Calling all Laker fans where are you?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from OC-CeltsFan. Show OC-CeltsFan's posts

    Re: Calling all Laker fans where are you?

    Yes...dumb debate since the Celtics have the most titles, we own the head to head by far, win percentage, etc., etc.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Calling all Laker fans where are you?

    In Response to Re: Calling all Laker fans where are you?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Calling all Laker fans where are you? : Are you telling us you were already alive when the Minneapolis Lakers were winning championships in the 50s?  How old are you?
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    Are you claiming the Celtics championship ONLY AFTER YOU WERE BORN?

    Ok, how old are you? I'll tell you rightaway how many championships the Celtics are trailing the Lakers...


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

    Re: Calling all Laker fans where are you?

    In Response to Re: Calling all Laker fans where are you?:
    [QUOTE]celtics/lakers fans have some of the dumbest debates
    Posted by renecito713[/QUOTE]

    Do you want to contribute or make smartazz comments?
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Tayshawn. Show Tayshawn's posts

    Re: Calling all Laker fans where are you?

    The Lakers are clearly the better team overall. When a team has been irrelevant for 22 years, that tends to happen. It has been more than 40 years since the celtics have gone back to back. The Lakers have accomplished that twice in the past decade alone. Cool

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

    Re: Calling all Laker fans where are you?

    In Response to Re: Calling all Laker fans where are you?:
    [QUOTE]It is a fact that the East historically had the stronger teams......that is why a sub .500 team was able to make it to the Finals (see '59 Lakers)....in fact, the Lakers made the playoffs with losing records in '58/'59, '59/'60, '60/'61, and again in '66/'67....when the league expanded the Hawks (Lakers' top rival) moved East while the West got the expansion Suns.....again, no Laker fan has replied to the topic of "the Big Four" of the '80's.....and I am sure many of you remember it well.....while the East had centers like Parish, Malone, and Lanier to name a few going head to head....the Lakers had to battle the likes of Kevin Duckworth.....getting to the Finals doesn't prove anything....there has to be a team representing each conference.....Boston may have fielded stronger teams that lost out to stronger competition, while the Lakers had an easier time getting out of their conference..no one can prove either side of this issue...but the two biggest factors that favor the Celtics.....? .809% in the Finals (17-4) vs .516% (16-15) .......and in the modern NBA it becomes .423% (11-15) 9-3 head to head.....8 straight over a 25 year span.....when LA finally broke through they beat Celtic teams with key players playing injured....think a healthy Bird and Maxwell might've helped out in '85..? .....and we won't even talk about '87... [/QUOTE]

    The East was historically stronger mainly because of THE CELTICS!!! And only in very few occasions that the Celtics failed to make the final because of a strong opponent in the east that THEY WOULD HAVE IN YOUR PERCEIVED "WEAK" WEST,  like in 1967 and 1973. All other years, you have no case. I mean, in the 19 years from 1988-89 to 2006-07, especially in the Bulls dynasty era, are you telling me the Celtics failed to make the finals ONLY because the east was loaded?

    If you want to do a year-by-year analysis on how's the Celtics' chance of making the finals during those years had they been in the west, just say it. I'll do it for you...

    The big 4 have long been responded. Your refusal to face the truth is not our problem. Milwaukee Bucks a big 4? What have they achieved? Keep getting good regular season records but keep getting disappointed in the playoffs? Are you talking about the Nash Suns? or the Cuban Mavericks?

    Let's see, you cited 4 years that the Lakers made the playoffs with losing record, now you extrapolate that the Lakers making the finals 31 times because the west was weak, that's pretty illogical thinking. The Lakers didn't make the final in 60, 61 and 67, so those years aren't even in the discussion...

    Take away 1959, which one of the other 14 finals appearance was due to a weak west? And enlighten us again, when had the NBA started to disregard final appearance from the conference that Duke perceive as "weak"?

    17-4 in the finals means they are inferior in the conference playoffs. You don't have to brag about the Celtics' inferior playoff record again and again, we all know that.

    And you can make all those injury excuses again. Injury is PART OF THE GAME. You get injuries, why didn't Bird in 1985  play the Willis Reed or the Paul Pierce (wheelchair) stunt? Bird himself said that Cooper's defense had much to do with his terrible shooting than anything else. Should I believe him or should I believe you?

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ItsNot1966anymor. Show ItsNot1966anymor's posts

    Re: Calling all Laker fans where are you?

    I think Celtics fans are quite similar to Notre Dame fans in their clinging to historical success, and arguing that the success of prior generations still makes them the best.  You'll find Notre Dame claims at least 11 (and as many as 13) national championships, the 3rd  most wins in NCAA history, the 2nd highest winning PCT in NCAA history, the most individual Heisman awards, 12 undefeated teams, the most All-American players, etc.... lots of accomplishments in the history of the program, but few of them recently.  Only one championship since 1977 and none since 1988. 

    Because of their historical success, they have some brand name recognition but few would consider them an elite program today.  They might still crack the list of top 12 or 15 programs all-time, just barely.  Anyone outside of Notre Dame can see that teams like Florida, USC, Ohio State, Oklahoma, etc... have surpassed Notre Dame.  I think few people would argue that Notre Dame is the #1 program all time because of its success 50 - 60 years ago, but that is the exact argument all you Celtics fans cling to.

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

    Re: Calling all Laker fans where are you?

    using your logic leads me to believe that you feel the Lakers have been the better team over the last 20+ years...I agree with you on that point.....in the last 20 years the teams have met twice for the title...it stands one apiece.....my contention is that in the long run the Celtics have the upper hand....I've already pointed out all of those reasons so no need to rehash them again....as I said, I don't expect either side will change their minds...I do wonder why no Laker fans want to discuss two topics:

    The "Big 4" of the '80's

    The way the game was played prior to the shot clock....almost one third of the Laker titles occurred during that time.....scroll up to view a few of the examples of how the game was played....it seems absurd in retrospect!
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ItsNot1966anymor. Show ItsNot1966anymor's posts

    Re: Calling all Laker fans where are you?

    I have no reference to speak knowledgably about the pre-shot clock era.  I'm sure it was explained somewhere earlier, but I'm not sure what is meant by the "Big 4" of the 1980's.  I did see some inferences that the Lakers 16-15 record in the Finals means they took advantage of being in a weaker conference and then had to face "real competition" in the Finals.  I disagree.  By analogy, I suppose we could say the East was generally weak from 2003 - 2008 when the same team (Pistons) goes to the Conference Finals 6 straight times but only advances to the Finals twice and only wins one championship.  Such a broad sweeping assumption would probably not be fair, or accurate. 

    Most years, I think the top 3 - 4 teams in each conference are very strong, and getting to the Finals means you beat some strong competition along the way.  The Finals are generally decided by which team is better able to impose their style in that particular series, but I don't think general assumptions can be drawn about the conferences as a whole based on which team wins each year.   The 90s Bulls were the best team every year they won, and they happened to be in the East, but I don't think that means the Eastern conference as a whole was better than the Western conference during the 90s.  Otherwise, some other Eastern conference team would have won in 1994 and 1995 instead of the Rockets.  And going back to the Bulls' second 3-peat, there have been many years where the #8 seed (and sometimes the #6 and 7 seeds) in the East would not even make the playoffs in the West, and the #9 and #10 seeds in the West would have made the playoffs in the East.  

    However, even if you could say that one conference was "weaker" as a whole compared to the other conference, that does not mean that the team coming out of the "weaker" conference is not worthy, or capable of winning the Finals.  There are plenty of examples that would contradict that assumption.  At most, you might infer that the team from the "stronger" conference has faced more adversity in its run to the Finals and is better prepared for that stage than the the team who had the easier run, which could be at a disadvantage because it has to step up its intensity very quickly.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from lakersavenger. Show lakersavenger's posts

    Re: Calling all Laker fans where are you?

    In Response to Re: Calling all Laker fans where are you?:
    [QUOTE]using your logic leads me to believe that you feel the Lakers have been the better team over the last 20+ years...I agree with you on that point.....in the last 20 years the teams have met twice for the title...it stands one apiece.....my contention is that in the long run the Celtics have the upper hand....I've already pointed out all of those reasons so no need to rehash them again....as I said, I don't expect either side will change their minds...I do wonder why no Laker fans want to discuss two topics: The "Big 4" of the '80's The way the game was played prior to the shot clock....almost one third of the Laker titles occurred during that time.....scroll up to view a few of the examples of how the game was played....it seems absurd in retrospect!
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]
    Make that the best in the world for the last 31 years my friend and we have won 3 of the last 4.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from cofj. Show cofj's posts

    Re: Calling all Laker fans where are you?

    Overall, I give it to the Celtics, only because of their 1 title up on the Lakers.  Titles are what it's all about.

    However, the team as of late has been the Lakers.  They've won 10 championships in my lifetime, including 5 over the last 12 years.  Boston was big back in the 80's as well, but they definitely had that drought.  Let's see what they do to restructure this team.  I really do want to see them as a powerhouse again.  The NBA is just so much more interesting.

    As for the # of finals appearances.  They're also known as Conference Championships, so let's not act like it's BETTER to not make the finals than it is to lose in the finals.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Calling all Laker fans where are you?

    to cofj and avenger and '66......great posts guys...........I guess it goes in cycles....Lakers/Celtics:

    '50's Boston 1-0
    '60's Boston 6-0
    '70's no head to head
    '80's LA 2-1
    '90's no head to head
    '00's Boston 1-0
    '10's LA 1-0

    so head to head Boston has a nice lead

    Championships

    '50's Lakers 5/Celtics 2
    '60's Celtics 9/Lakers 0
    '70's Celtics 2/Lakers 1
    '80's Lakers 5/Celtics 3
    '90's no titles for either team
    '00's Lakers 3/Celtics 1
    '10's Lakers 2/Celtics 0

    pretty damn close......two greatest teams and the greatest rivalry of all time...enough said!
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from FlobusMcNugget. Show FlobusMcNugget's posts

    Re: Calling all Laker fans where are you?

    One thing is definitely clear IMO - the finals will be nowhere near as entertaining without the Lakers and Celtics.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from soups. Show soups's posts

    Re: Calling all Laker fans where are you?

    In Response to Re: Calling all Laker fans where are you?:
    [QUOTE]One thing is definitely clear IMO - the finals will be nowhere near as entertaining without the Lakers and Celtics.
    Posted by FlobusMcNugget[/QUOTE]

    Spot on, Flobus.  It's weird watching the balance of power change hands in this league.  LA has building blocks; Boston is just old.  Good luck next year.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Calling all Laker fans where are you?

    In Response to Re: Calling all Laker fans where are you?:
    [QUOTE]using your logic leads me to believe that you feel the Lakers have been the better team over the last 20+ years...I agree with you on that point.....in the last 20 years the teams have met twice for the title...it stands one apiece.....my contention is that in the long run the Celtics have the upper hand....I've already pointed out all of those reasons so no need to rehash them again....as I said, I don't expect either side will change their minds...I do wonder why no Laker fans want to discuss two topics: The "Big 4" of the '80's The way the game was played prior to the shot clock....almost one third of the Laker titles occurred during that time.....scroll up to view a few of the examples of how the game was played....it seems absurd in retrospect!
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]

    In the long run the Celtics still do NOT have the upper hand. It's

    17-48 vs 16-47

    basically the same in league standings. What upper hand are you dreaming about?

    You are penalizing the Lakers because they reached more finals. Tell me, when have they started giving out accolades or rings for FAILING to reach the finals? If not, what's so good about their only 4 losses in 17-4? It's not as if they only compete in the NBA for 21 seasons. What happened to the other 44 seasons?

    Celtics failed more often in the conference playoffs is a FACT you can't deny. Celtics failed because of a stronger conference is NOT a fact, it's just your opinion. I happen to disagree with that assessment whatsoever because

    1) It's not a stronger conference over the long haul.  The most argument you can make is the east winning more championships (35-29). That means the east champions are (barely) stronger than the west champions over 64 years. Notice it's the "champions", not the "conference".

    2) The Celtics failed to win the conference not because it's a stronger conference, due to the fact that:

    - the Celtics were rarely blocked by the eventual champ on their failure. Since the Celtics dynasty, the Celtics were blocked by the eventual champions in the conference playoffs only twice (1967 by the 76ers and 1973 by the Knicks), i.e. the last time happened 38 years ago. Those are the only two scenarios that you can make a case, i.e. Celtics failed to win the conference due to strong conference opponents. Well, actually it happened to them in one more time, when they, as #8 seed, were swept by the Pistons in the first round in 1989, but you can hardly make that case.

    - that brings up the 2nd point, when the Celtics lost to the eventual conference champs in conference semi or conference final, its conquerors usually lost the finals (1972, 1980, 1982, 1988, 2002, 2009) to the Lakers. That's 6 occasions that the best team of the east weren't as good as the Lakers. Put the Celtics in the west, they wouldn't have survived against the Lakers either.

    - the east's championship edge over the west is only 35-29. Take away the Celtics' 9 championships in the 60s, the east's dominant era, you get the west leading 29-26. Now, are you complaining that the Celtics failed to make more finals in the 60s? So your only case is 1967. I can give you this one, as well as the one in 1973. So you aren't making much progress.

    - the Celtics failed to make the playoffs 9 times during the 21-year drought. You have absolutely no case to blame this on a tough eastern conference for their failure to reach more finals. I repeat: FAILED TO MAKE THE PLAYOFFS!!!!

    About the Big 4. I don't know what you are smoking, but the Milwaukee Bucks weren't "big", simply because they didn't achieve anything. They are a BIG team as much as the Nash Suns and the Cuban Mavericks are a BIG team. "Big" only when you want to hype up the Celtics' oppositions to boost your argument.

    As for the pre-shot clock era, I don't care. What I care more is the bush league era vs the golden era of the NBA, when

    1) NBA became a mega $$$ business, with salaries began to skyrocket;

    2) thus attracting all the better athletes, especially African Americans, to get jobs in the NBA. Well, you can try the "Back in those days, Chuck Cooper is black, Bill, Sam and KC are blacks, what are you smoking" argument. Try it.

    3) plus an international pool of players; someone in this argument last year keep naming Sasha Vujovic as the representative of international players, I can keep citing Pau, Dirk, Manu, Akeem, Yao, Parker, etc. to refute...






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

    Re: Calling all Laker fans where are you?

    ....who is talking about Chuck Cooper......?  look at the tremendous talent that played during the Celtic reign (1957-1976....20 years/13 titles/14 Finals appearances)

    Bill Russell
    Elgin Baylor
    Wilt Chamberlain
    Oscar Robertson
    Nate Thurmond
    Wes Unseld
    Willis Reed
    Sam Jones
    Elvin Hayes
    Paul Silas
    Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
    Walt Bellamy

    Hall of Famers and/or NBA Top 50 guys......this is only a small sample of the black talent in the league at the time....and then you take a look at the other great talent in the league....start with Jerry West and go from there....

    The "Modern NBA" began with the introduction of the shot clock era......it did not just start with the merger....or the Bird/Magic era.....or the big contracts.....or street (thug) ball......

    The "Big Four" is not my term.....it was created by the media in portraying the top teams in the league during the '80's    it consisted of the Celtics, Sixers, and Bucks (later the Pistons) in the East.....and the Lakers in the West.....think there was a little different level of competition between the conferences during that time?...also, what about the Lakers making the playoffs 4 times between '59 & '66 with losing regular season records....? .....even making the Finals....

    LA has more appearances....? YES.....but they did NOT display utter dominance as the Celtics have.....to put it in perspective....IF the Celtics had been able to make it to the Finals as many times as the Lakers.....the Celtics would need to go 0-12 in those series to equal the Lakers' record of 1 game over .500......

    If anything, the NBA we are watching is a watered down product where guys like "Sasha" can make rosters that they would never crack 30 years ago.....

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from ItsNot1966anymor. Show ItsNot1966anymor's posts

    Re: Calling all Laker fans where are you?

    Um, 30 years ago guys like Jerry Sichting were coming off the bench for 20 minutes a game, and I think Sasha is much better than him.  Is the talent dispersed a little thin in the present day NBA?  Perhaps a little, especially if you're a fan in Minneapolis or Cleveland.  Not every team has great players.  But, the talent of the NBA overall from 40 - 50 years ago can't compare to today's overall talent in my opinion, because of the influx of the best European players over the last 20 years and the prominence of the African American players in today's game.  With some exceptions, the athleticism and skills of today's players trump that of the era when Boston won 11 of 13 championships.  But like I said before, to each era its own.  Boston dominated their competition at the time, but have not continued to do so as the game evolved and for a period (albeit brief) bordered on irrelevance.  In contrast, the Lakers have been relevant at all times - I think they missed the playoffs twice since 1978?  No matter how the game has evolved, the Lakers have been champions many times, legitimate contenders most years, and even their failures (1st or 2nd exits) would be deemed success by other fan bases.  
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Calling all Laker fans where are you?

    Laker fans are fond of pointing out that the Celtics went 21 years between championships....on the other hand....after the Lakers dominated the early NBA, the game changed with the advent of the shot clock (the Modern NBA as we know it today).....what happened?  ....well Mikan retired and the Lakers won one title over the next 25 years.....
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Calling all Laker fans where are you?

    ......continuing with that last post.....Mikan retired prior to the first season under the new rules changes...he sat out one year then came back....he couldn't play the "new game"....too slow and un-athletic.....he played 37 games and retired....he was only 31 years old....

    also, I almost forgot.....you think Sasha is better than Sichting......?? ........Sasha can't even get off the bench..Jerry was a great shooter (see Steve Kerr).....although no way Sichting ever gets Sharipova....huge props to Sasha on that one!!
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from ItsNot1966anymor. Show ItsNot1966anymor's posts

    Re: Calling all Laker fans where are you?

    Seems like typical revisionist history...a guy starts 17 games in 3 years and gets in a fight with Ralph Sampson in the Finals and suddenly he's Jeff Hornacek.  Sasha never got 20 minutes per game in L.A.  He's done pretty well in NJ since the trade.  Sichting was so good that Portland waived him not too long after he was traded for Paxson.  Anyway, I have to leave debates about Mikan to those who saw him play.  But I think Cs fans will enjoy the 17-4 Finals record for generations to come, seeing as they don't make the Finals very often anymore.  In 2035, you can brag about your 19-6 Finals record, compared to 24-18 for the Lakers.

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

    Re: Calling all Laker fans where are you?

    Hey...since you want to go 'round & 'round..... I guess it's my turn huh...?.....OK by me.......all I know is that, in the modern NBA......

    Celtics are 17-4
    Lakers are 11-15

    Head to head Celtics lead 9-3

    ...although we were out of it for quite some time (21 years)....so were you guys many years earlier...our squad had two players die...your squad didn't....and since the last Laker win over our injured team in '87.....it's 1-1.....and we still have the most titles and the overwhelmingly better Finals winning percentage......

    that said.....I will go on record as saying that this is the greatest rivalry of all time and two evenly matched franchises historically....I think I'm also done with this topic...as I said....I don't think any of us here really believe that we will sway the other....no problem with that..........Peace my friends...
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from OC-CeltsFan. Show OC-CeltsFan's posts

    Re: Calling all Laker fans where are you?

    In Response to Re: Calling all Laker fans where are you?:
    [QUOTE]....who is talking about Chuck Cooper......?  look at the tremendous talent that played during the Celtic reign (1957-1976....20 years/13 titles/14 Finals appearances) Bill Russell Elgin Baylor Wilt Chamberlain Oscar Robertson Nate Thurmond Wes Unseld Willis Reed Sam Jones Elvin Hayes Paul Silas Kareem Abdul-Jabbar Walt Bellamy Hall of Famers and/or NBA Top 50 guys......this is only a small sample of the black talent in the league at the time....and then you take a look at the other great talent in the league....start with Jerry West and go from there.... The "Modern NBA" began with the introduction of the shot clock era......it did not just start with the merger....or the Bird/Magic era.....or the big contracts.....or street (thug) ball...... The "Big Four" is not my term.....it was created by the media in portraying the top teams in the league during the '80's    it consisted of the Celtics, Sixers, and Bucks (later the Pistons) in the East.....and the Lakers in the West.....think there was a little different level of competition between the conferences during that time?...also, what about the Lakers making the playoffs 4 times between '59 & '66 with losing regular season records....? .....even making the Finals.... LA has more appearances....? YES.....but they did NOT display utter dominance as the Celtics have.....to put it in perspective....IF the Celtics had been able to make it to the Finals as many times as the Lakers.....the Celtics would need to go 0-12 in those series to equal the Lakers' record of 1 game over .500...... If anything, the NBA we are watching is a watered down product where guys like "Sasha" can make rosters that they would never crack 30 years ago.....
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]


    Duke, you are my idol!
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Calling all Laker fans where are you?

    well, just defending our turf pal.....it is certainly a controversial issue to say the least!!
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Karllost. Show Karllost's posts

    Re: Calling all Laker fans where are you?

    I only count 11 titles for the Lakers... are their fans still stealing the titles Minneapolis won back in the stone age? LOL

    A better comparison would exist had the Lakers & C's played in the same conference. As far as gaps in championship years, shouldnt even matter...we're talking about an entire body of work..

    What distinguishes the Celtics from all the others is the 13 year reign of 11 championships... that sort of domination & dynasty is what raises the C's head & shoulders above the rest... much like when you think NCAA ball..you think UCLA & Wooden... when its baseball its the Yankees... when its Hockey, its the Canadiens

    Until a bigger, more dominating dynasty takes place, you will never replace those teams as the kings of their sports.

    and none of those teams had to reach back and steals a few titles to become relevent to the conversation....
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Calling all Laker fans where are you?

    Great post Karl....you nailed it completely pal!!
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Calling all Laker fans where are you?

    to my friend "66"......Jerry Sichting.....

    10 year NBA career......mostly as a valued rotation guy....

    .507 FGP
    .857 FTP
    11.7 PPG
    5.5 APG
    1.2 SPG

    tough nosed player full of heart and class.......

    he was our 8th man.......not too bad huh...?
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share