Jump to content




Photo

The complete and utter destruction of the value of the Celtics' Russell era titles


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Lakers_55

Lakers_55

    Lakers franchise > Celtics franchise

  • 1,401 posts
  • Joined: Jul 16, 2009
  • Location:Valley of the Sun
  • Fan Since:1967
  • Fav. Laker:Wilt Chamberlain

Posted March 14, 2010 - 04:15 AM

*
POPULAR

Those that know me here are aware I like to tout the fact that the Lakers are the best franchise in NBA history. My entire arguments are spread around in a few places. I'll link them up soon and get them in the hands of Celtics fans worldwide. No one has refuted anything I have posted, but tey sure try to dicredit me!

Anyway, I posted this back on January 26 at MSN FOX Sports, and the Celtics fans that replied received a nice beatdown. Particularly fun is the ownage I just put on one Celtics fan, Colorado Kobe (A hater with a user name and avatar demonstrating his fear, envy, and jealousy of the Lakers). He didn't reply to the thread, but I copied his rants from the main team pages.

It's all a long read, but worth every minute. Time to spread it more,. Every Boston Celtics fan needs to know about this!

Here's the link to the original thread, everything there appears in reverse order, lol.

http://community.fox...BA_history?pg=4

Here's my article, please let me know what you think:

This topic was started because of the ridiculous comments by Celtics fans to discredit the 5 titles the Lakers won while playing in Minneapolis all those years ago. The NBA itself says those titles belong to the Los Angeles Lakers franchise. So, in response, what’s fair is fair. I am going to destroy the value of the Bill Russell era titles. I will do it logically and factually. I also note that I have written many articles with examples why the Lakers are the NBA’s greatest franchise in spite of a small title deficit. No one has refuted them yet, although some have tried and failed. I’ll argue this any time someone wishes to. Much of what follows has been seen and pointed out to Celtics fans. The way I will present it makes it crystal clear.

The hypothesis is that early days of a sport will skew championship results until competition balances out. Historical evidence from various sports will be examined to determine if this hypothesis has merit and can therefore be applied to the NBA. A date to end the early years and start the modern era will also be logically be determined.

First, let’s get one thing out of the way. Even Celtics fans do not believe most NBA championships means being the best. This can be seen by these poll results:

Is Phil Jackson the greatest NBA coach of all time?
http://sports.espn.g...ba&pollId=72958
In Massachusetts, out of 543 votes, 56% chose Red Auerbach! Have a look around the other New England states. Just hover your mouse over individual states to see voting results.

Who is the best coach of all time in American Sports?
http://sports.espn.g...ba&pollId=73070

Clearly, these polls put Celtics fans in a quandary. They hate the idea of voting Phil as being a better coach than Red, but by selecting Red, they acknowledge that most NBA titles doesn’t mean being the best. I imagine when the Lakers have a title lead of 18-17, they will still be in denial of what I have already presented; the Lakers are the superior franchise.

Celtics fans are quick to point out they have the most titles, and like the Yankees of baseball and the Canadiens of Hockey, they are entitled to say since they have the most they are the best. Well, those latter two sports dynasties have pretty huge leads over the nearest competitor, yet the Celtics make their claim when it’s close, 17 to 15. One of the weakest arguments for Celtics supremacy is to simply rest on their 17 titles. This is known as “Cherry Picking”, where only the most favorable results are selected. Since Boston Celtics history beyond their titles is a complete disaster, I can understand this mentality. No Celtics fans wants to even be reminded of their dark years between their last two titles, 1986-2008. Boston missed the playoffs nine times including six in a row 1996-2001. It is precisely this 22 year drought that cost the Celtics top dog billing. All evidence points in that direction and it not refutable. Celtics fans have no answer for the logical statement that if good years count for a team, why shouldn’t bad years count against them. They don’t because they know it kills their case.

There is a perfect example how having the most titles doesn’t mean being the best. In college football, Princeton and Yale have the most national championships with 28 and 27 respectively!

http://en.wikipedia....ll_Championship

I am certain anyone can quickly name 10 schools that are greater than these two. So why don’t these larger numbers count and put Princeton and Yale over the top? Because everyone is going to agree these championships came in the early days of football. Most came before the year 1900.

So now, we have proof that most titles doesn’t mean best, and that the early years of a sport diminish the value of titles won. Let’s test this elsewhere.

The NFL doesn’t seem to have a single dominant champion in their early years, but they have two teams accounting for just over half the titles in the first 15 years. The Chicago Bears have 5 championships and the Green Bay Packers with 3 seems to be a little high and likely skewed just a bit. However, these teams are considered to be NFL champions even though the AFL, the Super Bowl, and the merger were years away. They had one final playoff, east versus west, to determine the champion.

http://en.wikipedia....f_NFL_champions

Major League Baseball. Let’s look at the National League. The St. Louis Cardinals have the most World Series wins at 10. However, the National League existed in 1876. The American league wasn’t considered major league until 1901, so there was no World Series. The team that became the Chicago Cubs, the Chicago White Stockings, won 6 of the first 11 National League championships. This makes them MLB champions, even though there was no World Series.

http://en.wikipedia....nners_1876-1968

Does anyone want to say that those 6 championships, plus the Cubs two in 1907-08, put them on the doorstep of the Cardinals? I don’t think so either. How about the Boston Red Caps/Beaneaters? They exist today as the Atlanta Braves. They won 8 National League championships in the 1800’s. Add those to their 3 World Series titles and they have 11 championships. Are Cardinals fans going to say they now are in second place in titles in the National League behind the Braves, and barely ahead of the Cubs? Again, I don’t think so either. There was no baseball playoff in the National league until 1969 when divisional play began. Before that if you came in first place in the National League, you were National League champion! Maybe Boston fans who wish to say the Minneapolis Lakers’ titles don’t belong to Los Angeles will now find a way to say they belong to the Boston Red Sox as they are the only team in Boston today, even though it’s the wrong league! What’s interesting about MLB is the number of early teams considered all time top ten. I found two lists. One has 3 teams, the other 5 that won the World Series before the New York Yankees won their first. Clearly the modern era begins in 1903 with the advent of the World Series.

http://baseball.suit...best_teams_ever
http://www.baseball-...eams_ever.shtml


So, we have two sports where having the most titles doesn’t mean being the best, and both involve the early days of the sport. One more example ought to be enough. I will use the game of chess. First, although the game of chess has been around for centuries, it’s rise to prominence didn’t occur until just before the America Civil war. An American named Paul Morphy took the world by storm as its greatest player, then quickly retired from the game. Although the World Chess Championship has seen its rules revised over the years in order to qualify to play the champion, the following three players, and their reigns, are universally accepted as world champions.

1) Wilhelm Steinitz, Austria 1866-1894. 28 years. Won 5 matches, lost 1.
2) Emmanuel Lasker, Germany 1894-1921 27 years won 5 matches, drew 1, lost 1.
3) Jose Raoul Capablanca, Cuba 1921-1927. Won 1 match, lost 1.

The lost matches by the players were to the new champion. Steinitz held the title the longest. According to the “most titles is best” theory, Steinitz is the best, and Capablanca comes in third. However, consensus among the leading chess authorities is that chess was evolving and each new champion was superior to the man he defeated. Capablanca, with his 1-1 match score over 6 years is the best player of the three.

So, let’s return to basketball. The first 20 plus years saw two dynasties, the Lakers winning 5 titles in 6 years and the Celtics winning 11 titles in 13 years. Everyone has seen the main arguments why it was easy to win a championship back then in an 8 team league if you had the best team. Win your conference, take a bye while the second and third place teams had a playoff. Then host the conference finals, and in the Celtics case, host the NBA finals.

So, where do we determine the early years of a league end? There is a historical precedent for when. It’s one that is universally agreed on by players, writers, and broadcasters. Cutting it off at the Bill Russell era seems a bit unfair. The ABA and NBA merger in 1976 is almost a perfect time to do it as all talent became consolidated into one league. However the one unifying point in time, referred to already, is the beginning of what is known as the Bird/Magic era which began in 1979. It is acknowledged that what they brought to the league not only saved it from going broke, it generated excitement to raise the level of play across the board.

Now to test 1979 as the beginning of the modern NBA a bit further. First, in 2004, the NBA ran a “Finals Challenge” pitting great teams from different eras against each other. The brackets can be seen here:

http://www.nba.com/p...ge_bracket.html

7 teams from the early years were seeded in and most were eliminated early. Now, let’s do a bit of arguing. Pit the 1980 Lakers against the 1987 Lakers. Or the 1994 Rockets against the 2003 Spurs. This can go on endlessly, and be lots of fun, but the point is, an argument exists in practically every case. Now, let’s take a few teams that didn’t win championships. From the 1990’s take the best teams from Portland, Seattle, New York, Phoenix, and Utah. Take Dallas or Indiana from the 2000’s. These teams are going to stomp all over Mikan’s Lakers and Russell’s Celtics. They would even win against the best teams from the 1970’s. If you don’t believe that just think of what the champions of the 1980’s to date could do to those early teams.

There is one other consistent to consider comparing the early NBA to the newer one. Just as Mikan’s Lakers dominated the earliest days, Red Auerbach’s Celtics teams did the same. Red had the best players, and was a great coach. Just a Mikan was ahead of his time, Red was a step or two up on his peers. Red transcended this into his tenure as Celtics GM, by putting together talent to keep winning in the 1970;s and 1980’s. When he stepped up to President and Chairman, his results fell off dramatically. You can’t blame the deaths of Len Bias and Reggie Lewis for this. The Lakes lost Magic Johnson to the HIV virus. If not for this, Magic’s Lakers still had a great chance of holding off Jordan’s Bulls. We will never know. However, in 5 years, the Lakers had begun rebuilding, acquiring both Shaq and Kobe. Now, back to Red. There are two choices. Red lost it upstairs, or the rest of the league’s GM’s caught up to him. Red did bypass his GM’s recommendation to draft Tony Parker of France in 2000 and ordered him to select Joe Forte (who?). Since Red was a constant presence, I doubt if he really became a failure. I think it’s safe to say the NBA caught up to him, and passed him.

Now, let’s compare the two generations, the early years against the modern era. Let’s start with the early years:
Celtics: 13 championships, 14 finals appearances, 6 seasons missed playoffs.
Lakers: 6 championships, 15 finals appearances, 3 seasons missed playoffs.
Only one team managed two titles in this era, the Philadelphia Warriors.

Let’s look how the Lakers and Celtics stack up in the early years over who finished better, season by season. The last number in parenthesis is given in terms of the Lakers lead over the Celtics. It ends in the Celtics favor. The other abbreviations are well-known to any NBA fan.

1948-49: Lakers: Won F; Celtics: Missed PO, Edge Lakers (1)
1949-50: Lakers: Won F; Celtics: Missed PO, Edge Lakers (2)
1950-51: Lakers: Lost WCF; Celtics: Lost QF, Edge Lakers (3)
1951-52: Lakers: Won F; Celtics: Lost ECSF, Edge Lakers (4)
1952-53: Lakers: Won F; Celtics: Lost ECF, Edge Lakers (5)
1953-54: Lakers: Won F; Celtics: Lost ECF, Edge Lakers (6)
1954-55: Lakers: Lost WCF; Celtics: Lost ECF, Edge Neither (6)
1955-56: Lakers: Lost WCSF; Celtics: Lost ECSF, Edge Neither (6)
1956-57: Lakers: Lost WCF; Celtics: Won F, Edge Celtics (5)
1957-58: Lakers: Missed PO; Celtics: Lost F, Edge Celtics (4)
1958-59: Lakers: Lost F; Celtics: Won F, Edge Celtics (3)
1959-60: Lakers: Lost WCF; Celtics: Won F, Edge Celtics (2)
1960-61: Lakers: Lost WCF; Celtics: Won F, Edge Celtics (1)
1961-62: Lakers: Lost F; Celtics: Won F, Edge Celtics (0)
1962-63: Lakers: Lost F; Celtics: Won F, Edge Celtics (-1)
1963-64: Lakers: Lost WCSF, Celtics: Won F, Edge Celtics (-2)
1964-65: Lakers: Lost F; Celtics: Won F, Edge Celtics (-3)
1965-66: Lakers: Lost F; Celtics: Won F, Edge Celtics (-4)
1966-67: Lakers: Lost WCSF; Celtics: Lost ECF, Edge Celtics (-5)
1967-68: Lakers: Lost F; Celtics: Won F, Edge Celtics (-6)
1968-69: Lakers: Lost F; Celtics: Won F, Edge Celtics (-7)
1969-70: Lakers: Lost F; Celtics: Missed PO, Edge Lakers (-6)
1970-71: Lakers: Lost WCF; Celtics: Missed PO, Edge Lakers (-5)
1971-72: Lakers: Won F; Celtics: Lost ECF, Edge Lakers (-4)
1972-73: Lakers: Lost F; Celtics: Lost ECF, Edge Lakers (-3)
1973-74: Lakers: Lost WCSF; Celtics: Won F, Edge Celtics (-4)
1974-75: Lakers: Missed PO; Celtics: Lost ECF, Edge Celtics (-5)
1975-76: Lakers: Missed PO; Celtics: Won F, Edge Celtics (-6)
1976-77: Lakers: Lost WCF; Celtics: Lost ECSF, Edge Lakers (-5)
1977-78: Lakers: Lost WC 1st Round; Celtics: Missed PO, Edge Lakers (-4)
1978-79: Lakers: Lost WCSF; Celtics: Missed PO, Edge Lakers (-3)

Edge Celtics 16-13-2

Tiebreaking the neutral years:
1954-55 Lakers 40-32, Celtics 36-36, Edge Lakers
1955-56 Lakers 32-39, Celtics 39-33, Edge Celtics

Edge Celtics 17-14

Here, the Celtics only have a 3 season lead over the Lakers, yet a 7 title edge. The main reason for this is the Russell dynasty lasted longer than the Mikan dynasty. Both however, are skewed results. Although the title count is what it is, the worth from those titles is practically meaningless. It has been proved these were the early years and the results are skewed.

Now, how do things stack up since the Bird/Magic era descended upon us?
Lakers: 9 titles, 15 finals appearances, 6 first round playoff losses, 2 seasons missed playoffs.
Bulls: 6 titles, 6 finals appearances, 6 first round playoff losses, 11 seasons missed playoffs.
Celtics: 4 titles, 6 finals appearances, 6 first round playoff losses, 9 seasons missed playoffs.
Spurs: 4 titles, 4 finals appearances, 9 first round playoff losses, 4 seasons missed playoffs.
Pistons: 3 titles, 5 finals appearances, 8 first round playoff losses, 9 seasons missed playoffs.
Rockets: 2 titles, 4 finals appearances, 12 first round playoff losses, 8 seasons missed playoffs.
Sixers: 1 title, 4 finals appearances, 7 first round playoff losses , 11 seasons missed playoffs.
Heat: 1 title, 1 finals appearance, 8 first round playoff losses, 8 seasons missed playoffs, 9 fewer seasons.

Here is the season by season comparison between the Lakers and the Celtics in the modern era:

1979-80: Lakers: Won F; Celtics: Lost ECF, Edge Lakers (1)
1980-81: Lakers: Lost WC 1st Round; Celtics: Won F, Edge Celtics (0)
1981-82: Lakers: Won F; Celtics: Lost ECF, Edge Lakers (1)
1982-83: Lakers: Lost F; Celtics: Lost ECSF Edge Lakers (2)
1983-84: Lakers: Lost F; Celtics: Won F, Edge Celtics (1)
1984-85: Lakers: Won F; Celtics: Lost F, Edge Lakers (2)
1985-86: Lakers: Lost WCF; Celtics: Won F, Edge Celtics (1)
1986-87: Lakers: Won F; Celtics: Lost F, Edge Lakers (2)
1987-88: Lakers: Won F; Celtics: Lost ECF, Edge Lakers (3)
1988-89: Lakers: Lost F; Celtics: Lost EC 1st Rd, Edge Lakers (4)
1989-90: Lakers: Lost WCSF; Celtics: Lost EC 1st Rd, Edge Lakers (5)
1990-91: Lakers: Lost F; Celtics: Lost ECSF, Edge Lakers (6)
1991-92: Lakers: Lost WC 1st Round; Celtics: Lost ECSF, Edge Celtics (5)
1992-93: Lakers: Lost WC 1st Round; Celtics: Lost EC 1st Rd, Edge Neither (5)
1993-94: Lakers: Missed PO; Celtics: Missed PO, Edge Neither (5)
1994-95: Lakers: Lost WCSF; Celtics: Lost EC 1st Rd, Edge Lakers (6)
1995-96: Lakers: Lost WC1st Round; Celtics: Missed PO, Edge Lakers (7)
1996-97: Lakers: Lost WCSF; Celtics: Missed PO, Edge Lakers (8)
1997-98: Lakers: Lost WCF; Celtics: Missed PO, Edge Lakers (9)
1998-99: Lakers: Lost WCSF; Celtics: Missed PO, Edge Lakers (10)
1999-00: Lakers: Won F; Celtics: Missed PO, Edge Lakers (11)
2000-01: Lakers: Won F; Celtics: Missed PO, Edge Lakers (12)
2001-02: Lakers: Won F; Celtics: Lost ECF, Edge Lakers, (13)
2002-03: Lakers: Lost WCSF; Celtics: Lost ECSF, Edge Neither (13)
2003-04: Lakers: Lost F; Celtics: Lost EC 1st Rd, Edge Lakers (14)
2004-05: Lakers: Missed PO; Celtics: Lost EC 1st Rd, Edge Celtics (13)
2005-06: Lakers: Lost WC 1st Round; Celtics: Missed PO, Edge Lakers (14)
2006-07: Lakers: Lost WC 1st Round; Celtics: Missed PO, Edge Lakers (15)
2007-08: Lakers: Lost F; Celtics: Won F, Edge Celtics (14)
2008-09: Lakers: Won F; Celtics: Lost ECSF, Edge Lakers (15)

Edge Lakers 21-6-3

Tiebreaking the neutral years:
1992-93 Lakers 39-43, Celtics 48-34, Edge Celtics
1993-94 Lakers 33-49, Celtics 32-50, Edge Lakers
2002-03 Lakers 50-32, Celtics 44-38, Edge Lakers
Edge Lakers 23-7. What’s interesting is the head to head count in the finals is 2-2 between the Lakers and the Celtics in the modern era. It would be well in the Lakers favor if Boston won a few ECF’s where they had home court advantage. Instead the Lakers beat a team better than the Celtics for the crown. Those years are 1980, 1982, and 1988. Toss in 2002 when the Celtics lost to the Nets without HCA, and it could have been Lakers 6-2 over the Celtics in the modern era. Heck, even last year Lakers beat the Magic, the team that eliminated the Celtics.

Now, in the NBA’s most competitive era, the Lakers not only stand miles above the Celtics, they are several steps above the entire NBA! The Lakers are in the mix constantly. Most of the other NBA champions of the modern era face long periods of failure. I have proved my hypothesis. Clearly, the Lakers are the greatest franchise in the NBA’s history, while Boston is in a fight to brag for rights to 4th best!

One thing Lakers fans are quite aware of is the jealousy and hatred fans of the Boston Celtics harbor toward us. This is easily explained. The median age in the USA is about 37 years old, so half of the Celtics fan base has seen most or some of the modern era and the Lakers huge domination. Those fans still alive over the median age may have seen some of the glory years of the Russell era, but they haven’t like what they have had to live through since! No wonder they boast so much about ancient history, which has now been shown to be quite worthless!

Admit it Celtics fans. You have the most titles and a head to head advantage from ancient days, but the Lakers are the better franchise.

Now, let’s just ask a simple question. Which era would you rather your team dominated?

Seasons the Celtics lost ECF when Lakers won the championship (7): 1953, 1954, 1972, 1980, 1982, 1988, 2002
In NBA history, the Lakers have finished better than the Celtics by a margin of 41-25!

Click for Video proof Lakers are the greatest NBA franchise
FaceBook: http://www.facebook....nCelticsBusters


#2 SHAQ WHERE YOU AT

SHAQ WHERE YOU AT

    cool kid

  • 4,362 posts
  • Joined: May 29, 2009
  • Location:The West Coast
  • Name:Super Stud
  • Fav. Laker:Nick, Gary

Posted March 14, 2010 - 04:58 AM

great post +1 :)

Posted Image


#3 Mr Terrific

Mr Terrific

    Dwight Howard Is Bad For Chemistry

  • 6,843 posts
  • Joined: May 22, 2009
  • Location:Watch the show
  • Name:Walter Black
  • Fan Since:Breaking Bad
  • Fav. Laker:I am the danger

Posted March 14, 2010 - 06:20 AM

Buck Foston!

FACEBOOK MR TERRIFIC HD Bottom Line Is We're Gonna Win With You Or Without You And If You Don't Get That, Then It's Best You Go Somewhere Else--Dean Smith


#4 Saber

Saber

    O.G.

  • 13,305 posts
  • Joined: Nov 10, 2008
  • Location:Varna, Bulgaria
  • Name:Ivan
  • Fan Since:year 2000
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe Bryant

Posted March 14, 2010 - 06:29 AM

Great read :rock:


Check me out on Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/str8ridah

 

Message From Pac


#5 Windu

Windu

    Shatterpoint

  • 43,000 posts
  • Joined: Apr 24, 2009
  • Name:Will
  • Fan Since:1999
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe

Posted March 14, 2010 - 06:36 AM

Man, I'm going to have to have my Wheaties before I can read all of that. Good effort though.

Pau Gasol is GONE


#6 Grandpa Herman

Grandpa Herman

    Guru

  • 3,756 posts
  • Joined: Aug 10, 2008
  • Location:The Holy Moly Donut Shop
  • Fav. Laker:Lamar Odom

Posted March 14, 2010 - 08:05 AM

Good effort but here's a little advice from a former writer:

Next time keep the length readable. Keep in mind reading articles is all about entertainment for the reader. If they're intimidated by the length of an article most likely they won't read it at all.

Also, your title should be a lot shorter. That's way too long for a title. A title should be creative and appealing, something that will grab the reader's attention.

Overall the article gets a thumbs up from me, though.

Basketball Reasons...

#7 Saber

Saber

    O.G.

  • 13,305 posts
  • Joined: Nov 10, 2008
  • Location:Varna, Bulgaria
  • Name:Ivan
  • Fan Since:year 2000
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe Bryant

Posted March 14, 2010 - 08:16 AM

The main purpose of the article was to display all the facts and prove the Laker franchise is better, no matter how long it may be.


Check me out on Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/str8ridah

 

Message From Pac


#8 Grandpa Herman

Grandpa Herman

    Guru

  • 3,756 posts
  • Joined: Aug 10, 2008
  • Location:The Holy Moly Donut Shop
  • Fav. Laker:Lamar Odom

Posted March 14, 2010 - 09:36 AM

The main purpose of the article was to display all the facts and prove the Laker franchise is better, no matter how long it may be.

Learn to recognize constructive criticism from one writer to another. I didn't belittle his effort.
Basketball Reasons...

#9 Lakers_55

Lakers_55

    Lakers franchise > Celtics franchise

  • 1,401 posts
  • Joined: Jul 16, 2009
  • Location:Valley of the Sun
  • Fan Since:1967
  • Fav. Laker:Wilt Chamberlain

Posted March 14, 2010 - 09:49 AM

Good effort but here's a little advice from a former writer:

Next time keep the length readable. Keep in mind reading articles is all about entertainment for the reader. If they're intimidated by the length of an article most likely they won't read it at all.

Also, your title should be a lot shorter. That's way too long for a title. A title should be creative and appealing, something that will grab the reader's attention.

Overall the article gets a thumbs up from me, though.

Thanks kindly....See, I have several arguments going, including one where I refute the claim the Celtics had it tougher in the east than the Lakers did in the west. That thread is in Lakers section. I posted it and another argument in one thread at Celticsblog.com lol. No one could refute me. If you're curious, just search my threads here I started. The title of this thread is meant to get reader attention and annoy Boston fans. :)

I have a few more points to make, then I'll make a nice short article with links to all the longer stories. Since those silly Celtics fans insist on denial (Which is not a river in Egypt) of historical facts and try to put this effort down as unworthy without even trying to say why, I figure thanks to them, every Celtics fan in the world needs to see it. Fun to let them know they caused this to happen. They simply can't deal with a Lakers fan handing them their arses so easily...

Still looking for a worthy Celtics fan who wishes to argue with me, I beat them all to a pulp so far.

Seasons the Celtics lost ECF when Lakers won the championship (7): 1953, 1954, 1972, 1980, 1982, 1988, 2002
In NBA history, the Lakers have finished better than the Celtics by a margin of 41-25!

Click for Video proof Lakers are the greatest NBA franchise
FaceBook: http://www.facebook....nCelticsBusters


#10 Lords of the Rings

Lords of the Rings

    Get Cho Basketball On

  • 3,761 posts
  • Joined: Jul 23, 2009
  • Location:Lakerville USA
  • Fan Since:1981
  • Fav. Laker:Magic Johnson

Posted March 14, 2010 - 08:52 PM

Great effort +1
The Jerseys Hanging from the Rafters represent LAKER GREATS who are also NBA GREATS

LAKERS NO FAKERS

#11 Lemon

Lemon

    Rookie

  • 361 posts
  • Joined: Mar 17, 2009
  • Fan Since:1998

Posted March 14, 2010 - 10:38 PM

Great work. From what I get out of it, you start off by saying that # Championships doesn't equal better coach/ franchise. Then you go on to say that most franchises that do have more champs are actually whack and got most of those championships from older days. Then that's your segway into your main point where you say that in the new and more relevant era, Lakers are in fact the better franchise.

Really good exhaustive evidence. I like the section where you go out and cite various franchises where #championships doesn't equal better franchise. I also like how you cite the opinion polls to prove that not even Boston thinks that #championships = quality.

#12 Mr Terrific

Mr Terrific

    Dwight Howard Is Bad For Chemistry

  • 6,843 posts
  • Joined: May 22, 2009
  • Location:Watch the show
  • Name:Walter Black
  • Fan Since:Breaking Bad
  • Fav. Laker:I am the danger

Posted March 15, 2010 - 05:11 AM

Everybody knows it takes the Boston Cheatics win a title once every twenty five years.

FACEBOOK MR TERRIFIC HD Bottom Line Is We're Gonna Win With You Or Without You And If You Don't Get That, Then It's Best You Go Somewhere Else--Dean Smith


#13 Makaveli

Makaveli

    where will i go?

  • 13,312 posts
  • Joined: Jan 27, 2009
  • Location:Estonia.
  • Fan Since:'06
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe 'Bean' Bryant.

Posted March 15, 2010 - 05:37 AM

Damn, 55, that's a lot of work. I didn't bother to read it all, but you obviously made a statement. 

+1.



#14 Mr Terrific

Mr Terrific

    Dwight Howard Is Bad For Chemistry

  • 6,843 posts
  • Joined: May 22, 2009
  • Location:Watch the show
  • Name:Walter Black
  • Fan Since:Breaking Bad
  • Fav. Laker:I am the danger

Posted March 18, 2010 - 04:55 AM

Those Russell championships dont count. They didnt even have Nikes back then!

FACEBOOK MR TERRIFIC HD Bottom Line Is We're Gonna Win With You Or Without You And If You Don't Get That, Then It's Best You Go Somewhere Else--Dean Smith





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users