Hollinger Declares Lakers Best Franchise of All Time

[aporel#18]

And I realized that the best part of this 3-year trip had been all the moments in which we shared it together.  That can’t ever be lost.  My team played and acted like a family, and almost grabbed another brass ring in spite of all the odds.  And the same can be said for all you guys, people who cared so facking much about this team that you kept returning to see what was up.

TP, BoyBee, that's exactly how I feel about game 7.

[celticmaestro]

I stopped reading at Hollinger.

[Moranis]

Discounting the city relocation, I think the Lakers edge out the Celtics at this point. The Lakers have had more consistent excellence and there is only a 1 title difference. It is impressive that they have been so consistent in recent decades while the league has been so much more competitive than 50 years ago.

Having Shaq and Kobe really put them over the top. We could really use a dominant elite player like that in their prime.

Wherever you stand on this issue, it is quite ridiculous to not be able to appreciate the arguments for either the Lakers or Celtics.

The bolded above is really not accurate. The league has gotten less competative with expansion and talent pool dilution. If you look back at the Russell,Cousy, Havlicek, and Bird eras, there were fewer teams and (particularly in the Russell years) must teams had at least 2 hall of famers.

No, my original statement was correct. Back then there were fewer teams to compete with since (1) there were fewer teams and (2) many teams didn't actually take the sport seriously. Auerbach could do silly deals with teams who weren't interested in being competitive, far worse than any lopsided deal we see today.

The "2 hall of famers" point is irrelevant since the qualifications for being a HOFer are relative. Most of those HOFers would be bench warmers today.

It is a lot easier to accumulate titles in an 8 team NBA than in a 30 team league.

And try looking at the standings from back then. The league was not more competitive in the 60s.

Correct and because there were fewer teams there were less playoff series.  It is a lot easier to win the title when you have to beat two teams then when you have to beat four teams. 

[nba is the worst]

I agree with those who say it was easier to win titles in the 50's and 60's.

It was the only time in league history where a team won titles (twice) vs teams with losing records.

Best proof: The Celtics 8-peat in the early era, but have been unable to win consecutive titles in the modern era.

And it seems to me there's a bit of hypocrisy from people who say "most titles = best", but the Princeton Tigers in college football doesn't apply since it's not the NBA - yet Red with 9 coaching titles (with only 2 seven game series needed to win the chip) is still better than Phil Jackson's eleven.

And the funniest was the guy talking about the West as the "historically weaker conference" - In that early league, take a look at which cities were deemed in the West!

[BostonIrishGuy]

As much as I hate to say it, right now the best franchise in NBA history is the Lakers. They have been much more consistent over history than the C's and most of their championships have been won in the modern era (much tougher to do) than in the 50's and 60's with only 8 teams in the league. Between 1986 and 2008 our C's didn't do squat, and the Lakers were still one of the top teams in the league.

I think we can reload next year and get #18 which will put this argument back in favor of our C's, but right now it doesn't really look that great. That Laker team is already stacked and most of their key players coming back for an attempt at a 3peat. Ainge better go sign us some impact rebounders and defenders, because WE MUST NOT let the Lakers tie us next year in banner count.