Championship Count

[Employee8]

Something that's bothered me for awhile.

The Minneapolis Lakers won 5 NBA championships back in the early days.  Then they moved to Los Angeles and won 11 more to bring their total count to 16.  Is this fair?  Do you view the Lakers as being originated from LA or do you view them as a franchise as a whole (both Minneapolis and Los Angeles)?

Further dig at the Lakers- the Lakers means a ship that is operated on the Great Lakes to carry big loads.  This is a Laker:

http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch7en/appl7en/img/ec_lakerjbbaird.jpg

Now you take this Laker and move it to Los Angeles.  It isn't a Laker anymore.  It's a cargo ship.

That's how I view the Lakers move to LA.  They aren't the real Lakers anymore.  They're a misplaced team.  I truly believe the 5 championships should still belong to Minneapolis and Los Angeles should rightfully claim 11 championships.

Final count:

Boston Celtics - 17 championships
Los Angeles Lakers - 11 championships

That's my story and I'm sticking with it.

[wdleehi]

The Lakers have won 16.  (your poll doesn't mention location)


This is an old, pointless argument. 


Titles go with the franchise but are celebrated by the city when they won it. 


When is the last time Boston celebrated a title?  There has been no parties since the year they actually won it. 

[RyNye]

Well, at the very least the 2002 title should be revoked (the year of that WCF matchup with Sacramento). I mean, it is pretty clear that the refs cheated them into the Finals to begin with (even at the time, people were questioning the refereeing in that series, with a lot of bad calls going the Lakers way, and then a few years later the main ref in that game went to federal prison for fixing games to make money gambling ... pretty [dang]ing stuff).

Also,

When is the last time Boston celebrated a title?  There has been no parties since the year they actually won it.

What on earth does this have to do with anything? I honestly don't understand what your point is. We don't celebrate winning a title in years we don't win a title ...  which proves ... what?

[wdleehi]

Well, at the very least the 2002 title should be revoked (the year of that WCF matchup with Sacramento). I mean, it is pretty clear that the refs cheated them into the Finals to begin with (even at the time, people were questioning the refereeing in that series, with a lot of bad calls going the Lakers way, and then a few years later the main ref in that game went to federal prison for fixing games to make money gambling ... pretty [dang]ing stuff).

Also,

When is the last time Boston celebrated a title?  There has been no parties since the year they actually won it.

What on earth does this have to do with anything? I honestly don't understand what your point is. We don't celebrate winning a title in years we don't win a title ...  which proves ... what?

Why are we subtracting titles from a franchise just because the city it is in now didn't celebrate that title?



It comes off as a petty argument from Celtics fans insecure about the great history of the team because the Laker's are close to them in terms of the number of titles. 

There is nothing about the Celtics history that should make us insecure next to the Lakers.  Just look at the head to head record in the finals. 

[Adelaide Celt]

Technically the Lakers have won 16. Technically.

Of course the good folks of LA would've celebrated their franchise's first 5 titles long and hard! As evidenced by the solitary banner commemerating all 5 championships, that's the way you embrace your heritage. There will always be that asterisk factor for them. The first 5 do indeed count but deep down I'm sure plenty of LA Laker people know they're not the same. Imagine if we won our first 5 as the Delaware Celtics or something!

Franchise relocation is stupid. I'd rather my team died than move somewhere as a phony hybrid.

[Employee8]

Well, at the very least the 2002 title should be revoked (the year of that WCF matchup with Sacramento). I mean, it is pretty clear that the refs cheated them into the Finals to begin with (even at the time, people were questioning the refereeing in that series, with a lot of bad calls going the Lakers way, and then a few years later the main ref in that game went to federal prison for fixing games to make money gambling ... pretty [dang]ing stuff).

Also,

When is the last time Boston celebrated a title?  There has been no parties since the year they actually won it.

What on earth does this have to do with anything? I honestly don't understand what your point is. We don't celebrate winning a title in years we don't win a title ...  which proves ... what?

Why are we subtracting titles from a franchise just because the city it is in now didn't celebrate that title?



It comes off as a petty argument from Celtics fans insecure about the great history of the team because the Laker's are close to them in terms of the number of titles. 

There is nothing about the Celtics history that should make us insecure next to the Lakers.  Just look at the head to head record in the finals. 

  A petty, pointless argument?  It's apparent you're pretty dug deep in your trench but you can at least entertain the opposing viewpoint.

11 championships for the Lakers still is impressive but I'm just questionining if it is valid to add on to the total counter if the city simply inherits the championships.  When the Lakers won their first 5 championships, did the residents of Los Angeles gleefully celebrate them and today, they fondly recall the days of George Mikan?

Not at all, so why should they even claim rights to having won 16 championships?

If the Celtics were relocated to Seattle and they win a title the very next year, are they going to say they've their 18th title or it's their first one?

[wdleehi]

Well, at the very least the 2002 title should be revoked (the year of that WCF matchup with Sacramento). I mean, it is pretty clear that the refs cheated them into the Finals to begin with (even at the time, people were questioning the refereeing in that series, with a lot of bad calls going the Lakers way, and then a few years later the main ref in that game went to federal prison for fixing games to make money gambling ... pretty [dang]ing stuff).

Also,

When is the last time Boston celebrated a title?  There has been no parties since the year they actually won it.

What on earth does this have to do with anything? I honestly don't understand what your point is. We don't celebrate winning a title in years we don't win a title ...  which proves ... what?

Why are we subtracting titles from a franchise just because the city it is in now didn't celebrate that title?



It comes off as a petty argument from Celtics fans insecure about the great history of the team because the Laker's are close to them in terms of the number of titles. 

There is nothing about the Celtics history that should make us insecure next to the Lakers.  Just look at the head to head record in the finals. 

  A petty, pointless argument?  It's apparent you're pretty dug deep in your trench but you can at least entertain the opposing viewpoint.

11 championships for the Lakers still is impressive but I'm just questionining if it is valid to add on to the total counter if the city simply inherits the championships.  When the Lakers won their first 5 championships, did the residents of Los Angeles gleefully celebrate them and today, they fondly recall the days of George Mikan?

Not at all, so why should they even claim rights to having won 16 championships?

If the Celtics were relocated to Seattle and they win a title the very next year, are they going to say they've their 18th title or it's their first one?

Unless the team leaves the name, here (like the Thunder did in Seattle), then yes, the Celtics franchise would have added another title to it's belt. 

[Employee8]

Well, at the very least the 2002 title should be revoked (the year of that WCF matchup with Sacramento). I mean, it is pretty clear that the refs cheated them into the Finals to begin with (even at the time, people were questioning the refereeing in that series, with a lot of bad calls going the Lakers way, and then a few years later the main ref in that game went to federal prison for fixing games to make money gambling ... pretty [dang]ing stuff).

Also,

When is the last time Boston celebrated a title?  There has been no parties since the year they actually won it.

What on earth does this have to do with anything? I honestly don't understand what your point is. We don't celebrate winning a title in years we don't win a title ...  which proves ... what?

Why are we subtracting titles from a franchise just because the city it is in now didn't celebrate that title?



It comes off as a petty argument from Celtics fans insecure about the great history of the team because the Laker's are close to them in terms of the number of titles. 

There is nothing about the Celtics history that should make us insecure next to the Lakers.  Just look at the head to head record in the finals. 

  A petty, pointless argument?  It's apparent you're pretty dug deep in your trench but you can at least entertain the opposing viewpoint.

11 championships for the Lakers still is impressive but I'm just questionining if it is valid to add on to the total counter if the city simply inherits the championships.  When the Lakers won their first 5 championships, did the residents of Los Angeles gleefully celebrate them and today, they fondly recall the days of George Mikan?

Not at all, so why should they even claim rights to having won 16 championships?

If the Celtics were relocated to Seattle and they win a title the very next year, are they going to say they've their 18th title or it's their first one?

Unless the team leaves the name, here (like the Thunder did in Seattle), then yes, the Celtics franchise would have added another title to it's belt. 

It's still the same team, the same personnel, the same ownership.  I suppose you're equating the franchise to simply its team name?  Wow, lucky for Los Angeles.  By simply keeping the name, they automatically add 5 more championships to their count.  Doesn't fly with me.

I suppose I'm equating the team to the city.

Seattle SuperSonics has 1 title.

If Oklahoma City wins this year, the Thunder has 1 title.  Even if they kept their name and it's the Oklahoma City SuperSonics, they still have 1 title and the Seattle SuperSonics still remain at 1 title.

It's the same reasoning for the Lakers.  Minneapolis Lakers have 5 titles.  Los Angeles Lakers (or whatever name they could have changed to) have 11 titles.

[wdleehi]

Well, at the very least the 2002 title should be revoked (the year of that WCF matchup with Sacramento). I mean, it is pretty clear that the refs cheated them into the Finals to begin with (even at the time, people were questioning the refereeing in that series, with a lot of bad calls going the Lakers way, and then a few years later the main ref in that game went to federal prison for fixing games to make money gambling ... pretty [dang]ing stuff).

Also,

When is the last time Boston celebrated a title?  There has been no parties since the year they actually won it.

What on earth does this have to do with anything? I honestly don't understand what your point is. We don't celebrate winning a title in years we don't win a title ...  which proves ... what?

Why are we subtracting titles from a franchise just because the city it is in now didn't celebrate that title?



It comes off as a petty argument from Celtics fans insecure about the great history of the team because the Laker's are close to them in terms of the number of titles. 

There is nothing about the Celtics history that should make us insecure next to the Lakers.  Just look at the head to head record in the finals. 

  A petty, pointless argument?  It's apparent you're pretty dug deep in your trench but you can at least entertain the opposing viewpoint.

11 championships for the Lakers still is impressive but I'm just questionining if it is valid to add on to the total counter if the city simply inherits the championships.  When the Lakers won their first 5 championships, did the residents of Los Angeles gleefully celebrate them and today, they fondly recall the days of George Mikan?

Not at all, so why should they even claim rights to having won 16 championships?

If the Celtics were relocated to Seattle and they win a title the very next year, are they going to say they've their 18th title or it's their first one?

Unless the team leaves the name, here (like the Thunder did in Seattle), then yes, the Celtics franchise would have added another title to it's belt. 

It's still the same team, the same personnel, the same ownership.  I suppose you're equating the franchise to simply its team name?  Wow, lucky for Los Angeles.  By simply keeping the name, they automatically add 5 more championships to their count.  Doesn't fly with me.

I suppose I'm equating the team to the city.

Seattle SuperSonics has 1 title.

If Oklahoma City wins this year, the Thunder has 1 title.  Even if they kept their name and it's the Oklahoma City SuperSonics, they still have 1 title and the Seattle SuperSonics still remain at 1 title.

It's the same reasoning for the Lakers.  Minneapolis Lakers have 5 titles.  Los Angeles Lakers (or whatever name they could have changed to) have 11 titles.

That's what happened to the Browns when they became the Ravens. 

The Raiders titles moved back and forth with them.


The A's have 9 titles, 5 of them from Philly

[Moranis]

How many titles do the Warriors have, 1 or 3?

How about the Sixers, do you count the Syracuse Nationals title or not?

What about the Kings, do you count the Rochester Royals title?

What about the Wizards, do you count the title they won when they were the Bullets?

[Employee8]

How many titles do the Warriors have, 1 or 3?

How about the Sixers, do you count the Syracuse Nationals title or not?

What about the Kings, do you count the Rochester Royals title?

What about the Wizards, do you count the title they won when they were the Bullets?

Exactly, it's muddled.  In my own personal opinion, I suggest you count the number of championship by the city and team name.

Philadelphia Warriors: 1
Philadelphia Sixers: 2
Rochester Royals: 1
Sacramento Kings: 0
Washington Bullets: 1
Baltimore Bullets: 1
Washington Wizards: 0

But this is messy because if I were a resident of Washington and am a fan of basketball in Washington DC for 60 years, I would say that I celebrated 1 title with the Bullets.  And if the Wizards win a championship this year, I'd say this is my 2nd time to celebrate a championship but the first with the Wizards.  I'm not going to count Baltimore's win.

As a fan in Sacramento, I could care less about what happened out in Rochester.  I have not celebrated anything yet.

In Philadelphia, I have 3 championships under my belt.  2 with the Sixers and 1 with the Warriors.  In San Francisco, I have one title.

You have some loyal fans to the brand name so a Warriors fan may say he has 3 titles but fans usually choose their own city over the team name.  How many times did their own city win regardless of the team name?

[RMO]

How many titles do the Warriors have, 1 or 3?

How about the Sixers, do you count the Syracuse Nationals title or not?

What about the Kings, do you count the Rochester Royals title?

What about the Wizards, do you count the title they won when they were the Bullets?

The Wizards I would say yes just because they're the same organization in the same location.  Their name change was to promote a more family friendly product rather than one that might be perceived to promote violence.

What bugs me the most about the lakers count is that prior to the Shaq/Kobe years the Minneapolis titles were never mentioned by the lakers.  The Forum had LA's six banners and that was it.  Then with the arrival of Phil Jackson, the move to Staples and the end of their championship drought they start pushing the history angle.  They sew together some half-baked banner with the Minneapolis titles and say they're chasing the Celtics for most titles.  Of course the national media hype machine gets on board.

[Employee8]

All Time Champions By City and Team:

1. Boston Celtics - 17
2. Los Angeles Lakers - 11
3. Chicago Bulls - 6
4. Minneapolis Lakers - 5
5. San Antonio Spurs - 4
6. Detroit Pistons - 3
7. Houston Rockets - 2
   Philadelphia 76ers - 2
   NY Knicks - 2

All Time Champions by City

1. Boston - 17
2. Los Angeles - 11
3. Chicago - 6 (Stags could have added to total, but lost to Philly Warriors)
4. Minneapolis - 5 (can add with Timberwolves wins)
5. San Antonio - 4
6. Detroit - 3
   Philadelphia - 3
8. Houston - 2
   NY Knicks - 2
   

[Donoghus]

It comes off as a petty argument from Celtics fans insecure about the great history of the team because the Laker's are close to them in terms of the number of titles. 

There is nothing about the Celtics history that should make us insecure next to the Lakers.  Just look at the head to head record in the finals. 

Hit the nail on the head.

[kevbo]

The Wizards I would say yes just because they're the same organization in the same location.  Their name change was to promote a more family friendly product rather than one that might be perceived to promote violence.

Not necessarily, because the Bullets won their title while in Baltimore which is not DC, then played in Landover, MD for years after before actually moving into DC. Which leads to another kink in the whole connecting teams to their cities. For instance, the Warriors have been based in both SF (during the 60s) and Oakland (where they won their only West Coast championship in the 70s). As anyone who has been there knows, Oakland and San Francisco are really different cities. Should the Warriors move back into SF as they have explored...Do they lose their title won in Oakland? Most of us would say that's absurd. In this case, I'd argue because they are in the same Census defined Metropolitan Statistical Area or media market (take your pick), we would not really have considered them to have moved. But in the case of the Bullets ne Wizards, it gets murkier. They violate my MSA rule, but not the TV market rule.

Or another hypothetical closer to most Boston sports fans. What if the Pats had or did move to Hartford, CT. Would they be stripped of their history? I mean, Hartford and Foxborough are inarguably different cities.  Again, most would likely say no, for the same rationale as the Bullets/Wizards.

My take on this is, give the Lakers franchise their 16 championships. I think its really up to the franchise and the city they are/were based in to decide how to handle the legacy. I think the Seattle claiming the rights to the Sonics franchise history settlement was a great one.