Better team this decade: Spurs vs Lakers?

[Dash]

We talk about the Spurs consistency but what about the Lakers? Not regular season but playoffs, a higher win percentage and being in 60% percent of the decade's finals isn't considered consistent?

 

You can also argue that the Spurs had the luxury of playing easier opponents than the Lakers. The Lakers had to get past the Adelman Kings, Blazers, etc while the Warriors knocked out the Mavericks for SA in 2007.

 

Take out 1999 and the Spurs have 19 playoff series wins as opposed to the Lakers 23. Hold it, the Lakers were irrelevant for 3 years and still have won 4 more playoff series than the Spurs? :o

[Heir Rose]

I'll take dominance over consistency in this one. Shaq and Kobe absolutely tore up the NBA in the early 2000s, and after conceding to the Spurs in 2003 they got back to the Finals in 2004. Sure, they weren't title contenders for a span of about 2-3 years, but it can be argued that last season when Manu was out and the season before when the team had a severe lack of talent around TBT that the Spurs weren't going to win it all, either.

 

L.A. has been there 6 times, San Antonio only 3. The Spurs have been solid, but L.A. has come out on top in most of their postseason matchups, and their high level of play, even with a couple bad seasons, amounts to more than several very good seasons by S.A. It's close, though; I had a hard time choosing which side to pick.

 

Sorry, fellow Spurs fans.

[Real Deal]

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?

And it was the Lakers, no matter how you flip it. I'd rather play Duncan and the Spurs at their very best, than Kobe, Shaq and Phil Jackson during the dynasty years, or even Kobe, Gasol, and Odom last season (who would've beaten the best Spurs team, also).

 

The Dallas Mavericks were consistently good as well, contenders every single year for what...nine years? 50+ wins every year?

 

Consistency in the regular season doesn't mean jack to me. Dominance does. The Spurs would've gotten wrecked every single year by the 2000-2002 Lakers, and that's a fact. All of those Spurs teams.

 

It's no coincidence that the best defensive year for them ended up ending at the hands of Kobe and Shaq. Even worse, their best winning season ended in the second round, while in both of the Lakers' 60+ win seasons, they dominated the NBA Finals, 4-1 over the Magic and 4-2 over the Pacers.

 

I'm willing to bet that if problems hadn't started for Kobe and Shaq in the 2002-03 season, the Lakers would've put them away then, also, during their 60-win season.

 

Anyone in their right mind knows that the Spurs' best team is not as good as 2-3 of the Lakers' best teams, since 1999. Nothing to debate on that. And when the Lakers went on a short slump, they returned to win the NBA title this last season, beating this same Spurs team we continue to talk about in 2008 to get to the Finals and eventually lose to a 66-win Celtics team.

 

And you're going to see something similar happen again this upcoming season, if they meet. They may be dangerous, but they don't have the goods to defeat the Lakers in the playoffs, and you can stick that in your siggy until June, if you want.

[Diesel]

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.

 

The Spurs dropped the Lakers twice in the playoffs and the series would most likely be even if not for a Fisher 0.4 shot.

 

And I don't see why "superstar players" matters at all. It's a team game and I don't see why having two superstars gives you bonus points despite winning the same amount of titles. If anything it just shows how great Tim Duncan was never having a true superstar when he won the title.

 

They won the same amount of titles so the "level of players and coaches" is the same during the timespan.

 

The "dominance" argument in this thread is retarded seeing as how that "dominance" won them the same amount of titles. The Spurs were just as dominant over the long haul. It's not about what was the best individual team of the decade, but the best franchise over the decade.

Edited September 7, 2009 by Diesel

[Diesel]

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.

 

I can play that game too.

 

Would you rather play the Spurs at their worst?

 

Or the Lakers at their worst?

 

I don't have to go any further with this.

[Real Deal]

The Spurs dropped the Lakers twice in the playoffs and the series would most likely be even if not for a Fisher 0.4 shot.

 

And I don't see why "superstar players" matters at all. It's a team game and I don't see why having two superstars gives you bonus points despite winning the same amount of titles. If anything it just shows how great Tim Duncan was never having a true superstar when he won the title.

 

They won the same amount of titles so the "level of players and coaches" is the same during the timespan.

 

The "dominance" argument in this thread is retarded seeing as how that "dominance" won them the same amount of titles. The Spurs were just as dominant over the long haul. It's not about what was the best individual team of the decade, but the best franchise over the decade.

The best franchise has a dynasty and doesn't achieve 2nd round loss, Finals win, 2nd round loss, Finals win, 2nd round loss, Finals win (in that order).

 

I can play that game too.

 

Would you rather play the Spurs at their worst?

 

Or the Lakers at their worst?

 

I don't have to go any further with this.

Well that sure the hell doesn't make sense. That doesn't tell me anything. So since the Celtics were pathetic for five seasons (under 40 wins), and the Suns haven't done that bad in the last 8-9 years, are the Suns the better franchise because you'd rather play the worst Celtics team? Nice logic.

 

If Shaq were still a Laker, you'd be all over this topic.

 

But hey, using your logic, Duncan is the better player from 1999-2009. He's got as many rings as Shaq, but in their worst seasons, who would you rather play?

 

I rest my case.

[Diesel]

Well that sure the hell doesn't make sense. That doesn't tell me anything. So since the Celtics were pathetic for five seasons (under 40 wins), and the Suns haven't done that bad in the last 8-9 years, are the Suns the better franchise because you'd rather play the worst Celtics team? Nice logic.

 

The Suns don't have the same amount of rings as the Celtics though. Nice try.

If Shaq were still a Laker, you'd be all over this topic.

 

But hey, using your logic, Duncan is the better player from 1999-2009. He's got as many rings as Shaq, but in their worst seasons, who would you rather play?

 

I rest my case.

 

Yes. Duncan is the better player if only considering those years. Career Wise it's easily Shaq, but if you only take those years, it's Duncan. That is the prime of Duncan's career right there and Shaq only had about 4-5 years of true dominance. Give me Duncan for that time frame.

[Real Deal]

The Suns don't have the same amount of rings as the Celtics though. Nice try.

Ah, okay...the Heat, then. But I'm sure you'll take the Heat's injury-plagued season and hold that against them also, right? Boston won less games in the decade, had the worst healthy season, so uh...the Heat have one ring, Boston has one ring, so I guess...the Heat are more dominant because they have had more regular season wins and their worst healthy team is better?

 

 

Yes. Duncan is the better player if only considering those years. Career Wise it's easily Shaq, but if you only take those years, it's Duncan. That is the prime of Duncan's career right there and Shaq only had about 4-5 years of true dominance. Give me Duncan for that time frame.

Hmm...that's funny, because I remember having this debate on the old OTR, about who was the most dominant player of the decade, and I do believe you said it was Shaq. In fact, I remember replying to you about it, saying I had an argument it was Bryant because of his offensive dominance.

 

But yeah.

[Diesel]

Ah, okay...the Heat, then. But I'm sure you'll take the Heat's injury-plagued season and hold that against them also, right? Boston won less games in the decade, had the worst healthy season, so uh...the Heat have one ring, Boston has one ring, so I guess...the Heat are more dominant because they have had more regular season wins and their worst healthy team is better?

 

 

 

Hmm...that's funny, because I remember having this debate on the old OTR, about who was the most dominant player of the decade, and I do believe you said it was Shaq. In fact, I remember replying to you about it, saying I had an argument it was Bryant because of his offensive dominance.

 

But yeah.

 

Heat: 1 title

Celtics: 1 title

 

Playoff Appearences

Heat: 8 playoff appearences

Celtics: 6 playoff apearences

 

50 win seasons

Heat: 5(as well as a 66% win team in 99 that feature DPOY Alonzo Mourning)

Celtics: 2

 

Other than the past two years the Celtics have been pretty irrelevant for the decade. They had an ECF run in them at a point when the Eastern Conference was the worst conference the league was ever seen, but that's it other than that.

 

The Heat have had stars such as Mourning, Wade, Shaq for a large part of the decade and have been more meaningfull for the long haul. Just because the Celtic have the best individual team in 2008 doesn't make them the best team of the decade.

 

I probably argued that Shaq > Duncan about 3 years ago for this decade. In the past 3 years Duncans performance has been vastly superior to Shaq's which is the reason for the change of heart.

[Real Deal]

Actually, your argument was back in November of 2008, when I posted that the Suns would miss the playoffs because of Shaq. I remember it well. Only if I still had our old database.

 

And don't give me a list of who the Heat had in regards to superstar play. You already dismissed that earlier, when I brought up Kobe, Shaq, and Gasol.

[Diesel]

Actually, your argument was back in November of 2008, when I posted that the Suns would miss the playoffs because of Shaq. I remember it well. Only if I still had our old database.

 

And don't give me a list of who the Heat had in regards to superstar play. You already dismissed that earlier, when I brought up Kobe, Shaq, and Gasol.

 

Do you have the day and time of that event as well?