Team of the 2000s

[Gom]

Inquiring minds want to know- Why is it all about the rings?

 

I wouldn't expect a Red Sox fan to understand.

[Paradisecity]

No- I'm looking for a serious response- We have as many rings as you this decade, yes? (more, technically) Why is it all about the rings?

[TedWilliams101]

Here's one thing I've never understood, shouldn't the decade start at 0 (ie, 2000) and end at at 9 (2009)? Everything is based on base 10 numbers, which are 0-9, then start over with another place setting, thus 2000 is the next set, along with 2010, etc.

[Paradisecity]

that would mean that we had year zero.

[Keeper]

There was no team of the 2000s. IMO, you have to have some sort of dynasty to qualify. And two rings, as impressive as that is, isn't a dynasty. Probably splitting hairs here, but I firmly believe anything less than three rings isn't a dynasty.

[jacksonianmarch]

Well, technically, there should be a year zero. If we are to consider our calendar based on the birth of Jesus then theoretically, time should start after that with seconds to minutes to days, months to years. So theoretically, a year zero should have occured. But I dont think we did it that way to be honest with you.

[TedWilliams101]

that would mean that we had year zero.

 

From a number perspective, yeah. Everything starts with zero, and it's a real number. What was there before 1 AD? You can't jump from -1 AD to 1 AD, there has to be a number (0) in between. It would be like skipping 2000 and going straight from 1999 to 2001. As Jacksonian pointed out, the death of Jesus should have started at zero. When a baby is born, you don't call it 1 year old.