Hollinger: LA Lakers #1 Basketball Franchise ever, Bos #2.

[nickagneta]

One score I would like to know is the number of Hall of Famers that spent their entire career with each team. The Lakers have a bunch of HOFers but so many weren't Lakers from start to finish. I don't understand how something like that isn't pertinent. Also would love to know which franchise leads in creating coaches from former players. Isn't that important as an intangible also?

[CelticsWhat35]

I'm sorry but the Lakers are the most successful franchise in NBA history.  I know that isn't going to be a popular viewpoint on the site, but it is reality.  The Lakers have played for the championship in 50% of the seasons in league history.  They have never had an extended down period.  And it isn't like they aren't second in titles or that far back.

Should Yale be considered the greatest college football team ever because they have the most titles?  How about Princton they are #2 on that list?

How is that a reality. It is completely and utterly subjective. If you only count playoff series won, not playoff wins, or just playoff wins, and not playoff series won, the Celtics take it.

  He doesn't count playoff losses because "nobody cares if they won 4-0 or 4-3". By that logic he should ignore playoff wins and only count series wins. If you lose the series, you lose the series.

The Lakers have won more playoff series than the Celtics.

You're missing the point.  He's given points for both playoff wins and playoff series wins.  You don't get extra points for winning a series 4-0 instead of 4-3, so why do you get points for losing a series 3-4 instead of 0-4??  It's all about advancing.  The Celtics proved that last year.  After each series, all you heard was "No team has ever won a title after going 7 games in the 1st round", followed by "No team has ever won a title after going 7 games in the 1st two rounds".  That one always made me role my eyes.  The first statement took care of that.  Each one after that is just pointless.

[Fafnir]

I'm sorry but the Lakers are the most successful franchise in NBA history.  I know that isn't going to be a popular viewpoint on the site, but it is reality.  The Lakers have played for the championship in 50% of the seasons in league history.  They have never had an extended down period.  And it isn't like they aren't second in titles or that far back.

Should Yale be considered the greatest college football team ever because they have the most titles?  How about Princton they are #2 on that list?

How is that a reality. It is completely and utterly subjective. If you only count playoff series won, not playoff wins, or just playoff wins, and not playoff series won, the Celtics take it.

  He doesn't count playoff losses because "nobody cares if they won 4-0 or 4-3". By that logic he should ignore playoff wins and only count series wins. If you lose the series, you lose the series.

The Lakers have won more playoff series than the Celtics.

That is his point, so counting playoff wins and series wins but ignoring losses boosts LA up over the Cs. The double counting of wins and series wins results in their "advantage" in his system.

[Fafnir]

One score I would like to know is the number of Hall of Famers that spent their entire career with each team. The Lakers have a bunch of HOFers but so many weren't Lakers from start to finish. I don't understand how something like that isn't pertinent. Also would love to know which franchise leads in creating coaches from former players. Isn't that important as an intangible also?

The whole idea of the Celtics having one third the intangibles of the Lakers makes me laugh.

[Moranis]

As to intanglibles, the Lakers should be ahead of the Celtics.  I mean aren't we always talking about how players don't want to come here because the city of Boston is thought of as racist.  The weather sucks.  The taxes are high.  The city has a terrible reputation nationally.  The Lakers should be at the top of every list when rating intangibles.  

Also, the Lakers longest stretch without a Finals appearance is 8 years.  They have had just one other stretch above 5 years.

[CelticsWhat35]

As to intanglibles, the Lakers should be ahead of the Celtics.  I mean aren't we always talking about how players don't want to come here because the city of Boston is thought of as racist.  The weather sucks.  The taxes are high.  The city has a terrible reputation nationally.  The Lakers should be at the top of every list when rating intangibles.  

Also, the Lakers longest stretch without a Finals appearance is 8 years.  They have had just one other stretch above 5 years.

That's what people were saying when the Celtics were losing.  Funny how that's not the case anymore. 

[Moranis]

I'm sorry but the Lakers are the most successful franchise in NBA history.  I know that isn't going to be a popular viewpoint on the site, but it is reality.  The Lakers have played for the championship in 50% of the seasons in league history.  They have never had an extended down period.  And it isn't like they aren't second in titles or that far back.

Should Yale be considered the greatest college football team ever because they have the most titles?  How about Princton they are #2 on that list?

How is that a reality. It is completely and utterly subjective. If you only count playoff series won, not playoff wins, or just playoff wins, and not playoff series won, the Celtics take it.

  He doesn't count playoff losses because "nobody cares if they won 4-0 or 4-3". By that logic he should ignore playoff wins and only count series wins. If you lose the series, you lose the series.

The Lakers have won more playoff series than the Celtics.

That is his point, so counting playoff wins and series wins but ignoring losses boosts LA up over the Cs. The double counting of wins and series wins results in their "advantage" in his system.

Entering this years playoffs the Lakers playoff win percentage was 60%, the Celtics was 58%.  I'm not sure what exactly your point is.  The Lakers have won games at a higher percentage than the Celtics.  Yes the Lakers have more losses, but they also have more wins.

[Hoyo de Monterrey]

As to intanglibles, the Lakers should be ahead of the Celtics.  I mean aren't we always talking about how players don't want to come here because the city of Boston is thought of as racist.  The weather sucks.  The taxes are high.  The city has a terrible reputation nationally.  The Lakers should be at the top of every list when rating intangibles.  

Also, the Lakers longest stretch without a Finals appearance is 8 years.  They have had just one other stretch above 5 years.

Well then congratulations to the Clippers for tying the Lakers in the intangibles category, right?

[crownsy]

As to intanglibles, the Lakers should be ahead of the Celtics.  I mean aren't we always talking about how players don't want to come here because the city of Boston is thought of as racist.  The weather sucks.  The taxes are high.  The city has a terrible reputation nationally.  The Lakers should be at the top of every list when rating intangibles.  

Also, the Lakers longest stretch without a Finals appearance is 8 years.  They have had just one other stretch above 5 years.

Ok, for the sake of argument put them ahead. but we scored THE ABSOLUTE LOWEST on intangibles scale that you can. 50 is the bottom of the ladder.

Are you honestly going to argue that our history is no more storied than the Charlotte bobcats?

Or is it more likely JH needed a place to offset the 100 point moving penalty he imposed on the lakers, which this nicely does?

[Fafnir]

I'm sorry but the Lakers are the most successful franchise in NBA history.  I know that isn't going to be a popular viewpoint on the site, but it is reality.  The Lakers have played for the championship in 50% of the seasons in league history.  They have never had an extended down period.  And it isn't like they aren't second in titles or that far back.

Should Yale be considered the greatest college football team ever because they have the most titles?  How about Princton they are #2 on that list?

How is that a reality. It is completely and utterly subjective. If you only count playoff series won, not playoff wins, or just playoff wins, and not playoff series won, the Celtics take it.

  He doesn't count playoff losses because "nobody cares if they won 4-0 or 4-3". By that logic he should ignore playoff wins and only count series wins. If you lose the series, you lose the series.

The Lakers have won more playoff series than the Celtics.

That is his point, so counting playoff wins and series wins but ignoring losses boosts LA up over the Cs. The double counting of wins and series wins results in their "advantage" in his system.

Entering this years playoffs the Lakers playoff win percentage was 60%, the Celtics was 58%.  I'm not sure what exactly your point is.  The Lakers have won games at a higher percentage than the Celtics.  Yes the Lakers have more losses, but they also have more wins.

Read Indeedproceeds fan post on the issue the link is in the first post of the thread.

[Fafnir]

As to intanglibles, the Lakers should be ahead of the Celtics.  I mean aren't we always talking about how players don't want to come here because the city of Boston is thought of as racist.  The weather sucks.  The taxes are high.  The city has a terrible reputation nationally.  The Lakers should be at the top of every list when rating intangibles.  

Also, the Lakers longest stretch without a Finals appearance is 8 years.  They have had just one other stretch above 5 years.

Ok, for the sake of argument put them ahead. but we scored THE ABSOLUTE LOWEST on intangibles scale that you can. 50 is the bottom of the ladder.

This is incorrect. You could get 150-50 points added or subracted.

[CelticsWhat35]

Anyone else feel like John Hollinger is in this thread?

[Fafnir]

As to intanglibles, the Lakers should be ahead of the Celtics.  I mean aren't we always talking about how players don't want to come here because the city of Boston is thought of as racist.  The weather sucks.  The taxes are high.  The city has a terrible reputation nationally.  The Lakers should be at the top of every list when rating intangibles.  

Also, the Lakers longest stretch without a Finals appearance is 8 years.  They have had just one other stretch above 5 years.

Well then congratulations to the Clippers for tying the Lakers in the intangibles category, right?

Intangibles is about hype I guess....

[Moranis]

As to intanglibles, the Lakers should be ahead of the Celtics.  I mean aren't we always talking about how players don't want to come here because the city of Boston is thought of as racist.  The weather sucks.  The taxes are high.  The city has a terrible reputation nationally.  The Lakers should be at the top of every list when rating intangibles.  

Also, the Lakers longest stretch without a Finals appearance is 8 years.  They have had just one other stretch above 5 years.

That's what people were saying when the Celtics were losing.  Funny how that's not the case anymore. 

And what notable free agents have the Celtics signed?

[Fafnir]

As to intanglibles, the Lakers should be ahead of the Celtics.  I mean aren't we always talking about how players don't want to come here because the city of Boston is thought of as racist.  The weather sucks.  The taxes are high.  The city has a terrible reputation nationally.  The Lakers should be at the top of every list when rating intangibles.  

Also, the Lakers longest stretch without a Finals appearance is 8 years.  They have had just one other stretch above 5 years.

That's what people were saying when the Celtics were losing.  Funny how that's not the case anymore. 

And what notable free agents have the Celtics signed?

Intangibles matter too, and I created a separate category for special circumstances. For instance, the Blazers of the early part of this decade were perfectly respectable in terms of wins and losses, but few were eager to admit rooting for that team because of all the scoundrels littering the roster. This is the one part that's completely subjective, but for several teams I subtracted or added 50 to 150 points based on playing styles, player behavior, superstars and other major factors.

So do the Celtics lose out on intangibles by 100 points, which is equal to three titles, for being a cold city? For not having enough Superstars? For not having a good tradition? For having an 80s squad with more white players than the Lakers? For having an the first black coach?

Its very subjective and a silly category to include.