Jump to content




Photo

History of the Lakers/Celtics Rivalry


  • Please log in to reply
119 replies to this topic

#61 LakersChamps243

LakersChamps243

    5 rings on one hand. Onto the next. Silencing all the haters

  • 5,358 posts
  • Joined: Jul 16, 2009
  • Location:Camarillo, CA
  • Name:Stephen
  • Fan Since:Birth
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe Bryant

Posted May 15, 2011 - 09:35 PM

Lakers_55, do you think the reason why celtic fans always say "well, the celtics are all about TEAM and the Lakers aren't" due to the fact that Wilt outplayed Russell, although Russell's teammates outplayed Wilt's as you mentioned earlier in the topic?

"Ability may get you to the top, but it takes character to keep you there" - John Wooden


#62 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 May 16, 2011 - 05:27 AM

Lakers_55, do you think the reason why celtic fans always say "well, the celtics are all about TEAM and the Lakers aren't" due to the fact that Wilt outplayed Russell, although Russell's teammates outplayed Wilt's as you mentioned earlier in the topic?

Well, I can certainly add quite a bit about this, and don't have time now, but your generalization regarding Wilt doesn't seem to fit because Wilt only faced the Celtics once as a Laker. Most of his rivalry with Russell was when he played for the Philadelphia/San Francisco Warriors and the Philadelphia 76rs.

As far as Boston being all about team play, what has that brought them the last 25 years? Not much. It gave them 11 titles in the stoneage which I have already proven aren't worth that much. Had talent been spread equally in that era, Boston would have won only about 3-5 titles. Wilt would have a few more and so would the Lakers. Probably the Hawks get another, at least. Mostly, this is due to Red Auerbach figuring out the game years ahead of everyone else, but as history shows, he couldn't keep up. When he was promoted to Chairman and President of the Celtics, the organization crumbled.

Anyway whatever Celtics fans say about team play, their only argument for supremacy is to fall back on the Russell era and claim that keeps them on top. It doesn't. When the entire history of the Lakers and the Celtics is scrutinized, as I have done,. It's crrystal clear the Lakers are top dog. Still, no Celtics fan has stepped forward with any reasonable argument against me. As noted, all that have tried, have failed. Lakers > Celtics is as set in stone as the inevitability of death and taxes.

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


#63 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 June 14, 2011 - 11:01 AM

Much of this discussion focuses on the Modern Era of basketball, as it should, since its onset is when the sport really took hold among fans, and future superstars. From a champisonship perspective, the tallies are this:

10 Lakers
6 Bulls
4 Celtics
4 Spurs
3 Pistons
2 Rockets
1 76rs
1 Heat
1 Mavericks

The Lakers certainly dominate it, owning 2 decades with 3 essentially different teams. The Bulls owned one decade, and nothing else great to speak of. The Spurs had a great run, 4 titles in 9 seasons, which is better than the Celtics run of 3 titles in 6 seasons.

However. the next evolution of the modern era came in 1988, when the NBA added 4 new teams in 2 seasons. Certainly there were enough players to fill out team rosters, and further expansion came soon after. The Mavericks were the first expansion team of the modern era, and besides the Heat, the only ones of the modern era to win a title. It's possible the Mvs may win 1 or 2 more before Dirk is done and move up the list, but I want to instead focus on the Miami Heat. We can't say yet how many of the 8 titles LeBron promised they will win, but they do have a chance to climb up the list, and quickly. I have pointed out earlier in this discussion how any two team can be compared, so what about scrutinizing the Boston Celtics vs. the Miami Heat? How do they measure up head to head? Well, clearly, if you look at their entire histories, it's no contest, but it isn't the Heat's fault they are a new team.However, to be fair, a comparison of the two franchises can be made from the point in time the Heat were born until today.

From 1988-89 to 2010-11 both teams have 1 championship. Even from a Celtics point of view to only count titles, that's a wash, but what about everything else? Boston fans need to look at everything else to determin who is better, they certainly can't be happy with a tie! Here's a list:

Celtics:
1 Champsionship
1 Finals loss
1 Eastern conference finals loss
5 second round playoff losses
6 first round playoff losses
9 seasons missed playoffs.

Heat
1 Championship
1 Finals loss
2 Eastern conference finals losses
2 second round playoff losses.
9 first round playoff lossses
8 seasons missed playoffs

Head to head in playoffs: 1-1

Miami has an edge getting past the second round, but Boston has an edge getting into the second round. In turn Miami has an edge making the playoffs which isn't bad at all considering they missed them in their first three seasons, which is expected of an expansion team.

Only one test remains, who did better every single season, applying the same criterea in which the Lakers historical edge over the Celtics is 39-24.

Boston comes out ahead in 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1995, 2002, 2003, 2008, 2009, 2010
Miami comes out ahead in 1994, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2011.

Edge Miami 12-11. Most likely this can be attributed to the Heat making the playoffs one time more. Glaringly omitted of course is the reason we all know, Boston went into a 22 year funk. What should be disturbing to Boston fans is they once led Miami 5-0, and have been outdone 12-6 ever since. That margin wil probably increase while the Big 3 reside in Miami. That's what happens when a franchise collapses, as Boston's did and probably will again.

So who's the better team in the last 23 seasons? It's probably Miami by a very small edge, I can tell you right now, this is no argument a Celtics fan wants to even think about. I posted it at MSN Fox over a year ago and all the Celtics fans could do was laugh, with nothing to back themselves up with of course. The historical facts are there, for all to see, and they expose Boston as no being as great a franchise as people think they are.

The biggest danger the Celtics have to lose their foothold in the modern era is 3 of there 4 titles in it were at the beginning of it all. Both they and the Lakers won 3 titles in the first 7 years, with the Sixers getting the other. Boston gets second best franchise honors simply because of all those Russell era titles. It is going to take years for any team to threaten the overall total championship count of either Boston or the Lakers, but the tallies of those won in the modern era are pretty close. As I have already pointed out those Russell era titles lose their significance in light of the modern era and how the league has changed. Those 3 Bird titles are still worth a lot, but they too may lose some significance if Boston can't continue competing for titles in the decades to come. This will all become much clearer when I analyze the Celtics versus the Spurs, Pistons, and Bulls during the modern era.

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


#64 Kobe-Wan Kenobi

Kobe-Wan Kenobi

    The Man With Double Picks

  • 1,508 posts
  • Joined: Dec 28, 2009
  • Location:Unfortunately italy...
  • Name:Alex
  • Fan Since:My Birth
  • Fav. Laker:BlackMamba-Magic-Queensbridge

Posted June 14, 2011 - 01:26 PM

I think the statistic that pretty sums it up is: Lakers have missed playoffs just 5 times, 4 since the franchise has moved to L.A., while Celtics have missed them way more times. For instance, the '96-'01 strecth alone comes to mind. The number of Finals played by Boston is nothing compared with the one of L.A.. Plus, even Modern Era Spurs and Bulls are better than Celtics.

Could I go a bit off-topic, Lakers_55? Yesterday, a friend of mine and I were talking about Julius Erving. My friend said that he had not revolutionized the way the game was played because, sooner or later, several players would have started to play this kind of game. I replied that on the contrary he has set the style of play that prevails in the years to follow, not only for his great dunks but for his style of playing on the court.
What do you think about it?

sigkwk.jpg
KobeWanKenobi

There's gold and it's haunting and haunting; it's luring me on as of old; Yet it isn't the gold that I'm wanting So much as just finding the gold; It's the great, big, broad land 'way up yonder, It's the forest where silence has lease; It's the beauty that thrills me with wonder, It's the stillness that fills me with peace.

#65 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 June 14, 2011 - 03:50 PM

I think the statistic that pretty sums it up is: Lakers have missed playoffs just 5 times, 4 since the franchise has moved to L.A., while Celtics have missed them way more times. For instance, the '96-'01 strecth alone comes to mind. The number of Finals played by Boston is nothing compared with the one of L.A.. Plus, even Modern Era Spurs and Bulls are better than Celtics.

Could I go a bit off-topic, Lakers_55? Yesterday, a friend of mine and I were talking about Julius Erving. My friend said that he had not revolutionized the way the game was played because, sooner or later, several players would have started to play this kind of game. I replied that on the contrary he has set the style of play that prevails in the years to follow, not only for his great dunks but for his style of playing on the court.
What do you think about it?

It's true the "missing the playoffs" scenario is what did Boston in as the best franchise. At the beginning of the modern era Boston had a 13-6 lead in titles over us, and was ahead in the season by season comparison. unfortunately, when dealing with Celtics fans, they fail to acknowledge just how bad that 22 year drought was. My aforementioned rival Celtics_55 had very little to say about that period except to say it wasn't enough to drop Boston to number 2. I countered with my season by season comparison which totally proved my point and he had nothing to say except he refuted it, without offering any evidence to counter the facts other than his opinion. His opinion was proved to be WRONG!

Just how bad was that 22 year drought? I'll repeat it. Between Boston's titles in 1986 and 2008 there were 21 PATHETIC seasons. In those 21 seasons they:

Made the finals once in 1987 and lost to the Lakers.
Made the Eastern conference finals twice, in 1988 and 2002, and lost to the Pistons and the Nets, the former with HCA. Ducked the Lakers both times I may add.
Advanced to the 2nd round of the playoffs 3 times.
Lost round 1 of the playoffs 6 times.
Missed the playoffs 9 times, including the 6 years in a row you mention!

Since the Russell era began, they were never long for being back up at the top, until then. Look at the super teams that came along in that period:

Lakers Back to back in 1987 and 1988.
The Bad Boy Pistons
Jordan's Bulls
Hakeem's Rockets
Shaq and Kobe's Lakers
Duncan's Spurs
2000's Pistons

This doesn't even mention the teams that were good, but fell just short, such as The end of the Showtime Lakers, Ewing's Knicks, Barkely's Suns, Malone and Stockton's Jazz, Weber's Kings, Kemp's Sonics, Two versions of the Blazers, Kidd's Nets, Miller's Pacers, Dirk's Mavericks, a couple of good Heat teams....You get the point. Boston never had a team that could be included in the discussion with those above except for the tail end of the Bird era, and those final years were an utter failure. Boston selected Antoine Walker in the 1996 draft, passing over one Kobe Bryant. Kobe wanted to be a Laker, but I have a feeling he would have accepted playing there. In 1997, they lost the Tim Duncan Sweepstakes. Can you imagine Tim and Kobe on the Celtics? It could have happened. Suck on that, Celtics fans.

Think about it. In the NBA's most competeitive era, the Celtics simply folded. They ran. They quit. They sucked. They lost top dog status and that has been proven. More nails in the coffin to follow.

As far as your other question about Dr. J. Your friend is wrong. Feel free to make a new topic about him in the NBA forum, and I and others will respond. Find some old you tube footage of him. Best to stick to the topic at hand here, and that's going over every detail why the Lakers are the best NBA franchise, and Boston isn't anymore.

Edited by Lakers_55, June 14, 2011 - 04:02 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


#66 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 June 14, 2011 - 08:15 PM

When a comparison is made between the Boston Celtics and Chicago Bulls franchises, things realy get interesting. To clarify matters, a comparison of the Lakers and Bulls must also be made. Chicago entered the NBA in the 1966-67 season, so as with Miami, all comparisons start from this point, 45 years to cover.

The Lakers have a historical edge of 30-15 over Chicago. Boston enjoys a 27-18 advantage. There were two ties the Lakers won with the Bulls, and the Celtics won 2 of 3 ties with the Bulls. The Lakers edge over the Celtics in this period is 32-13.

Let's compare all 3 since 1967:
Lakers 11 titles
Celtics 8 titles
Bulls 6 titles.
Missed playoffs:
Lakers 4, Celtics 13, Bulls 15

No point in listing all the other stats, the Lakers win this era as well, and Chicago is probably a clear third.

Now, it gets really intriguing if we separate the early Bulls history from the modern era. It boils down to this:

Old era, 1967-1979:
Titles:
Boston 4
Lakers 1
Bulls 0.
Playoff head to heads Lakers 4, Chicago 0, Celtics 2 Lakers 0
Times misssed playoffs: Lakers 2, Bulls 4, Celtics 4

Season by season comparisons::
Lakers 11 Bulls 2
Celtics 9 Bulls 4.
Lakers 7 Celtics 6

Now, the modern era
Lakers 10 titles
Chicago 6 titles
Boston 4 titles
Playoff head to heads: Bulls 1 Lakers 0. Lakers 3 Celtics 2. Celtics 3 Bulls 0
times misssed playoffs: Lakers 2, Celtics 9, Bulls 11.

Season by season comparisons:
Lakers 25 Celtics 7
Lakers 19 Bulls 13
Celtics 18 Bulls 14.

Here all all the years comparisons between the 3 teams, asterisks* indicate tied years, which were broken:

Lakers 1967*, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006*, 2008, 2009, 2010
Chicago 1974, 1975, 1981, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2005, 2007, 2011

Boston 1967, 1968, 1969, 1972, 1973*, 1974, 1975*, 1976, 1977, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1999, 2000, 2001. 2002, 2003, 2004, 2008, 2009, 2010
Chicago 1970. 1971, 1978, 1979, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2005*, 2006, 2007, 2011

At first glance, a Celtics fan might look at these numbers and say "If the Lakers are so great, why do they only have a slight advantage over the Bulls in both eras compared to what the Celtics enjoy?" Well, that's easy to refute, it's flawed logic! At the same time, don't forget the Lakers enjoy a 32-13 overall and 25-7 advantage over the Celtics in the same time periods, and 11 titles to 8 overall, with 10 titles to 4 in the modern era! The simple answer to this question is that when the Bulls were good, they were very very good, but like the Celtics, when they were bad, they were very very bad! Look at the 1990's, Chicago won every year against both teams except for 1999. That's when Jordan and Jackson left. Example, when the Lakers were 3peating last decade, the Bulls won a total of 53 games in 3 seasons. They managed another 53 wins the next two! If the Lakes and Celtics couldn't do better than the Bulls when they sucked, shame on them!

Now, if the Bulls can win 2 more titles before Boston wins any, they are in a virtual dead heat with the Celtics in their existence, just like the Heat are now. They can't pull the consistency card with fewer titles as the Lakers can against the Celtics. Chicago also has one fewer finals appearance than the Celtics in the modern era. This just goes to show that a great finals record, 6-0 for the Bulls, 4-0 for the Spurs, or 17-4 for the Celtics doesn't put them in another class with a significant advantage, or take away from the Lakers who got there and lost 15 times. If you don't get to the finals, you have no chance to win a title.

Chicago also has the disadvantage that Michael Jordan came along 5 years after Bird and Magic. He couldn't beat Bird's Celtics, but Boston faded once Jordan got his teammates. At least the Lakers showed up to play the Bulls when they started their run in 1991, the Celtics ducked them!

So, by virtue of their 6 titles to 4, the Bulls are above the Celtics in the modern era, and close behind them overall trailing 6-8. The one bad thing is their inconsistency. It cost them a chance to win seasons against the Celtics when the latter sucked. Several of those were when MJ was winning titles, Chicago missed a few good chances outside of Jordan. Aside from championships, neither franchise has all that much to brag about.

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


#67 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 June 15, 2011 - 10:59 AM

This particular discussion of the modern era is starting to get long, and it's going to get longer.It's clear the Lakes are the best team of the modern era, by a landlside. The more the Boston Celtics' accomplishments during the modern era can be diminshed, the clearer it becomes that the Lakers are the greatest NBA franchise. The San Antonio Spurs certainly provide a lot to this argument because they have 4 titles in this era, equalling them with the Celtics. At first glance, the Spurs seem to be a lot like the Lakers, having missed the playoffs only 4 times since they entered the NBA. The modern era has been defined as beginning with the entry of Magic Johnson and Larry Bird into the NBA, but a case can also be made for the NBA/ABA merger 3 seasons previous to mark its start. 3 teams won their only championships in this span, the Blazers, Bullets (now Wizards), and SuperSonics (Now defunct, Seattle kept name, colors, and history when team moved to OKC). So, comparing the Spurs entire history against other teams instead of cutting it off at the modern era makes perfect sense.

One reason the Spurs keep making the playoffs is like the Lakers, they have never been short of talent. They joined with Superstar George Gervin, later added David Robinson, and eventually Tim Duncan and the current core. Boston and Chicago only just started their second collection of great teams; 2007-08 and 2010-11 respectively. For whatever reasons, the Spurs played in the eastern conference their first 4 seasons, then shifted west. Have a look, they weren't the only team that moved conferences. However, certain aspects of Spurs history mirror the Celtics. Both have wonderful finals records, but as has been shown, this is misleading. Boston ducked the Laker 4 times in the modern era, 1980, 1982, 1988, and 2002. Before that, and after Russell they failed in the ECF 3 times with HCA, ducking the Lakers twice. San Antonio showed their merit, they played the Lakers 11 times in the playoffs, and the Lakers lead 8-3, a similar mark as to what the Celtics enjoy over us. However, the Spurs seem to follow the Celtics in the respect they have lost 6 conference finals.

If you talk to Spurs fans, they will tell you how they could have had many more titles with a little luck. Let's see if this holds up. Let's examine their conference finals losses.

1979 Squandered a 3-1 lead over the Washington Bullets in the ECF. The Sonics won that year and I don't think they would have had trouble disposing of the Spurs. Seattle had lost the finals the previous year and Jack Sikma and Dennis Johnson were on fire.
1982 Lakers swept them 4-0. No way that Spurs team could have handled Dr. J. and company, the Lakers had to work for their title, believe me.
1983 Lakers won 4-2. Spurs won 2 of 3 games in LA but lost all 3 at home. Dr. J. and the Sixers added Moses Malone that year. No title for Spurs this year.
1995 This was Houston's magical season. Spurs had HCA and lost all three home games. At least they tied it winning games 3 and 4 in Houston, but then lost last two. Hakeem beasted over Robinson, and Rodman flat out quit. Yes, the Spurs could have won it all that year, they could have handled Orlando.
2001 Well, the Spurs could have beat the Sixers this year in the fnals, the problem was the Lakers swept them, without HCA. This series is why Spurs fans hate Kobe. Bryant was MVP in the defacto finals.
2008 Lakers won 4-1. Spurs fans still cry about the no call against Fisher on Brent Barry. Of course they want nothing to do with the late game plays that prove Barry clearly traveled by moving his pivot foot before Fisher made contact, or that Odom didn't goaltend on Parker, it was a clear block, and that Ginobili was credited with a 3 pointer on what was clearly a deuce. Besides, what chance would the Spurs have had against the Celtics that year? We showed up to play Boston but get remembered for losing badly. Celtics need to be remembered for ducking us 8 times, period. We could be ahead 11-9 if they had any balls.

So, the Spurs arguably could have won titles 2 of those seasons they lost the conference finals. Problem was they choked in one, and the Lakers stood in the way in the other, with I may add the greatest playoff performance, ever. What about other seasons?
1998 Duncan was a rookie and they didn't get far in the postseason. Jordan's Bulls still regined supreme.
2000 Duncan was lost for playoffs. That was also the Lakers magical year. No title for SA even if Duncan was healthy.
2002 Lakers took them down 4-1. Doubtful the Spurs could have gotten by the Kings that year, but the finals wold have been theirs. Sorry, no hypothetical title this year either.
Now things get hysterical as the Spurs fans point out they should have won 5 titles in a row.
2004 The arguments here from Spurs fans are the one that cracks me up the most, it all boils down to Fisher's 0.4 shot. First, replays show the clock should have read 0.8. Their claim is Fisher couldn't turn and shoot in 0.4, and the clock started late. They can blame their scorekeeper for that. Of course they will never admit 0.4 was not the correct time, so if the clock did start late, that's a version of "Ball don't lie". Besides, San Antonio complained to the NBA about 0.4 and it was dismissed. Conspiracy fuel for their fires, Stern wanted the Lakers to win. Well, I can also say Stern wanted the Lakers to lose the finals. There is evidence that was rigged, but that is another story. anway, Spurs fans insist if Fisher's shot is waived off, they win that series. Do they? The Lakers had solved the Spurs game plan. Collapse on Duncan and Parker and force 3 pointers. Game 5 shouldn't have come down to 0.4, Lakers just coughed up a huge lead. Although San Antonio would have a 3-2 advantage, the series is still going. Show me one 7 game series that was called after 5 games and I'll bite that San Antonio wins that series. Ain't gonna happen...Now, Spurs fans skip right to the finals, without even discussing how they beat the T-Wolves without HCA. They insist they would beat Detroit because they beat them in 2005. Well, that is absolutely ridiculous. They didn't play a Detroit team that was as hungry as it was in 2004. the stupidity of this argument is easy to see. Put the 2011 Dallas Mavericks into the 2010 season. What happens? Well, they probably beat San Antonio, and then Phoenix. But they lose to the Lakers because LA has a rematch with Boston as the key motivator. Now, move the 2010 Laker into 2011. They probably lose to the Mavs as well as in reality because Dallas is simply playing like a cornered lion. It's win now, or forget it. The Lakers meanwhile although wanting a 3 peat, already have their revenge they wanted most. Meanwhile, the Mavs are eyeballing the Heat for their revenge.
2006 More stupidty from the Spurs fans. The key here is Ginobili fouling Dirk at the end allowing him the game tying freethrow on his "and one". Well, first off, they can't take the foul back, so it's revisionist history. Let's suppose they do though, let's humor them. Now the odds are heavily in the Spurs favor, but there is still time on the clock. Mavs will foul and Spurs have to make free throws. Dallas could still win in regulation, or tie it and win in OT as they did in reality. Naturally, Spurs fans claim a win over Phoenix, and the Heat. Hey, a win over Miami was a foregone conclusion, after all they beat them easily in the regular season. Well, Dallas could say the same thing. Did anyone ever stop to think perhaps Miami would beat whoever they played? Wade was on the rise and Shaq was still a force, and popular.

Actually, although the Lakers presence stood in the Spurs path, it can also be argued that i the Lakers don't trade Shaq, Spurs are done winning titles. Of course the Shaq trade changed the western dynamics, but they don't want to discuss that, only how the Gasol trade changed the west. It can also be argued the Spurs cost the Lakers one title. 1999 I don't give LA a chance if they get by the Spurs. The team was in turmoil, Rambis was a poor interim coach, and the Rodman experiment failed. 2003 there is a chance LA wins the title if they beat the Spurs. Horry's missed 3 at the end of game 5 would have given LA the lead, although the Spurs would have had a last shot. suppose LA does win the series, all they need to do is get by Dallas without HCA, a team they always played well against, and pick on the Nets again. It's also funny how Spurs fans will tell us they beat the Pistons they year after we didn't, but won't tell you it took 6 games to beat the Nets, a team we swept.

Bottom line is, the Spurs were a worthy and top rival for the Lakers in the Kobe Bryant/Tim Duncan era, and a minor one before that. However, the main issue is to compare the Spurs and Celtics and their matching 4 titles to see who really has the edge. The above comparison with the Lakers must be made to put Spurs greatness in a better perspective. After all, the Celtics have been compared to both theLakers and the Bulls. Also, the Spurs need to be compared ot the Bulls as well to truly refine this argument, that will follow shortly. (I told you this argument gets lengthy).

I said earlier the Spurs 4 titles in 9 years (1999-2007) is superior to the Celtics best run of 3 titles in 6 years (!981-1986) even though the Celtics winning percentage is a bit higher. First, it's one title more, and the Spurs did get 3 titles in 5 years. The next point is the Spurs/Tim Duncan era has lasted 14 years now, eclipsing the Larry Bird era by one year, and counting. Forget the fact the Spurs won at least 50 games every season, except a strike shortened year in 1999. They likely would have had an entire season been played. Playoffs are how we determnine who did better by how far they advanced. A superior Spurs team in 2002 did not go as far as the overachieving Celtics did and lose that year, but hey, that's the breaks. Conference balance does even out in the long run. In the Celtics 13 years with Bird, they only dominated the east for 4 years, 1984-1987. Dr. J. and the Sixers owned the first 4 years, and the Bad Boy Pistons and Jordan's Bulls owned the last 5. I'll skip ahead slightly. Lakers did win 4 of 6 playoff meetings against the Spurs. Lakers also came out ahead of the Spurs during the Tim Duncan era in 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011. Spurs came out ahead in 1999, 2003, 2005, 2006, and 2007. That's 9-5 Lakers, but it was even when the Spurs stopped winning titles. Lakers came out ahead of Boston during Magic's tenure 9-3. It was Lakers 5-3 when Boston stopped getting to the finals. The Spurs did better in the NBA during Kobe's tenure than the Celtics did during Magic's time. The only reason Boston is even with the Spurs in titles is because they put together a second great team that got them an equalizing 4th title. They were behind San Antonio in 2007. Blame David Robinson for not winning it n 1995, but the Spurs are going to come out superior to the Celtics since they came into the league. More long stuff to follow, soon!

Edited by Lakers_55, June 15, 2011 - 11:13 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


#68 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 June 15, 2011 - 01:55 PM

Now, let's examine the season by season results of the Spurs and the Celtics. It comes out 18-17 in favor of the Spurs, with two ties that split between them. The irony is Spurs won tiebreak in 1997, and the draft lottery for Tim Duncan. If you toss out the first 3 years, to align the modern eras for full comparisons, it's 16-16.

Celtics 1977, 1980, 1981, 1982*, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 2002, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011
Spurs 1978, 1979, 1983, 1990, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997*, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007

Now, here's the Lakers vs. the Spurs. It's 22-13 Lakers overall, and 21-11 modern. There were two ties that were split.

Lakers 1977, 1980, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990*, 1991, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011
Spurs 1978, 1979, 1981, 1992*, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1999, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007

Now, let's look at the Spurs vs. the Bulls it's 22-13 Spurs overall and 20-12 modern. The latter is a touch better than both the Celtics and Lakers did vs. the Bulls. There were 6 ties, and all but one went to the Spurs for better regular season record. 1977 was a tie in records, I had to use regular season results to break it. Bulls were a lower seed that year, so this makes sense.

Spurs 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981*, 1982, 1983, 1984*, 1985*, 1986*, 1995, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009*, 2010
Bulls 1977*, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2011


Ok, what do we make of all this to determine who is superior, the modern era Celtics or Spurs? Again, using Celtics logic 4 titles each is a wash. . But they can neither be happy with that nor like what happens if you look at everything. (They would try to point to the 3 game mini-series they won in 1977 in 2 games as the tiebreaker, when San Antonio was in the east). Boston has 3 extra finals appearances, all years they lost to the Lakers. Funny how they didn't duck us these seasons, probably because they won the initial encounters and were defending champs in 2 seasons, trying to repeat. In addition, they have 4 conference finals losses, all seasons in which they ducked the Lakers. San Antonio has 6 conference losses, 5 if you throw out 1979. So Boston is a bit ahead at this stage. However, it all comes down to playoff appearances. Boston missed the playoffs 9 times in the modern era, 11 if you count from the NBA/ABA merger. Spurs missed but 4 times. Spurs did better than the Celtics both against the Lakers and the Bulls. San Antonio has a right to argue they are equal or superior to the Bulls with 2 fewer titles as the Lakers do with the Celtics due to consistency. Many Spurs fans agree.

However, there are a few other reasons the Spurs are sperior to the Celtics in the modern era.
1) As pointed out, the Duncan Spurs did better than the Bird Celtics
2) the Spurs also beat a number of strong teams in the west, year in and year out. Many would have won titles had they beaten the Spurs, particularly 1999, 2003, and 2007.
3) Boston didn't do that great against top competition in the east. Even with Dr. J's Sixers, minus against the Bad Boy Pistons, and they ducked the Jordan/Pippen Bulls.
4) The Spurs did better against Kobe's Lakers than Bird's Celtics did against Magic's Lakers. 2-4 is the same as 1-2 . Spurs didn't win in 2006, but they would have beaten the Lakers had they played. It isn't the spurs fault they didn't play the Lakers in 2005-07. Boston never did better than the Lakers in Bird;s time unless they won a title. At one time, Duncan's Spurs had more titles than Kobe's Lakers, and was even head to head 5-5. Bird's Celtics never led and could only match the Lakers in titles. They only led head-to-head once, that lasted a season. (1984 and 1985).
5) The Spurs had 4 incarnations of great teams. Gervin, then Robinson, then Robinson/Duncan then Duncan/Parker/Ginobili. the Celtics had two, Bird/McHle/Parish and Pierce/Garnett/Allen.
6) For the finals straw, I need to take a moment and explain.


Back in 2010, before the finals at MSN Fox sports, a cherry picking Celtics fan, CelticJay, (Now 18thGreen last I heard), made a post on the Lakers page that Kobe Bryant had never beaten the Boston Celtics. that was an honor that the only Lakers to do it belonged to Kareem, Magic, and Worthy. My reply to him totally embarrassed him. This happens to cherry pickers. I simply said where was Paul Pierce and the Celtics when Kobe was making the finals in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, and 2009? well, for starters, they were busy losing to the New Jersey Nets in 2002, ducking us once again, and usually missing the playoffs the other seasons. I contin ued with a comparison pf the Kobe Bryant vs. the Paul Pierce eras, now updated. I'll add the Duncan vs. Pierce era as well, they can certainly ask where were the Celtics in 1999, 2003, 2005, and 2007.

Kobe Bryant vs. Paul Pierce era:

season by season, Lakers 11 Celtics 2: Two ties, both go to the Lakers
Lakers 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003*, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011*
Celtics 2005, 2008

Titles, Lakers 5, Celtics 1
Head to head 1-1
Times missed playoffs: Lakers 1, Celtics 5
Advantage Lakers by a landslide.

Tim Duncan vs. Paul Pierce era
Season by season Spurs 8, Celtics 5. As noted, Spurs were better team in 2002, but they had to play in the west.
Spurs 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007
Celtics 2002, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011
Times missed playoffs: Spurs 0, Celtics 5
Advantage Spurs by a secure margin.

What's interesting is the Lakers lead the Boston big 3 by 3-1 while the Spurs are 0-4. This isn't enough for Boston to gan much ground, the Spurs went into decline and are just about done. Looks like the Celtics are washed up as well. So much for Bill Russell's prediction in 2008 that this Celtics team would win at least 2 or 3 titles. That could mean as many as 5, LOL, NOT!

So, thanks to CelticJay, more dirt on the Boston Celtics is here for all to see.

So, the Spurs come out ahead of the Celtics in the modern era and need one title to have a better argument versus the Bulls for #3 modern era, and all time. In fact, they have one now.

I would take the time to compare the Boston Celtics with the Detroit Pistons, but unfortunately, Boston will come out slightly ahead. The Pistons got a later start and had to face Jordan's tough Bulls team. they had a decent run last decade, but too many ECF losses, and Robert Horry in game 5, 2005 finals cost them a title. Still they were at least equal to them after 2004 and until 2008. If the Pistons rebuild first, they may forge ahead.

Conclusion. the Boston Celtics are clearly the 4th best team of the modern era, 32 years strong now, or nearly half the history of the NBA. this is not enough to keep them ahead of the Lakers as the best NBA franchise of all time. They are number 2, and need to not only admit it, but live with it. Meanwhile they approach oblivion again, hopefully longer than 22 years! It deserves to happen to such an arrogant fanbase as them. Russell isn't winning them titles anymore, he's getting assists passing NBA Finals MVP trophies, 2 of 3 to Kobe!

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


#69 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 June 21, 2011 - 07:05 AM

I want to share another statistic the Lakers are miles ahead of the league in, one I've never seen tallied before. It is:

How many times the NBA franchises have defeated a reigning champion?

The results of this are interesting, and have many unforeseen variables:

1) Repeat champions don't lose in this category as many times as teams that can't repeat. Example would be last decade. Lakers 3 peat team was beaten once, but the Spurs of 2003, 2005, and 2007, give the Lakers two victories in this category, and the Mavs one. However, its the same number of titles. As a result of repeat champions, the total of this category (41) is smaller than the total championships won.
2) If the champion is in the opposing conference, it's harder to meet them for a chance at beating them. There can be more chances to beat a champion in conference playoffs, it's no worse than even.
3) If you are champion, you can't score in this category. This affects the Lakers and the Celtics, mainly. However, as great as these franchises are, they should still score in lots of seasons, right? Wrong, see below for tallies.
4) Two champions, the 1969 Celtics and the 1998 Bulls, failed to make the playoffs the following season, so no team gets credit for beating them.
5) Franchises that have never won a championship have beaten the defending champion. This is interesting, for those teams. We know many teams fly divison banners. Take the Memphis Grizzilies, they just won their first playoff game and series against the number 1 seed. The 2007 Warriors upset the number 1 seed Mavericks. Phoneix has beaten the NBA champion twice. So has Dallas, and they just got their first title. New Jersey and Orlando also hold this honor. So, at least these teams have some pleasnt meories to celebrate.

Here is the list of the year a team beat the defending champions. If an asterisk* follows a team, then they went on to become NBA champions. If the letter "F" appears at the end of a line, it means this happened in the finals. note, the 1948 Baltimore Bullets no longer exist, they soon disbanded.

1948 Baltimore Bullets* over Philadelphia Warriors F
1949 New York Knicks over Baltimore Bullets
1951 Rochester Royals* over Minnepolis Lakers
1952 Minneapolis Lakers* over Rochester Royals
1955 Fort Wayne Pistons over Minneapolis Lakers
1956 Philadelphia Warriors* over Syracuse Nationals
1957 Syracuse Nationals over Philadelphia Warriors
1958 St. Louis Hawks* over Boston Celtics F
1959 Minneapolis Lakers over St. Louis Hawks
1967 Philadelphia 76rs* over Boston Celtics
1968 Boston Celtics* over Philadelphia 76rs
1971 Baltimore Bullets over New York Knicks
1972 Los Angeles Lakers* over Milwaukee Bucks
1973 New York Knicks* over Los Angeles Lakers F
1974 Boston Celtics* over New York Knicks
1975 Washington Bullets over Boston Celtics
1976 Phoenix Suns over Golden State Warriors
1977 Philadelphia 76rs over Boston Celtics
1978 Seattle Supersonics over Portland Trailblazers
1979 Seattle Supersonics* over Washington Bullets F
1980 Los Angeles Lakers* over Seattle Supersonics
1981 Houston Rockets over Los Angeles Lakers
1982 Philadelphia 76rs over Boston Celtics
1983 Philadelphia 76rs* over Los Angeles Lakers F
1984 New Jersey Nets over Philadelphia 76rs
1985 Los Angeles Lakers* over Boston Celtics F
1986 Houston Rockets over Los Angeles Lakers
1987 Los Angeles Lakers* over Boston Celtics F
1989 Detroit Pistons* over Los Angeles Lakers F
1991 Chicago Bulls* over Detroit Pistons
1994 New York Knicks over Chicago Bulls
1996 Seattle Supersonics over Houston Rockets
2000 Phoenix Suns over San Antonio Spurs
2003 San Antonio Spurs* over Los Angeles Lakers
2004 Los Angeles Lakers over San Antonio Spurs
2005 San Antonio Spurs* over Detroit Pistons F
2006 Dallas Mavericks over San Antonio Spurs
2007 Chicago Bulls over Miami Heat
2008 Los Angeles Lakers over San Antonio Spurs
2009 Orlando Magic over Boston Celtics
2011 Dallas Mavericks* over Los Angeles Lakers

The Lakers lead over the Celtics in this category is 8-2. Knicks are in 2nd place, having done it 3 times. Boston has never done it in the modern era. The Lakers did it twice in the finals, both over Boston. Celtics have never beaten the defending champs in the finals, we kept that alive in 2010. No other team has beaten the champ in the finals more than once, just us. Of course the two reasons the Lakers have such a huge lead over the Celtics in this category is because we only missed the playoffs 5 times. The other reason is we are the better franchise.

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


#70 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 July 22, 2011 - 06:22 AM

I still have things I wish to add here, that will never change. but I went back to a non sports board with an NBA thread after 1.5 years the other day. I'll share what has transpired in a moment. I know when the Lakes beat the Magic, I was a gracious winner. However, I had to catch up on the playoff banter for 2010 first. so far, I am outnumbered by the Lakers haters, the Laker fans that post there haven't shown up to see my magic at work. I got in one crazy non sports argument there a few years ago where everyone was against me. I whipped them all, and kept showing them where they were blowing it, they weren't reading the thread. In this current banter, I have reminded them to read the thread! Let's see if they do. That thread was closed, more proof I beat them. If I was losing, as they claimed I was, the mods would have left it open to torment me.

Here we go, handles changed to better reflect who we are.

I was absent from these boards since January 2010. Busy as hell. I went back to 2010 posts and read up on the posts to the 2010 playoffs, good takes everyone. I didn't yet read 2011 playoffs. As Lakers fan, it was a disappointment, but I fully supported the Dallas Mavericks the rest of the way, and they are the deserving champions. The team they beat? I have nothing against them, I just find it sad so many commentators focused on them losing and not Dallas winning.

Anyway, hopefully the season gets saved. Kobe has 3 years left on his contract, as does most of the core. I can't even begin to predict what changes will be made amongst the many possibilities so I will just wait and see and support whatever squad goers out on the floor. Kobe is after more titles. Forget the MJ comparisons, or greatest Laker of all time talk. This is all about getting banner 18 ahead of the Celtics and that will happen. The Lakers are already the greatest NBA franchise of all time, that has been proven. Getting to 18 first cements it in everyone's mind, even those stubborn chowderheads that can't handle the reality of how the Lakers consistency has trumped their lead in titles.


Well the record still stands Celtics 17, Lakers 16. Try getting number 17 before you think about being "greatest of all time". Celtics have won 9 out of 12 Finals vs Lakers. Not to mention the LA Lakers have only really won 11 titles - 5 belonging to Minneapolis, I guess LA fans would be the type to take credit for another cities championships though. They're far from the greatest, but good luck with your wishful thinking!


No disrepsect intended, but I've seen the entire argument for Lakers supremacy. No one has come forward and refuted it, and any Celtics fan that tried, got beaten to a pulp. Majority opinion feels the Lakers are the greatest franchise. ESPN ran a poll after last year's finals and it came up Lakers 52% Celtics 48%. Poll isn't working at the moment, but here's the link:

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

Yes, it's true the Celtics have won 9 of 12 finals versus the Lakers. The following is also true. Over the entire history of the NBA, what do you think the margin is for who went the furthest in the season? There are 63 years to consider. the margin is Lakers 39, Celtics 24. If you're comparing two franchises, everything needs to be looked at, not cherry picked. By the way, did you know if Boston was as good as they thought they were, the finals margin would be about even? Boston lost the ECF 7 times in seasons the Lakers went on to win the title, beating the team that beat the Celtics. Those years are 1953, 1954, 1972, 1980, 1982, 1988, and 2002. Boston had HCA in 4 of those series! Even in 1973, when Boston got upset by the Knicks, again, the Lakers would have been favored as John Havlicek was lost to injury.

The argument those 5 titles in Minneapolis don't count is ridiculoous, and has already been refuted. It was created by Celtics fans when the Lakers started getting close. They never even discussed it when they were up 13-6. First, and foremost, the NBA itself recognizes those titles as belonging to the Los Angeles Lakers franchise. Let's lok a little deeper. The Sacramento Kings have Oscar Robertson's jersey retired. He never played for them. He didn't play for them when they were located in Kansas City or Omaha. He did in Cincinatti though. By the way, the Kings franchise owns one NBA title, won by the Rochester Royals in 1952. Whether they fly the banner or not, it's theirs and the NBA recognizes it. As far as a championhip belonging to a city goes, that's hogwash. Ok, if you live in New York, you can claim all 27 Yankees titles, no matter how many you were alive for. what if you live somewhere else in the USA? Yep, they belong to your team and you can claim them. If you live in Germany and like baseball and are a Yankee fan, you claim them. Now, what about the German Celtics fan. Yep, 17 titles. Now, how about the Lakers fan who lives in St. Louis, or Germany? Is he supposed to only claim 11? no, he claims 16. He may never even set footin Minneapolis or Los Angeles, but as a Lakers fan, those titles are his to celebrate. There are still Brooklyn Dodger fans in Brooklyn alive today that celeberate when the LA Dodgers win. My parents were fans of the Dodgers before they even came to Califronia, they got to celebrate 1955, when the Dodgers beat the Yankees, and those won in LA, 1959, 1963, 1965, 1981, and 1988. Even Oakland Raiders fans claim the title won in Los Angeles. If someone became a Raiders fan when they came to LA, they can still celebrate that title. Los Angeles Rams fans can celebrate the titles won in Cleveland, Los Angeles, and St Louis. It doesn't matter where they live, if they stayed Rams fans after the move, or are Rams fans now, the titles are theirs to enjoy.

Now, as far as championships belonging to a city, there is a recent legal precedent for this. When the Cleveland Browns left town for Baltimore, they kept the nickname, colors, and history in Cleveland and when an expansion team took their place, they inherited everything:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/cle/

I believe the Seattle Supersonics made a similar deal when they moved to OKC. That trophy in 1979 awaits an expansion team. If the Boston Celtics were to suddenly move to say Loiusville Kentucky, I am certain they would make the same arrangements. They almost did move to San Diego, but the NBA persuaded the Buffalo Braves and Celtics owners to swap franchises. Thus the Clippers were born.

Oh, and the vlaue of those first 13 Boston Celtics titles has been shot down pretty convincely as well, but that would make this a pretty long post. I can add if anyone wishes to continue the discussion. Celtics fans never saw the day coming when a Lakers fan could push them around. totally unexpected, but that's what the seasons from 1987-2007 did to them. 9 times missing the playoffs including 6 years in a row? That's a disaster, as is the entire Celtics history beyond their 17 titles.


I'll fuel the fire in the debate I just started. I guess those are bold words that the Celtics history is a disaster beyond those 17 titles, but history shows this to be true, and it's easy to prove. I found this picture on a Lakers board awhile back, (Edit: HAHA, I made it and posted it here!) Boston already has banner 18, for most playoff series lost while holding HCA! That's an NBA record, the Lakers are in 2nd place, losing 10, but made the playoffs, what, 10 more times?

Posted Image

It's intersting to see how that breaks down, look at the years and who was on the team:

The old Boston Celtics no one ever heard of did it 1 time
Bob Cousy and Bill Sharman did it 3 times.
Bill Russell did it 1 time
Havlicek/Cowens/White did it 3 times.
The Larry Bird era did it 8 times! (Although Bird was injured in one season and retired in the last)
Paul Pierce did it 2 times!

I pointed out above the Russell era titles have taken a big hit on their value. I checked the original source and the whole discussion was prepared in response to Celtics fans attempting to discredit the 5 Lakers titles in Minneapolis. Payback was a but painful for them, no one could refute it. Since Celtics fans rely on those ancient pieces of hardware to claim supremacy today, they will be quite surprised to see what has been written about that era. The arguiment "Most titles means best" is proven to be an utterly false notion, especially when you are comparing somethng as close as 17 titles to 16.


Boston: 7 parades in 10 years.

&^%$ los angelos


lol. somebody takes &$%# too seriously.


and my reply to him:

Hey, thanks for the shout out! I will give a very serious reply.

Actually, what I am doing is nothing more than sticking up for my team. For me, a whole big part of sports is to be able to sit there and build my team up and tear the rival down. I am one of those rare people that doesn't hate any team. I may not want certain ones to win, but if they do, oh well, life goes on. I've been around quite awhile. I can offer a new perspective on a number of things since I've been around so long.

I understand many of you hate LA, and everything California. Yes, I know there are plenty of annoying Lakers fans out there, starting with the Kobe homers. He's far from my favorite Laker, I'm partial to Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, and Wilt Chamberlain, that's my generation.

Californians have an opinion on sports fans from the rest of the country as well. I can best explain it as my father taught me, I was kind of young when much of it took place. He has had season ticket to both USC football since the late 50's, and the LA Dodgers since they opened at Dodger Stadium in 1962.

Essentially, what my father says, is every New Year's, thousands of midwesterners leave the cold weather and come to Pasadena to see the Rose Parade and their team play in the Rose Bowl. They are shocked to find the wonderful 70 degree weather and soon make a permanent move here. They aren't the only area of the country that migrated here, they came from everywhere. As a result, whether it's at a Trojan or Dodger game, my dad would notice thousands of fans that had moved here, but kept their sports loyalties back to their roots and showed up to see them play in LA. Even when Dr. Buss won his first title for the Lakers in 1980, he pointed out that it didn't seem the Lakers had a home court advantage because of all the rival fans that lived here.

Now, California may not be the ideal place to move to as it once was, that's a whole new argument, but one thing is for certain. Californians do not migrate en masse to places like New York and Boston, which to us here, have the most annoying fans in the world. Myself, I have known many a New York fan who seems to think if the Almighty Himself went up against a team from the Big Apple, He would lose. In my early adult years from the mid 70's to the mid 80's, I had to work alongside plenty of New Yorkers and Beantowners, and suffer their smack when the Yankees beat the Dodgers in 1977 and 1978, and in 1984 when the Celtics beat the Lakers. Boston fans are flat out annoying, and to us, their accent is worse than that from NY. Jumping ahead to 2008, after 22 years of irrelevancy Boston Celtics fans came out of the woodwork onto the bandwagon, and beat the Lakers yet again. Lost in the shuffle was the fact LA beat the defending NBA champs and showed up to play Boston, which as shown above, the Celtics don't do when the Lakers are better. That's fact, and also lost in the shuffle.

I can understand why Celtics fans hate the Lakers so much. Their grandads tell them about the glory years of Boston, but in most Celtics fans' lifetimes, they have seen the Lakers dominate the league. Myself, it's 11 titles to 6 since I started following basketball. It gets worse the younger a Celtics fan becomes. Those 2008 Celtics fans just can't seem to comprehend the Lakers have passed them as the better franchise, although a few of them have come out and admitted it. So, for me, it's payback to those guys I knew in 1984, and the annoying ones that showed up in 2008 and are about to fall off the bandwagon again as Boston will soon return to their recent doormat status. As I said above, it's a hard pill for Celtis fans to see that a Lakers fan can show up and smack them around. The old arguments they had for supremacy 25 years ago are no longer valid. They say 9-3 finals, I say 39-24. My stat is more accurate and I know it hurts.

However, I know the Lakers aren't going to win every year, but history shows, we show up to play, and when it's time to rebuild, we do. so, don't hate on me, hate the Lakers. We love being the most hated team in the NBA, that's a fact as well.


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


#71 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 July 22, 2011 - 06:42 PM

Well, things heated up a bit between me and my new Celtics foe. Let me know what you guys think, ok?

LMAO! Way to much written there trying to prove your team is better. Fact is, it's a matter of opinion. You can believe your team is the greatest, but I will continue to stick by my team. 17 titles belong to the City of Boston, won by the Celtics. 11 for LA. 8 straight titles, and a dominance that will most likely never be matched. Who cares if they were won mostly in the sixties. Someday, the Lakers recent titles will be old, does that make them any less worthy? I know the titles are officially transferred when the team moves, but I don't buy that [expletive]. They belong to the city and franchise where they were won. To me the Celtics are a symbol of grit, teamwork, loyalty, and heart. The Lakers to me represent a glitzy, showboatin', bunch of dudes that want to be in the spotlight and seen by stars.




This is all about getting banner 18 ahead of the Celtics and that will happen. The Lakers are already the greatest NBA franchise of all time, that has been proven. Getting to 18 first cements it in everyone's mind, even those stubborn chowderheads that can't handle the reality of how the Lakers consistency has trumped their lead in titles.


And you didn't insult the Celtics? I take that as an insult. You came in here mouthing off and stating as if a proven fact, that your team is the greatest of all time.


Ok, well, maybe I did insult his team a bit. I didn't think that board had any Celtics fans, they know they are one and done and are dropping off the bandwagon like flies. Besides, we all know chowderheads are annoying and need to get some payback,,Anyway, here's my reply....

Well, I have to say, your reply is weak. Too much written trying to prove something? That's your defense? You just didn't like what got thrown back at you, where are the counter arguments? I took your team behind the woodshed and gave them a severe paddling! This is typical Celtics fan reaction to the truth, discuss anything else and avoid the issues. I've seen many an unhappy Celtics fan meltdown in this topic before this already.

I was polite in my initial post, the first thing that came out was congratulations to the Dallas Mavericks. I did not insult the team they beat in the finals, I deliberately didn't mention them by name because they have enough hype from BSPN. I also casually mentioned Lakers beiing the greatest in passing, not even throwing an insult at Boston and look how you reacted. Like a child, throwing insults at the Lakers. I said it was a proven fact, that is all, now you have seen the facts and are pretty much shellshocked. I am certain, you, like many other Beantowners had no idea what was coming, and you are now woken up to some cold hard facts that put a pretty good stain on your team.

Now its true it's my opinion the Lakers are the greatest NBA franchise, and it's your opinion the Boston Celtics are the greatest, but I backed my opinion up with facts, and countered with facts what you claimed kept Boston on top. I have a better case than you, and as noted, America and the world side with me. Poll still doesn't work, but I can find threads that quote that poll easily enough.

As far as the 60's titles go, and most titles not meaning best, let me ask you this. What is the greatest collegiate football program of all time? Notre Dame? Oklahoma? Ohio State? Well, if you go by the most titles is best theory, it's Princeton with 28 titles, followed by Yale with 27. If anyone puts either of those schools at the top, they are going to be laughed right out of here. Why so many titles? It was the early days of the sport, and they figured out how to play it best, first! This same pattern follows in pro football and baseball. The team that became the Chicago Cubs, the Chicago White Stockings, won 6 of the first 11 championships in the NL in the 1800's. Since there was no American League then, thus no world series, they were major legue champs, just like there was an NFL champ before they had the Super Bowl. Do those titles, plus the two they won a hundred years ago put them almost equal to the St. Louis Cardinals as the best National League franchise? Of course it doesn't.

The Celtics won mainly because of one guy, Red Auerbach. He figured out the game first in an 8 team league, was smarter drafting, and had 5 players in the NBA top 50 players of all time and additional 4 hall of famers. His teams were more stacked against the league than any superstars today who join up could hope for.

It is the consensus among experts, that the NBA modern era began when Larry Bird and Magic Johnson entered the league. They saved it from going broke by making it marketable. This is pretty close to the consolidation of talent with the NBA merger 3 years before.

What's the title tally in the modern era?

Lakers 10 titles and 18 finals appearances in 32 seasons
Celtics 4 titles and 7 finals appearnces in 32 seasons

Finals matchups betwween the two comes out Lakers 3 Celtics 2. Again, it could have been more in the Lakers favor had Boston won a few more ECF's when they were the favorite.

I told you the historical matchup was Lakers 39 Celtics 24. Since the modern era began, it's Lakers 25 Celtics 7.

When the league got the toughest, the Lakers stood up to the test, the Celtics simply folded.

Which era would you rather your team dominated? The modern era of course!

Again, I have a case, Boston Celtics fans, don't. I keep trying to find someone to refute this with facts, and not opinion. If it can't be refuted, it must be true. Again, blame it on your annoying fan base, which as noted above, we in California consider to be far more annoying than many of you think of Lakers fans. I have been annoyed by plenty Celtics fans like you who can't handle the truth and thus my proof has been expanded and posted in many places. I'm the guy who started this up, back when the title count was 14-17 and Boston was the reigning champ. I knew it a few years before then when the Celtics were sitting in lottery land.

What you guys need to do is simply admit the Lakers are the better franchise and try and get back and become our rival again. Most Lakers fans consider San Antonio, Phoenix, Utah, and now Dallas as our real rivals.

Now, if you want to read everytihng I said and debate these things, please do. Otherwise, you and I should just keep our opinions to ourselves.


Edited by Lakers_55, July 22, 2011 - 07:05 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


#72 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 July 22, 2011 - 06:49 PM

Heh, maybe I can get us some traffic, here's my last post there, with a shout out pun to our leader at the end.

Also, I know most people posting in here don't want to see a ******** contest because you don't care for either the Lakers or the Celtics. Any Lakers or Celtics fan that wants to see more, send me a PM, and I'll direct you to the debate elsewhere. No need for me to discuss this any further here. I backed my initial words up, you draw your own conclusions.



I am respected on various NBA boards by fans of many teams and can contribute in this thread when the next season finally gets here. I'm wondering now if the NBA will try contraction and what teams go. Since the league owns the Hornets, they would be a likely candidate. There woud be some kind of dispersal draft, with CP3 being the prize. There is a precedent for this, when the NBA and ABA merged, a few ABA teams folded and the remaining players went to a pool to be selected from by the NBA teams. Portland made the best team acquisition, they got Maurice Lucas and let go of two superstars, Sidney Wicks, and Geoff Petrie. Tehy went on to win their only NBA title, beating up my Lakers on the way.

Didn't mean to insult Boston fans initially, so I apologize if my words were harsh about calling them chowderheads. If you can't stand the smack, stop calling us Fakers. We are the Real Deal.


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


#73 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 September 04, 2011 - 12:37 PM

I have wanted to add some new items to this thread for awhile, but have been rather busy this summer. Anyone who has read through everything can see I have made a compelling case for the Lakers being the greatest franchise in NBA history. The only case a Celtics fan can make hinges on those ancient Russell titles adding up to a greater number than those of the Lakers. It has already been proven that when the NBA became the most competitive, the Lakers rose to the challenge and the Celtics simply withered away. Although the modern era, which began in 1979-80 is a compelling point to divide NBA history, another division is possible, categorizing the NBA into roughly equivalent thirds. So, here are the periods to examine

First third, 1946-47 to 1968-69, 23 seasons. However, the Lakers played in 21 of them, and Boston was nothing special the early years, especially those first two seasons.
Second third 1969-70 to 1989-90 21 seasons
Third third 1990-1991 to 2010-11 21 seasons

The first third saw the full or majority career spans of all time greats such as George Mikan, Wilt Chamberlain, Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, Bob Pettit, Oscar Robertson, Bill Russell and Bob Cousy

The second third saw the full or majority career spans of Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Julius Erving, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird and George Gervin.

The final third saw the title years of Michael Jordan, and full or near full careers of Shaquille ONeal, Kobe Bryant, Hakeem Olajuwon, Tim Duncan, Karl Malone, and David Robinson

Do we start a new 21 year period about now, perhaps. Kobe Bryant can still win in the next time slot. Hyped players such as LeBron James and Dwyane Wade may win multiple titles with the Heat, so even though their careers cross eras, as Michael Jordan's did. you can add players like Kevin Durant and Carmelo Anthony if they start picking up titles. Excepting Wade's one title in 2006, the current group of NBA young elite players is essentially titleless.

Since the concern is between the Lakers and the Celtics, let's see how they compare in those eras

First Third: Note, everyone who played in this era has either passed away or is eligible to collect social sescurity.
Celtics 11 titles, 12 finals appearances, with 11-1 mark. 12-4 record in ECF, ducked Mikan's Lakers twice. Missed playoffs twice when Lakes were in league.
Lakers 5 titles, 12 finals appearances with 5-7 mark. 12-5 record in WCF. Missed playoffs 1 time
Head to head, the Celtics came out on top 7-0, it could have been 7-2 except for 1953 and 1954

Had George Mikan lasted a few more seasons, the Lakers may have a couple more titles and no credit at all is given for the title won in the NBL in 1948. Clearly, Boston was the better team in this era, but only by virtue of the stacked teams they had during the Russell era.

Second third:
Celtics 5 titles, 7 finals appearances, with 5-2 mark. 7-6 record in ECF. Ducked the Lakers 5 of those 6 losses. 4 seasons missed playoffs.
Lakers 6 titles 11 finals appearances, with 6-5 mark. 11-3 record in WCF. Missed playoffs twice.

Again, the argument Boston had it tougher in the ECF than the Lakers did in the WCF fails as the Lakes usually beat the team in the finals that beat Boston in the ECF. Meanwhile, most the Lakers finals losses were to teams that owned the Celtics; Reed's Knicks twice, Dr. J's Sixers, and the Bad Boy Pistons. If Boston was as good as they think they are, they would have a 5-7 finals mark, no extra titles, and the Lakers would have one more, for 1973, as Havlicek was injured. Lakers vs. Celtics head to head could have been 7-1 instead of 2-1. Even though the Lakers come out with only 1 extra title it is pretty clear that they are at least every bit as equal to the Celtics at this stage, their domination over the Celtics in relation to the rest of the league is about the same as the Celtics enjoyed in the first third.

I also believe it is worth noting once again the flawed logic of my old foe I beat to a pulp, Celtics55, in hopes he one day finds his way into this argument again. He would step in here and say my "what if the Celtics had not ducked the Lakers" scernario is pure speculation and therefore invalidates everything, because we don't know the Lakers would have beat the Celtics. Ok, he's right, to a point, but the indisputable fact is the Lakers did beat the teams that beat the Celtics. He's wrong because it doesn't invalidate everything, the main fact being the Lakers did much better in reality. My hypotheitcal actually improves the Celtics results because they go deeper in the playoffs than they did in reality and it only serves to clarify the domination of the Lakers over the Celtics. See, he relies on history only remembers the last loser, not an earlier one. No one remembers the Lakers beat the defending champion Spurs in 2008, only that they lost to the Celtics in blowout fashion in 6 games in the finals. By moving the Celtics up to the finals, where they should have been, it clarifies the Lakers superiority. Of course specualtion is a crazy game, you can give any team a title it may not have won otherwise, but there are some facts that become apparant when you use it. Had Boston not lost in 7 games to Orlando in 2009, Cleveland would have likely been in the finals. they matched up well with Boston, but not with Orlando. Last year, the Lakers began to meltdown near the end of the regular season. It was entirely possible that we could have lost to the Hornets. How far could they have gone? They certainly would have done better against Dallas than we did, and could have next faced an inexperienced OKC. Could they get to the finals and take down the Heat? Maybe. But that's not the point. The point is hypotheticals do clarify who is better. The Hornets would not have lost to the Mavs 4-0, period. They just weren't able to close us out.

Last third:
Celtics 1 title, 2 finals appearances with 1-1 mark. 2-1 record in ECF, ducked the Lakers once. Missed playoffs 9 times
Lakers 5 titles, 8 finals appearances with 5-3 mark. 8-1 record in WCF. Missed playoffs 2 times. Head to head is 1-1, but it could be Lakers 2-1 if not for 2002.

It is worth noting that the Bulls have more titles than the Lakers, with a 6-0 finals mark and 6-1 mark in the ECF, but those 7 seasons missing the playoffs give the Lakes the edge over the Bulls this era, much like the Lakers have the edge over Boston even though the title count is one fewer. But we aren't talking about Lakers vs. Bulls, and the full history puts the Lakers miles ahead.

In this last third, the Lakers are so far ahead of Boston it isn't even funny. Keep in mind, this era is one full third of NBA history, and that's a major statistical fact that can't be denied, although Boston fans certainly want to ignore these years and rely on the failed "Most titles means best franchise" argument.

In summary, it is pretty clear that the Celtics domination over the Lakers in the first third is evenly matched in the second third. The final third seals the deal and is utter proof the Lakers are once again proven to be the greatest franchise in NBA history.

What does the next 21 years have in store? Well, the Lakers have proven they will usually be competitive, Boston has lost that power. Objectively, Boston should improve on 3 ECF appaearences in 21 years and it could be hard for the Lakers to match the 9 WCF appearances. However, if you had to bet your last dollar on who would make it that far the most times, which team are you going to pick? Even a Boston fan should pack it in and bet on the Lakers.

All we can do is hope the Lakers pick up two titles soon so we can completely lay the argument to rest once and for all. There isn't a valid argument for Boston anyway, but those chowderheads need to admit we are better, now. The sooner the better, because I am going to ride them until they all see the facts!

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


#74 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 October 24, 2011 - 12:25 PM

Here, I'll take on the "mighty" Bill Simmons, invite him to this discussion. He's welcome anytime, right here in this thread to debate anything I have posted. Let me share his recent feelings about our rivalry with his Celtics.

From http://www.grantland...ly-mourning-nba

1.

The KG Era Celtics. RIP. One title, should have had two.

No, Bill, you should have none,. In 2008 we were missing Bynum and Ariza wasn't close to 100%. Without them,we almost stole game 2 and gave away game 4. It could have been Lakers in 5. It's just as easy for me to say that as your claim, and Doc Rivers never beat our starting lineup in a series.

I still can't believe KG got hurt on the alley-oop in 2009.

It's called Karma, Bill. KG was picking on little guys all year. Go look at footatge from your home game against the Blazers, when KG got down on all fours and barked at Jared Bayless like a dog. Besides, you weren't going to beat us that year anyway. We got you on Christamsa and won in Beantown without Bynum. Only reason the latter game was close was because we kept missing free throws. Kobe was clutch in that fourth quarter, suck it up and have a look.

I still can't believe Perkins went down in Game 6.

Well, he did. At least you had him for 6 games, we never had Bynum for a second in 2008. Besides, Bynum owns Perkins and Rasheed Wallace came through for you. Without his offense you lose game 7 by double digits. By the way, we still beat your starting 5.Wallace kept the game closer than it would have been.

I still can't believe we lost Game 7 when the other team's best player went 6-for-24.

Well you did lose. What if he was healthy and went 12-24? Instead of having a 13 point lead you choked away, to make it the biggest game 7 comeback in NBA finals history for the Lakers, you at best have one lead the whole game, 1 point. Lakers win by 16. Besides, why were your green weenies not keeping Kobe off the glass? 15 rebounds allowed for a guard by a defensive oriented team tells us all, something was wrong with your team.

I still can't believe Artest's 3 went in.


Well, Artest missed against Phoenix in game 5, but he made up for that at the buzzer and his play in game 7 of the finals was MVP worthy. Besides, Pierce left him wide open, that's on Thibadeaux., Ron-Ron was supposed to make that shot, and he did. Artest was as ready to play that day as the Cheyenne and Sioux were ready to fight the Battle of Little Big Horn on June 25, 1876. Don't forget, Artest shut Pierce down most the series.

I still can't believe we traded Perkins for Green.


Hey, Danny Ainge isn't the saint you want him to be. he's as dumb now as he was when he played for your team. He probably owed a favor to that franchise for prying Ray Allen away a few years before. Besides, Shaq was your go to guy. We didn't want him, so he went out of his way to help us. He convinced you he would be ready, then wasn't. Shaq never was a Celtic, he is a Laker. I dare you to retire his number, any player in Boston can get that honor. We only give it to hall of famers.

Sigh.


Just say it Bill. Lakers franchise greater than Celtics franchise. If you have read this and the linked threads, you know it' true. You just got misled and cheer for the wrong team.

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


#75 GP1_KB24

GP1_KB24

    Dedication 4.

  • 20,198 posts
  • Joined: Apr 10, 2009
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe & Dwight.

Posted October 24, 2011 - 01:44 PM

Man I love your posts Lakers_55. Everytime I see you posted something new I feel like I'm going to learn something new in your post. You would take Bill Simmons to school BTW. :laughing:

5 Letters... 'YMCMB'

Posted Image


#76 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 October 24, 2011 - 09:50 PM

I wish u can get on his BS report podcast and just argue. Id listen to it no matter how long it would end up being.

Posted Image


#77 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 October 25, 2011 - 03:59 AM

Man I love your posts Lakers_55. Everytime I see you posted something new I feel like I'm going to learn something new in your post. You would take Bill Simmons to school BTW. :laughing:

Thanks! I'm sure I've posted this video before. I have nothing against Bill Simmons, but have fun with it if you haven't seen it already. His new article still shows the pain of game 7 still sticks with him, and here you see him at that game before, and after. In between are Pau's bucket with 1:30 left (Which by the way was not traveling, Pierce touched the ball when it was in Pau's hands, thus Gasol can come back down to the floor). ron's 3, Kobe's last free throw, and the final inbounds play. Bill was watching when Kobe got teh MVP. At least he stuck around, and suffered through it.



I wish u can get on his BS report podcast and just argue. Id listen to it no matter how long it would end up being.


Hey, it's a possibility. Please get me his schedule.

A few side notes. When I was born, the Lakers were NBA champions and still in Minneapolis. When Bill was born in Septemeber 1969, the Russell era had just ended, but as with me, his team was the champion. I doubt seriously he saw or could appreciate the Celtics titles of 1974 and 1976 at ages 4 and 6. My first Angels baseball game, for example was at age 7.5 All I remember is the Halos lost it badly. I looked up the box score recently, vs. White Sox August 25, 1962,, and what I thought was a 9-3 final was 9-2. I had no clue who Angel pitching legend Bo Belinsky was, but he was the starter and lost it, badly.

Translation? Bill has seen 10 Lakers titles and 4 Celtics titles in his lifetime. That has to hurt.

Anyway, I'll take him on. No other Celtics fan has been able to give any reasonable argument for supremacy outside of "Cherry Picking" and opinion. I have given facts, and facts mean proof. Opinion is just that, an opinion. Maybe an articulate writer as Bill can construct a proof I am wrong. But I doubt it. However, if he does take me on, the stake is, the loser admits the other is right, and has to publicly state it. Would he be up to that challenge? Bring it Bill!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Simmons

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


#78 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 October 25, 2011 - 08:52 AM

I'll add this for Bill Simmons, and every other Celtics fan or Kobe hater to answer, since all of them just can't get away from 6-24.

What's worse:

1) To be the best player in the NBA and shoot 6 for 24 in a finals game 7 and still beat the Celtics

or

2) Be 1 for 25 in your franchise's last twenty five seasons winning NBA titles. (With a 1-2 finals mark I may add. The Lakers managed to get there 11 times, winning 7).

I swear, the more these Celtics fans want to deny reality and ignore what's obvious, the more I am making certain a Lakers fan is the one schooling them. And that hurts just as much as the Lakers being a better franchise. As I said before, they never saw the day proof would come the Lakers are the better franchise and never expected a Lakers fan to smack them as hard as I have.

1 for 25? LOL. How the mighty have fallen.

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


#79 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 November 02, 2011 - 10:30 PM

Time to have a bit more fun picking on the Boston Celtics. So far, I haven't seen Bill Simmons set foot in here. He's still quite welcome. What I am going to do is go after my old rival, Celtics_55, who I already beat to a pulp. I have a number of email addresses belonging to him so methinks he needs to see this thread. He left the argument in shame, and it's largely his fault I kept it going, and going. He needs to know it's his fault this assassination of his team is taking place. I may be cruel, but he was an idiot and brought this all to be.

Ok, to refresh, his main arguments for Celtics supremacy were these numbers, which I have updated since he wrote his nonsense:

1) 9-3 (Celtics playoff edge over Lakers)
2) 17-4 (Celtics finals record, unrivaled for win % in pro sports.
3) 16-15 (Lakers finals record, he really emphasized all those finals losses as being a disgrace), it was 14-15 when he wrote his opinion).

And the short refuations repeated, with fact.

1) 9-3. We all know this conveniently ignores every season, which comes out Lakers 39-24. He never had a response to my challenge of his cherry picking and his agreement we were examining the entire history of the NBA, especially the part when the NBA got the toughest, the Lakers stood up and fought and the Celtics simply folded. Probably because he didn't pay attention to my initial rebuttal of these 3 "points" he gave that clearly stated, "The old arguments for Celtics supremacy don't hold up any more." It's also worth noting again that 7 of those Lakers losses came in an 11 year span, and they only played 5 more times in the next 42 seasons.I've already pointed out why that happened, many times. He simply waived off the fact that Celics drought between titles from 1986 to 2008 ruined them. He did admit the Lakers had gained ground, but wasn't willing to throw in the towel.
2) This is a primary advantage in his mind only. It's still 10 finals appearances fewer than the Lakers. Best way to shortcut it to show it isn't a primary advantage over LA's 16-15 mark is simly to count only championships in number of seasons. Here Celtics are 17/65 and Lakers are 16/63. Quite close. Actually, it's even. Lakers won a title in 1948 in the old NBL whch credit isn't given for. Besides, if the Celtic were as good as they think they are, and the Celtics had those 10 more finals appearances, they would have had 10 more finals losses, bring them to 17-14, one ahead of us. He went into a great unrelated tangent to prove why speculation in an argument was proven by the great philosophical minds of history to not have any place in an argument. Then, he proved his arguments were based upon speculation, and he challenged the great mathematicians of history and their theorems in order to attempt a statictical proof he won the argument! He left vthe arguement when I exposed his flawed logic, he still owes me, and the world that saw our debate, some answers!
3) Lakers finals losses. To him, this was a big deal, but in his mind only. He never had a logical explanation for my point that at least Lakers showed up to play in the finals. The simple explanation that you can't win a title if you don't get to the finals, and the Lakers did it 10 more times than the Celtics was flat out ignored. Instead, he had some silly quote from a comment made in the 2009 Super Bowl by John Madden when the Steeleers came back vs. the Cardinals "This is what seperates a champion from a contender". I cornered him on one item in our past argument. I asked him if the Yankees lost 14 World Series in a row and ended up with a losing series record, and no other contender gained on them, would they cease to be te greates baseball franchise? All he could say was "It would be in jeopardy". What a fool. Of course, he called that hypothetical because it was specualtion, and thus an invalid question, but that was just him trying to set the rules of our debate. It's a perfectly legitimate question.

Now, for the gist of all this.We are going to play a little what if game. Naturally, Celtics_55 would say it's speculation, and invalid, but since he was proven to be the master of flawed logic, no one cares what he says. What if's are a major part of internet discussions. Even Celtics_55 was caught lamenting Bill Buckner's error in the 1986 World Series, and how it cost the Red Sox a championship. As Lakers fans, we can pretty easily grant ourselves at least 5 more titles easily to what ifs. Here's one that's relevant to what follows. what Dirk had gone down in the WCF vs. OKC? Would the Thunder have made the finals? They probably would have, Now the question is, do the Heat now win the title? So that's the theme of the following hypotheticals. Let's suppose the eventual champion lost every conference finals. now, the finals runnerup has another shot. This will further prove the worth of the Laker 15 finals losses, and why 17-4 is not all what Celtics_55 makes it out to be. so, the Lakers are giving back 16 NBA titles, the Celtics 17. The Lakers get 15 more shots at a title, Boston only 4. You may dispute my conclusions if you wish. Feel free to give your own.

Let's do Boston's finals losses first. Keep in mind all these hypotheticals are mutually exclusive of each other. Had history been written as follows, many changes would have been made, or not made every season.

1958: Had the 33-39 Pistons upset the St. Louis Hawks, Boston would have easily become champions.
1985: Had the 52-30 Nuggets upset the Lakers, Boston would easily have become champions.
1987: Had the 39-43 Sonics upset the Lakers, Boston would easily have become champions.
2010: Had the 54-28 Suns upset the Lakers, Phoenix would have become champions. That Suns bench would had run circles around the Celtics who would be gassed out. don't forget, Phoenix beat them both times in the regular season. Revenge for 1976 would have been complete.

So, the Celtics didn't get the job done for themselves in the finals 4 times. If they had help in the west, they could have been 20-1. In this scenario though, they are 3-1 in finals, with a 4-28 mark in the ECF instead of 21-11.

Now the Lakers turn:

1959: Had Syracuse upset the Celtics, the Lakes would have lost the finals. Acutally, this could have gone either way. Syracuse did take Boston to 7 games, and lost the finale by 5. Lalers did win 5 of 9 in the regular season, but lack of HCA is the decider. Two teams with losing records in the finals. That's how easy it was for a deep team to become champion.
1962: Had the Warriors upset the Celtics, the Lakers would have becme champions. Wilt was unstoppable, but the Lakers were deeper.
1963: Had the Royals upset the Celtics, the Lakers would have become champions.
1965 Had the 76rs upset the Celtics, the Lakers would have become champions
1966: Had the 76rs not been upset by the Celtics, the Lakers would have lost the finals. Wilt was finally getting some teammates.
1968: Had the 76rs not been upset by the Celtics, the Lakers would have lost the finals. That ECF and the resulting finals was the turning point in Lakers history. Had Wilt's team not choked away a 3-1 series lead, he would have stayed with the 76rs. Had the Lakers somehow beaten the 76rs in the finals, they would not have traded for him. This is one Celtics championship we can be grateful for, it doomed them, and set our future.
1969: Had the Knicks not been upset by the Celtics, the Lakers would have become champions. Lakes would have had HCA and were ready. Knicks weren't.
1970 Had the Bucks upset the Knicks, the Lakers would have become champions. Kareem was a rookie and not ready. No Big O yet
1973 Had the Celtics not been upset by the Knicks, the Lakers would have become champions. True Boston would have had HCA, and had beaten us all 4 games, but John Havlicek ws lost to injury, so Boston ducked us.
1983: Had the Bucks upset the 76rs, the Lakers would have become champions.
1984: Had the Bucks upset the Celtics, the Lakers would have become champions.
1989: Had the Bulls upset the Pistons, the Lakers would have become champions. Heck we should have anyway, but Scott and Magic went down to injury. Those wouldn't have happened preparing for the Bulls, and Magic was hurt in Detroit. Lakers were 11-0 n playoffs that year and prepped to send Kareem out a winner.
1991: Had the Pistons upset the Bulls, the Lakers would have become champions. Revenge for 1989 on a Detroit team that was in decline.
2004: Had the Paces not been upset by the Pistons, in retrospect, I think the Lakers still would have lost the finals. Malone was already hurt and Shaq, Phil, and Kobe were all about to go their seperate ways. Plus,Indiana would be motivated for 2000 finals revenge.
2008: Had the Pistons upset the Celtics, the Lakers would have become champions. Revenge for 1989 on a different Detroit team that was in decline.

So, this gives the Lakers a 10-5 finals record, with a potential maximum result of 26-5 in the finals. It does drop the Lakers WCF mark to 15-25, which is clearly far superior to Boston's hypothetical 4-28 in the ECF. Clearly anyone can see 26-5 potential for Lakers is >>> than 20-1 for Celtics even though the winning percentage is lower for us. This is much the same when you compare the reality of the Celtics 17-4 with the Bulls 6-0 and the Spurs 4-0 finals marks. Total titles trumps win percentage. Also of note is what the Lakers and Celtics finals marks head to head would be under ideal maximum title scenarios. For the Lakers it is 4-0, and for the Celtics it's 9-0. They still have us beat there, but that's their smack. They have a better playoff record against the NBA's best franchise. We know this is true because of hte 7 times the Celtics ducked the Lakers by losing the ECF in years the Lakers became champions. In closing it's also worth noting that even though the above scenarios didn't take place, it proves my point. you can't win the finals if you don't get there. You can't control who you pla when you get there. Had the true champion in those years faltered in the conference finals, the Lakers stood to gain much more than the Celtics did, because we bothered to show up and play whoever got there. Boston didn't.

So, Mr. Celtics_55, your argument is busted.
9-3 is permanently and utterly refuted.
17-4 is permanently and utterly refuted as a prime advantage.
Lakers 15 finals losses as being a negative against us is permanantly and utterly refuted.

Get some new arguments Celtics fans, if you're going to fight this war. Oh, wait, you can't. There are none that can't be refuted. Admit it, the Lakers are the NBA's best franchise. I've proved it, and proof trumps opinion every time.

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


#80 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 November 07, 2011 - 06:07 PM

Since I plan to get this thread into Celtics_55's hands to read, I feel it is necessary to stop a moment and deal with his flawed logic, which would be certain to come after my last post above. Mr. Celtics_55 would go into a hissy fit if he glanced at my post. I already proved he lacks reading comprehension due to countless instances of points I made he claimed he refuted, but in actuallity, never discussed. so, I need to clarify things to fit his feeble mind.

Celtics_55 is liable to say, my post above is speculation, and therefore not only it is rendered imadmissable, everything else I have said is as well! Well, as nutty as that sounds, that's what he tried to do before when were dueling. Naturally, he always ducked my request to address a ton of unaswered counterpoints I threw at him debunking his flawed logic.

In effect, all my post above is, is simply an attempt to determine who the favorite in the NBA finals would be if the eventual champion didn't get there themselves. Any season in which we reach the conference finals, fans of 4 teams hope to get there, and begin sizing up their potential finals opponents. My post above just takes a look at other matchups and does just that. It isn't rewriting history, as Celtics_55 falsely accused me of. It is simply proof positive that having 15 finals losses is not a detriment, and having a high winning percentage in the finals with 17-4 is not a primary advantage as Celtics_55 claimed it was. I Killed two of his arguments in one swoop. Again, although the Lakers have the potential to have had 26 titles, they wouldn't have gotten them. If the results strat changing, trades are made, or not made, forever altering future real outcomes.

Now, it's time to put the icing on the cake to Celtics_55's arguments. Above we gave the finals loser a second chance when they didn't get it done the first time. Now, we are going to look at conference finals losses by both the Celtics and Lakers and se who would "win" these new finals. If the Celtics are as great as they think they are, this is a golden opportubuity to gain some hypothetical titles on the Lakers as the Celtics have 11 conference finals losses and the Lakers but 9. Boston is going to get more chances! If logic says that making the finals is a plus, then making the conference finals should be as well. So Boston's ECF record is going to be bumped from 21-11 to 32-0 and the Lakres WCF mark of 31-9 goes to 40-0. Boston will have 8 fewer finals "appearancs" than the Lakers. Again, these events are looked at year by year only. Had any of them occured, the future would change.

Boston ECF losses, changed to wins, and finals result. Asterisk notes home court advantage.
1953: Lose Finals to Minneapolis Lakers. Sorry, Cousy and Sharman weren't enough.
1954: Lose Finals to Minneapolis Lakers. Sorry, Cousy and Sharman weren't enough.
1955: Lose Finals to Fort Wayne Pistons. Well, the Pistons beat the Lakes that year, enough said.
1967: Win Finals against San Francsisco Warriors.
*1972: Lose Finals to Los Angeles Lakers.
*1973: Lose Finals to Los Angeles Lakers. I don't care Boston was 68-14 and had swept the Lakers 4-0 in regular season. Havlicek was lost to injury, and that means Laker win, period. Wilt and West wanted revenge, and would have gotten it.
*1975: Lose finals to Golden State Warriors. I don't care Boston would have had HCA. That Warriors team turned on the juice and steamrolled the Bullets in the finals. Rick Barry, Jeff Mullins, Bill Bridges, Clifford Ray and ROY Jamaal Wilkes would have torn them apart. The Warriors carried the momentum over to the next season and had the NBA's best record. Boston is so lucky the Warriors were upest by the 42-40 Suns that WCF, or they would have one title fewer.
*1980: Lose Finals to Los Angeles Lakers. Bird was alone, no Parish, no McHale.
*1982: Lose Finals to Los Angeles Lakers. McAdoo was the difference, and he would not have been denied.
*1988: Lose Finals to Los Angeles Lakers. Of course they would have, we cleaned them out in 1987.
2002: Lose Finals to Los Angeles Lakers. No stopping the 3Peat!

Wel, at least Boston was favored to make it to 6 more finals, but lost series with home court. Still, when all is said and done, Boston only gets one extra title, and has an "adjusted" finals mark of 18-14. Clearly, another reason why 17-4 is not a primary advantage.

Now, it's the Lakers turn.
*1951: Lakers win Finals against New York Knicks.
1955: Lakers win Finals against Syracuse Nationals.
1957: Lakers lose Finals to Boston Celtics
1960: Lakers lose Finals to Boston Celtics
1961: Lakers lose Finals to Boston Celtics
1971: Lakers win Finals against Baltimore Bullets. No Jerry West, probably no Elgin Baylor. Lakers would have prevailed though.
*1977: Lakers win finals against Philadelphia 76rs.
1986: Lakes win Finals against Boston Celtics. Hey, I don't care that was Boston's best team ever and that they only lost 1 game at home all year. I don't care how good a year Bill Walton had as 6th man.The Lakers wuoud have won every other finals matchup with the Celtics that decade, and should have won in 1984. No way, no way whatsover do the Lakers let Boston get back ahead of them in mathups after the 1985 redemption.
1998: Lakers lose Finals to Chicago Bulls. Well, they had the potential to beat the Bulls that year, but were just too immature.

So, had the Lakers won those 9 WCF's they lost, they would have 5 more titles. "Adjusted" finals recorde, 21-19. Note that we get no credit for the title we would have had in 1973, Boston is lucky we didn't get there in 1986. Clearly, Boston doesn't have another team that bowed out early in the playoffs that was capable of gtting to the finals, let alone win them. The Lakrs, however, have several that could have won it all. 1981, if Magic was 100&, 1990 we could have had revenge on the Pistons. 1999 against the Knicks and we owned the Blazers that era. 2003, the Nets would have been easy, and 2011, if we got our ship together and the team we saw after the all star break showed up.

Mr. Celtics_55, you and your arguments have been left in the dust.

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





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users