Defusing the Celtics 9-2 finals edge over the Lakers

[Lakers_55]

I have a number of friends on the internet who are Celtics fans, and to quote one of them, this post is not meant to start World War III. I welcome all opinions, and prefer serious ones. I never talk smack on another team’s site. However, I offer up the following article as historical fact so that more people can be aware if it and debate it. I have posted it in a few places, might as well let the Boston fans argue over its merits.

I am aware there is a lively debate going as to who is the better franchise, Lakers or Celtics. 20 years ago, there wasn’t one. I have been saying for a few years now the Lakers are the better franchise, but that’s just my opinion and can’t be proved. However, if people are to debate, the facts must be known.

First off, there is a debate going which team will receive the mythical and honorary title of “Team of The Decade”, the Los Angeles Lakers or the San Antonio Spurs. The jury is out until next year, when the decade ends and it may still be unsettled. The comparison of these two teams over the last nine seasons actually has bearing on the real value of the 9-2 finals Boston has over the Lakers.

Let’s compare the Lakers and Spurs results this decade, 2000/01-2008/09 with a scorecard:

Titles: Lakers 3, Spurs 3; Even
Finals appearances Lakers 5, Spurs 3; Advantage Lakers
Playoff appearances: Lakers 8, Spurs 9; Advantage Spurs
First round exits in playoffs: Lakers 2, Spurs 1; Advantage Spurs
Regular season results:  Lakers 463-275 62.7%, Spurs 523-215, 70.9%; Advantage Spurs
Playoffs head-to-head results: Lakers 4, Spurs 1; Advantage Lakers.

At first glance it appears the Lakers have the edge, particularly because of the 4-1 playoff advantage. However it remains highly debatable because of the Spurs consistency advantage over the Lakers. Now, let’s have a closer look at the Lakers 4-1 advantage in the playoffs. First off, it isn’t the Lakers fault the Spurs didn’t make the WCF last year so we could increase the edge to 5-1. Similarly it isn’t the Spurs fault the Lakers didn’t meet them in the playoffs in 2005-07 when San Antonio clearly was the better team. So, the last line in the scorecard should be replaced with:

“Who went farther in the playoffs each season: Lakers 5, Spurs 4; Advantage Lakers”

That tells a fair story of how the two teams compare against each other over the past 9 years. Think about it, the Spurs shouldn’t be penalized by 4-1 as their advancements in the playoffs to eventually meet and lose to the Lakers are successes, not negatives that can be held against them. You can’t win the finals if you don’t get to the finals. The farther you go in the playoffs, the more successful your team is. They just happened to run into the Lakers when the latter was the better team.

Now, let’s have a further look at the Celtics 9-2 edge over the Lakers. The Celtics met the Lakers most often when Boston was the better team. The head-to-head score was 7-0 Boston when the Russell era ended. It’s 2-2 since then. As a Lakers fan, I can recall several times we hoped to play Boston when we felt we were the better team, but it didn’t happen. These seasons are 1972, 1980, 1982, 1988, and 2002. In all five seasons, Boston lost in the Eastern Conference Finals. The Celtics had HCA in the first 4 series, and best record in the NBA in the 2nd and 3rd. The Lakers won the world championship in each of these seasons by beating a team that was better than Boston. We’ll throw 1986 to you guys when we lost in the WCF to Houston, but with a bit of luck and fate, we could have met six more times in the finals and I feel the score would be Lakers 7, Celtics 3 over the post Russell era. However, none of that happened, so it is only smack talk about would haves and could haves. Still, the Lakers finished ahead of the Celtics in those five seasons listed, so there is satisfaction in that for us.

Above, I compared the Lakers and Spurs this decade. Let’s see what happens when the Lakers and Celtics are compared over the entire history of the NBA:

I compiled the following historical evidence, starting from the first year they both played in the league. Who was the more successful each season is determined by how far they went in the playoffs. There were 5 seasons that are a wash. If you tiebreak them as I did at the bottom based on regular season records, the Lakers come out ahead 3-2. The abbreviations will be obvious to any basketball fan. At the end of each line a number appears in parenthesis. It keeps tally of how many seasons the Lakers are ahead. If it’s a negative number, it favors the Celtics.

1948-49: Lakers: Won FINALS; Celtics: Missed PO, Edge Lakers (1)
1949-50: Lakers: Won FINALS; Celtics: Missed PO, Edge Lakers (2)
1950-51: Lakers: Lost WCF; Celtics: Lost QF, Edge Lakers (3)
1951-52: Lakers: Won FINALS; Celtics: Lost ECSF, Edge Lakers (4)
1952-53: Lakers: Won FINALS; Celtics: Lost ECF, Edge Lakers (5)
1953-54: Lakers: Won FINALS; Celtics: Lost ECF, Edge Lakers (6)
1954-55: Lakers: Lost WCF; Celtics: Lost ECF, Edge Neither (6)
1955-56: Lakers: Lost WCSF; Celtics: Lost ECSF, Edge Neither (6)
1956-57: Lakers: Lost WCF; Celtics: Won FINALS, Edge Celtics (5)
1957-58: Lakers: Missed PO; Celtics: Lost FINALS, Edge Celtics (4)
1958-59: Lakers: Lost FINALS; Celtics: Won FINALS, Edge Celtics (3)
1959-60: Lakers: Lost WCF; Celtics: Won FINALS, Edge Celtics (2)
1960-61: Lakers: Lost WCF; Celtics: Won FINALS, Edge Celtics (1)
1961-62: Lakers: Lost FINALS; Celtics: Won FINALS, Edge Celtics (0)
1962-63: Lakers: Lost FINALS; Celtics: Won FINALS, Edge Celtics (-1)
1963-64: Lakers: Lost WCSF, Celtics: Won FINALS, Edge Celtics (-2)
1964-65: Lakers: Lost FINALS; Celtics: Won FINALS, Edge Celtics (-3)
1965-66: Lakers: Lost FINALS; Celtics: Won FINALS, Edge Celtics (-4)
1966-67: Lakers: Lost WCSF; Celtics: Lost ECF, Edge Celtics (-5)
1967-68: Lakers: Lost FINALS; Celtics: Won FINALS, Edge Celtics (-6)
1968-69: Lakers: Lost FINALS; Celtics: Won FINALS, Edge Celtics (-7)
1969-70: Lakers: Lost FINALS; Celtics: Missed PO, Edge Lakers (-6)
1970-71: Lakers: Lost WCF; Celtics: Missed PO, Edge Lakers (-5)
1971-72: Lakers: Won FINALS; Celtics: Lost ECF, Edge Lakers (-4)
1972-73: Lakers: Lost FINALS; Celtics: Lost ECF, Edge Lakers (-3)
1973-74: Lakers: Lost WCSF; Celtics: Won FINALS, Edge Celtics (-4)
1974-75: Lakers: Missed PO; Celtics: Lost ECF, Edge Celtics (-5)
1975-76: Lakers: Missed PO; Celtics: Won FINALS, Edge Celtics (-6)
1976-77: Lakers: Lost WCF; Celtics: Lost ECSF, Edge Lakers (-5)
1977-78: Lakers: Lost WC 1st Round; Celtics: Missed PO, Edge Lakers (-4)
1978-79: Lakers: Lost WCSF; Celtics: Missed PO, Edge Lakers (-3)
1979-80: Lakers: Won FINALS; Celtics: Lost ECF, Edge Lakers (-2)
1980-81: Lakers: Lost WC 1st Round; Celtics: Won FINALS, Edge Celtics (-3)
1981-82: Lakers: Won FINALS; Celtics: Lost ECF, Edge Lakers (-2)
1982-83: Lakers: Lost FINALS; Celtics: Lost ECSF Edge Lakers (-1)
1983-84: Lakers: Lost FINALS; Celtics: Won FINALS, Edge Celtics (-2)
1984-85: Lakers: Won FINALS; Celtics: Lost FINALS, Edge Lakers (-1)
1985-86: Lakers: Lost WCF; Celtics: Won FINALS, Edge Celtics (-2)
1986-87: Lakers: Won FINALS; Celtics: Lost FINALS, Edge Lakers (-1)
1987-88: Lakers: Won FINALS; Celtics: Lost ECF, Edge Lakers (0)
1988-89: Lakers: Lost FINALS; Celtics: Lost EC 1st Rd, Edge Lakers (1)
1989-90: Lakers: Lost WCSF; Celtics: Lost EC 1st Rd, Edge Lakers  (2)
1990-91: Lakers: Lost FINALS; Celtics: Lost ECSF, Edge Lakers (3)
1991-92: Lakers: Lost WC 1st Round; Celtics: Lost ECSF, Edge Celtics (2)
1992-93: Lakers: Lost WC 1st Round; Celtics: Lost EC 1st Rd, Edge Neither (2)
1993-94: Lakers: Missed PO; Celtics: Missed PO, Edge Neither (2)
1994-95: Lakers: Lost WCSF; Celtics: Lost EC 1st Rd, Edge Lakers (3)
1995-96: Lakers: Lost WC 1st Round; Celtics: Missed PO, Edge Lakers (4)
1996-97: Lakers: Lost WCSF; Celtics: Missed PO, Edge Lakers (5)
1997-98: Lakers: Lost WCF; Celtics: Missed PO, Edge Lakers (6)
1998-99: Lakers: Lost WCSF; Celtics: Missed PO, Edge Lakers (7)
1999-00: Lakers: Won FINALS; Celtics: Missed PO, Edge Lakers (8 )
2000-01: Lakers: Won FINALS; Celtics: Missed PO, Edge Lakers (9)
2001-02: Lakers: Won FINALS; Celtics: Lost ECF, Edge Lakers (10)
2002-03: Lakers: Lost WCSF; Celtics: Lost ECSF, Edge Neither (10)
2003-04: Lakers: Lost FINALS; Celtics: Lost EC 1st Rd, Edge Lakers (11)
2004-05: Lakers: Missed PO; Celtics: Lost EC 1st Rd, Edge Celtics (10)
2005-06: Lakers: Lost WC 1st Round; Celtics: Missed PO, Edge Lakers (11)
2006-07: Lakers: Lost WC 1st Round; Celtics: Missed PO, Edge Lakers (12)
2007-08: Lakers: Lost FINALS; Celtics: Won FINALS, Edge Celtics (11)
2008-09: Lakers: Won FINALS; Celtics: Lost ECSF, Edge Lakers (12)

Edge Lakers 34-22-5

Tiebreaking the neutral years by regular season results:

1954-55 Lakers 40-32, Celtics 36-36, Edge Lakers
1955-56 Lakers 32-39, Celtics 39-33, Edge Celtics
1992-93 Lakers 39-43, Celtics 48-34, Edge Celtics
1993-94 Lakers 33-49, Celtics 32-50, Edge Lakers
2002-03 Lakers 50-32, Celtics 44-38, Edge Lakers

Edge Lakers 37-24

So, you Celtics fans see it as Boston 9 Lakers 2. However, that only counts 11 of the 61 seasons the two teams have been in the league, which many feel is misleading.  To back that up notice that the Celtics advantage of 7 titles over the Lakers head-to-head drops to 2 titles when all are counted, 17-15. We Lakers fans see Lakers 37 Celtics 24 as the true and accurate assessment comparing the two teams over the entire history of the NBA.

See you in the finals in 2010?

[Roy Hobbs]

Well, last I checked, 17 is still greater than 15, right?  Why would you count second place finishes?  As they say, second place is the first loser.

What 9-2 shows is that when the Lakers play the best, they wilt under pressure.

[JSD]

Boston Celtics 17 > La Lakers 10 (15)

How's that for an edge? The Fact is in head to head appearances the Celtics are ahead 9 - 2. No matter how you spin it the fact remains.

[BudweiserCeltic]

So, bottom line the Celtics have won more championship than the Lakers (which includes championships they won outside of LA).

Yeah, keep rationalizing to make yourself feel better.

[LarBrd33]

2009 title has an asterisk next to it.  It's called Kevin Garnett.

Most of the Laker titles belong to the Timberwolves.   

[JSD]

Well, last I checked, 17 is still greater than 15, right?  Why would you count second place finishes?  As they say, second place is the first loser.

What 9-2 shows is that when the Lakers play the best, they wilt under pressure.

"Wilt" under pressure... haha pun intended I'm sure. TP

[BballTim]

Well, last I checked, 17 is still greater than 15, right?  Why would you count second place finishes? 

  Because he's a Laker's fan.

[RAcker]

I love when an inferiority complex shines so brightly for all of us to see. Nice post. Thanks for reassuring me and every other Celtics fan that we are indeed the measuring stick for everyone else.

[Roy Hobbs]

Well, last I checked, 17 is still greater than 15, right?  Why would you count second place finishes?  As they say, second place is the first loser.

What 9-2 shows is that when the Lakers play the best, they wilt under pressure.

"Wilt" under pressure... haha pun intended I'm sure. TP

TP to you for picking up on that.  (And two more to get to 300.  Congrats!)

[furball]

You can't judge teams by how far they got in the play-offs, it's not fair because they are playing different teams.  

There's really only three "types" of teams, Non Play-off teams, play-off teams, and Champions.  How far you go in the play-offs isn't relevant.  Here's why.  2 seasons ago the Lakers lost to the Celtic in the Finals, the Pistons lost to the Celtics in the ECF. Both teams seasons ended with losses to the C's the only difference is that the Lakers didn't have to play the C's until the finals.  Had the Lakers faced the C's in the first round, they would have been knocked out in the first round.

To judge two teams who play in different confrences really doesn't make sense.  If the C's had to play the western teams in any given year, how do you know if they would have made the finals or not?    

[Roy Hobbs]

This sounds like the Red Sox talking about how they spent more days in first place than the Yankees.

[BudweiserCeltic]

I love the guy that gave him a Tommy Point out of pity.

[PosImpos]

Well, first off I'd like to applaud you as one of the few Lakers fans to post here that doesn't act like a troll.

Second of all, I think though the Lakers have fielded more teams which were dominant in their conference (getting to the Finals etc) you can't ignore that the Celtics have won more titles, and if we're talking purely about city pride here, 5 of the Lakers titles don't even count, since they were won in Minneapolis.  

As for the 9-2 matchup disparity in the Finals:  Sure, most of those involve Bill Russel, but it still counts.  Maybe the Lakers are the better franchise in the modern era (post-Russel), but if we're talking about the entire history of the NBA, I think it's pretty clear that the Celtics come out on top.

Also, if you're going to discount Bill Russel, why don't we discount Kareem?

[GroverTheClover]

While taking the time to sort through and dig up that info is certainly admirable, cherry picking inconsequential stats to make the comparision between two teams"more evenly matched" is pretty much a waste of time in my opinion.

If Team A has a better record than Team B in some years but lags behind in number of championships, it doesn't dilute the worth of B's championships.

I have no problem acknowledging that historically (and currently) the Lakers have performed very well, but the ultimate measure of a team's excellence is the number of championships they have. After all, you never hear the Yankees trumpeting the amount of pennants they have. All you ever hear are the 26 World Series trophies.

[fairweatherfan]

Hey, it's a well-researched post, and not trollish at all other than being a pro-Lakers argument in a Celtics forum.  This is how opposing fans should post here.  I was going to give you a TP for it, but I decided to give it to a guy in Minneapolis instead.