Best Team of the Decade: 2000-2010?

The Spurs won 3 titles during this decade, not 4.

You're right, got my list confused when I wrote it down.

Actually scratch that, you're wrong. With the way the seasons run, and the length of them etc in the last 10 years (when you go from the 1998-1999 season to 2008-2009) there's been 11 seasons, so the Spurs have won four championships in the last decade.

Counting 1998-1999 makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, as that year was in no part during this decade. This window must either be 99/00-08/09 or 00/01-09/10. 10 seasons = 10 years; 10 years = 1 decade

i would assume 2010 to be the beginning of the next decade

Indeed, the same way the decade of the 90s runs from 1990 through 1999. The "zero" decade runs from 2000-2009 and next year we'll be into a new decade.

The Spurs won 3 titles during this decade, not 4.

You're right, got my list confused when I wrote it down.

Actually scratch that, you're wrong. With the way the seasons run, and the length of them etc in the last 10 years (when you go from the 1998-1999 season to 2008-2009) there's been 11 seasons, so the Spurs have won four championships in the last decade.

Counting 1998-1999 makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, as that year was in no part during this decade. This window must either be 99/00-08/09 or 00/01-09/10. 10 seasons = 10 years; 10 years = 1 decade

Yeah I get that from reading the subject title, but I still see no point in doing it 2000-2010, because the 09/10 season hasn't even started. I have to admit I just read "best team of the decade" and ignored the year listed next to it, now that I read it it still seems stupid.

I suppose the title should actually be "Best Team of the Decade: 2000-2009".

Lakers, Spurs, Pistons

Why do so few people read the first post or topic title when adding to a thread.
Best Team of the Decade: 2000-2010?

I won't rant about it but I don't understand picking a "team of the decade" including a year we haven't had yet. What if the Spurs win a title in 2010? It changes the entire argument.

Yes, or the Lakers could win it again, seeing as how they've had two straight Finals appearances and won it this year.

But since we won't know yet, let's just stick to the topic and first post.

Factors include consistency, titles, finals appearances, head-to-head matchups, etc.

Now, Jae, I have to pick on you because you seem to have an unwavering support of the Spurs. Let's look at what you wrote.

Titles:

Lakers - 4
Spurs - 4
Pistons - 1
Mavericks - 0
Suns - 0

Play-off appearances:

Lakers - 10
Spurs - 11
Pistons - 10
Mavericks - 9
Suns - 8

I'd give it to the Spurs overall.

Wow, a remarkable 11 PLAYOFF appearances for the Spurs. Seeing as how a decade is only ten years, and we haven't even played the final year, the Spurs really are out of this world. And playoff appearances instead of finals appearances? I guess you really value playoffs more than just finals.

But head-to-head, the Lakers were the better team and also had a threepeat to begin the decade. It's a very close race though.

Only by 3 games, and those are play-off games. The Spurs are 23-18 against the Lakers in regular season.

Oh but wait, now suddenly playoffs aren't that important. It comes down to regular season head to head? hmm....

I think what puts the Spurs over the top for me is that they don't have a blight on their record in the last decade like the Lakers did after the Shaq trade where they missed the play-offs, and the two seasons after that when they were knocked out in the first round.

This is an interesting comparison, total regular season records for the last decade (11 seasons)...

Lakers: 561 - 309
Spurs: 613 - 257

The Spurs (in the last decade) have never finished lower than 2nd in their division, which is pretty insane when you think about the fact that they're in the Southwest with Houston and Dallas. I've developed a lot more respect for the Spurs since I started looking into this stuff for the thread.

The Spurs won 3 titles during this decade, not 4.

You're right, got my list confused when I wrote it down.

Actually scratch that, you're wrong. With the way the seasons run, and the length of them etc in the last 10 years (when you go from the 1998-1999 season to 2008-2009) there's been 11 seasons, so the Spurs have won four championships in the last decade.

Counting 1998-1999 makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, as that year was in no part during this decade. This window must either be 99/00-08/09 or 00/01-09/10. 10 seasons = 10 years; 10 years = 1 decade

Yeah I get that from reading the subject title, but I still see no point in doing it 2000-2010, because the 09/10 season hasn't even started. I have to admit I just read "best team of the decade" and ignored the year listed next to it, now that I read it it still seems stupid.

Not only is the math wrong, but you defend it even after someone calls you on it. And you call it stupid?

You emphasize total regular season win-loss records over ten years, but you leave out their year-by-year records? You include total playoff records, but you leave out finals records or the year that the Lakers went 15-1 in the playoffs? And you extend a decade to cover 11 years so you can include the Spurs 98-99 shortened 50-game lockout season championship?

As for the consistency of the Spurs, I have to agree with that. They are a consistently strong team, seeing as how they've managed to keep the same head coach and core group of players. But the Lakers have 4 championships to the Spurs 3.

I think it's best to agree to disagree. I don't disrespect your opinion. But when you start manipulating stats to favour the Spurs and changing the definition of decade, I think you've gone too far. Some people think the Spurs are better. Some think the Lakers are better. You like the Spurs. We get it. We don't need it shoved down our throats.

Last I knew, Jae's a Lakers fan.

Last edited by benji on Wed Jul 01, 2009 8:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

How about the worst teams of decades? Anyone care to make a thread on that? Rofl...

Probably would be these:
ATL: 302-518
CHA: 144-266
CHI: 317-503
LAC: 306-514
MEM: 308-512
GSW: 319-501

I go for Clippers!

I think the concept of a non-homer Lakers fan is too much for some people to comprehend, that concept should gradually be revealed to avoid mental overload.

seems like it's been a frustrating decade for Andrew and Air Gordon. :S

And since when did you become a 76ers fan, shadow? i hope to see them getting crashed by heat next year.

You thought I was a Heat fan? Hell no, I only supported the greatness that is Joel Anthony.

76ers w/o Brand > Heat w/o Jermaine
76ers w/o Brand > Heat w/ Jermaine

What's there to discuss?

Why do so few people read the first post or topic title when adding to a thread.

You're right, as an admin I personally should never make such mistakes. It is far worse than making blind assumptions about people based on smug disagreement of their opinion. I personally don't know anyone who does this, do you?

Now, Jae, I have to pick on you because you seem to have an unwavering support of the Spurs. Let's look at what you wrote.

You're right, I'm so biased. I can't believe I let my blind love for the Spurs overtake my logical and rational thinking. I'm deeply sorry.

Wow, a remarkable 11 PLAYOFF appearances for the Spurs. Seeing as how a decade is only ten years, and we haven't even played the final year, the Spurs really are out of this world. And playoff appearances instead of finals appearances? I guess you really value playoffs more than just finals.

I know, it was just that awful man crush I have on Tim Duncan influencing me again. I can't control it, I think about it in my sleep and it's really beginning to affect my performance.

Oh but wait, now suddenly playoffs aren't that important. It comes down to regular season head to head? hmm....

Oh god, the evidence mounts up. I just can't hide it anymore.

Not only is the math wrong, but you defend it even after someone calls you on it. And you call it stupid?

I know! What is wrong with me? I clearly am the stupid one here.

I think it's best to agree to disagree. I don't disrespect your opinion. But when you start manipulating stats to favour the Spurs and changing the definition of decade, I think you've gone too far. Some people think the Spurs are better. Some think the Lakers are better. You like the Spurs. We get it. We don't need it shoved down our throats.

I've seen the light, how can I possibly stop doing this to people? Shoving the Spurs down everyones throats, it's like I am the most biased fan on this website and all I do is berate people into believing my beloved San Antonio Spurs are the best team in the history of anything, or manipulating my insane statistics like I did. I mean they are entirely accurate and nothing about them has been twisted or changed but that is besides the point because I'm too much of a Spurs homer to even realize my mistake. Popovich for HoF, DUNCAN FOR PRESIDENT!! OMG I can't stop, help.

Oh yeah, I'm a Lakers fan. It's called having an objective and un-biased viewpoint, you may want to try it.

DUNCAN FOR PRESIDENT!!

Look, goosebumps.

Actually scratch that, you're wrong. With the way the seasons run, and the length of them etc in the last 10 years (when you go from the 1998-1999 season to 2008-2009) there's been 11 seasons, so the Spurs have won four championships in the last decade.

Still not man enough to correct this? Or would you rather continue with your hissyfit? hahaha

What on Earth

I have to admit I just read "best team of the decade" and ignored the year listed next to it

What was that about reading threads before responding?

What on Earth

I have to admit I just read "best team of the decade" and ignored the year listed next to it

What was that about reading threads before responding?

And how many years are in a decade, Jae?

I think you should "be a man" and admit you were wrong about me not admitting that I was.

You still think that there are 11 seasons in a decade. You haven't corrected that.

By the way, here's a link to a topic you locked recently.

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=67385&p=1070511

The person who created the topic is asking for the best single-year team of the decade, whereas this thread is about the organization with the best teams for the entire decade. Example: That thread wants to discuss whether the '04 Pistons are better than the '01 Lakers. This thread is discussing whether the Lakers have had more success than the Pistons from 2000 to 2010.

I'm sorry can you save me some time and just find where abouts you are in here:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=23020

Edit: I should say, apologies to Lamrock because I was wrong... but I am going to find out who you are raptorsdynasty, your IP looks very familiar.

My money is on Dweeber.

Raptors ==> Canada ==> Legend.


at 8-Hype's "tribute". There are even quotes.

seems like it's been a frustrating decade for Andrew and Air Gordon. :S

Pretty much, with some better times beginning in the 2004/2005 season.

Raptors ==> Canada ==> Legend.

Jae & him got along though. I think Legend would bait me more than Jae. Dweeber on the other hand...

Who knows, I have my suspicions but it seems I've pissed alot of people off over the years so they are numerous his email is thisemailisfake2002*yahoo.co.uk, which makes me even more sus.