Jump to content




Photo

History of the Lakers/Celtics Rivalry


  • Please log in to reply
119 replies to this topic

#41 Lakers_55

Lakers_55

    Lakers franchise > Celtics franchise

  • 1,402 posts
  • Joined: Jul 16, 2009
  • Location:Valley of the Sun
  • Fan Since:1967
  • Fav. Laker:Wilt Chamberlain

Posted April 06, 2011 - 02:54 PM

I dont know about "Cherry Picking" cause those are the numbers. Right? Having said that, stats are like stretchy jeans... you can make them fit almost anything. So, the "present" is all that matters and right now, I fully expect for it to be a rematch of Celtics v Lakers in th Finals. I do however believe the Lakers will be much more worn out come the finals having to go through the Mavs and Spurs to get there. Last year much more of a cake walk to get there. Even if somehow you have to go through OKC again a tougher out this year than last. For the record, Im picking the Celtics in the Finals with or without Shaq. But if Shaq is there then icing on the cake.

Yes, those are the stats and a close look shows they don't mean a thing. 9-3 doesn't mean anything today, it's 1-1 head to head or 2-1 Lakers if you count the titles these teams have won with their core pieces.

Bill Russell isn't coming back, so 7-0 is a dead soldier. Oh, wait. In the last two finals Bill Russell did come back, he made two passes. He passed the finals MVP trophy with his name on it from his hands to Kobe's! Russell completes his threepeat this year. Hey, at least he can do back to backs, unlike any other Celtics team!

Edited by Lakers_55, April 06, 2011 - 02:54 PM.

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


#42 pointguard11

pointguard11

    Starter

  • 4,949 posts
  • Joined: Jan 04, 2009

Posted April 06, 2011 - 02:59 PM

Yes, those are the stats and a close look shows they don't mean a thing. 9-3 doesn't mean anything today, it's 1-1 head to head or 2-1 Lakers if you count the titles these teams have won with their core pieces.

Bill Russell isn't coming back, so 7-0 is a dead soldier. Oh, wait. In the last two finals Bill Russell did come back, he made two passes. He passed the finals MVP trophy with his name on it from his hands to Kobe's! Russell completes his threepeat this year. Hey, at least he can do back to backs, unlike any other Celtics team!

I wonder what types of conversations Russell and West have. I know their is mutual respect. Celtics just had much more talent and were more of a team back then. If West had that talent it would have been "West stole the ball" "West stole the Ball" by Chick Hearn.
"The way Steve is as a teammate, the way he sets the tone, the way the team kind of takes on his persona. As a coach, that's the best thing in the world. It's easy to coach. He's taking care of the chemistry. You just coach."

Mike D'Antoni

#43 Lakers_55

Lakers_55

    Lakers franchise > Celtics franchise

  • 1,402 posts
  • Joined: Jul 16, 2009
  • Location:Valley of the Sun
  • Fan Since:1967
  • Fav. Laker:Wilt Chamberlain

Posted April 06, 2011 - 03:11 PM

I wonder what types of conversations Russell and West have. I know their is mutual respect. Celtics just had much more talent and were more of a team back then. If West had that talent it would have been "West stole the ball" "West stole the Ball" by Chick Hearn.

I do know when the Lakers won in 1972, Bill Russell was an announcer for the finals game and went straight to Jerry in the lockerrrom to congratulate him. Bill was really happy for him and had a smile a mile wide. Unfortunately, the video of the last few minutes of the game and the postgame were lost by ABC. What was really sad was Keith Jackson said they were trying to get Wilt on TV, but they ended the broadcast before they did. I do have the Lakers radio broadcast of the game, incuding lockerroom interviews. Jerry was actually very subdued. He told both ABC and the radio he had started the year with many misgivings and the win still hadn't sunk in. Remember Kobe's 6-24 in game 7? Jerry went ice cold after the first round, every game! I think game 1 vs. the Bucks je went like 1-15. He did make a basket after a foul was called, but no continuation. Chick just couldn't believe what was happening. Wilt was finals MVP, Goodrich a close second. Wilt's interview was interesting. He said this title meant more that the Sixers title. 69-13 with Lakers, 68-13 with Sixers. He said "That Philly team was picked to beat everyone, This Lakers team wasn't picked to beat anyone. I guess we kind of showed them." The rest of the Lakers gave preplanned interviews on both radio and TV. it seemed. Elgin Baylor was in the lockerroom, I have seen video footage of hm hugging Jerry when he came in. Future Lakers colorman, Keith Erickson didn't play the finals as he was injured most of the year. His interview was funny, I think he answered every question "Yup" or "Yep". Then, they cu it short. The cassette tape I have of it is buried in storage, I need to go look for it soon.....

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


#44 Makaveli

Makaveli

    where will i go?

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

Posted April 06, 2011 - 03:29 PM

Lakers_55 is brightening the others with his basketball knowledge. I definitely enjoyed reading your posts in this topic. Props

Edited by #24, April 06, 2011 - 03:29 PM.


#45 Lakers_55

Lakers_55

    Lakers franchise > Celtics franchise

  • 1,402 posts
  • Joined: Jul 16, 2009
  • Location:Valley of the Sun
  • Fan Since:1967
  • Fav. Laker:Wilt Chamberlain

Posted April 06, 2011 - 03:54 PM

If I sound arrogant, or classless, when I attack the Boston Celtics it is done with a purpose and stems from the history of this debate. I have known the Lakers were the better franchise since 2002 but didn't start debating it with a Celtics fan until 2008. Man, was this guy an idiot! My intent is to be abrupt and direct in an attempt to get any Celtics fan to debate this with me. If they can't refute me and my claims, it means I am correct. I am a supermod at a small message board, and have been for 7 years+. I have been making topics about the NBA from day 1, but they are only a small part of the entire sports forum. Anyway, one lurker, from Boston, who had been around for a few years finally started posting when the Celtics won. Typical. He's almost my age, but I accused him of being a bandwagon fan for not participating in years past. Anyway, I made my case, and he made his, but he didn't explain it. His case for Boston being the best team was this:

1) 9-2 (finals edge at that time)
2) 17-3 (Celtics finals record at that time)
3) 14-15 (Lakers finals record at that time).

He wouldn't explain more than that, so I took the argument to MSN Fox Sports and posted a blog about it. I told him at the original site I took it elsewhere. So he copied me with the handle Celtics_55 (Same birth year), and attempted/claimed to refute it. All he did was give opinion, and base his entire case on flawed logic. We went round and round a bit, I'll summarize that soon, but let me just deal with his main points:

1) 9-2 is now 9-3 and has been dealt with above.
2) 17-3. According to Celtics_55 this is a primary advantage, and "the Celtics finals record is prominent in any fans' discussion". Well, maybe any Boston Celtics fans' discussions. It's uselss speculation on his part, something he proved to be dead set against, and when I used it against him, his arguments fell to pieces. I'll get to my destruction of him later.

Well, the problem with 17-3 is you can't compare it to the Lakers finals record because it was 9 finals short! Apples to oranges! He said you can, since they are both finals records it is apples to apples. Of course that is flawed logic. Any attempt to show what happens if Boston got to 9 more finals, and of course 9 more losses was invalidated by him because he called it speculation! Yet 17-3 being a main advantage because it is "Prominent in any fans's discussion" is specualtion and allowed? What a clown. By his logic, the Bulls and Spurs have the best finals records, 6-0, and 4-0. But what about all those other seasons, just like in Boston's case? His argument is 17 > 6 and or 4, but what about 3 losses being > 0? 6 and 4 appearances is still < 20 appearances, so you can't compare them either. Fact is, Boston won when they got to the finals, but they weren't consistent enough to get there as long as the Lakers. 17-3 was a nice statistic, but it is insignificant when comparing franchises. It "Cherry Picks". It ignores what happened in every other season, and he did agree we were exmaning the entire history of the NBA. He simply would not stop contradicting himself in our argument. I told him up front the old arguments don't hold up anymore and he learned that the hard way.

3) 14-15. His logic was a team can't be the best if it has a losing finals record. Of course, this his his opinion and he couldn't back it up with a ral example to prove it fact. That's his repsonisbility. I asked him what if the Yankees lost enough world series to get a losing series record, would they cease to be the best baseball franchise? Of course, this exposes his flawed logic, and he pulled the specualation card to invalidate it. He simply didn't think. Anyone can see since the HYankees have such a huge lead over the rest of MLB, a losing series record won't drop them from number 1.

From the same token, he is penalizing the Lakers for advancing in the playoffs. By his logic, it would be better for the Lakers to not even make the playoffs those 15 seasons. Besides, you can't win the finals if you don't make it that far, at least my team tried 10 times more to get there than his did!

All his main arguments were refuted. He made more, which I also dealt with. There are other arguments, and those have all been handled as well. I'll summarize more next post. It's airtight, and any Celtics fans are invited into this debate.

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


#46 zelsound

zelsound

    Rookie

  • 393 posts
  • Joined: Oct 28, 2009
  • Name:black mamba
  • Fan Since:not really
  • Fav. Laker:past

Posted April 07, 2011 - 07:48 AM

If I sound arrogant, or classless, when I attack the Boston Celtics it is done with a purpose and stems from the history of this debate. I have known the Lakers were the better franchise since 2002 but didn't start debating it with a Celtics fan until 2008. Man, was this guy an idiot! My intent is to be abrupt and direct in an attempt to get any Celtics fan to debate this with me. If they can't refute me and my claims, it means I am correct. I am a supermod at a small message board, and have been for 7 years+. I have been making topics about the NBA from day 1, but they are only a small part of the entire sports forum. Anyway, one lurker, from Boston, who had been around for a few years finally started posting when the Celtics won. Typical. He's almost my age, but I accused him of being a bandwagon fan for not participating in years past. Anyway, I made my case, and he made his, but he didn't explain it. His case for Boston being the best team was this:

1) 9-2 (finals edge at that time)
2) 17-3 (Celtics finals record at that time)
3) 14-15 (Lakers finals record at that time).

He wouldn't explain more than that, so I took the argument to MSN Fox Sports and posted a blog about it. I told him at the original site I took it elsewhere. So he copied me with the handle Celtics_55 (Same birth year), and attempted/claimed to refute it. All he did was give opinion, and base his entire case on flawed logic. We went round and round a bit, I'll summarize that soon, but let me just deal with his main points:

1) 9-2 is now 9-3 and has been dealt with above.
2) 17-3. According to Celtics_55 this is a primary advantage, and "the Celtics finals record is prominent in any fans' discussion". Well, maybe any Boston Celtics fans' discussions. It's uselss speculation on his part, something he proved to be dead set against, and when I used it against him, his arguments fell to pieces. I'll get to my destruction of him later.

Well, the problem with 17-3 is you can't compare it to the Lakers finals record because it was 9 finals short! Apples to oranges! He said you can, since they are both finals records it is apples to apples. Of course that is flawed logic. Any attempt to show what happens if Boston got to 9 more finals, and of course 9 more losses was invalidated by him because he called it speculation! Yet 17-3 being a main advantage because it is "Prominent in any fans's discussion" is specualtion and allowed? What a clown. By his logic, the Bulls and Spurs have the best finals records, 6-0, and 4-0. But what about all those other seasons, just like in Boston's case? His argument is 17 > 6 and or 4, but what about 3 losses being > 0? 6 and 4 appearances is still < 20 appearances, so you can't compare them either. Fact is, Boston won when they got to the finals, but they weren't consistent enough to get there as long as the Lakers. 17-3 was a nice statistic, but it is insignificant when comparing franchises. It "Cherry Picks". It ignores what happened in every other season, and he did agree we were exmaning the entire history of the NBA. He simply would not stop contradicting himself in our argument. I told him up front the old arguments don't hold up anymore and he learned that the hard way.

3) 14-15. His logic was a team can't be the best if it has a losing finals record. Of course, this his his opinion and he couldn't back it up with a ral example to prove it fact. That's his repsonisbility. I asked him what if the Yankees lost enough world series to get a losing series record, would they cease to be the best baseball franchise? Of course, this exposes his flawed logic, and he pulled the specualation card to invalidate it. He simply didn't think. Anyone can see since the HYankees have such a huge lead over the rest of MLB, a losing series record won't drop them from number 1.

From the same token, he is penalizing the Lakers for advancing in the playoffs. By his logic, it would be better for the Lakers to not even make the playoffs those 15 seasons. Besides, you can't win the finals if you don't make it that far, at least my team tried 10 times more to get there than his did!

All his main arguments were refuted. He made more, which I also dealt with. There are other arguments, and those have all been handled as well. I'll summarize more next post. It's airtight, and any Celtics fans are invited into this debate.

In YOUR mind the facts and arguments that you have made are compelling. They are all true but you still dismiss the most important part. Head to Head. Thats what matters when we talk about Celtics v Lakers. Not who else each team beat those numbers are irrelevant in THIS ARGUMENT. But in your world they make since.. :hmm: I believe that the Celtics have the better overall franchise period. Even if the Lakers do win another title. Heck, the Lakers WILL win another title and this could very well be the last hoorah for a while with the Celtics. One thing I do want to address is, the whole "ducking" thing. For reals player????
No team would purposly lose in the CF so that they wouldnt have to play another team.... :nah: That statement makes you sound somewhat dellusional regarding the Celtics and therefore hurts your other arguements. You are obviously very respected here on this board and you have done your research, for that, good for you. But when you say a team, let alone the Celtics ducked your team for a chance to win another title that just sounds homerish..... it's not true and again dellusional. For the record, I have said it before somewhere here, I do believe the Lakers are the class franchise in the modern era. Celtics had it early, Lakers and Celtics shared it in the 80's and Lakers have had it mostly since then, throw in a few other teams..Spurs. So this year is an opportunity for the Celtics to put their name in the hat. Great history lesson about the 2 teams though, minus the homerism.. :laughing:

#47 Lakers_55

Lakers_55

    Lakers franchise > Celtics franchise

  • 1,402 posts
  • Joined: Jul 16, 2009
  • Location:Valley of the Sun
  • Fan Since:1967
  • Fav. Laker:Wilt Chamberlain

Posted April 07, 2011 - 03:04 PM

In YOUR mind the facts and arguments that you have made are compelling. They are all true but you still dismiss the most important part. Head to Head. Thats what matters when we talk about Celtics v Lakers. Not who else each team beat those numbers are irrelevant in THIS ARGUMENT. But in your world they make since.. :hmm: I believe that the Celtics have the better overall franchise period. Even if the Lakers do win another title. Heck, the Lakers WILL win another title and this could very well be the last hoorah for a while with the Celtics. One thing I do want to address is, the whole "ducking" thing. For reals player????
No team would purposly lose in the CF so that they wouldnt have to play another team.... :nah: That statement makes you sound somewhat dellusional regarding the Celtics and therefore hurts your other arguements. You are obviously very respected here on this board and you have done your research, for that, good for you. But when you say a team, let alone the Celtics ducked your team for a chance to win another title that just sounds homerish..... it's not true and again dellusional. For the record, I have said it before somewhere here, I do believe the Lakers are the class franchise in the modern era. Celtics had it early, Lakers and Celtics shared it in the 80's and Lakers have had it mostly since then, throw in a few other teams..Spurs. So this year is an opportunity for the Celtics to put their name in the hat. Great history lesson about the 2 teams though, minus the homerism.. :laughing:

Well, your opinion is noted.. However, you have not done a single thing to back up your claim other than to "Cherry Pick". If you are analyzing two franchises, you have to look at everything. This is why I am RIGHT and you and others who think along the same lines are WRONG. It has nothing to do with what my MIND thinks. Let me repeat a bit of what I have already said, along with a few twists.

Ok, understand the median age in the USA is 37. This means half the Celtics fans were born in 1974 or sooner. It is not unreasonable to assume a male becomes interested in basketball about the age of 13. This is when competitive games are scheduled in physical education, and a boy has grown quickly. Early sports interests for boys in the USA are far more likely to be baseball, football, or soccer. You can't tell me a 6 year old in 1980 followed the NBA loyally through the entire Bird/Magic era and can discuss what they witnessed in any intellignet detail. . At any rate, about half the current Celtics fans started following the NBA in 1987, or sooner. Depending on their age, they have witnessed anywhere from a Lakers 7-1 titles advantage over Boston to a 1-1 split. Now, the older half saw more Celtics titles than the younger half with the total number depending on their age. It's going to require Celtics fans who were older than I , and I was born in 1955, before a part of your fanbase has witnessed more Celtics titles than Lakers titles.

So, we have two age group categories of Celtics fans, the young and the old. I have debated both of them, and those from Boston are as annoying as you can imagine. The younger ones simply don't know history. Last year, Club Lakers got assaulted with a bunch of teenagers from Boston throwing 9-2 in our face. They all disappeared, but not before I smacked them around a bit with how pathetic their franchise is beyond those 17 titles. then there is the other group, the older ones. I mentioned Celtics_55 above, and this guy was off his rocker. He had a couple of "Cherry Picking" followers, and older like him, who simply don't want to even acknowledge the bad years the Celtics had. The more they pushed me, the more I pushed back. I'll have more to say about Celtics_55 in time, suffice it to say, he disgraced your franchise attempting to argue with me, and I can and will prove it. One thing the older Celtics fans have over the younger ones is they witnessed history. My entire argument proves when Boston stopped winning titles in 1986, the 21 seasons that followed relegated them to 2nd best franchise. when Boston finally became relevant in 2008, they still had a title and head to head advantage over the Lakes and the last thing they expected was a Lakers fan, of all people, to burst their bubble of supremacy, and that's exactly what I did. Even the young ones thought I was nuts for my smack.

As I have noted, I do talk smack in an attempt to get any Celtics fan to step into the debate and prove me wrong. Guess what, no one has because they can't. When I posted my article last year about the weak value of the Russell era titles, all the Celtics fans could say was it gave them a chuckle, I was wrong. They couldn't say any reason why, all they could do was attack me. They ganged up on me and reported every post I made at Fox Sports until I was banned. Celticsblog banned me as well. Kind of tells you something right there, doesn't it? Funny how not a single one will answer my query that if they believe most titles always means best, then they must consider the Princeton Tigers the greatest collegiate football program. They also won't answer my qustion "Would you trade those Russell era titles with the Lakers in order to enjoy a 10-4 title advantage in the modern era and still be ahead 17-16?" Of course thay can't answer, either choice proves my point is correct.

Let me make an anaolgy, which I will use in this debate shortly. My favorite movie of all time is Immortal Beloved, starring Gary Oldman as Ludwig von Beethoven. The movie is a haunting love story as the executor of his estate travels Europe interviewing Beethoven's former mistresses to find Beethoven's Immortal Beloved, because she is the sole heir to his estate. You would have to watch the DVD and listen to the director commentary to see everything, but the writer/director essentially challenged any Beeethoven scholar to prove his choice for the Immortal Beloved was wrong. It can't be done. His choice made perfect and logical sense.

Ok, onto my ducking smack. Yes, it's primarliy smack and Iexplained why I talk smack. Your fans provoked me, and I fought back. However, like the analogy to Immortal Beloved, I have made a compelling case that it is possible that Red Auerbaach tanked series in 1953, 1954, 1972, 1980, 1982, 1988, and 2002 to avoid playing the Lakers. Adding to that, there is evidence he tanked other series to avoid losing to teams he didn't want to lose to. If those eastern teams actually beat the Lakers, and the only time they did was 1973, I wouldn't have much of a case. Therefore, the Lakers showed up to play the Celtics constantly. The Celtics didn't when the Lakers were the better team. The reasons why Red may have tanked consistently reappear. When you consider Boston held HCA in many of these playoff series, the possibility becomes more credible as true. That leaves us one other alternative, We really have only one other alternative, and that is the Boston Celtics franchise just isn't as good as people think it is. note, these two outcomes are not mutually exclusive. Like immortal Beloved, you can't prove me wrong whether or not Red tanked. Blame that on Celtics fans who simply won't just throw in the towel and say "Yeah, good job Lakers_55, you're the better franchise now. I guess we need to go back to the drawing board and take that honor back". Funny, I do recall you last year admitting the Lakers easily were the better franchise, now you have changed your mind. Oh well, you also said last year was the Celtics last chance. Now you promise a Boston title in 2011.

Also, look back at those early meetngs between the Lakes and Celtics. 8-9 teams in the league and the two premier franchises. No wonder they met 7 times in 11 years! Funny how only 5 pairings occured in the next 42 years, isn't it? Of course, Boston ducked us plenty of times so take that as you will. Bottom line is, those Russell titles and their value have little meaning today.

I don't think my attacks on Red or the Celtics make me look delusional at all. This is the mentality the Celtics fans at Fox Sports had. You, like them, can't provde a shred of evidence to refute a single thing I have said. All you can do is "Cherry Pick" and attack me.Just admit it, I'll say it again. The last thing in the world you expected was a Lakers fan who could do what I have done, and you have no answers. The Lakers of the 1960's fought the best they could. Those Lakers teams since have fought better. I own your fans and your arguments by a greater margin than you had over us in the 1960's. time to admit it, it will do you good.

You still haven't answered my questions in your thread "Congrats on the win, but..." As far as me being a homer goes, well, I'm a Lakers fan, but I am not blind. You are the homer. You also appear to be a bandwagon fan because you jump ship when the Celtics slip.Y ou did it last year, you did it again this year. Just about every prrediction you made in that thread proved to be way of the mark. But, heck, I said in that thread you smply bought into the false Celtics hype. Your work in the east is way tougher this year than last.

Edited by Lakers_55, April 07, 2011 - 03:25 PM.

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


#48 Lakers_55

Lakers_55

    Lakers franchise > Celtics franchise

  • 1,402 posts
  • Joined: Jul 16, 2009
  • Location:Valley of the Sun
  • Fan Since:1967
  • Fav. Laker:Wilt Chamberlain

Posted April 07, 2011 - 03:37 PM

See, zelsound, I will tell you exactly what's wrong with using 9-3 to compare the Lakers and Celtics.Try comparing the Cleveland Cavalier franchise with the Dallas Mavericks. According to your logic, it can't be done because they never won a championship and never met in the playoffs. Try the Washington Wizards franchise with the Portland Trail Blazers. Both won titles, and a year apart. Both had finals losses (3 and 2 respectively). They never played in the playoffs either. However, anyone can see these are franchises that can be compared, you just look at everything. Why is it Celtics fans don't want to look at everything when they get compared to the Lakers? the answer is because "Cherry Picking" is your only chance to claim supremacy. 17-16 is close enough to warrant a full look, not my fault what it shows, it's history.

Lakers are the greatest NBA franchise. Celtics are second best and fortunate to have a winning playoff record against the best team. That's your smack.

Edited by Lakers_55, April 07, 2011 - 03:41 PM.

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


#49 zelsound

zelsound

    Rookie

  • 393 posts
  • Joined: Oct 28, 2009
  • Name:black mamba
  • Fan Since:not really
  • Fav. Laker:past

Posted April 07, 2011 - 07:11 PM

See, zelsound, I will tell you exactly what's wrong with using 9-3 to compare the Lakers and Celtics.Try comparing the Cleveland Cavalier franchise with the Dallas Mavericks. According to your logic, it can't be done because they never won a championship and never met in the playoffs. Try the Washington Wizards franchise with the Portland Trail Blazers. Both won titles, and a year apart. Both had finals losses (3 and 2 respectively). They never played in the playoffs either. However, anyone can see these are franchises that can be compared, you just look at everything. Why is it Celtics fans don't want to look at everything when they get compared to the Lakers? the answer is because "Cherry Picking" is your only chance to claim supremacy. 17-16 is close enough to warrant a full look, not my fault what it shows, it's history.

Lakers are the greatest NBA franchise. Celtics are second best and fortunate to have a winning playoff record against the best team. That's your smack.

You talk a lot, but like in ALL tie breaking situations weather it be sports or otherwise, it's ALWAYS head to head first. Im not cherry picking im merely stating the obvious. WHO WON THE MOST GAMES HEAD TO HEAD? In a argument thats based on 2 seperate franchises thats the biggest arguemnt. The Celtics have more and they have beaten the Lakers more so thats that. That doesnt mean it wont change but as of today the Celtics have beaten the Lakers more times head to head in the finals AND the Celtics have more Championships. You can follow this with an entire thread but those FACTS wont change. As far as "ducking" thats so silly. First off you never know what will happen in a series (injuries) foul trouble, someone gets hot so u NEVER shut it down. I dont like typing as much as u, so I will add more later.
By the way, the Celtics acted like tonights game was a game in February and the Bulls treated like a game in April. Very disappointed in the Celtics effort

#50 Lakers_55

Lakers_55

    Lakers franchise > Celtics franchise

  • 1,402 posts
  • Joined: Jul 16, 2009
  • Location:Valley of the Sun
  • Fan Since:1967
  • Fav. Laker:Wilt Chamberlain

Posted April 07, 2011 - 07:59 PM

You talk a lot, but like in ALL tie breaking situations weather it be sports or otherwise, it's ALWAYS head to head first. Im not cherry picking im merely stating the obvious. WHO WON THE MOST GAMES HEAD TO HEAD? In a argument thats based on 2 seperate franchises thats the biggest arguemnt. The Celtics have more and they have beaten the Lakers more so thats that. That doesnt mean it wont change but as of today the Celtics have beaten the Lakers more times head to head in the finals AND the Celtics have more Championships. You can follow this with an entire thread but those FACTS wont change. As far as "ducking" thats so silly. First off you never know what will happen in a series (injuries) foul trouble, someone gets hot so u NEVER shut it down. I dont like typing as much as u, so I will add more later.
By the way, the Celtics acted like tonights game was a game in February and the Bulls treated like a game in April. Very disappointed in the Celtics effort

zelsound, let me give you a clue. I have been on top of this argument for over 2 years. What's funny is I still find new stuff to bring to the table. However, once again, you are dead wrong; head to head is not the biggest argument for which franchise is greatest, and America and the world agree. ESPN ran a poll last year, who is the greatest NBA franchise, Lakers or Celtics? Everyone who voted knows the record between the two, you would think, yet the Lakers were clear winners:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/fp/flashPollResultsState?sportIndex=nba&pollId=92627

52% Lakers, 48% Celtics. Look at the map, consider those votes were a Presidential election. That's an electoral college landlside for the Lakers. I never bothered to see exactly how big, the results speak for themselves. You may point your mouse at individual states to see voting tallies. Certainly, ESPN was able to record voting locations by IP address and tally accordingly.

Now, just picture this poll in June 2011, it will be taken again. If the Lakers win it all, we will have a tie in titles. However, that map is going to be entirely red, except for New England. So, the only people that agree with your statement will be Celtics fans, or Lakers haters. There won't be enough Lakers haters to win Boston many, if any states outside of their geographical area.

As far as "ducking" goes, are you watching the Blazers Jazz game on TNT? Reggie Miller is talking about teams tanking to get a better first round opponent in the playoffs! He does mention the Blazers want to get out of the 7th seed to avoid the Lakers. He also mentions that Dallas may be trying to slip down to the 4th seed to avoid the Lakers as well. There is some truth to this. Mavs fans were pulling for the Lakers to get the top seed so they have a chance to play the Spurs in round 2 and try for some payback for last year. Since the Lakers didn't let that happen, the Mavs may be planning to go to number 4 to bring that scenario back! Mavs don't want to play Portland in round one, I promise you that. If you're Mark Cuban and want a title, this makes perfectly logical sense not to try your best down the stretch. This can be done by resting key players. Please refrain from pseudo-insulting me for my smack. (Calling it silly) The Celtics little brother of the 60's grew up and now is slapping big bro back, and winning, that's all.

Not to sound arrogant, but you, like Celtics_55 before you, can't win this. I told him that and he just stepped deeper and deeper into a hole he made for himself trying to prove me wrong, and never recovered. He left the argument in shame.

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


#51 zelsound

zelsound

    Rookie

  • 393 posts
  • Joined: Oct 28, 2009
  • Name:black mamba
  • Fan Since:not really
  • Fav. Laker:past

Posted April 08, 2011 - 02:52 PM

zelsound, let me give you a clue. I have been on top of this argument for over 2 years. What's funny is I still find new stuff to bring to the table. However, once again, you are dead wrong; head to head is not the biggest argument for which franchise is greatest, and America and the world agree. ESPN ran a poll last year, who is the greatest NBA franchise, Lakers or Celtics? Everyone who voted knows the record between the two, you would think, yet the Lakers were clear winners:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/fp/flashPollResultsState?sportIndex=nba&pollId=92627

52% Lakers, 48% Celtics. Look at the map, consider those votes were a Presidential election. That's an electoral college landlside for the Lakers. I never bothered to see exactly how big, the results speak for themselves. You may point your mouse at individual states to see voting tallies. Certainly, ESPN was able to record voting locations by IP address and tally accordingly.

Now, just picture this poll in June 2011, it will be taken again. If the Lakers win it all, we will have a tie in titles. However, that map is going to be entirely red, except for New England. So, the only people that agree with your statement will be Celtics fans, or Lakers haters. There won't be enough Lakers haters to win Boston many, if any states outside of their geographical area.

As far as "ducking" goes, are you watching the Blazers Jazz game on TNT? Reggie Miller is talking about teams tanking to get a better first round opponent in the playoffs! He does mention the Blazers want to get out of the 7th seed to avoid the Lakers. He also mentions that Dallas may be trying to slip down to the 4th seed to avoid the Lakers as well. There is some truth to this. Mavs fans were pulling for the Lakers to get the top seed so they have a chance to play the Spurs in round 2 and try for some payback for last year. Since the Lakers didn't let that happen, the Mavs may be planning to go to number 4 to bring that scenario back! Mavs don't want to play Portland in round one, I promise you that. If you're Mark Cuban and want a title, this makes perfectly logical sense not to try your best down the stretch. This can be done by resting key players. Please refrain from pseudo-insulting me for my smack. (Calling it silly) The Celtics little brother of the 60's grew up and now is slapping big bro back, and winning, that's all.

Not to sound arrogant, but you, like Celtics_55 before you, can't win this. I told him that and he just stepped deeper and deeper into a hole he made for himself trying to prove me wrong, and never recovered. He left the argument in shame.

The people who took the time to vote in that survey went for the Lakers because of the modern era. Most of them arent aware of the history. But hey, everyone is entitled to their opinion. By the way, who would you say is the best NFL franchise, or MLB franchise............ and would Championships matter there? Wanting to play someone in the initial rounds is one thing.. because of matchups, BUT to dodge a team in the FINALS is silly.....

#52 Lakers_55

Lakers_55

    Lakers franchise > Celtics franchise

  • 1,402 posts
  • Joined: Jul 16, 2009
  • Location:Valley of the Sun
  • Fan Since:1967
  • Fav. Laker:Wilt Chamberlain

Posted April 08, 2011 - 04:56 PM

The people who took the time to vote in that survey went for the Lakers because of the modern era. Most of them arent aware of the history. But hey, everyone is entitled to their opinion. By the way, who would you say is the best NFL franchise, or MLB franchise............ and would Championships matter there? Wanting to play someone in the initial rounds is one thing.. because of matchups, BUT to dodge a team in the FINALS is silly.....

Football and baseball is most likely Packers and Yankees. Green Bay was winning NFL championships before there was a Super Bowl, and they and the Yankees have many more titles than their closest rival, unlike the comparison to the Celtics and Lakers, which is almost even. I don't know exactly why all people voted as they did, but they had to be aware of the record between the two, it was always in the news, and mentioned during games.

Just because you think it is SILLY that a team may duck another in the finals, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. For instance, I have seen Spurs fans who said they were glad San Antonio lost to the Lakers in 1983 and 2008 so they didn't have to face (and get cleaned out by) those Sixers and Celtics. The Spurs won 2 of 3 games in LA that year, problem was they lost all three in San Antonio. You don't see anyone talk about those Spurs teams, but you see plenty of people talking about how those Lakers teams got beat. I am not saying the Spurs tanked those series, but everyone, from owner on down to the guy riding the bench knows the Spurs had no chance in either series. what I have done is provided a consistent set of circumstances (Not being ready, not wanting to be attached to Lakers legacy, or over the hill) as to why the Celtics may have ducked the Lakers (Or other teams) .Come 1984, that Celtics team was finally ready, so no more ducking. At least until 1988 when it's obvious the Lakers would have won again. So, by ducking, Boston fans like you can falsely ride the myth that their 9-3 finals edge makes them the better team. Again, you may thank clowns like Celtics_55 who were obviously beat in the arguments we had (I'll provide more on this soon) who carried on with flawed and hypocritical logic. Think of it this way, you plead not guilty to a traffic ticket and make a big scene in the courtroom wasting the judges, and others time. His honor finds you guilty and gives you a bigger fine. Same with a criminal who refuses a plea bargain. He goes to trial, loses, and spends more time in the cooler than he would have had he plead to a lesser charge.

Let's just assume for a moment that Boston did honeslty duck us in 1972, 1980, 1982, and 1988, when they were legitmate Eastern favorites and held HCA. .Lakers would have won all those series, you can't tell me otherwise. 1972, no stopping that Lakers juggernot with 33 straight wins. 1980, no key pieces for Larry Bird on board, they started arriving the next year. 1982, no answer for that version of Showtime, who killed the Sixers. Don't forget Bob McAdoo and his impact either. 1988, would have been much easier than 1987, Celtics were done. Now Boston still has 17 titles, the Lakers still have 16. However, the head to head is now 9-7, Magic and the Lakers own Bird and the Celics 5-1, and the first Lakers championship in Los Angeles comes against the Boston Celtics, as it rightfully should have and you chowderheads know it. Instead, you get to hide behind 9-3, thinking that means something,.Now, a silly guy like Celtics_55 would say that argument is all specualtion, and doesn't belong. Of course it doesn't belong, but if Boston did honestly ducked us, they did so in order to have history look like they wanted it to look. All I am doing is exposing it. THe alternative is Boston just isn't as good as you and others think they are, and that explanation again, is not mutually exclusive from the ducking one.

However, even if there was no ducking (Which I explained is my smack talk), history shows outside of Boston's 17 titles, (Especially excluding the Russell era) their history is a disaster. That's just as much a fact as their 9-3 playoff edge over the Lakers.

Let me summarize post Russell:
Boston: 6 titles in 41 seasons. 6-3 finals record. Lakers: have 11 titles and 11-8 finals record..
Boston: 7 ECF losses, 6 in which Boston had HCA. Lakers 4: WCF losses, 2 times with HCA.
Boston: 9-7 ECF record. Lakers: 19-4 WCF record.
Boston: 13 Series eliminated in playoffs while holding HCA, including 7 times with Larry Bird on team. Lakers: have 7, 3 with Magic.
Boston: 13 seasons missing the playoffs. Lakers: 4 seasons
Boston: Played in playoff series in 28 seasons and had far worse results than the Lakers who played in playoffs 37 seasons.

See, it all comes down to what you believe, your opinion. However, I win the arguments because I provide facts to back my opinion up.

I have this argument won, beyond any reasonable doubt, with facts. The Lakers are the greatest franchise in NBA history. Time for you Celtics fans to simply admit it, and try to take the honor back. Of course if you guys want to fight, I will beat you much much easier than your team dominated mine in the Ruseell era.

I'll get to all the other arguments for Celtics supremacy soon, as well as how simple it was to refute them.

Edited by Lakers_55, April 08, 2011 - 05:05 PM.

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


#53 Lakers_55

Lakers_55

    Lakers franchise > Celtics franchise

  • 1,402 posts
  • Joined: Jul 16, 2009
  • Location:Valley of the Sun
  • Fan Since:1967
  • Fav. Laker:Wilt Chamberlain

Posted April 08, 2011 - 06:23 PM

zeslound, I need to point out one other reason why 9-3 is not a factor in determining who is the better franchise. It's something I told Celtics_55 and he discredited it due to being speculation, which makes no sense. It's his way to run from something he can't beat. Just suppose Boston did make those finals I mentioned above and lost to the Lakers. Their finals record would be 17-7 and their head to head edge would be 9-7. However, they would have done better simply by advancing farther in the playoffs! That makes them a better franchise than they already are! This is also the exact reason why the Lakers 15 finals losses can't be held against us, and the 17-4 finals record the Celtics own are not reasons to say they are the better franchise. As i said to you, and Celtics_55, the old arguments simply no longer work. 9-3 is nothing more than "Cherry Picking". Reread what I said above, Lakers are the best franchise. The Celtics are number 2, but they enjoy a 9-3 advantage head to head over the number 1 team, the Lakers.

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


#54 Lakers_55

Lakers_55

    Lakers franchise > Celtics franchise

  • 1,402 posts
  • Joined: Jul 16, 2009
  • Location:Valley of the Sun
  • Fan Since:1967
  • Fav. Laker:Wilt Chamberlain

Posted April 09, 2011 - 11:12 AM

So far, facts have proven opinion wrong in every category the Celtics use to claim they are the better franchise:

Celtics 17-4 finals record has been proven not to be relevant.
Lakers 15 finals losses have been proven not to be relevant.
Celtics 9-3 playoff edge has been proven not to be relevant.

That leaves one other item Celtics_55 based his case upon, that is most championships means best. He cited the Yankees 27-10 lead in World Series championships over their nearest competitor, and the Montreal Canadiens 24-13 advatange in Stanley Cups. Therefore with the most NBA championships, Boston must be the best. At the time he made his claim, the Celtics adnatage was 17-14 over the Lakers. Now it's down to 17-16. First, it is clear Celtics_55's examples show two franchises with a tremendous advantage while the Celtics edge is now as minscule as it can be. Clearly, this is a poor commparison, because the NBA championship tallies are nothing similar to the advnatages the champions of MLB and the NHL enjoy

Well, the whole argument that most championships always means best has been refuted here:

http://lakernation.c...ell-era-titles/

Furthermore, the value of 13 of those Celtics titles has been dragged through the mud and shown they don't mean that much when compared to the modern era of basketball. True 6 of the Lakers titles took a hit as well, but the modern era domination by the Lakers of 10-4 over the Celtics, not to mention a year by year advantage of 24-7 prove the Lakers played their best ball when the league was the toughest and most competitive, and the Celtics simply folded.

What's funny, as noted already, when the above article appeared on Fox Sports, not a single one of their fans would argue it. All they could do was say it gave them a chuckle, and attempt to dicredit me by saying I was delusional. The argument that Celtics with more championships defines them as the best franchise has been refuted, with facts.

That leaves the argument that the Celtics played in the east, and had they been in the west, they would have plenty more titles, with 10 being one fan's claim. I refuted this on a Celtics site, and reported with a thread here:

http://lakernation.c...ver-the-lakers/

See post #26 for my refutation.

What's left? The Celtics regular season advantage over the Lakers? The one Kevin Garnett wore on his sneakers when they visitied here on January 30? Please. Once the modern era came, the Lakers and Celtics only played 2 times per season, and didn't even play in 1999 due to the lockout. Celtics played the Lakers consistently more times when they were the better team. The season by season comparisons of the Lakers and Celtics shows the advantage goes to the Lakers and most ground was made up in the modern era. Since we only play Boston twice now, we have to sweep every season to gain ground. If we split, we tread water.Regular season full totals trumps individual matchups by a few miles, everyone knows that. Any claim that the Celtics regular season advantage makes the Celtics the better team has been refuted.

That leaves the silly argument, recently developed that the Lakes don't own those titles won in Minneapolis, we are a new franchise. Aside from what every media outlet says, and the NBA itself (Both give us 16), this is ridiculously easy to refute, and I have done it plenty of times.

1) Where was this argument in 1986? Seems Boston fans are nervous and are trying to deny reality and the inevitable.
2) Why weren't those Minneapolis Lakers put in an expansion draft instead of being allowed to play in Los Angeles when they moved. That's what the ABA did with the franchises that folded when they moved to the NBA.
3) If a championship belongs to a city and it's fans, does this mean the Lakers can claim any titles the Clippers ever win? How about UCLA's 11 titles? Answer of course is no, different franchise.
4) A city only owns championships if they sue to keep them when their team moves. Cleveland Browns did this when they moved to Baltimore. The city was able to keep name, team colors, and history in Cleveland.

See: http://www.pro-footb....com/teams/cle/ and http://www.pro-footb....com/teams/rav/ for those teams' histories.

Seattle owns the colors, name, title, and team history of the Supersonics. Although basketball-reference shows their history belonging to the Thunder, there is no replacement team in Seattle yet to take what is theirs as in the Cleveland Browns example. Eventually, Seatlle will get their new team and place and it will inherit their team history.

5) A fan celebrates all titles won by their team, whether they were born or not. What about the fan who doesn't live anywhere near the city their team plays in? Example, a European or Asian Celtics fan celebrates 17 titles. How many should an overseas Lakers fan celebrate? Correct answer is 16. You are a fan of the team, not where they play. For instance, today's Raiders fans enjoy 3 Superbowl wins, although one was in Los Angeles. If you were a Raiders fan living in LA (Or anywhere) in 1984 when they won the only Super Bowl in Los Angeles history, you can still celebrate it whether or not you are a fan now. The one NFL championship the Rams won in Los Angeles about 60 years ago is now in St. Louis, as well as their earlier one they won in the 1940's while playing in Cleveland. Any Rams fan can celebrate all of their titles, and the fans they had when they played in LA counted both of them. One argument I have seen is what if the Celtics moved to Los Angeles? does LA get those titles? Well, anyone that becomes a fan of them does! The Lakers would have no claim to them, see my example above about any potential Clippers titles. If the Celtics did move to LA, or anywhere, they would simply follow the example of the Browns and Supersonics and keep everything for an eventual expansion team. Or, as in he 1970's, owners would trade team ownership and move. that's what the Buffalo Braves and Celtics did in the 1970's. There is a hunorous argument that the Clippers own Boston's first 13 titles, which is fun to read. Seems the two teams did take on each other's payroll, and do some trading along with that. Clippers took on John Havlicek's salary as a result of one trade, although he never was traded here or played here. The argument that the Lakers 5 titles in Miinneapolis don't count has been refuted. Actually, you should be happy to see it come up from Celtics fans, it shows their fear and envy of the Lakers. Hint Celtics fans: Denial is not a river in Egypt!

Anyway, funny how no Celitics fan has been able to prove anything above, only give opinion, or counter my factual refutations. Why? Because it can't be done!

More soon..

Edited by Lakers_55, April 09, 2011 - 11:12 AM.

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


#55 True Lakers Fan

True Lakers Fan

    Dead Discussion! You will not win, because I will not lose&#

  • 23,092 posts
  • Joined: May 12, 2009
  • Location:San Antonio but from OC Cali
  • Name:Kyler Hay
  • Fan Since:1990
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe, Nash.Young, Farmar

Posted April 11, 2011 - 12:09 PM

there is a Celtic_55?

Kobe%20Bryant%20Sig%20v3.jpg


#56 Lakers_55

Lakers_55

    Lakers franchise > Celtics franchise

  • 1,402 posts
  • Joined: Jul 16, 2009
  • Location:Valley of the Sun
  • Fan Since:1967
  • Fav. Laker:Wilt Chamberlain

Posted April 11, 2011 - 03:01 PM

there is a Celtic_55?

There is/was. Here's the story on him, some already given. I supermod at a message board some 7 years plus and we have a small sports forum. I usually ran a few basketball threads every year. In 2008, a lurker from Boston showed up, bragging about the Celtics. He had been around a few years but never had posted in any NBA thread. I accused him of being a bandwagon fan. He is, or he isn't. I say he was a fan, then jumped on the bandwagon. He's about my age, also born in 1955. Anyway, I started arguing with him about who was the better franchise and his reasons he gave were the numbers, at that time of 9-2, 17-4, and 14-15. I covered this above. He never would go beyond that, so I took the argument to Fox Sports. I told him at the message board I was tired of waiting for him to fight so I went to a big site, and gave him link. He registered as Celtics_55. He responded with his opinion, which he claimed was a refutation. I replied to that, with new information. He attacked my rebuttal, his main argument was I had used speculation in my argument, and history tells us that it's useless. Therefore, he claimed none of my points were valid and conveniently overlooked all my new information, which further proved my point. He even demanded I apologize to several Celtics fans for my effort. So, what I did was simply remove any speculation I used in my argument, and totally annihilated everything he had said. I carefully pointed out his flawed logic, hypocrisy, and his own use of speculation, (which he based much of his case upon), the one thing he said didn't beloing. It was quite embarrasng for him. Anyway, we went back and forth a bit, then returned to the original site to finish the debate where he self-destructed.


My last blog at Fox was barely seen. When a blog is written, it gets linked on main Lakers page, 5 deep in a few hours. Problem was 5 other blogs were posted right after mine and it never made the main page! Usually a blog will sit there for a week or so. Anyway, I demanded he answer me for everything I clearly refuted that he had posted. His response? He didn't have to, proof was he won the debate! His proof was to tally the replies to all blogs, looking for pro Lakers or pro Celtics responses. As it turned out, one guy with many accounts was posting pro Boston, but of course, he didn't care about that. Also, he didn't care my last and most powerful blog, which destroyed him and left him flat in the water was barely seen. The debate was far from over, yet he wanted to claim it was over now, and he won! I told him this is akin to ending a basketball game in the 1st quarter when the whole game is still up for grabs! Of course he had no answer for that, he just kept spinning new tangents. He claimed there were general rules for internet debates and I should adhere to the ones he found online, he went into great length to explain those. Nice of him to act as judgge and jury of the debate. Further, his vote tally wasn't a true random sample of the population! I proved this and showed how silly he was to argue wih the great mathematical minds of history. He still defended it, blundering further with his lack of knowledge about statistics. He got beligerent with me, and anoter supermod told him to cool it. I pointed out since his wife was a member, she might see his humiliation. He got all bent out of shape, wanting to know how deeply I had spied on him. It was just an educated guess on my part. There was a female poster with his IP address, and I guessed correctly. At Fox, he had listed his school as UMASS. I mentioned this near the end, and he got all bent out of shape I was divulging personal information. THe aforemetioned supermod had to step in and remind him he posted that info himself, therefore it is public info. When one Celtics fan came in and gave in Lakers were better, he accused me of making the account! LOL, I simply pointed out I couldn't make a name with the user ID that member had, it was impossible. Member ID's are sequential and chronological and can't be tampered with. I used to curse him out, we have high tolerance, short of a personal thret. All I got back from him was I was abusing my mod power, which I hadn't. He probably did a few more idiotic things, I don't recall at the moment, but he finally ticked me off when he announced he was quitting the debate and all the unanswered questions and was claiming victory. So, I finally abused my mod power and gave him an avatar of Big Baby crying on the Celtics bench after KG got on his case back in 2009. Seems I gave him a choice user title as well. Essentially, he left in shame, never to be seen or heard from again on any site.

Oh yeah, my compilation of Lakers 38 Celtics 24 over 62 seasons? He claimed he refuted that. He backtracked later and said he just reduced its significance tol nothing, and who cares about it anyway. I told him Celtics fans care, he wouldn't address it so it's now on a Celtics site (CElticsBlog) because I was looking for someone else to spar with, he was a disgrace to his team and fanbase!

Afer he quit the debate, one regular saw the thread and was sorry he missed it, he would have helped me tear into that clown. Anyway, Celtics_55 tried to argue, and lost badly. Another clown at Fox said he won, but was unwilling to wager $1,000 on that. I said we both depostit the funds and I'll show him the site Celtics_55 went to pieces at. He is delusional as well. Anyway, enough on this fool. I may refer to him later, but his debate skills were third grade, at best.

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


#57 Notorious Arab

Notorious Arab

    Starter

  • 4,853 posts
  • Joined: Feb 06, 2009
  • Location:OC
  • Fan Since:When I came to the USA
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe Bryant

Posted April 11, 2011 - 04:19 PM

i'd love to see ur argument? is that site still up?

Posted Image


#58 Lakers_55

Lakers_55

    Lakers franchise > Celtics franchise

  • 1,402 posts
  • Joined: Jul 16, 2009
  • Location:Valley of the Sun
  • Fan Since:1967
  • Fav. Laker:Wilt Chamberlain

Posted April 11, 2011 - 07:53 PM

i'd love to see ur argument? is that site still up?

Ok, here's the deal. I won't post the links publicly, but will PM them under the following simple conditions.

1) You keep the links private.
2) You read all 3 threads in the order I give them (So you can follow what's going on). The original, where it all started before the Fox blog was archived to moderator section. There really isn't much there, just me cussing him out, and him making mod abuse accusations against me)
3) You report back to me by PM what you thought. I will then add your PM to this thread, except anything that links me or him to that other site.
4) PM me for the links, let's keep this thread on topic as much as we can.

Warning, there is no profanity filter at the other site, and it gets used some. There are also a few "Not Work Safe" images and links. If you are under the age of 18, please don't ask me for the links.

It's kind of a long read because he got away from the main debate and started arguing several whole new issues. I took the time to tear everything new he said apart. After you read it all, you will probably agree why I think Boston sports fans rank up there among the most obnoxious in sports. This clown encited me so much, I kept at it. He still hasn't seen my thread where I rip apart the value of the Russell era titles. It's all his fault, some blame goes on a few other of his cohorts.

Edited by Lakers_55, April 11, 2011 - 07:55 PM.

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


#59 Saber

Saber

    O.G.

  • 13,306 posts
  • Joined: Nov 10, 2008
  • Location:Varna, Bulgaria
  • Name:Ivan
  • Fan Since:year 2000
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe Bryant

Posted April 16, 2011 - 02:43 AM

Lakers_55 is Celtics' fan's worst nightmare.


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

 

Message From Pac


#60 Lakers_55

Lakers_55

    Lakers franchise > Celtics franchise

  • 1,402 posts
  • Joined: Jul 16, 2009
  • Location:Valley of the Sun
  • Fan Since:1967
  • Fav. Laker:Wilt Chamberlain

Posted May 15, 2011 - 12:31 PM

I haven't added anything lately to this topic, but I still have plenty to say.

It is now time to assess the Lkkers and Celtics over the entire history of the NBA by who had the better season since both teams have gone fishing. As the first link in my signature suggests (And I need to update that thread and will soon), the Lakers had an advantage of 38-24. This season goes to the Lakers on tiebreaks. Let me review the criterea for ranking them season by season. The "winner" each year is who went the furthest in the playoffs. If they both exited in the same round, or as in one season, neither made the playoffs, the tiebreak is who had the better regular season record. This is a perfectly logical way to handle tebreaks, and every tie must be broken. If a game 7 is tied after regulation, as our WCF series with Sacramento did it goes to overtime until a winner emerges. It would be too difficult to attempt to rate the quality of play and opponents in the playoffs to dermine a winner in case of a tie, and if neither team makes the playoffs, that criterea is impossible. Therefore, regular season results should break ties, it is the primary tiebreaker in determining playoff seeding. In 2011, both the Lakers and the Celtics lost in the second round, making the season a tie, but the Lakers get the nod because we won 57 regular season games and Boston won 56. So, thecurrent standings are

Lakers 39 Boston 24.

What's even more impressive is since the modern era of basketball began in 1979-80, the Lakers hold an edge of 25 to 7 over the Celtics. "Cherry Picking" Boston fans can scream 17-16, or 9-3 all they want, it doesn't matter. 39 to 24 and 25 to 7 are just as much simple and factual truths. More proof why Boston fans hate us so much, most of them have seen nothing but Lakers domination of the NBA!

This brings me to another argument Celtics fans have where they don't want to examine everything over the entire history of the NBA. They maintain that both the Lakers and the Celtics view anything short of a championship as a failure, neither hang divsion or conference banners. They also say thins such as "There are no style points for coming n second". (More on that below) Therefore the only thing that counts is 17-16. I know some Lakers fans and many in the organization take this path of logic. If this was truely a fair argument, then the Celtics are 17 for 65 while the Lakers are 16 for 63; less than a 1% difference n success. However, the problem with this approach is it calls all failures equal, when they are not. I defy any writer to prove to me that it is just as bad to lose the NBA finals as the Lakers have done 15 times, to missing the playoffs, as Boston has done15 times since the Lakers came along, If two college students take a finals exam and one tries his best but scores 59%, and the other doesn't even attempt a thing and only turns in a paper with his name on it and earns a 0%, clearly these are not equal failures. The truth is, the Lakers are a consistent franchise, almost always competing for a title, while Boston has fallen into disaster mode for most of the last 25 seasons.

If you look at the NBA the last few seasons, the first time Boston became relevant in 22 years, they started by beating the Lakers but since then, the Lakers have had the better season the next 3 years, and paid them back in the 2010 finals. The Lakers and the Celtics weren't the best teams in their conferences in 2011. If they were, they would be headed for a rubber match. I truly believe the Lakers would have whipped them in no more than 5 games. If any team looks done, it's the Celtics. It's hard to say what changes the Lakers will make while Kobe's window is open, but you have to like our chances more than those of the Celtics.

Now, back to the "Style Points' comment from above. I know of one Celtics fan who adheres to it firmly, yet when Boston was eliminated all he could say was "At least the Celtics didn't quit their series like the Lakers did". Nice hypocrisy there, something Celtics fans excel at. Besides, the majority of fans don't buy this logic anyway, last year's ESPN poll had the Lakers winning as the best franchise 52% to 48% over Boston, and with one less title!

Of course whether you view not winning a championshp as a failure or not, you still have to agree all failures are not equal. This is something Celtics fans want you to believe, because their franchise has been excelling at it! If you cout titles, you still have to rate failures. As mentioned numerous times, Boston's poor results in the modern era are the reason why the Lakers are the greatest NBA franchise.

Yeah, we lost this year. We wanted a threepeat and we didn't get it. Our guys will be back, history has proven that. Can't say the same thing about Boston. More soon.

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





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users