The Lakers and the Celtics are vying for the first place in the ranking Best NBA franchise ever on rankopedia. Then come the Bulls, the Pistons and the Spurs.
I would pick the Lakers. Some say Boston, but theyve only had two dynasties...Lakers really only have two too, but the one in the 60's went to the Finals a ton of times but were beat by the Celtics...
I disagree. As much of a homer as I'm being, the Celtics have 16 championships which is more than the Lakers and when they were good they rarely ever lost.The Lakers may have went to the Finals 28 times but they lost half of them with a 14-14 record in the finals.The Celtics went to the finals 19 times and won 16 out of those 19 times. You can't take anything away from the Celtics because of the poor management they had in the 90's through now and the deaths of Len Bias/Reggie Lewis. (Mind you David Stern was strict with us when Reggie Lewis died and didn't allow us to free cap space so adding to the psychological breakdown the team had we also didn't have any money after Reggie died to pay free agents.)Lakers were better than the Celtics in the late 1940's/1950's -- 5 titles to noneCeltics were better than the Lakers in the late 1950's/1960's -- 11 titles to noneCeltics were better than the Lakers in the 1970's -- 2 titles to noneLakers were better than the Celtics in the 1980's -- 5 titles to 3 The most competitive era of basketball IMOLakers were better than the Celtics in the early 2000's -- 3 titles to noneIf the Lakers hadn't won those titles in the late 90's/early 2000's..this discussion wouldn't even be happening.I would say you could make a very strong argument for LA because of the 2000's dynasty and that's what puts them over the top as having "more dynasties" but in the end 16 titles is more than 14.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (playaofthegame @ May 14 2007, 03:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I disagree. As much of a homer as I'm being, the Celtics have 16 championships which is more than the Lakers and when they were good they rarely ever lost.The Lakers may have went to the Finals 28 times but they lost half of them with a 14-14 record in the finals.The Celtics went to the finals 19 times and won 16 out of those 19 times. You can't take anything away from the Celtics because of the poor management they had in the 90's through now and the deaths of Len Bias/Reggie Lewis. (Mind you David Stern was strict with us when Reggie Lewis died and didn't allow us to free cap space so adding to the psychological breakdown the team had we also didn't have any money after Reggie died to pay free agents.)Lakers were better than the Celtics in the late 1940's/1950's -- 5 titles to noneCeltics were better than the Lakers in the late 1950's/1960's -- 11 titles to noneCeltics were better than the Lakers in the 1970's -- 2 titles to noneLakers were better than the Celtics in the 1980's -- 5 titles to 3 The most competitive era of basketball IMOLakers were better than the Celtics in the early 2000's -- 3 titles to noneIf the Lakers hadn't won those titles in the late 90's/early 2000's..this discussion wouldn't even be happening.I would say you could make a very strong argument for LA because of the 2000's dynasty and that's what puts them over the top as having "more dynasties" but in the end 16 titles is more than 14.</div>Yeah but the Lakers were more consistent and made the palyoffs while the Celtics are in the lottery for a couple straight years. The Lakers missed the playoffs 1 since 2000 and the 1 was a season full of injuries and no Phil Jackson.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (S_Guard @ May 14 2007, 03:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The grizzlies really should not be on that list(.)</div>what the hell? We're 22? We should be the bottom 5 with Toronto, Minny, and Charlotte...not that these franchises arent good or anything, but Minny, Toronto and the Griz have been around like 12 yrs? And Charlotte(not including the Hornets) has only been around 3 years right?I love the Griz..but outve the fact of being a young franchise, we shouldnt be 22.
Boston and LA are definatly the top 2. The Celtics may have more titles, but their recent struggles may allow the Lakers to surpass them, and rightfully so. It's really a hard choice between the two franchises.
Both are amazing franchises, but I give the edge to the Celtics, those fans, that whole Celtic culture is just amazing. I find LA's fans generally dumb and repulsive.
Lakers and Boston both had 2 dynasties, but Lakers almost had one but Boston was too much...yet the Lakers still made the Finals just about every year. But, the Lakers had two dynasties in the 80s and in the 2000's(?), Boston only challenged the Lakers in the 80s. Not to mention its alot harder to win a ring now than it was in the 60s probably. The Lakers are the greatest franchise despite Boston having more championships...
The Championships are the only thing Boston has more of than the Lakers. The Lakers have won more games, have the higher win percentage, more division titles, more conference titles, more playoff appearances, more winning seasons, more playoff games won, more playoff series won, more finals games won. In 58 years, the Lakers have a .615 win percentage, they have won 93 playoff series, been to the finals 28 times, 47 winning seasons and they only missed the playoffs 5 times in that span. Tough numbers to beat.
Ah it's pretty close. The Lakers are obviosly the more sexy team though, everyone wants to play their
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (austingriz @ May 14 2007, 02:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Lakers and Boston both had 2 dynasties, but Lakers almost had one but Boston was too much...yet the Lakers still made the Finals just about every year. But, the Lakers had two dynasties in the 80s and in the 2000's(?), Boston only challenged the Lakers in the 80s. Not to mention its alot harder to win a ring now than it was in the 60s probably. The Lakers are the greatest franchise despite Boston having more championships...</div>I wouldn't call 3 titles in 6 years a dynasty but whatever. The Lakers actually have had 3: late 40's early 50's, the 80's, and the early 00's. The Lakers have been much, much more consistent. I mean they've been around for 60 years, and 11 of their 16 championships came in a 13 year span. The Celtics owned the late 50's and 60's. But other than that they haven't really had any dominant decades or ones where they were even better than the Lakers (unless you count the 70's where they won 2 and the Lakers won 1).
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mavsfan1000 @ May 14 2007, 04:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Yeah the Celtics are the best franchise imo as well. Both are going downhill though as of late.</div>The Celtics aren't "going down hill". They're pretty much already at the bottom of the hill. They can't really go anywhere but up from a 24-58 season. The Lakers I would say are "going down hill" becoming a team that is a first-round exit team but if they can bring some help for Kobe they're definitely still gonna be strong.
Since this is ever id have to agree with the lakers, the celtics were the greatest franchise up to the late 80s but since havent done anything while the lakers are always in the playoffs at the very least.
I like the Lakers as the best team in NBA history as well....The Celtics won so many of those going against very little competiton, much less NBA teams, and it was obvious that their team was SO much more stacked than anybody else when they won like 9 in a row or whatever...LakersCelticsSpurs
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ballerman2112 @ May 14 2007, 07:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I like the Lakers as the best team in NBA history as well....The Celtics won so many of those going against very little competiton, much less NBA teams, and it was obvious that their team was SO much more stacked than anybody else when they won like 9 in a row or whatever...LakersCelticsSpurs</div>That argument is pure BS. If anything the league in the 60's was MORE competitive. There wasn't a salary cap, so great teams stuck together and didn't collapse because key guys left for more money. There were also less teams, which means each team was stacked with talent. Imagine how great every NBA team would be now if there were only 14 teams instead of 30. Now imagine how difficult it would be to win a single championship, much less 8 in a row and 11 in 13 years! That kind of dominance is unparalleled in any sport. The Lakers have been more consistent as the Celtics have been awful for the better part of the past decade, but they've never even come close to being as dominant. What makes the best franchise of all-time? Consistency or dominance? Hell if you want to award consistency let's just give the award to the Blazers for their 20 year playoff streak.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Living_Legend33 @ May 14 2007, 05:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>That argument is pure BS. If anything the league in the 60's was MORE competitive. There wasn't a salary cap, so great teams stuck together and didn't collapse because key guys left for more money. There were also less teams, which means each team was stacked with talent. Imagine how great every NBA team would be now if there were only 14 teams instead of 30. Now imagine how difficult it would be to win a single championship, much less 8 in a row and 11 in 13 years! That kind of dominance is unparalleled in any sport. The Lakers have been more consistent as the Celtics have been awful for the better part of the past decade, but they've never even come close to being as dominant. What makes the best franchise of all-time? Consistency or dominance? Hell if you want to award consistency let's just give the award to the Blazers for their 20 year playoff streak.</div>Well it's not like the Celtics have been that much more dominant for the Lakers. They only have 2 more titles. And in every other area of success the Lakers trump them.
