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 : We have 17 of these. How many do you have? Not 16, right?
    Posted by 21st


    14 already made the Lakers the #1 franchise in American sports.

    15 and 16 are just icing on the cake.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    I have a few thoughts (what a surprise)...I will reiterate my opinion....these are the two greatest franchises in history...call them numbers 1 & 2 or 1A & 1B  ...whatever....

    we have all gone back and forth .....here is a way to look at it...

    the Lakers dominated the league in the early to mid '50's (pre-shot clock)...........5 titles/no losses

    the shot clock was introduced in the 1954/55 season....going forward the Celtics dominated with 16 titles over the next 30 years...

    neither team won in the '90's.....free agency was introduced during this decade...

    the Lakers have been dominant since 2000 with 5 titles against 2 losses...

    it has been somewhat cyclical....I have brought up the question of strength of conference....I have focused mainly on the time frame where the rivalry was at it's highest...starting in 1959 and going through 1987....

    for the record, the championship comparison between conferences from the first year of the shot clock ('55) through the Bird/Magic era ('89)...

    50's East 4-1
    60's East 10-0
    70's even at 5-5
    80's even at 5-5

    totals over the 35 year span.....East 24-West 11

    the East continued their dominance through the '90's with a 7-3 edge (total is now 31-14 in favor of the East)...

    Since 2000 the West has a 9-3 advantage (totals 34-23)

    go back pre shot clock and add 5-1 advantage for the West (I am counting the last BAA year of 1949)

    the final tally (I believe this is accurate..'48/49-'10/11..63 years.....correct me if I'm wrong)

    East 35
    West 28

    During the Celtic reign from the late '50's through the late '80's I believe the Eastern Conference was the stronger of the two....that continued through the '90's.....the balance has shifted since 2000...

    which team or conference is better....?  .....I guess each poster has to judge for himself/herself....I will just say that this has been a rivalry for the ages....and it has been going strong for over 50 years...each franchise had lean years...most recently the Boston squad...things are pretty much back to normal....although each squad is aging, Boston probably more so.....

    so there you have it.......Celtics have the most titles......Lakers have more Finals appearances.....Finals winning percentage and head to head favors Boston....Lakers have been more consistant throughout the years...take your pick.....it is that close my friends! 

    ...just one man's opinion!
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : So what do you teach? kindergarten arithmetic? It's a fact that you don't know logic, which is part of the math curriculum in college. But that must be out of your league... You said 9 was better than 11, your words, not mine. So you cannot deduce that 17 is better than 16.
    Posted by MajicMVP


    MY POINT EXACTLY - I NEVER said 9 is better than 11 - I said RED was better than Phil..........................thanks for making my point!!
    It's YOU who said 16 is better than 17 - be very clear about that - and you're not using logic, by your own admission you enjoy antagonizing Celtics fans:

    Using YOUR words - Phil is better than Red because he won 11, and the lakers are better than the Celtics, even though it's 17-16 in our favor - not logical.......you're using semantics, not logic, which is not part of any math curriculum anywhere!!
    If you use logic - Phil is better than Red, because he won more titles AND the Celtics are better than the lakers because they won more titles.  That's numbers!!

    Adding in the subjective (know what that means - it means that which is opinion and cannot be proven one way or the other) - I think Red was a better coach than Phil overall - he drafted the players, signed them, coached them (by himself), was an innovator - ask Cousy, Sam Jones and Russell about play #6 (THE TRIANGLE).............so it my opinion that Red was better.  I'm not talking about lakers or Celtics overall - that is a different argument.  Using the subjective only - Red was better than Phil.......just like I think Babe Ruth was better than Barry Bonds, Willie Mays was better than Henry Aaron, Cal Ripken was better than Jeter, and Russell was better than Chamberlain..those are my opinons.
    The Gasol "thing", however, is a fact!!  (just to antagonize YOU)
     
  4. 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 : MY POINT EXACTLY - I NEVER said 9 is better than 11 - I said RED was better than Phil..........................thanks for making my point!! It's YOU who said 16 is better than 17 - be very clear about that - and you're not using logic, by your own admission you enjoy antagonizing Celtics fans: Using YOUR words - Phil is better than Red because he won 11, and the lakers are better than the Celtics, even though it's 17-16 in our favor

    Show me when I said Phil is better than Red only because he won 11 and Red won 9, then we'll talk. Before that, there is a more valid reason that Phil is better than Red.

    And the Lakers are better than the Celtics not because 16 is more than 17, but 16 is BETTER than 17. Why? The Lakers won the majority of them in an era of big-time NBA, not the bush league or farm league NBA that the Celtics won most of theirs. Besides, there are other numbers associated with both teams, like 47 and 48, 5 and 16, -15-9-11-7-5 and -4-11-11-6-16, etc.

    But since you claim that Red is better than Phil, then it means you look at things MORE than just sheer number of titles (11 and 9). That's enough for me.


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

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    Read and learn. This is the 12th time these two teams are meeting with a championship at stake and the fifth instance in which they are taking the battle to a seventh, and deciding, game. Not only have the Celtics won nine of those previous 11 finals, but they also have captured all four series that went to a seventh game. Sometimes, they prevailed with some odd Celtic bounces helping the cause. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/17/sports/basketball/17nba.html Lakers are 1-4 against the Celtics in Game 7s of the finals. The Lakers have no winning record over the Celtics in the regular season and postseason. Pathetic!
    Posted by MajorMajor

    Yep, pathetic. When the Celtics won the title at least the Lakers were there fighting to the end.

    When the Lakers won the title where were the Celtics? Are you proud of the Celtics getting eliminated in the conference finals? 2nd round? or missing the playoffs completely?

    The Lakers won 13 titles when the Celtics were nowhere to be seen...

    And you take that as a credit? Pathetic!!!!

    And you can tell me that "missing the playoffs is better than finishing 2nd". Go ahead, try it. I'll use your own fellow fans' testimony to smash it into pieces...



     
  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 : You should quit while you're behind because there's no one in this world would be crazy enough, like you, to ever declare the Lakers the greatest sports franchise in America. That's a fact!
    Posted by MajorMajor


    If you don't like it, tell Fierce not to use bleacherreport to argue.

    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/119441-10-greatest-sports-franchises-of-all-time

    1. Los Angeles Lakers

    The Lakers are the greatest franchise in sports. Period.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    The more we dig the more records in futility we discover about the Lakers. It's because of this thread that I found out the Lakers are 4-5 in Game 7s of the Finals and the Celtics are 4-1 against the Lakers in Game 7s of the Finals.  This has been educational. Ha Ha
    Posted by Fiercest34


    You mean you have to dig these records?

    Do you have to dig it out that the Celtics missed the playoffs 16 times while the Lakers only missed 5?

    Do you have to dig it out that the Celtics have lost the most # game 7 at home?

    Do you have to dig it out that the Celtics were nowhere to be seen when the Lakers won 13 of the titles? And you folks are proud of it?




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

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    I have a few thoughts (what a surprise)...I will reiterate my opinion....these are the two greatest franchises in history...call them numbers 1 & 2 or 1A & 1B  ...whatever.... we have all gone back and forth .....here is a way to look at it... the Lakers dominated the league in the early to mid '50's (pre-shot clock)...........5 titles/no losses the shot clock was introduced in the 1954/55 season....going forward the Celtics dominated with 16 titles over the next 30 years... neither team won in the '90's.....free agency was introduced during this decade... the Lakers have been dominant since 2000 with 5 titles against 2 losses... it has been somewhat cyclical....I have brought up the question of strength of conference....I have focused mainly on the time frame where the rivalry was at it's highest...starting in 1959 and going through 1987.... for the record, the championship comparison between conferences from the first year of the shot clock ('55) through the Bird/Magic era ('89)... 50's East 4-1 60's East 10-0 70's even at 5-5 80's even at 5-5 totals over the 35 year span.....East 24-West 11 the East continued their dominance through the '90's with a 7-3 edge (total is now 31-14 in favor of the East)... Since 2000 the West has a 9-3 advantage (totals 34-23) go back pre shot clock and add 5-1 advantage for the West (I am counting the last BAA year of 1949) the final tally (I believe this is accurate..'48/49-'10/11..63 years.....correct me if I'm wrong) East 35 West 28 During the Celtic reign from the late '50's through the late '80's I believe the Eastern Conference was the stronger of the two....that continued through the '90's.....the balance has shifted since 2000... which team or conference is better....?  .....I guess each poster has to judge for himself/herself....I will just say that this has been a rivalry for the ages....and it has been going strong for over 50 years...each franchise had lean years...most recently the Boston squad...things are pretty much back to normal....although each squad is aging, Boston probably more so..... so there you have it.......Celtics have the most titles......Lakers have more Finals appearances.....Finals winning percentage and head to head favors Boston....Lakers have been more consistant throughout the years...take your pick.....it is that close my friends!  ...just one man's opinion!
    Posted by Duke4


    You seem to be on an illusion here.

    You keep bringing up the strength of conference to argue for the Celtics, as the main reason why the Celtics couldn't make the finals. Yet at the same time, you keep including the times the Celtics won the titles. This has been going back and forth for months. However, no matter how many times you try, I won't let you slip by me, by using a circular argument as the reason why the Celtics couldn't make more finals:

    The Celtics won titles = /> the east was great => the reason the Celtics couldn't make more finals.

    Besides, your numbers are wrong.

    40s West 2-1
    50s West 6-4
    60s East 10-0
    70s 5-5
    80s 5-5
    90s East 7-3
    00s West 7-3
    10s West 2-0

    Total: East 35-30.

    Now, take the Lakers and Celtics off the picture, the east is leading 18-14. You are talking about only a .563 winning pct.

    And you think that's enough reason to justify the Celtics' failure to reach more finals? Fat chance!





     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : Show me when I said Phil is better than Red only because he won 11 and Red won 9, then we'll talk. Before that, there is a more valid reason that Phil is better than Red. And the Lakers are better than the Celtics not because 16 is more than 17, but 16 is BETTER than 17. Why? The Lakers won the majority of them in an era of big-time NBA, not the bush league or farm league NBA that the Celtics won most of theirs. Besides, there are other numbers associated with both teams, like 47 and 48, 5 and 16, -15-9-11-7-5 and -4-11-11-6-16, etc. But since you claim that Red is better than Phil, then it means you look at things MORE than just sheer number of titles (11 and 9). That's enough for me.
    Posted by MajicMVP


    ONCE AGAIN - proving my point and Fierce's point and Duke's point and everyone else's point - YOU show US where the league starting calling it "big time NBA" and where the NBA started calling it bush league, THEN we'll talk.  Since you started that nonsense over two years ago, it is now incumbent upon you to prove it is not just YOUR words.  It is your opinion, just like mine is Red is better than Phil - so.............we will all wait for documentation of when the NBA went from "bush league" to "big time"
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    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.....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...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...so just deal with it....the Lakers are a great #2 franchise....we won't even get into the all time most championship losses, sweeps, and game 7 failures....
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from 21st. Show 21st's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : You mean you have to dig these records? Do you have to dig it out that the Celtics missed the playoffs 16 times while the Lakers only missed 5? Do you have to dig it out that the Celtics have lost the most # game 7 at home? Do you have to dig it out that the Celtics were nowhere to be seen when the Lakers won 13 of the titles? And you folks are proud of it?
    Posted by MajicMVP


    Lakers missed the playoffs only 5 times. But why are they still 1 short of 17?

    Celtics only lost once in a finals Game 7. The Lakers already lost 5 Game 7s in the finals. The Celtics beat the Lakers 4 out of 5 times in Game 7s of the finals. In the end it's Celtics-4, Lakers-1.

    Here's the 8-peat that will never be broken, ever!

    1970 New York Knicks       4-3   Los Angeles Lakers
    1969 Boston Celtics         4-3 Los Angeles Lakers
    1968 Boston Celtics         4-2 Los Angeles Lakers
    1967 Philadelphia 76ers 4-2 San Francisco Warriors
    1966 Boston Celtics         4-3 Los Angeles Lakers
    1965 Boston Celtics         4-1 Los Angeles Lakers
    1964 Boston Celtics         4-1 San Francisco Warriors
    1963 Boston Celtics         4-2 Los Angeles Lakers
    1962 Boston Celtics         4-3 Los Angeles Lakers
    1961 Boston Celtics         4-1 St. Louis Hawks
    1960 Boston Celtics         4-3 St. Louis Hawks
    1959 Boston Celtics         4-0 Minneapolis Lakers
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from 21st. Show 21st's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat


    All-time standings in Game 7s

    Team

    Games played

    Wins

    Losses

    Win–loss %

    Boston Celtics

    27

    20

    7

    0.741

    Minneapolis / Los Angeles Lakers

    23

    15

    8

    0.652

    New York Knicks

    15

    7

    8

    0.467

    Syracuse Nationals / Philadelphia 76ers

    14

    6

    8

    0.429

    St. Louis / Atlanta Hawks

    12

    4

    8

    0.333

    Fort Wayne / Detroit Pistons

    10

    5

    5

    0.500

    Baltimore / Capital / Washington Bullets / Washington Wizards

    9

    6

    3

    0.667

    Houston Rockets

    9

    5

    4

    0.556

    Phoenix Suns

    9

    4

    5

    0.444

    Chicago Bulls

    9

    3

    6

    0.333

    Milwaukee Bucks

    9

    2

    7

    0.222

     
  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 : Show me when I said Phil is better than Red only because he won 11 and Red won 9, then we'll talk. Before that, there is a more valid reason that Phil is better than Red. And the Lakers are better than the Celtics not because 16 is more than 17, but 16 is BETTER than 17. Why? The Lakers won the majority of them in an era of big-time NBA, not the bush league or farm league NBA that the Celtics won most of theirs. Besides, there are other numbers associated with both teams, like 47 and 48, 5 and 16, -15-9-11-7-5 and -4-11-11-6-16, etc. But since you claim that Red is better than Phil, then it means you look at things MORE than just sheer number of titles (11 and 9). That's enough for me. Posted by MajicMVP ONCE AGAIN - proving my point and Fierce's point and Duke's point and everyone else's point - YOU show US where the league starting calling it "big time NBA" and where the NBA started calling it bush league, THEN we'll talk.  Since you started that nonsense over two years ago, it is now incumbent upon you to prove it is not just YOUR words.  It is your opinion, just like mine is Red is better than Phil - so.............we will all wait for documentation of when the NBA went from "bush league" to "big time"
    Posted by Red-16Russ-11


    Not before you show us where the NBA tagged 11 rings and 9 rings with qualifications like "never been fired", "retired at age N", or "did it with one team", then we'll talk. You want to play this game, you are on. Using your logic,

    "[Phil] is CLEARLY the winningest [coach] in NBA history...............that does not make [him] the BEST - that would be [Red]."

    Hey, that's your logic, not mine. It doesn't mean I agree with your logic (that Red is better than Phil), but I am simply using your own logic to attack you.

    In other words, your logic simply rule out that # championships as the sole determining factor. You can tag other qualifications (been fired or not, age of retirement, did it with N teams", etc.) to the # of championships, so can I.

    Besides, you were wrong again. Red did it with 2 teams, it's just that he didn't win any championships with his first team, but you don't think you can slip this by me, do you?









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

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    All ya wonderin' what Majic looks like?

    Here's a picture of Majicmvp annoying Celtic fans.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    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...

     
  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 : Your article is 2 years old, it was written on Feb. 4, 2009. This is the latest: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/449922-power-rankings-the-10-best-franchises-in-north-american-professional-sports/page/14 As of Sept. 3, 2010 1. New York Yankees 2. Montreal Canadiens 3. Boston Celtics 4. Los Angeles Lakers
    Posted by 21st


    Your article was written by Ethan S. My article was written by Marcel Mansour. So what about it?

    Feb 2009, it was only 14-17. Now it's 16-17.




     
  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 : Lakers missed the playoffs only 5 times. But why are they still 1 short of 17?


    Same argument. If the Celtics were so good, why couldn't they make more playoffs?

    You know, making the playoffs is no big deal in the NBA, i.e. nothing to write home about. Then why can't the "#1 franchise" in league history (as you folks dream about) still can't achieve the "no big deal"?

    Celtics only lost once in a finals Game 7. The Lakers already lost 5 Game 7s in the finals. The Celtics beat the Lakers 4 out of 5 times in Game 7s of the finals. In the end it's Celtics-4, Lakers-1. Here's the 8-peat that will never be broken, ever! 1970 New York Knicks        4-3   Los Angeles Lakers 1969 Boston Celtics          4-3 Los Angeles Lakers 1968 Boston Celtics          4-2 Los Angeles Lakers 1967 Philadelphia 76ers 4-2 San Francisco Warriors 1966 Boston Celtics          4-3 Los Angeles Lakers 1965 Boston Celtics          4-1 Los Angeles Lakers 1964 Boston Celtics         4-1 San Francisco Warriors 1963 Boston Celtics          4-2 Los Angeles Lakers 1962 Boston Celtics          4-3 Los Angeles Lakers 1961 Boston Celtics         4-1 St. Louis Hawks 1960 Boston Celtics         4-3 St. Louis Hawks 1959 Boston Celtics          4-0 Minneapolis Lakers
    Posted by 21st


    And with the 8-peat, it's still better than 16 missing playoffs, true or false?

    If you say false, you mean missing playoffs is better than making the finals. Then you are advocating losing. Typical Boston mentality...






     
  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 : 14 is less than 17, right? 16 is also less than 17, right? You say the Lakers are the #1 franchise, go knock yourself out.

    Why? ask your cohorts. Numbers of championship is NOT the only criteria. I like your friend's logic "# times a coach is fired" injected (doesn't mean I agree with him, but I like to use his argument AGAINST him and you folks), just like # times you missed the playoffs.

    Or you should bash your cohorts as nonsense...


     
  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 : Like Kobe said, making it to the finals and losing just makes you the 1st loser. Kobe's words not mine! lol
    Posted by 21st


    1st loser is worse than missing the playoffs? So what about Kobe's words, I'll take his points scored on the court but I don't have to take his words. Tell me who appointed Kobe as the basketball Yoda...

    In other words, you are stuck with your loser's mentality...
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from 21st. Show 21st's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    #1 Franchise in...

    #1 in finals losses, 15 times, ouch!
    #1 in game 7 losses, 8 Game 7 losses - tie with Knicks, Sixers, and Hawks
    #1 in getting swept - Lakers got swept in the postseason 7 times
    #1 NBA defending champ to lose to a foreign team
    #1 with the most players with sexually related cases

    THAT'S A LOT OF NUMBER ONES THERE, TROLL! 

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

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    #1 Franchise in... #1 in finals losses, 15 times, ouch! #1 in game 7 losses, 8 Game 7 losses - tie with Knicks, Sixers, and Hawks #1 in getting swept - Lakers got swept in the postseason 7 times
    Posted by 21st


    At least all these #1s beat missing the playoffs 16 times.


     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    wait.....Majic.....you said that, even though I think 9-3 is good.....you say it's bad....ummmmm......ok.......I guess somehow that makes sense in your world....
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    Must be Sunday in Scotland!

    Guy posts garbage, then admits to nothing.

    A COACH is someone who can build a team AND keep it strong.  Doug Collins built the Bulls, Phil came in and took all the credit.  When MJ retired, Phil showed his true colors by not being able to keep the team good, and was shown the door.

    Pat Riley is the best coach in lakers history, IMO.  While he ONLY won 4 titles in LA, that's 4 in a 9 year period when he had to go against Olajuwon just to FACE Bird!!
    Riley's teams never quit - like TWO of Phil's teams.
    Riley had the best TEAMS, Phil had the best PLAYERS...........

    The list goes on and on, but a COACH just doesn't come in, get fired, write a scandalous book, get in bed with the owners daughter to get his job back, watch his team quit, then do Audi commercials.....no, a COACH is all hoop all the time....MY opinion:
    Red
    Lenny Wilkens
    Riley
    Jerry Sloan
    Phil

    similar to:  MY opinion:
    Mays
    Aaron
    Ruth
    Williams
    Bonds

    very subjective, right?
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : Your article was written by Ethan S. My article was written by Marcel Mansour. So what about it? Feb 2009, it was only 14-17. Now it's 16-17.
    Posted by MajicMVP


    OMG  - hey Fierce, he finally admitted something
    Call the media on this one
    Majic just said the Celtics have won 17, to the lakers 16
    Oh, happy day...........................

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from dirty52. Show dirty52's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat



    Actually the General Manager builds the team, not the coach

    Jerry Krause built the Bull's and Jerry West Built the Lakers


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


























     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share