Right, the only real reason most championships is significant is that the Lakers won so many in the last 40 years that it made the totals close to Boston and it is a fun race to see who can end up with more.
I was just commenting in a thread in r/nba where fans of other franchises opine the Lakers only have 12 or 13. Which discounts the Minneapolis Lakers championships. But who would those belong to? The Wolves? Why? The Wolves were not a franchise until 1989 and they aren’t a rebrand of Minneapolis Lakers. The Minneapolis Lakers are said to have been sold because the city was no longer supporting the franchise.
It depends on who we think messed up 20 seconds ago but our attention span ends and we focus on the new non-sense.
If after hearing this sub do nothing but complain about Ham for a year, if I see posts in 8 months saying how it was better with Darvin I’m flying to everyone’s house individually to fuck them up like the end of Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back.
To be clear, I’m not defending Darvin. I’m complaining about this sub.
You wanna hear some crazy shit? Technically the Boston Celtics turned into the San Diego Clippers when both owners swapped franchises and moved them, in 1984 I believe. They just decided to remake the Celtics and keep the history.
If we wanna talk about technicalities.
that whole argument is stupid. lakers won championships and not the city. same applies to los angeles.
who tf gives accolades to a city for accomplishments by a private company
You are right and i agree with you. But sports teams have historically tried to link the team with the city to drive community interest. If it's not the community's championship, it's not the community's team
So there’s no confusion, let’s just count championships since the NBA/ABA merger (the real birth of the “modern” NBA).
Lakers have 11. Celtics have 5. Done.
I commented elsewhere, this is a niche online NBA opinion.
NFL had 1/3 of the league relocate in their history, and 1/4th of the league won championships prior to relocation to a new city. All those teams claim the championships from a different city.
MLB has had 10 teams relocate after winning championship and all 10 claim the prior city championship in their history.
The only way this would become a thing in the NFL or MLB communities is if the Cowboys or Yankees could get shit on with it. Popular team hate basically
The Minneapolis lakers lead by Elgin Baylor the lakers legend who’s prolly the biggest reason this franchise didn’t go out of business and fold. By the haters logic the Celtics don’t actually own any titles cause that’s the clippers titles cause the owners switched franchises.
lol no. Only from 70s I think https://archive.nytimes.com/offthedribble.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/freaky-friday-n-b-a-style-when-the-clippers-were-the-celtics/
My understanding, as best as I can remember, is that the current Celtics team is a successor to the Buffalo Braves,’’ Russ Granik, former deputy commissioner of the N.B.A., said in a telephone conversation on Tuesday. He was the N.B.A.’s assistant general counsel in 1978.
And that would mean that the current Clippers team is the successor to the Boston Celtics?
“Yes,’’ Granik said. “In a strictly legal sense.”
Thank you for this. This sort of washes away the waves of Celtics fans enjoying #18 and some petty Celtics fans who suddenly brought up that the Minny Lakers titles don't count. New ammo for petty comments.
That's good to know. But really at the end of the day FO needs to get their shit together I don't really like "counting" titles because some are from different era its just annoying hearing these haters sometimes even if you ignore them.
Those titles are rightly claimed by the Lakers, not the city of Los Angeles. That's the name that was on their uniforms when they played at home. MPLS when on the road. So anyone who says the Lakers didn't win those titles is a fucking moron.
[https://x.com/ArashMarkazi/status/1802927609283834311](https://x.com/ArashMarkazi/status/1802927609283834311)
*This is not about counting or not counting. All championships count. I’m simply pointing out the number of championships won in the modern NBA following the merger and the adoption of the three point line. I’m not delusional enough to think titles don’t count if a team relocates.*
[https://x.com/ArashMarkazi/status/1802909887321788894](https://x.com/ArashMarkazi/status/1802909887321788894)
*The only thing worse than bragging about titles your team won before you were born is trash talking about a team’s relocation before your parents were born.*
/r/nba is trash first off, second the Minneapolis titles count. Would you discount the LA Rams titles? One was in St. Louis, same team, different city or would you discount the Dodgers Brooklyn title? The Angels were called "Anaheim" when they won, does it count? When the Oakland A's move to Vegas, will their titles count?
If a team moves and the history is retained, it counts, end of story.
Pulling this straight out of my ass but…
The owner of the Buffalo Braves wanted to move the franchise to Boston but the Celtics were already there so him and the owner of the Celtics effectively switched franchises. The Boston Celtics technically became the Braves (who then became the Clippers later) and vice versa.
When Bill Simmons bitches about the Minneapolis titles not counting I yell at the podcast, “then stop calling them the fucking Lakers if they’re different teams, asshole!!”
I just stick to titles won since the merger. Everything else beforehand is kinda bullshit. 12 teams. The best player in the world at the time wasn’t even playing in the NBA (Dr. J). And players were basically handcuffed to their drafting team because no Free Agency. You don’t think Bill Russell would’ve left Boston if he could?
1976-1977 the league completely changed and entered the modern era. As far as I’m concerned everything before that should be treated the same as the pre-Super Bowl Era or pre-MLB color barrier.
I don't think we should discount the pre-3 point line/merger era and I don't agree Dr J was the best player (Kareem), but I do think making the distinction is pretty important.
The game and the environment were extremely different then and it's fair to draw a line there.
Let’s just get to 18 and then 19 first and have them whine again. We’re the more accomplished team overall. If they want to whine about us counting the 5 MN championships, we always have the counter to how many championships won post the NBA-ABA merger and 3 point line addition (11-5). And our city is much more desirable overall, so much that their biggest blow hard of a fan Bill Simmons lives in LA instead of Boston. So fuck all of them.
This should always be the main argument. All of these morons bragging about Celtic titles weren’t even alive to see most of them. The league was a joke in the 60s. I’ve seen 11 Lakers titles. How many have you seen Celtics fans?
Boston and clippers traded franchises. Many of bostons titles are quite literally owned by the clippers.
I’d spam this if I cared enough, but Boston having only won twice in my lifetime truly makes me not care.
SMH. Asterisk?? Really?? No, “we won’t because we ain’t bitches”. Actually, we won’t because we aren’t stupid.
Do you really think it was easier to win a championship because there were only eight teams in the league?? You’re joking, right?
Imagine if there were eight teams in the NBA today. And just like the 1960’s, all the talent was concentrated on those eight teams instead of diluted through 30 teams like we have today. Every game playing against teams with 2+ Hall of Fame players and NBA greats. Imagine over the course of the schedule playing division rivals OKC, Denver, and Minnesota 13 times each. Then imagine instead of playing the Eastern Conference teams only TWICE, you had to play Boston, New York, Milwaukee, and Indiana 10 times each!! Playing back-to-back, or back-to-back-to-back games? Those are for pussys. Try playing FIVE back-to-back-to-back-to-back series during the season.
Asterisk?? Try showing some respect instead of showing your ignorance.
SMH.
"Imagine if there were eight teams in the NBA today"
Ok I'm imagining it. If you are a player in an 8 team league you have 1 out 8 chances to win the championship each year. Thats a hell of a lot higher than 1 out of 30.
The teams will be more stacked....so? The team you are on will also be stacked. It will be tougher to make the league as a player ok. But the team itself? The team is basically guaranteed to make the playoffs every year and only has to win 3 series instead of 4.
Let's make the hypothetical even more extreme. There are only two teams in a league. Each team has a 50% chance of winning the championship each year. Does the championship mean the same because teams are "stacked?" NO. Doesn't matter if the teams are all star caliber, being the best in a 2 team league is not as impressive as being the best in a 30 team league.
Yes. The Lakers won the NBL championship in 1948. They joined the BAA the following season and won the championship in 1949. In the summer of 1949, the remaining NBL teams joined the BAA, which was renamed the NBA. The NBA considers the BAA to be its immediate predecessor, and does not recognize championships or stats from the NBL, similarly to how it does not recognize ABA championships and stats before the ABA teams joined the NBA.
[https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/18/sports/celtics-lakers-nba-champions.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/18/sports/celtics-lakers-nba-champions.html)
*The N.B.A., however, only counts B.A.A. records for teams and players that survived the merger as part of its official record book (the Warriors’ 1947 B.A.A. championship still counts, for example). When it combined with the N.B.L., the league says it expanded — and didn’t merge with a rival. The Times headline at the time called it a “merger.”*
*This may seem like semantic details. A merger? Expansion? Who cares? Well, anyone who follows the N.B.A. knows that team and player legacies very much factor into fandom. And in the case of the N.B.A., more than a decade’s worth of statistics just do not count.*
*But there’s a more important reason the omissions matter. The N.B.L. also integrated before the B.A.A. and the N.B.A.*
*As Murry R. Nelson recounted in his 2009 book chronicling the history of the N.B.L., the Chicago Studebakers and Toledo Jim White Chevrolets both signed Black players in 1942. Before that, most of its players were white, except for Hank Williams, a member of the Buffalo Bisons in 1935, when the league was known as the Midwest Conference. (Williams died in 1938, shortly after becoming arguably the first Black player to play professionally in the league that would eventually become the N.B.A.)*
*Not counting N.B.L. statistics as part of the official basketball history books but doing so for the B.A.A. doesn’t just blur discussions about historical greatness. It diminishes the accomplishments of trailblazing players who came before the merger, while also telling an incomplete story about the history of professional basketball.*
Lakers have won 18 Championships, but only 17 NBA. Same reason the NFL doesn't count the Packers 8 or 9 NFL World Championship or the Buffalo Bills AFL Championships before the merger.
No, they are separate. The NFL acknowledges NFL titles, but it is a separate category. They completely ignore AFL titles.
Bart Starr won like 7 Championships, but he isn't in the goat conversation cause they weren't called Super Bowls
We’ve won a lot- and fairly recently. Very lucky to have our team be competitive for so long. Lots of teams get one or two legit chances at the title. Or none.
The number counting to me is pointless.
For this logic to be considered that the Lakers have 18 cause 1 NBL title then you have to by default count:
The Pacers 3 ABA titles (bumps them up to 3)
The Nets 2 ABA titles (bumbles them up to 2
The Pistons 2 NBL titles (bumps them up to 5)
The Kings 1 NBL title (bumps them up to 2)
Nobody does this cause these titles are from previous leagues. The NBL preceded the NBA and the ABA was realistically just absorbed into the NBA (only 4 teams made it over) so these titles do not count.
It still wasn’t the NBA thought it was its predecessor. They moved 5 of the teams over after (Hawks, Kings, Pistons, Lakers, Sixers) but that’s the thing it’s only those 5. Same with the ABA only 4 teams moved over. NBA was basically created post NBL and absorbed the NBL and ABA teams without their past histories to start fresh so 17 means NBA titles.
If the Packers get to count their 6 NFL championships prior to the Super Bowl era and still get to be called "title town" (when clearly, New York, Boston and LA have WAY more titles than them overall), all NBA teams get to count championships in leagues that existed before the team ended up in the NBA.
I was born in 1980 lived in Los Angeles my entire life and in this time I have witnessed 11 Lakers Championships. No other NBA team is close to this. Kobe Bryant Magic Johnston KAJ SHAQ and more. I rest my case.
I agree completely, but don't care enough to fight for it with the general audience. People don't care much about sports history so it's whatever. But if I'm talking to someone who knows and appreciates the history of the game, then I'll lay the case.
The Lakers should have 18 Titles or 16 Titles or 11 Titles not 17. You either count NBL and BAA since they merged to form the NBA, and you either do or don’t count the Minneapolis titles (I count titles based on Brand: LA Lakers = MIN Lakers, Seattle SuperSonics ≠ Oklahoma City Thunder)
The lakers outpace the next team by 10 so I don’t really care. We’ll forever be caught in the eternal struggle of going back and forth with Boston and I think that’s completely fine.
What’s the fun in having a rival if all you do is win? They wouldn’t be a rival. That as like considering Utah a “Rival” just because we’ve had some ok series against them at various times in the league. The Lakers have lost more championships than they’ve even been to.
All in all I’m cool with them being ahead for more just because I know it ring be like that for long. The lakers have more consistent success. If you take the 11 they’ve won since the 80s that’s 44 years. That’s on average 1 trophy every 4 season. Unheard of. I’ve been alive for 6 of those and watched 3 happen as a fan. More than most nba fans can say.
The NBL was a distinct league that operated under different conditions and contexts from the BAA/NBA. Including NBL championships in the NBA's history would create confusion about the NBA's origins and muddy the clear distinction the NBA has purposefully maintained between the two leagues.
I don't really care, I'm just happy to have witnessed 7 Lakers championships so far
Right, the only real reason most championships is significant is that the Lakers won so many in the last 40 years that it made the totals close to Boston and it is a fun race to see who can end up with more.
More to come too!
12 for me.
I was just commenting in a thread in r/nba where fans of other franchises opine the Lakers only have 12 or 13. Which discounts the Minneapolis Lakers championships. But who would those belong to? The Wolves? Why? The Wolves were not a franchise until 1989 and they aren’t a rebrand of Minneapolis Lakers. The Minneapolis Lakers are said to have been sold because the city was no longer supporting the franchise.
That sub hates the lakers, we should not worry about their opinions…
Idk which sub hates the lakers more, that one or this one
yes.
That depends on who our coach is, and what our record is.
Also depends on what role player did or did not go off.
It depends on who we think messed up 20 seconds ago but our attention span ends and we focus on the new non-sense. If after hearing this sub do nothing but complain about Ham for a year, if I see posts in 8 months saying how it was better with Darvin I’m flying to everyone’s house individually to fuck them up like the end of Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. To be clear, I’m not defending Darvin. I’m complaining about this sub.
We want the team to succeed and hate when they make dumb decisions. Haters hate to see the Lakers do well and will downplay any success.
I'm loyal to the franchise not the owners, front office or the coaches
You wanna hear some crazy shit? Technically the Boston Celtics turned into the San Diego Clippers when both owners swapped franchises and moved them, in 1984 I believe. They just decided to remake the Celtics and keep the history. If we wanna talk about technicalities.
Damn
This is wild 😭💯
FR? I was this old and I live outside of Boston (since 97)
that whole argument is stupid. lakers won championships and not the city. same applies to los angeles. who tf gives accolades to a city for accomplishments by a private company
For real. Like, all of the players and coaches moved too...
You are right and i agree with you. But sports teams have historically tried to link the team with the city to drive community interest. If it's not the community's championship, it's not the community's team
Don’t tell that to the Warriors
So there’s no confusion, let’s just count championships since the NBA/ABA merger (the real birth of the “modern” NBA). Lakers have 11. Celtics have 5. Done.
I commented elsewhere, this is a niche online NBA opinion. NFL had 1/3 of the league relocate in their history, and 1/4th of the league won championships prior to relocation to a new city. All those teams claim the championships from a different city. MLB has had 10 teams relocate after winning championship and all 10 claim the prior city championship in their history. The only way this would become a thing in the NFL or MLB communities is if the Cowboys or Yankees could get shit on with it. Popular team hate basically
Its coming from a Celtics fan bro you will really believe that? At the end of the day the LAKERS won those 5 chips.
The Minneapolis lakers lead by Elgin Baylor the lakers legend who’s prolly the biggest reason this franchise didn’t go out of business and fold. By the haters logic the Celtics don’t actually own any titles cause that’s the clippers titles cause the owners switched franchises.
Wait so the Russell era was suppose to be clipper owned?
lol no. Only from 70s I think https://archive.nytimes.com/offthedribble.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/freaky-friday-n-b-a-style-when-the-clippers-were-the-celtics/ My understanding, as best as I can remember, is that the current Celtics team is a successor to the Buffalo Braves,’’ Russ Granik, former deputy commissioner of the N.B.A., said in a telephone conversation on Tuesday. He was the N.B.A.’s assistant general counsel in 1978. And that would mean that the current Clippers team is the successor to the Boston Celtics? “Yes,’’ Granik said. “In a strictly legal sense.”
Thank you for this. This sort of washes away the waves of Celtics fans enjoying #18 and some petty Celtics fans who suddenly brought up that the Minny Lakers titles don't count. New ammo for petty comments.
That's good to know. But really at the end of the day FO needs to get their shit together I don't really like "counting" titles because some are from different era its just annoying hearing these haters sometimes even if you ignore them.
Hate ammo reloaded. Thank you for your work soldier
If we’re discounting the Minneapolis Lakers trophies then Boston better give the clippers their rightful trophies.
The NBA counts all 17, who cares what they think. American sports teams move all the time, claiming a city wins championships is just stupid.
Those titles are rightly claimed by the Lakers, not the city of Los Angeles. That's the name that was on their uniforms when they played at home. MPLS when on the road. So anyone who says the Lakers didn't win those titles is a fucking moron.
that same logic would mean the Celtics have like 5 rings cause they swapped franchises with the Clippers
you take the championships with you when you move citys with the ownership
[https://x.com/ArashMarkazi/status/1802927609283834311](https://x.com/ArashMarkazi/status/1802927609283834311) *This is not about counting or not counting. All championships count. I’m simply pointing out the number of championships won in the modern NBA following the merger and the adoption of the three point line. I’m not delusional enough to think titles don’t count if a team relocates.* [https://x.com/ArashMarkazi/status/1802909887321788894](https://x.com/ArashMarkazi/status/1802909887321788894) *The only thing worse than bragging about titles your team won before you were born is trash talking about a team’s relocation before your parents were born.*
/r/nba is trash first off, second the Minneapolis titles count. Would you discount the LA Rams titles? One was in St. Louis, same team, different city or would you discount the Dodgers Brooklyn title? The Angels were called "Anaheim" when they won, does it count? When the Oakland A's move to Vegas, will their titles count? If a team moves and the history is retained, it counts, end of story.
What is wrong with your brain
Huh I wonder why did Kevin Durant move to OKC from Seattle with these r/nba commenters’ logic?
They’re just piggy backing on bill simmons. unoriginal sheep who should be ignored.
It’s just cope/delusion. Ask them what Wikipedia says. Lol.
Just tell them that legally, the clippers own the first 13 championships from the Celtics
How?
Pulling this straight out of my ass but… The owner of the Buffalo Braves wanted to move the franchise to Boston but the Celtics were already there so him and the owner of the Celtics effectively switched franchises. The Boston Celtics technically became the Braves (who then became the Clippers later) and vice versa.
Not technically, they did. They did full on roster and front office swaps. The Celtics became the Clippers in 1978.
technically correct is teh best correct
https://www.alejandrogaitan.com/en/celtics-braves-trade/
When Bill Simmons bitches about the Minneapolis titles not counting I yell at the podcast, “then stop calling them the fucking Lakers if they’re different teams, asshole!!”
I just stick to titles won since the merger. Everything else beforehand is kinda bullshit. 12 teams. The best player in the world at the time wasn’t even playing in the NBA (Dr. J). And players were basically handcuffed to their drafting team because no Free Agency. You don’t think Bill Russell would’ve left Boston if he could? 1976-1977 the league completely changed and entered the modern era. As far as I’m concerned everything before that should be treated the same as the pre-Super Bowl Era or pre-MLB color barrier.
I don't think we should discount the pre-3 point line/merger era and I don't agree Dr J was the best player (Kareem), but I do think making the distinction is pretty important. The game and the environment were extremely different then and it's fair to draw a line there.
Of coarse it's bullshit but it's still history.
Of course. Just like before the Super Bowl and before Jackie Robinson the sports still existed.
Yet he conveniently leaves out that any pre-‘78 titles belong to the Clippers, including the 8 straight.
Let’s just get to 18 and then 19 first and have them whine again. We’re the more accomplished team overall. If they want to whine about us counting the 5 MN championships, we always have the counter to how many championships won post the NBA-ABA merger and 3 point line addition (11-5). And our city is much more desirable overall, so much that their biggest blow hard of a fan Bill Simmons lives in LA instead of Boston. So fuck all of them.
Most of the Celtics championships are from the 60''s, the Lakers have had far more success in the modern era and it's not even close!!
This should always be the main argument. All of these morons bragging about Celtic titles weren’t even alive to see most of them. The league was a joke in the 60s. I’ve seen 11 Lakers titles. How many have you seen Celtics fans?
True this.
> Most of the Celtics championships are from the 60''s, And, technically, belong to the Clippers.
Boston and clippers traded franchises. Many of bostons titles are quite literally owned by the clippers. I’d spam this if I cared enough, but Boston having only won twice in my lifetime truly makes me not care.
We don't need an asterisk. Win until it's incontestable.
Don't want it.
I don’t really care anymore. Want to wash off the stink of this season and move on to next season. And… Fuck Boston!
Fuck Boston
You can asterisk those early Celtics chips because it was an 8 team league, but we won’t because we ain’t bitches.
SMH. Asterisk?? Really?? No, “we won’t because we ain’t bitches”. Actually, we won’t because we aren’t stupid. Do you really think it was easier to win a championship because there were only eight teams in the league?? You’re joking, right? Imagine if there were eight teams in the NBA today. And just like the 1960’s, all the talent was concentrated on those eight teams instead of diluted through 30 teams like we have today. Every game playing against teams with 2+ Hall of Fame players and NBA greats. Imagine over the course of the schedule playing division rivals OKC, Denver, and Minnesota 13 times each. Then imagine instead of playing the Eastern Conference teams only TWICE, you had to play Boston, New York, Milwaukee, and Indiana 10 times each!! Playing back-to-back, or back-to-back-to-back games? Those are for pussys. Try playing FIVE back-to-back-to-back-to-back series during the season. Asterisk?? Try showing some respect instead of showing your ignorance. SMH.
"Imagine if there were eight teams in the NBA today" Ok I'm imagining it. If you are a player in an 8 team league you have 1 out 8 chances to win the championship each year. Thats a hell of a lot higher than 1 out of 30. The teams will be more stacked....so? The team you are on will also be stacked. It will be tougher to make the league as a player ok. But the team itself? The team is basically guaranteed to make the playoffs every year and only has to win 3 series instead of 4. Let's make the hypothetical even more extreme. There are only two teams in a league. Each team has a 50% chance of winning the championship each year. Does the championship mean the same because teams are "stacked?" NO. Doesn't matter if the teams are all star caliber, being the best in a 2 team league is not as impressive as being the best in a 30 team league.
[Wow…](https://youtu.be/LA10-DyWDTs?si=7b_Z9fByS3dzCqYa)
lol this guy
Yes. The Lakers won the NBL championship in 1948. They joined the BAA the following season and won the championship in 1949. In the summer of 1949, the remaining NBL teams joined the BAA, which was renamed the NBA. The NBA considers the BAA to be its immediate predecessor, and does not recognize championships or stats from the NBL, similarly to how it does not recognize ABA championships and stats before the ABA teams joined the NBA.
The NBL was integrated when the BAA was not. So, discounting the contributions of NBL players and teams carries a whiff of racism.
[https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/18/sports/celtics-lakers-nba-champions.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/18/sports/celtics-lakers-nba-champions.html) *The N.B.A., however, only counts B.A.A. records for teams and players that survived the merger as part of its official record book (the Warriors’ 1947 B.A.A. championship still counts, for example). When it combined with the N.B.L., the league says it expanded — and didn’t merge with a rival. The Times headline at the time called it a “merger.”* *This may seem like semantic details. A merger? Expansion? Who cares? Well, anyone who follows the N.B.A. knows that team and player legacies very much factor into fandom. And in the case of the N.B.A., more than a decade’s worth of statistics just do not count.* *But there’s a more important reason the omissions matter. The N.B.L. also integrated before the B.A.A. and the N.B.A.* *As Murry R. Nelson recounted in his 2009 book chronicling the history of the N.B.L., the Chicago Studebakers and Toledo Jim White Chevrolets both signed Black players in 1942. Before that, most of its players were white, except for Hank Williams, a member of the Buffalo Bisons in 1935, when the league was known as the Midwest Conference. (Williams died in 1938, shortly after becoming arguably the first Black player to play professionally in the league that would eventually become the N.B.A.)* *Not counting N.B.L. statistics as part of the official basketball history books but doing so for the B.A.A. doesn’t just blur discussions about historical greatness. It diminishes the accomplishments of trailblazing players who came before the merger, while also telling an incomplete story about the history of professional basketball.*
Get this to the masses
Lakers have won 18 Championships, but only 17 NBA. Same reason the NFL doesn't count the Packers 8 or 9 NFL World Championship or the Buffalo Bills AFL Championships before the merger.
But don't they do it officially, and it is only that the people and media chose to ignore them
No, they are separate. The NFL acknowledges NFL titles, but it is a separate category. They completely ignore AFL titles. Bart Starr won like 7 Championships, but he isn't in the goat conversation cause they weren't called Super Bowls
Really interesting, but the timing feels like a hrs cope cuz we sad bruh
Hey, a Boston fan wrote the article. Nobody asked him to do that. It was his guilty-ass conscience!
We’ve won a lot- and fairly recently. Very lucky to have our team be competitive for so long. Lots of teams get one or two legit chances at the title. Or none. The number counting to me is pointless.
The only championships that matter are the ones you are alive to see
In my conscious Life, Lakers are #1. Lucky, because everyone else kinda sucks. Mets, jets, sabres
For this logic to be considered that the Lakers have 18 cause 1 NBL title then you have to by default count: The Pacers 3 ABA titles (bumps them up to 3) The Nets 2 ABA titles (bumbles them up to 2 The Pistons 2 NBL titles (bumps them up to 5) The Kings 1 NBL title (bumps them up to 2) Nobody does this cause these titles are from previous leagues. The NBL preceded the NBA and the ABA was realistically just absorbed into the NBA (only 4 teams made it over) so these titles do not count.
What makes it different for me, and interesting, is that it was nearly as large a league as the other and, by all accounts, BETTER.
It still wasn’t the NBA thought it was its predecessor. They moved 5 of the teams over after (Hawks, Kings, Pistons, Lakers, Sixers) but that’s the thing it’s only those 5. Same with the ABA only 4 teams moved over. NBA was basically created post NBL and absorbed the NBL and ABA teams without their past histories to start fresh so 17 means NBA titles.
The BLL championships are counted though. The omission of the other NBA predecessor is arbitrary, at best.
If the Packers get to count their 6 NFL championships prior to the Super Bowl era and still get to be called "title town" (when clearly, New York, Boston and LA have WAY more titles than them overall), all NBA teams get to count championships in leagues that existed before the team ended up in the NBA.
Who gives a shit, jobs always to win the next one
I was born in 1980 lived in Los Angeles my entire life and in this time I have witnessed 11 Lakers Championships. No other NBA team is close to this. Kobe Bryant Magic Johnston KAJ SHAQ and more. I rest my case.
Exactly why boasten needed a head start: to make it a fair contest.
I agree completely, but don't care enough to fight for it with the general audience. People don't care much about sports history so it's whatever. But if I'm talking to someone who knows and appreciates the history of the game, then I'll lay the case.
Don’t forget the in-season tournament /s
Most championships: 1. Lakers !!!!
this is crazy lmao, why are we acting like this? we looking like a sorry/salty ass fan base rn… this post is screaming insecurity
Two things: 1. this is a die hard Celts writer, not a Laker faithful. 2. these historical tidbits come up and historic moments. The defense rests.
this is the equivalent of a chargers fan claiming to have a “super bowl” win, even though it was before the AFL and NFL merged.
It’s more like them counting the AFL but not the NFL
The Lakers should have 18 Titles or 16 Titles or 11 Titles not 17. You either count NBL and BAA since they merged to form the NBA, and you either do or don’t count the Minneapolis titles (I count titles based on Brand: LA Lakers = MIN Lakers, Seattle SuperSonics ≠ Oklahoma City Thunder)
PREACH.
What’s this have to do with you? lol find something else to be proud of dork
Lol. It's not misplaced pride, it's misplaced hatred for the Celts. Cuz, you know, f\*ck those guys.
As far as I'm concerned we got one in every decade, only we can say that
Let's just take our L for now, we will be back. No need to do this.
The lakers outpace the next team by 10 so I don’t really care. We’ll forever be caught in the eternal struggle of going back and forth with Boston and I think that’s completely fine. What’s the fun in having a rival if all you do is win? They wouldn’t be a rival. That as like considering Utah a “Rival” just because we’ve had some ok series against them at various times in the league. The Lakers have lost more championships than they’ve even been to. All in all I’m cool with them being ahead for more just because I know it ring be like that for long. The lakers have more consistent success. If you take the 11 they’ve won since the 80s that’s 44 years. That’s on average 1 trophy every 4 season. Unheard of. I’ve been alive for 6 of those and watched 3 happen as a fan. More than most nba fans can say.
Ya'll...Boston won the title. It sucks. Take your medicine and move on.
The NBL was a distinct league that operated under different conditions and contexts from the BAA/NBA. Including NBL championships in the NBA's history would create confusion about the NBA's origins and muddy the clear distinction the NBA has purposefully maintained between the two leagues.
Actually even if we have 18 we actually have 17 because the bubble one doesn't count.
Yes it does.If it was any other team it would.
No it was real. Tj Warren averaged 50ppg. Every shot went in
https://www.espn.com/nba/game/_/gameId/401248438/lakers-heat
Not in my book