As we rapidly approach the end of another year (and decade), it's time to look back on 2009 and celebrate greatness. Obviously, the Lakers winning their 15th championship was the highlight of my sports year, but the Giants becoming relevant again (not to mention Lincecum's back-to-back Cy's and the emergence of Pandoval) was a much-appreciated surprise. Needless to say, I'm looking for the Lakers to repeat in '10 and for the Giants to take that next step and make it into the postseason.
But enough on looking ahead. The point of this post is to voice my retort to one of the most inane sports proclamations in recent memory— The Sporting News naming the San Antonio Spurs as team of the decade for the 2000's. Now, one might do a lot of research and recite facts from all parts of the relevancy spectrum (winning percentage, home record, playoff wins, heck—even All-Star appearances) to make a case for the Spurs. But the fact remains that 4 IS MORE THAN 3!
You could talk about consistency (wins per year or active playoff streaks) or maybe you just like the simplicity of their black and white uniforms, but in what universe do championships take a back seat to anything? The Lakers are the team of the decade because they were the Last Team Standing in 4 different years, while the venerable Spurs were the LST 3 times. Look, Duncan is an all-time great, and HE has 4 rings, but the '99 one doesn't count toward this decade, okay?
Now I could bring up the disparity in conference titles (6 to 3) for the decade, but that would only be important as a tiebreaker. For instance, the Yankees must be considered the MLB team of the last decade. Like the Boston Red Sox, the Yankees won 2 titles. But unlike their historic rivals, the Bronx Bombers also had 2 additional league titles ('01 and '03)--which is, or at least should be, the trump card.
Because San Antonio didn't even make it to the Finals last year, the Lakers were already the team of the decade BEFORE the Finals even started. Winning another championship just made them a more obvious choice—or should have anyway.
John Schuerholz, Atlanta Braves President, once claimed that his team should have been called the team of '90s—unless one was counting championships. Frickin' hilarious. The ability to choke in the postseason is not a good thing. YOU won 1 championship, the Yankees won 3—do I need to go on? Perhaps there are some Buffalo Bills fans who are still confused?
Look, clearly I'm biased* as a die-hard Laker fan. But even though the team I root for has far more regular season and playoff wins—not to mention conference championships—than the Boston Celtics, I would not begin to pretend that 15 is more than 17. There's still work to be done to be called best team ever. And there's a reason the Purple and Gold only have 15 banners hanging in Staples. They get it. It's just too bad that a national magazine like The Sporting News doesn't.
* (If you haven't been following the Shannon Brown, take a look at this and tell me you don't want the little dude in the Slam Dunk contest.)
Can't argue with that. Championships are all that matter.
ReplyDeleteExept for Lions fans, we just use football as a sort of time-landmark based on the starting qb much like the Chinese calender. Year of Chuck Long, Year of Andre Ware, Year of Rodney Pete, Year of Bob Gagliano, Year of Eric Hipple, Year of Eric Kramer, Year of John Kitna, Year of Dan Orlovsky, Year of Dante Culpepper. . . .