Revis Island Posted September 6, 2009 Report Share Posted September 6, 2009 Just curious on your thoughts for now of course, because next season could change a lot. I would say the Spurs, simply because they never missed the playoffs in this decade, sure they never repeated, but there have only been two times where the Spurs missed the 2nd round, and both times, Tim Duncan was far from healthy. Lakers missed the playoffs in 04-05, which was during Kobe's prime, and then for the next seasons, Kobe failed to lead his team to the 2nd round despite having a 3-1 lead in 06'. Pretty much the main reason why I would take the Spurs is consistency, they never missed the playoffs this decade while the Lakers have. Then you factor in the fact that the Spurs never lost in the Finals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deestillballin Posted September 6, 2009 Report Share Posted September 6, 2009 Spurs because like you stated have consistently been in the playoffs. The only thing that KINDA gives the Lakers any kind of leverages was the times they have made it to the semis it was usually the Lakers that beat them. But other than that its all the Spurs. out of the last 10 i believe the have 4 of the championships (99 03 05 07). (Yes I know the Lakers have 4 too, but they havent made the playoffs all consecutive years) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingfish Posted September 6, 2009 Report Share Posted September 6, 2009 Spurs never even won a back to back. Its the Lakers, because they also made more Finals appearances, and won more titles this decade. Not to mention, beat the Spurs nearly every single time they met up in the postseason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revis Island Posted September 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 6, 2009 Spurs never even won a back to back. Its the Lakers, because they also made more Finals appearances, and won more titles this decade. Not to mention, beat the Spurs nearly every single time they met up in the postseason.No Back to Backs?? What's the point of getting their again, if all you are going to do is lose? (08-09) Won more titles? It's even 4-4, I'm talking 99-09 Spurs never missed the playoffs or won less than 50 games either Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac Dre Posted September 6, 2009 Report Share Posted September 6, 2009 spurs. way more consistent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lafan9 Posted September 6, 2009 Report Share Posted September 6, 2009 Lakers this decade=Dominance/ Spurs this decade=Consistency -more fun to watch/flashy /-Fundamentally sound -HOF worthy players=2 / -HOF worthy players=2(Kobe,Shaq) /(Timmy,D.Robinson)-Solid Players=5 /-Solid players=5(D. Fish,Horry,R.Fox,Pau,Ariza /(Manu,T.parker,Finley,Bruce Bowen,Horry)-better record / more playoff appearances Rings=4 Rings=3 I'm a bit biased ^_^ but I'll go ahead and say LA P.S- might have forgot some players free feel to add Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poe Posted September 6, 2009 Report Share Posted September 6, 2009 Spurs because of those years when Kobe had to put up with Smush and Kwame, plus mediocre players like Walton, Mihm, Cook, and the inconsistency of Odom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingfish Posted September 6, 2009 Report Share Posted September 6, 2009 (edited) No Back to Backs?? What's the point of getting their again, if all you are going to do is lose? (08-09) Won more titles? It's even 4-4, I'm talking 99-09 Spurs never missed the playoffs or won less than 50 games eitherYes, the Spurs never won a back to back title. The Lakers had a 3-peat, they dominated the league for 3 consecutive years, how rare is that? Then they reached the top again and won another title in the same decade with a brand new different team, that is even more rare. Do you know what a decade is? '99 doesnt count, that was in the 90's. Im talking about the 00's, the decade isnt even over yet, so you can only judge by whats happened so far, and so far the Lakers have been the mot dominant team in this decade. Even if you want to count '99, Lakers are still the best team of the last 10 years. They missed the playoffs once, big deal, they were the 6th seed until Kobe and Odom got hurt and missed significant time. And missing the playoffs landed us Bynum. Its harder to win 3 straight then to do it every other year or every 2 years. The Bulls were the team of the 90's, the Lakers are the team of the 00's, especially because we are the favorites to win again in '10 to finish the decade. Regardless, we have the most titles of this decade. Edited September 6, 2009 by kingfish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owner Real Deal Posted September 6, 2009 Owner Report Share Posted September 6, 2009 Haha, you pick a dynasty over any other team. The Lakers have had the best player in basketball in Kobe Bryant, the best coach of all-time in Phil Jackson, and arguably the best center since Wilt and Kareem in Shaq. I don't see how you take the Spurs over the Lakers, unless you just simply hate the Lakers, which is what I'll see throughout this topic. Now if you were to ask who it is between the Bulls of the 90's and the 00-02 Lakers, then it's those Bulls simply because they racked up two dynasties, literally. But the Spurs were never a dynasty. The definition of one is to win three consecutive titles, something the Spurs have never done. There's a reason why they haven't done it, and part of it is because of the Lakers. 2001: loss to Lakers, WCF2002: loss to Lakers, 2nd round2004: loss to Lakers, 2nd round2008: loss to Lakers, WCF Haha, please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleveland's Finest Posted September 6, 2009 Report Share Posted September 6, 2009 The Spurs were bad last postseason, but the Lakers had that two year or more (I dno how long) when they were just carried by Kobe and got eliminated in the 1st round in 5 games 2 years in a row? They didn't have 50 wins in those seasons as well. The Spurs have won 53 or more games EVERY season since the 1999-2000 season. For three seasons this decade, LA had three seasons in a row of under 46 wins. (34, 45, 42) That's what takes it right there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owner Real Deal Posted September 6, 2009 Owner Report Share Posted September 6, 2009 The Lakers won 67 games in 2000, won the title, then went the following season and won their second title with an NBA-record 15-1 win/loss in the playoffs. If regular season wins are going to decide this, I guess Dallas is right up there with everyone else, since they've had five 57+ win seasons since 2000, including a 67-win season and three total 60+ win seasons. The Lakers have dominated the Spurs in the Playoffs, they have won four NBA titles (tied with the Spurs), they had three consecutive (making them a true dynasty) and they have had the best two-guard since MJ, best center since Kareem and the best coach in NBA history. Hilarious that the Spurs would be considered better. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac Dre Posted September 6, 2009 Report Share Posted September 6, 2009 RD, you say that only laker haters think that the spurs have been better than the lakers, but i'm a lakers fan (or am i ) anyways i think consistency counts, spurs have dominated the whole decade winning 4 championships (lakers have too) but the lakers were up and down. spurs were top 1-3 the whole decade. the lakers champinoship teams were better than the spurs championship teams, but the years that the spurs didnt win the championship, they were better than the years that the lakers didnt win the championship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleveland's Finest Posted September 6, 2009 Report Share Posted September 6, 2009 Hilarious? In the end, the Lakers and Spurs have the same amount of rings. The Spurs are 12-18 vs. the Lakers from the 1999-2009 playoffs...is that really that big of a blemish? Especially since either way they've won the same amount of titles. LA didn't make the playoffs one year and got eliminated in the 1st round two years in a row after that. Meanwhile, the Spurs made the 2nd round for 9 straight years and before and after that period had a 1st round elimination, but both of those seasons they did have 54 and 53 wins, unlike LA's 45/42) win season when they got eliminated in the 1st round. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owner Real Deal Posted September 6, 2009 Owner Report Share Posted September 6, 2009 So the only reason for you saying the Spurs have been the better team this decade is because the Lakers had two first-round exits, and missed the playoffs once? They missed the playoffs in 2004 because of Kobe and Odom's injuries. Odom was out for 18 games, and Kobe was hurt for 16 games. The Spurs have had two first-round losses, and three second-round losses, while the Lakers have had two first-round losses, and two second-round losses. The Lakers just finished up a 65-win season, which is better than any of the Spurs' regular season marks in the history of their franchise, not to mention the Lakers' 67-win season I talked about in 2000. So, basically, it's because of that one season the Lakers missed the playoffs, and that's because of a major coaching change, with Kobe and Odom being hurt? That's it? You see, it truly is ridiculous. The Lakers have had the better individual seasons, the better overall teams, the better players, the better coach, and the true dynasty. The Spurs have made the playoffs every season, Lakers missing them once. Lakers win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PapaDoink Posted September 6, 2009 Report Share Posted September 6, 2009 Lakers easily Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diesel Posted September 7, 2009 Report Share Posted September 7, 2009 The Spurs. They have been more consistant throughout the decade and I'm not sure on this, but I'd be willing to bet they have the highest winning % of the decade too. They have won 50 games every year of the decade and were contenders every year. The Lakers had a 3 year window of being irrelevant. I could care a less if the Lakers got 3 titles in a row. The end result is they have 4 titles in the decade and the Spurs have 4 as well. The teams have an equal amount of MVP Winners as well with Duncan racking up two and Shaq/Kobe each getting one. However the string of 50 win seasons combined with the titles wins it for me. Bufords and Popovich's ability to consistantly add talent around Duncan while never visiting the lottery does it for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dash Posted September 7, 2009 Report Share Posted September 7, 2009 Spurs Worst record: 53-29 (1999-2000)Best record: 63-19 (2005-2006)1st in division: 7 times (1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2009)1st in conference: 4 times (1999, 2001, 2003, 2006) Key injuries: Tony Parker (44 games total), Manu Ginobili (96 games), Tim Duncan (53 games), David Robinson (26 games).Regular season record: 613 - 257 (70%)Playoff record: 98-59 (62%)Playoff series won: 23NBA Finals: 4NBA Championships 4 Lakers Worst record: 34-48 (2004-2005)best record: 67-15 (1999-2000)1st in division: 5 times (2000, 2001, 2004, 2008, 2009)1st in conference: 4 times (2000, 2001, 2008, 2009)Key injuries: Kobe Bryant (72 games), Shaq (57 games), Pau Gasol (56 games, only played 27 games with Lakers in 07-08), Lamar Odom (55 games), Derek Fisher (86 games) Karl Malone (40 games)Regular season record: 561-309 (64%)Playoff record: 101-50 (67%)Playoff series won: 24NBA Finals: 6NBA Championships: 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owner Real Deal Posted September 7, 2009 Owner Report Share Posted September 7, 2009 In other words, again, it comes down to regular season wins, not the amount of times the Lakers dropped the Spurs in the playoffs, or the dynasty, or the level of players and coaches. Well, alright. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingfish Posted September 7, 2009 Report Share Posted September 7, 2009 (edited) Spurs Worst record: 53-29 (1999-2000)Best record: 63-19 (2005-2006)1st in division: 7 times (1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2009)1st in conference: 4 times (1999, 2001, 2003, 2006) Key injuries: Tony Parker (44 games total), Manu Ginobili (96 games), Tim Duncan (53 games), David Robinson (26 games).Regular season record: 613 - 257 (70%)Playoff record: 98-59 (62%)Playoff series won: 23NBA Finals: 4NBA Championships 4 Lakers Worst record: 34-48 (2004-2005)best record: 67-15 (1999-2000)1st in division: 5 times (2000, 2001, 2004, 2008, 2009)1st in conference: 4 times (2000, 2001, 2008, 2009)Key injuries: Kobe Bryant (72 games), Shaq (57 games), Pau Gasol (56 games, only played 27 games with Lakers in 07-08), Lamar Odom (55 games), Derek Fisher (86 games) Karl Malone (40 games)Regular season record: 561-309 (64%)Playoff record: 101-50 (67%)Playoff series won: 24NBA Finals: 6NBA Championships: 4Spurs better regular season team record, Lakers had the better team record in the playoffs. Which one really matters you think? Lakers won the same amount of titles, but had 2 more finals appearances then the Spurs did. Think that is the deciding factor. Lakers also won more playoff series'. Not sure why were even counting '99. That is the only reason the Spurs are in this conversation. Unless the Spurs win the title next year, the Lakers will be the definite team of the decade for the '00s. What if I said "Who is the team of the last 9 years." Thanks for posting the stats btw. Edited September 7, 2009 by kingfish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dash Posted September 7, 2009 Report Share Posted September 7, 2009 (edited) The Lakers presented sheer dominance during separate parts of the decade while the Spurs were far more consistent. I think I'll give the edge to the Lakers, 6 Finals appearances is enough said. Edited September 7, 2009 by Dash Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owner Real Deal Posted September 7, 2009 Owner Report Share Posted September 7, 2009 Let's put it this way: who would you rather play, the Spurs at their best in this decade, or the Lakers at their best? How about the Spurs at their best, or the Lakers at their second best? Or...haha, how about the Spurs at their best...or the Lakers in their third best season? I don't have to go any further with this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleveland's Finest Posted September 7, 2009 Report Share Posted September 7, 2009 So the only reason for you saying the Spurs have been the better team this decade is because the Lakers had two first-round exits, and missed the playoffs once? They missed the playoffs in 2004 because of Kobe and Odom's injuries. Odom was out for 18 games, and Kobe was hurt for 16 games. The Spurs have had two first-round losses, and three second-round losses, while the Lakers have had two first-round losses, and two second-round losses. The Lakers just finished up a 65-win season, which is better than any of the Spurs' regular season marks in the history of their franchise, not to mention the Lakers' 67-win season I talked about in 2000. So, basically, it's because of that one season the Lakers missed the playoffs, and that's because of a major coaching change, with Kobe and Odom being hurt? That's it? You see, it truly is ridiculous. The Lakers have had the better individual seasons, the better overall teams, the better players, the better coach, and the true dynasty. The Spurs have made the playoffs every season, Lakers missing them once. Lakers win. you mention the injuries, yet I recall the Spurs last season having Manu, Parker, and Duncan injured for large portions of the season, and they finished with 55 wins. Each team had amazing successes. A three-peat should be recognized, but I find the Spurs championship wins sporadically occuring throughout the decade show how dominant a team is throughout the course of a decade without a 3 year period like LAL had to regroup. I'm not trying to diss LA, I just find SAS just a little more better franchise wise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dash Posted September 7, 2009 Report Share Posted September 7, 2009 (edited) Spurs better regular season team record, Lakers had the better team record in the playoffs. Which one really matters you think? Lakers won the same amount of titles, but had 2 more finals appearances then the Spurs did. Think that is the deciding factor. Lakers also won more playoff series'. Not sure why were even counting '99. That is the only reason the Spurs are in this conversation. Unless the Spurs win the title next year, the Lakers will be the definite team of the decade for the '00s. What if I said "Who is the team of the last 9 years." Thanks for posting the stats btw. Playoffs of course, Lakers even got the better end of the Spurs in most of their meetings. Agreed on the final appearances (look at post below). I posted the stats including 1999 because that was apparantely where the debate was going. I don't know why considering the topic title is 'Better team this decade"... If the Spurs win the title this upcoming season than they have a pretty good argument. Your welcome, that did take a while to put together. Edited September 7, 2009 by Dash Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owner Real Deal Posted September 7, 2009 Owner Report Share Posted September 7, 2009 Let's put it this way: who would you rather play, the Spurs at their best in this decade, or the Lakers at their best? How about the Spurs at their best, or the Lakers at their second best? Or...haha, how about the Spurs at their best...or the Lakers in their third best season? I don't have to go any further with this.By the way, the fourth-best season for the Lakers, or the best season for the Spurs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleveland's Finest Posted September 7, 2009 Report Share Posted September 7, 2009 By the way, the fourth-best season for the Lakers, or the best season for the Spurs? This question isn't which team was better during the period of 2000-2003. This question isn't which team was better head to head. It is when you look at the two team's the past 10 years, which team was overall better? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.