Lakers vs Celtics Playoff History

[Staff Sgt. Dignam]

Celtics 8 wins > Lakers 2 wins

Suck it, Lakers fan.

[Staff Sgt. Dignam]

Where are DazedAndConfused and Lake Show in this thread? Certainly they would love to come in here and talk about how bad they have beaten the Spurs in the playoffs, am I right?

[Staff Sgt. Dignam]

o? Anybody home?

[DazedAndConfused]

You do realize 90% of those wins came in the 1960's when there were 10 teams and no FA's right?

[ShoogarBear]

So, 60s championships don't count, Laker Fan?

How about ones from the 50s, then? In another city, no less.

[baseline bum]

70s and 80s championships shouldn't count either. All the best players were in the ABA in the 70s, and no salary cap in the 80s made it impossible to have a fair, legit league.

[ShoogarBear]

We won't even bring up 2002 again.

[Warlord23]

So if you leave out the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 2002, then the Lakers have 2 les compared to the Spurs' 4? Sweet.

[DazedAndConfused]

I'll be honest, ring smack talk is weak. Let's focus on the here and now. Spurs have been eliminated, Lakers about to go fishing, and KG is finally going to get a ring.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

KG is finally going to get a ring.

[J.T.]

Lakers about to go fishing

[Borosai]

I hate even-numbered years.

[endrity]

Don't worry, even in the process of taking a ring he was exposed as much as ever. In a way this is even sweeter, because he is finally gonna win a ring, and he was the third option behind Pierce and Allen.

[J.T.]