8 Straight Finals Losses an NBA Record

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

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    Yep, the only decade we missed was the '90's.....of course we lost Bias and Lewis...and two of the big three retired prematurely....what might have been...we will never know....at least all of our titles were played under the modern rules...and there isn't a huge asterisk on one of our titles (see 2002 Sacramento series)....there has never been another NBA franchise like the Boston Celtics...but I will give the Laker fans their due....that franchise is a very close 2nd....
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from DoctorCO. Show DoctorCO's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    itsnot1966anymore,

    those early years matter...

    If they didnt have year one where would year 2 be..would year two appear out of no where!!! lol...

    you hate because russell beat wilt...GET OVER IT.....

    if it wasnt for russell in two generations kome no means no bryant may have played football...instead of basketball...

    THE EARLY TIMES MATTER...

    look at your life...ok when your birthhappened did that matter????...according to you it never did....so if it never happened..how can you be around now.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    you know Red, I have been a Dodger fan for well over 50 years....I know what you mean about the 23 years they have now gone without winning another championship...and yet, as a die hard fan, I follow them religiously every year....right now I have the "Kershaw and Kemp"  watch going.....Cy Young and possible MVP....as a fan, that's all I have left to keep me watching...

    ...as a Celtic fan, I had to endure the same thing albeit for different reasons....and I have never stopped watching....ditto as a lifelong Ram fan....and of course as a fan of our beloved Sox!

    True fans live for today but never forget about yesterday.....!
     
  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 : You are crazy! Of course we would prefer the Celtics not making the playoffs instead of making it to the Finals and ending up the 1st loser! Why? Because we would have better position in the Draft! The reason why the Celtics got Ray and KG was because of Al Jefferson and the #5 pick of the 2007 Draft.  If I tell you the Lakers would make it to the Finals but would lose, would you rather appear in the Finals or have a better pick in the Draft?
    Posted by Fiercest34


    Finals, of course. But knowing that the Celtics are fond of missing the playoffs, lottery picks are your view of season success. Guess that has been imprinted in your psyche...

    16 missing playoffs, 9 lottery picks. You should be proud...


     
  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 : All this post really does is define the ceiling and floor of both franchises.  At their best, both teams have won championships.  A failure for the Lakers is still getting to the NBA finals, but losing.  Failure for the Celtics is....disappearing into irrelevance for 22 years.  In times of failure, I'll take relevant and interesting over irrelevant and anonymity.
    Posted by ItsNot1966anymor


    No, as Fierce said, the Celtics have a new definition of relevance: lottery picks.

    They would rather get a lottery pick than winning 3 rounds of the playoffs. Can't blame them for having a damaged psyche. 22 years are a looooooooong time...


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

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    the bottom line is simple....... the Celtics have owned the Lakers in both the regular season and in the playoffs and it's not even close....there is no rebuttal that can overcome that scenario.....

    Sure there is rebuttal - the meaning of "one team owning another team" in the first place.

    You said it yourself, the goal is to win the championship, not "to win the championship against the Celtics". So winning the championships against the Pacers is as good as, if not better than, winning the championship against the Celtics. As a matter of fact, it was BETTER, because the Pacers were a much better team than the Celtics in 2000.

    There you refute your own statement of Celtics owning the Lakers - it means nothing.

    If you disregard making the finals in the west as irrelevant because the west is "easy", in your subjective opinion. Then I can also disregard winning the championship in the 60s as irrelevant because it was a farm league, not a major league operation, in my opinion.  In other words, if you factor in opinions, the Celtics didn't win. The Lakers are winning 10-6, and the 6 aren't even the Celtics.

    In other words, you want to use your subjective opinion to discard the Lakers' final appearance. Thus it's

    - Celtics owning the Lakers in head to head
    - when not winning the championship, not making the playoffs == making the finals

    Do you think I'll let you?


    since the Lakers and Celtics play in different conferences, making the finals doesn't mean one team is better than the other that particular year...


    And since the Lakers and Celtics excel in different eras (one in the modern era, while one in the bush league era), winning the more finals in one era doesn't mean one team is better than the other in the overall history of the league.

    There you go...






     when the Celtics get to the finals they are 17-4 (.809)...they dominate...when the Lakers get there they are 16-15 (.516)....in fact, the Los Angeles team is actually 11-14 (.440).....do you really believe that anyone outside of LA thinks that the Lakers are the better franchise?

    Yes. The Lakers are the better franchise already. Do you think you can qualify this argument only by "when the Celtics get to the finals"?

    Do you think the 44 years you fail to get to the finals can be discarded? Do you think the Celtics only played in the league for 21 seasons while the Lakers played 31?



    ....if so, then you are deluding yourself....spin the number of appearances any way you like...nothing changes the facts I just stated...
    Posted by Duke4

    Easy, you lied with FACTS, by cherry-picking FACTS. This is the standard technique of lying, by NOT telling the whole truth.

    The simple tactic to pick apart your argument is to challenge (not to change) your selection of fact "when the Celtics make the finals they were 17-4". That's a true statement, but why qualify it with "when make the finals"? So what happen to the 44 seasons that they don't make the finals? It's count as failure as well, but you deliberately hide that fact, keep yapping this 17-4 and 16-15. The Celtics didn't just play 21 seasons and the Lakers didn't just play 31 seasons. Counting your claim that the goal is to win a championship, the total success-failure ratio was

    17-48
    16-47

    You said it yourself, it's pretty close. In team standings, it's a tie.

    Now, pray tell, why do you want to only count the success-failure in the finals and think it can slip by me?

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

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    That's two posts he'll answer now- wonder how many people his "logic" will convince this time - good luck to both of you!!!
    Posted by Red-16Russ-11


    RedRust, don't be silly. You have been monitoring my posts all along even though you tried this silly tactic of "I won't respond to you hoping that you'll fade away".

    You know full well that you are smarting that your claim of "no bynum injury no gasol trade" has been smashed to piece. I mean, do you think repeated claim will make some wishful thinking to truth? You are always on the edge to fight back. I'll see how long you can stay silence this time.

    My projected over/under is 3 weeks...
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    Majic, you are a piece of work man......if you really believe that the Celtics record vs the Lakers doesn't matter....you are just kidding yourself....but you are not kidding us...

    your only argument is more trips to the finals....and I counter that the strength of conference issue must be considered...I have several questions for you...

    why do the Celtics own a .750% vs the Lakers in the finals...?

    why do the Celtics have more titles in fewer appearances...?

    why do the Celtics own the all time record one on one in both the regular season and playoffs...? ....and why is it not even close...?

    why do the Celtics own an .809% in the finals?  ....and why do the Lakers come in at .516

    finally, why were all of our titles won in the modern (shot clock) era? .......and why has the team represented the city of Los Angeles with a losing (11-14) record in the finals...?

    I'll wait for your response.....which of course will be that none of the above warrant consideration....

    I will do us both a favor.....don't respond since I won't bother to read it.....I will not put you on ignore (not that you would care)....you are too good of a poster and I enjoy reading your comments and opinions....but on this subject we will never agree....and, as I've said numerous time on these threads....these are only our opinions....to each his own bud....
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from 21st. Show 21st's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    A lottery pick is better than this.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from 21st. Show 21st's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    No Laker titles for the next 20 years, the Lakers couldn't have picked a better man for the job.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from DoctorCO. Show DoctorCO's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    majjic,

    FROM THE LAKERS OWN WEB SITE...

    Now your going to refute what the LAKERS WEBSITE SAYS...

    LOL...

    YOUR OWNED SON!!!


    NOW THE LAKERS HAVE 16.......

    HOW MANY DO THE CELTICS HAVE!!!!!!!

    LETS SEE.....

    www.nba.com/celticsnba/photos/celtics-banners300150.jpg" border="0" alt="Banners" width="300" height="150" />

    17 NBA Championships...A record 8 in a row from 1959-1966...Three separate Championship eras...When it comes to hanging Championship Banners, the Celtics are the cream of the crop. No organization has won more titles than the 17-time World Champion Boston Celtics. Whether it's the Green's first title in 1957, their 12th in 1974 or the 17th in 2008, the Celtics tradition of winning championships has stood the test of time.


    SO THATS 17 FOR BOSTON 16 FOR LA...

    REMEMBER THE NBA......IS THE LEAGUE.......

    LIKE in the USA...DO WE REMEMBER THE SOUTH US....THEY LOST...THEY MERGED WITH THE NORTH IN THE CIVIL WAR.....

    SO THE NBA'S WORD IS THE WORD...

    YOU OR I DONT SAY DIFFERENT....

    THE EVIDENCE IS IN THE WEBSITE..

    WHATS more 17 or 16?

    Or are you going to say the baa title means as much as a nba title when the lakers left the nbl or baa whatever...So according to you every time paul pierce has won in nba 2k1 thats a ring...Everytime kobe has played he gets a ring taken away...

    since you dont follow the nba....i wont either...



     
  12. 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:
    Majic, you are a piece of work man......if you really believe that the Celtics record vs the Lakers doesn't matter....you are just kidding yourself....but you are not kidding us... your only argument is more trips to the finals....and I counter that the strength of conference issue must be considered...I have several questions for you... why do the Celtics own a .750% vs the Lakers in the finals...? why do the Celtics have more titles in fewer appearances...? why do the Celtics own the all time record one on one in both the regular season and playoffs...? ....and why is it not even close...? why do the Celtics own an .809% in the finals?  ....and why do the Lakers come in at .516 finally, why were all of our titles won in the modern (shot clock) era? .......and why has the team represented the city of Los Angeles with a losing (11-14) record in the finals...? I'll wait for your response.....which of course will be that none of the above warrant consideration.... I will do us both a favor.....don't respond since I won't bother to read it.....I will not put you on ignore (not that you would care)....you are too good of a poster and I enjoy reading your comments and opinions....but on this subject we will never agree....and, as I've said numerous time on these threads....these are only our opinions....to each his own bud....
    Posted by Duke4


    Thank you for putting him on ignore - if we ALL do that, he'll go away - he hasn't won an argument in two years - quite a drought!!
     
  13. 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:
    majjic, FROM THE LAKERS OWN WEB SITE... Now your going to refute what the LAKERS WEBSITE SAYS... LOL... YOUR OWNED SON!!! www.nba.com/gr/reflectIntl.html?gr=ukuw&page=www&dur=1w " /> Global Teams D-League WNBA Store www.nba.com/lakersnba/index.html " target="_self"> NOW THE LAKERS HAVE 16....... HOW MANY DO THE CELTICS HAVE!!!!!!! LETS SEE..... www.nba.com/celticsnba/photos/celtics-banners300150.jpg " border="0" alt="Banners" width="300" height="150" /> 17 NBA Championships...A record 8 in a row from 1959-1966...Three separate Championship eras...When it comes to hanging Championship Banners, the Celtics are the cream of the crop. No organization has won more titles than the 17-time World Champion Boston Celtics. Whether it's the Green's first title in 1957 , their 12th in 1974 or the 17th in 2008 , the Celtics tradition of winning championships has stood the test of time. 1956-57 1958-59 1959-60 1960-61 1961-62 1962-63 1963-64 1964-65 1965-66 1967-68 1968-69 1973-74 1975-76 1980-81 1983-84 1985-86 2007-08 SO THATS 17 FOR BOSTON 16 FOR LA... REMEMBER THE NBA......IS THE LEAGUE....... LIKE in the USA...DO WE REMEMBER THE SOUTH US....THEY LOST...THEY MERGED WITH THE NORTH IN THE CIVIL WAR..... SO THE NBA'S WORD IS THE WORD... YOU OR I DONT SAY DIFFERENT.... THE EVIDENCE IS IN THE WEBSITE.. WHATS more 17 or 16? Or are you going to say the baa title means as much as a nba title when the lakers left the nbl or baa whatever...So according to you every time paul pierce has won in nba 2k1 thats a ring...Everytime kobe has played he gets a ring taken away... since you dont follow the nba....i wont either...
    Posted by DoctorCO


    He's the last one - the ignore button is a wonderful thing - if we ALL ignore him, he'll go away!!  Poor guy hasn't won an arguement in two years!!
     
  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 : That's right, I'd rather have 9 lottery picks than 15 Finals losses.  Didn't the Lakers have success in the 80s because of #1 pick in 1979 Magic Johnson, 1982 #1 pick James Worthy, and Kareem also #1 pick of 1969? Face reality, the Lakers hold the record for futility when it comes to losing in the NBA Finals and also having losing records to multiple NBA teams in the Finals. It is what it is.
    Posted by Fiercest34


    Sure, I'd rather see the Celtics have 9 lottery picks than 15 final losses. Seeing the Celtics fail while their fans brag about their failure? that's double the fun...

    And seeing your lottery picks turned out to be Eric Montross, Eric Williams, Jerome Moiso while Chauncy and Joe Johnson went to stardom with other teams? That's icing on the cake


     
  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, you are a piece of work man......if you really believe that the Celtics record vs the Lakers doesn't matter....you are just kidding yourself....but you are not kidding us... your only argument is more trips to the finals....and I counter that the strength of conference issue must be considered...

    And then I counter that the strength of conference issue should not be considered. Who are you kidding here?

    1) Strength of conference is only your personal opinion. That's NOT NBA's official position that the east is stronger than the west. The NBA rewards teams based on how far they advanced in the playoffs, not according to your opinion that the east is stronger. In other words, IN THE NBA'S POINT OF VIEW, reaching the final is a bigger achievement than missing the playoffs, losing in the first round, losing in the 2nd round, ....

    2) Your argument is getting more naive and naive. You think just because the Lakers made the playoffs with losing records in the 60s == the west is weak in its entire history. Do you think mathematical induction works here?



    I have several questions for you... why do the Celtics own a .750% vs the Lakers in the finals...? why do the Celtics have more titles in fewer appearances...? why do the Celtics own the all time record one on one in both the regular season and playoffs...?

    Very simple, because the Celtics laid down like dogs when they weren't good, thus avoided losing more finals to the Lakers. Yet you are proud of this lower achievement. I wonder why.

    However, the Lakers wouldn't take pride of having a winning record against the Celtics in the finals, because that would give less merits to their championships. I mean, the Lakers beat the best teams in the eastern conference, which weren't the Celtics.

    Tell me, is it a bigger achievement to beat the best team the east send out or beat the weaker Celtics? I know you dare not answer...



    ....and why is it not even close...? why do the Celtics own an .809% in the finals?  ....and why do the Lakers come in at .516 finally, why were all of our titles won in the modern (shot clock) era?

    And why do you only count the finals? why do you ignore the seasons that the Celtics failed to make the finals? Do you think you can wipe out those 44 seasons?

    17-48, so what about .809?

    And given that you say .809%, that tells me you are not a person with common sense. You know .809% is less than 1%, don't you?


    .......and why has the team represented the city of Los Angeles with a losing (11-14) record in the finals...? I'll wait for your response.....which of course will be that none of the above warrant consideration.... I will do us both a favor.....don't respond since I won't bother to read it.....

    Of course you shouldn't bother to read it. You are bragging about the Celtics' failure. You keep using the Celtics' failure to argue against the Lakers, just like Fierce did about preferring lottery picks than winning 3 rounds in the playoffs. To be honest, I really don't understand this screwed-up mindset...

    but on this subject we will never agree....and, as I've said numerous time on these threads....these are only our opinions....to each his own bud....
    Posted by Duke4


    These is not about opinion or agreement. This is about the basic, fundamental principles in sports. You are arguing for losing, i.e. failing to make the finals is better than making the finals. No one single fan in the world would brag about that kind of "achievement". If nothing else, your fellow Celtic fans strongly disagreed with you, based on what they posted after the game 7 loss last year, how proud they were on the team, etc.

    So, you made a distorted argument, like losing is more preferable than winning, and tell us this is just a disagreement on opinion. No way.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    Poisoned by CO, I don't need web sites. Just a post from Fierce in this forum:

    http://www.boston.com/community/forums.html?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3aSportsForum%3a734e2bc9-e1bc-49d6-8355-64f9a8500246Discussion%3a629a8a2b-85aa-48d5-92e7-2b7b97f9afef&plckCurrentPage=2

     

    Franchise History:

    Season 1947-48: Minneapolis Lakers (NBL)

     
  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 : Thank you for putting him on ignore - if we ALL do that, he'll go away - he hasn't won an argument in two years - quite a drought!!
    Posted by Red-16Russ-11


    Hasn't won an argument for 2 years? that wouldn't keep you smarting and lurking here, while trying to suppress your urge to respond, would it?

    Pity RedRust, as long as I am here, you are always looking for therapy...
     
  18. 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:
    Majic, you are a piece of work man......if you really believe that the Celtics record vs the Lakers doesn't matter....you are just kidding yourself....but you are not kidding us... your only argument is more trips to the finals....and I counter that the strength of conference issue must be considered...I have several questions for you... why do the Celtics own a .750% vs the Lakers in the finals...? why do the Celtics have more titles in fewer appearances...? why do the Celtics own the all time record one on one in both the regular season and playoffs...? ....and why is it not even close...? why do the Celtics own an .809% in the finals?  ....and why do the Lakers come in at .516 finally, why were all of our titles won in the modern (shot clock) era? .......and why has the team represented the city of Los Angeles with a losing (11-14) record in the finals...? I'll wait for your response.....which of course will be that none of the above warrant consideration.... I will do us both a favor.....don't respond since I won't bother to read it.....I will not put you on ignore (not that you would care)....you are too good of a poster and I enjoy reading your comments and opinions....but on this subject we will never agree....and, as I've said numerous time on these threads....these are only our opinions....to each his own bud....
    Posted by Duke4

    Duke, let's face it - he's right.......only the present counts.  I mean John Wooden would only be an average college coach if he had to deal with Kareem and Walton leaving after one year.  And Vince Lombardi?  Gee, he could NEVER adapt to free agency, he'd just be average.  Sandy Koufax - he'd be a six inning pitcher today, and that's it.

    So sayeth the great majikmvp, so it must be true.......
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from 21st. Show 21st's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    Kudos to Fiercest34, he actually convinced this idiot MajicMVP that the Lakers have 17 NBA championships.

    I'm pretty sure both these men will not say the Lakers have 17 titles.

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

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    Kobe's reaction after hearing the Lakers have 17 titles.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from 21st. Show 21st's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    This could have been the Lakers' 17th title.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    Well Red, I finally had to join you with that ignore button......it's like talking to a kid....no matter how many times I ask....he never answers the question....in order to be the best....you have to be able to BEAT the BEST....historically speaking the Lakers cannot match up with the Celtics...take your pick...regular season.....Finals......it doesn't matter...and it isn't even close....Boston is the winner....and the finals record has to be embarrassing to Laker fans....anyway....I'm done....on to the next topic...
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from 21st. Show 21st's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    Is this the Lakers' 17th title?
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from lakersavenger. Show lakersavenger's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    Celtics no peat in 42 years. 'Nuff said.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    yet the 8-peat remains unchallenged....as does the Celtic mystique...the domination of the Lakers...the record number of titles...the incredible winning percentage during the 21 years in the Finals...all unmatched....I pointed out how the Yankees went through a 34 year period when they won exactly 2 championships...do you see anyone anywhere challenging that franchise as the best all time...?  .....I didn't think so.....Boston is unequivocally the greatest franchise in league history....just ask anyone outside of LA...
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share