Celtics : Lakers rivalry - still the greatest of all?

alko

Registered User
Oct 20, 2004
9,348
3,064
Slovakia
www.slovakhockey.sk
Both have now 17 titles. But looking to Celtics, they somehow lost connection to Lakers in recent 30 years.

Ok, there was some short period, when they won and lost finals to Lakers in 07/08 and 09/10, but thats all.

Is this still the biggest rivalry in NBA?
 

sfvega

Registered User
Apr 20, 2015
3,101
2,445
By default, I guess. Being that everything is very fluid in the NBA and the lack of parity, there really aren't as many real rivalries. Boston/LA is less relevant recently than the Clippers/Lakers rivalry that defined this season, but who knows how long or relevant that will be 2/3 years from now? Or even next season? It reminds me of a wrestling phrase: microwave booking. A storyline crammed into a very short timespan and then moved on from. That's the best we have now, with maybe a few player beef-driven "rivalries." But really, it isn't like it used to be with teams made up of mostly the same players meeting year after year and things getting testy.
 

Maestro84

Registered User
May 3, 2018
2,120
1,634
Toronto
It was the biggest rivalry in the 60s, 80s and late 2000s but besides those stretches, they pretty much never crossed pathways with one another.

In the last 20 years, I'd say Lakers vs Spurs has been the best rivalry although SAS is pretty much headed towards a rebuild post big 3 and Kawhi.
 

BostonBob

4 Ever The Greatest
Jan 26, 2004
13,618
6,570
Vancouver, BC
It's like the Bruins vs Canadiens or Red Sox vs Yankees - these matchups ( especially in the Playoffs ) always seem to bring out a little extra intensity from the players and their fans.
 

Voight

#winning
Feb 8, 2012
40,373
16,652
Mulberry Street
Lakers have overall been the better franchise. More consistent at winning championships, heck they have one every decade the NBA has existed except the 60s and 90s

When both were arguably at the peak of their powers in the 80s, Lakers walked away with 5 titles vs 3 and 2-1 against Boston in the finals.

Lakers also have a worldwide popularity and audience on the level of Cowboys/Yankees.
 

BigBadBruins7708

Registered User
Dec 11, 2017
13,579
18,347
Las Vegas
Lakers have overall been the better franchise. More consistent at winning championships, heck they have one every decade the NBA has existed except the 60s and 90s

When both were arguably at the peak of their powers in the 80s, Lakers walked away with 5 titles vs 3 and 2-1 against Boston in the finals.

Lakers also have a worldwide popularity and audience on the level of Cowboys/Yankees.

thats a bit disingenuous...they had 1 title from 1954 to 1980, in 1972. The Celtics have a title in every decade except the 40s, 90s, 2010s and really its only the 90s and '10s as the Celtics were a brand new franchise in 1946 while the Lakers were an existing NBL team and not built from scratch.

also, the Celtics peak power was the 1957 to 1969 when they won 11 titles in 13 years
 

Voight

#winning
Feb 8, 2012
40,373
16,652
Mulberry Street
thats a bit disingenuous...they had 1 title from 1954 to 1980, in 1972. The Celtics have a title in every decade except the 40s, 90s, 2010s and really its only the 90s and '10s as the Celtics were a brand new franchise in 1946 while the Lakers were an existing NBL team and not built from scratch.

also, the Celtics peak power was the 1957 to 1969 when they won 11 titles in 13 years

Lakers still won in the 40s, 50s, 70s, 80s, 2000's, 2010's and now 2020's. For me its the fact that the Celtics (outside of Big 3 era) have largely faltered since their last title. 1 title in 32 years for a team that won 16 before that?

Also worth noting Lakers have had 7 of the top 15 players ever play for them (LeBron, Magic, KAJ, Kobe, West, Shaq, Chamberlain). 3 of which were homegrown.

I'd also argue while the Celtics won a bunch of titles on a way different league, the 80s was more peak of their powers given they still had an a amazing lineup during a period of parity. I.E. it was much easier for them to hoard hall of famers in the 50s and 60s than in the 80s.
 

Terry Yake

Registered User
Aug 5, 2013
26,599
15,008
there will always be a little extra on the line when these two teams meet no matter their records

of course it's still the greatest rivalry in league history. it's not the most heated rivalry at the moment, but no doubt still the biggest
 

VEGASKING

Registered User
Dec 23, 2002
3,149
557
Sin City
www.facebook.com
As of today the Lakers have made the finals 32 times in 74 years. In 2009 it was 30 out of 60. Playing in the championship series half of the time over a 60 year sample size. That is just absurd. Even in a 6 team league that would be impressive. The Celtics made the finals 19 out of 30 years between 1957-1987 including 12 out of 13 years, winning 11 of the 12, between 57-69. Also absurd.

Lakers
17 titles
32 conference titles
Regular season 3333-2282 .594%
Postseason 440-297 .597%

Celtics
17 titles
21 conference titles
Regular season 3378-2346 .590%
Postseason 358-267 .573%
 

Hockeyholic

Registered User
Apr 20, 2017
16,351
9,884
Condo My Dad Bought Me
Lakers have overall been the better franchise. More consistent at winning championships, heck they have one every decade the NBA has existed except the 60s and 90s

When both were arguably at the peak of their powers in the 80s, Lakers walked away with 5 titles vs 3 and 2-1 against Boston in the finals.

Lakers also have a worldwide popularity and audience on the level of Cowboys/Yankees.

Wouldn't the 1999-2000 season still count as the 90's? Serious question. Not trying to be a smart ass.
 

Hockeyholic

Registered User
Apr 20, 2017
16,351
9,884
Condo My Dad Bought Me
Celtics have the mystique (Auerbach, old Boston Garden) edge.

Lakers have the edge in better players. I don't think anyone can argue Russell was better than Kareem, Magic, Shaq, Kobe, or LeBron. Greater maybe.

Celtics have the edge in dominance within a decade. I mean what they did in the 60's is absurd. Will never be matched again.

Lakers have the edge in consistency since 1980. Even when they weren't winning titles, the Lakers were still perennial championship contenders for most years. The Celtics did squat between 86 and 08. And have done nothing of note since 08.

Celtics have the edge in head to head matchups.

Lakers fans aren't loud. Celebrities. Glamor. Celtics fans are louder. More blue collar. In general, Boston sports fans probably care about their teams than LA fans. Irrelevant for this discussion though.

I'll go Lakers just because I've seen them be more successful in my lifetime. But you can't go wrong by choosing Boston.

It's not a black and white discussion. Just like who the better franchise is between Yankees and Canadiens. Debatable.

And I don't think it's the greatest rivalry. Habs-Bruins, Yankees-Red Sox, and Duke-UNC are pretty intense.
 

Voight

#winning
Feb 8, 2012
40,373
16,652
Mulberry Street
Wouldn't the 1999-2000 season still count as the 90's? Serious question. Not trying to be a smart ass.

Its weird lol. Some say it would be 90s, some say it would be 2000s. Just like the last title of the Kobe Era, some would say it came in the 2000's, others would say 2010's. Tough cause while the season started in 1999, it technically ended in 2000.
 

FiveTacos

Registered User
Oct 2, 2017
554
926
The Twilight Zone
The Lakers have had significantly fewer bad years, and more years where they didn't win but were contenders. And even many years when they weren't contender level, but had pretty competitive and entertaining teams (like the period between Magic and Shaq).

I'll bet the majority of the Lakers' down seasons were just in the last few years.
 

Terry Yake

Registered User
Aug 5, 2013
26,599
15,008
The Lakers have had significantly fewer bad years, and more years where they didn't win but were contenders. And even many years when they weren't contender level, but had pretty competitive and entertaining teams (like the period between Magic and Shaq).

I'll bet the majority of the Lakers' down seasons were just in the last few years.
the period from 2013-2018 was by far the worst in lakers history. even when they weren't title contenders during the mid-late 90s and mid 2000s, they were still making the playoffs. i remember thinking 04-07 felt like an eternity

last decade was the first time in franchise history that they've actually been one of the worst teams in the league
 

FiveTacos

Registered User
Oct 2, 2017
554
926
The Twilight Zone
the period from 2013-2018 was by far the worst in lakers history. even when they weren't title contenders during the mid-late 90s and mid 2000s, they were still making the playoffs.

I remember some of those post-Magic teams, they were fun to watch. Smart, savvy veterans mixed with a few good young players. They upset the Sonics one year by just playing smart basketball and waiting for Seattle to self destruct. The same strategy almost worked against the Suns another year ... IIRC, an iffy call down the stretch of the deciding game really swung that in favor or Phoenix.

It's actually why I never really took the Bulls beating the Sonics or Suns all that seriously. Those opponents were seriously flawed, and if you just kept a game close, and it came down to halfcourt execution, neither team looked good. Just keep it from being a transition game and they were average. Same with the Blazers of the early 90's. Lots of individual talent, but not smart basketball teams, especially in halfcourt. And the playoffs, especially back then, was often about who could execute and create good shots in halfcourt.

Honestly, the best-executing team the Bulls beat in the 90's was the "Slow-time" Lakers, but unfortunately Worthy was hobbled with a bum ankle that series and would not finish, and then Byron Scott got hurt. They probably win anyway with the Lakers well past their prime, but it should have been a 7 game series.
 

Terry Yake

Registered User
Aug 5, 2013
26,599
15,008
I remember some of those post-Magic teams, they were fun to watch. Smart, savvy veterans mixed with a few good young players. They upset the Sonics one year by just playing smart basketball and waiting for Seattle to self destruct. The same strategy almost worked against the Suns another year ... IIRC, an iffy call down the stretch of the deciding game really swung that in favor or Phoenix.

It's actually why I never really took the Bulls beating the Sonics or Suns all that seriously. Those opponents were seriously flawed, and if you just kept a game close, and it came down to halfcourt execution, neither team looked good. Just keep it from being a transition game and they were average. Same with the Blazers of the early 90's. Lots of individual talent, but not smart basketball teams, especially in halfcourt. And the playoffs, especially back then, was often about who could execute and create good shots in halfcourt.

Honestly, the best-executing team the Bulls beat in the 90's was the "Slow-time" Lakers, but unfortunately Worthy was hobbled with a bum ankle that series and would not finish, and then Byron Scott got hurt. They probably win anyway with the Lakers well past their prime, but it should have been a 7 game series.
those 90s lakers teams had some fun players to watch. van exel, jones, divac, ceballos, sedale threatt. aside from '98 when they made it to the WCF, those teams were always out by rd. 2. but they were still decent teams

the lakers from 2013-2018 were just sad to watch
 

FiveTacos

Registered User
Oct 2, 2017
554
926
The Twilight Zone
those 90s lakers teams had some fun players to watch. van exel, jones, divac, ceballos, sedale threatt. aside from '98 when they made it to the WCF, those teams were always out by rd. 2. but they were still decent teams

Also Anthony Peeler. They did have Doug Christie for a bit, but back then he sucked, he couldn't defend or shoot worth a lick.

I also forgot about one year where they gave the Spurs all they could handle. Another team that lacked execution (pre-Pops).

Truthfully, that was very much an iso-ball era, and a lot of "good" teams were really not all that good at actual team ball.

That's the thing that Phil Jackson does not get enough credit for. His triangle offense built a foundation for the Bulls and later the Lakers, where in ugly playoff games or crunchtime they'd still consistently get good shots and weren't just relying on individual talent, and it also put his teams in good position to play solid transition defense. It was almost the ideal setup to beat the kind of teams of the 90s that were fashionable.
 

Voight

#winning
Feb 8, 2012
40,373
16,652
Mulberry Street
The Lakers have had significantly fewer bad years, and more years where they didn't win but were contenders. And even many years when they weren't contender level, but had pretty competitive and entertaining teams (like the period between Magic and Shaq).

I'll bet the majority of the Lakers' down seasons were just in the last few years.

Their longest gap between titles is 18 years, followed by 10, which is quite impressive.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->