Re: Laker 8-peat
posted at 10/18/2011 7:16 AM EDT
In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat
[QUOTE]well, this argument continues to rage on.......[/QUOTE]
Ummm... Duke, I thought you put me on ignore. Of course, knowing your habits, I know you couldn't resist...
the debate is which franchise is the greatest in NBA history......obviously the Celtics and Lakers are the top two...but who is number one....? posters from both camps have given their input.....it seems to boil down to a few categories....I'll reiterate on my takes.... regular season head to head record all time.....Celtics 153 (.558) Lakers 121 (.442) playoff head to head record.....Celtics 43 (.581) Lakers 31 (.419) total games.....Celtics 196 (.563) Lakers 152 (.437) Finals head to head.....Celtics 9 (.750) Lakers 3 (.250) Finals record[/QUOTE]
Well, you said it yourself. "To be the best you have to beat the best". Now, if the Celtics weren't the best in the east, they of course wouldn't get the chance to be beaten up by the Lakers. So what make you change the argument to "to be the best you have to beat the Celtics head-to-head"?
.....Celtics 17-4 (.809) Lakers 16-15 (.516) Finals record in the modern (shot clock) era.....Celtics 17-4 (.809) Lakers 11-15 (.423) Laker fans point out that their team has reached the Finals more times (31-21) [/QUOTE]
Missing finals 44 times - Celtics, 34 times - Lakers.
Now, you don't think you can get away with the total of 44 times the Celtics failed to make the finals, do you?
So the tally, no matter how you distort it, is 17-48 vs 16-47. So you penalize the Lakers for reaching the finals and reward the Celtics for their failure, do you think you can get away with this distortion?
Celtic fans point out that the Lakers had an easier time getting into the Finals based on strength of conference...Laker fans say "not so".... so the issue comes down to the following....if the Lakers were the superior team wouldn't they have many more titles than the Celtics....after all, the Celts hold the edge at 17-16...
17-16 is not really an edge.
17-48 vs 16-47, you said it yourself, it's as close as you can get.
As DoctorCO said it, Steelers ruled the NFL even though they were 7 titles short of the Packers, because he only counts WHAT MATTERS!!!!
So # title is not the only thing that counts when the total is that close, especially if you count Fierce's inclusion of the NBL championship. It's not like the Yankee's 27-10 edge or the Canadiens' 24-13 edge. The other factors roll in, such as the 16 times the Celtics failed to make the playoffs, the Celtics' failure since the NBA became big-time (DoctorCO's principle), etc.
.and the Lakers have 10 more appearances...
I am sure the Celtics played two more seasons in the NBA than the Lakers. What 10 more appearances? You mean the Celtics only played 21 seasons in the NBA while the Lakers played 31?
Laker fans say it isn't fair to compare the teams' head to head record in the Finals...(although, for the life of me I cannot figure out their reasoning)....[/QUOTE]
Simple, because you are rewarding the Celtics' failure. They wimped out of the eastern conf championships when the Lakers won championships, why is it an advantage to them?
but even making the adjustment for head to head....shouldn't the "superior" Lakers hold the edge vs "other competition" in the Finals...? well, Boston holds this tie breaker as well....take out the "Celts vs Lakers".... Boston is 8-1 vs the West......889 winning percentage Lakers are 13-6.......684 winning percentage....LA Lakers are 8-5.....615 .....and Boston's only loss came in the '58 Finals when Russ, the most important player for either team went down in game 4... so there you have it.....when the Celtics meet the Lakers.....it is no contest....when the Celtics meet the entry from the West in the Finals....it is still no contest......when the Lakers come out of the West...they are basically a .500 team......the LA entry has a losing record...!.....why doesn't the dominance continue to the Final's results like the Celt's does....?[/QUOTE]
And I really can't figure out why you only count the finals. You mean the seasons the Celtics failed to make the finals are credit to the Celtics?
13-6 vs 8-1. Then what happen to the other 10 seasons. THE CELTICS FAILED TO MAKE THE FINALS. Now, you are crediting them with a .889 winning %. So when they failed to make the finals, it's an advantage to the Celtics. Why?
Your art of distortion is really unparallelled...