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

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

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

    I am sick of these dumb Laker trolls on here claiming the Lakers are the best and the Celtics suck, they are chokers and blah, blah, blah.  I am going to break everything down here in this this thread just to shut these morons up hopefully once and for all.  Obviously it won't stop them from posting but there is a saying "Don't feed the trolls."  If we don't respond to any of their posts or responses eventually they will just go away.  So without any further ado.....

    NBA Titles
    Celtics - 17
    Lakers - 16

    Hall of Famers
    Celtics - 28
    Lakers - 18

    All Star Selections
    Celtics - 135
    Lakers - 129

    Number of Jerseys Retired
    Celtics - 21
    Lakers - 7

    Number of players in the Top 50 All Time Greats
    Celtics - 10
    Lakers - 8 (I will give you Kobe and that brings the total to 9)

    NBA MVP Awards
    Celtics - 10
    Lakers - 8

    Most Consecutive Championships won in a row
    Celtics - 8
    Lakers - 3

    Head to Head in NBA Finals
    Celtics lead Lakers 9-3 (Rivarly?  Seems more like domination.)

    Overall Record
    Celtics - 3028-2057 - .595 Winning Percentage
    Lakers - 3084-1981 - .620 Winning Percentage

    NBA Finals Record
    Celtics - 17-4 - .809 Winning Percentage
    Lakers - 16-15 - .516 Winning Percentage

    Playoff Appearances
    Celtics - 49
    Lakers - 58

    Head to Head All Time - Regular Season
    Celtics lead Lakers 153-121 - .558 Winning Percentage

    Division Titles
    Celtics - 20
    Lakers - 22

    So there you have it people.  There were 13 categories and the Lakers were able to eek out 3 of them.  In theory the fact that we have more championships should be the only thing that matters but I figured I would try to cover as many bases as possible in case some Laker troll tries to argue the facts.  I am sure their best argument will be "How many of those titles did you actually see?"  Which obviously makes sense because you have to witness a title for it to count in the history books right?  Anywho from this point on I will no longer feed the Laker trolls.  The season will be here before you know it and looking forward to a productive off season from DA and company.
     
  2. 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 Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject:
    [QUOTE]I am sick of these dumb Laker trolls on here claiming the Lakers are the best and the Celtics suck, they are chokers and blah, blah, blah.  I am going to break everything down here in this this thread just to shut these morons up hopefully once and for all.  Obviously it won't stop them from posting but there is a saying "Don't feed the trolls."  If we don't respond to any of their posts or responses eventually they will just go away.  So without any further ado..... NBA Titles Celtics - 17 Lakers - 16 Hall of Famers Celtics - 28 Lakers - 18 All Star Selections Celtics - 135 Lakers - 129 Number of Jerseys Retired Celtics - 21 Lakers - 7 Number of players in the Top 50 All Time Greats Celtics - 10 Lakers - 8 (I will give you Kobe and that brings the total to 9) NBA MVP Awards Celtics - 10 Lakers - 8 Most Consecutive Championships won in a row Celtics - 8 Lakers - 3 Head to Head in NBA Finals Celtics lead Lakers 9-3 (Rivarly?  Seems more like domination.) Overall Record Celtics - 3028-2057 - .595 Winning Percentage Lakers - 3084-1981 - .620 Winning Percentage NBA Finals Record Celtics - 17-4 - .809 Winning Percentage Lakers - 16-15 - .516 Winning Percentage Playoff Appearances Celtics - 49 Lakers - 58 Head to Head All Time - Regular Season Celtics lead Lakers 153-121 - .558 Winning Percentage Division Titles Celtics - 20 Lakers - 22 So there you have it people.  There were 13 categories and the Lakers were able to eek out 3 of them.  In theory the fact that we have more championships should be the only thing that matters but I figured I would try to cover as many bases as possible in case some Laker troll tries to argue the facts.  I am sure their best argument will be "How many of those titles did you actually see?"  Which obviously makes sense because you have to witness a title for it to count in the history books right?  Anywho from this point on I will no longer feed the Laker trolls.  The season will be here before you know it and looking forward to a productive off season from DA and company.
    Posted by rampageimt23[/QUOTE]

    37 posts...a complete novice.

    This is the EXACT type of post that INVITES my fellow Laker faithful. I'm not even going to respond because LakerNation and the others will remind you how irrelevant the C's have become in comparison to the Lakers.

    You DO realize that the Lakers are the MARQUEE franchise in the NBA...don't you?!

    Rick Carlisle now has twice as many Championship rings as Doc Rivers. That should tell you all you need to know.
     
  3. 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 Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject:
    [QUOTE]I am sick of these dumb Laker trolls on here claiming the Lakers are the best and the Celtics suck, they are chokers and blah, blah, blah.  I am going to break everything down here in this this thread just to shut these morons up hopefully once and for all.  Obviously it won't stop them from posting but there is a saying "Don't feed the trolls."  If we don't respond to any of their posts or responses eventually they will just go away.  So without any further ado..... NBA Titles Celtics - 17 Lakers - 16 Hall of Famers Celtics - 28 Lakers - 18 All Star Selections Celtics - 135 Lakers - 129 Number of Jerseys Retired Celtics - 21 Lakers - 7 Number of players in the Top 50 All Time Greats Celtics - 10 Lakers - 8 (I will give you Kobe and that brings the total to 9) NBA MVP Awards Celtics - 10 Lakers - 8 Most Consecutive Championships won in a row Celtics - 8 Lakers - 3 Head to Head in NBA Finals Celtics lead Lakers 9-3 (Rivarly?  Seems more like domination.) Overall Record Celtics - 3028-2057 - .595 Winning Percentage Lakers - 3084-1981 - .620 Winning Percentage NBA Finals Record Celtics - 17-4 - .809 Winning Percentage Lakers - 16-15 - .516 Winning Percentage Playoff Appearances Celtics - 49 Lakers - 58 Head to Head All Time - Regular Season Celtics lead Lakers 153-121 - .558 Winning Percentage Division Titles Celtics - 20 Lakers - 22 So there you have it people.  There were 13 categories and the Lakers were able to eek out 3 of them.  In theory the fact that we have more championships should be the only thing that matters but I figured I would try to cover as many bases as possible in case some Laker troll tries to argue the facts.  I am sure their best argument will be "How many of those titles did you actually see?"  Which obviously makes sense because you have to witness a title for it to count in the history books right?  Anywho from this point on I will no longer feed the Laker trolls.  The season will be here before you know it and looking forward to a productive off season from DA and company.
    Posted by rampageimt23[/QUOTE]

    You should post the same results after the ABA/NBA merge. The M O D E R N era where the 3pt shot exists/salary cap/a non-white predominant league/playoff where there are are first round,semis,conference finals/Finals etc etc etc. OUCH!

    Boston is not even in the picture as the Lake Show's nearest competitor!
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Qdaddy. Show Qdaddy's posts

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

    Like I said...m'boy LakerNation would spell it out for you.

    And is if on cue...

    (This is like tag-team wrestling...YOU'RE UP LN!!)
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

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

    Celtics dominate lakers

     
  6. 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:
    [QUOTE]Celtics dominate lakers
    Posted by rameakap[/QUOTE]


    Yeah...in the 60's.

    That was about 50 years ago. Like LakerNation has pointed out, "what have you done for me lately?"
     
  7. 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

    Since the merge the title score is:

    Lakers 10

    Bulls 6
    Spurs 4
    Celtics 4

    Sorry but our nearest rival are the Bulls!
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from CelticFanLA. Show CelticFanLA'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:
    [QUOTE]Since the merge the title score is: Lakers 10 Bulls 6 Spurs 4 Celtics 4 Sorry but our nearest rival are the Bulls!
    Posted by Laker-Nation32[/QUOTE]

    You trolls are really pathethic, the amount of time you guys put on here, just clearly shows you have nothing else to do in life. HAHA!!!
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from 21st. Show 21st'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:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject : You trolls are really pathethic, the amount of time you guys put on here, just clearly shows you have nothing else to do in life. HAHA!!!
    Posted by CelticFanLA[/QUOTE]

    What else can Faker trolls do when after Phil Jackson retired and Jimmy Buss took over as the man in charge of the Laker front office, the first move they made was to hire Mike Brown without even consulting Kobe. The Faker trolls can't even talk about the 2011 draft because they don't have a 1st round pick. Faker trolls only have one option, annoy the hell out of the Celtic fans. lol 
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from 21st. Show 21st's posts

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

    Only an idiot would start counting NBA championships after the ABA and NBA merged. It is a historical fact that the Celtics have 17 NBA championships. Only idiotic Faker trolls would say they have 10 titles since the merger. How championships did the Lakers win from 2003-2008? That's right, NONE!

    If you want to count championships count them all!

    And yes, the Lakers are the only NBA team to get swept 3 times in the Finals, 1959, 1983, and 1989. Plus, the Lakers are the only team in NBA history to lose in the Finals in every decade since the 50s. 
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from LALAKERSMAN. Show LALAKERSMAN's posts

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

    Let me join in on the party!!  These fools dont underestand that the Celtics are no longer  in the same level as the Lakers!!!  The NBA is the LAKERS!  The celtics had one good year!! Go back to being mediocre like you have been for the last 20 years!!!  Go root for the Sox! The celtics are your grandmas team!!  The LAkers have been relevant since the NBA started in the 40s,  now, and into the future!!!!
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from LakerFan67. Show LakerFan67's posts

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

    I don't give much credit to titles won in the NBA when the league had only 8 teams and was in its infancy. The fact is, the Lakers have been in more finals than any other NBA franchise. Getting to the finals is an accomplishment in and of itself.

    But putting that aside, the Lakers were the team of the late 40s and 1950s Celtics were the team of the 60s, the 70s was a wash, the Lakers were the team of the 80s, & 2000s. But who cares?

    One of the criticisms posted is the fact that the Lakers don't have a draft pick. But looking at the teams that have won championships in recent years argues that the strategy for winning & getting a title is not through draft but by accumulating talented players that financially strapped franchises can't afford.

    Fot Boston it was Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett, for L.A. it was Pau Gasol, and for Dallas it was a slew of players, including Stevenson, Heywood, & Butler among others.

    At the end of the day, the advantage goes to teams with unlimited resources willing to spend beyond the luxury tax and willing to take on fat contracts for talented players. You people post about "TAINTED CHAMPIONSHIPS" well the most TAINTED FACT IS THAT MOST WINNING TEAMS GAME THE SYSTEM.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ConnectingRod. Show ConnectingRod's posts

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

    Of course the Celtics are on a different level, the Celtics are not QUITTERS LIKE THE LAKERS!
     
  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:
    [QUOTE]Of course the Celtics are on a different level, the Celtics are not QUITTERS LIKE THE LAKERS!
    Posted by ConnectingRod[/QUOTE]

    After Bird you guys quit for 22 years. What do you call that?
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from larry1717. Show larry1717'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:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject : After Bird you guys quit for 22 years. What do you call that?
    Posted by lakersavenger[/QUOTE]

    Go back to the second grade and learn some math.  You can not even count to five you TROLL!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from larry1717. Show larry1717'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:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject : After Bird you guys quit for 22 years. What do you call that?
    Posted by lakersavenger[/QUOTE]

    The next time this worthless TROLL writes anything that is a real fact will be the first time.   LMFAO

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from larry1717. Show larry1717'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:
    [QUOTE]I don't give much credit to titles won in the NBA when the league had only 8 teams and was in its infancy. The fact is, the Lakers have been in more finals than any other NBA franchise. Getting to the finals is an accomplishment in and of itself. But putting that aside, the Lakers were the team of the late 40s and 1950s Celtics were the team of the 60s, the 70s was a wash, the Lakers were the team of the 80s, & 2000s. But who cares? One of the criticisms posted is the fact that the Lakers don't have a draft pick. But looking at the teams that have won championships in recent years argues that the strategy for winning & getting a title is not through draft but by accumulating talented players that financially strapped franchises can't afford. Fot Boston it was Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett, for L.A. it was Pau Gasol, and for Dallas it was a slew of players, including Stevenson, Heywood, & Butler among others. At the end of the day, the advantage goes to teams with unlimited resources willing to spend beyond the luxury tax and willing to take on fat contracts for talented players. You people post about "TAINTED CHAMPIONSHIPS" well the most TAINTED FACT IS THAT MOST WINNING TEAMS GAME THE SYSTEM.
    Posted by LakerFan67[/QUOTE]

    Since you are writing about the Yankees you are on the wrong thread!  Go to baseball.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from ItsNot1966anymor. Show ItsNot1966anymor's posts

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

    Don't sell the Celtics short.  They also "win" a few more categories:

    More losing seasons:

    Celtics 17, Lakers 12

    More seasons failing to win at least 40% of your games:

    Celtics 7, Lakers 3

    Failing to qualify for the playoffs:

    Celtics 16, Lakers 5

    I'm of the opinion  that individual fans can claim a championship as long as they were alive to witness it.  So it's fine for guys like Duke to  claim all 17 championships, and it's understandable why he focuses so much on the past.  But all you Celtics fans 45 and younger have been living in the Lakers era since 1980, and it's sorry that the only arguments you have are based on things you can only read about and never saw.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from SFBostonFan. Show SFBostonFan's posts

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

    Any constructive comments, Lakeravenger, Laker Nation 32, Lakersfan 67, LALAKERsMAN & any other tinsletown troll Sportsteam Lovers ???

    I only copied & pasted the Boston & LA Comments but go in to GOOGLE and put in "Top 10 Cities With the Most Sports Championships" if you'd like see the details of the other cities.
     

    Top 10 Cities With the Most Sports Championships

    These cities have won the most major sports championships
    By Jason Koebler…"US News & World Report"
    Posted: June 6, 2011

    #1 New York, #3 Chicago, #4 Detroit (tie with  LA), # 6 Philly, # 7 Pitts
    #s8 Green Bay & SF/Oakland & # 10 St.Louis


    2. Boston - 33 Championships


    Legendary coach Red Auerbach led the Celtics to nine NBA championships in 13 seasons between 1957 and 1969, making up more than half of the team's 17 titles. Boston's teams haven't been shabby of late, either—after an 86-year drought, the Red Sox were able to shake off the "Curse of the Bambino" in 2004, winning their sixth title. They added another in 2007. The Patriots won three Super Bowls in four years between 2001 and 2005, the Celtics won the NBA finals in 2008, and the Bruins are currently trying to win their sixth Stanley Cup. The Boston Braves also won a World Series in 1914 before moving to Milwaukee, then Atlanta. Wrtten before Bruins' Championship !!!


    4 (tie). Los Angeles- 22 Championships

    With 16 championships, the Lakers are basketball's second-most successful team, after the Boston Celtics. But the franchise won five of those championships while playing in Minneapolis. Los Angeles has had a history of teams moving to and leaving the city—the Dodgers won one of their six championships while playing in Brooklyn, the Raiders, who spent 13 years in the City of Angels between stints in Oakland, won one Super Bowl in L.A., and the then-Los Angeles Rams won an NFL championship in 1951. The L.A. Galaxy have won two MLS titles, and the Anaheim Ducks and LosAngeles Angels of Anaheim have also won a championship each, both in the past 10 years.



    But re: Rampageimt 23 "Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject" was truly statistical proof which has been the better team...AMEN !!!
     
     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from ItsNot1966anymor. Show ItsNot1966anymor's posts

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

    Obviously Kobe was  not happy.  The difference between Kobe and LeBron was that Kobe said he would work himself to exhaustion after losing the Finals in 2008, and LeBron was smiling with witty comebacks against his haters.  But the point is that even in the "down years" the Lakers are nearly always competitive.  Boston hasn't been able to say the same.  I think you Boston fans actually prefer losing in the playoffs before you get to the Finals, to keep your Finals record intact.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from LALAKERSMAN. Show LALAKERSMAN'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:
    [QUOTE]Any constructive comments, Lakeravenger, Laker Nation 32, Lakersfan 67, LALAKERsMAN & any other tinsletown troll Sportsteam Lovers ??? I only copied & pasted the Boston & LA Comments but go in to GOOGLE and put in "Top 10 Cities With the Most Sports Championships" if you'd like see the details of the other cities.   Top 10 Cities With the Most Sports Championships These cities have won the most major sports championships By Jason Koebler…"US News & World Report" Posted: June 6, 2011 #1 New York, #3 Chicago, #4 Detroit (tie with  LA), # 6 Philly, # 7 Pitts #s8 Green Bay & SF/Oakland & # 10 St.Louis 2. Boston - 33 Championships Legendary coach Red Auerbach led the Celtics to nine NBA championships in 13 seasons between 1957 and 1969, making up more than half of the team's 17 titles. Boston's teams haven't been shabby of late, either—after an 86-year drought, the Red Sox were able to shake off the "Curse of the Bambino" in 2004, winning their sixth title. They added another in 2007. The Patriots won three Super Bowls in four years between 2001 and 2005, the Celtics won the NBA finals in 2008, and the Bruins are currently trying to win their sixth Stanley Cup. The Boston Braves also won a World Series in 1914 before moving to Milwaukee, then Atlanta. Wrtten before Bruins' Championship !!! 4 (tie). Los Angeles- 22 Championships With 16 championships, the Lakers are basketball's second-most successful team, after the Boston Celtics. But the franchise won five of those championships while playing in Minneapolis. Los Angeles has had a history of teams moving to and leaving the city—the Dodgers won one of their six championships while playing in Brooklyn, the Raiders, who spent 13 years in the City of Angels between stints in Oakland, won one Super Bowl in L.A., and the then-Los Angeles Rams won an NFL championship in 1951. The L.A. Galaxy have won two MLS titles, and the Anaheim Ducks and LosAngeles Angels of Anaheim have also won a championship each, both in the past 10 years. But re: Rampageimt 23 "Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject" was truly statistical proof which has been the better team...AMEN !!!  
    Posted by mandobello[/QUOTE]


    who cares!! this is a basketball forum!!
     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from LakerFan67. Show LakerFan67's posts

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

    What I should have elaborated on was the fact that NBA owners with unlimited funds have a dramatic, sometimes insurmountable advantage over owners that come from smaller markets who don't have the pockets of a Mark Cuban, for example.

    It was reported this year alone that only 3 NBA franchises were in the black and 2 of them are in L.A. The rest of the teams were running in the red. That's why New Orleans is now owned by the league office and Sacarmento almost moved to Orange County, CA. Without shared revenue the NBA would dramatically shrink.

    As a result of the financial woes of places like Utah, the more financially secure and successful owners can swoop up significant talent from NBA franchises that are trying to quickly unload players with bloated contracts. New York is following the strategies of Dallas, L.A., Miami & Boston.

    It's only the dillusional fan who really believes that their successful team did it based on some fair, equitable, playing field.  

    Don't get me wrong. I enjoy the sport, marvel at the athleticism of the players, & want to witness how & why some teams win or lose, the ability of some players to deal with the stress and the pressure. But I know that without Pau Gasol my Lakers wouldn't have had a chance to win those previous 2 titles. Just like without KG and Ray Allen, Boston would not have won in 2008. That's why I'm respectful of the game, appreciate it when L.A. wins, but never forget about the why!!!!
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from bosportfan. Show bosportfan'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:
    [QUOTE]Let me join in on the party!!  These fools dont underestand that the Celtics are no longer  in the same level as the Lakers!!!  The NBA is the LAKERS!  The celtics had one good year!! Go back to being mediocre like you have been for the last 20 years!!!  Go root for the Sox! The celtics are your grandmas team!!  The LAkers have been relevant since the NBA started in the 40s,  now, and into the future!!!!
    Posted by LALAKERSMAN[/QUOTE]

    You know what i love about these faker idiots? They don't even know their own teams history. In this post the jackazz calls us fools but doesn't even know his so called faker team has not been relevant since the NBA started in the 40s because the reality is they didn't start until 1947 and they were the Minneapolis Lakers that won five titles for the fans of Minneapolis and not LA.
    Pacific Division
    Founded1947 (joined NBA in 1948)
    HistoryMinneapolis Lakers
    1947–1960
    Los Angeles Lakers
    1960–present
    So the reality is the Fakers started in 1960 and have only won 11 titles even though they are stupid enough to want to steal the titles from the people of Minneapolis. Just shows how pathetic they really are. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
     

Share