Defusing the Celtics 9-2 finals edge over the Lakers

[BoyBee]

Time to put this nonsense to sleep once and for all.  Can’t believe I wrote this much (I rarely post, but I love to read)

Wow. You should post more often  TP for a very nice post

Thank you bro-hams.  It's certainly in good fun... just can't wait for the season to start.  I think if we hold on to Baby & sign Lue or even Marbs, we're set.  Another mid-season big or 3/4 and yee-hah!

[ACF]

Fun game!  OK, I’ll play along.  The OP seems like a decent guy, but he takes a lot of liberties with actual fact and tortuously tries to represent them as a new set of facts.

“I offer up the following article as historical fact…”

“However, if people are to debate, the facts must be known.”

He immediately proceeds into a lengthy and pointless discussion of the Spurs vs. Lakers in the 90s (?)

Then comes the poor meat of his argument:  the Lakers (the LA Lakers, folks – not George Mikan’s Minneapolis team in 1949;  sheesh!) didn’t get to play the Celtics in their banner years of “1972, 1980, 1982, 1988, and 2002.”  “…with a bit of luck and fate, we could have met six more times in the finals and I feel the score would be Lakers 7, Celtics 3 over the post Russell era.”

This is not logic or fact at all.  It is flat-out fantasizing: it didn’t happen, Dreamweaver.  Look, I’m a Bruins fan, take a look at our playoff record against the Canadians sometime.  There’s some futility and heartache for you right there.  But no self-respecting B’s fan goes to the lengths that the Laker revisionists (howdy, Hollinger!) go to in order to twist the truth into an indigestible purple and yellow pretzel.  They are utilizing the LAW OF COMMON USAGE:  Repeat a lie often enough, & get enough people to repeat it with you, and it becomes the truth.

These are the facts, and they are indisputable in regard to actual championships:

Head-to-Head:  Boston Celtics 9, Los Angeles Lakers 2

Overall:  Boston Celtics 17, Los Angeles Lakers 10

Laker fans seem haunted by the Celtics in the same way that Jerry West looks haunted whenever he has to relive going up against the C’s when the bacon was on the line.  All the media roar and greasepaint for a state with a population of 11 million people did not make the hoped-for difference time and time again against the little town of Boston (about ½ million people).  Which is why Red, bless him, made it a point to laud the C’s achievements to the skies every time they overcame a media that coddled the majority (by playing up to the Lakers) and an opponent that acted as if the championship belonged to them just because they showed up (1969 anyone?  2008?  2010…?).  I am so proud of the Celtics for what they have done time and time again, against all kinds of long odds.

Now (and a big thanks to Greg for pointing out what was going unsaid), there’s the matter of the Dark Years.  You know, the death of Len Bias to begin with.  If you want to fantasize, consider how many titles the Celtics would have won with a guy who was bigger than Michael Jordan, had a better shot than MJ, and was considered by those “in the know” to be a absolute stud.  He was described as “can’t miss” among the college coaches who saw him up close, and every NBA team wailed about the rich getting richer... sorry, you can't handicap Red for having the best brain in the barn. If Bias gets the chance to live up to his promise, Larry, Kevin, Chief, and DJ don’t have to play the ungodly minutes that wore down their bodies prematurely.  As in:  Bird’s bone spurs and bad back, and McHale’s broken foot, for starters.  The Celtics were set for a long time, and the blackout 90s don’t happen. I award three banners easy to a team which hasn’t been taken apart that cruelly.

Of course, there wasn't even cap relief from the league, so the C’s were crippled literally and figuratively.  They couldn’t so much as go out and pick up a serviceable replacement. 

I say we beat the Lakers in ’87 without these catastrophes.  And man, did we ever show up anyway…  4-2, not a foregone conclusion no matter what the circumstance.  It took McHale letting a board slip away in order for that “Real Jr.-Jr.-and-a-bag-of-shell-zizzles” skyhook from Magic to happen.  It was that close.

Consider also the death of Reggie Lewis, our captain, which further forestalled the recapturing of our rightful glory.  And hey, in order to be fair & balanced, don’t forget a bunch of lottery ping-pong balls that somehow defied mathematical odds… these are a lot of gut-punches that would have brought any team down. We absolutely win a slew of additional titles with Tim Duncan manning the paint.  I’ll accept the 5 that he won with the Spurs for the sake of argument.

If I can dream too, I want all the titles that death, injury, unfairness, and mathematical fishiness cost us.  That’s much more fair than what-iffing about meeting in a few conveniently-selected years.

   

Head-to-Head:  Boston Celtics 10, Los Angeles Lakers 1

Overall:  Boston Celtics 26 Los Angeles Lakers 4

That’s what it looks like if you are playing a more realistic version of “What-If”. This much-improved WOULDA-SHOULDA HONOR ROLE is clear proof how dominant a franchise the Boston Celtics are, one of the best in the history of all North American sports combined (howdy, Hollinger!).  Only death, severe injury, and flatly unfair anti-Celtic bias on the part of the NBA front office could slow us down.  The Dark Times were real, and they were unfair.  Real-world unfair, not sitting on a bar stool & slurring in-between sips of Flakertinis:  “Y’know, I really wish we could have played the Celtics in our other banner years – we really would have shown them.  It’s so unfair.  Pass me an olive.”

I just feel like tossing in here that I deeply came to admire Magic, Kareem, Riles, Worthy, and others after I heard them speak with thoughtful and high respect for our boys.  I keed and I keed, but these were glorious times against worthy opponents and good men.  And sorry, Kobe just isn’t these guys… my perspective might change given time, but it’s how I see it right now. A plastic and uninspiring punk-face. What a player, though.


“So, you Celtics fans see it as Boston 9 Lakers 2. However, that only counts 11 of the 61 seasons the two teams have been in the league, which many feel is misleading.  To back that up notice that the Celtics advantage of 7 titles over the Lakers head-to-head drops to 2 titles when all are counted, 17-15. We Lakers fans see Lakers 37 Celtics 24 as the true and accurate assessment comparing the two teams over the entire history of the NBA.”

I think this guff has been thoroughly debunked by now by plenty of other posters (really, anyone with an intact frontal lobe) by now.  I mean, lookit:  it is “historical fact” that if the Celtics make it to the finals, they’re probably going to win (17 out of 20 – without the woulda-couldas, and without having the luxury of waltzing through a traditionally weaker Western conference – remember that Russ was injured in the finals against St. Louis to boot… should be 12 rings for him & another for the C’s.  The Lakers – any version – are not even .500!).  Which is the real champion with the eye of the tiger I ask?  Which franchise doesn’t blink when the prize is in the cross-hairs?  We’ve never gone down all easy-peasey (4-0 or even 4-1) when it was time to show up for real. Never, ever suffered a 131-92 annhilation in a finals close-out game. Can you make the same claim?   

Time to put this nonsense to sleep once and for all.  Can’t believe I wrote this much (I rarely post, but I love to read), but hey, it’s my team!  I’ll stand up for them too.  [Anyone want to send this to ESPN for the sake of being “fair & balanced”?]. 

Good luck to all, 2010 is shaping up quite tasty, thank you very much.  And may I say here, with all my heart:  THANK YOU, DANNY!  THANK YOU, RED!  Russ, Cooz, Hondo… not enough ink in my keyboard…

See you in the finals in 2010?

Have another olive my man, and be careful what you wish for.

Boom, TP!

[radiohead]

The NBA is both a business and a competition. Some teams (or team owners for that matter) may be happy to simply "contend" for the championship for as long as the franchise is making money. But from a fan's point of view (mine at least), the ultimate goal of every NBA team is to win a championship. So if you're saying that the Lakers are better than the Celtics simply because they have been more consistent in terms of winning, making the playoffs, going deep into the playoffs, etc., then I'm happy for you. Congrats for being in the thick of things year in and year out. Perhaps we Celtics fans have a higher standard of what "success" really is. Oh, and maybe that's exactly the reason why the Celtics only put up Championship Banners on their home floor. 

[Lakers_55]

I wish to thank again the people posting in this thread, particularly the classy Boston fans that stepped forward and showed real sportsmanship. I feel compelled to answer one particular counter argument. It has been stated in here that the Celtics had a tougher time in the east than the Lakers did in the west, and that’s the reason the Lakers have more finals appearances, and why the Celtics don’t. Some people have even stated put Boston in the west, and the Celtics get a lot more titles. Well, this latter statement is wrong in concept, it’s always been East versus West, and that’s how we measure things.

Well, this argument, on further examination, doesn’t hold up as near as much as Boston fans think. As a matter of fact, it doesn’t at all! Let’s review history, that’s the only way we can judge things. I will break things up by eras for clarity, but still end up with a complete examination. Since titles and conference finals results are considered as one tally each, we can only measure respective teams by the level of competition they faced. This doesn’t devalue or overstate any team in any season.

First off, the Lakers WCF record is 30-9, the Celtics ECF record is 20-11. Breaking up by Home court advantage, the Lakers are 18-4 when hosting the WCF, and 12-5 when not. The Celtics are 17-6 when hosting the ECF and 3-5 when not. As far as the regular season goes, the Lakers had a much tougher time in the conference finals  than the Celtics did, and performed better both at home and on the road.  I will get to the level of competition later. A far as the finals go, the Lakers are 15-15, the Celtics 17-3. Lakers having HCA in the finals have a record of 12-3, when not it’s 3-12. Celtics have a record of 15-2 when hosting the finals, 2-1 when not. The home records are close to even, edge to Celtics. The huge disparity in road results is explained because Boston has 10 fewer finals appearances. They weren’t good enough to get to the finals as many times as the Lakers, and this too will be explained later.

Now let’s examine by era. I’ll start with the George Mikan days. These also include the pre-Russell Celtics. Cousy and Sharman were playing for the Celtics and were good enough to get the Celtics into the ECF, but without HCA.

Finals records:
Lakers 5-0 (4-0 with HCA, 1-0 without HCA)
Celtics 0-0
Conference finals records:
Lakers 5-2 (3-1 with HCA, 2-1 without HCA, one year without Mikan)
Celtics 0-3 (All without HCA)

Worth noting is that the Lakers won three playoff series in separate years witohut HCA and still won the title in each. The Lakers did better than expected by proving they were the best team.

Now, let’s move on to the Bill Russell era.

Finals records during Russell era:
Lakers 0-7 (0-1 with HCA, 0-6 without HCA)
Celtics 11-1 (10-1 with HCA, 1-0 without HCA)
Conference Finals records:
Lakers 7-3 (6-0 with HCA, 1-3 without HCA)
Celtics 12-1 (9-0 with HCA, 3-1 without HCA)

Boston proved they were the best team in the NBA over these 13 years and it’s easier to say they could have done worse than better. Their record in series against a Chamberlain team was 6-1. (One was a finals series. Remember, the Lakers had to deal with Wilt in their conference for a few years, and Boston didn’t). Let me quote Wilt regarding his playoff losses to the Celtics “I would always beat the pants off of Russell, but his 4 guys would beat my 4 guys.”

Cumulative totals:
Finals records:
Lakers 5-7 (With HCA 4-1, without HCA 1-6)
Celtics 11-1 (With HCA 10-1, without HCA 1-0)
Conference Finals records
Lakers  12-5 (With HCA 9-1, without HCA 3-4)
Celtics 12-4 (With HCA 9-0, without HCA 3-4)

Those are almost exactly even. [Edit May 22, 2010. What I mean by even are conference finals appearances which is the topic of this post, sorry for the confusion] As a matter of fact, Boston, by winning 3 ECF series without HCA has matched the Lakers success of the Mikan era when they won 3 series without HCA. Actually, Boston topped that as they won all their playoff series in 1969 without HCA. So far, the numbers show the topic is a virtual wash. Now the question is, how easy did the Lakers have it winning the WCF in the Russell era? Well, the Hawks fielded some very tough teams both in the beginning and end of the Russell era, and the Warriors were excellent opponents as well. There were other worthy opponents. Also, the Lakers regular season results in the early Los Angeles years were not impressive. Still, the Celtics gained back the five finals appearances advantage the Lakers once had. Russell dominated his era, Mikan did in his. If the Lakers don’t win the west as often as they did, Boston gets an easier finals matchup. However, with the Lakers winning the west 7 times, including once without HCA, they did about as well as they could have.

Now, the Russell era has closed. Let’s first examine the next 40 years, then break them down by player eras. From 1970 to 2009, the record is West 20 titles, East 20 titles. That’s a wash. Let’s break the championships down by teams:

West: Lakers 10, Spurs 4, Rockets 2, Warriors 1, Sonics 1, Trailblazers 1, Bucks 1.
East: Celtics 6, Bulls 6, Pistons 3, Knicks 2, Bullets 1, 76rs 1, Heat 1.

Let me give you the real reason Boston trails the Lakers with 10 fewer finals appearances, and 8 fewer conference finals appearances and this will be backed up later:

Times missed playoffs since 1969: Lakers 4, Celtics 13.

So let’s break the post Russell Lakers down into 3 eras; 1) Chamberlain and West, 2) Kareem/Showtime, and 3)Kobe era. Likewise we’ll  break the Celtics into 3 eras: 1) Cowens/White/Havlicek, 2)Bird era, 3) Post Bird.

Finals records:
Lakers (Chamberlain and West) 1-2 (1-1 with HCA, 0-1 without)
Lakers (Showtime ) 5-4 (3-0 with HCA, 2-4 without HCA)
Lakers (Kobe) 4-2 ( 4-1 with HCA, 0-1 without HCA)
Celtics (Cowens/White/Havlicek) 2-0 ( 1-0 with HCA, 1-0 without HCA)
Celtics (Bird)  3-2 (3-1 with HCA, 0-1 without HCA)
Celtics (Post Bird) (1-0 with HCA)

Conference Finals records:
Lakers  3-1(Chamberlain and West)  (2-0 with HCA, 1-1 without HCA)
Lakers (Kareem/Showtime )  9-2 (8-2 with HCA, 1-0 without HCA)
Lakers (Kobe) 6-1 (3-0 with HCA, 3-1 without HCA)
Celtics  (Cowens/White/Havlicek) 2-3 (2-3 with HCA)
Celtics (Bird) 5-3 (5-3 with HCA)
Celtics (Post Bird) 1-1 (1-0 with HCA, 0-1 without HCA)

Cumulative totals, post Russell
Finals Record
Lakers 10-8 (8-2 with HCA, 2-6 without HCA)
Celtics 6-2 (5-1 with HCA, 1-1 without)
Conference finals records:
Lakers 18-4 (13-2 with HCA, 5-2 without HCA)
Celtics 8-7 (8-6 with HCA,  0-1 without HCA)

Boston’s ECF results post Russell are 8-7. With HCA it’s only 8-6, without 0-1. Now, the Celtics fans are going to say this is the period where we had the real competition! Well, there is a problem. We measure the most successful each year by who won the title. If a team wins the conference finals, they are the better team.  The next measure is, how did the team that won the ECF fare in the finals? In the seven seasons the Celtics lost in the ECF, the Western record is 6-1! You can’t magically give the Celtics a title if they won the ECF in any of those seasons. If you want to say, yeah we can, in 1973, when we lost to the Knicks, we would have beaten the Lakers. Well, I can play that game too and get the Lakers quite a few more titles. More than Boston can. Let me just say the Lakers would have had finals HCA in 1971 and 1977 against the Bullets and Sixers had they won the WCF in those years. Also, the West won the title in those years.

Now, let’s examine the Lakers western opponents during the Chamberlain/West era. We had the Milwaukee Buckswith Kareem Abdul Jabbar and Oscar Robertson to contend with.  We did better than they did in 2 of 3 seasons, and were 1-1 with them in the WCF, HCA prevailing in each.  At the same time, the Cowens/White/Havlicek Celtics faced the Knicks 3 years in a row with HCA in all of them and only managed one series win. The Celtics split with the Bullets in 1975-76, but had HCA in both. You want to say Celtics beat the Warriors in 1975? Well, maybe then, the Warriors don’t get eliminated in 1976 by the Suns and go on with HCA and beat the Celtics. In 1977, The Cowens/White/Havlicek era ended with an ECSF loss to the Sixers and Dr. J. The “rebuilt” Lakers managed to get as far as the WCF that year and lost to the eventual champion Trailblazers. In 1971-73, we beat the Chicago Bulls three straight years., two of the series went 7 games. Those teams were excellent. So, the Lakers had to deal with the Bucks, Blazers, and Bulls, the Celtics had to face up with the Knicks and the Bullets. I say that’s a wash.

Now on to the Showtime vs. Bird era. Once again, HCA let the Celtics down, and they lost 2 of 3 ECF’s to the Sixers from 1980-82. The Lakers won the title the years the Celtics lost to the Sixers. The Celtics were at their toughest during the Bird era from 1984-87. They started by handling the Sixers, and closed by beating the Pistons. 1988 the Celtics were once again upset in the ECF, this time by the Pistons. Detroit went on to lose to the Lakers. Through 1980-88 Boston failed to make the ECF one season, losing 4-0 with HCA to the Milwaukee Bucks in 1983, the year the Sixers won it all.

So, the biggest flaw in the argument is Boston’s 6 losses in the ECF with HCA. Logically, a storied franchise as the Celtics should have won all if not most of them. What these ECF finals losses prove is that Boston wasn’t the best team in the east, and the eastern team that beat them wasn’t better than the west in all seasons except for one. Lakers fans don’t take titles away from the Celtics and Celtics fans can’t take titles away from the Lakers, Knicks, or Warriors. In fact, what this shows is the exact reverse of 1966-69 when the Celtics proved they were the better team without HCA. That slightly diminishes the value of what was gained earlier. The Lakers have better home and road records in conference finals history.

The Lakers did have some extremely tough opponents in the WCF during the Showtime era. In 1980, we beat the defending champion Sonics in 1980. That team was soon broken up, but the San Antonio Spurs were a tough opponent led by George Gervin. The Spurs had already played in the ECF soon after they came in to the league from the ABA, and have been one of the greatest and consistent NBA teams since they joined. There were a couple of easy WCFs for the Lakers, but we still won titles in those years; 1985 and 1987. The 1988 Dallas Mavericks were almost a match for us. Lakers failed to make the finals in two seasons by losing to the Houston Rockets, who then went on to the finals.

After Boston’s last WCF loss in 1988 the totals add up as follows. A separate scorecard is needed as Boston now bows out of the finals for 20 years:

Cumulative Finals records as of 1988:
Lakers:  11-11, (With HCA, 8-2, without 3-9)
Celtics: Finals 16-3, With HCA 14-2, without 2-1.

Cumulative Conference Finals records as of 1988:
Lakers 22-8 (With HCA 18-3, without HCA 4-5)
Celtics 19-10 (16-6 with HCA, 3-4 without HCA)

This shows the Lakers had played in three more finals and one extra conference finals than the Celtics had. What happened after this was, the Lakers piled up conference finals appearances and championships. This was done against some incredibly tough opponents. Several Boston fans have mentioned the 22 year drought. During this period, the Celtics gave up almost all of their significant advantages, including best winning percentage. The Lakers slight edges in the chart from my initial post from 1988 grew even wider. Also, in 1988, the Lakers and Celtics were head to head in how they finished the season per the chart. It only took 21 years for the Lakers to go ahead 37-24.

After 1988 Boston has managed 2 more ECF appearances, losing to the Nets in 2002 without HCA, and beating the Pistons in 2008 with HCA. Boston quickly faded after 1988. They were no match for the Pistons after that. Boston was never in serious contention once Jordan’s Bulls started winning championships. Their best season, 1991 saw the Celtics lose in the ECSF to the Pistons in 6 games despite having HCA again. Jordan’s championship Bulls teams never faced the Celtics in the playoffs.
The Showtime Lakers continued making the finals two more times, but lost both. However those were to the Detroit Pistons and the Chicago Bulls. In 1991, we upset the Portland Trailblazers in the WCF without HCA.
Now let’s examine the Kobe era:

Finals record:
Lakers (Kobe) 4-2 ( 4-1 with HCA, 0-1 without HCA)

Conference Finals record
Lakers (Kobe) 6-1 (3-0 with HCA, 3-1 without HCA)

The Lakers only conference finals loss was to the Utah Jazz, without HCA. Still the Lakers won 3 other series without HCA, against San Antonio, Sacramento, and Minnesota. This in itself is equivalent to Boston’s ECF record from 1966-1969 of 3-1 without HCA. Lakers playoff record against the Spurs during the Kobe era is 4-2, and they had HCA in four of the six series! Matching up season by season against the Spurs, as done in my original post, The Lakers come out ahead 20-13. I strongly suspect the Spurs lead all other NBA teams with this method.

So, in closing, I believe I have refuted the claim that the east was tougher. I also have shown that Boston won’t get more titles with “what ifs”. If anything, they just get a few more finals appearances had they not done so poorly in the ECF with HCA, but lose them. I also note a number of people accused me of cherry picking my statistics. I disagree with this. What cherry picking means is to select favorable numbers from a group and make an unfair and biased case based upon those results. Truth is, 9-2 is cherry picking. 37-24 is reality, and encompasses the entire history of the NBA. You have to examine everything and that’s what I have done. There are other instances of Cherry Picking in this thread I won’t bother with. However, it all comes down to this:

1)   Boston leads the Lakers in titles 17-15. The Lakers lead in all other significant categories. Most important is number of seasons missing the playoffs:  Lakers 5, Celtics 15
2)   The level of competition they faced in the conference finals was near level. (Open for debate, who’s up to the task?)
3)   The Lakers have done better than the Celtics in conference finals, both at home, and on the road.
4)   The Lakers have finished ahead of the Celtics over the entire history of the NBA by a 37-24 margin.
5)   You still lead us 9-2 head-to-head, but as I have pointed out, it could be closer if you hadn’t have lost so many times in the ECF we were hoping to play you! So, as I say, I think 9-2 has been defused. (Still open for debate).

There is no definitive answer to who the better franchise is. It’s a debate. Boston titles vs. Lakers consistency. Also, not every Celtics fan believes the most titles in a sport means being the best. However, that is another story. Thanks again for reading. Oh, one reminder. I covered it in my intial post. As pointed out in my initial post, any speculation about missed Lakers Celtics matchups is nothing more than harmless smack talk. See you in the 2010 finals?

[Casperian]

“The only correct actions are those that demand no explanation and no apology.”

- Red Auerbach -

9-2, Baby!

[BballTim]

  Here's a big flaw in your argument:

Cumulative totals:
Finals records:
Lakers 5-7 (With HCA 4-1, without HCA 1-6)
Celtics 11-1 (With HCA 10-1, without HCA 1-0)
Conference Finals records
Lakers  12-5 (With HCA 9-1, without HCA 3-4)
Celtics 12-4 (With HCA 9-0, without HCA 3-4)

Those are almost exactly even.

  It's only even if you don't care about winning finals.


  Here's another one:

  1)   Boston leads the Lakers in titles 17-15. The Lakers lead in all other significant categories. Most important is number of seasons missing the playoffs:  Lakers 5, Celtics 15

  How many titles you win is more important than how often you make the playoffs. Do you know how many titles the Bulls, Spurs and Rockets have won? Do you know how many times they've missed the playoffs?

  Sure, the Lakers have been better over the last 20+ years, aided in no small part by the deaths of Len Bias and Reggie Lewis. But overall you're still #2.

[Drucci]

Funny to find the exact same thread from Lakers_55 on a famous Lakers forum, where he basically says that his argumentation is just great and that he doesn't bother answering to all of you because he is above that. Original quote from the thread :

I've believed the Lakers are the best franchise in NBA history since our 3peat in 2002. See, an opinion can be made, but not proven. Only the evidence can be read and interpreted. I had an entire blog posted at MSN Fox Sports stating my case since January, but it was lost recently with their silly site "upgrade". I posted this argument at another Lakers board recently, and got mixed reactions. These were all before Hollinger's ESPN article putting Lakers at the top. Anyway, I went round and round with one delusional Celtics fan, and beat him to a pulp in the argument. I proved his entire case was filled with flawed logic, contradictions, and hypocrisy. Just as well, I'll redo my blog again one day.

Anyway, he was no contest, so I recently took the fight to the Celtics fans, and posted on one of their boards. My entire argument is not listed here, just a very painful one for Boston fans to learn:

Topic: Defusing the Celtics 9-2 finals edge over the Lakers (Read 619 times)
« on: June 25, 2009, 02:31:48 pm »

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=29369.0

I can easily refute every argument they made in that thread,. I just haven't bothered yet. Looking forward to serious replies. Thanks.

[Redz]

Balloons in the rafters 

[Donoghus]

Still like to see 9-2 get "easily refuted".