Best Team of the Decade: 2000-2010?

[Mayerhendrix]

This grew mainly out of a debate I was having with a friend, and I just had to take it here to get a wider perspective on it. Which team would you qualify as the most accomplished and talented of the decade? Factors include consistency, titles, finals appearances, head-to-head matchups, etc.

I personally think it comes down to a debate between the Spurs, Lakers, Mavericks, Suns, and Pistons...without the last three having much comparison to the first two.

[Andrew]

I think it has to be between the Lakers and Spurs. The Mavericks have an impressive streak of 50 win seasons and they've had a couple of good playoff runs including the Finals appearance in 2006, but without a title it's difficult to place them atop everyone else for the decade. Similar deal with the Suns, sans the Finals appearance and the same amount of consecutive 50 win seasons. The Pistons would have to stand above them thanks to all the appearances in the Conference Finals, the two Finals appearances, the lone title and a few 50 win seasons but as they trail the Lakers and Spurs in championships, I'd place them at third behind those two.

Which brings us back to Lakers vs Spurs. The Spurs have consistently been a contender for the last ten years though there have been a couple of first round exits, in large part due to injuries. However, while their three titles and overall win-loss record in the decade is impressive, they have also fallen to the Lakers in the Playoffs on four occasions. The Lakers for their part have had a losing season, first round exits and losses in the NBA Finals (compared to San Antonio's three-for-three in the decade) but they've also had very dominant seasons, six Finals appearances and four titles to show for it. I have to give the nod to the Lakers.

And if those are the top five - and I'd agree that they are - I'd have to rank them as such:

1. Lakers
2. Spurs
3. Pistons
4. Mavericks
5. Suns

[J@3]

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.

[Lamrock]

I would probably slot the Kings in 5th place over the Suns. The Spurs won 3 titles during this decade, not 4. I would probably give them the nod though. The Lakers were terrible for 3 years while San Antonio always made the playoffs and only lost in the first round those two times due to injuries.

[Rip32]

would anyone consider the Nets as a 6th or 7th team? I mean, those 5 teams are all for sure, but the nets had quite the run early in the decade and they kept it good until 08. 6 playoff appearances to go with 2 final appearances.

[J@3]

I would probably slot the Kings in 5th place over the Suns. The Spurs won 3 titles during this decade, not 4.

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

[Andrew]

The Spurs have an excellent case and I wouldn't fault anyone for picking them as the top team over the past ten years. 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.

would anyone consider the Nets as a 6th or 7th team? I mean, those 5 teams are all for sure, but the nets had quite the run early in the decade and they kept it good until 08. 6 playoff appearances to go with 2 final appearances.

I think you've got to put them somewhere in the top ten.

[Moz]

Between the Lakers and the Spurs... I'd say the Spurs. Their lineup is much intact for the past years compared to that of the Lakers.

[J@3]

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.

[Andrew]

True, but the Lakers have appeared in more than half of the Finals series in the past ten years and picked up the most titles (admittedly by the close count of 4-3) during that span. It doesn't quite match what they did in the 80s but it makes a pretty strong claim for being the team of this decade.

[jonthefon]

My list would be: Spurs (prolonged success, the Lakers had one poor season and a couple of mediocre others), Lakers, Mavs, Pistons, Kings, Nets, Pacers, and so on.

What about single-season teams?

Any of those Lakers and Spurs championship teams were great, but I'd say 2000-2001 Lakers and the 2002-2003 Spurs were the best out of them. The 2001-2002 Sacramento Kings deserve a mention. A lot of good teams were bridesmaids or didn't get it done in the playoffs (*cough* 06-07 Mavs *cough*).

As for most exciting teams, I'd push it around with the 02-03 Mavs, the second-half 06-07 Warriors, any of the SSOL Suns teams before Shaq and maybe a couple of the Kings teams (who were just the best passers around).

[J@3]

True, but the Lakers have appeared in more than half of the Finals series in the past ten years and picked up the most titles (admittedly by the close count of 4-3) during that span. It doesn't quite match what they did in the 80s but it makes a pretty strong claim for being the team of this decade.

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.

[J@3]

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.

[Martti.]

I'd say the Spurs. Titles in '03, '05, '07, all seasons with 54+ wins.

[Mayerhendrix]

would anyone consider the Nets as a 6th or 7th team? I mean, those 5 teams are all for sure, but the nets had quite the run early in the decade and they kept it good until 08. 6 playoff appearances to go with 2 final appearances.

Past the top 7-8 teams, there's about another 10-15 more who had a tremendous peak and a major fall in the past decade. Teams like NJ, Indiana, Utah, Miami, Cleveland, and Boston all come into play here. It's hard to distinguish between all of those because their records are equally inconsistent in that regard. And then you get to the teams that have just consistently sucked -- think Charlotte, Toronto, LA (Clips), Golden State, Milwaukee, and [until just recently] Atlanta and Portland, even. So the farther you go in trying to rank all the teams, the more difficult it becomes.

[Andrew]

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.

Quite true, and it's difficult to argue with the figures you posted. I guess I am getting hung up on championships and Finals appearances a bit, but then I think back to the 80s which I think we can acknowledge "belonged" to the Lakers and Celtics, since at least one of them was involved in the championship series every year from 1980 to 1989, three times they were both there and they combined for eight of the ten titles won during that span. I know there's more to it than that with regular season records and playoff standings in the years they didn't reach the Finals but I still feel it's an impressive feat to appear in six Finals in a decade, with four titles to boot.

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.

It depends how you word it. If you're just talking about this decade, then the span of ten years only covers 2000-2009, which obviously leaves out 1999. Otherwise your calculation is spot on.

[Hedonist]

Kings #1. Before Bibby. Underdog-fetisjist reporting.

[NovU]

Maimi. We could have been a champion every year but we aren't selfish. We share.

Next best team? Are we talking about last 10 seasons or since 2000. Tough call between LA and Spurs either way I guess. I think Spurs has been solid being great, while LA has been just too damn dominating at times. But I guess with same number of rings, it comes down to the total wins/loss column.

[Andrew]

Are we talking about last 10 seasons or since 2000.

Either way it's the same thing.

1999/2000
2000/2001
2001/2002
2002/2003
2003/2004
2004/2005
2005/2006
2006/2007
2007/2008
2008/2009

That's ten seasons after all, spanning the entire "zero" decade.

[Lean]

Spurs for me. Pistons, maybe. But after a string of failing seasons, maybe just number four of the top five.

1. Spurs
2. Lakers
3. Mavericks
4. Pistons
5. Suns

[bestOFbest]

Lakers the best team from 2000
6 finals apperances (2000,2001,2002,2004,2008,2009) and four nba titles
so Lakers is the best right now

[Alejandrov011]

Spurs for me. Pistons, maybe. But after a string of failing seasons, maybe just number four of the top five.

1. Spurs
2. Lakers
3. Mavericks
4. Pistons
5. Suns

I should put the Pistons ahead the Mavericks. Phoenix until 2005 wasn't a great team. Maybe the 5th spot can be shared by Sacramento (Webber Divac years) and The Suns (2005-2008)

[J@3]

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.

[Sauru]

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

[Martti.]

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.

And it could easily happen, as Jefferson and Blair are now on board.