Let's get this out the way, Lakers are a better franchise than the Celtics.

[QUOTE=Legends66NBA7]Top 4 is pretty easy too.

Who do you guys have at 5 ? For me it's the Sixers, followed by the Pistons.[/QUOTE]

knicks :lol

[QUOTE=moe94]No one cares that you got to the dance and lost. No one cares how many times you got silver. :coleman:

1a. Lakers
1b. Celtics
3. Bulls
4. Spurs

Set in stone[/QUOTE]
Participation awards :oldlol:

Lakers fans generally are (around here at least) more obnoxious than Celtics fans.

And, 17>16.

But, I will say this. The Lakers have been a better franchise than the Celtics ever since Magic and Bird entered the league. Their premier appeal, which attracted a vast ocean of celebrities to their games which in turn helped garner an even more intense spotlight on the NBA, is second to none in the league.

I think the Lakers and their incredible 14 Finals appearances in the last 34 years outweighs the Celtics 8 appearances in that same span. Especially when you add that the Lakers have bested them in wins in their Finals matchups.

Still. 17>16. Cause, 5>2, right? Funny how that doesn't seem like such a convenient theory for you guys when it's not pertaining to LeBron and Kobe :lol

Knicks are not Top 5, but are probably Top 10.

[QUOTE=moe94]No one cares that you got to the dance and lost. No one cares how many times you got silver. :coleman:

1a. Lakers
1b. Celtics
3. Bulls
4. Spurs

Set in stone[/QUOTE]
Just means your team is consistent in putting a great product to contend each and every year. They care about its fans and putting a decent enough team on the floor that u don't have to be ashamed of.

Whoa 7,000 posts!

Let me quote myself again fellas

[QUOTE=Element]The truth is...Kobe getting MVP chants in Boston of all places is utterly ridiculous. That should never have happened. Paul Pierce is getting boos here and he's repping Inglewood :lol Celts were irrelevant for a good solid 20 years including like [I]5 straight missed playoffs[/I] in the 90s, and all that "CELTUC PRYDE" s.hit just randomly started popping up again when the Big 3 formed.

Lakers have 16 Championships, you guys have 17. I'll give you that. But let's look a lil' deeper into that, shall we?

Missed playoffs:

[COLOR="Green"][B]Celtics:[/B][/COLOR] 16
[COLOR="Indigo"][B]Lakers:[/B][/COLOR] 5

Finals appearances:

[COLOR="Green"][B]Celtics:[/B][/COLOR] 21
[COLOR="Indigo"][B]Lakers:[/B][/COLOR] 31

And then, there's that little fact that Boston won [SIZE="5"]11 of 17[/SIZE] titles in a what, 8 team league? With the most stacked teams relative to competition, ever, as well. GOAT what? :lol

:kobe:[/QUOTE]

Celtics have 1 argument over Lakers. An extra title. Lakers have everything else.

To all those arguing Lakers > Celtics, answer these 3 questions.

An 8 team league is equivalent to having an average of 3 all stars a team. Remind me why that makes it easier to win?

Lakers have had 5 of the (basically) consensus top 10 of all time. Celtics have had 2. So the organisation is better because they won less with more talent?

Do the Oklahoma City Thunder have a championship?

[QUOTE=BlackWhiteGreen]To all those arguing Lakers > Celtics, answer these 3 questions.

[B]An 8 team league is equivalent to having an average of 3 all stars a team. Remind me why that makes it easier to win?[/B]

Lakers have had 5 of the (basically) consensus top 10 of all time. Celtics have had 2. So the organisation is better because they won less with more talent?

Do the Oklahoma City Thunder have a championship?[/QUOTE]

I've never understood why people use the "fewer teams" argument to knock the early NBA years. Just thinking about it logically, doesn't that mean that ONLY the absolute best players in the U.S. would be in the NBA, thus making it more difficult to win?

[QUOTE=SpecialQue]I've never understood why people use the "fewer teams" argument to knock the early NBA years. Just thinking about it logically, doesn't that mean that ONLY the absolute best players in the U.S. would be in the NBA, thus making it more difficult to win?[/QUOTE]

I don't really understand it either. The Heat would be a below average team in an 8 team league. It's like, even with 5 all star level players on your team, you'll still come up against 2 or 3 teams with 4 all star level players who would be incredibly tough to beat.

:confusedshrug:

Celtics won most of their titles in the weakest era in NBA history.

[QUOTE=Legends66NBA7]Top 4 is pretty easy too.

Who do you guys have at 5 ? For me it's the Sixers, followed by the Pistons.[/QUOTE]

Miami Heat.

[QUOTE=SilkkTheShocker]Miami Heat.[/QUOTE]

No they are not

All-Time Series [B]197-155 BOS[/B]
Regular Season [B]154

[QUOTE=BlackWhiteGreen]To all those arguing Lakers > Celtics, answer these 3 questions.

An 8 team league is equivalent to having an average of 3 all stars a team. Remind me why that makes it easier to win?

Lakers have had 5 of the (basically) consensus top 10 of all time. Celtics have had 2. So the organisation is better because they won less with more talent?

Do the Oklahoma City Thunder have a championship?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]All-Time Series 197-155 BOS
Regular Season 154

[QUOTE=SilkkTheShocker]Miami Heat.[/QUOTE]

I have them 7th, but one more title (or even a Finals appearance) vaults them in my top 5.