PDA

View Full Version : Which Franchise Has Done More for Basketball: Lakers vs Celtics



Shammyguy3
10-01-2016, 08:02 PM
Throughout their entire histories, they've provided a lot of entertainment and growth to the game. Easily considered the hierarchy of NBA throughout it's time. But, which team has given the game MORE?

HandsOnTheWheel
10-02-2016, 12:42 AM
Real tough one, I'd go LA by a very slim margin.

KnicksorBust
10-02-2016, 09:37 AM
Lakers.

Popularity of Mikan, Kareem, Magic, Shaq, Kobe was paramount to attracting fans and keeping fans in almost every decade of the league's existence.

Raidaz4Life
10-02-2016, 09:51 AM
Lakers

PowerHouse
10-02-2016, 10:22 AM
Lets get a poll going for this one. I gotta say Lakers too.

FlashBolt
10-02-2016, 12:07 PM
Should insert Chicago here too. Can certainly argue Jordan has done more for the NBA than any particular team.

Shammyguy3
10-02-2016, 12:15 PM
Poll added

ManningToTyree
10-02-2016, 01:01 PM
Lakers

Chronz
10-02-2016, 01:53 PM
Cmon now man. NY did more for the nba than the Celtics. Racist pricks in beantown made sure of that. Imagine having a dynasty and not even selling out. Their most decorated player was known for being grumpy guys whereas guys flocked to la because it was progressive and in a predominantly black league that flies.

Boston hurt the league imo and i wish free agency was a thing back then

Chronz
10-02-2016, 01:53 PM
Should insert Chicago here too. Can certainly argue Jordan has done more for the NBA than any particular team.
Insert David Stern

Tony_Starks
10-03-2016, 10:28 AM
Lakers. We are the hate em or love em team.

Hawkeye15
10-03-2016, 10:52 AM
Lakers by a mile. The Celtic's early dominance totally skews the fact that in the modern era (post ABA merger), the Lakers have dominated. That doesn't even include the racial disparity of various teams back in the day.

Ishkabibble
10-03-2016, 01:28 PM
Cmon now man. NY did more for the nba than the Celtics. Racist pricks in beantown made sure of that. Imagine having a dynasty and not even selling out. Their most decorated player was known for being grumpy guys whereas guys flocked to la because it was progressive and in a predominantly black league that flies.

Boston hurt the league imo and i wish free agency was a thing back then
---------------------------------------
Celtics:
first team to draft a black player
first team to have an all-black starting five
first team to hire a black head coach

got anything else, cupcake?

KnicksorBust
10-03-2016, 01:29 PM
Cmon now man. NY did more for the nba than the Celtics. Racist pricks in beantown made sure of that. Imagine having a dynasty and not even selling out. Their most decorated player was known for being grumpy guys whereas guys flocked to la because it was progressive and in a predominantly black league that flies.

Boston hurt the league imo and i wish free agency was a thing back then

Strong post. BTW started watching Parks and Rec a few months ago with my wife. Watch it almost every night and about halfway through the series. Never knew who your old sig was until now. Last episode he had me dying:

Ron Swanson: Thank you all for being here. Let's get started.
Leslie Knope: Wow. Great attitude, Ron.
Ron Swanson: Sorry, I was talking to these ribs.

HandsOnTheWheel
10-03-2016, 02:55 PM
Lakers by a mile. The Celtic's early dominance totally skews the fact that in the modern era (post ABA merger), the Lakers have dominated. That doesn't even include the racial disparity of various teams back in the day.

It's not that far off. Celtics and Lakers have each had decades of dominance, with the Celtics even having won more championships which gives them an argument right off the bat IMO.

It's LA due to the superstars they've produced over time/the amount of Finals appearances/championships, among a number of other things but don't sit there and act like Boston is that far behind.

Hawkeye15
10-03-2016, 03:17 PM
It's not that far off. Celtics and Lakers have each had decades of dominance, with the Celtics even having won more championships which gives them an argument right off the bat IMO.

It's LA due to the superstars they've produced over time/the amount of Finals appearances/championships, among a number of other things but don't sit there and act like Boston is that far behind.

Most of Boston's chips came before anyone here was even alive. Hell, before half of your parents were alive.

PhillyFaninLA
10-03-2016, 03:20 PM
Lakers I believe have done more as a whole....they are probably closer to 1 and 1a then they are to 1 and 2 but still...I think its interesting to think about spots 3, 4, and 5 if you take entire history of franchises into account. I believe that is where the bigger debate begins.

I also think you have only had 1 era how does that come into the ranking verse more historic teams.

Vinylman
10-03-2016, 03:36 PM
Cmon now man. NY did more for the nba than the Celtics. Racist pricks in beantown made sure of that. Imagine having a dynasty and not even selling out. Their most decorated player was known for being grumpy guys whereas guys flocked to la because it was progressive and in a predominantly black league that flies.

Boston hurt the league imo and i wish free agency was a thing back then

Bam!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Chronz breaking it down... Boston is the most ****ing racist sports town in professional sports history and it isn't even close

Vinylman
10-03-2016, 03:39 PM
---------------------------------------
Celtics:
first team to draft a black player
first team to have an all-black starting five
first team to hire a black head coach

got anything else, cupcake?

irrelevant... he was talking about the city not the Celtics... ask Ray Allen how he was welcomed to town at the local gym

Chronz
10-03-2016, 08:24 PM
---------------------------------------
Celtics:
first team to draft a black player
first team to have an all-black starting five
first team to hire a black head coach

got anything else, cupcake?

Yeah I was too harsh there, I was thinking from my view as a fan but the franchise is a pillar of excellence.

Its funny, just started binge watching Luke Cage and the lady cop lays out the same thing. Truly a progressive franchise stuck in a backwards community.

europagnpilgrim
10-03-2016, 09:08 PM
Lakers-Sixers-Celtics-NY


basically in that order

honorable mention because of the past commissioner are Jordan's Bulls and the Patriots of the NBA SA Spurs, Spurs are basically a international team playing in the NBA, Stern promoted the nba like it started in 91-92 instead of in the 40's which is well documented by some players who aren't afraid to speak the truth

strong honorable mention also goes to Mikan/Minny who won like 5 titles that the Lakers took(stole) with them after relocation, Minnesota should have never lost those titles in the first place

Shammyguy3
10-03-2016, 10:09 PM
What have the 76ers done more than the Bulls or Spurs have?

HandsOnTheWheel
10-03-2016, 10:16 PM
Lmao

Shlumpledink
10-03-2016, 10:27 PM
Cmon now man. NY did more for the nba than the Celtics. Racist pricks in beantown made sure of that. Imagine having a dynasty and not even selling out. Their most decorated player was known for being grumpy guys whereas guys flocked to la because it was progressive and in a predominantly black league that flies.

Boston hurt the league imo and i wish free agency was a thing back then

Amen, brother

Raps18-19 Champ
10-03-2016, 11:36 PM
Lakers easily.

europagnpilgrim
10-04-2016, 12:48 AM
What have the 76ers done more than the Bulls or Spurs have?

Carried some of the most dominant players ever on its roster

one of the oldest franchises and DrJ was key in bridging the ABA/NBA merger

around 8-10 Finals trips with 3 titles where a 8peat dynasty reigned and the 80's where the Lakers/Celtics/Pistons were pretty damn dominant and title worthy

What have the Bulls/Spurs done more than the 76ers overall in its entirety, not since 91' with the Bulls and 99' with the Spurs, it goes back to the 40's or do you want to start with the 90's era? if so then that's on you, makes me none

regardless 76ers are in the mix no matter how you slice the pie

Bulls and Spurs have more titles but not as many Finals appearances, that has to count for something

I'd rather be like Magic and go to 9 Finals(5-4) then be like Duncan/Jordan and go to 6, I would rather have 9billion$ than 6billion but both are well off but that extra 3billion sure would help me spend a lot more lavish

Lakers + Giants
10-04-2016, 01:05 AM
Lakers.

and I don't even think it's crazy to say Bulls have had a bigger impact on the league than Celtics.

Jordan makes that kind of difference alone imo.

Scoots
10-04-2016, 08:32 AM
Cmon now man. NY did more for the nba than the Celtics. Racist pricks in beantown made sure of that. Imagine having a dynasty and not even selling out. Their most decorated player was known for being grumpy guys whereas guys flocked to la because it was progressive and in a predominantly black league that flies.

Boston hurt the league imo and i wish free agency was a thing back then

Racist? The first black player in the NBA was a Celtic, the first black coach was a Celtic, first black starting 5. Sure Boston has a lot of racists but not the Celtics. (EDIT: Saw someone else made the same point)

Bill Russell is frosty with the media and with fawning fans, but his teammates loved him.

All that said, it's really close.

LA is where Wilt finished his career but he started it in Philly ... with the Warriors and the Sixers ... So the Lakers should not get to "claim" him.

Shammyguy3
10-04-2016, 11:06 AM
Carried some of the most dominant players ever on its roster

one of the oldest franchises and DrJ was key in bridging the ABA/NBA merger

around 8-10 Finals trips with 3 titles where a 8peat dynasty reigned and the 80's where the Lakers/Celtics/Pistons were pretty damn dominant and title worthy

What have the Bulls/Spurs done more than the 76ers overall in its entirety, not since 91' with the Bulls and 99' with the Spurs, it goes back to the 40's or do you want to start with the 90's era? if so then that's on you, makes me none

regardless 76ers are in the mix no matter how you slice the pie

Bulls and Spurs have more titles but not as many Finals appearances, that has to count for something

I'd rather be like Magic and go to 9 Finals(5-4) then be like Duncan/Jordan and go to 6, I would rather have 9billion$ than 6billion but both are well off but that extra 3billion sure would help me spend a lot more lavish

So you'd take Magic who won only 5 titles over Jordan who won 6? That's weird.

The 76ers have only won 3 titles, they've never had a dynasty. The Bulls/Spurs have won more titles and have had dynasties. The Bulls and Michael Jordan literally is all that needs to be said. They put the NBA on a whole different level (something that Bird/Magic together didn't catapult the league to). Additionally, the Spurs have been pioneers in the league for drafting international talent.

For the bolded - you don't get brownie points for coming in second when you can't keep up with first place finishes.

And your billion dollar comparison falls short, because we both know what is more valuable: winning titles. You actually have that analogy backwards. It's as if you would prefer to own 9 different companies that make only $9,000,000 combined a year instead of one company that makes more.

NYKalltheway
10-05-2016, 04:28 AM
I don't get the question. How did these franchises individually help the sport of basketball?

If the question is which is most important in NBA history that's another thing. Both are giants and extremely signifcant. Without either one of them, the NBA is much different.

Chronz
10-06-2016, 12:00 PM
I don't get the question. How did these franchises individually help the sport of basketball?

If the question is which is most important in NBA history that's another thing. Both are giants and extremely signifcant. Without either one of them, the NBA is much different.

By helping the game grow, in this country and around the world. The Lakers gave the league coast to coast legitimacy, they proclaimed themselves basketball center of the world simply upon arriving, their brand grew globally over the ensuing decades. Because of that franchise's popularity, they have a huge fan base outside of LA. The way the Dream Team inspired millions to play ball growing up, so too did LA. The game doesn't reach its lofty heights without some franchise inspiring people across the globe the most. To me, its without a doubt LA. NY brought that swag culture to the game, Boston brought diversity but it lacked the die hard legions of fans IMO. Wonder if they would have supported them as much if Larry Bird were black.

So yeah, which franchise helped the game grow more...

Scoots
10-06-2016, 12:33 PM
Jordan, without Magic and Bird coming before him could not have done what he did on the marketing/growth of popularity aspect.

And Stern of course.

europagnpilgrim
10-06-2016, 01:45 PM
So you'd take Magic who won only 5 titles over Jordan who won 6? That's weird.

The 76ers have only won 3 titles, they've never had a dynasty. The Bulls/Spurs have won more titles and have had dynasties. The Bulls and Michael Jordan literally is all that needs to be said. They put the NBA on a whole different level (something that Bird/Magic together didn't catapult the league to). Additionally, the Spurs have been pioneers in the league for drafting international talent.

For the bolded - you don't get brownie points for coming in second when you can't keep up with first place finishes.

And your billion dollar comparison falls short, because we both know what is more valuable: winning titles. You actually have that analogy backwards. It's as if you would prefer to own 9 different companies that make only $9,000,000 combined a year instead of one company that makes more.

I would take Magic and his 9 appearances over Jordan 6, I would rather go to the Super Bowl 9 times than 6, I would rather go to 9 grand slam finals than 6, I would rather go to 9 World Series than 6, I never said I would take the player Magic over Jordan but good try

Dr J had the Sixers in the Finals or on the verge many of times but the East was that rough in his time, I know they only won like 3 titles but they have been to like 10 finals as a total franchise which is behind the Lakers/Celtics, Malone/DrJ/Barkley would have been had Dr J been a few years younger along with Moses

Big Dipper was a dynasty by himself alone basically, especially the way he battled that 8peat dynasty back in his day, but lets ignore that

to me you do get credit for reaching the Finals or Super bowl or World series, that means you are right there at the pinnacle of taking the crown, no need for brownie points

how does that fall short when 9 is more on equal footing, Magic went to 9 finals and Jordan went to 6 finals, 9 is more times to compete for a title, Jordan won all his I get it but I would rather go to more, especially if you play the game to win I would rather go 9 times in 12yrs than 6 times in 14yrs

Russell won 8 in a row(11/13 overall) while Jordan won 6 in 8yr span, I would rather be Russell as far as winning that many in a row, Lebron has went to 6 straight Finals(7/13 overall) while Duncan went to 6 in 18yrs, I would rather be Lebron who has gone to more and looking to add on more

if you count Russell ncaa career he won 13 titles in 15 yrs, almost doubled up Jordan who had 7 if you count his ncaa title

so my comparison stands tall

Shammyguy3
10-06-2016, 07:22 PM
I would take Magic and his 9 appearances over Jordan 6, I would rather go to the Super Bowl 9 times than 6, I would rather go to 9 grand slam finals than 6, I would rather go to 9 World Series than 6, I never said I would take the player Magic over Jordan but good try

Dr J had the Sixers in the Finals or on the verge many of times but the East was that rough in his time, I know they only won like 3 titles but they have been to like 10 finals as a total franchise which is behind the Lakers/Celtics, Malone/DrJ/Barkley would have been had Dr J been a few years younger along with Moses

Big Dipper was a dynasty by himself alone basically, especially the way he battled that 8peat dynasty back in his day, but lets ignore that

to me you do get credit for reaching the Finals or Super bowl or World series, that means you are right there at the pinnacle of taking the crown, no need for brownie points

how does that fall short when 9 is more on equal footing, Magic went to 9 finals and Jordan went to 6 finals, 9 is more times to compete for a title, Jordan won all his I get it but I would rather go to more, especially if you play the game to win I would rather go 9 times in 12yrs than 6 times in 14yrs

Russell won 8 in a row(11/13 overall) while Jordan won 6 in 8yr span, I would rather be Russell as far as winning that many in a row, Lebron has went to 6 straight Finals(7/13 overall) while Duncan went to 6 in 18yrs, I would rather be Lebron who has gone to more and looking to add on more

if you count Russell ncaa career he won 13 titles in 15 yrs, almost doubled up Jordan who had 7 if you count his ncaa title

so my comparison stands tall

I would rather go to the world series 9 times instead of 6, if the same number of total championships was the same you are right. But when you don't have the same number of championships, it doesn't matter. You can reach the Finals 30 years and have zero rings, that doesn't mean it's better than reaching the Finals 10 times and winning 8.

I stopped reading at that point because your argument just doesn't make sense.

Scoots
10-07-2016, 09:58 AM
I would rather go to the world series 9 times instead of 6, if the same number of total championships was the same you are right. But when you don't have the same number of championships, it doesn't matter. You can reach the Finals 30 years and have zero rings, that doesn't mean it's better than reaching the Finals 10 times and winning 8.

I stopped reading at that point because your argument just doesn't make sense.

If team A made the finals 30 years in a row and never won having lost the title to 12 other teams and team B made the finals 10 times in that span and wins 8 ... who won the other 2 titles :)

I'd say that team A was the most dominant team in that era, but they were a tragic story. Team B was the winningest.

The Bills lost the Super Bowl 4 times in a row to 4 different teams ... but the 49ers and Cowboys were the top teams in that era because they won so many Super Bowls ... if the Bills had made EVERY Super Bowl from the mid 80s to the 2000s? They would have to be in that conversation.

europagnpilgrim
10-07-2016, 11:51 AM
I would rather go to the world series 9 times instead of 6, if the same number of total championships was the same you are right. But when you don't have the same number of championships, it doesn't matter. You can reach the Finals 30 years and have zero rings, that doesn't mean it's better than reaching the Finals 10 times and winning 8.

I stopped reading at that point because your argument just doesn't make sense.

I know you and any other player/competitor(if you have played any sports) would want to go to the Finals/World Series/Grand Slam/PGA/Super bowl 9 times over 6 regardless of the outcome because at then end of the day you play for a lucrative deal/titles

if I reached the Finals 30 times and never won then I am the most dominant disappointed quasi dynasty in the history of sports regardless of you reaching 10x and winning 6-8, 30 times in a Finals vs 10 its not even a comparison on who was more consistently dominant by just making it to the title round 30x in a row

its why the Lakers are so dominant because they get credit for those Minny titles during Mikan era then had West reach like 9-10 finals then Magic went to like 9 finals then Kobe went to like 7 all during different decades which makes Lakers the cream of the crop in the league and they didn't win all the titles but just being there matters, just like they didn't win a title in the 90's but they got there

even if the Lakers would have not won any title just getting there that many times over is highly impressive, just look at J West Finals record for proof, he was like 1-8/9 but he got there like 9-10 times, same with Magic and Kobe but they just won more, that is tremendous amount of team success for just reaching the Finals that many times since the 60's, that's like a combined 26x, go ask the Clippers or Wolves or Grizz or Jazz fan base if they would take 30 straight trips to the Finals regardless if they lose all and I bet they would take it in a heartbeat

you stopped reading because you see how you got stumped and you must have never played any sport on any level in your life because if you did the bottom line would be to reach the title game, regardless of what happened the previous year because you are basically starting from scratch 0-0 record

I would take reaching 30 Finals app. vs 10, regardless of the outcome or rather it came 30 straight times or every other year

just like I would take 30billion over 10billion$$ regardless if it doesn't make sense to you, stay in your bubble world

NYKalltheway
10-09-2016, 06:54 AM
By helping the game grow, in this country and around the world. The Lakers gave the league coast to coast legitimacy, they proclaimed themselves basketball center of the world simply upon arriving, their brand grew globally over the ensuing decades. Because of that franchise's popularity, they have a huge fan base outside of LA. The way the Dream Team inspired millions to play ball growing up, so too did LA. The game doesn't reach its lofty heights without some franchise inspiring people across the globe the most. To me, its without a doubt LA. NY brought that swag culture to the game, Boston brought diversity but it lacked the die hard legions of fans IMO. Wonder if they would have supported them as much if Larry Bird were black.

So yeah, which franchise helped the game grow more...

Well, I get all that, but LA on its own didn't do that.
The LA Lakers vs the Boston Celtics is a historic rivalry from the 60s that was revived in the 80s with 2 of the greatest players of all time, jumping into the league at the same time.
LA vs Boston didn't create an international audience before Magic and Bird. You could blame technology of course, but heck, they barely got a domestic audience back then. It was still LA vs Boston. They elevated the game though, it didn't have to reach a global status with Bill Russell and Jerry West.

Lakers vs 76ers, don't think that many people cared a lot for that. Internationally that is. Magic vs Dr J and Kareem vs Moses? Great, sign me up. But that's just for NBA fans. Magic vs Bird, the two players hailed as "probably the best ever" after 5 years of dominant basketball, playing almost year in, year out in the NBA Finals? That's what got people attention. International fans love consistency, history and intense rivalries. They don't value "entertainment" and a casual good run like the Mavs or the Suns have had in the 2000s. That's why people loved the Michael Jordan Bulls, that's why people love the Lakers, that's why the Boston Celtics have a shitload of fans outside the US, that's why the Spurs have a growing fanbase and that's why the NY Knicks will always be relevant. Teams like the Heat, the Warriors, the Rockets, the Jazz, the Sonics, the Pistons have had their time and that was it. They will get their share of growing fanbase, but people around the world but most people will still grow to prefer LAL, NYK, BOS, CHI or SAS.

But what has made the NBA an international brand was Bird vs Magic. Celtics vs Lakers. And the fact that the Dream Team consissted of Magic and Bird initially, followed by the new blood, Michael Jordan.


I agree that the Lakers are probably the most relevant and the greatest NBA franchise of all time, with the Celtics a close second (2nd due to lack of consistency), but that alone did not elevate the game.

The Lakers without the Celtics don't really add much to the game, in terms of international value. The Bulls did it but everyone first knew who Michael Jordan was before knowing the name of the team. The Lakers carry a long history and everyone will talk about Mikan, West, Baylor, Chamberlain, Kareem, Magic, Shaq, Kobe... It's never gonna be about one guy. Bulls = Jordan everywhere in the world, to this day.

What I mean is, give the Lakers the same run but their 80s competitions was something like the Cavs, the Nets, the Bullets, the Pacers and the Hawks. Resut: Not as relevant internationally.

mightybosstone
10-09-2016, 11:17 AM
It's clearly the Lakers. The Celtics dominated in the 60s and 70s. And those Bird/McHale/Parrish 80s teams and their rivalry with the Showtime Lakers clearly had a lot to do with the league's massive growth in popularity. But the Lakers have dominated the modern era of basketball with three different multi-title teams (Showtime, Shaq/Kobe, Kobe/Pau), four top 15 all-time legends (Magic, Kareem, Shaq and Kobe) and domination of one of the two largest media markets. Even when the Lakers are bad, they're a bigger story than most title contending teams. They're the Dallas Cowboys or the New York Yankees of basketball.

Ishkabibble
10-09-2016, 11:53 AM
Worth noting 4 of the Lakers championships were in Minneapolis. The Celtics have all 17 of theirs in one town.
I'd say the Lakers have probably mostly because they're the #1 sports team in the country's 2nd biggest city. That's a pretty big deal to the NBA; something the league certainly has to celebrate. On the other side, with 7 championships between Boston's football and baseball teams the past dozen years, the Celtics (and everyone else) have had a tough time getting attention in that city. Even the recent Pierce, Rondo, Garnett teams were 2nd page news and they were competing for a title for 6 years.
The Lakers have the larger national following but I'm in Texas and there are always a ton of green jerseys in the stands when they come to Houston. Celtics and Bulls tied for 2nd I'd say.