First of all, I don't care how many points you give for the various categories. The best franchise is the one that has won the most championships--every team's goal, every year, no matter what. Forget about regular season wins, intangibles, and so on. The Celtics clearly win as the best franchise, but number of banners raised is not the only reason why Hollinger's rankings are flawed.
As you can see, even the caption to the picture of the Lakers on that website is wrong. Yes, they had a great collection of stars, but the Celtics had more, hands down. In fact, they have the most members in the NBA Hall of Fame: 33. Sure, the Lakers had Wilt, Shaq, Baylor, West, Magic, and Kareem. But can they honestly contend with the likes of Bill Russell, Bob Cousy, K.C. Jones, Sam Jones, JoJo White, Tommy Heinsohn, John Havlicek, Dave Cowens, Larry Bird, Robert Parish, Kevin McHale, Bill Walton, and now Paul Pierce, Ray Ray, and KG? This argument that "the Lakers are so far out in front of everybody else it's not even funny" in terms of superstars is ABSURD! You cannot argue that 33 Hall of Famers has no weight. That's the benchmark by which great players are assessed!!
Hollinger does grant that the Lakers couldn't hold a candle to the Celtics, especially during the 1960s, but quickly dismisses this major point of contention by saying that Magic's teams of the 1980s took 2 of 3 from the C's and won back to back titles for "the first time in nearly two decades." Woopee-doo. Oh, wait...there's this one team that won eight championships in a row, something that is unprecedented in ANY major sport in history....who was that again? Oh yeah, that was the CELTICS. They also won 11 out of 13 years, so...yeah that's pretty good too, wouldn't you say Johnny boy?
Moving on. Last second excitement? I can think of one, which he mentions, and it wasn't historically as clutch as most plays I can think of. So Kobe throws up an alley-oop to Shaq to "cement" a win vs. the Kings? I'm sorry, but cementing a win is unimpressive. If that alley-oop was to WIN the game, then you'd be on to something. For the Celtics, even the broadcasts of plays have become famous! "Havlicek stole the ball!!" and later, "Aaaaaaaand now there's a steal by Bird! Underneath to DJ and he lays it up and in!" Or how about Don Nelson's shot hitting the back of the rim, going straight up into the air 6 feet, and going in for the win vs. the...Lakers. Completely ridiculous.
Another reason why the Celtics are the best is that they've had 4 NBA MVPs. Although that's deceiving. Cousy won once, Russell won it 5 times, Cowens won it once (along with a ROY award), and Bird won it 3 times (back to back to back). The Lakers total? Only 8.
And just to put down the argument that Phil Jackson is better/will be better than Red Auerbach. Screw you. Clearly anyone who argues this has no perspective of the game. Sure, Phil has more wins and is tied with the most titles, but Red coached at a time when the coach was the scout, manager, and drafted people. All Phil Jackson does is say things like, "It's all about psychology" or some bullshit and then gives it to Kobe or MJ. Red orchestrated draft picks such as Larry Bird a year before he was eligible just because he knew his potential. Len Bias was almost universally perceived to be the Second Coming. His drafting of Bill Russell came when he had the third pick: he negotiated/acted as though he wasn't interested to deter the 1 and 2 teams from picking him. And let's not disregard his psychological edge: the cigar. He would light up when he knew the victory was in hand, getting into the heads of the opposing coach and players, working almost as a self-fulfilling prophecy. I argue that it is much harder to win 8 in a row and 11 out of 13 titles with one core set of players than it is bouncing around and playing with two great superstars with massive egos. The players Red dealt with certainly had egos, but they were not take-it-up-the-court-and-shoot-every-time offensively-minded players. They each brought a piece of the pie: Russell brought defense, Cooz brought passing and handles, Heinsohn brought a deadly outside shot, Havlicek could score from anywhere. No one ego was greater than the team ego and that is the difference between these two coaches. Oh, not to mention that Red retired arguably at his prime, almost suddenly. He could have gone on to coach the Havlicek-led teams of the 1970s and had another two rings on his fingers. The fact that he was such an integral part of the draft process in the 1980s should call for the addition of the 1981, '84, and '86 titles to his belt, in my opinion.
Once again, what it comes down to--what every player, coach, manager, president on the team wants--is championships. The Celtics have the most, are the most successful franchise, and are therefore, the best franchise of all-time. I don't care if the Lakers have 10,000 regular season wins. Or if they have 10,000 playoff game wins. All that matters in the end is the Larry O'Brien Trophy.
Celtics 17-Lakers 15. End of story.