Mastodon
@Los Angeles Lakers

The NBA is undercounting the number of championships won by the Lakers.



According to an article in the NY Times (by a professed Celtics fan), there is a very strong case to be made that the Lakers have, in fact, won 18 championships. In short, two early leagues merged to form the current NBA, and the league counts legacy championships from one but not the other (despite the fact that it was the stronger league). I had never heard this!

by 2B_or_MaybeNot

24 Comments

  1. noneedforeathrowaway

    We don’t need an asterisk. Win until it’s incontestable.

  2. I was just commenting in a thread in r/nba where fans of other franchises opine the Lakers only have 12 or 13. Which discounts the Minneapolis Lakers championships. But who would those belong to? The Wolves? Why? The Wolves were not a franchise until 1989 and they aren’t a rebrand of Minneapolis Lakers. The Minneapolis Lakers are said to have been sold because the city was no longer supporting the franchise.

  3. chasinjason13

    When Bill Simmons bitches about the Minneapolis titles not counting I yell at the podcast, “then stop calling them the fucking Lakers if they’re different teams, asshole!!”

  4. midcartographer

    We’ve won a lot- and fairly recently. Very lucky to have our team be competitive for so long. Lots of teams get one or two legit chances at the title. Or none.

    The number counting to me is pointless.

  5. _its_a_SWEATER_

    You can asterisk those early Celtics chips because it was an 8 team league, but we won’t because we ain’t bitches.

  6. Let’s just get to 18 and then 19 first and have them whine again. We’re the more accomplished team overall. If they want to whine about us counting the 5 MN championships, we always have the counter to how many championships won post the NBA-ABA merger and 3 point line addition (11-5). And our city is much more desirable overall, so much that their biggest blow hard of a fan Bill Simmons lives in LA instead of Boston. So fuck all of them.

  7. Wondering_Nova

    Just tell them that legally, the clippers own the first 13 championships from the Celtics

  8. c1tyofchamp1on

    The only championships that matter are the ones you are alive to see

  9. motorboat_mcgee

    I don’t really care, I’m just happy to have witnessed 7 Lakers championships so far

  10. Le4-6Mafia

    Ya’ll…Boston won the title. It sucks. Take your medicine and move on.

  11. Juaniscool-8

    Actually even if we have 18 we actually have 17 because the bubble one doesn’t count.

  12. Umbrafile

    Yes. The Lakers won the NBL championship in 1948. They joined the BAA the following season and won the championship in 1949. In the summer of 1949, the remaining NBL teams joined the BAA, which was renamed the NBA. The NBA considers the BAA to be its immediate predecessor, and does not recognize championships or stats from the NBL, similarly to how it does not recognize ABA championships and stats before the ABA teams joined the NBA.

  13. LoveTheHustleBud

    Boston and clippers traded franchises. Many of bostons titles are quite literally owned by the clippers.

    I’d spam this if I cared enough, but Boston having only won twice in my lifetime truly makes me not care.

  14. baronofriobranco

    I agree completely, but don’t care enough to fight for it with the general audience. People don’t care much about sports history so it’s whatever. But if I’m talking to someone who knows and appreciates the history of the game, then I’ll lay the case.

  15. Ecstatic-Car-9995

    Most of the Celtics championships are from the 60”s, the Lakers have had far more success in the modern era and it’s not even close!!

  16. In my conscious Life, Lakers are #1. Lucky, because everyone else kinda sucks. Mets, jets, sabres

  17. Own-Photo7078

    Lakers have won 18 Championships, but only 17 NBA. Same reason the NFL doesn’t count the Packers 8 or 9 NFL World Championship or the Buffalo Bills AFL Championships before the merger.

  18. Miserable-Lawyer-233

    The NBL was a distinct league that operated under different conditions and contexts from the BAA/NBA. Including NBL championships in the NBA’s history would create confusion about the NBA’s origins and muddy the clear distinction the NBA has purposefully maintained between the two leagues.

  19. BusiestWolf

    For this logic to be considered that the Lakers have 18 cause 1 NBL title then you have to by default count:

    The Pacers 3 ABA titles (bumps them up to 3)

    The Nets 2 ABA titles (bumbles them up to 2

    The Pistons 2 NBL titles (bumps them up to 5)

    The Kings 1 NBL title (bumps them up to 2)

    Nobody does this cause these titles are from previous leagues. The NBL preceded the NBA and the ABA was realistically just absorbed into the NBA (only 4 teams made it over) so these titles do not count.

  20. I don’t really care anymore. Want to wash off the stink of this season and move on to next season.

    And…

    Fuck Boston!

  21. Various-Effective361

    Really interesting, but the timing feels like a hrs cope cuz we sad bruh

  22. iisdmitch

    If the Packers get to count their 6 NFL championships prior to the Super Bowl era and still get to be called “title town” (when clearly, New York, Boston and LA have WAY more titles than them overall), all NBA teams get to count championships in leagues that existed before the team ended up in the NBA.

Write A Comment