8 Straight Finals Losses an NBA Record

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from 21st. Show 21st's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    It would have been a REPEAT if KG didn't miss the 2009 postseason.
     
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    remember....the record since moving to LA is 11-14.....that's a .440 winning percentage....the other 5 titles were won in another city, in another time in NBA history known as "pre-modern day basketball" ......prior to the shot clock era...
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from lakersavenger. Show lakersavenger's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    Duke lives in the past so much I suspect he still walks around Boston in his old Celtic nutters from the '60s. Probably sleeps in them too. So disgusting. No peats since 1969, 1 title in 25 years and looks like they won't win a nutter one for a long time.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    Yes I do live in the past....along with the present and future....I got to enjoy the titles of the '50's...the '60's (loved the 6-0 Celtic run vs the Lakers during those years)...I enjoyed the '70's and '80's as well...and I'm enjoying myself today...

    you talk about the tough times the Celtics went through......do you realize that from 1955 through 1979 the Lakers won exactly one championship...?  ....that's one in 25 years...talk about the pot calling the kettle black.....I assume you didn't start following basketball until the Bird/Magic era....or later...?

    many of my older friends are Yankee fans....they had to endure a long rough stretch back in the day...but they are still loving being fans and they also look at the past as they enjoy the present.....believe me....it's really pretty cool.....if your team can keep it up then maybe when you are my age you will get it....I wish you good luck....
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from dirty52. Show dirty52's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat


    http://nba-franchise.pikimal.com/los-angeles-lakers/vs/boston-celtics/for/all-time-winning-percentage
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from dirty52. Show dirty52's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : That's the difference between the Celtics and the Lakers, the Celtics have a tradition while the Lakers don't.  You don't hear of the Celts having a rapist(Kobe), a felon(Artest), and a thug(Bynum) on the team. The Celtics is all about class and character when it comes to their players. And you don't hear of Celtic players having sex in the sauna.
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    Ron Artest has never been convicted for a felony

    However, Russell also received negative attention. Constantly provoked by New York Knicks center Ray Felix during a game, he complained to coach Auerbach. The latter told him to take matters into his own hands, so after the next provocation, Russell punched Felix unconscious, paid a 25-dollar fine and was no longer a target of cheap fouls.[24] With his teammates, Russell had a cordial relationship, with the notable exception of fellow rookie and old rival Heinsohn. Heinsohn felt that Russell resented him because the former was named the 1957 NBA Rookie of the Year: many people thought that Russell was more important, but Russell also had only played half the season. Russell also ignored Heinsohn's plea to give his cousin an autograph, and openly said to Heinsohn that he deserved half of his 300-dollar Rookie of the Year check. The relationship between the two rookies remained reserved.[26] On the other hand, despite their different ethnic backgrounds and lack of common off-court interests, his relationship with Celtics point guard and fan favorite Bob Cousy was amicable
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    I noticed that your link compares the all time number of wins and winning percentage as a deciding factor in which franchise should rank #1........as I stated earlier, "to BE the best you have to be able to BEAT the best".....well, the Boston Celtics may be #2 in those two categories....but head to head against the Lakers....they hold a big edge...add in the playoff records head to head....Boston takes the top spot....and it isn't close....if the Lakers can't play the Celtics on even terms.....then how can they be ranked ahead of them?... it makes no sense....it's like two heavyweight boxers.....one beats more opponents by a slim margin.....but when he goes up against his top opponent.....he gets dominated...remember....strength of conference plays a huge role....when these two teams meet during the regular season and/or in the play-offs.....Boston wins hands down!!  ....it really isn't difficult to understand....

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from dirty52. Show dirty52's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : On March 5, 2007, Artest was arrested for domestic abuse, and excused from Sacramento Kings indefinitely by  GM   Geoff Petrie . [ 48 ] On March 10, Kings announced that Artest would return to the team, while his case was being reviewed by the Placer County District Attorney. [ 49 ]  On May 3, he was sentenced to 20 days in jail and community service. Artest spent only 10 days in the jail, as the judge stayed 10 days of the sentence, and served the remainder in a work release program. [ 50 ]  On July 14, 2007, the NBA suspended Artest for seven games at the beginning of the  2007–08 NBA season  for his legal problems. [51] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Artest#Legal_troubles There's a big difference between punching someone in a basketball game and spending time in jail. 
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]


    You said Ron Artest was a felon. he has never been convicted for a felony

    fel·on

    1 [fel-uhn] Show IPA
    noun
    1.
    Law . a person who has committed a felony.


     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from dirty52. Show dirty52's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
     You also shove your wife to the floor, dirty52?
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    Real classy reply fierce

    i guess its hard to get in your thick head if you are not Convicted of felony you are not a felon

     
  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]Kudos to Fiercest34, he actually convinced this idiot MajicMVP that the Lakers have 17 NBA championships. I'm pretty sure both these men will not say the Lakers have 17 titles.
    Posted by 21st[/QUOTE]

    Yep, Kudos to Fierce, he actually thought that he could downgrade the Lakers' record by including their 1947-48 NBL season, while having no clue which team won the 1948 NBL championship...
     
  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]Well Red, I finally had to join you with that ignore button......it's like talking to a kid....no matter how many times I ask....he never answers the question....in order to be the best....you have to be able to BEAT the BEST....historically speaking the Lakers cannot match up with the Celtics...take your pick...regular season.....Finals......it doesn't matter...and it isn't even close....Boston is the winner....and the finals record has to be embarrassing to Laker fans....anyway....I'm done....on to the next topic...
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]

    Well, duke, you really have to give up. You keep repeating the same illogic again and again. You don't think by repeating them, they would become truth, do you?

    I mean, this repeating of merely the finals record is laughable. You don't think you can wipe out the 44 seasons that the Celtics failed to make the finals, do you?

    Why you want to brag about the times that the Celtics aren't good enough is amazing. Of course, knowing your lack of common sense, that's understandable...
     
  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]yet the 8-peat remains unchallenged ....as does the Celtic mystique ...the domination of the Lakers ... the record number of titles ... the incredible winning percentage during the 21 years in the Finals... all unmatched....I pointed out how the Yankees went through a 34 year period when they won exactly 2 championships...do you see anyone anywhere challenging that franchise as the best all time...?  ..... I didn't think so ..... Boston is unequivocally the greatest franchise in league history.... just ask anyone outside of LA...
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]

    Well, you really have nerve to compare the Celtics to the Yankees. Given that:

    1) The Yankees' # of championships are not challenged, no team is even close (Cardinals only have 10).

    2) The Yankees won 5 since 1995, a record also unchallenged, the closest would be the As' 4 since 1972, but if you count since 1972, the Yankees would have 7.

    Look at (1): 17-16 (17-all if you use Fierce's accounting)
    Look at (2): Lakers are leading 10-6 since the golden era, and the 6 aren't the Celtics. The Celtics have been 1 over the past 25 years. And using your cohort DoctorCO's logic, ancient history shouldn't count: the Steelers (6) ruled the NFL, not the Packers (13 but only 4 in the SB era).

    Yep, Yankees are king in baseball, when the same logic applied to basketball, it ain't the Celtics.

    Of course, the truth is tough to accept.
     
  13. 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 : Does a "peat" give the a team an extra title? I mean if the Lakers repeat does it mean the Lakers get 3 titles instead of 2? The Celts may not have a "peat" lately, but the Lakers are also the only team in NBA history to lose in the Finals in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. A "peat" only means the team is fortunate their key players didn't get hurt for 2 straight years. The Spurs for example won 4 titles in the Tim Duncan era, but no "peat" because of injuries. If KG didn't get hurt in 2009 how sure are you the Lakers would have won a title that year?  
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    Lakers losing in the finals, not bad at all when compared to missing the playoffs. Keep up the good work, lottery pick is your goal.

     
  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]If KG didn't get hurt in 2009 how sure are you the Lakers would have won a title that year?  
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    Very sure.

    Isn't speculation fun?
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]Lakers 16-15 Finals record for a .516 winning percentage. Celtics 17-4 Finals record for a .809 winning percentage. Nuff said!
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    Why only finals record? do you think the Celtics only played 21 seasons in the NBA? The other 44 seasons were wiped out? by whom?

    Missing playoffs: Lakers 5, Celtics 16

    Now, you are bragging about the Celtics' failuare again. But knowing that you are salivating about lottery picks, can't blame you...

     
  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]Yes I do live in the past....along with the present and future....I got to enjoy the titles of the '50's...the '60's (loved the 6-0 Celtic run vs the Lakers during those years)...I enjoyed the '70's and '80's as well...and I'm enjoying myself today... you talk about the tough times the Celtics went through......do you realize that from 1955 through 1979 the Lakers won exactly one championship...?  ....that's one in 25 years...talk about the pot calling the kettle black.....I assume you didn't start following basketball until the Bird/Magic era....or later...? many of my older friends are Yankee fans....they had to endure a long rough stretch back in the day...but they are still loving being fans and they also look at the past as they enjoy the present.....believe me....it's really pretty cool.....if your team can keep it up then maybe when you are my age you will get it....I wish you good luck....
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]

    Duke, did you say you put me on "ignore"? I know it's tough. RedRust tries to do that but he couldn't resist. That's why he got raved when he see this "no Bynum injury no gasol trade" rebuttal thrown at him. I mean, truth is tough to accept, especially when distorted truth and cherry-picked facts have been your arsenal. You can't argue when facing the whole truth...

    The Lakers had tough times in 1955-1979? Not really. The Lakers can claim 1 championship, 10 conference championships and missing the playoffs only thrice.

    Can the Celtics of the past 25 years claim the same? 1 championship, 3 finals, and 8 lottery picks.

    I don't see how a team that won the conference 10 times in 25 years can be called struggling, as compared to a team that enjoy 8 lottery picks in 25 years.

    Of course, knowing your distorted view, you think missing the playoffs is good (because it won't count as a loss in the finals), while losing in the finals is bad (look at your obsession on losing in the finals 16-15, or 11-15, .444 winning pct), this is not a surprise. But your argument won't get you anywhere.

    No place in the sports world would consider reaching the final as a lesser achievement than not making the finals.


     
  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]I noticed that your link compares the all time number of wins and winning percentage as a deciding factor in which franchise should rank #1........as I stated earlier, "to BE the best you have to be able to BEAT the best" .....
    [/QUOTE]
    And the Celtics weren't the best, so the Lakers can't help it if the Celtics weren't the best, while the east sent these teams instead: Knicks, Nationals/76ers, Pistons, Pacers, Nets, Magic ...

    Can't say it better. To be the best you have to beat the best, not "beat the Celtics".

    Are you saying that the Lakers titles against the Knicks/Nationals76ers/Pistons/Pacers/Nets/Magic aren't legit? they were the best the east could send out...

    Yes? then it contradicts your own argument "the goal is to win a championship", "to be the best you have to BEAT the best".

    No? there you go. So head to head is a distortion, since a final win against the Nets is a better achievement than a final win against the Celtics, as the Nets were the better team. You are distorting the truth with this head2head BS...

    So there is no way you can make an argument for head-to-head.

    [QUOTE]but head to head against the Lakers....they hold a big edge...add in the playoff records head to head....Boston takes the top spot....and it isn't close....if the Lakers can't play the Celtics on even terms.....[/QUOTE]

    Sure can, because the Celtics would be no match due to its conference failure. It's not wise to pick your spots to make the finals. Your failure in conference playoffs as well as the regular season also count against you.

    [QUOTE]strength of conference plays a huge role....
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]
    Strength of conference playing a hugh role is only your speculation, not a fact. I can easily say that it plays minimal role. The east is only leading 35-30, a winning percentage of .538. You have ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF that the strength of conference is the sole reason for the 31-21 discrepancy in final appearances.

     
  18. 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 : That's where you are wrong! The Celtics had to play the Pistons, Sixers, Hawks, Knicks, and Bulls in the 80s. If you didn't know those teams had Isiah Thomas and the Bad Boys, Dominique, Bernard King then Patrick Ewing, and MJ and Pippen. Who were the Lakers up against in the west in the 80s? The Sonics and Xavier McDaniel? A Mavs team led by Rolando Blackman? Only the Rockets were considered a championship caliber team in the west back then. Are you still having a hard time accepting the fact that the Celtics still have the edge over the Lakers in the finals and regular season? Poor you. lol
    Posted by Tachometrix[/QUOTE]

    You'll have to forgive some people for lack of comprehension.....see, Bynum got hurt, THEN the lakers traded to get Pau Gasol to play CENTER for the remainder of the 2008 season and playoffs.......that is a fact that has been proven on numerous occassions.  What was going to happen in 2009 has never been speculated on by me.....just the FACT that the trade didn't happen until Bynum got hurt...........they didn't need another CENTER, they had two!!  All reasonable people get this!!
     
  19. 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 : Well, you really have nerve to compare the Celtics to the Yankees. Given that: 1) The Yankees' # of championships are not challenged, no team is even close (Cardinals only have 10). 2) The Yankees won 5 since 1995, a record also unchallenged, the closest would be the As' 4 since 1972, but if you count since 1972, the Yankees would have 7. Look at (1): 17-16 (17-all if you use Fierce's accounting) Look at (2): Lakers are leading 10-6 since the golden era, and the 6 aren't the Celtics. The Celtics have been 1 over the past 25 years. And using your cohort DoctorCO's logic, ancient history shouldn't count: the Steelers (6) ruled the NFL, not the Packers (13 but only 4 in the SB era). Yep, Yankees are king in baseball, when the same logic applied to basketball, it ain't the Celtics. Of course, the truth is tough to accept.
    Posted by MajicMVP[/QUOTE]

    So, since the Golden Age of baseball - free agency - the score is Yankees 7 Red Sox 2, right?  Not looking good this year, with Burnett pitching Game 3...oh well!
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    so, the golden age of baseball started with free agency...?  OK by me......the golden (modern) age of basketball started with the shot clock....also OK by me!!  .....Russ, I think you're on to something here......

    I love this argument....."my team is better than yours"....."because.....well, um....my team can't beat yours very often....but we beat the other teams more often".....how funny (and ridiculous) is that thinking...?

    I guess Joe Frazier and George Foreman were better than Ali as well.....?
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from lakersavenger. Show lakersavenger's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : So, since the Golden Age of baseball - free agency - the score is Yankees 7 Red Sox 2, right?  Not looking good this year, with Burnett pitching Game 3...oh well!
    Posted by Red-16Russ-11[/QUOTE]
    Hey, how about them Red Sox?
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from DoctorCO. Show DoctorCO's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    Majjic mvp, lakers avenger

    THIS IS THE NBA you follow....

    you dont make the golden era is better than those claims...

    THE LEAGUE MAKES THE RULES..

    THE CELTICS ARE 17X champs...

    THE LAKERS dont have that many....
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from FlobusMcNugget. Show FlobusMcNugget's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : You'll have to forgive some people for lack of comprehension.....see, Bynum got hurt, THEN the lakers traded to get Pau Gasol to play CENTER for the remainder of the 2008 season and playoffs.......that is a fact that has been proven on numerous occassions.  What was going to happen in 2009 has never been speculated on by me.....just the FACT that the trade didn't happen until Bynum got hurt...........they didn't need another CENTER, they had two!!  All reasonable people get this!!
    Posted by Red-16Russ-11[/QUOTE]
    After years of hearing this "argument", your point still defies me. The Lakers acquired Gasol, plain and simple. The how's and why's don't matter in the end. Are you questioning whether the Lakers would have been contenders had they not made the trade? The answer is no, they wouldn't. But would the Celtics have been contenders had they not acquired Garnett? Again - no, they wouldn't. 

    What point are you trying to get across exactly?
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from mtrax. Show mtrax's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    The Celtics were great when there was 8 teams in the league.
    Now that you have to get through 4 rounds of playoffs, Boston is nowhere to be found.
    LeBron is Boston's Daddy.
     
  25. 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]The Celtics were great when there was 8 teams in the league. Now that you have to get through 4 rounds of playoffs, Boston is nowhere to be found. LeBron is Boston's Daddy.
    Posted by mtrax[/QUOTE]

    Yes, of course you are correct.  Ah, how many titles does he have again??

     

Share