Would a Celtics vs Lakers Final bring the fans back?

[Prokorov]

you're right i should clarify. irrelevant on the court, specifically to his team''s success

Of course he is relevant on the court. The idea teams are better without Kyrie is such repeated nonsense. in 6 of his 8 seasons coming into this year Kyrie's teams have had better records when he plays vs. when he doesn't. The 2 years the team was worse with him include the year he came back from surgery (they won the title that year and he was a big part of upsetting the warriors) and last year with Boston which is well noted.

We dont know how it will shake out this year. right now they are worse with him but its close (2 - 3 games better without him)

Early Cavs Days:

11-12: Cavs better record with Kyrie than without him
12-13: Cavs better record with Kyrie than without him
13-14: Cavs better record with Kyrie than without him

Lebron Era Cavs:
14-15: Cavs better record with Kyrie than without him
15-16: Cavs WORSE record with Kyrie than without him (Came back from knee injury)
16-17: Cavs better record with Kyrie than without him

Celtics Seasons:
17-18: celtics better record with Kyrie than without him
18-19: celtics WORSE record with Kyrie than without him

Nets Season:
19-20: To this point, WORSE record with Kyrie (.421 with .484 without him)

The idea that Kyrie is irrelevant on the court is simply idiotic. His teams have consistently been better with him on the floor and Lebrons only Cleveand title in 4 years came with Kyrie (25/5/3 on 48/44/88). He hit the biggest shot of that finals and in the 4 finals wins he was: +24, +20, +25, and +10.

So if you want to call Kyrie a weirdo, blame him for last year in boston, and in general hate on him fine. But lets drop this nonsense he is irrelvant or that his teams have been better without him. Dude is a difference maker and a ceiling raiser. I dont know what says that more than being a +35 in an NBA finals vs. a 73 win team, Dropping 90 points in the final 3 wins and hitting the biggest shot in cleveland history.

For reference, coming into this season The hornets were better with Kemba in 3 of the 5 seasons he missed time and so far this season the celitcs are better without him.

i guess Kemba is irrelevant on the court

Boston Celtics - better with Kemba than they ever were with Kyrie.

But teams have more often been better without Kemba. the celtics are better without kemba this year.

[JAYZGOAT]

Lakers maybe, nobody outside of New England cares about the Celtics. They haven't been good consistently enough. Outside of the big 3 2007-2008 run, they've been an average franchise.

[Prokorov]

I think Bucks/Lakers moves the needle the most.... because today its more about players than it is about teams.

And Lebron v. Giannis would have the most storylines and the biggesty hype. "is lebron passing the torch" "will lebron get his 4th ring"

[DarkAzcura]

Lakers maybe, nobody outside of New England cares about the Celtics. They haven't been good consistently enough. Outside of the big 3 2007-2008 run, they've been an average franchise.

They have been to 42% of the conference finals in the last 12 years and the Finals twice. As of 2017, they had the 2nd best 10 year record in the NBA. Dunno what the updated total is, but they are probably still top 5. They also have the 2nd best road attendance percentage in the league this season.

You must have a very odd definition of average.

[JAYZGOAT]

Lakers maybe, nobody outside of New England cares about the Celtics. They haven't been good consistently enough. Outside of the big 3 2007-2008 run, they've been an average franchise.

They have been to 42% of the conference finals in the last 12 years and the Finals twice. As of 2017, they had the 2nd best 10 year record in the NBA. Dunno what the updated total is, but they are probably still top 5.

You must have a very odd definition of average.

Lets be real though, they never had much of a chance to get through Lebron and to the finals. East was just terrible the past 20 years. So maybe they've been above average, certainly not on the Lakers level. Still doesn't change the fact that nobody outside of NE cares about the Celtics.

[DarkAzcura]

Lakers maybe, nobody outside of New England cares about the Celtics. They haven't been good consistently enough. Outside of the big 3 2007-2008 run, they've been an average franchise.

They have been to 42% of the conference finals in the last 12 years and the Finals twice. As of 2017, they had the 2nd best 10 year record in the NBA. Dunno what the updated total is, but they are probably still top 5.

You must have a very odd definition of average.

Lets be real though, they never had much of a chance to get through Lebron and to the finals. East was just terrible the past 20 years. So maybe they've been above average, certainly not on the Lakers level. Still doesn't change the fact that nobody outside of NE cares about the Celtics.

They have the 2nd best road attendance by percentage in the league this season. You are the second person I have seen post this. Tons of people care about the Celtics outside NE, lol. Getting to the ECF 42% of the time in the last 12 years puts them quite above average regardless of conference strength. I wouldn’t really say they had no chance against Lebron. They went to two game 7s in 2012 and 2018 in the ECFs up 3-2 in both series. Any team that goes up 3-2 in a series has a chance. A good one at that. Flip of a coin both those series’ were.

Also no one is saying they were on the Lakers’ level the last 20 years. I was responding to your points, and that was not one of them.

[ajones9219]

Of course he is relevant on the court. The idea teams are better without Kyrie is such repeated nonsense. in 6 of his 8 seasons coming into this year Kyrie's teams have had better records when he plays vs. when he doesn't. The 2 years the team was worse with him include the year he came back from surgery (they won the title that year and he was a big part of upsetting the warriors) and last year with Boston which is well noted.

We dont know how it will shake out this year. right now they are worse with him but its close (2 - 3 games better without him)

Early Cavs Days:

11-12: Cavs better record with Kyrie than without him
12-13: Cavs better record with Kyrie than without him
13-14: Cavs better record with Kyrie than without him

Lebron Era Cavs:
14-15: Cavs better record with Kyrie than without him
15-16: Cavs WORSE record with Kyrie than without him (Came back from knee injury)
16-17: Cavs better record with Kyrie than without him

Celtics Seasons:
17-18: celtics better record with Kyrie than without him
18-19: celtics WORSE record with Kyrie than without him

Nets Season:
19-20: To this point, WORSE record with Kyrie (.421 with .484 without him)

The idea that Kyrie is irrelevant on the court is simply idiotic. His teams have consistently been better with him on the floor and Lebrons only Cleveand title in 4 years came with Kyrie (25/5/3 on 48/44/88). He hit the biggest shot of that finals and in the 4 finals wins he was: +24, +20, +25, and +10.

So if you want to call Kyrie a weirdo, blame him for last year in boston, and in general hate on him fine. But lets drop this nonsense he is irrelvant or that his teams have been better without him. Dude is a difference maker and a ceiling raiser. I dont know what says that more than being a +35 in an NBA finals vs. a 73 win team, Dropping 90 points in the final 3 wins and hitting the biggest shot in cleveland history.

For reference, coming into this season The hornets were better with Kemba in 3 of the 5 seasons he missed time and so far this season the celitcs are better without him.

i guess Kemba is irrelevant on the court

Boston Celtics - better with Kemba than they ever were with Kyrie.

But teams have more often been better without Kemba. the celtics are better without kemba this year.

Stats dont back that up

[HeartBreakKid]

No. The Celtics lack national appeal and are not even the most talked about NBA team in Boston.

Sent from my SM-G960U1 using RealGM mobile app

The Celtics are one of the more successful franchises commercially outside of their designated area - so strange thing to say.

Even more strange is the Celtics not being the most talked about NBA team in Boston (which is ironic considering you are a Nets fan )

[Picasso]

Lakers-Celtics finals would be a major ratings boost.

Clippers-Milwaukee? Who is going to watch that? Just family.

I question the benefit the Celtics would bring to ratings. The Celtics have 0 exciting players and 0 superstars. They are a collection of nice/solid players, similar to MIA (except Kemba is a lesser star than Butler). Yes, they have a historic past but how often do you see people in other places wearing Celtics gear? When I lived in BOS I saw some stuff obviously, but I never saw anything Celtics when living in either STL or MIL. The Celtics are basically the STL Cardinals of the NBA.

PHI would be a MUCH, MUCH bigger National draw than BOS

Not even remotely true. The Celtics have a top 5 following in the world, the Sixers aren't even close. I think most people would agree the Celtics are a top 5 most popular franchise. The Cardinals are great in St. Louis but outside of it don't have that kind of following even with 11 World Series rings.

I just wanted to see these numbers myself. I was actually quite surprised by what I saw.

According to the top 50 of bleacher report, the celtics are the 20th most famous sports team in the world. The sixers did not make the top 50. Keep in mind somehow the flyers made this list at number 50 though. Which i dont understand at all. But I guess after some thought, I know plenty of flyer fans and they dont follow basketball at all.


https://bleacherreport.com/articles/979699-the-50-most-popular-teams-in-sports#slide1



Now according to twitter and facebook follows combined, the celtics are the 24th most followed team in the world. The Lakers and Bulls are the top two NBA teams in follows at 7th for Lakers and 13th for chicago. Sixers did not make the list at all in the top 100. In this list the Mumbai indians 23rd, Chennai Super Kings 20th and Kolkata Knight Riders 18th, were all higher than the celtics (and many other popular sports teams). And those are cricket teams.

https://www.international-football.net/social-clubs

That really surprised me when I saw that. I was like seriously? Keep in mind both those lists were heavily dominated by Futbol clubs.

[reload141]

Lakers maybe, nobody outside of New England cares about the Celtics. They haven't been good consistently enough. Outside of the big 3 2007-2008 run, they've been an average franchise.

This is such a nonsense post.

2007-2008 is it? Give it a rest.

[California Gold]

Lakers maybe, nobody outside of New England cares about the Celtics. They haven't been good consistently enough. Outside of the big 3 2007-2008 run, they've been an average franchise.

They have been to 42% of the conference finals in the last 12 years and the Finals twice. As of 2017, they had the 2nd best 10 year record in the NBA. Dunno what the updated total is, but they are probably still top 5.

You must have a very odd definition of average.

Lets be real though, they never had much of a chance to get through Lebron and to the finals. East was just terrible the past 20 years. So maybe they've been above average, certainly not on the Lakers level. Still doesn't change the fact that nobody outside of NE cares about the Celtics.

Not true though. Come up with facts. Otherwise I can just as easily just say water isn't wet to mimic a post like this.

[jirrit]

regular season head to head has always been irrelevant. whether its the nets or anyone else. even moreso today where most teams are live or die by the three.

If kyrie was irrelevant he wouldnt have a million threads on the GB, been top 5 in fan voting for the ASG despite barely playing, drastically increased nets attendance, have an enormous twitter/IG following, and be talked above by players, reporters, fans, etc.

you're right i should clarify. irrelevant on the court, specifically to his team''s success

Of course he is relevant on the court. The idea teams are better without Kyrie is such repeated nonsense. in 6 of his 8 seasons coming into this year Kyrie's teams have had better records when he plays vs. when he doesn't. The 2 years the team was worse with him include the year he came back from surgery (they won the title that year and he was a big part of upsetting the warriors) and last year with Boston which is well noted.

We dont know how it will shake out this year. right now they are worse with him but its close (2 - 3 games better without him)

Early Cavs Days:

11-12: Cavs better record with Kyrie than without him
12-13: Cavs better record with Kyrie than without him
13-14: Cavs better record with Kyrie than without him

Lebron Era Cavs:
14-15: Cavs better record with Kyrie than without him
15-16: Cavs WORSE record with Kyrie than without him (Came back from knee injury)
16-17: Cavs better record with Kyrie than without him

Celtics Seasons:
17-18: celtics better record with Kyrie than without him
18-19: celtics WORSE record with Kyrie than without him

Nets Season:
19-20: To this point, WORSE record with Kyrie (.421 with .484 without him)

The idea that Kyrie is irrelevant on the court is simply idiotic. His teams have consistently been better with him on the floor and Lebrons only Cleveand title in 4 years came with Kyrie (25/5/3 on 48/44/88). He hit the biggest shot of that finals and in the 4 finals wins he was: +24, +20, +25, and +10.

So if you want to call Kyrie a weirdo, blame him for last year in boston, and in general hate on him fine. But lets drop this nonsense he is irrelvant or that his teams have been better without him. Dude is a difference maker and a ceiling raiser. I dont know what says that more than being a +35 in an NBA finals vs. a 73 win team, Dropping 90 points in the final 3 wins and hitting the biggest shot in cleveland history.

For reference, coming into this season The hornets were better with Kemba in 3 of the 5 seasons he missed time and so far this season the celitcs are better without him.

i guess Kemba is irrelevant on the court

If I zero freak of nature Lebron out of your numbers it’s not looking that good. I think as the main alpha he doesnt work but maybe next year if KD can come back as strong as he was, he might thrive again.

[Prokorov]

you're right i should clarify. irrelevant on the court, specifically to his team''s success

Of course he is relevant on the court. The idea teams are better without Kyrie is such repeated nonsense. in 6 of his 8 seasons coming into this year Kyrie's teams have had better records when he plays vs. when he doesn't. The 2 years the team was worse with him include the year he came back from surgery (they won the title that year and he was a big part of upsetting the warriors) and last year with Boston which is well noted.

We dont know how it will shake out this year. right now they are worse with him but its close (2 - 3 games better without him)

Early Cavs Days:

11-12: Cavs better record with Kyrie than without him
12-13: Cavs better record with Kyrie than without him
13-14: Cavs better record with Kyrie than without him

Lebron Era Cavs:
14-15: Cavs better record with Kyrie than without him
15-16: Cavs WORSE record with Kyrie than without him (Came back from knee injury)
16-17: Cavs better record with Kyrie than without him

Celtics Seasons:
17-18: celtics better record with Kyrie than without him
18-19: celtics WORSE record with Kyrie than without him

Nets Season:
19-20: To this point, WORSE record with Kyrie (.421 with .484 without him)

The idea that Kyrie is irrelevant on the court is simply idiotic. His teams have consistently been better with him on the floor and Lebrons only Cleveand title in 4 years came with Kyrie (25/5/3 on 48/44/88). He hit the biggest shot of that finals and in the 4 finals wins he was: +24, +20, +25, and +10.

So if you want to call Kyrie a weirdo, blame him for last year in boston, and in general hate on him fine. But lets drop this nonsense he is irrelvant or that his teams have been better without him. Dude is a difference maker and a ceiling raiser. I dont know what says that more than being a +35 in an NBA finals vs. a 73 win team, Dropping 90 points in the final 3 wins and hitting the biggest shot in cleveland history.

For reference, coming into this season The hornets were better with Kemba in 3 of the 5 seasons he missed time and so far this season the celitcs are better without him.

i guess Kemba is irrelevant on the court

If I zero freak of nature Lebron out of your numbers it’s not looking that good. I think as the main alpha he doesnt work but maybe next year if KD can come back as strong as he was, he might thrive again.

wrong.

Kyrie without lebron:
Kyrie's team better WITH him 4 or 5 seasons

Kyrie WITH lebron:
Kyrie's team better WITH him 2 of 3 seasons

[jirrit]

Of course he is relevant on the court. The idea teams are better without Kyrie is such repeated nonsense. in 6 of his 8 seasons coming into this year Kyrie's teams have had better records when he plays vs. when he doesn't. The 2 years the team was worse with him include the year he came back from surgery (they won the title that year and he was a big part of upsetting the warriors) and last year with Boston which is well noted.

We dont know how it will shake out this year. right now they are worse with him but its close (2 - 3 games better without him)

Early Cavs Days:

11-12: Cavs better record with Kyrie than without him
12-13: Cavs better record with Kyrie than without him
13-14: Cavs better record with Kyrie than without him

Lebron Era Cavs:
14-15: Cavs better record with Kyrie than without him
15-16: Cavs WORSE record with Kyrie than without him (Came back from knee injury)
16-17: Cavs better record with Kyrie than without him

Celtics Seasons:
17-18: celtics better record with Kyrie than without him
18-19: celtics WORSE record with Kyrie than without him

Nets Season:
19-20: To this point, WORSE record with Kyrie (.421 with .484 without him)

The idea that Kyrie is irrelevant on the court is simply idiotic. His teams have consistently been better with him on the floor and Lebrons only Cleveand title in 4 years came with Kyrie (25/5/3 on 48/44/88). He hit the biggest shot of that finals and in the 4 finals wins he was: +24, +20, +25, and +10.

So if you want to call Kyrie a weirdo, blame him for last year in boston, and in general hate on him fine. But lets drop this nonsense he is irrelvant or that his teams have been better without him. Dude is a difference maker and a ceiling raiser. I dont know what says that more than being a +35 in an NBA finals vs. a 73 win team, Dropping 90 points in the final 3 wins and hitting the biggest shot in cleveland history.

For reference, coming into this season The hornets were better with Kemba in 3 of the 5 seasons he missed time and so far this season the celitcs are better without him.

i guess Kemba is irrelevant on the court

If I zero freak of nature Lebron out of your numbers it’s not looking that good. I think as the main alpha he doesnt work but maybe next year if KD can come back as strong as he was, he might thrive again.

wrong.

Kyrie without lebron:
Kyrie's team better WITH him 4 or 5 seasons

Kyrie WITH lebron:
Kyrie's team better WITH him 2 of 3 seasons

Lol okay if you count his early years where he played with 20-30 win teams being the best player while being a rook.

You keep living off a great finals performance like 5 years ago.

No one ever denied he is a damn good basketball player but he hasnt made his team playing significantly better the last three years. You still think youre better than Boston with both teams fully healthy I guess?

[Prokorov]

No. The Celtics lack national appeal and are not even the most talked about NBA team in Boston.

Sent from my SM-G960U1 using RealGM mobile app

The Celtics are one of the more successful franchises commercially outside of their designated area - so strange thing to say.

Even more strange is the Celtics not being the most talked about NBA team in Boston (which is ironic considering you are a Nets fan )

The pats are the most talked about team in Boston. which is not surpising.

The rest are cyclical depending on team success. The Redsox dominates sports talk radio when they are winning but its crickets when they are losing although there is some buzz now on sports-hating them locally because they cheaped out and traded Mookie Betts. Bruins get alot of love, although the hockey circle is just smaller, even in a hockey town. from what ive seen living here 20 years its probably:

1. Pats (although who knows after brady/they dont win every year anymore)
2a Redsox
2b celtics (depends which is doing better
3. Bruins

This was different pre-2000 before all these teams won and fans in their 30s werent so wealthy with titles that they could just always jump on the hot team. when I first got here in 98 you coudnt hit a patriots fan with rock if you through it in the middle of orange line in rush hour. It was a Redsox dominate town (still chasing the yankees ghosts) followed firmly by the Celtics even without a great team and in a drought with the bruins then pats last even coming off the 96 superbowl/parcells era.

in any event, the celtics both domestically and internationally are a huge draw outside of boston. to say otherwise is insencere.

The problem is the NBA has become more about stars than teams. and Giannis/Lebron is probably a bigger draw than Lakers/celtics. Certainly alot moreso than if this was 1990

[Prokorov]

Boston Celtics - better with Kemba than they ever were with Kyrie.

But teams have more often been better without Kemba. the celtics are better without kemba this year.

Stats dont back that up

they do. in 4 of the 6 seasons kemba has missed at least 1 game the team has a better winning percentage when he doesnt play

[Prokorov]

If I zero freak of nature Lebron out of your numbers it’s not looking that good. I think as the main alpha he doesnt work but maybe next year if KD can come back as strong as he was, he might thrive again.

wrong.

Kyrie without lebron:
Kyrie's team better WITH him 4 or 5 seasons

Kyrie WITH lebron:
Kyrie's team better WITH him 2 of 3 seasons

Lol okay if you count his early years where he played with 20-30 win teams being the best player while being a rook.

You keep living off a great finals performance like 5 years ago.

No one ever denied he is a damn good basketball player but he hasnt made his team playing significantly better the last three years. You still think youre better than Boston with both teams fully healthy I guess?

So if you take away:
- his early seasons in cleveland
-take away his seasons with lebron
-take away his first year in boston

than yeah his teams have been better without him

So as long as you dont count 90% of Kyrie's career, his teams are better without him.

It is funny how people twist themselves in knots when the facts dont support their biased hate driven narratives. The idea that teams are better off without Kyrie is just not based in reality unless you want to ignore all but last year in Boston.

[jc23]

kyrie would have added more sizzle to it; as is the celtics team is a bit bland personality wise and that seems to matter to todays casual fans.

[Bank Shot]

Nah, young fans don't care about LA vs. Boston and why would they? That's been a relevant rivalry for two of the last 30 years. Casuals aren't going to get excited about Kemba/Tatum/Brown. The NBA is goofing by not hyping up Giannis and the Bucks more. Giannis potentially taking the torch from LBJ once and for all is a great storyline that's going to generate a lot of interest and instead all were going to get is "who is going to win between the Clips and Lakers" for the next 3 months.

[ajones9219]

But teams have more often been better without Kemba. the celtics are better without kemba this year.

Stats dont back that up

they do. in 4 of the 6 seasons kemba has missed at least 1 game the team has a better winning percentage when he doesnt play

Kemba missed 6 games over his last 4 years with Charlotte and 6 games this season. So yeah if he misses 1 game and the team wins you will end up with a 100% win percentage. Nice troll though