As the decade is coming to a close it is time to ask the all important question…who is the team of the decade? Looking at the NBA’s history, almost each decade can be defined by a team. In the 50’s it was the Minneapolis Lakers led by the NBA’s first great big man, George Mikan who dominated, winning four championships of the ten. The 60’s were clearly the Celtics decade. Bill Russell, Bob Cousy and Red Auerbach dominated the decade winning nine of the ten titles to be had, in what still is the most impressive run in NBA history.
The 70’s was one of the few decades which cannot clearly be defined. The Bullets first of Baltimore then of Washington appeared in the Finals four times, but only won one championship. The Lakers went to the Finals three times, winning one championship but did not make it to the Finals after 1973. The only teams to win multiple titles were the Boston Celtics and New York Knicks. The Celtics won in ’74 and ’76. The Knicks were “the team” in the early 70’s winning twice and making three Finals trips all by 1973, but nothing after. If I had to choose I’d go with the Bullets who saw success spread throughout the entire decade.
The 80’s were the Lakers decade. Eight trips to the Finals and five championships were captured by the show time Lakers behind Magic and Kareem. The 90’s were the year of air. Air Jordan that is. Jordan and his Bulls won six championships, the second most in any decade. They won each time they appeared in the Finals and potentially the only thing that kept them from winning eight straight was Jordan’s short dabble with baseball which wasn’t so pretty.
So now the question comes around to this decade…the 2000’s err the 00’s? Not sure what you call it, but the decade from 2000-09. When talking about this decade the debate can only come down to two teams…the Los Angeles Lakers and the San Antonio Spurs. The thing that separates this decade for me aside from the others is that I lived it. I saw all the Finals and am don’t have to make my judgments off the ESPN Classic games I’ve seen and the Wikipedia list of champions. I have the luxury this decade of taking into account the regular seasons, something I didn’t have the luxury of in any decade after 1994.
When debating who would be considered the team of this decade, two fundamental debates form. Is it harder to sustain success, or taste success, tear it down and then rebuild back to championship form?
Both teams are the result of their superstars. Kobe Bryant of the Los Angeles Lakers and Tim Duncan of the San Antonio Spurs. This decade either Duncan or Kobe played in the NBA Finals in all but one year, 2006.
The Spurs
The ever consistent Tim Duncan led his Spurs in the same way he handles his career: umm well…consistent. The Spurs have been the model of steadiness. They’ve surrounded Duncan with players who have complimented him perfectly, Tony Parker and Manu Ginoboli. Parker and Ginobili were both fully capable of taking over a game if and when the time was needed and Duncan was professional and unselfish enough to allow them to. Each year from 2000 to 2009 the Spurs were automatically penciled in as a contender to win the NBA Championship just because #21 was suiting up. Reading the Spurs win totals from 2000, you get a clear idea of how consistent they were: 58, 58, 60, 57, 59, 63, 58, 56, and 54.
They have had consistent coaching, all of this success coming under the watch of Greg Popovich. Even their approach to their team building has been consistent. Trying to surround their core (Duncan, Ginobili, Parker) with proven veteran winners and low ego role players. Robert Horry, Brent Barry, Kurt Thomas, Michael Finley, Malik Rose etc. Their one opportunity to be inconsistent and make a splash was again handled with consistency when the Spurs balked at signing Jason Kidd instead sticking with their up and coming point guard, Tony Parker, to run their team.
In the playoffs the Spurs have had their presence felt. They’ve won three NBA championships in all three of their finals trips, in ’03, ’05, and ’07. They advanced to the Western Conference Final twice in ’01 and ’08. Perhaps their only blemish in their case against the Lakers is the fact that in those two WCF, it was the Lakers who denied the Spurs their trip to the Finals.
The Lakers
The Lakers’ success this decade came in a different manner. The only constant throughout the entire decade has been Bryant.
In the early part of the decade, Bryant along with Shaquille O’Neal and Phil Jackson had arguably one of the most dominating runs in NBA history. They won the Finals in ’00 in six games against the Indiana Pacers, in ’01 taking five games to dispose of the Allen Iverson led Philadelphia 76ers and in ’02 made quick work of the upstart Nets, sweeping them on way to their second three peat and fancy leather jackets. Things were good in Lakerland and they’d win on forever, right?
Wrong. Just when you thought the Lakers would continue to dominate and win forever, things slowly began crumbling. Questionable conditioning habits by O’Neal combined with a growing ego of Bryant led to a public feud and possibly that feud spilled into on court performance, as they were dethroned in 2003 by the Spurs in six games (the only time the Spurs beat the Lakers in postseason play in decade). The Lakers in a last ditch effort try to re-capture their glory in 2004 surrounded Bryant and Shaq with Hall of Famers searching for a ring, Karl Malone and Gary Payton. The Lakers advanced to the Finals, beating the Spurs on their way there by a miracle shot by Derek Fisher, however, the team of assembled stars could not beat a cohesive Detroit Pistons team and lost in five games.
The Lakers were at a cross road and needed to keep just one of their two star attack. Deciding to go with the younger and perhaps more motivated of the two, the Lakers pinned their hopes of their future on Kobe and traded Shaq for among other players, Lamar Odom.
Legendary coach Phil Jackson was at his wits end and walked away from the team, as well as documenting the Kobe/Shaq feud in a book, The Last Season. It was during this time that the Lakers have their biggest blemish to being considered the team of the decade. In the years spanning 05-07 the Lakers put up win totals of 34, 45, and 42. They missed the playoffs in ’05 and were eliminated in the first round in both ’06 and ’07. It was also during this time that the leadership of Kobe Bryant was coming into serious question.
Beside off the court legal troubles, Bryant was being hailed as a selfish superstar, only being concerned with his own personal statistics and sacrificing team success for his own. This was never more apparent than in 2006 when Kobe Bryant went off for 81 points in a single game against the Toronto Raptors. This was the second most points scored in an NBA game and was a perfect example of Bryant’s accomplishments trumping the team’s as his Lakers were only able to manage just a 7th seed in the playoffs and a first round loss to the Suns.
After those three disappointing seasons, the Lakers kept adding pieces and in 2008 were able to shrewdly trade for Pau Gasol to add to their already talented team surrounding Bryant. Gasol was just what the Lakers needed to run their vaunted triangle offense and the result was another run to the NBA Finals. The favorites coming into the finals, the Lakers simply couldn’t match the energy of the Boston Celtics and bowed out in six games.
To close out the decade in 2009 the Lakers perhaps being fueled by their defeat in the previous year’s final had a remarkable regular season winning 65 games. In the playoffs the Lakers advanced to the Finals, their 6th trip of the decade and this time they were the one’s celebrating winning the title, their fourth of the decade in five games over the Orlando Magic.
Welp..Who is better?
So those are the facts. The Lakers rise, fall, and rise again to the tune of four NBA Championships and six Finals appearances vs. the Spurs steady and even automatic, mail it in 50 win seasons, oh and three NBA Championships. Question is what does one value, consistency or redemption? The ability to sustain success or the ability to rebuild it? Do you value head to head matchups? If so then you may lean towards the Lakers, who own a 4-1 advantage over the Spurs in post season play. Or do you value, steady, almost militant like production? If so then you may lean in the Spurs direction, which have players with clear defined roles (soldiers) to follow their leaders Duncan and Popovich (generals). Do you value star power and interesting storyline? If so then the Lakers would probably be your choice, being that Kobe Bryant is one of the most polarizing figures in sports history. Or do you value true professionals in every sense of the word? If that’s the case then you sure to pick the Spurs who haven’t had a dark cloud in since the drafting of Tim Duncan.
In 25 years if some blogger was going to reopen up this very debate for two other teams in an entire different decade they may take the same approach I did. Use what they know of the past and open up the year by year list of NBA Champions. Doing that, they would probably choose the Lakers who won four championships and went to the Finals in all but four years.
Like I said though, I had the benefit of watching these teams and regular seasons play out. Having seen that, it’s hard for me not to choose the San Antonio Spurs as the team of the decade. Every year I’m invariably asked by someone, be it a friend, co-worker, or family who I think is going to win the NBA Championship. And every year since 2003 I have always said, representing the west will be the Spurs. And while they haven’t had to blow up the team entirely like the Lakers have…they have won champions with different role players each time. The real reason though I chose the Spurs as the team of the decade and this can be argued to a certain extent, but the real reason is this: If you were to ask a GM, What team are you trying to model your franchise after? I’d bet my money they’d say the San Antonio Spurs. It’s that fact that I choose the Spurs as the team of 2000-2009.