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

[Fafnir]

Mr. Hollinger, you have waaay too much time on your hands to even come up with a scoring system like that. Boston vs LA may be a wash, but c'mon...Oklahoma over Detroit?

Oklahoma is 12th? That means he is giving them all of the Sonics history. In which case I don't think its silly at all to have them that high.

[Donoghus]

Both of these has popped up on the chat but has not been addressed by Hollinger;

Dan (boston)
9 finals losses to the celtics and you rank the lakers first, that's a bold move

Joe (RI)
So we're really counting the 5 titles the lakers won in Minn. BEFORE the Shot Clock? Before the lane was widened? I mean they still used peach baskets for the 1949 season! Totally different sport.

[Casperian]

Celtics are 151-119 against the Lakers all time.

Yeah, but the Lakers win with consistency. Hollinger...

Hollinger is not the only idiot in the media (surprise, surprise), check this link which was in one of FLCeltsfan`s "daily links" a few days ago:

http://thelakersnation.com/blog/2009/06/07/michael-wilbon-lakersare-the-most-important-basketball-franchise-in-the-world/

[Donoghus]

Here we go....kind've.

Mark (PA)
John, overall, your rankings are pretty good. There does have to be some flaw in it though, maybe in the intangibles side of it because Boston is the greatest basketball franchise. The titles, the hall of famers and the mystique to go with the parquet.

John Hollinger
When I started this I thought for sure Boston would be No. 1. I was surprised the Lakers outranked them, but when you look at it, it's obvious they should be first. Boston has three more championships, 17 to 14, but the Lakers have everything else -- more wins, more playoff wins, more superstars, fewer bad years, etc.

I hate the more superstars argument.

[CelticsWhat35]

Here we go....kind've.

Mark (PA)
John, overall, your rankings are pretty good. There does have to be some flaw in it though, maybe in the intangibles side of it because Boston is the greatest basketball franchise. The titles, the hall of famers and the mystique to go with the parquet.

John Hollinger
When I started this I thought for sure Boston would be No. 1. I was surprised the Lakers outranked them, but when you look at it, it's obvious they should be first. Boston has three more championships, 17 to 14, but the Lakers have everything else -- more wins, more playoff wins, more superstars, fewer bad years, etc.

I hate the more superstars argument.

And that is such crap.  Going into it, he WANTED the Lakers to be #1.  When logic didn't pan out, he added these idiotic "intangibles" and started double counting playoff wins.

John Hollinger is a moron.  All you have to do to know the best francise in NBA history is take a seat at the Garden...and look UP.

[RAcker]

Jack Nicholson's three Oscars and twelve nominations are too much for us to contend with. Donnie Wahlberg needs to pick it up.

I'm happy I saw Eliza Dushku at the Garden in our last playoff game this post-season...

But she's dating Rick Fox.  Ewww.

Anyway, she is hotter everytime I see her.  Score one for our celebs.

[indeedproceed]

Hollinger is a scummer. He's dodging like Vince Vaughn at the end of Dodgeball.

[radiohead]

Mr. Hollinger, you have waaay too much time on your hands to even come up with a scoring system like that. Boston vs LA may be a wash, but c'mon...Oklahoma over Detroit?

Oklahoma is 12th? That means he is giving them all of the Sonics history. In which case I don't think its silly at all to have them that high.

I was just basing my statement on over all team performance through the years. Check this out:

http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/nba/seattle/sonics.html
http://sportsecyclopedia.com/nba/okc/thunder.html
http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/nba/detroit/detpistons.html

[indeedproceed]

IndeedProceed (Celticsblog.com)

John, I have two major problems with your franchise ranking. 1) The Lakers have a 150 intangibles rating, the Celtics just a 502) If you count playoff series wins, and overall wins, doesn't counting playoff wins seem redundant? Playoff wins count 3 times in your system..once in overall, once in playoff wins, and once in series wins. What does it look like without it?

BAM sucka!

[Donoghus]

Atta boy, IP!!!

[Fafnir]

IndeedProceed (Celticsblog.com)

John, I have two major problems with your franchise ranking. 1) The Lakers have a 150 intangibles rating, the Celtics just a 502) If you count playoff series wins, and overall wins, doesn't counting playoff wins seem redundant? Playoff wins count 3 times in your system..once in overall, once in playoff wins, and once in series wins. What does it look like without it?

BAM sucka!

Nice!

[indeedproceed]

IndeedProceed (Celticsblog.com)

John, I have two major problems with your franchise ranking. 1) The Lakers have a 150 intangibles rating, the Celtics just a 502) If you count playoff series wins, and overall wins, doesn't counting playoff wins seem redundant? Playoff wins count 3 times in your system..once in overall, once in playoff wins, and once in series wins. What does it look like without it?

BAM sucka!

Nice!

Ugh.

John Hollinger

To clarify, playoff wins don't also count as a regular season-win, so they're not being double counted there. The reason I count individual playoff wins is because a 4-3 series loss is different from a 4-0 series loss -- the 4-3 could have produced a lot of excitement, the 4-0 only shame and anguish. By the way, if you remove the intangibles LA still beats out Boston pretty comfortably.

[Eja117]

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?

Forgiving that when Yale and Princeton played college football was nothing like it is now and forgiving that Yale and Princeton are not only not in the BCS, but not even in D1, if suddenly somehow by some miracle those two schools started pumping out some championships and loads of first rounders again, then yes I'd be willing to entertain them as the best programs in college football history.

That's the key word. "History".  Not "since Kobe joined the team" or "Since ESPN made a ton of money off sports"

This is the equivalent of picking Florida for best college football program ever. Yes they're good but they can't possibly stack their history up to Notre Dame, Oklahoma, USC, and probably not Texas either. Also Michigan, FSU, PSU, and Nebraska would go in that discussion too.

It's like picking the Oakland A's for best ever baseball team or maaayyyybeee the Braves.

It's like picking Duke or Kansas in college basketball. Good try, but no. Not over UCLA, UNC, and Kentucky

[Eja117]

Here we go....kind've.

Mark (PA)
John, overall, your rankings are pretty good. There does have to be some flaw in it though, maybe in the intangibles side of it because Boston is the greatest basketball franchise. The titles, the hall of famers and the mystique to go with the parquet.

John Hollinger
When I started this I thought for sure Boston would be No. 1. I was surprised the Lakers outranked them, but when you look at it, it's obvious they should be first. Boston has three more championships, 17 to 14, but the Lakers have everything else -- more wins, more playoff wins, more superstars, fewer bad years, etc.

I hate the more superstars argument.

More superstars weakens the argument. If you had more of them why didn't you win more?

[nickagneta]

Here we go....kind've.

Mark (PA)
John, overall, your rankings are pretty good. There does have to be some flaw in it though, maybe in the intangibles side of it because Boston is the greatest basketball franchise. The titles, the hall of famers and the mystique to go with the parquet.

John Hollinger
When I started this I thought for sure Boston would be No. 1. I was surprised the Lakers outranked them, but when you look at it, it's obvious they should be first. Boston has three more championships, 17 to 14, but the Lakers have everything else -- more wins, more playoff wins, more superstars, fewer bad years, etc.

I hate the more superstars argument.

He has to mean modern superstars because

Russell
Heinsohn
Cowens
Havelcek
Bird
McHale
Parish
Cousy
Bill Sharman
KC Jones
Sam Jones
Jo Jo White
Pierce
Garnett
Reggie
Tiny
Frank Ramsay
Red
Walton

No less than 13 of the players put on the NBA's own 50 greatest players list played for the Celtics with 8 of those being lifetime Celtics. The Lakers had only 9 players on that list with 5 being lifetime Lakers.