Re: Since this is a Celtics forum
posted at 9/5/2012 8:19 AM EDT
In response to Duke4 comment:
regarding Lakers 13-8 over Celtics at 9-3.....not sure how you are computing the math...13-8 is a winning percentage of .619....9-3 is a winning percentage of .750...
also not sure where this 13-8 comes from....Lakers are 16-15...3-9 vs Celtics...so that actually leaves them in a better position at 13-6 vs teams not named the Celtics....that is a winning percentage of .684.....still Boston comes in at 8-1 vs teams not named Lakers...that is a winning percentage of .888
Duke, when you don't know what 13-8 means, just ask. I am glad to teach you.
Celtics championships vs the Lakers: 9
Lakers championships vs the Celtics: 3
Lakers championships vs other (better than Celtics) eastern teams: 13
Celtics championships vs other (better than Lakers) western teams: 8
It's not a winning % against (teams of whatever criteria), so I don't know how you can calculate a winning pct.
So, the gap of Celtics vs Lakers in direct competition in the final: 6
the gap of Celtics vs Lakers NOT in direct competition in the final: 5
In other words, the indirect gap of 5 is bigger than the direct gap of 6. Since in the gap of 6, at least the Lakers are in the finals. In the gap of 13-8, let's see how far apart they are. That would be depressing for you folks. Let's use this convention (Celtics beat Lakers in the final, it's Celtics > Lakers, Lakers beat the Magic that beat the Celtics in the 2nd round, then it's Lakers > Magic, Lakers >> Cavaliers, Lakers >>> Celtics).
1949 Lakers >>>> Celtics (missed playoffs)
1950 Lakers >>>> Celtics (missed playoffs)
1951 Lakers >>> Celtics (DSF)
1952 Lakers >> Celtics (DF)
1953 Lakers >> Celtics (DF)
1957 Lakers (DF) << Celtics
1960 Lakers (DF) << Celtics
1961 Lakers (DF) << Celtics
1964 Lakers (DSF) <<< Celtics
1972 Lakers >> Celtics (CF)
1974 Lakers (CSF) <<< Celtics
1976 Lakers (missed playoffs) <<<<< Celtics
1980 Lakers >> Celtics (CF)
1981 Lakers (1st round) <<<< Celtics
1982 Lakers >> Celtics (CF)
1986 Lakers (CF) << Celtics
1988 Lakers >> Celtics (CF)
2000 Lakers >>>>> Celtics (missed playoffs)
2001 Lakers >>>>> Celtics (missed playoffs)
2002 Lakers >> Celtics (CF)
2009 Lakers >>> Celtics (CSF)
So Celtics vs Lakers in direct head to head: +6
Celtics vs Lakers in all other championships: -15
So, depends on how you want to count.
1) A championship is a championship, nothing else matter. So it's 17-16, nothing for you to write home about. It's too close to call. Given that the Celtics championships are front-loaded (during the bush league era of the league), the Lakers' back-loaded 10-4 (since the merger and the goldern era of the NBA) and 7-1 (since the Celtic drought) are more commendable.
2) "We are 9-3 against you head to head", you say?
We are 13-8 over you in non-head-to-head championships, and the gap is a much bigger +15 in terms of rounds. So what about your head-to-head?