2000-09 NBA team of the decade?

its close but u gotta give it to la..they actually had to rebuild when they lost shaq and still managed 2 more appearances..i know sa had a few years withinjuries that could have possibly got them 1 or 2 more rings ...but they still managed to keep their stars unlike l.a...
 
Not to be a homer, but being in the Finals more than half the damn decade is pretty dominant.

'But that was 'cause Shaq was...'

'But they've already lost 2, and it could be 3.'

10 years possible.

6 Finals appearances.

I think if the Lakers win this year and go 4-2, I mean, that's ore appearance than anyone else along with more wins than anyone else.
ohwell.gif
 
Who was the most dominant maybe you can say the Lakers but who is the best run organization to me it's the Spurs every single day.

They revolutionized European scouting, opened up the game overseas, and expanded the game across the world. One of the best run and one of the most forwardthinking organization in sports.
 
Osh Kosh Bosh:
Who was the most dominant maybe you can say the Lakers but who is the best run organization to me it's the Spurs every single day.

They revolutionized European scouting, opened up the game overseas, and expanded the game across the world. One of the best run and one of the most forward thinking organization in sports.
Going to have to agree with that.
Click to expand...
 
Originally Posted by SHUGES

Originally Posted by Statis22

Those early Laker teams were good but the Spurs are/were the definition of a consistency
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

lol i think a team winning 3 titles in a row is the definition of consistency.

ever since the lakers last won a championship nobody has been consistent enough to repeat as champs.

you can make an argument for the spurs being the decade although i think i shut all those talks down with the last post i made in this thread but ill repeatmyself since people are making stupid statements like the spurs are still the team of the decade regardless if the lakers win this year or not.

1. if the lakers win this year, unless the number system has changed. 4 titles is more then 3 titles.

2. the lakers have made it to the finals 6 times this decade while the spurs have only made it 3 times, that means the lakers have played in the big gametwice as many times as the spurs have.

3. the lakers and the spurs met in the playoffs 5 times this decade.
in 2003 the spurs beat the lakers 4-2 thats impressive and all but lets bring this up.

in 2001 the lakers swept the spurs winning game 3 by 39 points and game 4 by 29 points, in 2002 the lakers beat the spurs 4-1, in 2004 the lakers beat thespurs 4-2, and in 2008 the lakers beat the spurs 4-1.

that means the lakers won 4 of those 5 series in this decade.

4. for those who said the lakers were irrelevant from 2005-07 ok thats cute and all but at the end of the day the lakers only failed to advance past the1st round 3 times this decade, while the spurs failed to advance 2 times, so its not like the spurs have been much more consistent.

5. since were still talking about consistency lets bring up regular season records while were at it. out of the 10 seasons this decade the spurs had abetter record then the lakers 6 times while the lakers had a better record then the spurs 4 times. out of those 6 times the spurs had a better record guesswho knocked them out of the playoffs?? ding ding the lakers did in both 2001 and 2004.

what the spurs accomplished this decade is impressive and they will be one of the more underrated teams to ever play, but to say they were a better team thisdecade then the lakers is just talking silly.
 
Sandwiched in between those 6 conference titles in 10 years are 3 years of mediocrity for the Lakers

Spurs have been a championship quality team every year this decade. Every year. The Spurs have always done the most with the less


That's consistency my friend
 
Originally Posted by lakersmets49ers

Originally Posted by SHUGES

Originally Posted by Statis22

Those early Laker teams were good but the Spurs are/were the definition of a consistency
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

lol i think a team winning 3 titles in a row is the definition of consistency.

ever since the lakers last won a championship nobody has been consistent enough to repeat as champs.

you can make an argument for the spurs being the decade although i think i shut all those talks down with the last post i made in this thread but ill repeat myself since people are making stupid statements like the spurs are still the team of the decade regardless if the lakers win this year or not.

1. if the lakers win this year, unless the number system has changed. 4 titles is more then 3 titles.

2. the lakers have made it to the finals 6 times this decade while the spurs have only made it 3 times, that means the lakers have played in the big game twice as many times as the spurs have.

3. the lakers and the spurs met in the playoffs 5 times this decade.
in 2003 the spurs beat the lakers 4-2 thats impressive and all but lets bring this up.

in 2001 the lakers swept the spurs winning game 3 by 39 points and game 4 by 29 points, in 2002 the lakers beat the spurs 4-1, in 2004 the lakers beat the spurs 4-2, and in 2008 the lakers beat the spurs 4-1.

that means the lakers won 4 of those 5 series in this decade.

4. for those who said the lakers were irrelevant from 2005-07 ok thats cute and all but at the end of the day the lakers only failed to advance past the 1st round 3 times this decade, while the spurs failed to advance 2 times, so its not like the spurs have been much more consistent.

5. since were still talking about consistency lets bring up regular season records while were at it. out of the 10 seasons this decade the spurs had a better record then the lakers 6 times while the lakers had a better record then the spurs 4 times. out of those 6 times the spurs had a better record guess who knocked them out of the playoffs?? ding ding the lakers did in both 2001 and 2004.

what the spurs accomplished this decade is impressive and they will be one of the more underrated teams to ever play, but to say they were a better team this decade then the lakers is just talking silly.
Click to expand...


I know a lot of people overuse "/thread".......but this post right here should pretty much end the thread.
 
Originally Posted by Statis22

Sandwiched in between those 6 conference titles in 10 years are 3 years of mediocrity for the Lakers

Spurs have been a championship quality team every year this decade. Every year. The Spurs have always done the most with the less


That's consistency my friend
Click to expand...


honestly it was only 1 real year of mediocrity 04-05 where the lakers won 34 games, the 05-06 season and 06-07 seasons where they won 45 and 42games would be seen as good seasons by the majority of nba teams.

i don't know about the spurs being a championship contender every year, in 2000 when duncan got hurt people were looking at them as a second round teamat best, in 2002 everyone was looking at the lakers and kings but that worked well for the spurs because they made good moves that offseason, and thisseason because of age and injuries i wouldn't call the 09 spurs a championship quality team.

dammit lakers win this year so there is no real room for debate, imo i don't think there is much room for debate already but do the job this year lakersso that its no argument.
 
Aside from the injuries the Spurs were championship material in 00 and 09.

But if the Lakers do win this year then it does skewer the debate in the Lakers favor but right now I stil say the Spurs
 
Originally Posted by Statis22

Aside from the injuries the Spurs were championship material in 00 and 09.

But if the Lakers do win this year then it does skewer the debate in the Lakers favor but right now I stil say the Spurs
Click to expand...


well for right now it looks like were going to agree to disagree but hey heres a common ground we can reach lakers and spurs > the rest of thefrauds from the west who didn't win diddily poo this decade suns, mavs, kings, blazers
 
I just dont get it. Are the people who are answering Spurs just ignoring facts?
 
Originally Posted by dland24

Originally Posted by lakersmets49ers

Originally Posted by SHUGES

Originally Posted by Statis22

Those early Laker teams were good but the Spurs are/were the definition of a consistency
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

lol i think a team winning 3 titles in a row is the definition of consistency.

ever since the lakers last won a championship nobody has been consistent enough to repeat as champs.

you can make an argument for the spurs being the decade although i think i shut all those talks down with the last post i made in this thread but ill repeat myself since people are making stupid statements like the spurs are still the team of the decade regardless if the lakers win this year or not.

1. if the lakers win this year, unless the number system has changed. 4 titles is more then 3 titles.

2. the lakers have made it to the finals 6 times this decade while the spurs have only made it 3 times, that means the lakers have played in the big game twice as many times as the spurs have.

3. the lakers and the spurs met in the playoffs 5 times this decade.
in 2003 the spurs beat the lakers 4-2 thats impressive and all but lets bring this up.

in 2001 the lakers swept the spurs winning game 3 by 39 points and game 4 by 29 points, in 2002 the lakers beat the spurs 4-1, in 2004 the lakers beat the spurs 4-2, and in 2008 the lakers beat the spurs 4-1.

that means the lakers won 4 of those 5 series in this decade.

4. for those who said the lakers were irrelevant from 2005-07 ok thats cute and all but at the end of the day the lakers only failed to advance past the 1st round 3 times this decade, while the spurs failed to advance 2 times, so its not like the spurs have been much more consistent.

5. since were still talking about consistency lets bring up regular season records while were at it. out of the 10 seasons this decade the spurs had a better record then the lakers 6 times while the lakers had a better record then the spurs 4 times. out of those 6 times the spurs had a better record guess who knocked them out of the playoffs?? ding ding the lakers did in both 2001 and 2004.

what the spurs accomplished this decade is impressive and they will be one of the more underrated teams to ever play, but to say they were a better team this decade then the lakers is just talking silly.
Click to expand...


I know a lot of people overuse "/thread".......but this post right here should pretty much end the thread.
Click to expand...
Just for you, /thread.
laugh.gif


In all seriousness, that should end the debate. OKB I completely agree with you that the Spurs are the best run organization. However, the most dominant shouldgo to the Lakers. 6 Finals appearances in 10 years is pretty damn dominant. Not only that, but the fact that those guys were able to three peat is incredible.I remember back in those days, nobody was able to stop that Laker team.

1a) Lakers
1b) Spurs
 
Lakers, which happen to be my favorite team. ironically, the spurs came to my mind first, until I thought about what LA has accomplished: 6 finals appearancesis VERY impressive. the same number as the bulls, although the bulls of course won them all. Also, the lakers had arguably the 2 best players in the league atone point, winning a total of 3(?) MVPs.
 
Originally Posted by dland24

I just dont get it. Are the people who are answering Spurs just ignoring facts?
Click to expand...

Here are some facts:

Spurs: 576-244 (.702), 9 playoffs, 6 division titles, 3 conference titles, 3 championships, #1 conference seed 3 times, average playoff seeding 2.3 (#4 wastheir lowest)

Lakers: 530-290 (.646), 8 playoffs, 5 division titles, 6 conference titles, 3 championships, #1 conference seed 3 times, average playoff seeding 3.2 (#7 wastheir lowest)

It's very debatable which one is the better team this decade. If the Lakers win this year, that is the trump card and they are the better team, but fornow it is still up for debate.
 
Originally Posted by nrg1604

Originally Posted by dland24

I just dont get it. Are the people who are answering Spurs just ignoring facts?
Click to expand...

Here are some facts:

Spurs: 576-244 (.702), 9 playoffs, 6 division titles, 3 conference titles, 3 championships, #1 conference seed 3 times, average playoff seeding 2.3 (#4 was their lowest)

Lakers: 530-290 (.646), 8 playoffs, 5 division titles, 6 conference titles, 3 championships, #1 conference seed 3 times, average playoff seeding 3.2 (#7 was their lowest)

It's very debatable which one is the better team this decade. If the Lakers win this year, that is the trump card and they are the better team, but for now it is still up for debate.
Click to expand...

not to me because the only stats that matter to me are the titles and conference titles and the fact that the lakers beat the spurs in 4 of the 5 playoffseries they met in.
 
Originally Posted by MBen32

If LA can win atleast one more in this decade..i'd give it to them
Click to expand...
so after the Lakers v Magic series?
laugh.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom