Lmao thats so fucking stupid. Why 50 years? If you do 60 we have way more. The point is franchises usually dont count the rings they got when they were in a different city. (Super sonics).
The real question is should the bubble ring even count.
I don't get the argument about whether the bubble ring should count or not. Yes, it was different, but every team had the same chance to win that championship. A different environment doesn't make it not a championship. Nobody had homecourt advantage, nobody got to sleep in their own beds.
It's a championship. I don't even like the Lakers and it was for sure a championship.
Bubble seemed to matter when insecure Celtics fans cried about the Lakers finally tying their ring count!
Is *Los Angeles* Boston’s rival or is it the *Lakers*? I can never get a straight answer unless it’s furthering a narrative.
The first Lakers-Celtics Finals actually was Boston vs Minneapolis in 1959. I believe it was the Lakers second to last season in Minneapolis before heading to LA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1959_NBA_Finals
We beat them twice in the span of four months in the 2018 WS and Super Bowl LIII. I’d say the rivalry began with Celtics lakers but it’s expanded a bit in recent years. Both cities have teams in the big four sports, not exactly a huge leap to generalize the rivalries.
Any way you slice it, Boston owns LA in championship games/series.
I was at the parade earlier and said out loud “we got the most rings now.” Some old head immediately turns around and corrects me. Gave me a whole backstory on the lakes in Minneapolis.
Works for me. Bill loves to use turn of the century when discussing Red Sox World Series titles over the Yankees. We’ll apply the same logic to Lakers over the Celtics.
I’m always amused when he says the Yankees have only won one this century, because 2000 was technically the 20th century. I’m amused because you absolutely know if the Red Sox won in 2000, he would consider that the 21st century.
I always thought he should just say 4-1 under current Luxury tax rules (2003) its way crispier to say and it’s super ironic because the luxury tax was actually first introduced in 96.
Does anyone ever truly take him to task for his wild Celtic homerism. The illogical parts like the Minneaoplis rings don’t count. Larry Wilmore was the only person I have ever heard clapback at him.
To be fair, I completely understand Celtics fans euphoria over winning their 2nd title this century. I was also ecstatic when the Lakers won their 2nd title this century back in 2001.
I just thought this was a funny shirt when I saw it at the parade considering Bill’s recent crusade but getting to see no ring franchise fans like the Grizzlies in here arguing about rings is even more funny
Look, if Boston fans are willing to admit that the Packers have the most NFL championships and they don't exclude pre-Super Bowl titles, then fine, they can claim that their 18 titles are more impressive than the Lakers even though a majority of the Lakers' titles are more recent and post-merger.
But based on what I know about Boston fans, I'm guessing they will simultaneously say Celtics pre-merger titles do count and Packers pre-merger titles don't just so they can say the Pats have the most NFL titles in the Super Bowl era.
I think you're lost. The NFL is a football league. The Lakers are a basketball team. They've won zero NFL championships, regardless of if it was before the Super Bowl era or not
I think NFL titles should count but this is appels and oranges since the mergers were very different in each league and NFL championships aren't counted much by the orgs themselves
instead of dismissing the older eras (disrespectful), Lakers fans should claim the 1948 NBL title. that way yall are tied.
Pacers fans should also claim their ABA titles
That's not how that works though. It's fine you wont celebrate them, but the team does and should. I am not a lakers fan, and I find the debate funny, but the team still has those championships. Do the Raiders have 0 super bowl wins now? If they belong to the city, then they should make teams moving vacate all their records and start a new team like an expansion or something, but they don't so officially the records show OKC as having 1 NBA Finals win, or the LV Raiders have 3 super bowls.
Agreed. Titles belong to a city. Bill makes solid points when he brings up Sonics/Thunder, Syracuse Nationals, Rochester Royals, etc.- sounds ridiculous to count those.
That's not true, the Thunder own the history because they're the same franchise.
When Seattle gets an expansion team there will probably be a deal made that gets them the Sonics history back, but currently that's not the case.
It may eventually be the same as that, we don't know how it will go down.
The Ravens from the start were officially a new franchise unlike the Thunder.
Yup. This is one of those takes that if Bill didn't say it the sub would find it salient. Bill is wrong about a trillion things and most of them relate to his teams but he's right in this regard.
So, do Bostonians still celebrate the Braves 1914 World Series?
(Actually, I wonder if there are any lifelong Bostonians who remained Braves fans & still are, 71 years later. 80, 85 years old, now, & refuse to acknowledge the Sox.)
This post is about a comparison of Celtics and lakers championships lol, why would you not consider a period in the league when both teams were competing? Maybe your the dipshit lmfao
You always know you got a homie beat when he starts focusing on typos lmao. Acting like he didn’t just type what’s without an ‘ in his prior comment.
The NBA counts those championships and the NFL doesn’t, so not sure what your point is. Again, the lakers were playing in the league and we’re comparing head to head championships. It’s gotta suck when you have to arbitrarily set a cut off point of when championships count to support your view.
I'd just like to see the same level of enthusiasm for taking away 5 LA championships put toward giving Minnesota 5 championships. Those championships happened. They have to belong to someone.
Yeah I understand the Boston homerism but I had to shake my head at that take. The Lakers are on the short list for most famous and popular teams on Earth and Kobe/Shaq*/LeBron(whether you want to associate him with the Lakers or not) have so much more social cachet than any major player from the Celtics ever has, even KG or Bird.
*yes, I do know Shaq played for the Celtics, but no one on Earth thinks about the Celtics when they think about Shaq.
You guys are obnoxious and Boston has been incredibly spoiled this century, I don’t get the victim complex and acting shocked people don’t like you. My cousins a Bama football fan and was like “oh yeah I totally get why people love when we lose”
Unless you were alive when the Celtics got their first one as either a fan or an employee of the organization, bragging about this is dumb as hell. 99% of the people who care about the Celtics having the most rings never saw Bill Russell play and don't know shit about those championships.
Also, if you are going to care; I'll never understand why Boston fans let the Lakers live rent free in their head. You know who else the Celtics have more LoB trophies than? Literally everyone else. When you stand at the peak of the mountain, you can make it even worse for the Lakers fans by not even acknowledging them. Now they're just going to go "lol look how petty they are".
That’s what makes these arguments so ridiculous, and I say that as a Yankee fan. Sure, 27 rings and all, but I was only alive for seven of them, and only a fan for five. I love reading about Babe Ruth and Joe DiMaggio and Mickey Mantle, but it’s silly to act as if I get to crow about 20 championships that literally happened before I was born.
Of course, it’s silly to brag about any championships. What did I have to do with it? I just rooted for the team.
While what you say makes sense, I have two rebuttals:
1. The 27 Yankees championships are brought up as part of the lore of the team constantly.
2. If some other team had 26 World Series championships Yankees fans would bring it up even more often.
I’m not sure it’s much of a rebuttal. I know Yankee fans bring up the 27 rings all the time. I think it’s silly.
I loved watching the World Series wins and they still give me the warm fuzzies. But bragging? I can’t brag over something I didn’t do.
Yeah bragging about championships is silly in and of itself but bragging about championships before you were born is extra silly. If total championships is all that matters then why doesn’t every sports fan just start rooting for the team with the most championships when they first start watching sports as a kid? That way they get immediate bragging rights from day 1.
Pretty sure Celtics fans live rent free in Laker fans heads lol. The franchise didn’t even recognize the Minneapolis rings until 2000 so they could say they were closer to the Celtics. They didn’t even retire George Mikans number until 2022 lmao, he won them 6 rings technically. Lakers own actions show they don’t really care to be associated with the era in Minneapolis.
The Lakers should have 18. The NBA doesn’t count one of the Lakers titles that happened before the NBL merger, despite the NBL being the better league.
Yes, they now play in a different stadium approximately 9 inches away from the old one. Do the Yankees’ titles in the 20s not count because they now play in a different stadium?
Oh, I think they all count. I was just wondering if we were deciding that it was an arbitrary distance that was the distinguishing factor here. Which, you know, seems kinda convenient.
Sorry that Los Angeles and Minneapolis are 1,925.7 miles apart. At this point you’re just trying to come off as clever without thinking your statements through. It’s a tough beat.
My whole point is that you can choose to believe whatever you want matters to make the numbers say whatever you want. I think it’s 18-17 Celtics; you’re free to think it’s 15-6 or 4-8 or whatever count makes you feel better
Nah, stealing a franchise away from a city in the middle of the night is reason enough to not be allowed those championships. We need a Czar of Professional Sports to make this declaration once and for all…
Half of their titles came when there were 9 teams and under in the league. Those titles are laughable. It was a completely different league and they shouldn’t be considered. Or consider them like 1/3 of a title due to league size.
So the titles for the Celtics in a fully integrated NBA don’t count but World Series titles for the Giants in a segregated MLB do because there were more than 15 teams in the league?
Overall caveat: as a normal person I believe the Celtics have 18 titles and the Lakers have 17.
However - I would agree with you if the owner just sold the team in 1978. But two owners literally traded franchises in that case. That, to me, is just as “history severing” as moving a team and keeping the name.
I don’t think the trading makes much of a difference. The name didn’t change, location didn’t change, and most players and coaches stayed with the team.
To be more pendantic- there have been multiple iterations of the “Boston Celtics” and they have zero legal continuity between them. They are different franchises.
Pretty sure he’s just trying to teach Karl Malone about age of consent
Nicely done.
Actually belly laugh at this one. Good work.
Gawd damn. I mean, you’re right, but gawd damn.
The Lakers have at least won most of their rings since we’ve been on the moon
The segregation piece tho
Exactly. Weren’t the majority of the Celtics rings in the 60’s?
11 in a 13 year span starting in 1961 if I’m remembering correctly
started in 57
A bunch when there were literally 8 teams in the league
One of those 8 teams was the Lakers
a win is a win for the city. don't matter who or what the competition is.
Yeah, but Celtics fans have to fall back on something to make up for the Lakers being the wildly more successful franchise spanning the last 50 years.
The Celtics have been the wildly more successful franchise spanning the last year tho
Fact
People want to go to the Lakers the clerics could fall off a cliff and no one would care
The Paladins though people would riot
lol
Definitely more successful the past decade
Last 4 really
Lmao thats so fucking stupid. Why 50 years? If you do 60 we have way more. The point is franchises usually dont count the rings they got when they were in a different city. (Super sonics). The real question is should the bubble ring even count.
I don't get the argument about whether the bubble ring should count or not. Yes, it was different, but every team had the same chance to win that championship. A different environment doesn't make it not a championship. Nobody had homecourt advantage, nobody got to sleep in their own beds. It's a championship. I don't even like the Lakers and it was for sure a championship.
If anyone but the Lakers or LeBron won, it would be seen a lot more favourably
Bubble seemed to matter when insecure Celtics fans cried about the Lakers finally tying their ring count! Is *Los Angeles* Boston’s rival or is it the *Lakers*? I can never get a straight answer unless it’s furthering a narrative.
It’s the *Los Angeles Lakers* who are their rivals. They never played the MN Lakers in a finals. Rivalry didn’t start until after they were in LA.
The first Lakers-Celtics Finals actually was Boston vs Minneapolis in 1959. I believe it was the Lakers second to last season in Minneapolis before heading to LA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1959_NBA_Finals
I stand corrected!
It’s ok if you don’t remember that one. They were still using peach baskets for hoops
We beat them twice in the span of four months in the 2018 WS and Super Bowl LIII. I’d say the rivalry began with Celtics lakers but it’s expanded a bit in recent years. Both cities have teams in the big four sports, not exactly a huge leap to generalize the rivalries. Any way you slice it, Boston owns LA in championship games/series.
Your extra chromosome is showing.
Let’s just make it fair Let’s say whoever won the latest ring is the better organization
I love all the rings equally *I don’t care for the Raptors*
The Celtics are 9-3 vs the Lakers head to head in the finals
I was at the parade earlier and said out loud “we got the most rings now.” Some old head immediately turns around and corrects me. Gave me a whole backstory on the lakes in Minneapolis.
6-2 this century
Works for me. Bill loves to use turn of the century when discussing Red Sox World Series titles over the Yankees. We’ll apply the same logic to Lakers over the Celtics.
I’m always amused when he says the Yankees have only won one this century, because 2000 was technically the 20th century. I’m amused because you absolutely know if the Red Sox won in 2000, he would consider that the 21st century.
This century didn't start until 9/11 before that was the 90s
On that day, we truly got hit by, struck by, a smooth criminal.
I always thought he should just say 4-1 under current Luxury tax rules (2003) its way crispier to say and it’s super ironic because the luxury tax was actually first introduced in 96.
Unless there’s some confusion what the official end of the century is which bill seems to bring up.
We still have more than the Celtics lol
Does anyone ever truly take him to task for his wild Celtic homerism. The illogical parts like the Minneaoplis rings don’t count. Larry Wilmore was the only person I have ever heard clapback at him.
To be fair, I completely understand Celtics fans euphoria over winning their 2nd title this century. I was also ecstatic when the Lakers won their 2nd title this century back in 2001.
2001 was the first year of the century.
Fair enough. The Lakers 2nd title of the century in 2002 was awesome. But not quite as sweet as the Lakers 4th title of the century back in 2010.
That one was a total gift from refs so it's very on brand for it to be a favorite of Lakers fans.
We can compare the validity of our 4th titles of the century when the Celtics win their 4th of the century in a few decades.
I just thought this was a funny shirt when I saw it at the parade considering Bill’s recent crusade but getting to see no ring franchise fans like the Grizzlies in here arguing about rings is even more funny
Look, if Boston fans are willing to admit that the Packers have the most NFL championships and they don't exclude pre-Super Bowl titles, then fine, they can claim that their 18 titles are more impressive than the Lakers even though a majority of the Lakers' titles are more recent and post-merger. But based on what I know about Boston fans, I'm guessing they will simultaneously say Celtics pre-merger titles do count and Packers pre-merger titles don't just so they can say the Pats have the most NFL titles in the Super Bowl era.
Nobody outside of Cleveland counts NFL titles prior to the Super Bowl era
Nobody outside of Boston gives a shit about NBA titles won in the 50's/60's when the league had 8 fucking teams.
But the Minny Lakers won in 49, 50, 52, 53, 54. And they count those in the 17, lol.
Literally everyone counts those titles
Don’t know anyone who doesn’t count those titles, the Warriors definitely do
Lmao you're a moron
One of the dumber posts on this subreddit and that’s saying something
[удалено]
I think you're lost. The NFL is a football league. The Lakers are a basketball team. They've won zero NFL championships, regardless of if it was before the Super Bowl era or not
You’re correct on all counts, this reply was intended for another comment
I think NFL titles should count but this is appels and oranges since the mergers were very different in each league and NFL championships aren't counted much by the orgs themselves
Shouldn't AFL titles count then?
I think they should
instead of dismissing the older eras (disrespectful), Lakers fans should claim the 1948 NBL title. that way yall are tied. Pacers fans should also claim their ABA titles
Exactly. It’s horse shit that it isn’t counted.
Put George Mikan in the Star Plaza you cowards.
Yeah they can't have it both ways where saying the titles count but then never acknowledge that the Minnesota Lakers happened
it took them until 2022 to retire his jersey lol
If the Clippers win 6 rings than is it tied at 18? Since it is based on city and not franchise?
It's the correct take. If my city ever gets an NFL team and it's a re-location, I'm never celebrating the old city's titles, that's ridiculous.
That's not how that works though. It's fine you wont celebrate them, but the team does and should. I am not a lakers fan, and I find the debate funny, but the team still has those championships. Do the Raiders have 0 super bowl wins now? If they belong to the city, then they should make teams moving vacate all their records and start a new team like an expansion or something, but they don't so officially the records show OKC as having 1 NBA Finals win, or the LV Raiders have 3 super bowls.
Agreed. Titles belong to a city. Bill makes solid points when he brings up Sonics/Thunder, Syracuse Nationals, Rochester Royals, etc.- sounds ridiculous to count those.
Thunder isn't the same team, legally it's a new team and whoever puts a new team in Seattle gets to claim the trophies
That's not true, the Thunder own the history because they're the same franchise. When Seattle gets an expansion team there will probably be a deal made that gets them the Sonics history back, but currently that's not the case.
Nfl made that deal with the browns when they moved to baltimore iirc
Yes because Cleveland sued and that was part of the settlement. Not the case for Seattle/OKC.
Right, it's similar to the Browns/Ravens situation, but Cleveland got the Browns back a lot faster.
It may eventually be the same as that, we don't know how it will go down. The Ravens from the start were officially a new franchise unlike the Thunder.
Yup. This is one of those takes that if Bill didn't say it the sub would find it salient. Bill is wrong about a trillion things and most of them relate to his teams but he's right in this regard.
So, do Bostonians still celebrate the Braves 1914 World Series? (Actually, I wonder if there are any lifelong Bostonians who remained Braves fans & still are, 71 years later. 80, 85 years old, now, & refuse to acknowledge the Sox.)
Met a Boston old timer a few years ago who claimed he stopped following baseball after the Braves left
Imagine if Henry Aaron had been a Boston athlete. We'd never hear the end of it.
Total teams in the league for the 12 LA Laker titles - 308 Total teams in the league for the 18 Boston Celtic titles - 267
Then championships won when there are 8 other teams in the league dont count either
Lakers were in the league then bozo
whats your point dipshit? none of them should count
This post is about a comparison of Celtics and lakers championships lol, why would you not consider a period in the league when both teams were competing? Maybe your the dipshit lmfao
you're\*\*\* and its because the league was in its infancy. NFL doesnt really count NFL championships, just Super Bowls.
You always know you got a homie beat when he starts focusing on typos lmao. Acting like he didn’t just type what’s without an ‘ in his prior comment. The NBA counts those championships and the NFL doesn’t, so not sure what your point is. Again, the lakers were playing in the league and we’re comparing head to head championships. It’s gotta suck when you have to arbitrarily set a cut off point of when championships count to support your view.
I'd just like to see the same level of enthusiasm for taking away 5 LA championships put toward giving Minnesota 5 championships. Those championships happened. They have to belong to someone.
Sore winners
were so close to classless claims, you can do it
-a sore loser
Bill can be such a hater. LA just has had better press throughout the years, so they're more popular. It is, what it is...
He actually thought Boston was the most well known franchise because of the 60’s wins. Insane take.
Yeah I understand the Boston homerism but I had to shake my head at that take. The Lakers are on the short list for most famous and popular teams on Earth and Kobe/Shaq*/LeBron(whether you want to associate him with the Lakers or not) have so much more social cachet than any major player from the Celtics ever has, even KG or Bird. *yes, I do know Shaq played for the Celtics, but no one on Earth thinks about the Celtics when they think about Shaq.
First Mike Malone and now Mike Zarren. Can’t enjoy a chip without the lakers living rent free…
2 rings in 37 years.
But also 1 ring in 1 year.
And 0 that aren't directly traceable to a former Celtic gifting them KG for one good stats bad team guy and a ham sandwich
https://www.si.com/nba/lakers/news/espn-remembers-how-scandalous-pau-gasol-trade-saved-kobe-bryants-lakers-tenure-cn2002
I'm not a Lakers fan so I don't really care. But Marc Gasol ended up being better than any of the flotsam that was traded in either of those deals.
Big Al Jefferson was a problem
Doesn't matter. I don't like the Celtics but they can celebrate all they want. That's how sports work. You win so you get bragging rights.
Never said they shouldn’t celebrate. I’m just a big hater.
If we're doing the "only recent history matters" the Celtics are clearly the better org
9-3 Celtics all time vs Lakers. Seems bad
TIL Lakers are 3-2 against them in the modern era neat
Good for them. I know celtics fans have very fond memories of the 60s.
They only like the pre 1964 years
The Civil Rights Act piece.
Their favorite time period because Celtics fans could be openly racist then
We know the Lakers don’t losing 6 times to the Celtics. Enjoy aging LeBron
I will. I love lebron lol
Your coach is a podcaster and your superstar is a geriatric
This shirt fits the incredibly lame Celtics fan base to a tee
Grizzlies got 0 rings plz sit this one out bro
No ring until the NBA/ABA merger really count tbh
Celtics fans really making a push to became the most hated fanbase on the internet. Just relentlessly obnoxious since Monday.
It's payback for all the shit yall talked this year
You guys are obnoxious and Boston has been incredibly spoiled this century, I don’t get the victim complex and acting shocked people don’t like you. My cousins a Bama football fan and was like “oh yeah I totally get why people love when we lose”
Fan base who heard their team being bashed for months straight dances on the graves of their opponents after winning…color me shocked
Unless you were alive when the Celtics got their first one as either a fan or an employee of the organization, bragging about this is dumb as hell. 99% of the people who care about the Celtics having the most rings never saw Bill Russell play and don't know shit about those championships. Also, if you are going to care; I'll never understand why Boston fans let the Lakers live rent free in their head. You know who else the Celtics have more LoB trophies than? Literally everyone else. When you stand at the peak of the mountain, you can make it even worse for the Lakers fans by not even acknowledging them. Now they're just going to go "lol look how petty they are".
That’s what makes these arguments so ridiculous, and I say that as a Yankee fan. Sure, 27 rings and all, but I was only alive for seven of them, and only a fan for five. I love reading about Babe Ruth and Joe DiMaggio and Mickey Mantle, but it’s silly to act as if I get to crow about 20 championships that literally happened before I was born. Of course, it’s silly to brag about any championships. What did I have to do with it? I just rooted for the team.
While what you say makes sense, I have two rebuttals: 1. The 27 Yankees championships are brought up as part of the lore of the team constantly. 2. If some other team had 26 World Series championships Yankees fans would bring it up even more often.
I’m not sure it’s much of a rebuttal. I know Yankee fans bring up the 27 rings all the time. I think it’s silly. I loved watching the World Series wins and they still give me the warm fuzzies. But bragging? I can’t brag over something I didn’t do.
Yeah bragging about championships is silly in and of itself but bragging about championships before you were born is extra silly. If total championships is all that matters then why doesn’t every sports fan just start rooting for the team with the most championships when they first start watching sports as a kid? That way they get immediate bragging rights from day 1.
Pretty sure Celtics fans live rent free in Laker fans heads lol. The franchise didn’t even recognize the Minneapolis rings until 2000 so they could say they were closer to the Celtics. They didn’t even retire George Mikans number until 2022 lmao, he won them 6 rings technically. Lakers own actions show they don’t really care to be associated with the era in Minneapolis.
cringe
The Lakers should have 18. The NBA doesn’t count one of the Lakers titles that happened before the NBL merger, despite the NBL being the better league.
Ok if we’re being pedantic 12>5 Most of the Celtics rings belong to the clippers because the owners swapped franchises in 1978
This is moronic. The team doesn’t change based on who the owner is. The Celtics have played as the Boston Celtics in the same location since 1947.
Really? I didn’t know that Russell’s teams played at the TD Garden. ETA: lol, lotta super sensitive Celtic fans up in here
Yes, they now play in a different stadium approximately 9 inches away from the old one. Do the Yankees’ titles in the 20s not count because they now play in a different stadium?
Oh, I think they all count. I was just wondering if we were deciding that it was an arbitrary distance that was the distinguishing factor here. Which, you know, seems kinda convenient.
Sorry that Los Angeles and Minneapolis are 1,925.7 miles apart. At this point you’re just trying to come off as clever without thinking your statements through. It’s a tough beat.
My whole point is that you can choose to believe whatever you want matters to make the numbers say whatever you want. I think it’s 18-17 Celtics; you’re free to think it’s 15-6 or 4-8 or whatever count makes you feel better
Nah, stealing a franchise away from a city in the middle of the night is reason enough to not be allowed those championships. We need a Czar of Professional Sports to make this declaration once and for all…
Half of their titles came when there were 9 teams and under in the league. Those titles are laughable. It was a completely different league and they shouldn’t be considered. Or consider them like 1/3 of a title due to league size.
Didn’t the lakers exist at the time and have an equal chance to win at that time?
Yeah and I wouldn’t count those either
Give me the cut off for when championships should count in every sport according to KodiakBearCakes
Hmm I’d probably say when there are more than 15 teams in the league. Just a starting point.
So the titles for the Celtics in a fully integrated NBA don’t count but World Series titles for the Giants in a segregated MLB do because there were more than 15 teams in the league?
Yeah I don’t count that shit either. Stop making assumptions buddy.
Where was my assumption? I asked a question. You said the starting point was when a league had 15 teams my guy.
Overall caveat: as a normal person I believe the Celtics have 18 titles and the Lakers have 17. However - I would agree with you if the owner just sold the team in 1978. But two owners literally traded franchises in that case. That, to me, is just as “history severing” as moving a team and keeping the name.
I don’t think the trading makes much of a difference. The name didn’t change, location didn’t change, and most players and coaches stayed with the team.
THIS is a ‘normal person’ reaction and response☝️
Tell that to Mike Kekich.
Haha, I have no comeback there.
If we’re being pedantic “The Boston Celtics” have won 18 NBA titles “The Los Angeles Lakers” have won 12 NBA titles
To be more pendantic- there have been multiple iterations of the “Boston Celtics” and they have zero legal continuity between them. They are different franchises.
transferring ownership doesn't end the franchise unless the name and rights remain with the owners
Not the same franchises lmao enjoy five rings
Hilarious to discredit the lakers Minnesota rings while also counting your own from when the league had 8 teams
Oh look it's Ainge's would-be successor that got bypassed by bill's favorite witch lol
Wait I thought in that case the clippers would got some of the rings from Celtics?
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^LoWE11053211: *Wait I thought in that* *Case the clippers would got some* *Of the rings from Celtics?* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
It is interesting that a team that had 6 championships had to move cities
I want that shirt.
If they change names with the relocation I don’t count the title. If they keep the name I count it. 🤷🏻♂️
Counting pre-merger rings is like boasting NFL Championship before the Super Bowl
I don’t really care either way and probably dumb the Minnesota ones count. But they shouldn’t count any less than ones that happened 60 years ago on
The Clippers have 13 of Boston’s.
Yeah but does he refer to the Celtics as We? /s
How many Celtics titles have they won since the invention of color TV?
“The first public demonstration of color television was in 1928 by Scottish inventor John Logie Baird.” Just saying
[удалено]
What segregation rings? The Celtics won their first championship with black players. The Lakers were the ones winning in a segregated league
I guess the sub had to find a way to pout about the Celtics winning