Stephen A. Smith Claims Lakers Are A Still Better Franchise Than Celtics

Smith acknowledged the Celtics' recent achievement, bringing their total championships to 18, one more than the Lakers' 17. However, he emphasized that the Celtics' latest victory follows a 16-year title drought, contrasting sharply with the Lakers' more frequent appearances and successes over the past decades.

Smith highlighted the Lakers' dominance in terms of NBA Finals appearances, noting that the Lakers have competed in the Finals 32 times compared to the Celtics' 23. This statistic, according to Smith, underscores the Lakers' sustained relevance and consistent excellence in the league. 

He argued that while the Celtics have a rich history with legends like Bill Russell, Bob Cousy, and John Havlicek, the Lakers' ability to remain at the forefront of the NBA for longer periods solidifies their status as the better franchise.

Smith drew a parallel to the Chicago Bulls, who won six championships with Michael Jordan but have not been significant contenders since his departure. He suggested that while the Celtics' legacy is impressive, their periods of dominance have been more sporadic compared to the Lakers' enduring presence in the Finals.

The key point in Smith's argument is the breadth of the Lakers' success. Despite the Celtics holding one more championship, the Lakers' nine additional Finals appearances highlight a broader and more consistent impact on the NBA. This, according to Smith, tips the scales in favor of the Lakers when considering overall franchise greatness.

Smith concluded that while the Celtics' recent title is a significant accomplishment, the Lakers' extensive history of Finals appearances and their ability to maintain relevancy across different eras make them the better franchise. 

This perspective invites fans and analysts alike to consider not just the number of championships, but the overall sustained performance and influence of a team in determining the greatest NBA franchise.

The Celtics Won A Lot Of Their Titles When There Were Fewer Teams

The debate over which franchise holds the title for the toughest championship runs often pits the Boston Celtics against the Los Angeles Lakers. While both teams boast a remarkable number of titles, the context in which these championships were won can shed light on the difficulty of each team's path to glory.

Historically, the Celtics have won their titles in varying league sizes, with a significant portion of their championships coming when the NBA had fewer teams. Four of their titles were secured when there were only eight teams in the league, and five more came when the league expanded to nine teams. 

The Celtics also won one title when there were 12 teams, one when there were 14 teams, two when there were 18 teams, three when there were 23 teams, and two more when the league had grown to 30 teams.

In contrast, the Lakers' championship victories span a different landscape of league expansion. The Lakers' first title came when there were 12 teams, and subsequent titles were won in various league sizes. They won one title when there were 9 teams, two titles when there were 10 teams, and two titles when there were 17 teams.

Their 1980s dynasty saw five titles during a period when there were 23 teams, and their modern-era success includes three titles when the league had 29 teams and three more with 30 teams.

One of the critical points of contention is the competitive landscape each team faced. The Lakers' championships, especially those won in the modern era, were achieved in a much larger and arguably more competitive league. Winning titles in a 30-team league involves navigating through a more extensive and deeper pool of talent, making the path to the championship potentially more arduous.

Furthermore, the Lakers' sustained success across different eras, from the Showtime Lakers of the 1980s to the Kobe-Shaq and Kobe-Gasol teams of the 2000s and 2010s, showcases their ability to adapt and thrive in increasingly competitive environments. 

This adaptability and consistent performance in larger, more competitive leagues suggest that the Lakers' titles were harder to come by, underscoring the franchise's enduring excellence.

Ultimately, while both franchises have impressive legacies, the context of league expansion and the increasing competitiveness of the NBA highlight the argument that the Lakers' championship runs were, in many instances, more challenging and thus harder to achieve than those of the Celtics.