Let's get this out the way, Lakers are a better franchise than the Celtics.

[G-Funk]

Have to bring back these delusional Celtics fans back to earth.

[Droid101]

I love this thread.

[Dr. Ice]

celtics fans still exist around here?

[Black and White]

What sparked this thread?

[Mr. Jabbar]

agreed, most celtics titles came before man step on the moon :facepalm

[G-Funk]

Lakers have won the most Division titles with 23 in NBA.

Lakers won the most conference titles with 31

Lakers have the most retired jerseys off the top 50 All-time list.

Lakers have only missed the playoffs five times in franchise history. Celtics 15

Lakers have 5 players in the top 10 All-time list, Celtics? ...2!

[G-Funk]

What sparked this thread?


http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=321619&page=2

[Real Men Wear Green]

Gee that's nice. Good luck rebuilding around a 35 year-old with bad knees making 24 mil per year. I'm sure it will lead the Lakers to getting more championships than that franchise they're so much better than.

[moe94]

Let's do a list of Laker legends that were drafted by the Lakers.

Let's do a list of Celtics legends that were drafted by the Celtics.

Gather from that what you will. Celtics are homegrown, admirable and quite adorable I must say, whereas Lakers are evil, smelly and buy success.

Also, there is no Celtics "STAY" equivalent.

1. Celtics
2. Bulls
3. Spurs
4. Raptors
5. Lakers

[Mr. Jabbar]

Good luck

thanks!

[G-Funk]

Gee that's nice. Good luck rebuilding around a 35 year-old with bad knees making 24 mil per year. I'm sure it will lead the Lakers to getting more championships than that franchise they're so much better than.


See u in another 20 years you green devil

[Black and White]

Lakers have won the most Division titles with 23 in NBA.

Lakers won the most conference titles with 31

Lakers have the most retired jerseys off the top 50 All-time list.

Lakers have only missed the playoffs five times in franchise history. Celtics 15

Lakers have 5 players in the top 10 All-time list, Celtics? ...2!

Whats the most important one though? NBA championships

[Mr. Jabbar]

celtics fans shouldn't be mad tho, there is no shame whatsoever in being second to the lakers

[moe94]

celtics fans shouldn't be mad tho, there is no shame whatsoever in being second to the lakers

They won more. You guys are tying to claim Minni's championships. :coleman:

[Droid101]

What mod fixed the thread title! This thread sucks now.

[G-Funk]

They won more. You guys are tying to claim Lakers championships. :coleman:


YES

[Legends66NBA7]

What mod fixed the thread title! This thread sucks now.

What are you talking about ?

[Droid101]

What are you talking about ?
Let's get this out the way, Lakers are a better franchise than the Lakers.

That used to be the thread title.

[Legends66NBA7]

Let's get this out the way, Lakers are a better franchise than the Lakers.

That used to be the thread title.

Good correction.

Didn't see it before.

[Legends66NBA7]

Anyways, I don't see the beef between ranking either 1 or 2. Both have pretty good arguments over the other.

The rest has always intrigued me more than this. The top 2 is easy.

[Real Men Wear Green]

See u in another 20 years you green devil
Green devil? Are you trying to be funny? Not really working. Picking Mike D'Antoni over Phil Jackson, now that's funny. Allow me to introduce you to the new era. You see, Dr. Buss is gone, God rest his soul. Kupchak is alright but he's no Jerry West and his owner has an ego that leads to dumb shit like the PJ/D'Antoni fiasco. When Dr. Buss and the logo were around LA was bringing Wilt, then Kareem, then Shaq. But now LA puts up embarrassing billboards and they still get abandoned by Dwight Howard. They're forced to give Bryant 50 mil for two years that his play will not justify at all, really just hoping he stays healthy enough to play in games. Where D'Antoni will play him at point guard. Maybe D'Antoni looks at him and sees Nash? Mike may need his eyes checked. I dunno. Well, I do know one thing:

The way things are going right now you will be lucky if LA manages to win a ring in 20 years.

[G-Funk]

Whats the most important one though? NBA championships

U act like the Lakers are thirsty for Championships, Lakers will win one before the Cletics will and the debate will be over.

[Black and White]

U act like the Lakers are thirsty for Championships, Lakers will win one before the Cletics will and the debate will be over.

The Lakers are thirsty for titles, they always are, what kind of crap is that?

[Real Men Wear Green]

The Lakers are thirsty for titles, they always are, what kind of crap is that?
His confusion is understandable when his team's only major move so far has been to fund Kobe's retirement with rumors of trading their best player for Bynum's carcass.

[moe94]

The way things are going right now you will be lucky if LA manages to win a ring in 20 years.

What? Lakers make moves. That market is way too lucrative to ever be truly irrelevant. Next thing you know, they'll land a superstar.

[Black and White]

His confusion is understandable when his team's only major move so far has been to fund Kobe's retirement with rumors of trading their best player for Bynum's carcass.

:roll: :roll:

[Real Men Wear Green]

What? Lakers make moves. That market is way too lucrative to ever be truly irrelevant. Next thing you know, they'll land a superstar.
I'm expecting them to bring in Bynum any minute now. The Bynum/Nick Young duo will be legendary.

[Derka]

Is this how you guys have to console yourselves in the wake of another shitty season? :oldlol: Seriously, I have nothing but respect for the Lakers organization for being at the pinnacle of the sport, but way too many of its fans are entitled douchebags who have to come up with stuff like this just to pick a fight.

Good luck winning anything with MDA and have fun with the salary cap as you're paying Kobe millions to sit on his ass and maybe come back to chuck you guys out of contention so he can chase the scoring record. Also, good luck after you've traded Pau for Bynum's worthless ass.

17 > 16. Spin it any way you want if it helps you sleep at night, but the rest = bullshit.

[moe94]

I'm expecting them to bring in Bynum any minute now. And I'm sure the Bynum/Nick Young duo will be legendary.
Bynum is a superstar? Stop being obtuse and sarcastic. You know damn well the Lakers are going to be okay.

[Black and White]

What? Lakers make moves. That market is way too lucrative to ever be truly irrelevant. Next thing you know, they'll land a superstar.

I think he's talking about the way that Jim Buss is running things.

[Leftimage]

Better? Yes

More respected? No

#eastcoast #BillRussell

[Mr. Jabbar]

lakers will be fine soon enough... by the time celtics win their next tho, ill be able to use this sites search function to bump this thred

[The-Legend-24]

It's pretty clear, Celtics are the franchise that won 11 of their titles in a what? 5 team league, :roll: and then went on a 20+ year drought of not winning shit. :roll:

And we have more legendary players than them, Kobe, Magic, Kareem, West >

Lakers >>

[Real Men Wear Green]

Bynum is a superstar? Stop being obtuse and sarcastic. You know damn well the Lakers are going to be okay.
I'm sorry, but one of us has to deal in reality. You are talking about them bringing in a great player but can't really name anyone. Well, I have at least heard rumors they are trying to trade Gasol for Bynum. Though to be fair, that may just be a salary dump with Bynum getting cut immediately. They got to save some money after all, Kobe is due quite a few dollars.

[Black and White]

lakers will be fine soon enough... by the time celtics win their next tho, ill be able to use this sites search function to bump this thred

Tbh the Celtics are starting to build a nice platform, we have a lot of draft picks and cap flexibility (especially if Danny can move Wallace's contract) to pick up some nice pieces to turn us back into a contender, you will see us contending soon enough.

[Real Men Wear Green]

It's pretty clear, Celtics are the franchise that won 11 of their titles in a what? 5 team league, :roll: and then went on a 20+ year drought of not winning shit.
You know who else was in that "5 team league?" The Lakers. And they would have considerably more Championships if they didn't have to face the Celtics.

[Mr. Jabbar]

Tbh the Celtics are starting to build a nice platform, we have a lot of draft picks and cap flexibility (especially if Danny can move Wallace's contract) to pick up some nice pieces to turn us back into a contender, you will see us contending soon enough.

well ya but draft picks can be a double edged sword, id preffer to put my chips on the better free agent destination franchise when speculating about a next possible chip

[Derka]

It's pretty clear, Celtics are the franchise that won 11 of their titles in a what? 5 team league, :roll: and then went on a 20+ year drought of not winning shit. :roll:

And we have more legendary players than them, Kobe, Magic, Kareem, West >

Lakers >>

You know what's funny about Lakers fans using the 5-team argument? The Lakers were one of the teams we kept beating :oldlol:

Furthermore, if those titles belonged to LA, you guys would be singing the praises of them.

[Legends66NBA7]

You know who else was in that "5 team league?" The Lakers. And they would have considerably more Championships if they didn't have to face the Celtics.

This is true.

I don't get why the "Laker fans" bring up the league argument, when I'm sure if the Lakers won those titles instead of the Celtics, they would defend those titles to the brink.

[LeGOAT]

I agree. The Celtics stacked titles in the baby years of the NBA.

[Black and White]

well ya but draft picks can be a double edged sword, id preffer to put my chips on the better free agent destination franchise when speculating about a next possible chip

Sure, draft picks will either work or not, same with free agency, the Lakers have room to make moves, no doubt they will, but Kobes contract crippled them a little (don't get me wrong, if I was Kobe I would take the contract too, it's the managements fault) and their title hopes are with him, we have the same chances to contend for the title in the next few years as the Lakers do.

[Black and White]

I agree. The Celtics stacked titles in the baby years of the NBA.

Oh the irony :lol

[Mr. Jabbar]

You know what's funny about Lakers fans using the 5-team argument? The Lakers were one of the teams we kept beating :oldlol:

that doesn't matter, the era competition was a joke. if you are willing to rank bill russell lower than his ring count indicates then you do the same with the celtics

[Derka]

that doesn't matter, the era competition was a joke. if you are willing to rank bill russell lower than his ring count indicates then you do the same with the celtics

It would matter if the Lakers had those titles and if you say otherwise, you are a liar.

[Mr. Jabbar]

Sure, draft picks will either work or not, same with free agency, the Lakers have room to make moves, no doubt they will, but Kobes contract crippled them a little (don't get me wrong, if I was Kobe I would take the contract too, it's the managements fault) and their title hopes are with him, we have the same chances to contend for the title in the next few years as the Lakers do.

true, while i still think there's more danger in picks than just dat, cause even if tey dont turn out busts or just average, when u hit th jackpot, on that rare ocassion, that player will most likely hit free agency at some point before being championship ready, so theres more risk than that....theres a reason crappy franchises that always get good picks do not sniff championships :oldlol:

[The-Legend-24]

You know what's funny about Lakers fans using the 5-team argument? The Lakers were one of the teams we kept beating :oldlol:
And then ya'll go on droughts going on 30 years of eating shit, while watching us win year after year after year. :oldlol:

gtfo

[Derka]

And then ya'll go on droughts going on 30 years of eating shit, while watching us win year after year after year. :oldlol:

gtfo

It wasn't 30 years of eating shit, but if hyperbole is all you can come up with...you keep right on. I know how sensitive you guys are when the NBA universe isn't revolving around LA and I know you're even MORE sensitive now that the Clips are getting all the hype :D

[moe94]

At least the Celtics are the best NBA team in Boston. The Lakers aren't the best team in LA. :banana:

[Mr. Jabbar]

At least the Celtics are the best NBA team in Boston. The Lakers aren't the best team in LA. :banana:

damn, that hurt

[Black and White]

true, while i still think there's more danger in picks than just dat, cause even if tey dont turn out busts or just average, when u hit th jackpot, on that rare ocassion, that player will most likely hit free agency at some point before being championship ready, so theres more risk than that....theres a reason crappy franchises that always get good picks do not sniff championships :oldlol:

Yea that is a trend, good players leaving the smaller markets for the bigger ones and its going to continue happening, which is why I know both teams are going to be contending for the title again soon, fair?

[Black and White]

At least the Celtics are the best NBA team in Boston. The Lakers aren't the best team in LA. :banana:

Burn :lol

[Mr. Jabbar]

Yea that is a trend, good players leaving the smaller markets for the bigger ones and its going to continue happening, which is why I know both teams are going to be contending for the title again soon, fair?

fair enough

[Black and White]

fair enough

Which is why I believe that Miami's window is closing, so they need to win as many as they can before they become irrelevant again :lol

[Droid101]

I don't know why everyone only uses titles for arguments... I guess Bill Russell is the GOAT, no contest, right?

Why not count up regular season wins, playoff wins, playoff series wins, conference titles, finals appearances, etc.

Take everything into consideration, then judge.

[Deuce Bigalow]

What franchise do you guys consider the 3rd GOAT? Bulls have the 3rd most titles but does anyone think they are the best franchise not in LA or Boston?

[magictricked]

What franchise do you guys consider the 3rd GOAT? Bulls have the 3rd most titles but does anyone think they are the best franchise not in LA or Boston?

Spurs. Too many years at the top, small market team etc etc etc...

[moe94]

I don't know why everyone only uses titles for arguments... I guess Bill Russell is the GOAT, no contest, right?

Why not count up regular season wins, playoff wins, playoff series wins, conference titles, finals appearances, etc.

Take everything into consideration, then judge.

No one cares that you got to the dance and lost. No one cares how many times you got silver. :coleman:

1a. Lakers
1b. Celtics
3. Bulls
4. Spurs

Set in stone

[Black and White]

Spurs. Too many years at the top, small market team etc etc etc...

This, you beat me to it :cheers:

[Legends66NBA7]

Top 4 is pretty easy too.

Who do you guys have at 5 ? For me it's the Sixers, followed by the Pistons.

[CelticBaller]

If it helps you sleep at night boo

[VIntageNOvel]

Top 4 is pretty easy too.

Who do you guys have at 5 ? For me it's the Sixers, followed by the Pistons.

knicks :lol

[CelticBaller]

No one cares that you got to the dance and lost. No one cares how many times you got silver. :coleman:

1a. Lakers
1b. Celtics
3. Bulls
4. Spurs

Set in stone
Participation awards :oldlol:

[BlackVVaves]

Lakers fans generally are (around here at least) more obnoxious than Celtics fans.

And, 17>16.

But, I will say this. The Lakers have been a better franchise than the Celtics ever since Magic and Bird entered the league. Their premier appeal, which attracted a vast ocean of celebrities to their games which in turn helped garner an even more intense spotlight on the NBA, is second to none in the league.

I think the Lakers and their incredible 14 Finals appearances in the last 34 years outweighs the Celtics 8 appearances in that same span. Especially when you add that the Lakers have bested them in wins in their Finals matchups.

Still. 17>16. Cause, 5>2, right? Funny how that doesn't seem like such a convenient theory for you guys when it's not pertaining to LeBron and Kobe :lol

[Legends66NBA7]

Knicks are not Top 5, but are probably Top 10.

[G-Funk]

No one cares that you got to the dance and lost. No one cares how many times you got silver. :coleman:

1a. Lakers
1b. Celtics
3. Bulls
4. Spurs

Set in stone
Just means your team is consistent in putting a great product to contend each and every year. They care about its fans and putting a decent enough team on the floor that u don't have to be ashamed of.

Whoa 7,000 posts!

[Element]

Let me quote myself again fellas


The truth is...Kobe getting MVP chants in Boston of all places is utterly ridiculous. That should never have happened. Paul Pierce is getting boos here and he's repping Inglewood :lol Celts were irrelevant for a good solid 20 years including like 5 straight missed playoffs in the 90s, and all that "CELTUC PRYDE" s.hit just randomly started popping up again when the Big 3 formed.

Lakers have 16 Championships, you guys have 17. I'll give you that. But let's look a lil' deeper into that, shall we?

Missed playoffs:

Celtics: 16
Lakers: 5

Finals appearances:

Celtics: 21
Lakers: 31

And then, there's that little fact that Boston won 11 of 17 titles in a what, 8 team league? With the most stacked teams relative to competition, ever, as well. GOAT what? :lol

:kobe:

Celtics have 1 argument over Lakers. An extra title. Lakers have everything else.

[BlackWhiteGreen]

To all those arguing Lakers > Celtics, answer these 3 questions.

An 8 team league is equivalent to having an average of 3 all stars a team. Remind me why that makes it easier to win?

Lakers have had 5 of the (basically) consensus top 10 of all time. Celtics have had 2. So the organisation is better because they won less with more talent?

Do the Oklahoma City Thunder have a championship?

[SpecialQue]

To all those arguing Lakers > Celtics, answer these 3 questions.

An 8 team league is equivalent to having an average of 3 all stars a team. Remind me why that makes it easier to win?

Lakers have had 5 of the (basically) consensus top 10 of all time. Celtics have had 2. So the organisation is better because they won less with more talent?

Do the Oklahoma City Thunder have a championship?

I've never understood why people use the "fewer teams" argument to knock the early NBA years. Just thinking about it logically, doesn't that mean that ONLY the absolute best players in the U.S. would be in the NBA, thus making it more difficult to win?

[BlackWhiteGreen]

I've never understood why people use the "fewer teams" argument to knock the early NBA years. Just thinking about it logically, doesn't that mean that ONLY the absolute best players in the U.S. would be in the NBA, thus making it more difficult to win?

I don't really understand it either. The Heat would be a below average team in an 8 team league. It's like, even with 5 all star level players on your team, you'll still come up against 2 or 3 teams with 4 all star level players who would be incredibly tough to beat.

:confusedshrug:

[SilkkTheShocker]

Celtics won most of their titles in the weakest era in NBA history.

[SilkkTheShocker]

Top 4 is pretty easy too.

Who do you guys have at 5 ? For me it's the Sixers, followed by the Pistons.

Miami Heat.

[Black and White]

Miami Heat.

No they are not

[BlackWhiteGreen]

All-Time Series 197-155 BOS
Regular Season [B]154

[BlackWhiteGreen]

To all those arguing Lakers > Celtics, answer these 3 questions.

An 8 team league is equivalent to having an average of 3 all stars a team. Remind me why that makes it easier to win?

Lakers have had 5 of the (basically) consensus top 10 of all time. Celtics have had 2. So the organisation is better because they won less with more talent?

Do the Oklahoma City Thunder have a championship?

[QUOTE]All-Time Series 197-155 BOS
Regular Season 154

[Legends66NBA7]

Miami Heat.

I have them 7th, but one more title (or even a Finals appearance) vaults them in my top 5.

[SamuraiSWISH]

Of course. Water is wet. But at the same time their fan base sucks. Ridiculously spoiled. Too biased to Laker centric players. Boston is the second greatest organization in the sport, and IMO their home grown / non bought talent makes them much more likable. The Lakers have that Yankees of basketball obnoxious entitlement, and aura to them.

[Legends66NBA7]

Do the Oklahoma City Thunder have a championship?

No. Don't know why that's relevant.

[BlackWhiteGreen]

No. Don't know why that's relevant.

So championships don't count if they were won in a different city?

[SpecialQue]

So championships don't count if they were won in a different city?

Haven't the owners offered to "sell back" the Sonics team history if/when Seattle ever gets another team?

[BlackWhiteGreen]

Haven't the owners offered to "sell back" the Sonics team history if/when Seattle ever gets another team?

Seattle don't have a team though, so the question is the same. At this point, the Thunder's 1979 NBA championship is as legitimate as the Los Angeles Lakers' in 1949, 1950, 1952, 1953, 1954.

[SpecialQue]

Seattle don't have a team though, so the question is the same. At this point, the Thunder's 1979 NBA championship is as legitimate as the Los Angeles Lakers' in 1949, 1950, 1952, 1953, 1954.

I disagree with this. Do any Seattle fans consider OKC their team? Do any Thunder fans talk fondly about the Seattle years?

[imdaman99]

I love it, this rivalry should never die.

Laker fans should hate the Celtics and their fans and vice versa. It's not quite Redsox-Yankees, but was a rivalry in the 80s and even within the last 5 years. Please more rivalries are needed in this softened NBA where most the best players are running to 1 team.

Knicks-Nets rivalry to stay out of the cellar, leggo :rockon:

[BlackWhiteGreen]

I disagree with this. Do any Seattle fans consider OKC their team? Do any Thunder fans talk fondly about the Seattle years?

Did Laker fans do the same in the early 60s? How well do you think die hard Minneapolis Lakers fans took it in 1960, probably not a whole lot better than Sonics fans did.

Answer this honestly: If the Thunder have 15 NBA titles by 2060, and Seattle never gets another team, how many people do you think will care about the Sonics then?

[Legends66NBA7]

So championships don't count if they were won in a different city?

No, I thought you mean just the OKC tenure.

Again, that's 1 title. What are you getting at ? And no, all the titles count. I'm not in that territory to discredit a team and their title.

[BlackWhiteGreen]

No, I thought you mean just the OKC tenure.

Again, that's 1 title. What are you getting at ? And no, all the titles count. I'm not in that territory to discredit a team and their title.

http://stewthornley.net/mplslakers.html

[Nick Young]

Did Laker fans do the same in the early 60s? How well do you think die hard Minneapolis Lakers fans took it in 1960, probably not a whole lot better than Sonics fans did.

Answer this honestly: If the Thunder have 15 NBA titles by 2060, and Seattle never gets another team, how many people do you think will care about the Sonics then?
GTFO bandwagon Celtics fan, only started following them after they won a title. Are you even from Boston doe?:lol :lol :lol

[BlackWhiteGreen]

GTFO bandwagon Celtics fan, only started following them after they won a title. Are you even from Boston doe?:lol :lol :lol

By that logic no one on here started following basketball before 06.

I'm from the UK. Aren't you a Chelsea fan? So you're from Los Angeles and London? Impressive.

I notice you can't actually come up with any argument against any point I make, so thanks for validating my argument :cheers:

[SpecialQue]

Did Laker fans do the same in the early 60s? How well do you think die hard Minneapolis Lakers fans took it in 1960, probably not a whole lot better than Sonics fans did.

Answer this honestly: If the Thunder have 15 NBA titles by 2060, and Seattle never gets another team, how many people do you think will care about the Sonics then?

The fans, the franchise owners, the players, sports writers, and the NBA all count the Minneapolis titles. The only people who don't are a few scattered people with agendas and "well, actually" arguments. It's part of the team's history, and no amount of hypotheticals is going to somehow "remove" those titles from the team history. It's the same reason why their first season as the Detroit Gems isn't counted. I get that this is something to give the Celtics franchise an "edge" over the Lakers, but it's still a weak argument when only a handful or people agree with you, and the vast majority don't.

Whatever happens with the Thunder is irrelevant to this topic. The owners and the fanbase agreed to "start over" when the moved the team, hence the name change and former Sonics players not wanting their numbers retired in Oklahoma.

[Solefade]

its hilarious when you see laker fans rooting for boston against lebron then claim they're long time laker fans


dat insecurity

[Deuce Bigalow]

All-Time Series 197-155 BOS
Regular Season 154–124 (.555) Boston

Post-season history

Playoff Series 43–31 (BOS)
1959 NBA Finals Celtics won, 4–0
1962 NBA Finals Celtics won, 4–3
1963 NBA Finals Celtics won, 4–2
1965 NBA Finals Celtics won, 4–1
1966 NBA Finals Celtics won, 4–3
1968 NBA Finals Celtics won, 4–2
1969 NBA Finals Celtics won, 4–3
1984 NBA Finals Celtics won, 4–3
1985 NBA Finals Lakers won, 4–2
1987 NBA Finals Lakers won, 4–2
2008 NBA Finals Celtics won, 4–2
2010 NBA Finals Lakers won, 4–3

Series H2H 9-3 BOS (.750)
Conference Championships
Lakers: 31
Celtics: 21

Missed Playoffs:
Lakers: 6
Celtics: 17

Regular season record:
Lakers: 3184-1973
Celtics: 3121-2145

1948-49: Lakers win Title, Celtics miss Playoffs
1949-50: Lakers win Title, Celtics miss Playoffs
1951-52: Lakers win Title, Celtics lose in Semifinals
1952-53: Lakers win Title, Celtics lose in Semifinals
1953-54: Lakers win Title, Celtics lose in Conference Finals
1971-72: Lakers win Title, Celtics lose in Conference Finals
1979-80: Lakers win Title, Celtics lose in Conference Finals
1981-82: Lakers win Title, Celtics lose in Conference Finals
1987-88: Lakers win Title, Celtics lose in Conference Finals
1999-00: Lakers win Title, Celtics miss Playoffs
2000-01: Lakers win Title, Celtics miss Playoffs
2001-02: Lakers win Title, Celtics lose in Conference Finals
2008-09: Lakers win Title, Celtics lose in Semifinals

[BlackWhiteGreen]

Conference Championships
Lakers: 31
Celtics: 21

Missed Playoffs:
Lakers: 6
Celtics: 17

1948-49: Lakers win Title, Celtics miss Playoffs
1949-50: Lakers win Title, Celtics miss Playoffs
1951-52: Lakers win Title, Celtics lose in Semifinals
1952-53: Lakers win Title, Celtics lose in Semifinals
1953-54: Lakers win Title, Celtics lose in Conference Finals
1971-72: Lakers win Title, Celtics lose in Conference Finals
1979-80: Lakers win Title, Celtics lose in Conference Finals
1981-82: Lakers win Title, Celtics lose in Conference Finals
1987-88: Lakers win Title, Celtics lose in Conference Finals
1999-00: Lakers win Title, Celtics miss Playoffs
2000-01: Lakers win Title, Celtics miss Playoffs
2001-02: Lakers win Title, Celtics lose in Conference Finals
2008-09: Lakers win Title, Celtics lose in Semifinals

So Lakers needed other teams to beat the Celtics for them to win almost 80% of their titles, whereas the Celtics have beaten their only close rivals 75% of the time they met in Finals series?

Winning % in Finals
Boston 17/21 .810
Lakers 16/31 .516

So really it comes down to whether you believe championships or coming 2nd is more important.

[CeltsGarlic]

Good topic.

Let me count titles since thats the most important.

Oh look, celtics have more. CASE CLOSED.

[BlackWhiteGreen]

I get that this is something to give the Celtics franchise an "edge" over the Lakers

No, what gives the Celtics the edge over the Lakers is that they've won more titles with fewer great players and all that makes the Lakers better was that they went home as losers a little later in the season on average.

The league counts that '79 title as the Thunder's. You mention players, fans, sportswriters who were all (with very few exceptions) born after the move. In 50 years, if Seattle never gets another team, no one cares about the Sonics.

[Deuce Bigalow]

So Lakers needed other teams to beat the Celtics for them to win almost 80% of their titles, whereas the Celtics have beaten their only close rivals 75% of the time they met in Finals series?

Winning % in Finals
Boston 17/21 .810
Lakers 16/31 .516

So really it comes down to whether you believe championships or coming 2nd is more important.
No. Most of the Lakers titles were won when Boston were not good enough to get to the Finals, where the Lakers would beat them anyways but they couldn't get there in the first place. Lakers won 4 championships while Boston had sub .500 seasons and missed the playoffs...like they needed other teams help to beat them...

[Deuce Bigalow]

Good topic.

Let me count titles since thats the most important.

Oh look, celtics have more. CASE CLOSED.
1 title is the only edge Boston has.

Lakers literally have everything else by a big margin.

[CeltsGarlic]

No. Most of the Lakers titles were won when Boston were not good enough to get to the Finals, where the Lakers would beat them anyways but they couldn't get there in the first place. Lakers won 4 championships while Boston had sub .500 seasons and missed the playoffs...like they needed other teams help to beat them...

Thats an laughable argument :lol
seriously.

Celtics are better since they had more players with the letter P in their names.

[STATUTORY]

this can't even be argued

celtics championships came in the prehistoric NBA. in modern NBA history, celtics were largely irrelevant for over 2 decades while lakers have competed and won in every decade. consistency breeds greatness and that's why the lakers brand is far more well recognized and renowned than celtics.

[BlackWhiteGreen]

No. Most of the Lakers titles were won when Boston were not good enough to get to the Finals, where the Lakers would beat them anyways but they couldn't get there in the first place. Lakers won 4 championships while Boston had sub .500 seasons and missed the playoffs...like they needed other teams help to beat them...

And when both teams were good? What happens then?

I just find it hard to justify one club being better than another with an all time losing record against them in the regular season, playoffs and finals series.

If you want that second place medal, sure, take it. If you live your life as second best being good enough, then I can see why you think the Lakers are better.

[TheMilkyBarKid]

It comes down to your own agenda, there would be nothing quite like putting on a celtics jersey with your name on it though.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Anyone have their playoff records alltime?

[BlackWhiteGreen]

Anyone have their playoff records alltime?

Lakers 16/57 .281
Celtics 17/46 .370

[Deuce Bigalow]

Lakers 16/57 .281
Celtics 17/46 .370
The **** is that?

[BlackWhiteGreen]

The **** is that?

Playoff wins against playoff appearances

[TheReal Kendall]

Both teams suck at the moment and y'all ain't winning a chip anytime soon

[Black and White]

Both teams suck at the moment and y'all ain't winning a chip anytime soon

Quality contribution

[G-Funk]

^So Lakers had more playoffs appearances then the Celtics?

[plowking]

Hang your hat on that if you want, but Boston>LA as a basketball winning city.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Let's be honest, 16 titles (1 shy of the record and 10 since the merger), most finals (10 more than Boston), most regular season wins, most playoff wins, highest regular season winning percentage, highest playoff winning percentage (a guess but probably true), only 6 missed postseasons in 67 seasons is the GOAT Franchise.

[Deuce Bigalow]

^So Lakers had more playoffs appearances then the Celtics?
Yep Lakers made it to the playoffs 11 more times and missed the playoffs 11 times less despite playing 2 less seasons.

[Black and White]

Let's be honest, 16 titles (1 shy of the record and 10 since the merger), most finals (10 more than Boston), most regular season wins, most playoff wins, highest regular season winning percentage, highest playoff winning percentage (a guess but probably true), only 6 missed postseasons in 67 seasons is the GOAT Franchise.

Since when do finals appearances where you didn't win count for anything??? More finals appearances for LA with 1 less title means you guys failed more times on the biggest stage.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Playoff wins against playoff appearances
So we are awarding missing the playoffs now?

[TheReal Kendall]

Quality contribution

Seriously bro what's the point of going back and forth? Lakers and Celtics are the top 2 franchises in NBA history but atm they aren't contending for any championship.

My Suns have a better chance at winning than these 2 teams.

Thread should've ended after the number of championships were stated.

[Black and White]

Seriously bro what's the point of going back and forth? Lakers and Celtics are the top 2 franchises in NBA history but atm they aren't contending for any championship.

My Suns have a better chance at winning than these 2 teams.

Thread should've ended after the number of championships were stated.

Agreed, thats the point, the fact that this thread is still going is stupid,

:cheers: to the way your suns are playing btw

[Wally450]

this can't even be argued

celtics championships came in the prehistoric NBA. in modern NBA history, celtics were largely irrelevant for over 2 decades while lakers have competed and won in every decade. consistency breeds greatness and that's why the lakers brand is far more well recognized and renowned than celtics.


1990- Pistons
1991- Bulls
1992- Bulls
1993- Bulls
1994- Rockets
1995- Rockets
1996- Bulls
1997- Bulls
1998- Bulls
1999- Spurs

Oh Rly?

[STATUTORY]

1990- Pistons
1991- Bulls
1992- Bulls
1993- Bulls
1994- Rockets
1995- Rockets
1996- Bulls
1997- Bulls
1998- Bulls
1999- Spurs

Oh Rly?

lakers won 1999-2000 season championship, I index championship by the beginning of season year, not end of season :confusedshrug:

[Uchmanmamba24]

Hang your hat on that if you want, but Boston>LA as a basketball winning city.

Stay hating on the Lakers, t.wat!

[TheMilkyBarKid]

Since when do finals appearances where you didn't win count for anything??? More finals appearances for LA with 1 less title means you guys failed more times on the biggest stage.
This. Unless you want to count 2011 finals as a positive for lebron...
Boston is just the best sport city in america, no shame in being second to the celtics.

[MMM]

Yea the Celtics had a rough 10-15 year stretch from mid 90's to their recent run which started in 08. A lot of bad luck during that stretch whether is was not hitting on the Duncan Lotto despite having 2 picks within the top 3, Reggie Lewis and Bias passing away. Not sure many franchises could easily rebound from that. As for going forward I'm not sure why some are predicting doom and gloom for the C's. They've seem liked they cashed in generously with their rebuild and have the necessary assets to turn it around quicker than one would expect. Both franchises are rebuilding but seems like Boston has more certainty going forward, LA probably has another coaching change around the corner.

[Rolando]

Head to Head

Regular Season:
Boston 154
Lakers 124

Playoffs:
Boston 43
Lakers 31

http://www.landofbasketball.com/head_to_head/lakers_vs_celtics_all_time.htm

[Doctor Rivers]

Hang your hat on that if you want, but Boston>LA as a basketball winning city.

lol Boston (and all of New England really) cares more about the Patriots, Bruins and Red Sox than they do the Celtics.

[chazzy]

Since when do finals appearances where you didn't win count for anything??? More finals appearances for LA with 1 less title means you guys failed more times on the biggest stage.
That is some faulty logic. We compare individual players who haven't won titles and rank them based on how they perform and and how far they've made it in the playoffs ("he never made it past the first round!" etc), so why not mention it here? For example, the Spurs franchise had a better year than most teams last year because they won a lot of games and made it to the finals. That matters.

[MMM]

lol Boston (and all of New England really) cares more about the Patriots, Bruins and Red Sox than they do the Celtics.

That is a stretch but Boston/New England definitely has a stronger overall fan base compared to LA. Other than the Lakers and sometimes the Dodgers it doesn't seem like So Cal teams get a lot of love. To be fair though if Boston/NE had some of the things that LA has going for it than it would probably be a similar situation.

[moe94]

lakers won 1999-2000 season championship, I index championship by the beginning of season year, not end of season :confusedshrug:

No one does that. Give it up. Are you really trying to argue the Shaq/Kobe Lakers won in the 90s? :roll:

[Black and White]

That is some faulty logic. We compare individual players who haven't won titles and rank them based on how they perform and and how far they've made it in the playoffs ("he never made it past the first round!" etc), so why not mention it here? For example, the Spurs franchise had a better year than most teams last year because they won a lot of games and made it to the finals. That matters.

That's subjective, think about debates that have happened on this board, people bring up Jordan winning 6 titles in 6 finals appearances and they say that LeBrons finals losses count against him. Thats what I was talking about.

[Straight_Ballin]

Kobe fans that insecure that this thread is needed. :facepalm

[Deuce Bigalow]

I found the amount of playoff wins each franchise has alltime. This is as of June 17, 2010 after the Finals ended.

Tonight’s Game Seven clincher was the Lakers’ 429th franchise win in post-season play, the most in NBA history (Boston is second with 326)
http://mediacentral.nba.com/media/mediacentral/GameNotes-G7.doc

Since the 2011 Playoffs, the Lakers have 9 playoff wins, Boston 18. Here are the totals as of now.

Playoff wins
Lakers - 438
Celtics - 344

[BlackWhiteGreen]

I found the amount of playoff wins each franchise has alltime. This is as of June 17, 2010 after the Finals ended.

http://mediacentral.nba.com/media/mediacentral/GameNotes-G7.doc

Since the 2011 Playoffs, the Lakers have 9 playoff wins, Boston 18. Here are the totals as of now.

Playoff wins
Lakers - 438
Celtics - 344

Good find :cheers: I couldn't find it. Seems strange no one has put playoff records together.

[CelticBaller]

That is some faulty logic. We compare individual players who haven't won titles and rank them based on how they perform and and how far they've made it in the playoffs ("he never made it past the first round!" etc), so why not mention it here? For example, the Spurs franchise had a better year than most teams last year because they won a lot of games and made it to the finals. That matters.
Because no one cares about participation awards.

[CelticBaller]

I found the amount of playoff wins each franchise has alltime. This is as of June 17, 2010 after the Finals ended.

http://mediacentral.nba.com/media/mediacentral/GameNotes-G7.doc

Since the 2011 Playoffs, the Lakers have 9 playoff wins, Boston 18. Here are the totals as of now.

Playoff wins
Lakers - 438
Celtics - 344
So the Celtics are efficient while the Lakers are dominant?

[chazzy]

Because no one cares about participation awards.
Which franchise had a better year last year, Spurs or Pistons? Neither team won the title

[Champ]

Just to add to the debate -- 86 Celtics > any Laker team.

Also, those claiming the Celtics success during the 60s was due to a weak era need to apply the same logic to the 1980s, when the Lakers benefitted from playing in a much weaker conference than the Celtics.

[Psileas]

The fact that the Celtics contend only with the Lakers instead of (contending with) the Bulls and the Spurs should make you appreciate the greatness of the "original" #6 and Red.

[KyleKong]

Gee that's nice. Good luck rebuilding around a 35 year-old with bad knees making 24 mil per year. I'm sure it will lead the Lakers to getting more championships than that franchise they're so much better than.
:lebronamazed:

[gts]

Not sure how anyone can say either franchise is better than the other.. you could argue one was better over a certain span of time but that's about it...

Two greatest franchises in all of sports possibly

[MMM]

Not sure how anyone can say either franchise is better than the other.. you could argue one was better over a certain span of time but that's about it...

Two greatest franchises in all of sports possibly

Yanks and Habs deserve a mention as well

[TheCalmInsanity]

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/a8/a8789558761ee242214e319c9744f6593469559aa09d30c550 fc013b73586941.jpg