8 Straight Finals Losses an NBA Record

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : Apparently it's your problem. Otherwise you wouldn't be spending so many hours on a forum for Celtic fans telling Celtic fans about 16-47. lol
    Posted by Tachometrix


    Apparent to whom? if it's you, I don't worry about it.

    Wait until the Celtic forum only allows Celtic fans to post, then I'll worry...


     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : Magic/Scott in 1989 and Worthy, Nixon, McAdoo in 1983 that's YOUR FRANCHISE'S INEPTITUDE, not my problem. lol What's ineptitdue, by the way? Need english remedial?
    Posted by Tachometrix


    So it's not your problem, neither is the 22-year old drought my problem.

    I'll take three final losses over a 22-year old drought (with 8 missing playoffs and only 1 final appearance) anytime.

    Of course, you would rather miss the playoffs because there is no silver medal anyway. Typical loser mentality.

    And a typo is still not as bad as

    "Of course not! But so did the Lakers."

    Did you finish grammer school? or are you still in kindergarten?






     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : You count wins and losses, us Celtic fans count the number of championships! Only 12 banners hanging on the rafters of Staples, why is that?
    Posted by Tachometrix


    You count more than that. You also count lottery picks and missing playoffs.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    Duke, Fierce, DoctorCO, and RedRuss are just Celtic fans. It's not like what they say will give the Celtics or Lakers more titles. 

    The Lakers are good enough to be considered the best NBA franchise by many. That's why 1 extra title didn't give you much leeway...


    On second thought, Fierce appears to be doing a good job because he has you believing the Lakers really have 17 titles when the Lakers have how many titles again?
    Posted by Tachometrix

    I don't have to believe that. It's Fierce's belief that the Lakers had 1 more season in the NBL. We know that as a FACT, not a belief...

    Of course, Fierce did a great job of setting the Celtics' ultimate priority: lottery picks...



     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : When Brian Scalabrine is playing in place of KG and takes a Dwight Howard led team to Game 7, now that's something to brag about!

    Sure that is. Injury is part of the game.



    The Lakers with Bynum, Gasol, and Odom all healthy couldn't even win one single playoff game against the Mavs last May. lol 
    Posted by Tachometrix

    Why is that a surprise? the Mavs were champs.

    The Celtics won 1 game, but they had the fortune of playing against LeChoke, but you really should brag about it. That's all Celtics fans brag about these days: 1 win in the 2nd round...



     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : I checked the link, there's no  16-15-9-11-7-5 vs 17-4-11-11-6-16 anywhere on those links. You must be an inventor because you gave a link that didn't contain what you posted. http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/ Championships:  17 http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/LAL/ Championships:  16 How many championships do the Lakers really have again?
    Posted by Tachometrix


    Learn how to count. Now answer me.

    How many times they won the title?
    How many times they reached the finals?
    How many times they reached the conference/div. finals (final 4)?
    How many times they reached the conference/div. semi (final 8)?
    How many times they reached the 1st round?
    How many times they missed the playoffs?

    So you mean you don't know the Celtics reached the conference finals 11 times? Girl, you have to learn more about the NBA...

    Or should you take remedial counting?


     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : I don't think you're worried. You're just bothered because the Lakers came so close to #17 and ended up laying an egg. lol
    Posted by Tachometrix


    Face it, Celtic fans are bothered more that their team is not considered the best in NBA history, not only by Hollinger, but by their own fans' logic...


     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : Loser mentality = counts playoff appearances Winner mentality = counts number of championships won What's the point in competing if you can't win it all? You really expect us to believe the Lakers enter every season having a goal of just making the playoffs? We waited for 22 years, so what? Not only did it give us 100% satisfaction seeing Kobe and the Lakers get beat up by 39 points in the finals, it also assured us Celtic fans that the 1990s is the only decade the Celtics never won a championship.
    Posted by Tachometrix


    Nope, loser mentality == as long as I don't win the championship, I would rather get a lottery pick. That's not only a loser, that's unprofessional.

    Fortunately, your team's players didn't do that, they would rather get in as an 8th seed and lost than missed the playoffs...

    Making the playoffs is no big deal, but missing the playoffs, since making it is no big deal, is a BIG SIN!!!

    Umm.. tell me how many championships the Celtics won in the decade of the 1940s? the 2010s?




     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : That's your opinion. Besides, best franchise isn't equal to the winningest.


    Right, that's why people don't just count championships, they also count your drought era AGAINST YOU. It's tough to swallow...


    I would rather we win more than being the most popular.

    Yep, I know you would rather win the lottery, but unfortunately, Tim Duncan escaped you ...

    Popularity doesn't give the Lakers another banner or Larry O'Brien trophy.
    Posted by Tachometrix

    And # championships doesn't give the Celtics the best franchise either. I know you'll blame two people for your 22-year drought...



     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : So why are making excuses about Worthy, Nixon, and McAdoo in 1983 and Magic and Scott in 1989?  You do go both ways! lol
    Posted by Tachometrix


    When did I make excuses for Worthy/Nixon/McAdoo and Magic/Scott? You care to cite those excuses?
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : Fierce posted an infinite number times that the Lakers have 16 titles. But when he argues with you he keeps telling you the Lakers have 17 titles and you keep believing him! lol
    Posted by Tachometrix


    Fierce also counted the Lakers' 1947-48 NBL season. I don't have to believe him. That's his own deed.

    So if he counted the Lakers' 1947-48 NBL season and posted an infinite # times that the Lakers have 16 titles, then he simply contradicted himself...


     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : You see any Bulls or Spurs fans here talking about the Bulls or the Spurs? Do Celtic fans go to the LA Times to brag about the Celtics? If you're so sure that you're Lakers are so great then why are you here? This board is for Celtic fans, people here talk Celtics. You think Celtic fans are happy every time you come here and antagonize Celtic fans?
    Posted by Tachometrix


    Well, you see any Bulls or Spurs fans posted on their forum on a topic called

    "Lakers 8-peat"

    and went on to highlight those 8 finals from 1959-1970? and then "the other half of the 15 finals losses of the Lakers"?

    Nah, Bulls fans and Spurs fans have more class than that. Maybe they are satisfied with their team's place in NBA history while don't have that inferiority complex...

    That's why the 16 missed playoffs is so haunting, even when your # championship is one more. It can't make up the numerous failure...






     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : How could the Lakers become the best franchise in NBA history when the Lakers: * lost in the finals in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s * only have a .516 finals record * are the most swept team in NBA history * have losing records to multiple eastern conference teams in the finals If you want to be the best you have look like the best. Does 16-15 (.516) look like the best? lol
    Posted by Tachometrix


    Simple, because losing in the finals is much better than missing the playoffs.

    Losing finals in every decade is still better than missing 16 playoffs, since making the playoffs is already nothing to write home about.

    Of course 16-15 is the best, because the whole truth is not just 16-15, but

    16-15-9-11-7-5 vs 17-4-11-11-6-16 


     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : If the Celtics didn't end up in the lottery there would be no Big 3. Remember, it was the 5th pick of the 2007 Draft that landed the Celtics Ray Allen.  The Lakers got into the playoffs in 2007 and was eliminated in the 1st round. Then in June they drafted Javaris Crittenton. lol 
    Posted by Tachometrix


    Well, the Celtics ended up with in the lottery with Randy Foye, Jerome Moiso, Eric Williams, etc. while giving away Joe Johnson and Chauncy, watching the Celtics picking lottery is sure a lot of fun.

    I'll like the chance of them getting any busts like that instead of getting a Ray Allen again...

    And the Lakers don't have to build through the lottery. It's the NBA conspiracy to load up the Lakers. You should know that...





     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : Nice try, but the evidence does not lie.  Got swept in 1983 too? lol I don't give a hoot about your players' death, just like you don't give a hoot that Bynum was injured in 2008, Magic/Scott in 1989, Worthy, Nixon, McAdoo in 1983...
    Posted by Tachometrix


    So I said you didn't give a hoot about the injuries of Bynum, magic, Scott, Worth...

    How does that become me making an excuse for Lakers losing in those finals?

    Remedial reading is calling you...


     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : Fierce is annoying, that's a fact! But he also has you telling everyone here that the Lakers have 17 titles. Apparently you believe him because you keep repeating that Fierce said the Lakers have 17 titles. If you didn't believe Fierce you would not have repeated what Fierce said, you would have just dismissed what he said because you know for a fact that the Lakers have how many titles?
    Posted by Tachometrix


    Your logic is weak. If I didn't believe Fierce, I still would have repeated what Fierce said, it's called "using your own words against you" in arguments. Apparently you have no clue on how to argue...

    Just like I have repeatedly use RedRust's argument of 9 is better than 11 as the logic to support 16 is better than 17, but that doesn't mean I believe Red is better than Phil.




     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : As the saying goes, it's not how many times you failed but how many times you succeeded.


    If that's the case, then the Rays (19-14) should be ahead of the Yankees (18-13) in the standings I cited (5/7/2011). But they were not. The league considered them tied. So your saying does not aligned with fact.


    The Celtics went to the finals 21 times and ended up winning 17 times. Missing the playoffs is just an indication of poor management and misfortune. 

    And poor managemnet doesn't count? I think you really have to smell the coffee.


    If the Lakers are so great then why do they have losing records against multiple eastern conference teams in the finals?

    Oh, so losing records against multiple eastern conference teams in the finals is the reason of not great? Care to cite where this rule is casted on stone?

    Didn't the Lakers only dominate the former ABA teams, Pacers and Nets?

    Well, seems like these former ABA teams represented the Eastern Conference? So where were the Celtics in those years? How come they let the former ABA teams represent the East?


    As far as I can remember the Lakers have a losing record against the Knicks, Bulls, Pistons, and Celtics in the finals. How could that be a great team when the Celtics, Knicks, Pistons, and Bulls have the advantage over the Lakers in the finals?
    Posted by Tachometrix

    How couldn't it be? Remember

    16-15-9-11-7-5?

    Don't forget, the Knicks, Pistons and Bulls aren't even close at the head. The Celtics, while close at the head, are much further ahead at the tail (by 11).

    It's really tough to swallow, isn't it?



     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : You just described yourself as having an inferiority complex. Bulls and Spurs fans don't come here because they have class and are satisfied with their team's place in NBA history. True! So why are Laker trolls here? Are Laker trolls lacking class and not satisfied with their team's place in NBA history? Definitely! lol 
    Posted by Tachometrix


    Umm... reading is really your weak link. The context of the inferiority complex, on the text just preceding it, was, as I highlighted:

    Well, you see any Bulls or Spurs fans posted on their forum on a topic called "Lakers 8-peat" and went on to highlight those 8 finals from 1959-1970? and then "the other half of the 15 finals losses of the Lakers"? Bulls fans and Spurs fans have more class than that. Maybe they are satisfied with their team's place in NBA history while don't have that inferiority complex...

    Now, read it really slow. The inferiority complex refers to:

    - posting a topic called "Lakers 8-peat"
    - highlight those 8 finals from 1958-1970
    - the other half of the 15 finals losses of the Lakers.

    So, if you need help in reading, just ask...



     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : Says you! Does Jerry Buss care about what a Laker troll like you has to say? Like I said, Celtic fans look up and see 17 banners. Laker fans look up and see 12 banners but claim they have 16. lol
    Posted by Tachometrix


    Like I said, Lakers fans look up and see their team competitive throughout their history, that's satisfaction.

    Celtics fans, on the other hand, look up and see 17 banners and think that they only compete in the NBA for 21 seasons. It's as if those 44 seasons of failure didn't exist, as in

    "it's not how many times you failed but how many times you succeeded. "

    Yet you keep telling me that the Lakers lost 15 times in the finals and have losing records to multiple teams in the finals, but then

    "it's not how many times you failed but how many times you succeeded. "

    So you are confused. If it's not how many times you failed, then what about those 15 losses?


     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : I wouldn't know because I only post on Celtic forums. You would not have seen that "Laker 8-peat" if you didn't come here. As the saying goes, "It's better if some things are left unknown." Are you telling us that your feelings got hurt by 21st's "Laker 8-peat" thread? If that's the case then poor you. lol
    Posted by Tachometrix


    Why would my feelings got hurt? The Lakers have already got its accolades as the best franchise from multiple sources. And I have a lot of fun rubbing it in. It's the Celtics fans that are fumed and tried this Lakers 8-peat stunt in vain...


     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : Not! What's tough to swallow is every time you google the NBA team with the most championships the Celtics always come out the winner.  A great team should have a great record. The Lakers have more finals appearances because the western conference was weak back in the 80s. This was already discussed here a few days ago. 
    Posted by Tachometrix

    What's tougher to swallow is when you get the most championships but didn't get recognized as the best franchise.

    Tells you 1 title deficit is not worth bragging about, especially what DoctorCO said, 6-title Steelers ruled the NFL over 13-title Packers...


     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from BaileyPowe. Show BaileyPowe's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

     
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : That's because you're focusing on Fierce and RedRuss. They're nobodies! Who cares about what Fierce or RedRuss says! What they say won't change the fact that the Celtics have 17 titles and the Lakers have how many again?
    Posted by Tachometrix


    And how many again?

    16-15-9-11-7-5 vs 17-4-11-11-6-16

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : It's not like it's not true that the Lakers 8 straight finals. lol Seriously, you deny the fact that the Lakers 8-peated in the 60s and 70s? lol And 15 finals losses? How many professional sports team in America lost 15 times in the Super Bowl, World Series, or Stanley Cup? lol Come on, girl, it is what it is. And that's your Lakers are still in 2nd place. lol
    Posted by Tachometrix


    Umm... when you can't argue, just change the context.

    Is your dodging an admission that this thread is an illustration of the Celtics fans' inferiority complex?

    Don't think I'll let you off the hook on this.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : It's simple, there are a lot of factors why you don't make the playoffs. Poor management and misfortune have a lot to do with it. But the Celtics are the only team to lose 2 active players, in less than 10 years, due to death. How many active Laker players died? Great teams are judged by their performance when they reach the championship game.

    See, when everything fails, just make things up.

    So when you don't make the playoffs, it doesn't count against you.

    But when you reach the finals and lost, it counts against you.

    Great teams are judged by their overall performance, not something you make up out of thin air.

    Your overall performance includes # times you missed the playoffs, # times you reached the SF, # times you reached the F, # times you win the championships.

    Of course, for some disturbed fans, great teams is judged by the records in the final alone and # of times in the lottery (or missing the playoffs):

    17-4 and 16 times missed the playoffs, 33 times of total success!!!! Hooray!!!


    The Lakers are poor in that department. 16-15 is just not great. The Celtics also already beat the Lakers in a finals game 7 on the Lakers home floor. When did the Lakers beat the Celtics in the Celtics home floor in a game 7 of a finals?
    Posted by Tachometrix

    The Lakers are poor in a department you cherry pick, so I don't care.

    Tell me, which team has lost the most # of home game 7 in NBA history?

    What's the average margin of defeat?

    I can easily select a department against you, not to mention the # times your team missing the playoffs...






     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share