Lakers vs. Celtics: Which is the Greatest NBA Franchise?

[BadNewsBarnes]

A 14-15 record in the finals is pretty mediocre.  The fact is that these two franchises measure success by the number of championships they have won not how many they have appeared in.  Championship appearances may be fine for the Buffalo Bills and the Minnesota Vikings but not for the Celtics & Lakers.

[Fafnir]

But would you trade 3 titles for the opportunity to win 9 titles?

Sure I would.  From my perspective, losing in the Finals sucks as a fan just as much as losing in the first round, or missing the playoffs all together.  I mean, yes, you enjoy the ride up until the point that it's over, but ultimately, it's all about who wins, isn't it?

I judge success in sports in terms of most titles won.  Thus, the most successful franchises in the four major sports are the Yankees, Canadiens, Celtics, and Steelers.  I couldn't tell you who has the best regular season winning percentage in their respective sports, which one lost in the championship game the most, or how many times each franchise missed the playoffs.  I can, however, tell you that they won 26, 24, 17, and 6 titles.

As much as it pains me to point this, I'm a Bears fan, out but you are wrong about the Steelers. They have 6 Super Bowls but that is not the most NFL championships.

The Packers have 12 titles total, followed by the Bears with 9.

[nickagneta]

Here are a few stats:

Since 1948-49 (the first year of the Lakers existence):

-The Lakers have missed the playoffs 5 times.
-The Celtics have missed the playoffs 15 times.

-The Lakers have been in 29 Finals.
-The Celtics have been in 20 Finals.

Sure the Celtics have more Finals wins (17 to 14), but the difference (3) isn't that large compared to the above differences.

(I'm just reporting the facts here... )

Is the goal of sports to win regular season games, or is it to win titles?  Until they start handing out the Larry O'Brien trophy to the regular season winner, I'll go with the Celts.

But would you trade 3 titles for the opportunity to win 9 titles?

The problem with being a fan today is that we sometimes simplify history. We smear the entire 60+ years into one statistic (17 vs 14) that neglects the dynamic behavior that they truly had. We forget that the Celtics really sucked for almost a decade. We forget that the Lakers were really good during the 60s (albeit not as good as the Celtics when it came down to winning titles).

I wonder if you ask an old fan who's watched both teams for 60 years. Do you think (s)he would only count Finals won? Or would (s)he try to integrate some non-binary function that truly captured the feelings that went through the fans each year?

Let's ask the Buffalo Bills fans here. Would you rather have the Tampa Bay Buccaneers one Superbowl title or the four runner up opportunities that you had?

[Roy Hobbs]

But would you trade 3 titles for the opportunity to win 9 titles?

Sure I would.  From my perspective, losing in the Finals sucks as a fan just as much as losing in the first round, or missing the playoffs all together.  I mean, yes, you enjoy the ride up until the point that it's over, but ultimately, it's all about who wins, isn't it?

I judge success in sports in terms of most titles won.  Thus, the most successful franchises in the four major sports are the Yankees, Canadiens, Celtics, and Steelers.  I couldn't tell you who has the best regular season winning percentage in their respective sports, which one lost in the championship game the most, or how many times each franchise missed the playoffs.  I can, however, tell you that they won 26, 24, 17, and 6 titles.

As much as it pains me to point this, I'm a Bears fan, out but you are wrong about the Steelers. They have 6 Super Bowls but that is not the most NFL championships.

The Packers have 12 titles total, followed by the Bears with 9.

Haha.  Well, most championships since the merger.  I know we Bears fans like to hang our hat on the 1930s, but the Steelers have been most successful in the modern era.

[EarthBall]

But would you trade 3 titles for the opportunity to win 9 titles?

Sure I would.  From my perspective, losing in the Finals sucks as a fan just as much as losing in the first round, or missing the playoffs all together.  I mean, yes, you enjoy the ride up until the point that it's over, but ultimately, it's all about who wins, isn't it?

So then we agree to disagree.

I think determining the ultimate success of a season based on the outcome of one 7 game series is a bit cruel.

I'm a fan of the Celtics because I like good basketball. If they lose, but still competed and gave it their all, then how can I be that disappointed? If they win, then I get the added satisfaction of knowing that we are the best. Perhaps I am unique like that as a fan. 

[KCattheStripe]

But would you trade 3 titles for the opportunity to win 9 titles?

Sure I would.  From my perspective, losing in the Finals sucks as a fan just as much as losing in the first round, or missing the playoffs all together.  I mean, yes, you enjoy the ride up until the point that it's over, but ultimately, it's all about who wins, isn't it?

So then we agree to disagree.

I think determining the ultimate success of a season based on the outcome of one 7 game series is a bit cruel.

I'm a fan of the Celtics because I like good basketball. If they lose, but still competed and gave it their all, then how can I be that disappointed? If they win, then I get the added satisfaction of knowing that we are the best. Perhaps I am unique like that as a fan. 

Hippie. 

[EarthBall]

Here are a few stats:

Since 1948-49 (the first year of the Lakers existence):

-The Lakers have missed the playoffs 5 times.
-The Celtics have missed the playoffs 15 times.

-The Lakers have been in 29 Finals.
-The Celtics have been in 20 Finals.

Sure the Celtics have more Finals wins (17 to 14), but the difference (3) isn't that large compared to the above differences.

(I'm just reporting the facts here... )

Is the goal of sports to win regular season games, or is it to win titles?  Until they start handing out the Larry O'Brien trophy to the regular season winner, I'll go with the Celts.

But would you trade 3 titles for the opportunity to win 9 titles?

The problem with being a fan today is that we sometimes simplify history. We smear the entire 60+ years into one statistic (17 vs 14) that neglects the dynamic behavior that they truly had. We forget that the Celtics really sucked for almost a decade. We forget that the Lakers were really good during the 60s (albeit not as good as the Celtics when it came down to winning titles).

I wonder if you ask an old fan who's watched both teams for 60 years. Do you think (s)he would only count Finals won? Or would (s)he try to integrate some non-binary function that truly captured the feelings that went through the fans each year?

Let's ask the Buffalo Bills fans here. Would you rather have the Tampa Bay Buccaneers one Superbowl title or the four runner up opportunities that you had?

The situation is quite different for the elite teams than for the crappy teams. Fortunately, all of my pro teams have won more than one title.

[Brendan]

The situation is quite different for the elite teams than for the crappy teams. Fortunately, all of my pro teams have won more than one title.

And once the Bruins win this year, I can add "and at least one in my lifetime."

[nickagneta]

Here are a few stats:

Since 1948-49 (the first year of the Lakers existence):

-The Lakers have missed the playoffs 5 times.
-The Celtics have missed the playoffs 15 times.

-The Lakers have been in 29 Finals.
-The Celtics have been in 20 Finals.

Sure the Celtics have more Finals wins (17 to 14), but the difference (3) isn't that large compared to the above differences.

(I'm just reporting the facts here... )

Is the goal of sports to win regular season games, or is it to win titles?  Until they start handing out the Larry O'Brien trophy to the regular season winner, I'll go with the Celts.

But would you trade 3 titles for the opportunity to win 9 titles?

The problem with being a fan today is that we sometimes simplify history. We smear the entire 60+ years into one statistic (17 vs 14) that neglects the dynamic behavior that they truly had. We forget that the Celtics really sucked for almost a decade. We forget that the Lakers were really good during the 60s (albeit not as good as the Celtics when it came down to winning titles).

I wonder if you ask an old fan who's watched both teams for 60 years. Do you think (s)he would only count Finals won? Or would (s)he try to integrate some non-binary function that truly captured the feelings that went through the fans each year?

Let's ask the Buffalo Bills fans here. Would you rather have the Tampa Bay Buccaneers one Superbowl title or the four runner up opportunities that you had?

The situation is quite different for the elite teams than for the crappy teams. Fortunately, all of my pro teams have won more than one title.

I think you are wrong there. Believe me Yankees fans aren't exactly thrilled their team at least had the opportunity to win a title in 1981, 2001 and 2003. And being a great team and oh so close doesn't exactly thrill them about a certain 2004 season either. For fans of the truly great teams it's a championship or it's a bad year.

Perhaps the people in SoCal who show up in the third inning or half way through the first quarter and leave by the 7th or mid way through the fourth are a bit less passive about winning and losing but people in Boston, New York, Montreal, Pittsburgh and Philly see things a bit differently.

[Fafnir]

But would you trade 3 titles for the opportunity to win 9 titles?

Sure I would.  From my perspective, losing in the Finals sucks as a fan just as much as losing in the first round, or missing the playoffs all together.  I mean, yes, you enjoy the ride up until the point that it's over, but ultimately, it's all about who wins, isn't it?

I judge success in sports in terms of most titles won.  Thus, the most successful franchises in the four major sports are the Yankees, Canadiens, Celtics, and Steelers.  I couldn't tell you who has the best regular season winning percentage in their respective sports, which one lost in the championship game the most, or how many times each franchise missed the playoffs.  I can, however, tell you that they won 26, 24, 17, and 6 titles.

As much as it pains me to point this, I'm a Bears fan, out but you are wrong about the Steelers. They have 6 Super Bowls but that is not the most NFL championships.

The Packers have 12 titles total, followed by the Bears with 9.

Haha.  Well, most championships since the merger.  I know we Bears fans like to hang our hat on the 1930s, but the Steelers have been most successful in the modern era.

I'll cling to 1985 and old records till the day I die  

My favorite record, longest fumble recovery for a TD in Bears history.

[fairweatherfan]

But would you trade 3 titles for the opportunity to win 9 titles?

I understand where you're coming from, but no I wouldn't - I'd rather be the Miami Heat than the Phoenix Suns, and I'd bet so would everyone working for the Suns.

But I have a new rule to propose: Lakers fans can argue up and down that having more 2nd place finishes and regular season wins, and only 3 fewer titles makes them a better franchise than us, but every time they do it they have to refer to their franchise as "The Minneapolis-Los Angeles Lakers".  Fair?

[thebirdman]

17 titles against 9 titles, that says it all...

[nickagneta]

The situation is quite different for the elite teams than for the crappy teams. Fortunately, all of my pro teams have won more than one title.

And once the Bruins win this year, I can add "and at least one in my lifetime."

I didn't know you were such a youngster, Brendan. If your a hockey fan it's too bad you missed the Orr Espo years. This city was a magical Black and Gold town in those days.

No one and I mean NO ONE has been a bigger sports star in this town since Orr. Neither Bird, Yaz, Roger, Pedro, Neely, Pierce, KG, nor Brady have ever gotten to the celebrity point that Orr did in this town during those '69-'74 years.

He owned this town as did all the Bruins. They were sports stars rolled into movie stars rolled into rock stars they way they were treated in Boston and dominated the sports pages. There wasn't a kid within 100 miles of the Garden that didn't play street hockey in those days and it was as common to own hockey gloves as it was a baseball glove in those days.

Ahh youth.

Sorry for the thread hijack....won't happen again.

[EarthBall]

Let's ask the Buffalo Bills fans here. Would you rather have the Tampa Bay Buccaneers one Superbowl title or the four runner up opportunities that you had?

The situation is quite different for the elite teams than for the crappy teams. Fortunately, all of my pro teams have won more than one title.

I think you are wrong there. Believe me Yankees fans aren't exactly thrilled their team at least had the opportunity to win a title in 1981, 2001 and 2003. And being a great team and oh so close doesn't exactly thrill them about a certain 2004 season either. For fans of the truly great teams it's a championship or it's a bad year.

Perhaps the people in SoCal who show up in the third inning or half way through the first quarter and leave by the 7th or mid way through the fourth are a bit less passive about winning and losing but people in Boston, New York, Montreal, Pittsburgh and Philly see things a bit differently.

I guess I should question whether my birth certificate that says I am born in Boston, Massachusetts is forged.

I sorta agree with you about Yankees fans (and now Red Sox fans to a lesser degree). But it isn't nearly as big a problem in the other cities you listed. The Yankees 'win a championship or bust' philosophy has almost ruined baseball for me. 

[GroverTheClover]

Let's ask the Buffalo Bills fans here. Would you rather have the Tampa Bay Buccaneers one Superbowl title or the four runner up opportunities that you had?

The situation is quite different for the elite teams than for the crappy teams. Fortunately, all of my pro teams have won more than one title.

I think you are wrong there. Believe me Yankees fans aren't exactly thrilled their team at least had the opportunity to win a title in 1981, 2001 and 2003. And being a great team and oh so close doesn't exactly thrill them about a certain 2004 season either. For fans of the truly great teams it's a championship or it's a bad year.

Perhaps the people in SoCal who show up in the third inning or half way through the first quarter and leave by the 7th or mid way through the fourth are a bit less passive about winning and losing but people in Boston, New York, Montreal, Pittsburgh and Philly see things a bit differently.

I guess I should question whether my birth certificate that says I am born in Boston, Massachusetts is forged.

I sorta agree with you about Yankees fans (and now Red Sox fans to a lesser degree). But it isn't nearly as big a problem in the other cities you listed. The Yankees 'win a championship or bust' philosophy has almost ruined baseball for me. 

Ultimately, isn't that what you want your favorite team? Teams like the Yankees and to a lesser extent the Patriots (within the limits of the cap) and the Celtics with Wyc and the ownership group best exemplify this. As a paying fan, you want to know that the team ownership is doing everything in their power to remain in contention (cough cough Mr. Jacobs).