8 Straight Finals Losses an NBA Record

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

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    16 and 15. It's not a great conversion record, but at least it's 31 opportunities we have had to win a championship. Celtics winning record is very enviable, having Russell enabled this though with this though.

    Fierce, good point on being a middle of the road team. I think a team doesn't want to be in the lottery for a long time though. Boston seemed to bounce from middle of the road to lottery a fair bit in the last decade. Aggressive management moved them from middle of the road/Lottery to Contender very quickly.

    I think that's the secret. Smart and aggressive management. LA has had it for a very long time. Boston needs to maintain it to keep competitive in the East.

    The Celtics appeared to have an attitude in the 80's that they would always be lucky and competitive. But this was turned on it's ear not so much by the unfortunate deaths of Bias and Lewis. But more in my opinion by bad management.  They were entitled to have a few bad seasons after '93. But there's no way it should have continued past '96 or '97. In fact you could argue that the rot started after '87.

    The Lakers were in a very similar position to Boston in '93 however management in my mind was the difference. Boston shouldn't have settled for signing guys like Dominique Wilkins and Dana Barros. Really would have been better saving the money, and not sign free agents for the sake of signing free agents. If you can't get a Shaq or a top tier player when you're restructuring, then it's better to save the money and not pay over the odds for players who are not worth the investment.

    Does remain to be seen however how we handle ourselves in the next few seasons. Both Boston and LA are entering into intriguing times once the NBA house is back in order.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUWorthy. Show RUWorthy's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : I'm only talking about the recent past. The Lakers made the playoffs in 2006 and 2007, but both times they got eliminated in the 1st round by Nash and the Suns. In 2006 the Lakers drafted Jordan Farmar and in 2007 Javaris Crittenton. 
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    That's true, but in 2008 we were back in the finals and then after that went back to back.

    However I do think that if we'd missed the playoffs in either of those seasons we'd have still been competiting for a title in '08, '09 and '10. Perhaps with a better player on our roster but who's to say we'd have picked wisely?

    Draft is more art than science.
     
  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 : Don't forget that in 2008 the Lakers were doing well before Andrew Bynum got injured. Before the Lakers acquired Pau Gasol the Lakers were a potential #3 or #4 seed in the west. After Bynum got hurt the Lakers made a move to get Gasol. It was a good thing because the Lakers eventually ended up the #1 seed and onto the Finals. Kwame Brown is a bust, that's for sure. But he still ended up with the Lakers and the Lakers got Pau Gasol for a former #1 overall pick in Kwame Brown. That's why I kept telling these trolls not to belittle the lottery. If the Bulls didn't sux in 2007-08 they would not have gotten Derrick Rose, the #1 overall pick that year.
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]


    I am not belittlening the draft , but really how many first round draft choices really work out, other than Paul Pierce who else have the Celtics drafted has really made a impact?
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from LakerFan67. Show LakerFan67's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    It's nice to know that some Boston fans pray eachh night that the Lakers will lose. The Lakers have never intentionally trashed a season so they could get a draft pick in the lottery. Boston and Cleveland have no shame in dumping a season to try & game the system.

    But the fact that the Lakers have had so many finals appearances speaks volumes about the organization's successful efforts in remaining competitive. No other franchise can boast anywhere near that amount of success.

    & the fact is that Boston multiple titles when there were only 8 teams in each conference.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUWorthy. Show RUWorthy's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : That's why I said if we were to talk about the 2k era the Lakers would be the team of the decade. The 90s belonged to the Bulls. It's the 80s where it gets tricky. Back then the 2 best players of the western conference, Magic and Kareem, played for one team, the Lakers. Sure the Lakers won more than any other team, 5 wins and 3 losses in the Finals, but I don't think they were that dominant. The Sixers, Celtics, and Pistons all beat the Lakers. Considering the Lakers had 3 #1 overall picks then added a 4th when they traded for Mychal Thompson, the Lakers didn't do as well as they should have, in my opinion. MJ and the Bulls 6-0 in the Finals in the 90s even without a Center like Shaq or Kareem. Duncan and Robinson went 2-0 then Duncan added 2 more for a 4-0 Finals record. If we add the 1991 Finals, Magic Johnson is just 5-4 in the Finals. For a team loaded with talent I don't think the Lakers dominated, they just won more than any other team in the 80s. The NBA is already in its 7th decade. I don't think having success in 2 out of 7 decades already makes you the greatest ever. 
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    89 we did exceptionally well to make the finals. Then were ruined by injury. '88 was a very close battle as well. Was a hard road to get to the finals. Dallas and Utah were both tough teams. Losing both Magic and Byron Scott in '89 gave us no chance of victory. '83 with the 76ers? That was just losing to a superior side. '84 that was close, so close and could have been won by either team. Boston made the most of it's chances overall. However I think we learned a lot from that series and came back stronger in '85.

    I still believe that we dominated the 80's. 5 Championships. Closest other side was Boston with 3. However in the finals in that decade we beat Boston overall two series to one. However I'll say we had a major advantage in 1987. And the Celtics were not the same team in '84 as they were in '85.

    I'll give LA the greatest tag when we have more titles than Boston. And even more of an explanation point if we pull 6 clear. Those Minneapolis titles were only acknowledged in after the Shaq led championships. Which was in my mind poor sportsmanship from our management. We didn't want to know those titles existed and there's plenty of evidence out there to back that up.


     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUWorthy. Show RUWorthy's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : Don't forget that in 2008 the Lakers were doing well before Andrew Bynum got injured. Before the Lakers acquired Pau Gasol the Lakers were a potential #3 or #4 seed in the west. After Bynum got hurt the Lakers made a move to get Gasol. It was a good thing because the Lakers eventually ended up the #1 seed and onto the Finals. Kwame Brown is a bust, that's for sure. But he still ended up with the Lakers and the Lakers got Pau Gasol for a former #1 overall pick in Kwame Brown. That's why I kept telling these trolls not to belittle the lottery. If the Bulls didn't sux in 2007-08 they would not have gotten Derrick Rose, the #1 overall pick that year.
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    Lottery is all about luck though. For every Derrick Rose you get a Kandi Man and Kwame Brown. Number one pick overall is a poisoned chalice in many ways. Houston did well with Hakeem, but are still looked to have blundered by not selecting Jordan.

    Can argue that Dallas and Boston 'won' the '97 draft with drafting Dirk and Paul Pierce. Both of whom would have gone one and two with hindsight. I think Dirks skill set put's him slightly above Pierce, however it's a bit like comparing apples and oranges. Both are NBA champions, and both will be going to the HOF.

    Memphis ended up doing ok with the trade for Pau. Marc Gasol is a fine player in his own right these days. Needs to step it up a bit though.


     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUWorthy. Show RUWorthy's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]& the fact is that Boston multiple titles when there were only 8 teams in each conference.
    Posted by LakerFan67[/QUOTE]

    True but it doesn't mean that there wasn't competition in that era. However if Russell was in St Louis they'd have won the majority of the championships, if not all the championships won by Boston during that era.

    Having Russell was like giving Boston a tank and going up against cavalry units. Russell just was the ultimate winner in sports.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from kybested. Show kybested's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    You don't get inducted in the Hall of Fame if you were only a great player for 2 or 3 years in your career. Just sayin'!

    For some with poor comprehension, the 80s and 2000s belonged to the Lakers, it doesn't mean the other decades didn't exist.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : Well they won quite a bit in the 60's not so much afterwords
    Posted by dirty52[/QUOTE]
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    it is only speculation but the odds are pretty good that, if Russell doesn't go down in the finals against the Hawks, the Celtics win that series...I mean, he was unquestionably the most important man on the floor for either team....that would've meant 10 in a row....and the Lakers would become the only team to defeat Boston....which is as it should be in this classic rivalry....I have all the respect in the world for the Laker players and the franchise.....Elgin Baylor was my first hero and I still revere him...I got to go to a Syracuse/Boston game played in Rochester during the '60-'61 season...he scored over 40 points....I remember it like it was yesterday!!
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    speaking of the Buffalo Braves, they were a very good franchise back in the '70's....they gave the Celtics fits....they had guys like Bob McAdoo (MVP), Elmore Smith, Randy Smith, and Ernie D.....and let's not forget their coach Dr Jack Ramsey....they could play....a buddy and I made the trip to "the Aud" many times to watch their games.....after moving to San Diego it all went downhill
     
  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]In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat : Trust me, nobody cares what a troll like you has to say about the Lakers. All the numbers you come up with is just something that came out of the mind of an internet troll. Even sane Laker fans would admit the Celtics have 17 championships while the Lakers only have 16. You're not even man enough to say the Lakers have 16 championships. I DARE YOU, HOW MANY CHAMPIONSHIPS DO THE LAKERS HAVE RIGHT NOW? ARE MAN ENOUGH, TROLL?
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    Trust me, the numbers I cite are FACTS that you have absolutely no way to dispute.

    So is the fact that you include the Lakers' 1947-48 NBL season.

    How many championships do the Lakers have right now? I don't know about the others, but your answer must be 17.

    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)


     
  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 : 16 missing playoffs vs. 15 lost finals = ZERO NBA CHAMPIONSHIPS So tell me, did the Lakers win an extra championship for losing in the Finals 15 times?
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    So tell me, do you think Missing the playoffs == lost finals?

    The world is not black and white.

    Fierce34 vs Pierce34 == No Michael Jordan

    So tell me, is Fierce34 as good a player as Pierce34?

    Your logic is so laughable, but it isn't funny.

     
  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]I said the Lakers have 17 championships? If that's the case why doesn't Dr. Jerry Buss add 1 more banner on the rafters of Staples? Last I checked there were only 12 banners hanging on the rafters of Staples.  Have you been to Staples Center, MajicMVP?
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    A better question would be, if the Lakers had only 16 championships, then why did you include their 1947-48 NBL season (title)?
     
  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]And even if the Lakers did win their 17th championship, which they failed to do last season, the Celtics still own the tie breaker. The Celtics have the edge over Lakers in head to head meetings in the Finals, it's Celtics-9 Lakers-3.
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    If the Lakers did win their 17th championship, there is no tie.

    17-48 vs 17-46.

    Remedial math is your friend...

    Not to mention the records would have been (had they won last season):

    17-15-9-10-7-5 vs 17-4-11-11-6-16

    No matter how you look at it, it can't be a tie.



     
  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 : You said it yourself, 17 trumps 16. The "buts" are just your excuses. Here's the real facts: 17  —  Boston Celtics  (1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008) 16  —  Minneapolis/Los Angeles Lakers  (1949, 1950, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1972, 1980, 1982, 1985, 1987, 1988, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2009, 2010) [/QUOTE]

    Your count of only championship is just a pathetic excuse.

    1) Your own post:

    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)



    2) 16-15-9-11-7-5 vs 17-4-11-11-6-16 is a fact you can't dispute.

    3) 16-47 vs 17-48 is a tie.

    Of course you want to discard the failures, but yet this thread is about bashing the Lakers losing in the finals.

    So for Celtics fans, losses in the early rounds don't count, missing the playoffs doesn't count, but losses only in the finals count.

     
  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]It's funny that one has to resort to stupidity just to feel good about oneself. I mean since MajicMVP can't win the argument about who is the winningest team in the NBA, he has to resort to counting how times an NBA team fails to make the playoffs. Ha Ha
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    So, how do you feel for slapping yourself silly:

    Celtics 17-4
    Bulls 6-0
    Spurs 4-0

    Lakers 16-15 Ugh! FAIL!

    So you have to resort to counting a team losing in the finals?

    Which team is better? losing in the finals or missing the playoffs?

     
  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]A loser's quote: It's not how many championships you win, but how many times you make the playoffs.
    Posted by 21st[/QUOTE]

    Nope, a loser's quote would be "it's how many times we missed the playoffs", or "we only play 21 seasons in the NBA".




     
  19. 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 "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]
    So are you proud of the Celtics missing all these playoffs?

    Right, making the playoffs is nothing to brag about, but that would make MISSING THE PLAYOFFS the ultimate embarrassment.

    So don't ever sell this illogic that "making the playoffs == no big deal" = /> "missing the playoffs == no big deal"?

    Did you even finish kindergarten?


     
  20. 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 Celtics usually win most of the time when they reach the Finals.
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    That's no big deal. That just means they are wimpy enough to quit before the finals.

    Had they reached the finals in 1949, 1950, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1972, 1980, 1982, 1988, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2009, they would have lost 13 more times in the finals, giving them a record of 17-17, and 9-16 against the Lakers.

    Of course, they weren't even good enough to lose to the Lakers. And you brag about that?

    So this qualifer of "when they reach the Finals" is simply a wimp-out? If they are that good, how come they didn't reach more finals?


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

    Re: Laker 8-peat

    In Response to Re: Laker 8-peat:
    [QUOTE]You Laker fans belittle the lottery and yet you're claiming the Lakers will trade Andrew Bynum, the only lottery pick the Lakers had the last 10 years, for Dwight Howard. Ugh!
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    Of course we belittle the lottery, look at Randy Foye, Jeff Green, Jerome Moiso, Kendrick Brown, Eric Williams, Ron Mercer...


     
  22. 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'm only talking about the recent past. The Lakers made the playoffs in 2006 and 2007, but both times they got eliminated in the 1st round by Nash and the Suns. In 2006 the Lakers drafted Jordan Farmar and in 2007 Javaris Crittenton. 
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    How can you forget their 2nd pick in the 2007 2nd round?

    Of course, given your lack of knowledge of the league, that's not a surprise...






     
  23. 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 : Considering the Lakers had 3 #1 overall picks then added a 4th when they traded for Mychal Thompson, the Lakers didn't do as well as they should have, in my opinion.
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    Your opinion is definitely misguided.

    You consider #1 picks, which is misleading. #1 picks don't always translate to successful careers.

    But another better consideration would be HOFers. HOFers, by definition, means great careers. Compare the HOFers they have, say, during the 80s (1979-80 - 1988-89):

    Lakers: Kareem (10), Magic (10), Worthy (7), McAdoo (4)
    Celtics: Bird (10), McHale (9), Parish (9), Walton (2), DJ (6), Tiny (4), Cowens (1), Maravich (1), Gilmore (1)

    Lakers total seasons: 31
    Celtics total seasons: 43

    Celtics had 12 more years of service from HOFers than the Lakers, yet only wind up with 3 championships. Typical underachiever...





     
  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]If it's a given that the Lakers would not be winning the championship in 2012, would you rather go to the playoffs, knowing you would be eliminated, or would you rather be in the top 10 of the lottery?
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    Well, you keep asking the same stupid question, but you won't get a different answer.

    Go to the playoffs. If being an underdog is the reason not going to the playoffs, I guess your 1969 Celtics should have stayed home, so should the 1995 Rockets, 1999 Knicks, the 1981 Rockets, and even your 2010 Celtics...

    I don't know what you are smoking. Ask any player whether they would rather go fishing after the regular season or play in the playoffs...




     
  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 : Are you talking about Sun Yue, the Lakers' 2nd round pick in 2007? lol
    Posted by Tachometrix[/QUOTE]

    I said "2nd pick in the 2nd round"

    The Lakers had 2 picks in the 2007 2nd round. 1st pick in the 2nd round was Sun Yue, the 2nd pick was ______


     

Share