Comments on: Lakers/Celtics: Which franchise reigns supreme?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 21:08:01 +0000

Kurt definitely won this battle.

By: np

np — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 10:44:51 +0000

The facts: really? That’s all you’ve got?
If a couple has sixteen children, five in Minneapolis and 11 in Los Angeles, they all belong to the couple. Anyone who tries to claim the couple has eleven children when they’ve parented sixteen, all of whom live in the couple’s current house, winds up looking like an idiot.
Titles follow franchises. Ask the Dodgers or the Raiders.
The only reason C’s fans like you make the argument is because you’re hearing the footsteps. LA’s one away from removing the only figleaf of an argument you have in the debate, and the only way to preserve it is with silly non-facts.

By: np

np — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 10:36:06 +0000

dudeasp: in case you haven’t been paying attention the last decade or so, when LA’s been to the Finals 7 of the last 10 seasons, the Western Conference has clearly been stronger. In the last several years, even the West’s lowest seeds won 50 or more games.
The C’s did have tragedies, which were unfortunate, but you cannot pin twenty-two years of irrelevance on two untimely deaths. Poor management has plagued them over the years. In contrast, LA had the greatest general manager in any sport, Jerry West, who built multiple title teams in different decades.
Neither side has an argument on buying titles. That’s what teams are *supposed* to do.
But the bulk of the C’s titles came in the 50′s and 60′s. The Browns won a ton of titles during that same time and you don’t hear their fans bragging on that fact. The Lakers have won five titles in a 10 year span in three different generations (and fans pushing the “Minneapolis Exception” just show they’re hearing footsteps). Most Boston fans crowing about the record v. the Lakers in the Finals (now 9-3) weren’t even alive for most of them. The Lakers have won three of the last five. Boston has a number of legendary players. At least half of the greatest 10 players of all time are Lakers.
A lot of Celtic fans are dogging out LA’s record in the Finals. It just means that LA was doing what they were supposed to do — get to the title round. Win or lose, a Finals appearance is evidence of a quality season, and LA’s had far more of those the last 30 years than the C’s. Many years, when LA was losing in the Finals, the Celtics were in the lottery. For all of the C’s fans’ bellyaching about injuries costing them in 2009 and 2010, they forget LA was without Bynum and a healthy Ariza in 2008. And historically, injuries cost LA in the Finals in 1983 and 1989.
Looking to the future, the Lakers’ core remains intact. The C’s core is in a state of flux. LA is positioned to tie Boston’s title count as early as 2011. And perhaps exceed it if Kobe stays healthy. With perennial winners in three generations, more all-time players, and better management, only the most die-hard Celtics’ fan could deny Los Angeles is the superior franchise.

By: dudeasp

dudeasp — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 00:20:17 +0000

THe Lakers have been to the finals more, but the Western Conference was really pretty weak most of the time. In an era when there was no salary cap, the Lakers spent more then any of the other tiny cities of the west.
And the Celtics had tragedy. Reggie Lewis and Len Bias’s death killed the franchise for 20 years. We are just rebuilding.
And the whole thing about the Celtics buying their championship is bs. What did the Lakers do when they bought Shaq? Please.

By: The facts

The facts — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 18:13:20 +0000

The Los Angelas Lakers are a great team and have won many world championships. However, a third of those so called championships were won by a team inMinneapolis. That is not the same as the 17 won by the team located in one place, Boston. You must separate the Lakers into two teams, LA andMinneapolis. So Kobe better stick around for another 10 years to reach that status.

By: Cross

Cross — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 13:00:57 +0000

Lakers and Celtics are both great teams. Celtics have 1 title more than Lakers but the Lakers have more Finals appearance than the Celtics, 31 to 21.

By: We are the Champions ----AGAIN

We are the Champions ----AGAIN — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 02:19:30 +0000

Gee Krazzzy, it looks like you were wrong. No, it doesn’t look like you were wrong, YOU WERE WRONG! Never count out a team with heart, we don’t lay down and die. When it comes to crunch time, the Lakers know how to crunch out the W. While it was nice winning tonight, the best part is knowing that a lot of big mouthed boston fans are crying their hearts out. After reading countless posts of how the Lakers didn’t have what it would take, the most satisfaction for Laker fans is showing you big mouths how wrong you were. Can’t wait til next year when Kobe and Derek win their 6th ring.

By: NBA 2010 CHAMPION LAKERS

NBA 2010 CHAMPION LAKERS — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 00:05:10 +0000

Yep. Retribution. Go Lakers.

By: Hackpiper

Hackpiper — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 13:30:12 +0000

Still feeling good about that so-called “retribution?”

By: AgingCelticLineup

AgingCelticLineup — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 18:58:07 +0000

I dont know, but clearly they recovered in time to destroy the Celtics in their first home game of the series.

By: Krazzzy4

Krazzzy4 — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 12:57:23 +0000

Hmmm…so, whatever happened to the Lakers last night??? The BIG strong Kobe Bryant’s team from the West got crushed by just 2 of the Boston’s players that actually participated. By the way, the Celtics also stole a home-field advantage from the Lakers already on Game 2. They have won more titles in the past and will continue winning more titles in the future. These Fakers are not getting past the Celtics…BOSTON CELTICS!

By: Wake-Up

Wake-Up — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 16:56:23 +0000

Boy you nailed that one Genius. Predictions for game 2?

By: amazing grace

amazing grace — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 13:46:22 +0000

lucas yes stats are nice and poignant, but as everyone has pointed out, most of the celtics wins were against a smaller pool of teams and yes they have won against the lakers 9 times, but to say they are the number 1 defence, gimme a break boston had a losing record against the west try looking that up, they got spanked by okc and phx both of which are better teams offensively and even defensively than the crippled 3 and as you saw last night the much vaunted celt d got spanked hard by teh so called weak lakers, oh and one more thing to guys like you that beat teh celtic drum the teams they beat were all sub par teams even magic and cleveland so they had the best records…uhm if lakers were in the eastern division we probably would go for 72 win season like the bulls, seriously though i appreciate the celtics they are a great franchise …of yesteryear, but to be a franchise of today hell you have to have more titles than 1 in the last “24″ years. oh and when your adding those stats add the fact that the lakers having gone to the bog dance 30 times they also have the WINNINGEST record ever to get them there 30 times. stick that in your celtic pipe and smoke it…

By: TominNH

TominNH — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 12:18:49 +0000

It sure is………… but Id advise not putting up any balloons in the rafters! LOL

By: Junior

Junior — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 01:29:31 +0000

What are you talking about? Kevin Garnett is a skeleton of his former self. He was once vying for the top PF in NBA history and now is just a better than average PF. He averaged a mere 14 points and 7 rebounds a game! His stats have been nose diving the past three years. Just against the Magic he averaged 10 points on like 39% shooting. His post game has all but disappeared.
Why do franchise statistics matter? What happened 20-40 years ago has no effect on the outcome of this series.
The West has been a much, much stronger conference than the peewee East for the past decade. lol. –I am a Bulls fan.

By: IMJCS2

IMJCS2 — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 23:56:15 +0000

I like that name….statistics boy…has a “ring” to it. It was good game tonight, wasn’t it?

By: Israel

Israel — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 21:12:01 +0000

Basketball arguments as to why the Celtics are better? Matt doesn’t need to mention it, but since Ron went there…
Celtics play better defense. Celtics play better on offense. Celtics play team ball. Lakers would be LA Clippers without Kobe. Rondo is faster and repeatedly burns the Lakers because they have no one that keep up with him at the point. We saw that in the regular season. Garnett is now playing like he’s 100%. I could go on forever, but the biggest reason is that the Celtics are a bunch of hard nosed players and the collective heart of the Lakers is questionable.

By: michael

michael — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 20:14:42 +0000

You’re right statistic boy, I guess I am too lazy. Maybe this year when the Celtics beat the Lakers by 39 in Game 6 to win the Championship as Kobe and the boys quit you can ask David Stern to reverse the outcome because the statistics said it should have been closer.

By: 666

666 — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 20:00:08 +0000

lol, good post!!

By: IMJCS2

IMJCS2 — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 19:38:40 +0000

Don’t need nor take meds….you’re just too lazy or unable to understand statistics. Opinions are opinions. Data is fact. I’m not debating how great the Celtics are. If you had any level of intelligence, you would’ve understood that. Indeed, your Celtics ravaged the East this postseason. All I’m saying is this series isn’t a slam dunk for either team. Cheers.

By: The Len Bias Excuse???

The Len Bias Excuse??? — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 19:33:42 +0000

You’re not serious are you? You claiming that the 90′s sucked for the Celtic’s because your team drafted a crack-head? And that if Len Bias hadn’t died, he was gonna be a Hall-Of-Famer, NOT a crack-head draft bust? You must be on the same stuff he was.

By: scott r

scott r — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 19:31:27 +0000

Lakers fans are like liberal celebrities who are only fans during the good times.

By: michael

michael — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 19:27:18 +0000

Then you must have gone off your meds….when the Celts win this series it will be their greatest championship. They will have dispatched the top 3 teams with the best records / Wade, Lebron, Howard and Kobe / AND will have won the last 3 series WITHOUT home court advantage.

By: IMJCS2

IMJCS2 — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 18:59:04 +0000

Nope, wasn’t kidding. I referenced points as an example. Look at the rest of the stats as well.

By: FordhamLaw TX

FordhamLaw TX — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 18:32:03 +0000

Lakers-Celtics is like the Iran-Iraq war for most real Americans. We don’t care who wins, we just want to see lots of casualties on both sides.

By: michael

michael — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 18:28:22 +0000

IMJCS2……are you kidding me !
The Celtics during the last 2 series have played Cleveland and Orlando who with the Celtics make up the 3 BEST DEFENSIVE TEAMS in the NBA !
The Lakers have been playing teams who play defense like the local YMCA teams.
The best way to look at defense is points scored per 100 attempts and the Celtics are the best by far. If the Celtics limit the Lakers to 91 pts per game that would be great….the series will be over in 5.

By: djukez

djukez — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 18:25:59 +0000

How could you even say such a thing? I can definitely see on of the best all time but flat out, the best ever? EVER. DO you know who else played in the NBA let alone better then MJ. How could you say such a thing? I would real be interested in trying to understand how you could even come up with such a statement. Please explain?

By: G-Man

G-Man — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 18:24:32 +0000

Honestly – I really do-not-like the Lakers. Let me tell you why…it’s about Showtime. Do you know what Showtime means to the rest of us basketball fans? It means you have the media and Hollywood worshiping you. I am sick and tired of the media Every-Single-Year telling us how great the Lakers are and how happy they are to see them win. It’s completely biased media attention. You are the Tiger Woods of the NBA. Tiger get’s all the press and adoration, and so do the Lakers. Yes – you are good, very good. But we as sports fans are sick and tired of the media worshiping the Lakers. That’s my two cents.

By: Djukez

Djukez — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 18:20:10 +0000

In response to this last blog i must admit i was flabbergasted. Not in that the points were so relevant. But simple because it was statistics taken out of context to try to prove a failed point. From 1961- 1965 were the lakers still a team in the NBA? From 1996 to 1998 did they suddenly take a two year absence as well? Even thought the Lakers have dominated the Western conference 19 times since 1969 the reason why they would have not won more titles if the same set up existed was and would be because the Boston Celtics, are still the Boston Celtics. That is why the Lakers did not win more championships back then, and that is why they did not win in 2008 and that is why they are facing an extremely tough match up in 2010. The bottom line being both teams are extremely talented and did not get here by happen stance. This is going to be a great match up i am calling the Celtics. But none the less a close one. Celtics win game 1 and then eventually the series in 7.

By: IMJCS2

IMJCS2 — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 18:07:25 +0000

All this chatter about Celtics being a better defensive team doesn’t add up, statistically. Look at the postseason team stats. Neither team has a clearcut advantage. The Lakers averaged 105.7 pts, while the Celtics 96.6. Their opponents were 101.7, and 91.4. So, while the Celtics will most likely slow down the Lakers offense, their own offense statistically doesn’t have anywhere near the potency of the Lakers. My point? It’s basically a wash. These teams are MUCH more evenly matched than most here care to acknowledge.