Who do you think is better alltime? Here are their credentials:Boston Celtics:16 NBA Titles26 Division Titles19 Finals AppearancesAlltime record: 2770-1905 Alltime Win %: .59345 playoff appearances.43 Winning seasons.Playoff Record: 288-210Playoff Win %: .578Playoff Series' Won: 66Finals Record: 70-46Finals Win %: .603Los Angeles Lakers:14 NBA Titles27 Division Titles28 Finals AppearancesAlltime Record:2808-1759Alltime Win %: .61553 playoff appearances46 Winning seasonsPlayoff Record: 382-254Playoff Win %: .601Playoff Series Won: 93Finals Record: 79-82Finals Win %: .491There you have it. Pick one and please explain why.
Good point. To me, the consistancy of the Laker franchise kinda gives them an upper hand, but it's a close comparison.
The Lakers are a part of every championship era, and have had much more success as of late where the talent is a lot higher.Celtics on the other hand won more, but I dont see them winning the larry o'brien in this era, maybe next time.
Lakers. If you look at all the talent they have had though season even being cosistant its amazing. They have possibly the best Centers All-Time, Kareem, Shaq, Wilt. The best playmaker EVER Magic Johnson. The best scorer in the league right now,Kobe. We have won in hard eras. While the 60s,70s the Celts won in an easier era. Dont get me wrong the Celtics have had talent but not as good as the talent they Lakers have had over the years.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Michael Bryant @ Sep 17 2006, 03:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Good point. To me, the consistancy of the Laker franchise kinda gives them an upper hand, but it's a close comparison.</div>Indeed. I'd take consistency over more championships especially if the championship gaps are minor. The lakers outdo the celtics in most of the categories.I know this is going offtopic but imagine you assembled an all laker team :worthy: ?
Yeah, the C's only have 2 more titles, and at the same time, the Lakers have more wins, higher win%, more playoff appearances, more playoff wins, more Finals appearances, higher playoff win% etc. That there kinda makes up for the 2 fewer titles.And yeah, an all Laker team would be sweet.
The celtics had better dynasties, but as a whole, the lakers have been consistently good, where as the celtics have had stretches of poor play, in the 90s mostly.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (nba dogmatist @ Sep 17 2006, 12:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The celtics had better dynasties, but as a whole, the lakers have been consistently good, where as the celtics have had stretches of poor play, in the 90s mostly.</div>The 60's as a whole were the only dynasty the Celtics have had that was better than any stretch the Lakers have had, other than that, it's been all Lakers.
not necesarrily true. I know you can't consider the 80s Celtics as a dynasty, but they were damn good and they got a few championships in there.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (nba dogmatist @ Sep 17 2006, 12:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>not necesarrily true. I know you can't consider the 80s Celtics as a dynasty, but they were damn good and they got a few championships in there.</div>And the Lakers didn't
The Celts had that ridiculous run of 11 titles in 13 years, after that, it's been 2 in the 70's and 3 in the 80's.The Lakers have never come close to 8 in a row. But, they've had more dynasties of fewer titles eg: 5 from 1949-1954, 5 from 1980-1988, 3 from 200-2002, and the one in the 1970's. In otherwords, more spread out. The Celtics are the lump sum while the Lakers are the annual payments.
The lakers, they are more consistent, and have won in every era, whereas the Celtics won a lot of their trophies in a short period of time.
Lakers IMO. As other people have said, they have been great in just about every era. And if it wasn't for the string of 11 titles in the '50's/'60's, there wouldn't even be an arguement as since the last Bill Russel championship, they have won only 5 'chips, all in '70's/'80's. Lakers have won 9, including the amazing dynasty of the '80's and the Kobe/Shaq duo who have the only 3-peat of the new millennium.
Yeah, if the Lakers didn't lose their first 8 finals against Boston. Let's say they went 4-4. Then the Lakers would have 18 titles and the Celts would have 12. Imagine that, if LA hadn't have F*cked up so many times. Remember, it's VERY difficult for a team to reach the Finals. The Lakers did it 28 times! Even though they lost the title 14 times. It's a shame, because if the Lakers hadn't have messed up so many times in the Finals, they'd easily have 20+ championships under their belt, and Lakers/Celtics wouldn't even be an argument.
