Second most storied franchise ?

[Green-18]

I think there is a difference between "storied" and "decorated" though.

It is objective that the Celtics are the most decorated team in the NBA, with the most titles, original dynasty, etc. 

Storied is rather subjective however, and the cult of personality and Hollywood shenanigans, pop culture etc. work in the Lakers' favor.

Personality???  Why??

The Lakers are more appealing to a wider demographic, whereas the Celtics culture and tradition is deeply rooted within New England.  It's safe to assume that the Lakers are more appealing/interesting to fans who didn't grow up in New England or California.  The Lakers are one of the three most popular teams in the NBA every season despite not making the playoffs in a long time.

That's not to say that the Celtics aren't close in popularity. 

[SparzWizard]

Probably the same kind of "High School" arguments / debates that I had back in my teens..

"Well. BOS has won more championships, but who has won more recent ones?"

"Well, BOS has won more championships, but how many were you alive for?" LOL doesn't matter, Faker Fan - it HAPPENED - whether I was alive for some of them or not........

Most of these sportswriters are YOUNG and either are biased or have very little appreciation for Lore and history.

I doubt you'll hear Shaq talk biased about BOS because he actually PLAYED for us...and we were fortunate to have him. We were dominant while he manned the middle for us, too - going like 27-11............

Anyways the count remains 17-16, Anti-Boston media. Go pack sand.

But their argument for title count is "Minneapolis was also owned by the Lakers, so they actually DO count as far as organization goes. It's just a different city. Therefore, we have 16. Technically the Celtics have like 7 if they don't count the Bill Russell days where there were only 10 teams in the league LOL"

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

The whole "franchise" issue is messed up, partly because the league has been inconsistent about it. For example, the league ruled that the current Charlotte Hornets franchise owns all of the "old Charlotte Hornets" records, stats, etc., even though it was a separate franchise. Yet, as far as I know, all of the records, stats, etc., for other franchises "followed" those franchises to new locations, as is the case with the Lakers. Is that because both franchises use the same name? I don't know.

As someone else in this thread wrote, do Thunder fans says they've won a title? Because even though the Thunder haven't won a title, that franchise did when it was in Seattle. But if I were a Thunder fan, I wouldn't go around saying my team was an NBA champ.

LOL, it's very convoluted!

[tenn_smoothie]

I think there is a difference between "storied" and "decorated" though.

It is objective that the Celtics are the most decorated team in the NBA, with the most titles, original dynasty, etc. 

Storied is rather subjective however, and the cult of personality and Hollywood shenanigans, pop culture etc. work in the Lakers' favor.

Personality???  Why??

The Lakers are more appealing to a wider demographic, whereas the Celtics culture and tradition is deeply rooted within New England.  It's safe to assume that the Lakers are more appealing/interesting to fans who didn't grow up in New England or California.  The Lakers are one of the three most popular teams in the NBA every season despite not making the playoffs in a long time.

That's not to say that the Celtics aren't close in popularity.

Celts are still very popular, mostly among older fans who might have seen the latter stages of the Bird era, maybe even the Cowens' teams and a few of us saw some of the Russell years. But the younger fans ? Not so much. There may be some who became interested in the Garnett teams because they restored the great NBA franchise, which they knew nothing about until the media started talking about it as the Celts became champions and annual contenders again for a few years. Kinda like the Packers when Reggie White and Brett Farve revived that franchise. But for your modern milennial ? The Celtic tradition is not cool enough.

[Moranis]

This is always an interesting debate because this has generally beens the one sport where the team with the most titles is also not the team with the most finals appearances and most consistency (football is starting to have the same problem).

What I mean is this.  Since Russell retired after the 68-69 season, Boston made and won 2 Finals in the 70's, made 5 and won 3 in the 80's, and have only made 2 and won 1 since.  During that same time period, the Lakers made 3 and won 1 in the 70's, made 8 winning 5 in the 80's, made 1 in the 90's, made 6 winning 4 in the 00's, and have won 1 in the 10's.  So since Bill called it quits, Boston has won just 6 with 3 losses, while LA has won 11 with 8 losses. 

In addition, before this current run, the Lakers in their entire franchise had never had more than 2 seasons without a playoff appearance and missed the playoffs just 5 times (again before the current 6 season run). 

The Lakers also have a slightly better win percentage at 59.4 vs. 59.0 for the Celtics, though with 2 less seasons don't have as many wins, but in those 2 less seasons have 5 more playoff appearances as a result of them almost never missing the playoffs before this current run. 

The 16-17 and 17-18 season are probably the only 2 seasons in Lakers history in which they didn't have a single HOFer playing on the team.  Boston had a couple seasons post-Radja before Pierce and several after Pierce where that wasn't the case (and in reality counting Radja as a HOFer just feels wrong even though he made it in). 

So while Boston has more titles there is plenty of support to say the Lakers are historically the better franchise. 

[Phantom255x]

I don't really think it's that big of an issue honestly. I could understand being upset if it was something absurd like saying the C's are only the 7th most storied franchise or something. But whether one team is #1 or #2 between two franchises with 16 and 17 titles each is not a huge deal. Also, I think the Lakers having won 5 titles in the last few decades compared to our 1 plays a small part in all this too. But hey, if sometime in the coming year(s) we can add to the banner count then the tide can change 

[GreenFaith1819]

NBATV has MANY documentaries that I love.

They currently have "Magic and Bird: A Courtship of Rivals" on.

This helps to explain - somewhat - the rivalry between us.

[Donoghus]

I don't really think it's that big of an issue honestly. I could understand being upset if it was something absurd like saying the C's are only the 7th most storied franchise or something. But whether one team is #1 or #2 between two franchises with 16 and 17 titles each is not a huge deal. Also, I think the Lakers having won 5 titles in the last few decades compared to our 1 plays a small part in all this too. But hey, if sometime in the coming year(s) we can add to the banner count then the tide can change 

At the end of the day, it makes for a spirited bar room debate but not much else.

Certainly, not something to get too worked up about.