Re: Laker 8-peat
posted at 10/19/2011 8:01 AM EDT
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".......
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...
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?
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...
....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.
.....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...
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.