Way to the bed in the 1st round SA.
There is no team of this decade. LA had a three year run from 2000-2002, the Spurs dominated from 2003-2007, and there are Detroit, Miami, and Boston championships in between.
LA has had a 7 year gap between championships (2002 and 2009), so if theres anything close to a team of the decade, its the Spurs.
Spurs didn't dominate 04, 06 so try again
no Shaq no ring. statement of the decade
SA was in the playoffs every year of the decade.
SA advanced past the 1st round 9/10 times in the decade.
SA won as many championships as anyone else this decade (3).
SA had HCA in the 1st round every single year.
LA won 3 les.
LA made the playoffs 9/10 times this decade.
LA advanced to 5 NBA Finals.
LA advanced past the 1st round 7/10 times this decade.
It is close, but on consistency, SA seems to edge the Lakers out, unless they can pull an upset to beat the Cavs.
Cleveland over Denver in 6. Book it.
I think awarding them the trophy before they have earned it is a bit premature, don't you think?
Your team sucked ing balls from 2004-07 and were only rescued from that fate by a trinity of David Stern, Michael Heisley and Jerry West, so shut the up.
at this thread.
Lets look at the pro's and con's for the "team of the decade argument":
Lakers:
The good: 3-peat from 2000-2003.
The bad: 04' Finals appearance, but lost. Didnt even qualify for the playoffs in 2005..and lost in the 1st round in 2006 AND 2007 to the Suns. 2008 Finals appearance but lost to the Celtics.
Spurs:
The good: Championships in 2003, 2005, and 2007. Advanced to AT LEAST the 2nd round every year since 2001 up until this year. 10 consecutive 50+ win seasons, and have not missed the Playoffs in 10+ years as well.
The bad: 2009- First 1st round exit since 2000. Never repeated but stayed in the hunt and consistent every year since 2001.
Final appearances mean more than a 1-3 round exit. That's just how it is.
Head to head, Lakers 4-1. Sorry but you can't spin the truth any longer.
It's never too late for you to crawl back up your mother's coochie so she can go to work with a coat hanger.
thank you for your neutral, great analysis. case closed. end of thread
If Lakers win one more le, I agree.
Spurs were more consistent, but the Lakers own the head-to-head.
I'd pick the Spurs as Team of the Decade, but I could also call it a tie. If the Lakers win this year, they'll definitely get supreme status.
That would mean acknowledging the Eastern Conference as the Western Conference's equal, otherwise, a 3rd round exit would be equivalent. I do think that, sans 2002, they were, but I think I am in the minority.
Head-To-Head is a good stat, but missing the playoffs and 2 embarrassing 1st round exits plays into the formula too. SA just got injured. LA chose to go a different direction, and so far, it has yet to pay off in the form of a le.
I would agree that if you want to segment the decade into 3, it starts off Laker-centric, moves over to SA, and just starting to swing the pendulum back to LA the last 2 seasons.
Again, if the Lakers upset the Cavs (and IMHO Denver) than I think the Lakers put the exclamation point on a decade well done. Otherwise, It is a tossup taking into account the troughs and peaks.
Spurs. I think this will remembered as the decade when the international player showed up.
Dirk. Nash, Yao. Ginobili etc.
Team of the Decade = Spurs
Best Single-Season Team = Lake Show (2000-01)
Head to head is also a little dangerous.
While I think the following stat does hold true, you (and most others) might disagree:
Ben Wallace is 3 of 4 head-to-head against Shaq in the 00's.
I think most would say I just spun the truth by stating that fact. However, I do think Ben did in fact own Shaq. So even the head-to-heads are a little skewed.
Like the Lakers did in 2006 ?Way to the bed in the 1st round SA.
Or 2005? Oh wait, no playoffs for the Lakers in 2005
So, mathematically, Spurs are the team of the decade, you moron
Dallas, San Antonio, and Sacremento were the international teams of the West, and belive it or not, the Pistons were the international squad of the East for a little while, with the likes of Rebracca, Okur, Sanchez, Darko, Delfino, Arroyo and more...
According to Spurfans: les > anything else. So if the Lakers win 4 this decade, it's theirs. I mean, you always hear them boast about 4 les
No, they aren't equivalent. That's stupid and makes no sense.
The Lakers don't have an embarrassing 1st round. The Spurs however have 1 embarrassing 1st round exit. 3 seed choking to the 6 seed.
No back to back for SA ruins this argument. As the pendulum went back to LA after they punked SA in 04. And then their embarrassing 06 playoff exit to a choking Dallas team is just flat out sad.
No one can take SA serious as a dynasty without a back to back. Thems the breaks.
The tossup (which it isn't) would be decided by Head to Head matchups in the playoffs which the Lakers have the obvious advantage.
You really are an idiot, you know that?
*cue in shot about being a Mavs fan*
Make a blink decision.
Lakers and Celtics in the 80s...
Bulls in the 90s...
The next decade was.....
I guess I would say "Spurs" but the truth is there was no team that dominated for the decade.
Um..they have something worse. NOT MAKING THE PLAYOFFS IN 2005, JACKASS!!
Also, losing to the Suns after being up 3-1 was pretty embarrassing. At least it should have been.
Getting your asses handed to you the next year by the Suns was even worse.
Or maybe Kobe demanding a trade was worse. All in all, Id rather have this year's Spurs' loss than any of those Lakers years. And at least the Spurs dont have Ginobili.
quit talking out of your ass 21_blessings
You guys choked 2 times in the NBA Finals
You guys lost to the Suns two times, and we own those es.
We own you guys in 2003 and would be in 2004 if it wasn't for that fluke shot.
Kobe watched shaq win 3 championships
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
