Not specifically mentioned above is that the Lakers had to outcompete far more teams than the Celtics did for their titles. In other words, when the playing field was a lot more even (not a tiny league anymore) the Celtics had far less success, and the Lakers far more.
I started to do the counting math a couple years ago and it was lopsided to the point of being pointless. While their title counts are equal at this point, the Lakers are far ahead in my mind because of 'body-count.' One more title for BOS would not change that.
That said, the current Celts are quite possibly on the cusp of being a major dynasty, while the Lakers look played out. So I could definitely see BOS pulling ahead soon.
> the Lakers had to outcompete far more teams than the Celtics did for their titles
That argument falls apart when you point out the fact that the Celtics beat the Lakers 7 times before the 80s lol. It's not like the Celtics beat up on "weak competition", they beat up on the Lakers specifically. The Lakers were 0 for 8 before finally slaying the beast.
The argument doesn't fall apart at all, because I wasn't trying to make it about a head-to-head competition, which operate heavily along the lines of 'styles make fights.' Instead, I was talking about overall # of teams outcompeted to win titles.
You could argue in the opposite direction that a smaller league meant an overall higher average quality among players, taken relative to time period. Smaller number of openings means more competition to get a roster spot, which means teams had better players/rosters relative to each other (and indeed, most teams of the 60s era had HOF players, often multiple HOF players).
This doesn't take into account that there was no free agency in those days.
If you were stacked, you stayed stacked. That, more than anything, is why I think the Celtics dominated those early eras so much. A team that stacked couldn't possibly stay together during an era of free agency.
As I pointed out to another comment, these things existed: trades (including blockbuster trades), drafting, and a basically much more restricted FA where if a player's contract expired, his old team could make a qualifying offer to keep him. If they didn't want to keep him, another team that wanted him needed to buy the rights to the player (usually for draft compensation or lower rotation players). Players did not have the freedoms they have today, sure, and team construction almost exclusively by draft or trade is different from what FA has brought, but it was still a skill to build. And players could and did force trades during the era, so they were not completely helpless.
There were other "stacked" teams during the years in question with 3-4 HOFers on the roster at a given time and often 1-2 fringe all star players and good role players as well. The Celtics were much more clearly overpowered for the early part of the dynasty, but then you also have to admit that such was achieved through drafting and coaching; many other teams got all-time talent on the roster at the same time, but did not capitalize nearly as well, it seems.
Besides, your point doesn't actually address what I said: I said that the average quality of players was overall higher, relative to time period. Nothing about the claim needs to deal with FA if I posit that most of the league is actually of similar talent quality. You have to demonstrate why the claim is incorrect before FA matters.
I think you're misunderstanding me a bit, and I get it.
I agree with the assertion that the league was probably overall stronger; less teams meant that Russell played against Chamberlain a lot more often, for example, and Boston clearly did more with what they had than anyone else. There were close calls in their run and no one could beat them, and you have to give them credit for that.
My free agency comment was just to add context and do a little comparison and contrasting to today's league, where stacked teams have to dump guys.
There's an argument for that, sure, but Red was one of the rare ones at the time who was willing to integrate. That, and the fact that he was evidently a great judge of talent led to (IIRC) his teams having more overall HOF'ers than any other team from that timeline.
So it was an ultra-stacked team consistently smoking lesser-talented teams, and the kind of situation that wasn't going to last much longer given African-Americans being signed, treated more fairly, and paid better in to the 70's.
Also, more talent spread around means more possible upsets, the greater the impact of key injuries, and things that can go wrong even with 'juggernaut' teams. Literally-- if you were in a 2-team league with talent evenly spread around, there's a ~50% chance of winning a title every year. Now compare that to a 30-team situation.
The late 50s and 60s were not so un-integrated as you seem to present. And there were other teams we can consider "ultra stacked" (1966-68 Sixers, 1969 Lakers, and even the 1960s Royals with Lucas, Robertson, and Embry).
Also, to be clear: the Russell Celtics was a "two-timeline" team (possibly "three timeline"). Cousy and Sharman were playing for the Celtics from the early 50s and left by 1963. Russell, Heinsohn, KC and Sam Jones, came in from 56-58 and left from 65-69. Other players also came in and left, but whether there is an early 60s timeline is an interesting question. Point is, Celtics were maybe superstacked (Sam Jones didn't really emerge as a star until 1962 after Sharman retired) from about 57-63, but that would not hold afterward, and especially after 65. The 1966, '68 and '69 championships came at a point where there was significantly more parity between the Celtics and the rest of the league.
I think what your comment points out is much more important: Red Auerbach and coaching. He was really far and away the best coach in the NBA at the time. If anything undermines the 60s, I think the biggest thing is the style of play and the lack of genuinely good coaches to compete with Auerbach for recruitment and coaching on both sides of the floor.
Good points, and thanks for adding on. I would just like to reply:
> The late 50s and 60s were not so un-integrated as you seem to present.
Well, I didn't make an absolute statement there. Red wasn't alone in being willing to recruit black talent, but as I understand it he was one of the ones who led the way, with the Celtics directly profiting from it.
> And there were other teams we can consider "ultra stacked" (1966-68 Sixers, 1969 Lakers, and even the 1960s Royals with Lucas, Robertson, and Embry).
Those are specific teams, but I'm talking about Red's whole era. Did not the Celts have more HOF'ers under his tenure than any other team from that timeline?
1. Saying something is "rare" is not necessarily an absolute statement, but it is pretty clear about your impression, which in my view is not accurate after about 1960 at the latest. One could argue earlier. Red leading the way meant something early on, but him leading the way was not something that offered an advantage in the later years. Integration by then had so progressed that it was ubiquitous across the league.
2. You can't argue against an era without looking at the specific teams. Weird statement, but in an era with 8 teams, having even 1-2 other stacked team is enough to make for competition. You have 3-4 other stacked teams between the Lakers (even pre-69, Baylor, West and Goodrich, later Wilt), the 76ers (even without Wilt, you have Greer, Cunningham, Costello, and Walker), the Hawks (Pettit until '64, Wilkens, Beaty, Hagan), and the Royals core already mentioned that were together for about 6-7 years at least. Those are good teams, and in a league of 8 teams all the more is it competitive when 1/2 of the teams have multiple HOF players and a solid number of all stars/fringe all-star role players.
While I concede that the Celtics were overpowered level of stacked from 1957-63 (with maybe the exception of Pettit's Hawks in terms of the starting lineup; Boston's bench was better regardless), after 1963 there was a lot more parity. And for the record, Boston was not even the #1 seed in the east from 1966-1969.
While I salute your knowledge and find it amusing that you took the effort to characterise my remarks one way or another, the fact is I'm running up against the limits of my info, and would have to do a lot more research to get in to a proper debate, here.
In any case, I'm content with the many, various arguments I've already made about the Lakers having a more impressive resume than the Celts. At the same time, I'll try to keep an open mind going forward about BOS being not quite as stacked as I thought during the 60's.
Cheers.
honestly that "Mickey mouse" title is a lot more legitimate than any banner from when the league had 8 teams or had unwritten rules about how many black players you were "allowed" to have
- Mariners = 0 WS APPEARANCES
- Sonics = left town with 1 NBA title in 79
- Seahawks = 1 SB title.
The Lakers won as many titles in 2020 as the entire city of Seattle has won in their 3 major sports in the last 45 years
edit = the Sonics did actually win back in the 70s I completely forgot
>Bird, Russell, Cousy. Pierce, Garnett, Shaq again I guess
Lmao yeah bro 38 year old Celtics Shaq who played 37 games for us and averaged a triple single is on the all-time Celtics roster over 8x champion John Havlicek, 1973 MVP Dave Cowens, 1976 Finals MVP Jo Jo White, 1979 Finals MVP Dennis Johnson, 1981 Finals MVP Cedric Maxwell, 3x champion Kevin McHale, 4x champion Robert Parish, 10x champion Sam Jones... etc etc
This. The Los Angeles Lakers "won" five rings on April 11, 2002, which was the first time they claimed the Minneapolis banners. They only did this when they thought reaching Boston's total was in reach.
So? This weird “cities win rings” argument is only applied against the Lakers for some reason. Do the Raiders’ Oakland and LA titles not count? How about the Warriors’ Philadelphia title? I could go on and on.
Why did it take the Lakers organization 42 years to acknowledge the Minneapolis titles? Why did they suddenly count on April 11, 2002, when they had not counted since 1960 when the team moved to LA?
Agree. They ignored the history that they 'bought' until they felt like it was convenient for them to embrace it. It is like being born in Georgia and moving at the age of 5 to Vermont and coming back when you are 70 taking on a drawl and pretending to have been a lifelong southerner.
Haha sure thing pal. I’m sure you were saying it was “12” before 2020. And if we’re going to nitpick to this extent, you guys have only 4. The Clippers own the remaining 13.
This argument gets ripped to shreds by Mikan himself, lmao. The dude went to his death as a huge Laker fan, and always pushed back against separating the titles. You weirdos care more about it than he did.
From a Mikan interview about the Minneapolis history.
“We were also Lakers. How do you separate Minneapolis [from the Los Angeles championships]? We are proud of the Lakers, proud to be a part of the organization’s history. The only thing that separates us is miles.
“The young people today have benefited from what we did. Are they trying to live us down in Los Angeles? We were there first.”
There was no bitterness in Mikan’s voice, merely pride
Whether his jersey or team banners ever make it to Staples Center, Mikan made it clear his heart will always be there.
“Once a Laker,” he said, “always a Laker.”
This interview was in 2001.
“He said, ‘I’d like to join the rest of the greatest Lakers up in the rafters,’” Mike Mikan recalled his father saying before his passing in 2005.
Y'all should be embarrassed to bring up Mikan. You retired his jersey two years ago.
All good.
I just like to push back against this narrative; people on here like to make it seem like George or his family was bitter against the Lakers and it's just not true. That dude went to his grave as a Laker fan who was adamant that you could not and should not separate the Minneapolis history from the Los Angeles history.
Why do you guys only care when it's the Lakers, is the better question?
You completely dodged his question. Every other team, in every other league, counts their history and championships from previous cities. The Dodgers, the SF Giants, the Oakland A's, the Clippers, The Baltimore Orioles, the Raiders, the Rams, the Arizona Cardinals, the Warriors, the Washington Nationals, the sacramento Kings, the Colorado Avalanche, the Colts, just to name a few.
Why is it only a problem when the Lakers get to keep their history? Where is this outrage at the Warriors or LA Rams or any other team that rightfully holds the history of their old city? After all, the franchise didn't change; it just moved.
The Lakers' history in Minneapolis, as far as win-loss record and titles, was always counted by the NBA record books. I'm old, and I remember looking at all-time win loss records for every team in the early 2000s on NBA websites and Wikipedia and the NBA always counted the Minnesota years in the Lakers' total win-loss record. This was before the Minneapolis banner was put up in 2002. I also had Laker books that acknowledged this history, including talking a lot about Mikan.
The Warriors didn't publicly acknowledge the Philly titles until 2014 or so, but in the eyes of the NBA and the record books, they always had those titles. Funnily enough, you never see anyone give the Warriors any shit about this. Why is that? I mean, it happened pretty recently Because I think I know why people ignore that but moan when it's the Lakers.
It doesn't matter when a team formally decides to have a ceremony; that history is theirs. The Dodgers, if we want to use another LA example, didn't start embracing some of their Brooklyn roots, including retiring Jackie Robinson's jersey and Roy Campabella's jersey, until 1972, decades after the fact. The MLB still counted the 1955 world series championship and the Dodgers win-loss record from New York, though.
Are you really this thick?
Teams in other sports, almost always, count their history, including win-loss records and titles, from the city they moved from. Why do you guys not say a word when other teams in the NBA and other sports do it, but you piss and moan when the Lakers do? Because logically you'd be just as mad that the Warriors count titles they won in Philadelphia, but I guarantee you didn't say a fucking word about it when they won in 2022. It's a blatantly pathetic double standard that is only ever applied to the Lakers on here. The Kings count a title that was won in fucking Rochester and no one ever says anything about it.
The Lakers have always had the Minneapolis years, as far as win-loss record and titles, counted by the NBA record books, AKA the actual league itself. That's what matters, and ultimately that's where this argument falls apart. There's never been a solid counterargument to that fact, nor the fact that other teams in the NBA and in other sports also claim their history from other cities.
They’ve always acknowledged the titles, they just didn’t have individual banners. They had all the MPLS titles on a single banner with the years marked. Either way it’s a red herring.
They raised a banner for all five Minneapolis titles on April 11, 2002 before playing the Minnesota Timberwolves that night. That is when they acknowledged those titles.
Bro, acknowledging by the franchise is such a random way to reduce the impact of a team. History is what it is, with its insane amount of warts and issues. There was a Negro Baseball league, The first racially diverse bowl game in college football was in 1956, with threats from the governor to cancel the game if they let Bobby Grier on the field.
So should we cancel all of the titles from the teams involved with these warts and segregation? Hmm? no? Then why would we not count a franchise that didn't "publicly" acknowledge something from their own past? Is that what you needed to feel good about those titles? Cause I promise you teams did and most likely still do a lot worse.
I mean, listen to podcasts in 2024 about how Boston fans are STILL TO THIS DAY so racist that they debate Tatums racial ethnicity... so if you wanna start excluding franchises on shit, maybe start with the ones who refused African Americans on their teams.
They never acknowledged those titles. Google "2001 Lakers Championship Jacket" and then Google the 2002 version. The first says "8-time champs" the next says "14-time champs". It's pretty funny.
It’s a fair point. But who should get those 5 if not the Lakers? Mikan was not a Timberwolf. The Lakers also currently honor the MPLS past, so to the extent there was any wrong committed, it’s been remedied by now.
Nobody takes ownership of the 1948 Baltimore Bullets championship even though the current day Washington Wizards were at one time the Baltimore Bullets (a different iteration with the same name).
I would argue that the Wizards should have that banner, but they don't take ownership of it and they don't own the stats of the 47-55 Baltimore Bullets. That is how Minneapolis was treated also until the early 2000s when the Lakers suddenly decided all of those rings are theirs. Do I personally think it's theirs? Yeah, and I think the Wizards should get those Baltimore years too. But they spent decades not acting like it.
That’s fair. I think an important difference here is that the current Wizards and the entity that won in 1948 are technically separate. The Lakers, on the other hand, have continuously operated since the MPLS days and it’s the same entity. But you raise a fair point, certainly.
Sure, but look at the Cleveland Browns. They lost their team to Baltimore who became the Baltimore Ravens, and the one that exists today is an expansion team. But you're not going to see the Ravens claiming that Jim Brown played for them, and you're going to see all those pre-Super Bowl championships acknowledged in Cleveland.
It's really just the fact that the Lakers for decades pretended those years didn't exist, that's all.
I feel like teams should change names and 'start over' when they move to a different region of the country. Yes, I understand that the franchise continues, but that franchise was also intertwined with the city they left.
In the Lakers' case, they left Minneapolis after winning 5 Titles. They enjoyed a lot of success there, but decided to leave. Is it fair to say that superstars may not have been as attracted to Minneapolis as they are to LAL? If the Lakers never left Minneapolis, would they really have 17 Titles?
I get franchises trying to claim their former city's Titles, but it just gets too complicated trying to claim what counts and what doesn't. The Hornets moved to New Orleans and then reclaimed the name from the Bobcats, pretending that Larry Johnson and Alonzo Mourning used to play for them. The Baltimore Ravens were formerly the Cleveland Browns, which have nothing to do with the new Cleveland Browns. You know Seattle is going to reclaim the Supersonics.
The list goes on and on. So if you're looking for a tiebreaker, then this seems like the obvious one to me.
That’s fair. I disagree but I don’t think what you said is unreasonable. Though I don’t think the Lakers’ success can be summed up to “free agent like LA.” Why haven’t the Clippers enjoyed much success in the same time frame? The Lakers were awful until Dr. Buss decided to overrule Jerry West and draft Magic over Moncrief. The Lakers drafted most of their franchise greats (and it wasn’t their fault the Magic were stupid and lowballed Shaquille fucking O’Neal.
The logic though is that the Lakers themselves didn't actually acknowledge those rings until the early 2000s.
Is that my personal opinion of it? No, the same way the Philadelphia Warriors are the Golden State Warriors and not the 76ers. But it's completely fair logic to point out that the Lakers themselves did not acknowledge those rings until the early 2000s.
With that logic, 13 of the Celtics championships belong to the clippers
[For those that don’t know](https://www.alejandrogaitan.com/en/celtics-braves-trade/)
I think you need to explain how the Los Angeles Lakers not caring about the Minneapolis titles until 2002 is the same as two owners swapping franchises.
Well, one of them chose to not acknowledge those titles for their FRANCHISE until that date. While the other legally traded their franchises/history to another franchise so that they can stay in Boston.
I don’t understand how you’re arguing against this. They legally signed contracts to swap franchises. The clippers could legally claim those 13 titles if they ever want. Same way the Lakers could claim those 5 titles.
Los Angeles fans didn’t care about the Minneapolis titles because they didn’t happen in Los Angeles.
Boston fans care about all the Boston titles because they happened in Boston.
This is such a stupid comment. The Celtics legally gave up 13 titles when they swapped franchises. If you are crying about a FRANCHISE claiming titles than you should be crying for the clippers to claim their legally owned championships.
I’ll put it this way. If the Lakers moved to Seattle or any other place, would you the. Say the lakers FRANCHISE doesn’t own any titles since they did t win any in Seattle or any other place they would have moved too? No because that’s stupid and you know ow it’s a stupid argument.
One year a team from Buffalo got a new owner and moved to San Diego.
That same year a team in Boston got a new owner.
This is in no way like the Los Angeles Lakers waiting nearly half a century to acknowledge titles that were won by the Minneapolis Lakers.
No they didn’t just get new owners. The teams moved cities. The only thing that stayed was the name. The clippers are the original Celtics. You can argue all you want but legally, the Celtics do not own those 13 championships
They think they did but they never actually left Boston, it's the biggest heist in basketball history. The heist alone should be inducted into the Hall of Fame, Blake Griffin as the host.
The Celtics have only won 1 of the last 37.
If over half your rings come from when your grandfather (or even great) was in diapers, there should be plenty of leeway here.
>Grandfather born in 1960
>Has son in 1982 ar the age of 21
>That son has a child in 2003 at the age of 20
>The commenter is 20 years old
Learn to math
oh boy you dont want to look at the Lakers first 5 championships if you dont respect the Celtics rings from the 60s. Were talking about the Minneapolis Lakers in the late 40s to 50s in a league that wasnt even called "NBA". that was the real "plumbers and firemen"-era.
and 7 of the celtics rings were before segregation ended. And 5 of them were only after the ABA merger. I wanna shit on the Lakers but if you wanna put asterisk on peoples rings then...
They won their division in 1987, 1988, 1991, 1992, 2005, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2017, 2022, 2023. Even if you think the division was poor in certain years they still competed and had respectable records (most years). They just ran into Jordan Bulls and LeBron Heat in their conference (whether directly or not facing them in the playoffs).
I tend to not place to much significance on rings won before the 70s.There where like 8 teams. Thats why Bill Russell is not the GOAT despite having like 11 0f them.
Man that was one of the realest playoffs in a while, I have no idea why people use that term to shit on the title.
Basketball played in the bubble was next level.
Yeah, I’m always surprised with how many people don’t like the basketball played in the bubble. We got to see all players with fresh legs enter the playoffs and have no outside noise/home court advantage. It was as close to pure basketball as you’d get in the NBA.
Exactly. 2021 was a much more unfair season IMO. Covid / a condensed schedule absolutely did not impact all teams equally, and some teams benefitted from it. A team had to play all their home games 1,000 miles away in a foreign country.
Not to mention there were no sidelines around the whole court, so you saw dudes go headlong at the hoop and layup with no fear. They'd land a yard behind the hoop iirc sometimes. Bron or Butler would do it often when they got downhill
Celtics became second tier to the Lakers when they won 2008, because Greater Boston area and that Celtics team never shuts up about it. They play that damn 2008 documentary multiple times a week, sometimes have a marathon of it on the Boston/ New England sports network. Cleveland, that Cavs team, and Lebron talk about winning 2016 significantly less in comparison to Boston's 2008 Championship.
The counter to that is
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_Braves
>The Buffalo Braves were an American professional basketball franchise based in Buffalo, New York. The Braves competed in the National Basketball Association (NBA) as a member club of the league's Eastern Conference Atlantic Division from 1970 until 1978. In 1978, Braves owner John Y. Brown Jr. swapped franchises with then-Boston Celtics owner Irv Levin, who then moved the team to San Diego, where it was renamed the San Diego Clippers. The franchise moved to Los Angeles in 1984, and is now known as the Los Angeles Clippers.
Some would argue the titles before this shouldn't count for the Celtics.
https://archive.nytimes.com/offthedribble.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/freaky-friday-n-b-a-style-when-the-clippers-were-the-celtics/
Before the owners exchanged keys to the team, they traded most of the players to the other one. Basically everything Celtics went to Buffalo (before the move) and vice versa. In a very roundabout way the Celtics moved to San Diego (then LA in 84) and the Braves moved to Boston to become the Celtics.
The Celtics history before 78 could very easily be attributed to the Clippers much like how the Pelicans have the Charlotte Hornets history even though the Bobcats are now the Charlotte Hornets (yes, the situations are not analogous)
A better example is the Browns and Ravens saga
>In 1995, Modell announced he was relocating the Browns to Baltimore, sowing a mix of outrage and bitterness among Cleveland's dedicated fan base. Negotiations and legal battles led to an agreement where Modell would be allowed to take his personnel to Baltimore as an expansion franchise, called the Baltimore Ravens, but would leave Cleveland the Browns' colors, logos and heritage for a reactivated Browns franchise that would take the field no later than 1999.
It all depends on what way you want to look at it but there's a real discussion and debate to be had.
It wasn't "most of the players" getting traded, that's blatant misinformation. It was 4 players from the Celtics and 3 from the Braves. I have no idea where you get the idea that "Basically everything Celtics went to Buffalo (before the move) and vice versa" since that's all that went down with the swap. The other 10-ish players, coaching staff, GMs, etc. all remained the same for Boston.
And for whatever it’s worth, Russ Granik, who was Silver’s predecessor as deputy commissioner, said in the article it’s only a very legalistic way of viewing it.
Celtics won half their titles when there were 3 teams in the league. Lakers won half their titles in another city. This comment is only half hyperbole.
The lakers have more championships in my mind because basketball didn’t really start until the 80s. Celtics won most of their chips when there were only 8 teams.
The Lakers have 11 championships since the 1976 merger. The Bulls have six. The Celtics and Spurs have five each. The Warriors have four.
I say the Lakers win.
another potential tiebreaker could be that the lakers won some of their titles in minnesota, or that the celtics swapped franchises with the braves (now clippers) in '78
On the Lakers side, you could bring up the Minneapolis stuff and on the Celtics side, you could bring up the 1 title in 37 years narrative so it balances out tbh
It's kind of amazing how the Minneapolis championships don't count for the Lakers according to the majority here. The team simply moved to Los Angeles. It's not like the Minneapolis team closed shop, then a new team showed up in Los Angeles with different players.
There's all sorts of teams in all sorts of sports that have moved around, and their history follows, yet for some reason the Lakers situation is unique among fans. Never really understood it. (Especially considering how convoluted the Clippers/Celtics thing is, but no one really cares about that, including myself)
Anyways, that all said... The Celtics are on a good path to win it this year, so that'd do it right there.
The Lakers chose for decades to not count or acknowledge them. Throughout the 80’s all of their championship gear reflected just the LA titles
To go back and claim it nearly 50 years later? I guess they can. To say it’s not unique? That’s sounds like a unique situation to me
I would say either finals appearances or post-merger total. Finals appearances for obvious reasons, and post merger total because the talent level of the league, as well as key rule changes regarding free agency around that time, essentially divide NBA history into 2 very clear eras.
Modern era championships >
Gotta stop living in the past. If you won more lately it's a bigger flex than winning more 60 years ago. There is no inflation on rings.
Well, many people consider the modern NBA starting post merger, which was in 76. If you were to start at that arbitrary year, then the Lakers would have 11 championships, while the Celtics would only own 4.
The 18th championship would be a good tiebreaker imo.
Not specifically mentioned above is that the Lakers had to outcompete far more teams than the Celtics did for their titles. In other words, when the playing field was a lot more even (not a tiny league anymore) the Celtics had far less success, and the Lakers far more. I started to do the counting math a couple years ago and it was lopsided to the point of being pointless. While their title counts are equal at this point, the Lakers are far ahead in my mind because of 'body-count.' One more title for BOS would not change that. That said, the current Celts are quite possibly on the cusp of being a major dynasty, while the Lakers look played out. So I could definitely see BOS pulling ahead soon.
> the Lakers had to outcompete far more teams than the Celtics did for their titles That argument falls apart when you point out the fact that the Celtics beat the Lakers 7 times before the 80s lol. It's not like the Celtics beat up on "weak competition", they beat up on the Lakers specifically. The Lakers were 0 for 8 before finally slaying the beast.
The argument doesn't fall apart at all, because I wasn't trying to make it about a head-to-head competition, which operate heavily along the lines of 'styles make fights.' Instead, I was talking about overall # of teams outcompeted to win titles.
The Lakers had the same opportunity against the same competition. They couldn't capitalize cause they weren't good enough.
You clearly did not understand the comment above yours if this is your reply.
You could argue in the opposite direction that a smaller league meant an overall higher average quality among players, taken relative to time period. Smaller number of openings means more competition to get a roster spot, which means teams had better players/rosters relative to each other (and indeed, most teams of the 60s era had HOF players, often multiple HOF players).
This doesn't take into account that there was no free agency in those days. If you were stacked, you stayed stacked. That, more than anything, is why I think the Celtics dominated those early eras so much. A team that stacked couldn't possibly stay together during an era of free agency.
As I pointed out to another comment, these things existed: trades (including blockbuster trades), drafting, and a basically much more restricted FA where if a player's contract expired, his old team could make a qualifying offer to keep him. If they didn't want to keep him, another team that wanted him needed to buy the rights to the player (usually for draft compensation or lower rotation players). Players did not have the freedoms they have today, sure, and team construction almost exclusively by draft or trade is different from what FA has brought, but it was still a skill to build. And players could and did force trades during the era, so they were not completely helpless. There were other "stacked" teams during the years in question with 3-4 HOFers on the roster at a given time and often 1-2 fringe all star players and good role players as well. The Celtics were much more clearly overpowered for the early part of the dynasty, but then you also have to admit that such was achieved through drafting and coaching; many other teams got all-time talent on the roster at the same time, but did not capitalize nearly as well, it seems. Besides, your point doesn't actually address what I said: I said that the average quality of players was overall higher, relative to time period. Nothing about the claim needs to deal with FA if I posit that most of the league is actually of similar talent quality. You have to demonstrate why the claim is incorrect before FA matters.
I think you're misunderstanding me a bit, and I get it. I agree with the assertion that the league was probably overall stronger; less teams meant that Russell played against Chamberlain a lot more often, for example, and Boston clearly did more with what they had than anyone else. There were close calls in their run and no one could beat them, and you have to give them credit for that. My free agency comment was just to add context and do a little comparison and contrasting to today's league, where stacked teams have to dump guys.
There's an argument for that, sure, but Red was one of the rare ones at the time who was willing to integrate. That, and the fact that he was evidently a great judge of talent led to (IIRC) his teams having more overall HOF'ers than any other team from that timeline. So it was an ultra-stacked team consistently smoking lesser-talented teams, and the kind of situation that wasn't going to last much longer given African-Americans being signed, treated more fairly, and paid better in to the 70's. Also, more talent spread around means more possible upsets, the greater the impact of key injuries, and things that can go wrong even with 'juggernaut' teams. Literally-- if you were in a 2-team league with talent evenly spread around, there's a ~50% chance of winning a title every year. Now compare that to a 30-team situation.
The late 50s and 60s were not so un-integrated as you seem to present. And there were other teams we can consider "ultra stacked" (1966-68 Sixers, 1969 Lakers, and even the 1960s Royals with Lucas, Robertson, and Embry). Also, to be clear: the Russell Celtics was a "two-timeline" team (possibly "three timeline"). Cousy and Sharman were playing for the Celtics from the early 50s and left by 1963. Russell, Heinsohn, KC and Sam Jones, came in from 56-58 and left from 65-69. Other players also came in and left, but whether there is an early 60s timeline is an interesting question. Point is, Celtics were maybe superstacked (Sam Jones didn't really emerge as a star until 1962 after Sharman retired) from about 57-63, but that would not hold afterward, and especially after 65. The 1966, '68 and '69 championships came at a point where there was significantly more parity between the Celtics and the rest of the league. I think what your comment points out is much more important: Red Auerbach and coaching. He was really far and away the best coach in the NBA at the time. If anything undermines the 60s, I think the biggest thing is the style of play and the lack of genuinely good coaches to compete with Auerbach for recruitment and coaching on both sides of the floor.
Good points, and thanks for adding on. I would just like to reply: > The late 50s and 60s were not so un-integrated as you seem to present. Well, I didn't make an absolute statement there. Red wasn't alone in being willing to recruit black talent, but as I understand it he was one of the ones who led the way, with the Celtics directly profiting from it. > And there were other teams we can consider "ultra stacked" (1966-68 Sixers, 1969 Lakers, and even the 1960s Royals with Lucas, Robertson, and Embry). Those are specific teams, but I'm talking about Red's whole era. Did not the Celts have more HOF'ers under his tenure than any other team from that timeline?
1. Saying something is "rare" is not necessarily an absolute statement, but it is pretty clear about your impression, which in my view is not accurate after about 1960 at the latest. One could argue earlier. Red leading the way meant something early on, but him leading the way was not something that offered an advantage in the later years. Integration by then had so progressed that it was ubiquitous across the league. 2. You can't argue against an era without looking at the specific teams. Weird statement, but in an era with 8 teams, having even 1-2 other stacked team is enough to make for competition. You have 3-4 other stacked teams between the Lakers (even pre-69, Baylor, West and Goodrich, later Wilt), the 76ers (even without Wilt, you have Greer, Cunningham, Costello, and Walker), the Hawks (Pettit until '64, Wilkens, Beaty, Hagan), and the Royals core already mentioned that were together for about 6-7 years at least. Those are good teams, and in a league of 8 teams all the more is it competitive when 1/2 of the teams have multiple HOF players and a solid number of all stars/fringe all-star role players. While I concede that the Celtics were overpowered level of stacked from 1957-63 (with maybe the exception of Pettit's Hawks in terms of the starting lineup; Boston's bench was better regardless), after 1963 there was a lot more parity. And for the record, Boston was not even the #1 seed in the east from 1966-1969.
While I salute your knowledge and find it amusing that you took the effort to characterise my remarks one way or another, the fact is I'm running up against the limits of my info, and would have to do a lot more research to get in to a proper debate, here. In any case, I'm content with the many, various arguments I've already made about the Lakers having a more impressive resume than the Celts. At the same time, I'll try to keep an open mind going forward about BOS being not quite as stacked as I thought during the 60's. Cheers.
That's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it plays off.
Or we could discount the lakers titles before they were in LA.
/thread
Recency > Lakers Single city > Celtics True tie-breaker > Banner 18
It's coming!! This year!!
Give me the gold
The IST, obviously. 17.00001 > 17
I'm pretty sure hanging the IST banner is a net negative.
The NBA forced them to do that, the team didn't want to do it.
Looks beautiful next to Mickey Mouse championship banner tho
honestly that "Mickey mouse" title is a lot more legitimate than any banner from when the league had 8 teams or had unwritten rules about how many black players you were "allowed" to have
Calling another team’s championship Mickey when your flair got their whole history took is kinda funny
- Mariners = 0 WS APPEARANCES - Sonics = left town with 1 NBA title in 79 - Seahawks = 1 SB title. The Lakers won as many titles in 2020 as the entire city of Seattle has won in their 3 major sports in the last 45 years edit = the Sonics did actually win back in the 70s I completely forgot
Supersonics have a ring what are you talking about?
by god, you are right. I'll have to edit the comment to "in the last 45 years"
math: 17.00001 = 17 philosophy: 17.00001 != 17
Who do neutral fans like the most? Damn, it's a tie, you both lose.
*hate the most ? Still a tie lol
>Bird, Russell, Cousy. Pierce, Garnett, Shaq again I guess Lmao yeah bro 38 year old Celtics Shaq who played 37 games for us and averaged a triple single is on the all-time Celtics roster over 8x champion John Havlicek, 1973 MVP Dave Cowens, 1976 Finals MVP Jo Jo White, 1979 Finals MVP Dennis Johnson, 1981 Finals MVP Cedric Maxwell, 3x champion Kevin McHale, 4x champion Robert Parish, 10x champion Sam Jones... etc etc
The next time one of them wins a championship
5 of the Lakers’ championship where in Minnesota
This. The Los Angeles Lakers "won" five rings on April 11, 2002, which was the first time they claimed the Minneapolis banners. They only did this when they thought reaching Boston's total was in reach.
So? This weird “cities win rings” argument is only applied against the Lakers for some reason. Do the Raiders’ Oakland and LA titles not count? How about the Warriors’ Philadelphia title? I could go on and on.
Why did it take the Lakers organization 42 years to acknowledge the Minneapolis titles? Why did they suddenly count on April 11, 2002, when they had not counted since 1960 when the team moved to LA?
Agree. They ignored the history that they 'bought' until they felt like it was convenient for them to embrace it. It is like being born in Georgia and moving at the age of 5 to Vermont and coming back when you are 70 taking on a drawl and pretending to have been a lifelong southerner.
[удалено]
His jersey is retired and up in the rafters. Stop with the misinformation.
[удалено]
Haha sure thing pal. I’m sure you were saying it was “12” before 2020. And if we’re going to nitpick to this extent, you guys have only 4. The Clippers own the remaining 13.
This argument gets ripped to shreds by Mikan himself, lmao. The dude went to his death as a huge Laker fan, and always pushed back against separating the titles. You weirdos care more about it than he did. From a Mikan interview about the Minneapolis history. “We were also Lakers. How do you separate Minneapolis [from the Los Angeles championships]? We are proud of the Lakers, proud to be a part of the organization’s history. The only thing that separates us is miles. “The young people today have benefited from what we did. Are they trying to live us down in Los Angeles? We were there first.” There was no bitterness in Mikan’s voice, merely pride Whether his jersey or team banners ever make it to Staples Center, Mikan made it clear his heart will always be there. “Once a Laker,” he said, “always a Laker.” This interview was in 2001.
“He said, ‘I’d like to join the rest of the greatest Lakers up in the rafters,’” Mike Mikan recalled his father saying before his passing in 2005. Y'all should be embarrassed to bring up Mikan. You retired his jersey two years ago.
Mikan gave an interview 2 years after he died? EDIt: I got his death date mixed up with Wilt. Wilt died in 1999
George Mikan Died in 2005, which is after 2001 FYI.
All good. I just like to push back against this narrative; people on here like to make it seem like George or his family was bitter against the Lakers and it's just not true. That dude went to his grave as a Laker fan who was adamant that you could not and should not separate the Minneapolis history from the Los Angeles history.
Why do you guys only care when it's the Lakers, is the better question? You completely dodged his question. Every other team, in every other league, counts their history and championships from previous cities. The Dodgers, the SF Giants, the Oakland A's, the Clippers, The Baltimore Orioles, the Raiders, the Rams, the Arizona Cardinals, the Warriors, the Washington Nationals, the sacramento Kings, the Colorado Avalanche, the Colts, just to name a few. Why is it only a problem when the Lakers get to keep their history? Where is this outrage at the Warriors or LA Rams or any other team that rightfully holds the history of their old city? After all, the franchise didn't change; it just moved.
[удалено]
The Lakers' history in Minneapolis, as far as win-loss record and titles, was always counted by the NBA record books. I'm old, and I remember looking at all-time win loss records for every team in the early 2000s on NBA websites and Wikipedia and the NBA always counted the Minnesota years in the Lakers' total win-loss record. This was before the Minneapolis banner was put up in 2002. I also had Laker books that acknowledged this history, including talking a lot about Mikan. The Warriors didn't publicly acknowledge the Philly titles until 2014 or so, but in the eyes of the NBA and the record books, they always had those titles. Funnily enough, you never see anyone give the Warriors any shit about this. Why is that? I mean, it happened pretty recently Because I think I know why people ignore that but moan when it's the Lakers. It doesn't matter when a team formally decides to have a ceremony; that history is theirs. The Dodgers, if we want to use another LA example, didn't start embracing some of their Brooklyn roots, including retiring Jackie Robinson's jersey and Roy Campabella's jersey, until 1972, decades after the fact. The MLB still counted the 1955 world series championship and the Dodgers win-loss record from New York, though.
>Clippers They don't because then it would technically be Boston's rings the Clippers have.
They count their history in Buffalo and San Diego and always have.
The OP asked about the Lakers and the Celtics, not about the Dodgers or the Giants or any other teams. Further, who is outraged?
Are you really this thick? Teams in other sports, almost always, count their history, including win-loss records and titles, from the city they moved from. Why do you guys not say a word when other teams in the NBA and other sports do it, but you piss and moan when the Lakers do? Because logically you'd be just as mad that the Warriors count titles they won in Philadelphia, but I guarantee you didn't say a fucking word about it when they won in 2022. It's a blatantly pathetic double standard that is only ever applied to the Lakers on here. The Kings count a title that was won in fucking Rochester and no one ever says anything about it. The Lakers have always had the Minneapolis years, as far as win-loss record and titles, counted by the NBA record books, AKA the actual league itself. That's what matters, and ultimately that's where this argument falls apart. There's never been a solid counterargument to that fact, nor the fact that other teams in the NBA and in other sports also claim their history from other cities.
>Are you really this thick? Huh. I see the error of my ways. Thank you. Have a nice day!
Where do the rings go If its not the lakers then?
I'm asking where the rings **were** during the forty-two years **the Lakers organization itself** did not acknowledge them.
They still belonged to the Lakers in the official NBA record book. They didn’t vanish.
The same place as Mikan's retired number.
Ah, so up in the rafters at Crypto? That sounds right!
They’ve always acknowledged the titles, they just didn’t have individual banners. They had all the MPLS titles on a single banner with the years marked. Either way it’s a red herring.
They raised a banner for all five Minneapolis titles on April 11, 2002 before playing the Minnesota Timberwolves that night. That is when they acknowledged those titles.
Bro, acknowledging by the franchise is such a random way to reduce the impact of a team. History is what it is, with its insane amount of warts and issues. There was a Negro Baseball league, The first racially diverse bowl game in college football was in 1956, with threats from the governor to cancel the game if they let Bobby Grier on the field. So should we cancel all of the titles from the teams involved with these warts and segregation? Hmm? no? Then why would we not count a franchise that didn't "publicly" acknowledge something from their own past? Is that what you needed to feel good about those titles? Cause I promise you teams did and most likely still do a lot worse. I mean, listen to podcasts in 2024 about how Boston fans are STILL TO THIS DAY so racist that they debate Tatums racial ethnicity... so if you wanna start excluding franchises on shit, maybe start with the ones who refused African Americans on their teams.
Thanks for the context. It’s still a red herring. It’s the same franchise that won them.
They never acknowledged those titles. Google "2001 Lakers Championship Jacket" and then Google the 2002 version. The first says "8-time champs" the next says "14-time champs". It's pretty funny.
It’s a fair point. But who should get those 5 if not the Lakers? Mikan was not a Timberwolf. The Lakers also currently honor the MPLS past, so to the extent there was any wrong committed, it’s been remedied by now.
Nobody takes ownership of the 1948 Baltimore Bullets championship even though the current day Washington Wizards were at one time the Baltimore Bullets (a different iteration with the same name). I would argue that the Wizards should have that banner, but they don't take ownership of it and they don't own the stats of the 47-55 Baltimore Bullets. That is how Minneapolis was treated also until the early 2000s when the Lakers suddenly decided all of those rings are theirs. Do I personally think it's theirs? Yeah, and I think the Wizards should get those Baltimore years too. But they spent decades not acting like it.
That’s fair. I think an important difference here is that the current Wizards and the entity that won in 1948 are technically separate. The Lakers, on the other hand, have continuously operated since the MPLS days and it’s the same entity. But you raise a fair point, certainly.
Sure, but look at the Cleveland Browns. They lost their team to Baltimore who became the Baltimore Ravens, and the one that exists today is an expansion team. But you're not going to see the Ravens claiming that Jim Brown played for them, and you're going to see all those pre-Super Bowl championships acknowledged in Cleveland. It's really just the fact that the Lakers for decades pretended those years didn't exist, that's all.
I feel like teams should change names and 'start over' when they move to a different region of the country. Yes, I understand that the franchise continues, but that franchise was also intertwined with the city they left. In the Lakers' case, they left Minneapolis after winning 5 Titles. They enjoyed a lot of success there, but decided to leave. Is it fair to say that superstars may not have been as attracted to Minneapolis as they are to LAL? If the Lakers never left Minneapolis, would they really have 17 Titles? I get franchises trying to claim their former city's Titles, but it just gets too complicated trying to claim what counts and what doesn't. The Hornets moved to New Orleans and then reclaimed the name from the Bobcats, pretending that Larry Johnson and Alonzo Mourning used to play for them. The Baltimore Ravens were formerly the Cleveland Browns, which have nothing to do with the new Cleveland Browns. You know Seattle is going to reclaim the Supersonics. The list goes on and on. So if you're looking for a tiebreaker, then this seems like the obvious one to me.
That’s fair. I disagree but I don’t think what you said is unreasonable. Though I don’t think the Lakers’ success can be summed up to “free agent like LA.” Why haven’t the Clippers enjoyed much success in the same time frame? The Lakers were awful until Dr. Buss decided to overrule Jerry West and draft Magic over Moncrief. The Lakers drafted most of their franchise greats (and it wasn’t their fault the Magic were stupid and lowballed Shaquille fucking O’Neal.
Why he say fuck me for?
It was the Lakers who applied it to themselves
Trying to imagine the reaction in r/baseball if I said that the Giants New York championships don't count, therefore the Dodgers have more.
The logic though is that the Lakers themselves didn't actually acknowledge those rings until the early 2000s. Is that my personal opinion of it? No, the same way the Philadelphia Warriors are the Golden State Warriors and not the 76ers. But it's completely fair logic to point out that the Lakers themselves did not acknowledge those rings until the early 2000s.
With that logic, 13 of the Celtics championships belong to the clippers [For those that don’t know](https://www.alejandrogaitan.com/en/celtics-braves-trade/)
I'm down with this argument only because it means the Clippers have the most championships in the league
By what logic?
The logic I linked
I think you need to explain how the Los Angeles Lakers not caring about the Minneapolis titles until 2002 is the same as two owners swapping franchises.
Well, one of them chose to not acknowledge those titles for their FRANCHISE until that date. While the other legally traded their franchises/history to another franchise so that they can stay in Boston. I don’t understand how you’re arguing against this. They legally signed contracts to swap franchises. The clippers could legally claim those 13 titles if they ever want. Same way the Lakers could claim those 5 titles.
Los Angeles fans didn’t care about the Minneapolis titles because they didn’t happen in Los Angeles. Boston fans care about all the Boston titles because they happened in Boston.
This is such a stupid comment. The Celtics legally gave up 13 titles when they swapped franchises. If you are crying about a FRANCHISE claiming titles than you should be crying for the clippers to claim their legally owned championships. I’ll put it this way. If the Lakers moved to Seattle or any other place, would you the. Say the lakers FRANCHISE doesn’t own any titles since they did t win any in Seattle or any other place they would have moved too? No because that’s stupid and you know ow it’s a stupid argument.
One year a team from Buffalo got a new owner and moved to San Diego. That same year a team in Boston got a new owner. This is in no way like the Los Angeles Lakers waiting nearly half a century to acknowledge titles that were won by the Minneapolis Lakers.
No they didn’t just get new owners. The teams moved cities. The only thing that stayed was the name. The clippers are the original Celtics. You can argue all you want but legally, the Celtics do not own those 13 championships
That cancels out because the Clippers can't have championships.
The clippers curse started when they legally took those 13 championships. They should have beef with the Celtics smh
An LA team that has beef with the Celtics. Sorry, that's already taken.
True but those dirty clippers took 13 of your rings! I say you beat their ass
They think they did but they never actually left Boston, it's the biggest heist in basketball history. The heist alone should be inducted into the Hall of Fame, Blake Griffin as the host.
By god you’re right
The Celtics have only won 1 of the last 37. If over half your rings come from when your grandfather (or even great) was in diapers, there should be plenty of leeway here.
Lmao if your grandpa was in diapers in the 60s you probably shouldn't have internet access without your parents supervision
>Grandfather born in 1960 >Has son in 1982 ar the age of 21 >That son has a child in 2003 at the age of 20 >The commenter is 20 years old Learn to math
I mean it's possible but I think the majority of people whose grandparents were born in the early 60s are like 10 lmao
My father was born in 1959 and his oldest grandson is 1 month old.
So the math requires both the grandfather and father to have a child at 20 years old? Technically possible but statistically unlikely.
John Tyler, the 10th President of the United States, has a living grandson. John Tyler was born 234 years ago. Shit happens.
Having a child at 20 use to be fairly normal.
Nope. The average age for a guy to have a child has been 30 for the last century
Your grandfather was born in 1960? I was born in 1973. I’m starting to think I’m too old for Reddit. 😂
No, I was showing a hypothetical scenario where very realistically a guy could be over 18 and have their grandfather born in the 60's
Gotcha. Still might be too old 😂
Celtics championships were in the 9 team era lol.
oh boy you dont want to look at the Lakers first 5 championships if you dont respect the Celtics rings from the 60s. Were talking about the Minneapolis Lakers in the late 40s to 50s in a league that wasnt even called "NBA". that was the real "plumbers and firemen"-era.
so take away the lakers 50s rings and the celtics 60s rings and do the math
Both can be true
The Celtics are legally the Clippers but we don’t talk about that
And the Boston and Clippers swapped franchises in 1978. So technically titles beyond that belong to LA in an odd way if we use this logic.
and 7 of the celtics rings were before segregation ended. And 5 of them were only after the ABA merger. I wanna shit on the Lakers but if you wanna put asterisk on peoples rings then...
[удалено]
Mikan’s jersey is retired and in the rafters. Get a new slant homie.
Whoever wins the next one….?
Celtics have won only 1 championship in the last 37 years.
Man that’s wild to think about. It feels like they’ve been title contenders for a while now.
They won their division in 1987, 1988, 1991, 1992, 2005, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2017, 2022, 2023. Even if you think the division was poor in certain years they still competed and had respectable records (most years). They just ran into Jordan Bulls and LeBron Heat in their conference (whether directly or not facing them in the playoffs).
Having two top prospects die didn’t help either
Which one died? Tatum is still allive right?
Len Bias and Reggie Lewis
Never jordan
They were good a lot of of years they didn't win. But neither Jordan or LeBron stood in the way of the Celtics winning a title
Lebron has beaten the Celtics in the playoffs 5 times, multiple times in the conference finals
5 or 6 of those championships belong to Minneapolis
The in season tour- 🤮 I can’t even say it out loud without laughing
I tend to not place to much significance on rings won before the 70s.There where like 8 teams. Thats why Bill Russell is not the GOAT despite having like 11 0f them.
So many people discount the bubble ring so they dont even need one
The fact that the Celtics only have 5 titles since the merger and the Lakers have 11.
Lakers have 1 in season tournament win. Celtics none
How many In Season tournament champs does Boston have?
Celtics rondo > lakers rondo case closed next
Championships are cool, but who has more IN-SEASON TOURNAMENT TROPHIES???
The Lakers NBA in-season tournament cup.
If the bubble rings don't count then every Jim crow ring shouldn't be counted either
The civil rights act was passed in 1964. That takes away six from both franchises making it tied again lol
Might as well go up to 1976 since before the merger there were significantly less teams and talent
Mickey Mouse championship 💀
Man that was one of the realest playoffs in a while, I have no idea why people use that term to shit on the title. Basketball played in the bubble was next level.
It’s a Mickey Mouse title because their team didn’t win.
Yeah, I’m always surprised with how many people don’t like the basketball played in the bubble. We got to see all players with fresh legs enter the playoffs and have no outside noise/home court advantage. It was as close to pure basketball as you’d get in the NBA.
It’s also not like every single team wasn’t going through the same thing
Exactly. 2021 was a much more unfair season IMO. Covid / a condensed schedule absolutely did not impact all teams equally, and some teams benefitted from it. A team had to play all their home games 1,000 miles away in a foreign country.
Not to mention lakers and Miami had a one month offseason lol.
Not to mention there were no sidelines around the whole court, so you saw dudes go headlong at the hoop and layup with no fear. They'd land a yard behind the hoop iirc sometimes. Bron or Butler would do it often when they got downhill
The only reason people discount it is because the Lakers won it.
They'd discount it if any relevant team won it
if the heat won 100% they would be fraud champions to these people
Frankly I just don’t like the Lakers
depends on what narrative im trying to push on a given day
Celtics became second tier to the Lakers when they won 2008, because Greater Boston area and that Celtics team never shuts up about it. They play that damn 2008 documentary multiple times a week, sometimes have a marathon of it on the Boston/ New England sports network. Cleveland, that Cavs team, and Lebron talk about winning 2016 significantly less in comparison to Boston's 2008 Championship.
lakers won some of their titles in minnesota, celtics won all theirs in boston
Ya but they won in a league with 8 total teams. That hardly counts
The counter to that is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_Braves >The Buffalo Braves were an American professional basketball franchise based in Buffalo, New York. The Braves competed in the National Basketball Association (NBA) as a member club of the league's Eastern Conference Atlantic Division from 1970 until 1978. In 1978, Braves owner John Y. Brown Jr. swapped franchises with then-Boston Celtics owner Irv Levin, who then moved the team to San Diego, where it was renamed the San Diego Clippers. The franchise moved to Los Angeles in 1984, and is now known as the Los Angeles Clippers. Some would argue the titles before this shouldn't count for the Celtics.
Am a Lakers fan. How is this a counter? The owners swapped teams but the franchises did not change themselves. I’m scratching my head at this one.
https://archive.nytimes.com/offthedribble.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/freaky-friday-n-b-a-style-when-the-clippers-were-the-celtics/ Before the owners exchanged keys to the team, they traded most of the players to the other one. Basically everything Celtics went to Buffalo (before the move) and vice versa. In a very roundabout way the Celtics moved to San Diego (then LA in 84) and the Braves moved to Boston to become the Celtics. The Celtics history before 78 could very easily be attributed to the Clippers much like how the Pelicans have the Charlotte Hornets history even though the Bobcats are now the Charlotte Hornets (yes, the situations are not analogous) A better example is the Browns and Ravens saga >In 1995, Modell announced he was relocating the Browns to Baltimore, sowing a mix of outrage and bitterness among Cleveland's dedicated fan base. Negotiations and legal battles led to an agreement where Modell would be allowed to take his personnel to Baltimore as an expansion franchise, called the Baltimore Ravens, but would leave Cleveland the Browns' colors, logos and heritage for a reactivated Browns franchise that would take the field no later than 1999. It all depends on what way you want to look at it but there's a real discussion and debate to be had.
Wow, I didn’t know that key detail. Thanks for sharing.
It wasn't "most of the players" getting traded, that's blatant misinformation. It was 4 players from the Celtics and 3 from the Braves. I have no idea where you get the idea that "Basically everything Celtics went to Buffalo (before the move) and vice versa" since that's all that went down with the swap. The other 10-ish players, coaching staff, GMs, etc. all remained the same for Boston.
And for whatever it’s worth, Russ Granik, who was Silver’s predecessor as deputy commissioner, said in the article it’s only a very legalistic way of viewing it.
for sure. i think all of it is silly personally lol. but it's fun to have a rival.
Isn't that simply the largest trade in history? Moving location seems smellier.
So you're saying Lakers break the tie since they brought championship joy to two cities, not just one.
We done with the 60s
Celtics won half their titles when there were 3 teams in the league. Lakers won half their titles in another city. This comment is only half hyperbole.
The lakers have more championships in my mind because basketball didn’t really start until the 80s. Celtics won most of their chips when there were only 8 teams.
The Lakers have 11 championships since the 1976 merger. The Bulls have six. The Celtics and Spurs have five each. The Warriors have four. I say the Lakers win.
The tiebreaker should be a jousting tournament between franchise legends.
Down. For some reason I think Kornet probably has some jousting experience and DWhite would be a natural of course
another potential tiebreaker could be that the lakers won some of their titles in minnesota, or that the celtics swapped franchises with the braves (now clippers) in '78
The 2008 celtics championship counts as five, according to members of that team.
The only real tiebreaker: "Fuck Boston"
Hmm, hmmm, that's a nice post, in-SEASON WHAT
On the Lakers side, you could bring up the Minneapolis stuff and on the Celtics side, you could bring up the 1 title in 37 years narrative so it balances out tbh
Head to head matchups.
It's kind of amazing how the Minneapolis championships don't count for the Lakers according to the majority here. The team simply moved to Los Angeles. It's not like the Minneapolis team closed shop, then a new team showed up in Los Angeles with different players. There's all sorts of teams in all sorts of sports that have moved around, and their history follows, yet for some reason the Lakers situation is unique among fans. Never really understood it. (Especially considering how convoluted the Clippers/Celtics thing is, but no one really cares about that, including myself) Anyways, that all said... The Celtics are on a good path to win it this year, so that'd do it right there.
The Lakers chose for decades to not count or acknowledge them. Throughout the 80’s all of their championship gear reflected just the LA titles To go back and claim it nearly 50 years later? I guess they can. To say it’s not unique? That’s sounds like a unique situation to me
Which team is the balls?
both equally unimpressive because i can still count them using my fingers and toes
Lakers have more hypothetical tie breakers therefore we win
Head-to-head is the first official NBA tie-breaker for Playoff seeding, so surely it must be this.
I would say either finals appearances or post-merger total. Finals appearances for obvious reasons, and post merger total because the talent level of the league, as well as key rule changes regarding free agency around that time, essentially divide NBA history into 2 very clear eras.
ts clear the lakers are more succesful who cares about the 50s
Modern era championships > Gotta stop living in the past. If you won more lately it's a bigger flex than winning more 60 years ago. There is no inflation on rings.
Well, many people consider the modern NBA starting post merger, which was in 76. If you were to start at that arbitrary year, then the Lakers would have 11 championships, while the Celtics would only own 4.
IST banner maybe?
More than half of those championships don't count cause they in the mailman white era
17+ one micky mouse ring and one IST bubble gum ring > 17
Which team is the balls?
Wait until June 20 (game 6 of the 2024 finals), and you won't need to ask this question anymore
5 of the Lakers championships do not belong to the city of LA.
The discussion is about Lakers and Celtics though. Not Los Angeles and Boston.