History Says It's 16 But Merger Wipes Out 17th

DEEP3CL · Post #1 » by **DEEP3CL** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 8:07 am

OK...since this board has a wide range of age groups, I figured I'd share some info I found recently about our beloved Lakers. We all know how Celtic fans love boasting about having 17 Championships, and love sticking it to us Laker fans about always being behind them. Well history proves otherwise, but it's wiped out due to a technicality.

As Laker history has it we know they originated from Detroit and were called the Gems of the NBL (National Basketball League). They only played one season (1946) in Detroit after posting a 4-40 record and a litany of financial trouble. The teams owners Maury Winston & C.King Boring sold the team for $15,000 in 1947 to Ben Berger and Morris Chalfen. They immediately moved the team to Minneapolis, oddly there was technically no team....all of the players were assigned to other NBL team seeing as the league thought they were going to fold.

Berger and Chalfen renamed the "Lakers". Anyway the 1947 Professional Basketball League of America ( the league in which the Gems had left to join the NBL) the Lakers had the first pick in that draft. They used the pick on George Mikan. The Lakers used an infusion of former University of Minnesota players to replace those lost prior to the relocation, the Lakers won the 1948 NBL championship in their first season.

In 1949 the Lakers switched to the 12 team BAA (Basketball Association of America), the Lakers went on to win the championship again in 1949 in it's first year in that league. This at the time gave the Lakers 2 world championships in it's history.

1949 saw the BAA and the NBL merge to form the NBA, the BAA was the bigger league (17 teams) and had some of the teams we know of today. Teams such as the Boston Celtics, Philadelphia Warriors and the Knicks.

For the record the Celtics during it's first 3 years (1946-49) in the BAA posted a record of 67-101, with no titles won and only one playoff appearance.

The Lost Title

When the BAA and NBL merged in 1949 to form the NBA, the BAA didn't recognize NBL records and considered the Lakers to be an expansion team from 1948. This is the title that is wiped out from the NBA record books. The BBA is considered the direct precursor of today's NBA.

The NBL had existed for 12 years while the BAA had existed for 3 years at the time of the merger. The Lakers 1948-1949 BAA championship is considered to be the teams 1st title that is counted along the with the NBA's records. After the merger the Lakers went on to win it's ( 3rd overall ) 2nd championship as an official NBA team in 1950.

The Lakers' streak of championships came to an end in 1950-1951 when they lost to the Rochester Royals in the NBA Finals. Nevertheless, they rebounded from that defeat to capture the title for the next three consecutive years ( 1951-52, 52-53, 53-54 ), thus becoming the NBA's first "dynasty", having won five NBA/BAA championships in six years (and six championships in seven years, if their 1948 NBL title is included).

So there you have it. Even though we got a great jump on the start of championships, it was those 1960's battles with the Celtics that cost us. Along with losing to the Knicks twice (69-70 & 72-73) also.

Can't blame this on D.J. Stern....he was hired by the NBA in 1978.

Next History Lesson.....How Bill Russell was almost a Laker.

FullCircle · Post #2 » by **FullCircle** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:17 am

It won't matter if we get this next one. But I knew none of that, great post.

LAKESHOW · Post #3 » by **LAKESHOW** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:36 am

nice.

Matt6288 · Post #4 » by **Matt6288** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 10:53 am

They do like pointing out that they've won 1 more than us and that makes them better than us but it took them 22 years to go from there 16th to 17th and we could do it in 3 so

My brother is a celtics fan and I enjoy annoying him with this stuff but i
I didn't know that, thanks man

Dr Aki · Post #5 » by **Dr Aki** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:14 pm

i knew it, but i don't count it

do the ABA teams count their ABA titles?

crazy8ights · Post #6 » by **crazy8ights** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:37 pm

thanks for the info DEEP 8-)

we have to win at least one ring with DH and Nash on the roster or bust

Sofa King · Post #7 » by **Sofa King** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:38 pm

Damn Deep, you remembered all of that? :lol:

LocLaker · Post #8 » by **LocLaker** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:38 pm

great read.

I Love You Kobe · Post #9 » by **I Love You Kobe** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:45 pm

how does BBA stand for Basketball Association of America?

Post #10 » by **dockingsched** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:48 pm

its BAA not BBA

andrewww · Post #11 » by **andrewww** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 4:22 pm

if the prophecy holds true

before kobe retires...we wont need to discuss about history lessons or use missed championships to prove we're the greatest franchise in NBA history.

Hunter103 · Post #12 » by **Hunter103** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 4:28 pm

Fascinating. Thanks DEEP!

Gek · Post #13 » by **Gek** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 4:50 pm

No "And 1's"? Good post, DEEP. I like the idea of a history thread series.

Speedlot · Post #14 » by **Speedlot** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 4:58 pm

woo thanks for this

DEEP3CL · Post #15 » by **DEEP3CL** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 5:32 pm

@Doc....you're right, it is BAA, was late when I was posting this thread.

Beethoven · Post #16 » by **Beethoven** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 5:35 pm

I dont count the 5 championships in Minnesota. I only care about the ones here in Los Angeles, and the ones won by Mikan feel foreign to me.

It is like okc if they win a title (hypothetically of course) Seattle would not be sharing in the "ownership" of that championship. Nor does okc share in the ownership of the championship won by the Sonics.

I dont care really that Boston won their number of championships but most of them were overrated historically speaking in hindsight.

Sedale Threatt · Post #17 » by **Sedale Threatt** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 5:38 pm

I agree, but for a different reason. I'm always skeptical counting the Minneapolis championships for the fact that even the Lakers didn't start recognizing them until about 10 years ago. Before that, they bent over backwards to ignore that part of their history. It wasn't until they realized they could catch up with the Celtics that they started doing so.

Beethoven · Post #18 » by **Beethoven** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 5:43 pm

I dont think it is necessary for Lakers to try to bump up the banner count to try to catch up to the Celtics.

I've figured that naturally we will be surpassing them anyways. Just a matter of short time. And I am not just implying because of Dwight.

miggs · Post #19 » by **miggs** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 6:31 pm

Awesome thread Deep, keep these history threads coming. I'm on board with gek! Give us knowledge brother

supaflash · Post #20 » by **supaflash** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 6:57 pm

Love the history, thanks Deep.

But I too don't like the dragging of the old championships along, although the fact that we kept the name and the franchise together makes it a little easier to accept.

The championship debate is kind of meh to me, because of our first 5 being so old and the Celtics streak coming at a time where the league was not very deep and where there was no draft system to help the teams that were worse. Didn't the Celtics get a number 1 pick during their championship run?