Celtics/Lakers

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

    Re: Celtics/Lakers

    Great original post Duke.  Good to see the stats head to head like that. 

    The Celtics still have us, by 1, in the one stat that counts most - titles. 

    Lakers fans like myself take consolation in knowing our team has racked up a bunch of titles in recent years.  In the last 11 years it's been 7 appearances and 5 titles - not shabby at all. 

    One poster asked "what's the point of getting to the finals and not winning?"

    I'd ask in return - what's the point of not making it at all?

    The bottom line is that each year, every team tries to win the whole thing.  To say that making the finals, and losing, is better than not making the finals at all is just nonsense.  That's like an olympian saying they'd rather not medal than win a silver.  They'd rather come in 4th than 2nd...

    Also, it should be noted that Boston's high percentage 'trend' is being pulled from a long, long time ago.  Most of us aren't old enough to remember it. 

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

    Re: Celtics/Lakers

    Thanks man!
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Celtics/Lakers

    Fair enough Elias.....I can understand your opinion....when I said "lights out" I was making the point that the Celts hold a commanding 9-3 lead over the Lakers...your franchise has certainly had a better 20+ years than ours...of course we did lose two guys who could've made a huge difference for us....as to the early Minny titles...I'm only addressing Laker fans who continue to bash our titles from the late '50's through the '60's and then claim "we are only 1 title behind your team".....uh hello? ....that means they are boasting about the 5 titles won during the first years of the '50's....kind of the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? ...anyway, my opinion has always been that these are the two greatest teams of all time and that neither team's fans are going to give in to the other....and that's fine by me...I feel we should be able to co-exist...and lastly Elias, you seem like a pretty intelligent poster who knows his stuff....in the long run I'd love to have good concise posts with all of the Laker fans....unfortunately some of the "youngsters" are here to flame and taunt....at least in my opinion....anyway...Peace my friend!
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from jofc. Show jofc's posts

    Re: Celtics/Lakers

    Duke, you're a class act.  And I gotta bow to your years of watching the game. 

    It always burns me when people try to diminish what these great teams have done...and conversely it really makes me smile when people acknowlege them...especially coming from someone who's been watching since the late 50's. 

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

    Re: Celtics/Lakers

    Oh...and Elias, I forgot to ask you.....did my explanation on the 1980's and the "Big 4" make sense in your opinion? ....my point being the Lakers and Celtics were equals in comparison as teams playing in different conferences? ....just wondering...Thanks!
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Celtics/Lakers

    Thanks pal.....the feeling is certainly mutual my friend......it's always good discussing these issues with you...it's nice when both sides can be discussed intelligently!!!  ....as I said, keep 'em coming.....
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Celtics/Lakers

    As always, nice post my friend. You are right that a lot of Laker fans aren't old enough to appreciate the Celtic history...I go back to the late '50's as an NBA fan...as I've mentioned before, I started out as a Laker fan before becoming a Celtic fan (circa 1961 or so)....I rooted for both teams (Celtics first) until the Bird/Magic era began....that is the timeframe when all the bashing began....for me, it started with one of my best friends....fans just went at it and it hasn't stopped in almost 30 years...I appreciate posters like you, Worthy, and a few others who show respect and thoughtfullness in your posts....keep 'em coming pal!
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from EliasB. Show EliasB's posts

    Re: Celtics/Lakers

    Your point that the Lakers and Celtics were equals in comparison to the kind of conference they were in falls short since in the end, the winner from the East plays the winner from the West. It does not matter that the Celtics had a tougher conference since in the end, the Lakers had to play whomever won.



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

    Re: Celtics/Lakers

    ...but as you just pointed out....the Celtics had tougher competition to go against in getting to the finals....the Lakers had a somewhat easier time...no? Anyway....just our opinions my friend....we can't go back and change anything in the past...by the way...nice pick up in Barnes....and another salary dump later on with Ratliff....you certainly have had better ownership than we have had over the last 20 years...Buss and Steinbrenner....fans of opposing teams can hate them all they like....I would take them both as the owners of my team....and I get that this a reason Laker fans boast their franchise as #1.....it does start at the top...
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Celtics/Lakers

    jofc....if you stop by, please give me your take on my point regarding the Big 4 of the '80's...........just wondering...

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from MrvAlbertsBra. Show MrvAlbertsBra's posts

    Re: Celtics/Lakers

    Cs fans, enjoy the 17-16 disparity while it lasts.  It used to be a 14-6 disparity, and it's only a matter of time before the Lakers take the lead.  Cs fans have much to be proud of when they look back on their history, but you have to be at least 50 years old to have remembered most of it.  The Lakers have been the most consistently relevant franchise in NBA history, missing the playoffs only five times ever.  Yes, they have lost many Finals appearances.  That's better than losing a bunch of conference finals.  What, Denver, Utah and Phoenix are somehow better because they consistently lose early in the playoffs?  Do Boston fans  think the Spurs or Bulls are better because they're undefeated in Finals appearances, while BOS has lost 4?  I doubt it.  So, console yourselves with "history" for now.  The Cs are history, while the Lakers continue to write it. 

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

    Re: Celtics/Lakers

    This stuff reminds me of an old uncle of mine who always got drunk and talked about how the "good ol'  days" being much better than the present. We always thought he was so boring.
    Ya know what I mean, Uncle Duke?
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hinghamdunker. Show Hinghamdunker's posts

    Re: Celtics/Lakers

    Okay, whay live in the past?  I have been Cs fan since 1987 and I see only one finals on the board.  Laker have won 5 this  century.  Why do we think that with a healthier Kobe and rested  Fisher (Blake a 41% 3pt shooter) Barnes and Artest to pound on anyone for 48 minutes and perhaps a healthy Bynum we can take them?  We just got older except for the Donkey.  Now let's be POSITIVE.  We will take out the Heat so we will get a chance for revenge on the Lakers.
    Daniels again?
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hinghamdunker. Show Hinghamdunker's posts

    Re: Celtics/Lakers

    In Response to Re: Celtics/Lakers:
    In Response to Re: Celtics/Lakers : The one prop I have to give to the Lakers is that their management is always willing to spend to keep them in the hunt for a championship and do a lot of work trying while Boston is tight with the $$$ and try to get lucky........I say luck is where preparation meets opportunity..and here I believe is where the Celtics lag behind the Lakers........take team salaries for instance.......all we hear on the Celtics blog is we can't sign them because of the cap and luxury tax.......while the Lakers say.....hey if he helps the team win lets get him.....ie the Lakers team salary is $82 mill without the signing of Barnes.......the Celtics are $69 mill........if we are going to keep pace with the Lakers we have got to be a little looser with the $$$$.........we are old and we have to sign some quality young players so we don't dwell in the bottom while we retool..........the Lakers like to keep their team tuned up constantly getting new parts while recently the Celtics like to grind their car into the ground and hope that the old parts get them to the finish line.....to stay in the hunt year after year you need to have a good mix of young and old.....we seem to be at the two extremes with nothing in the middle......sooner or later the parts wear out and you then have to go young.......and start over instead of steadily moving on............
    Posted by damfuno

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

    Re: Celtics/Lakers

    In Response to Re: Celtics/Lakers:
    Cs fans, enjoy the 17-16 disparity while it lasts.  It used to be a 14-6 disparity, and it's only a matter of time before the Lakers take the lead.  Cs fans have much to be proud of when they look back on their history, but you have to be at least 50 years old to have remembered most of it.  The Lakers have been the most consistently relevant franchise in NBA history, missing the playoffs only five times ever.  Yes, they have lost many Finals appearances.  That's better than losing a bunch of conference finals.  What, Denver, Utah and Phoenix are somehow better because they consistently lose early in the playoffs?  Do Boston fans  think the Spurs or Bulls are better because they're undefeated in Finals appearances, while BOS has lost 4?  I doubt it.  So, console yourselves with "history" for now.  The Cs are history, while the Lakers continue to write it. 
    Posted by MrvAlbertsBra
    Um since when have the "LA Lakers" won 16 titles? A good chunk of those titles belong to the Mineapolis Lakers of Mn. if I am correct, as I see it, the LA LAKERS have 11 titles, so you got a ways to go still..............btw how are the LA Rams, LA Raiders, LA Chargers, LA Angels of Aneheim doing?
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hinghamdunker. Show Hinghamdunker's posts

    Re: Celtics/Lakers

    The point about spending doesn't hold for Ainge.  The Lakers and Celtics have spent about the same for the last few years.  Lakers a little more because of legacy contracts.  Lakers spent nearly nothing after Shaq left.  Lakers also charge about 15% more than Cs at the gate and are always sold out and mostly sold out even after Shaq left.  Celtic fan base gets alot of credit but in my 23 years here it has been mediocre at best until now. I have been at both Gardens when people sitting around me got free tickets from corps etc. Not pretty.  Cs need to be real about now and the future and not live in the past and make excuses.  Granted it was a tough choice to rebuild now and not sign the big three but in my opinion with the amount of terrific free agents out there this was the time to do it.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from CubanPete. Show CubanPete's posts

    Re: Celtics/Lakers

    From losing to Detroit in the 1988 ECF to winning the Finals in 2008, the Celtics have been irrelevant for the 20 years in between. During this time, this franchise was wracked with poor ownership and horrible GMs: Jan Volk, Dave Gavitt, ML Carr, Rick Pitino, and Chris "Vin Baker" Wallace. This sustained ineptitude allowed the Lakers to catch up to the Cs in titles. Then Ainge came along and turned this franchise around. More importantly, Ainge never lowered his standards. He wasn't satisfied with keeping the 2002 ECF losing team intact and caught flak from the media.

    Based on what I've seen in FA, this summer, DA's more concerned with putting his team in a position to quickly rebuild in 2012. He saw KG's 2 year deal and built the existing team around that. Notice that all his FA signings have been 2 years or less. DA doesn't want this team to go through another prolonged dark age.

    There were two problems with this:

    1.) The 2 year limit prevented the team from getting a better quality of FAs.

    2.) Paul Pierce. I refuse to believe that Ainge could have had anything to do with that horrible 4 year contract. Would you pay a 35 year old player a max contract of $15mil a season? A 36 year old player? That's what this team did. The fact that PP ripped DA in the media, further strengthens my belief that Ainge was opposed to the deal. The Celtics of old always put team before player. They were only concerned with getting banners, rather than keeping fannies in seats or ensuring that a long-term star player retires in Green. Meddlesome ownership in giving PP that contract, breaks from that tried and true philosophy.

    Therefore, there is no doubt that the owners were behind this. They raised season ticket prices in a bad economy and are selling the fans a bill of goods. The Cs run had more to do with luck as every key player got healthy at the right time. Moreover, the Cs have downgraded at Center and some teams have leapfrogged ahead of them. I don't think they'll bet Orlando if they face them again in the 2011 playoffs. They are an OLD team. Old teams don't get better, they get older. To expect this team to repeat last year's bittersweet success is being set up for a letdown.

    So, enjoy the one title lead while you can. With meddlesome ownership undermining DAs agenda, it won't last for much longer.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Celtics/Lakers

    You know, I'd almost forgotten that the Celts made the Eastern Conference Finals in 2002 and won the Atlantic Division a few years later....it was a tough 20 years....but there were a few (albeit too few) successes....if Bias and Lewis were in the mix....well, it's all speculation...but we can dream right?
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap'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

    whats the point in not talking about how the Lakers of the 60's wer choke artists and cowards who were stomped on by Boston.

    Do the Babe Ruth/Lou Gehrig Yankees no longer count?

    17-16 is the main figure

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

    Re: Celtics/Lakers

    well, I certainly give the Lakers of the '60's props....a great team with possibly the best duo ever (Baylor/West).....they just couldn't get past the Celtics....but who did?  ......the thing with talking all time Celtics/Lakers....Laker fans consider Wilt as an all-time guy.....but they won, what? ...one title with him at the end of his career?  ...we won with Walton too but he will never be considered a "Celtic all timer"....the difference between the Celtics and Lakers.....the Celtics won in a different era.....we had a group of guys unmatched in the league....the Lakers have won in the free agent era....the Lakers were able to trade for Wilt and Kareem....they were able to bring in Shaq in free agency....and recently Artest & Co....two different era's.....both teams were unbelievably successful in their accomplishments....just differently in different times......once again....two great franchises over the last 50+ years....doing it their way...
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from EliasB. Show EliasB's posts

    Re: Celtics/Lakers

    "....if Bias and Lewis were in the mix....well, it's all speculation...but we can dream right?"


    Celtics fans dream about the past, Lakers fans dream about the future.



    Cool
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from rsalas67m. Show rsalas67m's posts

    Re: Celtics/Lakers

    I continually read about the Russell-led Celtics of the 60s on the board whenever the discussion involves the Lakers. But that's ancient history when the league was still in its infancy. There were only 8 teams in the NBA. You can't compare that era's of the NBA of the 60s with today's.

    But if psychologically, it gives the Boston fans something to scream pound their chests about, more power to them.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from RajonRondowski. Show RajonRondowski's posts

    Re: Celtics/Lakers

    In Response to Re: Celtics/Lakers:
    I continually read about the Russell-led Celtics of the 60s on the board whenever the discussion involves the Lakers. But that's ancient history when the league was still in its infancy. There were only 8 teams in the NBA. You can't compare that era's of the NBA of the 60s with today's. But if psychologically, it gives the Boston fans something to scream pound their chests about, more power to them.
    Posted by rsalas67m




    You can't compare that era's of the NBA of the 60s with today's.

    You are so right, my man.  Those players in the 60's were so much better, so much tougher, so much more committed to winning that there is no comparison.  Today's players would not be fit to carry the jock straps of the 60's athletes.

    When there were only 8 teams in the NBA only the 96 best players in the world were good enough to make the grade.  The talent was not watered down like it is today.

    The stats are hard and fast numbers and they speak for themselves.  Spin till your heart is content, but the stats don't lie.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Celtics/Lakers

    The Lakers look to the future....yes, just like Jerry West did after every season....year after year...but Russ finally retired and the Lakers won one in the early '70's.....then they went looking to the future again for almost another decade...believe it or not....the Celtics have only gone one decade without winning...the Lakers have gone through two....Now I give the Lakers props for being better than our guys over the last two decades....but I look at the NBA through my eyes and memories....and I've basically lived all of the years, good and bad....I know it's hard to relate if you are only in your 20's to 40's......when you are my age and still a fan...well, you may be looking back on the '80's which would equate to my looking at the '60's....and for the smug fans who think the titles will never end....get real.....it happened to the Yankees several times....it happened to the Celtics....believe me, after we won in '86 and then drafted Len Bias....I thought the titles would just keep coming.....
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share