2000-09 NBA team of the decade?

[blastamasta8]

Originally Posted by TH0MAS CR0WN

If the Lakers make it this year, that's 6 in 10 years, and yet, the Spurs have been more consistent? With 3 trips to the finals?

Can someone help me with that?

Lakers knocked the Spurs out of the playoffs 4 out of 5 years this decade. No one else did that.

and Spurs only been there 3 times, which means they have more early exits

QFT.

 

[canifly34]

Originally Posted by swizzc

If LA wins another title, Lakers. If they don't, Spurs.

Agreed with the first statement. Kind of iffy with the 2nd one. Although the spurs won each time they were in it, the Lakers reached the Finalsfor half of the decade...

 

[f3djam]

Lakers are the team of the decade. shouldnt even be an arguement

and no im not a fan...

 

[purplerelgn]

im biased but to me, 3 titles in 3 years is more impressive than 3 titles in 5 w/ none being repeats
and 5 finals appearances in 9 years is more consistent than 3 in 9

 

[kal ripped ken]

Lakers without a doubt. 3 peating > winning in odd years. Lakers own the Spurs head to head.

finals appearances are more important than playoff appearances. The point of the playoffs is to GET to the finals and the point of the finals is to WIN thechampionship. Since both teams are tied in championships this decade, it should make sense that Lakers come out on top with MORE finals appearances.

 

[thefoteenth]

Originally Posted by vctry20

To me when it comes to 2 teams with the same championships, I'd have to give it to the team with the more conference titles. The Lakers have been to the finals 5 times in 9 years, I give it to them.

+When we win it all this year

 

[do be doo]

Originally Posted by TheFoteenth

Originally Posted by vctry20

To me when it comes to 2 teams with the same championships, I'd have to give it to the team with the more conference titles. The Lakers have been to the finals 5 times in 9 years, I give it to them.

+If When we yall win it all this year

fix...

 

[inine5]

when we look at numbers, the Lakers have more going for them.... but when we look at "team", it's the Spurs.... basically what i'm saying is,the spurs of the 00's are the same old spurs... duncan, manu, parker + supporting cast...the lakers on the other hand, 2 different teams. only constant iskobe and fisher. so that's where the consistency argument comes into play. the spurs have had pretty much the same core team this decade whereas the lakersare really 2 separate teams.... there was a dead period in the mid part of the decade for the lakers.

 

[downtown43]

it's easily the Lakers... remember that LA routinely knocked these same Spurs out of the playoffs en route to the Finals.

 

[ctdaprince]

its the Lakers a 3peat is juss crazy

 

[SneakerProSr.]

Making the Finals with out winning it is pointless.

If the Lakers win it this year then its not an argument IMO.

However if the Lakers don't then its pretty close but I would roll with the Spurs.

The two teams would have the same number of chips however at no time in the last decade where the Spurs not contenders. The Lakers weren't for a third ofthe decade.

 

[mcraptor]

Was first gonna say the spurs but after reading some of the stuff posted on here i gotta admit its probably the Lakers

 

[arrjae]

Originally Posted by Nowitness41Dirk

If they finish tied with Championships, I give the nod to the Spurs...

The Lakers were damn near irrelevant for 3 years...

first of all....DOPE avy!

i would say the spurs....
but if the lakers could win it in the next couple of years...then the lakers.....

 

[vctry20]

Making the Finals with out winning it is pointless.
Maybe when your talking about a season. But when you are trying to find out which team is most dominant over a decade and there's a draw, you have to look at how many times the team actually made it to the finals. You act like them losing in thefinals twice makes them worse. That's still two more trips to the finals that the Spurs made.

 

[airmaxpenny1]

If the Lakers win this year its them but if they don't it is the Spurs

 

[ctdaprince]

Originally Posted by SneakerPro

Making the Finals with out winning it is pointless.

If the Lakers win it this year then its not an argument IMO.

However if the Lakers don't then its pretty close but I would roll with the Spurs.

The two teams would have the same number of chips however at no time in the last decade where the Spurs not contenders. The Lakers weren't for a third of the decade.

yea if you do it once like the mavs it is but being there potentially 6 out of 10 is doin somthin

 

[paul is on tilt]

Tough call, honestly. Both have 3 titles but the Spurs have been the most consistent of the two by not having any real down years. When good, the Lakers havebeen better, having 2 more finals appearances than the Spurs.

I'm going with the Lakers on this one as of right now. They've been more dominant during their good years and they won 3 in a row. That's somethingthe Spurs can't say. This season's playoffs can really give us an even more definitive answer... pending how the Lakers and Spurs do respectively inthe playoffs.

 

[mateen cleaves]

Originally Posted by CP1708

70's Celts/Knicks? I have no idea, wasn't watching back then.

80's Lakers
90's Bulls
00's ?????


Spurs got 3 chips. Lakers got 3 chips. Heat, Celts and Pistons all have 1.


So, with one postseason left to go, who gets the title for this decade then?

could be pistons as well, dominated the eastern conference for a very long time

 

[CP1708]

Remix.


To recap this decade, the West has 3 teams in the finals, Lakers 6 times, Spurs 3 times, and the Mavs once.

East has 8 teams in the ten years. Pacers, 76ers, Nets twice, Pistons twice, Heat, Cavs, Celtics, and now the Magic.

Thas it.


That is an incredible stat based on how everyone in the West has been tough as hell the past decade and yet only 3 teams made it total.
And on top of that, as much as Detroit was right there year in and year out, they still only made 2 finals and damn near everyone in the conference got atleast one shot at a title.

So, win or lose in this finals, who is the team of the decade?

 

[tomislav]

Spurs close thread.

00-10 is a Shaq / Duncan era



Also, it was a pretty boring era, dull, and basically lame.


Way below 80's and 90's. Feel sorry for these kids being subjected to trash basketball of this time. Oh well.

 

[DetroitJatt]

PISTONS

/thread

 

[do be doo]

Originally Posted by tomislav

Spurs close thread.

00-10 is a Shaq / Duncan era



Also, it was a pretty boring era, dull, and basically lame.


Way below 80's and 90's. Feel sorry for these kids being subjected to trash basketball of this time. Oh well.

..
Go Magic...

 

[p0tat0 5alad]

Spurs

They know how to play the game of basketball

 

[kash55]

Lakers or Spurs...but Lakers over Spurs because of the three peat. The fact that Spurs never repeated. And the fact that Lakers have made it to the Finals 6times in 9 years.

 

[Burton Guster]

Originally Posted by kash55

Lakers or Spurs...but Lakers over Spurs because of the three peat. The fact that Spurs never repeated. And the fact that Lakers have made it to the Finals 6 times in 9 years.

Came in to say the same thing. Winning 3 titles back to back to back is no joke.