Some historical perspective

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from DFURY13. Show DFURY13'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


    5 of your titles were won before the modern era of the NBA. My advice is ust leave now.
     
  2. 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 : FAIL!!!! The blue banner, hanging in the rafters, are the 5 Minni Laker championships. FAIL!!!
    Posted by KB24RULZ


    They don't each get their own?  How about the players?  Any mention of them?  Fact is the Cooke's didn't want anything to do with it, and the Buss Family is obsessed with having more than the Celtics.  Once/IF the LA franchise ever passes us, they will take that banner down and throw it away.  Even lakers fans I know admit that!

    FAIL? - my students all say that - of course they are 15, 16 and 17!
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from KB24RULZ. Show KB24RULZ's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective : They don't each get their own?  How about the players?  Any mention of them?  Fact is the Cooke's didn't want anything to do with it, and the Buss Family is obsessed with having more than the Celtics.  Once/IF the LA franchise ever passes us, they will take that banner down and throw it away.  Even lakers fans I know admit that! FAIL? - my students all say that - of course they are 15, 16 and 17!
    Posted by BirdandCowens


    The Minni banners hang in the rafters...you made a poor guess....=fail. On the basis your basketball knowledge is that of your students, 16 years old. Hard luck kid.
     
  4. 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 : The Minni banners hang in the rafters...you made a poor guess....=fail. On the basis your basketball knowledge is that of your students, 16 years old. Hard luck kid.
    Posted by KB24RULZ


    They are all on one banner, YOU showed the picture of it.  5 Titles, one banner.  All the ones in LA have their OWN banner - and NO jerseys hung!

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

    Re: Some historical perspective

    All five Minny titles are squeezed on to one banner with the HOF players' numbers crammed on to the same banner while the LA titles each have their own banner and the retired players' number each have their own banner?

    Hey, if you want to claim the Minny titles as your own you should have the class to treat them like you treat the LA titles. Instead, the franchise gives them second class treatment.

    Pretty crass and tacky, don't you think? 

    Just a question.  Anyone know when the franchise chose to hoist up that single banner?  The Lakers have been in LA since 1960, right?  Did they acknowedge the Minny titles in the 60's?  The 70's?  The 80's?  The 90's?

    You think that they finally chose to acknowedge those five titles as a recent cynical and cheap marketing ploy to say that the number of titles is drawing near Boston's total?

    If you want to drink Buss's Kool-Aid, go right ahead.
     
  6. 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 : The Minni banners hang in the rafters...you made a poor guess....=fail. On the basis your basketball knowledge is that of your students, 16 years old. Hard luck kid.
    Posted by KB24RULZ


    Dude, there's only one banner for the MN years. And the 'honored' players names are on it. One banner for the 5 championships. How can you say the MN banners when there are not 'banners' but a banner.

    Said it before if the Lakers do overtake the C's for most titles won, the MN years won't even be acknowledged by the owners or team.

    The LA Lakers continue to disrespect the Lakers legacy so long as this continues. It's a stain on the franchise, a black eye for the LA Lakers and a slight on the champions from that era. Particually when you could have a second round draft pick from the Lakers decide to wear number #99. There's no way Andrew should be wearing #17. No offense to Andrew as I really like the guy, but that number you're wearing should be retired for Jim Pollard.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from KB24RULZ. Show KB24RULZ's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective : Dude, there's only one banner for the MN years. And the 'honored' players names are on it. One banner for the 5 championships. How can you say the MN banners when there are not 'banners' but a banner. Said it before if the Lakers do overtake the C's for most titles won, the MN years won't even be acknowledged by the owners or team. The LA Lakers continue to disrespect the Lakers legacy so long as this continues. It's a stain on the franchise, a black eye for the LA Lakers and a slight on the champions from that era. Particually when you could have a second round draft pick from the Lakers decide to wear number #99. There's no way Andrew should be wearing #17. No offense to Andrew as I really like the guy, but that number you're wearing should be retired for Jim Pollard.
    Posted by RUWorthy


    Dude, stop pretending you're a Laker fan because it's obvious your not.

    As for Drew, he can wear whatever number he wants outside of those retired.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    ummmm.......that should be "dudette"......and this young lady knows her stuff at a very young age....show some respect kid...
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from MrvAlbertsBra. Show MrvAlbertsBra's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to 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?
    Posted by Duke4


    The Lakers have Jerry Buss.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from MrvAlbertsBra. Show MrvAlbertsBra's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    The modern era of the NBA began prior to the 1954/55 season with the addition of the 24 second shot clock and other rules changes....the game changed dramatically...you should read up on just how much this affected the game... also, as I posted earlier, over one half of the players on the "Greatest 50" played between 54/55 and 68/69 when Russ won his last championship....OVER ONE HALF!!  ....by the way, the only player on the list who didn't play during this timeframe was Mikan...he was the guy who led his team to 5 titles prior to the game changing rules we still see today...
    Posted by Duke4


    That's a great argument from 1996.  How many of those players would be on today's top 50?  "Over half" would be at most 20% now.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from MrvAlbertsBra. Show MrvAlbertsBra's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    Cs fans love to discredit the Lakers 5 championships from the MN days, but have no problem including the Cs victory over the MN Lakers when discussing the head to head Finals history. In 23 years, the Lakers closed the gap from 16-9 to 17-16. Facing the inevitable, Cs fans now have to discount the Lakers first 5 championships, and won't be satisfied until the Lakers have 6 more titles than the Celtics. Well, be patient, it will only be another generation. Even many who are so fixated on the 60s era will live to see it happen.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from susan250. Show susan250'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


    Win or lose, I will be happy when Phil Jackson decides to retire.  Hopefully, after next season.  
     
  13. 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 : The Lakers have Jerry Buss.
    Posted by MrvAlbertsBra

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

    Re: Some historical perspective

    Great comeback.....you are absolutely right on that one pal..
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    I believe that most of the guys on the original top 50 would still be there......the league is all about star power....quality lost out to quantity.....I would say that over one half of today's players would never have made the NBA....there are certainly great players from Europe and they would beat out the second stringer and some of the starters from the earlier league....but the likes of Russell and company.....Baylor and West....Oscar and Wilt....the Cous.....these guys could play today...people who think Cousy wouldn't make it forget that John Stockton was a star in today's game....he was a Cousy clone and about the same size....the greats are legends.....they set the bar....todays guys are better athletes but inferior basketball players....
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from KB24RULZ. Show KB24RULZ's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    Dr Buss.....the greatest sports team owner of his generation!
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from MrvAlbertsBra. Show MrvAlbertsBra's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    I believe that most of the guys on the original top 50 would still be there......the league is all about star power....quality lost out to quantity.....I would say that over one half of today's players would never have made the NBA....there are certainly great players from Europe and they would beat out the second stringer and some of the starters from the earlier league....but the likes of Russell and company.....Baylor and West....Oscar and Wilt....the Cous.....these guys could play today...people who think Cousy wouldn't make it forget that John Stockton was a star in today's game....he was a Cousy clone and about the same size....the greats are legends.....they set the bar....todays guys are better athletes but inferior basketball players....
    Posted by Duke4


    I think it’s reasonable that 15 - 20 names would be different on any updated list.  Without necessarily agreeing that each of the following 9 should be include in the list of the top 50, I believe they would all be on any updated list:  Kobe, KG, Dirk, Jason Kidd, Reggie Miller, Lebron, Dwayne Wade, Iverson, and Tim Duncan. And probably 3 or more of the following 8 would be on it (Nash, Pierce, Gasol, Ginobli, Yao, Gary Payton, Chauncy Billups, Rodman). I am undoubtedly forgetting or ignoring 3 or 4 other top players that would be considered, and there might also be “corrections” to include players left off the original list, like McAdoo and Dominique Wilkins. Who would be scratched is another question.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    Good points all......and as the number of years, teams, and players increase.....you have to make the top 50 list a larger list.....maybe not drop any originals but increase the number of names.....what would be interesting would be to get a huge panel of experts together and try to rank the list one through whatever number this list would end at.....who goes #1? Russell, Chamberlain, Jordan, Magic, Bird, Jabbar, Kobe?  .....that would be a never ending debate in my opinion....kind of like Celtics/Lakers.....

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from KB24RULZ. Show KB24RULZ's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    Good points all......and as the number of years, teams, and players increase.....you have to make the top 50 list a larger list.....maybe not drop any originals but increase the number of names.....what would be interesting would be to get a huge panel of experts together and try to rank the list one through whatever number this list would end at.....who goes #1? Russell, Chamberlain, Jordan, Magic, Bird, Jabbar, Kobe?  .....that would be a never ending debate in my opinion....kind of like Celtics/Lakers.....
    Posted by Duke4


    I quote:

    When it comes to superstars, the Lakers are so far out in front of everybody else it's not even funny -- their all-time starting five would crush any other team's; in fact, it might be better than that of the rest of the league's put together.
    John Hollinger-ESPN.

    Of course it would be a Laker!
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    John Hollinger is a Laker fan......how many true Lakers/Celtics are in the HOF?.....that means guys who played their entire career with their franchise?  ...after that, let's look at the next group who played for more than one franchise but spent over one half to seventy five percent with the team...it wouldn't take that long to come up with the list....I think Boston would come out on top...but I'm not 100% sure....
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    ok....I just took a quick look...totally unofficial

    category #1 Celtics 11/Lakers 9

    category #2 Celtics   4/Lakers 2
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from DoctorCO. Show DoctorCO's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    Mralbertsbra, kb24rules,

    Let me school you little boys on history. The NBA started in 1946. NOT 1996 or 1984 or 1972 or what year you feel the stats go in your manner.

    The league was harder to win then. BECAUSE less teams LESS SPOTS. NOW MORE TEAMS MORE SPOTS. Take the players in this league today. Minus the work out programs and the internet and ESPN. Do they have the desire to compete against others?..NOPE.

    YOUR arguments are the same tired arguments that shaq would beat bill russell. Give Russell creatine and what ever lets see what russell would do. YOU tired faker fans blame the celtics dynasty for winning titles before the internet. There was no histrical element saying the internet had huge meaning for the nba.

    Yes the celtics were not good for a while. The celtics had an ownership which didnt care. But this ownership now cares. The grossbeck team in 5 years owning the team have 1 title and 2 finals appearences. With a 2 nd round playoff loss. Thats an ownership which has made an adjustment. hasnt it??.. YES

    AND you say the celts titles are old..THEN the lakers should not have 16 titles. They should have 11. According to you. Because of those minn titles.
    AND kb24 rules. The lakers vs. heat??...LOL.. your really a bandwagon fan. Whos going to rebound the ball for the heat????..Illgaskas IMFAO, Juwon HOWARD..LOL...and those rookies?..LOL...Boston with shaq and jermaine are a bigger team than LA. SHAQ vs. KOBE...That is the best finals we will se in our life time. When shaq beats kobe to win ring number 5.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from KB24RULZ. Show KB24RULZ's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    Mralbertsbra, kb24rules, Let me school you little boys on history. The NBA started in 1946. NOT 1996 or 1984 or 1972 or what year you feel the stats go in your manner. The league was harder to win then. BECAUSE less teams LESS SPOTS. NOW MORE TEAMS MORE SPOTS. Take the players in this league today. Minus the work out programs and the internet and ESPN. Do they have the desire to compete against others?..NOPE. YOUR arguments are the same tired arguments that shaq would beat bill russell. Give Russell creatine and what ever lets see what russell would do. YOU tired faker fans blame the celtics dynasty for winning titles before the internet. There was no histrical element saying the internet had huge meaning for the nba. Yes the celtics were not good for a while. The celtics had an ownership which didnt care. But this ownership now cares. The grossbeck team in 5 years owning the team have 1 title and 2 finals appearences. With a 2 nd round playoff loss. Thats an ownership which has made an adjustment. hasnt it??.. YES AND you say the celts titles are old..THEN the lakers should not have 16 titles. They should have 11. According to you. Because of those minn titles. AND kb24 rules. The lakers vs. heat??...LOL.. your really a bandwagon fan. Whos going to rebound the ball for the heat????..Illgaskas IMFAO, Juwon HOWARD..LOL...and those rookies?..LOL...Boston with shaq and jermaine are a bigger team than LA. SHAQ vs. KOBE...That is the best finals we will se in our life time. When shaq beats kobe to win ring number 5.
    Posted by DoctorCO


    Poor old snaquille, forever stuck on 4. But hey, he was once great when he was with the Lake Show but sadly like some punch drunk heavy-weight, he dosen't know when to retire graciously.

    I'm sure he'll be first though to congratulate Kobe after he wins #6 this season. He has some semblance of class unlike the spoilt brat pierce.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    Kobe was "Robin" 3 times.........and without Pau........Kobe would still be "Robin"......6-24 game 7 at home while Pau goes 19/18 with blocks and defense....yep....Kobe certainly earned that MVP with his game 7 performance!!
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    Kobe 5 rings...Shaq 4 rings

    Shaq 3 finals MVP's (all with the Lakers to Kobe's none)

    Kobe 2 finals MVP's (with this year's being a joke)

    If Kobe hadn't been given that MVP he would have been so pissed that there would have been trouble for that team...like Tiger, Kobe is all about his image....like Tiger, Kobe's image outside of LA is very low....
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share