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

[KCattheStripe]

I still say that they should return those five titles they stole from Minneapolis.

[Roy Hobbs]

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.

Do the Lakers really have more superstars?  The Celtics have had more all-stars, more Hall of Famers, and more MVPs.

[Eja117]

Oh, and another area where I disagree with Hollinger:

Magic. Kareem. The Logo. Kobe. Shaq. When it comes to superstars, the Lakers are so far out in front of everybody else it's not even funny -- their all-time starting five would crush any other team's; in fact, it might be better than that of the rest of the league's put together.

The Celtics' real strength is their depth of great players, but they put together a pretty [dang] good starting lineup:

C: Russell
PF: McHale
SF: Bird
SG: Havlicek
PG: Cousy

In terms of how those players played against their contemporaries, I disagree that the five best Lakers would crush that team. 

Of course, if you add in players from other teams, the odds would be ridiculously against the Lakers.  How are they going to compete against a Russell/Duncan/Bird/Jordan/Robertson lineup?  That quote alone suggests that Hollinger is being far from unbiased.

If you gave me the all time stars of the Bulls or even the Spurs, Rockets, or 76ers I'd feel pretty decent about my chances. I don't even need the Celts.

[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.

Do the Lakers really have more superstars?  The Celtics have had more all-stars, more Hall of Famers, and more MVPs.

That's a legit argument.  I just think the whole "superstars" argument in the first place is waaaaaay too subjective.  What's the difference between a great basketball player or a superstar?  The opinion is going to differ from person to person.

[Truck Lewis]

this is what i found foolish

Intangibles: +150. Endless stream of superstars -- on the court and in the seats.

i could care less that Jack and Denzel are more famous than Donnie Wahlberg....whatever...

I'll take the C's 17 rings in Boston  and having Michael Bivins and McLovin over 9 titles in LA and Jack and Denzel any day any time

[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.

Do the Lakers really have more superstars?  The Celtics have had more all-stars, more Hall of Famers, and more MVPs.

That's a legit argument.  I just think the whole "superstars" argument in the first place is waaaaaay too subjective.  What's the difference between a great basketball player or a superstar?  The opinion is going to differ from person to person.

Kobe didn't look much like a superstar when Pierce was shutting him down on his way to winning finals MVP last year.

[CelticsWhat35]

Anyone else think it's ridiculous that the 32 wins the Knicks got this year is worth more points than a title?

[Truck Lewis]

Anyone else think it's ridiculous that the 32 wins the Knicks got this year is worth more points than a title?

say what?

[BballTim]

Anyone else think it's ridiculous that the 32 wins the Knicks got this year is worth more points than a title?

  Too funny. Brings up a good point, though. To win the title you have to win 16 games (32 points), 4 series (16 points) and 30 points for the title. So the entire postseason last year had less worth than two .500 seasons, or about 10-12 points more than a strong regular season.

[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?

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

It isn't like the Lakers were back loaded though.  They have been to the playoffs  56 of 61 seasons and have made the NBA Finals for the 30th time in 61 seasons (and lost in the conference finals 9 other times).  They are just quite frankly a dominate historical team and while they trail the C's in total championships, they have more wins, more playoff wins, more playoff series wins, more finals appearance, more conference finals appearances, more seasons with a playoff appearance, less awful seasons, etc.

BTW, you could have the same debate in college basketball.  Is it UCLA or is it Kentucky?  For my money I would take Kentucky even though they trail UCLA in championships.

[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?

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

It isn't like the Lakers were back loaded though.  They have been to the playoffs  56 of 61 seasons and have made the NBA Finals for the 30th time in 61 seasons (and lost in the conference finals 9 other times).  They are just quite frankly a dominate historical team and while they trail the C's in total championships, they have more wins, more playoff wins, more playoff series wins, more finals appearance, more conference finals appearances, more seasons with a playoff appearance, less awful seasons, etc.

BTW, you could have the same debate in college basketball.  Is it UCLA or is it Kentucky?  For my money I would take Kentucky even though they trail UCLA in championships.

I don't think there is an "answer", the whole exercise of assinging points based on having superstar fans as being as important as three titles, penalties for moving, etc is silly.

The Lakers are the most consistent NBA franchise, the Celtics are the most successful. Because at the end of the day the goal is to win it all.

[Roy Hobbs]

The Lakers are the most consistent NBA franchise, the Celtics are the most successful.

Yep.  I really don't see how anybody could argue that.

[Fafnir]

The Lakers are the most consistent NBA franchise, the Celtics are the most successful.

Yep.  I really don't see how anybody could argue that.

Roy have you ever met a Lakers fan? 

[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?

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

It isn't like the Lakers were back loaded though.  They have been to the playoffs  56 of 61 seasons and have made the NBA Finals for the 30th time in 61 seasons (and lost in the conference finals 9 other times).  They are just quite frankly a dominate historical team and while they trail the C's in total championships, they have more wins, more playoff wins, more playoff series wins, more finals appearance, more conference finals appearances, more seasons with a playoff appearance, less awful seasons, etc.

BTW, you could have the same debate in college basketball.  Is it UCLA or is it Kentucky?  For my money I would take Kentucky even though they trail UCLA in championships.

I don't think there is an "answer", the whole exercise of assinging points based on having superstar fans as being as important as three titles, penalties for moving, etc is silly.

The Lakers are the most consistent NBA franchise, the Celtics are the most successful. Because at the end of the day the goal is to win it all.

The intangibles and the franchise move cancel each other out, so if you just look at the objective factors (though obviously the point assigning is subjective), I think most people (outside of celtics fans) would say the Lakers are the NBA's best franchise.  If the Celtics didn't drop off the face of the earth for 15 seasons, it probably would be teh Celtics, but you just can't forget the years between Bird and KG existed.

[SSFan V]

I concur with the rankings. 

Blame 1993 - 2007