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:
    It's also funny that one troll here keeps downplaying the importance of lottery picks when the Lakers won 5 titles with the #1 pick of 1969, the #1 pick of 1979, and the #1 pick of 1982. When was the last time the Celtics won a championship with a #1 overall pick in the starting lineup or rotation?  
    Posted by Fiercest34


    Yep, the importance of the lottery. It seems like you are glorifying the lottery picks, i.e. lottery picks are better than reaching the finals.

    Who's going to stop you when you love being a loser? Absolutely no one.

     
  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 : The Lakers only won 1 title in the 70s even when they had Wilt and Jerry West. It was half a century ago that the NBA started. Some of the Laker fans here are claiming the Lakers are the greatest franchise in NBA history. If you want to become the greatest in history you have to include the "half a century ago" part of it. If we're to talk about the recent past of the Lakers and the Celtics then the dominance of the Celtics over the Lakers continued in 2008. Remember Game 6 of the 2008 NBA Finals, 131-92? Sure the Lakers beat the Celtics in 2010. But was it dominanace by the Lakers or the Celtics just couldn't rise to the occasion? It was 3-3 heading into Game 7, so you could say they were evenly matched.
    Posted by Tachometrix


    The Lakers swept the team that beat the Celtics in the previous round, that was 2002.

    The Lakers again dominated the team that beat the Celtics, in fact blew out the Celtics in game 7 in the Garden, that was 2009.

    Injury is part of the game.

    So did the Lakers dominate the Celtics in 2002 and 2009? Yep.

    Don't ever think "we aren't good enough to reach the final, so the Lakers didn't dominate us".
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    You know what's funny to me guys....? this thread is now several years old...it was started by a Laker fan who cited an article written by Mr (I love the Lakers) Hollinger....he said that the Lakers were the greatest franchise in league history ....Celtic fans have proven that statement wrong, citing clear evidence that favors Boston....now (and this is the comical part in my opinion) Laker fans don't care about history ....only recent history is important.......so both teams are 1-1 head to head over the last four years (Lakers have a 2-1 edge in titles)...Lakers hold the edge in the '00's and '80's....Celtics hold the edge in the '70's, '60's, and 50's.....while also being a superpower in the '80's...neither team won in the '90's.but, guess what?  .........those decades no longer count in the team comparisons....well, except the early '50's before the modern (shot clock) era began....yes, those five titles won in Minneapolis mean a great deal to Laker fans....our titles over the next 30 years....? nah, not so much......they aren't important to the kids....that's why most of the kids are on ignore....they talk a lot but say very little.....
    Posted by Duke4


    Duke, I know facts are not your strong suit, so let me straighten you out. The Celtics hold the edge in the 50s? How?

    Only you think the shot clock matter, that's your opinion. However, my opinion, along with DoctorCO's, is that the scale of the league operation matters more (i.e. a bush league operation vs a big-league, mega $$$ operation).

    Like the media, I count a decade as the year 0-9, thus these ten seasons would constitute a decade (1979-80 - 1988-89):

    40s - Lakers (1-0), 1949
    50s - Lakers (4-2), Lakers won in 50, 52, 53, 54, Celtics won in 57 and 59
    60s - Celtics (9-0)
    70s - Celtics (2-1)
    80s - Lakers (5-3)
    90s - 0-0
    00s - Lakers (4-1)
    10s - Lakers (1-0), 2010

    So far the Lakers have a 5-1-2 edge in decades over the Celtics.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from 21st. Show 21st's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    Is this the 17th NBA title of the Lakers that troll is dreaming about?
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from 21st. Show 21st's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat


    20 years apart, but the same result - no title for the Lakers.

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

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    well, this argument continues to rage on.......the debate is which franchise is the greatest in NBA history......obviously the Celtics and Lakers are the top two...but who is number one....?

    posters from both camps have given their input.....it seems to boil down to a few categories....I'll reiterate on my takes....

    regular season head to head record all time.....Celtics 153 (.558) Lakers 121 (.442)

    playoff head to head record.....Celtics 43 (.581) Lakers 31 (.419)

    total games.....Celtics 196 (.563) Lakers 152 (.437)

    Finals head to head.....Celtics 9 (.750) Lakers 3 (.250)

    Finals record.....Celtics 17-4 (.809) Lakers 16-15 (.516)

    Finals record in the modern (shot clock) era.....Celtics 17-4 (.809) Lakers 11-15 (.423)

    Laker fans point out that their team has reached the Finals more times (31-21)

    Celtic fans point out that the Lakers had an easier time getting into the Finals based on strength of conference...Laker fans say "not so"....

    so the issue comes down to the following....if the Lakers were the superior team wouldn't they have many more titles than the Celtics....after all, the Celts hold the edge at 17-16....and the Lakers have 10 more appearances...

    Laker fans say it isn't fair to compare the teams' head to head record in the Finals...(although, for the life of me I cannot figure out their reasoning)....but even making the adjustment for head to head....shouldn't the "superior" Lakers hold the edge vs "other competition" in the Finals...?

    well, Boston holds this tie breaker as well....take out the "Celts vs Lakers"....

    Boston is 8-1 vs the West......889 winning percentage

    Lakers are 13-6.......684 winning percentage....LA Lakers are 8-5.....615

    .....and Boston's only loss came in the '58 Finals when Russ, the most important player for either team went down in game 4...

    so there you have it.....when the Celtics meet the Lakers.....it is no contest....when the Celtics meet the entry from the West in the Finals....it is still no contest......when the Lakers come out of the West...they are basically a .500 team......the LA entry has a losing record...!.....why doesn't the dominance continue to the Final's results like the Celt's does....? .....the only thing I can think of is....once again....strength of conference

    so the Lakers can make it to the Finals playing in the West....they just can't come close to the Celtic dominance using the same criteria......and eliminating the Minny pre shot clock results...?  ....well, this conversation doesn't even take place fellas...

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

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    well, this argument continues to rage on.......the debate is which franchise is the greatest in NBA history......obviously the Celtics and Lakers are the top two...but who is number one....? posters from both camps have given their input.....it seems to boil down to a few categories....I'll reiterate on my takes.... regular season head to head record all time.....Celtics 153 (.558) Lakers 121 (.442) playoff head to head record.....Celtics 43 (.581) Lakers 31 (.419) total games.....Celtics 196 (.563) Lakers 152 (.437) Finals head to head.....Celtics 9 (.750) Lakers 3 (.250) Finals record.....Celtics 17-4 (.809) Lakers 16-15 (.516) Finals record in the modern (shot clock era).....Celtics 17-4 (.809) Lakers 11-14 (.440) Laker fans point out that their team has reached the Finals more times (31-21) Celtic fans point out that the Lakers had an easier time getting into the Finals based on strength of conference...Laker fans say "not so".... so the issue comes down to the following....if the Lakers were the superior team wouldn't they have many more titles than the Celtics....after all, the Celts hold the edge at 17-16....and the Lakers have 10 more appearances... Laker fans say it isn't fair to compare the teams' head to head record in the Finals...(although, for the life of me I cannot figure out their reasoning)....but even making the adjustment for head to head....shouldn't the "superior" Lakers hold the edge vs "other competition" in the Finals...? well, Boston holds this tie breaker as well....take out the "Celts vs Lakers".... Boston is 8-1 vs the West......889 winning percentage Lakers are 13-6.......684 winning percentage....LA Lakers are 8-5.....615 .....and Boston's only loss came in the '58 Finals when Russ, the most important player for either team went down in game 4... so there you have it.....when the Celtics meet the Lakers.....it is no contest....when the Celtics meet the entry from the West in the Finals....it is still no contest......when the Lakers come out of the West...they are basically a .500 team......the LA entry has a losing record...!.....why doesn't the dominance continue to the Final's results like the Celt's does....? .....the only thing I can think of is....once again....strength of conference so the Lakers can make it to the Finals playing in the West....they just can't come close to the Celtic dominance using the same criteria......and eliminating the Minny pre shot clock results...?  ....well, this conversation doesn't even take place fellas... Cheers
    Posted by Duke4


    There you go again with your twisted stats. Are you just an imbecile or what? Ya old nutter.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    well, that's why the term "The Big Four" was coined by the media during that decade....

    Celtics
    Sixers
    Bucks (who could never get past Boston or Philly and were replaced by Detroit who did win the championship)

    that's actually 4 great teams playing in the East during the '80's

    Lakers...the other member of the big four....a great team...but only Houston, who lost to Boston, could get past them...

    I really believe Boston had the more difficult route to the finals....and of course the style of game...the East played unbelievably physical basketball.....the West was all about finesse... 

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

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    BP......what's up with the avenger posts...?  we are trying to ignore the adolescents no...?
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from lakersavenger. Show lakersavenger's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    BP......what's up with the avenger posts...?  we are trying to ignore the adolescents no...?
    Posted by Duke4


    Adolescents? Look who's talking! Why is it that geezers start reverting to the good old days? Duke you are the quintessential child who calls everybody "my friend" and "pal" as you tear them apart. But then again, you are from the Archie Bunker capitol of the US. Your posts are as ugly as you are in your Celtic Nutters. Tell me something Duck, do you wear your nutters when you post?
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from LakerFan67. Show LakerFan67's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    One can go way back when the league had only 8 teams in the 60s. That was truly the NBA in its infancy. Some might even use the trem "bush league." I won't go that far, but bragging rights begin in the 70s when the NBA started to fully develop when both Boston and L.A. won 1 title. 8 teams is not a league.

    The 80s, the NBA comes into its own, fully mature with great teams from both East & West. The Lakers had some great opponents. The team of the 80s was the Lakers no matter how much someone tries to minimize L.A.'s success. The team of the 90s--Da Bulls but Chicago's competition was inferior compared to the teams of the 80s. & the 2000s, that era once again belonged to the Lakers.

    We'll see if the Mavericks can become a ldominant power-house now.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    well,  in MLB there were two leagues with 8 teams each......no playoffs for the 2nd & 3rd place teams....the best team from each 8 team league played in the World Series....that worked out pretty well for almost 70 years....and no one called baseball from 1901 through 1968 a bush league!  ...it's true that four teams were added in the early '60's giving each league 10 teams.....but from the early days until the NFL took over, baseball was our national pastime......now what is it...?  a league with too many teams, a juiced baseball, coming off years of juiced players....a watered down league based on agents and money....gone are the days of pitchers who could go 300+ innings and pitch every fourth day......the NBA is right there as a watered down product where the rules are ignored in the name of star power.....no wonder so many of my buddies have abandoned the league....it can't compete with the NCAA when it comes to compelling basketball....it's a shame to say the least...!
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    Avernger must want to discount all the Yankee pennants from the Ruth-Gehrig days............since that "wasn't a league.."
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from dirty52. Show dirty52's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : The Celtics won 2 titles in the 70s while the Lakers went 1-2 against the Knicks in the Finals.  You are right that the Lakers had success in the 80s. But I don't think they dominated, going 5-3 in the Finals is not domination. It just means the Lakers won more than any other team. Don't undervalue the Bulls' success because they went 6-0 in the Finals. Regardless of the competition, MJ never lost in the Finals. That's something the Lakers have not done. Since the 1950s the Lakers lost in every decade, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and 2000s. And the Lakers are the only NBA team to have losing records against multiple teams in the NBA Finals. Both the Bulls and Celtics won titles without a #1 pick draft pick. The Lakers needed Wilt, Kareem and Magic, and Shaq, all #1 picks, to win a title. That's why I find it funny that one troll here downplays the importance of the lottery. If the Lakers didn't have Kareem and Magic, Shaq, and Wilt the Lakers would only have 2 titles in LA and 5 in Minneapolis for a total of 7.
    Posted by Fiercest34


    Well there was no lottery until 1987, and Kareem , Wilt and Shaq were not the Lakers 1st round pics

    I would think that the goal of any pro basketball team is to get to the finals. Do you think the Celtics were happy not to get to the finals and get a draft pick instead?
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from dirty52. Show dirty52's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    well, that's why the term "The Big Four" was coined by the media during that decade.... Celtics Sixers Bucks (who could never get past Boston or Philly and were replaced by Detroit who did win the championship) that's actually 4 great teams playing in the East during the '80's Lakers...the other member of the big four....a great team...but only Houston, who lost to Boston, could get past them... I really believe Boston had the more difficult route to the finals....and of course the style of game...the East played unbelievably physical basketball.....the West was all about finesse... 
    Posted by Duke4


    The big 4 is due to East coast media biasTongue Out
    http://sundial.csun.edu/2006/04/theeastcoastbiasinmediainvolvingsportsneedstostop/



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

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    Avernger must want to discount all the Yankee pennants from the Ruth-Gehrig days............since that "wasn't a league.."
    Posted by Red-16Russ-11

    Where you been pal? How about them red sox?
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    Dirty, I commend you.....you are the first Laker fan to acknowledge the term......East Coast biased...? ...perhaps.....but I heard it all the time when watching Sportscenter or reading TSN back in the day...and I never heard anyone in the media ever discount the fact that the East was considered to be the stronger conference.....so a big "thank you"...and I'm not being sarcastic at all....just appreciate someone finally acknowledging the term....up until now I have been accused of making it up myself....the Lakers were a superpower in the '80's....there is no question on that...I feel that Boston had a tougher go of it playing in the East...the Lakers were the team of the '80's based on the most wins...on the other hand, three teams from the East were able to win and the final tally was East and West with 5 titles each...the Minneapolis Lakers dominated the pre-shot clock game with 5 titles (including one in the BAA in '49)....the Celtics dominated the '60's with 9 titles....the Bulls dominated the '80's with 6 titles (and MJ took off two years in between each "three-peat")....the Lakers dominated the '00's with a 5-2 record...

    We are talking about the two greatest franchises in history here.....fans on both sides are passionate...and with this rivalry that is how it should be...it's all good man!
     
  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:
    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : Well there was no lottery until 1987, and Kareem , Wilt and Shaq were not the Lakers 1st round pics I would think that the goal of any pro basketball team is to get to the finals. Do you think the Celtics were happy not to get to the finals and get a draft pick instead?
    Posted by dirty52



    No, but Magic AND Worthy were both #1 overall picks....know how many times that's happened to Bos - ZERO!!
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    just reiterating on "the big four"......it was coined in the very early '80s....and as the decade wound down...the media was proven right on it's assessment of the league....four teams won championships that decade...the Lakers from the West and the Celtics, Sixers, and Pistons from the East....and one of the original teams....the Bucks of that decade never even made it....look at that talent...Bob Lanier, Marques Johnson, Sidney Montcrief, Junior Bridgeman, and Terry Cummings to name a few....from '80/'81 through '86/'87 they averaged just under 55 wins and went to the conference semi's or finals every year if I remember correctly ...that must've been a tough stretch being a Buck fan....
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from dirty52. Show dirty52's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : No, but Magic AND Worthy were both #1 overall picks....know how many times that's happened to Bos - ZERO!!
    Posted by Red-16Russ-11



    The Celtics had the number one pick in 1950

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Share
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from dirty52. Show dirty52's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : Getting to the finals? I thought the goal of any pro basketball team is to win a championship? Fierce has a point, the Celtics have never had a #1 overall pick leading them to a championship. Shaq was picked #1 by the Magic and Kareem, #1, by the Bucks. Just because the Lakers didn't pick them it doesn't change the fact that both Kareem and Shaq gave the Lakers 8 championships.
    Posted by Tachometrix


    Actually Bill Walton was a number one pick and played for the Celtics
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from dirty52. Show dirty52's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat


    Was does it matter who had number one draft pics?

    Look how many number on draft pics did not win or were busts?

    I guess since Kwame Brown was a number one pick the Lakers should have won more titles

    Or the Houston Rockets who had two number one picks in Ralph Sampson and Hakeem Olayjuwon
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from dirty52. Show dirty52's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    Dirty, I commend you.....you are the first Laker fan to acknowledge the term......East Coast biased...? ...perhaps.....but I heard it all the time when watching Sportscenter or reading TSN back in the day...and I never heard anyone in the media ever discount the fact that the East was considered to be the stronger conference.....so a big "thank you"...and I'm not being sarcastic at all....just appreciate someone finally acknowledging the term....up until now I have been accused of making it up myself....the Lakers were a superpower in the '80's....there is no question on that...I feel that Boston had a tougher go of it playing in the East...the Lakers were the team of the '80's based on the most wins...on the other hand, three teams from the East were able to win and the final tally was East and West with 5 titles each...the Minneapolis Lakers dominated the pre-shot clock game with 5 titles (including one in the BAA in '49)....the Celtics dominated the '60's with 9 titles....the Bulls dominated the '80's with 6 titles (and MJ took off two years in between each "three-peat")....the Lakers dominated the '00's with a 5-2 record... We are talking about the two greatest franchises in history here.....fans on both sides are passionate...and with this rivalry that is how it should be...it's all good man!
    Posted by Duke4


    I always thought term meant that the East coast media was biased towards western sports teams in that the east was always better
     
  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 : The Celtics had the number one pick in 1950 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Share
    Posted by dirty52


    1950?  I thought we were talking LOTTERY picks!!


    Weak - he never played for Boston!
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    so you're saying the East coast media favored the East in the comparison...? ...you just might have a point there buddy....
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share