RealGM

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/ ... ngs-Lakers

I don't think a team that has lost more finals then they've won should be named the best franchise.

Boston has three more championships, 17 to 14, but the Lakers have everything else -- more wins, more playoff wins, more superstars, fewer bad years, etc.

Id rather have more championships than be names best franchise, Im not losing sleep over it

Great job ESPN.

Laker_Love wrote:Boston has three more championships, 17 to 14, but the Lakers have everything else -- more wins, more playoff wins, more superstars, fewer bad years, etc.

A 2-9 record against the Celtics in the Finals really speaks for itself. Who would have guessed ESPN has some serious garbage on it's site.

Everyone is complaining about the double counting of playoff wins, the completely absurd 150-50 differential in 'intangibles', but no one is mentioning the main thing -

The way that the Lakers feasted on a weak western conference throughout the 80's - the same thing that happened the past 2 years, in fact - last year the top 4 teams in the league were Boston/LA/Detroit/Cleveland; this year Boston/LA/Orlando/Cleveland. There might be a zillion 50 win good teams out west, but with the decline of the Spurs there isn't another real contender out there.

It's all just a subjective thing though. The truth is, no other team is remotely close; but I don't think you could make any argument for the Lakers unless they pass us in total titles.

Which may wind up happening as long as the league and luck continue to supply the Lakers with gifts the way they did Kareem, Worthy, and Gasol, and to a lesser extent Magic and Shaq. Similar gifts the Celtics got? Dennis Johnson and Len Bias; offset by Reggie Lewis a few lotteries, KG's injury, Bird's injuries. Similar bad luck for the Lakers? Only injuries in '91 and Magic's attainment of HIV, after Portland had already surpassed them.

Lakers continue to catch up with luck, conspiracy, and collusion; for now, the Celtics maintain the lead with some shrewd trades to counteract the terrible luck (and plenty of terrible trades/drafts. Funny how much Chris Wallace has contributed to the Lakers in this race for the titles lead.)

A 2-9 record against the Celtics in the Finals really speaks for itself. Who would have guessed ESPN has some serious garbage on it's site.

So it's LA's fault that when they had Shaq and Kobe they couldn't play Boston in the Finals because the Celtics weren't good enough to get there?

Woe is us, everyone hates us.

Best Franchise?.....Lakers?.....Well, as ALWAYS---the Celtics are the Best "TEAM".....Too bad we can't have our Superstars lace em up vs. their Superstars.....C's would win because of TEAM play.

Len Bias doesn't die, and we have at least 5-6 More titles than them---cause we would have won in 87, 88 also.

LoL at too poor to face the lakers in those 3 years at the start of the decade.

Is it the Celtics fault that the Lakers were too poor to beat the Cetlics during those 4 decades of championships for the Celtics?

News flash...............ESPN are a bunch of front runners...if the Celtics were in the finals...this article would be different I think.

ESPN? Who the hell is that? Sounds familiar.

Meh. ESPN hates the C's.

What! who! Lakers best Franchise! ha!ha! ha! over my dead body!

Laker_Love wrote:

A 2-9 record against the Celtics in the Finals really speaks for itself. Who would have guessed ESPN has some serious garbage on it's site.

So it's LA's fault that when they had Shaq and Kobe they couldn't play Boston in the Finals because the Celtics weren't good enough to get there?

Is it the Celtics fault the Lakers could only beat them twice? Lets face it when it comes to the grand stage the Lakers choke half the time. And of course when they play the Celtics it only get worse.

Laker_Love wrote:

A 2-9 record against the Celtics in the Finals really speaks for itself. Who would have guessed ESPN has some serious garbage on it's site.

So it's LA's fault that when they had Shaq and Kobe they couldn't play Boston in the Finals because the Celtics weren't good enough to get there?

If you are going to steal John Hollinger's words, at least give him credit. That being said, Hollinger is a statistical tool.

Jeremy (Des Moines)

Come on, Boston beat LA how many times in the finals? Like 9 out of 11 or something? That right there should be BIG bonus points.
John Hollinger

So it's LA's fault that when they had Shaq and Kobe they couldn't play Boston in the Finals because the Celtics weren't good enough to get there?

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/ ... -Hollinger

No. 12: Oklahoma City Thunder

/thread

I know. I know.

where were the celtics in the last 20 years? the lottery

All you haters need to STFU!!!

Once you factor in things like revenue earned, most recognizable players, etc. etc. it makes a lot of sense to have the Lakers ranked as the #1 NBA franchise.