Overrated Nba/pba Players

[peithe]

I disagree. Titles alone surely Boston is it. But overall performance including consistency year-in and out. Its got to be the LAKERS.

 

Problem is just because of being 1 title up people claim Boston to be the greatest franchise despite the fact that overall they have more losing season than the suppopsed 2nd running Lakers. Well this is the end all be all of all argument pertaining to the claim to greatness.

 

I recall a similar argument then involving another article.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2009/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=FranchiseRankings-Intro

Edited November 24, 2010 by peithe

[Guest eljuego]

I disagree. Titles alone surely Boston is it. But overall performance including consistency year-in and out. Its got to be the LAKERS.

 

Problem is just because of being 1 title up people claim Boston to be the greatest franchise despite the fact that overall they have more losing season than the suppopsed 2nd running Lakers. Well this is the end all be all of all argument pertaining to the claim to greatness.

 

I recall a similar argument then involving another article.

 

http://sports.espn.g...eRankings-Intro

 

At least I showed a Celtic hater saying that the Celtics are the greatest team of all-time. The bottomline is championships. Magpakita ka naman ng article na isang Laker hater saying that the Lakers are the greatest of all-time. At least walang bias yun diba. Yung pinakita ko walang bias kasi nga Celtic hater sya.

 

By the way, explain to me how the Spurs could be better than the Bulls when the Bulls have 6 and the Spurs only have 4?

 

Can you also explain how the Suns which have a big fat egg in their trophy case could be better than the Pistons which has 3 and the Rockets which has 2 championships?

Edited November 24, 2010 by eljuego

[Guest eljuego]

Overrated si Villamin and Relosa aka the Bruise Brothers

[peithe]

At least I showed a Celtic hater saying that the Celtics are the greatest team of all-time. The bottomline is championships. Magpakita ka naman ng article na isang Laker hater saying that the Lakers are the greatest of all-time. At least walang bias yun diba. Yung pinakita ko walang bias kasi nga Celtic hater sya.

 

By the way, explain to me how the Spurs could be better than the Bulls when the Bulls have 6 and the Spurs only have 4?

 

Can you also explain how the Suns which have a big fat egg in their trophy case could be better than the Pistons which has 3 and the Rockets which has 2 championships?

 

curiously a guy named megalodon also have the same queries ... what a co-incidence AGAIN .

 

Well after more than a year of waiting finally an article that shows otherwise ... from a LAKER fan at that. In due time I will give in to your request.

[Guest eljuego]

Diverting from the subject. Explain to me how the Suns could be better than the Pistons and Rockets. Also, elaborate how the Spurs could rank higher than the Bulls. Or wala ka naman masabi? I'm betting on the latter. Tsk tsk. Another one bites the dust. I rest my case.

Edited November 24, 2010 by eljuego

[Guest eljuego]

Si Dondon Ampalayo overrated

[peithe]

Diverting from the subject. Explain to me how the Suns could be better than the Pistons and Rockets. Also, elaborate how the Spurs could rank higher than the Bulls. Or wala ka naman masabi? I'm betting on the latter. Tsk tsk. Another one bites the dust. I rest my case.

 

Seek and you shall find ... I think the writer did explain why do I have to say more since this is OT.

[jopoc]

To satiate your curiousity. The author is a Celtic hater like you yet he still thinks that Boston is the greatest team of all-time.

 

http://bleacherrepor...anchise/page/11

 

 

if the post is a from a celtic hater, you normally dismiss it. but just because you get a favorable post from a celtic hater, you suddenly take it as gospel truth.

 

anyway, who is this mario gonzalez? is he the next messiah that you have to believe in what he said? next time you argue, dont rely on other people's opinion. make use of the facts and make your own.

[Guest eljuego]

if the post is a from a celtic hater, you normally dismiss it. but just because you get a favorable post from a celtic hater, you suddenly take it as gospel truth.

 

anyway, who is this mario gonzalez? is he the next messiah that you have to believe in what he said? next time you argue, dont rely on other people's opinion. make use of the facts and make your own.

Uhm, your friend told me I have a bias for the Cs so I showed him an article from a Celtic hater. It's more credible if it's from a Celtic hater than a Celtic fan, isn't it? Ok then, tell me how the Cs couldn't be the greatest team of all-time with 17 championships? Certainly I'll give more credence to a Laker fan than Magic fan since the Cs are the Lakers' greatest and most bitter rival.

[jopoc]

Uhm, your friend told me I have a bias for the Cs so I showed him an article from a Celtic hater. It's more credible if it's from a Celtic hater than a Celtic fan, isn't it? Ok then, tell me how the Cs couldn't be the greatest team of all-time with 17 championships? Certainly I'll give more credence to a Laker fan than Magic fan since the Cs are the Lakers' greatest and most bitter rival.

 

 

im a magic fan, but i believe that the lakers are the greatest team of all time because of its consistency. give me a decade where the lakers never a contender or at least, made it to the finals. give me 5 years of no show in the playoffs.

 

i consider consistency as a best criteria rather than the number of rings, which the lakers is not far behind from the celtics.

 

here's your problem, you attack the person giving opinion rather than the opinion itself.

Edited November 25, 2010 by jopoc

[Guest eljuego]

im a magic fan, but i believe that the lakers are the greatest team of all time because of its consistency. give me a decade where the lakers never a contender or at least, made it to the finals. give me 5 years of no show in the playoffs.

 

i consider consistency as a best criteria rather than the number of rings, which the lakers is not far behind from the celtics.

 

here's your problem, you attack the person giving opinion rather than the opinion itself.

Haha! Yeah sure they consistently make the Finals and they are have a 50% winning rate in the Finals. The Celtics may have lesser trips to the Finals and they still have an 81% winning rate. It's not about the consistency, it's about winning the championship. The thing is, the Lakers have had 9 more trips than the Celtics yet they're still one short of the Cs when it comes to championships.

 

Huh? Attacked? I was asking him to answer questions from the article he posted. He couldn't defend it.

 

Since he's a friend of yours, perhaps you could answer in lieu of him. Explain to me how the Spurs could be better than the Bulls. Furthermore, enlighten me on how the Suns, which has nothing in its trophy case, be better than the the 3-time champion Pistons and the 2-time champion Rockets.

 

 

[jopoc]

Haha! Yeah sure they consistently make the Finals and they are have a 50% winning rate in the Finals. The Celtics may have lesser trips to the Finals and they still have an 81% winning rate. It's not about the consistency, it's about winning the championship. The thing is, the Lakers have had 9 more trips than the Celtics yet they're still one short of the Cs when it comes to championships.

 

 

i did not say anything about consistently winning the finals. my point is simple, the lakers is more consistent in being one of the top teams in the league. in any given decade they made it to the finals, and in any given span of 3 (or 5) years, they made it to the playoffs.

 

kumbaga sa boston, there are time that they are really good, and there are time that they really suck. that is not the case of the lakers. i think there was a season that the celtics were last in the standings, which never happened to the lakers.

 

 

 

 

 

Huh? Attacked? I was asking him to answer questions from the article he posted. He couldn't defend it.

 

 

 

the attack i was saying is about your argument. you argue that you would give more credence to a laker fan than a magic fan. that is an absurdity. like i said, no matter what my team is, i look at everything objectively. i base my arguments on fact, not who made the opinion or view.

 

 

 

 

Since he's a friend of yours, perhaps you could answer in lieu of him. Explain to me how the Spurs could be better than the Bulls. Furthermore, enlighten me on how the Suns, which has nothing in its trophy case, be better than the the 3-time champion Pistons and the 2-time champion Rockets.

 

 

i cant explain other person's opinion. that's his and its his responsibility to answer to it.

 

besides, i treat everybody here in mtc is my friend, that includes you. i dont make enemies here.

[Guest eljuego]

i did not say anything about consistently winning the finals. my point is simple, the lakers is more consistent in being one of the top teams in the league. in any given decade they made it to the finals, and in any given span of 3 (or 5) years, they made it to the playoffs.

 

kumbaga sa boston, there are time that they are really good, and there are time that they really suck. that is not the case of the lakers. i think there was a season that the celtics were last in the standings, which never happened to the lakers.

 

the attack i was saying is about your argument. you argue that you would give more credence to a laker fan than a magic fan. that is an absurdity. like i said, no matter what my team is, i look at everything objectively. i base my arguments on fact, not who made the opinion or view.

Consistently winning the Finals is always better than consistently being in the Finals especially if you only won 3 times in the 11 championship meetings with your bitter rival.

 

Yeah, true, the Celtics sucked in the 90s and the early part of the millenium. I'm not gonna sugarcoat it but inspite of their 22 years of championship futility, the Lakers had all the chances to become the greatest of all-time by winning championships. 1991, 2004 and 2008. Had they won the 3 or even just one against the Cs, they would have been the greatest team of all-time as we speak.

 

As to my saying that I give more credence to a Laker fan than a Magic fan, it is coz traditionally Laker fans hate the Cs with a passion than a Magic fan. For a Laker fan to say that the Cs are the greatest team of all-time inspite of his hatred means that he was not wearing his purple and gold goggles when he wrote that article.

Edited November 25, 2010 by eljuego

[jopoc]

Consistently winning the Finals is always better than consistently being in the Finals especially if you only won 3 times in the 11 championship meetings with your bitter rival.

 

Yeah, true, the Celtics sucked in the 90s and the early part of the millenium. I'm not gonna sugarcoat it but inspite of their 22 years of championship futility, the Lakers had all the chances to become the greatest of all-time by winning championships. 1991, 2004 and 2008. Had they won the 3 or even just one against the Cs, they would have been the greatest team of all-time as we speak.

 

 

like i said, on a yearly basis, except on a few years where they missed the playoffs, the lakers maintained at a competitive level. boston did not.

 

if you will make a point system for every finish made (like the F1 where a first place gets 25, 2nd gets 20, something like that), you will come up with a total where the lakers will beat the celtics.

 

for me, its not always about winning the rings, its about being competitive on a consistent basis.

[Guest eljuego]

You and Hollinger have the same opinion while me and the Laker fan have the same opinion. To each his own coz if you ask me, it's all about the championships won. At the end of the day, fans only remember the champions, not the runners-up.