Re: Celtic Dominance
posted at 9/4/2012 9:05 PM EDT
In response to Duke4 comment:
well, all I know is that when both teams do show up the Celtics win 75% of the time.....!!!!
in fact, when the Celtics show up they have an overall winning percentage of .809...!!!!!
the Lakers do show up more often (coming out of the West).....but at best they are about a .500 team once they get to the Finals (.516 actually)
.......when they play anyone other than Boston they have a nice winning percentage (13-6 .684)
.......unfortunately, when they play Boston it drops to .250
we don't have that problem....9-3 .750 vs Lakers......8-1 .889 vs the other Western entries
lastly....you do know that, since moving to Los Angeles in 1960, the Lakers actually have a losing record right..? (11-14 .440)...that is even after a very nice run over the last 13 years...
the ball is back in your court....but it's almost...game....set....match...!
But in the last 16 times the Lakers have shown up, the Celtics were there to greet them only 5 times and the Lakers won 3 of those 5. What about the other 11 times they didn't show up? The lakers never got a chance to whip their butts. After the Lakers met and beat Boston in '87, they showed up in the finals in 1988, '89, '91, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004, the Celtics showed up ZERO times. That's ZERO chances the Lakers had to catch them. In, fact the Celtics never showed up at all until 25 years later. Like I've mentioned in the past, and this is why I ask if you have a learning disability, the Lakers, even when they are not the best, somehow show up through shear heart and determination, the Celts only show up only when they are clearly above the rest. They just don't know how to scrape to get by better teams, consequently when they are in the finals they are more prone to win. The Lakers just get there no matter what. But when they get there, the Celtics are so bad year after year and never show up to get beat because they either never make the playoffs or they get beat in earlier rounds, but if they somehow managed to crawl to the finals like the Lakers do, they would have gotten thrashed. Get it? Or should I repeat this in simpler terms? Duke, you just come across like a very bitter guy holding on to the unholdable, and you seem to have become more embittered since the Howard trade, because you know now that 17-16 is only temporary and so you shifted to 9-3 to assuage your embittered soul. Boston had a great run, and I salute them for that, but the Lakers have proved to be the perennial juggernaut decade after decade and soon will take the all-time title of winningest franchise ever. This face to face business is children's talk. There is no shame in being 2nd best, Duke. We were there for a very long time and we there with dignity, it's a shame that Celtic fans are such sore losers. Nice try Duke, but no CIGAR.