Some historical perspective

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

    Re: Some historical perspective

    What Miss Bra does is Cherry Pick history to make her "point".  History is history it's the whole of it. 

    History does come in eras that's true, but Miss Bra stitches together history from the '80s with the current era to make her point for the Lakers.  She ignores Celtics Finals wins from that same era.  That's incredible even for cherry picking.  As is Miss Bras point - incredible, as in without credibility


    It's different than considering the current teams. Each team has won one title againsts each other, and LA has won two overall. This era is on going. LA had more success in the 90s too. So there you go Miss Bra enjoy those little snipets in history.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from greenkillme. Show greenkillme's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    Welll there is no question that history is now tainted by the fact that the refs blew the 2010 title by total incompetence in the 4th quarter of game 7 but that is the subject of the "tainted championship" thread so we won't expand on that here.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Some historical perspective : 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. 
    Posted by RUWorthy[/QUOTE]
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    U R a Worthy poster my dear.....always rational and a class act.......could I convince you to join the Celtic bandwagon?  ....you would be a great addition my friend....   :-)
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Some historical perspective : 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.
    Posted by KB24RULZ[/QUOTE]
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    You just said the magic sentence....it's obvious the Lakers will be there....exactly! They have had the advantage of playing in the West...until the last decade or so the East has always been considered the tougher and more physical conference....the West has been the kid brother....that's part of the reason the Lakers have advanced to the finals so often.....now that is not in any way meant to discount their overall quality through the years....but they have had an easier time getting there....once they "get there" they become
    basically a .500 team vs. the East.....once again, there was a reason the term "The Big Four" was coined in the 1980's....there were 3 great teams in the East....there was only 1 out West....your odds were much better my friend...
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    [QUOTE]The Cs dominated the early era of the NBA, and the Lakers have dominated the modern era of the NBA. And it is harder to win now as opposed to then with the dilution of talent now with 30 teams as opposed to 10 back then ???
    Posted by Mployee8[/QUOTE]
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from greenkillme. Show greenkillme's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    [QUOTE]The Cs dominated the early era of the NBA, and the Lakers have dominated the modern era of the NBA. And it is harder to win now as opposed to then with the dilution of talent now with 30 teams as opposed to 10 back then ???
    Posted by Mployee8[/QUOTE]

    Most fans think just the opposit it true. The dilution of talent today makes it easier to win. If you get a couple good players on one team you can be dominant.


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

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

    Re: Some historical perspective

    To Marvsfloppinsacsupporter:


        
            Those who fail to learn from history
            are condemned to repeat it.
           

                                                                                  With Love,

                                                                                  antibody


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

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    [QUOTE]You just said the magic sentence....it's obvious the Lakers will be there....exactly! They have had the advantage of playing in the West...until the last decade or so the East has always been considered the tougher and more physical conference....the West has been the kid brother....that's part of the reason the Lakers have advanced to the finals so often.....now that is not in any way meant to discount their overall quality through the years....but they have had an easier time getting there....once they "get there" they become basically a .500 team vs. the East.....once again, there was a reason the term "The Big Four" was coined in the 1980's....there were 3 great teams in the East....there was only 1 out West....your odds were much better my friend...
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]

    Champions
    2000-Lakers
    2001-Lakers
    2002-Lakers
    2003-Spurs

    2004-Pistons
    2005-Spurs
    2006-Heat
    2007-Spurs
    2008-Celtics
    2009-Lakers
    2010-Lakers


    Sure does look like the west is the kid brother lol. Oh and we get there because the Lake Show is simply the best team in the NBA. If you don't believe it, shoot on over to Staples and check out our latest 16th edition Larry!
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BirdandCowens. Show BirdandCowens's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Some historical perspective : Champions 2000-Lakers 2001-Lakers 2002-Lakers 2003-Spurs 2004-Pistons 2005-Spurs 2006-Heat 2007-Spurs 2008-Celtics 2009-Lakers 2010-Lakers Sure does look like the west is the kid brother lol. Oh and we get there because the Lake Show is simply the best team in the NBA. If you don't believe it, shoot on over to Staples and check out our latest 16th edition Larry!
    Posted by KB24RULZ[/QUOTE]
    It's 11  not 16
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    Absolutly right.....going back to 2000....the West is the best....now go back another 50 years my friend......the East was always the Beast.....
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    Duke4 OWNED this guy right off the bat

    Celts are #1 and LA is #2 until they win more

    recent success is clearly diminished for LA by 1950's success in Minneapolis, maybe the celtics crushed a league with only 8-10 teams in the 60's, but most of the titles came at the expense of LA, who always had the 2nd and 3rd best players in the rivalry, choked open shots that could have won a title and blew home game 7's when they were favored

    get a clue
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Qdaddy. Show Qdaddy's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    [QUOTE]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[/QUOTE]

    Hey Bra, I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who sees the "slow death" of our National Pastime. And while I agree with you on your key points, I would also add the Labor Strikes/Lockouts and steroids scandals have helped drive many fans away from the game. I grew up watching baseball (I'm over 50) and I no longer have any passion for the game. In fact, I am enjoying the continued growth of soccer in America and believe our players are already competitve with the world's players.

    But back to basketball...you made a very good argument for why the Laker's are now considered the "marquee" franchise of the NBA. I've made many of the same arguments, but the Celtics fans will continue to cling to their ONE additional banner as to their greatness. And then of course, they will try to argue that LOS ANGELES only has 12 banners. Of course we know that's a very weak argument since the Laker franchise is the very same that was in exisistence in Minneapolis as well.

    Both the Lakers and Celtics are the NBA's greatest franchise's...but the Laker's just happen to be a little more relevant TODAY!
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BirdandCowens. Show BirdandCowens's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    It's not the same franchise.  It's not the same owner.  The Cooke's and Buss' have not recognized the contributions of the laker teams from MN, except for that one fake night when they all came together.  The Buss family wants to beat the Celtics on their own, they don't want to count the 5.  The FANS want to count it because fans are lazy.  The Cooke's didn't acknowledge the MN lakers at all, and the Buss family has NO banners or shirts hanging from the rafters......oh yeah, it's the same one!!

    And, it's ELEVEN, not twelve!!
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUWorthy. Show RUWorthy's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    [QUOTE]Duke4 OWNED this guy right off the bat Celts are #1 and LA is #2 until they win more recent success is clearly diminished for LA by 1950's success in Minneapolis, maybe the celtics crushed a league with only 8-10 teams in the 60's, but most of the titles came at the expense of LA, who always had the 2nd and 3rd best players in the rivalry, choked open shots that could have won a title and blew home game 7's when they were favored get a clue
    Posted by rameakap[/QUOTE]

    Shows how much the mental aspect counts in basketball. I think deep in the minds of most players there was a belief that they could not beat Russell. I think the Celtics only didn't win one title when Russell was healthy? 

    It's hard for the players I guess, but as far as I'm concerned there's no disgrace in coming second to a team led by Bill Russell. 


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

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    [QUOTE]It's not the same franchise.  It's not the same owner.  The Cooke's and Buss' have not recognized the contributions of the laker teams from MN, except for that one fake night when they all came together.  The Buss family wants to beat the Celtics on their own, they don't want to count the 5.  The FANS want to count it because fans are lazy.  The Cooke's didn't acknowledge the MN lakers at all, and the Buss family has NO banners or shirts hanging from the rafters......oh yeah, it's the same one!! And, it's ELEVEN, not twelve!!
    Posted by BirdandCowens[/QUOTE]

    My dad (a Celtics fan) was once harping on to me that the Lakers should produce the championship trophies from that era. My only reply was I didn't even know if they still existed. Which did get a laugh from him. 

    I believe that when (and a very small if) the Lakers overtake the Celtics for NBA titles with an advantage of Six, then you'll see them discount the MN titles.

    Wish my team would show more respect for the MN teams. The best word I can think of to describe what has been done to commemorate the MN years is tokenism

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

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Some historical perspective : Hey Bra, I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who sees the "slow death" of our National Pastime. And while I agree with you on your key points, I would also add the Labor Strikes/Lockouts and steroids scandals have helped drive many fans away from the game. I grew up watching baseball (I'm over 50) and I no longer have any passion for the game. In fact, I am enjoying the continued growth of soccer in America and believe our players are already competitve with the world's players. But back to basketball...you made a very good argument for why the Laker's are now considered the "marquee" franchise of the NBA. I've made many of the same arguments, but the Celtics fans will continue to cling to their ONE additional banner as to their greatness. And then of course, they will try to argue that LOS ANGELES only has 12 banners. Of course we know that's a very weak argument since the Laker franchise is the very same that was in exisistence in Minneapolis as well. Both the Lakers and Celtics are the NBA's greatest franchise's...but the Laker's just happen to be a little more relevant TODAY!
    Posted by Qdaddy[/QUOTE]
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    I agree with your last sentence Daddy.......

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

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    [QUOTE]It's not the same franchise.  It's not the same owner.  The Cooke's and Buss' have not recognized the contributions of the laker teams from MN, except for that one fake night when they all came together.  The Buss family wants to beat the Celtics on their own, they don't want to count the 5.  The FANS want to count it because fans are lazy.  The Cooke's didn't acknowledge the MN lakers at all, and the Buss family has NO banners or shirts hanging from the rafters......oh yeah, it's the same one!! And, it's ELEVEN, not twelve!!
    Posted by BirdandCowens[/QUOTE]

    Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's 16...one behind the Celtics...and we'll even it up this season.

    Now, if you can get ESPN, MSNBC, Fox Sports, Yahoo Sports, Sporting News, Sports Illustrated and every other major and minor media outlet to stop crediting the Laker’s with 16 NBA titles, I might go along with you. But since all the sporting world accepts it as fact, your ridiculous rant carries no weight....but if it'll help you sleep good at night, go right ahead and believe in what you're saying. (LOL)
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from BirdandCowens. Show BirdandCowens's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Some historical perspective : Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's 16...one behind the Celtics...and we'll even it up this season. Now, if you can get ESPN, MSNBC, Fox Sports, Yahoo Sports, Sporting News, Sports Illustrated and every other major and minor media outlet to stop crediting the Laker’s with 16 NBA titles, I might go along with you. But since all the sporting world accepts it as fact, your ridiculous rant carries no weight....but if it'll help you sleep good at night, go right ahead and believe in what you're saying. (LOL)
    Posted by Qdaddy[/QUOTE]

    Exactly - the LAKERS have 16 titles.  The LA Lakers have 11.  The only people who say the LA Lakers have 16 are the delusional fans out here I have to live with every day.
    I sleep very well at night, thank you for asking.  I go to bed with a smile on my face each night knowing comments from little ole me cause lakers fans to get their stuff in a bunch at bedtime!!
    You are all too easy!!
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from KB24RULZ. Show KB24RULZ's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Some historical perspective : Exactly - the LAKERS have 16 titles.  The LA Lakers have 11.  The only people who say the LA Lakers have 16 are the delusional fans out here I have to live with every day. I sleep very well at night, thank you for asking.  I go to bed with a smile on my face each night knowing comments from little ole me cause lakers fans to get their stuff in a bunch at bedtime!! You are all too easy!!
    Posted by BirdandCowens[/QUOTE]

    I sleep real well also, all to the rocking sounds of U2!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKwf7IVBsFs
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from kobedaman. Show kobedaman's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    [QUOTE]It's not the same franchise.  It's not the same owner.  The Cooke's and Buss' have not recognized the contributions of the laker teams from MN, except for that one fake night when they all came together.  The Buss family wants to beat the Celtics on their own, they don't want to count the 5.  The FANS want to count it because fans are lazy.  The Cooke's didn't acknowledge the MN lakers at all, and the Buss family has NO banners or shirts hanging from the rafters......oh yeah, it's the same one!! And, it's ELEVEN, not twelve!!
    Posted by BirdandCowens[/QUOTE]

    "the Lakers and Buss family have not recognized Laker teams from MN"  Says who?  Are you friends of the Dr. Buss????? 
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from BirdandCowens. Show BirdandCowens's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Some historical perspective : "the Lakers and Buss family have not recognized Laker teams from MN"  Says who?  Are you friends of the Dr. Buss????? 
    Posted by kobedaman[/QUOTE]

    Are there banners hanging in the rafters?  Are there jerseys hanging in the rafters?  Even lakers fans know the answer to that is NO,   kobeismrnba!!
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share