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:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : So if it's a tie then the Celtics win!  Remember, in league standings the tie breaker is the head to head record. So if it's Celtics-9 and Lakers-3, that means you lose, again! Ha Ha 
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    Wake up and smell the coffee. Even in the NBA, the first tie-breaker is NOT head-to-head.

    Remember 2009-10? when the Celtics got swept by Atlanta in the regular season but the Celtics would have had HCA against the Hawks if they were tied? Know why?

    Ha ha.... you sure wish head-to-head is the tie-breaker, but according to whom?






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

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]The Celtics missed the playoffs in 2007 then won a championship in 2008. Wow! If the Celtics didn't miss the playoffs in 2007 they wouldn't have gotten the #5 overall pick in the 2007 Draft. That pick got us Ray Allen, who buried the Lakers with 6 3-pointers in Game 6 of the 2008 Finals. The Celts won by 39 points in that game, by the way.  In 2005 the Lakers didn't make the playoffs then got eliminated by the Suns, in the 1st round, in 2006. Ugh!
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    So you brag about losing and missing the playoffs. No problem. No one will stop you for being a loser...

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

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : The Celtics missed the playoffs 16 times and they still have more championships than the Lakers. What were the Lakers doing in the playoffs all those years?  [/QUOTE]
    The Celtics have more championships than the Lakers but they missed the playoffs more often than the Lakers lost in the finals. What were they doing all those years?

    Nope, you don't have to answer, they like lottery picks as much as championship banners.

    [QUOTE]
    Are you telling Celtic fans that you get an extra championship banner if you make the playoffs? Who are you kidding?
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]
    No, I am telling Celtics fans that missing the playoffs is the ultimate shame, since making it is really no big deal.

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

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]After Kobe got his 5th ring he said, " I got 1 more than Shaq." Was Kobe referring to 1 more playoff appearace or 1 more ring? If your answer is the latter then you're a f***ing idiot, Majicmvp! What I don't get is the stupid 17-48 and 16-47 comparison. How could that be a stat when not all the teams joined the NBA at the same time? Oh, almost forgot, the one making up that sh!t posts at 4 o'clock in the morning. What's wrong, Majicmvp, you suffering from erectile dysfunction?
    Posted by MajorMajor[/QUOTE]

    Are you really that dumb or something? 4 o'clock in the morning? Are you that ignorant to think that everyone posting here lives in California?

    You don't get the 17-48 or 16-47? If the ultimate goal is to win the championship, then failing to win the championship all counts the same, true or false?

    Not to mention your camp's distorted perspective, that losing in the finals is bad while missing the playoffs is good, thus saying this nonsense 8-peat or 15 lost finals, rather than bashing your own team's TRUE 9-peat or 16 missed playoffs...





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

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : It is indeed rare to encounter an individual who is a complete addlepate.  Rare indeed.  For a person to interpret opinions in such a way is either a gift or a curse and a betting man would bet the latter.  Published no where on this site are the words "9 is better than 11".  What IS published is "Red is better than Phil as a coach (and Jerry as a GM, although Mr. West certainly ranks as #2)." How immature to continually repeat something one knows is wrong and was never stated.  Ah, lakers fans - it must be really slow, for this thread has long outlived its' usefulness, and people should stop responding to one who: 1. Invents facts no one cares about and has never heard of 2.  Says he comes on here just to antagonize Celtics fans 3.  Never stands by any other fact than his Boycott Majic!!!  It's lockout time, baby!!
    Posted by Red-16Russ-11[/QUOTE]

    And why is Red better than Phil? Oh, so you are not just comparing numbers? If that's the case, then the Lakers are easily better than the Celtics. So what if the Celtics won 17 and the Lakers won 16? there are plenty of reasons that the Lakers' 16 are better than the Celtics 17, considering the era that they won most of the titles, i.e. titles are not equal (bush league vs big-time league). While at the same time, the other seasons that the Lakers didn't win also trumps the Celtics' other seasons.



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

    Re: Laker 8-peat....

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat....:
    [QUOTE]Red, I am done even trying to have a discussion with this guy......he makes no sense....not one Laker fan that I know of even backs him up....he thinks his team is better because they have the most regular season wins in history along with the most finals appearances...when we point out that Boston has beaten the Lakers more times in the regular season and the playoffs....has more championships...a huge head to head advantage....when we point out that the winning percentages are lopsided....that we have more banners, hall of famers, etc......his reply is....yeah but more trips to the finals (and by far the most finals losses in history...no team is close....) trumps the Celtic domination of the league in general and the Lakers in particular...when we ask how the Lakers could have ten more finals appearances and still be behind Boston, he won't answer the question......the answer is, of course, obvious.....because the Celtics have owned the Lakers to the tune of 9-3 in the finals.....take the Celtics out of the equation and the Lakers would be number one.......the problem is, it doesn't work that way does it...?...it's just a joke man...he is back on ignore...time to move on.....there are way too many great posters representing many franchises that we can converse with....it's just too bad...to go to another team's forum and try to convince their team's fans is pretty funny when you think about it huh...? ...then again, maybe it is just pathetic...
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]

    Yes, you really should be done arguing here. I am digging up the cruelest truth for you. You are cherry-picking facts to make your case.

    - I think my team is better because of the most regular season wins? Care to cite where I stated the Lakers were better BECAUSE OF THAT REASON? I cite the regular season wins because your cohort claimed that the Celtics were the winningest team. My rebuttal is about the winningest team, not the best team.

    - the Celtics lead the Lakers in the finals 9-3? yet you never have the nerve to address where the Celtics were when the Lakers won the other 13 finals? Are you telling me that it's to the Celtics' credit that they didn't reach the finals while the Lakers won? The Lakers at least had the nerve to go as far as they could, albeit not winning. The Celtics losing in the 2nd round or missing the playoffs, yet you think it's an honor?

    - And when I asked you when the Celtics were so great, why would they missed the playoffs about the same # times as the Lakers lost in the finals, you wouldn't answer. Why?

    I think it's best you ignore me. As far as arguing is concerned, you are toasted.


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

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/7164305 TWO-WAY TIES 1. Results of games against each other. 2. Better winning percentage within own division (only if tied teams are in same division). 3. Better winning percentage against teams in own conference. 4. Better winning percentage against playoff opponents in own conference (including teams that finished the regular season tied for a playoff position). 5. Better winning percentage against playoff opponents in opposite conference (including teams that finished the regular season tied for a playoff position). 6. Better point differential between offense and defense. Once again you FAIL, Majic!  
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    Got it wrong, son.

    The Celtics won the tiebreakers against the Hawks, albeit getting swept, because they were division champs while the Hawks weren't. So head to head isn't the #1 tiebreaker. Division championship is.

    http://blogs.ajc.com/atlanta-hawks-blog/2010/03/04/50-wins-possible-will-hawks-do-better/

    "but if the hawks dont win the division then they would get bumped down to the 4th seed"

    Not to mention head-to-head isn't even a tiebreaker in other sports. So you better beg me to accept head-to-head as tiebreaker. Keep begging.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : The original loser is the Laker fan that keeps trolling on a forum for Boston Celtic fans. Can you say inferiority complex? Ha Ha
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    The ultimate loser is the one bragging on a Celtics forum on a Lakers 8-peat final losses. What more inferiority complex do you need for a team that's "supposed" to be better with 1 more title?

    That's the evidence that the Celtics fans are doubting their team's merits.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : Missing the playoffs is part of NBA life. Losing in the Finals is not because not all the teams in the NBA reached the Finals. A Laker fan telling Celtic fans? So insecure. Ugh!
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    Then? "not all teams in the NBA reached the finals" means losing in the finals is worse than missing the playoffs? What school did you go to? special education is calling you...

    Missing the playoffs is part of NBA life? what are you smoking? don't you know that there are more teams making the playoffs than not?
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : Your true 9-peat is FAKE!  The first post of this thread CLEARLY SHOWED THE LAKERS LOSING 8 STRAIGHT TIMES IN THE FINALS. Did the Celtics miss the playoffs 9 straight times? Since when did the Celtics miss the playoffs 9 straight times? You're desperate, Majic. 
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    I said the 9-peat of FAILING TO GET OUT OF THE FIRST ROUND. The ringing you just hear is from remedial reading...

    And that 9-peat is from 9 STRAIGHT YEARS. The Lakers' 8 peat was not. That's why the Celtics know what a TRUE 9-peat is...





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

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]Everybody who went to school when they were young knows that 17 is GREATER THAN 16.  A Laker fan that doesn't even live in California and keeps trolling on a forum for Celtic fans. What a LOSER! Ha Ha
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    When every argument fails, just put up a strawman argument...

    Try "the sun rises from the east", 1+1=2, 2+2=4, ... you'll get a lot of facts straight and you can argue that I dispute your facts...


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

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]1992-93 Lost first round 1993-94 Missed playoffs 1994-95 Lost first round 1995-96 Missed playoffs 1996-97 Missed playoffs 1997-98 Missed playoffs 1998-99 Missed playoffs 1999-00 Missed playoffs 2000-01 Missed playoffs 6 straight is a 9-peat? WHO ARE YOU KIDDING?
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    A 9-peat of failing to get out of the first round. Who are you kidding?
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]The Celtics missing the playoffs in 2007 was a blessing in disguise. In June of 2007 the Celts got the #5 pick of the Draft. It turned out to be Ray Allen. Remember Ray Allen? He's the one who buried the Lakers with 6 3-pointers in Game 6 of the 2008 Finals where the Lakers lost by 39 points happen. Ha Ha
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    So you are celebrating for missing the playoffs? Go ahead, I won't stop you. And you'll get a lot more Nets, Clippers, Warriors fans joining you...

    The Celtics missing the playoffs is a disgrace.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]Not getting past the 1st round is considered missing the playoffs? WHO ARE YOU KIDDING?
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    Not getting past the 1st orund considered missing the playoffs? where did you see that? Care to cite it?
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]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 There is no shame in losing 8 STRAIGHT TIMES IN THE FINALS? WHO ARE YOU KIDDING?
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    Of course there is no shame, as compared to a team of 9-peat for not getting out of the first round?

    1992-93 Lost first round
    1993-94 Missed playoffs
    1994-95 Lost first round
    1995-96 Missed playoffs
    1996-97 Missed playoffs
    1997-98 Missed playoffs
    1998-99 Missed playoffs
    1999-00 Missed playoffs
    2000-01 Missed playoffs

    WHO ARE YOU KIDDING?
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : It's not a straw man argument. Google or Bing NBA team with most championships, I'll bet you a million straws that the search would show you Celtics with 17 championships. That's a fact!
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    Of course that's a strawman argument. When did I dispute that 17 is greater than 16? You care to cite it?

    Knowing that you run out of argument, why not switch the context?
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : It's not a disgrace if missing the playoffs results in the acquisition of Ray Allen with the 5th overall pick and KG! What's a disgrace is LOSING 8 STRAIGHT TIMES IN THE FINALS! 8 STRAIGHT TIMES, OUCH!
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    So if missing the playoffs doesn't result in the acquisition of Ray Allen and KG, then is it a disgrace or not?

    I bet you dare not answer...

    Losing 8 straight times in the finals is worse than failing to get out of the first round 9 straight years? That shows how you advocate losing...


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

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : You said the Celtics have a 9-peat. Missing the playoffs 6 times and losing in the 1st round 3 times is a 9-peat? WHO ARE YOU KIDDING?
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    I am sure counting is not your strong suit.

    1992-93 Lost first round
    1993-94 Missed playoffs
    1994-95 Lost first round
    1995-96 Missed playoffs
    1996-97 Missed playoffs
    1997-98 Missed playoffs
    1998-99 Missed playoffs
    1999-00 Missed playoffs
    2000-01 Missed playoffs

    Count how many times they missed the playoffs. And count how many times they failed to get out of the first round.

    Now, knowing you, you'll deliberately mix up missing the playoffs == lost in the first round, and cry mama: how dare you count missing the playoffs 7 times as a 9-peat?

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

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : So you're now conceding that the Lakers are only 2nd best in the NBA?
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    Not at all. 17 is numerically greater than 16, but when comparing franchises, there are a lot more than mere championships.

    1) when the majority of the championships won (in the big-time era or the jurassic era of the league).

    2) what about the times they fail to win championships? how do they fare?

    3) Is there any noticeable long droughts or competitive consistency?

    So in other words, multiple sources consider the Lakers are the better franchise, because people have the knowledge to look past sheer numbers.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : Like I said, every team in the NBA misses the playoffs at some point. [/QUOTE]
    And that makes missing the playoffs a good thing? You don't have to stress your loser mentality all the time...

    [QUOTE]The objective of every NBA team is to win a championship.[/QUOTE]
    so your team succeeded 17 times and failed 48 times.

    17-48 vs 16-47? what are you bragging about? it's a tie in standings.

    [QUOTE] If what you're saying is true then the Lakers should already have 18 championships by now. The only reason why the Lakers kept making it to the Finals is because of the weak western conference in the 80s. Remember 1987 west finals, Lakers vs. Sonics? Or the 1988 west finals, Mavs vs. Lakers? Sonics with Tom Chambers and Michael Cage. Mavs with Rolando Blackman and James Donaldson. Ugh! [/QUOTE]
    And you tell me the Celtics missed the playoffs 16 times, plus a 9-peat for failing to get out of the 1st round, is due to a tough east? Who are you kidding here? No matter how you must you cry, making the finals is better than failing to get out of the first round.

    [QUOTE]How is it that I advocate losing when I'm the one counting championships and you're the one counting missed playoffs? [/QUOTE]
    Simple, because you are not just counting the championships, otherwise you wouldn't keep yapping about the Lakers' 8-peat lost finals.

    You: the Lakers were 8-peat losers
    I: the Celtics missed the playoffs 16 times while failed to get past the 1st round in a true 9-peat.
    You: I am only counting championships.
    I: 17-48 vs 16-47

    Now?

    So no matter how you play this game, counting championships only, or counting the non-championship years, you are still toasted.

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

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]Laker Universe says: L.A. Lakers 121 - 153 Boston Celtics
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    Now, counting things other than championships?

    3028-2057 vs 3084-1891

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

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]Laker Universe says: Series Won: Lakers: 3 Celtics: 9 http://www.lakersuniverse.com/headtohead/lakers_celtics.htm Just because a troll who doesn't live in California says the Lakers are the best it doesn't mean they are the best. A troll, really? WHO ARE YOU KIDDING?
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    So where were the Celtics when the Lakers won 13 of their titles? Dare not answer?

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

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    This is where the Lakers were in 2011...

    FACE FIRST ON THE GROUND!!!

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

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    Troll annoying Celtic fans.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from 21st. Show 21st's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    How can the Lakers be the best in the NBA when they can't even beat FC Barcelona of the Spanish league?

    Spanish league is better than the NBA?
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share