In response to Fiercest34 comment:

In response to Fiercest34 comment:

In response to Red-16Russ-11 comment:

Almost all NBA experts agree, the modern era began right around the merging of the NBA and ABA, and the introduction of the 3pt shot. Anything before that was underesized white players who couldn't dunk, and black players used primarily as blue-collar players (rebounding and defense). If you look at the old tapes, it's laughable to think that they could compete on any level with players of the modern era, of which the Lakers have been the constant juggernaut. Mention NBA baskerball anywhere in the world, and the Lakers are always number one. In the modern era the Lakers win 1/3 of all titles and appear in half of all Finals. What have the Celtics done in that same period? More importantly, what have they done in the last 27 years, when titles are a lot tougher to get than it was with just 8 teams? The Lakers will never catch Boston in head to head because Boston just isn't good enough to make it to the big dance often enough. Of the 16 appearances the Lakers have made to the Finals in the modern era, the Celtics only made it there 5 times to match up with them, and the Lakers took 3. Since the Celtics failed to make it the other 11 times, it means the Lakers, in effect, won those like in a head to head, so that puts the Lakers up in head to head, 14-9. Period.

Unfortunately this was before the Lakers won their last championship in 2010.
They are listed as the #1 franchise and we are listed at #2.
UGH!!!!!!!! Not happy about it.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2009/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=FranchiseRankings-Lakers

"the greatest NBA franchise".......this statement infers a comparison of franchises all time.....from the first year the league existed to the present....

in the Fifties (pre shot clock) the Lakers won 5 titles....

the shot clock drastically changed the game...to the extent that the dominant player (George Mikan) retired at age 31...he simply could not play the "new game"....Boston rose to power and went to the Finals the last three years of the decade, winning twice and losing in '58 when Russell was injured mid series

in the Sixties the Celtics dominated, winning 9 titles

in the Seventies the Celtics won twice....the Lakers won their first title of the new era...it took them 18 years...

in the Eighties the Lakers finally defeated the Celtics (it took them 26 years to finally accomplish this feat...from 1959 to 1985)....the Lakers won five titles to the Celtics' three in the decade

in the Nineties neither team won a title

since the mellenium the Lakers have one five titles...the Celtics have won one......the two teams have met twice in the Finals during the  decade, each team winning once

So I will give the Lakers the advantage since 2000 with five titles to the Celtics' one.....I have always held that position...but going back through history the Celtics were the dominant franchise for some 35 years...hence the #1 ranking, based on the results in the Finals 

 1) 17-16 all time   (.809 vs .516) ....take into account the LA years and it's .809 vs .440

 2) 9-3 head to head   (.750 vs .250)

 3) the Celtics also lead the all time regular season matchup...and it's not close

when comparing two franchises to determine which is better, wouldn't you agree that head to head is a good starting point?....just like in boxing...there have been great heavyweights....the old question was always "how did your fighter do against my fighter in the ring"? ......Ali/Frasier comes to mind....both were legends but Ali won 2 out of 3 and nobody is ranking Smokin' Joe ahead of him in that discussion





 
 



 

In response to Fiercest34 comment:

In response to Fiercest34 comment:

kingtroll providing a youtube link about the Lakers which featured a video that was also made by someone named Laker_55. Hilarious!

You really expect someone named Laker_55 to say the Celtics are better than the Lakers?