Multi-Billionaire Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 Now I'm confused. If 2000 is part of the 90s, then 1990 is part of the 80s, and 1980 is part of the 70s? By your logic, LA's '00 championship is not part of the '00 era, lol. 70's era is '70-'79, 80's is '80-'89, 90's is '90-'99, 00's is '00-'09, and so on and so forth. Of course, it is always: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 1011, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20... and so on... --- It's never: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 910, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19... It's just weird. --- By this definition, the first Laker title did not come in 2000s, it comes in 1990s although it was won in 2000. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owner Real Deal Posted September 13, 2009 Owner Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 It's called the 2000 NBA championship, not the 1999 NBA championship. The majority of the season was in 2000 (six months of it), so the first Lakers title was in the new decade, which ended in 2009. Zero is a number. You have to get to one somehow. I can't believe this is even a question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Multi-Billionaire Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 (edited) Zero is an absolute. You begin with number 1. "In Day One, God created..." it's never "In Day Zero, God created..." The kids in school learn to memorize numbers: "one, two, three, four..." not "zero, one, two, three..." just like learning other language... This is what it feels right... 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 19701971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 19801981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 19901991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 20002001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 This on the other hand feels weird... 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 19691970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 19891980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 19891990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 19992000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 I can't believe this is even debated. Edited September 13, 2009 by Snake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac Dre Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 no... the decade starts at the zero! why dont you get it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owner Real Deal Posted September 13, 2009 Owner Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 In terms of years, Snake, it's zero. You can't have one year without having 12 months first. You're wrong again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac Dre Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 In terms of years, Snake, it's zero. You can't have one year without having 12 months first. You're wrong again. wrong again? hey man just cuz you disagree with him about the iverson-billups thing doesn't mean he's wrong. i think billups is more suited for a team ready to win a championship and iverson is better suited for a team who needs a scorer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWaLL Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 I love how this turned into a numerical argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicbalala245 Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 Dude he is right how can you have a year without 12 months? Think about it. Also I think this thread gotta be locked up. it went from player of the decade to some other argument that made no sense relating to the topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revis Island Posted September 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 Usually at another site, Shaq wins then Duncan comes in 2nd, and only Kobe apologists defend Kobe, Kobe never wins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misterx Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 When you are born you are not considered 1 year old. You are when you have lived 1 year. And so it goes. if you subtract then you got to count the smaller year also Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deestillballin Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 I love how this turned into a numerical argument. x'2 we went from players to numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-Rat Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 Kobe is the clear winner here. 4 rings, 1 MVP, most successful on and off the court then any of those on the list. Kobe repeatedly made All 1st D team in the past decade. Two scoring titles. Finals MVP with ridiculous stats. Most clutch player in this decade also. Kobe is clearly the player of this decade. lol off the court? i guess we're just blocking out that whole colorado thing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Penny Posted September 14, 2009 Report Share Posted September 14, 2009 lol off the court? i guess we're just blocking out that whole colorado thingif off the court actions count too then shaq defiatenly cant win either. duncan would be the clear winner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicbalala245 Posted September 14, 2009 Report Share Posted September 14, 2009 lol off the court? i guess we're just blocking out that whole colorado thing As I far as I am concern Kobe has gotten rid of that image with the Colorado thing and now sells perhaps the most product behind LeBron James Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Check my Stats Posted September 14, 2009 Report Share Posted September 14, 2009 As much as I hate Kobe nutriders he has been the most dominant player this decade no doubt IMO. Duncan may have more team awards and stuff like that but no one has dominated like Kobe has. Every year he has been probably the best player in the league since 2000. Guys like Duncan and Shaq aren't as dominant these past couple years while Kobe is still probably the best player in the league, though that is debatable now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Wolf Posted September 14, 2009 Report Share Posted September 14, 2009 (edited) In terms of years, Snake, it's zero. You can't have one year without having 12 months first. You're wrong again. Reminds me of the whole millennium deal. Any who... Oridinal:2001–2010 as the current decade Cardinal:2000-2009 as the current decade Edited September 14, 2009 by Lone Wolf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldChili Posted September 15, 2009 Report Share Posted September 15, 2009 Vince Carter, I don't see how this can be debated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingfish Posted September 15, 2009 Report Share Posted September 15, 2009 Vince Carter, I don't see how this can be debated.Huh what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldChili Posted September 15, 2009 Report Share Posted September 15, 2009 Huh what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YugoRocketsFan Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 *sigh* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s.t.a.t. Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 Kevin Garnett :glasses: 2008 Championship2004 MVP2008 DPOY12 time allstar9 time all NBA selection10 time all defensive4-time NBA regular-season leader, rebounds per gameOnly player in history to average at least 20 points, 10 rebounds, and 4 assists per game for 9 consecutive seasons Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bravenewworld Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 Shaq. 4 titles, two different teams, he affects the league no matter where he goes and automatically turns teams into contenders (as long as he stays healthy). Shaq is the reason that Kobe has 3 rings (before this past season) and the reason Wade has one. He is also one of the most marketable and likable people associated with the NBA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owner Real Deal Posted September 16, 2009 Owner Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 Shaq. 4 titles, two different teams, he affects the league no matter where he goes and automatically turns teams into contenders (as long as he stays healthy). Shaq is the reason that Kobe has 3 rings (before this past season) and the reason Wade has one. He is also one of the most marketable and likable people associated with the NBA.When were the Suns contenders with Shaq? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headliner Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 Vince Carter, I don't see how this can be debated.Clearly you’re blind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWaLL Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 Clearly you’re blindClearly you don't know a joke when you see one. 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.