In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:



The lottery did not start until 1987

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

Maybe the Celtics should have kept this guy, things might have been different in the 80's


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

It is a widely held belief that the first weighted lottery was held in 1985, with the New York Knicks "acquiring" Patrick Ewing.  Before that, picks were done solely on won-loss record.

In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:

Actually, if I remember correct, LA once had four (!) #1 picks on their rooster in the 80s. Really unbelivable for the recent NBA.

Dirty.....interesting link on Galis......thanks!!     ....and, as far as the Ewing lottery...conspiracy theories be damned....anyone who hasn't watched it on Youtube needs to take a look....funniest clip I've seen....they tossed the entries into the drum, then smashed the entry that turned out to be New York's....even Knick fans think it was outrageous....how could Stern not have reached in and found the only one with a bent corner....?  ...well, as Romey says.........."allegedly".....I only saw the clip when one of my best buddies (Knicks fan) sent me the link a few years ago....classic!

In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:


While Howard ,Griffin and Rose are good players . i would not try to compare them to Magic, Kareem and Worthy

Don't forget the Pistons had Isaiah Thomas , Joe Dumars and Vinnie Johnson

The Celtics were dominant in the 60's but how about the 40 years since then?

I really like how you always have to put a spin on everything
's

In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:


Duke

I will have to see if i can find it on youtube

In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:


It's more to do with good management than luck when it comes to drafting players. You left Worthy out of the genuine Lakers number one draft picks. Worthy and Johnson were our only genuine number one picks. Mychal Thompson also played in two championship teams.

Kareem, Wilt and Shaq came to us not via the draft. Plus Wilt was a 'Territorial' pick, not a 'number one' choice in the purist sense of the word.

Tom Heinsohn was a territorial pick for Boston.

When it comes to titles Boston owes their success to Bill Russell. That's the only reason the Celtics have 11 of their titles. Who is to say what would have happened if Red kept Easy Ed? Certainly no championships as Russell would have been at The Hawks. It wouldn't be hard to imagine St Louis still having the same success boston did in their Russell era.

If we're talking about draft day robberies, the move Red made to get Russell outstrips the moves we made to obtain Wilt or Kareem. That move by Red altered the landscape of the NBA. Best GM in history.

In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:


Exactly what is your point?

you post this

Back then the Celtics needed to beat the Sixers of Dr. J and Moses Malone to advance to the Finals. The Lakers on the other hand had Mark Aguirre and James Donaldson standing in their way. Ha Ha

And then this
Exactly my point. In the 80s, the Celtics had to deal with Dr. J's Sixers, Isiah's Pistons

The Lakers had to beat the same teams to win the finals as the Celtics

you are contradicting yourself

And you sure are pre-occupied with Magic  and  sex in the sauna as you have brought it up in previous posts

In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:

In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:



It could also mean that there was weak competition

Just because you say the west was weak does not make it true

Now if Larry Bird or Magic Johnson said it i would be more inclined to believe it

In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:


Are you telling me a team missing the playoffs is the same as a team making the playoffs?

Are you telling me a team missing the playoffs is the same as a team making it to the finals?

If that's the case the Celtics would have had a lottery pick for 2010. Did they?

In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:


Of course very funny. You want 1960s to be irrelevant? then it's 10-6. Take your pick.

In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:


I thought you counted the Lakers' 1947-48 NBL season. What gives?

In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:

Ummm... Duke, I thought you put me on ignore. Of course, knowing your habits,  I know you couldn't resist...


Well, you said it yourself. "To be the best you have to beat the best". Now, if the Celtics weren't the best in the east, they of course wouldn't get the chance to be beaten up by the Lakers. So what make you change the argument to "to be the best you have to beat the Celtics head-to-head"?


Missing finals 44 times - Celtics, 34 times - Lakers.

Now, you don't think you can get away with the total of 44 times the Celtics failed to make the finals, do you?

So the tally, no matter how you distort it, is 17-48 vs 16-47. So you penalize the Lakers for reaching the finals and reward the Celtics for their failure, do you think you can get away with this distortion?


17-16 is not really an edge.

17-48 vs 16-47, you said it yourself, it's as close as you can get.
As DoctorCO said it, Steelers ruled the NFL even though they were 7 titles short of the Packers, because he only counts WHAT MATTERS!!!!

So # title is not the only thing that counts when the total is that close, especially if you count Fierce's inclusion of the NBL championship. It's not like the Yankee's 27-10 edge or the Canadiens' 24-13 edge. The other factors roll in, such as the 16 times the Celtics failed to make the playoffs, the Celtics' failure since the NBA became big-time (DoctorCO's principle), etc.


I am sure the Celtics played two more seasons in the NBA than the Lakers. What 10 more appearances? You mean the Celtics only played 21 seasons in the NBA while the Lakers played 31?


Simple, because you are rewarding the Celtics' failure. They wimped out of the eastern conf championships when the Lakers won championships, why is it an advantage to them?


And I really can't figure out why you only count the finals. You mean the seasons the Celtics failed to make the finals are credit to the Celtics?

13-6 vs 8-1. Then what happen to the other 10 seasons. THE CELTICS FAILED TO MAKE THE FINALS. Now, you are crediting them with a .889 winning %. So when they failed to make the finals, it's an advantage to the Celtics. Why?

Your art of distortion is really unparallelled...

In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:


Ummm... another master of distortion.

You mean since the 1950s the Celtics have not lost in every decade? You mean losing before the finals are not losses? or you mean missing the playoffs are not losses?

Right, the Celtics had not lost in the 90s. Or was it totally wiped out from your memory?

Whether you like it or not, but losing in the finals are not as bad as missing the playoffs.


Losing record in the finals is still better than getting lottery picks.


The Celtics weren't without #1 draft picks. It's just that they were so inept that they couldn't win many titles with them.

Remember Bill Walton? Never Nervous? Shaq?

They weren't drafted by the Celtics? Kareem and Shaq weren't drafted by the Lakers either.

In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:


Nope, the big 4 is due to Duke's imagination.

I was there as much as he was in the 80s. No one sane enough would call the Bucks a "BIG" one. They weren't even good enough to get to 1 final, and Duke was trying to boost that the east was tough such that the Celtics couldn't get to more finals.

The sad truth is, he was using induction to induce that Big 4 in the 80s == Eastern conference was tough throughout NBA history. Otherwise how can he use that to ignore the era after Jordan? when the west was 10-3 against the east...

In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:


Well, failing to reach that goal doesn't mean all teams are equal. It's not black and white.

But of course you would insist that they are equal, because in the 16 cases that the Celtics missed the playoffs, you would have said that it's the same as winning the conference...

Except the NBA doesn't agree with you, or they would have put the Heat in the lottery in 2011...

But even if you do, then the tally is 17-48 vs 16-47. I'll see how you can deny this...

In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:


That's funny, you seem to think 5-3 in the finals is worse than 2-0 in the finals...

Majic....unfortunately, I do have you on ignore.....but many other posters are continuing to go back and forth on this topic....and I can see replies to comments via the magic that is called "cut & paste".......regardless of what you believe, I did not invent the term, the media did....and isn't it interesting that all of the titles were won actually by four teams..?  ...one from the West and three from the East!!  ....so at the end of the day, the media got it right.....also, did you take a look at the players on the Bucks..? ...did you check out their records...? .....you know they made the Eastern Conference Semi's or Finals multiple times right..?  ....they could just never get past Boston or Philly...this thread is about the greater of the two franchises all time...in my opinion, number of titles, records head to head, and records in the championships all trump your points....they are the top three categories in this comparison...of course, you will disagree and I'll see the response if I chose to read another cut & paste...as you can see, other than this direct response, I have simply scrolled over your posts and gone on to the the next one....last thing....I don't consider you a troll...you show a knowledge of the history of the rivalry and I get where you are coming from....you do tend to get a little smug at times, which is fine.....but since we will never agree with each other my thought is simply....why waste time butting heads ...? ....after all...these are simply our opinions...right?

In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:


The Bucks were very good for a long time with Nelly as the coach.  Did we mention Paul Pressy, who gave Larry fits at times a la Michael Cooper.  And let's not forget that Jack Sikma came to the Bucks in 1986!

In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:


Yes the Celtics have one more championship but the Lakers have a better winning percentage

http://nba-franchise.pikimal.com/los-angeles-lakers/vs/boston-celtics/for/all-time-winning-percentage

In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:


Wow , i disagree with someone and i am a fool? Actually i thought Bill Russell was the greatest player according to some in this forum

In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:


I like how you flip flop on your posts

you posted this earlier in this thread

Dirty.....I've brought this up earlier.......the article cites the Lakers as having a better won/loss record than Boston all time in both the regular season and the play-offs.....I think the trump card in this discussion is the fact that, head to head, Boston has the much bigger advantage....so in a comparison of two franchises for bragging rights...do you take the Lakers vs the league....or do you take the Celtics vs the Lakers...?  ....just asking an honest question....also...did you find the Ewing lottery on youtube yet.....?