Celtic Dominance

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

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    In response to Red-16Russ-11 comment:

    None of my business, man, but if you want my advice.......move on to another topic quickly........he'll argue with you for two years.....then think he's won


    And after two years, you still can't able to substantiate a hypothesis. It's time well spent.

    If Bynum was not injured, the Lakers would still have traded for Gasol.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    In response to KingShaq's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Red-16Russ-11 comment:


    None of my business, man, but if you want my advice.......move on to another topic quickly........he'll argue with you for two years.....then think he's won

    And after two years, you still can't able to substantiate a hypothesis. It's time well spent.

    If Bynum was not injured, the Lakers would still have traded for Gasol.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    PROVE IT!!!!!
    Got a link?  Got a quote from an exec?  MEM WOULD have traded him.....to CHI for Nocioni, Deng and Noah.  That is  a fact.  lakers stepped in at last min AFTER Bynum got hurt - gave you four links.  Shall not do it again.  You lose, over, end of discussion!!
     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from bostonsucks69. Show bostonsucks69's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    Celtics have won only 1 championship since 1986. Lakers are now the greatest NBA franchise.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    Celtics have won only 1 championship since 1986. Lakers are now the greatest NBA franchise.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    212 posts - ever say anything?
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    "the greatest NBA franchise".......this statement infers a comparison of franchises all time.....from the first year the league existed to the present....

    in the Fifties (pre shot clock) the Lakers won 5 titles....

    the shot clock drastically changed the game...to the extent that the dominant player (George Mikan) retired at age 31...he simply could not play the "new game"....Boston rose to power and went to the Finals the last three years of the decade, winning twice and losing in '58 when Russell was injured mid series

    in the Sixties the Celtics dominated, winning 9 titles

    in the Seventies the Celtics won twice....the Lakers won their first title of the new era...it took them 18 years...

    in the Eighties the Lakers finally defeated the Celtics (it took them 26 years to finally accomplish this feat...from 1959 to 1985)....the Lakers won five titles to the Celtics' three in the decade

    in the Nineties neither team won a title

    since the mellenium the Lakers have one five titles...the Celtics have won one......the two teams have met twice in the Finals during the  decade, each team winning once

    So I will give the Lakers the advantage since 2000 with five titles to the Celtics' one.....I have always held that position...but going back through history the Celtics were the dominant franchise for some 35 years...hence the #1 ranking, based on the results in the Finals 

     1) 17-16 all time   (.809 vs .516) ....take into account the LA years and it's .809 vs .440

     2) 9-3 head to head   (.750 vs .250)

     3) the Celtics also lead the all time regular season matchup...and it's not close

    when comparing two franchises to determine which is better, wouldn't you agree that head to head is a good starting point?....just like in boxing...there have been great heavyweights....the old question was always "how did your fighter do against my fighter in the ring"? ......Ali/Frasier comes to mind....both were legends but Ali won 2 out of 3 and nobody is ranking Smokin' Joe ahead of him in that discussion





     
     



     



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

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    my post was meant as a follow up to the statement seen above stating that, since the Celtics have only 1 championship in the last 25 years, the Lakers should now be considered #1...
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Lakerstroll. Show Lakerstroll's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    Almost all NBA experts agree, the modern era began right around the merging of the NBA and ABA, and the introduction of the 3pt shot. Anything before that was underesized white players who couldn't dunk, and black players used primarily as blue-collar players (rebounding and defense). If you look at the old tapes, it's laughable to think that they could compete on any level with players of the modern era, of which the Lakers have been the constant juggernaut. Mention NBA baskerball anywhere in the world, and the Lakers are always number one. In the modern era the Lakers win 1/3 of all titles and appear in half of all Finals. What have the Celtics done in that same period? More importantly, what have they done in the last 27 years, when titles are a lot tougher to get than it was with just 8 teams? The Lakers will never catch Boston in head to head because Boston just isn't good enough to make it to the big dance often enough. Of the 16 appearances the Lakers have made to the Finals in the modern era, the Celtics only made it there 5 times to match up with them, and the Lakers took 3. Since the Celtics failed to make it the other 11 times, it means the Lakers, in effect, won those like in a head to head, so that puts the Lakers up in head to head, 14-9. Period.
     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    before the merger the league had superstars that could play in any era.......Baylor and West.....the Big O.....Russell & Chaimberlain.....Elvin Hayes....Lew Alcindor....Earl Monroe....these are some of the greatest names in league history......I could name dozens of others....and I don't need to go back to the mid fifties to do it.....

    there have been many eras....pre shot clock.....the modern era (when the shot clock changed the game)...the era of expansion....the NBA/ABA merger..the era of Bird & Magic....the era of "the Jordan Rules"...the era of free agency....it is what it is....all of the major sports look at the entire history of their game.....only fans tend to put modern era in terms of their own experience... 
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    In response to Fiercest34 comment:
    [QUOTE]
    That's really funny because I was talking about the post you showed us that you resized. I confessed, really?
    [/QUOTE]

    Really.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    In response to Fiercest34 comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Again, I'm not going to help you out. 

    You can't produce the alleged post because it doesn't exist, right? [/QUOTE]
    Well, you can't tell us which word I edited from your post. As long as you can't do that, all is good.






     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance


    [QUOTE]
    In response to Red-16Russ-11 comment:

    PROVE IT!!!!!
    Got a link?  Got a quote from an exec?  MEM WOULD have traded him.....to CHI for Nocioni, Deng and Noah.  That is  a fact.  lakers stepped in at last min AFTER Bynum got hurt - gave you four links.  Shall not do it again.  You lose, over, end of discussion!!


    [/QUOTE]

    1) You got a quote from the exec that they wouldn't have traded for Gasol?

    2) You have absolutely no way to prove that had Bynum not hurt, the Lakers wouldn't have stepped in at last minute to trade for Gasol. Gasol was available for chump changes, why not? Why must Bynum be injured before grabbing him?

    3) Memphis would have traded him to Chicago for Nocioni, Deng and Noah? you got proof for that FACT? That didn't happen, how can that be a fact? You understand what a fact is and what a speculation is?

    4) About (1), even if you can provide a quote, I still wouldn't BELIEVE you, or the exec, since the antecendent (Bynum not injured) didn't happen, it's a speculation. One can speculate anything he wants when that didn't happen...

    6) You have no FACT to support your claim, unless you can roll back a time-machine and show us what happen in an alternate universe (that Bynum didn't get injured).

    See, without anything to support your fact, you are still smarting after 3 years of argument, thinking that keep repeating some hypothesis will make it a fact.






     

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

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    In response to Duke4 comment:

    "the greatest NBA franchise".......this statement infers a comparison of franchises all time.....from the first year the league existed to the present....

    in the Fifties (pre shot clock) the Lakers won 5 titles....

    the shot clock drastically changed the game...to the extent that the dominant player (George Mikan) retired at age 31...he simply could not play the "new game"....Boston rose to power and went to the Finals the last three years of the decade, winning twice and losing in '58 when Russell was injured mid series

    in the Sixties the Celtics dominated, winning 9 titles

    in the Seventies the Celtics won twice....the Lakers won their first title of the new era...it took them 18 years...

    in the Eighties the Lakers finally defeated the Celtics (it took them 26 years to finally accomplish this feat...from 1959 to 1985)....the Lakers won five titles to the Celtics' three in the decade

    in the Nineties neither team won a title

    since the mellenium the Lakers have one five titles...the Celtics have won one......the two teams have met twice in the Finals during the  decade, each team winning once

    So I will give the Lakers the advantage since 2000 with five titles to the Celtics' one.....I have always held that position...but going back through history the Celtics were the dominant franchise for some 35 years...hence the #1 ranking, based on the results in the Finals 

     1) 17-16 all time   (.809 vs .516) ....take into account the LA years and it's .809 vs .440

     2) 9-3 head to head   (.750 vs .250)

     3) the Celtics also lead the all time regular season matchup...and it's not close

    when comparing two franchises to determine which is better, wouldn't you agree that head to head is a good starting point?....just like in boxing...there have been great heavyweights....the old question was always "how did your fighter do against my fighter in the ring"? ......Ali/Frasier comes to mind....both were legends but Ali won 2 out of 3 and nobody is ranking Smokin' Joe ahead of him in that discussion





     
     



     





    Duke, an interesting video for you to see:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aNR8cL4Z3c

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    In response to Fiercest34 comment:
    [/QUOTE]

    That also means you lied because you're already saying all is good. What happened to providing evidence?

    You can't produce the evidence anymore? Maybe because you just made stuff up?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You said I edited your post? where's the evidence? which word in your post that I changed?


     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    In response to Fiercest34 comment:

    kingtroll providing a youtube link about the Lakers which featured a video that was also made by someone named Laker_55. Hilarious!

    You really expect someone named Laker_55 to say the Celtics are better than the Lakers?



    I expect Laker_55 to state the truth, and the truth hurts you? Ooops!!!
     

Share