Chill. It doesn't count. You do that, then you need to count a bunch of stats from players in the ABA and mix them with the NBA and all other stuff. Think about it, its an "NBA CHAMPIONSHIP", you don't want to see an asterisk next to a trophy saying ABA to it. LA can put a banner in the rafters like the other teams with their ABA or NBL whatsoever, but you can't put an 1948 Laker banner because LAKERS didn't exist at the time.
Joined: 23 May 2010 Posts: 5622 Location: Los Angeles
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:45 am Post subject:
How is it that the BAA championship in 1949 counts, but not the NBL championship in 1948? BOTH the BAA and NBL merged together to form the modern day NBA. _________________ 1996-2016
Thank you Kobe for giving 20 years of yourself to the Purple and Gold. We are forever indebted to your greatness.
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90307 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:05 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 can see how 6 titles in 8 years is much more dominant than 11 in 13... _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90307 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:15 pm Post subject:
I can see both sides of the argument, as both have merit.
On one hand, the BAA became the NBA, so it was essentially the same linear league, just with a name change. The NBL merged into the BAA (and was still called the BAA), so titles in the NBL wouldn't count, from a linear argument (of course, this would also exclude the ABA)
OTOH, the NBL was actually the better pro league (sort of the opposite of the ABA), so if you're talking about major league pro titles, it should count.
One thing that is true is that you have to count both the NBL and the ABA, or neither. There's no good argument for one that wouldn't apply to the other.
BTW, whomever it was that brought up CBA titles is just being obtuse or suffers from a failure of logic. The CBA was a minor league. We don't count triple A baseball titles in a major league club's total, and we wouldn't extend that honor to a minor league basketball club either. The CBA would be acceptable to mention if you were counting up total titles won by a person at every level (HS, College, minor league, NBA, even Euro titles would all count). _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Joined: 23 May 2010 Posts: 5622 Location: Los Angeles
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:28 pm Post subject:
The NBA acknowledges that the Lakers were founded in 1946, but doesn't recognize the 1948 NBL championship? How? Why? The Lakers were part of the NBL in 1946. That's some screwed up logic. No compelling argument can be made as to why the BBA championship should count and the NBL shouldn't. Like I said, no NBL means no NBA. The Lakers aren't the only franchise that originated from the NBL (see Pistons and Kings). All three franchises' history is cut short by ignoring the years prior to the merger. _________________ 1996-2016
Thank you Kobe for giving 20 years of yourself to the Purple and Gold. We are forever indebted to your greatness.
Joined: 23 May 2010 Posts: 5622 Location: Los Angeles
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:39 pm Post subject:
And technically, the Lakers only have 15 NBA titles (1949 was BBA). So, again, why is it that the BBA counts and the NBL doesn't? _________________ 1996-2016
Thank you Kobe for giving 20 years of yourself to the Purple and Gold. We are forever indebted to your greatness.
Because the BAA played in bigger markets and absorbed the NBL, much like the NBA did to the ABA. The BAA then changed its name to something catchier. But the BAA is essentially the same league as the NBA.
BAA teams that are current NBA franchises(before NBL merger):
Celtics
Knicks
Warriors
Bullets(Wizards)
NBL franchises now in NBA:
76ers
Hawks
Lakers
Kings
Pistons
ABA:
Nets
Nuggets
Pacers
Spurs
The Pistons actually won two titles during WWII, and the Mikan-led Chicago Stags won it in 1947. Most of the other teams, OshKosh All-Stars, Sheboygan Red Skins, and the Anderson Packers are no more. Also gone are the Akron Firestone Non-Skids, who were originally the Goodyear Wingfoots.
No ABA team dominated the NBA after joining. The Lakers and Royals dominated the NBA(then BAA) in wins and first-team selections, and were the two best teams in the playoffs, as they were in the defunct league that they were a part of the year before.
And technically, the Lakers only have 15 NBA titles (1949 was BBA). So, again, why is it that the BBA counts and the NBL doesn't?
Each league had one of the two things that matter if you want to have a successful league. But when the time has come for the two leagues to merge those two leagues wouldn't have equal rights in the merging prossess.
Lets take a look at the Lakers road to become an NBA team:
1. The Detroit Gems were created in 1946 as a team of the National Basketball League, a league that was founded in 1935 and since then, was collecting the majority of the college talent (from 1935 to 1937 it was known as Midwest Basketball Conference).
Due to that the team folded and then Chaflen and Berger 2 Minnesota buisnessmen bought the team for 15000$. What they bought was the ownership of the team some equipment and what was ment to be the most valuable possession of all. The number one pick of the 1947 NBL draft.That draft pick is the bond that that unites the Lakers history with the Gems short lived history.
In the summer of 1947 Maurice White the president of the Chicago American Gears, that drafted George Mikan and they were led by him and Bobby McDermott to the 1947 NBL Championship decided to create a 16-team league called Professional Basketball League of America (PBLA) a league with major arenas that would be under his ownership. The league folded before it ever existed due to financial reasons and all the players that were supposed to play on the 16 teams were placed in the 1947 draft.
Back then there were 2 professional Leagues NBL and the 1 year BAA and a minor League, the American Basketball League. There was no place for yet another League to survive.
Original NY Knicks owner Ned Irish (then a BAA team) wanted Mikan to come to NY but he couldn't pay enough due to financial shortage that was applied on the organization that year. Sid Hartman the manager of the Lakers drafted Mikan and made all he could to sign him and he was successful.
The team went on to capture the 1948 NBL title. In the summer of 1948, the major teams of the league, Lakers, Royals, Pistons and Kautskys (that became Jets) were approached by the BAA officials to move their franchises to the BAA. The BAA had its teams in the biggest cities and in the biggest arenas and what was lacking was the talent that would bring the people to those arenas. Those 4 teams became BAA teams and the impact was immediate for both the BAA and the NBL.
The NBL was lacking its best teams so by the end of the 1948-49 season its financial status was bad. The league was ready to fold. On the other hand the BAA had the arenas had the talent, and was starting to flurish. NBL teams that could survive decided to disscuss a possible merging with the BAA that resulted in the creation of the NBA.
The reason that the Lakers 1948 NBL title isn't in the NBA history books is because the merging of the two leagues wasnt equal. The strong BAA league absorbed the NBL teams. So the BAA kept its two year history from 1946 to 1948 and recognized its two Champions thE 1947 Philadelphia Warriors and the 1948 Baltimore Bullets that came into the league in 1947 from the minor American Basketball League and became BAA Champions by adding players with expirience and talent from the NBL.
So as a Lakers fan you can't ask David Stern to recognize a Championship that is won in the same season that NBA's predecessor the BAA had a champion and it was the Baltimore Bullets. What you CAN AND MUST say is that you cant count this Championship out even if is not an NBA Championship. Because the 1948 NBL was stronger than the BAA and that was clear from the year after the merge of the 2 leagues when the Lakers and the Royals dominated the League and the original BAA teams for many seasons
So the Lakers have 17-worthy-to-mention National Championships and the 16 of them are recognized by the NBA because we won them as an NBA team.
Bottomline:
1. Lakers played in the best League in 1948 and won and that's not recognized not for basketball reasons, but because of the financial breakdown of the NBL that resulted to the BAA being the leader in the merging negotiations between the two leagues and keep its 2 year history that overlapses the 1948 NBL Championship. Thats why the BAA Championship counts and the NBL Championship don't.
2. Celtics fans can't do anything to bail themselves out. For 2 years now you hear every Celtics fan wanting the Minneapolis Championships to just dissapear from the Lakers - Celtics comparison because they fear the day that we are going to be even in NBA CHAMPIONSHIPS.
What do you answer to that? This is an easy one! With all the effort that they are putting to make a valid case that they have the better franchise, if they had an NBL Championship they wouldn't refer to it, THEY WOULD SCREAM ABOUT IT!
SO NO! NO DISCOUNDS, NO FAVORS
THE LAKERS ARE 16 NBA CHAMPIONS AND TOTAL 17 NATIONAL CHAMPIONS
We don't need banners. we have valid arguments to prove it.
ALL THAT FROM AN INTERNATIONAL LAKERS FAN THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, BUT LOVE HIS LAKERS SINCE HE TOUTCHED A BASKETBALL FOR THE FIRST TIME AS A KID.
Joined: 04 Dec 2005 Posts: 1013 Location: Sydney, Australia
Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 6:00 am Post subject:
CYLakers wrote:
Kobewood wrote:
And technically, the Lakers only have 15 NBA titles (1949 was BBA). So, again, why is it that the BBA counts and the NBL doesn't?
Each league had one of the two things that matter if you want to have a successful league. But when the time has come for the two leagues to merge those two leagues wouldn't have equal rights in the merging prossess.
Lets take a look at the Lakers road to become an NBA team:
1. The Detroit Gems were created in 1946 as a team of the National Basketball League, a league that was founded in 1935 and since then, was collecting the majority of the college talent (from 1935 to 1937 it was known as Midwest Basketball Conference).
Due to that the team folded and then Chaflen and Berger 2 Minnesota buisnessmen bought the team for 15000$. What they bought was the ownership of the team some equipment and what was ment to be the most valuable possession of all. The number one pick of the 1947 NBL draft.That draft pick is the bond that that unites the Lakers history with the Gems short lived history.
In the summer of 1947 Maurice White the president of the Chicago American Gears, that drafted George Mikan and they were led by him and Bobby McDermott to the 1947 NBL Championship decided to create a 16-team league called Professional Basketball League of America (PBLA) a league with major arenas that would be under his ownership. The league folded before it ever existed due to financial reasons and all the players that were supposed to play on the 16 teams were placed in the 1947 draft.
Back then there were 2 professional Leagues NBL and the 1 year BAA and a minor League, the American Basketball League. There was no place for yet another League to survive.
Original NY Knicks owner Ned Irish (then a BAA team) wanted Mikan to come to NY but he couldn't pay enough due to financial shortage that was applied on the organization that year. Sid Hartman the manager of the Lakers drafted Mikan and made all he could to sign him and he was successful.
The team went on to capture the 1948 NBL title. In the summer of 1948, the major teams of the league, Lakers, Royals, Pistons and Kautskys (that became Jets) were approached by the BAA officials to move their franchises to the BAA. The BAA had its teams in the biggest cities and in the biggest arenas and what was lacking was the talent that would bring the people to those arenas. Those 4 teams became BAA teams and the impact was immediate for both the BAA and the NBL.
The NBL was lacking its best teams so by the end of the 1948-49 season its financial status was bad. The league was ready to fold. On the other hand the BAA had the arenas had the talent, and was starting to flurish. NBL teams that could survive decided to disscuss a possible merging with the BAA that resulted in the creation of the NBA.
The reason that the Lakers 1948 NBL title isn't in the NBA history books is because the merging of the two leagues wasnt equal. The strong BAA league absorbed the NBL teams. So the BAA kept its two year history from 1946 to 1948 and recognized its two Champions thE 1947 Philadelphia Warriors and the 1948 Baltimore Bullets that came into the league in 1947 from the minor American Basketball League and became BAA Champions by adding players with expirience and talent from the NBL.
So as a Lakers fan you can't ask David Stern to recognize a Championship that is won in the same season that NBA's predecessor the BAA had a champion and it was the Baltimore Bullets. What you CAN AND MUST say is that you cant count this Championship out even if is not an NBA Championship. Because the 1948 NBL was stronger than the BAA and that was clear from the year after the merge of the 2 leagues when the Lakers and the Royals dominated the League and the original BAA teams for many seasons
So the Lakers have 17-worthy-to-mention National Championships and the 16 of them are recognized by the NBA because we won them as an NBA team.
Bottomline:
1. Lakers played in the best League in 1948 and won and that's not recognized not for basketball reasons, but because of the financial breakdown of the NBL that resulted to the BAA being the leader in the merging negotiations between the two leagues and keep its 2 year history that overlapses the 1948 NBL Championship. Thats why the BAA Championship counts and the NBL Championship don't.
2. Celtics fans can't do anything to bail themselves out. For 2 years now you hear every Celtics fan wanting the Minneapolis Championships to just dissapear from the Lakers - Celtics comparison because they fear the day that we are going to be even in NBA CHAMPIONSHIPS.
What do you answer to that? This is an easy one! With all the effort that they are putting to make a valid case that they have the better franchise, if they had an NBL Championship they wouldn't refer to it, THEY WOULD SCREAM ABOUT IT!
SO NO! NO DISCOUNDS, NO FAVORS
THE LAKERS ARE 16 NBA CHAMPIONS AND TOTAL 17 NATIONAL CHAMPIONS
We don't need banners. we have valid arguments to prove it.
ALL THAT FROM AN INTERNATIONAL LAKERS FAN THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, BUT LOVE HIS LAKERS SINCE HE TOUTCHED A BASKETBALL FOR THE FIRST TIME AS A KID.
Quality post. _________________ "These young guys are playing checkers. I'm out there playing chess."
My logic is this. As best I can tell and I wasn't born yet, so I must rely on historical records, from about 47-48 on, the two best teams in professional basketball were the Lakers and the Rochester Royals
To recap, the Laks won the NBL in 48, moved to the the BAA in 49, and won, moved to the NBA and won 5 of the next 6 titles, with the Rochester Royals, also moving from the NBL winning in 51.
In other words, the first six "official" NBA seasons were won by former NBL teams. These teams were the cream of the crop back then.
Mikan and the Lakers did not just become the most dominant player/team when the team moved to the BAA or to the NBA. He/they were the most dominant player/team on any professional team/league prior, with Mikan wining the scoring title in 47 and 48, and the MVP in 48 in the NBL.
The Lakers have won 17 titles. There may be an asterisk for some, but they won 17 titles. They were the best professional team in the late 40's and early 50's no matter which league they played in.
Mikan was the best player in professional basketball in the late 40's to early 50's no matter which league he played. "The Mikan rule" widening the lane from 6' to 12' is probably the biggest change in the game. He was that dominant. _________________ "A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
Chill. It doesn't count. You do that, then you need to count a bunch of stats from players in the ABA and mix them with the NBA and all other stuff. Think about it, its an "NBA CHAMPIONSHIP", you don't want to see an asterisk next to a trophy saying ABA to it. LA can put a banner in the rafters like the other teams with their ABA or NBL whatsoever, but you can't put an 1948 Laker banner because LAKERS didn't exist at the time.
The ABA-NBA merge was different than the NBL-BAA one that formed the NBA. In 1976 ABA was already a league with its own fanbase and the draft of the college talent was a real war between the two leagues.
At that time (and even some years before) the NBA wanted to bring Julius Erving to the NBA. Some even say that the primal common goal of the ABA teams' owners was to challenge the NBA and force the league to begin merging negotiations to stop the battle of the two leagues that resulted to splitting every years college talent to two.
To sum it up unlike the 1948 NBL, the 1976 ABA had a great negotiating power
You can see the results of that power the ABA had if you take a look at the NBA's official list of Champions at NBA.com:
Indiana Pacers and New Jersey Nets won 3 and 2 ABA titles respectively. Those years the NBA had a Champion too. But the NBA officially recognizes their Championship runs beacause the ABA back then was a rival league not a poor relative. You even see the NBA and ABA games being summed up for the ABA teams that entered the NBA.
NBL back in the summer of 48 was a league reaching extinction and the NBL teams that survived, in reality, were absorbed by the BAA, even though the whole procedure was characterized as a merging process to create a new league. That couldn't be the truth if your result is to have the history of the one league written in the history books (BAA) and not the other's (NBL)
So the reason that the NBA is not recognizing any NBL titles is because it was the only league in 1949 that could stood its ground economically having the big arenas and having the talent too since the major NBL teams joined the BAA 1 year before.
The BAA had the non-basketball characteristics to be called a professional basketball league. And it had some differences too. Games had a 48 minutes duration to the NBL's 40 minute and the players were fouling out after the 6th foul not the 5th.
But still if you are talking about basketball from 1946 to 1948 when the BAA existed between the NBL the BAA and the ABL Champions the NBL Champion was the strongest team.
And as ribeye said it became clear which league had the top teams when the NBL's top teams of the 1946-1948 period continued to dominate the NBA and win championships form 1949 to 1955 (Lakers, Royals, Nationals)
So the table in the link above shows clearly that the non-recognition of the Lakers 1948 NBL Championship didn't happen for financial reasons, not for basketball reasons.
When the NBA had to negotiate with another financially strong league, the NBA was forced to recognize the Championships of the new teams. That's what ABA was in 1976 and that's what the NBL wasn't in 1949.
So the bottomline is that if you want to talk about basketball the 1948 NBL Championship is a worth to mention title. Even if it isn't an NBA title is a National title too and a one that you can't downplay for basketball reasons.
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52657 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 8:53 pm Post subject:
The Lakers have the by far best record of any team in the last 40 years. They left the Celtics behind in that regard a long time ago. The Celtics cling to a brief period in history where they dominated in a much different league.
The Lakers don't need to resort to trying to dig out cheesy attempts at additional titles that happened more than a half century ago.
The Celtics have 17.
The Lakers have 16. Own it!
I have much more pride in that than I would trying to dig back to rationalize how a title that occurred under a different name, in a different league over a half century ago should somehow count for the Los Angeles Lakers. _________________ You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Joined: 07 Jun 2002 Posts: 9674 Location: San Diego
Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 9:00 pm 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?
Politics and cash. _________________ Never argue with stupid people! They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience!! - Twain
The Lakers have the by far best record of any team in the last 40 years. They left the Celtics behind in that regard a long time ago. The Celtics cling to a brief period in history where they dominated in a much different league.
The Lakers don't need to resort to trying to dig out cheesy attempts at additional titles that happened more than a half century ago.
The Celtics have 17.
The Lakers have 16. Own it!
I have much more pride in that than I would trying to dig back to rationalize how a title that occurred under a different name, in a different league over a half century ago should somehow count for the Los Angeles Lakers.
But you are right the Lakers have 16. But they have 16 NBA titles. Not total titles and the NBL wasn't a minor league or something.
So is not about how many years ago the title was won but is about recognizing the whole history of the team.
And the history of the Lakers starts in the summer of 46 not the summer of 47 or 48 and you can't cut any of those seasons from the rest of the team's history for simple reasons.
The 1946-47 season was the one that shaped the circumstances for the team to be in place to have the cornerstone of the first dynasty in professional basketball (not only in the NBA as the leagues historians often say). Without the Detroit Gems 4-40 season in the NBL is like the Lakers came up with George Mikan out of thin air.
The 1947-48 season in the NBL is a season that is not recognized because of the BAA executives actions to not consider the NBL as an predecesor of the NBA at all. And with that in mind the history of the first league with major talent and a big amount of former college stutents is vanished by revisionism.
I'm not arguing about the Lakers having plus 2 seasons and 1 Championship to have the luxury to go to a C's fan and say we have 17 NBA championships too. Of course we don't. We have 16 NBA titles and a total of 17 and the team recognizes officially the 16 won in the league that they are in.
But that is happening because of the NBA's revisionist history that suggests that the first major National League talentwise was the BAA that became the NBA. And that not true. History was not written that way, was rewritten that way when the 12 seasons of the NBL vanished through the years after the merging of the two leagues because the BAA executives had all the power.
If this conversation is about an old championship that is not something special to want to recognize i have a question to make:
How can a BAA Championship in 1949 be a title worthy to be recognized and on the other hand an NBL Championship just a year before (1948) by the same team with the same core in a more competitive league not be a worthy title to be recognized because is an old title.
And if is this a valid argument why the NBA considers the Warriors and the Bullets Champions in 47 and 48 respectively and those titles are not considered old?
I think is clear that that is not the reason why the 1948 title isn't given any recognistion. The reason is the NBA's choice to consider the league as a descendant of one league, the BAA and wipe out every other contribution to the leagues final shaping in the summer of 1949.
And with that in mind the Lakers of course recognize in their own history and (NBA-)arena the NBA Championships that they won (including an BAA title) even though those are not the only titles they won.
I don't expect a banner in Staples Center i just expect fans to recognise the teams history as a whole and be aware that is a difference in comparison with the teams history in the NBA
For some people those things are needles in the haystack. Fair enough. For me (and others maybe) this is important.
Year Won Lost Place Coach
1947-48 43 17 1st John Kundla
Playoffs:
Minneapolis defeated Oshkosh, 3 games to 1
Minneapolis defeated Tri-Cities, 2 games to 0
Minneapolis defeated Rochester, 3 games to 1, to win the championship
Player Games Points Average
George Mikan 56 1195 21.3
Jim Pollard 59 760 12.9
Don “Swede” Carlson 58 475 8.2
Jack Dwan 55 306 5.6
Herm Schaefer 54 288 5.3
Tony Jaros 58 273 4.7
Paul Napolitano 52 155 3.0
Johnny Jorgensen 38 101 2.7
Bill Durkee 23 41 1.8
Bob Gerber 15 36 2.4
Ken Exel 5 4 0.8
Joe Patanelli 5 4 0.8
Jack Rocker 5 4 0.8
Warren Ajax 3 1 0.3
Ted Cook 2 0 0.0
Date Opponent Outcome Record Leader
11/01/1947 at Oshkosh W 49-47 1-0 Pollard 10
11/09/1947 at Tri-Cities L 55-66 1-1 Pollard 18
11/13/1947 Tri-Cities W 57-41 2-1 Pollard 19
11/17/1947 Sheboygan W 58-43 3-1 Pollard 14
11/18/1947 Sheboygan W 54-52 Exhibition Dwan 12
11/20/1947 at Sheboygan L 41-56 3-2 Mikan 16
11/23/1947 Indianapolis W 67-56 4-2 Mikan 24
11/27/1947 at Syracuse L 66-72 4-3 Mikan 21
11/29/1947 at Rochester L 53-56 4-4 Mikan 15
12/01/1947 at Flint L 68-75 4-5 Mikan 28
12/02/1947 at Toledo L 57-59 4-6 Mikan 28
12/03/1947 at Fort Wayne W 68-58 5-6 Mikan 20
12/04/1947 Fort Wayne W 56-42 6-6 Mikan 24
12/06/1947 Anderson W 74-58 7-6 Mikan 19
12/07/1947 Oshkosh L 38-44 7-7 Mikan 9
12/10/1947 Toledo W 49-46 8-7 Mikan 19
12/12/1947 Fort Wayne L 55-60 8-8 Mikan 22
12/13/1947 at Oshkosh W 67-57 9-8 Mikan 23
12/14/1947 Anderson W 60-49 10-8 Mikan 22
12/17/1947 Anderson L 54-57 10-9 Mikan 27
12/18/1947 Toledo W 66-56 11-9 Pollard 15
12/21/1947 Tri-Cities W 68-62 12-9 Mikan 26
12/22/1947 Sheboygan W 61-52 13-9 Mikan 20
12/27/1947 Toledo W 55-52 14-9 Mikan 20
12/28/1947 Indianapolis W 58-48 15-9 Pollard 17
01/02/1948 Fort Wayne L 41-46 15-10 Mikan 22
01/04/1948 Flint W 75-50 16-10 Mikan 23
01/05/1948 Flint W 80-42 17-10 Carlson 18
01/08/1948 at Syracuse W 68-59 18-10 Mikan 24
01/10/1948 Flint W 66-49 19-10 Mikan 31
01/11/1948 at Tri-Cities L 35-44 19-11 Mikan 9
01/13/1948 at Indianapolis W 64-45 20-11 Schaefer 17
01/17/1948 at Syracuse L 65-74 OT 20-12 Mikan 17
01/18/1948 at Rochester W 75-73 21-12 Mikan 41
01/19/1948 Flint W 85-72 22-12 Carlson 17
01/22/1948 Rochester W 69-64 23-12 Mikan 23
01/24/1948 Fort Wayne W 69-52 24-12 Mikan 17
01/26/1948 Rochester W 76-58 25-12 Jaros 20
01/28/1948 Rochester L 50-53 25-13 Mikan 23
02/01/1948 Indianapolis W 85-55 26-13 Mikan 17
02/04/1948 Syracuse W 70-55 27-13 Pollard 16
02/05/1948 Syracuse W 69-55 28-13 Mikan 24
02/08/1948 Oshkosh W 78-56 29-13 Mikan 20
02/12/1948 at Sheboygan W 68-57 30-13 Mikan 18
02/14/1948 Toledo W 65-50 31-13 Mikan 16
02/16/1948 at Anderson W 63-54 32-13 Mikan 17
02/17/1948 at Indianapolis W 66-58 33-13 Mikan 21
02/19/1948 Harlem L 59-61 Exhibition Mikan 24
02/22/1948 Oshkosh W 85-58 34-13 Pollard 24
02/23/1948 Tri-Cities W 57-48 35-13 Carlson 14
02/25/1948 Anderson W 60-54 36-13 Pollard 21
02/26/1948 Bismarck W 72-50 Exhibition Mikan 27
02/27/1948 Bismarck W 59-45 Exhibition Mikan 25
02/29/1948 Syracuse W 66-56 37-13 Pollard 16
03/02/1948 at Indianapolis L 63-83 37-14 Mikan 28
03/04/1948 at Anderson L 70-73 37-15 Mikan 21
03/06/1948 at Oshkosh W 69-65 38-15 Mikan 24
03/07/1948 at Sheboygan W 68-67 39-15 Mikan 38
03/08/1948 Sheboygan W 65-55 OT 40-14 Mikan 30
03/13/1948 Fort Wayne W 92-64 41-15 Mikan 42
03/14/1948 Flint W 80-54 42-15 Mikan 21
03/16/1948 at Rochester L 63-66 42-16 Mikan 29
03/17/1948 at Toledo W 60-56 43-16 Mikan 35
03/21/1948 at Tri-Cities L 61-65 43-17 Mikan 31
Playoffs
03/23/1948 Oshkosh W 80-68 1-0 Mikan 26
03/24/1948 Oshkosh W 88-65 2-0 Mikan 22
03/26/1948 at Oshkosh L 51-69 2-1 Mikan 15
03/27/1948 at Oshkosh W 61-55 3-1 Mikan 19
03/30/1948 at Tri-Cities W 98-79 1-0 Mikan 29
03/31/1948 Tri-Cities W 83-59 2-0 Mikan 23
Chicago World Pro Tournament
04/08/1948 Wilkes-Barre W 98-48 1-0 Mikan 22
04/09/1948 Anderson W 59-56 2-0 Mikan 21
04/11/1948 New York W 75-71 3-0 Mikan 40
NBL Finals
04/13/1948 Rochester W 80-72 1-0 Mikan 26
04/14/1948 Rochester W 82-67 2-0 Mikan 25
04/16/1948 at Rochester L 60-74 2-1 Mikan 32
04/17/1948 at Rochester W 75-65 3-1 Mikan 27
Last edited by JUST-MING on Thu Oct 24, 2013 6:23 pm; edited 2 times in total
Just want to add: the chowderheads are really the buffalo braves moved down south to san diego as the clips and then up to LA. That 78 ownership swap where 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 So, you can subtract three from the chowderheads total!
Whatever happened to CYLakers who had some great posts on this thread! _________________ Starting Lakers Dynasty6.0! NOW!!
------
....." each year in Lakerland is marked by four seasons: Kobe’s Mad at His Teammates; Kobe’s Shooting Too Much; Kobe Leads the Victory Parade; Kobe Receives His Championship Ring."
All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4Next
Page 3 of 4
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
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."
