PDA

View Full Version : Better 5 yr run 2007-2012: Lakers or Celtics?



KB-Pau-DH2012
06-16-2012, 04:57 PM
After this offseason, it's pretty much a given that the big 3 of Kobe, Bynum and Gasol will be broken up for the Lakers while the big 3 of Garnett, Allen and Pierce will be broken up for the Celtics.

But who had a better 5 yr run from 07-12?


Championships: Lakers 2, Celtics 1

Finals Appearances: Lakers 3, Celtics 2


Head-to-Head Regular Season Games Matchups: Lakers 6, Celtics 4

Head-to-Head Regular Season Series: Lakers 2, Celtics 1 (Tied: 2)

Head-to-Head Finals Games Matchups: Celtics 7, Lakers 6

Head-to-Head Finals Series: Celtics 1, Lakers 1 (Celtics in 6 in 2008, Lakers in 7 in 2010)


Regular Seasons with 60+ Wins: Celtics 2 (07-08: 66 wins and 08-09: 62 wins), Lakers 1 (08-09: 65 wins)




2007-2012 Lakers Regular Season Record: 277-117 (70.3% Winning%)

2007-2012 Celtics Regular Season Record: 273-121 (69.3% Winning%)



2007-2012 Lakers Postseason Record: 55-34 (61.8% Winning%)

2007-2012 Celtics Postseason Record: 53-39 (57.6% Winning%)



Year-by-Year End Results

Lakers:

2008: Lost to Celtics 4-2 NBA Finals
2009: Won vs Orlando 4-1 NBA Finals (CHAMPIONSHIP)
2010: Won vs Boston 4-3 NBA Finals (CHAMPIONSHIP)
2011: Lost to Mavericks 4-0 West Semis
2012: Lost to Thunder 4-1 West Semis


Celtics:

2008: Won vs Lakers 4-2 NBA Finals (CHAMPIONSHIP)
2009: Lost vs Orlando 4-3 East Semis
2010: Lost vs Lakers 4-3 NBA Finals
2011: Lost vs Heat 4-1 East Semis
2012: Lost vs Heat 4-3 East Finals




Side notes:

Lakers have been swept once (2011 West Semis Mavs) while Celtics did not get swept at all in these 5 yrs.

The Celtics played in 7 Game 7s (4-3) while the Lakers played in 3 Game 7s (3-0).

The Celtics swept 1 playoff series (2011 1st rd Knicks) and Lakers swept 2 playoff series (2008 1st rd Nuggets and 2010 Semis Jazz).

Of the 4 times the Celtics have been eliminated from the playoffs, 3 of those times they blew a 3-2 series lead and lost the series in a 7th game (2009 Semis Orlando, 2010 Finals Lakers, 2012 East Finals Heat).

The Lakers acquired Pau Gasol in the middle of the 07-08 Season while the Celtics acquired both Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen before the start of the 07-08 Season.

Doc Rivers coached the Celtics all 5 seasons while Phil Jackson coached the Lakers the first 4 seasons and Mike Brown coached the Lakers in that 5th and shortened season.

The Lakers made it to 3 straight Finals (08,09,10). Since 1980, only the 80s Lakers (82,83,84,85) and 80s Celtics (84,85,86,87) have more, and comparable to the BadBoy Pistons (88,89,90), early 90s Bulls (91,92,93), late 90s Bulls (96,97,98) and Shaq-Kobe Lakers (00,01,02).

Injuries:

Celtics did not have Kevin Garnett in the 2009 Playoffs, did not have Kendrick Perkins for most of game 6 and all of game 7 of the 2010 finals against the Lakers, and an unhealthy Shaq in 2011 as he did not play the first round and barely played the 2nd round.

Lakers did not have Andrew Bynum at all in the 2008 playoffs and Trevor Ariza was not the same in those playoffs as well.

raiderposting
06-16-2012, 04:59 PM
its called 2 championships to 1 its not even a debate.

greg_ory_2005
06-16-2012, 05:04 PM
Lakers 2. Celtics 1.

justinnum1
06-16-2012, 05:05 PM
its called 2 championships to 1 its not even a debate.

This

popo85
06-16-2012, 05:07 PM
Agreed with the other 3 posts, our last 2 seasons though:facepalm:

D12 fan
06-16-2012, 05:07 PM
Lakers period.

Catfish1314
06-16-2012, 05:10 PM
The Lakers for obvious reasons but they have been very frustrating to watch the last two years.

KB-Pau-DH2012
06-16-2012, 05:10 PM
I just want to give the Celtics some recognition because of what they were able to do when they had aging players and all those injuries to key guys in key moments and when everyone called them basically DONE after 1 1/2 yrs together after KG suffered that horrible knee injury in the middle of the 08-09 season. I think it's remarkable what Doc did, how Rondo was able to grow, and how KG so late in his career was able to refine his game after aging and that knee injury and moving from PF to C and producing close to 20 & 10 in these last playoffs and them being just a win away from the Finals this yr.

DodgerB24
06-16-2012, 05:10 PM
Poll?

KB-Pau-DH2012
06-16-2012, 05:12 PM
Poll?

Ya my bad. Can a mod please add a poll to this thread?

Thanks.

JasonJohnHorn
06-16-2012, 05:21 PM
I think LA is the obvious choice, though had Garnett or Perkins not been injured for two of those post seasons runs, it could easily have swung in Boston's favour.

TheJesus
06-16-2012, 05:22 PM
You answered your own question with the breakdown

3's set u free
06-16-2012, 05:22 PM
What is not being mentioned is the lakers went to 3 straight finals, and won 2. Then loses to the eventual champion Mavericks and the following year loses to the potential champion as well if the thunder win.

So if the thunder win the lakers have either won the championship or lost to the eventual champion every year. It doesn't get much better than that.

Meanwhile the celtics haven't been true contenders since they lost to the lakers. They had a nice run this year but would have been massive underdogs against the thunder (the lakers were only slight underdogs) and would have probably gotten swept (not that the lakers did much better)

3's set u free
06-16-2012, 05:24 PM
I think LA is the obvious choice, though had Garnett or Perkins not been injured for two of those post seasons runs, it could easily have swung in Boston's favour.

That's easy to say but there are injuries every year. Had both Bynum and Ariza played in the finals against boston the first time they definitely would have won. Luke Walton was starting at SF and Odom at PF and it also gave the lakers no bench.

Let's not work in what ifs and just talk about what actually happened.

TheJesus
06-16-2012, 05:26 PM
Exactly. The Lakers were the better team with the better run.

lakers4sho
06-16-2012, 06:01 PM
What's your daily quota on threads created?

Catfish1314
06-16-2012, 06:08 PM
What is not being mentioned is the lakers went to 3 straight finals, and won 2. Then loses to the eventual champion Mavericks and the following year loses to the potential champion as well if the thunder win.

So if the thunder win the lakers have either won the championship or lost to the eventual champion every year. It doesn't get much better than that.

Meanwhile the celtics haven't been true contenders since they lost to the lakers. They had a nice run this year but would have been massive underdogs against the thunder (the lakers were only slight underdogs) and would have probably gotten swept (not that the lakers did much better)

Not that it wasn't close, but I think the Celtics were better than the Lakers this year. Boston would have given OKC a better fight to be honest. Had they met in the playoffs, I think Boston would have taken it. If Gasol faded against Denver and OKC, how would he have performed against Garnett and the Celtics?

ManningToTyree
06-16-2012, 06:08 PM
After this offseason, it's pretty much a given that the big 3 of Kobe, Bynum and Gasol will be broken up for the Lakers while the big 3 of Garnett, Allen and Pierce will be broken up for the Celtics.

But who had a better 5 yr run from 07-12?


Championships: Lakers 2, Celtics 1

Finals Appearances: Lakers 3, Celtics 2


Head-to-Head Regular Season Games Matchups: Lakers 6, Celtics 4

Head-to-Head Regular Season Series: Lakers 2, Celtics 1 (Tied: 2)

Head-to-Head Finals Games Matchups: Celtics 7, Lakers 6

Head-to-Head Finals Series: Celtics 1, Lakers 1 (Celtics in 6 in 2008, Lakers in 7 in 2010)


Regular Seasons with 60+ Wins: Celtics 2 (07-08: 66 wins and 08-09: 62 wins), Lakers 1 (08-09: 65 wins)




2007-2012 Lakers Regular Season Record: 277-117 (70.3% Winning%)

2007-2012 Celtics Regular Season Record: 273-121 (69.3% Winning%)



2007-2012 Lakers Postseason Record: 55-34 (61.8% Winning%)

2007-2012 Celtics Postseason Record: 53-39 (57.6% Winning%)



Year-by-Year End Results

Lakers:

2008: Lost to Celtics 4-2 NBA Finals
2009: Won vs Orlando 4-1 NBA Finals (CHAMPIONSHIP)
2010: Won vs Boston 4-3 NBA Finals (CHAMPIONSHIP)
2011: Lost to Mavericks 4-0 West Semis
2012: Lost to Thunder 4-1 West Semis


Celtics:

2008: Won vs Lakers 4-2 NBA Finals (CHAMPIONSHIP)
2009: Lost vs Orlando 4-3 East Semis
2010: Lost vs Lakers 4-3 NBA Finals
2011: Lost vs Heat 4-1 East Semis
2012: Lost vs Heat 4-3 East Finals




Side notes:

Lakers have been swept once (2011 West Semis Mavs) while Celtics did not get swept at all in these 5 yrs.

The Celtics played in 7 Game 7s (4-3) while the Lakers played in 3 Game 7s (3-0).

The Celtics swept 1 playoff series (2011 1st rd Knicks) and Lakers swept 2 playoff series (2008 1st rd Nuggets and 2010 Semis Jazz).

Of the 4 times the Celtics have been eliminated from the playoffs, 3 of those times they blew a 3-2 series lead and lost the series in a 7th game (2009 Semis Orlando, 2010 Finals Lakers, 2012 East Finals Heat).

The Lakers acquired Pau Gasol in the middle of the 07-08 Season while the Celtics acquired both Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen before the start of the 07-08 Season.

Doc Rivers coached the Celtics all 5 seasons while Phil Jackson coached the Lakers the first 4 seasons and Mike Brown coached the Lakers in that 5th and shortened season.

The Lakers made it to 3 straight Finals (08,09,10). Since 1980, only the 80s Lakers (82,83,84,85) and 80s Celtics (84,85,86,87) have more, and comparable to the BadBoy Pistons (88,89,90), early 90s Bulls (91,92,93), late 90s Bulls (96,97,98) and Shaq-Kobe Lakers (00,01,02).

Injuries:

Celtics did not have Kevin Garnett in the 2009 Playoffs, did not have Kendrick Perkins for most of game 6 and all of game 7 of the 2010 finals against the Lakers, and an unhealthy Shaq in 2011 as he did not play the first round and barely played the 2nd round.

Lakers did not have Andrew Bynum at all in the 2008 playoffs and Trevor Ariza was not the same in those playoffs as well.

only stat you need. Lakers.

StarvingKnick22
06-16-2012, 06:14 PM
its called 2 championships to 1 its not even a debate. this.

ManRam
06-16-2012, 06:16 PM
Game 7 in 2010 decided this...

Lakers, of course.

It's really close because the Lakers have 2 to Boston's 1....but it's not close in regards to the fact that really the only difference is that game 7 and one series.

D12 fan
06-16-2012, 06:17 PM
this.

That.

KB-Pau-DH2012
06-16-2012, 06:25 PM
what's your daily quota on threads created?

6

Hawkeye15
06-16-2012, 06:39 PM
I just want to give the Celtics some recognition because of what they were able to do when they had aging players and all those injuries to key guys in key moments and when everyone called them basically DONE after 1 1/2 yrs together after KG suffered that horrible knee injury in the middle of the 08-09 season. I think it's remarkable what Doc did, how Rondo was able to grow, and how KG so late in his career was able to refine his game after aging and that knee injury and moving from PF to C and producing close to 20 & 10 in these last playoffs and them being just a win away from the Finals this yr.

The Celtics deserve some recognition, but 2 championships trumps 1. Period.

Hawkeye15
06-16-2012, 06:41 PM
What's your daily quota on threads created?

This site needs creative thoughts to start threads. The OP does a very good job of creating positive discussion on this site, and I don't think anyone needs to criticize him when we have countless threads with the same old crap created on a daily basis.

BlinkManJan02
06-16-2012, 06:50 PM
Any time someone has more championships in team comparisons like this I always go with that team. I'm sure anyone would agree with that.

shep33
06-16-2012, 06:51 PM
I think it has to be LA (Laker homer speaking). But the Celtics are back on the NBA map after a long, tough stretch of years. People want to play in Boston, and in no way should the Celtics be considered a "failure".

Hawkeye15
06-16-2012, 06:57 PM
Any time someone has more championships in team comparisons like this I always go with that team. I'm sure anyone would agree with that.

Fair, but would you still say the Boston Celtics franchise has had the better run overall, meaning all time, over the Lakers? I mean, the Celtics have 1 more championship, right? But so many of theirs came when there wasn't anywhere near the competition there has been the last 30 years, when the Lakers have clearly been the superior team.

Just food for thought.

lakers4sho
06-16-2012, 07:11 PM
This site needs creative thoughts to start threads. The OP does a very good job of creating positive discussion on this site, and I don't think anyone needs to criticize him when we have countless threads with the same old crap created on a daily basis.

the other responses in this thread suggests otherwise.

Also, spend some time in the laker forum.

Ty Fast
06-16-2012, 07:48 PM
lakers. they won more titles and made the finals more times.

black1605
06-16-2012, 07:57 PM
Lakers.

Rivera
06-16-2012, 08:11 PM
Lakers but i enjoyed bostons run a hell of a lot more (maybe cause im closer to the situation). Also boston basketball was down considerably before kg/ray got here. Boston was no where near a basketball town becaus the celtics sucked so bad but the big 3 revived basketball back in boston

Bruno
06-16-2012, 09:31 PM
Game 7 in 2010 decided this...

Lakers, of course.

It's really close because the Lakers have 2 to Boston's 1....but it's not close in regards to the fact that really the only difference is that game 7 and one series.

Perkins missed most of gave six and all of game seven in 2010, but Bynum didn't suit up for the 2008 finals and Ariza was injured playing a few minutes off the bench. Game seven decided the comparison, only because Boston wrapped LAL 4-2 in 2008. Maybe without injuries, the Lakers would have won 2008, and Boston 2010? Bynum was dominant in 2008 before getting injured:

PER: 22.6
TS%: .659
WS/48: .230

Or maybe KGs injury in 2009 was the deciding factor? LAL/BOS should have happened in 2009 too.

TylerSL
06-16-2012, 09:42 PM
I mean obviously the Lakers, the Lakers had the better postseason record in a much tougher Western Conference. That said, you cant not acknowledge Boston. I mean, they won a title over the Lakers in their first year.

I still argue to this day, they would have beat the Lakers in the Finals again in 08-09 had Garnett been healthy cuz no way Orlando beats them. And I also believe that if Perkins hadnt gone down in Game 6 of 2010 Finals, the Celtics wouldnt have coughed up a 14 point lead in the 3rd quarter in Game 7. So then, we would literally be talking about how the Celtics beat the Lakers in the Finals for 3 straight seasons. Obviously, that isnt how things turned out, but IMO it very well could have.

And I know thats a bunch of "ifs" and that didnt happen. The Lakers have had more success.

ChitownBears22
06-16-2012, 09:44 PM
Up next: Who had a better 5 seasons: Bobcats or Lakers.....yeah we get it the Lakers were a decent team, stop living in the past and look to the future. Those dark grey clouds above LA aren't smog, its a sign of things to come.

BlinkManJan02
06-16-2012, 09:45 PM
Fair, but would you still say the Boston Celtics franchise has had the better run overall, meaning all time, over the Lakers? I mean, the Celtics have 1 more championship, right? But so many of theirs came when there wasn't anywhere near the competition there has been the last 30 years, when the Lakers have clearly been the superior team.

Just food for thought.

I will be thinking about this all day now, haha damn it !

A five year span is far shorter than the overall comparison, so I think one more (championship) in five seasons seems bigger than what it actually is. The Lakers were great right off the bat in Minneapolis. I would have to say Boston won that early era though, and the Lakers are still winning this one. From 1988-2007 Boston didn't appear in the finals, and weren't even a playoff contender some of those years. The Lakers have been in the Finals much more frequently, almost constantly being a championship contender, even during the new competition era over the last 30 years. So I would say the Lakers have been the more successful franchise, just my opinion.

I think it's safe to say those are the top two franchises overall :p

MickeyMgl
06-16-2012, 10:03 PM
I think LA is the obvious choice, though had Garnett or Perkins not been injured for two of those post seasons runs, it could easily have swung in Boston's favour.

Or it could've been a 3-peat if two Laker starters had not been out in '08.

In the end, it is what it is.

MickeyMgl
06-16-2012, 10:06 PM
Any time someone has more championships in team comparisons like this I always go with that team. I'm sure anyone would agree with that.

Other things do factor in, but they don't swing the discussion in this case.

Giannis94
06-16-2012, 10:09 PM
is this a serious question?

STL Don
06-17-2012, 01:36 AM
The Celtics made a heck of a run but it does not top the 3 straight finals appearances, winning 2 of the 3.. much respect for Boston though

KB-Pau-DH2012
06-17-2012, 01:38 AM
Up next: Who had a better 5 seasons: Bobcats or Lakers.....yeah we get it the Lakers were a decent team, stop living in the past and look to the future. Those dark grey clouds above LA aren't smog, its a sign of things to come.

Bobcats, because they have more lottery picks than the Lakers and MJ > Kobe.

seikou8
06-17-2012, 01:51 AM
lakers

Bos 232
06-17-2012, 01:53 AM
Celtics had a great run, but clearly the lakers run was better.

IndiansFan337
06-17-2012, 02:31 AM
LAL won more championships, so I think it is very clear...

Kinglorious
06-17-2012, 02:36 AM
lol 27-1.

naps
06-17-2012, 02:53 AM
WoW really dude?

Lakers won 2 championships and been to the finals 3 times, both of which are better than the Celtics and should trump everything else. Celtics were fantastic as well but Lakers had the better run, it's a no-brainer.

Lakers + Giants
06-17-2012, 03:14 AM
Fair, but would you still say the Boston Celtics franchise has had the better run overall, meaning all time, over the Lakers? I mean, the Celtics have 1 more championship, right? But so many of theirs came when there wasn't anywhere near the competition there has been the last 30 years, when the Lakers have clearly been the superior team.

Just food for thought.

New sig, this means a lot coming from you. :)

faridk89
06-17-2012, 03:16 AM
This question is a joke...right?

todu82
06-17-2012, 09:03 AM
Lakers

Chavacano
06-17-2012, 09:58 AM
I mean obviously the Lakers, the Lakers had the better postseason record in a much tougher Western Conference. That said, you cant not acknowledge Boston. I mean, they won a title over the Lakers in their first year.

I still argue to this day, they would have beat the Lakers in the Finals again in 08-09 had Garnett been healthy cuz no way Orlando beats them. And I also believe that if Perkins hadnt gone down in Game 6 of 2010 Finals, the Celtics wouldnt have coughed up a 14 point lead in the 3rd quarter in Game 7. So then, we would literally be talking about how the Celtics beat the Lakers in the Finals for 3 straight seasons. Obviously, that isnt how things turned out, but IMO it very well could have.

And I know thats a bunch of "ifs" and that didnt happen. The Lakers have had more success.

Meh. It's not like the Lakers were also healthy when they faced the Celtics in '08 finals, the Magic in '09 finals and again, the Celtics in '10 finals. :shrug:

thekmp211
06-17-2012, 11:21 AM
2009 decided this for me. it is what it is but seeing what KG did this year just emphasizes how much of a blow that was to the team. 2010 as well because he was hobbled. and the c's still almost won the ring. so much respect for kg it hurts.

but yeah the lakers got two ships. and burned out ugly. doesn't change the quality of the run. or the fact that mike brown was an atrocious hire and should prob not be a head coach in the nba.

Hawkeye15
06-17-2012, 11:31 AM
New sig, this means a lot coming from you. :)

see, I am not always negative regarding the Lakers, I may hate them, but I understand how great they have been :)

Lakers + Giants
06-17-2012, 12:26 PM
see, I am not always negative regarding the Lakers, I may hate them, but I understand how great they have been :)

I've seen a few of you're posts were you also praise kobe. It's rare, but I've seen it. All I see you do is speak (type) truth but you get called a Laker Hater for it. I honestly don't see it that way. I consider you to be one of the most knowledgeable fans here on PSD along with Chronz and a few others.

:worthy:

thekmp211
06-17-2012, 12:31 PM
I've seen a few of you're posts were you also praise kobe. It's rare, but I've seen it. All I see you do is speak (type) truth but you get called a Laker Hater for it. I honestly don't see it that way. I consider you to be one of the most knowledgeable fans here on PSD along with Chronz and a few others.

:worthy:

i endorse this statement. hawk spits hot fire, just like dylon.

SportsAndrew25
06-17-2012, 12:38 PM
Both had great run but the Black Mamba won two rings so Lakers > Celtics.

Hawkeye15
06-17-2012, 12:54 PM
I've seen a few of you're posts were you also praise kobe. It's rare, but I've seen it. All I see you do is speak (type) truth but you get called a Laker Hater for it. I honestly don't see it that way. I consider you to be one of the most knowledgeable fans here on PSD along with Chronz and a few others.

:worthy:



i endorse this statement. hawk spits hot fire, just like dylon.

Thanks for the compliment, seriously.

Lakers + Giants
06-17-2012, 01:32 PM
Thanks for the compliment, seriously.

No problem.

since you quoted me i realized I spelled Where as were! ****, good thing the grammar police didn't catch me!

juggla53
06-17-2012, 01:57 PM
The lakers had the better run but i think the celtics run was more important to their franchise, they hadnt been relevant since the larry bird days and with the rise of the Patriots and Redsox in the 2000's the celtics had almost become forgotten in boston, the last five years of being contenders and the one finals trophy did a lot for the celtics to get back in the limelight. That being said the Lakers definatley had the better run