Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

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

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    Interesting that some idiot Celtic fans care one iota about the history of the Lakers and their coming from Minneapolis. What's even more insulting is the fact these same Laker-haters are criticizing later Laker owners for not getting down on their hands & knees to kiss the legacy left behind in Minnesota.

    Does Boston have statues of Russell, Bird, or Cousy on display in front of your arena?

    Chick Hearn always acknowledged the contributions of the Minneapolis Lakers. There was always respect accorded the players from that period. It's yet another example of attempting to disparage a great franchise, looking for anything that might marginalize this extraordinarily successful team.

    Next these same Boston fans will criticizing the fact that Michael Cooper, Kurt Rambis or even Vlade Divac's numbers have not been retired. Just scratching for anything to tarnish the L.A. Lakers.

    As for Sharman, he came to the Lakers during the ownership of Jack Kent Cooke not Jerry Buss.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUWorthy. Show RUWorthy's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    I for one as a Laker fan believe that Cooper should have his number retired. Like yesterday. Not to mention the Minneapolis guys such as Mikan and Pollard.

    I believe this isn't point scoring from Celtic fans on this site. It's just that some of them have an appreciation for Basketball history. 

    Boston may not have a statue for Cousy or Russell. But at least they have had their numbers retired. 

    And as for the legacy left behind, far be it from me to stand up for the Celtics fans here. But they're talking about how Dr Buss and the Lakers didn't really acknowledge the MN championships. At least Dr Buss didn't in 1993 when he was interviewed on the subject. It's only very recently, well after the horse has bolted from the stable in Vancouver and was spotted in Toronto that they acknowledged our proud MN legacy.  

    And retiring Vlade Divac's number? Man, not even I would want to see that. As for Rambis? Well he did play a role in four of our championships. There could be a case for retiring his number along with Cooper's. 
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from paulliu. Show paulliu's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    In Response to Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics:
    Interesting that some idiot Celtic fans care one iota about the history of the Lakers and their coming from Minneapolis. What's even more insulting is the fact these same Laker-haters are criticizing later Laker owners for not getting down on their hands & knees to kiss the legacy left behind in Minnesota. Does Boston have statues of Russell, Bird, or Cousy on display in front of your arena? Chick Hearn always acknowledged the contributions of the Minneapolis Lakers. There was always respect accorded the players from that period. It's yet another example of attempting to disparage a great franchise, looking for anything that might marginalize this extraordinarily successful team. Next these same Boston fans will criticizing the fact that Michael Cooper, Kurt Rambis or even Vlade Divac's numbers have not been retired. Just scratching for anything to tarnish the L.A. Lakers. As for Sharman, he came to the Lakers during the ownership of Jack Kent Cooke not Jerry Buss.
    Posted by rsalas67m


    Who's criticizing Laker ownership for not "getting down on their hands and knees to kiss the legacy left" by Minny?

    The fact is they have NOT honored the Minny titles they claim as their own in the same way that they have honored the LA titles.  Equal treatment is hardly "getting down on your hands and knees" to kiss Minny legacy, particulary when you claim it as your own.

    If I were a Laker fan I would find this separate and unequal treatment an embarrassment.


    As for Michael Cooper, he was one of my favorite Lakers.  I liked Rambis as well. Thye both would have looked great in Celtic green.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    Worthy continues her excellence......meanwhile I guess I'm the Celtic idiot that other poster mentioned...ok, fine....as far as statues....there is one of Red...I think it's near Faneuil Hall(?)
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    I meant to add.....regarding the strength of conference issue....in the late '50's the best team out West played in St Louis....when the league expanded the Hawks were moved to the East while the West got the expansion Suns.....in the '80's the term "The Big Three" was coined....meaning Boston, Philly, and Milwaukee in the East and Los Angeles out West...3/4 of the leagues top teams fought it out while the Lakers had a much easier time making it out of the West....it's interesting that neither team won a title in the '90's (the only decade in history this has occurred)...my point is that the Lakers have historically had a better chance of coming out of their conference....this takes nothing away from their greatness....but it did help their odds...
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from rsalas67m. Show rsalas67m's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    Where's the Russell statue? Boston fans have always cried about legacy and Bill is front and center of that history. Where is the Russell statue? That's offensive to any b-ball fan.

    Bill even accused the city of being insensitive to African Americans. You want to diminish or condemn the Lakers and its franchise, there's a lot to criticize about the treatment of your own logo. 

    I know, you'll run to the Red Auerbach "color blindness," but we are talking about ownership and recognition. Pick up the mirror. 
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from paulliu. Show paulliu's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    Can you see a difference between the following: 

    The Celtics have no statutes of anyone outside of the TD North Garden.  They had none outside of th eold Boston Garden.  The Statute of Red Auerbach is in Fueneil Hall and was, I believe, put up with city funds.

    Within their arena the Celtics have the retired numbers of players share several banners, regardless of the era in which they played.  The 17 championship teams all have their separate banners.

    In LA, there are separate banners for the 11 titles won in LA as well as the retired numbers of the players who played in LA.   The five Minny titles, however, all share a single banner that also has the numbers of the MN players who are in the Hall of Fame.  Their numbers are not retired.  For instance, #17 worn by Jim Pollard, has been worn by several LA players.

    You can draw what conclusion you want from the two franchise's different treatmentof history.  But one reasonable conclusion is that LA does not regard the Minny titles and the players most responsible for winning them in the same way as it regards the titles won in LA.

    You think that's a fair conclusion?

    Asfar as Bill Russell's attitude toward Boston,  to paraphrase his own words, Russ hated playing in Boston but he loved playing for the Celtics.

    In terms of colorblindness, the Celtics were far ahead of the rest of the NBA and much of American society at large.  In 1950 they draftedChuck Cooper, the first black player drafted by an NBA team.  Red traded an established white player who is now in the HOF (Ed McCauley)  and one who would become an all-star (Cliff Hagan) to get the chance to draft Russell; the team was the first to start five black players (1964 Willie Naulls, Tom Sanders, Russell, Sam and KC Jones) and the first team in any American professional league to have a black coach (Russ).

    Yes, Russell thought that Boston was racist. He made no secret of that.  But he loved playing for the Celtics.  He has never made that a secret.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from EliasB. Show EliasB's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    Duke, you say that your issue is with "the emphasis placed on those Minny titles by LA ownership and fans over the last decade or so of the rivalry..."

    I think what you're trying to imply is that the Lakers did not appreciate the 5 titles won in Minnesota until it became apparent that our team was closing in on your teams record.

    Duke, I hate to put it this simply for you but, it is what it is!

    Our franchise has won 16 championships. When the day comes and our team wins championship #24 and yours is stuck on 17, future Lakers fans aren't suddenly going to say, "okay now it's official, we have more championships than the Celtics because we now have won more in L.A." 

    That's ridiculous. It just is what it is.

    For you to imply that Lakers fans did not count the Minneapolis championships until 2002 is so overly presumptuous it makes you appear (pardon the expression) stupid. To say that the reason why Lakers fans weren't comparing titles with Boston 25 years ago was because we refused to count the championships won in Minnesota is beyond words.

    You said that "...the only point that was being discussed by fans of both teams at the time" when the Lakers finally beat the Celtics in 1985 "was the fact that the Lakers finally broke through and beat Boston...but there was no comparing the number of titles each franchise had at the time..."

    (It's intellectual suicide for anyone to agree with this)

    At that time the Lakers had won their 9th NBA title. Why would the Lakers or their fans compare that to the 15 the Celtics had? Of course there was no comparing the numbers since there was still a big discrepency. 

    "...in 2002 the Lakers suddenly recognized the Minny titles and hoisted a banner...now the undying chant of Laker fans is.....'we are about to catch and pass you'..."

    First of all, how do you know it was only in 2002 that the Lakers "suddenly" recognized the titles won in Minnesota? You don't know that. You say things that are just plain and simply your assumption. 

    Like I said before, I became a Lakers fan back in 1990. I used to count all of the Lakers championships back before 2000! I remember winning arguments with my neighbor who was a die hard Bulls fan when I would remind him of how many championships the Lakers had which at the time was 11. I used to point that out to him constantly. Counting the titles won in Minnesota was never an issue.

    Of course the talk among Lakers fans today is about when our team moves past yours for the most championships. Why wouldn't it be? After all we are just 2 away! We are one (ONE!) championship away from being tied with the most championships in NBA history. We have 16, you have 17. No one ever thought that would happen this soon, but here we are!

    So to say, "well, why didn't you guys talk about surpassing us back when you had 9 championships" is, well, kind of stupid if you ask me.




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

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    How do we know it was 2002?

    Well, RUWorthy posted a reference to Buss's book in which he said that he never considered MN as part of the LA history and the single banner honoring MN's five was put up only in 2002.

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

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    I just told you as a Lakers fan, counting the Minnesota titles was never an issue before 2002. It just wasn't. Just because Jerry Buss didn't count the Minnesota title until his alleged statement doesn't mean a thing. He has owned the Lakers for 31 years. The Lakers franchise has been around for 61 years. When Jerry is gone, it will be owned by someone else. Another words, Jerry Buss is not the franchise, he's just the owner. If he chose not to acknowledge the 5 titles won in Minnesota, so be it.

    EVEN TODAY if he chose not to acknowledge the 5 titles won in Minnesota would it change the fact that our Lakers franchise has 16 championships? No, absolutely not. That is why everyone, EVERYONE! Not just the Lakers acknowledge that we are 1 away from having the most.


    Cool
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from paulliu. Show paulliu's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    Counting the MN titles wasn't an issue before 2002 because most people simply didn't count them.

    If you did, good for you.  Buss certainly did not and there was certainly no public acknowledgment of the titles until 2002 under either Buss or Jack Kent Cook or even Bob Short, the first owner after the move from MN.

    Lack of acknowlegment or the second class treatment given the MN titles does not change the fact that MN won them.  But it sure speaks volumes about how the LA franchise regards them.

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

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    Duke you said you "find it interesting that Laker fans are absolutely giddy at the thought of actually catching the Celtics in overall titles despite 10 more finals appearances....they even use the number of finals appearances as evidence of their superiority..." Duke, I hate to keep using the "s" word to describe what you write but come on, your not making it easy for me.

    Next year when we win the title (for the sake of argument Cool) and our two franchises have 17 championships a piece, are you seriously suggesting that your team will still be considered the better franchise since it has had less finals appearances than the Lakers? Are you serious?

    You went on to say "(while not taking into account the relative strength of conference that historically favors the East)....yet when we bring up our superiority head to head....the response is.... 'yeah, well that was a long time ago'.....or, no response at all....."

    Okay Duke, I don't want to say it but I'm going to have to: Ummm, that is a flat out lie Cry You know very well that I and others have talked to you at length about this. You then went on to elaborate about the "strength" of the East on a later post saying "in the '80's the term 'The Big Three' was coined....meaning Boston, Philly, and Milwaukee in the East and Los Angeles out West...3/4 of the leagues top teams fought it out while the Lakers had a much easier time making it out of the West..."

    What I take issue with is when you say "the Lakers had a much easier time making it out of the West..."

    You forget to include the fact that the Lakers would play and BEAT the much "tougher" opponent that came out of the East. You purposely leave out the fact that the "easy time out of the West" Lakers would not just make it to the finals but would beat the "toughest" team of the East. When the Celtics failed to reach the finals because of the "toughness" of the East, that "tough" team that beat the Celtics (i.e. the '88 Detroit Pistons) would then get beat by non other then the "easy time out of the West" Lakers. 

    Duke, you fail to understand that your argument holds water only if the Lakers lost most of their 8 finals appearances against their "tougher" Eastern opponents. As it is, the Lakers won 5 times out of 8. Pretty impressive considering they played against "the toughest" teams the East had to offer. would you say?



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

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    Actually for most of the 80's the East was the stronger conference.  Boston, Philly and Milwaukee all had mutiple 60 plus win seasons and the playoff battles between them left blood on the floor.

    Of these three teams, the least well remembered is Milwaukee.  But they fielded some great teams that would contend today.  Marquas Johnson, Mickey Johnson, Bob Lanier, Quinn Buckner, Brian Winters, Sideny Moncrief and Junior Bridgman ain't too shabby.  And when that group got long in the tooth, they retooled with Terry Cummings, Paul Pressey, Jack Sikma, John Lucas, Ricky Pierce and Moncrief was still around.

    These teams were often 1a, 1b and 1c if you wanted to rank them.  The Lakers of the 80's were generally head and shoulders above the other teams in their conference.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bobbarcker. Show Bobbarcker's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    In Response to Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics:
    In Response to Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics : Who's criticizing Laker ownership for not "getting down on their hands and knees to kiss the legacy left" by Minny? The fact is they have NOT honored the Minny titles they claim as their own in the same way that they have honored the LA titles.  Equal treatment is hardly "getting down on your hands and knees" to kiss Minny legacy, particulary when you claim it as your own. If I were a Laker fan I would find this separate and unequal treatment an embarrassment. As for Michael Cooper, he was one of my favorite Lakers.  I liked Rambis as well. Thye both would have looked great in Celtic green.
    Posted by paulliu

    Anyone feeling embarrassed about petty tripe like this nonsense, is in serious need of getting a life. 

    Nobody needs to claim anything as their own. The Laker franchise moved from Minneapolis to Los Angeles. It is the same franchise, and all the history that goes with it follows the franchise, good or bad. No special efforts need to be made to change something that is already a simple fact. All this desperate homersim to rewrite history to the contrary makes you look silly, and for that you should be embarrassed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from paulliu. Show paulliu's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    Well...I guess it all depends on how you regard history.  Yes, MN won five titles.  Yes, the LA franchise ignored this until 2002.  Yes, when the franchise finally did acknowedge MN's five titles they deemed it unworthy of the treatment they gave to the titles won in LA.

    You might not find this embarrassing, but, hey, that's your trip.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from paulliu. Show paulliu's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    Well, considering that all five MN titles are on one banner, I guess it can come down faster than old Soviet censors cropped photos to erase the images of the politically disfavored.

    Disposable history.



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

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    "These teams were often 1a, 1b and 1c if you wanted to rank them.  The Lakers of the 80's were generally head and shoulders above the other teams in their conference."

    When it comes to the league in general, I would rank these teams 1a, 1b, 1c and 1d. 1a going to the Los Angeles Lakers.


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

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    "You might not find this embarrassing, but, hey, that's your trip."

    It aint no thang to Laker nation. It is to Duke and his young confused upstart, but to everyone else, it's just not that big of a deal.


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

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    "RUWorthy is also correct when she says that IF the day ever arises when the LA lakers catch the Celtics on their own, those 5 MN banners will come down so fast it will make your head spin."

    Even if the little Minnesota banner came down tomorrow, the Lakers franchise would still have 16 NBA championships.

    Again, it just is what it is.


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

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    too much trash talk on buss...who cares i'm a celtics fan..same old story about their old players...fakersssssssss....celtics is still the team to beat....
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    In Response to Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics:
    Duke, you say that your issue is with "the emphasis placed on those Minny titles by LA ownership and fans over the last decade or so of the rivalry..." I think what you're trying to imply is that the Lakers did not appreciate the 5 titles won in Minnesota until it became apparent that our team was closing in on your teams record. Duke, I hate to put it this simply for you but, it is what it is! Our franchise has won 16 championships. When the day comes and our team wins championship #24 and yours is stuck on 17, future Lakers fans aren't suddenly going to say, "okay now it's official, we have more championships than the Celtics because we now have won more in L.A."  That's ridiculous. It just is what it is. For you to imply that Lakers fans did not count the Minneapolis championships until 2002 is so overly presumptuous it makes you appear (pardon the expression) stupid. To say that the reason why Lakers fans weren't comparing titles with Boston 25 years ago was because we refused to count the championships won in Minnesota is beyond words. You said that "...the only point that was being discussed by fans of both teams at the time" when the Lakers finally beat the Celtics in 1985 "was the fact that the Lakers finally broke through and beat Boston...but there was no comparing the number of titles each franchise had at the time..." (It's intellectual suicide for anyone to agree with this) At that time the Lakers had won their 9th NBA title. Why would the Lakers or their fans compare that to the 15 the Celtics had? Of course there was no comparing the numbers since there was still a big discrepency.  "...in 2002 the Lakers suddenly recognized the Minny titles and hoisted a banner...now the undying chant of Laker fans is.....'we are about to catch and pass you'..." First of all, how do you know it was only in 2002 that the Lakers "suddenly" recognized the titles won in Minnesota? You don't know that. You say things that are just plain and simply your assumption.  Like I said before, I became a Lakers fan back in 1990. I used to count all of the Lakers championships back before 2000! I remember winning arguments with my neighbor who was a die hard Bulls fan when I would remind him of how many championships the Lakers had which at the time was 11. I used to point that out to him constantly. Counting the titles won in Minnesota was never an issue. Of course the talk among Lakers fans today is about when our team moves past yours for the most championships. Why wouldn't it be? After all we are just 2 away! We are one (ONE!) championship away from being tied with the most championships in NBA history. We have 16, you have 17. No one ever thought that would happen this soon, but here we are! So to say, "well, why didn't you guys talk about surpassing us back when you had 9 championships" is, well, kind of stupid if you ask me.
    Posted by EliasB

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

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    In Response to Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics:
    In Response to Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics : Don't pay any attention to Elias.  He wrote yesterday that Jerry West actually PLAYED for the Minneapolis Lakers.......and as for the Price is Right guy, well,  if you correct him or take him on in any way, he will insult you, tell you how much money he's made in the currencies market, call you a "rat" when you turn him in for offensive langauge, then disappear for about a week like the coward he is. The los angeles lakers have 11 NBA titles.  When we were growing up, no one counted the ones from MN - they TOOK them and took credit for them in the late 90;s, and early this century.  Until they have separate banners hanging for each one, like they do the LA ones, and until they retire their numbers, eveyone knows they just took them. RUWorthy is also correct when she says that IF the day ever arises when the LA lakers catch the Celtics on their own, those 5 MN banners will come down so fast it will make your head spin.
    Posted by hedleylamarr

    This whole conversation is nothing but a bunch of gripping Celtics fans bitterly clinging to the last vestige of superiority they hold in regard to the Lakers. The insinuation that the Minneapolis banner will come down is baseless speculation derived from nothing but childish homer ism. You fools are scared to death your Celtics about to be overtaken, and you are scurrying around looking for an excuse. First its the whiny tainted championship crybabies, and now this. Pathetic, every last one of you is shameless and pathetic!

    This notion that the Lakers can catch the Celtics on their own is such whiny BS. The team was founded in 1946 in Detroit, moved to Minneapolis in 1947, and changed the name to the Lakers because of Minnesota's nickname, "The Land of 10,000 Lakes." The very fact that the Lakers are still called the Lakers pays homage to their roots in Minneapolis. The team did not fold up, and then an expansion team called the Lakers opened up for business in Los Angeles. The Minneapolis Lakers relocated to Los Angeles. When they relocated, they didn't leave their history behind with them. That isn't how it works, and everyone of you weak sobs knows this very well. 

    You say growing up nobody counted those titles, and there you go again, talking out of your narrow little behind. The record books were not rewritten, and the history has never changed. The only difference between then and now, is that you feeble minded Celtics fans see your status about to change. The history of the Lakers franchise is what it is, and no matter how hard you nitwits try to revise history with childish footnotes, and outright lies, there it still sits, slapping you upside that hollow dome. You can try to cut 13 years of Lakers history off all you want to prop up a fantasy, but every record book out their is going to leap up and bite you with reality for your trouble. You people are an embarrassment to the Celtics organization. 

    And Hedley, you can take your coward comment and shove it. I can whip your sorry butt up and down this board at will, because you are a moron. Coward would imply fear, and buddy, nobody here scares me in any way. Now go snitch, you sniveling little rat..

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

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    Elias, I hear you man....this is not at all about titles in reality.....this is about those fans who storm this board and talk trash about our titles of "yesteryear" and how our history is irrelevant compared to the Lakers of the last 30 years...I have respect for your posts and I do not include you in the list of trolls that invade this board....what it all comes down to is this is the greatest rivalry in sports...I believe that, since we have more titles (only one more) and a better head to head record in the finals, the Celtics are still the #1 franchise....with the Lakers being a close 2nd...and the Lakers very well may pass us in titles down the road...I will still point to the 9-3 record and also the fact that the Celtics have historically had a more difficult time getting to the finals....hence the '80's term "the Big Four".....give us 10 more appearances and, our .800 percentage notwithstanding... with  half that winning percentage we would still have another 4 titles....I guess bottom line....the number of finals appearances does not make the difference......the number of titles, the winning percentage, and the head to head are what determines supremacy
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    In Response to Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics:
    Duke you said you "find it interesting that Laker fans are absolutely giddy at the thought of actually catching the Celtics in overall titles despite 10 more finals appearances....they even use the number of finals appearances as evidence of their superiority..." Duke, I hate to keep using the "s" word to describe what you write but come on, your not making it easy for me. Next year when we win the title (for the sake of argument ) and our two franchises have 17 championships a piece, are you seriously suggesting that your team will still be considered the better franchise since it has had less finals appearances than the Lakers? Are you serious? You went on to say "(while not taking into account the relative strength of conference that historically favors the East)....yet when we bring up our superiority head to head....the response is.... 'yeah, well that was a long time ago'.....or, no response at all....." Okay Duke, I don't want to say it but I'm going to have to: Ummm, that is a flat out lie  You know very well that I and others have talked to you at length about this. You then went on to elaborate about the "strength" of the East on a later post saying "in the '80's the term 'The Big Three' was coined....meaning Boston, Philly, and Milwaukee in the East and Los Angeles out West...3/4 of the leagues top teams fought it out while the Lakers had a much easier time making it out of the West..." What I take issue with is when you say "the Lakers had a much easier time making it out of the West..." You forget to include the fact that the Lakers would play and BEAT the much "tougher" opponent that came out of the East. You purposely leave out the fact that the "easy time out of the West" Lakers would not just make it to the finals but would beat the "toughest" team of the East. When the Celtics failed to reach the finals because of the "toughness" of the East, that "tough" team that beat the Celtics (i.e. the '88 Detroit Pistons) would then get beat by non other then the "easy time out of the West" Lakers.  Duke, you fail to understand that your argument holds water only if the Lakers lost most of their 8 finals appearances against their "tougher" Eastern opponents. As it is, the Lakers won 5 times out of 8. Pretty impressive considering they played against "the toughest" teams the East had to offer. would you say?
    Posted by EliasB

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

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    Elias.....my points are as follows:

    The Lakers played in the West.....they historically had better odds of getting to the Finals

    Once the Lakers got there, they were a .500 team.....they just got to .516

    When they played the Celtics they went 3-9 (.250)

    The Celtics played in a tougher conference...I am talking historically not just the last 20 years....remember the best team in the West early on was the Hawks....guess what? ...the league expanded and the Hawks went East while the West got an expansion team

    Unlike the Lakers .516 percentage, when the Celtics made it to the Finals they went .809.....and 9-3 vs the Lakers

    you can't take away their record vs. the Celts and adjust it to the record against the rest of the East (as you just pointed out with the Pistons)......I mean, take out the loss to St Louis when Russell was injured during the Finals and then make the Laker adjustment as you just did with the Celtics.....and, what do you know? ....the Celtics are unbeaton.....

    Look at it this way.....two legendary prize-fighters are compared.....one fighter had more heavyweight titles appearances.....the other fighter had far fewer....except that particular fighter also won more titles.....and when the two fighters met in the ring.....one guy dominated the other.....and you believe the guy with more appearances was the better fighter?  ....think about it...
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share