8 Straight Finals Losses an NBA Record

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

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : 1950?  I thought we were talking LOTTERY picks!! Weak - he never played for Boston!
    Posted by Red-16Russ-11[/QUOTE]


    The lottery did not start until 1987

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

    Re: Laker 8-peat



    Maybe the Celtics should have kept this guy, things might have been different in the 80's


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikos_Galis
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    It is a widely held belief that the first weighted lottery was held in 1985, with the New York Knicks "acquiring" Patrick Ewing.  Before that, picks were done solely on won-loss record.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Gasthoerer. Show Gasthoerer's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]Having Kareem, Magic, and Worthy, all #1 picks...Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]
    Actually, if I remember correct, LA once had four (!) #1 picks on their rooster in the 80s. Really unbelivable for the recent NBA.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    Dirty.....interesting link on Galis......thanks!!     ....and, as far as the Ewing lottery...conspiracy theories be damned....anyone who hasn't watched it on Youtube needs to take a look....funniest clip I've seen....they tossed the entries into the drum, then smashed the entry that turned out to be New York's....even Knick fans think it was outrageous....how could Stern not have reached in and found the only one with a bent corner....?  ...well, as Romey says.........."allegedly".....I only saw the clip when one of my best buddies (Knicks fan) sent me the link a few years ago....classic!
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from dirty52. Show dirty52's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]Having Kareem, Magic, and Worthy, all #1 picks, is the equivalent to having Dwight Howard, Blake Griffin, and Derrick Rose on the same team. The Lakers were great in the 2k era, Shaq was unstoppable. Even I didn't bet against the Lakers in the Finals at that time. Every time Shaq and the Lakers made it to the Finals you just knew they were going to win it all. You can't say the same for the 80s Lakers. I mean 5-3 in the Finals in the 80s and 0-1 in the 90s when Kareem left is definitely not dominance. Back then the Celtics needed to beat the Sixers of Dr. J and Moses Malone to advance to the Finals. The Lakers on the other hand had Mark Aguirre and James Donaldson standing in their way. Ha Ha
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    While Howard ,Griffin and Rose are good players . i would not try to compare them to Magic, Kareem and Worthy

    Don't forget the Pistons had Isaiah Thomas , Joe Dumars and Vinnie Johnson

    The Celtics were dominant in the 60's but how about the 40 years since then?

    I really like how you always have to put a spin on everything
    's
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from dirty52. Show dirty52's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]Dirty.....interesting link on Galis......thanks!!     ....and, as far as the Ewing lottery...conspiracy theories be damned....anyone who hasn't watched it on Youtube needs to take a look....funniest clip I've seen....they tossed the entries into the drum, then smashed the entry that turned out to be New York's....even Knick fans think it was outrageous....how could Stern not have reached in and found the only one with a bent corner....?  ...well, as Romey says.........."allegedly".....I only saw the clip when one of my best buddies (Knicks fan) sent me the link a few years ago....classic!
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]

    Duke

    I will have to see if i can find it on youtube
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUWorthy. Show RUWorthy's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]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[/QUOTE]

    It's more to do with good management than luck when it comes to drafting players. You left Worthy out of the genuine Lakers number one draft picks. Worthy and Johnson were our only genuine number one picks. Mychal Thompson also played in two championship teams.

    Kareem, Wilt and Shaq came to us not via the draft. Plus Wilt was a 'Territorial' pick, not a 'number one' choice in the purist sense of the word.

    Tom Heinsohn was a territorial pick for Boston.

    When it comes to titles Boston owes their success to Bill Russell. That's the only reason the Celtics have 11 of their titles. Who is to say what would have happened if Red kept Easy Ed? Certainly no championships as Russell would have been at The Hawks. It wouldn't be hard to imagine St Louis still having the same success boston did in their Russell era.

    If we're talking about draft day robberies, the move Red made to get Russell outstrips the moves we made to obtain Wilt or Kareem. That move by Red altered the landscape of the NBA. Best GM in history.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from dirty52. Show dirty52's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : Exactly my point. In the 80s, the Celtics had to deal with Dr. J's Sixers, Isiah's Pistons, MJ's Bulls, Bernard King and the Knicks, and even Dominique's Hawks. Don't forget the Celtics won 2 titles in the 70s and 3 more in the 80s. The Celtics were not only great in the 60s. The Lakers of the 2k era, hands down dominant. But when you say the Lakers of the 80s were dominant, that is where I disagree. After Kareem left Magic and Worthy made it to the Finals but got beat 4-1 by MJ and Pippen. How many rings did Magic and Worthy win without Kareem? Magic Johnson could have played until 1996. But it's his own fault that he had too many "sex in the sauna" postgame festivities.
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    Exactly what is your point?

    you post this

    Back then the Celtics needed to beat the Sixers of Dr. J and Moses Malone to advance to the Finals. The Lakers on the other hand had Mark Aguirre and James Donaldson standing in their way. Ha Ha

    And then this
    Exactly my point. In the 80s, the Celtics had to deal with Dr. J's Sixers, Isiah's Pistons

    The Lakers had to beat the same teams to win the finals as the Celtics

    you are contradicting yourself

    And you sure are pre-occupied with Magic  and  sex in the sauna as you have brought it up in previous posts

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

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]Again, in the 80s, if the Celtics beat the Pistons or the Sixers they would only advance to the Finals. If the Lakers beat the Pistons or the Sixers that means the Lakers are already world champs. Who were a threat to the Lakers, in the west, in the 80s? Larry Nance and the Suns? Tom Chambers and Jack Sikma of the Sonics? Mark Aguirre and James Donaldson of the Mavs? Only the Rockets, with Hakeem and Ralph Sampson, were close to being a championship team in the west back then. I mean can you honestly say that Nance, Chambers, Sikma, Aguirre, and Donaldson are tougher opponents than MJ, Isiah, Dr. J, Moses Malone, or Bernard King?

    Who is to say how any eastern teams would fare if they played in the West

    Many when someone invents a time machine we can go back and realign the league an see


    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from dirty52. Show dirty52's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]One example is MJ's Bulls, they never lost in the Finals and they never had a Center like Kareem or Shaq. They didn't even play a Game 7 in all of their Finals appearance. That's dominance!
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]


    It could also mean that there was weak competition

    Just because you say the west was weak does not make it true

    Now if Larry Bird or Magic Johnson said it i would be more inclined to believe it
     
  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]In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : A team that's in the lottery is a loser? How about a team that got beat by the Suns in 2006 and 2007, in the 1st round of the playoffs, are they not losers too? Are you telling us that every time the Lakers make it to the Finals it's already another championship? If that's the case then the Lakers should have 31 championships, right?
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    Are you telling me a team missing the playoffs is the same as a team making the playoffs?

    Are you telling me a team missing the playoffs is the same as a team making it to the finals?

    If that's the case the Celtics would have had a lottery pick for 2010. Did they?

     
  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]In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : Wow! I thought the 1960s was irrelevant? Now you're going back all the way to the 1940s? Ha Ha VERY FUNNY!
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    Of course very funny. You want 1960s to be irrelevant? then it's 10-6. Take your pick.
     
  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]In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : I thought you said the Lakers already have 17 championships, what gives? Did Dr. Jerry Buss tell you that the Lakers only have 16 championships?  You don't believe what Fierce34 said anymore?
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    I thought you counted the Lakers' 1947-48 NBL season. What gives?
     
  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]well, this argument continues to rage on.......[/QUOTE]
    Ummm... Duke, I thought you put me on ignore. Of course, knowing your habits,  I know you couldn't resist...

    [QUOTE]
    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[/QUOTE]
    Well, you said it yourself. "To be the best you have to beat the best". Now, if the Celtics weren't the best in the east, they of course wouldn't get the chance to be beaten up by the Lakers. So what make you change the argument to "to be the best you have to beat the Celtics head-to-head"?

    [QUOTE]
    .....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) [/QUOTE]
    Missing finals 44 times - Celtics, 34 times - Lakers.

    Now, you don't think you can get away with the total of 44 times the Celtics failed to make the finals, do you?

    So the tally, no matter how you distort it, is 17-48 vs 16-47. So you penalize the Lakers for reaching the finals and reward the Celtics for their failure, do you think you can get away with this distortion?

    [QUOTE]
    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...
    [/QUOTE]
    17-16 is not really an edge.

    17-48 vs 16-47, you said it yourself, it's as close as you can get.
    As DoctorCO said it, Steelers ruled the NFL even though they were 7 titles short of the Packers, because he only counts WHAT MATTERS!!!!

    So # title is not the only thing that counts when the total is that close, especially if you count Fierce's inclusion of the NBL championship. It's not like the Yankee's 27-10 edge or the Canadiens' 24-13 edge. The other factors roll in, such as the 16 times the Celtics failed to make the playoffs, the Celtics' failure since the NBA became big-time (DoctorCO's principle), etc.

    [QUOTE]
    .and the Lakers have 10 more appearances...
    [/QUOTE]
    I am sure the Celtics played two more seasons in the NBA than the Lakers. What 10 more appearances? You mean the Celtics only played 21 seasons in the NBA while the Lakers played 31?

    [QUOTE]
    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)....[/QUOTE]
    Simple, because you are rewarding the Celtics' failure. They wimped out of the eastern conf championships when the Lakers won championships, why is it an advantage to them?

    [QUOTE]
    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....?[/QUOTE]
    And I really can't figure out why you only count the finals. You mean the seasons the Celtics failed to make the finals are credit to the Celtics?

    13-6 vs 8-1. Then what happen to the other 10 seasons. THE CELTICS FAILED TO MAKE THE FINALS. Now, you are crediting them with a .889 winning %. So when they failed to make the finals, it's an advantage to the Celtics. Why?

    Your art of distortion is really unparallelled...

     
  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 : That's something the Lakers have not done. Since the 1950s the Lakers lost in every decade, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and 2000s.[/QUOTE]

    Ummm... another master of distortion.

    You mean since the 1950s the Celtics have not lost in every decade? You mean losing before the finals are not losses? or you mean missing the playoffs are not losses?

    Right, the Celtics had not lost in the 90s. Or was it totally wiped out from your memory?

    Whether you like it or not, but losing in the finals are not as bad as missing the playoffs.

    [QUOTE]
     And the Lakers are the only NBA team to have losing records against multiple teams in the NBA Finals. [/QUOTE]
    Losing record in the finals is still better than getting lottery picks.

    [QUOTE]
    Both the Bulls and Celtics won titles without a #1 pick draft pick. [/QUOTE]
    The Celtics weren't without #1 draft picks. It's just that they were so inept that they couldn't win many titles with them.

    Remember Bill Walton? Never Nervous? Shaq?

    They weren't drafted by the Celtics? Kareem and Shaq weren't drafted by the Lakers either.




     
  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 : The big 4 is due to East coast media bias http://sundial.csun.edu/2006/04/theeastcoastbiasinmediainvolvingsportsneedstostop/
    Posted by dirty52[/QUOTE]

    Nope, the big 4 is due to Duke's imagination.

    I was there as much as he was in the 80s. No one sane enough would call the Bucks a "BIG" one. They weren't even good enough to get to 1 final, and Duke was trying to boost that the east was tough such that the Celtics couldn't get to more finals.

    The sad truth is, he was using induction to induce that Big 4 in the 80s == Eastern conference was tough throughout NBA history. Otherwise how can he use that to ignore the era after Jordan? when the west was 10-3 against the east...

     
  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 : Getting to the finals? I thought the goal of any pro basketball team is to win a championship?
    Posted by Tachometrix[/QUOTE]

    Well, failing to reach that goal doesn't mean all teams are equal. It's not black and white.

    But of course you would insist that they are equal, because in the 16 cases that the Celtics missed the playoffs, you would have said that it's the same as winning the conference...

    Except the NBA doesn't agree with you, or they would have put the Heat in the lottery in 2011...

    But even if you do, then the tally is 17-48 vs 16-47. I'll see how you can deny this...




     
  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]Kareem, Magic, and Worthy, all #1 picks on the same team, and they only went 5-3 in the Finals. Tim Duncan and David Robinson, also #1 picks and on the same team, never lost in the Finals.
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    That's funny, you seem to think 5-3 in the finals is worse than 2-0 in the finals...

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

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    Majic....unfortunately, I do have you on ignore.....but many other posters are continuing to go back and forth on this topic....and I can see replies to comments via the magic that is called "cut & paste".......regardless of what you believe, I did not invent the term, the media did....and isn't it interesting that all of the titles were won actually by four teams..?  ...one from the West and three from the East!!  ....so at the end of the day, the media got it right.....also, did you take a look at the players on the Bucks..? ...did you check out their records...? .....you know they made the Eastern Conference Semi's or Finals multiple times right..?  ....they could just never get past Boston or Philly...this thread is about the greater of the two franchises all time...in my opinion, number of titles, records head to head, and records in the championships all trump your points....they are the top three categories in this comparison...of course, you will disagree and I'll see the response if I chose to read another cut & paste...as you can see, other than this direct response, I have simply scrolled over your posts and gone on to the the next one....last thing....I don't consider you a troll...you show a knowledge of the history of the rivalry and I get where you are coming from....you do tend to get a little smug at times, which is fine.....but since we will never agree with each other my thought is simply....why waste time butting heads ...? ....after all...these are simply our opinions...right?
     
  21. 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:
    [QUOTE]Majic....unfortunately, I do have you on ignore.....but many other posters are continuing to go back and forth on this topic....and I can see replies to comments via the magic that is called "cut & paste".......regardless of what you believe, I did not invent the term, the media did....and isn't it interesting that all of the titles were won actually by four teams..?  ...one from the West and three from the East!!  ....so at the end of the day, the media got it right.....also, did you take a look at the players on the Bucks..? ...did you check out their records...? .....you know they made the Eastern Conference Semi's or Finals multiple times right..?  ....they could just never get past Boston or Philly...this thread is about the greater of the two franchises all time...in my opinion, number of titles, records head to head, and records in the championships all trump your points....they are the top three categories in this comparison...of course, you will disagree and I'll see the response if I chose to read another cut & paste...as you can see, other than this direct response, I have simply scrolled over your posts and gone on to the the next one....last thing....I don't consider you a troll...you show a knowledge of the history of the rivalry and I get where you are coming from....you do tend to get a little smug at times, which is fine.....but since we will never agree with each other my thought is simply....why waste time butting heads ...? ....after all...these are simply our opinions...right?
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]

    The Bucks were very good for a long time with Nelly as the coach.  Did we mention Paul Pressy, who gave Larry fits at times a la Michael Cooper.  And let's not forget that Jack Sikma came to the Bucks in 1986!
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from dirty52. Show dirty52's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]Majic I can't believe you're trying to be smart but ending up as dumb as an ox. For your information, the goal of NBA teams is to win a championship. Your pathetic 17-48 vs 16-47 excuse is just that, a pathetic excuse. The Lakers are not even the winningest team in the NBA right now. They're 1 short of 17, right? Ha Ha
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    Yes the Celtics have one more championship but the Lakers have a better winning percentage

    http://nba-franchise.pikimal.com/los-angeles-lakers/vs/boston-celtics/for/all-time-winning-percentage
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from dirty52. Show dirty52's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : You are a fool for questioning Michael Jordan's greatness. The 90s featured players like David Robinson, Shaq, Karl Malone, John Stockton, Charles Barkley, Alonzo Mourning, Patrick Ewing, Hakeem Olajuwon, Tim Duncan, Pippen, Reggie Miller, etc. That's weak competition? From Fierce's list, clearly the east had more great players than the west in the 80s. There's no need for Larry Bird or Magic Johnson to tell you that. By the way, did you know the Bulls won 72 games in 1996? That they're the only team in NBA history to ever do that? Or you still need Larry Bird and Magic Johnson to tell you that?     
    Posted by Tachometrix[/QUOTE]

    Wow , i disagree with someone and i am a fool? Actually i thought Bill Russell was the greatest player according to some in this forum
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from dirty52. Show dirty52's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]Majic I can't believe you're trying to be smart but ending up as dumb as an ox. For your information, the goal of NBA teams is to win a championship. Your pathetic 17-48 vs 16-47 excuse is just that, a pathetic excuse. The Lakers are not even the winningest team in the NBA right now. They're 1 short of 17, right? Ha Ha
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    I like how you flip flop on your posts

    you posted this earlier in this thread

    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!

    And then you say the goal is to win a title. which is it?

    You must be a politician with all the flip floping in your replys


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

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    Dirty.....I've brought this up earlier.......the article cites the Lakers as having a better won/loss record than Boston all time in both the regular season and the play-offs.....I think the trump card in this discussion is the fact that, head to head, Boston has the much bigger advantage....so in a comparison of two franchises for bragging rights...do you take the Lakers vs the league....or do you take the Celtics vs the Lakers...?  ....just asking an honest question....also...did you find the Ewing lottery on youtube yet.....?
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share