fisher shot that should not have counted... and a Derek Fisher foul that should have been called by Joey Crawford (of all people) Phil would not be able to gloat about the Laker's 'edge over' the Spurs.
As for the 2001 WC beatdown... Lakerfan conveniently forgets that the Spurs lost their 2nd highest scorer, and assist playmaker in Derek Anderson a game before that series tipped-off (Juwan's Howards flagrant foul), and that David Robinson was playing without any sensation in his legs due to a floating particle in his back...
The only time the teams have matched up at full strength the Spurs brought down the LA Forum. LA couldn't even make it far enough to challenge the Spurs from 2005-2007.
Haha. So first round exits count more than a final appearance.
Fact is, final appearance > 1st round, 2nd round, WCF. Simple as that. Lakers went to the dance two more times than the Spurs. Own them in head to head and three-peated.
The team of the decade is pretty clear - Lakers
2006-2007 has a much bigger * considering Donaghy himself ing handed game 3 to the Spurs. Oh yea and the suspensions. Dumbass.
Spurs 3 > Lakers 2
/Thread.
San Antonio would have beat Phoenix without the suspensions... the Spurs simply own the Suns...
As for Donaghy.... umm... did you actually read the affidavits for his involvement??? Did you even see the game?? He didn't even blow the whistle for the two most controversial calls in the game...
Typical ill-informed troll...
If you're going to troll at least get your facts straight...
Interesting debate. Let’s try to address all the basic issues of that have been raised throughout the course of this discussion at the same time in order to clear things up a bit.
This decade almost certainly refers to the decade that began in 2000 and will end at the end of this year 2009. Properly speaking, this would not include the 1999 Spurs championship, and thus during this decade the Spurs and the Lakers have an equal number of championships (3).
Yet at the same time, I think it would make sense to refer to “eras” rather than to the artificial temporal constructs that decades represent. We could thus refer to the Kobe and Duncan eras of their respective teams since those are basically the only players that have been with their teams from the “beginning.” From this perspective, Duncan’s Spurs have 4 championships in this era to Kobe’s 3. I think thus that the number of championships is more a less a wash with respect to the question of the best team of the decade or era, nonetheless with an advantage going to the Spurs.
I think that head to head playoff matchups are less important when it comes to the overall question because as Spurs fans have pointed out, the Lakers have missed the playoffs on several occasions when they certainly would have been beaten by the Spurs. In terms of questionable calls that went against either the Spurs or the Lakers, I think that likely should not figure too heavily in favor of either team with respect to the original question.
The Lakers’ 3-peat deserves mention because if only for the fact that the Spurs did not manage a le defense in the decade/era thus far. However, the Spurs do hold the edge in terms of consistent regular season excellence.
In sum, I believe the body of work presented by both teams in this decade/era is fairly similar with a slight edge going to the Spurs for having 1 more championship and more consistent excellence in the Duncan era as opposed to the Kobe era. That said, there still remains one more year in this decade at least and I think that should either the Lakers or Spurs win this year, then that team would decisively demonstrate that they deserve to be called the best team of the decade.
Last edited by demosthenes247; 03-10-2009 at 11:46 AM. Reason: formatting
He blew the whistle on that Ginobili play where nobody even touched him. And you're stupid if you think Donaghy is going to admit to more incidents that the feds didn't have evidence for. Fact is, Donaghy was dirty. Admitted to cheating and was part of the reason why the Spurs won that series. You lose.
As for 2002, the Lakers were completely screwed by the refs in games 2/3 and 5 against the Kings. So it evened out in the end. At least a convicted felon was officiating that series
Ok facts; Head to head: Lakers. Final appearances: Lakers. Threpeat vs nopeat: Lakers. Best indvidual team: Lakers. Team of the decade: Lakers
Enjoy watching the Lakers shut down SA's championship window for good this post season. Surely, end of an era. The era of the second best team of this decade.
clearly its the Grizzlies sons
Huh?
This isn't the team of the last 5 years, it's the entire decade. The Lakers missed the playoffs ONCE due to injuries and only have two first round exits compared to the Spurs 1. If we're talking about consistent excellence, the Lakers win that as well. They have been in the NBA finals 5 times out of the last 9.
They've accomplished about as much as the Hornets this decade, so I'd be inclined to agree.
You mean the Shaq era...
Decades don't start at zero... they start at 1.
Either way you slice it up however, the Spurs have one more le than the Lakers (over the past 10 years)....
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
