Yes, they have more titles, wins, and better players.
If you look at the number of titles won, then the lakers have won much more.
the phoenix suns were the #2 seed in the pacific division. the lakers played a #3seed in the north division the u.jazz the suns would have given the l.a. lakers a much more exciteing and tougher match-up than the jazz. i think it's unfair to have 3-teams in the playoffs from the north division and 4-teams in the south division because they had a better record. i don't think a team is better than another team because they won 1-more game. phoenix suns could have beat the lakers in a 7-game series.
Hell no. The Lakers have Kobe, the best player in the nba.
No
Historically, the Lakers are much better than the Thunder/Sonics franchise. This season however, the Thunder defeated the Lakers in 5 games in the Western Conference Semifinals.
Heck no. Celtics are good but the Lakers would stomp them so bad.
i don't know there both good because on the lakers theres Kobe Bryant and on the cavs theres the lakers
The Cleveland Cavaliers are better because LeBron James shoots the ball better than Kobe Bryant.
It depends on which year you were talking about. Currently, the Nets would get crushed by the Lakers even if the Lakers star players were absent.
they have had better teams
of course.
As of the 2009-2010 NBA season, the Lakers are better. The Heat were the 5th seed in the East while the Lakers ended the regular season with the second best record in the league. The Lakers are considered to be title-contenders. AS of the 2010-2011 season, the Heat are easily the better team.