Greatest Franchise in NBA History Debate

The two greatest franchises in NBA history are the Boston Celtics and Los Angeles Lakers. There is no arguing this statement. However there is plenty to argue about regarding which of these two is the best. Below is Glassman's argument for the Celtics and my argument for the Lakers. Enjoy!

Boston Celtics - by Glassman

THE NBA'S BEST FRANCHISE: BOSTON or LA?

When you look at these two teams, it's immediately obvious that they are the two best teams in NBA history by light years. Combined, they have 50 finals appearances and 32 championships. More than 50% of all NBA champions are either from Boston or LA. That's just insane.

The Lakers are a finesse team. They play offense. They score points and they look good doing it. It's cool to be a Lakers fan. The Celtics are a team built on hard work and effort. They play defense. They're clutch. They play ugly, scrappy games and find ways to win them.

But the obvious question becomes - Which franchise is better?

The simple way to answer this is to say that Boston has 17 titles to LA's 15 and therefore they are better. Afterall, it's all about winning the title. Fans don't care about the details as much such as: regular season win % or playoff appearances - both of which the Lakers have more of.

Rather than take the easy way out, let's examine how these two great franchises arrived at their respective titles.

As you will see, the Lakers have been handed success time and time again in the form of hall of famers falling into their laps, while the Celtics have had to earn all of their titles through hard work and good draft picks. I'm not saying the Lakers didn't work for their titles but given the amount of opportunities they've been given, they have severely underachieved. Read on and you will see what I mean. Further, Boston is clutch in the playoffs. They are 17-3 in the finals. LA finds as many ways to choke in the finals as to win. They are 15-15 in the finals.


So let's begin...


THE EARLY YEARS 1950-1969

The 50's Lakers were the 1st NBA dynasty and they owe it all to George Mikan, the most dominant center of his time. Thing is, the Lakers didn't draft Mikan. He had already been playing professional basketball for years and was the best player hands down. When his original team (the American Gears) folded, its players were put into a draft for the 11 NBA teams to select from. Every team had a 9% chance of winning the rights to Mikan and wouldn't you know it, the Lakers won that pick. As a result, they won 5 titles in 6 years.

The Celtics took over as the powerhouse team in the late 50's with GM and coach Red Auerbach building a team the old fashioned way. Good trades, great drafts, and hard work. Auerbach's system was revolutionary and completely changed the game of basketball. He invented the fast break, tough defense, and the 6th man. When you combine this system, the best coach in NBA history, and extremely talented players it's a recipe for success. The Celtics would win 11 of the next 13 championships including 8 in a row. I can't put into words how impressive that is, so I won't try.

During this great run of titles, Auerbach drafted the following:

1956- Bill Russell*, Tom Heinsohn, KC Jones (probably the absolute most sickest draft any NBA team ever had)
1957- Sam Jones
1960- Tom "Satch" Sanders
1962- John Havlicek aka "Hondo"
1969- Jo Jo White
1970- Dave Cowens
*Bill Russell was technically acquired in a trade on draft day. Red traded future hall of famer and all-star Center Ed Macauley for Russell. I point this out only because the trade was seen at the time as a balanced one. It wasn't Dickfuck McGee for Wilt Chamberlain like all the Laker trades were.

All of these draft picks have had their numbers retired and most are in the hall of fame. It's incredible that a team that was so dominant could actually find this kind of talent in the draft.

The Celtics didn't beat just anybody for their 11 titles though, a staggering 7 of the 11 titles came against the Lakers. In fact, the Lakers did not win a single title in the 60's. They lost EVERYTIME. The worst of these HAS to be 1969 though.

In 1969, the power of the league shifted when reigning MVP Wilt Chamberlain, the most dominant center of his time, was traded to the Lakers for... get ready for it now... Darrall Imhoff (the Knicks center who Chamberlain scored 100 points on), Jerry Chambers, and Archie Clark. I'll sum it up like this: 3 stinkin' piles of garbage were traded for the best scorer/rebounder the game had ever seen. What it came down to is that Chamberlain wanted out of Philly and he wanted to go to a winner. This gave the Lakers, Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, and Wilt Chamberlain. There are 3 major positions in basketball and one could argue that the Lakers had the best player at all 3. Surely that would be enough to beat the now older than dirt Celtics? Nope. The Celtics defeated these Lakers 4-3 in a huge upset. LA led 2-0 and had home court. No team had EVER lost a finals series with a 2-0 lead but the Lakers managed to find a way. Boston took game 7 on LA's home court in a wild finish 108-106.


THE MIDDLE AGES 1970-1995

After 1969, many of the Celtics retired including Bill Russell. Boston fell to Earth in 1970 but they still had a core of guys leftover - Havlicek, White, and Cowens. Despite having a stacked team, LA won just one title in 1972 while also losing 2 more in 1970 and 1973.

Boston rose again in the mid 70's and won 2 more titles in 1974 and 1976 with Auerbach as the GM and Heinsohn as the coach running Red's system. The players and coach that led this charge were all drafted and developed by the Celtics.

In 1975, reiging MVP Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, the most dominant center of his time, was lured from the Bucks for a big contract and the chance to play for the Lakers. At this point he already had won 3 MVP awards. He was traded for... (drum roll) Walt Wesley, Elmore Smith, Brian Winters, Dave Meyers, and Junior Bridgeman. In summary: 5 rotten pieces of shit for the best center in NBA history (in my opinion).

The 80's saw the rivalry renewed. The Celtics drafted Larry Bird in 1979. In 1980, Red traded the 1st and 13th picks in the draft for 2nd year big man Robert Parish and the 3rd pick. With the 3rd pick he drafted Kevin McHale. Again, you see Boston acquiring top talent via the draft and smart trades.

These Celtics would win 3 titles in 5 tries with both losses coming to the Lakers. LA was certainly the better team of the decade taking 5 titles in 8 tries. LA's 1985 victory over Boston marked the first time that the Lakers had beat the Celtics in the finals. The 1987 rubber match was marred by the fact that Len Bias - who many compared to Michael Jordan - had died of a drug overdose when he was drafted by Boston in 1986.

Boston met tragedy again when another star player died. This time it was Reggie Lewis. The deaths of Bias and Lewis set Boston back by decades and it would be a long time before they would win the finals again.

Neither franchise would win in the 90's. LA made it there in 1991 but they were old and soundly beaten by Chicago.


THE CURRENT ERA 1996 to PRESENT

In 1996, Shaquille O'Neal, the most dominant Center of his time (anyone else notice a pattern here?) was traded to the Lakers... oh wait, no he wasn't traded... he just went there "because". For some odd reason, players in the NBA love to go to LA. Especially, big dominant centers. O'Neal led the Lakers to 3 titles in 4 appearances in 2000, 2001, and 2002.

Had it not been for an arrogant, enormously huge prick, LA could have more titles. However, Kobe Bryant just couldn't stand that Shaq was "the man" and his constant bitching, crying, and whining was all Shaq could take. Even the reserved Phil Jackson left briefly.

However, after another early playoff exit in 2006, Kobe was now crying, bitching, and whining about not having enough help. You gotta love irony, haha. In 2007, LA stole - er, I mean traded for - Pau Gasol. Gasol was already an established, dominant Center, blah blah blah, you know the deal. In return LA sent future hall of famers Kwame Brown, Javaris Crittenton, Aaron McKie, and some draft picks. Except that none of those bums will be in the hall of fame and I'd bet my life that none of them are even in the NBA anymore.

However, in 2007, the Celtics did some trading of their own. Old veterans Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett were looking to play for a winner and the Celtics were shopping. The C's essentially traded away their whole team and all of their draft picks to form "the big 3".

Naturally, in 2007, Boston played LA in the finals. EVERYONE was picking LA in 4 or 5. 9 out of 10 experts picked LA. What a bunch of fucking idiots. Boston beat LA in 6, just as every C's fan had predicted, and they closed it out with the ultimate "fuck you, in your face" game beating LA by 39 in the clincher in Boston. To add insult to injury, Boston pulled off the biggest finals comeback ever in LA in game 4 in front of their arrogant, annoying fans by coming back from a 24 point deficit. Yet another finals choke job by the Fakers.


I'll end this with 5 quick reasons why the Celtics are better.

1) The Celtics are more successful. They have 17 titles and 31 hall of famers. The Lakers have 15 championships and 16 in the HOF. Boston owns a dominating 9-2 edge over LA in the finals, a 40-27 edge in the playoffs, and a hefty 152-120 edge in the regular season.

2) The Celtics are one of the original franchises. Their best talent (Bird, Russell, Cousy, Havlicek, Pierce, McHale, Auerbach) was drafted or traded for at a young age and developed in the C's system.

The Lakers, by contrast, are nothing but hired guns. They would have EXACTLY ZERO CHAMPIONSHIPS if they didn't pay top dollar to lure Kareem, Chamberlain, Shaq, Gasol, and Phil Jackson away from their original teams to live in Hollywood. Hell, even the team itself was stolen from it's original city.

3) Russell is the Jackie Robinson of basketball. One of the pioneers who broke the color barrier. First black coach in sports. The Celtics were the first team to start 5 black players.

4) Boston is a better sports town. Blue collar diehard fans. LA is filled with transplants and celebrities and the team priced real fans out of the Staples center long ago.

5) Kobe Bryant is easily the most hateable player the NBA has ever known. Outside of LA fans does anyone like him? If you're not a Laker fan, then you most likely hate the Lakers. They're the Yankees of basketball.



Los Angeles Lakers - by yours truly

Let me begin my post by letting it be known throughout the legion of my 7 or 8 blog readers that I am a Celtics fan through and through. More than just a Celtics fan though, I despise the Lakers. Kevin McHale clotheslining that turd Kurt Rambis is something I could watch forever on a loop. There is an endless list of the things I hate about the Lakers. I hate how rooting for the Lakers is cool. I hate their stupid colors. I hate that going to a Lakers game seems to be more about who you'll see in attendance than watching the team play. I hate that no matter what city you watch on tv there are 4 or 5 random pubes wearing a Kobe jersey even though the Lakers aren't playing. I hate how the Lakers are always a soft fruity finesse team. I hate how the team clearly had the name Lakers because of all the lakes in Minnesota but now it makes about as much as sense as the Utah Jazz. I hate that I still think "Lakers" is a pretty cool team name anyway. I hate that big time free agents always want to be in LA over any other city. I hate the absolutely attrocious calls I'd see in the Kobe/Shaq playoff era. I hate that it is basically fact that the refs took the 2002 NBA title away from the Sacremento Kings and gave it to the Lakers yet the douche bag Laker fans still have the nerve to call them the Queens. And I especially hate that the Minneapolis/Los Angeles Lakers are the greatest franchise in NBA history.

I know you are probably muttering to yourself, "But wait a minute, Joe, the Celtics have 17 championships to the Lakers 15. Head to head in the finals the Celtics are 9 - 2 against the Lakers. "

The fact of the matter is of the Celtics 17 championships 11 of them came between 1957 and 1969. In this time the Celtics were 7 - 0 against the Lakers. Any Laker fan or rational human being on the planet can absolutely positively agree that the Celtics dynasty during this time is the greatest in all sports history. There is just no disputing the incredible dominance.

However, the Celtics team history stretches from 1946 to 2010, while the Lakers is from 1948 to 2010. If you cut out this thirteen year stretch of dominance you are left with 51 more Celtics seasons and 49 Lakers. In this time frame, it isn't even close who is the better team.

Nonetheless, I cannot pick and choose which years to count and which to avoid in my argument. I will give you the cold, hard facts of the Celtics 64 year history and the Lakers 62 year history.

Fact #1 - The Boston Celtics have won 17 NBA Championships. The Los Angeles Lakers have won 15.

Of the Celtics 17 NBA titles 2 came in the 1950's, 9 in the 1960's, 2 in the 1970's, 3 in the 1980's, 0 in the 1990's, and 1 in the 2000's. This includes a 22 year gap between titles in 1986 and 2008.

Of the Lakers 15 NBA titles 1 came in the 1940's, 4 in the 1950's, 0 in the 1960's, 1 in the 1970's, 5 in the 1980's, 0 in the 1990's, and 4 in the 2000's.

The number of teams in the BAA/NBA from 1946-1947 to 1968-1969 ranged from 8 to 14. In the 1970's this grew from 14 to 22 teams. In the 1980's this reached 25 teams. In the 1990's there were 29 teams. Then in the 2000's the Charlotte Bobcats made it 30 teams.

Couldn't we all agree that it is far easier to win an NBA title when you are 1 of 8 teams as opposed to 1 of 20 something or even 30? I also would assume that free agency and salary caps didn't loom over every franchise back then either.

I'm sure we'd all agree that the New England Patriots winning 3 titles in the 2000's when they competed against 32 teams in a free agent/salary cap era was more impressive than the Green Bay Packers of the 1960's who basically could keep players throughout their career. It's not to say we don't tip our cap to Green Bay but there are just far fewer obstacles.

Jumping back to the Celtics - Lakers, the Celtics won 11 titles when the league was miniscule in size to the Lakers 5 titles. Since this time (1970 and forward) the Celtics have won an additional 6 titles to the Lakers 10.

Fact #2 - The Celtics have made 20 NBA finals while the Lakers have made it to 30 (these numbers do not include 2010 - both teams could notch another appearance).

It's easy to crap on the Lakers for losing so many NBA finals but wouldn't reaching the finals be greater than not reaching the finals? The 10 fewer seasons the Celtics did not make the finals correlate to them having lost sometime BEFORE the finals.

Here's an example of what I mean. The Celtics made the finals in 1984, 1985, 1986, and 1987. The Lakers made it in 1984, 1985, and 1987. Each team won 2 titles and the Lakers went 2 - 1 against the Celtics over these 4 years. So who had the better run.... THE CELTICS!!!!! The head to head didn't matter, the Lakers forgot to show up in 1986!!! They lost to the effin' Rockets before reaching the finals!!! Reaching the finals > Not reaching the finals.

I can make the same argument for 2008 & 2009. The Celtics had 1 title (over LA), the Lakers had 1 title but made it both years. Who had the better two year period? The LAKERS!!!! In my opinion it is always best to have made it as far as you could!!!

Also think about this, the Lakers have made 30 (possibly 31) NBA Finals in there 62 year history. Wouldn't one be impressed with a team who made the playoffs 50% of the time, let alone the finals?

Fact #3 - The Celtics have made the playoffs 48 times while the Lakers have made it 57 times.

To put this in perspective the Lakers have NOT made the playoffs 5 times!!! That's just stupid. They failed to reach the playoffs in 1958, 1975, 1976, 1994, and 2005. The longest stretch not making it was 2 seasons. Year after year, generation after generation you can always count on the Lakers to be a dominant force. From Mikan, to West, to Baylor, to Chamberlain, to Magic, to Kareem, to Shaq, and to Kobe the Lakers have just trotted out absolute superstars for 62 years!

The Celtics have made the playoffs in 48 of 64 seasons which certainly is outstanding as well. However since the 1986 title the C's have fielded some pretty craptacular teams - many of which were strung together for years at a time. This includes teams that lost 50, 49, 67, 46, 31 (in a strike year of 50 games), 47, 46, 49, and 58 games.

There is no disputing that the Lakers have never had a lull in their dominant franchise history. The Celtics were a bit top heavy in that their former years were by far and away their most formidable.

Fact #4 - Lady luck sometimes needs to be on your side.

I'm by no means attributing either team's success entirely on luck but you do need to get some good breaks along the way. The Celtics had to deal with the tragic loss of two immensely talented players that could have helped extend their run into the late 1980's. Losing Len Bias and Reggie Lewis were two very large blows to the Celtics success. In the Celtics 67 loss season of 1997, they had two lottery draft picks. All anyone could envision was how good Tim Duncan and Keith Van Horn would look in Celtics green. Low and behold the C's ended up with the 3rd and 5th picks that year.

Lady luck was kind to the Lakers when Chris Wallace and the Memphis Grizzlies traded Pau Gasol to the Lakers for a bag of pubes and some used toilet paper. The Lakers were also pretty fortunate that the Charlotte Hornets felt it was smart to trade Kobe Bryant for Vlade Divac & a bin of beard grooming kits.

All in all, when you comb through the facts - fuck I hate to say it - the Lakers are the greatest franchise in NBA history. And what makes me even more miserable is that this 62 year run of dominance isn't going to stop any time soon, unless that slut Lady Luck decides to stop sleeping with those bastards out west.

Quit Being a Bitch

I will admit this. I'm very late in coming over to the Lebron James hateration club. As a matter of fact I didn't really hate Lebron at all. I will always of course root for the Celtics but should they fall I would probably rest my rooting interests on "The King."

There are a number of reasons for this:

1. I hate Kobe, I hate the Lakers, and I hate their stupid fans a ton - This is the NBA. It's a league where your Cinderella feel good teams may win one round but they sure as shit aren't winning a championship. Therefore to stave off another Lakers gay ass championship I will put my alliance with a team and star player who I think could beat them. So out of necessity I would pull for, wouldn't quite say root for, the Cavs n James.

2. Cleveland deserves a title - If you think New England was ever down on its sports luck you haven't met our friends in Ohio. Cleveland has three professional sports teams: Indians, Browns, and Cavaliers. Of these three teams the Browns were the tits in the 50's and 60's. That's it. The 1964 Browns are the last Cleveland team to win a title. Since that time these fans have dealt with: John Elway raping them in the 1986 AFC Championship with The Drive, Earnest Byner blowing the AFC Championship game the next year with The Fumble, a boner of a loss to the Raiders in I believe either 1980 or 1983 where they were down a point and instead of running to set up a FG threw an INT, the Browns being moved to Baltimore, no football from 1996 to 1998, the New Browns coming in and sucking for 10+ years, the Ravens (the old Browns) winning a Super Bowl and being a perennial playoff team, the Indians getting good directly as a result from the strong vibes of the Major League movies, the Indians then blowing the 1995 World Series to the inferior Braves, the 1997 Indians & namely Jose Mesa REALLY blowing the World Series to the Marlins, the 1990's Indians in general never winning a championship despite being so dominant, the 2007 Indians blowing a 3 games to 1 lead to the Red Sox where a win left them against the inferior Rockies, the Cavs losing in 1989 on Michael Jordan's famous buzzer beater over Craig Ehlo, the team sucking giants balls for a good 10 years, then landing a franchise saving first pick in James, who still hasn't delivered because he hasn't really stepped up the last two years in the playoffs, AND TO BOOT the Cavs could lose this year and legitimately see James go on to the Knicks or Bulls. Needless to say I sympathize with these fans.

3. James' game, in my opinion, is much more likable than Kobe's. He's a phenomenal teammate, great passer, jokes with the guys, and doesn't call them out publicly although it's pretty apparent he hasn't really had the talent he needs around him and no one would really blame him if he were to bitch. Whereas Kobe is just a giant pube of a human being.

However these feelings changed just about a week ago. Sure, I still feel sorry for the Cleveland fans but that sally-ass, pussy-elbow, left handed free throw shooting bull shit was some of the lamest nonsense I've ever seen.

All James is accomplishing by crying about his wimpy "injury" is he gets to protect the Lebron James product. It's pretty friggin expected that this man will win multiple NBA championships. Maybe his elbow is a little sore (I'm sure just about every player is at this point) but what's there to gain by faking this lame injury???

Basically Sportscenter and reporters who take turns giving him HJ's will make the story even bigger than it already deserves to be. Then when (not if) the Cavs blow it - whether it'd be to the Celtics, Magic, or Lakers - James can fall back on his sore wittle elbow as the excuse to why he STILL hasn't delivered.

Is it just me or does this seem as if it is becoming a trend?? James and the Cavs look unbeatable in the regular season, and hell I admit I was ready to hand them the trophy the past TWO seasons, then in the playoffs they look very ordinary. They are lucky to not be down 2-0 to the aging freaking Celtics!!

We will have our answer in about a month, but if I were to bet I would say an NBA Finals loss to the Lakers and an offseason filled with mysterious elbow excuses & Lebron James free agency tour is what's in store.

At least the Cleveland fans have Mike Holmgren in town to turn around the Browns, right?