Calling all Laker fans where are you?

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

    Re: Calling all Laker fans where are you?

    10 year NBA career....and only 2.5 seasons with the Celtics.  Hey, Mitch Richmond played for the Lakers at the end of his career.  Following your argument, I could post all his stats and talk about how he was great "coming off the bench" for us.   Going back to S[uck]ting I guess basketballreference.com has it wrong?  They say Sichting averaged 7 points, 3.3 assists, 1/4 rebounds and 27% 3 pct for his career.  For the Boston portion, about 5.8 points, 2.2 assists and 30% 3 pct.  Sasha had comparable numbers in FEWER minutes from 2004 - 2008 with the Lakers, except that his overall FG% was lower, but his ppg and his 3 pct were both higher.  And he's a pest on defense.  Your point was that Sasha would not even crack a rotation 30 years ago.  I say if guys like Sichting were getting significant minutes, even Jordan Farmar could have played 30 years ago.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Calling all Laker fans where are you?

    my bad.....you are correct on the stats.....I must've been looking at projected 48 minute stat line......the old eyes aren't getting any younger....
     
  3. 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]....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]
    The point is the cs weren't even good enough to go 0-12. Trying to talk sense to you is like trying to make sense to a jackas
     
  4. 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]In Response to Re: Calling all Laker fans where are you? : 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...
    Posted by MajicMVP[/QUOTE]
    Great post and a great argument but stop trying to debate these Archie Bunkers, especially this duke dude, he's just an old fool who berates the Lakers and their fans then calls you "my friend". Forget the old fool.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Calling all Laker fans where are you?

    why don't you just put me on ignore if I bother you that much?.....the last I knew, we were on a Celtic forum talking among ourselves.....yes, someone did start this particular thread inviting Laker fans....but as long as I've been a member, there have been trolls trying to get a rise out of Celtic fans over here....regardless of the thread...if the roles were reversed and I was flaming on a Laker board then I could see it.....but I have never felt the need to post over there....you have your opinions and I have mine....we can agree to disagree.....by the way...."my friend" is just my way of being respectful....I actually do have many friends on this forum who are also Laker fans.....
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Calling all Laker fans where are you?

    hey, I came out and apologized if I ruffled any feathers....no response......?  ...that  speaks volumes my friend.....oh wait....I guess I should take that back.....?
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Qdaddy. Show Qdaddy's posts

    Re: Calling all Laker fans where are you?

    In Response to Re: Calling all Laker fans where are you?:
    [QUOTE]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....
    Posted by Karllost[/QUOTE]

    Karl, it really doesn't matter how many you count...not when the media (i.e. Sports Illustrated, CBS Sports, The Sporting News, ESPN, and any other sports media reporting on the NBA) reports the Lakers Championship total accurately to Basketball fans worldwide.

    Do you think we lose sleep that one fan in Boston doesn't accept the Lakers total number of championships? Do you think we really care if ANY Boston area fans won't accept the Lakers total championships?

    Uh...no.

    The key word, and you mentioned it in your first sentence, is LAKERS. The LAKERS franchise owns 16 NBA titles. Yes, we've only won 11 in Los Angeles, but the rest were won in Minneapolis...before they moved west to L.A.

    Same franchise, same name and they own 16 championships. I'm sorry if you can't handle that, but that's just the way it is.
     
  8. 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]....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......[/QUOTE]
    Yeah? the NBA was only about HOF guys?

    In 1960, the NBA had less than 10% African Americans.

    http://ilanderyouth.com/news-articles/african-american-heroes-broke-color-barrier

    In 1964, only 15%

    http://books.google.com.hk/books?id=WVIGQ7WGdp8C&pg=PA223&lpg=PA223&dq=NBA+1960s+%22black+player%22+percentage&source=bl&ots=74BwO9ZnGh&sig=RO1dEmNRPTIVufHqQeps5o97T0Y&hl=zh-TW&ei=PH7YTa-uLo3YuAOE0LWkBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q&f=false

    That's the Celtics' dynasty reign. You are talking about another 70% of the jobs not occupied by African Americans, as of now. So what's the level of the league then?  Keep naming the Russells, Wilt, Oscar, Baylor, etc. aren't going to help your argument. These players are feasting on the white stiffs instead of the players on the level of Kendrick Perkins, James Possey, Antonio McDyess, Jason Terry, Tim Salmons, Ben Gordon, etc., African American players outside of the top 15% of the players but wouldn't have had the chance to play in the NBA in the early 1960s.

    [QUOTE]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?[/QUOTE]
    The 80s is not only your era. I was also there.  this "Big Four" was not created by the media but your own imagination. There was no recognition of the Bucks as a "big" team. Keep making things up aren't going to save your argument. Besides, the Piston reign cannot overlap with the Dr. J 76ers reign (which went from 1977-1985), while the Bad Boys Piston reign began in 1987. Did you really follow the league in the 80s?

    [QUOTE]
    ..also, what about the Lakers making the playoffs 4 times between '59 & '66 with losing regular season records....? .....even making the Finals?[/QUOTE]
    What about it? The Lakers made the final only once in that condition, in 1959. The other ones aren't even in the argument. You know, I am not bragging about the Lakers making the playoffs with losing record while the Celtics missed the playoffs...

    [QUOTE]
    .... 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...... [/QUOTE]
    What dominance are you talking about? 17-48 vs 16-47? that's dominance?

    The point is, SCOREBOARD. The Celtics didn't make the finals in those 44 occasions. Your speculation is fruitless. Yep, I can easily pick 12 finals that the Celtics, had they made it with fluky conference playoffs, gone 0-12. let's see:

    2009, 2007, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1995, 1994, 1988, 1982, 1980, 1979, 1977, 1975, 1972, 1971....

    You pointed out the key point already: "if the Celtics had been able to make it to the Finals". The FACT is, the Celtics aren't good enough to make it, unable to make it. You think it's that easy to win the conference 4 times like the Bills? Ask Detroit, KC, SD, Cleveland and the NY Jets how many times have they won the conference. So you aren't even good enough to go 0-12 in the finals in those years that they missed, i.e. WORSE than 0-12.

    See, you keep bragging about the Celtics' conference failure to avoid more losses in the finals. I wonder why...

    [QUOTE]
    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]
    Yeah? why only Sasha? You mean you don't know about Dirk, the Gasol brothers, Hakeem, Parker, Manu, Mutombo, ....

     
  9. 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]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...
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]

    That's what you like to count, which are facts but not the whole truth, i.e. NOT telling the whole truth.

    FACT, the Lakers won 31 conference championships while the Celtics only won 21.

    FACT: the Lakers succeeded 16 times and failed 47 times. The Celtics succeeded 17 times and failed 48 times. How you conclude that as dominance is beyond me.

    Besides, why you only count failure in the final but not failure in early rounds is beyond me. Do you think they only play the finals rightaway from season's start?

    And your squad had two players died, was that the Lakers' problem? did the Lakers cause it?

    And since you are so keen with the injury excuse, are you going to whitewash the Lakers' final losses in 1969 (West injured in the waning moments of game 5 led to two straight losses), 1983 (Worthy, Nixon and McAdoo injured), 1989 (Scott and Magic injured), 1991 (Worthy injured) and 2004 (Malone injured), 2008 (Bynum injured)? Wait, you are very keen on the Lakers' 15 losses in the finals, aren't you?

    Injury is PART OF THE GAME. Your squad's inability to deal with the losses of two players are your franchise's ineptitude.

    I am not trying to sway you to the other side, just to REFUTE all the misconceptions and illogic that you spout here.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. 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's also a fact that the Lakers went to the Finals 31 times and lost 15 times. They have a 16-15 Finals record, barely above .500. Refute that! HAHAHA!!! 
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    Sure, it's also a fact that the Celtics missed the finals 44 times. Aren't even good enough to go 0-15 in the finals in those 44 years.

     
  13. 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]The Lakers and Celtics met 12 times in the Finals and the Celtics ended up winning 9 times, that's a 9-3 Finals record against the Lakers. REFUTE THAT! HAHAHA!!!
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    So where were the Celtics when the Lakers won 13 of those 16 titles? Watching TV or fishing?
     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. 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]http://www.lakersuniverse.com/headtohead/lakers_celtics.htm REFUTE THAT! HAHAHA!!!
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    10-4 since the golden era of the NBA.
     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. 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? : THE LAKERS UNIVERSE DOES NOT LIE! HAHAHA!!!
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    10-4 is not a lie either...
     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Calling all Laker fans where are you?

    Did you see this post from another thread?

    In Response to www.boston.com/community/forums.html?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3aSportsForum%3a734e2bc9-e1bc-49d6-8355-64f9a8500246Discussion%3a605fa0d7-dd9b-41fc-b717-dffd3aafcf8e&plckFindPostKey=Cat:SportsForum:734e2bc9-e1bc-49d6-8355-64f9a8500246Discussion:605fa0d7-dd9b-41fc-b717-dffd3aafcf8ePost:92eef341-62ea-4713-9837-6c89464a170b">Re: That's how you do it lakers...:
    5 titles since 2000....I'll take that every time! Boston.....1 title in 24 years. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    Posted by Laker-Nation32


    So your Lakers have won 5 titles since 1988, that makes it 5 in 24 years.  We have 1 in that same time period.

    I know, you're going to say that 5 is more than 1.

    Well.... I say 17 is more than 11 so.....

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

    You have been second place to us for the past 50 years, and always will be.
    Not smart for the 2nd place guy to come to the 1st place guys' board, you will always LOSE!!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Calling all Laker fans where are you?

    Thanks ......man, this argument is getting old......no one is about to change their opinion....I will make one last point on the "Big Four".......I did not make up that term....it was used throughout the '80's......in any given season, the best team may not prevail...I don't think the Rockets were better than the Lakers when they went to the Finals....LA had no other team of it's calibre in the West in those days....Boston had to get through both the Sixers and the Bucks to reach the finals...later the Pistons replaced Milwaukee in the mix......give the Bucks some credit.....they won 59 and 57 games and couldn't reach the finals...the lost the Eastern Conference Finals three times in four years ('83,'84,'86) ......take a look at the talent they had...

    Bob Lanier
    Marques Johnson
    Sidny Montcrief
    Junior Bridgeman
    Terry Cummings
    Paul Pressey
    Brian Winters
    Phil Ford
    Rickey Pierce

    that team was loaded....they just couldn't get past both Boston and Philly in the same year....
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from OC-CeltsFan. Show OC-CeltsFan's posts

    Re: Calling all Laker fans where are you?

    Duke is right, this argument is getting old.  There are plenty of other threads debating this topic, see "The vaunted west is overrated".

    Slice and dice the stats any way you want, when all else fails it's about the championship count.

    Conferences: Despite a stellar run for the West of late where they've won 9 out of 12, they still trail the East by far in overall championship count.

    Teams: Celtics have more championships than the lakers any way you want to slice and dice it; number of titles in same city, head to head overall, head to head in the Finals, total number of championships.

    Again like Duke said, nothing will ever change any fans' minds on either side on this topic so maybe it's time to make like the lakers in game 4 and quit.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Calling all Laker fans where are you?

    Thanks man...
     
  25. 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]Good posts MagicMVP and Duke too bad those two booger eating morons (fiercest69 and OC celts fan) had to post their mindless thoughts!!!
    Posted by LALAKERSMAN[/QUOTE]

    Yup...I forgot that all laker fans here have objective, insightful thoughts, including Majic, who argues that your current team did not quit in the playoffs, and makes a case why the Celtics quit.  So you must agree with him on that one too.  Real credible there.. 
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share