Celtics/Lakers

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

    Celtics/Lakers

    I just thought I'd take a look at the all time records....I wasn't surprised...

    Regular Season          Boston 152/Lakers 120
    Playoffs                    Boston   43/Lakers  31
    All Time                    Boston  195/Lakers 151

    Finals Head to Head    Boston     9/Lakers    3

    Total Championships   Boston    17/Lakers   16
     
    Finals Percentage      Boston  .809/Lakers  .516  (Los Angeles Lakers .423) 
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from jeezem. Show jeezem's posts

    Re: Celtics/Lakers

    the best thing about the rivalry with the Lakers is that it is the only one, well for them, we have Yankees/Red Sox rivalry that also dominated the national sceen.  is there another city in the US that has 2 sports teams that participate in rivalries as well known as Lakers/Celtics, Yankees/Red Sox?  There might be, but I'm from the northeast so my perspective is bias.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Olives-Only1. Show Olives-Only1's posts

    Re: Celtics/Lakers

    Okay boston fans, let's not be hypocrites again.  You are so fond of screaming that it's all about the championships and nothing else.  If this is so, there is no rivalry between the Yankees and the red sox.  The Yankee organization is so far superior that to mention yourselves in the same sentence as the Yankees is ludicrous.  Since 1923, the Yankees have had 27 World Series Titles; the red sox have had 2.  There is no rivalry.  You have been absolutely and totally dominated.   The Yankees are MLB, just as the Lakers are the NBA.  These are the two teams that are the class of their sports.  boston is nowhere to be found.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from kflash44. Show kflash44's posts

    Re: Celtics/Lakers

    Duke 4 is right... the Celtics/Lake and Yankees/Red Sox rivals are by far the greatest events to watch and remember. Without these historical matches, the NBA and MLB just wouldn't be the same.

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

    Re: Celtics/Lakers

    In Response to Re: Celtics/Lakers:
    ...how about finals appearances? The Los Angeles Lakers: 16 2009-2010 Conference Champions 2008-2009 Conference Champions 2007-2008 Conference Champions 2003-2004 Conference Champions 2001-2002 Conference Champions 2000-2001 Conference Champions 1999-2000 Conference Champions 1990-1991 Conference Champions 1988-1989 Conference Champions 1987-1988 Conference Champions 1986-1987 Conference Champions 1984-1985 Conference Champions 1983-1984 Conference Champions 1982-1983 Conference Champions 1981-1982 Conference Champions 1979-1980 Conference Champions The Boston Celtics: 7 2009-2010 Conference Champions 2007-2008 Conference Champions 1986-1987 Conference Champions 1985-1986 Conference Champions 1984-1985 Conference Champions 1983-1984 Conference Champions 1980-1981 Conference Champions Head to Head? 3-2 Lakers 2009-2010 Lakers 2007-2008 Celtics 1986-1987 Lakers 1984-1985 Lakers 1983-1984 Celtics
    Posted by EliasB

    What's the point in making the finals and not winning it ?

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

    Re: Celtics/Lakers

    Let's take a look at how the Lakers and Celtics have done over the past 30 years and you'll see why Lakers fans and the rest of the league don't take you guys as seriously as you take yourselves....

    The Los Angeles Lakers: 10
    2009-2010 NBA Champions
    2008-2009 NBA Champions
    2001-2002 NBA Champions
    2000-2001 NBA Champions
    1999-2000 NBA Champions
    1987-1988 NBA Champions
    1986-1987 NBA Champions
    1984-1985 NBA Champions
    1981-1982 NBA Champions
    1979-1980 NBA Champions

    The Boston Celtics: 4
    2007-2008 NBA Champions
    1985-1986 NBA Champions
    1983-1984 NBA Champions
    1980-1981 NBA Champions




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

    Re: Celtics/Lakers

    My last post was not done to start another smak contest....it was to put the all time head to head records out there...Laker fans will continue to think their team is the best and they are entitled to their opoinion......we will still hold them in the # 2 position.......either way you look at it these two great teams have set themselves apart from any others......I do want to give the Lakers props for going to the most all time finals...they have definately dominated the west better than we dominated the east....
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Celtics/Lakers

    Chicago is next with 6 titles and San Antonio has 4.....Philly is 3rd in Finals appearances with 9 (only 3 wins)....hope that helps!!
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from EliasB. Show EliasB's posts

    Re: Celtics/Lakers

    ...how about finals appearances?

    The Los Angeles Lakers: 16
    2009-2010 Conference Champions
    2008-2009 Conference Champions
    2007-2008 Conference Champions
    2003-2004 Conference Champions
    2001-2002 Conference Champions
    2000-2001 Conference Champions
    1999-2000 Conference Champions
    1990-1991 Conference Champions
    1988-1989 Conference Champions
    1987-1988 Conference Champions
    1986-1987 Conference Champions
    1984-1985 Conference Champions
    1983-1984 Conference Champions
    1982-1983 Conference Champions
    1981-1982 Conference Champions
    1979-1980 Conference Champions

    The Boston Celtics: 7
    2009-2010 Conference Champions
    2007-2008 Conference Champions
    1986-1987 Conference Champions
    1985-1986 Conference Champions
    1984-1985 Conference Champions
    1983-1984 Conference Champions
    1980-1981 Conference Champions

    Head to Head? 3-2 Lakers
    2009-2010 Lakers
    2007-2008 Celtics
    1986-1987 Lakers
    1984-1985 Lakers
    1983-1984 Celtics




    Cool
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from freediro. Show freediro's posts

    Re: Celtics/Lakers

    In Response to Re: Celtics/Lakers:
    Let's take a look at how the Lakers and Celtics have done over the past 30 years and you'll see why Lakers fans and the rest of the league don't take you guys as seriously as you take yourselves.... The Los Angeles Lakers: 10 2009-2010 NBA Champions 2008-2009 NBA Champions 2001-2002 NBA Champions 2000-2001 NBA Champions 1999-2000 NBA Champions 1987-1988 NBA Champions 1986-1987 NBA Champions 1984-1985 NBA Champions 1981-1982 NBA Champions 1979-1980 NBA Champions The Boston Celtics: 4 2007-2008 NBA Champions 1985-1986 NBA Champions 1983-1984 NBA Champions 1980-1981 NBA Champions
    Posted by EliasB

    lol, so you post the games the played from the time you were born? Wow you took a sample size from one period to make the numbers look to be in your favor. But if you really want to argue all time greatest franchise, there is nothing your stats can help you prove besides the LA Lakers aren't the historical franchise that the Celtics are. Hell you guys get to claim championships and stats from a team that hasn't even been in LA for its entire history in the league. 

    Not knocking the Lakers, they have been one of the best teams in many years, but I wonder how many Laker fans will still be here in So Cal after a few years when Kobe is just an after thought.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Celtics/Lakers

    The Lakers hold the record for finals losses.....what these fans don't get is that winning the West is one thing....the Lakers have dominated the West....once they meet up with the tough guys from the East they become basically a .500 team....they hold the record for championship losses.....they've even been swept a few times....and when the meet the Celtics....lights out/game over....3 wins in 12 tries?? Talk about the Yankees dominating the Sox....Celt's do it to the Lakers as well....ever notice that when this is posted it is never discussed head on by a Laker fan? They just go in another direction to make their point....So for the last time....the Lakers are undisputed kings of the West...(after all, each conference gets an entry....just like each team in MLB gets a representative in the all star game).........but LA is 16-15 vs the East (.516).........Boston is 17-4 vs the West (.809)......Lakers (.250) vs Celtics (.750)...not even close.....Lakers better over the last generation? Yes...but every Laker fan clings to those 5 titles won in Minny....years before Boston's first title....so if you get to claim those....we get to claim all of ours as well right?.....and ours all came years later...
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Magikobe. Show Magikobe's posts

    Re: Celtics/Lakers

    In Response to Celtics/Lakers:
    I just thought I'd take a look at the all time records....I wasn't surprised... Regular Season          Boston 152/Lakers 120 Playoffs                    Boston   43/Lakers  31 All Time                    Boston  195/Lakers 151 Finals Head to Head    Boston     9/Lakers    3 Total Championships   Boston    17/Lakers   16   Finals Percentage      Boston  .809/Lakers  .516  (Los Angeles Lakers .423) 
    Posted by Duke4


    All time wins: Lakers 3027 celtics 2972 -------- /> Lakers 1st nba team to 3,000
    Overall win %: Lakers .619 celts 594 ---------- /> Lakers #1
    Playoff appearances: Lakers 57 celtics 48 ----- /> Lakers #1
    Losing seasons: Lakers 12 in 62 seasons celtics 18 in 64 seasons
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from tmot1234. Show tmot1234's posts

    Re: Celtics/Lakers

    I'd actually be interested to see the 3rd best team's numbers....to help put into perspective how impressive both of these team's numbers are...
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BirdandCowens. Show BirdandCowens's posts

    Re: Celtics/Lakers

    In Response to Re: Celtics/Lakers:
    "...what these fans don't get is that winning the West is one thing....the Lakers have dominated the West ....once they meet up with the tough guys from the East they become basically a .500 team...." Arguably the toughest time to win an NBA championship was in the 80's when just about every team that went to the finals made repeat appearances and won championships. Another words, every Eastern team the Lakers played against in the finals had the experience of being there before and of winning it all: Dr. J's 76er's, Larry's Celtics, Isaiah's Pistons all won multiple titles. Other than the Lakers, the East dominated every team the West could offer. They were simply too tough. So when you think about how tough the East was back then, it is truly remarkable that they won 5 titles in 8 appearances. Take Michael Jordan's Bulls for example. Even though Jordons won more titles (6) than Magic (5) when you compare the competition they played against, it's not even close. The Bulls never truly played a worthy contender. Unlike in the 80's when every team who won a championship beat a team with experience who either won it all themselves or would eventually win it all. Other than a worn down Lakers team in '91, the Bulls never played a champion: the Seatle Supersonics, the Phoenix Suns, the Utah Jazz and the Portland Trailblazers were all good teams but not championship quality since for every team exept for the Jazz, they would make their finals appearance and disapear. My point is that the 80's was the toughest decade for any team to win ESPECIALLY if you were from the West. Sure the Lakers went to the Finals on 3 occasions and lost but my goodness, are you all so shallow that you laugh at the fact that our franchise might get knocked down every now and then but will always get back up to try it again. The Lakers could have folded after getting beat by the Celtics in '08 and like a dog with it's tale between it's legs whimpered off but that is not what we do. That is not what the greatest franchise in NBA history does. Thanks to our history of trials and heartbreak, we've learned to lose and come back the following year and win - and then win again against the same team who once dominated us a half century ago. All you have is memories of the distant past.
    Posted by EliasB


    Contradict yourself much?  Typical lakers double-speak.

    Actually the Celtics rank 3rd all-time in Finals win %  The Bulls are 6-0, while the Spurs (from the West, I believe) are 4-0.  100% for both of them.  The Celtics are 3rd at 81 %, while the lakers rank 4th at 52%.  Surely, you can't expect reasonable and non-shallow people to think that NONE of the times the lakers lost they lost to a champion, while EVERY time the Bulls won, they didn't play anyone?  Oh, except for a worn-out lakers team in '91?  Not sure what that means, is that like the Celtics running of gas in the fourth quarter of Game 7 in 2010?  Cuz is sounds an awful lot like that!!
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Celtics/Lakers

    Elias........I know you are an intelligent poster.........but if your theory about the '80's is correct then why was the term "The Big 4" used throughout that decade? And I'm sure you are well aware of who the Big 4 were.......Yes, that's correct....

    The Celtics
    The Sixers
    The Bucks
    The Lakers

    Notice three of the four played in the East?....the Lakers had limited quality competition in the West...East toughness vs Western finesse...
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from EliasB. Show EliasB's posts

    Re: Celtics/Lakers

    "...what these fans don't get is that winning the West is one thing....the Lakers have dominated the West....once they meet up with the tough guys from the East they become basically a .500 team...."

    Arguably the toughest time to win an NBA championship was in the 80's when just about every team that went to the finals made repeat appearances and won championships. Another words, every Eastern team the Lakers played against in the finals had the experience of being there before and of winning it all: Dr. J's 76er's, Larry's Celtics, Isaiah's Pistons, etc. all won multiple titles.

    Other than the Lakers, the East dominated every team the West could offer. They were simply too tough. So when you think about how tough the East was back then, it is truly remarkable that Magic Johnson's Lakers won as many championships as they did! Take Michael Jordan's Bulls for example. Even though Jordon won more titles (6) than Magic (5) when you compare the competition they played against, it's not even close. Unlike in the 80's when every team who won a championship beat a team with experience who either won it all themselves or would eventually win it all. Other than a worn down Lakers team in '91, the Bulls never played a champion: the Seatle Supersonics, the Phoenix Suns, the Utah Jazz and the Portland Trailblazers were all good teams but not championship quality since for every team exept for the Jazz, they would make their finals appearance and disapear. I think the reason the Bulls went 6 for 6 was because they never truly played a worthy contender.

    The bottom line is that if you want to talk toughness, the 80's was the toughest decade for any team to win ESPECIALLY if you were from the West. I don't understand how losing in the finals is worse then going to the finals? Sure the Lakers went to the Finals on 3 occasions in the 80's and lost, but my goodness! Do you guys not understand how playing for the chance to win it all is better then not? Our franchise might get knocked down every now and then but we always get back up. The Lakers could have folded after getting beat by the Celtics in '08 but that's not what we do. 


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

    Re: Celtics/Lakers

    In Response to Re: Celtics/Lakers:
    Elias........I know you are an intelligent poster.........but if your theory about the '80's is correct then why was the term "The Big 4" used throughout that decade? And I'm sure you are well aware of who the Big 4 were.......Yes, that's correct.... The Celtics The Sixers The Bucks The Lakers Notice three of the four played in the East?....the Lakers had limited quality competition in the West...East toughness vs Western finesse...
    Posted by Duke4


    I guess I'm not understanding what your point is since my only point was that the Lakers dominated the toughest decade the East ever had to offer. Your post seems to reinforce my argument.

    Cool
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from EliasB. Show EliasB's posts

    Re: Celtics/Lakers

    "Not sure what that means"

    I know you've always been a little slow on this message board Opie. All I'm saying is that the '91 Lakers that the Bulls faced were no longer the "showtime" Lakers that dominated the 80's.

    Hope that helps...

    Cool






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

    Re: Celtics/Lakers

    In Response to Re: Celtics/Lakers:
    Okay boston fans, let's not be hypocrites again.  You are so fond of screaming that it's all about the championships and nothing else.  If this is so, there is no rivalry between the Yankees and the red sox.  The Yankee organization is so far superior that to mention yourselves in the same sentence as the Yankees is ludicrous.  Since 1923, the Yankees have had 27 World Series Titles; the red sox have had 2.  There is no rivalry.  You have been absolutely and totally dominated.   The Yankees are MLB, just as the Lakers are the NBA.  These are the two teams that are the class of their sports.  boston is nowhere to be found.
    Posted by Olives-Only1


    I LOVE THIS!!!!!!!!!

    WE, Celtics fans "live in the past."  Only  4 of our 17 championships were won after the league expanded to 12 or more teams.  To talk about all the ones Russell one shows we have an inferiority complex, and like to talk about things that happened 50 years ago.  Now, ultraclownman  here mentions 1923, 1923!!!!  WOW

    Hey Martini, here you go, since 1957 the Celtics have 17 NBA Championships, and the lakers have 11!!
    The Celtics ARE the NBA, and to mention a team so far behind in Championships is ludicrous!!

    Wow - that didn't even feel right when I wrote it!!

    The Sox/yankees have a different kind of rivalry.  Just as good.  It's like the Celtics/lakers
    See here is the similarity.  Until recently, the Sox always played the yankees and always lost.  That came to a stop in 2004.  That's why Sox fans think it's a big deal to beat the yankees,  while yankees fans don't.
    The lakers and CELTICS always played in the Finals, and the Celtics always won.  That stopped in 1984.  That's why it's a big deal to lakers fans to beat the Celtics, while Celtics fans could care less.

    Excellent analogy mount of Olives-1 - way to go!!
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from BirdandCowens. Show BirdandCowens's posts

    Re: Celtics/Lakers

    In Response to Re: Celtics/Lakers:
    "Not sure what that means" I know you've always been a little slow on this message board Opie. All I'm saying is that the '91 Lakers that the Bulls faced were no longer the "showtime" Lakers that dominated the 80's. Hope that helps...
    Posted by EliasB


    YOU WISH - so here is the question.  If that is your lame excuse as to why the lakers lost, can we Celtics fans not also use the same lame excuse (that we were worn out) in 2010?  I mean, you're certainly not saying if the lakers were "showtime", they would have won!!  Certainly you can't be saying that.  THAT would be an excuse!!  Dominate?  5-3 is not dominate!  Hope that helps!!
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Celtics/Lakers

    My point was that there were 4 great teams in the league.....3 of them played against each other in the East....the Lakers were every bit as good as the other three...there is no questioning that...but that fact also means the Lakers were favored every year based on the quality of the competition they played....the Celtics had to face Philly and Milwaukee.....and the Bucks were probably the "best team never to make it to the finals" during the '80's.....they swept us in '83.....we also lost out to Philly several times....my point is if you put the Lakers in the East and moved any one of these Eastern teams out West they would be the immediate favorite to come out of the West....please read what I said....the Lakers were every bit as good as the Celts...they just had better odds during that time...
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Celtics/Lakers

    In Response to Re: Celtics/Lakers:
    In Response to Re: Celtics/Lakers : I guess I'm not understanding what your point is since my only point was that the Lakers dominated the toughest decade the East ever had to offer. Your post seems to reinforce my argument.
    Posted by EliasB

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from BirdandCowens. Show BirdandCowens's posts

    Re: Celtics/Lakers

    In Response to Re: Celtics/Lakers:
    My point was that there were 4 great teams in the league.....3 of them played against each other in the East....the Lakers were every bit as good as the other three...there is no questioning that...but that fact also means the Lakers were favored every year based on the quality of the competition they played....the Celtics had to face Philly and Milwaukee.....and the Bucks were probably the "best team never to make it to the finals" during the '80's.....they swept us in '83.....we also lost out to Philly several times....my point is if you put the Lakers in the East and moved any one of the Eastern teams out West they would be the immediate favorite to come out of the West....please read what I said....the Lakers were every bit as good as the Celts...they just had better odds during that time...
    Posted by Duke4


    agreed
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from laker4eva. Show laker4eva's posts

    Re: Celtics/Lakers

    In Response to Re: Celtics/Lakers:
    In Response to Re: Celtics/Lakers : What's the point in making the finals and not winning it ?
    Posted by MichBelgium


    You should know, didn't this happen to your team a few weeks back? Lmao
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from bostonsucks69. Show bostonsucks69's posts

    Re: Celtics/Lakers

    From NBA.COM. Lakers are the healthiest franchise. Boston Celtics are 7th.


    1. Lakers. Nobody in the NBA can touch the Laker brand, which, like the uniform color, is pure gold. There haven't been many valleys on Dr. Jerry Buss' watch, which must be a Rolex, given how the franchise value (now $600 million-plus) has quintupled. They've cashed in twice in three straight trips to the NBA Finals and are basketball's equivalent of the Yankees. Stability and continuity are trademarks for the franchise. They lose a star, get another: Kareem, Magic, Shaq, Kobe. Phil Jackson, greatest coach ever, keeps coming back despite health issues; he wouldn't do that for just any team. General manager Mitch Kupchak, under fire early, has settled in nicely as replacement to The Logo. Lakers charge a princely sum for ticket prices and the house stays packed, anyway. They are clearly the No. 1 sports attraction in a city lacking the NFL. Not all is perfect in Lakerwood, though. Finances are coming under greater scrutiny, and it remains to be seen if Jeannie Buss is a chip off the old block. Still, Lakers rule, on and off the court.


    http://www.nba.com/2010/news/features/shaun_powell/07/20/healthiest.franchises/index.html


     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share