Posted June 10, 2012 - 08:36 AM
Miami eliminates Boston and officially surpasses them as a better franchise since the Heat were born. It's cold cut clear, and set in stone. Let me repeat and update my post I linked above, to leave no doubt.
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:
1 Finals loss
2 Eastern conference finals loss
5 second round playoff losses
6 first round playoff losses
9 seasons missed playoffs.
1 Finals loss
1 NBA finals undecided, 2012.
2 Eastern conference finals losses
2 second round playoff losses.
9 first round playoff lossses
8 seasons missed playoffs
Head to head in playoffs: Miai Heat 2- Boston Celtics 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, 2012
Edge Miami 13-11. 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 13-6 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 24 seasons? It's Miami. 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 not 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.
This list will need to be updated again, pending Miami's finals result. But if you look at it as it is now, there is more evidence that the silly arguments of my old foe Celtics_55 have no merit at all. First, as it is now, it's clear Miami is ahead of Boston, and can climb even further ahead with a finals win, tiebreaking the championships won margin. 13-11 and 2-1 are the significant numbers with 13-11 being the controlling factor. Of course, being down 2-1 in head to head exposes the hypocrisy of the value of head to head they place on it comparing to the Lakers, but in that case, it's 39-25 that counts. Here, Miami leads in both categories, thus leaving Celtics fans to admit they are a worse franchise than the Heat since they were born, and therefore, obviously inferir to the Lakers. Now, the next step is to show how Celtics_55's arguments have no merit. If Miami loses the finals, they will have a losing finals record, and according to him and his flawed logic, jhaving a losing finals record precludes a team from being the greates, or in this case, I am certain he would tout the fact the Celtics only lost one finals, not two, and thereforre must be considered better. LOL, what a joke that is! I'll say it again, you can't win the finals if you don't get there. Now, by losing yet another ECF, Boston's historical mark in the ECF falls to 21-12, while the Lakers are 31-9. Losing the ECF protects Boston's 17-4 finals mark, something Celtics_55 values as extremely significant, when it isn't. Boston just wasn't good enough in non championship years, and most of those were a disaster.Even with the number of ECF's Boston lost with HCA, they wouldn't have won more titles had they made it to the finals, being underdogs 7 times against the Lakers, and now here in 2012, in the same spot against the Thunder. So, 17-4 gets protected again, and likely will for years to come as the Celtics won't be sniffing the finals anytime soon. sine the Lakers title of 1948 gets tossed out of the books, the Lakers actually have a finals mark of 17-15. If somehow Boston had managed 11 more finals appearances as the Lakers, they would likely have a 17-15 finals record as well. That's why you can't commpare 17-4 to 16-15. It's like apples to oranges, the totals are too far off each other. Of course, Celtics_55 sees them only as finals marks and thus they can be compared, but of course we know his logic is flawed, and I proved it already.... About time for him to be invited to this thread, first, I'll get the video in his hands....