West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Sports & Entertainment => Topic started by: Don Jacob on April 21, 2007, 03:09:14 AM
-
FINAL STANDINGS:
1. LARRY BIRD
2. ELGIN BAYLOR
(http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/PHOTOFILE/AADL024~Larry-Bird-Photofile-Posters.jpg) VS (http://alas.matf.bg.ac.yu/~mr04123/baylor.jpg)
-
Elgin.
-
Elgin started the MJ/Dr. J style of play. There is no way I can vote against him in this one.
-
larry legend
-
Elgin.
-
i need a winner please
-
Come on now, Dub..
-
My suggestion for the DUBCC'S GOAT TEAM:
C... Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
PF... Kwame Brown
SF... Elgin Baylor
SG... Kobe Bryant
PG... Magic Johnson
::)
-
My suggestion for the DUBCC'S GOAT TEAM:
C... Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
PF... Kwame Brown
SF... Elgin Baylor
SG... Kobe Bryant
PG... Magic Johnson
::)
LOL seriously though
-
Kwame Brown? Naah...They have to at least be all-stars. Are you tryna say something relevant?
-
(http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/7433/larrybirdeu7.jpg)
-
Bird,and it's not even close.
-
Bird,and it's not even close.
:grumpy:
-
Bird,and it's not even close.
:grumpy:
lol,come on NIK you know damn well Larry cant be fucked with...should be a given to a laker fan.
-
Bird,and it's not even close.
:grumpy:
lol,come on NIK you know damn well Larry cant be fucked with...should be a given to a laker fan.
To say "it's not even close" when speaking of Elgin Baylor is absurd...That goes for anyone who's ever played this game. Baylor was THAT great.
-
Bird,and it's not even close.
:grumpy:
lol,come on NIK you know damn well Larry cant be fucked with...should be a given to a laker fan.
Bird was the last of his breed, Elgin was the first in the same line as Dr. J and MJ, Elgin's influence is still felt today, Bird's legecy is left to Robert Horry sitting on the Spur's bench.
-
Bird,and it's not even close.
:grumpy:
lol,come on NIK you know damn well Larry cant be fucked with...should be a given to a laker fan.
Bird's legecy is left to Robert Horry sitting on the Spur's bench.
to compare bird to horry is laughable...but i can see the point about elgin but my opinion is still Bird>
-
Bird,and it's not even close.
:grumpy:
lol,come on NIK you know damn well Larry cant be fucked with...should be a given to a laker fan.
Bird's legecy is left to Robert Horry sitting on the Spur's bench.
to compare bird to horry is laughable...but i can see the point about elgin but my opinion is still Bird>
it was suppose to be. I was thinking of Steve Kerr, but Horry was funnier to me.
-
Elgin started the MJ/Dr. J style of play. There is no way I can vote against him in this one.
John Logie Baird started television as we know it backin the 20s, but I'd still rather watch a plasma screen on HD, and I'd still rather have Bird on my team. You can have Baylor, but he won't be doing much against my team with Bird covering him. And Larry won't have a problem jumping over him with his 5 inches of height for the boards or sinking 3s from the outside.
-
Elgin started the MJ/Dr. J style of play. There is no way I can vote against him in this one.
John Logie Baird started television as we know it backin the 20s, but I'd still rather watch a plasma screen on HD, and I'd still rather have Bird on my team. You can have Baylor, but he won't be doing much against my team with Bird covering him. And Larry won't have a problem jumping over him with his 5 inches of height for the boards or sinking 3s from the outside.
Baylor would run circles against Bird.
-
LMFAO. Bird easily.
-
Elgin started the MJ/Dr. J style of play. There is no way I can vote against him in this one.
John Logie Baird started television as we know it backin the 20s, but I'd still rather watch a plasma screen on HD, and I'd still rather have Bird on my team. You can have Baylor, but he won't be doing much against my team with Bird covering him. And Larry won't have a problem jumping over him with his 5 inches of height for the boards or sinking 3s from the outside.
Baylor would run circles against Bird.
Your opinion doesn't even count in this case. Anytime a Laker is involved everyone already knows what you're going to say.
-
If this thread is any indication, I wouldn't be surprised if the same strings are pulled in the SG poll... they might screw over the obviously deserving Jordan and give it to Kobe.
It's a shame Kwame isn't any better... we may have seen him win the GOAT PF one.
-
If this thread is any indication, I wouldn't be surprised if the same strings are pulled in the SG poll... they might screw over the obviously deserving Jordan and give it to Kobe.
It's a shame Kwame isn't any better... we may have seen him win the GOAT PF one.
Kwame is shaping up to be one of the greatest ever in his position. If fucking Michael Jordan wouldn't have destroyed his confidence his rookie year he'd be top 3 in the league right now!!!! Thats another reason why Kobe > Jordan.
-
If this thread is any indication, I wouldn't be surprised if the same strings are pulled in the SG poll... they might screw over the obviously deserving Jordan and give it to Kobe.
It's a shame Kwame isn't any better... we may have seen him win the GOAT PF one.
Kwame is shaping up to be one of the greatest ever in his position. If fucking Michael Jordan wouldn't have destroyed his confidence his rookie year he'd be top 3 in the league right now!!!! Thats another reason why Kobe > Jordan.
LOL
-
Elgin started the MJ/Dr. J style of play. There is no way I can vote against him in this one.
John Logie Baird started television as we know it backin the 20s, but I'd still rather watch a plasma screen on HD, and I'd still rather have Bird on my team. You can have Baylor, but he won't be doing much against my team with Bird covering him. And Larry won't have a problem jumping over him with his 5 inches of height for the boards or sinking 3s from the outside.
Baylor would run circles against Bird.
Your opinion doesn't even count in this case. Anytime a Laker is involved everyone already knows what you're going to say.
So is my opinion not valid? Was Chick Hearns opinion not valid? Was Jerry West's opinion not valid? Baylor>Bird. Get over it.
-
If this thread is any indication, I wouldn't be surprised if the same strings are pulled in the SG poll... they might screw over the obviously deserving Jordan and give it to Kobe.
It's a shame Kwame isn't any better... we may have seen him win the GOAT PF one.
If you think the disparity between Baylor and Bird is the same as the disparity between Kwame and Malone, then you need help.
-
LMFAO. Bird easily.
???
Elgin Baylor-
PPG: 27.4
RPG: 13.5
APG: 4.3
Larry Bird-
PPG: 24.3
RPG: 10
APG: 6.3
-
The knowledge of B-Ball on this forum is scary :-X.. people said Bird easily coz they don't know what Elgin Baylor has achieved.. Going with Bird is far from being a nonsense but when you didn't watch or know what kind of player some people were , just don't vote,I got no knowledge on NBA before the 1980es so I simply don't vote.. but I know Elgin was considered a GREAT player in his era so I wouldn't say some nonsense
-
^^The funniest thing is that Wilt Chamberlain lost to Shaq and Elgin Baylor lost to Malone, so these geniuses acting like there's a "Laker conspiracy" going on in these polls are beyond ridiculous.
-
^^^^ I guess Dirk tied with Moses Malone for the 10th spot was a Lakers conspiracy too :-X
-
Elgin started the MJ/Dr. J style of play. There is no way I can vote against him in this one.
John Logie Baird started television as we know it backin the 20s, but I'd still rather watch a plasma screen on HD, and I'd still rather have Bird on my team. You can have Baylor, but he won't be doing much against my team with Bird covering him. And Larry won't have a problem jumping over him with his 5 inches of height for the boards or sinking 3s from the outside.
Baylor would run circles against Bird.
Your opinion doesn't even count in this case. Anytime a Laker is involved everyone already knows what you're going to say.
So is my opinion not valid? Was Chick Hearns opinion not valid? Was Jerry West's opinion not valid? Baylor>Bird. Get over it.
Your opinion is not valid because if Bird played for the Lakers and Baylor never did then your opinion would change. Bringing up two guys that called Baylor's games and played along side him respectively means nothing. Was Baylor more important to the evolution of the game than Bird? Maybe. Was he more of a standout player compared to the rest of the mooks in the league at that time? Sure. But you put Larry Bird and Elgin Baylor in their prime on two shitty teams in the NBA today and Larry's team will be in the finals with in 2 to 3 years while Baylor's team would fall apart because a 6'5'' forward won't cut it and his athletic ability compared to guys today won't mean as much like it did compared to the goofs in the NBA back then. Larry's genius is in his head. He's too smart not to be able to win and win and win. He's a leader and he leads teams to championships. Baylor never got to do that. Maybe if Baylor had Shaq to lead the way like Kobe did then Elgin would have won a couple, but his career went like how Kobe's will go for the rest of his career; no rings. He had 7 chances to beat Boston and Elgin couldn't do it. You take a '79 to '88 Larry Bird and put him on the Lakers in '59 and dollars to doughnuts the Celtics would go down at least 3 times. Larry was too smart and too much of a leader, but you have no concept of the what a leader is. If you did you wouldn't like Kobe as much as you do.
-
If this thread is any indication, I wouldn't be surprised if the same strings are pulled in the SG poll... they might screw over the obviously deserving Jordan and give it to Kobe.
It's a shame Kwame isn't any better... we may have seen him win the GOAT PF one.
If you think the disparity between Baylor and Bird is the same as the disparity between Kwame and Malone, then you need help.
You're missing the whole point. It wasn't to compare the disparity... it was to show how the Laker cheerleaders vote based on the fact that they're Laker players... like Shallow said, if Bird was a Laker, then it would've been irrelevant to you guys whether Bird won or Baylor. And you're right about Malone being a bad example... after all, he did play for the Lakers at some point in his career, so him being voted in is alright.... like you said yourself:
when/if karl malone wins that'll mean every player selected to the hall of fame has at one time played for the lakers
LOL. Jordan's gunna kill it...Jerry West or Elgin Baylor better win SF though.
But we'll see if the same strings are pulled again, since there's an obvious predetermination.
-
If this thread is any indication, I wouldn't be surprised if the same strings are pulled in the SG poll... they might screw over the obviously deserving Jordan and give it to Kobe.
It's a shame Kwame isn't any better... we may have seen him win the GOAT PF one.
If you think the disparity between Baylor and Bird is the same as the disparity between Kwame and Malone, then you need help.
You're missing the whole point. It wasn't to compare the disparity... it was to show how the Laker cheerleaders vote based on the fact that they're Laker players... like Shallow said, if Bird was a Laker, then it would've been irrelevant to you guys whether Bird won or Baylor. And you're right about Malone being a bad example... after all, he did play for the Lakers at some point in his career, so him being voted in is alright.... like you said yourself:
when/if karl malone wins that'll mean every player selected to the hall of fame has at one time played for the lakers
LOL. Jordan's gunna kill it...Jerry West or Elgin Baylor better win SF though.
But we'll see if the same strings are pulled again, since there's an obvious predetermination.
I said that because I believe they are two of the greatest small forwards ever, and MANY agree. I highly doubt you've even seen any of them play... Even career numbers would put Baylor and West over Bird, so you gotta stop acting like the votes are irrational...Your paranoia of conspiracies is ludicrous, man. No way SHAQ woulda' won over Wilt if the votings been Laker bias. And if there are bias votes, then who's to say there aren't hater votes? There's definitely a good amount of laker hating going around this board...Not to mention Joe Dumars is currently leading Jerry West in the fuckin shooting guard category... so keep your hilarious theories to yourself homie...PeACe
-
Elgin started the MJ/Dr. J style of play. There is no way I can vote against him in this one.
John Logie Baird started television as we know it backin the 20s, but I'd still rather watch a plasma screen on HD, and I'd still rather have Bird on my team. You can have Baylor, but he won't be doing much against my team with Bird covering him. And Larry won't have a problem jumping over him with his 5 inches of height for the boards or sinking 3s from the outside.
Baylor would run circles against Bird.
Your opinion doesn't even count in this case. Anytime a Laker is involved everyone already knows what you're going to say.
So is my opinion not valid? Was Chick Hearns opinion not valid? Was Jerry West's opinion not valid? Baylor>Bird. Get over it.
Your opinion is not valid because if Bird played for the Lakers and Baylor never did then your opinion would change. Bringing up two guys that called Baylor's games and played along side him respectively means nothing. Was Baylor more important to the evolution of the game than Bird? Maybe. Was he more of a standout player compared to the rest of the mooks in the league at that time? Sure. But you put Larry Bird and Elgin Baylor in their prime on two shitty teams in the NBA today and Larry's team will be in the finals with in 2 to 3 years while Baylor's team would fall apart because a 6'5'' forward won't cut it and his athletic ability compared to guys today won't mean as much like it did compared to the goofs in the NBA back then. Larry's genius is in his head. He's too smart not to be able to win and win and win. He's a leader and he leads teams to championships. Baylor never got to do that. Maybe if Baylor had Shaq to lead the way like Kobe did then Elgin would have won a couple, but his career went like how Kobe's will go for the rest of his career; no rings. He had 7 chances to beat Boston and Elgin couldn't do it. You take a '79 to '88 Larry Bird and put him on the Lakers in '59 and dollars to doughnuts the Celtics would go down at least 3 times. Larry was too smart and too much of a leader, but you have no concept of the what a leader is. If you did you wouldn't like Kobe as much as you do.
Kobe is not a leader? LOL. If he wasn't a leader, would he have led a BATTERED team composed mainly of D-League level talent to the fucking playoffs? Lemme guess, you're a huge Jordan fan, huh?...How much help did Jordan need before he could finally win something? As for Elgin Baylor, the Russell led Celtics won 9 titles during Baylor's career, that's not his fault. It doesn't make a difference in how great of a player he was either way. Was James Worthy better than Elgin Baylor too? ::) (<A Laker comparison for that ass). That's as dumb as saying that 6'5" isn't a good size for a small forward. And speaking of Elgin Baylor in his prime vs. Larry Bird in his prime...
Larry Bird-
PPG: 29.9
RPG: 9.3
APG: 6.1
Elgin Baylor-
PPG: 34.6
RPG: 19.8
APG: 5.1
Hmmmmm...I guess I'm soooo bias, huh? Get the fuck out of here. Until you see me making irrational claims, you have nothing on me, bro. :-*
-
Elgin started the MJ/Dr. J style of play. There is no way I can vote against him in this one.
John Logie Baird started television as we know it backin the 20s, but I'd still rather watch a plasma screen on HD, and I'd still rather have Bird on my team. You can have Baylor, but he won't be doing much against my team with Bird covering him. And Larry won't have a problem jumping over him with his 5 inches of height for the boards or sinking 3s from the outside.
Baylor would run circles against Bird.
Your opinion doesn't even count in this case. Anytime a Laker is involved everyone already knows what you're going to say.
So is my opinion not valid? Was Chick Hearns opinion not valid? Was Jerry West's opinion not valid? Baylor>Bird. Get over it.
Your opinion is not valid because if Bird played for the Lakers and Baylor never did then your opinion would change. Bringing up two guys that called Baylor's games and played along side him respectively means nothing. Was Baylor more important to the evolution of the game than Bird? Maybe. Was he more of a standout player compared to the rest of the mooks in the league at that time? Sure. But you put Larry Bird and Elgin Baylor in their prime on two shitty teams in the NBA today and Larry's team will be in the finals with in 2 to 3 years while Baylor's team would fall apart because a 6'5'' forward won't cut it and his athletic ability compared to guys today won't mean as much like it did compared to the goofs in the NBA back then. Larry's genius is in his head. He's too smart not to be able to win and win and win. He's a leader and he leads teams to championships. Baylor never got to do that. Maybe if Baylor had Shaq to lead the way like Kobe did then Elgin would have won a couple, but his career went like how Kobe's will go for the rest of his career; no rings. He had 7 chances to beat Boston and Elgin couldn't do it. You take a '79 to '88 Larry Bird and put him on the Lakers in '59 and dollars to doughnuts the Celtics would go down at least 3 times. Larry was too smart and too much of a leader, but you have no concept of the what a leader is. If you did you wouldn't like Kobe as much as you do.
Kobe is not a leader? LOL. If he wasn't a leader, would he have led a BATTERED team composed mainly of D-League level talent to the fucking playoffs? Lemme guess, you're a huge Jordan fan, huh?...How much help did Jordan need before he could finally win something? As for Elgin Baylor, the Russell led Celtics won 9 titles during Baylor's career, that's not his fault. It doesn't make a difference in how great of a player he was either way. Was James Worthy better than Elgin Baylor too? ::) (<A Laker comparison for that ass). That's as dumb as saying that 6'5" isn't a good size for a small forward. And speaking of Elgin Baylor in his prime vs. Larry Bird in his prime...
Larry Bird-
PPG: 29.9
RPG: 9.3
APG: 6.1
Elgin Baylor-
PPG: 34.6
RPG: 19.8
APG: 5.1
Hmmmmm...I guess I'm soooo bias, huh? Get the fuck out of here. Until you see me making irrational claims, you have nothing on me, bro. :-*
Like I said, Bird would have figured out how to beat the Russel Celtics at least 3 times. Those stats are a waste of text. Look at the league in the 80s compared to the 60s. The other players were way better in the 80s than in the 60s. The game was different and Larry was a leader. A guy who took his team from one of the worst to the playoffs in his rookie season and he was too smart to be beatan 7 times in the finals by 1 team.
Worthy had rings yeah, but if Baylor had Magic and Jabbar, he'd have rings too.
-
If this thread is any indication, I wouldn't be surprised if the same strings are pulled in the SG poll... they might screw over the obviously deserving Jordan and give it to Kobe.
It's a shame Kwame isn't any better... we may have seen him win the GOAT PF one.
If you think the disparity between Baylor and Bird is the same as the disparity between Kwame and Malone, then you need help.
You're missing the whole point. It wasn't to compare the disparity... it was to show how the Laker cheerleaders vote based on the fact that they're Laker players... like Shallow said, if Bird was a Laker, then it would've been irrelevant to you guys whether Bird won or Baylor. And you're right about Malone being a bad example... after all, he did play for the Lakers at some point in his career, so him being voted in is alright.... like you said yourself:
when/if karl malone wins that'll mean every player selected to the hall of fame has at one time played for the lakers
LOL. Jordan's gunna kill it...Jerry West or Elgin Baylor better win SF though.
But we'll see if the same strings are pulled again, since there's an obvious predetermination.
I said that because I believe they are two of the greatest small forwards ever, and MANY agree. I highly doubt you've even seen any of them play... Even career numbers would put Baylor and West over Bird, so you gotta stop acting like the votes are irrational...Your paranoia of conspiracies is ludicrous, man. No way SHAQ woulda' won over Wilt if the votings been Laker bias. And if there are bias votes, then who's to say there aren't hater votes? There's definitely a good amount of laker hating going around this board...Not to mention Joe Dumars is currently leading Jerry West in the fuckin shooting guard category... so keep your hilarious theories to yourself homie...PeACe
You doubt I've seen any of them play... because you're the Basketball God and nobody else's opinion counts. LOL. Get over yourself.
Again nobody mentioned anything about conspiracies... you either still don't know the definition or you got the wrong idea about what this is about.
LOL @ you using Shaq as an example... you mean to tell me Laker fans are fond of Shaq? Come on.. cut the bullshit.
You're right... it is probable that there are "hater votes"... and anyone that might believe that wouldn't be making any "ludicrous conspiracy theories".... which I, nor anybody else, don't need to keep myself if I want to post it... you have to realize that other people's opinions are just as, if not more, viable/credible as yours.
-
Anyways, I'm done here... it's not even like I care... I just made a comment because I found it funny... you were the only one that got all defensive... I didn't even mention that you played a role, but I can't keep you from catching feelings, so whatever... I'm really happy for the Laker fans in their DUBCC GOAT POLL victory... LOL at least there's something to celebrate after all.
-
Baylor
NBA Championships - 0
MVP's - 0
NBA Finals MVP - 0
All NBA 1st Team - 10
All Star Games - 11
Bird
NBA Championships - 3
MVP's - 3 CONSECUTIVE (Only 3rd person to ever do that at the time, and the first non-center)
NBA Finals MVP - 2
All-NBA 1st Team - 9
All Star Games - 12
Only forward to lead league in three-pointers made (82) and free throw percentage (.896)
Bird>Baylor
-
Baylor wore a Laker jersey, Bird didn't.
Baylor > Bird.
-
Baylor wore a Laker jersey, Bird didn't.
Baylor > Bird.
And don't forget it was the Celts that deprived him of those rings...
-
Elgin started the MJ/Dr. J style of play. There is no way I can vote against him in this one.
John Logie Baird started television as we know it backin the 20s, but I'd still rather watch a plasma screen on HD, and I'd still rather have Bird on my team. You can have Baylor, but he won't be doing much against my team with Bird covering him. And Larry won't have a problem jumping over him with his 5 inches of height for the boards or sinking 3s from the outside.
Baylor would run circles against Bird.
Your opinion doesn't even count in this case. Anytime a Laker is involved everyone already knows what you're going to say.
So is my opinion not valid? Was Chick Hearns opinion not valid? Was Jerry West's opinion not valid? Baylor>Bird. Get over it.
Your opinion is not valid because if Bird played for the Lakers and Baylor never did then your opinion would change. Bringing up two guys that called Baylor's games and played along side him respectively means nothing. Was Baylor more important to the evolution of the game than Bird? Maybe. Was he more of a standout player compared to the rest of the mooks in the league at that time? Sure. But you put Larry Bird and Elgin Baylor in their prime on two shitty teams in the NBA today and Larry's team will be in the finals with in 2 to 3 years while Baylor's team would fall apart because a 6'5'' forward won't cut it and his athletic ability compared to guys today won't mean as much like it did compared to the goofs in the NBA back then. Larry's genius is in his head. He's too smart not to be able to win and win and win. He's a leader and he leads teams to championships. Baylor never got to do that. Maybe if Baylor had Shaq to lead the way like Kobe did then Elgin would have won a couple, but his career went like how Kobe's will go for the rest of his career; no rings. He had 7 chances to beat Boston and Elgin couldn't do it. You take a '79 to '88 Larry Bird and put him on the Lakers in '59 and dollars to doughnuts the Celtics would go down at least 3 times. Larry was too smart and too much of a leader, but you have no concept of the what a leader is. If you did you wouldn't like Kobe as much as you do.
Kobe is not a leader? LOL. If he wasn't a leader, would he have led a BATTERED team composed mainly of D-League level talent to the fucking playoffs? Lemme guess, you're a huge Jordan fan, huh?...How much help did Jordan need before he could finally win something? As for Elgin Baylor, the Russell led Celtics won 9 titles during Baylor's career, that's not his fault. It doesn't make a difference in how great of a player he was either way. Was James Worthy better than Elgin Baylor too? ::) (<A Laker comparison for that ass). That's as dumb as saying that 6'5" isn't a good size for a small forward. And speaking of Elgin Baylor in his prime vs. Larry Bird in his prime...
Larry Bird-
PPG: 29.9
RPG: 9.3
APG: 6.1
Elgin Baylor-
PPG: 34.6
RPG: 19.8
APG: 5.1
Hmmmmm...I guess I'm soooo bias, huh? Get the fuck out of here. Until you see me making irrational claims, you have nothing on me, bro. :-*
Like I said, Bird would have figured out how to beat the Russel Celtics at least 3 times. Those stats are a waste of text. Look at the league in the 80s compared to the 60s. The other players were way better in the 80s than in the 60s. The game was different and Larry was a leader. A guy who took his team from one of the worst to the playoffs in his rookie season and he was too smart to be beatan 7 times in the finals by 1 team.
Worthy had rings yeah, but if Baylor had Magic and Jabbar, he'd have rings too.
If Baylor was on the 80's Celtic squads, he'd have rings too. I highly doubt you know shit about Baylor, so please don't speak from ignorance...PeACe
-
If this thread is any indication, I wouldn't be surprised if the same strings are pulled in the SG poll... they might screw over the obviously deserving Jordan and give it to Kobe.
It's a shame Kwame isn't any better... we may have seen him win the GOAT PF one.
If you think the disparity between Baylor and Bird is the same as the disparity between Kwame and Malone, then you need help.
You're missing the whole point. It wasn't to compare the disparity... it was to show how the Laker cheerleaders vote based on the fact that they're Laker players... like Shallow said, if Bird was a Laker, then it would've been irrelevant to you guys whether Bird won or Baylor. And you're right about Malone being a bad example... after all, he did play for the Lakers at some point in his career, so him being voted in is alright.... like you said yourself:
when/if karl malone wins that'll mean every player selected to the hall of fame has at one time played for the lakers
LOL. Jordan's gunna kill it...Jerry West or Elgin Baylor better win SF though.
But we'll see if the same strings are pulled again, since there's an obvious predetermination.
I said that because I believe they are two of the greatest small forwards ever, and MANY agree. I highly doubt you've even seen any of them play... Even career numbers would put Baylor and West over Bird, so you gotta stop acting like the votes are irrational...Your paranoia of conspiracies is ludicrous, man. No way SHAQ woulda' won over Wilt if the votings been Laker bias. And if there are bias votes, then who's to say there aren't hater votes? There's definitely a good amount of laker hating going around this board...Not to mention Joe Dumars is currently leading Jerry West in the fuckin shooting guard category... so keep your hilarious theories to yourself homie...PeACe
You doubt I've seen any of them play... because you're the Basketball God and nobody else's opinion counts. LOL. Get over yourself.
Again nobody mentioned anything about conspiracies... you either still don't know the definition or you got the wrong idea about what this is about.
LOL @ you using Shaq as an example... you mean to tell me Laker fans are fond of Shaq? Come on.. cut the bullshit.
You're right... it is probable that there are "hater votes"... and anyone that might believe that wouldn't be making any "ludicrous conspiracy theories".... which I, nor anybody else, don't need to keep myself if I want to post it... you have to realize that other people's opinions are just as, if not more, viable/credible as yours.
Of course Laker fans hate Shaq...LOL@that. That's why it was amazing that SHAQ BEAT OUT WILT in the polls, despite the fact that Wilt is considered the much greater center...And thinking Laker fans are secretly bumping up the polls IS a conspiracy theory, which my Shaq-Wilt example proved wrong. It actually seems like YOU have the wrong definition homie...PeACe
-
Baylor
NBA Championships - 0
MVP's - 0
NBA Finals MVP - 0
All NBA 1st Team - 10
All Star Games - 11
Bird
NBA Championships - 3
MVP's - 3 CONSECUTIVE (Only 3rd person to ever do that at the time, and the first non-center)
NBA Finals MVP - 2
All-NBA 1st Team - 9
All Star Games - 12
Only forward to lead league in three-pointers made (82) and free throw percentage (.896)
Bird>Baylor
The league didn't have 2 players as dominant as Wilt and Russell when Bird played, so the MVP/Championship argument is nonesense. Anyone who knows the history of the Lakers knows they were a top team with Baylor, but were cursed by the Russell led Celtics for a whole decade. They even lost the years they had the better team. When it comes to accomplishments, Bird was better. But as an individual player, it's Baylor. Even your ALL-NBA 1st Team list shows that...PeACe
-
Of course Laker fans hate Shaq...LOL@that. That's why it was amazing that SHAQ BEAT OUT WILT in the polls, despite the fact that Wilt is considered the much greater center...And thinking Laker fans are secretly bumping up the polls IS a conspiracy theory, which my Shaq-Wilt example proved wrong. It actually seems like YOU have the wrong definition homie...PeACe
It doesn't matter if Shaq beat Wilt because it was obvious that Kareem was gonna win it all regardless... much in the same way that it didn't matter to you if West or Baylor won for SF... as I've quoted you saying... as long as it's a Laker, it's all good.
You obviously STILL don't know the definition of a conspiracy theory. It would've made more sense for you to look it up at some point.... so I'll help you out.
conspiracy theory - a theory that explains an event as being the result of a plot by a covert group or organization; a belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a group.
Now follow along slowly... I never stated that you Laker cheerleaders got together and said let's all vote for Lakers... I said that people made their own choice to vote for them but did simply for the fact that they were Lakers... that is not a conspiracy theory. Get your basics down next time.
-
^^didn't you claim the Laker fans made accounts to vote for Baylor?
-
Turns out I was right either way VV
http://www.dubcnn.com/connect/index.php?topic=142904.0
-
Elgin started the MJ/Dr. J style of play. There is no way I can vote against him in this one.
John Logie Baird started television as we know it backin the 20s, but I'd still rather watch a plasma screen on HD, and I'd still rather have Bird on my team. You can have Baylor, but he won't be doing much against my team with Bird covering him. And Larry won't have a problem jumping over him with his 5 inches of height for the boards or sinking 3s from the outside.
Baylor would run circles against Bird.
Your opinion doesn't even count in this case. Anytime a Laker is involved everyone already knows what you're going to say.
So is my opinion not valid? Was Chick Hearns opinion not valid? Was Jerry West's opinion not valid? Baylor>Bird. Get over it.
Your opinion is not valid because if Bird played for the Lakers and Baylor never did then your opinion would change. Bringing up two guys that called Baylor's games and played along side him respectively means nothing. Was Baylor more important to the evolution of the game than Bird? Maybe. Was he more of a standout player compared to the rest of the mooks in the league at that time? Sure. But you put Larry Bird and Elgin Baylor in their prime on two shitty teams in the NBA today and Larry's team will be in the finals with in 2 to 3 years while Baylor's team would fall apart because a 6'5'' forward won't cut it and his athletic ability compared to guys today won't mean as much like it did compared to the goofs in the NBA back then. Larry's genius is in his head. He's too smart not to be able to win and win and win. He's a leader and he leads teams to championships. Baylor never got to do that. Maybe if Baylor had Shaq to lead the way like Kobe did then Elgin would have won a couple, but his career went like how Kobe's will go for the rest of his career; no rings. He had 7 chances to beat Boston and Elgin couldn't do it. You take a '79 to '88 Larry Bird and put him on the Lakers in '59 and dollars to doughnuts the Celtics would go down at least 3 times. Larry was too smart and too much of a leader, but you have no concept of the what a leader is. If you did you wouldn't like Kobe as much as you do.
Kobe is not a leader? LOL. If he wasn't a leader, would he have led a BATTERED team composed mainly of D-League level talent to the fucking playoffs? Lemme guess, you're a huge Jordan fan, huh?...How much help did Jordan need before he could finally win something? As for Elgin Baylor, the Russell led Celtics won 9 titles during Baylor's career, that's not his fault. It doesn't make a difference in how great of a player he was either way. Was James Worthy better than Elgin Baylor too? ::) (<A Laker comparison for that ass). That's as dumb as saying that 6'5" isn't a good size for a small forward. And speaking of Elgin Baylor in his prime vs. Larry Bird in his prime...
Larry Bird-
PPG: 29.9
RPG: 9.3
APG: 6.1
Elgin Baylor-
PPG: 34.6
RPG: 19.8
APG: 5.1
Hmmmmm...I guess I'm soooo bias, huh? Get the fuck out of here. Until you see me making irrational claims, you have nothing on me, bro. :-*
Like I said, Bird would have figured out how to beat the Russel Celtics at least 3 times. Those stats are a waste of text. Look at the league in the 80s compared to the 60s. The other players were way better in the 80s than in the 60s. The game was different and Larry was a leader. A guy who took his team from one of the worst to the playoffs in his rookie season and he was too smart to be beatan 7 times in the finals by 1 team.
Worthy had rings yeah, but if Baylor had Magic and Jabbar, he'd have rings too.
If Baylor was on the 80's Celtic squads, he'd have rings too. I highly doubt you know shit about Baylor, so please don't speak from ignorance...PeACe
So then you agree that the Lakers with West and Bird would have won a couple? Okay, that's all I needed.
-
Elgin started the MJ/Dr. J style of play. There is no way I can vote against him in this one.
John Logie Baird started television as we know it backin the 20s, but I'd still rather watch a plasma screen on HD, and I'd still rather have Bird on my team. You can have Baylor, but he won't be doing much against my team with Bird covering him. And Larry won't have a problem jumping over him with his 5 inches of height for the boards or sinking 3s from the outside.
Baylor would run circles against Bird.
Your opinion doesn't even count in this case. Anytime a Laker is involved everyone already knows what you're going to say.
So is my opinion not valid? Was Chick Hearns opinion not valid? Was Jerry West's opinion not valid? Baylor>Bird. Get over it.
Your opinion is not valid because if Bird played for the Lakers and Baylor never did then your opinion would change. Bringing up two guys that called Baylor's games and played along side him respectively means nothing. Was Baylor more important to the evolution of the game than Bird? Maybe. Was he more of a standout player compared to the rest of the mooks in the league at that time? Sure. But you put Larry Bird and Elgin Baylor in their prime on two shitty teams in the NBA today and Larry's team will be in the finals with in 2 to 3 years while Baylor's team would fall apart because a 6'5'' forward won't cut it and his athletic ability compared to guys today won't mean as much like it did compared to the goofs in the NBA back then. Larry's genius is in his head. He's too smart not to be able to win and win and win. He's a leader and he leads teams to championships. Baylor never got to do that. Maybe if Baylor had Shaq to lead the way like Kobe did then Elgin would have won a couple, but his career went like how Kobe's will go for the rest of his career; no rings. He had 7 chances to beat Boston and Elgin couldn't do it. You take a '79 to '88 Larry Bird and put him on the Lakers in '59 and dollars to doughnuts the Celtics would go down at least 3 times. Larry was too smart and too much of a leader, but you have no concept of the what a leader is. If you did you wouldn't like Kobe as much as you do.
Kobe is not a leader? LOL. If he wasn't a leader, would he have led a BATTERED team composed mainly of D-League level talent to the fucking playoffs? Lemme guess, you're a huge Jordan fan, huh?...How much help did Jordan need before he could finally win something? As for Elgin Baylor, the Russell led Celtics won 9 titles during Baylor's career, that's not his fault. It doesn't make a difference in how great of a player he was either way. Was James Worthy better than Elgin Baylor too? ::) (<A Laker comparison for that ass). That's as dumb as saying that 6'5" isn't a good size for a small forward. And speaking of Elgin Baylor in his prime vs. Larry Bird in his prime...
Larry Bird-
PPG: 29.9
RPG: 9.3
APG: 6.1
Elgin Baylor-
PPG: 34.6
RPG: 19.8
APG: 5.1
Hmmmmm...I guess I'm soooo bias, huh? Get the fuck out of here. Until you see me making irrational claims, you have nothing on me, bro. :-*
Like I said, Bird would have figured out how to beat the Russel Celtics at least 3 times. Those stats are a waste of text. Look at the league in the 80s compared to the 60s. The other players were way better in the 80s than in the 60s. The game was different and Larry was a leader. A guy who took his team from one of the worst to the playoffs in his rookie season and he was too smart to be beatan 7 times in the finals by 1 team.
Worthy had rings yeah, but if Baylor had Magic and Jabbar, he'd have rings too.
If Baylor was on the 80's Celtic squads, he'd have rings too. I highly doubt you know shit about Baylor, so please don't speak from ignorance...PeACe
So then you agree that the Lakers with West and Bird would have won a couple? Okay, that's all I needed.
Not if they had the same luck with the Bill Russell led Celtics... You do realize how much injuries had to do with some of those lost seasons, correct?
Baylor in his prime on the 80's Celtics would have won his share of rings...Do you disagree?
-
The main reason that Elgin didn't win a title was because the Lakers sported a much smaller team, even for that era, than the Celtics. Elgin was a slasher that Dr. J, MJ and Kobe followed, and West was the shooter, but both were under sized at the positions they played at times, and they couldn't play their natural positions on a regular bases until Wilt came. By then they were older, and injuries were getting to Elgin, which resulted him retiring during the 71-72 season, the same year the Lakers finally won it all.
-
Elgin started the MJ/Dr. J style of play. There is no way I can vote against him in this one.
John Logie Baird started television as we know it backin the 20s, but I'd still rather watch a plasma screen on HD, and I'd still rather have Bird on my team. You can have Baylor, but he won't be doing much against my team with Bird covering him. And Larry won't have a problem jumping over him with his 5 inches of height for the boards or sinking 3s from the outside.
Baylor would run circles against Bird.
Your opinion doesn't even count in this case. Anytime a Laker is involved everyone already knows what you're going to say.
So is my opinion not valid? Was Chick Hearns opinion not valid? Was Jerry West's opinion not valid? Baylor>Bird. Get over it.
Your opinion is not valid because if Bird played for the Lakers and Baylor never did then your opinion would change. Bringing up two guys that called Baylor's games and played along side him respectively means nothing. Was Baylor more important to the evolution of the game than Bird? Maybe. Was he more of a standout player compared to the rest of the mooks in the league at that time? Sure. But you put Larry Bird and Elgin Baylor in their prime on two shitty teams in the NBA today and Larry's team will be in the finals with in 2 to 3 years while Baylor's team would fall apart because a 6'5'' forward won't cut it and his athletic ability compared to guys today won't mean as much like it did compared to the goofs in the NBA back then. Larry's genius is in his head. He's too smart not to be able to win and win and win. He's a leader and he leads teams to championships. Baylor never got to do that. Maybe if Baylor had Shaq to lead the way like Kobe did then Elgin would have won a couple, but his career went like how Kobe's will go for the rest of his career; no rings. He had 7 chances to beat Boston and Elgin couldn't do it. You take a '79 to '88 Larry Bird and put him on the Lakers in '59 and dollars to doughnuts the Celtics would go down at least 3 times. Larry was too smart and too much of a leader, but you have no concept of the what a leader is. If you did you wouldn't like Kobe as much as you do.
Kobe is not a leader? LOL. If he wasn't a leader, would he have led a BATTERED team composed mainly of D-League level talent to the fucking playoffs? Lemme guess, you're a huge Jordan fan, huh?...How much help did Jordan need before he could finally win something? As for Elgin Baylor, the Russell led Celtics won 9 titles during Baylor's career, that's not his fault. It doesn't make a difference in how great of a player he was either way. Was James Worthy better than Elgin Baylor too? ::) (<A Laker comparison for that ass). That's as dumb as saying that 6'5" isn't a good size for a small forward. And speaking of Elgin Baylor in his prime vs. Larry Bird in his prime...
Larry Bird-
PPG: 29.9
RPG: 9.3
APG: 6.1
Elgin Baylor-
PPG: 34.6
RPG: 19.8
APG: 5.1
Hmmmmm...I guess I'm soooo bias, huh? Get the fuck out of here. Until you see me making irrational claims, you have nothing on me, bro. :-*
Like I said, Bird would have figured out how to beat the Russel Celtics at least 3 times. Those stats are a waste of text. Look at the league in the 80s compared to the 60s. The other players were way better in the 80s than in the 60s. The game was different and Larry was a leader. A guy who took his team from one of the worst to the playoffs in his rookie season and he was too smart to be beatan 7 times in the finals by 1 team.
Worthy had rings yeah, but if Baylor had Magic and Jabbar, he'd have rings too.
If Baylor was on the 80's Celtic squads, he'd have rings too. I highly doubt you know shit about Baylor, so please don't speak from ignorance...PeACe
So then you agree that the Lakers with West and Bird would have won a couple? Okay, that's all I needed.
Not if they had the same luck with the Bill Russell led Celtics... You do realize how much injuries had to do with some of those lost seasons, correct?
Baylor in his prime on the 80's Celtics would have won his share of rings...Do you disagree?
I think the 80s Celtics winning with out Bird are about as possible as the Lakers winning in the 2000s with out Shaq. If Kobe can win 1 before 2010 I'll give agree that Baylor could have won one. But in my opinion Kobe will not win a ring again unless he plays second fiddle to a dominant big man. He can't lead anything past the first round. He has a better job leading an honest marriage than he does leading a team to the finals.
Here's the million dollar question for you; who's better Kobe or Magic? Just wondering, you may have answered it before.
-
^^didn't you claim the Laker fans made accounts to vote for Baylor?
No... in my initial post I said "perhaps multiple accounts?"... I didn't make the claim that that is what happened, just that it's a possibility for people to have used more than one account. Since people can just vote without posting who is voting for who... the same could also be said for people voting against Laker players.
-
Turns out I was right either way VV
http://www.dubcnn.com/connect/index.php?topic=142904.0
Right about what? I could look at this and say that ever since people exposed the bullshit,the people who were pulling strings earlier don't feel like they can anymore. Plus, if Kobe ended up winning for GOAT SG when he realistically doesn't deserve to, it would've been a little obvious.
-
Elgin started the MJ/Dr. J style of play. There is no way I can vote against him in this one.
John Logie Baird started television as we know it backin the 20s, but I'd still rather watch a plasma screen on HD, and I'd still rather have Bird on my team. You can have Baylor, but he won't be doing much against my team with Bird covering him. And Larry won't have a problem jumping over him with his 5 inches of height for the boards or sinking 3s from the outside.
Baylor would run circles against Bird.
Your opinion doesn't even count in this case. Anytime a Laker is involved everyone already knows what you're going to say.
So is my opinion not valid? Was Chick Hearns opinion not valid? Was Jerry West's opinion not valid? Baylor>Bird. Get over it.
Your opinion is not valid because if Bird played for the Lakers and Baylor never did then your opinion would change. Bringing up two guys that called Baylor's games and played along side him respectively means nothing. Was Baylor more important to the evolution of the game than Bird? Maybe. Was he more of a standout player compared to the rest of the mooks in the league at that time? Sure. But you put Larry Bird and Elgin Baylor in their prime on two shitty teams in the NBA today and Larry's team will be in the finals with in 2 to 3 years while Baylor's team would fall apart because a 6'5'' forward won't cut it and his athletic ability compared to guys today won't mean as much like it did compared to the goofs in the NBA back then. Larry's genius is in his head. He's too smart not to be able to win and win and win. He's a leader and he leads teams to championships. Baylor never got to do that. Maybe if Baylor had Shaq to lead the way like Kobe did then Elgin would have won a couple, but his career went like how Kobe's will go for the rest of his career; no rings. He had 7 chances to beat Boston and Elgin couldn't do it. You take a '79 to '88 Larry Bird and put him on the Lakers in '59 and dollars to doughnuts the Celtics would go down at least 3 times. Larry was too smart and too much of a leader, but you have no concept of the what a leader is. If you did you wouldn't like Kobe as much as you do.
Kobe is not a leader? LOL. If he wasn't a leader, would he have led a BATTERED team composed mainly of D-League level talent to the fucking playoffs? Lemme guess, you're a huge Jordan fan, huh?...How much help did Jordan need before he could finally win something? As for Elgin Baylor, the Russell led Celtics won 9 titles during Baylor's career, that's not his fault. It doesn't make a difference in how great of a player he was either way. Was James Worthy better than Elgin Baylor too? ::) (<A Laker comparison for that ass). That's as dumb as saying that 6'5" isn't a good size for a small forward. And speaking of Elgin Baylor in his prime vs. Larry Bird in his prime...
Larry Bird-
PPG: 29.9
RPG: 9.3
APG: 6.1
Elgin Baylor-
PPG: 34.6
RPG: 19.8
APG: 5.1
Hmmmmm...I guess I'm soooo bias, huh? Get the fuck out of here. Until you see me making irrational claims, you have nothing on me, bro. :-*
Like I said, Bird would have figured out how to beat the Russel Celtics at least 3 times. Those stats are a waste of text. Look at the league in the 80s compared to the 60s. The other players were way better in the 80s than in the 60s. The game was different and Larry was a leader. A guy who took his team from one of the worst to the playoffs in his rookie season and he was too smart to be beatan 7 times in the finals by 1 team.
Worthy had rings yeah, but if Baylor had Magic and Jabbar, he'd have rings too.
If Baylor was on the 80's Celtic squads, he'd have rings too. I highly doubt you know shit about Baylor, so please don't speak from ignorance...PeACe
So then you agree that the Lakers with West and Bird would have won a couple? Okay, that's all I needed.
Not if they had the same luck with the Bill Russell led Celtics... You do realize how much injuries had to do with some of those lost seasons, correct?
Baylor in his prime on the 80's Celtics would have won his share of rings...Do you disagree?
I think the 80s Celtics winning with out Bird are about as possible as the Lakers winning in the 2000s with out Shaq. If Kobe can win 1 before 2010 I'll give agree that Baylor could have won one. But in my opinion Kobe will not win a ring again unless he plays second fiddle to a dominant big man. He can't lead anything past the first round. He has a better job leading an honest marriage than he does leading a team to the finals.
Here's the million dollar question for you; who's better Kobe or Magic? Just wondering, you may have answered it before.
Wrong...Kobe has YET to lead an expansion team of D-League players past the first round. Did you watch Jordan AT ALL before he hit his 30's? LOL. Seriously dude, are you even an NBA fan? I've seen zero basketball discussion on here from you, and all of a sudden you're making these irrational claims. Kobe=best player in the NBA, of course he's ABLE to lead a TEAM to an NBA championship. Depending on the TEAM built around him though. Every championship team was a team built to win. And of course Magic is the GOAT as of now, but Kobe has a very good chance at ending his career as the GOAT...PeACe
-
Turns out I was right either way VV
http://www.dubcnn.com/connect/index.php?topic=142904.0
Right about what? I could look at this and say that ever since people exposed the bullshit,the people who were pulling strings earlier don't feel like they can anymore. Plus, if Kobe ended up winning for GOAT SG when he realistically doesn't deserve to, it would've been a little obvious.
Yea, but AT LEAST over Dr. J.
-
Baylor
NBA Championships - 0
MVP's - 0
NBA Finals MVP - 0
All NBA 1st Team - 10
All Star Games - 11
Bird
NBA Championships - 3
MVP's - 3 CONSECUTIVE (Only 3rd person to ever do that at the time, and the first non-center)
NBA Finals MVP - 2
All-NBA 1st Team - 9
All Star Games - 12
Only forward to lead league in three-pointers made (82) and free throw percentage (.896)
Bird>Baylor
The league didn't have 2 players as dominant as Wilt and Russell when Bird played, so the MVP/Championship argument is nonesense. Anyone who knows the history of the Lakers knows they were a top team with Baylor, but were cursed by the Russell led Celtics for a whole decade. They even lost the years they had the better team. When it comes to accomplishments, Bird was better. But as an individual player, it's Baylor. Even your ALL-NBA 1st Team list shows that...PeACe
Anyone who knows the history of basketball knows the CELTICS COMPLETELY DOMINATED THE LAKERS during the 60's. You're such a ho with your "The Lakers were a better team even though they lost every year to the Celtics". And you say my post was NONSENSE? Are you retarded? You have ZERO cred in basketball discussions Elior.
Lets have a look at the Lakers playoff record during the time in which Elior says they were clearly the best team:
1969 -- defeated San Francisco, 4-2, division semifinals
defeated Atlanta, 4-1, division finals
lost to Boston, 4-3, NBA Finals
1968 -- defeated Chicago, 4-1, division semifinals
defeated San Francisco, 4-0, division finals
lost to Boston, 4-2, NBA Finals
1967 -- lost to San Francisco, 3-0, division semifinals
1966 -- defeated St. Louis, 4-3, division finals
lost to Boston, 4-3, NBA Finals
1965 -- defeated Baltimore, 4-2, division finals
lost to Boston, 4-1, NBA Finals
1964 -- lost to St. Louis, 3-2, division semifinals
1963 -- defeated St. Louis, 4-3, division finals
lost to Boston, 4-2, NBA Finals
1962 -- defeated Detroit, 4-2, division finals
lost to Boston, 4-3, NBA Finals
1961 -- defeated Detroit, 3-2, division semifinals
lost to St. Louis, 4-3, division finals
Thats right, The Lakers went to the finals 6 times and were beaten by The Celtics everytime. Yet Elior says the Lakers were the best team. I hope you Laker fans will see how much Elior taints you guys.
-
The main reason that Elgin didn't win a title was because the Lakers sported a much smaller team, even for that era, than the Celtics. Elgin was a slasher that Dr. J, MJ and Kobe followed, and West was the shooter, but both were under sized at the positions they played at times, and they couldn't play their natural positions on a regular bases until Wilt came. By then they were older, and injuries were getting to Elgin, which resulted him retiring during the 71-72 season, the same year the Lakers finally won it all.
I just think the 80s Larry was too good of a passer and shooter to be stopped by a 60s Celtics team. Now if you want to argue whether a 60's Larry would be anywhere near the same player as an 80s Larry then that's another story. But the game evolved alot in the 80s and Larry was a big part of it.
NIK, arguing with you is like arguing with a Red Sox fan from Boston. You're opinion doesn't matter when it comers to the Lakers because you'll just pick the Lakers when it comes to debatable players. If Jordan or Larry were Lakers and Magic wasn't, Magic wouldn't be your GOAT. It's like Sox fans that argue that Ted Williams was better than Ty Cobb. Two different eras but two of the greatest hitters. Cobb was better plain and simple, but you'll be hard pressed to find a guy in Massachusetts say that. Just like with you, it's a matter of Geography. Now if you were debating Jordan vs Larry, or Duncan vs Hakeem then I'd sit and listen to you and take you seriously, but this is like you having a son or daughter in a talent show. You aren't capable of saying they weren't as good as the other boy or girl.
-
The main reason that Elgin didn't win a title was because the Lakers sported a much smaller team, even for that era, than the Celtics. Elgin was a slasher that Dr. J, MJ and Kobe followed, and West was the shooter, but both were under sized at the positions they played at times, and they couldn't play their natural positions on a regular bases until Wilt came. By then they were older, and injuries were getting to Elgin, which resulted him retiring during the 71-72 season, the same year the Lakers finally won it all.
I just think the 80s Larry was too good of a passer and shooter to be stopped by a 60s Celtics team. Now if you want to argue whether a 60's Larry would be anywhere near the same player as an 80s Larry then that's another story. But the game evolved alot in the 80s and Larry was a big part of it.
NIK, arguing with you is like arguing with a Red Sox fan from Boston. You're opinion doesn't matter when it comers to the Lakers because you'll just pick the Lakers when it comes to debatable players. If Jordan or Larry were Lakers and Magic wasn't, Magic wouldn't be your GOAT. It's like Sox fans that argue that Ted Williams was better than Ty Cobb. Two different eras but two of the greatest hitters. Cobb was better plain and simple, but you'll be hard pressed to find a guy in Massachusetts say that. Just like with you, it's a matter of Geography. Now if you were debating Jordan vs Larry, or Duncan vs Hakeem then I'd sit and listen to you and take you seriously, but this is like you having a son or daughter in a talent show. You aren't capable of saying they weren't as good as the other boy or girl.
When did this cat join the argument. Shallow, you are a guy who likes to go against the gain. IF Bird would have won, you'd join the 80's players who argued that Bird was simply a player who was popular because he was white, and you'd should like Zek. BUT because Baylor won, you argue the other way. Point blank, look at the stats, look at the impact, and look at there overall careers. Bird won titles, but he also had a team that could compete, built with teammates that were able to run with the Lakers, and defend the 76ers. The Lakers in the 60's were a very small team that depended on 6'5" Baylor to play PF many times, and 6'3" Jerry West to play SF. You can't use titles when you argue Malone is the GOAT PF, especially with Tim Duncan, the actual person who lead the team, in the poll.
Baylor was the orginal playground player in the NBA, His style inspired Dr. J and MJ and Kobe, Baylor's impact was great, and that's something you measure with greatness. Like Joe Louis did for boxers like Ali and Larry Holmes, like Jackie Robinson did for many black players in baseball, Baylor inspired a style of play that now has And1 Mixtape tours, that inspired the ABA, that changed the game forever. The clutch shooter is dying with Robert Horry's career.
-
The main reason that Elgin didn't win a title was because the Lakers sported a much smaller team, even for that era, than the Celtics. Elgin was a slasher that Dr. J, MJ and Kobe followed, and West was the shooter, but both were under sized at the positions they played at times, and they couldn't play their natural positions on a regular bases until Wilt came. By then they were older, and injuries were getting to Elgin, which resulted him retiring during the 71-72 season, the same year the Lakers finally won it all.
I just think the 80s Larry was too good of a passer and shooter to be stopped by a 60s Celtics team. Now if you want to argue whether a 60's Larry would be anywhere near the same player as an 80s Larry then that's another story. But the game evolved alot in the 80s and Larry was a big part of it.
NIK, arguing with you is like arguing with a Red Sox fan from Boston. You're opinion doesn't matter when it comers to the Lakers because you'll just pick the Lakers when it comes to debatable players. If Jordan or Larry were Lakers and Magic wasn't, Magic wouldn't be your GOAT. It's like Sox fans that argue that Ted Williams was better than Ty Cobb. Two different eras but two of the greatest hitters. Cobb was better plain and simple, but you'll be hard pressed to find a guy in Massachusetts say that. Just like with you, it's a matter of Geography. Now if you were debating Jordan vs Larry, or Duncan vs Hakeem then I'd sit and listen to you and take you seriously, but this is like you having a son or daughter in a talent show. You aren't capable of saying they weren't as good as the other boy or girl.
When did this cat join the argument. Shallow, you are a guy who likes to go against the gain. IF Bird would have won, you'd join the 80's players who argued that Bird was simply a player who was popular because he was white, and you'd should like Zek. BUT because Baylor won, you argue the other way. Point blank, look at the stats, look at the impact, and look at there overall careers. Bird won titles, but he also had a team that could compete, built with teammates that were able to run with the Lakers, and defend the 76ers. The Lakers in the 60's were a very small team that depended on 6'5" Baylor to play PF many times, and 6'3" Jerry West to play SF. You can't use titles when you argue Malone is the GOAT PF, especially with Tim Duncan, the actual person who lead the team, in the poll.
Baylor was the orginal playground player in the NBA, His style inspired Dr. J and MJ and Kobe, Baylor's impact was great, and that's something you measure with greatness. Like Joe Louis did for boxers like Ali and Larry Holmes, like Jackie Robinson did for many black players in baseball, Baylor inspired a style of play that now has And1 Mixtape tours, that inspired the ABA, that changed the game forever. The clutch shooter is dying with Robert Horry's career.
I would not have went against the grain in this case and would not played the white card against Larry. I'm just a big Larry fan. I'm not arguing who was more important to the game as a whole. I'm arguing who I'd rather have on my team. Boston was shit when Bird entered the picture. He came in as a rookie to a 29-53 team and made them a 61-21 team. The next year they picked up Parrish and McHale and they won a championship. Things like that is why I picked him. That first year Boston was nothing special but Bird took them to the Easten Finals.
Like I said, I'm not looking at this from a historical significance perspective. I just think that if you put an '80 Rookie Bird on Memphis and a rookie Baylor on Charlotte, Memphis woould be deep in the playoffs next year and win at least 2 championships in the next 7 years while Charlotte would go nowhere. You can disagree, but that's why I'd pick Bird (and I didn't even get the chance to vote so the tally should be 10-10).
-
Baylor
NBA Championships - 0
MVP's - 0
NBA Finals MVP - 0
All NBA 1st Team - 10
All Star Games - 11
Bird
NBA Championships - 3
MVP's - 3 CONSECUTIVE (Only 3rd person to ever do that at the time, and the first non-center)
NBA Finals MVP - 2
All-NBA 1st Team - 9
All Star Games - 12
Only forward to lead league in three-pointers made (82) and free throw percentage (.896)
Bird>Baylor
The league didn't have 2 players as dominant as Wilt and Russell when Bird played, so the MVP/Championship argument is nonesense. Anyone who knows the history of the Lakers knows they were a top team with Baylor, but were cursed by the Russell led Celtics for a whole decade. They even lost the years they had the better team. When it comes to accomplishments, Bird was better. But as an individual player, it's Baylor. Even your ALL-NBA 1st Team list shows that...PeACe
Anyone who knows the history of basketball knows the CELTICS COMPLETELY DOMINATED THE LAKERS during the 60's. You're such a ho with your "The Lakers were a better team even though they lost every year to the Celtics". And you say my post was NONSENSE? Are you retarded? You have ZERO cred in basketball discussions Elior.
Lets have a look at the Lakers playoff record during the time in which Elior says they were clearly the best team:
1969 -- defeated San Francisco, 4-2, division semifinals
defeated Atlanta, 4-1, division finals
lost to Boston, 4-3, NBA Finals
1968 -- defeated Chicago, 4-1, division semifinals
defeated San Francisco, 4-0, division finals
lost to Boston, 4-2, NBA Finals
1967 -- lost to San Francisco, 3-0, division semifinals
1966 -- defeated St. Louis, 4-3, division finals
lost to Boston, 4-3, NBA Finals
1965 -- defeated Baltimore, 4-2, division finals
lost to Boston, 4-1, NBA Finals
1964 -- lost to St. Louis, 3-2, division semifinals
1963 -- defeated St. Louis, 4-3, division finals
lost to Boston, 4-2, NBA Finals
1962 -- defeated Detroit, 4-2, division finals
lost to Boston, 4-3, NBA Finals
1961 -- defeated Detroit, 3-2, division semifinals
lost to St. Louis, 4-3, division finals
Thats right, The Lakers went to the finals 6 times and were beaten by The Celtics everytime. Yet Elior says the Lakers were the best team. I hope you Laker fans will see how much Elior taints you guys.
I have 0 cred in basketball discussion? LOL. That's where I stopped taking you seriously...LMAO@you tryna educate me about ANY Laker team. Had you watched ANY basketball documentary about NBA in the 60's, you'd know the Lakers lost when they were and weren't picked to win. That's why it was a curse, genius. When did I say Lakers ALWAYS had the best team? You must have ADD, huh? All I said was the Lakers lost, even during the years they had the better team, then you got all excited like you knew something... And stop constantly using my first name like you wanna get fucked...PeACe
-
The main reason that Elgin didn't win a title was because the Lakers sported a much smaller team, even for that era, than the Celtics. Elgin was a slasher that Dr. J, MJ and Kobe followed, and West was the shooter, but both were under sized at the positions they played at times, and they couldn't play their natural positions on a regular bases until Wilt came. By then they were older, and injuries were getting to Elgin, which resulted him retiring during the 71-72 season, the same year the Lakers finally won it all.
I just think the 80s Larry was too good of a passer and shooter to be stopped by a 60s Celtics team. Now if you want to argue whether a 60's Larry would be anywhere near the same player as an 80s Larry then that's another story. But the game evolved alot in the 80s and Larry was a big part of it.
NIK, arguing with you is like arguing with a Red Sox fan from Boston. You're opinion doesn't matter when it comers to the Lakers because you'll just pick the Lakers when it comes to debatable players. If Jordan or Larry were Lakers and Magic wasn't, Magic wouldn't be your GOAT. It's like Sox fans that argue that Ted Williams was better than Ty Cobb. Two different eras but two of the greatest hitters. Cobb was better plain and simple, but you'll be hard pressed to find a guy in Massachusetts say that. Just like with you, it's a matter of Geography. Now if you were debating Jordan vs Larry, or Duncan vs Hakeem then I'd sit and listen to you and take you seriously, but this is like you having a son or daughter in a talent show. You aren't capable of saying they weren't as good as the other boy or girl.
It'd be one thing if Lakers weren't one of the greatest sport dynasties ever with some of the greatest players ever...I grew up watching them, so I know most about them. All my opinions are valid. I would never say something ridiculous like "Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was more powerful than Shaq", or "Magic Johnson was a better rebounder than Larry Bird", cuz that's not me...I only say what I truly feel...When you see me making irrational claims, get at me...PeACe
-
The main reason that Elgin didn't win a title was because the Lakers sported a much smaller team, even for that era, than the Celtics. Elgin was a slasher that Dr. J, MJ and Kobe followed, and West was the shooter, but both were under sized at the positions they played at times, and they couldn't play their natural positions on a regular bases until Wilt came. By then they were older, and injuries were getting to Elgin, which resulted him retiring during the 71-72 season, the same year the Lakers finally won it all.
I just think the 80s Larry was too good of a passer and shooter to be stopped by a 60s Celtics team. Now if you want to argue whether a 60's Larry would be anywhere near the same player as an 80s Larry then that's another story. But the game evolved alot in the 80s and Larry was a big part of it.
NIK, arguing with you is like arguing with a Red Sox fan from Boston. You're opinion doesn't matter when it comers to the Lakers because you'll just pick the Lakers when it comes to debatable players. If Jordan or Larry were Lakers and Magic wasn't, Magic wouldn't be your GOAT. It's like Sox fans that argue that Ted Williams was better than Ty Cobb. Two different eras but two of the greatest hitters. Cobb was better plain and simple, but you'll be hard pressed to find a guy in Massachusetts say that. Just like with you, it's a matter of Geography. Now if you were debating Jordan vs Larry, or Duncan vs Hakeem then I'd sit and listen to you and take you seriously, but this is like you having a son or daughter in a talent show. You aren't capable of saying they weren't as good as the other boy or girl.
It'd be one thing if Lakers weren't one of the greatest sport dynasties ever with some of the greatest players ever...I grew up watching them, so I know most about them. All my opinions are valid. I would never say something ridiculous like "Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was more powerful than Shaq", or "Magic Johnson was a better rebounder than Larry Bird", cuz that's not me...I only say what I truly feel...When you see me making irrational claims, get at me...PeACe
I never said you made irrational claims. I said when something is debatable I can't see you ever going against the Laker. You wouldn't say something stupid like Kurt Rambis was a better all round player than Bird because that would be ridiculous. But if it's close enough to garner some support for the Laker in an objective debate then you'd pick the Laker. Like I said about Ted Williams; he was amazing and had a lot of accolades and there may be one or two objective fans that say he's better than Cobb, but for every 1 fan that says Williams there is a hundred that say Cobb. But not in Boston. In Boston it's the other way around. It's not that I think you're stupid, it's that I strongly believe (I can never know for sure and neither can you) that if Bird was a Laker and Elgin was a Celtic that at the very least this poll would have been 10-9 for Larry, not Elgin.
-
Baylor
NBA Championships - 0
MVP's - 0
NBA Finals MVP - 0
All NBA 1st Team - 10
All Star Games - 11
Bird
NBA Championships - 3
MVP's - 3 CONSECUTIVE (Only 3rd person to ever do that at the time, and the first non-center)
NBA Finals MVP - 2
All-NBA 1st Team - 9
All Star Games - 12
Only forward to lead league in three-pointers made (82) and free throw percentage (.896)
Bird>Baylor
The league didn't have 2 players as dominant as Wilt and Russell when Bird played, so the MVP/Championship argument is nonesense. Anyone who knows the history of the Lakers knows they were a top team with Baylor, but were cursed by the Russell led Celtics for a whole decade. They even lost the years they had the better team. When it comes to accomplishments, Bird was better. But as an individual player, it's Baylor. Even your ALL-NBA 1st Team list shows that...PeACe
Anyone who knows the history of basketball knows the CELTICS COMPLETELY DOMINATED THE LAKERS during the 60's. You're such a ho with your "The Lakers were a better team even though they lost every year to the Celtics". And you say my post was NONSENSE? Are you retarded? You have ZERO cred in basketball discussions Elior.
Lets have a look at the Lakers playoff record during the time in which Elior says they were clearly the best team:
1969 -- defeated San Francisco, 4-2, division semifinals
defeated Atlanta, 4-1, division finals
lost to Boston, 4-3, NBA Finals
1968 -- defeated Chicago, 4-1, division semifinals
defeated San Francisco, 4-0, division finals
lost to Boston, 4-2, NBA Finals
1967 -- lost to San Francisco, 3-0, division semifinals
1966 -- defeated St. Louis, 4-3, division finals
lost to Boston, 4-3, NBA Finals
1965 -- defeated Baltimore, 4-2, division finals
lost to Boston, 4-1, NBA Finals
1964 -- lost to St. Louis, 3-2, division semifinals
1963 -- defeated St. Louis, 4-3, division finals
lost to Boston, 4-2, NBA Finals
1962 -- defeated Detroit, 4-2, division finals
lost to Boston, 4-3, NBA Finals
1961 -- defeated Detroit, 3-2, division semifinals
lost to St. Louis, 4-3, division finals
Thats right, The Lakers went to the finals 6 times and were beaten by The Celtics everytime. Yet Elior says the Lakers were the best team. I hope you Laker fans will see how much Elior taints you guys.
I have 0 cred in basketball discussion? LOL. That's where I stopped taking you seriously...LMAO@you tryna educate me about ANY Laker team. Had you watched ANY basketball documentary about NBA in the 60's, you'd know the Lakers lost when they were and weren't picked to win. That's why it was a curse, genius. When did I say Lakers ALWAYS had the best team? You must have ADD, huh? All I said was the Lakers lost, even during the years they had the better team, then you got all excited like you knew something... And stop constantly using my first name like you wanna get fucked...PeACe
No, seriously only a fucking retard would sit there and say the Lakers had the better team, yet lost to the Celtics 6 TIMES in the championship.
EEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
-
Baylor
NBA Championships - 0
MVP's - 0
NBA Finals MVP - 0
All NBA 1st Team - 10
All Star Games - 11
Bird
NBA Championships - 3
MVP's - 3 CONSECUTIVE (Only 3rd person to ever do that at the time, and the first non-center)
NBA Finals MVP - 2
All-NBA 1st Team - 9
All Star Games - 12
Only forward to lead league in three-pointers made (82) and free throw percentage (.896)
Bird>Baylor
The league didn't have 2 players as dominant as Wilt and Russell when Bird played, so the MVP/Championship argument is nonesense. Anyone who knows the history of the Lakers knows they were a top team with Baylor, but were cursed by the Russell led Celtics for a whole decade. They even lost the years they had the better team. When it comes to accomplishments, Bird was better. But as an individual player, it's Baylor. Even your ALL-NBA 1st Team list shows that...PeACe
Anyone who knows the history of basketball knows the CELTICS COMPLETELY DOMINATED THE LAKERS during the 60's. You're such a ho with your "The Lakers were a better team even though they lost every year to the Celtics". And you say my post was NONSENSE? Are you retarded? You have ZERO cred in basketball discussions Elior.
Lets have a look at the Lakers playoff record during the time in which Elior says they were clearly the best team:
1969 -- defeated San Francisco, 4-2, division semifinals
defeated Atlanta, 4-1, division finals
lost to Boston, 4-3, NBA Finals
1968 -- defeated Chicago, 4-1, division semifinals
defeated San Francisco, 4-0, division finals
lost to Boston, 4-2, NBA Finals
1967 -- lost to San Francisco, 3-0, division semifinals
1966 -- defeated St. Louis, 4-3, division finals
lost to Boston, 4-3, NBA Finals
1965 -- defeated Baltimore, 4-2, division finals
lost to Boston, 4-1, NBA Finals
1964 -- lost to St. Louis, 3-2, division semifinals
1963 -- defeated St. Louis, 4-3, division finals
lost to Boston, 4-2, NBA Finals
1962 -- defeated Detroit, 4-2, division finals
lost to Boston, 4-3, NBA Finals
1961 -- defeated Detroit, 3-2, division semifinals
lost to St. Louis, 4-3, division finals
Thats right, The Lakers went to the finals 6 times and were beaten by The Celtics everytime. Yet Elior says the Lakers were the best team. I hope you Laker fans will see how much Elior taints you guys.
I have 0 cred in basketball discussion? LOL. That's where I stopped taking you seriously...LMAO@you tryna educate me about ANY Laker team. Had you watched ANY basketball documentary about NBA in the 60's, you'd know the Lakers lost when they were and weren't picked to win. That's why it was a curse, genius. When did I say Lakers ALWAYS had the best team? You must have ADD, huh? All I said was the Lakers lost, even during the years they had the better team, then you got all excited like you knew something... And stop constantly using my first name like you wanna get fucked...PeACe
No, seriously only a fucking retard would sit there and say the Lakers had the better team, yet lost to the Celtics 6 TIMES in the championship.
EEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Once again, Mr. ADD, I never said the Lakers had the better team for all 6 losses...I said even when they were picked to win and had the better season, they STILL lost. Learn how to comprehend shit, cuz only a retard would misunderstand what I said twice in a row...
JRRRROOOOOOOMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOOOO
-
Baylor
NBA Championships - 0
MVP's - 0
NBA Finals MVP - 0
All NBA 1st Team - 10
All Star Games - 11
Bird
NBA Championships - 3
MVP's - 3 CONSECUTIVE (Only 3rd person to ever do that at the time, and the first non-center)
NBA Finals MVP - 2
All-NBA 1st Team - 9
All Star Games - 12
Only forward to lead league in three-pointers made (82) and free throw percentage (.896)
Bird>Baylor
The league didn't have 2 players as dominant as Wilt and Russell when Bird played, so the MVP/Championship argument is nonesense. Anyone who knows the history of the Lakers knows they were a top team with Baylor, but were cursed by the Russell led Celtics for a whole decade. They even lost the years they had the better team. When it comes to accomplishments, Bird was better. But as an individual player, it's Baylor. Even your ALL-NBA 1st Team list shows that...PeACe
Anyone who knows the history of basketball knows the CELTICS COMPLETELY DOMINATED THE LAKERS during the 60's. You're such a ho with your "The Lakers were a better team even though they lost every year to the Celtics". And you say my post was NONSENSE? Are you retarded? You have ZERO cred in basketball discussions Elior.
Lets have a look at the Lakers playoff record during the time in which Elior says they were clearly the best team:
1969 -- defeated San Francisco, 4-2, division semifinals
defeated Atlanta, 4-1, division finals
lost to Boston, 4-3, NBA Finals
1968 -- defeated Chicago, 4-1, division semifinals
defeated San Francisco, 4-0, division finals
lost to Boston, 4-2, NBA Finals
1967 -- lost to San Francisco, 3-0, division semifinals
1966 -- defeated St. Louis, 4-3, division finals
lost to Boston, 4-3, NBA Finals
1965 -- defeated Baltimore, 4-2, division finals
lost to Boston, 4-1, NBA Finals
1964 -- lost to St. Louis, 3-2, division semifinals
1963 -- defeated St. Louis, 4-3, division finals
lost to Boston, 4-2, NBA Finals
1962 -- defeated Detroit, 4-2, division finals
lost to Boston, 4-3, NBA Finals
1961 -- defeated Detroit, 3-2, division semifinals
lost to St. Louis, 4-3, division finals
Thats right, The Lakers went to the finals 6 times and were beaten by The Celtics everytime. Yet Elior says the Lakers were the best team. I hope you Laker fans will see how much Elior taints you guys.
I have 0 cred in basketball discussion? LOL. That's where I stopped taking you seriously...LMAO@you tryna educate me about ANY Laker team. Had you watched ANY basketball documentary about NBA in the 60's, you'd know the Lakers lost when they were and weren't picked to win. That's why it was a curse, genius. When did I say Lakers ALWAYS had the best team? You must have ADD, huh? All I said was the Lakers lost, even during the years they had the better team, then you got all excited like you knew something... And stop constantly using my first name like you wanna get fucked...PeACe
No, seriously only a fucking retard would sit there and say the Lakers had the better team, yet lost to the Celtics 6 TIMES in the championship.
EEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Once again, Mr. ADD, I never said the Lakers had the better team for all 6 losses...I said even when they were picked to win and had the better season, they STILL lost. Learn how to comprehend shit, cuz only a retard would misunderstand what I said twice in a row...
JRRRROOOOOOOMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOOOO
The Lakers were never the best team in the 60's. Even if they had a better regular season record, they were NEVER THE CHAMPS. But in your dilusional world, the Lakers are always the best team regardless of record or championships. Your Laker obsession has totally distorted your reality.
-
Baylor
NBA Championships - 0
MVP's - 0
NBA Finals MVP - 0
All NBA 1st Team - 10
All Star Games - 11
Bird
NBA Championships - 3
MVP's - 3 CONSECUTIVE (Only 3rd person to ever do that at the time, and the first non-center)
NBA Finals MVP - 2
All-NBA 1st Team - 9
All Star Games - 12
Only forward to lead league in three-pointers made (82) and free throw percentage (.896)
Bird>Baylor
The league didn't have 2 players as dominant as Wilt and Russell when Bird played, so the MVP/Championship argument is nonesense. Anyone who knows the history of the Lakers knows they were a top team with Baylor, but were cursed by the Russell led Celtics for a whole decade. They even lost the years they had the better team. When it comes to accomplishments, Bird was better. But as an individual player, it's Baylor. Even your ALL-NBA 1st Team list shows that...PeACe
Anyone who knows the history of basketball knows the CELTICS COMPLETELY DOMINATED THE LAKERS during the 60's. You're such a ho with your "The Lakers were a better team even though they lost every year to the Celtics". And you say my post was NONSENSE? Are you retarded? You have ZERO cred in basketball discussions Elior.
Lets have a look at the Lakers playoff record during the time in which Elior says they were clearly the best team:
1969 -- defeated San Francisco, 4-2, division semifinals
defeated Atlanta, 4-1, division finals
lost to Boston, 4-3, NBA Finals
1968 -- defeated Chicago, 4-1, division semifinals
defeated San Francisco, 4-0, division finals
lost to Boston, 4-2, NBA Finals
1967 -- lost to San Francisco, 3-0, division semifinals
1966 -- defeated St. Louis, 4-3, division finals
lost to Boston, 4-3, NBA Finals
1965 -- defeated Baltimore, 4-2, division finals
lost to Boston, 4-1, NBA Finals
1964 -- lost to St. Louis, 3-2, division semifinals
1963 -- defeated St. Louis, 4-3, division finals
lost to Boston, 4-2, NBA Finals
1962 -- defeated Detroit, 4-2, division finals
lost to Boston, 4-3, NBA Finals
1961 -- defeated Detroit, 3-2, division semifinals
lost to St. Louis, 4-3, division finals
Thats right, The Lakers went to the finals 6 times and were beaten by The Celtics everytime. Yet Elior says the Lakers were the best team. I hope you Laker fans will see how much Elior taints you guys.
I have 0 cred in basketball discussion? LOL. That's where I stopped taking you seriously...LMAO@you tryna educate me about ANY Laker team. Had you watched ANY basketball documentary about NBA in the 60's, you'd know the Lakers lost when they were and weren't picked to win. That's why it was a curse, genius. When did I say Lakers ALWAYS had the best team? You must have ADD, huh? All I said was the Lakers lost, even during the years they had the better team, then you got all excited like you knew something... And stop constantly using my first name like you wanna get fucked...PeACe
No, seriously only a fucking retard would sit there and say the Lakers had the better team, yet lost to the Celtics 6 TIMES in the championship.
EEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Once again, Mr. ADD, I never said the Lakers had the better team for all 6 losses...I said even when they were picked to win and had the better season, they STILL lost. Learn how to comprehend shit, cuz only a retard would misunderstand what I said twice in a row...
JRRRROOOOOOOMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOOOO
The Lakers were never the best team in the 60's. Even if they had a better regular season record, they were NEVER THE CHAMPS. But in your dilusional world, the Lakers are always the best team regardless of record or championships. Your Laker obsession has totally distorted your reality.
You have no fucking idea what you're talking about. There was a season where Boston came into the playoffs as a 4th seed, and won it over the number 1 Lakers, who were clearly regarded as the superior team. Injuries had a lot to do with that as well...You have no idea what "the curse" was all about. If you watched anything about basketball in the 60's, you woulda' known this...Instead, you go around speaking out of your ass...PeACe
-
Baylor
NBA Championships - 0
MVP's - 0
NBA Finals MVP - 0
All NBA 1st Team - 10
All Star Games - 11
Bird
NBA Championships - 3
MVP's - 3 CONSECUTIVE (Only 3rd person to ever do that at the time, and the first non-center)
NBA Finals MVP - 2
All-NBA 1st Team - 9
All Star Games - 12
Only forward to lead league in three-pointers made (82) and free throw percentage (.896)
Bird>Baylor
The league didn't have 2 players as dominant as Wilt and Russell when Bird played, so the MVP/Championship argument is nonesense. Anyone who knows the history of the Lakers knows they were a top team with Baylor, but were cursed by the Russell led Celtics for a whole decade. They even lost the years they had the better team. When it comes to accomplishments, Bird was better. But as an individual player, it's Baylor. Even your ALL-NBA 1st Team list shows that...PeACe
Anyone who knows the history of basketball knows the CELTICS COMPLETELY DOMINATED THE LAKERS during the 60's. You're such a ho with your "The Lakers were a better team even though they lost every year to the Celtics". And you say my post was NONSENSE? Are you retarded? You have ZERO cred in basketball discussions Elior.
Lets have a look at the Lakers playoff record during the time in which Elior says they were clearly the best team:
1969 -- defeated San Francisco, 4-2, division semifinals
defeated Atlanta, 4-1, division finals
lost to Boston, 4-3, NBA Finals
1968 -- defeated Chicago, 4-1, division semifinals
defeated San Francisco, 4-0, division finals
lost to Boston, 4-2, NBA Finals
1967 -- lost to San Francisco, 3-0, division semifinals
1966 -- defeated St. Louis, 4-3, division finals
lost to Boston, 4-3, NBA Finals
1965 -- defeated Baltimore, 4-2, division finals
lost to Boston, 4-1, NBA Finals
1964 -- lost to St. Louis, 3-2, division semifinals
1963 -- defeated St. Louis, 4-3, division finals
lost to Boston, 4-2, NBA Finals
1962 -- defeated Detroit, 4-2, division finals
lost to Boston, 4-3, NBA Finals
1961 -- defeated Detroit, 3-2, division semifinals
lost to St. Louis, 4-3, division finals
Thats right, The Lakers went to the finals 6 times and were beaten by The Celtics everytime. Yet Elior says the Lakers were the best team. I hope you Laker fans will see how much Elior taints you guys.
I have 0 cred in basketball discussion? LOL. That's where I stopped taking you seriously...LMAO@you tryna educate me about ANY Laker team. Had you watched ANY basketball documentary about NBA in the 60's, you'd know the Lakers lost when they were and weren't picked to win. That's why it was a curse, genius. When did I say Lakers ALWAYS had the best team? You must have ADD, huh? All I said was the Lakers lost, even during the years they had the better team, then you got all excited like you knew something... And stop constantly using my first name like you wanna get fucked...PeACe
No, seriously only a fucking retard would sit there and say the Lakers had the better team, yet lost to the Celtics 6 TIMES in the championship.
EEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Once again, Mr. ADD, I never said the Lakers had the better team for all 6 losses...I said even when they were picked to win and had the better season, they STILL lost. Learn how to comprehend shit, cuz only a retard would misunderstand what I said twice in a row...
JRRRROOOOOOOMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOOOO
The Lakers were never the best team in the 60's. Even if they had a better regular season record, they were NEVER THE CHAMPS. But in your dilusional world, the Lakers are always the best team regardless of record or championships. Your Laker obsession has totally distorted your reality.
You have no fucking idea what you're talking about. There was a season where Boston came into the playoffs as a 4th seed, and won it over the number 1 Lakers, who were clearly regarded as the superior team. Injuries had a lot to do with that as well...You have no idea what "the curse" was all about. If you watched anything about basketball in the 60's, you woulda' known this...Instead, you go around speaking out of your ass...PeACe
LOL @ you proving my point again. The Lakers only lost that year because of injuries. ::)
-
Baylor
NBA Championships - 0
MVP's - 0
NBA Finals MVP - 0
All NBA 1st Team - 10
All Star Games - 11
Bird
NBA Championships - 3
MVP's - 3 CONSECUTIVE (Only 3rd person to ever do that at the time, and the first non-center)
NBA Finals MVP - 2
All-NBA 1st Team - 9
All Star Games - 12
Only forward to lead league in three-pointers made (82) and free throw percentage (.896)
Bird>Baylor
The league didn't have 2 players as dominant as Wilt and Russell when Bird played, so the MVP/Championship argument is nonesense. Anyone who knows the history of the Lakers knows they were a top team with Baylor, but were cursed by the Russell led Celtics for a whole decade. They even lost the years they had the better team. When it comes to accomplishments, Bird was better. But as an individual player, it's Baylor. Even your ALL-NBA 1st Team list shows that...PeACe
Anyone who knows the history of basketball knows the CELTICS COMPLETELY DOMINATED THE LAKERS during the 60's. You're such a ho with your "The Lakers were a better team even though they lost every year to the Celtics". And you say my post was NONSENSE? Are you retarded? You have ZERO cred in basketball discussions Elior.
Lets have a look at the Lakers playoff record during the time in which Elior says they were clearly the best team:
1969 -- defeated San Francisco, 4-2, division semifinals
defeated Atlanta, 4-1, division finals
lost to Boston, 4-3, NBA Finals
1968 -- defeated Chicago, 4-1, division semifinals
defeated San Francisco, 4-0, division finals
lost to Boston, 4-2, NBA Finals
1967 -- lost to San Francisco, 3-0, division semifinals
1966 -- defeated St. Louis, 4-3, division finals
lost to Boston, 4-3, NBA Finals
1965 -- defeated Baltimore, 4-2, division finals
lost to Boston, 4-1, NBA Finals
1964 -- lost to St. Louis, 3-2, division semifinals
1963 -- defeated St. Louis, 4-3, division finals
lost to Boston, 4-2, NBA Finals
1962 -- defeated Detroit, 4-2, division finals
lost to Boston, 4-3, NBA Finals
1961 -- defeated Detroit, 3-2, division semifinals
lost to St. Louis, 4-3, division finals
Thats right, The Lakers went to the finals 6 times and were beaten by The Celtics everytime. Yet Elior says the Lakers were the best team. I hope you Laker fans will see how much Elior taints you guys.
I have 0 cred in basketball discussion? LOL. That's where I stopped taking you seriously...LMAO@you tryna educate me about ANY Laker team. Had you watched ANY basketball documentary about NBA in the 60's, you'd know the Lakers lost when they were and weren't picked to win. That's why it was a curse, genius. When did I say Lakers ALWAYS had the best team? You must have ADD, huh? All I said was the Lakers lost, even during the years they had the better team, then you got all excited like you knew something... And stop constantly using my first name like you wanna get fucked...PeACe
No, seriously only a fucking retard would sit there and say the Lakers had the better team, yet lost to the Celtics 6 TIMES in the championship.
EEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Once again, Mr. ADD, I never said the Lakers had the better team for all 6 losses...I said even when they were picked to win and had the better season, they STILL lost. Learn how to comprehend shit, cuz only a retard would misunderstand what I said twice in a row...
JRRRROOOOOOOMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOOOO
The Lakers were never the best team in the 60's. Even if they had a better regular season record, they were NEVER THE CHAMPS. But in your dilusional world, the Lakers are always the best team regardless of record or championships. Your Laker obsession has totally distorted your reality.
You have no fucking idea what you're talking about. There was a season where Boston came into the playoffs as a 4th seed, and won it over the number 1 Lakers, who were clearly regarded as the superior team. Injuries had a lot to do with that as well...You have no idea what "the curse" was all about. If you watched anything about basketball in the 60's, you woulda' known this...Instead, you go around speaking out of your ass...PeACe
LOL @ you proving my point again. The Lakers only lost that year because of injuries. ::)
LOL@you proving my point again. You have ADD. When did I say the Lakers only lost because of injuries? ::)