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

[BlackWhiteGreen]

Conference Championships
Lakers: 31
Celtics: 21

Missed Playoffs:
Lakers: 6
Celtics: 17

1948-49: Lakers win Title, Celtics miss Playoffs
1949-50: Lakers win Title, Celtics miss Playoffs
1951-52: Lakers win Title, Celtics lose in Semifinals
1952-53: Lakers win Title, Celtics lose in Semifinals
1953-54: Lakers win Title, Celtics lose in Conference Finals
1971-72: Lakers win Title, Celtics lose in Conference Finals
1979-80: Lakers win Title, Celtics lose in Conference Finals
1981-82: Lakers win Title, Celtics lose in Conference Finals
1987-88: Lakers win Title, Celtics lose in Conference Finals
1999-00: Lakers win Title, Celtics miss Playoffs
2000-01: Lakers win Title, Celtics miss Playoffs
2001-02: Lakers win Title, Celtics lose in Conference Finals
2008-09: Lakers win Title, Celtics lose in Semifinals

So Lakers needed other teams to beat the Celtics for them to win almost 80% of their titles, whereas the Celtics have beaten their only close rivals 75% of the time they met in Finals series?

Winning % in Finals
Boston 17/21 .810
Lakers 16/31 .516

So really it comes down to whether you believe championships or coming 2nd is more important.

[CeltsGarlic]

Good topic.

Let me count titles since thats the most important.

Oh look, celtics have more. CASE CLOSED.

[BlackWhiteGreen]

I get that this is something to give the Celtics franchise an "edge" over the Lakers

No, what gives the Celtics the edge over the Lakers is that they've won more titles with fewer great players and all that makes the Lakers better was that they went home as losers a little later in the season on average.

The league counts that '79 title as the Thunder's. You mention players, fans, sportswriters who were all (with very few exceptions) born after the move. In 50 years, if Seattle never gets another team, no one cares about the Sonics.

[Deuce Bigalow]

So Lakers needed other teams to beat the Celtics for them to win almost 80% of their titles, whereas the Celtics have beaten their only close rivals 75% of the time they met in Finals series?

Winning % in Finals
Boston 17/21 .810
Lakers 16/31 .516

So really it comes down to whether you believe championships or coming 2nd is more important.

No. Most of the Lakers titles were won when Boston were not good enough to get to the Finals, where the Lakers would beat them anyways but they couldn't get there in the first place. Lakers won 4 championships while Boston had sub .500 seasons and missed the playoffs...like they needed other teams help to beat them...

[Deuce Bigalow]

Good topic.

Let me count titles since thats the most important.

Oh look, celtics have more. CASE CLOSED.

1 title is the only edge Boston has.

Lakers literally have everything else by a big margin.

[CeltsGarlic]

No. Most of the Lakers titles were won when Boston were not good enough to get to the Finals, where the Lakers would beat them anyways but they couldn't get there in the first place. Lakers won 4 championships while Boston had sub .500 seasons and missed the playoffs...like they needed other teams help to beat them...

Thats an laughable argument
seriously.

Celtics are better since they had more players with the letter P in their names.

[STATUTORY]

this can't even be argued

celtics championships came in the prehistoric NBA. in modern NBA history, celtics were largely irrelevant for over 2 decades while lakers have competed and won in every decade. consistency breeds greatness and that's why the lakers brand is far more well recognized and renowned than celtics.

[BlackWhiteGreen]

No. Most of the Lakers titles were won when Boston were not good enough to get to the Finals, where the Lakers would beat them anyways but they couldn't get there in the first place. Lakers won 4 championships while Boston had sub .500 seasons and missed the playoffs...like they needed other teams help to beat them...

And when both teams were good? What happens then?

I just find it hard to justify one club being better than another with an all time losing record against them in the regular season, playoffs and finals series.

If you want that second place medal, sure, take it. If you live your life as second best being good enough, then I can see why you think the Lakers are better.

[TheMilkyBarKid]

It comes down to your own agenda, there would be nothing quite like putting on a celtics jersey with your name on it though.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Anyone have their playoff records alltime?

[BlackWhiteGreen]

Anyone have their playoff records alltime?

Lakers 16/57 .281
Celtics 17/46 .370

[Deuce Bigalow]

Lakers 16/57 .281
Celtics 17/46 .370

The **** is that?

[BlackWhiteGreen]

The **** is that?

Playoff wins against playoff appearances

[TheReal Kendall]

Both teams suck at the moment and y'all ain't winning a chip anytime soon

[Black and White]

Both teams suck at the moment and y'all ain't winning a chip anytime soon

Quality contribution