|
Post by Mavericks on Jun 27, 2009 19:41:16 GMT -5
I saw ESPN's power rankings of the best football teams of the decade but it got me thinking about which team is the best in sports over the decade.
For me its definitely between the Patriots and the Lakers. The Patriots have 3 superbowl wins and 4 appearances while the Lakers have 4 finals wins and 5 appearances. The Lakers have the Ring advantage but the Pats had an undefeated season which is unprecedented. The one thing the Lakers have over the Pats however is that they were able to win with a different set of players the 4th time. The Pats have yet to do that and I think as long as the Pats don't win the superbowl this year its safe to say the Lakers are the team of the decade.
|
|
|
Post by Americans on Jun 27, 2009 20:17:40 GMT -5
Detroit Red Wings..
|
|
Jazz
Journeyman
Posts: 153
|
Post by Jazz on Jun 27, 2009 22:32:48 GMT -5
What about the Chicago Bulls winning 6 in 8.
|
|
|
Post by Indiana on Jun 27, 2009 22:38:21 GMT -5
What about the Chicago Bulls winning 6 in 8. The 2000's decade.
|
|
Jazz
Journeyman
Posts: 153
|
Post by Jazz on Jun 27, 2009 22:39:57 GMT -5
ah damn I just was going of all times. I would say for the 2000 I would go either Redwings or Lakers.
|
|
|
Post by Americans on Jun 28, 2009 9:50:28 GMT -5
Redwings wouldn't count then, they won 2 before 2000 lol.. I'd have to go with the Patriots or Lakers then.
|
|
|
Post by Denver on Jun 28, 2009 12:14:33 GMT -5
Lakers. Not the Pats. If Lakers repeat, they can seal it up. If the Spurs win this next year though...then throw them in too.
|
|
Jazz
Journeyman
Posts: 153
|
Post by Jazz on Jun 28, 2009 14:46:02 GMT -5
Alright I would have to say the Pats. Because even though I don't care for them I still know they have been consistenly good borderline great over the decade.
|
|
|
Post by Braves on Jun 29, 2009 3:13:20 GMT -5
not the Pats. how CANT it be the Lakers? the 2 reasons provided in the 1st post is enough
|
|
|
Post by Hornets on Jun 29, 2009 5:11:26 GMT -5
pistons
|
|
|
Post by Bobcats on Jun 29, 2009 9:44:21 GMT -5
Its the Patriots proved by their 71% winning percentage inu the decade, further skewed by their 5-11 record in the first season of the decade. They haven't had less than 9 wins since then. The Lakers win percentage is 64%.
|
|
|
Post by Denver on Jun 29, 2009 14:39:35 GMT -5
The Pats also play 16 games a season. 16 x 9 seasons = 135 games. Lakers have played 738 games this decade. Even if you multiplied the impact of NFL games by 4 over the NBA games, the NBA's 64% win conversion still topples that of the Pats. Faulty reasoning, and kinda lame...I expected better.
|
|
|
Post by Mavericks on Jun 29, 2009 15:21:31 GMT -5
I think the Lakers and their 6 finals appearances give them the edge... but if the spurs win this upcoming year things will change haha
|
|
|
Post by Mavericks on Jun 29, 2009 15:22:30 GMT -5
Though actually the 2010 nba championship would be part of the next decade if you count the 2000 lakers championship as this decade
|
|
|
Post by Denver on Jun 29, 2009 16:23:17 GMT -5
You're right. I would have to give the Lakers the edge then.
|
|
|
Post by SuperSonics on Jun 29, 2009 19:34:19 GMT -5
I'd say that these ratings are stupid, because there's more than 4 sports in the world.
|
|
|
Post by lordbacon7 on Jun 29, 2009 22:07:35 GMT -5
ebl hornets get my vote
|
|