Baseline Cut's

The Team of the ’00’s: The San Antonio Spurs… An openly biased argument. June 29, 2009

Written by TBF

Hello. How about that drive in? Guess that’s why they call it Sin City… Sorry I’ve been waiting for ages to use that in a truly public setting. If you haven’t seen it already, go and see “The Hangover” to get what I mean.

Each decade you can pretty much pinpoint a team that’s head and shoulders above the rest. In the 80’s it was the Lakers and their “Showtime” brand of basketball. In the 90’s it was Jordan’s Bulls that possessed the greatest player and greatest coach in modern history (ever?) wowing fans every night and re-inventing basketball as we know it.

In the 00’s however, the situation is not so easy. There are clearly two teams that stick out above the others, the Spurs and the Lakers, but separating the two is no trivial matter. Well, that is until you dig a little bit deeper, start analysing the finer points, and be a little more.… Well… Biased!!! The truth is these two teams are inseparable depending on which angle you come from BUT I’m a Spurs fan, I’m looking from a Spurs angle, and here’s why my team is better.

Kobe and Duncan crossed paths almost every year in the '00's. If they didn't, one of the teams still went to the Western Conference Finals.

Sheer winning percentage

When you talk about the winningest teams, the name that automatically springs to mind is the Spurs. They’re there, every year, every season, without fail. Over the past 9 seasons encompassing the 00’s, the Spurs ARE the winningest team in the NBA with an impressive 576 – 244 win/loss record (.702). The Lakers of the 80’s had a winning record of 531 – 207 (.719) while the Bulls of the 90’s had a winning record of 503 – 203 (.712). This places the Spurs in pretty elite company with a win/loss record over 70% for a decade. Can the ’00 Lakers boast a similar feat? No, they come in at 64%. This poor showing by the Lakers brings me to my next point.

Consistency, consistency, consistency…

Speaking of consistency - Duncan's 15 foot bank shot was a headache for the Lakers throughout the '00's with/without Shaq

People like to say the Spurs are a boring team to watch. Sure, if you get sick of watching a team constantly win easily, methodically, and barely ever look stressed. Seriously though, in the Spurs past 10 seasons they’ve made the playoffs every time. The Lakers have only missed once, but they’ve also been the 8^th seed twice. The Spurs have never been lower than 5^th seed, and have made the NBA finals 3 times. At this point the Laker fans are yelling “Hah!!! But we made the finals 6 times, so ner!!” That’s all lovely and good, but when the Spurs make the Finals they win 100% of the time, the Lakers on the other hand, win 66% of the time. Also add to that 50+ win seasons – the Spurs are, once again, a perfect 100% on 50+ win seasons whereas the Lakers are 70%. They may have more titles but have hardly been a team that you can constantly say “are a Championship team.”

Luxury Tax

The Lakers are the owners of arguably the best area code when it comes to luring in talent. They’re a huge market, have celebs a plenty attending their matches, and there are certain “financial benefits” to playing in a big city (e.g. endorsements).This has meant the Lakers have always lured in the “big names” at free agent/trade time. Whether it’s because the NBA is corrupt and makes sure the biggest market can win, or whether it’s the Lakers owners’ constant willingness to go over the luxury tax threshold, the Lakers keep reeling in the big names. O’Neal. Malone. Payton. Grant. Odom. Gasol. Couple that with Kobe Bryant and you’re almost playing unfairly. In fact, you are playing unfairly. If you look at the Lakers team of the 00’s they’re always over the luxury tax threshold which is essentially another way of saying “cheating” except your owner pays for it. The Spurs on the other hand have never flirted with the luxury tax mark, making smart trades and key acquisitions to ensure the line isn’t broken. If the Spurs did do that then who knows who else they could have had on the roster the years they just missed the finals; Maggette, Carter, McGrady, Allen, Iverson etc. All things being equal, which they never are with the Lakers, this makes the Spurs a better team on par.

One-dimensionality

The Lakers have shown their one-dimensionality all too often as eluded too by the above topic of tax. If the Lakers “stars” aren’t healthy and producing then the Lakers don’t win. The Spurs on the other hand are a true “team” in that Tim Duncan can go down and the Spurs are still a shot at winning. The 2005 Spurs lost Duncan for the final part of the season, and again in the West semi-finals only to bounce back and win the whole thing. I think this is the final point that proves the Spurs are the TEAM of the 00’s whereas the Lakers are the “chequebook” of the 00’s. No Kobe (since Shaq left), No Shaq (when he was there), No way.

Something the Lakers only do if they're losing - the Spurs of the '00's had so many ways to beat you the bench often contained their starting 5

The Spurs truly are a team that this past decade could never be written off. Even just last season in 2007 no one expected them to make the second round of the playoffs, let alone the conference finals, yet they did and did so pushing the Lakers (who’d only recently got the chequebook out AGAIN to get in Pau Gasol in a rip-off that screamed “NBA tampering” to have a Lakers-Celtics finals) to 6 games with 10 healthy players. Yep if you look back at the 00’s you’ll definitely say Kobe and Shaq were awesome, but you’ll still be left saying “but you never could go past those Spurs.” That’s why they were the team of the 00’s and will remembered as such.