Reply With Quote
that's only 2 out of 3 where's the other 1?
not for the piggers it aint.
that's only 2 out of 3 where's the other 1?
no 1 car has 2 flags, one flag is a mexico flag the other is a lakers flag, the other 2 cars dont have any flags
Complete rubbish.
Hasn't been so since the O'Malleys sold the Dodgers. Been a Laker town ever since.
No one gave a about those Purple 'n Piss faires in the 50s (not even in LA, yet), 60s (always losing to the Celtics), and 70s (one gimpy le for the Lakers, while the Dodgers renewed their rivalry with the Yankees). It wasn't until the 80s when LA fans suddenly became "passionate" about the Lakers, and even then, Gibson's homer completely overshadowed the whole Showtime era.
If the Dodgers ever manage to become a force again, the Lakers will once again assume their role as LA's number 2 professional sports franchise.
20 years in Long Beach, 3 years in Corona...Lakers fan since 1987 when i moved to the States.
Me too. We're the anti-bandwagoners.
This is some industrial-grade fertilizer you're spreading here.
LA is a Lakers town first by any measure.
They've been "LA's team" for all of ten years, since the 3 peat. Of course the bandwagoners out here will consider the more recently successful franchise "their" team.
If you're at any all objective and over the age of 20, you know that the Dodgers have always been the number one attraction in LA since their 1959 arrival (sans the last ten years).
haha...i think your actually ing serious when you type this .
He's flailing.
He thought he'd get relief tonite via the James announcement. He shoulda known better.
Prove to me otherwise "I moved to LA in 1987 from a foreign country" Lakers fan.
Like it or not, basketball was nowhere near as popular as baseball in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, and a Dodger championship was always considered a greater accomplishment than a Lakers championship. Just because the Lakers have had more relative success in their sport (a sport that's much easier to win in) doesn't mean they're "LA's team."
The Celtics, with all of their championships, have always been the second fiddle to the Sox, and up until the 3 peat, the Lakers were second fiddle to the Dodgers.
I agree it's been "Laker town" since 2000, but that's because So Cal fans are bandwagoning idiots with short memories.
i would have guessed Westminster
1) Your premise is dubious at best
2) Even accepting your premise at face value, you've now gone from "Lakers are LA's JV team" to "Lakers are LA's team for the last 10 years" in the span of a couple posts
Pray tell, how is it "much easier" to win in the NBA than MLB?
to be fair, it was a Sparks town for a couple years before Kobe cried for help.
What do you know about LA sports "I was born in Ohio, live in Arizona, never been to LA" Lakers fan?
Given your age, you should know that professional basketball, for much of its history, was always a second tier sport in America, so if a city had their baseball team win a World Series and their basketball team win an NBA Championship, the World Series victory was always considered the "greater" accomplishment.
The NBA was on tape delay up until Magic and Bird saved it, and even then, the NBA wasn't as popular as baseball. Wasn't until Jordan that basketball became a commercial force.
And the only reason the Lakers are "LA's team" is because they've won les in the post-Jordan era while the Dodgers have been merely above average. Such is the loyalty of bandwagon So Cal sports fan.
The Red Sox could go 0-162 and the Celtics 82-0, and Boston would still be Red Sox town.
Yer still flailing. You'll flail till at least next June. And if nobody close us out then, you'll flail another 12 months.
Let us proceed...
testify pulp testify
I'm a trend setter.testify pulp testify
I set trends.
Before the ins ution of the Wild Card, you had to be one of the top two teams in your respective league if you wanted a chance at playing in the World Series, and before that, you had to win the season outright. No coasting during the regular season, like the 02 Lakers, or hoping another team knocks out your toughest matchup, like the Warriors beating 07 Mavs, allowing the Spurs a much easier road to the Finals. You had to be in top form for the entire duration of a season, which is much harder to do than win 50-55 games, get into the playoffs, and turn it up.
It's also much more difficult to build 20-30 man roster than to build a 12 man one. One player can change the fortunes of an NBA team, not in Baseball, which calls for more sophisticated roster building. Not to mention the unpredictability of how high draft picks will turn out.
Granted, Baseball has a very soft cap, but throwing around money doesn't always guarantee a le. Steinbrenner has spent more money than anyone else and has only managed to win one Championship in the last 10 years.
Baseball is the second most difficult sport to win in behind pro football. Many people with more sports a en than I have acknowledged this.
OK. You make some reasonable arguments and I actually agree with most of them.
However, I will point out that while in the last 11 years the Lakers have 5 les to the Yankees' one... but Lakers have exactly as many les in the last 15 years as the Yankees. And each made the playoffs 14 of those 15 seasons. That is tops in all of pro sports. Can't be any more evenly matched than that.
Where we disagree is that it is somehow "much easier" to win in the NBA. I think the harder cap makes for a much more even distribution of wins since teams can't literally outspend another 8 to 1 in acquiring talent.
Baseball is a more random sport by its nature and that is mostly what has kept the Yankees from winning more les IMO. but that seems to me to be comparing apples to oranges, like saying that it's obviously much more difficult to be an elite hitter than an elite shooter since elite hitters are successful 40% of the time while elite shooters are successful more than 50%.
Lives in the OC ...
if i was vietnamese.
I lived in San Antonio for the first 25 1/2 years of my life and just moved to Modesto back in December. Having driven and visited much of Cali, including through L.A, was it ever disappointing. Orange County was all that, but LA county itself is a ing toilet. It's like the worst part of San Antonio's west side multiplied by a thousand and the smog... maybe every Pedro is sitting in his ranfla hitting the accelerator. Yuck. At least Norte Cal is nice and has 95% less smog than the devil's country.
That being said, the Lakers.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions