Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise
posted at 8/25/2011 8:10 AM EDT
In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise
[QUOTE]OK.....my (last?) take on this subject.....why I think the Boston Celtics deserve the top spot... Head to head record vs Lakers all time in both the regular season and the Finals [/QUOTE]
Your own words have already soundly refuted the head-to-head advantage:
"the aim of every team is to win a championship"
See, you assert that the aim of every team is to win a championship, no qualifier against which opponent, thus winning a championship against the Nets is no worse than winning a championship against the Celtics.
How can't it be? the Nets won the Eastern Conference that year, BY DEFEATING THE CELTICS. So is 3-9 is actually better than 4-9 (hypothetical case: Celtics advanced to the finals because Fuhrer Stern disqualified the Nets as he wanted a Lakers/Celtics matchup for ratings, and then the Celtics lost to the Lakers). Ditto for all other years that the Celtics didn't get to the finals and the Lakers won the championship. In other words, 3-9 is actually a much bigger achievement than 16-9, because the Celtics WEREN'T GOOD ENOUGH in the other 13 years.
So you have been bragging about failure (to reach the finals while the Lakers won) and actually feeling good about it. I wonder why...
[QUOTE]I've already pointed out Boston's great winning percentage in the Finals compared to the Lakers.... [/QUOTE]
Yeah, but at the expense of a bigger failure in the conference playoffs. You are rewarding/bragging about failure again.
The fact that I feel the East was historically the stronger conference, which made making the Finals more difficult.......here are a few facts to back that up:
As you are trying to mislead with this fact again. You are COUNTING THE CELTICS as part of the stronger conference. In that case, how can the Celtics be the reason that block the Celtics from reaching more finals?
But knowing you, you like to block out logic and formulate an argument in your little world.
the Bucks were a strong team that never quite made it past Boston or Philly.....indeed the Lakers won the Western titles while the Celts, Sixers, and Pistons won the Eastern titles....if the West had been as strong as the East the Lakers might not have come out as often.....speculation but it makes sense... [/QUOTE]
Of course it's speculation. If (big IF) it makes sense, then you have to account for the bush league NBA before the Bird/Magic era, especially the 50s/60s. The Celtics emerged from a weaker league with 13 titles. Borrowing your words:
if the 50s/60s had been as strong as the big-time/golden era, the Celtics might not have come out as often.... speculation but it makes sense.