Re: Laker 8-peat
posted at 10/28/2011 10:48 AM EDT
In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat
[QUOTE]of the other 5 the Celts lost twice in the first round, once in the semi's, and twice in the Eastern finals...not bad huh...?[/QUOTE]
Right, twice in the first round, as #8 seed (1989 and 2004). You don't think those two years were competitive, do you?
One other time was in 1983, swept by the Bucks in the 2nd round with HCA, when the team was in a mutiny against Fitch. Wait, swept in the 2nd round with HCA, that's your camp's argument against the 2011 Lakers, so that would make the 1983 Celtics comparable to the 2011 Lakers, i.e. a shame.
So out of those 6 years, the Celtics were non-competitive in at least 4 of them.
....in those years they couldn't make it to the Finals...but the Lakers couldn't beat the Eastern representative could they?[/QUOTE]
Neither could the Celtics, so what's your point?
In 4 out of those 6 years, you couldn't make an argument that the Celtics couldn't make the final only because they were in the east. They weren't even competitive.
....again, my reference to strength of conference.....it at least has to be considered... [/QUOTE]
Strength of conference is only your subjective speculation. You think you can argue that the 1989 Celtics (swept out of the first round without Bird after 6 games) couldn't get to the finals only because it's the strength of conference? the 2004 Celtics (#8 seed, swept by the Pacers)?
Strength of conference only gave you 1 year for sure, that the Lakers had to luck to make the finals and lost to a team from the superior conference - 1973.
when the Lakers were winning the 16 titles, the Celtics fared as follows... missed the playoffs 4 times (including 1949 BAA and 1950 NBA.....(the Celts just getting started) lost in the Eastern Semi's twice lost in the Eastern Finals 7 times lost in the NBA Finals 3 times.....they were a great team during 12 of these years so, in my opinion, with the exception of the first 2 years.....the Celtics were also truly a competitive championship quality team... [/QUOTE]
No chance, "with the exception of the first 2 years"?
2000 and 2001, when the Lakers won the championship, the Celtics were at the tail end of their 6-year playoff drought. Even in 2002, when they reached the CF of the mickey mouse east, their conqueror immediately got swept by the Lakers. There were two more years that only reached the Conf semi:
1951 - when 4 out of 6 teams in the division made the playoffs, they immediately got swept by the Knicks in the first round.
2009 - lucky to get past Chicago in the 1st round, then all the whining about Garnett's injury broke loose. They weren't a great team without Garnett.
In other words, in at least 7 times in those 16 years, the Celtics weren't competitive. So, they weren't a great teams in 12 of those years? Your judgement has a lot to be desired. I'll give you a 9-7 at best.
And they couldn't beat the eastern conference representatives, while the Lakers could, so what are you yapping about competitiveness?
it wasn't until unfortunate circumstances hit the team....the death of Bias...the early end of Bird and McHale due to injury....another death (Lewis)..... the Celtics were finally able to rebuild and have had 4 great runs, including going 1-1 with the Lakers head to head so I guess my point is...while the Lakers were getting to the Finals 31 times....they were basically a .500 team that was dominated by Boston....[/QUOTE]
.500 teams don't get to the finals that often. A .500 team is like Houston in 1981.
in my opinion, 17-4 (including 9-3) is our trump card... [/QUOTE]
And 17-4 is not the whole truth. It's only your cherry-picked fact. Your whole truth is 17-48, as compared to 16-47.
You basically are awarding the Celtics for failing before the finals, yet penalizing the Lakers for reaching the final. No sport fans would ever consider early elimination as a success (except your distorted POV) as compared to reaching the finals as a failure (except your distorted POV).
Failing to reach the final 44 times is a trump card while losing in the finals 15 times is a failure? what a laugh!!!
And your 9-3 is also a cherry-picked fact, since you weren't there in 13 of the Lakers' 16 championships. In other words, you consider not reaching the finals a trump card, because you avoided losing to the Lakers.