It happens anywhere NBA fans congregate. My team is better than your team. Eventually, the discourse evolves into the past successes of the teams involved. However, when the discussion involves to the greatest franchise the NBA has seen, there are only two teams that can be considered: The Los Angeles Lakers and The Boston Celtics.
So how do we define the greatest franchise in NBA history? Titles? Playoff appearances? Rivalries? Overall win/loss records? There are no standards for this sort of thing. No guidelines that indicate what should and should not be considered in the discussion of the greatest of all time. I think it would be best if all were considered. Disclaimer: I am an avid Lakers fan.
Most NBA fans are aware that the Celtics hold 17 NBA titles while the Lakers organization sits at 14 titles. At first glance, the edge here would go to the Celtics with three more championship rings. However, if you take a closer look, the bulk of their championships came in one fantastic time period with 8 in row in the sixties. There is one crucial point that is often overlooked. Winning the initial NBA Finals championship — which was also their third straight title counting the two previous years in the NBL and BAA — began a run in which the Lakers would win five of the first six NBA championships. The Lakers franchise dynasty actually began before the Celtics dynasty emerged, contrary to popular (and reported) belief.
Including this season, the Lakers and Celtics have been staples in the postseason. The Celtics have made the playoffs 46 times in 63 seasons, an amazing 73% postseason appearance rate. They have been division champions 26 times, won 20 of the 31 Conference Finals they’ve appeared in, and currently rock a 17 – 3 finals record.
In comparison, the Lakers have made the playoffs in 56 of their 60 seasons, a 93% clip! The Lakers history (including the Minneapolis years) includes 28 division championships, 29 of 37 Conference Finals won, and a underwhelming 14-15 Finals record.
So with all these numbers crunched, it looks like we may still be knee deep in indecision. I think the final leverage comes in the definition of the word dynasty. As defined by dictionary.com: dynasty – a family or group that maintains power for several generations. The Celts have maintained power at several different stages in their NBA history. The Lakers have maintained power at all stages in their NBA history. Every twenty years or so, the Celtics seem to have a re-emergence – the 60’s, 80’s, and possibly the 2000’s. However, the Los Angeles Lakers were winning titles in the 40’s, 50’s, 70’s, 80’s, and 2000’s. Granted the Celts did win titles in ’74 and ’76 but they were hardly considered the dominant team of the decade. In fact, the only decade for which they can claim dominance is the 60’s. On the other hand, the Lakers can claim the 50’s, 80’s, and arguably the 2000’s as ‘their decade’.
With two teams so close in every way, it is definitely an argument that can go either way. In this author’s eyes, the Lakers are the greatest franchise in NBA history.
advertisement 
Xpinionated 