<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ChuckTheD @ May 14 2007, 05:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>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.</div>Exactly, and just like someone stated before, the Lakers have been more consistent as far as success. The Celtics haven't won anything to shine about since the 80's. While the Lakers were just as dominant throughout and had more success as of recent with their 3-peat to breakout into the 00's. Again, the Celtics only have 2 more rings than the Lakers, also considering how both teams have been really equal as far as dominance all-time. I just say the Lakers because of their consistency of success.
The Lakers are the clear winner. They've made the finals way more times, have a much higher winning %, have had more great players, more dynasties, more consistency, and the only thing they're lacking is championships. And realistically, you have to think of the value of those rings. A ring in a 25 team league is 3 times harder than a ring in an 8 team league. When you do weighted rings where a modern era ring is worth the three times as much as a pre modern era one (as it should be) you get the lakers ahead in championships by a considerable margin.
I don't think it makes a difference how many teams there are. Even though in an 8 team league you have a stacked team, so do all the other ones in that league. Currently, the talent is spread out more but it goes for all the teams. Winning back then against more stacked teams with a stacked team yourself is the same as winning now with 1 or 2 stars on your team against 1 or 2 stars on another team.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Living_Legend33 @ May 14 2007, 07:30 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>When they won all of those championships in a row, their were how many teams in the league? Their was obviously less competition because they definitely had by far the most talent of any team...It wasnt even close and things were definaltey not competitive.The Lakers just have been a better team overall...They only have 2 less rings, and they were a very good team through the 90's and this past decade as compared to a very average celtics team. It just feels like they have been better for a longer period of time...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ASUFan22 @ May 14 2007, 08:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't think it makes a difference how many teams there are. Even though in an 8 team league you have a stacked team, so do all the other ones in that league. Currently, the talent is spread out more but it goes for all the teams. Winning back then against more stacked teams with a stacked team yourself is the same as winning now with 1 or 2 stars on your team against 1 or 2 stars on another team.</div>yeah, but the difference is that if you're assuming teams will gravitate towards the mean (which you are doing) then you basically have to be better than seven other teams that are pretty even to you, rather than the best out of thirty.
It's honestly a toss up. The Lakers/Celtics both have their own unique, storied franchises. Boston has the edge with the fans. The Celtics are a cult in Boston, even this year I was a at a sell out home game against the Sonics, a meaningless game, in late March. The Celtics roster was an absolute mess yet people still come and fill the stands as if it were a playoff game. As the legend himself Red Auerbach once said, "The Celtics aren't a basketball team, they are a way of life"
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ChuckTheD @ May 14 2007, 08:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>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.</div>The Lakers trump them how? They've been better over the past 10 years, but they haven't been better than every other team in the league over the past decade like the Celtics were in the 60's. That is the most dominant team ever out of any sport. Who cares if there were only about a dozen teams? That means every game was like an all-star game because the talent was concentrated. The Celtics were far better than everyone else? How do you figure? Obviously they were the best, but they weren't facing bad competition. The 76er teams they frequently battled had Wilt, Hal Greer, and Billy Cunningham; 3 hall of fame players. The Laker teams had Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, and Gail Goodrich, another 3 hall of famer players. Every top team had multiple HoF guys. the Celtics won so much because Red Auerbach was smarter than every other coach and front office and put together a flawless team year after year. It amazes me how so many people can just dismiss history and only look at the past few years as the most important criteria. You have to look at the big picture. No franchise has ever been as dominant for as long a period of time as the Celtics have. They won multiple championships in the 50's, 60's, 70's, and 80's. That's 40 years of being at the top. In the end they have more titles than the Lakers and were more dominant while they were on top. 8 straight titles has never and will never be topped by anyone in any sport. Oh, but the Lakers have been more consistent. Winning is what it's all about, not being consistent. Nobody looks back in amazement at how competitive the Blazers were over their 20 year streak, although it is a hell of an achievement.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The Lakers trump them how? They've been better over the past 10 years, but they haven't been better than every other team in the league over the past decade like the Celtics were in the 60's. That is the most dominant team ever out of any sport. Who cares if there were only about a dozen teams? That means every game was like an all-star game because the talent was concentrated.</div>Hey Einstein, chuckthed said that the Lakers trump them in every OTHER area of success besides championship rings. Which is pretty indisputable.What it comes down to is that the lakers have made the finals in EVERY SINGLE DECADE. They've won championships with an array of different teams, while the Celtics just won it with two and made the finals in three. The Lakers vs. the Celtics is like Tim Duncan vs. Robert Horry. The latter may have a couple more championships but the former has accomplished a lot more.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (LakersFan247 @ May 14 2007, 10:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Exactly, and just like someone stated before, the Lakers have been more consistent as far as success. The Celtics haven't won anything to shine about since the 80's. While the Lakers were just as dominant throughout and had more success as of recent with their 3-peat to breakout into the 00's. Again, the Celtics only have 2 more rings than the Lakers, also considering how both teams have been really equal as far as dominance all-time. I just say the Lakers because of their consistency of success.</div>What about the 90's before Shaq when the Lakers didn't even sniff success and were sh*tty right along with the Celtics.The difference between the Lakers and Celtics post-Magic/Bird was the Lakers got a dominant big man in Shaq and the Celtics didn't.Honestly the Lakers still have 11 titles if Shaq never goes there.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tHe_pEsTiLeNcE @ May 15 2007, 11:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Hey Einstein, chuckthed said that the Lakers trump them in every OTHER area of success besides championship rings. Which is pretty indisputable.What it comes down to is that the lakers have made the finals in EVERY SINGLE DECADE. They've won championships with an array of different teams, while the Celtics just won it with two and made the finals in three. The Lakers vs. the Celtics is like Tim Duncan vs. Robert Horry. The latter may have a couple more championships but the former has accomplished a lot more.</div>Hey Einstein Jr, the Celtics won titles with 3 teams. The teams in the 60's, 70's, and 80's were all different. Actually your Duncan-Horry comparison is just the other way around. Horry may have more playoff and finals appearances as he's been around longer, but Duncan is far more dominant just like the Celtic dynasty was more dominant than the Lakers.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (playaofthegame @ May 15 2007, 11:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>What about the 90's before Shaq when the Lakers didn't even sniff success and were sh*tty right along with the Celtics.</div>I wouldn't call them sh*tty between Magic's exit and Shaq and Kobe's arrival. They had rough years in 93 and 94 where they only won 39 and 34 games but in 95 and 96 they won 48 and 53 games. That was one of the worst stretches in history for the franchise and they were still better than Boston.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (playaofthegame @ May 15 2007, 11:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The difference between the Lakers and Celtics post-Magic/Bird was the Lakers got a dominant big man in Shaq and the Celtics didn't.</div>So what? The Celtics got a dominant big man in Russel in the 60's. Why should the Lakers get docked for having talent?<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (playaofthegame @ May 15 2007, 11:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Honestly the Lakers still have 11 titles if Shaq never goes there.</div>And the Celtics have 5 titles if Russel never goes there. Your logic really doesn't make sense.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ChuckTheD @ May 15 2007, 06:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I wouldn't call them sh*tty between Magic's exit and Shaq and Kobe's arrival. They had rough years in 93 and 94 where they only won 39 and 34 games but in 95 and 96 they won 48 and 53 games. That was one of the worst stretches in history for the franchise and they were still better than Boston.So what? The Celtics got a dominant big man in Russel in the 60's. Why should the Lakers get docked for having talent?And the Celtics have 5 titles if Russel never goes there. Your logic really doesn't make sense.</div>1. Why does it matter that they were better than the Celtics for a few years when neither team was especially good? That's like saying one special Olympian is more athletic than the other. Does it really matter?2. Completely agree. That's a dumb argument.3. I think what he's trying to say is that people look too much at recent history as opposed to the entire existence of the league. Without those 3 titles this isn't even a discussion, but because the Lakers have been better as of late they stick out in people's minds more.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Living_Legend33 @ May 15 2007, 06:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>1. Why does it matter that they were better than the Celtics for a few years when neither team was especially good? That's like saying one special Olympian is more athletic than the other. Does it really matter?</div>I'm not using that period of time to say that the Lakers are better than the Celtics. POTG said that the Lakers were sh*tty during that period and it wasn't true. Especially comparing to some of the teams that Celtics have had over the last decade and a half..<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Living_Legend33 @ May 15 2007, 06:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>3. I think what he's trying to say is that people look too much at recent history as opposed to the entire existence of the league. Without those 3 titles this isn't even a discussion, but because the Lakers have been better as of late they stick out in people's minds more.</div>Well he should've said that instead of saying that without Shaq the Lakers wouldn't have 14 rings.
I think it should be noted that the reason the Celtics stunk for most of the 90's was because we had not one, but TWO franchise players DIE. That's a little tough to come back from.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I think it should be noted that the reason the Celtics stunk for most of the 90's was because we had not one, but TWO franchise players DIE. That's a little tough to come back from.</div>Hold the f*cking phone. Didn't one of them die of an overdose? His own neglegence and he didn't even play a f*cking season game in a Celts uniform! Stop the bitching and blame the real culprit: sh*tty management.
