Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject

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

    Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject

    If the owners get their way in the new CBA, the days of teams repeating are over!!
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from lakersavenger. Show lakersavenger's posts

    Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject

    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject:
    If the owners get their way in the new CBA, the days of teams repeating are over!!
    Posted by Red-16Russ-11

    Why so?
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject

    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject:
    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject : Why so?
    Posted by lakersavenger


    Read my thread entitled Well.....can the Sox play year round?
    The owners want a hard cap - and all the teams will be scrambling to get down to the cap, especially MIA, BOS and LAL!
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject

    well, I have to admit that you make a good point regarding football championships.....one game, winner takes all.....actually, you make a great point regarding how I felt when the Rams lost to the Pats....the Rams had better talent but the officiating was atrocious, as was Martz's reaction to adjustments that needed to be made...so, good one buddy (if you will permit me to refer to you in that manner....one of the kiddies had a problem with my use the term "my friend"....)
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from lakersavenger. Show lakersavenger's posts

    Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject

    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject:
    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject : I will give you one last chance to redeem yourself and your pathetic arguments. I will answer your questions.  I have no problem answering your questions.  You answer my questions with Princeton is the best MLB team.  Obviously you don't want to answer that question because your answer will contradict your whole arguement.  If you weren't such a p u s s y then you would simply answer the question and back up your answer.  I said Princeton has the most college football championships. I answered your question and I backed up my answer that they are the most successful team in college football history because they have the most championships.  But see you are comparing apples to count chocula there.  I am talking about professional sports and you are talking about college.  You should have rephrased your question and asked what colleage football team is the most relevant right now or the last 10 years.  Then my answer would have been different.  But if you want to know who the most successful college football team of all time is then it is Princeton hands down.  The proof is in the history books.  History doesn't pose the question what have you done for me lately.  History looks at all time numbers not a time period that you think is relevant.  But I digress......so as I was saying..... The Celtics played 65 seasons.  They made the playoffs 49 times and won 17 championships.  So when the Celtics got to the playoffs they made the most of their chances.  Obviously you have to make the playoffs to have a chance to win the championship.  Is that not a true statement?  Last I knew you can't win a championship unless you are in the playoffs.  Is that a false statement?  Yes those 16 seaons count as chances to make the playoffs but they didn't.  The Lakers have a better pecentage of making the playoffs than the Celtics....congratulations.  However, that means they failed more times in the playoffs....ouch.  That means the Celtics failed more times in the regular season.  Congratulations another moral victory for you Laker fans.  The Celtics were not in the Finals against the Lakers in those other 13 championships they won.  I mean that is obvious because if the Celtics were there they would have probably won at least half of them or more.  I mean where were the Lakers for 9 of the championships the Celtics won.  Oh that's right they were in the Finals getting r a p e d by the Celtics.  So again I pose another question to you that you won't answer.  Would you prefer the Lakers to not make the playoffs or make the playoffs and not win a championship?  I will give you a hint.  If you are a true fan it doesn't matter if you make the playoffs or not because anything short of a championship is a failure.  Maybe not for every franchise in the NBA but for teams like the Celtics and Lakers if you don't deliver a championship then the season means nothing.  I gurantee you Kobe would say the same thing.  Do you think Kobe considered this past NBA season a success?  I am guessing you already know the answer to that question.  So keep counting the moral victories and I will countine counting championships.  By my count it is still 17-16 in favor of the Celtics.  Same as it was yesterday and the day before and the day before that.    So did you have any other questions I can answer?  I believe I covered all of yours.  Now would you care to answer my questions?  I am guessing I know the answer to that question.  You will cut and past a few of my lines and then circumvent my questions by asking more questions.  Patheitc.  You know what they say about people who won't answer a question.  They know they are wrong.  Case in point.  Game over.
    Posted by rampageimt23


    The thing is the Lakers throughout the decades, even when they had incredibly bad teams, they still managed to somehow crawl into the playoffs with no reasonable chance of going beyond the 1st or 2nd round. But they always gave it their all down the stretch run of any given season. It says alot about their fortitude, desire and their coaching. The Cs on the other hand almost always give up when they know they will get their butts kicked in early in the postseason, they give up on themselves and their fans. The game is about character and gumption, decade after decade. Somehow the Lakers are always there, even when their bad. The Celtics had to steal KG and another HOF, 2 players that weren't really Celtics to begin with.  Then, instead of winning 3 straight like they should have done, they flaked out to guess who? It's a lot more honorable and understandable to get swept by one of the best teams we've seen, the eventual champs, than to lose 4 of 5 to the ridiculous Heat, you know and I know it was a lot more embarrassing to lose like that to the Miami Heat, the world's most hated team. To lose to a queen, I dunno, I didn't feel so bad getting thumped by the emergence of Dirk this late in his career and a very loaded Mavs team, but if it had been the heat, I think I would really be ashamed of the Lakers. Be honest, it was totally devastating to get it in the rear by the HEAT, of all teams, wasn't it?
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject

    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject:
    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject : The thing is the Lakers throughout the decades, even when they had incredibly bad teams, they still managed to somehow crawl into the playoffs with no reasonable chance of going beyond the 1st or 2nd round. But they always gave it their all down the stretch run of any given season. It says alot about their fortitude, desire and their coaching. The Cs on the other hand almost always give up when they know they will get their butts kicked in early in the postseason, they give up on themselves and their fans. The game is about character and gumption, decade after decade. Somehow the Lakers are always there, even when their bad. The Celtics had to steal KG and another HOF, 2 players that weren't really Celtics to begin with.  Then, instead of winning 3 straight like they should have done, they flaked out to guess who? It's a lot more honorable and understandable to get swept by one of the best teams we've seen, the eventual champs, than to lose 4 of 5 to the ridiculous Heat, you know and I know it was a lot more embarrassing to lose like that to the Miami Heat, the world's most hated team. To lose to a queen, I dunno, I didn't feel so bad getting thumped by the emergence of Dirk this late in his career and a very loaded Mavs team, but if it had been the heat, I think I would really be ashamed of the Lakers. Be honest, it was totally devastating to get it in the rear by the HEAT, of all teams, wasn't it?
    Posted by lakersavenger


    You need to be REAL careful about "original" players.  OKAY?  REAL careful.
    koME - drafted by CHA, traded to lakers
    Fish  -original laker
    Artest - FA
    Gasol  - gifted to LAL by MEM
    Bynum - original laker
    Odom - traded to LAL
    Blake - FA
    Barnes - FA
    Brown - traded to LAL

    2 out of 8.  3 if you count koME
    Bos -
    Rondo - drafted by us
    Allen - trade
    Pierce - drafted by us
    KG - traded
    JON - FA
    West - drafted by us
    Green - trade
    Davis - drafted by us!
    4 out of 8!!  Care to amend your "pride and honor" comment??
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject

    well, Mikan was an original Laker (I think)....but the Lakers traded for Wilt and Kareem, and Shaq was a free agent....Divac (pretty good) and Bynum (talented but injury prone)....so, off the top of my head, three of the six all time Laker centers (and I'm being generous counting Bynum at this point) were original Lakers.....again, off the top of my head....wait....Elmore Smith was also drafted by LA I believe...the point is....whether you get a player by the draft or through trades or free agency...I think you can count them as alumni of the team....of course, I really don't count guys like Bing, Maravich, or Wilkins as all time Celtic greats...
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from dirty52. Show dirty52's posts

    Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject

    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject:
    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject : You need to be REAL careful about "original" players.  OKAY?  REAL careful. koME - drafted by CHA, traded to lakers Fish  -original laker Artest - FA Gasol  - gifted to LAL by MEM Bynum - original laker Odom - traded to LAL Blake - FA Barnes - FA Brown - traded to LAL 2 out of 8.  3 if you count koME Bos - Rondo - drafted by us Allen - trade Pierce - drafted by us KG - traded JON - FA West - drafted by us Green - trade Davis - drafted by us! 4 out of 8!!  Care to amend your "pride and honor" comment??
    Posted by Red-16Russ-11



    Actually Rondo was drafted by Phoenix


    http://espn.go.com/nba/player/_/id/3026/rajon-rondo
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject

    Avenger....you got me thinking again after our NBA/NFL comparisons....I thought it would be interesting to look at MLB as well (since things are a little slow with two lockouts in the news)......as I said, I'm a Dodger fan and I already knew that they were never able to repeat....although they had their chances in '56 and '66.....the BoSox did it once ('15/'16).....interestingly, only 7 franchises in history have been able to go back to back...they would be....

    Yankees (did it 6 times for a total of 20 championships...first time '27/'28 and the last time was '98-2000)

    A's did it 3 times....first time '10/'11, again in '29/'30 and lastly in '72-'74....total of 7 championships

    Besides the BoSox, the 4 others that did it once were...

    Cubs ('07/'08)
    Giants ('21/'22)
    Reds ('75/'76)
    Blue Jays ('92/'93)

    I found that interesting....

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from rampageimt23. Show rampageimt23's posts

    Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject

    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject:
    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject : The thing is the Lakers throughout the decades, even when they had incredibly bad teams, they still managed to somehow crawl into the playoffs with no reasonable chance of going beyond the 1st or 2nd round. But they always gave it their all down the stretch run of any given season. It says alot about their fortitude, desire and their coaching. The Cs on the other hand almost always give up when they know they will get their butts kicked in early in the postseason, they give up on themselves and their fans. The game is about character and gumption, decade after decade. Somehow the Lakers are always there, even when their bad. The Celtics had to steal KG and another HOF, 2 players that weren't really Celtics to begin with.  Then, instead of winning 3 straight like they should have done, they flaked out to guess who? It's a lot more honorable and understandable to get swept by one of the best teams we've seen, the eventual champs, than to lose 4 of 5 to the ridiculous Heat, you know and I know it was a lot more embarrassing to lose like that to the Miami Heat, the world's most hated team. To lose to a queen, I dunno, I didn't feel so bad getting thumped by the emergence of Dirk this late in his career and a very loaded Mavs team, but if it had been the heat, I think I would really be ashamed of the Lakers. Be honest, it was totally devastating to get it in the rear by the HEAT, of all teams, wasn't it?
    Posted by lakersavenger


    I am not going to lie.  It sucked losing to the Heat.  But it was a loss either way.  We didn't achieve our goal which was to win a championship.  And the Lakers didn't either.  So it really doesn't matter who we lost and who the Lakers lost to.  In the end I am just glad Dirk finally got his ring and Lebron didn't.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Laker-Nation32. Show Laker-Nation32's posts

    Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject

    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject:
    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject : The thing is the Lakers throughout the decades, even when they had incredibly bad teams, they still managed to somehow crawl into the playoffs with no reasonable chance of going beyond the 1st or 2nd round. But they always gave it their all down the stretch run of any given season. It says alot about their fortitude, desire and their coaching. The Cs on the other hand almost always give up when they know they will get their butts kicked in early in the postseason, they give up on themselves and their fans. The game is about character and gumption, decade after decade. Somehow the Lakers are always there, even when their bad. The Celtics had to steal KG and another HOF, 2 players that weren't really Celtics to begin with.  Then, instead of winning 3 straight like they should have done, they flaked out to guess who? It's a lot more honorable and understandable to get swept by one of the best teams we've seen, the eventual champs, than to lose 4 of 5 to the ridiculous Heat, you know and I know it was a lot more embarrassing to lose like that to the Miami Heat, the world's most hated team. To lose to a queen, I dunno, I didn't feel so bad getting thumped by the emergence of Dirk this late in his career and a very loaded Mavs team, but if it had been the heat, I think I would really be ashamed of the Lakers. Be honest, it was totally devastating to get it in the rear by the HEAT, of all teams, wasn't it?
    Posted by lakersavenger


    Great factual read, now watch the smeltic dross put up the excuses. Can they blame the refs for this post? Lmao!
     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from rampageimt23. Show rampageimt23's posts

    Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject

    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject:
    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject : Great factual read, now watch the smeltic dross put up the excuses. Can they blame the refs for this post? Lmao!
    Posted by Laker-Nation32



    No excuses.  You Laker fans can take all the moral victories you want.  If you take pleasure and satisfaction in the fact that you had teams that shouldn't have made it to the playoffs but did then by all means.  Gloat all you want.   It doesn't matter how it happens or how you got there.  The only thing that matters is that you win the championship.  I don't take solace in the fact that the Celtics just made the playoffs.  I will take championships over moral victories any day.  In fact just as a show of good faith I will nominate myself as the official driver of the Laker Moral Victory Bandwagon!!!
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from lakersavenger. Show lakersavenger's posts

    Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject

    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject:
    well, Mikan was an original Laker (I think)....but the Lakers traded for Wilt and Kareem, and Shaq was a free agent....Divac (pretty good) and Bynum (talented but injury prone)....so, off the top of my head, three of the six all time Laker centers (and I'm being generous counting Bynum at this point) were original Lakers.....again, off the top of my head....wait....Elmore Smith was also drafted by LA I believe...the point is....whether you get a player by the draft or through trades or free agency...I think you can count them as alumni of the team....of course, I really don't count guys like Bing, Maravich, or Wilkins as all time Celtic greats...
    Posted by Duke4

    Yeah, but these guys weren't brought here, one way or another, to win as many as you can in a three year window at the tail end of their career.
    All were meant for long term permanent. That's what defined them. KG will always be associated with Minnesota and Allen with Seattle or Milkaukee. These two were never Celtics, they were mercenaries.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from lakersavenger. Show lakersavenger's posts

    Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject

    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject:
    Avenger....you got me thinking again after our NBA/NFL comparisons....I thought it would be interesting to look at MLB as well (since things are a little slow with two lockouts in the news)......as I said, I'm a Dodger fan and I already knew that they were never able to repeat....although they had their chances in '56 and '66.....the BoSox did it once ('15/'16).....interestingly, only 7 franchises in history have been able to go back to back...they would be.... Yankees (did it 6 times for a total of 20 championships...first time '27/'28 and the last time was '98-2000) A's did it 3 times....first time '10/'11, again in '29/'30 and lastly in '72-'74....total of 7 championships Besides the BoSox, the 4 others that did it once were... Cubs ('07/'08) Giants ('21/'22) Reds ('75/'76) Blue Jays ('92/'93) I found that interesting....
    Posted by Duke4

    Baseball is another good example of a teams ability to repeat. Before 1969 I think it was, you only had to win your respective leagues pennant then on you went to the Series, that's analogous to having the best record in your conference and on to the NBA Finals. So theoretically before 1969 your chances to repeat in MLB were better than when the rounds system began.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from lakersavenger. Show lakersavenger's posts

    Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject

    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject:
    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject : I am not going to lie.  It sucked losing to the Heat.  But it was a loss either way.  We didn't achieve our goal which was to win a championship.  And the Lakers didn't either.  So it really doesn't matter who we lost and who the Lakers lost to.  In the end I am just glad Dirk finally got his ring and Lebron didn't.
    Posted by rampageimt23


    Spoken like a level headed gentleman. When you think about about it, the Lakers and Celtics own half the NBA titles in history. We're stuff together like Wilt and Russell. That's why us trolls come here. It's part of the fun of being a part of this nonpariel rivalry. And your right about Dirk getting the ring over Lebron.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Qdaddy. Show Qdaddy's posts

    Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject

    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject:
    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject : Avenger, you may be onto something here. I've just uncovered two Laker agents in this forum, one just revealed that the Lakers had won 17 championships (by including the 1947-48 NBL championships), and relegated the Celtics to 2nd place (17-48 vs the Lakers' 17-47). Now, I knew that long time ago, but coming from my post wouldn't be as convincing. Coming from a supposedly PP fan should make the NBL championship legit... The other one did a great job by stating that the Celtics only had 49 chances to win the championships. Oh, it's really a reminder that the Celtics missed the playoffs 16 times!!! I mean, Celtics fans, when you have friends like that, you don't need enemies...
    Posted by MajicMVP


    Actually Majic, I reported the Laker's 17th (actually 1st) title several months ago on this very site. The National Basketball League (NBL) is a part of the NBA history. The NBL merged with the Basketball Association of America (BAA) to form the NBA in 1949. The Lakers won one title with the NBL. The Celtics were a part of the BAA and didn't win ANY in that league. So, that's why the Lakers and Celtics are actually tied in "professional" basketball league titles.

    I know its hard for Boston Celtics fans to accept, but it's all true. The NBL and BAA WERE the forerunner to today's NBA. I've never been to the Basketball Hall of Fame, but I'd be willing to bet that this is all recorded in their archives.
     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject

    Ok, I have to respectfully disagree with our friend the Avenger.....I don't think that KG and Ray should be considered as mercenaries....they both came over in trades....and, as for the three year window, they begin their 5th year together in Boston this season (if there is a season, of course)....it is true that KG had to ok the trade....but why get on his case for wanting the opportunity of winning a title? ....remember, the only reason Jabbar was traded to LA was because he was unhappy in Milwaukee....he became a Muslim and was not comfortable so he forced their hand so to speak...as for Ray, he is nothing but a class act..he agreed to come back this season rather than joining another team with better odds of winning it all...he certainly didn't need the money....just yesterday on ESPN they were discussing how Ray stays in such great shape and the fact that he may be the best pure shooter in the game....they said he may play several more years ala Reggie Miller...

    ...as far as baseball goes, they set the bar for modern sports leagues.....the best team from each league met to determine the champion...it was based on the teams having the best records over a full season...it worked for almost 60 years....MLB expanded and, to increase fan interest and revenue, the play-offs were added...I think it works great....so, I guess I agree that it was easier in the earlier days to win since they went straight to the WS...still, they played 154 (later 162 games)....the team with the best record went to the series....then it became a best of seven......I would say that the winner certainly deserved the title of best in field that year...
    ,
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject

    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject:
    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject : You are correct.  There has to be some give and take in an argument.  When one (majic) party refuses to adknowledge any info presented by the other party,  it becomes contradiction rather than arguing.  It's the old Monty Python sketch - "I came here for an argument.....no you didn't." It is also not arguing when you can't even comprehend the WAY the person is "arguing."  You  and I have been around a while, have you EVER heard any one argue the number of times a team LOST??  Very strange, Penny Lane!!
    Posted by Red-16Russ-11


    Maybe you are playing dumb. But do you think you are new in this forum?

    Ever heard of the bashing of the Lakers' 16-15 finals record? That's right, let's not give credit to their 31 conference championships, but instead let's focus on their 15 final losses...

    =============================================
    http://www.boston.com/community/forums.html?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3aSportsForum%3a734e2bc9-e1bc-49d6-8355-64f9a8500246Discussion%3a1a9d1410-a571-4f6e-b18f-a5eaa5d8e5a6&plckCurrentPage=9

    Fiercest34: It's also a fact that the Lakers went to the Finals 31 times and lost 15 times. They have a 16-15 Finals record, barely above .500. Refute that!


    http://www.boston.com/community/forums.html?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3aSportsForum%3a734e2bc9-e1bc-49d6-8355-64f9a8500246Discussion%3a38e8ba3a-6c5a-4f2c-913b-73441b24b805&plckCurrentPage=1

    rampageimt23: No that would mean that the Lakers made it to the Finals 31 times and only won 16....that would mean their record is 16-15 in NBA Finals.  That would make the Celtics 17-4 in NBA Finals.  So by my calculation the Lakers have a winning percentage of .516 in NBA Finals and the Celtics have a winning percentage of roughly .809.  Hmmm....so that means the Lakers have choked a hell of alot more on the big stage than the Celtics.  Approximately 11 more times if my math is correct.

    http://www.boston.com/community/forums.html?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3aSportsForum%3a734e2bc9-e1bc-49d6-8355-64f9a8500246Discussion%3a3a704a78-0259-4f4b-a2e6-cd8c806878b1&plckFindPostKey=Cat:SportsForum:734e2bc9-e1bc-49d6-8355-64f9a8500246Discussion:3a704a78-0259-4f4b-a2e6-cd8c806878b1Post:899fa7fd-8404-41d2-81e4-4ce4f7d6950d

    Duke: Lakers 16-15 .516 (modern era 11-15 .423)

    ...Lakers lose almost as often as they win

    ====================================

    It's a fact. Your diehard buddies are not on your side. Your attempt to criticize them is well taken...

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject

    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject:
    majjic mvp, There is an argument to be made..sure the wininng pct edge goes to red...But red didnt coach the sheer years that phil did... one writer said it right...there both number 1...but if you had to pick a greater among equals. it would go to phil. Where youd say 1. phil. 1a. red....

    Well, the Lakers and the Celtics are tied at 17-48 and 16-47 (watch how they do baseball/basketball/football standings). So are you conceding that they are both number 1? or 1 and 1a?

    Look, the nano-second you recognize them as both number 1 (i.e. tie) or (1) & (1a) in coaching, you are refuting your camp's own criteria (only the # championships count).

    So Red is the perfect example of how Celtic fans don't just count the # of championships. Whatever qualifier you want to add (Red's # of years coaching, winning pct., the age he quitted coaching, etc.), you disqualified # titles as the SOLE CRITERIA.

    Glad that you folks finally see the lights here...


    Alot of people look at the coaching like that. In the end its rings won. but your looking at it personally. What is defined as the best. being called champ the most...not having back to back wins...is having back to back wins more than raising your hand the most..NOPE.... you dont represent the nba..you represent a minority...HOW COME YOU WATCH THE NBA..but make your own rules....

    Posted by DoctorCO

    Howcome you watch the NBA and decide when to count # championships only and when not?

    See, when you make your own rules, you aren't even consistent about it. Maybe this is a rule your camp should use: I'll do whatever I want. The h*ll to consistency...





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

    Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject

    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject:
    Troll Summit Majic: Hey guys did you know the Lakers have 17 championships? Troll #2: Really? Says who? Majic: Fierce34 from a Boston Globe forum. HAHAHA!!!
    Posted by Fiercest34


    Of course I do, but I need you to give them credit for the 1947-48 NBL season...
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject

    Question - what kind of a person goes back to threads that are weeks old in an attempt to prove a point, and doesn't prove it?

    Answer - a very dangerous internet stalker!!
    Your attempt at argument bores me, and I would venture to say that one thing my "buddies" and I agree on is that you really need to get a life.  You have refuted nothing in two years, not one thing.  You rant and rave and say the same thing over and over and over and over......................no one gets it - not because we're not smart, but because no one argues like that.  Focusing on how many times a team LOSES, is a losers mentality.  Probably comes from an overload of soccer.  A stupid sport,where the clock goes UP and not down-  and no one even really knows how much time there is on the clock anyway!  Defeatist mentality at its' finest!
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject

    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject:
    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject : I will give you one last chance to redeem yourself and your pathetic arguments. I will answer your questions.  I have no problem answering your questions.  You answer my questions with Princeton is the best MLB team. 

    Boy, you really have to learn how to argue.

    "The answer is Princeton" means your feeble attempt to use the Yankees as the example of your argument is soundly refuted by Princeton as a counter example.

    And talking about chances, you have more chances to answer my questions. But knowing that by answering them, you would incriminate yourself. I can't blame you...

    Obviously you don't want to answer that question because your answer will contradict your whole arguement. 

    Nope, because my use of Princeton (as an answer) is enough to refute your whole argument. Seeing that you have no response to that, great. Better cry mama why I didn't answer your question to imply "that the Yankees were the best baseball team due to ancient championships". I mean, if you need me to spell all these out for you, you just show that you are an easy prey...


    If you weren't such a p u s s y then you would simply answer the question and back up your answer.  I said Princeton has the most college football championships. I answered your question and I backed up my answer that they are the most successful team in college football history because they have the most championships.

    Yeah? says who? Who considers this program with the most college football championships the successful program in college football history? I certainly have asked you who in 2011 would consider Princeton the greatest college football program. Where's your answer? Do you think I'll let  you off the hook here?


    But see you are comparing apples to count chocula there.  I am talking about professional sports and you are talking about college.

    Yep, when there is a clear cut example that most championships != most successful, let's restrict this conversation to a context that favors you...

    You should have rephrased your question and asked what colleage football team is the most relevant right now or the last 10 years.  Then my answer would have been different.  But if you want to know who the most successful college football team of all time is then it is Princeton hands down.

    Except no one recognizes it. I don't have to limit the timeframe to 10 years and you still can't get anyone to recognize Princeton. Wonder why?


     The Celtics played 65 seasons.  They made the playoffs 49 times and won 17 championships.  So when the Celtics got to the playoffs they made the most of their chances.  Obviously you have to make the playoffs to have a chance to win the championship.  Is that not a true statement? 

    See, you are hiding the whole truth again, i.e. using selected truth to lie.

    Obviously you have to play in the regular season to make the playoffs, is that a true statement or not? By that logic, you have to play in the regular season to have a chance to win the championship, is that a true statement or not?

    Better dodge it.


    Last I knew you can't win a championship unless you are in the playoffs.

    Last I know you can't win a championship unless you are in the league playing the regular season.


      Is that a false statement?  Yes those 16 seaons count as chances to make the playoffs but they didn't.  The Lakers have a better pecentage of making the playoffs than the Celtics....congratulations.  However, that means they failed more times in the playoffs....ouch.  That means the Celtics failed more times in the regular season.  Congratulations another moral victory for you Laker fans.

    See, you are very confused. Those 16 seasons count as chances to win the championships but they didn't. In other words, they had 65 chances to win the championships, true or false?

    But you fail to look at the flip side of the coin. FAILING TO MAKE THE PLAYOFFS is the cardinal sin then if making it is no big deal (merely moral victory in your book). Just like Lakers beating the Timbucktoo High is not a big deal, isn't even worth a mention. But Lakers losing to TBT High is a big deal then, it should be touted as the ultimate embarrassment...

    So what would you say about the Cetlics' failing to make the playoffs?

    And no matter what, a failure is a failure. Failure to make the playoffs counts as one, just like failing in the 2nd round. Failing to make the playoffs doesn't give you one fewer attempt.


     The Celtics were not in the Finals against the Lakers in those other 13 championships they won.  I mean that is obvious because if the Celtics were there they would have probably won at least half of them or more.  I mean where were the Lakers for 9 of the championships the Celtics won.  Oh that's right they were in the Finals getting r a p e d by the Celtics. 

    And the Celtics in those 13 occasions? Oh that's right, they weren't even good enough to lose to the Lakers. So do you think losing in the finals is bad? You have to be good enough to lose in the finals.


    So again I pose another question to you that you won't answer.  Would you prefer the Lakers to not make the playoffs or make the playoffs and not win a championship?

    Of course I prefer them to make the playoffs. Advancing 1 round is still better than advancing 0 round. Your fellow fans' reactions last year (after game 7) were testimony to that. They were thankful that the Celtics got so close. In other words, the Celtics getting r*p*d by the Lakers, to your fellow fans, are still better than getting their behind kicked by the Heat in the 2nd round.


     I will give you a hint.  If you are a true fan it doesn't matter if you make the playoffs or not because anything short of a championship is a failure.

    I give you a hint. This nonsense doesn't hold water here. You are not good enough to define what a true fan is. The Celtic fans' appreciation of a great run in 2010 had soundly refuted this nonsense.


     Maybe not for every franchise in the NBA but for teams like the Celtics and Lakers if you don't deliver a championship then the season means nothing.  I gurantee you Kobe would say the same thing.  Do you think Kobe considered this past NBA season a success?

    I guarantee you Kobe would rather play in the finals (and lost to the heat) than this 2nd round embarrassment. See, your guarantee is based on wishy washy with nothing to back up. I can easily counter with my guarantee.

    And still, the Celtics failed 48 times, counting non-playoff seasons and losing finalists season. That you can't argue.


     I am guessing you already know the answer to that question.  So keep counting the moral victories and I will countine counting championships.  By my count it is still 17-16 in favor of the Celtics.

    Your count doesn't mean much, even to your Celtic fans. Greatness is not defined just by one count. Look no further than those who consider 9 rings are greater than 11 rings, or 6 rings are greater than 11 rings...

    There is nothing you can do about it, except cry mama...


     Same as it was yesterday and the day before and the day before that.    So did you have any other questions I can answer?  I believe I covered all of yours.  Now would you care to answer my questions?  I am guessing I know the answer to that question.  You will cut and past a few of my lines and then circumvent my questions by asking more questions.  Patheitc.  You know what they say about people who won't answer a question.  They know they are wrong.  Case in point.  Game over.
    Posted by rampageimt23

    Well, your answers are soundly refuted. So what next? Are you going to answer more questions or simply dodge them?

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share