Some historical perspective

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

    Some historical perspective

    After the Celtics lost to the Lakers in the Finals for the 3rd time in the last 4 meetings, and having only 1 championship since 1986, I’ve seen many discussions on this site about Celtics fans claiming the Cs are still the best due to all their historical achievements.  And certainly Gerald, Raymond, Walter, and all their friends born in 1950 or earlier have witnessed much to be proud of, but I offer some additional historical perspective. 9 of Boston’s 17 championships (including 8 straight) came by 1966, when the NBA had 8 or 9 teams.  Then 3 more from 1966- 1974 as the league expanded to 18 teams.  Then 4 from 1974 - 1986, and 1 since that time.  Basically, as the League grew and became more accessible to minorities, and later players from overseas, the Celtics early “dominance” dwindled.  Some might say that the current NBA is a little watered down with 30 teams, but many NBA fans see the 1980s as the most competitive and popular era of the League, and it had 22 teams for much of that period.  To the extent the current NBA might be watered down, the NBA’s early era was equally void of competition.  Playing the same teams over and over required less creativity and adjustments, and fewer games in the playoffs made it easier for the better teams to advance to the Finals. 10 of the Lakers 16 championships have come in the era of the expanded NBA and the 3 point shot.  Many Cs fans are quick to observe the Celtics finals record of 17-4, versus the Lakers finals record of 16-15.  10 other years the Cs lost in the Eastern conference finals.  The Lakers have lost in the Western conference finals 6 times.  So when reaching the conference finals, the Cs move on 67% of the time, versus 84% for the Lakers.   Due to a 20 year famine, the Celtics have also missed the playoffs many more times than the Lakers.  In sum, as the League has evolved, the Lakers have flourished and continue to make history, while the Cs are history.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from KB24RULZ. Show KB24RULZ's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    Great to see a post based on fact rather than emotion and/or delusion. The Lakers have been THE team in the NBA as we know it today. If one looks at the celtics today they still don't have an overseas player of note which is indicative of a team that has routinely not gone with winning trends.

    Celtic fans delude themselves by saying the NBA is watered down now and yet have 1 championship in the last 24 years. Does it even remotely make sense it's easier to win now....of course not.

    Keep up the great posting Albert!
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    Just to point something out here, your post says Lakers win 3rd time in the last
     4 meetings....you could have started two years earlier....then it's 3rd time in 5 meetings....keep going back....ultimately it becomes 3rd time in 12 meetings...now I get your drift....the Lakers have dominated the last 20+ years...and the Celtics did the same earlier on....the bottom line is the Celtics have more titles despite 10 fewer appearances....this shows that the Lakers dominate the West but not the finals....the Celtics dominate the East...and the Finals....and, most definitely they dominate the Lakers head to head....your post could just as easily pointed out that the Yankees won the majority of their championships over 50 years ago, starting in the 1920's....go to the Yankee board and explain why their history is diminished...
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Driscoll92587. Show Driscoll92587's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Some historical perspective:
    After the Celtics lost to the Lakers in the Finals for the 3 rd time in the last 4 meetings, and having only 1 championship since 1986, I’ve seen many discussions on this site about Celtics fans claiming the Cs are still the best due to all their historical achievements.   And certainly Gerald, Raymond, Walter, and all their friends born in 1950 or earlier have witnessed much to be proud of, but I offer some additional historical perspective.   9 of Boston’s 17 championships (including 8 straight) came by 1966, when the NBA had 8 or 9 teams.   Then 3 more from 1966- 1974 as the league expanded to 18 teams.   Then 4 from 1974 - 1986, and 1 since that time.   Basically, as the League grew and became more accessible to minorities, and later players from overseas, the Celtics early “dominance” dwindled.   Some might say that the current NBA is a little watered down with 30 teams, but many NBA fans see the 1980s as the most competitive and popular era of the League, and it had 22 teams for much of that period.   To the extent the current NBA might be watered down, the NBA’s early era was equally void of competition.   Playing the same teams over and over required less creativity and adjustments, and fewer games in the playoffs made it easier for the better teams to advance to the Finals.   10 of the Lakers 16 championships have come in the era of the expanded NBA and the 3 point shot.   Many Cs fans are quick to observe the Celtics finals record of 17-4, versus the Lakers finals record of 16-15.   10 other years the Cs lost in the Eastern conference finals.   The Lakers have lost in the Western conference finals 6 times.   So when reaching the conference finals, the Cs move on 67% of the time, versus 84% for the Lakers.     Due to a 20 year famine, the Celtics have also missed the playoffs many more times than the Lakers.   In sum, as the League has evolved, the Lakers have flourished and continue to make history, while the Cs are history.
    Posted by MrvAlbertsBra


    Bottom line is that every team had the same opportunities to be successful, whether there were 8 teams, 18, or 30.  If the C's weren't the best team then they wouldn't have won a ring.  To say that the number of teams was more advantageous to Boston than LA is garbage.  A championship is a championship.  If adjustments were so easily made, then why didn't LA make them during the NBA's early days?

    Moreover, the C's fall from the top was filled with unfortunate events such as the deaths Len Bias and Reggie Lewis.  Obviously it's speculation to say that the C's would've been contenders if they hadn't died, but these happenings were a huge piece of Boston's woeful years.  It had nothing to do with the number of teams in the league. 

    It's just absolutely bogus to say that the C's won so many titles because adjustments and a lack of creativity due to a small number of teams was the reason.  Doesn't make any sense.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from MrvAlbertsBra. Show MrvAlbertsBra's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    Just to point something out here, your post says Lakers win 3rd time in the last  4 meetings....you could have started two years earlier....then it's 3rd time in 5 meetings....keep going back....ultimately it becomes 3rd time in 12 meetings...now I get your drift....the Lakers have dominated the last 20+ years...and the Celtics did the same earlier on....the bottom line is the Celtics have more titles despite 10 fewer appearances....this shows that the Lakers dominate the West but not the finals....the Celtics dominate the East...and the Finals....and, most definitely they dominate the Lakers head to head....your post could just as easily pointed out that the Yankees won the majority of their championships over 50 years ago, starting in the 1920's....go to the Yankee board and explain why their history is diminished...
    Posted by Duke4


    Historical greatness without current success has more relevance in baseball.  Outside of NY, BOS and CHI, baseball is rapidly fading, because the primary consumer demographic of 18-38 year olds refuse to be handicapped by “tradition” and “history”.  As technology evolves, so has the NFL and NBA, and their fans.  MLB continues to cling to tradition to its detriment - the same tradition that Celtics fans cling to because if they didn’t, they would have to admit their franchise has been mostly irrelevant for the last quarter century.   I’m simply pointing out that success in any era can be discredited by comparisons with other eras, depending on who is doing the comparison.  The Cs dominated the early era of the NBA, and the Lakers have dominated the modern era of the NBA.  But, the Lakers were much more competitive during the Celtics era of dominance, than the Celtics have been during the Lakers era of dominance.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from bostonian128. Show bostonian128's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    It's true what you say - the culture in Boston includes a respect for history, kids feel that way as well. LA is in the business of making up the future, we might be in the flow of life where we pay homage to the past.  But if only Len Bias.....;-)

    PS:
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from croc. Show croc's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    I assume you are referring to the MN Lakers franchise in the 50s.  Boston has historical dominance in the '60s.  Chicago has in the '80s-90s.  The LA Lakers have has success, but they haven't had any where near this historical dominance. More often they've had disappointment as 16-15 indicates.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective : Historical greatness without current success has more relevance in baseball.   Outside of NY, BOS and CHI, baseball is rapidly fading, because the primary consumer demographic of 18-38 year olds refuse to be handicapped by “tradition” and “history”.   As technology evolves, so has the NFL and NBA, and their fans.   MLB continues to cling to tradition to its detriment - the same tradition that Celtics fans cling to because if they didn’t, they would have to admit their franchise has been mostly irrelevant for the last quarter century.     I’m simply pointing out that success in any era can be discredited by comparisons with other eras, depending on who is doing the comparison.   The Cs dominated the early era of the NBA, and the Lakers have dominated the modern era of the NBA.   But, the Lakers were much more competitive during the Celtics era of dominance, than the Celtics have been during the Lakers era of dominance.
    Posted by MrvAlbertsBra

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

    Re: Some historical perspective

    But, the Lakers were much more competitive during the Celtics era of dominance, than the Celtics have been during the Lakers era of dominance.

    Great....the Lakers were more competitive during the Celtic era of dominance....except when they played the Celtics.....dude, the Lakers lost EVERY SERIES against Boston during this era.....please........at least the Celtics are 2-3 vs. the Lakers since....The Lakers went 0-8  before they finally beat Boston!
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from MrvAlbertsBra. Show MrvAlbertsBra's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    Understandably, this site is filled of Cs fans telling each other how magnificent the BOS franchise is, and that the giant hole in the roof really just needs a little patching.  Can I realistically expect to change any opinions of Celtics fans?  No.  This is like telling someone their house is rotting and not up to code, and they respond by showing you pictures of how great it looked 40 years ago.  Sorry, but gas is no longer 40 cents a gallon, Coke is no longer 35 cents a bottle, and we now have more than 4 channels on TV.  But, Cs fans should enjoy their 17-16 advantage while they can, because it used to be a 13-6 advantage, and like all other Celtics accomplishments, it will eventually be only a matter of history.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    Dream on brother.....your team won a close 7 game series....good for you....your best player is getting dinged and is nearing the end of "star status".....Gasol (your other star) is now in his 30's.....our team is "old" with our current stars a few years older? (Pierce 10 months older than Kobe?)....Dude....your window is also closing....other than "brittle Bynum"....where does the next Laker generation begin?  .....we have an all star/all defensive stud in Rondo....who is your next young stud?
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUWorthy. Show RUWorthy's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    I believe that the Celtics up until 1986 were a blessed side. Having a succession of great players and landing the greatest player in Russell. No Russell = No string of championships. We could be talking about the Hawks period of dominance in the 60's instead of that of the Celtics if Russell had landed somewhere else.

    You can't say that the deaths of Bias and Lewis didn't contribute negatively to the Celtics fortunes after 1986. The Celtics could well have continued to make the finals in the late 80's with Bias. And even without Bias they were always competitive with a half or less than half fit Larry Bird. 

    The Celtics overall problem was a mindset of, THE LUCK WILL KEEP COMING OUR WAY. We'll get a great player from the draft, we'll sign a key free agent. I think the club was working to get these players. But bad management married with complacency at a grand level left the team in tatters for a decade. Yes they had moments but moments don't make for a decade and don't satisfy fans after periods of dominance and classy basketball. 

    The periods of M L Carr and Pitino (spl?) were nothing but car wrecks. I'm sure the Celtics of that era would have found a way to ruin Duncan if he landed in their laps. They pretty much did that with Billups. The signing of Wilkins was all wrong as well, I'm sure they paid over the odds money to attract him to Boston as well.

    I don't get the hate for Ainge, he's made good moves and finally has the Celtics competitive again. I'm sure they'll have a great year but there will be some pain in upcoming seasons, building a team around Rondo. But I think Ainge won't let the Celtics slide back into the abyss they were in before he arrived. He loves the team and that's what you want from a GM. He also has a pretty good eye for basketball talent in the draft, he has his misses but he's had more decent moments in the draft to compensate for that. Rondo, Perkins, Jefferson have all be very good selections. Or in Rondos case a pick up. Which has to rank up there with the great Celtics swindles. 

    I think Ainge should attempt to model the Celtics after the Lakers. Our owner and GMs have been aggressive, and the team is always, pretty much, well managed. We do have a major advantage over Boston in regards to location when it comes to free agency. But that's just the way things are. I'm sure Ainge is smart enough to keep the Celtics competitive and to build a good team around Rondo.

    In regards to history. The Celtics do have a better conversion rate when it comes to winning titles when making the Finals. Historically that is. But when it comes down to it for me, I'd rather make the finals, winning is great but to me it's still an accomplishment to make the finals. I'm sure we could have won in 1989 if Magic and Scott had not been injured. Although I'll concede that we had no hope in 2008. In a sense we had to lose that series to win our back to back titles. 






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

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    like all other Celtics accomplishments, it will eventually be only a matter of history.
    Posted by MrvAlbertsBra


    All accomplishments and titles are history the moment after they've happened. Currently the Lakers are champions, until June. 

    All of our accomplishments from the 50's though today are just as much 'history' as those of the Celtics. Having more titles than another team doesn't belittle a teams history or accomplishments. 
     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from shines01. Show shines01's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    Well put throughout.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from paulliu. Show paulliu's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    What I find odd about LA's efforts to make the 5 Minny titles their own is that    there are no separate banners in the rafters for these titles.  Ditto for separate banners for the HOF players from those teams.  In fact, #17 worn by Jim Pollard isn't even retired.  Instead the Minny accomplishments are all squeezed together on one banner while the LA titles and retired numbers all have their separate banners.  Why this second class treatment?

    This shabby treatment of history they now claim as their own indicates to me that the LA franchise itself had not regarded the Minny titles as part of their history until they realized that doing so would be a good marketing tool to claim that their history rivals that of the Celtics.

    If you're going to claim the Minny glories as your own you should honor them in the same way as the LA titles.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from paulliu. Show paulliu's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    TO RUWorthy:

    Yes, the Celtics up to 1986 were on the blessed side.  From 1957 to 1986 they won 16 titles and the longest they went withoiut a title was the five years from Russell's last one in 1969 to the first post Russell title in 1974.

    BUt there were many shrewd decisions along with some lucky breaks.  Indeed, this is the very definition of any remarkable run.

    On the other hand the defintion of of any extended period of wandering the wilderness is some bad breaks along with many bad decisions.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from KB24RULZ. Show KB24RULZ's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    What a way for Phil Jackson to end his coaching career with a loss to the Celtics and Shaq in the 2011 Finals. I think that will be a great ending for the modern day Lakers vs. Celtics rivalry. 
    Posted by Fierce34


    You might wanna get there first. It's obvious the Lakers will be in the Finals but as for celts, sorry you'll be watching us on tv win #17 against LBJ and the Heat.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUWorthy. Show RUWorthy's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    What I find odd about LA's efforts to make the 5 Minny titles their own is that    there are no separate banners in the rafters for these titles.  Ditto for separate banners for the HOF players from those teams.  In fact, #17 worn by Jim Pollard isn't even retired.  Instead the Minny accomplishments are all squeezed together on one banner while the LA titles and retired numbers all have their separate banners.  Why this second class treatment? This shabby treatment of history they now claim as their own indicates to me that the LA franchise itself had not regarded the Minny titles as part of their history until they realized that doing so would be a good marketing tool to claim that their history rivals that of the Celtics. If you're going to claim the Minny glories as your own you should honor them in the same way as the LA titles.
    Posted by paulliu

    I couldn't agree with you more. The sooner the Laker organisation does something in regards to this the better. Having 'honored' numbers and the like is an insult to the champions of the Minny era. 

    Although I feel the longer the Lakers go on without giving the Minny era the respect it deserves it lessens the chance of it happening. I believe the recognition you see now from the Lakers was done only to 'claim' the titles for franchise. The way it was done was without class and dignity. 
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from RajonRondowski. Show RajonRondowski's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Some historical perspective:
    After the Celtics lost to the Lakers in the Finals for the 3 rd time in the last 4 meetings, and having only 1 championship since 1986, I’ve seen many discussions on this site about Celtics fans claiming the Cs are still the best due to all their historical achievements.   And certainly Gerald, Raymond, Walter, and all their friends born in 1950 or earlier have witnessed much to be proud of, but I offer some additional historical perspective.   9 of Boston’s 17 championships (including 8 straight) came by 1966, when the NBA had 8 or 9 teams.   Then 3 more from 1966- 1974 as the league expanded to 18 teams.   Then 4 from 1974 - 1986, and 1 since that time.   Basically, as the League grew and became more accessible to minorities, and later players from overseas, the Celtics early “dominance” dwindled.   Some might say that the current NBA is a little watered down with 30 teams, but many NBA fans see the 1980s as the most competitive and popular era of the League, and it had 22 teams for much of that period.   To the extent the current NBA might be watered down, the NBA’s early era was equally void of competition.   Playing the same teams over and over required less creativity and adjustments, and fewer games in the playoffs made it easier for the better teams to advance to the Finals.   10 of the Lakers 16 championships have come in the era of the expanded NBA and the 3 point shot.   Many Cs fans are quick to observe the Celtics finals record of 17-4, versus the Lakers finals record of 16-15.   10 other years the Cs lost in the Eastern conference finals.   The Lakers have lost in the Western conference finals 6 times.   So when reaching the conference finals, the Cs move on 67% of the time, versus 84% for the Lakers.     Due to a 20 year famine, the Celtics have also missed the playoffs many more times than the Lakers.   In sum, as the League has evolved, the Lakers have flourished and continue to make history, while the Cs are history.
    Posted by MrvAlbertsBra


    -

    So what?

    Why is this important to you?

    Most of us just don't give a damn about any of it.  It's an LA thing, I guess.

    Inferiority complex or something.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from BirdandCowens. Show BirdandCowens's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective : I couldn't agree with you more. The sooner the Laker organisation does something in regards to this the better. Having 'honored' numbers and the like is an insult to the champions of the Minny era.  Although I feel the longer the Lakers go on without giving the Minny era the respect it deserves it lessens the chance of it happening. I believe the recognition you see now from the Lakers was done only to 'claim' the titles for franchise. The way it was done was without class and dignity. 
    Posted by RUWorthy



    Thank you.  I have been spouting off on this for years.  They want the glory, but they do not honor the players.  I'll go even a step further.  Don't know how old you are, but this was not even an ISSUE when Magic and Bird played.  It didn't become important until the late '90's.  Realizing they couldn't legitimately catch the Celtics, the Buss Family took the easy way out, and just TOOK the MN titles, closing the gap.  It was done, as you say, without any class at all, in fact, it's the lazy way out...........LA has 11 titles, the lakers have 16.  Until they acknowledge properly the  players of those great MN teams, we will not recognize it.

    You seem like a rational person, so let me ask you (this was a poll on the LA Times yesterday):  Should they retire Shaq's number, even though he has "betrayed" the lakers by signing with the Celtics?
     
  22. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective : Thank you.  I have been spouting off on this for years.  They want the glory, but they do not honor the players.  I'll go even a step further.  Don't know how old you are, but this was not even an ISSUE when Magic and Bird played.  It didn't become important until the late '90's.  Realizing they couldn't legitimately catch the Celtics, the Buss Family took the easy way out, and just TOOK the MN titles, closing the gap.  It was done, as you say, without any class at all, in fact, it's the lazy way out...........LA has 11 titles, the lakers have 16.  Until they acknowledge properly the  players of those great MN teams, we will not recognize it. You seem like a rational person, so let me ask you (this was a poll on the LA Times yesterday):  Should they retire Shaq's number, even though he has "betrayed" the lakers by signing with the Celtics?
    Posted by BirdandCowens

    I agree with you in regards to the Minny titles. Would be more cut and dried if the Lakers stayed in Minny. From what I know back when Minny dominated it was a completely different era of basketball, a different game. For years the Lakers didn't care to acknowledge their past, ie, the Lakers started in their current form in LA and nothing happened before then. They've been changing their opinion in regards to the past only very recently. When it comes to matching the Celtics in the number of titles won, which IMO is silly because I mainly care about the current champion. But for whatever reason the organisation thinks everyone will care that they've won X number of titles. 

    When it comes to catching the Celtics, if the Celtics go back to the era of bad management, the Lakers will catch and pass them with titles won in L.A. Then I would worry that the Minny era would be forgotten again. 

    Re Shaq. Of course the Lakers should retire his number, he's a primary reason for The Lakers winning three championships. As for being a traitor, that's ridiculous. It would be just as stupid as The Celtics fans and press calling Bill Sharman a traitor for joining The Lakers organisation. Calling what Shaq did a "betrayal" is utterly stupid and pretty typical of the lazy type of reporting or 'sensationalizing' around the press. Personally I hope Shaq has a good year for the C's. Will be fun for you guys to watch him play and cheer the big fella on. 

    Turned 21 in May. 



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

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective : I agree with you in regards to the Minny titles. Would be more cut and dried if the Lakers stayed in Minny. From what I know back when Minny dominated it was a completely different era of basketball, a different game. For years the Lakers didn't care to acknowledge their past, ie, the Lakers started in their current form in LA and nothing happened before then. They've been changing their opinion in regards to the past only very recently. When it comes to matching the Celtics in the number of titles won, which IMO is silly because I mainly care about the current champion. But for whatever reason the organisation thinks everyone will care that they've won X number of titles.  When it comes to catching the Celtics, if the Celtics go back to the era of bad management, the Lakers will catch and pass them with titles won in L.A. Then I would worry that the Minny era would be forgotten again.  Re Shaq. Of course the Lakers should retire his number, he's a primary reason for The Lakers winning three championships. As for being a traitor, that's ridiculous. It would be just as stupid as The Celtics fans and press calling Bill Sharman a traitor for joining The Lakers organisation. Calling what Shaq did a "betrayal" is utterly stupid and pretty typical of the lazy type of reporting or 'sensationalizing' around the press. Personally I hope Shaq has a good year for the C's. Will be fun for you guys to watch him play and cheer the big fella on.  Turned 21 in May. 
    Posted by RUWorthy


    Check out the LA Times sometime.  They call him a traitor almost every day. It's been seven years, for goodness sakes. 
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from rsalas67m. Show rsalas67m's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    Shaq has always been about ego. Laker fans don't give a rat's a** about what O'Neal says or does since he was traded to Miami for inferior talent. Now that Shaq has signed with Boston for so little money, it shows how far his talent has fallen and the demand for his services almost completely extinguished.

    The tragedy of Shaquille O'Neal is the fact that he could have been considered the best center ever had he not been so lazy. His issues with Bryant revolved around O'Neal's petty jealousies while always hammering Kobe to the local press. It showed Shaq for all of his insecurities, characteristics that served him poorly. Hopefully the Daddy doesn't poison the locker room atmosphere in Boston like he did in L.A., Miami, and Phoenix. He's your prima donna now, though at a diminished level.

    By the way, I didn't know Gasol was in his 30s. He's 30 years old. Based on the Laker talent, I wouldn't write off L.A. so soon. As for Bynum being fragile, he's only 22 years old. If he gets injured yet again, then there is cause for concern. But the young Laker center showed tremendous grit throughout these playoffs with a tear in his knee. That's to be respected.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share