Weakstern Conference

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

    Re: Weakstern Conference

    In Response to Re: Weakstern Conference:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Weakstern Conference : In the 60s the Celts made it to the Finals 9 times and won 9 times, 1960-69.  From 1960-69 the Lakers made it to the Finals 6 times and lost 6 times. As you can see, that's another NBA record, only the Lakers lost 6 straight times in the Finals.
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    Ummm... in the 90s the Celtics missed the finals 10 times out of 10 times.

    in the 00s the Celtics missed the finals for another 8 years.

    Now you are going to tell us missing the finals (and sometimes missing the playoffs altogether) is better than losing in the finals.

    No problem at all. Actually, the longer the Celtics keep the 17-4 finals record while the Lakers keep piling up championships, the better...

    if you really think the Lakers would cry over championships won over the Nets and the Magic, be my guest...







     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from dirty52. Show dirty52's posts

    Re: Weakstern Conference

    This year 4 teams from the Eastern conference would not have made into the playoff if they were in the west

    it was also the same for the previous year
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Tachometrix. Show Tachometrix's posts

    Re: Weakstern Conference

    In Response to Re: Weakstern Conference:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Weakstern Conference : Ummm... in the 90s the Celtics missed the finals 10 times out of 10 times. in the 00s the Celtics missed the finals for another 8 years. Now you are going to tell us missing the finals (and sometimes missing the playoffs altogether) is better than losing in the finals. No problem at all. Actually, the longer the Celtics keep the 17-4 finals record while the Lakers keep piling up championships, the better... if you really think the Lakers would cry over championships won over the Nets and the Magic, be my guest...
    Posted by MajicMVP[/QUOTE]

    The Lakers missed the finals in the 90s 9 out of 10 times. 

    When Magic Johnson made it to the finals for the first time without Kareem, MJ made sure Magic would get his 4th finals loss in his career. Did you know Magic Johnson only has a 5-4 finals record?
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Tachometrix. Show Tachometrix's posts

    Re: Weakstern Conference

    In Response to Re: Weakstern Conference:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Weakstern Conference : As I said the village idiot is back....welcome back wheelchair34. BTW, the Mavs winning gives the west a threepeat. So in your 12 year period, has the east even gone back to back??? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! Kinda reminds you of the celtics huh lmao!
    Posted by Laker-Nation32[/QUOTE]

    Fierce is right, the last 12 years only the Lakers, Spurs, and Mavs made it to the finals. Looks like the western conference is a "bush-league". The western conference only has 3 teams?
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUWorthy. Show RUWorthy's posts

    Re: Weakstern Conference

    I don't believe that it's a bush league at all.

    The Lakers had the best player in the West in Bryant. He featured with Shaq in three of the championships and was the principle player for two more. Duncan the other unique talent in the West had David Robinson with him for a couple of titles. The Spurs really were a very solid 'team' in every sense of the word.

    During that period you also had some great teams out West that the Lakers and Spurs had to get though to get to the finals.

    However I concede that during the 1980's the Eastern conference had a much harder road to the finals. And teach team that dominated, the 76ers, Celtics and Pistons had to really fight to get on of the conference.

    The whole conference domination is cylindrical though. However the East has clearly had two periods of dominance thanks to Bill Russell and Michael Jordan.

    60's - East in the 60's due to Russell
    70's - No one team dominated much less a conference IMO
    80's - West and the East split. Lakers and Celtics the best teams.
    90's - East dominating again.
    00's - West dominating. Shaq/Bryant and Duncan leading the way.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUWorthy. Show RUWorthy's posts

    Re: Weakstern Conference

    In Response to Re: Weakstern Conference:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Weakstern Conference : The Lakers missed the finals in the 90s 9 out of 10 times.  When Magic Johnson made it to the finals for the first time without Kareem, MJ made sure Magic would get his 4th finals loss in his career. Did you know Magic Johnson only has a 5-4 finals record?
    Posted by Tachometrix[/QUOTE]

    I don't think a 5-4 finals record is a blight on Magics career at all.

    '91 We were beaten by a stronger younger team. Was a huge accomplishment to get to the finals that season. Got there because of Magic Johnson.

    '89 He played in two games. Was injured in game 2 if I remember correctly while we were leading the game. Having him out gave the team no chance of beating detriot. I really don't count this against Magic at all. We hadn't lost a post season game up until the Finals.

    '84 Series don't get any closer than this one. Those missed free throws in game 4 are absolutely haunting. Game down to game seven and beaten by a better team. No discredit in that.

    '83 Beaten by a better team.

    However if you bring up Magic Johnson's finals record. Larry Birds is very similar he went 3 and 2 in NBA finals series. Although like the Lakers in 1989. I believe the Celtics were destroyed in '87 not only by injury by rocked by the death of Len Bias. Much like Magic being able to will his teams into the finals. Bird was able to do it that last time in '87. And how he did it was beyond me.

    I don't see any shame in making the finals at not winning the title. At least the team is in a position to win a championship. Where is the problem in that? It's better to have that chance of winning than not.




     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Weakstern Conference

    In Response to Re: Weakstern Conference:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Weakstern Conference : The Lakers missed the finals in the 90s 9 out of 10 times.  When Magic Johnson made it to the finals for the first time without Kareem, MJ made sure Magic would get his 4th finals loss in his career. Did you know Magic Johnson only has a 5-4 finals record?
    Posted by Tachometrix[/QUOTE]

    Missing 9 out of 10 is still better than a clean slate, missing 10 out of 10...

    5-4 in the finals is still better than 3-2 in the finals, no matter how you spin it...



     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUWorthy. Show RUWorthy's posts

    Re: Weakstern Conference

    In Response to Re: Weakstern Conference:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Weakstern Conference : Missing 9 out of 10 is still better than a clean slate, missing 10 out of 10... 5-4 in the finals is still better than 3-2 in the finals, no matter how you spin it...
    Posted by MajicMVP[/QUOTE]

    Still I think if you could go to Kevin Durant and tell him his NBA finals record would be 3 championships to 2 losses he'd take it.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Weakstern Conference

    In Response to Re: Weakstern Conference:
    [QUOTE]I don't believe that it's a bush league at all. The Lakers had the best player in the West in Bryant. He featured with Shaq in three of the championships and was the principle player for two more. Duncan the other unique talent in the West had David Robinson with him for a couple of titles. The Spurs really were a very solid 'team' in every sense of the word. During that period you also had some great teams out West that the Lakers and Spurs had to get though to get to the finals. However I concede that during the 1980's the Eastern conference had a much harder road to the finals. And each team that dominated, the 76ers, Celtics and Pistons had to really fight to get on of the conference. The whole conference domination is cylindrical though. However the East has clearly had two periods of dominance thanks to Bill Russell and Michael Jordan. 60's - East in the 60's due to Russell 70's - No one team dominated much less a conference IMO 80's - West and the East split. Lakers and Celtics the best teams. 90's - East dominating again. 00's - West dominating. Shaq/Bryant and Duncan leading the way.
    Posted by RUWorthy[/QUOTE]
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Weakstern Conference

    Exactly! ......that is why they referred to the '80's as the era of "The Big Four".......evidently no one on the West Coast ever heard that term....but it was used by the media all the time....
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Weakstern Conference

     the NBA Finals through the years.....

    1950's

    Lakers won the first 5....shot clock era came into play...East won 4 of the next 5 (Russell was injured in the '58 Finals)

    1960's

    East 10-0...."The Russell Years".....and the first win for Wilt

    1970's

    5-5....Lakers win their first....Boston rebuilds and wins 2 in 3 years...

    1980's

    The Era of Magic and Bird..Lakers finally beat Boston...Lakers 5, Celtics 3...
    5-5 overall.....the era of "the Big Four"

    1990's

    7-3 in favor of the East.....no titles for either of our teams

    2000's

    West 7-3 with 4 for LA and 1 for Boston

    2010's

    West 2-0......Lakers win their 16th title

    Totals all time 

    East 36 West 26

    Shot clock era

    East 36 West 21

    I believe this is accurate.....
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Weakstern Conference

    In Response to Re: Weakstern Conference:
    [QUOTE] the NBA Finals through the years..... 1950's Lakers won the first 5....shot clock era came into play...East won 4 of the next 5 (Russell was injured in the '58 Finals) 1960's East 10-0...."The Russell Years".....and the first win for Wilt 1970's 5-5....Lakers win their first....Boston rebuilds and wins 2 in 3 years... 1980's The Era of Magic and Bird..Lakers finally beat Boston...Lakers 5, Celtics 3... 5-5 overall.....the era of "the Big Four" 1990's 7-3 in favor of the East.....no titles for either of our teams 2000's West 7-3 with 4 for LA and 1 for Boston 2010's West 2-0......Lakers win their 16th title Totals all time  East 36 West 26 Shot clock era East 36 West 21 I believe this is accurate.....
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]

    Get ready for a "majik" counter!!
     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Weakstern Conference

    In Response to Re: Weakstern Conference:
    [QUOTE]Exactly! ...... that is why they referred to the '80's as the era of "The Big Four" .......evidently no one on the West Coast ever heard that term....but it was used by the media all the time....
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]

    The 80s was the era of Showtime. We on the west coast had no respect to the Bucks, as they can't even make it to one NBA finals.

    And didn't you see your fellow fans tell you in the thread "Mavs punch the Leastern conference in the grill":

    You realize that you're essentially bragging about the Lakers losing to the Mavs? That's a delusional way of trying to justify the drubbing that they put on you. Don't take credit for another team in your conference.

    http://www.boston.com/community/forums.html?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3aSportsForum%3a734e2bc9-e1bc-49d6-8355-64f9a8500246Discussion%3aeeb2092c-0575-4c5a-b325-a9e8ec0c6890&plckCurrentPage=2

    Playing word substitutions:

    You realize that you're essentially bragging about the Celtics losing to the Bucks? That's a delusional way of trying to justify the drubbing that they put on you. Don't take credit for another team in your conference.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Weakstern Conference

    In Response to Re: Weakstern Conference:
    [QUOTE] the NBA Finals through the years..... 1950's Lakers won the first 5....shot clock era came into play...East won 4 of the next 5 (Russell was injured in the '58 Finals) 1960's East 10-0...."The Russell Years".....and the first win for Wilt 1970's 5-5....Lakers win their first....Boston rebuilds and wins 2 in 3 years... 1980's The Era of Magic and Bird..Lakers finally beat Boston...Lakers 5, Celtics 3... 5-5 overall.....the era of "the Big Four" 1990's 7-3 in favor of the East.....no titles for either of our teams 2000's West 7-3 with 4 for LA and 1 for Boston 2010's West 2-0......Lakers win their 16th title Totals all time  East 36 West 26 Shot clock era East 36 West 21 I believe this is accurate.....
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]

    Geez, the NBA had been there for 65 seasons.

    36+26=65?

    Duke, back to elementary math again...

    Assuming a decade is the 00 playoff season to 09 season season, i.e. 1980 (Magic game 6) - 1989 (Bad Boys sweeping Lakers)

    1940s (1947, 1948, 1949 playoffs) - West 2-1
    1950s - West 6-4
    1960s - East 10-0
    1970s - 5-5
    1980s - 5-5
    1990s - East 7-3
    2000s - West 7-3
    2010s - West 2-0

    total: East 35-30

    You don't have a 10 title margin. The margin is only 5. Don't worry, LeChoke will help the west close the margin.




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

    Re: Weakstern Conference

    ummmm.....................huh...?   ....maybe I'm thick, but that made so sense to me...then again, maybe it's just me....
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Weakstern Conference

    In Response to Re: Weakstern Conference:
    [QUOTE]ummmm.....................huh...?   ....maybe I'm thick, but that made so sense to me...then again, maybe it's just me....
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]

    Yep, that's definitely you. I mean, giving Celtics credit for failing to the Bucks, as in "we didn't make as many finals because of the Bucks", is definitely thick...
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Weakstern Conference

    oh....ok....thanks......I'm sure glad our team didn't have to battle against Kevin Duckworth and the guys back in the '80's....the decade of the Big Four....what a pathetic conference.....we had Parish, Malone, Lanier....the West had....ummm...who, outside of Kareem...?
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Laker-Nation32. Show Laker-Nation32's posts

    Re: Weakstern Conference

    In Response to Re: Weakstern Conference:
    [QUOTE]oh....ok....thanks......I'm sure glad our team didn't have to battle against Kevin Duckworth and the guys back in the '80's....the decade of the Big Four....what a pathetic conference.....we had Parish, Malone, Lanier....the West had....ummm...who, outside of Kareem...?
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]

    Who outside of Kareem, the greatest points scorer of all time and 6-time NBA champion?? You mean there was someone outside of the legend? Lmao whatever!!
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Weakstern Conference

    In Response to Re: Weakstern Conference:
    [QUOTE]oh....ok....thanks......I'm sure glad our team didn't have to battle against Kevin Duckworth and the guys back in the '80's....the decade of the Big Four....what a pathetic conference.....we had Parish, Malone, Lanier....the West had....ummm...who, outside of Kareem...?
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]

    Yeah, you had Malone, you played Malone once in the playoffs (1985). Malone was NOT the reason you couldn't get to more finals. Your road was blocked by Caldwell Jones and Darryl Dawkins. They weren't even in Duckworth's class (at least Duckworth was a 2-time all-star).

    Western conference HOF centers besides Kareem: Moses, Artis Gilmore, Dan Issel, Akeem (wasn't called Hakeem back then) Olajuwon, not to mention MVP Bill Walton that swept the Lakers in 1977 (first year of the modern era).

    Weren't inferior to Lanier and Parish, were they?

    Did you really follow the game in that era or just dream about it?
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Weakstern Conference

    My bad on the math....I was not counting the titles of the '40's since the first NBA title was won in 1950.......I also cited the difference in eras....pre shot clock Lakers won 5 times (yes I counted the title won in '49 in the BAA).....since the shot clock era, which completly revolutionized the game, the nod easily goes to the East and it isn't that close....be truthful for a moment.....the Lakers were outscored in the fourth quarter 3-1 in an 18-17 point loss....the Royals played a six overtime game where only one shot was taken in each of the six overtimes....do you call that basketball as we know it? ...they had to change the game to keep the league afloat....the shot clock revolutionized the game....it was forever changed...once again, I really don't care if you don't agree with me....you have your opinion and I have mine....funny how we are discussing this on a Celtic forum....I know, you and your counterparts are just here to educate us...
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Weakstern Conference

    In Response to Re: Weakstern Conference:
    [QUOTE]My bad on the math....I was not counting the titles of the '40's since the first NBA title was won in 1950.......I also cited the difference in eras....pre shot clock Lakers won 5 times (yes I counted the title won in '49 in the BAA).....since the shot clock era, which completly revolutionized the game, the nod easily goes to the East and it isn't that close....be truthful for a moment.....the Lakers were outscored in the fourth quarter 3-1 in an 18-17 point loss....the Royals played a six overtime game where only one shot was taken in each of the six overtimes....do you call that basketball as we know it? ...they had to change the game to keep the league afloat....the shot clock revolutionized the game....it was forever changed...once again, I really don't care if you don't agree with me....you have your opinion and I have mine....funny how we are discussing this on a Celtic forum....I know, you and your counterparts are just here to educate us...
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]

    The Bird/Magic era revolutionized the game more than the shot clock revolutionized the game.

    How? it saved the league from being bankrupt (the NASL went belly up around that time). It also raised the league to the major league level. A million $$$ business attracting the best athletes. It sure beat working a 9-5 job, or have to sell insurance during the off-season.

    Your definition of "revolution" is merely the style of play changed on the court. My definition of "revolution" is how the game changed the sporting landscape.
     
  23. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Weakstern Conference

    ok by me.....to each his own right? .....Bird/Magic definitely got the games back on live TV...but the money thing was also happening is the major sports....free agency was already in full swing in MLB.....the NFL took a while to join in....as for the shot clock, it changed the game....no more 18-17 games or OT games with only one shot taken....but it's all good as far as I'm concerned....one telling fact though is the Mikan scenario.....dominated the game prior to the clock....retired at age 31 afterwards...made a comeback but couldn't play the new game....anyway, good to share opinions....I do not, in any way, consider you to be one of the trolls...
     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share