Re: Calling all Laker fans where are you?
posted at 5/19/2011 12:17 PM EDT
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...