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

[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.

[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.