Hollinger Declares Lakers Best Franchise of All Time

[Donoghus]

The gap has closed a bit but the Celtics are still one up in total championships and still hold a commanding 9-3 lead in championship matchups with the Lakers.  That's the biggest stat that complicates matters for a Lakers argument.

This modern era stuff is a joke.  There's no discounting the championships of the 50s & 60s.  People don't discount what the Yankees did in the 20s-30s or what the Canadiens did in the 50s.  So why the heck should we discount what the Celtics accomplished in the 50s & 60s?  Makes no sense.  

[Fafnir]

The Lakers are the best franchise.  They have played in half of the NBA Finals (all time - 31 total) and have missed the playoffs just 5 times in their 62 years of existence (and lost in the first round just 7 times).  In otherwords, in 50 of their 62 years the Lakers have won at least one playoff series. 

They're the most consistent, but I don't agree that they're the best.

Most playoff appearances.  Most wins.  Best win percentage.  Most Finals appearances (and only 1 less title overall).  

If you asked this question to any non-Celtic or non-Laker fan, 99% would say the Lakers are the better franchise.  

We've had this conversation before Moranis, *shrug* I disagree. Championships matter more. Appealing to the "authority" of hypothetical straw man fans won't change my position.

More Finals appearances, but way more losses and out of the historically weaker conference. More playoff wins, but largely padded by extra rounds in the diluted modern NBA, etc....

[Donoghus]

The Lakers are the best franchise.  They have played in half of the NBA Finals (all time - 31 total) and have missed the playoffs just 5 times in their 62 years of existence (and lost in the first round just 7 times).  In otherwords, in 50 of their 62 years the Lakers have won at least one playoff series. 

They're the most consistent, but I don't agree that they're the best.

Most playoff appearances.  Most wins.  Best win percentage.  Most Finals appearances (and only 1 less title overall).  

If you asked this question to any non-Celtic or non-Laker fan, 99% would say the Lakers are the better franchise.  

We've had this conversation before Moranis, *shrug* I disagree. Championships matter more. Appealing to the "authority" of hypothetical straw man fans won't change my position.

More Finals appearances, but way more losses and out of the historically weaker conference. More playoff wins, but largely padded by extra rounds in the diluted modern NBA, etc....

Its like the whole Braves v. Yankees argument of the 1990s but on a much larger scale.  Does anyone real question the notion that the Yankees were the team of the decade despite the Braves have more division titles, WS appearances, etc? 

Isn't this pretty much the same thing but with a 60 year window rather than 10?

[Fafnir]

The Lakers are the best franchise.  They have played in half of the NBA Finals (all time - 31 total) and have missed the playoffs just 5 times in their 62 years of existence (and lost in the first round just 7 times).  In otherwords, in 50 of their 62 years the Lakers have won at least one playoff series. 

They're the most consistent, but I don't agree that they're the best.

Most playoff appearances.  Most wins.  Best win percentage.  Most Finals appearances (and only 1 less title overall).  

If you asked this question to any non-Celtic or non-Laker fan, 99% would say the Lakers are the better franchise.  

We've had this conversation before Moranis, *shrug* I disagree. Championships matter more. Appealing to the "authority" of hypothetical straw man fans won't change my position.

More Finals appearances, but way more losses and out of the historically weaker conference. More playoff wins, but largely padded by extra rounds in the diluted modern NBA, etc....

Its like the whole Braves v. Yankees argument of the 1990s but on a much larger scale.  Does anyone real question the notion that the Yankees were the team of the decade despite the Braves have more division titles, WS appearances, etc? 

Isn't this pretty much the same thing but with a 60 year window rather than 10?

Yeah but the analogy breaks down because the Braves didn't have 3 they had 1.

Ugh one stinking 4th quarter away from not having to argue this at all....

[Donoghus]

The Lakers are the best franchise.  They have played in half of the NBA Finals (all time - 31 total) and have missed the playoffs just 5 times in their 62 years of existence (and lost in the first round just 7 times).  In otherwords, in 50 of their 62 years the Lakers have won at least one playoff series. 

They're the most consistent, but I don't agree that they're the best.

Most playoff appearances.  Most wins.  Best win percentage.  Most Finals appearances (and only 1 less title overall).  

If you asked this question to any non-Celtic or non-Laker fan, 99% would say the Lakers are the better franchise.  

We've had this conversation before Moranis, *shrug* I disagree. Championships matter more. Appealing to the "authority" of hypothetical straw man fans won't change my position.

More Finals appearances, but way more losses and out of the historically weaker conference. More playoff wins, but largely padded by extra rounds in the diluted modern NBA, etc....

Its like the whole Braves v. Yankees argument of the 1990s but on a much larger scale.  Does anyone real question the notion that the Yankees were the team of the decade despite the Braves have more division titles, WS appearances, etc? 

Isn't this pretty much the same thing but with a 60 year window rather than 10?

Yeah but the analogy breaks down because the Braves didn't have 3 they had 1.

Ugh one stinking 4th quarter away from not having to argue this at all....

Yeah, its not perfect but the similarities are there. 

Braves did beat the Yankees in '57 too.  Clearly outside the 90s window but it was done before.

[Redz]

This is why losing to them this year sucks all the more.

It's a huge chink in our argument for supremacy.  Losing to them twice in the 80's broke our older-brother dominance aura over them.  Losing to them in the 7th game for the first time and having them get one step closer to passing us was another huge blow.

[dang it] I hate them! 

[Donoghus]

This is why losing to them this year sucks all the more.

It's a huge chink in our argument for supremacy.  Losing to them twice in the 80's broke our older-brother dominance aura over them.  Losing to them in the 7th game for the first time and having them get one step closer to passing us was another huge blow.

[dang it] I hate them! 

Yup.  It blows.  No other way to cut it.

[Jon]

Not to be too much of a prick, but I hope they get hit with major injury problems next year.  I know Bynum has been hurt off and on, but to me, that's more of an inherent problem with him that will likely always be around.  I'd like to see some of their "age" hurt them with Fisher, Kobe, and Artest in the same way that "age" has begun to hurt us. 

[PosImpos]

The Lakers are the best franchise.  They have played in half of the NBA Finals (all time - 31 total) and have missed the playoffs just 5 times in their 62 years of existence (and lost in the first round just 7 times).  In otherwords, in 50 of their 62 years the Lakers have won at least one playoff series. 

They're the most consistent, but I don't agree that they're the best.

Most playoff appearances.  Most wins.  Best win percentage.  Most Finals appearances (and only 1 less title overall). 

If you asked this question to any non-Celtic or non-Laker fan, 99% would say the Lakers are the better franchise. 

Yeah, it's hard to argue with that.

The Lakers are just ridiculously consistent; more often than not they are one of the top teams in the league and rarely if ever have bad years.  They're practically the only team that manages to stay restocked with talent without ever having lottery diving years.

It's a little bit infuriating.  The rules don't seem to apply to the Lakers the way they do to other teams - on the court or off.

[Moranis]

The Lakers are the best franchise.  They have played in half of the NBA Finals (all time - 31 total) and have missed the playoffs just 5 times in their 62 years of existence (and lost in the first round just 7 times).  In otherwords, in 50 of their 62 years the Lakers have won at least one playoff series. 

They're the most consistent, but I don't agree that they're the best.

Most playoff appearances.  Most wins.  Best win percentage.  Most Finals appearances (and only 1 less title overall).  

If you asked this question to any non-Celtic or non-Laker fan, 99% would say the Lakers are the better franchise.  

We've had this conversation before Moranis, *shrug* I disagree. Championships matter more. Appealing to the "authority" of hypothetical straw man fans won't change my position.

More Finals appearances, but way more losses and out of the historically weaker conference. More playoff wins, but largely padded by extra rounds in the diluted modern NBA, etc....

Its like the whole Braves v. Yankees argument of the 1990s but on a much larger scale.  Does anyone real question the notion that the Yankees were the team of the decade despite the Braves have more division titles, WS appearances, etc? 

Isn't this pretty much the same thing but with a 60 year window rather than 10?

Not really because the Braves had 1 title (in 5 appearances).  Had the Braves won 2, then you have a much closer argument, but with just 1 title and going 0-2 against the Yankees there really isn't much argument there.

[Moranis]

The Lakers are the best franchise.  They have played in half of the NBA Finals (all time - 31 total) and have missed the playoffs just 5 times in their 62 years of existence (and lost in the first round just 7 times).  In otherwords, in 50 of their 62 years the Lakers have won at least one playoff series. 

They're the most consistent, but I don't agree that they're the best.

Most playoff appearances.  Most wins.  Best win percentage.  Most Finals appearances (and only 1 less title overall).  

If you asked this question to any non-Celtic or non-Laker fan, 99% would say the Lakers are the better franchise.  

We've had this conversation before Moranis, *shrug* I disagree. Championships matter more. Appealing to the "authority" of hypothetical straw man fans won't change my position.

More Finals appearances, but way more losses and out of the historically weaker conference. More playoff wins, but largely padded by extra rounds in the diluted modern NBA, etc....

I'm sorry it is 17 to 16, not 17 to 10.  You guys are acting like the Lakers have significantly fewer titles and that just isn't the case.

I'd rather have the Lakers history then the Celtics.  I have no problem saying it and I wouldn't give it a second thought.  Just way too many bad seasons from the Celtics and that includes 6 straight non-playoff seasons in the 90's when the East wasn't very good (aside from Chicago).

[Donoghus]

The Lakers are the best franchise.  They have played in half of the NBA Finals (all time - 31 total) and have missed the playoffs just 5 times in their 62 years of existence (and lost in the first round just 7 times).  In otherwords, in 50 of their 62 years the Lakers have won at least one playoff series.  

They're the most consistent, but I don't agree that they're the best.

Most playoff appearances.  Most wins.  Best win percentage.  Most Finals appearances (and only 1 less title overall).  

If you asked this question to any non-Celtic or non-Laker fan, 99% would say the Lakers are the better franchise.  

We've had this conversation before Moranis, *shrug* I disagree. Championships matter more. Appealing to the "authority" of hypothetical straw man fans won't change my position.

More Finals appearances, but way more losses and out of the historically weaker conference. More playoff wins, but largely padded by extra rounds in the diluted modern NBA, etc....

Its like the whole Braves v. Yankees argument of the 1990s but on a much larger scale.  Does anyone real question the notion that the Yankees were the team of the decade despite the Braves have more division titles, WS appearances, etc?  

Isn't this pretty much the same thing but with a 60 year window rather than 10?

Not really because the Braves had 1 title (in 5 appearances).  Had the Braves won 2, then you have a much closer argument, but with just 1 title and going 0-2 against the Yankees there really isn't much argument there.

Ahh....but they had better winning pct, more playoff appearances, more division titles, more W.S. appearances, only 2 less titles (unless you decided 2000 is part of the 90s).

[wdleehi]

I don't care.


Head to Head, the Celtics have beaten the Lakers more.  


That's what I care about.  Not Hollinger's opinion.

[Moranis]

The Lakers are the best franchise.  They have played in half of the NBA Finals (all time - 31 total) and have missed the playoffs just 5 times in their 62 years of existence (and lost in the first round just 7 times).  In otherwords, in 50 of their 62 years the Lakers have won at least one playoff series.  

They're the most consistent, but I don't agree that they're the best.

Most playoff appearances.  Most wins.  Best win percentage.  Most Finals appearances (and only 1 less title overall).  

If you asked this question to any non-Celtic or non-Laker fan, 99% would say the Lakers are the better franchise.  

We've had this conversation before Moranis, *shrug* I disagree. Championships matter more. Appealing to the "authority" of hypothetical straw man fans won't change my position.

More Finals appearances, but way more losses and out of the historically weaker conference. More playoff wins, but largely padded by extra rounds in the diluted modern NBA, etc....

Its like the whole Braves v. Yankees argument of the 1990s but on a much larger scale.  Does anyone real question the notion that the Yankees were the team of the decade despite the Braves have more division titles, WS appearances, etc?  

Isn't this pretty much the same thing but with a 60 year window rather than 10?

Not really because the Braves had 1 title (in 5 appearances).  Had the Braves won 2, then you have a much closer argument, but with just 1 title and going 0-2 against the Yankees there really isn't much argument there.

Ahh....but they had better winning pct, more playoff appearances, more division titles, more W.S. appearances, only 2 less titles (unless you decided 2000 is part of the 90s).

2 less titles when talking about 3 total is a heck of a lot different then 1 less title when talking about 17 total.

[Donoghus]

The Lakers are the best franchise.  They have played in half of the NBA Finals (all time - 31 total) and have missed the playoffs just 5 times in their 62 years of existence (and lost in the first round just 7 times).  In otherwords, in 50 of their 62 years the Lakers have won at least one playoff series.  

They're the most consistent, but I don't agree that they're the best.

Most playoff appearances.  Most wins.  Best win percentage.  Most Finals appearances (and only 1 less title overall).  

If you asked this question to any non-Celtic or non-Laker fan, 99% would say the Lakers are the better franchise.  

We've had this conversation before Moranis, *shrug* I disagree. Championships matter more. Appealing to the "authority" of hypothetical straw man fans won't change my position.

More Finals appearances, but way more losses and out of the historically weaker conference. More playoff wins, but largely padded by extra rounds in the diluted modern NBA, etc....

Its like the whole Braves v. Yankees argument of the 1990s but on a much larger scale.  Does anyone real question the notion that the Yankees were the team of the decade despite the Braves have more division titles, WS appearances, etc?  

Isn't this pretty much the same thing but with a 60 year window rather than 10?

Not really because the Braves had 1 title (in 5 appearances).  Had the Braves won 2, then you have a much closer argument, but with just 1 title and going 0-2 against the Yankees there really isn't much argument there.

Ahh....but they had better winning pct, more playoff appearances, more division titles, more W.S. appearances, only 2 less titles (unless you decided 2000 is part of the 90s).

2 less titles when talking about 3 total is a heck of a lot different then 1 less title when talking about 17 total.

There is, huh?  Alright, I didn't know there was a particular standard governing that.