Re: Laker 8-peat
posted at 9/23/2011 10:44 AM EDT
In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat
[QUOTE]Majic, you are a piece of work man......if you really believe that the Celtics record vs the Lakers doesn't matter....you are just kidding yourself....but you are not kidding us... your only argument is more trips to the finals....and I counter that the strength of conference issue must be considered...[/QUOTE]
And then I counter that the strength of conference issue should not be considered. Who are you kidding here?
1) Strength of conference is only your personal opinion. That's NOT NBA's official position that the east is stronger than the west. The NBA rewards teams based on how far they advanced in the playoffs, not according to your opinion that the east is stronger. In other words, IN THE NBA'S POINT OF VIEW, reaching the final is a bigger achievement than missing the playoffs, losing in the first round, losing in the 2nd round, ....
2) Your argument is getting more naive and naive. You think just because the Lakers made the playoffs with losing records in the 60s == the west is weak in its entire history. Do you think mathematical induction works here?
I have several questions for you... why do the Celtics own a .750% vs the Lakers in the finals...? why do the Celtics have more titles in fewer appearances...? why do the Celtics own the all time record one on one in both the regular season and playoffs...? [/QUOTE]
Very simple, because the Celtics laid down like dogs when they weren't good, thus avoided losing more finals to the Lakers. Yet you are proud of this lower achievement. I wonder why.
However, the Lakers wouldn't take pride of having a winning record against the Celtics in the finals, because that would give less merits to their championships. I mean, the Lakers beat the best teams in the eastern conference, which weren't the Celtics.
Tell me, is it a bigger achievement to beat the best team the east send out or beat the weaker Celtics? I know you dare not answer...
....and why is it not even close...? why do the Celtics own an .809% in the finals? ....and why do the Lakers come in at .516 finally, why were all of our titles won in the modern (shot clock) era? [/QUOTE]
And why do you only count the finals? why do you ignore the seasons that the Celtics failed to make the finals? Do you think you can wipe out those 44 seasons?
17-48, so what about .809?
And given that you say .809%, that tells me you are not a person with common sense. You know .809% is less than 1%, don't you?
.......and why has the team represented the city of Los Angeles with a losing (11-14) record in the finals...? I'll wait for your response.....which of course will be that none of the above warrant consideration.... I will do us both a favor.....don't respond since I won't bother to read it.....[/QUOTE]
Of course you shouldn't bother to read it. You are bragging about the Celtics' failure. You keep using the Celtics' failure to argue against the Lakers, just like Fierce did about preferring lottery picks than winning 3 rounds in the playoffs. To be honest, I really don't understand this screwed-up mindset...
[QUOTE]but on this subject we will never agree....and, as I've said numerous time on these threads....these are only our opinions....to each his own bud....
Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]
These is not about opinion or agreement. This is about the basic, fundamental principles in sports. You are arguing for losing, i.e. failing to make the finals is better than making the finals. No one single fan in the world would brag about that kind of "achievement". If nothing else, your fellow Celtic fans strongly disagreed with you, based on what they posted after the game 7 loss last year, how proud they were on the team, etc.
So, you made a distorted argument, like losing is more preferable than winning, and tell us this is just a disagreement on opinion. No way.