Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise
posted at 8/21/2011 5:50 AM EDT
In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise
[QUOTE]The history book says the Celtics won a championship in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 2000s. I think history has more authority than John Hollinger. Besides, the Lakers are the only franchise in NBA history to lose in each of the 6 decades, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and 2000s. In the 60s the Lakers went 0-6 in the Finals. 1-2 in the 70s, 5-3 in the 80s, 0-1 in the 90s, and 5-2 in the 2k era. The 0-6 Finals record is a record yet to be broken. It's not an easy thing to do, I mean the Bulls and Spurs have never lost in a Finals series. Only in LA folks, only in LA.
Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]
History says the Celtics had 17 successes and 48 failures, the Lakers 16 successes and 47 failures.
17-48 vs 16-47
Duke: sound pretty even to me
Fierce even outdid Duke, by counting the Lakers' 1947-48 NBL season to make it 17 for the Lakers, thus 17-48 vs 17-47...
DoctorCO outdid Fierce by discretely counting whatever part of the league history is "important". In his case, the NFL before the Super Bowl era aren't even counted, thus the Steelers, with 6 Super Bowl titles and a total of 6 NFL titles, are the one that own the NFL, outdoing the Packers with 4 Super Bowl titles and a total of 13 NFL titles...
And Russ/Hedley was no slouch. He made an argument of # championships isn't the be-all and end-all of merits. Ask him about Red vs Phil. There goes the argument of most championships == the best.
And 0-6 is no shame at all when you compare to missing the playoffs SIX STRAIGHT YEARS
, and seven out of eight. The lone playoff appearance was from a 35-47 weak season...
So, history is not just history, it's not that simple. All four of you are making the cases for the Lakers...