Celtic Dominance

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

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    In response to Fiercest34 comment:


    So now you're just a troll with one-liners.


    Is that better or worse than a liar like you?


     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    In response to Fiercest34 comment:

    Nah! You're the one who's the liar here. You accused me of posting something that I didn't. I mean you don't have to be a scientist, which you aren't, to know that someone is lying when he makes accusations without the proof to back it up.

    Nice try though.


    Well, you accused me of editing your post.

    1) that's an admission of making such a post
    2) you can't furnish any proof that what words I changed in your post.

    So you can't get off the hook here. Deleting the post and asking the mods to save you (by deleting my posts) won't save you.




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

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    In response to Fiercest34 comment:


    Are you mentally challenged or something? I already said I won't help you out!

    Which word? NOT MY PROBLEM!

    HAHAHA

     



    Then you lied. You can't furnish any proof that I edited your post. You failed to identify the words that I edited.

    You do nothing and I do nothing, you still can't get away from your lie...


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

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    In response to Fiercest34 comment:


    So now the authority on NBA basketball is someone named Laker_55?


    An authority on NBA basketball is definitely not someone who advocates losing, like missing the playoffs is better than making the finals...
     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    In response to KingShaq's comment:



    In response to Red-16Russ-11 comment:

    PROVE IT!!!!!
    Got a link?  Got a quote from an exec?  MEM WOULD have traded him.....to CHI for Nocioni, Deng and Noah.  That is  a fact.  lakers stepped in at last min AFTER Bynum got hurt - gave you four links.  Shall not do it again.  You lose, over, end of discussion!!




    1) You got a quote from the exec that they wouldn't have traded for Gasol?

    2) You have absolutely no way to prove that had Bynum not hurt, the Lakers wouldn't have stepped in at last minute to trade for Gasol. Gasol was available for chump changes, why not? Why must Bynum be injured before grabbing him?

    3) Memphis would have traded him to Chicago for Nocioni, Deng and Noah? you got proof for that FACT? That didn't happen, how can that be a fact? You understand what a fact is and what a speculation is?

    4) About (1), even if you can provide a quote, I still wouldn't BELIEVE you, or the exec, since the antecendent (Bynum not injured) didn't happen, it's a speculation. One can speculate anything he wants when that didn't happen...

    6) You have no FACT to support your claim, unless you can roll back a time-machine and show us what happen in an alternate universe (that Bynum didn't get injured).

    See, without anything to support your fact, you are still smarting after 3 years of argument, thinking that keep repeating some hypothesis will make it a fact.


    WOW - you are a sick dude, you know that?
    I said PROVE it - that means spit something different out of that bitter old mouth - spitting out the same stuff doesn't prove anything, and will never make me change my position.

    You have twisted my words around so much, it's not even the same thing anymore.
    So, let's be very clear here - I have posted FOUR articles and sources, including calling
    ESPN LA on the radio, and they all have said the same thing - the 2008 injury to Andrew Bynum is what prompted the lakers to look at Pau Gasol....it was not a viable option UNTIL Bynum got hurt.

    We don't need you and your constant changing of the rules of arguing to know the truth.
    We don't need your antecedents, your not p not q BS - we all know the truth.  Even my friends out here in LA understand that the lakers lucked into Pau Gasol because Bynum got hurt.

    So you obviously subscribe to "the rest of the world is wrong, but I'm right"  philosophy?
    How sad and pathetic that must be..........








     

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from DoctorCO. Show DoctorCO's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    elias b must rank titles..the nba has been around for 60 years..all rings are the same..all the basically 60 of them...not the 70s are better than the 80s better than the 50s worse than the 00..that all laker fans on this thread say...

    BIG 4, Go green..laker fan 67 ARE ALL INTERNET TROLLS
     
  14. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    In response to Fiercest34 comment:

    What? I asked the mods to delete your post?

    You have proof of that allegation?
     





    What? you dodge my question on what words I changed your post? I'll keep asking if you keep dodging. I'll see how you can get out of that lie...




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

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    In response to Red-16Russ-11 comment:


    WOW - you are a sick dude, you know that?
    I said PROVE it - that means spit something different out of that bitter old mouth - spitting out the same stuff doesn't prove anything, and will never make me change my position.

    You have twisted my words around so much, it's not even the same thing anymore.
    So, let's be very clear here - I have posted FOUR articles and sources, including calling
    ESPN LA on the radio, and they all have said the same thing - the 2008 injury to Andrew Bynum is what prompted the lakers to look at Pau Gasol....it was not a viable option UNTIL Bynum got hurt.

    We don't need you and your constant changing of the rules of arguing to know the truth.
    We don't need your antecedents, your not p not q BS - we all know the truth.  Even my friends out here in LA understand that the lakers lucked into Pau Gasol because Bynum got hurt.

    So you obviously subscribe to "the rest of the world is wrong, but I'm right"  philosophy?
    How sad and pathetic that must be..........


    "sick dude"? personal attack is your only way?

    Let's see your proofs.

    You call ESPN LA? I wasn't there. Who heard their response when you called? You got it recorded? You call that evidence? Besides, how valid was their answer of a conclusion when the antecedent wasn't true, as in "if GW Bush hadn't been elected president, I would have been a multi-millionaire", that's the truth. Playing your game: If you dispute that, you are wrong and I am right.

    You admit it yourself, the 2008 Bynum injury caused LA to trade for Gasol, but that does NOT mean "no bynum injury -> no gasol trade".  This is the logic that you still don't understand. Your repeated attempt to use A => B to validate !A => !B is just that, dead wrong.

    In other words, even if you get a Laker executive quote that "had Bynum not been hurt, we wouldn't have traded for Gasol", you are still only getting a SPECULATION, let alone all you get is simply A=>B.

    And why is the Gasol trade NOT a viable option until Bynum got hurt? What NBA regulations or Federal laws prevent the Lakers from trading for Gasol? Can you answer that? You never able to. All you can hang on is simply the Bynum injury caused the Gasol trade...

    The only truth is that you think A=>B == !A=>!B, and keep crying mama that this is the truth.





     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    In response to Fiercest34 comment:

    You're lying again. I do a lot here[/QUOTE]

    You do a lot? except you can't identify the words in your post that I edited.

    Keep trying...
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    In response to Fiercest34 comment:


    If missing the playoffs is good for the future then why force the issue if you're clearly not championship material?

    That's something a simpleton like you wouldn't understand.

    Good for the future? like a spectacular 9-peat of not winning one playoff series? like 1 championship in 26 years?

    That's certainly good for the Celtics, but definitely not good for the Lakers...

    Missing the playoffs is only good for lottery picks like Randy Foye, Jerome Moiso, Ron Mercer, Eric Williams, Eric Montross, etc. Congratulations.



     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    In response to Fiercest34 comment:

    The difference between the Lakers and the Celtics is, if the Celtics make it to the Finals, it's almost a guarantee that the Celtics will win. The Celtics 17-4 Finals record is proof of that. The Lakers on the other hand make it to the Finals then hope for the best. A 16-15 Finals record is proof of that.



    The difference between the Lakers and the Celtics is, "if the Celtics make it to the Finals".

    Out of the majority of their seasons (66 total), the Celtics do not make it to the finals. They do not make it over 2/3 of the times.

    So please fill in the blank: if the Celtics do NOT make it to the Finals, ________________



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

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    In response to Fiercest34 comment:

    Nah! You're the one who's the liar here. You accused me of posting something that I didn't. I mean you don't have to be a scientist, which you aren't, to know that someone is lying when he makes accusations without the proof to back it up.

    Nice try though.


    Well, the proof was already posted as an image. You accused me of editing the your post. Point is, which word was edited? Still can't identify those words?

    And better yet, which font was changed? from which font to which font? Don't chicken out now...


     



     

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

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    This is just my opinion.....I believe that strength of conference over the years has been a contributing factor....there was a reason the decade of the Eighties was known as "the Big Four", at least in the East Coast media.....it's fairly simple really...

    the Lakers have been able to dominate the Western Conference....hence more trips to the Finals
    the Celtics have been the dominant Franchise from the Eastern Conference

    Edge: Lakers

    while being dominant facing the competition in the West, the Lakers are merely a .500 team when facing their Eastern Conference foes in the Finals (16-15 .516%)

    the Celtics, on the other hand, have been able to dominate the Western Champions as evidenced by their 17-4 record (.809%)

    Edge: Celtics

    The "Tiebreaker".......when these two teams have faced one another in the Finals the Celtics have been almost completely dominant, with a head to head record of 9-3

    Edge: Celtics

    I am sure that most of the Laker fans that frequent this board will somehow see it in another light...that's fine...I have my opinion...you have yours....it is what it is...

    these are unquestionably the two greatest franchises in league history...call them 1A & 1B if you like....I believe the rivalry throughout the last 50+ years is second to none in American professional sports....no wonder fans on each side are so passionate..... 




     



     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    In response to KingShaq's comment:

    In response to Red-16Russ-11 comment:



    WOW - you are a sick dude, you know that?
    I said PROVE it - that means spit something different out of that bitter old mouth - spitting out the same stuff doesn't prove anything, and will never make me change my position.

    You have twisted my words around so much, it's not even the same thing anymore.
    So, let's be very clear here - I have posted FOUR articles and sources, including calling
    ESPN LA on the radio, and they all have said the same thing - the 2008 injury to Andrew Bynum is what prompted the lakers to look at Pau Gasol....it was not a viable option UNTIL Bynum got hurt.

    We don't need you and your constant changing of the rules of arguing to know the truth.
    We don't need your antecedents, your not p not q BS - we all know the truth.  Even my friends out here in LA understand that the lakers lucked into Pau Gasol because Bynum got hurt.

    So you obviously subscribe to "the rest of the world is wrong, but I'm right"  philosophy?
    How sad and pathetic that must be..........


    "sick dude"? personal attack is your only way?

    Let's see your proofs.

    You call ESPN LA? I wasn't there. Who heard their response when you called? You got it recorded? You call that evidence? Besides, how valid was their answer of a conclusion when the antecedent wasn't true, as in "if GW Bush hadn't been elected president, I would have been a multi-millionaire", that's the truth. Playing your game: If you dispute that, you are wrong and I am right.

    You admit it yourself, the 2008 Bynum injury caused LA to trade for Gasol, but that does NOT mean "no bynum injury -> no gasol trade".  This is the logic that you still don't understand. Your repeated attempt to use A => B to validate !A => !B is just that, dead wrong.

    In other words, even if you get a Laker executive quote that "had Bynum not been hurt, we wouldn't have traded for Gasol", you are still only getting a SPECULATION, let alone all you get is simply A=>B.

    And why is the Gasol trade NOT a viable option until Bynum got hurt? What NBA regulations or Federal laws prevent the Lakers from trading for Gasol? Can you answer that? You never able to. All you can hang on is simply the Bynum injury caused the Gasol trade...

    The only truth is that you think A=>B == !A=>!B, and keep crying mama that this is the truth.






    Sad and pathetic.  I cited four sources, and I will not do it again.  The truth is known, and the conversation is over.
     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    In response to dfurypos' comment:

    D ukie where to start with your impressions of Celtics.  "these are unquestionably the two greatest franchises in league history... call them 1A & 1B if you like....I believe the rivalry throughout the last 50+ years is second to none in American professional sports....no wonder fans on each side are so passionate....."

    I don't think anyone is disputing the Celtics dominated the league after it was first formed, but you have to realize there were only 8 teams in the enitre league, no 3pt shot, no shot clock and no salary cap. Granted that all teams had to play by the same rules, but they were weak rules. What you fail to mention is how the Celtics have fared with the evolution of the game. How have Celtics ownership and management adapted through the years as the league evolved? The simple thought on this is they haven't. The Lakers have dominated the league with the evolution of the game primarily because we had great ownership and hired the best management and evaluators. Lakers ownership has proven beyond a shadow of doubt that they will do what it takes to win two more championships to over take the Celtics as the greatest sports franchise in the history of the game. Do you realize that the Celtics have been to only 1 Finals since 1987 and that is 25 years of not getting it done. D ukie, what has Celtics management done since last year to address the fact that they don't have a 5 position player, which is primarily the reason why the Celtics had epic failure in the ECF this year? Show us some evidence that what the Celtics are doing now that will result in another trip the Finals this season? D ukie what will your be writing once the Lakers win banner number 17 to knot up most championships of all time?  Hope all is well!

     



    TWO, actually
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    there were only 8 teams when the Celtics were dominnt...? No.....the Celts were a powerhouse into the late eighties until age, injury, (and death) took their toll....

    there was no shot clock...? No.....the Celtics started winning once the league adopted the shot clock (this is generally accepted as the modern era)....the Lakers actually dominated when there were 8 teams and no shot clock....almost one third of the Lakers' titles came in the early era

    there was no 3 point shot...? No once again....the NBA adopted the rule during the first year of the Bird/Magic era...(1979)

    "epic failure in the ECF last year"....?  ....you are kidding right...? ......the series went down to the fourth quarter of game seven on the road just as it did in 2010.....

    if/when the Lakers tie us with 17 championships...?  .....unless the two teams play one another, the Celtics will remain #1 overall based on (1) an .809 winning percentage in the Finals as compared to .516 for the Lakers (or the .440 percentage for the LA Lakers, who are 11-14 since leaving Minneapolis) and (2) the head to head dominance (9-3)...

    and thank you....yes, all is well..

     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share