Re: I think the Lakers 5 minnesota Titles should have an asterisk
posted at 5/20/2012 2:17 PM EDT
In Response to Re: I think the Lakers 5 minnesota Titles should have an asterisk
[QUOTE] since the "modern era" (shot clock) began in '54/'55 here is how the conferences have fared during the decades: '50's East 4 West 1 '60's East 10 West 0 '70's East 5 West 5 '80's East 5 West 5 from the Russell era through the Bird/Magic era the East held a 24-11 advantage '90's East 7 West 3....now the Jordan era brings it to East 24-West 11 the strength shifted beginning in 2000 and the West has enjoyed an advantage...but this does say something historically about the strength of each conference, the relevant degree of difficulty in reaching the finals, and the end result....
Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]
I see something very dishonest here, just to make an argument to boost the Celtics. No wonder Duke has to put me on "ignore". He dared not face the harsh reality.
1) an arbitrary definition of "Modern era", simply to discard the Minneapolis Lakers' dynasty era. "Modern era" has many definitions, but most are defined around the ABA-NBA merger or the 3-point shot era, not the 1954-55 shot clock era...
2) an illogical argument to use the Celtics' championships to define the east as "tougher", as an justification of the Celtics facing "tougher opposition". In other words, the east is tough due to the Celtics' success, i.e. the Celtics failed to make more finals due to the Celtics' success. Funny, huh?
The truth is, the LAKERS FACED TOUGHER OPPOSITIONS THAN THE CELTICS DID!!!! The Lakers' path to the finals had been blocked by the eventual champs more than the Celtics had.
Take away all the Celtics and Lakers championships, there had been 33 championships won by various teams: East won 18, West won 15, not your idea of east tougher than the west.
But the funny thing is this. Among these 33 championships, who got short-changed?
Celtics got short changed 4 times, i.e. lost to the eventual champs in the conference playoffs:
1955 lost to the Nationals in the Division finals
1967 lost to the 76ers in the Division finals
1973 lost to the Knicks in the Conference finals
1989 lost (as #8 seed) to the Pistons in the 1st round
On the other hand, the Lakers lost to the eventual champs 7 times:
1951 lost to the Royals in the Division Finals
1971 lost to the Bucks in the Conf finals
1977 lost to the Blazers in the Conf finals
1979 lost to the Sonics in the Conf semi
1999 lost to the Spurs in the Conf semi
2003 lost to the Spurs in the Conf semi
2011 lost to the Mavericks in the Conf semi
In other words, if you want to use the "tougher opponent" argument, the Lakers are the victim here, not the Celtics.
Why is that? simple, the Bulls were dominant in the 90s, what does that have to do with the Celtics not making the finals? The Celtics never once met the Bulls in those years. They were aweful to begin with. The Knicks, the Cavs, the Heat could all say that they were unlucky. They got blocked by a great team multiple times. The Celtics can't say that.