8 Straight Finals Losses an NBA Record

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

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]Dirty.....I've brought this up earlier.......the article cites the Lakers as having a better won/loss record than Boston all time in both the regular season and the play-offs.....I think the trump card in this discussion is the fact that, head to head, Boston has the much bigger advantage....so in a comparison of two franchises for bragging rights...do you take the Lakers vs the league....or do you take the Celtics vs the Lakers...?  ....just asking an honest question....also...did you find the Ewing lottery on youtube yet.....?
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]


    Duke

    i agree the Celtics have the advantage head to head , but Lakers do have a overall better winning record. Both are very successful teams. The Celtics are a great Franchise but i am a Laker fan and i have to stick by my team

    I do not think the Lakers will ever get the chance to break that advantage head to head. because the odds of the Celtics and Lakers meeting each other in finals that many times is pretty slim.

    I just watch the Ewing video and i think the fix was in on that draft ...lol

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    Dirty.....I hear you loud and clear pal....as fans, we owe it to ourselves to stick by our teams!  ....let's face it...Celtics/Lakers....the two most storied franchises....the greatest rivalry...the two best teams....what's not to like right...?

    Boston dominated early on.....I was lucky enough to have been able to see the Celtic dynasty almost since it's inception (I started watching around 1959)...the Lakers have been dominant since the early '00's.....the '80's were the best in my opinion...so it's all good buddy.....

    glad you got to see the "Ewing sweepstakes"......not sure about the whole deal...but a lot of people think Stern put the fix in....and decades later a lot of fans still do....me....?  ....don't really believe in conspiracy theories...but Stern definitely had something to do with "the Jordan Rules"....

    take care Buddy!
     
  3. 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 : Are you crazy? The Celtics have a 17-4 Finals record while the Lakers only have a 16-15 record in the Finals. 17-4 is .809 while 16-15 is only .516. The Celtics and Lakers met in the Finals 12 times and the Celtics won 9 times. In the regular season the Celtics have 153 wins over the Lakers while the Lakers only have 121 wins against the Celtics. http://www.lakersuniverse.com/headtohead/lakers_celtics.htm
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    i guess you missed the point on this one. the link is to all time winning percentage against everyone in the league
     
  4. 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 : It's a given that the goal of every NBA team is to win a championship. But the NBA doesn't give out 30 Larry O'Brien trophies every season. In other words, there's only 1 champion every year. Now, would you rather the Lakers end up in a situation like in 2006 and 2007, where they exit the 1st round of the playoffs, or would you rather have a chance at drafting a good player in the lottery? Are you telling me that you enjoy watching the Lakers getting eliminated in the 1st round? 
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    Actually i would prefer for the Lakers to win the finals but how many good players have the Celtics actually drafted that are still with the team?

    http://www.celticstats.com/misc/firstround.php
     
  5. 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 : Yeah, typical Laker fan mentality. Get to the Finals and lose! You're used to it. I mean you already lost 15 times in the Finals, so you must be used to seeing the Lakers lose in the Finals. You're telling me that it wasn't frustrating for Laker fans back in 1991 when the Lakers lost 3 straight Finals home games? The Celtics went 21 times and won 17 times. Celtic fans are not used to seeing the Celtics lose in the Finals.
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    Actually i am not frustated at all. Sure i am disappointed that they have lost in the  finals but i am not losing any sleep over it. You seem more worked up about it than i am.

    And how would you know what typical Laker fan mentality is? Do you actually know any outside of this forum?

    I have a question for you, how come the Celtics have only been to the finals 21 times?
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from LakerFan67. Show LakerFan67's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    I don't care whether the Lakers have won or lost in the finals. I enjoy the fact that they've won titles and have gone to the finals more than any other franchise in recent NBA history.

    Would you rather go to the finals 1 time and win 1 title in 20 years or go to the finals 7 times and win 5 titles? Laker fans have gotten fat on championships this past decade that's why we don't have the inferiority complex refletive of some Boston fans.

    A few Boston fans bring up some of the most irrelevant garbage--Oh the Celtics had tougher competition, oh the Lakers had more No. 1 picks--who cares! It's just entertainment.

    Next you'll be crying about Len Bias and what could have been or injuries.
     
  7. 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 doesn't surprise me at all. After all, the Lakers are the only NBA team to lose in the finals in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and 2000s. lol The Laker record of 16-15 in the finals speaks for itself. It simply means every time the Lakers make it to the finals there's a 50-50 chance they're going to win.  As for the Celtics, 17 out of 21 times is an 80% average, meaning, every time the Celtics make it to the finals there's an 80% chance of the Celtics winning. Take away the Minneapolis Lakers titles and Laker fans only have 11 legitimate Laker championships. 
    Posted by Tachometrix[/QUOTE]

    So why are only 11 champsionships legitmate?  The NBA recognizes all of them
     
  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]Majic....unfortunately, I do have you on ignore.....but many other posters are continuing to go back and forth on this topic....and I can see replies to comments via the magic that is called "cut & paste".......
    [/QUOTE]
    So you are not genuine in ignoring me, because as soon as you see my quotes via other posters, you can't resist. Why couldn't you just take it at the chin and ignore my quotes no matter what?

    Given your prompt response on this one, you would be smarting if I am the only one having all the fun...

    [QUOTE]
    regardless of what you believe, I did not invent the term, the media did....[/QUOTE]
    And you have any proof on that? You know, given your dishonesty here, you don't think I'll take your words for it (unless it's words against your own argument, like "if you want to be the best you have to beat the best"), do you?

    [QUOTE]
    and isn't it interesting that all of the titles were won actually by four teams..?  ...one from the West and three from the East!!  [/QUOTE]
    Isn't it interesting that when the Pistons won the title, the Celtics were merely an 8th seed getting swept in the first round? You think you can use this type of argument as proof that the Celtics had tougher competitions (championship caliber-teams) thus they couldn't get to more finals? for an 8th seed getting swept in the first round?

    And isn't it interesting that the three champs from the East didn't include the Bucks?

    Isn't it interesting that when the 76ers were prominent, the Pistons were struggling with 16-66, 21-61, 39-43, 37-45?

    Isn't it interesting that when the Pistons were a power, the 76ers were already without Dr. J and Moses?

    Your stunt is so easy to refute. Just lump the Bucks, 76ers, and Pistons together and Celtics were facing a Big 3, all at the same time in the 80s...

    [QUOTE]
    ....so at the end of the day, the media got it right[/QUOTE]
    At the end of the day, your facts couldn't get you anywhere, unless you can convince us that the 42-40 Celtics couldn't get to the 1988-89 final only because they were blocked by the championship team.

    [QUOTE]
    .....also, did you take a look at the players on the Bucks..? ...did you check out their records...? [/QUOTE]
    Of course I did. Did you?

    80 Conference semi (in the west)
    81 Conference semi
    82 Conference semi
    83 Conference finals
    84 Conference finals
    85 Conference semi
    86 Conference finals
    87 Conference semi
    88 first round

    Looks very much like the Phoenix Suns of this past decade. No one sane enough would call the Suns a Big 3...

    [QUOTE]
    in my opinion, number of titles, records head to head, and records in the championships all trump your points....[/QUOTE]
    OK, that's your opinion, but your own opinions are contradictory, that's the problem.

    You consider records in head to head, yet it contradicts your claim that "to be the best you have to beat the best". Very simple, head-to-head doesn't mean the record against the best. So the Lakers won 16 times against the best in the east, why isn't it better than 16 times against the Celtics (since the Celtics weren't the best in 13 of those 16 times)?

    You consider number of titles, but given the number of titles and failure in getting them, their record is, as you said, as closed as you can get (17-48 vs 16-47).

    You consider record in championships, then you disregard the 44 times the Celtics failed to reach the championship round. No one in sport would consider a team not making the playoffs better achieved than a team losing in the finals. So by counting only records in championship (17-4), you are going against the convention in following sports. You deliberately hide the whole truth, which is:

    17-4-11-11-6-16 vs 16-15-9-11-7-5

    See, you can set up whatever criteria you like to argue for the Celtics, but that would go against your own opinion as well as sports conventions. So what does it say about your criteria?

    It's not a matter of agreeing/disagreeing with your criteria, that's subjective opinion. It's a matter of pointing out the contradictions in your criteria. That's the bottom line.

     
  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 : Does that change the fact that Dr. Jerry Buss only counted 16 titles for the Lakers? You said I said the Lakers have 17 championships. If you believe that then you're a bigger moron than I expected.
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    Well, the bottom line is: you said it, I didn't. You are the one counting the Lakers' 1948 NBL season.

    http://www.boston.com/community/forums.html?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3aSportsForum%3a734e2bc9-e1bc-49d6-8355-64f9a8500246Discussion%3a629a8a2b-85aa-48d5-92e7-2b7b97f9afef&plckCurrentPage=2

    Franchise History:

    Season 1947-48: Minneapolis Lakers (NBL)


    Moron? you can't said it better about yourself...


     
  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 : If you're saying 5-3 trumps 2-0, then 17 trumps 16, right? Who has 16 championships, the Lakers or the Celtics?
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    17 trumps 16? But 17 and 16 aren't the only numbers.

    17-4-11-11-6-16 didn't triumph 16-15-9-11-7-5

    neither does 17-48 trump over 16-47.

    Of course, 5-3 trumps 2-0 because

    5-3-1-0-1-0 also trumps 2-0-1-2-1-0, yes or no?

    So glad that you want to argue with numbers. And I haven't even counted your gem:

    Franchise History:

    Season 1947-48: Minneapolis Lakers (NBL)








     
  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]Majic I can't believe you're trying to be smart but ending up as dumb as an ox. For your information, the goal of NBA teams is to win a championship.
    [/QUOTE]
    For your information (from your own words), the goal of NBA teams is to get into the lottery.

    Now I'll see how you can dispute that.

    [QUOTE]
    Your pathetic 17-48 vs 16-47 excuse is just that, a pathetic excuse. The Lakers are not even the winningest team in the NBA right now. They're 1 short of 17, right? Ha Ha
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]
    Not according to you:

    Franchise History:

    Season 1947-48: Minneapolis Lakers (NBL)


    RedRust, Duke, etc. can say that the Lakers are 1 short of 17, but you are the lone dissenting voice here...



     
  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]so in a comparison of two franchises for bragging rights...do you take the Lakers vs the league....or do you take the Celtics vs the Lakers...?  ....just asking an honest question....also...did you find the Ewing lottery on youtube yet.....?
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]

    It's a no brainer. Of course the Lakers against the league.

    Your own words: "to be the best you have to beat the best"

    Nowhere did you mention "To be the best you have to beat the Celtics".
     
  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 : Are you crazy? The Celtics have a 17-4 Finals record while the Lakers only have a 16-15 record in the Finals. 17-4 is .809 while 16-15 is only .516.
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    See how you can cherry pick facts?

    17-4-11-11-6-16 vs 16-15-9-11-7-5

    The first record is inferior, yet when you hide the whole truth, it becomes better...

    And we haven't got to DoctorCO's gem: the Steelers ruled the NFL...

    Of course, the first record is superior if the goal of playing in the NBA is to get a lottery pick...






     
  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]In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : It's a given that the goal of every NBA team is to win a championship. [/QUOTE]
    Not at all. Lottery picks, remember?

    [QUOTE]
    Now, would you rather the Lakers end up in a situation like in 2006 and 2007, where they exit the 1st round of the playoffs, or would you rather have a chance at drafting a good player in the lottery? Are you telling me that you enjoy watching the Lakers getting eliminated in the 1st round? 
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]
    Well, getting into the playoffs is still better than not making the playoffs, true or false?

    When you factor in lottery picks becoming Randy Foye, Jeff Green, Jerome Moiso, Kendrick Brown, Eric Williams, Ron Mercer, I enjoy watching the Lakers making the playoffs, but I enjoy watching the Celtics draft too...




     
  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]In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : Yeah, typical Laker fan mentality. Get to the Finals and lose! You're used to it. I mean you already lost 15 times in the Finals, so you must be used to seeing the Lakers lose in the Finals. You're telling me that it wasn't frustrating for Laker fans back in 1991 when the Lakers lost 3 straight Finals home games? The Celtics went 21 times and won 17 times. Celtic fans are not used to seeing the Celtics lose in the Finals.
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    Yep, Celtics fans are used to seeing the Celtics lose in early rounds. That's their habits.

    But what the Celtics fans enjoy the most should be the lottery draw. I mean, the # times the Lakers lost in the finals is still fewer than the # times the Celtics missing the playoffs...

    16 missing playoffs vs 15 lost finals




     
  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]In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : I have a question for you, how come the Celtics have only been to the finals 21 times?
    Posted by dirty52[/QUOTE]

    Actually I can answer for him. Celtic fans enjoy watching the lottery draw...

     
  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 : That doesn't surprise me at all. After all, the Lakers are the only NBA team to lose in the finals in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and 2000s. lol The Laker record of 16-15 in the finals speaks for itself. It simply means every time the Lakers make it to the finals there's a 50-50 chance they're going to win.  As for the Celtics, 17 out of 21 times is an 80% average, meaning, every time the Celtics make it to the finals there's an 80% chance of the Celtics winning. Take away the Minneapolis Lakers titles and Laker fans only have 11 legitimate Laker championships. 
    Posted by Tachometrix[/QUOTE]

    The problem, what happened to the times the Celtics couldn't make the finals?

    You must be proud of it, you think that those 44 times didn't count...

    17 out of 21, the real record was 17-4-11-11-6-16. It's 17 out of 65.

    Trust me, those 44 seasons did exist.


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

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    MajicMVP Entertainment

    Presents

    The Lakers 17th title!
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from 21st. Show 21st's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    A loser's quote:

    It's not how many championships you win, but how many times you make the playoffs.

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

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]dirty52 Why do you have to include the rest of the NBA? We're talking Celtics vs. Lakers here. It's like you got into a fight and you asked your brothers and cousins to help you beat up your enemy. Of course the Lakers have a better winning percentage against the NBA, they play the Clippers 4-5 times each year! Duh! 
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]\


    Because you always bring up who the Lakers lost to. And i guess the Celtics use to beat them all the time when they were the Buffalo Braves
     
  21. 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 : You really don't hear OKC fans bragging about the Sonic championships, right? Or Atlanta Hawks fans claiming the 1958 St. Louis Hawks title, right?
    Posted by Tachometrix[/QUOTE]


    I do not know if  Atlanta claims a title , but they should since the St Louis Hawks beat the Celtics for it
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from dirty52. Show dirty52's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]From what I have noticed, Laker fans are claiming championships that came from another city. You don't hear OKC fans bragging about the titles the franchise won in Seattle. Does LA even have a lake?
    Posted by Tachometrix[/QUOTE]


    Actually there is

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Lake,_Los_Angeles
     
  23. 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 "occupy Wall St." material right there, man. Your spin is like Tony Hawk doing a 720.  The Mavs, en route to winning a championship, swept the Lakers in the playoffs last season. You really think owners, players, and fans care more about making the playoffs than winning a championship? Geez! Did you even finish high school, man?
    Posted by MajorMajor[/QUOTE]

    Fierce seems to care more about losing in the playoffs then winning the finals from this post of his on the first page


    You are crazy!

    Of course we would prefer the Celtics not making the playoffs instead of making it to the Finals and ending up the 1st loser! Why? Because we would have better position in the Draft!

    The reason why the Celtics got Ray and KG was because of Al Jefferson and the #5 pick of the 2007 Draft. 

    If I tell you the Lakers would make it to the Finals but would lose, would you rather appear in the Finals or have a better pick in the Draft?


     
  24. 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 right, the Celtics only lost in the Finals to 2 teams, the Lakers and the St. Louis Hawks. Ain't that amazing? Because unlike the Lakers, who lost to the Knicks, Sixers, Celtics, Pistons, and Bulls in the Finals, the Celtics usually win most of the time when they reach the Finals.
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    Well they won quite a bit in the 60's not so much afterwords
     
  25. 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 : The only time the Lakers got a good player in the draft was in 2005, Andrew Bynum. What's the significance of that, you ask? The Lakers didn't make the playoffs in 2005, that's why they got Andrew Bynum. In 2006 and 2007 the Suns eliminated the Lakers in the 1st round. Did the Lakers gain anything from that? I mean being a middle of the pack team is worse than being a lottery team. You know you're not good enough to win a championship but you're also not going to get a good player in the draft. It's like being in what the Catholics call purgatory.
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    Really the only good player they got in the draft was Andrew Bynum?

    I guess you forgot about Magic and James Worthy to name a few
     

Share