Lakers Now

Round-the-Clock Purple and Gold

« Previous Post | Lakers Now Home | Next Post »

PERfect ratings?

Do you like PER? Hate it? Do you want to argue with an evaluation system that projects Kobe Bryant well behind D-Wade? All perfectly reasonable ways to spend your time. But big picture, if you're looking after more reasons to feel confident in LA's chances to win another title this season, this should bring a smile. LA has three players ESPN.com's John Hollinger's computer believes will finish among NBA's top 15 this season in PER, specifically Kobe, Andrew Bynum, and Pau Gasol.

That's an enormous amount of high end talent, particularly in the front court, and doesn't get into guys like Lamar Odom or Ron Artest. This team is stacked like a giant bacon sandwich despite any questions regarding the rotation at point guard. For full positional rankings, click here, for the Lakers, here. It's always fun (for me, at least) to scroll through this stuff.

Moving along, I had read about this over the weekend, and found the video over at Free Darko. Christian Eyenga, Cleveland's #1 pick in last year's draft, may have permanently raised the bar for slam dunk contests in areas of theatrical flourish and creativity. Most of the dunks in the clip are good (the wonky sound/image relationship notwithstanding) but the big highlight starts near the four minute mark.

Totally organic? Of course not, but no less so than changing in a phone booth. And way more clever, despite the stripped down production value.

BK

 
Comments () | Archives (30)

The comments to this entry are closed.

I like PER, but I'm not crazy about it. I'm not crazy about statistics in general. While I do feel they are useful, to an extent, in evaluating the abilities of a player, statistics almost as often distract a fan from the fact that this is a team sport won through intangibles that cannot effectively be put into statistics.

I'd like to see a "PER" or somekind of equivalent created for a line-up, as opposed to a player.

For example, how is Kobe Bryant's output effected when he plays with Ron Artest on the floor as opposed to Luke Walton or Shannon Brown? How is Ron Artest's output effected when HE is on the floor with Kobe Bryant as opposed to Luke Walton or Shannon Brown?

What you want in a player is someone who makes other players better, even if his own individual statistics are not necessarily impressive. I'd like to see more statistics based upon that--on how a player makes other players better and/or reflects the synergy of a given line-up as opposed to the synergy of other line-ups.

What do we play for? RINGS!!!

Lakers Today... Lakers Tomorrow... Lakers Forever.

GO LAKERS!!!!

Good morning CRUE!!!

Can you believe it?? It's almost GAME DAY - woot woot!!

We made it through the dog days of summer without too much blood being spilled, and no arterial spray. Not bad.

It's crazy to see how after a winning a championship (YES - WE WON WE WON!!!) how many people were going at each other's throats over crazy things like is Bynum our next great center, and should LO get a prenup, and other crap like that. LMAO! Umm.... WE WON!!!!

Now it's on. The season is fast approaching. The rings are getting boxed up and shipped as we speak, cuz - you know - WE WON!!!!

Everyone else in the league who has a brain (ok - maybe that's an oxymoron) is really really really afraid of us, cuz we are THE team to beat. Cuz - you know - WE WON!!! We have the talent, the depth, the drive, the determination, the skill - the entire package. WE are the ones with the target on our backs, but WE are also the ones who welcome the challenge and always let our game do our talking. The results?? Well - WE WON!!! And not only that - we will REPEAT!!

Yeah. That's right. You heard it here first. We are the DEFENDING CHAMPION LOS ANGELES LAKERS!!!

I'm sorry - but who the hell are you?

You know what? Never mind. We don't care....

I could have sworn he was going to dunk the baby.

THAT would be interesting to watch.

Actually, I can see it happening.

This year stricken by the worst case of Seasonal Affective Disorder in mankind's long, sordid history, I can foresee Shaq just breaking down as Andrew Bynum dominates him on the glass and a baby continues to scream and cry on the sidelines throughout the the game. Halfway through the third quarter, Shaq grabs the baby in his giant maul and runs down the court before a speechlesss, terrified audience and delivers the baby through the rim in a berzerker, tomahawk dunk.

Shaq falls to his knees on the hardwood of The Q in Cleveland and screams from the pit of his very soul, "THAT'S WHAT YOU GET!!! THAT'S WHAT YOU GET!!! I AM THE BIG MISTAKE!!!!"

It could happen. I've seen worse things here in Cleveland in the late winter months, believe you me.

What do we play for? RINGS!!!!

Lakers Today... Lakers Tomorrow... Lakers Forever.

GO LAKERS!!!!

BK


How much of your day is spent at morebacon.com? that sandwich is Dis-Gusting!


Hate PER, don't see how it translates into real basketball knowledge. Probably haven't invested in enough time to see how it totally works, but it seems very misleading. Not to say that D-Wade won't have a statistically larger impact on his team then Kobe, that seems rather obvious given the work load Wade must shoulder compared to Kobe (think 2004-05 around here) and it would make sense to say that. But it doesn't factor into things like "Brown hit the wide open 3 because his defender left him to triple Kobe" or other such uncatagorizable moments in an NBA game.


I suppose if I were a GM and were looking at what type of impact one player or another would theoretically make on my team (or if I was into Fantasy Sports, but until I move to Fantasy Island don't hold your breath) I could see consulting it, buut other than that I just don't think it truly shows the impact a player has.


Now that bacon sandwich, what's the PER on that big boy?

To me, statistics are really for people who love the game, but never really played sports all that much. Thus their understanding of the game is more intellectual rather than intuitive and/or emotional.

It's not a bad thing. It's just not so much for me.

What do we play for? RINGS!!!

Lakers Today... Lakers Tomorrow... Lakers Forever.

GO LAKERS!!!

To validate the PER would be to validate Hollinger. It's much like a lot of other stats. Difficult to figure out, interesting to read and argue over, but basically useless in evaluations. I do agree with Hollinger's claim that offensive rebounds are a vital stat when it comes to winning.
Who is playing well? Who is meshing together as a unit? It's five guys playing as one. As a great innovator of the game once said, "It's not who starts the game, it's who finishes."
And that could be different each game, depending on injuries and matchups!
Stats don't tell the whole story. Wade better than Bryant???? Not on this planet.

The PER system is a bad system and while it does show something in regards to how a player is playing offensively, it's limited defensively, it's limited on some of the other intangibles and overall is biased towards guys like LeBron and D-Wade who are 1 man shows. People lean so heavily on it and have used it as a means of annointing LeBron to be anything short of God himself. PER is good for one thing and one thing only, fantasy league.

BK,

It woul
d be great if someone with Insider subscription could post the detailed analysis for the three Lakers players. Thanks.


Tom

i can't wait for the season to start
though i do appreciate the effort

John Hollinger's rating put Bynum's PER to be greater than Pau Gasol's and even Kobe. Bosh over Kobe?

That is very misleading there.

BK,


I have never been a big fan of Hollinger or his PER statistic. I think the information that it provides is too arbitrary and disregards whom the player is playing with or against, his role on his team, and anything related to defense. If Hollinger weren’t so literal about the value of his PER ratings, I might be less biased but he seems to believe that you can use PER “all by itself” to predict results, which is ridiculous. There is only one stat that works that way and it is the score of the game. At best, PER is just one of many tools that you can use to evaluate and compare players. Alone, it is nonsensical.


Hollinger also seems to always have an error or two somewhere in his lists. In this case, he has Pau listed as #15 on his ALL list but Pau does not appear on either the power forward or center list. The system’s inadequacies really show up when you note that there are no Celtic players in the top 15 although the Celtics are the obvious favorites to win the East and to win it all by many of the analysts. Another ridiculous result in Hollinger’s list was Trevor Ariza showing up in the top small forward list while Ron Artest was notably absent. The system is heavily biased in favor of players who dominate the ball for their team and strongly ignores role players whose job does not involve ball handling.


The only area where I thought PER had some real potential was when it was used to measure who different player matchups favored by evaluating a player’s PER when being guarded by another player. Now that really made sense to me. I think it was some other analyst who came up with that idea to use PER and I thought that use provided some very valuable information about a player’s impact on defense and great comparative stats on who defends best or holds another player to the lowest PER.


Notwithstanding the above, it was good to see Kobe, Drew, and Pau get high ratings from Hollinger, even if the ratings for all three players were less than many other players who, in my opinion, do not even belong in the same conversation as Kobe, Drew, and Pau. But that is Hollinger, ultimate just another “money ball” stats geek who “thinks” he has a unique insight into evaluating basketball but who really just spins actual results to try and justify his use of PER as a complete evaluation tool.


Tom


Laker Tom,

I have the subscription. Here is it:

Rank:8 Andrew Bynum:
2009-10 Projected PER: 22.82
League Average Comparison: +7.82
2008-09 PER: 20.03

2009-10 outlook: Despite his struggles in the postseason, my projection system likes Bynum this season. Actually, it REALLY likes him, projecting him to lead the Lakers in PER, several percentage points ahead of that guy in jersey No. 24. Young centers with offensive skills often make tremendous strides in their early 20s, and no one would be shocked if Bynum became the next one to do so.

For Bynum, however, the operative question is not "how well" but "how often." He's a 285-pound center whose knees broke down midway through two straight seasons. If he's this brittle in his early 20s, what's he going to be like when he's older?

That's why the Lakers have to make a concerted effort to manage the pounding on Bynum's knees, both by keeping him at the lighter end of his weight range and by carefully monitoring the time -- both in games and in practices -- that his knees absorb the strain of carrying such a huge frame. He's clearly an All-Star-caliber talent from the quads up, so the only question is whether the knees will allow him to put 82 games of such quality into one calendar year.

Rank 10: Kobe Bryant:
2009-10 Projected PER: 22.65
League Average Comparison: +7.65
2008-09 PER: 24.46

2009-10 outlook: First, the bad news: Declines in free throw rate are a fairly ominous canary in the coal mine, and Bryant is 31 with a lot of mileage on his legs. For that reason, I don't think he'll match last season's numbers.

Having said that, I wouldn't expect a precipitous decline either. Bryant keeps himself in fantastic shape, has had few knee problems, and has already shown he has the smarts to adjust his game to whatever new realities his body deals him. Additionally, the Lakers should be able to manage his minutes very carefully and reduce the regular-season wear and tear. That, in fact, may be a bigger drain on his numbers than age -- if he plays only 34 minutes a game, his averages will drop no matter how well he plays.

Bryant is eligible to sign an extension with the Lakers that would keep him in uniform for at least three more years. The alternative is that he could opt out of his deal and choose unrestricted free agency next summer. Nobody expects the latter outcome, especially after he led L.A. to the title.

Rank 15:Pau Gasol:
2009-10 Projected PER: 20.96
League Average Comparison: +5.96
2008-09 PER: 22.31

2009-10 outlook: Gasol's rock-solid, year-to-year consistency translates into a predictably narrow range for his numbers this season. He'll average 20 points and 10 boards per 40 minutes while shooting in the mid-50s, with his minutes being the biggest variable. L.A.'s strength could prove to be his statistical detriment, because if Bynum stays healthy, Gasol is highly unlikely to match last season's average of 37 minutes per game. If so, that will drag his scoring and rebounding averages down to the 18 and 8 range, but it won't prevent him from making another All-Star team.

However, AK/BK did you see that in the overall break-up, Pau's name does not appear in either Power Forwards nor the list of Centers??

If listed as a C, he should come in #5(behind Howard, Big-Al, Bynum and Duncan). If listed a PF, he should be #3 (behind Nowitzki and Bosh, above KG, Amare etc)

Perhaps BSPN did not want to portray a Lakers player above their Celtics' Big Ticket?? :)

Laker Tom,

Andrew Bynum:
2009-10 outlook: Despite his struggles in the postseason, my projection system likes Bynum this season. Actually, it REALLY likes him, projecting him to lead the Lakers in PER, several percentage points ahead of that guy in jersey No. 24. Young centers with offensive skills often make tremendous strides in their early 20s, and no one would be shocked if Bynum became the next one to do so.

For Bynum, however, the operative question is not "how well" but "how often." He's a 285-pound center whose knees broke down midway through two straight seasons. If he's this brittle in his early 20s, what's he going to be like when he's older?

That's why the Lakers have to make a concerted effort to manage the pounding on Bynum's knees, both by keeping him at the lighter end of his weight range and by carefully monitoring the time -- both in games and in practices -- that his knees absorb the strain of carrying such a huge frame. He's clearly an All-Star-caliber talent from the quads up, so the only question is whether the knees will allow him to put 82 games of such quality into one calendar year.


Kobe Bryant:

2009-10 outlook: First, the bad news: Declines in free throw rate are a fairly ominous canary in the coal mine, and Bryant is 31 with a lot of mileage on his legs. For that reason, I don't think he'll match last season's numbers.

Having said that, I wouldn't expect a precipitous decline either. Bryant keeps himself in fantastic shape, has had few knee problems, and has already shown he has the smarts to adjust his game to whatever new realities his body deals him. Additionally, the Lakers should be able to manage his minutes very carefully and reduce the regular-season wear and tear. That, in fact, may be a bigger drain on his numbers than age -- if he plays only 34 minutes a game, his averages will drop no matter how well he plays.

Bryant is eligible to sign an extension with the Lakers that would keep him in uniform for at least three more years. The alternative is that he could opt out of his deal and choose unrestricted free agency next summer. Nobody expects the latter outcome, especially after he led L.A. to the title.


Pau Gasol:
2009-10 outlook: Gasol's rock-solid, year-to-year consistency translates into a predictably narrow range for his numbers this season. He'll average 20 points and 10 boards per 40 minutes while shooting in the mid-50s, with his minutes being the biggest variable. L.A.'s strength could prove to be his statistical detriment, because if Bynum stays healthy, Gasol is highly unlikely to match last season's average of 37 minutes per game. If so, that will drag his scoring and rebounding averages down to the 18 and 8 range, but it won't prevent him from making another All-Star team.

Albert Einstein once said :

“Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.”

While it's nice that someone so famous (and kind of smart) said this, the truth of the message, not the messenger, is what makes this quote so valuable.

To validate the PER would be to validate Hollinger. It's much like a lot of other stats. Difficult to figure out, interesting to read and argue over, but basically useless in evaluations. I do agree with Hollinger's claim that offensive rebounds are a vital stat when it comes to winning.
Who is playing well? Who is meshing together as a unit? It's five guys playing as one. As a great innovator of the game once said, "It's not who starts the game, it's who finishes."
And that could be different each game, depending on injuries and matchups!
Stats don't tell the whole story. Wade better than Bryant???? Not on this planet.

Posted by: owenfromburbank | October 05, 2009 at 12:08 PM


very valid points. Tell that to your numerically named peer, who posted a matchup by matchup analysis of the Celtics vs. Lakers and called it a day. Reasonable fans know a PER, or a matchups analysis is not sufficient in a fluid game such as basketball. Trolls will beat people over the head with it without using context.

Its not a one-on-one game. The game is a complex one on this stage, so why ever boil it down to stats or 1 on 1 like fisher vs. Rondo, Bynum vs. Perkins. For example, our old man (Fish) played your old man most of the time(Allen) and Kobe or Ariza checked Rondo enough to win a game. So why do we compare point guards? Throw out the Rondo > LA Point guards right there.

I'll add another point about stats, since I am a statistician. They ignore timeliness, game pace, and a host of other qualities of a game. The timeliness of a rebound, the 2 for 11 3point shooter that gets one to fall in the closing seconds, the team that wins in the closing seconds. Often times its not the 3 point average, its the timing of the 3 pointer, the hustle, etc.


Kobefan & Blitz,


Thanks for the Insider Stuff. I have not renewed my subscription this year. I would have to say that penalizing Pau for having strongly consistent year-to-year figures seems weird. I would have expected any statistical system worth its weight to predict Pau ahead of Bynum because of more experience.


Tom


Amazing,


>>> Albert Einstein once said :

>>> “Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.”


You are right. That is a great quotation. Thanks.


Tom

I love PER, but only because I see it for what it is: a snapshot of a player's offensive output.

PER has gotten a negative rap for 2 main reasons.

1) Those who don't understand the formula (or who don't understand statistics in general) assume that those who like PER are just Moneyball-style nerds who don't watch the actual games and instead determine a player's worth based on some arbitrary number.
2) PER dispels preconceived notions about certain players, and people generally don't like to introduce new information that could alter a currently held belief.

For those who say that PER is only good for fantasy purposes, this is completely inaccurate. In fact, if you drafted players based on their PERs, you'd end up with a seriously flawed team, mostly because PER takes into account playing time and offensive pace, but doesn't care about things like the number of threes made or your basic per-game numbers.

Take Stephen Jackson and Al Harrington for instance, both top 70 fantasy players. But PER reveals they're actually pretty average. Both are overvalued thanks to their systems which encourage shooting 3s without a conscience and the ridiculously high offensive paces of their respective teams.

The exact opposite is true for guys like Tony Parker and Brandon Roy. Tony Parker is a devestatingly effective offensive player - top 10 last season according to PER - but in fantasy leagues, he's not drafted until the 60-70 range, generally. Why? He hits almost no threes and all his numbers are deflated thanks to shortened minutes and a below-league-average offensive pace (see also: Tim Duncan and Manu Ginobili). Brandon Roy's per game numbers don't tell the whole story since he plays for the slowest team in basketball. The Blazers are an excellent offensive team, but are extremely slow. This pushes his numbers down quite a bit. Plus, it's not really a sexy stat that the guy basically never turns the ball over. But PER captures all these things.

Look, if you see a snapshot of the Notre Dame in Paris, you'd get a pretty good idea of what it looks like in just one picture. Does it replace going there, experiencing the architecture in person? Of course not. Nobody would say that. That's how it is with PER. It gives you a really good initial snapshot of a players offensive abilities but only tells part of the story.

Count me in on the bandwagon that doesn't think stats such as PER are that meaningful. The only stat that matters is who wins 16 games at the end of the playoffs. I could care less if the Lakers have the best starting five PER ever in the history of the game if they don't win the title, just like I don't care if the Lakers have the worst PER in the league and win the title. It is all about the Championships.

The W-L record in the regular season also may be a good indicator of which team is the best, it doesn't mean with absolute certainty that that team will win the Championship. In my humble opinion, I think that the health of the team’s core players is the key. I would point to KG going down last year. That injury hurt the Celtics chances last year, even more than the Lakers missing Bynum and Ariza the year before. Had both Boston and LA been healthy both years, I think we would have been in store for battles like we saw in the 80’s - I doubt we would have seen 131-92 and my pal 131-92 wouldn't exist or would have some other silly name.

This year I hope both teams do their part and make it to the Finals this year so that the Lakers can finally get some revenge – damned KG injury kept us from getting revenge last June.

Peace,
EagleBoy

PER is like any other stat: it's good for general comparison, over a long period. If you try to get too specific, look at it over too short a period, give too much weight to relatively small differences, or give a single stat (i.e. PER) too much value and not look at it in the context of other stats, then it loses it's effectiveness.

Game #4

Please dont dont put words in my posts. I compared position by position cuz thats the only way you can do it. In the course of a basketball game players switch all the time. Im aware of the fact Kobe guarded Rondo during the game. Do you think I didnt watch the games and was waiting for you to point it out to me? I never mentioned stats in my analysis! Or PER or ERA or OBS

Why do you think Kobe or Ariza had to "check" Rondo? Because Fisher ... CANT!

How am I gonna compare Rondo to Pau? Its like comparing a wide receiver and a running back.

Just like when you break down Baseball teams you talk about pitching staffs for example but they dont pitch to each other do they? But one teams pitching staff is usually better than the other.

Since only w's count ... I guess Pierce was correct in calling himself the greatest in the game ... cuz he was the MVP of the World Champs.

I have posted many times that I dont care about awards or titles as the only way to judge a player. I believe I did that on Thurs or Friday when EagleBoy mentioned Fisher was better cuz he had 5 rings.

Didn't Hollinger say that we WEREN'T going to win the title in 09 because our PER was ranked lower than Boston & Clevland? In light of the actual end result of last season, I wouldn't put too much stock in this PER business.

131-92,

I was being facetious when I said Fish was better than Rondo because he had more titles than Rondo. You are the king of using a single piece of data to make an argument that the Celtics is the greatest franchise in the history of the NBA. That is my perception of you arguments with me and others on the Lakers blog, dispute that if you wish, but perception is reality. I on the other hand have used various facts to support my argument as to why the Lakers have been the better franchise in most respects over your Celtics. I argue that in recent history, and over the course of the last 30 years the Lakers have been superior - more wins, playoff appearances, series victories, Conference Finals appearances, Finals appearances and Championships, as well as far fewer DNQ's. If you can use multiple criteria with players, why doesn’t using different criterion work when analyzing the success of a franchise? You make the point yourself that is more to judging something than just one aspect. Thank you for finally seeing the light. Now maybe you can admit that over the last thirty the Lakers have been better, and that although each team has a championship in the last two years, the Lakers get the edge based on the fact they made it to the Finals two years in a row. See? It is quite simple and logical to use more than one data point to support a valid argument.

Peace,
Eagleboy

Adding my two cents to the PER discussion...

1) Generally speaking, I think it's foolish to treat any stat/statistic measure as the be all, end all. But it's also foolish to dismiss them outright as completely meaningless. PER is another example of this. Like most stats, you can learn something about a player (in this case, about his production and efficiency), but further examination is still required for a complete picture. PER doesn't tell you "everything," but don't kid yourself into thinking it tells you nothing, either.

2) I'm not sure how many readers have seen (or can see them, depending on their ESPN Insider access) Hollingers scouting reports that accompany his player PER, but they're really well written. In addition to numbers tossed out, Hollinger includes a lot of tendencies and physical traits. Stuff you wouldn't know unless you watched the game a lot. If you get a chance to read them, well worth the time.

AK

Count me in on the bandwagon that doesn't think stats such as PER are that meaningful. The only stat that matters is who wins 16 games at the end of the playoffs. I could care less if the Lakers have the best starting five PER ever in the history of the game if they don't win the title, just like I don't care if the Lakers have the worst PER in the league and win the title. It is all about the Championships.

The W-L record in the regular season also may be a good indicator of which team is the best, it doesn't mean with absolute certainty that that team will win the Championship. In my humble opinion, I think that the health of the team’s core players is the key. I would point to KG going down last year. That injury hurt the Celtics chances last year, even more than the Lakers missing Bynum and Ariza the year before. Had both Boston and LA been healthy both years, I think we would have been in store for battles like we saw in the 80’s - I doubt we would have seen 131-92 and my pal 131-92 wouldn't exist or would have some other silly name.

This year I hope both teams do their part and make it to the Finals this year so that the Lakers can finally get some revenge – damned KG injury kept us from getting revenge last June.

Peace,
EagleBoy

Posted by: EagleBoy | October 05, 2009 at 02:24 PM
=========================
I agree completely. Great post.

that was corny. The best dunk highlight I've seen lately was this kid from France who did a behind the back between the legs dunk that brought the house down!

Eyenga gets some points for originality but he's 6'8" or 6'9". He ought to be able to get his head close to the rim. Point deduction for running w/ the ball also.

EagleBoy,

"I was being facetious when I said Fish was better than Rondo because he had more titles than Rondo. You are the king of using a single piece of data to make an argument that the Celtics is the greatest franchise in the history of the NBA."

I didnt know you were being facetious. Since I dont know you Im assuming you are posting how your really feel. My Bad.

And yes I take whatever you say that is not correct and make my argument. What am I supposed to do? Argue with what I agree with?

Also I dont use a single piece of data to make my argument. Thats what Laker fan does when they just want to use the last 30 yrs or break it down decade by decade. I use the "entire" history of the NBA to make my argument.

What if Bull fan wants to say the Bulls are the best ever because they have won the most in the last 20 yrs? Where do you draw the line?

Its like me sayn Albert Pujols has had a better career then Manny because he has been better since 2000. We cant just throw away the other 10yrs of Mannys career and just use the numbers since 2000. When Alberts career is over then we can look at both their bodys of work and decide.


Which is the better NFL franchise ... The Raiders or the Bills?

131-92,

Actually you are using a single piece of data for your argument. You claim that the number of titles makes Boston the greatest franchise in NBA history to the exclusion of anything else. I take it you also agree Princeton is the greatest college football program ever too. I am sorry you can't distinguish between different eras. If you want to compare the Bulls vs. Lakers, I will agree that the Bulls had the most dominant stretch the past 20 years. They won six titles - more than the Lakers and Celtics combined in the last twenty years. So, yeah I can actually make that distinction and it doesn’t really bother me. And the stretch the Bulls had was the most dominant stretch since the Celtics in the 1960's - and personally I think it more impressive than the Celtics. Why I say that is because of expansion in the league, rules changes - especially free agency and the elimination of the territorial draft rights. Numerically is it more impressive than 9 out of 10? No, believe it or not, I can count. But I think the competition is tougher and it is more difficult to repeat multiple times now than it was in the 1940's-1960's. More teams, more rounds of playoffs. If you can make a case that would impress me with logic and facts, I am open to changing my mind. I think the Celtics once upon a time clearly WAS the top franchise. If the number of titles is your criteria, which it is for you, then nothing will ever change your mind. I don't believe the Celtics are the great franchise they were at one time. In the past 20 years I wouldn’t rank the Celtics above the Miami Heat to be honest. Boston would have to win again in the next year or two for me to rank them ahead of Miami - right now they are even - I would need to look at records etc. to see which team I would give the edge based on playoff performance, DNQ's etc.

I'm done trying to explain why the Lakers have been the better franchise in recent years. I am going to the casino to put my money down on Princeton to win the BCS this year - I mean how could I bet against them? They own college football, they have way more championships than that crap program Florida so they must be the best program ever.

I'm done trying to explain why the Lakers have been the better franchise in recent years. I am going to the casino to put my money down on Princeton to win the BCS this year - I mean how could I bet against them? They own college football, they have way more championships than that crap program Florida so they must be the best program ever.

Posted by: EagleBoy | October 05, 2009 at 07:41 PM

You dont have to go to the Casino ... Ill book your bet. How much do you want to put down on Princeton? Just cuz I think the Celtics are better doesnt mean they are gonna win every year or the Lakers for that matter.

Of course I only use titles ... Is there anything else? You sound like Buddy Ryan who cut Chris Carter cuz "all he does is catch touchdown passes!"

You being a Laker fan should know its all about winning rings ... If you dont believe me ask your Laker buddy Jon K.

What do the Lakers play for? Rings!!!!!

Not ... What do the Lakers Play for? Rings or Finals losses!!!

Just answer me this and we can end it right here ... Which is the better college basketball program? Ucla or Duke?

I dont need to know anything else just answer that ... Ucla or Duke!

131-92,

UCLA or Duke is not a tough answer - it is just like the Lakers and the Celtics. UCLA has the most titles and Duke has been the better program in terms of more recent success. As time changes so does who is the best, at least to me it seems to. I think the Yankees are the best baseball franchise; they have the most titles and have had a good deal of recent success as well. In hockey Montreal has the most Stanley Cups, but they have been crap since 1992. Clearly I am too stupid to make my idiotic point that you can look at history in different periods of time. Historically we look at world powers in segments of time and can say the Roman Empire was once the great superpower and it is no longer, but that is just flat out stupid, I don't understand how all those brilliant historians could be so wrong. You are way too intelligent for me to argue with. I bow to your greatness and intellectual prowess.

EagleBoy


Connect

Advertisement

In Case You Missed It...

Video

All Things Lakers »

Your database for all things purple and gold.

Find a Laker

Search a name

Select a season

Choose one of our lists



Categories


Archives
 

About the Bloggers


Bleacher Report | Lakers

Reader contributions from Times partner Bleacher Report

More Lakers on Bleacher Report »



Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists:


In Case You Missed It...