fleung22 1 Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 Are there any definitions for the intangibles? I don't care if a team has fewer knuckleheads or is more entertaining (at least as it pertains to this list). All that really matters is winning.Detroit > Phoenix also.Phoenix out of the top 10, Detroit and Philly at 5 and 6.I'm a Laker fan, but question them at number 1. Intangibles strike again. how can you question the Lakers at no. 1!? ESPECIALLY if you're a fan...it's not intangibles, it's a fact. they're the most successful NBA franchise. Link to post Share on other sites
GeneralGeeWhiz 0 Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 The Sonics won a title. Learn your history.my bad.how can you question the Lakers at no. 1!? ESPECIALLY if you're a fan...it's not intangibles, it's a fact. they're the most successful NBA franchise.The Lakers are not the most successful NBA franchise. Celtics are 17-2 all time in the NBA finals, Lakers are 15-15. I am a Lakers fan but 17-2 is better than 15-15. Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,352 Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 my bad.The Lakers are not the most successful NBA franchise. Celtics are 17-2 all time in the NBA finals, Lakers are 15-15. I am a Lakers fan but 17-2 is better than 15-15.See, I don't really think that's true. I think getting to 30 finals is more impressive than the celtics 17-2 run. The Russell era celtics is one of the top 3 most impressive runs in sports ( along with UCLA and the yankees) but the vast majority of their championships are from that era, where as the Lakers have had success is basically every era. I think you can make a compelling case for both the lakers and Celtics, really, but the Celtics have been MIA as a relevant franchise from 1989 until last year, that's an almost 2 decade dry spell. Link to post Share on other sites
Jadaki 0 Posted June 21, 2009 Author Share Posted June 21, 2009 really, but the Celtics have been MIA as a relevant franchise from 1989 until last year, that's an almost 2 decade dry spell.They weren't irrelevant, they had to be one of the most unlucky franchises for that periods with player deaths and other unusual circumstances. Bias death really cost them for a while and right when they were getting back from that Lewis died. They were in the playoffs a lot of the time the Bulls were making their run too, it's not like they were a lottery team every year. Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,352 Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 They weren't irrelevant, they had to be one of the most unlucky franchises for that periods with player deaths and other unusual circumstances. Bias death really cost them for a while and right when they were getting back from that Lewis died. They were in the playoffs a lot of the time the Bulls were making their run too, it's not like they were a lottery team every year.Okay, I know they were unlucky, but that doesn't change anything for this discussion.between 88 and 2008 they were in the eastern finals exactly once, in 2001-02 in one of the weakest eastern conferences in history.During that stretch the lakers were in the NBA finals 6 times, winning 3 times. Also, when I say irrelevant, I don't mean clippers irrelevant, I mean in comparison to the Lakers irrelevant. Once McCale's foot and Bird's back went out, they were never a championship contender unill 2007-08, that's all I'm saying. The laker's record of consistency is remarkable. Link to post Share on other sites
GeneralGeeWhiz 0 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 See, I don't really think that's true. I think getting to 30 finals is more impressive than the celtics 17-2 run. The Russell era celtics is one of the top 3 most impressive runs in sports ( along with UCLA and the yankees) but the vast majority of their championships are from that era, where as the Lakers have had success is basically every era. I think you can make a compelling case for both the lakers and Celtics, really, but the Celtics have been MIA as a relevant franchise from 1989 until last year, that's an almost 2 decade dry spell.Making 30 championships in 60 years is one of the best achievements in NBA history, but I just feel that 17-2 is more impressive. They weren't irrelevant, they had to be one of the most unlucky franchises for that periods with player deaths and other unusual circumstances. Bias death really cost them for a while and right when they were getting back from that Lewis died. They were in the playoffs a lot of the time the Bulls were making their run too, it's not like they were a lottery team every year.Man, Len Bias is one of the saddest stories I've ever heard. Don't do coke if you have a heart condition. Link to post Share on other sites
slink 1 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 how can you question the Lakers at no. 1!? ESPECIALLY if you're a fan...it's not intangibles, it's a fact. they're the most successful NBA franchise.The Celtics have more championships and have spanked them timeandtimeagain when they have met. Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,352 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Making 30 championships in 60 years is one of the best achievements in NBA history, but I just feel that 17-2 is more impressive. Man, Len Bias is one of the saddest stories I've ever heard. Don't do coke if you have a heart condition.well, I mean they have a shockingly good record in the finals, but I don't think that's everything that detirmine's a teams greatness. Really, I think the Celtics and Lakers should be 1 and 1a, because they both are so far ahead of the rest of the teams, and so close to each other in greatness. Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,352 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 well, I mean they have a shockingly good record in the finals, but I don't think that's everything that detirmine's a teams greatness. Really, I think the Celtics and Lakers should be 1 and 1a, because they both are so far ahead of the rest of the teams, and so close to each other in greatness. The clippers not being last is more of a joke. Link to post Share on other sites
slink 1 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Isn't it time to change the "Fleur Fan Club" signature?Just sayin'. Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,352 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Isn't it time to change the "Fleur Fan Club" signature?Just sayin'.when I want your advice for my signature I'll ask for it, pleb. Link to post Share on other sites
slink 1 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 when I want your advice for my signature I'll ask for it, pleb.It's cool, you don't have to ask chief. Link to post Share on other sites
GeneralGeeWhiz 0 Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 well, I mean they have a shockingly good record in the finals, but I don't think that's everything that detirmine's a teams greatness. Really, I think the Celtics and Lakers should be 1 and 1a, because they both are so far ahead of the rest of the teams, and so close to each other in greatness.I can agree with that. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 well, I mean they have a shockingly good record in the finals, but I don't think that's everything that detirmine's a teams greatness. Really, I think the Celtics and Lakers should be 1 and 1a, because they both are so far ahead of the rest of the teams, and so close to each other in greatness.The reason I put the Lakers slightly ahead is that I can't think of a team I'd rather watch other than Magic/Kareem/Worthy. Link to post Share on other sites
fleung22 1 Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 my bad.The Lakers are not the most successful NBA franchise. Celtics are 17-2 all time in the NBA finals, Lakers are 15-15. I am a Lakers fan but 17-2 is better than 15-15. Is 1-0 better than 5-18 in this case?Making the finals is such an accomplishment in itself. I read it as Lakers have 15 championships and 30 trips to the finals. If the Lakers had 10 championships to the Celtics 17 then I think there'd be a better argument but 15 and 17 are pretty much the same. 30 and 19 conference championships are definitely not the same. Link to post Share on other sites
fleung22 1 Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Okay, I know they were unlucky, but that doesn't change anything for this discussion.between 88 and 2008 they were in the eastern finals exactly once, in 2001-02 in one of the weakest eastern conferences in history.During that stretch the lakers were in the NBA finals 6 times, winning 3 times. Also, when I say irrelevant, I don't mean clippers irrelevant, I mean in comparison to the Lakers irrelevant. Once McCale's foot and Bird's back went out, they were never a championship contender unill 2007-08, that's all I'm saying. The laker's record of consistency is remarkable.pretty much what I was gonna say. definitely unlucky but luck isn't a real argument. nobody is an unlucky as the Clippers...for real, how could the system be so bad? it's not that bad...it's got to be some sickly bad luck to run sooooooo bad as a franchise. you could literally have a monkey randomly drafting players and have better results. makes me laugh to think the Pens have gone from winning a stanley cup, hitting rock bottom, then winning a stanley cup. in the time span of those 2 championships the Clips have made the playoffs once. Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,352 Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 pretty much what I was gonna say. definitely unlucky but luck isn't a real argument. nobody is an unlucky as the Clippers...for real, how could the system be so bad? it's not that bad...it's got to be some sickly bad luck to run sooooooo bad as a franchise. you could literally have a monkey randomly drafting players and have better results. makes me laugh to think the Pens have gone from winning a stanley cup, hitting rock bottom, then winning a stanley cup. in the time span of those 2 championships the Clips have made the playoffs once.clippers aren't just unlucky, they are incompetently run by an apathetic and compulsively cheap owner. Link to post Share on other sites
babylondonks 5 Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 Fixed their post. This list is pretty off base. The Pistons at #13 and the Phoenix Suns at #5? Did a 14 year old retarded kid make this list??? John Hollinger....so yes.As a Celtics fan I obviously think they should be on top but I definately see the argument for the Lakers and think it should be a 1/1a situation like somebody else said. The fact that between them they've won >1/2 the titles is ridiculous. Just a note about the C's making the Eastern Finals a few years back in a weak conference, the West was the weak conference for most of the previous years of the league so it could be said that many of LA's conference finals shouldn't count as much. I'm just playing devils advocate here, I think they're both an achievement Link to post Share on other sites
babylondonks 5 Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 And agree with BigD, Clippers have been horrible. I doubt they actually have scouts at this stage. Link to post Share on other sites
GeneralGeeWhiz 0 Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 John Hollinger....so yes.As a Celtics fan I obviously think they should be on top but I definately see the argument for the Lakers and think it should be a 1/1a situation like somebody else said. The fact that between them they've won >1/2 the titles is ridiculous. Just a note about the C's making the Eastern Finals a few years back in a weak conference, the West was the weak conference for most of the previous years of the league so it could be said that many of LA's conference finals shouldn't count as much. I'm just playing devils advocate here, I think they're both an achievement back to the original point, should the Lakers or Celtics be #1 and the other be #1a? It's a debate with no answer. Link to post Share on other sites
Mercury69 3 Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Spurs ahead of the Bulls and Sixers? If that's the case, then I'll ignore Civil War history also as being insignificant.Bulls should be recognized not just for Jordan, but for the great supporting cast Jackson put together to support the guy. Scotty Pippen, Bill Cartwright, Horace Grant, John Paxson, Dennis Rodman (at various times). Don't tell me those guys weren't a factor.Also, Detroit at 13? WTF? Up at least 5 notches, if not more. They pretty much owned the latter half of the 80's and were top notch until '91. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now