2000-09 NBA team of the decade?

[do be doo]

CP1708 wrote:

---

I'm not done yet.

Spurs beat the Lakers in the second round in 03 4 - 2

Lakers over the Spurs? 4-0, 4-1, 4-2, and 4-1. 3 of those series aren't even close.

But the Spurs made the playoffs every year.

One last thing, the Lakers have BY FAR the single season team of the last however many years, the one that boat raced the NBA in the playoffs to the tune of 15 - 1.

Pray for the Magic all you want, ya'll shoulda prayed for your Spurs when you faced LA.

will lets look at the reguler season...

Spurs

2000 53-29 .646
2001 58-24 .707
2002 58-24 .707
2003 60-22 .732
2004 57-25 .695
2005 59-23 .720
2006 63-19 .768
2007 58-24 .707
2008 56-26 .683
2009 54-28 .659

Lakers

2000 67-15 .817
2001 56-26 .683
2002 58-24 .707
2003 50-32 .610
2004 56-26 .683
2005 34-48 .415
2006 45-37 .549
2007 42-40 .512
2008 57-25 .695
2009 65-17 .793

You tell me what you see?....

 

[darthska]

I agree with nrg1604; saying/acting like the Lakers are far away the better team or saying/acting like the Spurs are laughably inferior to the Lakers thisdecade... both of those are laughable opinions, in my opinion.

Convincing arguments can be made for both.

I've already stated that the Lakers are my choice, and obviously that is said with an admitted bias towards the Lakers, but the Spurs are right there.

 

[CP1708]

So now team of the decade is based off regular season?

Comedy.

 

[do be doo]

^^^

at you still not telling me what you see...
then what do you want it to be based on?...

 

[lakersmets49ers]

Originally Posted by Do Be Doo

CP1708 wrote:

---

I'm not done yet.

Spurs beat the Lakers in the second round in 03 4 - 2

Lakers over the Spurs? 4-0, 4-1, 4-2, and 4-1. 3 of those series aren't even close.

But the Spurs made the playoffs every year.

One last thing, the Lakers have BY FAR the single season team of the last however many years, the one that boat raced the NBA in the playoffs to the tune of 15 - 1.

Pray for the Magic all you want, ya'll shoulda prayed for your Spurs when you faced LA.

will lets look at the reguler season...

Spurs

2000 53-29 .646
2001 58-24 .707
2002 58-24 .707
2003 60-22 .732
2004 57-25 .695
2005 59-23 .720
2006 63-19 .768
2007 58-24 .707
2008 56-26 .683
2009 54-28 .659

Lakers

2000 67-15 .817
2001 56-26 .683
2002 58-24 .707
2003 50-32 .610
2004 56-26 .683
2005 34-48 .415
2006 45-37 .549
2007 42-40 .512
2008 57-25 .695
2009 65-17 .793

You tell me what you see?....

i see one bad year mixed in with 3 championships, 6 conference championships and alot of beating the spurs in the playoffs as well.

i rather my team have one bad year mixed in with representing its conferences more then 50% of the times this decade.

regular season records are overated anyways. 2 of the times the lakers won the championship they didn't even have the best record in their conference butteams were scared of them.

for all that spurs consistency you guys still got put out of the playoffs in the 1st round twice this decade, while the lakers got put out in the first roundor failed to make the playoffs 3 times.

you guys won't change your stance but the stats don't like and the stats tell the truth.

hell if were talking decade that 4 game blowout sweep in the 2001 western conference finals needs to be brought up, sure the spurs were consistent thisdecade but damn you guys had the home court advantage that year only to lose 3 of the 4 games by double digits.

you guys get all the credit in the world for 2003 for knockin off the 3 time defending champs when no one else was able to do that but still the spursweren't consistent enough to repeat as champions at all.


now had dirk not got that 3 point play to send game 7 of the 2006 semifinals to overtime we wouldn't even be having this discussion because the spurswould have for sure beat miami and won the championship that year which would have gave them 4 for the decade.

 

[lakersmets49ers]

Originally Posted by Do Be Doo

^^^

at you still not telling me what you see...
then what do you want it to be based on?...

championships won, conference championships, how the two teams up for debate fared against eachother when they played each other.


you can debate it either way but the stats work in the lakers favor.

 

[mugen ep]

Originally Posted by CP1708

I saw a lot of people mention that the Spurs being 3 - 0 in the finals is better then us being potentially 3-3 in the finals.

No reason in going to the finals and losing right?

How about the Western Conference Finals.

Spurs are what? 3 wins and 2 losses, both to the Lakers I beleive.

Lakers are 6 - 0 in the conference finals.

No reason in going and losing right?

So to recap, the Spurs should be considered the best team of the decade, because they make it to the second round every year, and beyond that 3 times.

Riiiiiiiiight.

Another learning tutorial brought to you by CP.

I've read this whole thread and CP has me

 

[chicagokid23]

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...

as much as I hate to admit it yea your right about the Spurs

 

[bigtimejerky]

Spurs

 

[CP1708]

Do Be Doo wrote:
But like you said this decade is over in two weeks...Lets wait and see...

At the start of this thread, which I did on purpose, BEFORE the end of the season so I could see what everyone was thinkin, you told me the samething, about wait and see how things go if the Lakers and Spurs met in the playoffs this year.

Remember that? I can refresh your memory if you need........

Originally Posted by Do Be Doo

CP1708 wrote:

---

Originally Posted by emkay

CP1708 wrote:

---

emkay wrote:

---

Spurs. It's about consistency.

What is consistent about 3 outta 10?

The fact that they didn't fade into mediocrity in the middle of the decade.

You guys are funny. I never knew failing to make it to the championship round 70 percent of the time was "consistent". in terms of winning.

But oh well, we'll see how it plays out in a few months.



like i been saying all this time....

But then I couldn't find you after the first round. Were you on vacation or something?

And now here we are, back in the finals AGAIN and you guys still hurting about it, and not wanting to see that 6 > 3. 6 - 0 is better then the 3 - 2 youput up just in our same conference. 4 - 1 head to head in the playoffs. Back to back to back, vs no repeats at all.

And if we win this year, there are people in this thread that said they would STILL vote for the Spurs.

Jesus Christ.

 

[wstcoastgotti]

Spurs

 

[lakersmets49ers]

Originally Posted by CP1708

Do Be Doo wrote:
But like you said this decade is over in two weeks...Lets wait and see...

At the start of this thread, which I did on purpose, BEFORE the end of the season so I could see what everyone was thinkin, you told me the same thing, about wait and see how things go if the Lakers and Spurs met in the playoffs this year.

Remember that? I can refresh your memory if you need........

Originally Posted by Do Be Doo

CP1708 wrote:

---

Originally Posted by emkay

CP1708 wrote:

---

emkay wrote:

---

Spurs. It's about consistency.

What is consistent about 3 outta 10?

The fact that they didn't fade into mediocrity in the middle of the decade.

You guys are funny. I never knew failing to make it to the championship round 70 percent of the time was "consistent". in terms of winning.

But oh well, we'll see how it plays out in a few months.



like i been saying all this time....

But then I couldn't find you after the first round. Were you on vacation or something?

And now here we are, back in the finals AGAIN and you guys still hurting about it, and not wanting to see that 6 > 3. 6 - 0 is better then the 3 - 2 you put up just in our same conference. 4 - 1 head to head in the playoffs. Back to back to back, vs no repeats at all.

And if we win this year, there are people in this thread that said they would STILL vote for the Spurs.

Jesus Christ.





well you know some people you can't argue with, as of now with it being tied 3-3 when it comes to championships despite all the facts i threw outthere which pretty much dead any argument about the spurs being the team of the decade, i guess you can say the spurs fans have a little room to debate.

if the lakers win the title 4 > 3 who gives a damn if the lakers missed the playoffs for one season because the lakers will have dominated the decadein the early half, made it to a finals during the middle part of the decade, and made it to another finals and possibly won another title in the late halfof this decade.

thats consistency to me.

 

[CP1708]

I forgot bein in the finals 4 outta 5 years. No one else did that.

Spurs best, 3 outta 5.

 

[airphilippines]

Originally Posted by assyrianplaya

i dont see how this is an argument...everyone saying the spurs is missing a set of chromosomes or something

finals 6/10 years.
3 peat of championships
the closest in finals appearances is 3....

no contest lakers

word but then again I'm just a laker fan

 

[loveofthegame916]

I absolutely hate the lakers but they're the team of the decade...nobody else pulled off a three peat. Just off of that you can give them the title...thenyou can throw in the fact that they've made it to the finals now 6 times this decade...

 

[Truth]

3 Peat...nuff said

 

[CP1708]

*ahem*

 

[fuser86]

Lakers!!

Spurs a close second.

 

[ph3n0m3n0n]

I give it to the Spurs just off the fact that they've got 3 championships and have yet to miss the playoffs the entire time so far.

Lakers a close second due to their dynasty and what looks like another chip coming but they had a nice void where they weren't even looked at ascontenders.

 

[airthompson]

Spurs

 

[CP1708]

Decade is now closed.

Lakers 4 championships are the most in ANY pro sport this decade.

I started this before the playoffs to see what people's thoughts were, and now that they have concluded, how do ya'll see things now?

4 chips
6 trips to the finals in 10 years
Beat the Spurs 4 outta 5 years in the playoffs
3 peat
Only team to repeat this decade, did it twice.

2 of the top 3 players in the decade (see the Downtown player thread)
etc etc.....

 

[do be doo]

.......
Damn

 

[otis dont play that]

Spurs. The Lakers had those terrible years prior to Gasol coming.

 

[jstar25]

Shaq & Kobe Lakers were the team of the decade. Supporting cast around them made that team just great to watch.

 

[JD617]

The Lakers have now erased any arguments for anything other than: Lakers 1st, Spurs 2nd.