Re: The championship is tainted
posted at 6/25/2011 5:41 AM EDT
In Response to Re: The championship is tainted
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?
First I said "you folks". If you didn't say that particular statement, then just shut up. Why are you so jumpy?
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.
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...
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.
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".
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.
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.
I presented nothing but historical facts proving the Celtics are better than the Lakers.
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...
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
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?