Re: Laker 8-peat
posted at 11/6/2011 5:39 AM EST
In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat
Majic.....the NBA officially started in 1950 per Basketball Reference.com.....I don't really know why the '49 Laker championship is counted but it does.....so I'll give you 1-0 for the '40's.... you say the Lakers are better because a majority of titles came in the big time NBA? well, since you are so fond of saying..."you didn't think I'd let you get away with that"...I'll do the same...the "big time game" started with the advent of the shot clock era....it changed the game to the extent that big George could no longer play and retired at 31 years old.....since then Boston has been the dominant franchise...and the East has been the dominant conference....it is what it is....making the playoffs with a losing regular season record doesn't mean a lot...hell, the Lakers came out of the west in '59....of course they were swept by Boston.....
Show us who defined the shot clock as the NBA's big-time era. You don't think you can use the "because Mikan couldn't win any tites" as your definition, do you?
As for the Magic/Bird era as the Golden era of the NBA, that's not my sole opinion: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/11/AR2009121101705.html
The '80s, when Bird and Magic ruled, were the NBA's golden era. http://hoopspeak.com/2011/03/larry-and-magic-what-might-have-been-might-have-been-bad/
In Ryan DeGama's contribution to HoopSpeak's Basketball Culture 101 series, he discusses the notion of Bird-Magic as a golden era for the NBA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Basketball_Association
The league added the ABA's innovative three-point field goal beginning in 1979 to open up the game. That same year, rookies Larry Bird and Magic Johnson joined the Boston Celtics and Los Angeles Lakers respectively, initiating a period of significant growth in fan interest in the NBA throughout the country and the world.
There is also mention of the "modern era" of the NBA, which is widely considered as the NBA/ABA merger in 1976-77, not the introduction of the shot-clock. http://www.slate.com/id/2211157/
O'Brien had done nothing less than drag the business of pro hoops into the modern era. He brokered the ABA-NBA merger, http://nbahoopsonline.com/Articles/2005-06/Curse.html
Now Miami is one win away from becoming the first modern era expansion team to win a title http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2011/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=Finalists1-10
There have been 35 NBA Finals matchups since the NBA-ABA merger, so we at ESPN.com decided to rank all 70 teams that have played on the NBA's biggest stage in the modern era. http://balltrends.com/kevin-love-sets-modern-era-double-double-record-minnesota-timberwolves-94976.html
Kevin Love Sets Modern Era Double-Double Record, Minnesota Timberwolves ...
Kevin Love, nursing a bruised knee, had a shot to surpass the almighty Moses Malone's record (since the ABA-NBA merger almost 40 years ago) of 51 consecutive double-doubles. http://www.nba.com/2008/news/features/dave_mcmenamin/10/12/101108mcmenaminoutdoor/
That said, it was equally strange to me on Saturday night that Indian Wells Garden, located just outside of Palm Springs in sunny California, was downright chilly as the Nuggets downed the Suns 77-72 in the AutoTrader.com Open, the first NBA game played outdoors in the modern era.
You may think the shot-clock is an important demarcation point of the NBA, but that's your minority opinion.
As for the Lakers making the playoffs with losing record. Yep, that happened 6 times. Now you try to use those 6 times to induce that the Lakers played in a weak conference. Do you think this is mathematical induction?
And then what would you say about the Celtics making 3 playoffs with losing records (1948, 1995, 2004) and once with .500 record (1955)? Now, given your east isn't any better, so what new excuses are you going to use?
when you get to the bottom line it is all about championships.....
and if you are going to crow about 31 finals appearances then I'll crow about my team's .809 winning percentage...
The bottom line is all about championships? according to whom? At least your cohorts don't agree with you.
RedRust: Red is better than Phil, even though Phil won more than Red yet the number of titles are tagged with other qualifications (such as # times fired, did it with 1 team, age of retirement, etc.)
DoctorCO: Steelers ruled the NFL (even though they only had 6 NFL titles).
You crow about .809 winning percentage? You said it yourself, "to beat the best you have to beat the best"? If the Lakers beat the best the east offered but it ain't the Celtics, what are you crowing about?
I'll give you the Minny titles of the pre shot clock era....otherwise your Los Angeles entry actually has a losing percentage of .440.....oh yeah, and let's not forget the dominance that is 9-3....really man, you can try all you might in building your case but none of us are buying it...
You don't have the buy it. FACTS are FACTS. When the Lakers won 13 of the titles, where were the Celtics? You think 9-3 head to head is good. It is BAD. You don't think you can wipe of the seasons the Celtics failed to make the finals and the Lakers won, do you?
so just deal with it....
Yep, just deal with it.
16-15-9-11-7-5 vs 17-4-11-11-6-16
There is absolutely nothing you can do to refute this.
the Lakers are a great #2 franchise....
Posted by Duke4
You are losing it, since the Celtics have lost the #1 franchise in the NBA long time ago (about 25 years ago). Remember, # titles is not the only thing that counts, not to mention the arguments from you, RedRust and DoctorCO...