|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
LA_Lakers_Rule
Franchise Player
Joined: 23 Aug 2004
Posts: 19482
Location: The X-Files
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 12:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JUST-MING wrote: | CBS, correctly, credits that championship (1948) under Lakers Franchise History:League Championships 17:
1948 (NBL), 1949 (BAA), 1950 (NBA), 1952 (NBA), 1953 (NBA), 1954 (NBA), 1972 (NBA), 1980 (NBA), 1982 (NBA), 1985 (NBA), 1987 (NBA), 1988 (NBA), 2000 (NBA), 2001 (NBA), 2002 (NBA), 2009 (NBA), 2010 (NBA) Source: http://www.cbssports.com/nba/teams/history/LAL/los-angeles-lakers |
^ Hmmm so CBS does count it, but the NBA doesn't... Interesting...
... first time I have a preference for CBS over NBA... 
_________________
Rule = win titles  
Good judgment comes from experience and a lot of that comes from bad judgment. - Will Rogers ...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cheetos82
Star Player
Joined: 13 Aug 2004
Posts: 1010
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 1:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Flint Tropics won 4th place and THE FLINT MICHIGAN MEGA BOWL!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
olddangerfield
Starting Rotation
Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 191
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 1:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LA_Lakers_Rule wrote: | This point that Dr. Laker has brought up is why you will often see references to Mikan winning 5 titles and other references to him winning 6 and sometimes even 7 titles depending upon how they are counted... if we use the 6 titles then Mikan has more Laker titles than any other Laker player including Magic...
.... We probably see more narratives that speak of Mikan winning only 5 titles presumably because of this issue being discussed now but we will still see occasional references to 6 or 7 titles for Mikan...
Correct me if I'm wrong but as I understand it Mikan one FIVE NBA titles with the Minneapolis Lakers of the NBA from 48-49 thru 53-54, ONE title with the Minneapolis Lakers of the BAA in 47-48 and ONE title with the Chicago American Gears in the NBL in 46-47.
... I think there is a reason why there might be more debate about Mikan's titles than the Laker franchise's number of titles in that it would seem arguably more fair to give Mikan with 6 or 7 titles than perhaps giving the Laker organization 17 titles since there was after all only one NBA champion those two years and it was not the Lakers that won it but on the other hand Mikan did win other PRO Basketball titles regardless of the fact it was in the NBA or not... From the perspective of a player Mikan did actually win a total of 7 titles... from the perspective of the Laker organization they did win 17 titles as well but since they are now a member of the NBA and have only won 16 NBA titles I see the distinction more on the organization than the player to an extent... I guess it depends on personal perspective...
I just think it is a more difficult sell to say the Lakers have 17 titles as opposed to contending that Mikan has 6 or 7 titles...
... from the perspective of the Laker franchise however, I think it is legitimate to say that Mikan DID win 6 titles with the Lakers (including the 1 BAA title) because of the fact that the BAA and the NBL merged to form the NBA as I understand it...
... In my view there will always be an asterisk involved for most titles won by a Laker player until a Laker player actually wins SEVEN titles.... The opportunity still exists for Kobe at the age of 31 and with 5 titles to do just that... here's to Kobe to get it done!!!.... 
Interesting tidbits on Mikan: LINK
| Quote: | > In a college game against Rhode Island State U., playing for DePaul U., outscored the entire RI team, with 53 points
> Knocked so many shots away from the basket, the NCAA instituted a rule prohibiting goaltending
> In 1949, when his team, the Minnesota Lakers, was in NY to play against the Knicks, Madison Square Garden's marquee read "Geo. Mikan vs. Knicks"
> Indirectly responsible for creation of 24-second clock; Fort Wayne Pistons held the ball during the game rather than let Mikan get it. They won, 19-18, in the lowest-scoring game in NBA history
> As ABA commissioner in 1967, introduced the 3-point line and the distinctive red, white and blue ball |
Quote from Mikan in that link: "I guess I've done just about everything in life people told me I wasn't able to do." – George Mikan
I had also read somewhere that Mikan brought about what they called the "Mikan Rule" at the time which was when the NBA widened the key from six to 12 feet because of his dominance in the middle. |
yea that was from wiki, i followed the source and it was correct. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 11:08 pm Post subject: Re: Count the 1947 Championship! We have 17 rings! |
|
|
| Lakers#1Team wrote: | | But it was the Lakers and the NBL teams that MADE the BAA something to watch. Dr. Laker has it right. All the historical accounts would indicate that the Lakers would have crushed all BAA competition when they won their first NBL title. That title should count as far as the Lakers are concerned (whether it counts in the NBA or not). |
But what's the point of claiming a title from 50 years ago from a defunct league that isn't recognized by the NBA? That's like saying Phil Jackson could add his CBA title to his total -- he could, but he would just look silly. Basically, this whole matter was settled before any of us was born, and no one's going to reopen now just because we want to increase our ring total by one.
| Lakers#1Team wrote: | | ... In my view there will always be an asterisk involved for most titles won by a Laker player until a Laker player actually wins SEVEN titles.... The opportunity still exists for Kobe at the age of 31 and with 5 titles to do just that... here's to Kobe to get it done!!!.... |
As a practical matter, I doubt half a dozen people in the world care though. Mikan's titles were won before the team was in Los Angeles, or before we were called the Lakers, or before the NBA existed. Once you start going through all the explanations, the fleeting interest anyone has in Mikan has all but disappeared. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lakers#1Team
Retired Number
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 36363
Location: Nomad
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 8:40 pm Post subject: Re: Count the 1947 Championship! We have 17 rings! |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | Lakers#1Team wrote: | | But it was the Lakers and the NBL teams that MADE the BAA something to watch. Dr. Laker has it right. All the historical accounts would indicate that the Lakers would have crushed all BAA competition when they won their first NBL title. That title should count as far as the Lakers are concerned (whether it counts in the NBA or not). |
But what's the point of claiming a title from 50 years ago from a defunct league that isn't recognized by the NBA? That's like saying Phil Jackson could add his CBA title to his total -- he could, but he would just look silly. Basically, this whole matter was settled before any of us was born, and no one's going to reopen now just because we want to increase our ring total by one.
| Lakers#1Team wrote: | | ... In my view there will always be an asterisk involved for most titles won by a Laker player until a Laker player actually wins SEVEN titles.... The opportunity still exists for Kobe at the age of 31 and with 5 titles to do just that... here's to Kobe to get it done!!!.... |
As a practical matter, I doubt half a dozen people in the world care though. Mikan's titles were won before the team was in Los Angeles, or before we were called the Lakers, or before the NBA existed. Once you start going through all the explanations, the fleeting interest anyone has in Mikan has all but disappeared. |
You make some great points that are most likely true. It's a sad state that hardly anyone cares about the history of what went on before them. So I suppose nobody will care about Magic because it was way back in the '80s? No one will care about West, about Cap, about any team but the current one? That is sheer arrogance on the fan's part to think that only THEIR Lakers in THEIR time period matters. I also have a few clarifications to your post.
I would not equate the CBA championship of Phil's to the Lakers NBL championship. The CBA is a minor league and was meant to be. The NBL came before the upstart BAA started and it can easily be argued that the NBL was the superior league when the Lakers won the championship in question. For Lakers fans who care about the Lakers history, it can easily be argued that the Lakers were the true champions of the world that year. I'm not even saying that the NBA should recognize it. But why should the Lakers ignore that part of our history like it didn't happen?
The Lakers were called the Lakers (Minneapolis) when they won that first 1947-48 NBL championship. So it is part of LAKERS history. Are we supposed to forget about the Minneapolis Lakers like they were not the REAL Lakers? Are we supposed to chop off Elgin's stats when he was in Minneapolis and NOT count them towards any Lakers records? Absolutely ridiculous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lakers#1Team
Retired Number
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 36363
Location: Nomad
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 8:47 pm Post subject: Re: Count the 1947 Championship! We have 17 rings! |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | Lakers#1Team wrote: | | ... In my view there will always be an asterisk involved for most titles won by a Laker player until a Laker player actually wins SEVEN titles.... The opportunity still exists for Kobe at the age of 31 and with 5 titles to do just that... here's to Kobe to get it done!!!.... |
As a practical matter, I doubt half a dozen people in the world care though. Mikan's titles were won before the team was in Los Angeles, or before we were called the Lakers, or before the NBA existed. Once you start going through all the explanations, the fleeting interest anyone has in Mikan has all but disappeared. |
Another clarification: the above quote didn't come from me, La_Lakers_Rule said that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cutheon
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Jul 2009
Posts: 12161
Location: Bay Area
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 10:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Roland Lazenby claimed it in a recent article. A brief mention, but I thought it was interesting and reminded me of this thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 11:21 pm Post subject: Re: Count the 1947 Championship! We have 17 rings! |
|
|
| Lakers#1Team wrote: |
You make some great points that are most likely true. It's a sad state that hardly anyone cares about the history of what went on before them. So I suppose nobody will care about Magic because it was way back in the '80s? No one will care about West, about Cap, about any team but the current one? That is sheer arrogance on the fan's part to think that only THEIR Lakers in THEIR time period matters |
I wouldn't call it sheer arrogance. I can understand how people would enjoy watching and rooting for the Lakers today, and have no interest in Jerry West, Kareem or a bunch of guys who played in Minneapolis 55 years ago.
| Lakers#1Team wrote: | | For Lakers fans who care about the Lakers history, it can easily be argued that the Lakers were the true champions of the world that year. I'm not even saying that the NBA should recognize it. But why should the Lakers ignore that part of our history like it didn't happen? |
Well, sure you can argue it, in the same sense you can argue that Al Gore was really elected president, but the bottom line is, what does it matter? I don't see it makes much sense for the Lakers to have a big deal about the NBL championship. It's worth a line in the team's official history, but that's about it. However, it would look a little silly if we added it to our ring count and kept telling everyone we actually have one more ring than the NBA gives us credit for. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lakers#1Team
Retired Number
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 36363
Location: Nomad
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 4:28 am Post subject: Re: Count the 1947 Championship! We have 17 rings! |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | Lakers#1Team wrote: |
You make some great points that are most likely true. It's a sad state that hardly anyone cares about the history of what went on before them. So I suppose nobody will care about Magic because it was way back in the '80s? No one will care about West, about Cap, about any team but the current one? That is sheer arrogance on the fan's part to think that only THEIR Lakers in THEIR time period matters |
I wouldn't call it sheer arrogance. I can understand how people would enjoy watching and rooting for the Lakers today, and have no interest in Jerry West, Kareem or a bunch of guys who played in Minneapolis 55 years ago.
| Lakers#1Team wrote: | | For Lakers fans who care about the Lakers history, it can easily be argued that the Lakers were the true champions of the world that year. I'm not even saying that the NBA should recognize it. But why should the Lakers ignore that part of our history like it didn't happen? |
Well, sure you can argue it, in the same sense you can argue that Al Gore was really elected president, but the bottom line is, what does it matter? I don't see it makes much sense for the Lakers to have a big deal about the NBL championship. It's worth a line in the team's official history, but that's about it. However, it would look a little silly if we added it to our ring count and kept telling everyone we actually have one more ring than the NBA gives us credit for. |
Your right, Active, some don't care about or haven't learned yet about the past years and it would seem kind of silly for the Lakers to suddenly recognize it when they haven't all these years.
My only reason for bringing it up is against those who would argue that the Celtics are a better franchise because they have one more championship than us. If someone were to say that, we could then bring up our franchise's first championship in our first year of existence (in the NBL) and compare with the Celtics first year of existence in the BAA. Purely for arguments sake. Purely an opinion. Take it or leave it. You have only to look at my name to understand where I stand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 1:18 pm Post subject: Re: Count the 1947 Championship! We have 17 rings! |
|
|
| Lakers#1Team wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | Lakers#1Team wrote: |
You make some great points that are most likely true. It's a sad state that hardly anyone cares about the history of what went on before them. So I suppose nobody will care about Magic because it was way back in the '80s? No one will care about West, about Cap, about any team but the current one? That is sheer arrogance on the fan's part to think that only THEIR Lakers in THEIR time period matters |
I wouldn't call it sheer arrogance. I can understand how people would enjoy watching and rooting for the Lakers today, and have no interest in Jerry West, Kareem or a bunch of guys who played in Minneapolis 55 years ago.
| Lakers#1Team wrote: | | For Lakers fans who care about the Lakers history, it can easily be argued that the Lakers were the true champions of the world that year. I'm not even saying that the NBA should recognize it. But why should the Lakers ignore that part of our history like it didn't happen? |
Well, sure you can argue it, in the same sense you can argue that Al Gore was really elected president, but the bottom line is, what does it matter? I don't see it makes much sense for the Lakers to have a big deal about the NBL championship. It's worth a line in the team's official history, but that's about it. However, it would look a little silly if we added it to our ring count and kept telling everyone we actually have one more ring than the NBA gives us credit for. |
Your right, Active, some don't care about or haven't learned yet about the past years and it would seem kind of silly for the Lakers to suddenly recognize it when they haven't all these years.
My only reason for bringing it up is against those who would argue that the Celtics are a better franchise because they have one more championship than us. If someone were to say that, we could then bring up our franchise's first championship in our first year of existence (in the NBL) and compare with the Celtics first year of existence in the BAA. Purely for arguments sake. Purely an opinion. Take it or leave it. You have only to look at my name to understand where I stand. |
^
You could  Of course, as I said before, if I were on the Boston side my response would be: "Nah, the NBA doesn't even recognize it. In fact, I don't think we should even count any rings before the formation of the NBA, so the Lakers actually are two rings behind us." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lakers#1Team
Retired Number
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 36363
Location: Nomad
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 3:16 pm Post subject: Re: Count the 1947 Championship! We have 17 rings! |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | Lakers#1Team wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | Lakers#1Team wrote: |
You make some great points that are most likely true. It's a sad state that hardly anyone cares about the history of what went on before them. So I suppose nobody will care about Magic because it was way back in the '80s? No one will care about West, about Cap, about any team but the current one? That is sheer arrogance on the fan's part to think that only THEIR Lakers in THEIR time period matters |
I wouldn't call it sheer arrogance. I can understand how people would enjoy watching and rooting for the Lakers today, and have no interest in Jerry West, Kareem or a bunch of guys who played in Minneapolis 55 years ago.
| Lakers#1Team wrote: | | For Lakers fans who care about the Lakers history, it can easily be argued that the Lakers were the true champions of the world that year. I'm not even saying that the NBA should recognize it. But why should the Lakers ignore that part of our history like it didn't happen? |
Well, sure you can argue it, in the same sense you can argue that Al Gore was really elected president, but the bottom line is, what does it matter? I don't see it makes much sense for the Lakers to have a big deal about the NBL championship. It's worth a line in the team's official history, but that's about it. However, it would look a little silly if we added it to our ring count and kept telling everyone we actually have one more ring than the NBA gives us credit for. |
Your right, Active, some don't care about or haven't learned yet about the past years and it would seem kind of silly for the Lakers to suddenly recognize it when they haven't all these years.
My only reason for bringing it up is against those who would argue that the Celtics are a better franchise because they have one more championship than us. If someone were to say that, we could then bring up our franchise's first championship in our first year of existence (in the NBL) and compare with the Celtics first year of existence in the BAA. Purely for arguments sake. Purely an opinion. Take it or leave it. You have only to look at my name to understand where I stand. |
^
You could Of course, as I said before, if I were on the Boston side my response would be: "Nah, the NBA doesn't even recognize it. In fact, I don't think we should even count any rings before the formation of the NBA, so the Lakers actually are two rings behind us." |
Sure they could say something like that. I would say they were being silly. If they brought up the "Celtics are better" argument I don't think it's silly to bring up the entire franchise history of both clubs.
By the way, I also wouldn't hesitate to bring up the fact that the Lakers have been dominant for longer periods of times than the Celtics. We have more overall wins in the NBA, more overall playoff appearances, more overall Finals appearances, more multiple championships in different eras than the Celtics.
I appreciate you playing the devil's advocate with my opinions. I would think putting yourself on the Celtics side would start getting a little stinky with your nose so close to the green stench. But it makes for good conversation.
You must have a vested interest in this discussion. Who do you think has the better franchise and what are your reasons? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 3:34 pm Post subject: Re: Count the 1947 Championship! We have 17 rings! |
|
|
| Lakers#1Team wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | Lakers#1Team wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | Lakers#1Team wrote: |
You make some great points that are most likely true. It's a sad state that hardly anyone cares about the history of what went on before them. So I suppose nobody will care about Magic because it was way back in the '80s? No one will care about West, about Cap, about any team but the current one? That is sheer arrogance on the fan's part to think that only THEIR Lakers in THEIR time period matters |
I wouldn't call it sheer arrogance. I can understand how people would enjoy watching and rooting for the Lakers today, and have no interest in Jerry West, Kareem or a bunch of guys who played in Minneapolis 55 years ago.
| Lakers#1Team wrote: | | For Lakers fans who care about the Lakers history, it can easily be argued that the Lakers were the true champions of the world that year. I'm not even saying that the NBA should recognize it. But why should the Lakers ignore that part of our history like it didn't happen? |
Well, sure you can argue it, in the same sense you can argue that Al Gore was really elected president, but the bottom line is, what does it matter? I don't see it makes much sense for the Lakers to have a big deal about the NBL championship. It's worth a line in the team's official history, but that's about it. However, it would look a little silly if we added it to our ring count and kept telling everyone we actually have one more ring than the NBA gives us credit for. |
Your right, Active, some don't care about or haven't learned yet about the past years and it would seem kind of silly for the Lakers to suddenly recognize it when they haven't all these years.
My only reason for bringing it up is against those who would argue that the Celtics are a better franchise because they have one more championship than us. If someone were to say that, we could then bring up our franchise's first championship in our first year of existence (in the NBL) and compare with the Celtics first year of existence in the BAA. Purely for arguments sake. Purely an opinion. Take it or leave it. You have only to look at my name to understand where I stand. |
^
You could Of course, as I said before, if I were on the Boston side my response would be: "Nah, the NBA doesn't even recognize it. In fact, I don't think we should even count any rings before the formation of the NBA, so the Lakers actually are two rings behind us." |
Sure they could say something like that. I would say they were being silly. If they brought up the "Celtics are better" argument I don't think it's silly to bring up the entire franchise history of both clubs.
By the way, I also wouldn't hesitate to bring up the fact that the Lakers have been dominant for longer periods of times than the Celtics. We have more overall wins in the NBA, more overall playoff appearances, more overall Finals appearances, more multiple championships in different eras than the Celtics.
I appreciate you playing the devil's advocate with my opinions. I would think putting yourself on the Celtics side would start getting a little stinky with your nose so close to the green stench. But it makes for good conversation.
You must have a vested interest in this discussion. Who do you think has the better franchise and what are your reasons? |
Oh, to me it's no question. The Lakers. We have been dominant over a longer stretch and never had the long drought that the Celtics did between Bird's last ring and KG's ring. I put the Celtics #2 and the Bulls #3, though I think the Bulls 90s team is the greatest single dynasty in NBA history (which the Celtics 60s team #2) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lakers#1Team
Retired Number
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 36363
Location: Nomad
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 3:57 pm Post subject: Re: Count the 1947 Championship! We have 17 rings! |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | Lakers#1Team wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | Lakers#1Team wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | Lakers#1Team wrote: |
You make some great points that are most likely true. It's a sad state that hardly anyone cares about the history of what went on before them. So I suppose nobody will care about Magic because it was way back in the '80s? No one will care about West, about Cap, about any team but the current one? That is sheer arrogance on the fan's part to think that only THEIR Lakers in THEIR time period matters |
I wouldn't call it sheer arrogance. I can understand how people would enjoy watching and rooting for the Lakers today, and have no interest in Jerry West, Kareem or a bunch of guys who played in Minneapolis 55 years ago.
| Lakers#1Team wrote: | | For Lakers fans who care about the Lakers history, it can easily be argued that the Lakers were the true champions of the world that year. I'm not even saying that the NBA should recognize it. But why should the Lakers ignore that part of our history like it didn't happen? |
Well, sure you can argue it, in the same sense you can argue that Al Gore was really elected president, but the bottom line is, what does it matter? I don't see it makes much sense for the Lakers to have a big deal about the NBL championship. It's worth a line in the team's official history, but that's about it. However, it would look a little silly if we added it to our ring count and kept telling everyone we actually have one more ring than the NBA gives us credit for. |
Your right, Active, some don't care about or haven't learned yet about the past years and it would seem kind of silly for the Lakers to suddenly recognize it when they haven't all these years.
My only reason for bringing it up is against those who would argue that the Celtics are a better franchise because they have one more championship than us. If someone were to say that, we could then bring up our franchise's first championship in our first year of existence (in the NBL) and compare with the Celtics first year of existence in the BAA. Purely for arguments sake. Purely an opinion. Take it or leave it. You have only to look at my name to understand where I stand. |
^
You could Of course, as I said before, if I were on the Boston side my response would be: "Nah, the NBA doesn't even recognize it. In fact, I don't think we should even count any rings before the formation of the NBA, so the Lakers actually are two rings behind us." |
Sure they could say something like that. I would say they were being silly. If they brought up the "Celtics are better" argument I don't think it's silly to bring up the entire franchise history of both clubs.
By the way, I also wouldn't hesitate to bring up the fact that the Lakers have been dominant for longer periods of times than the Celtics. We have more overall wins in the NBA, more overall playoff appearances, more overall Finals appearances, more multiple championships in different eras than the Celtics.
I appreciate you playing the devil's advocate with my opinions. I would think putting yourself on the Celtics side would start getting a little stinky with your nose so close to the green stench. But it makes for good conversation.
You must have a vested interest in this discussion. Who do you think has the better franchise and what are your reasons? |
Oh, to me it's no question. The Lakers. We have been dominant over a longer stretch and never had the long drought that the Celtics did between Bird's last ring and KG's ring. I put the Celtics #2 and the Bulls #3, though I think the Bulls 90s team is the greatest single dynasty in NBA history (which the Celtics 60s team #2) |
I agree with all of that, thanks. You can call me greedy for not being patient about the amount of rings that are recognized by the NBA. I have faith that the Lakers will win a couple more rings soon and overtake the Celtics on that score.
For me, I have been so close to the entire Lakers history for so long. I watched the 33 game winning streak and the Lakers 1971-72 title run. I even watched the Willis Reed moment for the Knicks in the 1969-70 season. For that entire time period to the present the Celtics have never been THE dominant team like the Lakers have.
The Lakers are like family to me. I have strong feelings about the early years being slighted because everyone in that time period is either dead or close to it. So my opinion is that the first and only year that the Lakers were not in the merged league should be recognized in SOME fashion by the LAKERS. Not to say they are better. Not to count rings. Just to recognize that first year of basketball excellence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TNLakersFanInLA
Star Player
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 9657
Location: Chattanooga, TN
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BobbyJ wrote: | | We don't need to claim that one. In 1986 Boston was leading us 16-9, Now it's 17-16. We will catch and pass them. It's just a matter of time... |
_________________
Monta Ellis: "Kobe is #1, I'm #2, LeBron is #3." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dr. Laker
Franchise Player
Joined: 12 Apr 2002
Posts: 17106
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
17, damnit.
_________________
On Lakersground, a concern troll is someone who is a fan of another team, but pretends to be a Lakers fan with "concerns". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AutoShackMotorSports
Star Player
Joined: 25 May 2005
Posts: 3008
Location: LakersGround.net
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The-GM wrote: | | Heres a better question. Once we reach 17 titles next season, are we officially the greatest NBA franchise of all time? |
That's not even a question. We already ARE the greatest NBA franchise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
babyskyhook
Franchise Player
Joined: 15 Jul 2009
Posts: 18492
Location: The Garden Island
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BobbyJ wrote: | | We don't need to claim that one. In 1986 Boston was leading us 16-9, Now it's 17-16. We will catch and pass them. It's just a matter of time... |
This. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
babyskyhook
Franchise Player
Joined: 15 Jul 2009
Posts: 18492
Location: The Garden Island
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| srm90 wrote: | | The-GM wrote: | | Heres a better question. Once we reach 17 titles next season, are we officially the greatest NBA franchise of all time? |
The Celtics fans are holding onto the "We have more championships" title for dear life. It's going to be fun to see them squirm once we win #17 and #18. I expect them to take that "The 5 titles in Minneapolis don't count" claim more seriously, and that will be what they cling to. Then it's going to be even more fun when we win #23 and they lose that as well  |
This. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
babyskyhook
Franchise Player
Joined: 15 Jul 2009
Posts: 18492
Location: The Garden Island
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AutoShackMotorSports wrote: | | The-GM wrote: | | Heres a better question. Once we reach 17 titles next season, are we officially the greatest NBA franchise of all time? |
That's not even a question. We already ARE the greatest NBA franchise. |
And this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
I Love LA
Starting Rotation
Joined: 24 Apr 2008
Posts: 936
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Raijin wrote: | | The-GM wrote: | | Heres a better question. Once we reach 17 titles next season, are we officially the greatest NBA franchise of all time? |
No. We have to pass them. Look at the head to head record. |
I disagree. It's not our fault they had one dominant decade and then disappeared while we continued going to the finals and winning most of them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Laker_Dynasty_01
Star Player
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 1703
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 1:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
You know who the Lakers beat for that "defunct" 1948 NBL championship? The same team that joined them in the BAA(NBA) the following year and finished second to the Lakers. It was the Rochester Royals, who lost to the same Lakers the following year in the 1949 WCF in two close games. I think that shows the greatest pro team in 1948 may have been the Lakers. The Baltimore Bullets had won the BAA title with a .500 record in 1948 and faded after the merger.
The Lakers went on to dominate the Washington Capitols in the 1949 Finals(went up 3-0, won in 6), which marked the only time the Lakers would beat Red Auerbach as a coach.
Strange that the playoffs were best of three, but the finals were best of seven. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
non-player zealot
Franchise Player
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Posts: 21365
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 3:06 am Post subject: Re: Count the 1947 Championship! We have 17 rings! |
|
|
| Lakers#1Team wrote: | | I suppose nobody will care about Magic because it was way back in the '80s? No one will care about West, about Cap, about any team but the current one? That is sheer arrogance on the fan's part to think that only THEIR Lakers in THEIR time period matters. |
Realtalk.
_________________
GOAT MAGIC REEL
SEDALE TRIBUTE
EDDIE DONX! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lakers_55
Starting Rotation
Joined: 14 Jan 2009
Posts: 174
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 6:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
The NBA recognizes the Lakers as having 17 championships.
http://hoopedia.nba.com/index.php?title=Los_Angeles_Lakers
Looks like there have been changes at that link, they used to individually list all the years the Lakers won.
I have been claiming Lakers have been the NBA's greatest franchise since we won in 2002. I have refuted every single argument Celtics fans have thrown at me.
Oh, ESPN poll on greatest franchise has it Lakers 52%, Celtics 48%: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/fp/flashPollResultsState?sportIndex=nba&pollId=92627 "Electoral college" landsliide win for the Lakers as well.
Most fun was what I posted earlier, and I need to udate it. I pooped all over the first 13 Celtics titles: http://thelakersnation.com/forums/index.php?/topic/36004-the-complete-and-utter-destruction-of-the-value-of-the-celtics-russell-era-titles/
What really cracks me up is how the Celtics fans are screaming the Minneapolis titles don't count. Where was this argument 20 years ago? when they passed us in titles, 6-5 we were playing in Los Angeles and you know Boston papers made a big deal of that. That's proof right there they always recognized the Minneapolis titles.
Also, if we can't count our Minneapolis titles, how come they get to count their 1959 win over Minneapolis? Haha, their flawed logic is exposed. If you can't count a win you can't count a loss, it's that simple.
Since Celtics fans are likely Red Sox fans, I'd like to see them tell a Yankees fan their world series wins over the Brooklyn Dodgers no longer count and the head to head score is no longer Yankees 8 Dodgers 3, it's 2-2 because the Dodger results from Brooklyn no longer count! Geez, Yankees just lost 6 world championships from their 27 total! How many times did the Yankees beat the New York Giants? oops, got to deduct those as well....WRONG!!!
Easy to kill is the "Championships belong to a city" argument. First, NBA itself in first link says the titles belong to a franchise, not a city. What about the fan of any team that doesn't live in that city? Example, Celtics fans in Europe and Asia celebrate 17 Celtics championships. What about the Lakers fan in Europe and Asia? you got it, they celebrate all 16 NBA titles of the Lakers. According to Celtics fan logic, you must live in the city the titles are won in because that's where they belong. Go tell the rest of the world they can't root for any NBA team and celebrate when they win a championship!
Brooklyn still has Dodger fans to this day. When the Dodgers started winning titles in LA, those old fans still counted them for their favorite team. Any fan of the old Minneapolis Lakers can still celebrate all titles in Los Angeles if they are still a Lakers fan. Or they can jump on the bandwagon and cheer all 16 NBA titles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144462
Location: The Gold Coast
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:32 am Post subject: Re: Count the 1947 Championship! We have 17 rings! |
|
|
| ArminNBA wrote: | | Dr. Laker wrote: | On another board, I've been ranting and raving for about 10 years about how we're being cheated out of a championship in the NBA.
Back in 1948, when the Lakers moved from Detroit to Minneapolis, the Lakers won the NBL Championship. The NBL then merged with the BAA to form the NBA, where the Lakers continued to dominate, but were not allowed to claim the 1948 title.
The Lakers are officially an "expansion" team and not one of the original NBA teams, but we should count the '48 team as a champion and hang their banner.
All of the teams that came over from the ABA - Pacers, Nets, Nuggets, Spurs - are allowed to count their ABA Titles in their teamhistory, even though they weren't NBA Championships.
Ours should count, too.
Eff you, Celtics - we have 17 and will PASS you in 2010-11. |
I never got why the BAA championship counted as an NBA championship while the NBL championship did not count as an NBA championship. Why one and not the other? |
I would guess it was because one organization had hand in the merger while the other didn't.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144462
Location: The Gold Coast
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
As for the OP, titles are measured as NBA championships.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
