Lakers vs. Celtics: Which is the Greatest NBA Franchise?

[CelticsWhat35]

Bill O'Reilly: You also say that California has more people than any other state. I say New York State has more people - tell me where I'm wrong!

Thomas Woodward: [ confused ] Um.. well.. Bill.. actually, California is the most populous state.

Bill O'Reilly: I don't know, Counselor. I live in New York, and I walk down the streets every day, and there's people everywhere! You can't move! You know what I mean? Last week, I was in California, went to the beach in Malibu. Nobody! Practically empty. So, for my money, New York's got more people. Probably New Jersey, too.

That article reminded me of this SNL spoof of the O'Reilly Factor.

[im right]

I just came across an article in the Bleacher Report on "Lakers vs. Celtics: Which is the Greatest NBA Franchise?".

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/127731-lakers-vs-celtics-whos-the-greatest-nba-franchise

I won't spill the beans as to which team is the author's choice.  But of great interest to me (and those supporting the conspiracy theories against Stern) is the following quote lifted from the article:

'Also, the long time commissioner of the league David Stern had this to say when asked what his dream NBA Finals match-up would be, "Lakers vs. Lakers." He also said "I'd be lying if I told you there wasn't a special fascination with the Lakers."'

Of course, I am a biased fan and pick the Celtics as not only the greatest NBA franchise but also the greatest franchise in the history of the sport for winning 8 consecutive titles, a feat that probably would never be duplicated in modern day sports.

Take away Russell, and we aren't even close to the Lakers. Fortunately, you can't take away Russell.

I love how most Laker's fans denigrate winning 11 in 13 years and attempt to discount them because the NBA had fewer teams back then.

yea but they were one, where was their domination? Oh yea it was a few years earlier, in Minnesota.  HA!

[guava_wrench]

I just came across an article in the Bleacher Report on "Lakers vs. Celtics: Which is the Greatest NBA Franchise?".

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/127731-lakers-vs-celtics-whos-the-greatest-nba-franchise

I won't spill the beans as to which team is the author's choice.  But of great interest to me (and those supporting the conspiracy theories against Stern) is the following quote lifted from the article:

'Also, the long time commissioner of the league David Stern had this to say when asked what his dream NBA Finals match-up would be, "Lakers vs. Lakers." He also said "I'd be lying if I told you there wasn't a special fascination with the Lakers."'

Of course, I am a biased fan and pick the Celtics as not only the greatest NBA franchise but also the greatest franchise in the history of the sport for winning 8 consecutive titles, a feat that probably would never be duplicated in modern day sports.

Take away Russell, and we aren't even close to the Lakers. Fortunately, you can't take away Russell.

deson't work anyway. if you take out russell, you have to take out a great laker and cost them some titles.

17 > 14, and we own them heads up in the finals.

Doesn't work? I think you missed my point.

No one Laker made anywhere near the contribution. No a point that can be argue against.

This all depends upon what metrics you consider. We feel titles trump everything, but the Lakers do beat us in many substantial categories.

One of many situations where the best we can do with Laker fans is agree to disagree.

[nickagneta]

I just came across an article in the Bleacher Report on "Lakers vs. Celtics: Which is the Greatest NBA Franchise?".

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/127731-lakers-vs-celtics-whos-the-greatest-nba-franchise

I won't spill the beans as to which team is the author's choice.  But of great interest to me (and those supporting the conspiracy theories against Stern) is the following quote lifted from the article:

'Also, the long time commissioner of the league David Stern had this to say when asked what his dream NBA Finals match-up would be, "Lakers vs. Lakers." He also said "I'd be lying if I told you there wasn't a special fascination with the Lakers."'

Of course, I am a biased fan and pick the Celtics as not only the greatest NBA franchise but also the greatest franchise in the history of the sport for winning 8 consecutive titles, a feat that probably would never be duplicated in modern day sports.

Take away Russell, and we aren't even close to the Lakers. Fortunately, you can't take away Russell.

deson't work anyway. if you take out russell, you have to take out a great laker and cost them some titles.

17 > 14, and we own them heads up in the finals.

Doesn't work? I think you missed my point.

No one Laker made anywhere near the contribution. No a point that can be argue against.

This all depends upon what metrics you consider. We feel titles trump everything, but the Lakers do beat us in many substantial categories.

One of many situations where the best we can do with Laker fans is agree to disagree.

I think it could be argued that without Magic, the Lakers could well be 5 titles shorter than they are now and that the Celtics of the 80's would have won maybe 2-3 titles more. Also I think as great as Russell was if you replace him with Wilt Chamberlain, Willis Reed, Bob Petit, Dolph Schayes, Walt Bellamy or Elgin Baylor that the Celtics of that era still win a bunch of titles.

Those Celtics teams had Cousy, Heinsohn, Havilcek, Sam Jones, KC Jones, Thompson, Sanders and a ton of other great players. Russell was the catalyst and the reason those teams won but he was not alone and would not have won what he did without the contributions of those others. Those were teams not star oriented groups of players.

[EarthBall]

Here are a few stats:

Since 1948-49 (the first year of the Lakers existence):

-The Lakers have missed the playoffs 5 times.
-The Celtics have missed the playoffs 15 times.

-The Lakers have been in 29 Finals.
-The Celtics have been in 20 Finals.

Sure the Celtics have more Finals wins (17 to 14), but the difference (3) isn't that large compared to the above differences.

(I'm just reporting the facts here... )

[Roy Hobbs]

I haven't returned to Bleacher Report since this summer's wonderful Max Fischer fiasco.  No reason to start now.

Haha.  I was thinking the same thing.  But you know, the Celtics defense wasn't *that* good last year -- it was mostly a factor of their pace.

[Roy Hobbs]

Here are a few stats:

Since 1948-49 (the first year of the Lakers existence):

-The Lakers have missed the playoffs 5 times.
-The Celtics have missed the playoffs 15 times.

-The Lakers have been in 29 Finals.
-The Celtics have been in 20 Finals.

Sure the Celtics have more Finals wins (17 to 14), but the difference (3) isn't that large compared to the above differences.

(I'm just reporting the facts here... )

Is the goal of sports to win regular season games, or is it to win titles?  Until they start handing out the Larry O'Brien trophy to the regular season winner, I'll go with the Celts.

[Steve Weinman]

I haven't returned to Bleacher Report since this summer's wonderful Max Fischer fiasco.  No reason to start now.

Haha.  I was thinking the same thing.  But you know, the Celtics defense wasn't *that* good last year -- it was mostly a factor of their pace.

Or a result of their offensive talent.  Or the departure of Allan Ray.  Or something equally asinine.

Grrr.  

-sw

[TheGreenThumb]

I haven't returned to Bleacher Report since this summer's wonderful Max Fischer fiasco.  No reason to start now.

CW35's point works for me.

-sw

Point taken.  But regardless of who wrote this article or where it was published, "Who is the Greatest Franchise?" remains a very valid question. 

Of course, I expect majority of the posters in this forum to choose our beloved Celtics!    But I'd certainly would like to get an insight on their thinking / choice.

[KCattheStripe]

Dear Commissioner Stern:

We, the thoughtful and ever objective members of the Celticsblog community, are writing you to alert you to one of the greatest injustices in the history of professional basketball that has yet to be addressed let alone rectified. As you are obviously well aware, being the commissioner of the National Basketball Association, that the Los Angeles Lakers were originally the Minneapolis Lakers. During the Lakers' stint in the handsomer(but admittedly, less pious) of the twin cities they won 5 of their 14 NBA titles. After the fifth title they left the land of a thousand lakes and went "Hollywood", leaving the proud citizens of 'Sota without any of the titles that were rightfully theirs.

Giving the great state of Minnesota a team forty years after the fact is not compensation enough. We feel that proper reparations need to be made to the professional basketball fans in Minnesota. We suggest, nay, We demand that you return the NBA titles wrongfully removed from Minnesota and bequeath them to the Minnesota Timberwolves.


Yours,

Celtics fans without agendas everywhere.

[EarthBall]

Here are a few stats:

Since 1948-49 (the first year of the Lakers existence):

-The Lakers have missed the playoffs 5 times.
-The Celtics have missed the playoffs 15 times.

-The Lakers have been in 29 Finals.
-The Celtics have been in 20 Finals.

Sure the Celtics have more Finals wins (17 to 14), but the difference (3) isn't that large compared to the above differences.

(I'm just reporting the facts here... )

Is the goal of sports to win regular season games, or is it to win titles?  Until they start handing out the Larry O'Brien trophy to the regular season winner, I'll go with the Celts.

But would you trade 3 titles for the opportunity to win 9 titles?

The problem with being a fan today is that we sometimes simplify history. We smear the entire 60+ years into one statistic (17 vs 14) that neglects the dynamic behavior that they truly had. We forget that the Celtics really sucked for almost a decade. We forget that the Lakers were really good during the 60s (albeit not as good as the Celtics when it came down to winning titles).

I wonder if you ask an old fan who's watched both teams for 60 years. Do you think (s)he would only count Finals won? Or would (s)he try to integrate some non-binary function that truly captured the feelings that went through the fans each year?

[Redz]

The Celts are on the upturn off of the only elongated down period of their franchise.  The Lakers have avoided that extended period of suckiness, but if we're comparing the two franchises overall you have to consider just how dominant one franchise has been over the other head-to-head in the Finals. 

[Fafnir]

I do find it funny that Sharman was inducted as a player with the C's and then as a coach with the Ls.

Makes Pierce's transformation from pudgey Lakers fan into Celtic legend seem a little less unusual.

[Roy Hobbs]

But would you trade 3 titles for the opportunity to win 9 titles?

Sure I would.  From my perspective, losing in the Finals sucks as a fan just as much as losing in the first round, or missing the playoffs all together.  I mean, yes, you enjoy the ride up until the point that it's over, but ultimately, it's all about who wins, isn't it?

I judge success in sports in terms of most titles won.  Thus, the most successful franchises in the four major sports are the Yankees, Canadiens, Celtics, and Steelers.  I couldn't tell you who has the best regular season winning percentage in their respective sports, which one lost in the championship game the most, or how many times each franchise missed the playoffs.  I can, however, tell you that they won 26, 24, 17, and 6 titles.

[Steve Weinman]

But would you trade 3 titles for the opportunity to win 9 titles?

Sure I would.  From my perspective, losing in the Finals sucks as a fan just as much as losing in the first round, or missing the playoffs all together.  I mean, yes, you enjoy the ride up until the point that it's over, but ultimately, it's all about who wins, isn't it?

I judge success in sports in terms of most titles won.  Thus, the most successful franchises in the four major sports are the Yankees, Canadiens, Celtics, and Steelers.  I couldn't tell you who has the best regular season winning percentage in their respective sports, which one lost in the championship game the most, or how many times each franchise missed the playoffs.  I can, however, tell you that they won 26, 24, 17, and 6 titles.

In that vein, while I'd stop short of necessarily saying that a Finals loss sucks *just as much* as losing in the first round, I can say without a doubt that I would take one season like last year surrounded by a decade like the one that preceded it over several years of "competitive but not quite good enough to win at all" any day of the week.

-sw