I think this conversation would be a lot more intetesting if you expanded the decade rosters out to 10-12 players thereby giving each team some versatility to deal with the different rule sets and style of play across eras.
For instance the 2010s team would much more competitive under 90s rules and style of play if they could sub in Chris Paul for Steph. Or the option to bring in Dwight Howard if theyre just getting killed down low. Likewise the 90s team playing in the 2010s might benefit by bringing in a Chris Mullin or Regge Miller to help spread the floor. Or if Stocktons lack of scoring becomes an issue they could bring in one of the Hardaways or a Kevin Johnson.
Also, consider what would happen if the 2010s team was playing under 70s rules without a 3pt line? That completely takes away their biggest advantage which is floor spacing.
When you consider style of play and rule set while expanding the rosters I think the 2000s has the best team. They have the most versatility, skill sets, and attributes to play across eras. Between guys like Ray Allen, Steve Nash, Kobe, and Dirk Nowitzki they have enough shooting to spread the floor against the 2010s team. Between, Shaq, Tim, and KG they have enough low post offense, defense, and rebounding to compete with the 90s and 80s teams under their rules. Between Kobe, DWade, TMac, Paul Pierce, Vince Carter...they have the most elite scoring, defense, and athleticism from the wing spots out of all decades.
And most imoprtantly the 2000s team has the most intangibles. They have the most clutch genes, championship dna, and mental fortitude out of all the other decades. When you look at guys like Kobe, Tim, Shaq, KG, Dirk, D Wade, Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Jason Kidd, Tony Parker, ect...these players are all as physically and mentally tough and solid as they come. No quitters, whiners, or excuse makers on this team. Contrast that with the 2010s team who are viewed as the weakest team both mentally and physically out of them all the decades.
