Why are spurs team of the decade when Lakers won more titles and went to more finals?

[Nick Young]

What a travesty that David Stern awarded the Spurs the team of the decade, what a complete travesty.

The Lakers clearly were team of the decade, they won a 3 peat with a dynasty, then a two-peat and also went to 2 more finals where they lost for a total of 7 finals appearances in the decade.

And somehow the Spurs win the team of the decade? This is a disgrace.

[jlauber]

What a travesty that David Stern awarded the Spurs the team of the decade, what a complete travesty.

The Lakers clearly were team of the decade, they won a 3 peat with a dynasty, then a two-peat and also went to 2 more finals where they lost for a total of 7 finals appearances in the decade.

And somehow the Spurs win the team of the decade? This is a disgrace.

Never heard of this, but if that is the case, I agree with you. Still, I will give the Spurs some credit. They did win 50+ games every year. But, hard to argue with your take.

[1_BAD_TIGER]

Are you expecting fairness from Dictator Stern and his cronies?

[LakersLaLaLand]

People started this talk after san antonio won their championships and the lakers were in their dark years.

And for no good reason it has stuck even after the lakers recent run of championships and finals showings.

Also some people don't want to count the year 2000 as part of the decade. And the same goes for the back end.

Lets just call it even.

[ImmortalD24]

Stern awarded that? Link?

[Grim]

b-b-b-b-ut Stern loves the Lakers!

[dj ys]

While the Lakers have 1 more title, the Spurs have been a more consistent team over the decade. San Antonio averaged 57 regular season wins/year with no year less than 50 during the decade. The Lakers averaged 52 wins/year but had 3 years of 45 or less (45,42, and 34). They also missed the playoffs once during that stretch.

This is if you're looking at 2000-2001 to 2009-2010. Not to say that the Spurs definitely are the team of the decade but they have a legit case.

[Thorn]

It's true that the Spurs have been consistently good this entire decade. It should have been either them or the Lakers winning that and I'm not going to argue against a Spurs victory.

But at the end of the day, I'm sure the Spurs would have rather won the championship more times instead of being awarded this subjective and arbitrary award. A great honor, for sure, but ultimately not the goal of either organization.

[jlauber]

It's true that the Spurs have been consistently good this entire decade. It should have been either them or the Lakers winning that and I'm not going to argue against a Spurs victory.

But at the end of the day, I'm sure the Spurs would have rather won the championship more times instead of being awarded this subjective and arbitrary award. A great honor, for sure, but ultimately not the goal of either organization.

I agree. I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep over it.

[Colby Brian]

2000-2009

titles
lakers - 4
spurs - 3

finals apperances
lakers - 6
spurs - 4

head to head playoffs
lakers 4-1

lol did the sperms really win team of the decade, disgrace :facepalm

[SayTownRy]

45,42, and 34

that's why. spurs never had a lapse in success.

[Colby Brian]

that's why. spurs never had a lapse in success.

4 titles>3 titles

6 finals>4 finals

lakers>spurs

/thread

[Wonder Bread Kid]

4 titles>3 titles

6 finals>4 finals

lakers>spurs

/thread

Yeah OK...

Horry: 7 rings.

Kobe: 5 rings

Shaq: 4 rings


Horry > Kobe > Shaq

Right?

For ****s sakes, there was a year in this decade that the Lakers didn't make the playoffs. :oldlol:

[Colby Brian]

lol the only reason spurs won titles is cause shaq left and kobe had nobody for a while

[Showtime]

Spurs had a higher win %, didn't miss the playoffs in the decade.

[Colby Brian]

Yeah OK...

Horry: 7 rings.

Kobe: 5 rings

Shaq: 4 rings


Horry > Kobe > Shaq

Right?

For ****s sakes, there was a year in this decade that the Lakers didn't make the playoffs. :oldlol:

im talkin about teams brah

4>3

winning the title is the ultimate goal

[SavageMode]

Horry 7 Rings GOAT!!

[Stuckey]

spurs could have had more titles too

if fisher didnt make that shot, and manu didnt foul dirk in ot

[Showtime]

lol the only reason spurs won titles is cause shaq left and kobe had nobody for a while
You're right...if 2003 never happened.

[Ne 1]

You're right...if 2003 never happened.

Shaq and Kobe were both playing through injures in that '03 series.

[Wonder Bread Kid]

im talkin about teams brah

4>3

winning the title is the ultimate goal

That's all you're weak argument is based on, titles. Hence my similar illogical comparison *brah.

Spurs were the most consistent team in all of sports this past decade. That's why they're the team of the decade in the NBA. Are you really that butt hurt about it?

Here's another silly stat for you to ponder.

Spurs this past decade: 3 for 3 when in the finals.

Lakers: 4 for 6.

*I swear to god if you said brah to me in real life I'd punch you. People need to stop saying brah. bruh, bra. Unless your ass is on a beach with a surf board, stfu.

[Showtime]

Shaq and Kobe were both playing through injures in that '03 series.
Go read his post.

[crosso√er]

Yeah OK...

Horry: 7 rings.

Kobe: 5 rings

Shaq: 4 rings


Horry > Kobe > Shaq

Right?

For ****s sakes, there was a year in this decade that the Lakers didn't make the playoffs. :oldlol:

Tell me a single GM that would take consistency over dominance in this league? You break your back trying to win a banner for your franchise; everyone would probably sacrifice ten years of mediocrity just to win one title.

Lakers are the team of the decade, give SA this pathetic honor. LA has the head-to-head match up, displayed more dominance while being a non-contender for three of those years and at the end not only made more final appearances but won more championships.

I can't comprehend how someone thinks that winning 50+ games all ten years and winning three titles is better then a team (who went through a rebuilding phase) who still managed to pretty much dominate the head-to-head matchup in the playoffs, win more championships in a window of seven years and make more runs at the title.

But Okay, enjoy your "well" deserved award Spur fans. :rolleyes:

[Wonder Bread Kid]

Shaq and Kobe were both playing through injures in that '03 series.

:rolleyes:

In 1999 as well?

[AlexanderRight]

While the Lakers have 1 more title, the Spurs have been a more consistent team over the decade. San Antonio averaged 57 regular season wins/year with no year less than 50 during the decade. The Lakers averaged 52 wins/year but had 3 years of 45 or less (45,42, and 34). They also missed the playoffs once during that stretch.

This is if you're looking at 2000-2001 to 2009-2010. Not to say that the Spurs definitely are the team of the decade but they have a legit case.
This explains perfectly. The Spurs have pretty much been in contention for a title all decade.

[Showtime]

:rolleyes:

In 1999 as well?
Not to mention, if Fish's miracle clock shot didn't go in, we might be talking about a different series that season as well.

[Ne 1]

Yeah OK...

Horry: 7 rings.

Kobe: 5 rings

Shaq: 4 rings


Horry > Kobe > Shaq

Right?

For ****s sakes, there was a year in this decade that the Lakers didn't make the playoffs. :oldlol:

What's the Spurs record against the Lakers in the playoffs this past decade? :oldlol:

Lakers had a 3-peat and the Spurs never even won back to back titles. Not to mention the Lakers still have more titles the decade despite having to rebuild for 3 years.

O yeah, Robert Horry is a role player, he can't be compared to elite players like Kobe and Shaq.

[crosso√er]

spurs could have had more titles too

if fisher didnt make that shot, and manu didnt foul dirk in ot

If Shaquille wasn't injured, if Bynum wasn't injured, if Malone wasn't injured; maybe LA could have won the title in 2009 & 2004??

We can play that game all day long...

[Colby Brian]

That's all you're weak argument is based on, titles. Hence my similar illogical comparison *brah.

Spurs were the most consistent team in all of sports this past decade. That's why they're the team of the decade in the NBA. Are you really that butt hurt about it?

Here's another silly stat for you to ponder.

Spurs this past decade: 3 for 3 when in the finals.

Lakers: 4 for 6.

lol 4/6 in finals > 3/3
lol u failed

[SavageMode]

This explains perfectly. The Spurs have pretty much been in contention for a title all decade.
:applause:

[Colby Brian]

If Shaquille wasn't injured, if Bynum wasn't injured, if Malone wasn't injured; maybe LA could have won the title in 2009 & 2004??

We can play that game all day long...

yeah true
but 4 > 3
plus lakers are 4-1 vs spurs last decade in playoffs

[Showtime]

Best win % of any team in any professional sport if I'm not mistaken.

[Wonder Bread Kid]

Tell me a single GM that would take consistency over dominance in this league? You break your back trying to win a banner for your franchise; everyone would probably sacrifice ten years of mediocrity just to win one title.

Probably the GM that is part of a team that wants to make money. LA is gonna make money because they're the Lakers.

Spurs were consistent and won titles. Lakers weren't consistent and won titles as well but it helps when you're the Lakers and you get Gasol for Brown... :facepalm


Lakers are the team of the decade, give SA this pathetic honor.

The pathetic honor that you and the other Lakers fans are terribly butt hurt over? :oldlol:


I can't comprehend how someone thinks that winning 50+ games all ten years and winning three titles is better then a team (who went through a rebuilding phase) who still managed to pretty much dominate the head-to-head matchup in the playoffs, win more championships in a window of seven years and make more runs at the title.

I'm sure you can't. Why? Because it's an opinion you disagree with over a "pathetic honor" that you're crying about not getting.


But Okay, enjoy your "well" deserved award Spur fans. :rolleyes:

We will! :rockon:

[ImmortalD24]

And the Dallas Mavericks have the 2nd best winning % of that decade.

1. Spurs
2. Mavericks

3. Lakers/ Pistons

[Ne 1]

Best win % of any team in any professional sport if I'm not mistaken.

championships >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> win %

deal with it!

[Wonder Bread Kid]

Best win % of any team in any professional sport if I'm not mistaken.

Exactly, but because the Lakers won one more title, they're the end all be all of the 2000's.

Even though they failed to win in the finals twice.

Failed to reach the playoffs once.

Lucking into Gasol really desensitized the Lakers fan base. Huh?

Went from Kobe demanding a trade because the team was hopeless to being the kings of all shit.

[Colby Brian]

And the Dallas Mavericks have the 2nd best winning % of that decade.

1. Spurs
2. Mavericks

3. Lakers/ Pistons

lol lakers im pretty sure have the highest winning % in playoffs and more titles

[Wonder Bread Kid]

championships >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> win %

deal with it!


Horry/Kerr >>>> Kobe

Deal with it!

[Colby Brian]

championships >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> win %

deal with it!

:applause:

[Wonder Bread Kid]

lol lakers im pretty sure have the highest winning % in playoffs and more titles

Do we count not making the playoffs as a 0 or does it not exist in the calculation? :oldlol:

[Colby Brian]

Horry/Kerr >>>> Kobe


Deal with it!

were not talkin about players bra :facepalm

what happened in 01, 02, 04, and 08........lakers beat the spurs in the playoffs

[Colby Brian]

Do we count not making the playoffs as a 0 or does it not exist in the calculation? :oldlol:

2001, 02, 04, 08

[Wonder Bread Kid]

were not talkin about players bra :facepalm

what happened in 01, 02, 04, and 08........lakers beat the spurs in the playoffs

You're past the point of a "Reading comprehension" diss. :facepalm

[Wonder Bread Kid]

2001, 02, 04, 08

Those your lottery numbers?

Instead, trying calculation playoff win percentage for the last decade.

I guarantee you the Spurs have a better percentage than the Lakers.

Go on...

P.S.

A non-playoff year is counted as 0. Do not exempt a non-playoff game.

[Colby Brian]

You're past the point of a "Reading comprehension" diss. :facepalm

brah lakers>spurs deal with it

[Wonder Bread Kid]

brah lakers>spurs deal with it

Brah, my [-----) > your ({}). deal with it.

But yeah, your > logic is without fail the truth of all truths.

I have to image you get bullied at school a lot, huh?

[Ne 1]

Amazing despite having to rebuild for 3 years, we still have more championships than the Spurs in the 00's.

Lakers will ALWAYS be looked at as the team of the 00's, deal with it. Just like the 90s Bulls, 80s Lakers, 60s Celtics, 50s Lakers.

Not to mention:

Playoffs-

2001: Lakers beat San Antonio

2002: Lakers beat San Antonio

2003: San Antonio beats LA

2004: Lakers beat San Antonio

2008: Lakers beat San Antonio

Advantage: Lakers 4-1 :banana:

[Colby Brian]

Those your lottery numbers?

Instead, trying calculation playoff win percentage for the last decade.

I guarantee you the Spurs have a better percentage than the Lakers.

Go on...

those numbers are years LA knocked out the spurs in playoffs

/ owned

[ImmortalD24]

Robert Horry has a better winning % than Charles Barley.

[Blue&Orange]

winning the title is the ultimate goal
That's why Horry is better than Kobe. You're so dumb you just agreed with him and didn't notice.

[Colby Brian]

Amazing despite having to rebuild for 3 years, we still have more championships than the Spurs in the 00's.

Lakers will ALWAYS be looked at as the team of the 00's, deal with it. Just like the 90s Bulls, 80s Lakers, 60s Celtics, 50s Lakers.

Not to mention:

Playoffs-

2001: Lakers beat San Antonio

2002: Lakers beat San Antonio

2003: San Antonio beats LA

2004: Lakers beat San Antonio

2008: Lakers beat San Antonio

Advantage: Lakers 4-1 :banana:

:applause:

owned

/thread

[Colby Brian]

Brah, my ***** > your ******. deal with it.

:facepalm

4>3 titles

6>3 finals

4-1 head to head playoffs series

its over

[Wonder Bread Kid]

those numbers are years LA knocked out the spurs in playoffs

/ owned

Oh god. You need to get laid kid.

[crosso√er]

Amazing despite having to rebuild for 3 years, we still have more championships than the Spurs in the 00's.

Lakers will ALWAYS be looked at as the team of the 00's, deal with it. Just like the 90s Bulls, 80s Lakers, 60s Celtics, 50s Lakers.

Not to mention:

Playoffs-

2001: Lakers beat San Antonio

2002: Lakers beat San Antonio

2003: San Antonio beats LA

2004: Lakers beat San Antonio

2008: Lakers beat San Antonio

Advantage: Lakers 4-1 :banana:


Don't forget the ass-whooping LA gave SA in 2001.
4-0, winning margin of over 20 PPG (highest in league history).

Lakers logo is permanently imprinted on SA's asses. Is it a coincidence that SA were able to win TWO of their titles during LA's rebuilding phase? I think not.

LA won 4 titles and made the finals 6 times. In those same years; SA has only made 1 final appearance and won 1 title.

Just think about that for a second; when both teams were a contender, LA consistently got the better of SA.

[Wonder Bread Kid]

That's why Horry is better than Kobe. You're so dumb you just agreed with him and didn't notice.

Exactly.

A bunch of 13 year olds are taking over ISH.

[Colby Brian]

That's why Horry is better than Kobe. You're so dumb you just agreed with him and didn't notice.

its the teams goal

horry was a bench player, ring chasin and played with hakeem, kobe, shaq, duncan

shaq and kobe helped horry for 3 rings, horry was a bench player brah

[Wonder Bread Kid]

If you have to have a "rebuilding" phrase that lasts three seasons, your broke ass ain't team o' the decade.

[Blue&Orange]

Also some people don't want to count the year 2000 as part of the decade.

Because it isn't? :facepalm

[Colby Brian]

Oh god. You need to get laid kid.

:wtf:

i aint no kid

[Wonder Bread Kid]

Because it isn't? :facepalm

This new generation of "fan" knows more about resetting a forgotten password than basic common sense.

[Colby Brian]

Because it isn't? :facepalm

:facepalm

2000-2009 is last decade, do you know math

[Wonder Bread Kid]

:wtf:

i aint no kid

My litmus test determines you are.

[Wonder Bread Kid]

:facepalm

2000-2009 is last decade, do you know math

2001-2010 is last decade, do you know... there was no year 0. :oldlol:

[Colby Brian]

If you have to have a "rebuilding" phrase that lasts three seasons, your broke ass ain't team o' the decade.

lakers went to rebuilding mode and still had more titles :lol

[crosso√er]

Exactly.

A bunch of 13 year olds are taking over ISH.

Honest question; do you think your arguments are any better?
You haven't made a single valid point yet and you couldn't even comprehend my sarcastic remark in the previous post. :facepalm

I get it, Laker fans (me included) are hurt because it is what it is. But it doesn't mean my arguments aren't valid and furthermore; your rebuttals are incoherent and faulty.

Like I said, you're an idiot; if you take consistency over dominance. The three titles are nice; but winning two of those titles when the Lakers were going through a rebuilding phase hurts SA because if we're comparing their respective success; how can we ignore the fact that when both of them were a contender, LA consistently got the better of them?

And consistency does not offset that particular head-to-head advantage.

[Wonder Bread Kid]

:facepalm

2000-2009 is last decade, do you know math

Gave you a second shot but second litmus test determines you are still prepubescent boy.

[Blue&Orange]

:facepalm

2000-2009 is last decade, do you know math
lol go educate yourself moron.

[Wonder Bread Kid]

lakers went to rebuilding mode and still had more titles :lol

Yeah, because they had a ton back loaded from their threepeat. What's your point kid? The rebuilding phase is resolved because the Lakers threepeated at the beginning?

[Colby Brian]

2001-2010 is last decade, do you know... there was no year 0. :oldlol:

:wtf:

2000 was the start of the decade, 2009 was the end of the decade

http://www.nba.com/alldecade/vote2/

[ImmortalD24]

http://www.nba.com/alldecade

2000 - 2009

:wtf:

2000 was the start of the decade, 2009 was the end of the decade

http://www.nba.com/alldecade/vote2/ seconds ahead of me.

[Wonder Bread Kid]

:wtf:

2000 was the start of the decade, 2009 was the end of the decade

http://www.nba.com/alldecade/vote2/

So because the NBA got it wrong, they're right?

Anyhow...

[Colby Brian]

Championships
1 L.A. Lakers 4
2 San Antonio 3
3 Boston 1
Detroit 1
Miami 1

Postseason Wins
1 L.A. Lakers 98
2 San Antonio 83
3 Detroit 73
4 Dallas 47
5 New Jersey 43
6 Miami 42
7 Boston 39
8 Cleveland 36
Indiana 36
10 Phoenix 33

:lol

[Ne 1]

Aw, poor Sperms fan.

Get's blasted with facts so he resorts to insults.

Also 00s = 2000-2009, 90s = 1990-1999, 80s = 1980-1989 etc. Look up "decade".

The 1999 title counts as part of the 90s, not the 00's.

[Wonder Bread Kid]

Honest question; do you think your arguments are any better?

Yes, substantially better.

Best winning percentage in:

Regular season
Playoffs
Finals

Three finals appearances, three titles.

50 win season every year.

Versus the sole Lakers argument of:

4>3

[crosso√er]

:wtf:

2000 was the start of the decade, 2009 was the end of the decade

http://www.nba.com/alldecade/vote2/

You guys are all confused; the NBA season overlaps calendar years.
2000-2001 to 2009-2010 is considered a decade in the NBA.

You're considering 2000 exclusively, which means it should end at the beginning of 2009; even though the season ends in 2010.

[Colby Brian]

Yes, substantially better.

Best winning percentage in:

Regular season
Playoffs
Finals

Three finals appearances, three titles.

50 win season every year.

Versus the sole Lakers argument of:

4>3

Postseason Wins
1 L.A. Lakers 98
2 San Antonio 83
3 Detroit 73
4 Dallas 47
5 New Jersey 43
6 Miami 42
7 Boston 39
8 Cleveland 36
Indiana 36
10 Phoenix 33

finals
LA 6
SA 3

head to head 4-1

15 more postseason wins, 1 more title, 3 more finals apperances, 3 more head to head wins

:lol

[Wonder Bread Kid]

Aw, poor Sperms fan.

http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/9264/success.png

[crosso√er]

Yes, substantially better.

Best winning percentage in:

Regular season
Playoffs
Finals

Three finals appearances, three titles.

50 win season every year.

Versus the sole Lakers argument of:

4>3

What? Show some proof, I want to see individual playoff records.
I find it hard to believe considering SA were eliminated seven times prior to making the final round this past decade compared to LA being dethroned before reaching the final round only three times this past decade.

[Colby Brian]

theres a reason why its called the 2000s, 90s, 80s, 70s, ect

[Wonder Bread Kid]

Postseason Wins
1 L.A. Lakers 98
2 San Antonio 83
3 Detroit 73
4 Dallas 47
5 New Jersey 43
6 Miami 42
7 Boston 39
8 Cleveland 36
Indiana 36
10 Phoenix 33

finals
LA 6
SA 3

head to head 4-1

15 more postseason wins, 1 more title, 3 more finals apperances, 3 more head to head wins

:lol

Winning percentages.

Reading comprehension now so good on this one.

[Ne 1]

4 championships > 3 championships

History will remember the Lakers as the team of the 00s, just like the 90s Bulls, 80s Lakers and 60s Celtics.

Deal with it!

[Wonder Bread Kid]

What? Show some proof, I want to see individual playoff records.
I find it hard to believe considering SA were eliminated seven times prior to making the final round this past decade compared to LA being dethroned before reaching the final round only three times this past decade.

The sheer fact that LA didn't make the playoffs is a ZERO and brings down their percentage.

[Wonder Bread Kid]

4 championships > 3 championships

History will remember the Lakers as the team of the 00s, just like the 90s Bulls, 80s Lakers and 60s Celtics.

Deal with it!

Got damn, Lakers fans need that affection and attention so badly. Not enough hugs from your parents? :oldlol:

[ImmortalD24]

You guys are all confused; the NBA season overlaps calendar years.
2000-2001 to 2009-2010 is considered a decade in the NBA.

You're considering 2000 exclusively, which means it should end at the beginning of 2009; even though the season ends in 2010.

Incorrect.

It's

1. 1999-2000 , 2000 being the title year
2. 2000-2001
3. 2001-2002
4. 2002-2003
5. 2003-2004
6. 2004-2005
7. 2005-2006
8. 2006-2007
9. 2007-2008
10. 2008-2009

[Wonder Bread Kid]

theres a reason why its called the 2000s, 90s, 80s, 70s, ect

There's also a reason "LOL' was put into the dictionary.

People are stupid and lazy.

[Ne 1]

2001-2010 is last decade, do you know... there was no year 0. :oldlol:

:facepalm

Must be the drinking water in SA.

[Ne 1]

Spurs = irrelevant, labled boring by the media, never even won back to back let alone 3-peat.

History will forgot them, while we are the dynasty of the new millennium and the 21st century. When people look back at the 2000's decade they will remember the Lakers, just the the 90s Bulls.

[Wonder Bread Kid]

:facepalm

Must be the drinking water in SA.

Because people like convenience, saying 70's and 80's versus 71's and 81's, it some how makes me wrong and you right.

Go look at the Gregorian calendar smartass.

[Nick Young]

who cares about win percentage, lakers went to 7 finals and won 5, Spurs went to 4 finals and won just 3 rings this decade to the lakers 5.

Robert Horry was on both teams of the decade and was critical on both. GOAT:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

[Wonder Bread Kid]

Spurs = irrelevant, labled boring by the media, never even won back to back let alone 3-peat.

History will forgot them, while we are the dynasty of the new millennium and the 21st century.

History will forget everyone and everything, even your precious Lakers. But sooner will history forget you ever existed as a human being before the Spurs are forgotten. Funny huh?

[Nick Young]

That's all you're weak argument is based on, titles. Hence my similar illogical comparison *brah.

Spurs were the most consistent team in all of sports this past decade. That's why they're the team of the decade in the NBA. Are you really that butt hurt about it?

Here's another silly stat for you to ponder.

Spurs this past decade: 3 for 3 when in the finals.

Lakers: 4 for 6.

*I swear to god if you said brah to me in real life I'd punch you. People need to stop saying brah. bruh, bra. Unless your ass is on a beach with a surf board, stfu.
come at me brah

[Wonder Bread Kid]

come at me brah

What size are you?

http://www.goerieblogs.com/lifestyle/hertimes/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/bra.jpg

[Nick Young]

Exactly, but because the Lakers won one more title, they're the end all be all of the 2000's.

Even though they failed to win in the finals twice.

Failed to reach the playoffs once.

Lucking into Gasol really desensitized the Lakers fan base. Huh?

Went from Kobe demanding a trade because the team was hopeless to being the kings of all shit.
Failing to win in the finals is better than not even getting to the finals half the amount of times the Lakers did this decade

[Ne 1]

History will forget everyone and everything, even your precious Lakers. But sooner will history forget you ever existed as a human being before the Spurs are forgotten. Funny huh?

4 > 3

http://cdn1.knowyourmeme.com/i/30403/original/YouMad.jpg

[Nick Young]

Amazing despite having to rebuild for 3 years, we still have more championships than the Spurs in the 00's.

Lakers will ALWAYS be looked at as the team of the 00's, deal with it. Just like the 90s Bulls, 80s Lakers, 60s Celtics, 50s Lakers.

Not to mention:

Playoffs-

2001: Lakers beat San Antonio

2002: Lakers beat San Antonio

2003: San Antonio beats LA

2004: Lakers beat San Antonio

2008: Lakers beat San Antonio

Advantage: Lakers 4-1 :banana:
The "Team of the Decade" is our b*tch:roll:

[Rose]

The "Team of the Decade" is our b*tch:roll:
http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lj3laelGTT1qic3ako1_250.gif

[Wonder Bread Kid]

Failing to win in the finals is better than not even getting to the finals half the amount of times the Lakers did this decade

Being a loser is better than being a loser?

Sound.

[crosso√er]

Wonder Bread Kid is getting owned rather excessively. In actuality, LA not only has more playoff wins but a higher winning playoff percentage.

Lakers

99 playoff wins
49 playoff losses
23 series wins
7 sweeps
0 times being swept
.669%

Spurs

86 playoff wins
59 playoff losses
20 series wins (in 3 more post-seasons :oldlol: )
2 sweeps
2 times being swept
.593

Class dismissed people, just shut up next time Wonder Bar.
Your team ain't no team of the decade; LA's dominance easily prevails over SA's consistency this year. The head-to-head track record, playoff success, championships and final appearances >>> consistency through-out the regular season and three championships (two of which were won when LA was going through a minor rebuilding phase).

:pimp: I'm done.

[Wonder Bread Kid]

The "Team of the Decade" is our b*tch:roll:

Having to live your life vicariously through an NBA team is a b*tch, no?

[Wonder Bread Kid]

Wonder Bread Kid is getting owned rather excessively. In actuality, LA not only has more playoff wins but a higher winning playoff percentage.

Lakers

99 playoff wins
49 playoff losses
23 series wins
7 sweeps
0 times being swept
.669%

Spurs

86 playoff wins
59 playoff losses
20 series wins (in 3 more post-seasons :oldlol: )
2 sweeps
2 times being swept
.593

Class dismissed people, just shut up next time Wonder Bar.
Your team ain't no team of the decade; LA's dominance easily prevails over SA's consistency this year. The head-to-head track record, playoff success, championships and final appearances >>> consistency through-out the regular season and three championships (two of which were won when LA was going through a minor rebuilding phase).

:pimp: I'm done.

Did you account for the year your team missed the playoffs? No. Thought so. Too favorable.

[Ne 1]

Playoffs-

2001: Lakers beat San Antonio

2002: Lakers beat San Antonio

2003: San Antonio beats LA

2004: Lakers beat San Antonio

2008: Lakers beat San Antonio

Advantage: Lakers 4-1 :hammertime:

Winning this decade;

2000's Lakers: 4 championships, 6 Western Conference titles

2000's Spurs: 3 championships, 3 Western Conference titles

Advantage: Lakers again :banana:

Relevance and popularity this decade: By far the Lakers (dosen't really matter but good for grins)

[AlexanderRight]

Tell me a single GM that would take consistency over dominance in this league? You break your back trying to win a banner for your franchise; everyone would probably sacrifice ten years of mediocrity just to win one title.

Lakers are the team of the decade, give SA this pathetic honor. LA has the head-to-head match up, displayed more dominance while being a non-contender for three of those years and at the end not only made more final appearances but won more championships.

I can't comprehend how someone thinks that winning 50+ games all ten years and winning three titles is better then a team (who went through a rebuilding phase) who still managed to pretty much dominate the head-to-head matchup in the playoffs, win more championships in a window of seven years and make more runs at the title.

But Okay, enjoy your "well" deserved award Spur fans. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

[crosso√er]

Did you account for the year your team missed the playoffs? No. Thought so. Too favorable.

Even if the Lakers got swept in 2005; say 0-4 hypothetically speaking aka worse case scenario.
They'd still have more wins, less losses, more series wins and a higher winning percentage then SA which you yourself said they didn't.

Just take the beating like a man and leave dude.
I'm starting to feel bad for you.

[ImmortalD24]

The Mavs have the 2nd best winning % of the decade.. Anyone in their right mind wouldn't put the Mavs over the Lakers. I'd honestly put the Pistons over them with their two finals appearances and 1 championship.

Going by winning percentage in the regular season just doesn't make sense. The Spurs have a better % this season than the Lakers.. as did the Cavaliers the previous two seasons.

[dillondavis]

This explains perfectly. The Spurs have pretty much been in contention for a title all decade.

Yeah! Cuz title contention>winning the title, really?

So everybody in the league would much rather be associated with that has title contentions then a team that's pretty much locked for a title?

Wait then why would bron leave? Oh yeah cuz no one just wants to contend they wanna win the damn thing. Now I do agree consistency is key in a franchise but I'm pretty sure cuban would give up 10 of his 11 playoff runs for that 06 ring.

[crosso√er]

Yeah! Cuz title contention>winning the title, really?

So everybody in the league would much rather be associated with that has title contentions then a team that's pretty much locked for a title?

Wait then why would bron leave? Oh yeah cuz no one just wants to contend they wanna win the damn thing. Now I do agree consistency is key in a franchise but I'm pretty sure cuban would give up 10 of his 11 playoff runs for that 06 ring.

:oldlol: Check mate.

[Grim]

b-b-b-b-ut Stern loves the Lakers!


b-b-b-b-ut Stern loves the Lakers!

[Rysio]

Wonder Bread Kid is getting owned rather excessively. In actuality, LA not only has more playoff wins but a higher winning playoff percentage.

Lakers

99 playoff wins
49 playoff losses
23 series wins
7 sweeps
0 times being swept
.669%

Spurs

86 playoff wins
59 playoff losses
20 series wins (in 3 more post-seasons :oldlol: )
2 sweeps
2 times being swept
.593

Class dismissed people, just shut up next time Wonder Bar.
Your team ain't no team of the decade; LA's dominance easily prevails over SA's consistency this year. The head-to-head track record, playoff success, championships and final appearances >>> consistency through-out the regular season and three championships (two of which were won when LA was going through a minor rebuilding phase).

:pimp: I'm done.
/thread

[SCdac]

[quote]In Forbes Magazine

[ImmortalD24]

Yeah! Cuz title contention>winning the title, really?

So everybody in the league would much rather be associated with that has title contentions then a team that's pretty much locked for a title?

Wait then why would bron leave? Oh yeah cuz no one just wants to contend they wanna win the damn thing. Now I do agree consistency is key in a franchise but I'm pretty sure cuban would give up 10 of his 11 playoff runs for that 06 ring.I get your point, but I highly doubt Cuban would do that. As much as he wants to win, it's first and foremost about the money he's generating. By not being in contention for say 10 of his 11, he'd lose too much revenue.

Should've said a player like Dirk instead.

[crosso√er]

http://www.nba.com/spurs/news/forbes_091210.html



http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/04/best-teams-of-the-decade-business-sports-decade-teams.html



http://www.nba.com/spurs/news/090925_teamofdecade.html


Gregg Popovich's influence spreads wide across NBA --- goes on to say how Pop and the Spurs have had a hand in spawning the executive careers of Sam Presti, Danny Ferry, Kevin Pritchard, Steve Kerr, Mike Brown, Vinny Del Negro, Doc Rivers, Mario Elie, Hank Egan, Joe Prunty, Monty Williams, etc
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/ian_thomsen/11/20/countdown/index.html



http://www.nba.com/spurs/news/espn_rankings_080423.html



Most Dominant Playoff performance
http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=7213


Lakers average attendance during decade - 18,933
Spurs average attendance during decade - 19, 469

Lakers highest draft pick in decade - #10 Andrew Bynum
Spurs highest draft pick in decade - #26 George Hill

Lakers worst record of the decade - 34-48
Spurs worst record of the decade - 50-32

Lakers number of championships prior to decade - 13
Spurs number of championships prior to decade - 1 (right before 2000)

Basically, the Spurs put themselves on the map in the last decade as a ball club in all of sports... and did it emphatically. Did so with solid (and later) draft picks, did it mostly under the salary cap (in a smaller sports market), and did it while stimulating the local economy and earning one of the most loyal fan bases in sports.

It's not all about having the biggest superstar, the biggest budget, and the biggest number of championships.

If that's the criteria they used; then fine.
But don't tell me SA had more success then LA did in the past decade.

Being a consistent contender and winning three titles while getting destroyed in the head-to-head match up does not make one team better then a team who has had more championship success, were more dominant in the playoffs and reached the big stage more frequently.

[dillondavis]

I get your point, but I highly doubt Cuban would do that. As much as he wants to win, it's first and foremost about the money he's generating. By not being in contention for say 10 of his 11, he'd lose too much revenue.

Should've said a player like Dirk instead.

This is true but we all get where I was going lol

[bl2k8]

The Spurs NEVER at any point in the 2000's dominated the West like LA did, not to mention them getting beat by LA twice without homecourt

[SinJackal]

What a travesty that David Stern awarded the Spurs the team of the decade, what a complete travesty.

The Lakers clearly were team of the decade, they won a 3 peat with a dynasty, then a two-peat and also went to 2 more finals where they lost for a total of 7 finals appearances in the decade.

And somehow the Spurs win the team of the decade? This is a disgrace.

Spurs didn't suck for three years straight like LA did when Shaq left. 10 good years > 7 good years. It's not surprising the Spurs are considered the team of the decade. One extra title doesn't erase 3 shitty seasons. You're also trying to include seasons that are 11 years apart into the same decade. Their first title with Shaq was 11 years before their last title last season. That isn't in the same decade. Decade means 10 years, not 11. :facepalm

The decade starts at 0, not 1. If you want to include the Lakers' last title, you have to exclude the first one with Shaq. Which still makes it just four. So the Lakers had four titles last decade, not five. Or if a Spurs fan did the same thing, they could say they also won the last championship of the decade before last, so it isn't like they just appeared in 2003. Coincidently, the "decade" started a year before it did, the title score would be 4-4. They were contending every year since 1998, and half the time they didn't win this last decade, they were battling severe injuries to key players (Duncan once, Manu twice, Parker once, all on seperate years).

Why pretend like the Spurs don't deserve it? They've stayed a contender every season for ten+ years. How many teams have done that in the history of the NBA? Three? Four now, counting the Spurs. They easily deserve it.

[crosso√er]

Spurs didn't suck for three years straight like LA did when Shaq left. 10 good years > 7 good years. It's not surprising the Spurs are considered the team of the decade. One extra title doesn't erase 3 shitty seasons. You're also trying to include seasons that are 11 years apart into the same decade. Their first title with Shaq was 11 years before their last title last season. That isn't in the same decade. Decade means 10 years, not 11. :facepalm

The decade starts at 0, not 1. If you want to include the Lakers' last title, you have to exclude the first one with Shaq. Which still makes it just four. So the Lakers had four titles last decade, not five. Or if a Spurs fan did the same thing, they could say they also won the last championship of the decade before last, so it isn't like they just appeared in 2003. Coincidently, the "decade" started a year before it did, the title score would be 4-4. They were contending every year since 1998, and half the time they didn't win this last decade, they were battling severe injuries to key players (Duncan once, Manu twice, Parker once, all on seperate years).

Why pretend like the Spurs don't deserve it? They've stayed a contender every season for ten+ years. How many teams have done that in the history of the NBA? Three? Four now, counting the Spurs. They easily deserve it.
:oldlol: I love how Spurs fans are trying so hard to make this a case by highlighting LA's struggles after Shaquille left. Completely ignoring the head-to-head matchup, the fact that SA won 2 of their 3 titles when LA were rebuilding as a team, respective playoff success, final appearances and overall dominance. The difference isn't just one championship people; contextually speaking, LA have dominated this decade far greater then SA has. Their only advantage is being more consistent in the regular season. LA has the advantage in everything else.

Heck, Spurs got eliminated in the 1st round yet they're considered a contender for the entire decade? Love the hypocrisy.

[MooseJuiceBowen]

you cant explain logic to kobe d1ck riders. bunch of worthless laker f@ggots on this board



http://www.nba.com/spurs/news/forbes_091210.html



http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/04/best-teams-of-the-decade-business-sports-decade-teams.html



http://www.nba.com/spurs/news/090925_teamofdecade.html


Gregg Popovich's influence spreads wide across NBA --- goes on to say how Pop and the Spurs have had a hand in spawning the executive careers of Sam Presti, Danny Ferry, Kevin Pritchard, Steve Kerr, Mike Brown, Vinny Del Negro, Doc Rivers, Mario Elie, Hank Egan, Joe Prunty, Monty Williams, etc
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/ian_thomsen/11/20/countdown/index.html



http://www.nba.com/spurs/news/espn_rankings_080423.html



Most Dominant Playoff performance
http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=7213


Lakers average attendance during decade - 18,933
Spurs average attendance during decade - 19, 469

Lakers highest draft pick in decade - #10 Andrew Bynum
Spurs highest draft pick in decade - #26 George Hill

Lakers worst record of the decade - 34-48
Spurs worst record of the decade - 50-32

Lakers number of championships prior to decade - 13
Spurs number of championships prior to decade - 1 (right before 2000)

Basically, the Spurs put themselves on the map in the last decade as a ball club in all of sports... and did it emphatically. Did so with solid (and later) draft picks, did it mostly under the salary cap (in a smaller sports market), and did it while stimulating the local economy and earning one of the most loyal fan bases in sports.

It's not all about having the biggest superstar, the biggest budget, and the biggest number of championships.

[MooseJuiceBowen]

laker fans are so ****ing mad right now its hilarious. you idiots just keep showing us how mad you are. this really meant alot to you

on top of that you wont get the #1 seed

have fun with that nuggets loss

[SinJackal]

:oldlol: I love how Spurs fans are trying so hard to make this a case by highlighting LA's struggles after Shaquille left. Completely ignoring the head-to-head matchup, the fact that SA won 2 of their 3 titles when LA were rebuilding as a team, respective playoff success, final appearances and overall dominance. The difference isn't just one championship people; contextually speaking, LA have dominated this decade far greater then SA has. Their only advantage is being more consistent in the regular season. LA has the advantage in everything else.

Heck, Spurs got eliminated in the 1st round yet they're considered a contender for the entire decade? Love the hypocrisy.

Okay Lakers homer, so we should pretend the three straight shitty years by the Lakers when their meal ticket free agent who got them their titles left to go win a title without them? We should ignore that? And ONLY "highlight" the winning seasons? :confusedshrug: The person I replied to already brought up the Lakers winning seasons, why would I need to repeat that? I simply added what he left out. Stop being so insecure about it being brought up. Anything negative about the Lakers always has to be taboo for Lakers fans. And yet, you're always trolling other teams, especially the Spurs. Quit crying about facts being brought up. Nothing I said was a lie.

And so what if SA lost in the first round a couple times? LA also got eliminated in the first round multiple times without any injuries to their team. The only times SA got eliminated in the first round were when: Duncan was injured, and played in 0 of the games. And when Ginobili was injured and played in 0 of the playoff games. Consdiering that, the only hypocrite here is you.

LA has only dominated in hype and coverage. Not in wins and ability. Spurs were just as dominant, but were derailed by injuries in the playoffs multiple times, stiffling their full potential last decade. Fact is, a healthy Spurs team has been a legit title threat every single season last decade besides maybe last season.

[Eat Like A Bosh]

Wait, Team of the Decade is an official award? Never knew.

[crosso√er]

Okay Lakers homer, so we should pretend the three straight shitty years by the Lakers when their meal ticket free agent who got them their titles left to go win a title without them? We should ignore that? And ONLY "highlight" the winning seasons? :confusedshrug: The person I replied to already brought up the Lakers winning seasons, why would I need to repeat that? I simply added what he left out. Stop being so insecure about it being brought up. Anything negative about the Lakers always has to be taboo for Lakers fans. And yet, you're always trolling other teams, especially the Spurs. Quit crying about facts being brought up. Nothing I said was a lie.

And so what if SA lost in the first round a couple times? LA also got eliminated in the first round multiple times without any injuries to their team. The only times SA got eliminated in the first round were when: Duncan was injured, and played in 0 of the games. And when Ginobili was injured and played in 0 of the playoff games. Consdiering that, the only hypocrite here is you.

LA has only dominated in hype and coverage. Not in wins and ability. Spurs were just as dominant, but were derailed by injuries in the playoffs multiple times, stiffling their full potential last decade. Fact is, a healthy Spurs team has been a legit title threat every single season last decade besides maybe last season.

Wow, and I'm the homer?
It's definitely time to put you on ignore list.
By far the biggest idiot, homer & hypocrite on this forum.

Your intelligence and objectivity are on the same level as your lack of fashion sense, dumb ass.

[MooseJuiceBowen]

Wow, and I'm the homer?
It's definitely time to put you on ignore list.
By far the biggest idiot, homer & hypocrite on this forum.

Your intelligence and objectivity are on the same level as your lack of fashion sense, dumb ass.

yes.. you are the homer. you spew worthless bullshit all day like most every other laker idiot on ish

[SinJackal]

Wow, and I'm the homer?
It's definitely time to put you on ignore list.
By far the biggest idiot, homer & hypocrite on this forum.

Your intelligence and objectivity are on the same level as your lack of fashion sense, dumb ass.

u mad for getting called out? :roll: I guess you're one of those sissy kids who talks shit all day, but cry to their mom when someone does the same to them.

Nothing I posted was factually incorrect, and you're getting mad over all of it, trying to pretend I'm being "biased" somehow, for adding in the aspects of the argument that are not being spoken of by Lakers fans (such as yourself). In fact, you go so far as to even act like those loser seasons somehow "don't matter" because they won an extra title. :confusedshrug: If that isn't homerism, then I don't know what is.

Oh, nice mismesh of insults at the end of your post that didn't disprove anything I said. Calling me a hypocrite after you just got proven to be one isn't going to take the attention away from what you just posted. You're the hypocrite and the homer. You're mad that people aren't agreeing with you, so you resort to insulting people since you can't argue your point properly. Sad.

Spurs: Team of the Deacade. :roll:

[Colby Brian]

Playoffs-

2001: Lakers beat San Antonio

2002: Lakers beat San Antonio

2003: San Antonio beats LA

2004: Lakers beat San Antonio

2008: Lakers beat San Antonio

Advantage: Lakers 4-1 :hammertime:

Winning this decade;

2000's Lakers: 4 championships, 6 Western Conference titles

2000's Spurs: 3 championships, 3 Western Conference titles

Advantage: Lakers again :banana:

Relevance and popularity this decade: By far the Lakers (dosen't really matter but good for grins)

:applause:

lol at spurs fans, "we have 1 less title, 3 less west conf championships, lost 4 times to lakers in playoffs and were the team of the decade" :roll:

[SavageMode]

These Laker stans mad, stop spamming and send David Stern a letter about your feelings.

[mashbelly]

These Laker stans mad, stop spamming and send David Stern a letter about your feelings.

Spurs > Lakers

[KingBeasley08]

u mad for getting called out? :roll: I guess you're one of those sissy kids who talks shit all day, but cry to their mom when someone does the same to them.

Nothing I posted was factually incorrect, and you're getting mad over all of it, trying to pretend I'm being "biased" somehow, for adding in the aspects of the argument that are not being spoken of by Lakers fans (such as yourself). In fact, you go so far as to even act like those loser seasons somehow "don't matter" because they won an extra title. :confusedshrug: If that isn't homerism, then I don't know what is.

Oh, nice mismesh of insults at the end of your post that didn't disprove anything I said. Calling me a hypocrite after you just got proven to be one isn't going to take the attention away from what you just posted. You're the hypocrite and the homer. You're mad that people aren't agreeing with you, so you resort to insulting people since you can't argue your point properly. Sad.

Spurs: Team of the Deacade. :roll:
titles are all that matter
4 titles>3 titles
thats my logic :confusedshrug:

[Colby Brian]

Spurs > Lakers

:facepalm

Playoffs-

2001: Lakers beat San Antonio

2002: Lakers beat San Antonio

2003: San Antonio beats LA

2004: Lakers beat San Antonio

2008: Lakers beat San Antonio

Advantage: Lakers 4-1

Winning this decade;

2000's Lakers: 4 championships, 6 Western Conference titles

2000's Spurs: 3 championships, 3 Western Conference titles

Advantage: Lakers again

Relevance and popularity this decade: By far the Lakers (dosen't really matter but good for grins)

[crosso√er]

titles are all that matter
4 titles>3 titles
thats my logic :confusedshrug:

Exactly, they act like winning one extra championship isn't a big enough factor (by its own merit). :rolleyes: It's even funny how they're trying to diminish or make it seem as if this isn't the most important determinant of success.

You ask any team in this league what would they rather have:

1) 1 championship season followed by three mediocre seasons, or;
2) Have four 50+ win season without a title.

I don't see a single team, except maybe Dallas, choosing the latter.

[SinJackal]

titles are all that matter
4 titles>3 titles
thats my logic :confusedshrug:

4 more titles for a large market team with tons of free agents going to play for them. . .team that already had what 11 titles? vs a team who got all 4 of theirs in a small market without any free agents going there to make it easy, in the last 12 years. All that, while never falling off besides to injuries.

The bottom line is, the Lakers didn't contend for 30% of the decade, and what they did do was simply the cheery on top for a team who's already had a rich history and has the highest salary in the NBA. Spurs rose out of the ashes of a shitty 20 win season to win 4 titles, and possibly a 5th one this year without ever dropping off to shit status like LA.

[A.R.T]

who cares? its just some meaningless title

historians and students of the game will recognize the true team of the decade, the LA lakers

[Colby Brian]

4 more titles for a large market team with tons of free agents going to play for them. . .team that already had what 11 titles? vs a team who got all 4 of theirs in a small market without any free agents going there to make it easy, in the last 12 years. All that, while never falling off besides to injuries.

The bottom line is, the Lakers didn't contend for 30% of the decade, and what they did do was simply the cheery on top for a team who's already had a rich history and has the highest salary in the NBA. Spurs rose out of the ashes of a shitty 20 win season to win 4 titles, and possibly a 5th one this year without ever dropping off to shit status like LA.

cool story brah:rolleyes:

[SinJackal]

cool story brah:rolleyes:

I guess you have no rebuttal. Thanks for the easy W.

[crosso√er]

yes.. you are the homer. you spew worthless bullshit all day like most every other laker idiot on ish

What? All I did was expose a Spurs fan who said SA had more playoff success via winning percentage. Somehow that makes me a homer who spews worthless bullshit? Look in the mirror pal, you haven't contributed anything at all to this forum.

Championships

LA: 4
SA: 3

WCF Titles:

LA: 6
SA: 3

Head To Head:

LA 4-1 (in the playoffs)

Playoff success:

LA: 99 wins
SA: 86 wins

LA: 67% win ratio
SA: 59% win ratio

50+ win seasons:

LA: 7 times
SA: 10 times

Wins Per Season

LA: 52 wins a season
SA: 57 wins a season

So basically in retrospect, the only thing SA did better this past decade was be more consistent? They've lost the head-to-head battle; they lost the championship and WCF title battle; they were not as dominant in the playoffs as LA and just like the Lakers they had two 1st round exits.

SA's only real advantage is being a more consistent regular season team and making the playoffs every year. Is it really enough to offset LA's advantages? Especially considering LA has only missed the playoffs once this past decade, both teams (although SA were supposedly legit contenders EVERY year) were eliminated twice in the 1st round and the fact that two-thirds of SA's titles came in the year when coincidentally LA were not considered a title threat.

I'm not omitting any information; Spurs fans are reluctant on telling me that consistency and a slightly better playoff birth rate somehow prevails over having more titles, more WCF, better heads-up record and a more dominant presence in the playoffs in literally every regard (most dominant playoff run in 2001; never being swept; sweeping an opponent 7 times (by far the record this past decade) and reaching the NBA finals 67% of the time when they actually clinched the playoffs).

I don't know, I guess I'm a "homer" if I take the Lakers. :rolleyes:

[crosso√er]

cool story brah:rolleyes:

By his logic, the Spurs didn't really "contend" for 70% of the decade since they've only really won 3 WC banners. :rolleyes: This idiot keeps confusing consistency with contention. Since LA has won six WC titles, aren't they a more prestige contender then SA? :facepalm

I could care less if SA on average had more wins in the regular season or had one more playoff birth this past decade; like who cares? Is it really more important then having a far greater success in the playoffs? You play the regular season to make the playoffs and subsequently it is at that time you try to prove yourself as a team. LA has clearly outperformed SA in that regard.

I'm definitely done now.

[KingBeasley08]

4 more titles for a large market team with tons of free agents going to play for them. . .team that already had what 11 titles? vs a team who got all 4 of theirs in a small market without any free agents going there to make it easy, in the last 12 years. All that, while never falling off besides to injuries.

The bottom line is, the Lakers didn't contend for 30% of the decade, and what they did do was simply the cheery on top for a team who's already had a rich history and has the highest salary in the NBA. Spurs rose out of the ashes of a shitty 20 win season to win 4 titles, and possibly a 5th one this year without ever dropping off to shit status like LA.
no one cares about big market/little market

4 titles is 4 titles. 3 titles is 3 titles

4>3

[Colby Brian]

no one cares about big market/little market

4 titles is 4 titles. 3 titles is 3 titles

4>3

:applause:
but but but we never were in rebuilding mode lol

[lilblingy]

By his logic, the Spurs didn't really "contend" for 70% of the decade since they've only really won 3 WC banners. :rolleyes: This idiot keeps confusing consistency with contention. Since LA has won six WC titles, weren't they a more prestige contender then SA? :facepalm

I could care less if SA on average had more wins in the regular season or had one more playoff birth this past decade; like who cares? Is it really more important then having a far greater success in the playoffs? You play the regular season to make the playoffs and subsequently it is at the time you try to prove yourself as a team. LA has clearly outperformed SA in that regard.

I'm definitely done now.


This. Lakers won more titles than spurs. because of this lakers are the more consistent team.

Winning a championship is the goal here not the regular season.

[rmt]

I think it's funny when posters use LA/SA head-to-head record as an argument. Even the most biased LA fan should know that SA would have clobbered LA during their 3-year obscurity in the middle of the decade.

[MooseJuiceBowen]

why are laker fans so madd???

[vinsane01]

What? All I did was expose a Spurs fan who said SA had more playoff success via winning percentage. Somehow that makes me a homer who spews worthless bullshit? Look in the mirror pal, you haven't contributed anything at all to this forum.

Championships

LA: 4
SA: 3

WCF Titles:

LA: 6
SA: 3

Head To Head:

LA 4-1 (in the playoffs)

Playoff success:

LA: 99 wins
SA: 86 wins

LA: 67% win ratio
SA: 59% win ratio

50+ win seasons:

LA: 7 times
SA: 10 times

Wins Per Season

LA: 52 wins a season
SA: 57 wins a season

So basically in retrospect, the only thing SA did better this past decade was be more consistent? They've lost the head-to-head battle; they lost the championship and WCF title battle; they were not as dominant in the playoffs as LA and just like the Lakers they had two 1st round exits.

SA's only real advantage is being a more consistent regular season team and making the playoffs every year. Is it really enough to offset LA's advantages? Especially considering LA has only missed the playoffs once this past decade, both teams (although SA were supposedly legit contenders EVERY year) were eliminated twice in the 1st round and the fact that two-thirds of SA's titles came in the year when coincidentally LA were not considered a title threat.

I'm not omitting any information; Spurs fans are reluctant on telling me that consistency and a slightly better playoff birth rate somehow prevails over having more titles, more WCF, better heads-up record and a more dominant presence in the playoffs in literally every regard (most dominant playoff run in 2001; never being swept; sweeping an opponent 7 times (by far the record this past decade) and reaching the NBA finals 67% of the time when they actually make the playoffs).

I don't, I guess I'm a "homer" if I take the Lakers. :rolleyes:

The spurs also won more total games than lakers for the entire decade. :D Get over it. Who cares anyway who the team of the decade is? The lakers won more titles than the spurs and in the end that is all that matters.

And btw where is the link showing that this awarding even happened?

[jlauber]

I have been a Laker fan since 1968, and to be honest, I really would not care if the Clippers had been awarded "Team of the Decade." It is a worthless award that no one will be talking about in a couple of weeks.

Some of these awards are just plain junk. I may catch some flak for this, but another stupid award is the "6th Man" award. How ridiculous is that? John Havlicek was considered the best "6th man" for years, and he was playing 30-40 mpg in the process, and was on the court at the end of games. My god, Boston could start someone else, and bring in Hondo within a couple of minutes.

And, while I understand why there is a Coach of the Year award, it has mostly been won by some guy who takes a previously losing team to a better than .500 record, and usually a first round playoff exit. And usually that "COTY" is fired a couple of seasons later. Meanwhile, guys like Pop, PJ, and Sloan win ONE in 15-20+ years of guiding teams to winning records nearly every year, and several playoff series wins. In Sloan's case, he had 23 winning seasons in 26 years...mostly with second tier talent. Meanwhile PJ, and to a slightly lessor extent, Popovich, have won MULTIPLE titles. Does ANYONE consider Mike Brown or Byron Scott better coaches than those three guys?

So, as I said previously, I am not going to lose any sleep over this "award."

[ballerz]

why does lakers fans care about being team of the decade? they have 12 more championships then the spurs

[crosso√er]

I think it's funny when posters use LA/SA head-to-head record as an argument. Even the most biased LA fan should know that SA would have clobbered LA during their 3-year obscurity in the middle of the decade.

:facepalm That head-to-head is important because both teams were legit contenders for the title. Both teams in those six meetings were 50+ win teams; yet LA prevailed almost every time.

It's a huge determinant of who actually was the better team while they were simultaneously contending for a title.

[crosso√er]

The spurs also won more total games than lakers for the entire decade. :D Get over it. Who cares anyway who the team of the decade is? The lakers won more titles than the spurs and in the end that is all that matters.

And btw where is the link showing that this awarding even happened?

The Dallas Mavericks won more total regular season games than LA too, should we rank LA #3 for the decade then?

[HorryIsMyMVP]

10 pages , seriously? Somewhere Stern is laughing and saying dance my dumb ass puppet fans DANCE!!! DANCE!!!

[vinsane01]

The Dallas Mavericks won more total regular season games than LA too, should we rank LA #3 for the decade then?

With regards to regular season wins, they are #3. Maybe that is the criteria that the nba/stern set. But again, who cares? I dont. And i bet only a few spurs fans are happy about this award if it indeed happened.

[SinJackal]

By his logic, the Spurs didn't really "contend" for 70% of the decade since they've only really won 3 WC banners. :rolleyes: This idiot keeps confusing consistency with contention. Since LA has won six WC titles, aren't they a more prestige contender then SA? :facepalm

I could care less if SA on average had more wins in the regular season or had one more playoff birth this past decade; like who cares? Is it really more important then having a far greater success in the playoffs? You play the regular season to make the playoffs and subsequently it is at that time you try to prove yourself as a team. LA has clearly outperformed SA in that regard.

I'm definitely done now.

No, by my logic, having no chance to advance in the playoffs, or not even making the playoffs = not contending for titles. Getting derailed by a late seaosn injury doesn't mean they weren't a title contender before that happened. You're making up your own logic and claiming that unless you won the title, you didn't contend for it. That doesn't make any sense. More biased homerism by you yet again. For someone who loves calling other people homers, you are a huge one.

I'm sure you could "care less", since you obviously care about this a lot now.

As for who cares about playoff berths. . .obviously the people who decided team of the decade did. :roll: Dumbass.

And of course your done, your arguments have been shitty and redundant for awhile, while you always ignore every counterargument and just ramble off the same thing you just said for a 5th, 6th, and 7th time. Oh, and insert name calling too once you got presented with facts you had no excuse for.

[dillondavis]

its the teams goal

horry was a bench player, ring chasin and played with hakeem, kobe, shaq, duncan

shaq and kobe helped horry for 3 rings, horry was a bench player brah

Woah woah brakes there my dude horry was by no means a ring chaser
He had the luxury of being on great teams yes, but come on the man hit big shot after big shot and he helped Kobe and shaq just as much as they helpe him.

Need I remind you of 02 wcf when Kobe missed a lay up shaq
Missed the put back and horry won the game. Im saying he misses that shot we're down 3-1 taking our talents back to Sacramento and series over.

[SinJackal]

why does lakers fans care about being team of the decade? they have 12 more championships then the spurs

I would be willing to bet that over 80% of current LA fans have only seen 1-2 of those championships. If not over 90%. That's why they care so much.

[bl2k8]

I would be willing to bet that over 80% of current LA fans have only seen 1-2 of those championships. If not over 90%. That's why they care so much.
lol@this bullsht

[SinJackal]

lol@this bullsht

Is it? To have watched more than 2 Lakers Championships, you'd have had to have been a fan for at least 8 years. Lakers fanbase is full of bandwagoners and kids who don't even know who the **** Shaq was in his prime.

[bl2k8]

Is it? To have watched more than 2 Lakers Championships, you'd have had to have been a fan for at least 8 years. Lakers fanbase is full of bandwagoners and kids who don't even know who the **** Shaq was in his prime.
again your post is full of shit, you're basing that off what? some internet posters:lol

[SinJackal]

again your post is full of shit, you're basing that off what? some internet posters:lol

The net is a good reflection of how society really is. It's easy to just claim you're a fan, and have been for awhile, since people will take your word for it. Whereas in irl, people know you were a fan of the Bulls or Hawks or whatever, and will call you out on it.

I live in Illinois, and I've seen people pop up and claim they were Lakers fans, IRL mind you, not on the net, and this only happened after they got to the Finals in 2008. Lakers were laughed at for years before that. Then magically there's a ton of Lakers fans.

It's at least 80% bandwagoners. Especially on the net, where it's more like 85-90%.

[crosso√er]

No, by my logic, having no chance to advance in the playoffs, or not even making the playoffs = not contending for titles. Getting derailed by a late seaosn injury doesn't mean they weren't a title contender before that happened. You're making up your own logic and claiming that unless you won the title, you didn't contend for it. That doesn't make any sense. More biased homerism by you yet again. For someone who loves calling other people homers, you are a huge one.

I'm sure you could "care less", since you obviously care about this a lot now.

As for who cares about playoff berths. . .obviously the people who decided team of the decade did. :roll: Dumbass.

And of course your done, your arguments have been shitty and redundant for awhile, while you always ignore every counterargument and just ramble off the same thing you just said for a 5th, 6th, and 7th time. Oh, and insert name calling too once you got presented with facts you had no excuse for.


The Lakers did not advance to the playoffs only once; yet the Lakers have one more championship then SA. What's more important? I'm guessing winning a title.

Then lets proceed to the other advantage SA has over LA; three more 50+ win seasons.

Again I ask, what's more important? Three more 50+ win seasons or 3 more WCF titles? Lets not even discuss LA's head to head advantage...

Bottom line is; I never said consistency is irrelevant you dumb ass, I simply stated it isn't as critical as winning an extra championship, having three more WCF titles, having a significant edge in the H2H matchup and simply being a more dominant playoff team.

If you look at that collectively, how on earth can you claim that SA has been a more successful team? :facepalm

[bl2k8]

The net is a good reflection of how society really is. It's easy to just claim you're a fan, and have been for awhile, since people will take your word for it. Whereas in irl, people know you were a fan of the Bulls or Hawks or whatever, and will call you out on it.

I live in Illinois, and I've seen people pop up and claim they were Lakers fans, IRL mind you, not on the net, and this only happened after they got to the Finals in 2008. Lakers were laughed at for years before that. Then magically there's a ton of Lakers fans.

It's at least 80% bandwagoners. Especially on the net, where it's more like 85-90%.
Umm the Lakers had the most stans ever during Kobe's scoring binge seasons. If you want to over exaggerate go ahead, anyway it's pretty obvious the lakers are the team of the decade.

[az00m]

4 titles>3 titles

6 finals>4 finals

lakers>spurs

/thread

lakers were irreverent for a few years, spurs were never.

[SinJackal]

The Lakers did not advance to the playoffs only once; yet the Lakers have one more championship then SA. What's more important? I'm guessing winning a title.

Then lets proceed to the other advantage SA has over LA; three more 50+ win seasons.

Again I ask, what's more important? Three more 50+ win seasons or 3 more WCF titles? Lets not even discuss LA's head to head advantage...

Bottom line is; I never said consistency is irrelevant you dumb ass, I simply stated it isn't as critical as winning an extra championship, having three more WCF titles, having a significant edge in the H2H matchup and simply being a more dominant playoff team.

If you look at that collectively, how on earth can you claim that SA has been a more successful team? :facepalm

Oh, I thought you were putting me on ignore there tough guy? Looks like you were just lying about that. :oldlol: I figured you were. What a sad tool you are.

Anyway, the Lakers did advance to the playoffs twice without Shaq/Gasol, but that was as a team that barely squeaked into the playoffs and had no chance. There's a difference, when if say, the current Lakers made the playoffs, but Bynum and Gasol got injured late in the season and they got knocked out in the first round, than if the Lakers barely made the playoffs, had no chance to begin with, and lost in the first round.

The current Lakers would've been a title contender, but unfortunately had a bad run of luck and got injuries latye in the season that derailed their chances. They weren't "not good enough" to win it, had they been healthy in the playoffs.

Which is precisely the point I was trying to make earlier, and why your little "playoff wins" stat is deceptive. For starters, those stats start in 2000. Before I even get to that, let's look at 1999. The Spurs won 15 games that year. Add 15 onto 86, and that's 101. The Lakers only won 3 games that playfofs, since they got swept by the Spurs in the 2nd round (something you of course, don't mention, and will probably jump up and down like a little baby calling me a homer or some other bullshit insult for bringing it up even though it's a fact). Add 3 to LA's wins, and that's 102 to 101. That's pretty close. And that would be from 1999-2009, right? That's a pretty damn close win ratio. 4 titles, almost exact same number of playoff wins (despite the Spurs having multiple playoffs cut short due to injuries to key players), and of course, WAY more regular season wins than the Lakers.

Year 2000, Duncan got injured late in the season and didn't even play a single playoff game. Are you claiming they weren't a championship contender, simply because of that? That's bad luck, and you're calling them a shitty team who wasn't a contender over it. That's your "logic", and your "logic" sucks. More injuries, 2008. Ginobili playing on half of an ankle. 2009, Ginobili plays 0 playoff games, misses nearly half the season too. 2010, Parker could barely keep hisself on the court. These things led to poor showings in the playoffs. They weren't a shitty team. Health issues to key players caused them to fail in the playoffs on those specific occaisions. of course, I can already predict your lame counter to that. "Excuses" right? Even though it's a fact. Don't be that boring. Give me a legit reply.

What you're doing is pretending they weren't contenders, simply because of these untimely injuries. Had they been healthy, I guarantee you anyone who is unbiased and watched the NBA throughout those years will tell you the Spurs were always a title threat every single season, had they actually been healthy. Also, I don't consider losing to the eventual championship team to be an unsuccessful, non contending season simply because one team happened to be slightly better that year. Spurs barely lost to the Mavs in 2006. Does that mean they didn't contend for the title?

I think you have a very specific, pidgeonholded definition of what is a contender, because you have built it around making sure it perfectly encompasses everything your favorite team the Lakers has going for their history, while excluding the Spurs from it as much as you possibly can. So you're pretending the regular season success doesn't mean shit, since the Spurs crush the Lakers there. You're pretending that losing in the playoffs because of injuries to key players means they were a shitty team simply because they didn't get more W's. You're pretending that getting to the WCF and barely losing to a team who lucked out on a few last second plays means they didn't contend for the title because only getting to the Finals counts! Since LA did that more than SA.

Nothing I've posted has even been the slightest bit biased, or even insulting about the Lakers. I, nor other Spurs have, have ever said the Lakers were a shitty team, or anything like that they wouldn't deserve the team of the decade title. The only people doing that are Lakers fans like yourself. Throwing out tons of insults, attacking the Spurs team, saying they suck, etc. Sounds to me like you're just butthurt over this. You can't even listen to an actual discussion, and just regurgitate the same shit at nausium.

As for your lame question, being in contention for the chamionship 100% of the time and getting to the WCF 6/10 years (winning 100% of the time when they reached the Finals, even when you go back a year and get their 4th title) is more important than being in contention for it 70% of the time and getting to the WCF 6/10 times (and winning just 66% of the time once in the Finals).

That's how I look at it. The Spurs got to the WCF just as many times as LA in the last decade. Shit, even feel free to include last year if you want, and I'll include 1999. It'll be the exact same result.

The difference is, LA has always been pretty healthy in the playoffs, and they have lost legitimately even without health problems, multiple times. The Spurs have had four of their postseasons end due to a significant injury to one of their top players. In fact, two of those times, one of their top 2 players completely missed the entire postseason. So while LA has only reached the WCF as much as SA has over the last 10, or even last 12 years, the Spurs have actually proven to be consistently BETTER than LA, but have simply had health problems occur for them far more often than LA, preventing them from getting an extra 2-3 postseason runs in that they certainly would have, had they not had those untimely injuries.

But again, if you're going to be a fool and act like a key player missing the whole playoffs means the team sucked that season, then by my guest. You'd be a dumbass.

Feel free to refute the facts and logic I have brought up. Let's see if you can do it without trying to pawn it off as homerism or bias. You know damn well it isn't.

[Colby Brian]

lakers were irreverent for a few years, spurs were never.

so, your point is?

in 2000-2009, the lakers had the most titles, finals apperances, postseason wins, 4-1 playoff record vs spurs

im done, go ahead and think whatever brah

[Colby Brian]

Oh, I thought you were putting me on ignore there tough guy? Looks like you were just lying about that. :oldlol: I figured you were. What a sad tool you are.

Anyway, the Lakers did advance to the playoffs twice without Shaq/Gasol, but that was as a team that barely squeaked into the playoffs and had no chance. There's a difference, when if say, the current Lakers made the playoffs, but Bynum and Gasol got injured late in the season and they got knocked out in the first round, than if the Lakers barely made the playoffs, had no chance to begin with, and lost in the first round.

The current Lakers would've been a title contender, but unfortunately had a bad run of luck and got injuries latye in the season that derailed their chances. They weren't "not good enough" to win it, had they been healthy in the playoffs.

Which is precisely the point I was trying to make earlier, and why your little "playoff wins" stat is deceptive. For starters, those stats start in 2000. Before I even get to that, let's look at 1999. The Spurs won 15 games that year. Add 15 onto 86, and that's 101. The Lakers only won 3 games that playfofs, since they got swept by the Spurs in the 2nd round (something you of course, don't mention, and will probably jump up and down like a little baby calling me a homer or some other bullshit insult for bringing it up even though it's a fact). Add 3 to LA's wins, and that's 102 to 101. That's pretty close. And that would be from 1999-2009, right? That's a pretty damn close win ratio. 4 titles, almost exact same number of playoff wins (despite the Spurs having multiple playoffs cut short due to injuries to key players), and of course, WAY more regular season wins than the Lakers.

Year 2000, Duncan got injured late in the season and didn't even play a single playoff game. Are you claiming they weren't a championship contender, simply because of that? That's bad luck, and you're calling them a shitty team who wasn't a contender over it. That's your "logic", and your "logic" sucks. More injuries, 2008. Ginobili playing on half of an ankle. 2009, Ginobili plays 0 playoff games, misses nearly half the season too. 2010, Parker could barely keep hisself on the court. These things led to poor showings in the playoffs. They weren't a shitty team. Health issues to key players caused them to fail in the playoffs on those specific occaisions. of course, I can already predict your lame counter to that. "Excuses" right? Even though it's a fact. Don't be that boring. Give me a legit reply.

What you're doing is pretending they weren't contenders, simply because of these untimely injuries. Had they been healthy, I guarantee you anyone who is unbiased and watched the NBA throughout those years will tell you the Spurs were always a title threat every single season, had they actually been healthy. Also, I don't consider losing to the eventual championship team to be an unsuccessful, non contending season simply because one team happened to be slightly better that year. Spurs barely lost to the Mavs in 2006. Does that mean they didn't contend for the title?

I think you have a very specific, pidgeonholded definition of what is a contender, because you have built it around making sure it perfectly encompasses everything your favorite team the Lakers has going for their history, while excluding the Spurs from it as much as you possibly can. So you're pretending the regular season success doesn't mean shit, since the Spurs crush the Lakers there. You're pretending that losing in the playoffs because of injuries to key players means they were a shitty team simply because they didn't get more W's. You're pretending that getting to the WCF and barely losing to a team who lucked out on a few last second plays means they didn't contend for the title because only getting to the Finals counts! Since LA did that more than SA.

Nothing I've posted has even been the slightest bit biased, or even insulting about the Lakers. I, nor other Spurs have, have ever said the Lakers were a shitty team, or anything like that they wouldn't deserve the team of the decade title. The only people doing that are Lakers fans like yourself. Throwing out tons of insults, attacking the Spurs team, saying they suck, etc. Sounds to me like you're just butthurt over this. You can't even listen to an actual discussion, and just regurgitate the same shit at nausium.

As for your lame question, being in contention for the chamionship 100% of the time and getting to the WCF 6/10 years (winning 100% of the time when they reached the Finals, even when you go back a year and get their 4th title) is more important than being in contention for it 70% of the time and getting to the WCF 6/10 times (and winning just 66% of the time once in the Finals).

That's how I look at it. The Spurs got to the WCF just as many times as LA in the last decade. Shit, even feel free to include last year if you want, and I'll include 1999. It'll be the exact same result.

The difference is, LA has always been pretty healthy in the playoffs, and they have lost legitimately even without health problems, multiple times. The Spurs have had four of their postseasons end due to a significant injury to one of their top players. In fact, two of those times, one of their top 2 players completely missed the entire postseason. So while LA has only reached the WCF as much as SA has over the last 10, or even last 12 years, the Spurs have actually proven to be consistently BETTER than LA, but have simply had health problems occur for them far more often than LA, preventing them from getting an extra 2-3 postseason runs in that they certainly would have, had they not had those untimely injuries.

But again, if you're going to be a fool and act like a key player missing the whole playoffs means the team sucked that season, then by my guest. You'd be a dumbass.

Feel free to refute the facts and logic I have brought up. Let's see if you can do it without trying to pawn it off as homerism or bias. You know damn well it isn't.

whyd you write a novel brah?
read my above post

[toxicxr6]

In common sense

Snookie>>>>>>>> Colby Brian


Deal with it...

[crosso√er]

SinJackal, I have used a triage approach pertaining to your novel about excuses and manipulation of data.

Being a contender is a perception that the media and fans have about a team based on their regular season performance. You say the Lakers had no chance to contend for a title in 2006 & 2007 is simply your opinion. Just like the Knicks in 1999, every team has a chance to win or contend for a title; hence they call it, a "new season". LA were pretty close to upsetting a 2nd seed Phoenix team. But as it may; lets assume the Lakers were not a legit title contender for those three years and SA were title contenders all ten years. One point for the Spurs, correct?

How are the playoff stats deceptive? I used the years 00/01 to 09/10 as my statistical base. I never included LA's first title run so why the hell are you bringing up 1999? Aren't we talking about the past decade? :facepalm Talk about trying to "deceive" things. How the hell are you going to add 15 wins to SA based on something they did in 1998-1999 season? :roll:
There is nothing deceiving about the playoff numbers: even if you want to include 99/00 season instead of 09/10 season for argument sake, these are the numbers:

LA: 98-50
SA: 89-62

LA still has more titles, WCF titles, better H2H record etc.

The argument still holds; in this past decade, LA has been a more dominant team in the playoffs (whichever year you want to deem as the "beginning" of the decade). Of course, quite typical, you bring up the injuries excuse. Because that should just default the entire comparison, because of course according to you; SA are quite simply the best team when healthy. It's a tiresome argument especially since I never once brought up the Shaquille/Malone's injuries in 2004 NBA finals or the Bynum & Ariza's injuries in the 2008 NBA finals: that's two possible championship titles negated because LA wasn't healthy, right? According to your nitpicking :rolleyes: Detroit & Boston beat us, injuries are part of the game. We can't just re-write history because a team had injuries woes.

Furthermore, I never said SA weren't a title contender especially in the early part of the decade. In 2008, the Manu injury doesn't concern me because at the grand spectrum of things; both teams sustained injuries throughout this decade. Honestly, LA made it to the finals without TWO of their starters (Ariza & Bynum); they were legit contenders that year. SA losing to Dallas in 5 games (in 2009) and getting swept by Phoenix (in 2010) is no different then LA losing to Phoenix in 5 & 7 games. What's the difference? Regular season success? I'm certainly not saying that Laker team were better then the Spurs (in 2009 or 2010) but being considered a contender and then losing in the 1st round (in 5 games) and getting swept in the 2nd round are a lost cause to me. Injuries or not, it's part of the game.

Uhm the rest of your post is regurgitating garbage; I asked you a specific question pertaining to what's more important (as a determinant) to success; what LA has accomplished versus what SA has accomplished?

Your response was predictable and irrelevant. You basically tried to shift the years around to make the comparison less one-sided (desperate on your part, since we're talking about a specific time-frame) and the excuse of injuries. Without highlighting that the Lakers themselves could have won two more titles this past decade if they were actually perfectly healthy.

You keep bringing up injuries; yet the five teams our teams faced-off I don't particularly recall any "significant" injuries to any of your players. Why the 1-4 record?


As for your lame question, being in contention for the chamionship 100% of the time and getting to the WCF 6/10 years (winning 100% of the time when they reached the Finals, even when you go back a year and get their 4th title) is more important than being in contention for it 70% of the time and getting to the WCF 6/10 times (and winning just 66% of the time once in the Finals).


Love how you interpreted this sentence, yet accuse me of using deceiving information to make a case for my team. Okay, lets pretend like SA were a contender 100% of the time and LA were a contender for 70% of the time; I'd agree with that. I'll even ignore the stupidity of you considering SA a contender in the year they lost in five games (to Dallas) yet not consider LA a "contender" despite them losing in seven games. But that's fine, injuries are your excuse. Lets concentrate on the other information you presented here. So once in the playoffs: LA and SA both reached the conference finals 6 times. SA lost in the WCF three times while LA never failed to proceed to the next level. Notice how you tried to omit that information; surely highlighting LA's success ratio in the NBA finals yet simply dusting SA's success ratio under the rug.

Despite all that; LA still won one more title and advance to the NBA finals 3 more times. What does making it to the WCF have to do with anything? Kudos, your team "almost" made the big dance. :applause:

In conclusion, you couldn't really shine light as to how SA has had more success this past decade besides your regurgitating injury excuse and trying to modify the time-frame of the last decade.

Facts are facts; injuries aside.

More regular season wins = Spurs
More playoff appearances = Spurs
More WCF appearances = Tie
More playoff wins = LA
Higher Playoff winning percentage = LA
More WCF titles = LA
More Championships = LA
H2H = LA

Even by you incorporating that misleading "WCF appearance" into the equation, it still doesn't help your cause. Fact is, as I've already stated: SA has been the more consistent team, while LA has clearly been the more dominant team. Every things that I have said are facts, you on the other hands are making excuses.

Should we crown McGrady the best basketball player of the decade by interpolating what he "could" have done if he stayed healthy? :violin:

[toxicxr6]

In the last decade SA have been successful due to superior coaching, drafting and team building... They have done it on a budget.

LA have done it with their deep pockets and their cheque book.. The haven't drafted that well over the last decade. Every time the organization returns to the pack.. Out comes the cheque book again.

Maybe you should add up how up LA has spent on their roster in the last decade in comparison to SA.... It's a huge difference... This year it is 30 million alone... I mean WTF... Seriously under these circumstances it's a miracle that SA have even been able to compete with LA for a decade... Give SA an extra 200 million to spend on their roster in the last decade and see how many titles they would have won.. Probably alot more..

SA are the superior organisation.... LA is just a bunch of fat cats with deep pockets...

[bl2k8]

In the last decade SA have been successful due to superior coaching, drafting and team building... They have done it on a budget.

LA have done it with their deep pockets and their cheque book.. The haven't drafted that well over the last decade. Every time the organization returns to the pack.. Out comes the cheque book again.

Maybe you should add up how up LA has spent on their roster in the last decade in comparison to SA.... It's a huge difference... This year it is 30 million alone... I mean WTF... Seriously under these circumstances it's a miracle that SA have even been able to compete with LA for a decade... Give SA an extra 200 million to spend on their roster in the last decade and see how many titles they would have won.. Probably alot more..

SA are the superior organisation.... LA is just a bunch of fat cats with deep pockets...
you talk like we're the yankees.
Pau was a trade
Odom was in a trade
drew was drafted
artest was signed for cheap(at least it was looked at that way then), even though now most people call it a bad contract
ariza was a trade
shannon was a trade
signed fisher

[Colby Brian]

In the last decade SA have been successful due to superior coaching, drafting and team building... They have done it on a budget.

LA have done it with their deep pockets and their cheque book.. The haven't drafted that well over the last decade. Every time the organization returns to the pack.. Out comes the cheque book again.

Maybe you should add up how up LA has spent on their roster in the last decade in comparison to SA.... It's a huge difference... This year it is 30 million alone... I mean WTF... Seriously under these circumstances it's a miracle that SA have even been able to compete with LA for a decade... Give SA an extra 200 million to spend on their roster in the last decade and see how many titles they would have won.. Probably alot more..

SA are the superior organisation.... LA is just a bunch of fat cats with deep pockets...


lol :facepalm

[crosso√er]

you talk like we're the yankees.
Pau was a trade
Odom was in a trade
drew was drafted
artest was signed for cheap(at least it was looked at that way then), even though now most people call it a bad contract
ariza was a trade
shannon was a trade
signed fisher

Don't forget two of our most important players right now we either drafted (Bynum) or traded for on draft night (Bryant).

Kobe was picked 13th and the front office recognized his potential. Our organization is top notch; sure our owner is rich and has no problem paying a lot in luxury tax, but guess what? Over the years, we still did a lot of things right on draft night.

[toxicxr6]

So you guys think it's fair that LA have a payroll that is 50% higher than their main rival out west? I hope the NBA does bring a hard cap in... LA would be one of the main teams disadvantaged by it..

[Nick Young]

What? All I did was expose a Spurs fan who said SA had more playoff success via winning percentage. Somehow that makes me a homer who spews worthless bullshit? Look in the mirror pal, you haven't contributed anything at all to this forum.

Championships

LA: 4
SA: 3

WCF Titles:

LA: 6
SA: 3

Head To Head:

LA 4-1 (in the playoffs)

Playoff success:

LA: 99 wins
SA: 86 wins

LA: 67% win ratio
SA: 59% win ratio

50+ win seasons:

LA: 7 times
SA: 10 times

Wins Per Season

LA: 52 wins a season
SA: 57 wins a season

So basically in retrospect, the only thing SA did better this past decade was be more consistent? They've lost the head-to-head battle; they lost the championship and WCF title battle; they were not as dominant in the playoffs as LA and just like the Lakers they had two 1st round exits.

SA's only real advantage is being a more consistent regular season team and making the playoffs every year. Is it really enough to offset LA's advantages? Especially considering LA has only missed the playoffs once this past decade, both teams (although SA were supposedly legit contenders EVERY year) were eliminated twice in the 1st round and the fact that two-thirds of SA's titles came in the year when coincidentally LA were not considered a title threat.

I'm not omitting any information; Spurs fans are reluctant on telling me that consistency and a slightly better playoff birth rate somehow prevails over having more titles, more WCF, better heads-up record and a more dominant presence in the playoffs in literally every regard (most dominant playoff run in 2001; never being swept; sweeping an opponent 7 times (by far the record this past decade) and reaching the NBA finals 67% of the time when they actually clinched the playoffs).

I don't know, I guess I'm a "homer" if I take the Lakers. :rolleyes:
The only thing Spurs are better at is regular season.

The award should be changed to the Regular Season Heroes of the Decade award.

[bl2k8]

So you guys think it's fair that LA have a payroll that is 50% higher than their main rival out west? I hope the NBA does bring a hard cap in... LA would be one of the main teams disadvantaged by it..
again, you act like we went out and threw everyone big money, stop lying.

[SinJackal]

again, you act like we went out and threw everyone big money, stop lying.

The Lakers' team salary is 91.5 million this year, and 92.9 million next year. That's without luxury tax being calculated. Include luxury tax, and that's well over 100 million in salary. Their total salary for this year and next year is literally double what the salary cap is.

He wasn't "lying". It's true.

[DMAVS41]

I think its very close and I could see arguments either way.

I would choose the Spurs because the Lakers spent 3 years of the decade being irrelevant. They missed the playoffs once and won under 50 three times. Those three years the Lakers had no shot to win a title.

That is almost a third of the decade. Thats a long time to be irrelevant when discussing a ten year span.

[iamgine]

Yea I think pretty much the budget discrepancy and the town preference is the reason why.

[SinJackal]

SinJackal, I have used a triage approach pertaining to your novel about excuses and manipulation of data.

Ah, so in your very first sentence of reply, you do exactly what I predicted, claim I was making excuses, and then, in a hilarious display of hypocrisy, claim I'm manipulating data when that's the precise thing you've been doing in all of your posts. I already called you out on that too, and you convieniently ignored it. Now you're trying to pretend you're not guilty of that, but I magically am. Okay. Fail.



Being a contender is a perception that the media and fans have about a team based on their regular season performance. You say the Lakers had no chance to contend for a title in 2006 & 2007 is simply your opinion. Just like the Knicks in 1999, every team has a chance to win or contend for a title; hence they call it, a "new season". LA were pretty close to upsetting a 2nd seed Phoenix team. But as it may; lets assume the Lakers were not a legit title contender for those three years and SA were title contenders all ten years. One point for the Spurs, correct?

They didn't have a chance to contend. They barely cracked the playoffs and had only one go to player, and a constantly ridiculed squad by Lakers fans and Kobe apologists. It would not take long to find a thread where Lakers and Kobe fans rip apart those Lakers teams for excuses as to why Kobe didn't win with them. They definitely were not contenders. And they were healthy.

I also giggled at your calling every team in the league a contender at the beginning of the season. That's an amatuer tactic, and it isn't going to work. Note: I haven't read ahead in your post, and am replying to each paragraph individually. Let me guess though, later you're going to go back to that point, and claim that a team is only a contender based on their playoff performance, right? Making sure to include that not being healthy when starting, or during the playoffs, cannot be a variab;e in the discussion. It's simply their win/loss record, right? Or how far they progress. Regardless of how good they were through 75 games into the season, only for a key player to get injured. Amiright? That means they didn't contend! Or if they just won a title, then made it to the WCF and barely lost, that means they didn't contend since they didn't reach the Finals, right? You are as predictable as you are biased.

As for "one point", I wasn't trying to keep score, but if you're doing points, that would be three, since they contended during all three of those seasons. It's team of the decade, and each season counts. In fact, I can already perfectly point out the fatal flaw of your logic already. You think the only thing that matters is who got to the Finals, and who won it. Anything else doesn't matter. That's why you're so confused as to why the Spurs are the team of the decade. LA has reached more Finals, and won more. Therefore, they must be the team of the decade, right? That's what your entire argument is based around. There's more to it than that. You blissfully ignore the rest of it, and are trying to pretend every stat that unfavorable reflects on LA "doesn't matter", but every stat that favorably reflects upon them does. That's what bias is in a nutshell.



How are the playoff stats deceptive? I used the years 00/01 to 09/10 as my statistical base. I never included LA's first title run so why the hell are you bringing up 1999? Aren't we talking about the past decade? :facepalm Talk about trying to "deceive" things. How the hell are you going to add 15 wins to SA based on something they did in 1998-1999 season? :roll:
There is nothing deceiving about the playoff numbers: even if you want to include 99/00 season instead of 09/10 season for argument sake, these are the numbers:

LA: 98-50
SA: 89-62

I already explained why they were deceptive. The Spurs have had injuries to key players late in seasons multiple times. Duncan in 2000 (they got swept, that's 0-4 tacked on, instead of a deep playoff run had he been healthy) Ginobili playing injured in 2008, putting up shit games and playing poor D' during the 2nd and 3rd rounds because of it. 2009, Ginobili missed the last half of the season and entire playoffs. Tack on 1-4 for that injury. 2010, Parker battled health issues all season, including in the playoffs, and sucked it up there. He didn't even start anymore because of his injuries. Tack on a 0-4 sweep because of it. That's 5-14 during injury riddled seasons. 1-8 during the two where Manu or Duncan missed the playoffs entirely.

Do you really think they would've played that shitty had they been healthy? Health derailed some of their playoff runs. The records are deceptive. Let's assume they had average playoffs runs, just specifically during those two seasons where they missed Duncan and Ginobili for the whole playoffs. Let's say they make it to the WCF once, and get knocked out in the 2nd round once. Just for example. Their record would look more like 101-60. And that's just assuming with two average playoffs runs, one of which was with a healthy DRob, the year after winning their first title when the west wasn't that strong.



LA still has more titles, WCF titles, better H2H record etc.

That's precisely where you're manipulating data. And I told you this was the flaw in your argument. You're only using two criteria, because you already know those stats favor LA. I am fully confident, that if SA had more WCF titles, you would ONLY bring up championships and their h2h matchups. Because that is the stuff that favors LA. Your argument is biased. More than that matters, but you're trying to pretend it doesn't. I called it. Now it's proven.




The argument still holds; in this past decade, LA has been a more dominant team in the playoffs (whichever year you want to deem as the "beginning" of the decade). Of course, quite typical, you bring up the injuries excuse. Because that should just default the entire comparison, because of course according to you; SA are quite simply the best team when healthy. It's a tiresome argument especially since I never once brought up the Shaquille/Malone's injuries in 2004 NBA finals or the Bynum & Ariza's injuries in the 2008 NBA finals: that's two possible championship titles negated because LA wasn't healthy, right? According to your nitpicking :rolleyes: Detroit & Boston beat us, injuries are part of the game. We can't just re-write history because a team had injuries woes.

I don't agree. The Lakers weren't a force from 2005-2007. The Spurs were. The Spurs were also a huge force from 1999-2004. But they happened to run into the Lakers 5 of those 6 times (the one time they didn't was when Duncan was injured and missed the playoffs). LA won 3 of those 5 matchups. Are you going to pretend the Spurs weren't a huge force in the NBA, and a championship contender those seasons? LA beat them, yes. They were the better team in 2001 and 2002. I think SA was better in both 1999 and 2000, but they never met in 2000 due to Duncan's injury. 2003 and 2004, I think they were pretty even, but each team took one of those series, so that sounds about right.

Nobody is re-writing history either. We're reviewing it. You're the only one here who's trying to act like the history doesn't matter, and simply focus on a couple of numbers. When talking about the team of the decade, you have to look at the whole picture, not just the last playoff series each season. Which is all you're doing.



Furthermore, I never said SA weren't a title contender especially in the early part of the decade. In 2008, the Manu injury doesn't concern me because at the grand spectrum of things; both teams sustained injuries throughout this decade. Honestly, LA made it to the finals without TWO of their starters (Ariza & Bynum); they were legit contenders that year. SA losing to Dallas in 5 games (in 2009) and getting swept by Phoenix (in 2010) is no different then LA losing to Phoenix in 5 & 7 games. What's the difference? Regular season success? I'm certainly not saying that Laker team were better then the Spurs (in 2009 or 2010) but being considered a contender and then losing in the 1st round (in 5 games) and getting swept in the 2nd round are a lost cause to me. Injuries or not, it's part of the game.

You sure as hell act like that's what you're saying. The Spurs losing to Dallas in 2009 is far different than the Lakers losing. That's what I keep trying to explain to you, but it seems to be going over your head every time. The Spurs lost in 2009 with no Manu Ginobili. You've seen the huge impact he has on games. He's the 2nd best player on the team. Without Manu, they don't go anywhere. It would be like taking Gasol off the Lakers, or Kobe off the Lakers in the early 2000s. They wouldn't get past the 2nd round, if they even got out of the first.

Meanwhile, the Kobe-only Lakers had no chance of getting anywhere regardless. Which is the difference to me between a contender, and a team who had no chance to begin with. I'll even give you an example you can appreciate. What if the 2008 Lakers were fully healthy? They could've won the title, no? They were better than their end result was. And it has shown in the last two seasons, as they've won the championship each time after retaining most of that exact same team.

^ That is what a real contender is. Not what your end result is. It's what the potential your team can achieve is when everyone's able to play. That's what a contender is.

[SinJackal]

Uhm the rest of your post is regurgitating garbage; I asked you a specific question pertaining to what's more important (as a determinant) to success; what LA has accomplished versus what SA has accomplished?

Most of your post here was regurgitating garbage, but I replied to it anyway.



Your response was predictable and irrelevant. You basically tried to shift the years around to make the comparison less one-sided (desperate on your part, since we're talking about a specific time-frame) and the excuse of injuries. Without highlighting that the Lakers themselves could have won two more titles this past decade if they were actually perfectly healthy.

I'm sure it was predictable that I'd post stats that would trash your weak pidgeon-holed argument. You're welcome.

The comparison isn't one-sided at all. But seeing as how you're such a huge homer for the Lakers, you have this nagging insecurity that you just can't admit that the Spurs have been just as good as the Lakers, if not better if not for untimely injuries.


You keep bringing up injuries; yet the five teams our teams faced-off I don't particularly recall any "significant" injuries to any of your players. Why the 1-4 record?

1-4? Against LA? It's 2-4 actually, but okay. In 2001 and 2002, the Lakers were better than the Spurs. They beat them both times. Is being better than the Spurs for two seasons enough to push them over the edge for team of the decade? No. It just means they were the best team those years. Same for 2003, and 2004. The better team won each of those years. In 2008, Ginobili was playing on 2 sprained ankles. Lakers barely won two of those games, both of which involved questionable officating, imo. But that's another debate.

Bottom line: LA being slightly better than the Spurs for a few specific seasons of the last 10-12 years doesn't mean they were the better team for that entire span. But again, feel free to manipulate data as much as you can. I'm fully aware you would be saying those stats didn't matter if SA happened to have won more series. You, once again, are saying every single thing that SA has been better at, doesn't matter, but everything LA has a higher number in, does matter. More bias.



Love how you interpreted this sentence, yet accuse me of using deceiving information to make a case for my team. Okay, lets pretend like SA were a contender 100% of the time and LA were a contender for 70% of the time; I'd agree with that. I'll even ignore the stupidity of you considering SA a contender in the year they lost in five games (to Dallas) yet not consider LA a "contender" despite them losing in seven games. But that's fine, injuries are your excuse. Lets concentrate on the other information you presented here. So once in the playoffs: LA and SA both reached the conference finals 6 times. SA lost in the WCF three times while LA never failed to proceed to the next level. Notice how you tried to omit that information; surely highlighting LA's success ratio in the NBA finals yet simply dusting SA's success ratio under the rug.

Once again, Manu Ginobili didn't even play in 2009 when they lost in 5 games to Dallas. Try actually looking it up before you keep making yourself look stupid every time you bring it up. The Spurs weren't a shitty team because they lost to Dallas. They lost to Dallas because Manu didn't play. How many times have the Spurs lost in the first round when neither Duncan or Ginobili missed the entire series? Zero.

As for LA losing in 7 games, they lost in the first round with their full team. Taking a team to 7 games is a cute morale victory, but it doesn't change the fact that their full potential is little more than they ended up achieving. Unless you really think those weak Lakers teams could've won championships if they actually did struggle past the first round? Do you really, honestly think that? If so, well, I don't know what to tell you. I won't argue with you for your opinion, but I disagree with it.

To me, a team's potential is what makes them a contender. If an injury derails their chances, I don't think of that as a team who wasn't a contender, I think of them as a contender who had their playoff hopes cut short due to injury. That doesn't magically only pertain to the Spurs either. The Mavs lost Dirk earlier this decade in a series agains the Spurs. I think that series would've been much closer if Dirk didn't get injured. I think the 2008 finals might've played out differently if both teams were 100%. I think the 2009 Celtics would've gotten to the Finals had KG not been banged up. Likewise, the Rockets would've made some noise if Yao was healthy.

It's called misfortune. . .not shitty teams.



Despite all that; LA still won one more title and advance to the NBA finals 3 more times. What does making it to the WCF have to do with anything? Kudos, your team "almost" made the big dance. :applause:

Oh, more regurgitation. Cool. Making it to the WCF is an important detail for team success. If you lose to the team in the WCF who wins the title, so be it. That's a successful season. SA has gotten there just as much as LA. But oh wait, that fact doesn't count, since it's even. LA has gotten to the Finals slightly more, so that's what counts!

That would be like me saying Finals win % is what matters. LA has won 66%, Spurs, 100%. That means SA is better. See how stupid that sounds? That's what you're doing. Childish stat manipulation. Look at the whole picture, rather than covering your ears and chanting to yourself that every other stat doesn't matter.



In conclusion, you couldn't really shine light as to how SA has had more success this past decade besides your regurgitating injury excuse and trying to modify the time-frame of the last decade.

Except for the fact that I showed you the Spurs were contenders during more seasons, had more winning seasons, averaged more wins, and were a legit threat for the title more often. Even while including the injury seasons, the Spurs still posted better records, more wins, and more contention years. I don't need to post injury facts to prove that point. It's basic stats.


Facts are facts; injuries aside.


More regular season wins = Spurs
More playoff appearances = Spurs
More WCF appearances = Tie
More playoff wins = LA
Higher Playoff winning percentage = LA
More WCF titles = LA
More Championships = LA
H2H = LA

Even by you incorporating that misleading "WCF appearance" into the equation, it still doesn't help your cause. Fact is, as I've already stated: SA has been the more consistent team, while LA has clearly been the more dominant team. Every things that I have said are facts, you on the other hands are making excuses.

First of all, you posted basically the exact same stat twice, and then posted an irrelevant stat in order to bolster the categories LA has more stats in.

So playoff wins and playoff win% are two seperate categories? Well, why isn't regular season wins and win% two different categories? And why isn't there a season h2h%? Because SA has that one won? More stat manipulation by you, leaivng out everything you can, and making seperate categories to bolster LA.

How about Finals wins? Make that one too, so you can inflate LA's category wins. How about a rings category? Make that one too. We can have a titles category, and a rings one. Let's make a Larry O'Brien trophies category too. How else can we inflate LA's category wins? I'm running out of ideas. How about a "Seasons with Kobe on team" category?

:roll: Your depravity knows no bounds dude.

Here's a real list

More regular season wins = Spurs
More playoff appearances = Spurs
More WCF appearances = Tie
More playoff wins = LA
More WCF titles = LA
More Championships = LA


And if you look at it closer, the Lakers only have one more title, far less season wins, far less decent seasons, and all with a much higher team salary in a market that's favorable to free agents. They still barely outdid SA, and I'd argue they only appear to have done so because SA has had multiple contending seasons cut short due to injury. Basically, it's luck that SA has only won 4 titles since 1999. They could have won far more, had it not been for lucky closing moments in multiple series, and unlucky injuries happening to one of SA's top two players, causing them to miss the entire playoffs.

LA has achieved more titles. . .nobody argues this. You keep arguing it as if someone is saying they didn't. Everyine is arguing that there's more to what makes a team of the decade than just who won the most titles.

I pose this example to you, using slightly different numbers than actually happened, but this is to prove a point.

Team A was a great team for 5 years, and wins 4 championships in 10 years. They were the best team in the NBA easily those 4 years and they beat Team B in the playoffs 3 of those 4 times. They sucked for the other 5 seasons.

Team B: Fielded a good team every season for all 10 years. They won 3 championships, narrowly won 2 others if not for lucky shots in key games, and had 2 of their seasons cut short due to an injury to a key player. Despite the injuries, they still posted good win totals every year.


Which team deserves team of the decade? Using your three basic categories, Team A wins in all 3. But does that mean they were better? I don't think they were. Team A was the best team for specific seasons. Team B was the best overall team for the decade.

The Spurs have sustained a dominant contending team for over a decade. The Lakers have NOT. Thus, the Spurs are the team of the decade.

[bl2k8]

Most of your post here was regurgitating garbage, but I replied to it anyway.




I'm sure it was predictable that I'd post stats that would trash your weak pidgeon-holed argument. You're welcome.

The comparison isn't one-sided at all. But seeing as how you're such a huge homer for the Lakers, you have this nagging insecurity that you just can't admit that the Spurs have been just as good as the Lakers, if not better if not for untimely injuries.



1-4? Against LA? It's 2-4 actually, but okay. In 2001 and 2002, the Lakers were better than the Spurs. They beat them both times. Is being better than the Spurs for two seasons enough to push them over the edge for team of the decade? No. It just means they were the best team those years. Same for 2003, and 2004. The better team won each of those years. In 2008, Ginobili was playing on 2 sprained ankles. Lakers barely won two of those games, both of which involved questionable officating, imo. But that's another debate.

Bottom line: LA being slightly better than the Spurs for a few specific seasons of the last 10-12 years doesn't mean they were the better team for that entire span. But again, feel free to manipulate data as much as you can. I'm fully aware you would be saying those stats didn't matter if SA happened to have won more series. You, once again, are saying every single thing that SA has been better at, doesn't matter, but everything LA has a higher number in, does matter. More bias.




Once again, Manu Ginobili didn't even play in 2009 when they lost in 5 games to Dallas. Try actually looking it up before you keep making yourself look stupid every time you bring it up. The Spurs weren't a shitty team because they lost to Dallas. They lost to Dallas because Manu didn't play. How many times have the Spurs lost in the first round when neither Duncan or Ginobili missed the entire series? Zero.

As for LA losing in 7 games, they lost in the first round with their full team. Taking a team to 7 games is a cute morale victory, but it doesn't change the fact that their full potential is little more than they ended up achieving. Unless you really think those weak Lakers teams could've won championships if they actually did struggle past the first round? Do you really, honestly think that? If so, well, I don't know what to tell you. I won't argue with you for your opinion, but I disagree with it.

To me, a team's potential is what makes them a contender. If an injury derails their chances, I don't think of that as a team who wasn't a contender, I think of them as a contender who had their playoff hopes cut short due to injury. That doesn't magically only pertain to the Spurs either. The Mavs lost Dirk earlier this decade in a series agains the Spurs. I think that series would've been much closer if Dirk didn't get injured. I think the 2008 finals might've played out differently if both teams were 100%. I think the 2009 Celtics would've gotten to the Finals had KG not been banged up. Likewise, the Rockets would've made some noise if Yao was healthy.

It's called misfortune. . .not shitty teams.




Oh, more regurgitation. Cool. Making it to the WCF is an important detail for team success. If you lose to the team in the WCF who wins the title, so be it. That's a successful season. SA has gotten there just as much as LA. But oh wait, that fact doesn't count, since it's even. LA has gotten to the Finals slightly more, so that's what counts!

That would be like me saying Finals win % is what matters. LA has won 66%, Spurs, 100%. That means SA is better. See how stupid that sounds? That's what you're doing. Childish stat manipulation. Look at the whole picture, rather than covering your ears and chanting to yourself that every other stat doesn't matter.




Except for the fact that I showed you the Spurs were contenders during more seasons, had more winning seasons, averaged more wins, and were a legit threat for the title more often. Even while including the injury seasons, the Spurs still posted better records, more wins, and more contention years. I don't need to post injury facts to prove that point. It's basic stats.


Facts are facts; injuries aside.



First of all, you posted basically the exact same stat twice, and then posted an irrelevant stat in order to bolster the categories LA has more stats in.

So playoff wins and playoff win% are two seperate categories? Well, why isn't regular season wins and win% two different categories? And why isn't there a season h2h%? Because SA has that one won? More stat manipulation by you, leaivng out everything you can, and making seperate categories to bolster LA.

How about Finals wins? Make that one too, so you can inflate LA's category wins. How about a rings category? Make that one too. We can have a titles category, and a rings one. Let's make a Larry O'Brien trophies category too. How else can we inflate LA's category wins? I'm running out of ideas. How about a "Seasons with Kobe on team" category?

:roll: Your depravity knows no bounds dude.

Here's a real list

More regular season wins = Spurs
More playoff appearances = Spurs
More WCF appearances = Tie
More playoff wins = LA
More WCF titles = LA
More Championships = LA


And if you look at it closer, the Lakers only have one more title, far less season wins, far less decent seasons, and all with a much higher team salary in a market that's favorable to free agents. They still barely outdid SA, and I'd argue they only appear to have done so because SA has had multiple contending seasons cut short due to injury. Basically, it's luck that SA has only won 4 titles since 1999. They could have won far more, had it not been for lucky closing moments in multiple series, and unlucky injuries happening to one of SA's top two players, causing them to miss the entire playoffs.

LA has achieved more titles. . .nobody argues this. You keep arguing it as if someone is saying they didn't. Everyine is arguing that there's more to what makes a team of the decade than just who won the most titles.

I pose this example to you, using slightly different numbers than actually happened, but this is to prove a point.

Team A was a great team for 5 years, and wins 4 championships in 10 years. They were the best team in the NBA easily those 4 years and they beat Team B in the playoffs 3 of those 4 times. They sucked for the other 5 seasons.

Team B: Fielded a good team every season for all 10 years. They won 3 championships, narrowly won 2 others if not for lucky shots in key games, and had 2 of their seasons cut short due to an injury to a key player. Despite the injuries, they still posted good win totals every year.


Which team deserves team of the decade? Using your three basic categories, Team A wins in all 3. But does that mean they were better? I don't think they were. Team A was the best team for specific seasons. Team B was the best overall team for the decade.

The Spurs have sustained a dominant contending team for over a decade. The Lakers have NOT. Thus, the Spurs are the team of the decade.
The spurs and dominant can't be used in terms of the 2000's. What the **** is a "dominant contender"? Are the Mavs a dominant contender too? The Spurs were never good enough in consecutive years, so there is no dominance.

And 2-4? Last time I checked it was 1-4 from 00-09. You want to talk injuries in 08 but you leave out Bynum and Ariza so miss me with that excuse.

[DMAVS41]

The spurs and dominant can't be used in terms of the 2000's. What the **** is a "dominant contender"? Are the Mavs a dominant contender too? The Spurs were never good enough in consecutive years, so there is no dominance.

I don't follow this line of thinking. What does back to back titles have anything to do with this?

[crosso√er]

So basically, you're concluding that SA were a better regular season team then LA (I agree), they didn't consistently loss to LA when they met in the playoffs (I disagree) and SA could have achieved much more (even then LA) if they didn't sustain untimely injuries?

Why are you using 1998/99 season as reference? What does that particular season have to do with this past decade? Duncan was injured in 2000; could SA have beaten LA? Who knows, don't speculate. LA faced some really good teams to win a title that year and Shaquille arguably had the most dominant year in league history. Kobe hurt his ankle in game two and was hurt for the remainder of the series. That could have been costly but thankfully Shaquille carried the team. Point being, you are re-writing history (not reviewing) because you're back paddling and displaying how injuries derailed your chances. That's fine, but why do you insist on projecting what would have happened if SA were healthy? We can't speculate if they would have won a title in those year; heck even with a healthy Manu, do you guarantee that they would have beaten Dallas? No, you can't.

You're basically saying that since SA were more relevant throughout the decade, they are the team of the decade. I disagree, and my point as I have already stated: LA were a more relevant team when both teams were considered contenders. Like you said in 2001 & 2002 LA were better, they eliminated your team from the post-season. In 2000, LA were the champions; but Duncan was injured. That's fine since I didn't even consider that year as the beginning of the decade. I always figured 2000/01 is the beginning of the decade. Which puzzles me why you insist on bringing up the first year SA won the title (1999); it has no relevance on what we're discussing here.

SA has more regular season wins, has one more playoff birth and were a contender longer; hence, they were more consistent. LA were still a more successful team this past decade which is my core argument. They were more successful because at the end of the day; you win regular season games and try to secure a top seed so you have an easier time achieve the ultimate goal; which is winning a championship.

LA simply put; has done that a more successive rate then SA and in the process has dominated their head to head match up. So that's the logic I'm using, and I don't see how it's faulty one bit. You can stress your hypothetical situations all you want and contextually analyze why your team fell short that year or the next; bottom line, LA were a more dominant team. As far as you asking about their H2H match-up; I'm pretty sure it's 22-23 in favor of SA since 2000. I am not 100% sure, but I know it's almost identical.

I also don't find it incidental that SA won two of their three titles when LA fell to mediocrity. You claim your team saw misfortune due to untimely injuries and affirming that they would have won "far" more titles is hysterical. Considering your team besides one season could never pass the Lakers; healthy or not. Keep living in your fantasy world and projecting what could have happened; I'm telling you what did happen. The most dominant team of the past decade (LA) not only tasted champagne more times then SA did; they've won nearly every time in the playoffs when faced each other and put themselves in a position to win titles more consistently then your team has.

You think your criteria holds more water; that's fine. I'll take one extra title over a more consistent regular season performance every day of the week.

I wanted to reply to your 1st post but it's 5am here and I'm tired.
I'll reply next time I'm on.

[bl2k8]

I don't follow this line of thinking. What does back to back titles have anything to do with this?
Winning titles in consecutive years shows dominance, being in the Finals 3 straight years shows dominance of your conference. The Spurs never made it back to even protect their trophy. I don't see anything dominant about the Spurs. Crossover also made a good point, the Spurs won 2 of those 3 when the Lakers dynasty crumbled, not to mention beating the worst of the Shaq/Kobe Laker squads in 03.

[toxicxr6]

It's difficult to debate with laker fans when they can't see anything but the lakers.. Oh well

[Nick Young]

The team of the decade is our bitch:bowdown:

[toxicxr6]

again, you act like we went out and threw everyone big money, stop lying.


you might want to look at your payroll...u have throen big money at almost everyone on your roster:facepalm


Ron Artest $6,322,320
Matt Barnes $1,765,000
Steve Blake $4,000,000
Shannon Brown $2,149,200
Kobe Bryant $24,806,250
Andrew Bynum $13,700,000
Derrick Caracter $473,604
Devin Ebanks $473,604
Derek Fisher $3,700,000
Pau Gasol $17,823,000
Lamar Odom $8,200,000
Theo Ratliff C $854,389
Sasha Vujacic $5,475,113
Luke Walton $5,260,000


TOTAL APPROX 95 million


James Anderson $1,361,400
DeJuan Blair $918,000
Matt Bonner $3,050,000
Tim Duncan $18,835,381
Manu Ginobili$11,854,584
Daniel Green $663,558
George Hill $854,389
Richard Jefferson $8,400,000
Antonio McDyess $4,860,000
Gary Neal $525,000
Tony Parker $13,500,000
Chris Quinn $804,131
Tiago Splitter $3,400,000


TOTAL APPROX 68 million


If you think that this does not influence success... then what u say has weight... the difference here is huge... imagine who SA could add to their roster with another 27 million.....

they could get another top 10 player plus another all star calibre player
or another 2-3 all star calibre players....

Imagine how hard it would be to beat the spurs then? Just imagine...

[DMAVS41]

Winning titles in consecutive years shows dominance, being in the Finals 3 straight years shows dominance of your conference. The Spurs never made it back to even protect their trophy. I don't see anything dominant about the Spurs. Crossover also made a good point, the Spurs won 2 of those 3 when the Lakers dynasty crumbled, not to mention beating the worst of the Shaq/Kobe Laker squads in 03.

Its about the entire body of work. Its team of the decade. Its not which team was the most dominant for a 3 year span.

It basically boils down to what you value. Do you value consistency and year in year out success? Do you value titles and finals trips over winning 50 plus every season?

Stuff like that.

I still lean towards the Spurs because they were relevant each and every year. The Lakers weren't. The Lakers simply had no relevance for 30% of the time frame at hand. Thats a lot of time to not matter.

If you factor in what these teams have to work with, its easily the Spurs. As others have showed, the Lakers payroll is usually significantly higher. If the Spurs operated with the same amount of money, they could technically add a player like Lebron or Howard or Wade and still have less of a payroll than the Lakers.

Stuff like that matters.

[Kobe 4 The Win]

This is a Joke. The Spurs are a great team but LA did more. More Finals appearances. More titles. More consecutive finals appearances. 3 peat. They were also very high profile team that was popular worldwide. As much as the Spurs have accomplished, there aren't too many people outside of San Antonio who know or care about it. F San Antonio.

[twintowers]

What a travesty that David Stern awarded the Spurs the team of the decade, what a complete travesty.

The Lakers clearly were team of the decade, they won a 3 peat with a dynasty, then a two-peat and also went to 2 more finals where they lost for a total of 7 finals appearances in the decade.

And somehow the Spurs win the team of the decade? This is a disgrace.

aa do you remember the gap beetwen shaq leaving and gasol coming one season not making into playoffs and the other almost not making into playoffs and a early exit plus the sacramento stollen series....

[stickfigure87]

coming from a huge laker fan, i agree that the spurs were the team of the decade. they never missed a playoffs, and were a contender every season while the lakers were stranded in mediocrity for a period there.

hard to argue about the rings and the head-to-head matchups, though.

[dunksby]

Dont have anything against the Spurs, but it all comes to Championships. As a contender you enter the playoffs to win the title, not because its cool to be in playoffs.