The championship is tainted

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

    Re: The championship is tainted

    In Response to Re: The championship is tainted:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The championship is tainted : Your spin is admirable, yet boring me to tears.  Dictionaries do not tell grammar, only if  a word is in the English language. [/QUOTE]
    The dictionary also stated the American usage: past tense with "quitted", and the meaning: stop, cease, or discontinue.

    So you can save your version of "grammer" for lunch.


    [QUOTE]
     Sometimes, like "irregardless" it says it is a word, but don't use it as it is redundant, merely use "regardless." Grammar rules, and proper English say that the Lakers QUIT is the correct use of the word.  We don't say quitted in this country. [/QUOTE]
    I don't know what you are smoking. You really should try to learn how to google. As starter, try "quitted playing".

    Funny you think someone rooting for Glasgow Rangers must be Scottish. I mean, do you think all FC Barcelona fans are called Pau Gasol?

    [QUOTE]Lakers did trade for Gasol - fact No Bynum injury - no trade - speculation They would have made the trade anyway - also speculation we need to agree to disagree on this point - I have provided you with links and quotes, and everything else to back up my "speculation".  [/QUOTE]
    OK, if you are serious about arguing, show me the links. As far as I recall, I don't remember you showing any links backing up your speculation. I vaguely remember your bragging of a call to ESPN that they told you that the Lakers wouldn't have traded for Gasol. Yeah, what evidence. You told me ESPN told you that. I called ESPN too and they told me who killed JFK, and how many UFOs they have found...


    [QUOTE]
    You have done nothing but contradict me - which is not arguing  - nor proving anything.  [/QUOTE]
    Of course, because not only you have NOT provided any evidence, "I have done my research" is not evidence, what you claimed is totally against how a club should be run. Why a team mired in 5th place would not have upgraded with an all-star may be fine with you, but it's totally against logic.

    [QUOTE]
    you will believe what you want, and I will not change your mind.  Ditto for you, we Irish can be pretty stubborn, too.  I shall not discuss it with you anymore, it is a stalemate!
    Posted by Red-16Russ-11[/QUOTE]
    You can believe what you want. I have no interest to change your mind. I only have interest in pointing out the fallacy of your claim. And knowing that it's your hot button, everytime I mention that, you are automatically triggered. It works everytime.


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

    Re: The championship is tainted

    In Response to Re: The championship is tainted:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The championship is tainted : Well your retort made no sense.  Kind of like the rest of your posts.  First off, are you questioning whether or not you are trying to hate bursting my bubble?  Not sure what the question mark is for at the end of that first sentence.    Anywho,  I stated a fact didn't I?  The higher is seed is 2-0 in those two years right?  That is true.  Those other years don't matter just like apparently the Celtics other 13 championships don't matter to you because you want to make it look like the Lakers are the better franchise.  I am simply doing what you are doing just better. 
    Posted by rampageimt23[/QUOTE]

    Not at all. If you want to pick 2-0, I can also pick 0-4. That is also a fact, the higher seed lost in 1985, 1993, 1998 and 2006, right? So that made the Celtics overwhelming favorites to win game 6, but then they choked.

    See, you play by this rule, I can just play the same rule. Now you are backing into the same corner: the Celtics choked.

    So, take your pick:

    1) you pick what you want, I pick what I want: a 4-0 sample is bigger than a 2-0 sample; Celtics still choked.

    2) Looking at what happened since the 2-3-2 format, it's 4-2, Celtics still choked.

    So let me know, (1) or (2)?
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from rampageimt23. Show rampageimt23's posts

    Re: The championship is tainted

    In Response to Re: The championship is tainted:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The championship is tainted : Not at all. If you want to pick 2-0, I can also pick 0-4. That is also a fact, the higher seed lost in 1985, 1993, 1998 and 2006, right? So that made the Celtics overwhelming favorites to win game 6, but then they choked. See, you play by this rule, I can just play the same rule. Now you are backing into the same corner: the Celtics choked. So, take your pick: 1) you pick what you want, I pick what I want: a 4-0 sample is bigger than a 2-0 sample; Celtics still choked. 2) Looking at what happened since the 2-3-2 format, it's 4-2, Celtics still choked. So let me know, (1) or (2)?
    Posted by MajicMVP[/QUOTE]

    Oh OK.  Got it.  Now you make much more sense (sarcasm).  I will take number (3).  Since you want to play a game I have one for you.  Pick one.  I will even give you 3 options.

    The fact is the Boston Celtics have more championships than the Los Angeles Lakers.

    1) The Cetlics have 17 championships which are more than the Los Angeles Lakers 11 championships

    2) The Celtics have 17 championships which are more than the Minneapolis Lakers 5 championships

    3) The Celtics have 17 championships which are more than the Minneapolis/Los Angeles Lakers 16 championships

    I can play this game all night long like Lionel Ritchie.  You can mention your nominal facts about losing a series up 3-2 all day long but the fact is the Lakers choked 15 times in the NBA Finals.  Out of those 15 times 9 of them were to the Celtics.  Any other useless arguments that you would like to throw out there that I can pick apart with ease?
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: The championship is tainted

    In Response to Re: The championship is tainted:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The championship is tainted : Oh OK.  Got it.  Now you make much more sense (sarcasm).  I will take number (3).  Since you want to play a game I have one for you.  Pick one.  I will even give you 3 options. The fact is the Boston Celtics have more championships than the Los Angeles Lakers. 1) The Cetlics have 17 championships which are more than the Los Angeles Lakers 11 championships 2) The Celtics have 17 championships which are more than the Minneapolis Lakers 5 championships 3) The Celtics have 17 championships which are more than the Minneapolis/Los Angeles Lakers 16 championships I can play this game all night long like Lionel Ritchie.  You can mention your nominal facts about losing a series up 3-2 all day long but the fact is the Lakers choked 15 times in the NBA Finals.  Out of those 15 times 9 of them were to the Celtics.  Any other useless arguments that you would like to throw out there that I can pick apart with ease?
    Posted by rampageimt23[/QUOTE]

    And choice (3) is? See, if you want to play the "because I say so" spoiled brat, my "because I say so" is stronger than yours. My sample is 4, yours is only 2.

    And choked 15 times in the NBA finals? Now, according to you folks, you can't choke if you are not the favorites. Then how can the Lakers choke when they were the underdogs against the Celtics in many occasions? See, consistency is not your strong suit either...

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from rampageimt23. Show rampageimt23's posts

    Re: The championship is tainted

    In Response to Re: The championship is tainted:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The championship is tainted : And choice (3) is? See, if you want to play the "because I say so" spoiled brat, my "because I say so" is stronger than yours. My sample is 4, yours is only 2. And choked 15 times in the NBA finals? Now, according to you folks, you can't choke if you are not the favorites. Then how can the Lakers choke when they were the underdogs against the Celtics in many occasions? See, consistency is not your strong suit either...
    Posted by MajicMVP[/QUOTE]

    I said nothing about teams needing to be the favorite to choke.  If you can point out in any post where I said that then I will retract this statement.    According to you the Celtics choked in 2010 because they had a 3-2 series lead.  Not sure how that is a choke but since that is your own definition of choke that means the 1962 Lakers choked, 1969 Lakers choked (Lakers were up 2-0 and 3-2 in that series) and the 1970 Lakers choked.  Just for the h e l l of it the 1984 Lakers choked too (2-1 series lead playing Game 4 at home and they cough up a 5 point lead with less than a minute to play).  Oh wait...I forgot you don't count anything that happened historically.  You only use historical facts when it is conveninent for you.  You are making this too easy for me my man.  At first I thought you posed a challenge but just like the Lakers you will always be second best.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: The championship is tainted

    In Response to Re: The championship is tainted:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The championship is tainted : I said nothing about teams needing to be the favorite to choke.  If you can point out in any post where I said that then I will retract this statement. [/QUOTE]
    I said "Now, according to you folks". Quick, take some remedial reading classes.


    [QUOTE]
       According to you the Celtics choked in 2010 because they had a 3-2 series lead.  Not sure how that is a choke but since that is your own definition of choke that means the 1962 Lakers choked, 1969 Lakers choked (Lakers were up 2-0 and 3-2 in that series) and the 1970 Lakers choked. [/QUOTE]
    Yep, the 1962 and 1969 Lakers choked. But since you know I ignore the bush league era and you like to ignore history "too", what about it?

    But 1970 Lakers? when have the 1970 Lakers led 3-2 and lost? That's NOT even a FACT...

    [QUOTE]Just for the h e l l of it the 1984 Lakers choked too (2-1 series lead playing Game 4 at home and they cough up a 5 point lead with less than a minute to play).  Oh wait...I forgot you don't count anything that happened historically.
    [/QUOTE]
    So now you count 2-1 series lead too? Now, that's not my criteria, but if you like to play:

    1990 Celtics vs Knicks (2-0 lead in a 5-game series)
    1991 Celtics vs Pistons
    2002 Celtics vs Nets

    Son, stop talking about history because you obviously have little clue on the Celtics' failure patterns...

    And the history I like to talk about is since the Bird/Magic era. Don't forget, you like to ignore history "too".

    [QUOTE]
     You only use historical facts when it is conveninent for you.  [/QUOTE]
    And you don't? What happen to the historical fact that the Celtics failed 48 times, more than the Lakers? or the historical fact that the Celtics were fishing when the Lakers won 13 of their 16 titles?

    Convenient to you, huh?

    [QUOTE]You are making this too easy for me my man.  At first I thought you posed a challenge but just like the Lakers you will always be second best.
    Posted by rampageimt23[/QUOTE]
    Well, the Lakers are definitely second best in terms of choking in the finals after leading 3-2. It's obvious that you can't defend the 2010 Celtics and dodge the topics. Since the 2-3-2 in 1985:

    Trailing 2-3 with 2 upcoming home games:
    Celtics 0-1 (1985), Lakers 2-0 (1988, 2010)

    Leading 3-2 with 2 upcoming road games:
    Celtics 0-1 (2010), Lakers 1-0 (1985)

    See, both teams have perfect records in both categories.
     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from rampageimt23. Show rampageimt23's posts

    Re: The championship is tainted

    In Response to Re: The championship is tainted:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The championship is tainted : I said "Now, according to you folks ". Quick, take some remedial reading classes. Yep, the 1962 and 1969 Lakers choked. But since you know I ignore the bush league era and you like to ignore history " too ", what about it? But 1970 Lakers? when have the 1970 Lakers led 3-2 and lost? That's NOT even a FACT... So now you count 2-1 series lead too? Now, that's not my criteria, but if you like to play: 1990 Celtics vs Knicks (2-0 lead in a 5-game series) 1991 Celtics vs Pistons 2002 Celtics vs Nets Son, stop talking about history because you obviously have little clue on the Celtics' failure patterns... And the history I like to talk about is since the Bird/Magic era. Don't forget, you like to ignore history "too". And you don't? What happen to the historical fact that the Celtics failed 48 times, more than the Lakers? or the historical fact that the Celtics were fishing when the Lakers won 13 of their 16 titles? Convenient to you, huh? Well, the Lakers are definitely second best in terms of choking in the finals after leading 3-2. It's obvious that you can't defend the 2010 Celtics and dodge the topics. Since the 2-3-2 in 1985: Trailing 2-3 with 2 upcoming home games: Celtics 0-1 (1985), Lakers 2-0 (1988, 2010) Leading 3-2 with 2 upcoming road games: Celtics 0-1 (2010), Lakers 1-0 (1985) See, both teams have perfect records in both categories.
    Posted by MajicMVP[/QUOTE]

    Well first off you said you folks.  I am a singular person so you folks does not apply to me.  Got it?  Good.  Next I will retract my statement on the 1970 Lakers.  They were down 3-2 and tied it at 3-3 and then lost in Game 7.  So no choke there.  I am not afraid to admit when I am wrong.  You keep mentioning the Celtics failed 48 times which is more than the Lakers.  To have a chance to win the NBA title you have to be in the playoffs right?  The Lakers had 58 chances to win the NBA title and only did it 16 times.  The Celtics had 49 chances to win the NBA title and did it 17 times.  So that means your team failed 42 times to win the NBA title while the Celtics only failed 32 times.  There goes that math thing again.  42 is greater than 32 so your team failed more times to win the NBA title.  I was throwing 1984 in there because it was pretty much a choke.  So since you want to retort lets take a look at the Lakers:

    1961 Lakers - Up 3-2 and lost to the St Louis Hawks
    1984 Lakers - Up 2-1 and lost to the Celtics 4-3
    1993 Lakers - Up 2-0 and lost to Phoenix 3-2
    2006 Lakers - Up 3-1 and lost to Phoenix 4-3

    You even admit that you only look at the Bird/Magic era....I have to ask myself why is that.  Obviously because it skews the numbers in your teams favor.  I don't ignore history at all.  History is defined as events that form the subject matter of history or a chronological record of significant events or an established record.  You omit history.  I presented nothing but historical facts proving the Celtics are better than the Lakers.  You present facts from a specific time period to say the Lakers are better.  I have a challenge for you.  Look up all time facts for both teams and post them here.  I believe I did something similar a week or so ago.  Give me the proof that the Lakers are the better franchise.  You keep talking like they are but I need proof.  Lay it all out there.  I wasn't afraid to lay out the HISTORICAL facts in the thread I made.  I own you.  You have nothing because you are weak and weak minded.  You are not a fan.  You are a bandwagon jumper.  Bring me the proof.  How is a teams success measured?  It is measured by championships and your team doesn't have enough to claim to be the best. 
     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: The championship is tainted

    In Response to Re: The championship is tainted:
    [QUOTE]Yeah .... I missed the the promise as I stopped posting for a few months but when I returned there was a thread devoted to it but the original post had already been deleted otherwise I would have archived it for sure .... Re: Would Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen come back after next season for less money? posted at 6/24/2011 11:54 PM EDT   www.boston.com/community/persona.html?UID=7f55753848dead56fcea3701229e681a&plckUserId=7f55753848dead56fcea3701229e681a " /> Fiercest34 Posts: 2162 First: 3/24/2011 Last: 6/25/2011 Of course they would. Ray and KG returns for vet's minimum then hopefully joining them would be Dwight and Austin Rivers. Hahaha .... Can't wait .... What Credibility You Have ... HAHAHA!!!
    Posted by Mployee8[/QUOTE]

    Stupid move. Why did you admit to not seeing Fierce's actual post about the promise he made. Only a 12-year old would make a mistake like that. LOL
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: The championship is tainted

    In Response to Re: The championship is tainted:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The championship is tainted : Well first off you said you folks.  I am a singular person so you folks does not apply to me.  Got it? 
    [/QUOTE]
    First I said "you folks". If you didn't say that particular statement, then just shut up. Why are you so jumpy?

    [QUOTE]
    To have a chance to win the NBA title you have to be in the playoffs right?  The Lakers had 58 chances to win the NBA title and only did it 16 times.  The Celtics had 49 chances to win the NBA title and did it 17 times.  So that means your team failed 42 times to win the NBA title while the Celtics only failed 32 times.[/QUOTE]
    Well, to have a chance to make the playoffs you have to play in the regular season right? The Celtics had 65 chances to play in the regular season yet they only made 49 playoffs? Are you honoring the Celtics for missing 16 playoffs? or do you consider missing the playoffs a "success"?

    See, keep twisting, but you can't get off the hook...

    [QUOTE]
      There goes that math thing again.  42 is greater than 32 so your team failed more times to win the NBA title.  I was throwing 1984 in there because it was pretty much a choke.  So since you want to retort lets take a look at the Lakers: 1961 Lakers - Up 3-2 and lost to the St Louis Hawks 1984 Lakers - Up 2-1 and lost to the Celtics 4-3 1993 Lakers - Up 2-0 and lost to Phoenix 3-2 2006 Lakers - Up 3-1 and lost to Phoenix 4-3 You even admit that you only look at the Bird/Magic era....I have to ask myself why is that.  Obviously because it skews the numbers in your teams favor.  I don't ignore history at all. [/QUOTE]
    Your own words in

    http://www.boston.com/community/forums.html?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3aSportsForum%3a734e2bc9-e1bc-49d6-8355-64f9a8500246Discussion%3a629a8a2b-85aa-48d5-92e7-2b7b97f9afef&plckCurrentPage=4

    "I am going to ignore history too"

    And since you cite all the Celtics and Lakers choke, let's recap:

    Lakers chokes: 1961 vs Hawks, 1962 vs Celtics, 1969 vs Celtics, 1984 vs Celtics, 1993 vs Suns, 2006 vs Suns, for a total of 6

    Celtics chokes: 1990 vs Knicks, 1991 vs Pistons, 2002 vs Nets, 2009 vs Magic, 2010 vs Lakers.

    But look at the timeframe of the chokes, the Lakers only had 3 since the Bird/Magic era, while the Celtics' 5 all happened in the same era.

    But wait, you can add criteria, so can I. Game 7 at home. Look at how many times the Celtics and Lakers choked:

    Lakers: 1969 vs Celtics
    Celtics: 1973 vs Knicks, 1982 vs 76ers, 2005 vs Pacers, 2009 vs Magic

    Counting all eras, it's Celtics 9, Lakers 7
    Counting only the modern era or since Bird/Magic, its Celtics 8 Lakers 4.

    See, you like to play this game of cherry-picking facts/stats, I am all in. Afterall, for someone who claimed the Lakers choked in 1970 vs the Knicks, I'll see how you measure up...

    So no matter how you want to play, you are still in kindergarten in this game of "cherry-picks the stats the suit one's argument".

    [QUOTE]
     History is defined as events that form the subject matter of history or a chronological record of significant events or an established record.  You omit history. [/QUOTE]
    Simple, because it's a judgement how certain history is significant. Your camp of course want to count that ancient history is absolutely relevant, as if every period in history are the same.

    1) The basketball world doesn't think that way. Look no further than the GOAT. He only has 6 rings, 6 modern rings. The basketball world considers it to be more significant than the 11 rings in the Jurassic era...

    2) Kevin Love's streak of double doubles made great headlines, breaking Moses' record in the "modern era". The basketball world thought that an achievement in the modern era was worth commending, thus discarding Wilt's streak of 200+ double doubles in the ancient era.

    3) Quick, don't look at references, which school won the most # of college football titles? It's not Notre Dame, USC, Alabama, Oklahoma or Nebraska. Well, that tells you all-time numbers are not the things the followers look at when the game landscape was completely different.

    [QUOTE] I presented nothing but historical facts proving the Celtics are better than the Lakers.  [/QUOTE]
    Yet you cherry pick the facts, like ignoring the 48 times the Celtics failed to win the championships, or the 44 times the Celtics failed to make the finals. Did you present those facts? Now your new trick is only counting the times the team made the playoffs?

    Are you going to brag the 16 times the Celtics failed to make the playoffs? that's obviously an advantage to you...

    [QUOTE]
    Look up all time facts for both teams and post them here.  I believe I did something similar a week or so ago.  Give me the proof that the Lakers are the better franchise. ...
    It is measured by championships and your team doesn't have enough to claim to be the best. 
    Posted by rampageimt23[/QUOTE]
    See, just this "measured by championships", "all-time facts" are simply more cherry-pickings. Why count failures (like the 16 times they failed to make the playoffs, and the 44 times they failed to make the finals) when they are not in your favor? Why admit the ancient, struggling league as insignificant when they are not in your favor?

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

    Re: The championship is tainted

    In Response to Re: The championship is tainted:
    [QUOTE]Yeah .... I missed the the promise as I stopped posting for a few months but when I returned there was a thread devoted to it but the original post had already been deleted otherwise I would have archived it for sure .... Re: Would Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen come back after next season for less money? posted at 6/24/2011 11:54 PM EDT   www.boston.com/community/persona.html?UID=7f55753848dead56fcea3701229e681a&plckUserId=7f55753848dead56fcea3701229e681a "> Fiercest34 Posts: 2162 First: 3/24/2011 Last: 6/25/2011 Of course they would. Ray and KG returns for vet's minimum then hopefully joining them would be Dwight and Austin Rivers. Hahaha .... Can't wait .... What Credibility You Have ... HAHAHA!!!
    Posted by Mployee8[/QUOTE]

    Looks like you guys have not missed a beat!

    If this was case in court you would have lost by a landslide. First, you're claiming to be a star witness in a case where you didn't actually see what happened. Second, you can't produce the evidence where Fierce actually said he "promised" to stop posting. And lastly, you're siding with a troll pretending to be a Celtic fan. 

    While this is only an online forum, you're not helping your case by making accusations and allegations without any evidence to back up your claims.

    But if you refuse to accept and understand the law and order stuff that I brought up, there is a simpler explaination. When you reneged on the bet you lost to Fierce you became the laughing stock of this forum.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from rampageimt23. Show rampageimt23's posts

    Re: The championship is tainted

    In Response to Re: The championship is tainted:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The championship is tainted : First I said "you folks". If you didn't say that particular statement, then just shut up. Why are you so jumpy? Well, to have a chance to make the playoffs you have to play in the regular season right? The Celtics had 65 chances to play in the regular season yet they only made 49 playoffs? Are you honoring the Celtics for missing 16 playoffs? or do you consider missing the playoffs a "success"? See, keep twisting, but you can't get off the hook... Your own words in http://www.boston.com/community/forums.html?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3aSportsForum%3a734e2bc9-e1bc-49d6-8355-64f9a8500246Discussion%3a629a8a2b-85aa-48d5-92e7-2b7b97f9afef&plckCurrentPage=4 "I am going to ignore history too" And since you cite all the Celtics and Lakers choke, let's recap: Lakers chokes: 1961 vs Hawks, 1962 vs Celtics, 1969 vs Celtics, 1984 vs Celtics, 1993 vs Suns, 2006 vs Suns, for a total of 6 Celtics chokes: 1990 vs Knicks, 1991 vs Pistons, 2002 vs Nets, 2009 vs Magic, 2010 vs Lakers. But look at the timeframe of the chokes, the Lakers only had 3 since the Bird/Magic era, while the Celtics' 5 all happened in the same era. But wait, you can add criteria, so can I. Game 7 at home. Look at how many times the Celtics and Lakers choked: Lakers: 1969 vs Celtics Celtics: 1973 vs Knicks, 1982 vs 76ers, 2005 vs Pacers, 2009 vs Magic Counting all eras, it's Celtics 9, Lakers 7 Counting only the modern era or since Bird/Magic, its Celtics 8 Lakers 4. See, you like to play this game of cherry-picking facts/stats, I am all in. Afterall, for someone who claimed the Lakers choked in 1970 vs the Knicks, I'll see how you measure up... So no matter how you want to play, you are still in kindergarten in this game of "cherry-picks the stats the suit one's argument". Simple, because it's a judgement how certain history is significant. Your camp of course want to count that ancient history is absolutely relevant, as if every period in history are the same. 1) The basketball world doesn't think that way. Look no further than the GOAT. He only has 6 rings, 6 modern rings. The basketball world considers it to be more significant than the 11 rings in the Jurassic era... 2) Kevin Love's streak of double doubles made great headlines, breaking Moses' record in the "modern era". The basketball world thought that an achievement in the modern era was worth commending, thus discarding Wilt's streak of 200+ double doubles in the ancient era. 3) Quick, don't look at references, which school won the most # of college football titles? It's not Notre Dame, USC, Alabama, Oklahoma or Nebraska. Well, that tells you all-time numbers are not the things the followers look at when the game landscape was completely different. Yet you cherry pick the facts, like ignoring the 48 times the Celtics failed to win the championships, or the 44 times the Celtics failed to make the finals. Did you present those facts? Now your new trick is only counting the times the team made the playoffs? Are you going to brag the 16 times the Celtics failed to make the playoffs? that's obviously an advantage to you... See, just this "measured by championships", "all-time facts" are simply more cherry-pickings. Why count failures (like the 16 times they failed to make the playoffs, and the 44 times they failed to make the finals) when they are not in your favor? Why admit the ancient, struggling league as insignificant when they are not in your favor?
    Posted by MajicMVP[/QUOTE]

    Let me say it slower this time so you can comprehend.  In a previous thread I laid out all the historical facts of both teams.  You "cherry picked" certain facts to make the Lakers look better.  You changed the game so I was just playing by your rules and I buried you and will continue to bury you.  Your arguments are weaker than you are.  The Celtics have more championships today, tomorrow and the day after.  You can keep saying the Cetlics failed to make the Finals 44 times or whatever numbers you are throwing out there but none of it matter unless you win it all.  I am certain in another thread one of you Lakers trolls said something about us Celtics fans counting moral victories and laughed at that.  You are the one counting moral victories my friend.  I guess making the playoffs is a moral victory for your team but not mine.  I count championships as victories and we have more no matter which way you slice it.  So certianly take all the moral victories you would like bu the only numbers that matter 17-16.  I like how you say it is my opinion about the importance of the facts I presented.  How about you ask any impartial person who knows anything about professional basketball and ask them who the most successful franchise is in the history of the NBA is and why?  Better yet I have a question for you.  Who is the most successful franchise in the history of Major League Baseball and why? 
     

Share