Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Laker-Nation32. Show Laker-Nation32's posts

    Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise

    In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise:
    [QUOTE]lakernation32, .
    Posted by DoctorCO[/QUOTE]

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2010/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=FranchiseRankings2010-Lakers

    Thanks for playing!
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise

    In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise : Do NBL championships count as NBA championships?  If you say NBL championships are counted as NBA championships then you're a bigger moron than I expected. Again, nice try. Thanks for playing.
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    You still dodge the question then. Why did you type

    Season 1947-48: Minneapolis Lakers (NBL)

    in the first place? Did you think NBL count as NBA?


     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from kycleptic. Show kycleptic's posts

    Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise

    In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise : You still dodge the question then. Why did you type Season 1947-48: Minneapolis Lakers (NBL ) in the first place? Did you think NBL count as NBA?
    Posted by MajicMVP[/QUOTE]

    How about you set the record straight and tell us how many championships the Lakers have. 
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise

    In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise:
    [QUOTE]majjic mvp, all your doing is posting past titles...while the NFL SAID 1. the past titles pre merger are defunked!!!! 2. That the sb matters and the past dont... 3. All the 1920 titles dont matter when there not sb... 4. no other league has had a merger where the title has changed...For example check the washington bball team how many rings...they have 1 from the 70's..Not from the nbd what ever league.... 5. ONLY NBA TITLES COUNT.. 6.. ONLY SB TITLES count.. 7. other titles listed but dont count.. 8. READ IT AND WEEP..[/QUOTE]
    1) No chance. Cite where in the NFL site that the NFL said that. You think you can make things up and get away with it?
    2) Yep, you said it. NFL didin't.
    3) Says who?
    4) Title changes doesn't matter. The NFL counts the SB as NFL championship. That's why they count 13 for the Packers
    5) That's not your logic - only count the ones that matter.
    6) Not according to the NFL, since they count 13 for the Packers.
    7) Lie.
    8) Yep, read it and weep. The NFL from 1920-1965 falls under the "Current NFL Championship system". You aren't color-blinded, are you? See, on Wiki, you lose. On NFL, you lose.

    Current NFL Championship system Intra-league/World Championship system Defunct league championship system
    League Official Name Common Name First year Last year Trophy name
    NFL NFL Champion
    (No championship game played)
    NFL Champion 1920 1932 Brunswick-Balke Collender Cup, 1922
    None, 1923–32
    NFL Championship Game NFL Championship 1933 1965 Ed Thorp Memorial Trophy
    AAFC AAFC Championship Game AAFC Championship 1946 1949 AAFC Trophy
    AFL AFL Championship Game AFL Championship 1960 1969 AFL Trophy
    AFL
    NFL
    AFL-NFL World Championship Game World Championship of Pro Football
    AFL-NFL World Championship Game
    Super Bowl
    1966 1969 World Championship Game Trophy/
    Vince Lombardi Trophy
    NFL Super Bowl
    "(Modern) NFL Championship"
    Super Bowl
    World Championship
    (Modern) NFL Championship
    1970  
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Tachometrix. Show Tachometrix's posts

    Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise

    In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise : How about you set the record straight and tell us how many championships the Lakers have. 
    Posted by kycleptic[/QUOTE]

    Why bother asking someone like ChickenMVP.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise

    In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise : How about you set the record straight and tell us how many championships the Lakers have. 
    Posted by kycleptic[/QUOTE]

    How about asking Fierce why he counted the NBL season in 1947-48?
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from kycleptic. Show kycleptic's posts

    Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise

    In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise : How about asking Fierce why he counted the NBL season in 1947-48?
    Posted by MajicMVP[/QUOTE]

    From previous posts on this thread, Fierce already told you NBL championships don't count as NBA championships.

    Why are you avoiding the subject? It's a simple request, all I'm asking is you set the record straight, once and for all, and tell us how many championships the Lakers have.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Tachometrix. Show Tachometrix's posts

    Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise

    ChickenMVP talking about the NFL? How many NFL teams does Los Angeles have again?
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Tachometrix. Show Tachometrix's posts

    Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise

    Shucks, ChickenMVP chickened out again. lol
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise

    In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise:
    [QUOTE] my point has been that a great number of these players would be Hall of Fame players today.....please don't tell me that players like Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, Wilt Chamberlain,Jon Havlicek, and many others couldn't be superstars today... the league is filled with better athletes today, I have never said anything different......being a great athlete does not equate to being a great basketball player....just ask guys like Gerald Green and Kedrick Brown... the same goes for MLB...........Sandy Koufax, Bob Gibson.....Willie, Micky and the Duke....all would be Hall of Famers if they played today.....Kou would be the same size today....and he would still throw in the mid to upper 90's.....without today's training and supplements....since he has already done it before.....no speculation....
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]

    So your argument is based on the assumption that at any era, only 100 people can play the game. This blatant disregard of the growth of the game is illogical. If the current league contracts and only 8 teams left, then sure, some otherwise starters of the league will become 12th players and eventually fade away after 1-2 season of 3.5 minutes/game.

    But that's not the case, you are talking about an unpopular game and a financially non-rewarding profession in the 60s vs a multi-million $$$ venture nowadays. The game can support 30 teams. As such, the 180th best player today would be better than the 90th player in 1961.

    Why? because the 180th best player today would be a 6th man playing 20-30 mpg of NBA-caliber basketball, while the 90th best player in 1961 played 3.5 mpg and faded away fast. Actually, the 250th best player today would be better than the 100th best player in 1961. How? the 100th best player in 1961 was not getting an NBA paycheck (assuming a roster of 12 for 8 teams). Might be selling insurance or real estate, he didn't get NBA-caliber training and NBA-caliber playing time day in day out, while the 250th best player today does.

    So you name Sasha, a starter on a struggling team in 2011. Sasha would be comparable to the 30th - 50th best player in 1961. While you have about 20 such players of that caliber in that era, you are getting 60-70 such players these days.
    Sasha is probably the 150th - 200th best player in the league nowadays. How is he compared to the 90th-96th best player in 1961?

    - Ron Johnson (43 total minutes for the season, 1-year career)
    - Pickles Kennedy (52 total minutes, 1-year career)
    - Cal Ramsey (27 total minutes, end of a 3-year career)

    Much better. Even rarely used, Sasha totalled more than that in the playoffs alone for the 2010 champions, and averaged over 25 minutes in 2010-11. You have no way to tell me that a player playing 27 - 52 total minutes for the season (Johnson, Kennedy, Ramsey) is a better player than Sasha. Even if you can, you can't prove it.

    "But you are comparing Sasha to the last player on the bench?" you say?

    Heck yes, because if you are bragging about the quality of the league in the 1960s, then how good is it if the 90th best player in the league is much worse than the 180th best player of today? So  it's not like the 1960s NBA was filled with Wilts, Oscars, Pettits, Russells, Baylors, etc.

    Same principle can be trickled up to the other bench warmers, other reserves, the rotations, and eventually to the starters. In other words, your citings of the HOFers are meaningless. There are HOFers in any era. What about the rest of the rosters?

    Very simple, even the 200th-250th best players nowadays can play the game while the 90th in 1961 couldn't.







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

    Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise

    In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise : From previous posts on this thread, Fierce already told you NBL championships don't count as NBA championships. Why are you avoiding the subject? It's a simple request, all I'm asking is you set the record straight, once and for all, and tell us how many championships the Lakers have.
    Posted by kycleptic[/QUOTE]

    Fierce already told me NBL championship don't count? Impossible, since he counted the 1947-48 NBL season for the Lakers.  I mean, his confession has already incriminated himself, any subsequent denials are just that, denials.

    So why are you avoiding the subject? Why don't you deal with Fierce's self-incrimiating evidence first?
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from kycleptic. Show kycleptic's posts

    Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise

    In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise : Fierce already told me NBL championship don't count? Impossible, since he counted the 1947-48 NBL season for the Lakers.  I mean, his confession has already incriminated himself, any subsequent denials are just that, denials. So why are you avoiding the subject? Why don't you deal with Fierce's self-incrimiating evidence first?
    Posted by MajicMVP[/QUOTE]

    Do NBL championships count as NBA championships? 

    If you say NBL championships are counted as NBA championships then you're a bigger moron than I expected.

    Again, nice try. Thanks for playing.

    Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise

    posted at 8/26/2011 1:12 PM EDT
    www.boston.com/community/persona.html?UID=7f55753848dead56fcea3701229e681a&plckUserId=7f55753848dead56fcea3701229e681a">
    Posts: 2774
    First: 3/24/2011
    Last: 8/26/2011
    In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise:
    In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise : That you have to ask yourself. When you posted Season 1947-48: Minneapolis Lakers (NBL ) What did you think? was it a fact or fiction?
    Posted by MajicMVP


    Do NBL championships count as NBA championships? 

    If you say NBL championships are counted as NBA championships then you're a bigger moron than I expected.

    Again, nice try. Thanks for playing.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from kycleptic. Show kycleptic's posts

    Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise

    In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise : Fierce already told me NBL championship don't count? Impossible, since he counted the 1947-48 NBL season for the Lakers.  I mean, his confession has already incriminated himself, any subsequent denials are just that, denials. So why are you avoiding the subject? Why don't you deal with Fierce's self-incrimiating evidence first?
    Posted by MajicMVP[/QUOTE]

    When I get a chance I will also ask Fierce about how many championships the Lakers have. But right now I'm asking you to tell us, to set the record straight, how many championships do the Lakers really have?

    Unlike the Celtics, who have 17 banners hanging on the rafters of the Garden, the Lakers only have 12 banners hanging on the rafters of Staples. Does that mean the Lakers only have 12 championships?
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from kycleptic. Show kycleptic's posts

    Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise

    Majic

    Just in case Fierce will say the Lakers have 17 championships will you believe him?

    I'm asking because after some research this is what I found.


    The Boston Celtics Won The Most NBA Titles With 17 Championships Won But The Lakers Have The Second Most With 16 Championships Won When Defeating The Boston Celtics On June 17th 2010.


    That's why you should set the record straight, Majic.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise

    hold on pal....Sasha would rank as high as the 30th best player during the '60's....?
    Really....?   ....he isn't even as good as Dave Gambee....trust me....I've seen both of them play...

    of course I'm not saying that there were only 100 guys good enough to play back in the day....I agree with you when it comes to growth and expansion...the Euro factor....the only thing I am debating is your opinion that the NBA was a bush league prior to Bird/Magic.....some of the greatest players in history were in the league years before them....and many of them were better than today's players when it comes to playing basketball....they may not be the prolific athletes and dunkers of today...but remember....the dunk became part of the game when players like Russell, Chamberlain, and Baylor brought it into vogue...

    I will even take your '68/'69 starting five and say that they would compete for a title in today's NBA..!!

    C-Wilt Chamberlain....there isn't a center that could shut him down...DH..? ...nope!
    F-Elgin Baylor.....he would be a scoring machine today
    F-Tom Hawkins/Mel Counts....split time.....the Hawk was a very good player
    G-Johnny Eagan/Keith Erickson....split time....a vet and a youngster...
    G-Jerry West.....superstar

    Chamberlain, Baylor, and West would be all stars today....the supporting case is as good as D Fisher and Ron Ron in my opinion....you may not agree....but the point is that there were many strong teams.....

    staying in the '60's and not even going to Boston....how about this team from Philly in '66/'67....?

    C-Wilt Chamberlain
    F-LukeJackson-6-9 240lb banger
    F-Chet Walker...excellent player
    G-Hal Greer...excellent player
    G-Wali Jones..reminds me of "Downtown Freddie Brown"..

    6th man......Billy Cunningham....the" Kangaroo Kid".....every one of these Philly players were better than Sasha in my opinion

    ....anyway....I believe that many today's players are great and would be great back in the day....that has never been my argument....I just feel that many of those players from the '60's would be just as good today....because there are also a lot of players who come through this league because of the number of roster spots....citing Boston I give you Gerald Green and Kedrick Brown....
     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Laker-Nation32. Show Laker-Nation32's posts

    Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise

    Does boston have any back to backs this side of color television??
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise

    In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise : The Lakers have 17 championships. The problem is, only Majic is the only Laker fan that believes it. So gullible. Ha Ha 
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]


    All intelligent people on here know you said it (wrote it) tongue-in-cheek....
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Laker-Nation32. Show Laker-Nation32's posts

    Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise

    Does boston have any back to back runs this side of Nixon?

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

    Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise

    lakernation,

    ITS THE NBA!!!!

    nOT HOLLINGERS LEAGUE....
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from 21st. Show 21st's posts

    Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise

    Just like Nixon, Kobe fell face first on the ground.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise

    In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise:
    [QUOTE]hold on pal....Sasha would rank as high as the 30th best player during the '60's....? Really....?   ....he isn't even as good as Dave Gambee....trust me....I've seen both of them play... of course I'm not saying that there were only 100 guys good enough to play back in the day....I agree with you when it comes to growth and expansion...the Euro factor....the only thing I am debating is your opinion that the NBA was a bush league prior to Bird/Magic.....[/QUOTE]

    If it was a predominantly white league back then (with only 20% African American players), no international talent (because the game was not globally popular), thus ignoring a big talent pool as of now, then how wasn't it a bush league as compared to today?

    Yes, I say Sasha would be ranked as the 30th - 50th player. Let's look at the league roster in 1961 (the last season with 8 teams, 5th season into a Celtic dynasty that started in 1956-57).  These are the players that I say would be better than Sasha:

    Celtics: Heinsohn, Cousy, Russell, Ramsey, Sam Jones, Sharman, Sanders
    Warriors: Wilt, Arizin, Gola, Rodgers
    Nationals: Schayes, Greer, Barnett, Costello, Gambee, Kerr
    Knicks: Naulls, Guerin, Garmaker, Sears
    Hawks: Pettit, Hagan, Lovellette, Wilkens
    Lakers: Baylor, West, LaRusso, Selvy
    Pistons: Howell, Shue, Ohl, Ferry,
    Royals: Oscar, Twyman, Embry

    This list has fewer than 40 players, including the HOFers, all-stars, etc. It's not like all 100 players in the league were all-stars. And that's right. Sasha should be a reserve in general and possibly a part-time starter on a non-contender, comparable to the Phil Jordons, Bob Boozers, Johnny Greens, George Lees, etc.

    [QUOTE]
    some of the greatest players in history were in the league years before them....
    [/QUOTE]
    And you should understand that Sasha being able to play in 1961 has no contradiction to this claim, unless you want to say ALL of the greatest players in history in the league years before them...

    [QUOTE]and many of them were better than today's players when it comes to playing basketball....[/QUOTE]
    And how do you know about that? In all sports that can be measured objectively (i.e. by time and distance) and subjectively (by degree of difficulty), the athletes have become better (track & field, swimming, weighlighting, skiing, skating, (gymnastics, figure-skating, diving, etc)

    In team sports, the tactics, skill-level, athleticism, etc. had improved tremendously over the game of 50 years ago. Then all in a sudden, you are telling me that basketball is the lone exception, that many of the players back then were better than today's player. I have absolutely no reason to buy your blind belief.

    [QUOTE]
    how about this team from Philly in '66/'67....? C-Wilt Chamberlain F-LukeJackson-6-9 240lb banger F-Chet Walker...excellent player G-Hal Greer...excellent player G-Wali Jones..reminds me of "Downtown Freddie Brown".. 6th man......Billy Cunningham....the" Kangaroo Kid".....every one of these Philly players were better than Sasha in my opinion[/QUOTE]
    Yes, congratulations. You cite one of the best single-season team of all-time (68-13) and tell us that 6 of their players are better than Sasha. I can spare you that. I have already cited the 1961 Celtics with 7 HOFers better than Sasha. I wonder why you didn't tell us about 1967's lower-rung teams, how their fringe starters compared to Sasha:

    John Barnhill, Joe Strawder, John Tresvant, Don Kojis, Jim Washington, etc.

    Was it because they are no better than Sasha?




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

    Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise

    In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise : Do NBL championships count as NBA championships?  If you say NBL championships are counted as NBA championships then you're a bigger moron than I expected. Again, nice try. Thanks for playing. [/QUOTE]

    I see that you don't have the nerve to challenge Fierce for including the Lakers' 1947-48 NBL season. I wonder why.

    C'mon, be a man and bash him for being a "bigger moron than you expect". He was the one that included the Lakers' NBL season. Why not?


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

    Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise

    In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise : When I get a chance I will also ask Fierce about how many championships the Lakers have. But right now I'm asking you to tell us, to set the record straight, how many championships do the Lakers really have?
    Posted by kycleptic[/QUOTE]

    Not until you set the record straight with Fierce, I have no obligation to deal with your smoke and ashes. First tell me how you spank him big-time for including the Lakers' 1947-48 NBL sseason, and we'll talk...


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

    Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise

    In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise : The Lakers have 17 championships. The problem is, only Majic is the only Laker fan that believes it. So gullible. Ha Ha 
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    Not so, you are the one that counted the Lakers' 1947-48 NBL season.

    http://www.boston.com/community/forums.html?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3aSportsForum%3a734e2bc9-e1bc-49d6-8355-64f9a8500246Discussion%3a629a8a2b-85aa-48d5-92e7-2b7b97f9afef&plckCurrentPage=2

    Franchise History:

    Season 1947-48: Minneapolis Lakers (NBL)


    Why?
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share