Mavericks (1-3) at Celtics (3-1) NBA Finals Game 5 6/17/24

[Phantom255x]

The Celtics won the championship literally 17 hours ago. The Celtics have officially passed the Lakers in championship count, that's an actual fact.

So who the hell cares about who is more relevant or "the better franchise". Again, Boston won it all last night. Lakers have been in Cancun for over a month. Only "NYESPN/LAESPN" is keeping them relevant otherwise no one really cares outside of LA.

[Kernewek]

Lakers tears in LA today are delicious 

"They had the easiest path in NBA history."
"They never played the Gianni's Bucks. They never played Embiid 76ers. They never played the Knicks. Doesn't count in my books"
"Still can't win like how the Lakers were in the 80s. We dominated each decade going foward. Celtics gonna go on anther 16 year drought for their next one bahaha"

We were always ahead idk why the media was thinking we just got the lead again. Lakers have 11 banners. 5 in Minneapolis. They also had 1 in Disney World. 

This was a pure marketing move by the lakers that the NBA and media were more than happy to go along with.  Prior to the early 2000's no one ever brought up the Minneapolis championships.  The lakers had experienced their own championship drought when Phil Jackson became coach.  I think that was the first year in Staples Center (moving from the forum) and they won a few.  It was only then that those extra five started getting mentioned.  It was a chasing history themed PR move that the lakers came up with and everyone ran with it.

ESPN was talking today about the best franchise in the NBA.  SAS's picked the Lakers because they went to more finals then the Celtics.  There were a few good arguments like well the C's went to less and won more and 9 of those finals from the Lakers they lost to the Celtics.  No one unfortunately brought up the fact that 5 of the championships were in Minnesota.  To me either they don't know or didn't state it to back their narrative.  Why does losing more championships make you the better franchise.  The Celtics are clearly the best franchise in the NBA and outside of the Yankees (Who I hate.  Guardians fan here) and Patriots are the best or a top two Franchise in sports history.  The Canadiens have won 24 stanley cups but I don't think Hockey has the fan base of the NFL, MLB or NBA.

The Lakers championships from Minnesota would be like the Green Bay Packers counting their nine pre-Super Bowl era NFL championships and the Cleveland Browns counting their four NFL championships (1950, 1954?55, 1964) and four All-America Football Conference (AAFC) championships (1946?49).  It's garbage that they consider another cities victories as part of their history.

the Lakers have more playoff appearances. and more finals appearances. And while Boston has 18 titles, 11 of them were before 1970 in a vastly different time in the sport. I think that matters some (no one claims Princeton and Yale are the top college football programs because they have the most titles).

And of course the titles in Minnesota count. They were won by the franchise or are you going to count them for the Timberwolves. 

Do the Sixers have 2, 3, or 4 championships?

I think there's probably a fair point to be made about counting titles from before and after the merger, but as you point out no one in the NBA does that seriously.

[celticinorlando]

I?ll say it?they go back to back next year.

[Phantom255x]

I?ll say it?they go back to back next year.

Yeah assuming they stay healthy (big if), it's hard not to see them at least get back to the Finals.

The East may get better and healthier but can most of those guys still remain healthy, and some of it also depends on where some of the FAs like Klay/George/Anunoby go. I think there's a decent chance MIL takes a step back. Boston pretty much steamrolled everyone this year and I truthfully think they would have done the same to the other East teams given their injuries and/or paths.

[RMO]

The Celtics won the championship literally 17 hours ago. The Celtics have officially passed the Lakers in championship count, that's an actual fact.

So who the hell cares about who is more relevant or "the better franchise". Again, Boston won it all last night. Lakers have been in Cancun for over a month. Only "NYESPN/LAESPN" is keeping them relevant otherwise no one really cares outside of LA.

Agreed.  ESPN is doing everything it can to keep the lakers in the conversation.

[Phantom255x]

It's still surreal. We actually did it!

And to me, this run reminds me of... the dominant and historic 2018 Red Sox.

That team dominated all season (108-54 record), and then went 11-3 in the postseason. This team went 64-18 and then 16-3 in the postseason. Whenever they lost in the playoffs, since they did it so rarely it felt like "omg the sky is falling" for both teams but then they always rebounded and just steamrolled teams. Despite the national media and local radio saying they couldn't do it either.

[tonydelk]

Lakers tears in LA today are delicious 

"They had the easiest path in NBA history."
"They never played the Gianni's Bucks. They never played Embiid 76ers. They never played the Knicks. Doesn't count in my books"
"Still can't win like how the Lakers were in the 80s. We dominated each decade going foward. Celtics gonna go on anther 16 year drought for their next one bahaha"

We were always ahead idk why the media was thinking we just got the lead again. Lakers have 11 banners. 5 in Minneapolis. They also had 1 in Disney World. 

This was a pure marketing move by the lakers that the NBA and media were more than happy to go along with.  Prior to the early 2000's no one ever brought up the Minneapolis championships.  The lakers had experienced their own championship drought when Phil Jackson became coach.  I think that was the first year in Staples Center (moving from the forum) and they won a few.  It was only then that those extra five started getting mentioned.  It was a chasing history themed PR move that the lakers came up with and everyone ran with it.

ESPN was talking today about the best franchise in the NBA.  SAS's picked the Lakers because they went to more finals then the Celtics.  There were a few good arguments like well the C's went to less and won more and 9 of those finals from the Lakers they lost to the Celtics.  No one unfortunately brought up the fact that 5 of the championships were in Minnesota.  To me either they don't know or didn't state it to back their narrative.  Why does losing more championships make you the better franchise.  The Celtics are clearly the best franchise in the NBA and outside of the Yankees (Who I hate.  Guardians fan here) and Patriots are the best or a top two Franchise in sports history.  The Canadiens have won 24 stanley cups but I don't think Hockey has the fan base of the NFL, MLB or NBA.

The Lakers championships from Minnesota would be like the Green Bay Packers counting their nine pre-Super Bowl era NFL championships and the Cleveland Browns counting their four NFL championships (1950, 1954?55, 1964) and four All-America Football Conference (AAFC) championships (1946?49).  It's garbage that they consider another cities victories as part of their history.

the Lakers have more playoff appearances. and more finals appearances. And while Boston has 18 titles, 11 of them were before 1970 in a vastly different time in the sport. I think that matters some (no one claims Princeton and Yale are the top college football programs because they have the most titles).

And of course the titles in Minnesota count. They were won by the franchise or are you going to count them for the Timberwolves. 

Do the Sixers have 2, 3, or 4 championships?

Ok with that mindset the Baltimore Ravens moved to Baltimore from Cleveland.  Should the NFL championships the Browns won count towards Baltimore's total?  No it stayed in Cleveland and the franchise continued when they got an expansion team.  When a city buys a franchise by getting them to move to their city they don't buy the history that went with it.  The games were played in the former city not the current one.

IMO The Titles Minnesota won stay in Minnesota with a franchise that died or they below to the Timberwolves.  When the A's leave Oakland that History stays there.  It doesn't move to Vegas with the team.  Vegas day 1 is the 1st day of that franchises history.  Anything that happened in Oakland stays in Oakland. 

[tonydelk]

Miami, Cleveland, Indy, Dallas.  How'd this work out for you? LOL!

https://www.barstoolsports.com/blog/3517266/every-single-fanbase-that-chanted-we-want-boston-during-the-playoffs-found-out-exactly-why-you-should-never-poke-the-bear

[Phantom255x]

Miami, Cleveland, Indy, Dallas.  How'd this work out for you? LOL!

https://www.barstoolsports.com/blog/3517266/every-single-fanbase-that-chanted-we-want-boston-during-the-playoffs-found-out-exactly-why-you-should-never-poke-the-bear

A lot of people wore those "You Got Boston" shirts at TD Garden lol. And when they were presenting the trophies, there were a few small stretches where there were "We Want Boston" chants probably as mockery 

[SparzWizard]

Miami, Cleveland, Indy, Dallas.  How'd this work out for you? LOL!

https://www.barstoolsports.com/blog/3517266/every-single-fanbase-that-chanted-we-want-boston-during-the-playoffs-found-out-exactly-why-you-should-never-poke-the-bear

WHO ELSE WANTS BOSTON?!

[Moranis]

Lakers tears in LA today are delicious 

"They had the easiest path in NBA history."
"They never played the Gianni's Bucks. They never played Embiid 76ers. They never played the Knicks. Doesn't count in my books"
"Still can't win like how the Lakers were in the 80s. We dominated each decade going foward. Celtics gonna go on anther 16 year drought for their next one bahaha"

We were always ahead idk why the media was thinking we just got the lead again. Lakers have 11 banners. 5 in Minneapolis. They also had 1 in Disney World. 

This was a pure marketing move by the lakers that the NBA and media were more than happy to go along with.  Prior to the early 2000's no one ever brought up the Minneapolis championships.  The lakers had experienced their own championship drought when Phil Jackson became coach.  I think that was the first year in Staples Center (moving from the forum) and they won a few.  It was only then that those extra five started getting mentioned.  It was a chasing history themed PR move that the lakers came up with and everyone ran with it.

ESPN was talking today about the best franchise in the NBA.  SAS's picked the Lakers because they went to more finals then the Celtics.  There were a few good arguments like well the C's went to less and won more and 9 of those finals from the Lakers they lost to the Celtics.  No one unfortunately brought up the fact that 5 of the championships were in Minnesota.  To me either they don't know or didn't state it to back their narrative.  Why does losing more championships make you the better franchise.  The Celtics are clearly the best franchise in the NBA and outside of the Yankees (Who I hate.  Guardians fan here) and Patriots are the best or a top two Franchise in sports history.  The Canadiens have won 24 stanley cups but I don't think Hockey has the fan base of the NFL, MLB or NBA.

The Lakers championships from Minnesota would be like the Green Bay Packers counting their nine pre-Super Bowl era NFL championships and the Cleveland Browns counting their four NFL championships (1950, 1954?55, 1964) and four All-America Football Conference (AAFC) championships (1946?49).  It's garbage that they consider another cities victories as part of their history.

the Lakers have more playoff appearances. and more finals appearances. And while Boston has 18 titles, 11 of them were before 1970 in a vastly different time in the sport. I think that matters some (no one claims Princeton and Yale are the top college football programs because they have the most titles).

And of course the titles in Minnesota count. They were won by the franchise or are you going to count them for the Timberwolves. 

Do the Sixers have 2, 3, or 4 championships?

Ok with that mindset the Baltimore Ravens moved to Baltimore from Cleveland.  Should the NFL championships the Browns won count towards Baltimore's total?  No it stayed in Cleveland and the franchise continued when they got an expansion team.  When a city buys a franchise by getting them to move to their city they don't buy the history that went with it.  The games were played in the former city not the current one.

IMO The Titles Minnesota won stay in Minnesota with a franchise that died or they below to the Timberwolves.  When the A's leave Oakland that History stays there.  It doesn't move to Vegas with the team.  Vegas day 1 is the 1st day of that franchises history.  Anything that happened in Oakland stays in Oakland.

that just isn't how it works. Cleveland sued in court to keep the name and history, that is why it stayed, otherwise it would have counted for the Ravens.

The Warriors have 7 titles, the Sixers have 3 titles, even the lowly Hawks and Kings have 1, and the Lakers have 17. That is simply how it works.

[Roy H.]

Lakers tears in LA today are delicious 

"They had the easiest path in NBA history."
"They never played the Gianni's Bucks. They never played Embiid 76ers. They never played the Knicks. Doesn't count in my books"
"Still can't win like how the Lakers were in the 80s. We dominated each decade going foward. Celtics gonna go on anther 16 year drought for their next one bahaha"

We were always ahead idk why the media was thinking we just got the lead again. Lakers have 11 banners. 5 in Minneapolis. They also had 1 in Disney World. 

This was a pure marketing move by the lakers that the NBA and media were more than happy to go along with.  Prior to the early 2000's no one ever brought up the Minneapolis championships.  The lakers had experienced their own championship drought when Phil Jackson became coach.  I think that was the first year in Staples Center (moving from the forum) and they won a few.  It was only then that those extra five started getting mentioned.  It was a chasing history themed PR move that the lakers came up with and everyone ran with it.

ESPN was talking today about the best franchise in the NBA.  SAS's picked the Lakers because they went to more finals then the Celtics.  There were a few good arguments like well the C's went to less and won more and 9 of those finals from the Lakers they lost to the Celtics.  No one unfortunately brought up the fact that 5 of the championships were in Minnesota.  To me either they don't know or didn't state it to back their narrative.  Why does losing more championships make you the better franchise.  The Celtics are clearly the best franchise in the NBA and outside of the Yankees (Who I hate.  Guardians fan here) and Patriots are the best or a top two Franchise in sports history.  The Canadiens have won 24 stanley cups but I don't think Hockey has the fan base of the NFL, MLB or NBA.

The Lakers championships from Minnesota would be like the Green Bay Packers counting their nine pre-Super Bowl era NFL championships and the Cleveland Browns counting their four NFL championships (1950, 1954?55, 1964) and four All-America Football Conference (AAFC) championships (1946?49).  It's garbage that they consider another cities victories as part of their history.

the Lakers have more playoff appearances. and more finals appearances. And while Boston has 18 titles, 11 of them were before 1970 in a vastly different time in the sport. I think that matters some (no one claims Princeton and Yale are the top college football programs because they have the most titles).

And of course the titles in Minnesota count. They were won by the franchise or are you going to count them for the Timberwolves. 

Do the Sixers have 2, 3, or 4 championships?

Ok with that mindset the Baltimore Ravens moved to Baltimore from Cleveland.  Should the NFL championships the Browns won count towards Baltimore's total?  No it stayed in Cleveland and the franchise continued when they got an expansion team.  When a city buys a franchise by getting them to move to their city they don't buy the history that went with it.  The games were played in the former city not the current one.

IMO The Titles Minnesota won stay in Minnesota with a franchise that died or they below to the Timberwolves.  When the A's leave Oakland that History stays there.  It doesn't move to Vegas with the team.  Vegas day 1 is the 1st day of that franchises history.  Anything that happened in Oakland stays in Oakland.

that just isn't how it works. Cleveland sued in court to keep the name and history, that is why it stayed, otherwise it would have counted for the Ravens.

The Warriors have 7 titles, the Sixers have 3 titles, even the lowly Hawks and Kings have 1, and the Lakers have 17. That is simply how it works.

I agree.  I actually think it's stupid that the Browns titles didn't move to Baltimore, but that's always because there was going to be a new Browns team in expansion.  Same thing with the Sonics.  I find that stuff silly, like if Durant had won a title in Seattle his last year, and repeated in OKC, the argument would be that it wasn't a repeat?

The Lakers franchise has 17 titles.  The City of LA may not, but the LA Lakers do.  Arguably, the Lakers have more right to their titles than the Celtics do, haha.

When Irv Levin sold the Celtics, he technically swapped franchises with the Buffalo Braves.

?My understanding, as best as I can remember, is that the current Celtics team is a successor to the Buffalo Braves,?? Russ Granik, former deputy commissioner of the N.B.A., said in a telephone conversation on Tuesday. He was the N.B.A.?s assistant general counsel in 1978.

And that would mean that the current Clippers team is the successor to the Boston Celtics?

?Yes,?? Granik said. ?In a strictly legal sense.?

....

The business entity that owned the Boston Celtics in 1978 moved to San Diego and became the business entity that owned the Clippers. When deferred compensation checks were mailed out to the likes of former Celtics player and coach Tom Heinsohn and others, they were from the Clippers? bank account.

[mobilija]

Miami, Cleveland, Indy, Dallas.  How'd this work out for you? LOL!

https://www.barstoolsports.com/blog/3517266/every-single-fanbase-that-chanted-we-want-boston-during-the-playoffs-found-out-exactly-why-you-should-never-poke-the-bear

WHO ELSE WANTS BOSTON?!

They all WANT TO BE BOSTON!

[W8ting2McHale]

IT might have been King of the 4th quarter, but PP has laid claim to King of the End of the Quarter with all those long range shots he hit this playoff run. Or does King of the Last 4 Seconds sound better?

[Billz401]

I know we had a couple people at the game tonight, did any of you happen to catch what JB said in his FMVP acceptance? ABC cut audio twice for a few seconds for what I'm assuming was some curse words from Jaylen lol

Here's the uncensored version

https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/1digzdw/jaylen_browns_first_remarks_accepting_the_finals/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

TY, TP