8 Straight Finals Losses an NBA Record

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    Final count - Tachometrix 17
    MajicMVP - 16

    LOL!!


    McAdoo?????  Really?  Bob McAdoo and Norm Nixon?  WOW!!  Talk about desperate.  McAdoo was DONE as a player after he left Buffalo!!  Bob McAdoo - WOW!!
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    OK.....I have to admit that after seeing about 4 pages of greyed out posts I had to take a look.....man, this debate has raged for several hours this morning....but nothing much in the way of anything new...just the same back and forth on opinions....

    I decided to take a look at those extra 10 trips the Lakers made to the Finals...since the implication is that, while the Lakers were always a quality team that made it to the Finals more often than not, the same did not hold true for the Celts....a little investigative reporting here....

    during the 15 years that the Lakers lost in the Finals the Celtics missed the playoff once ('70....the year after Russ & Sam retired)

    of those 15 losses, 9 came at the hands of the Celtics...

    in the other 6 losses in the Finals, the Celtics missed the play-offs once (as I already mentioned)....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...? ....in those years they couldn't make it to the Finals...but the Lakers couldn't beat the Eastern representative could they?....again, my reference to strength of conference.....it at least has to be considered...

    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...

    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....and the LA entry actually has a losing record....during those 31 years Boston was also doing quite well, thank you....and, in my opinion, 17-4 (including 9-3) is our trump card...

    yes Majic....I did take you off ignore....I had to see just what was transpiring during this marathon.....I have to admit I found it quite entertaining...and, as I have always stated...this was all based on Hollinger's OPINION.....we are all going back and forth with thoughts, and stats, and the like....but it all comes down to his or her own opinion...I don't really expect anyone to change at this point.....

    Ciao for now guys & gals.....
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from LakerFan67. Show LakerFan67's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    Who cares!

    This is what a lockout by wealthy owners will do.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from scarymemo. Show scarymemo's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    Funny about everyone complains about Laker fans coming here and taking over and yet the longest threads here always have "Lakers" in the title of the tread. Remember the one hundreds of comments long and now this one. That just goes to show you all that the Lakers are feared by Boston fans, and they have to convince themselves with irrelevant stats the cs are the best franchise, old goat Duke being the worst offender with this.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]Funny about everyone complains about Laker fans coming here and taking over and yet the longest threads here always have "Lakers" in the title of the tread. Remember the one hundreds of comments long and now this one. That just goes to show you all that the Lakers are feared by Boston fans, and they have to convince themselves with irrelevant stats the cs are the best franchise, old goat Duke being the worst offender with this.
    Posted by scarymemo[/QUOTE]

    Funny how you "remember" that, since this is only your third post..........hmmmm....wonder who you were in a prior life?

    How about them lakers, and Yankees??
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Number6Fan. Show Number6Fan's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    Will someone please put this thread out of its misery? PLEASE?
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : Maybe the Celtics are not the best franchise, but the Celtics are definitely the winningest! lol
    Posted by Tachometrix[/QUOTE]

    As for comparing with the Lakers in terms of missing playoffs, the Celtics are also the missingest...

    As for comparing with the Lakers in terms of failing to win the championship, the Celtics are also the failingest...




     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : That's what I mean, you're antagonizing Celtic fans. Is that really a nice thing to do?
    Posted by Tachometrix[/QUOTE]

    Against Celtics trolls who rant and rave on a Lakers 8-peat thread in the Celtics forum?

    Definitely...
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : Your invention is irrelevant. You're the only one who understand what that means. lol
    Posted by Tachometrix[/QUOTE]

    Oh, you mean you don't understand what

    missing playoffs - 16
    1st round - 6
    2nd round (final 8) - 11
    Conf/div finals - 11
    Final - 4
    Champs - 17

    means?

    Girl, you are more ignorant than I thought...

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : The Lakers are 4-5 in Game 7s. Another record in futility. lol http://sportslistoftheday.com/2011/04/18/nba-finals-game-7-results-all-time/ The Celtics are 7-1 in Game 7s. Wow! Oh, the Lakers are also the losingest franchise in the NBA when it comes to Game 7s. The 5 game 7 losses is the most by any NBA franchise. NOT GREAT AT ALL!!! LOL
    Posted by Tachometrix[/QUOTE]

    The Celtics are 7-1 in Game 7s?

    1973 Game 7 Knicks 94 Celtics 78
    1982 Game 7 76ers 120 Celtics 106
    2005 Game 7 Pacers 97 Celtics 70
    2009 Game 7 Magic 101 Celtics 82

    Your phone will be jammed with calls. Remedial arithmetic is calling you...

    "but I mean the finals", you say?

    I asked you "Tell me, which team has lost the most # of home game 7 in NBA history?". There is no mention of "home game 7" of the finals alone. You mean you deliberately avoid games 7 of all rounds and limit the context to the finals?

    Like I said, when you can't argue, change the context.

    Remedial English is calling you again...




     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]Imagine if Perk played in Game 7 of the 2010 finals, that would mean the Celtics would have had a 5-0 Game 7 record against the Lakers in the finals! lol
    Posted by Tachometrix[/QUOTE]

    If pigs can fly...
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]Final count - Tachometrix 17 MajicMVP - 16 LOL!! [/QUOTE]
    Final count doesn't matter. Your own logic: 9 is better than 11, remember?
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from 21st. Show 21st's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    Team# of Times Swept in a 4-Game Series
    Lakers7
    Hawks4
    Knicks4
    Magic3
    Grizzlies3
    Bulls3
    Pistons3
    Bucks3
    Bullets3
    Spurs3
    Celtics3
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    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.

    [QUOTE]
    ....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.

    [QUOTE]
    ....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.

    [QUOTE]
    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?

    [QUOTE]
    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.

    [QUOTE]
    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.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : Final count doesn't matter. Your own logic: 9 is better than 11, remember?
    Posted by MajicMVP[/QUOTE]

    You ARE a woman!!  You twist words around to your advantage better than my wife.  11 is CLEARLY a  higher number than 9.  Phil is CLEARLY the winningest coach in NBA history...............that does not make him the BEST - that would be Red...............I love this - the lakers, you claim, with 16 are superior to the Celtics with 17, yet you will not allow others to make a similar claim.  Red did it with one team, was NEVER fired, and retired at 48.  Audi commerical man is 65, was fired TWICE and did it with two teams..................no comparison.  So, which is it......how can Phil be better than Red and the Celtics NOT be better than the lakers??  Impossible to "argue" with you...........back to ignore!
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]http://bleacherreport.com/articles/449922-power-rankings-the-10-best-franchises-in-north-american-professional-sports/page/12 Despite how  John Hollinger ranks the Lakers as the NBA’s best franchise,  I have to give Boston a slight edge. Not only does Boston have one more championship than the Lakers, but the team holds a 9-3 record in the NBA Finals with their NBA rivals. In addition, four Celtics players hold the NBA record for MVP awards, with a total of ten.
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    If bleacher report is your game, here it goes:

    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/127731-lakers-vs-celtics-whos-the-greatest-nba-franchise

    Overall:

    Overall, the main perception by NBA fans is that the Celtics are the best and most successful franchise, because they have won the most titles, and have dominated the Lakers in the Finals.

    However, I personally think the Lakers are the best franchise; they have been the most consistent, and they have had the most great players, as well as some of the best coaches and the best general manager.


    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/119441-10-greatest-sports-franchises-of-all-time

    1. Los Angeles Lakers

    The Lakers are the greatest franchise in sports. Period.

    How come you always choose the criteria that go against you?
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : You ARE a woman!!  You twist words around to your advantage better than my wife.  11 is CLEARLY a  higher number than 9.  Phil is CLEARLY the winningest coach in NBA history...............that does not make him the BEST - that would be Red...............I love this - the lakers, you claim, with 16 are superior to the Celtics with 17, yet you will not allow others to make a similar claim.  Red did it with one team, was NEVER fired, and retired at 48.  Audi commerical man is 65, was fired TWICE and did it with two teams..................no comparison.  So, which is it......how can Phil be better than Red and the Celtics NOT be better than the lakers??  Impossible to "argue" with you...........back to ignore!
    Posted by Red-16Russ-11[/QUOTE]

    Of course it's impossible to argue with me, because I am just using your own argument against you. If sheer number is not the criteria, then 16 can certainly be better than 17.

    Justifications: Red did it with one team, was NEVER fired, and retired at 48.  Audi commerical man is 65, was fired TWICE and did it with two teams?

    You think these are valid criteria to justify 9 better than 11.

    So why can't we think of other criteria to justify 16 is better than 17?

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : By  Marcel Mansour  (Senior Analyst)  on February 21, 2009 Marcel Mansour? lol Nice try, fool! Your article is even older than Fierce's article.
    Posted by 21st[/QUOTE]

    Feb 21, 2009, it was only 14-17.

    14-17 already made the Lakers the best franchise in sports. Now it's 16-17, what do you think?
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from 21st. Show 21st's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    Phil Jackson is GOAT?
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : Of course it's impossible to argue with me, because I am just using your own argument against you. If sheer number is not the criteria, then 16 can certainly be better than 17. Justifications: Red did it with one team, was NEVER fired, and retired at 48.  Audi commerical man is 65, was fired TWICE and did it with two teams? You think these are valid criteria to justify 9 better than 11. So why can't we think of other criteria to justify 16 is better than 17?
    Posted by MajicMVP[/QUOTE]

    Last chance - and remember I'm a math teacher:

    If 11 is better than 9,
    then - 17 is better than 16

    YOUR words not mine!!

    Also, Gasol was acquired to play center in 2008, AFTER Bynum was hurt-
    all indisputable facts - nice "chatting" with you again!!
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from 21st. Show 21st's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : Feb 21, 2009, it was only 14-17. 14-17 already made the Lakers the best franchise in sports. Now it's 16-17, what do you think?
    Posted by MajicMVP[/QUOTE]

    We have 17 of these. How many do you have? Not 16, right?
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from 21st. Show 21st's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    THIS IS AN 8-PEAT! ONLY THE LAKERS DID THIS!

    1970 New York Knicks       4-3   Los Angeles Lakers
    1969 Boston Celtics         4-3 Los Angeles Lakers
    1968 Boston Celtics         4-2 Los Angeles Lakers
    1967 Philadelphia 76ers 4-2 San Francisco Warriors
    1966 Boston Celtics         4-3 Los Angeles Lakers
    1965 Boston Celtics         4-1 Los Angeles Lakers
    1964 Boston Celtics         4-1 San Francisco Warriors
    1963 Boston Celtics         4-2 Los Angeles Lakers
    1962 Boston Celtics         4-3 Los Angeles Lakers
    1961 Boston Celtics         4-1 St. Louis Hawks
    1960 Boston Celtics         4-3 St. Louis Hawks
    1959 Boston Celtics         4-0 Minneapolis Lakers
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from 21st. Show 21st's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    LA spring?
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : Hey Majic, I checked out the link, it's true the Celtics are 7-1 in Game 7s of the Finals. The Lakers are 4-5 in Game 7s of the Finals, making the Lakers the team that lost the most Game 7s in the Finals.
    [/QUOTE]
    The context wasn't games 7 in the finals. So what about it?

    Which team lost most home games 7 in the playoffs?

    Need any links?

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : Last chance - and remember I'm a math teacher: If 11 is better than 9, then - 17 is better than 16 YOUR words not mine!! Also, Gasol was acquired to play center in 2008, AFTER Bynum was hurt- all indisputable facts - nice "chatting" with you again!!
    Posted by Red-16Russ-11[/QUOTE]

    So what do you teach? kindergarten arithmetic?

    It's a fact that you don't know logic, which is part of the math curriculum in college. But that must be out of your league...

    You said 9 was better than 11, your words, not mine.

    So you cannot deduce that 17 is better than 16.
     

Share