PDA

View Full Version : The Official 2009-2010 NBA Thread


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10

ZONA
05-27-2010, 04:06 AM
Sorry, but that's not how I view it. Stealing a game means that the team really wasn't supposed to win that game in the first place. The Lakers have a better chance of winning in Phoenix than the Suns do of winning in LA. If the Lakers win this in 6 it's not because they stole a game. Championship teams don't steal games. They are supposed to win those games. Underdogs steal games.

BTW, you use those quotes as if there is a factual way to use that phrase. That is a phrase, just like a lot of phrases, that can be interpreted in different ways. So you can save that clueless BS. I guess everybody who disagrees with you is clueless. lol

I guess in your own little world you can believe what you want. I called up 2 friends tonight and my brother (Nuggets fan, a Suns fan and a Bulls fan) and asked them this exactly "what does it mean to steal a game in the NBA playoffs". They all said, when you win a game on the other teams home court. Everybody knows this, except you. But hey, you can look it you're way. Just know that everybody else thinks of that term differently then you do.

Jason in LA
05-27-2010, 08:11 AM
I guess in your own little world you can believe what you want. I called up 2 friends tonight and my brother (Nuggets fan, a Suns fan and a Bulls fan) and asked them this exactly "what does it mean to steal a game in the NBA playoffs". They all said, when you win a game on the other teams home court. Everybody knows this, except you. But hey, you can look it you're way. Just know that everybody else thinks of that term differently then you do.

So I guess you and your two friends are the authorities on figure of speeches. lol. And you called up two friends over an internet debate? Wow, guess I'm getting under your skin. Going by your tone (calling me clueless and the condescending tone you're starting to take), I'd say that you're getting a little annoyed here. And why are you focusing so much on a figure of speech? I mean, you're focusing on it so much that you're calling up friends about it. That's funny. There are much bigger things to debate here.

Anyways, the Lakers won't be stealing any games. They are supposed to win those games. You're hoping that the Suns win a game in LA. Lakers fans are disappointed that they didn't win a game in Phoenix. That right there shows who is the better team and what the expectations are. You yourself said that you won't even be broke up if the Suns lose. I guess when you root for a championship team, opposed to a team with no titles, the expectations are different.

azbroncfan
05-27-2010, 10:27 AM
Actually that's not true. Higher shooting percentage and more rebounds have more of a factor, well, unless one team shoots 20+ more free throws than the other team. That's when it becomes a factor.

Yes those definately factor in but show me a big trend where the team that shoots less FT's wins consistently? In the meantime I'll be waiting and listening to the Laker fans cry about refs when it has been pointed out by a former ref that the Lakers recieved a fix in the past.

Jason in LA
05-27-2010, 12:25 PM
Yes those definately factor in but show me a big trend where the team that shoots less FT's wins consistently?

First of all I didn't say or imply that the team that shoots less free throws consistently wins. You said that the team that shoots more free throws usually wins. My point was that there are greater factors than free throw, which is true.

I don't have the stats that show the stats that factor in the most for a win. Back when the Lakers had Shaq and were a poor free throw shooting team they showed a graphic during a game. Sorry, but I don't have a screen shot of it to prove the point. Anyway, the graphic that was shown showed how likely a team was going to win a game when leading in a certain category. Leading in free throws ranked fourth. Teams that led in FGs were more likely to win the game. Second was leading in rebounding, and third was turning the ball over less than the opponent.

Now if a team shoots 20+ more free throws, that can change things a lot.

Sense I don't have that graphic, I took a look at the regular season stats. In the top 10 of attempted free throw shooting, three of those teams didn't make the playoffs. Teams 10-20, Portland was 12, Lakers 17, Spurs 18, and Bulls 20. The Lakers had the third best record in the league and they were ranked 17th in free throw attempts. Looking at the bottom 10 of the league, Miami 21, Atlanta 23, Dallas (#2 seed i the West) 25, and Milwaukee 29.

I'd say that those rankings show that free throw attempts is a factor, because 7 teams in the top 10 made the playoffs while only 4 teams in the bottom 20 made it. But it shows that simply leading in free throw attempts doesn't mean a team is going to win or be good.

Again, my point was not that the team that shoots less free throws consistently wins. That would be a silly point and I don't see why you tried to put that on me. My point was that it is not the biggest factor. There are always exceptions, like one team shooting 20+ more free throws.

When the Lakers played Utah, the free throws attempts for each team where reasonably close to each other in each game. And the better team won all four games. In the series against the Thunder the free throw attempts were reasonably close in the games at LA, and the Lakers didn't have too many problems. In Oklahoma City the Thunder were getting a good 20+ free throws per game and the Thunder won there twice. Look at this series. In LA the free throws were reasonably close and the Lakers won easily. In Phoenix the Suns have had a 20+ advantage and they've won those games.

So I was looking through the stats, looking for a stat that just jumps out to why teams win. One stat that really jumped out was opponents FG percentage. The top 12 teams in that category all made the playoffs. No team ranked lower than 18th in the league made it.

Interesting, the Suns had a lower FG percentage (and scored less points from the field) in both games at Phoenix. Usually that leads to a loss. But when you get 20 more free throws a game, that changes things.

Jason in LA
05-27-2010, 12:29 PM
In the meantime I'll be waiting and listening to the Laker fans cry about refs when it has been pointed out by a former ref that the Lakers recieved a fix in the past.

I find this statement funny. You Suns fans have been right there in the debate about the refs. It takes two to argue. I think you guys love arguing about it, because when I posted that the refs weren't the biggest factor in the loss, none of you Suns fans replied to that. When I put the blame on the Lakers for losing both games, the only two people who replied were Lakers fans.

So don't act like you all aren't part of that debate. You guys are fueling it as well.

Just to let you know, the post that I'm referring to was #1444 on this page

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=86160&page=58

ZONA
05-27-2010, 12:46 PM
So I guess you and your two friends are the authorities on figure of speeches. lol. And you called up two friends over an internet debate? Wow, guess I'm getting under your skin. Going by your tone (calling me clueless and the condescending tone you're starting to take), I'd say that you're getting a little annoyed here. And why are you focusing so much on a figure of speech? I mean, you're focusing on it so much that you're calling up friends about it. That's funny. There are much bigger things to debate here.

Anyways, the Lakers won't be stealing any games. They are supposed to win those games. You're hoping that the Suns win a game in LA. Lakers fans are disappointed that they didn't win a game in Phoenix. That right there shows who is the better team and what the expectations are. You yourself said that you won't even be broke up if the Suns lose. I guess when you root for a championship team, opposed to a team with no titles, the expectations are different.

Uh, I actually do call my friends and relatives to talk about things in general. I know that's hard to believe, whoa, people talking to friends and family. I just happened to ask them that question when I spoke with them because I have this thing called a memory and I can store information in it. You make it sound like I had to get right on the phone and call people up right away about this topic, hahhahaha. You're funny.

Well, one thing is for sure. If the Suns win tonight, we won't be seeing you back on here saying the Lakers are the better team, hahahahahaha.

Jason in LA
05-27-2010, 12:58 PM
Uh, I actually do call my friends and relatives to talk about things in general. I know that's hard to believe, whoa, people talking to friends and family. I just happened to ask them that question when I spoke with them because I have this thing called a memory and I can store information in it. You make it sound like I had to get right on the phone and call people up right away about this topic, hahhahaha. You're funny.

Well, one thing is for sure. If the Suns win tonight, we won't be seeing you back on here saying the Lakers are the better team, hahahahahaha.

Look at you, getting all clever with your replies. You do stand up too? lol

Jason in LA
05-27-2010, 03:35 PM
Well, one thing is for sure. If the Suns win tonight, we won't be seeing you back on here saying the Lakers are the better team, hahahahahaha.

I'm calling BS on your whole act in this thread. You've set it up so that if the Suns lose, hey, you weren't really a big fan to begin with, so no prob. But if they win we won't hear the end of it from you. Sorry, but you can't have it like that. You're pretty much riding the fence because you know that the Lakers are the better team so you're just taking that wait and see approach. Hoping that the Suns win so you can just talk trash all day. That's lame. It seems that you're really rooting for the Suns just to keep talking trash in this thread. I don't think the Suns winning is really a big deal to you.

I can respect a passionate Suns fan, or a fan of any team. But your act in this thread, naw, I don't think so. Well I hope you're right when you said that you're way more of a Broncos fan. Because we don't need any Broncos fans riding the fence.

ohiobronco2
05-27-2010, 09:42 PM
What a great game.

BroncoSojia
05-27-2010, 09:42 PM
lucky ass ****.....

Jason in LA
05-27-2010, 09:46 PM
I'm kind of pissed that it came down to that. That had a nice blowout going and let the Suns all the way back.

Oh well, time to close those guys out. Do it in Phoenix and don't worry about Game 7.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
05-27-2010, 09:52 PM
I'm kind of pissed that it came down to that. That had a nice blowout going and let the Suns all the way back.

Oh well, time to close those guys out. Do it in Phoenix and don't worry about Game 7.

Yep - when are the Lakers ever going to learn to not take their foot off the gas when they are blowing teams out?

Oh well - I guess that's just how this particular group rolls (sure is frustrating, though!)

Go Lakers! 3-2! :strong:

ZONA
05-27-2010, 09:55 PM
Oh great chance there by the Suns. It took a last second shot for the Lakers to win. Oh man, were the Lakers so so so close to going back to Phoenix down 3-2. I would have been laughing my ass off.

Uh, anybody got the foul totals for tonight? Oh that's right, that's the Lakers fans who are glued to that stat. I'm sure they will be happy tonight since they got all the calls, and still could only manage to win with a last second shot.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
05-27-2010, 09:56 PM
lucky ass ****.....

http://colorskates.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/haterade_gorilla2.jpg

It wasn't luck - Artest made a great play, i.e., assumed Kobe's shot would be a miss and positioned himself to grab the board.

A lot of guys would have just stood there and assumed the shot was going to go in.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
05-27-2010, 09:58 PM
Uh, anybody got the foul totals for tonight? Oh that's right, that's the Lakers fans who are glued to that stat. I'm sure they will be happy tonight since they got all the calls, and still could only manage to win with a last second shot.

FTA +6 Phoenix.

So much for us "getting all the calls."

cutthemdown
05-27-2010, 09:59 PM
Funny after some dude banks a 3 pointer to tie anything would be called lucky.

2 teams playing really hard and making some amazing shots.

This is good for Lakers, will toughen them up on road to the finals. Make no mistake that is where they are headed. It's to the point where almost beating the lakers seems to make people happy. Too bad almost gets us another trophy.

ZONA
05-27-2010, 10:00 PM
http://colorskates.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/haterade_gorilla2.jpg

It wasn't luck - Artest made a great play, i.e., assumed Kobe's shot would be a miss and positioned himself to grab the board.

A lot of guys would have just stood there and assumed the shot was going to go in.

If he didn't make that shot and the Suns won, Artest was going to be the loneliest guy in LA tonight. What a stupid 3 pointer he took at the end of the game with a full shot clock.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
05-27-2010, 10:00 PM
Oh man, were the Lakers so so so close to going back to Phoenix down 3-2. I would have been laughing my ass off.


Actually, Artest misses that shot and it's OT.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
05-27-2010, 10:01 PM
What a stupid 3 pointer he took at the end of the game with a full shot clock.

Yep, no argument there.

cutthemdown
05-27-2010, 10:01 PM
All the calls? You kidding Suns are living on the fact the are grabbing and reaching in everywhere but mostly not called.

They are fouling early then letting off and it's working. By fouling someone as he catches the pass, then letting off as he shoots, you can sometimes get a lot done. Suns are scrapping around and it's working. Well it's almost working. In the end they are going home for the summer.

Lake show baby..

They blow suns out next game.....110-90

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
05-27-2010, 10:04 PM
Funny after some dude banks a 3 pointer to tie anything would be called lucky.

2 teams playing really hard and making some amazing shots.

This is good for Lakers, will toughen them up on road to the finals. Make no mistake that is where they are headed. It's to the point where almost beating the lakers seems to make people happy. Too bad almost gets us another trophy.

Yep.

We played pretty poorly, overall, and still won (even with the Suns taking more foul shots on our home floor.)

http://i46.tinypic.com/292mj39.jpg

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
05-27-2010, 10:07 PM
All the calls? You kidding Suns are living on the fact the are grabbing and reaching in everywhere but mostly not called.

They are fouling early then letting off and it's working. By fouling someone as he catches the pass, then letting off as he shoots, you can sometimes get a lot done. Suns are scrapping around and it's working. Well it's almost working. In the end they are going home for the summer.

Lake show baby..

They blow suns out next game.....110-90

Exactly. He's full of sh*t. Suns were +6 in FTA tonight - they only got called for about half of the usual hacking, shoving, reaching in, and pushing off they do on any given night.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
05-27-2010, 10:13 PM
All the calls? You kidding Suns are living on the fact the are grabbing and reaching in everywhere but mostly not called.

They are fouling early then letting off and it's working. By fouling someone as he catches the pass, then letting off as he shoots, you can sometimes get a lot done. Suns are scrapping around and it's working. Well it's almost working. In the end they are going home for the summer.



The officiating really started to suck balls in the 4th - Lakers attacking the paint, yet 0 free throws. Suns 8FT in the 4th.

Nash does 15 spin moves in the paint and travels (no call) then just runs into people in the paint to find Amare (who's camping out in the lane.)

The number of travels Nash got away with was just amazing. The number of no-calls for the Lakers - unreal. Pau went up for a dunk in the final minute, was straight up hacked, no call.

Jason in LA
05-27-2010, 10:14 PM
Oh great chance there by the Suns. It took a last second shot for the Lakers to win. Oh man, were the Lakers so so so close to going back to Phoenix down 3-2. I would have been laughing my ass off.

Uh, anybody got the foul totals for tonight? Oh that's right, that's the Lakers fans who are glued to that stat. I'm sure they will be happy tonight since they got all the calls, and still could only manage to win with a last second shot.

Lame.

Doesn't seem like you have a problem with the loss. I'm not surprised.

BTW, the Suns shot 29 free throws to the Lakers 23, and the Lakers were called for 24 fouls while the Suns were called for 21. And you want to say that the Lakers got all the calls?

Like I said, lame. Why are you even in this thread?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
05-27-2010, 10:16 PM
Lame.

Doesn't seem like you have a problem with the loss. I'm not surprised.

BTW, the Suns shot 29 free throws to the Lakers 23, and the Lakers were called for 24 fouls while the Suns were called for 21. And you want to say that the Lakers got all the calls?

Like I said, lame. Why are you even in this thread?

Ha!

You have to wonder if he actually watched the game.

Maybe he listened to the game on the radio. :D

But Jeez - anybody can go to NBA.com and look up the FT differential.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
05-27-2010, 10:23 PM
BTW, Lakers net playoff FTA differential now stands at -93. :crazy:

I guess our opponents just don't foul. ;)

Broncobiv
05-27-2010, 10:31 PM
This thread should really be renamed "The Official 2009-2010 LABF and Jason in LA Circle Jerk".

Mods?

:flower:

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
05-27-2010, 10:39 PM
This thread should really be renamed "The Official 2009-2010 LABF and Jason in LA Circle Jerk".

Mods?

:flower:

This is an NBA thread, dipsh*t.

The Lakers are playing in the Western Conference Finals.

If you don't like it, then why don't you go start your own Laker Haters thread?

I'm sure it would be a popular thread.

ohiobronco2
05-27-2010, 10:42 PM
This really was a great game. I thought it was pretty even across the board. While they didn't attempt the same amount of FTs, they made the same amount. I think LA won because they came up big on the boards and took care of the basketball. They also did a good job of sharing the orange. The Suns did an excellent job of getting back in the game and made things competitive, they just came up a little short. Pheonix doesn't strike me as a team that is going to lay down and let LA just have game 6, they will have to take it. I'd like to see both series go 7 games. The first several rounds were pretty boring, it's starting to get interesting.

phillybroncosnut
05-27-2010, 10:42 PM
Celtics have more rings.... Just saying

ohiobronco2
05-27-2010, 10:44 PM
Celtics have more rings.... Just saying

:stirstir: :approve:

Jason in LA
05-27-2010, 10:46 PM
BTW, Lakers net playoff FTA differential now stands at -93. :crazy:

I guess our opponents just don't foul. ;)

And they are 11-4.

Jason in LA
05-27-2010, 10:51 PM
This thread should really be renamed "The Official 2009-2010 LABF and Jason in LA Circle Jerk".

Mods?

:flower:

If you don't like the thread then don't read it.

Jason in LA
05-27-2010, 10:53 PM
Celtics have more rings.... Just saying

Lakers are only two back and have a team that could catch the Celtics.

broncocalijohn
05-27-2010, 10:56 PM
Just want to chime in and say what a sweet game that was. If someone in the middle of the country was watching and had no ties to either team, I am sure they were entertained. Amazing how such a goat in shooting a three with a fresh 24 on a minute to play then becomes the hero with no time remaining in Artest. How the Lakers defense could not protect the 3 point perimeter and still find a way to win with 3.4 seconds left is amazing. Nash was lights out and this thing probably is going 7 games. That was pure excitement.

ohiobronco2
05-27-2010, 10:58 PM
Just want to chime in and say what a sweet game that was. If someone in the middle of the country was watching and had no ties to either team, I am sure they were entertained. Amazing how such a goat in shooting a three with a fresh 24 on a minute to play then becomes the hero with no time remaining in Artest. How the Lakers defense could not protect the 3 point perimeter and still find a way to win with 3.4 seconds left is amazing. Nash was lights out and this thing probably is going 7 games. That was pure excitement.

Yep.

phillybroncosnut
05-27-2010, 10:58 PM
Russell>Kareem
Bird>Magic
DJ>Scott
Ainge>Cooper
McHale>Worthy
Red>Phil

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
05-27-2010, 11:00 PM
Just want to chime in and say what a sweet game that was. If someone in the middle of the country was watching and had no ties to either team, I am sure they were entertained. Amazing how such a goat in shooting a three with a fresh 24 on a minute to play then becomes the hero with no time remaining in Artest. How the Lakers defense could not protect the 3 point perimeter and still find a way to win with 3.4 seconds left is amazing. Nash was lights out and this thing probably is going 7 games. That was pure excitement.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BE0daeT4hqY&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BE0daeT4hqY&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
05-27-2010, 11:01 PM
Russell>Kareem
Bird>Magic
DJ>Scott
Ainge>Cooper
McHale>Worthy
Red>Phil

ROFL!

Puff, puff, pass!

(Especially that last one.)

phillybroncosnut
05-27-2010, 11:06 PM
ROFL!

Puff, puff, pass!

(Especially that last one.)

I could go on and on. Its very easy... actually the last one was outta line. Phil is more of a Bulls coach then the Fakers. Wonder where he'll be next season

phillybroncosnut
05-27-2010, 11:07 PM
How many Lakes they got in LA anyway?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
05-27-2010, 11:19 PM
I could go on and on. Its very easy... actually the last one was outta line. Phil is more of a Bulls coach then the Fakers. Wonder where he'll be next season

Gee, no bias evident in your assessment there! :oyvey:

Jason in LA
05-27-2010, 11:21 PM
You could take the all time Lakers team and play them against the the all time non Lakers greats, and I'd take the Lakers.

A rotation of Magic, Kobe, and West in the back court. Rotation of Kareem, Shaq, and Wilt in the front court. Baylor and Worthy at forward.

Who would beat that team?

broncocalijohn
05-27-2010, 11:22 PM
ROFL!

Puff, puff, pass!

(Especially that last one.)

I thought u would easily say Bird over Magic. I dont think so!

OABB
05-27-2010, 11:22 PM
Russell>Kareem
Bird>Magic
DJ>Scott
Ainge>Cooper
McHale>Worthy
Red>Phil

I love how you compared 20 years of celtics to one starting five of the lakers. Brilliant.

Way to blow a hole in your whole argument. No wilt? No Kobe? No west?

You are a dip**** and an embarrasment to smack talk.

Go away now.

OABB
05-27-2010, 11:26 PM
How many Lakes they got in LA anyway?

Ugh....


Soooooooo


Lame.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
05-27-2010, 11:27 PM
Ugh....


Soooooooo


Lame.

Ha!

I must be getting jaded - sh*t like this doesn't even surprise me anymore.

strafen
05-27-2010, 11:33 PM
Go Celts!
Gotta love a Celtic-Lakers Finals.
Hopefully they will get to play each other then... (hopefully -operative word-) ;D

ZONA
05-28-2010, 12:10 AM
Lame.

Doesn't seem like you have a problem with the loss. I'm not surprised.

BTW, the Suns shot 29 free throws to the Lakers 23, and the Lakers were called for 24 fouls while the Suns were called for 21. And you want to say that the Lakers got all the calls?

Like I said, lame. Why are you even in this thread?

WOW - I say Lakers got all the calls, said nothing about your support for the Lakers and the next thing I'm seeing is you telling me I have no problem with the loss, calling out my support for the Suns and then asking why I'm even on this thread? For real dude? Seriously? You're going to go there aren't you?

DHallblows
05-28-2010, 12:26 AM
This thread should really be renamed "The Official 2009-2010 LABF and Jason in LA Circle Jerk".

Mods?

:flower:

I honestly don't know why I keep coming to this thread for rational discussion.

brother love
05-28-2010, 03:08 AM
How many Lakes they got in LA anyway?

Yeah, how many Irish guys play for the Celtics?

Jason in LA
05-28-2010, 07:29 AM
WOW - I say Lakers got all the calls, said nothing about your support for the Lakers and the next thing I'm seeing is you telling me I have no problem with the loss, calling out my support for the Suns and then asking why I'm even on this thread? For real dude? Seriously? You're going to go there aren't you?

Ummm... these are your words below, correct?

It's not like the Suns are my #1 favorite team... A suns loss hurts for about 30 minutes. Unlike some of the Laker fans here, I doubt they love the Broncos more then they do the Lakers.



Yeah, you did say that. Has your name on it, and I'm not taking your words out of context. So you clearly went there first, which was just a silly assumption.

You said that a Suns loss doesn't hurt much, and comments that you made leading up to Game 6 and comments after a heart breaking loss shows that it's not really a big deal to you, especially after you said "A suns loss hurts for about 30 minutes." So I'm not just assuming things, I'm going off of your words and your tone.

Like I said before the game, seems like you're really in this thread to talk trash to Lakers fans instead of supporting the Suns. So what I said is not out of line or off base in any way.

And you still haven't addressed the statement that the Lakers got all the calls. I think you just threw that out there just to talk more trash. The statement is totally false. You just made that up based on nothing that happened during the game. Are we supposed to take you seriously when you just make stuff up in a debate?

gunns
05-28-2010, 07:41 AM
Just want to chime in and say what a sweet game that was. If someone in the middle of the country was watching and had no ties to either team, I am sure they were entertained. Amazing how such a goat in shooting a three with a fresh 24 on a minute to play then becomes the hero with no time remaining in Artest. How the Lakers defense could not protect the 3 point perimeter and still find a way to win with 3.4 seconds left is amazing. Nash was lights out and this thing probably is going 7 games. That was pure excitement.

It really was a good game. Really enjoyed the Celtics-Magic 4th game also. Let's keep these type games going!

oubronco
05-28-2010, 07:45 AM
Russell>Kareem
Bird>Magic
DJ>Scott
Ainge>Cooper
McHale>Worthy
Red>Phil

:spit: Comeon now your just being silly

Jason in LA
05-28-2010, 08:17 AM
:spit: Comeon now your just being silly

Pretty much. Like he took every great Celtic and matched him up with great Lakers and just said the Celtic player was better.

And he has the Showtime Lakers players but he used Phil Jackson as the coach and not Pat Riley. Not really consistent with what he was doing.

ohiobronco2
05-28-2010, 08:25 AM
Gee, no bias evident in your assessment there! :oyvey:

Frankly, I'd say he is correct. He has won more titles with the Bulls. Not like the Lakers don't have a chance to match that will Phil as the HC.

ohiobronco2
05-28-2010, 08:27 AM
Pretty much. Like he took every great Celtic and matched him up with great Lakers and just said the Celtic player was better.

And he has the Showtime Lakers players but he used Phil Jackson as the coach and not Pat Riley. Not really consistent with what he was doing.

Well, if he did use Pat, it would make his statement correct. As it stands it is just plain silly. Phil has been lucky to have two of the best to ever play, play for him. Great coaches need great players to be successful. But, he has done an amazing job especially considering how the NBA has changed since Red was a head coach.

phillybroncosnut
05-28-2010, 08:40 AM
Relax Lakers fans.... I was just having fun with ya. I grew up a Celtics fan as my Dad is from Boston so he raised me on the Celts, similar to how I raise my son a Broncos fan. Honestly, I lost interest in the NBA when Bird and Magic left.
I respect the Lakers organization greatly. I hate em, but totally respect them as the SECOND best NBA team of all time :)

Jason in LA
05-28-2010, 08:46 AM
Well, if he did use Pat, it would make his statement correct. As it stands it is just plain silly. Phil has been lucky to have two of the best to ever play, play for him. Great coaches need great players to be successful. But, he has done an amazing job especially considering how the NBA has changed since Red was a head coach.

If he was going to mix and match, then take out Scott and put in Kobe. And take out Cooper, that's 3 guards. Put in Baylor. Yeah, this is now a blowout. ;D

Jason in LA
05-28-2010, 08:53 AM
I hate em, but totally respect them as the SECOND best NBA team of all time :)

Seeing what these two franchises have done over the past 10 years, that's going to change. The Celtics went 20 years without a title. When they won it in '86 they had a 16 to 9 advantage. Now it's 17 to 15, and the Lakers don't look like they are going to stop being contenders anytime soon. Yeah, Kobe is getting up there in age, but they'll land another superstar. It's the Lakers, that's how it happens. I don't think the Celtics have it like that. Maybe they can keep this going after KG, Pierce, and Allen are gone. Or maybe they'll go back to being a middle of the road to bad team in the league. They better get somebody in there to play with Rondo really soon so they don't become irrelevant again. They could probably attract somebody right now, because they are hot, but if they don't soon then I think the Celtics aren't going to have a bright future. That's the great thing about the Lakers, the future is always bright.

Maximus
05-28-2010, 11:15 AM
How many Lakes they got in LA anyway?

Come on philly!!!

If we took the best position for position and matched them up the Lakers would smoke any Celtic team.

Back Court:

Magic Johnson
Norm Nixon
Gail Goodrich
Kobe Bryant
Nick Van Excel
Byron Scott

Center:

Kareem
Wilt
Shaq
Gasol
Divac
Macadoo

The Lakers have too many

broncocalijohn
05-28-2010, 01:30 PM
Well, if he did use Pat, it would make his statement correct. As it stands it is just plain silly. Phil has been lucky to have two of the best to ever play, play for him. Great coaches need great players to be successful. But, he has done an amazing job especially considering how the NBA has changed since Red was a head coach.

Yet Red Auerbach didnt have less than 3 great players? His roster was full of superstars and HOFers. Phil left the Lakers, came back to win another ring (and possibly 2). Pretty impressive.

gunns
05-28-2010, 01:36 PM
Come on philly!!!

If we took the best position for position and matched them up the Lakers would smoke any Celtic team.

Back Court:

Magic Johnson
Norm Nixon
Gail Goodrich
Kobe Bryant
Nick Van Excel
Byron Scott

Center:

Kareem
Wilt
Shaq
Gasol
Divac
Macadoo

The Lakers have too many

While Laker/Celtic talent is often comparable the fact you do not have Bill Russell in there makes it laughable. And it's funny the Celtics players hold the number of titles and the numbers over the Lakers.

brother love
05-28-2010, 02:44 PM
Come on philly!!!

If we took the best position for position and matched them up the Lakers would smoke any Celtic team.

Back Court:

Magic Johnson
Norm Nixon
Gail Goodrich
Kobe Bryant
Nick Van Excel
Byron Scott

Center:

Kareem
Wilt
Shaq
Gasol
Divac
Macadoo

The Lakers have too many
and you forgot Jerry West and George Mikan

TonyR
05-28-2010, 03:20 PM
Q: Hearing the entire Staples Center shout "NO!" as Ron Artest is about to jack up an idiotic 3-pointer with 35 seconds left was topped only by the disbelief in the faces of everyone there as he made the game-winning shot. I think I'm going to start using the phrase "You just gotta play basketball" to defend every stupid decision I make in the future.
-- Scott Brand, Columbus, Ohio

SG: Say Queensbridge! You forgot to say Queensbridge! Anyway, I couldn't agree more -- it was an incredible night that created a new Level of Losing, the "Stomach Punch From A Complete Lunatic" defeat. That's a stomach-punch loss combined with staggering disbelief that the single biggest wild card on the court -- really, the one guy you were hoping/praying/begging would take the biggest shot of your biggest game of the season -- somehow pulled off one of the better buzzer-beaters in recent NBA history to facilitate that stomach-punch loss. Good Lord, haven't the Suns' fans suffered enough?
Allow me four follow-up notes …

1. I have been watching playoff basketball since I was 4 … yet I can't remember an entire arena of fans screaming, "Noooooooooooooooooooooo!" at the top of their lungs as one of their players lined up a crucial playoff shot before. It sounded like Artest had suddenly grabbed Jack Nicholson from the stands and held a gun to his head. "Noooooooooooooo!"

2. The Lakers have won their three biggest games of the past two years because nobody on Orlando's roster remembered to guard Derek Fisher on a game-tying 3, because Serge Ibaka forgot to box out Pau Gasol, and because Jason Richardson forgot to box out Artest. Eventually, they're going to run into an equally good team that doesn't forget to do things. I just hope this happens before 2025.

3. Fisher (22 points, totally unafraid) was quietly the key to Game 5, which is incredible, because three months ago if you had told a Lakers fan "The biggest conference playoff game you'll play this season will hinge on Derek Fisher," they would have locked out of the season. He was that bad. I thought he was more washed up than Rasheed Wallace, and that's saying something. I continue to think we should just abolish the regular season; it's clearly irrelevant.

4. For timing/difficulty/memorability/uniqueness/ingenuity, maybe Artest's rebound/putback didn't crack Level One of the Playoff Buzzer-Beater Pantheon with Big Shot Rob's 2002 dagger against the Kings, Ralph Sampson's twisting series-winner in the Forum (1986), Fisher's split-second heave in San Antonio (2004) or even MJ's game-winner in Game 1 of the 1998 Finals … but won't we be seeing replays of that shot 30 years from now? Won't we remember that as the Artest Game? So now we have the Artest Game and the Artest Melee. Seriously, say Queensbridge.

(And by the way, I don't think the Suns are done yet. They can win Game 6 just like they won Games 3 and 4, and once you get to Game 7, the pilot turns on the "Who The Hell Knows?" sign. Plus, the Lakers are a five-man team right now: Kobe, Gasol, Artest, Odom and whatever Fisher can give them. Now that Andrew Bynum has gone Greg Oden on us again, it's not exactly a juggernaut. Hell, Kobe has played out of his mind for this entire series and Phoenix nearly beat them three straight. Don't count out the Suns. I'm telling you.)

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/100528

Jason in LA
05-28-2010, 04:08 PM
I'm having a hard time rooting for the Celtics to win tonight. I just hate that team and think it would be the funniest thing if they blew their lead and lost the series. But I really want the Lakers to beat Boston for the title, and a Boston win gives the Lakers home court advantage. Before the last two games I was kind of worried about Boston. They looked unbeatable. But looking at the last two games, they'll be an extremely tough opponent for the Lakers (if the Lakers take care of business), but that Boston team is very beatable. Having home court advantage is going to be huge.

Mr.Meanie
05-28-2010, 04:10 PM
I'm having a hard time rooting for the Celtics to win tonight. I just hate that team and think it would be the funniest thing if they blew their lead and lost the series. But I really want the Lakers to beat Boston for the title, and a Boston win gives the Lakers home court advantage. Before the last two games I was kind of worried about Boston. They looked unbeatable. But looking at the last two games, they'll be an extremely tough opponent for the Lakers (if the Lakers take care of business), but that Boston team is very beatable. Having home court advantage is going to be huge.

I agree. I was rooting for the magic the last few games, but I'm going to have to hold my nose and root for Boston tonight unfortunately.

Maximus
05-28-2010, 05:09 PM
and you forgot Jerry West and George Mikan

If I had the forward / PF shooting guard I would have a bunch more lakers listed

Maximus
05-28-2010, 05:10 PM
While Laker/Celtic talent is often comparable the fact you do not have Bill Russell in there makes it laughable. And it's funny the Celtics players hold the number of titles and the numbers over the Lakers.


It was a quick list of Lakers...

ZONA
05-28-2010, 05:23 PM
Ummm... these are your words below, correct?



Yeah, you did say that. Has your name on it, and I'm not taking your words out of context. So you clearly went there first, which was just a silly assumption.

You said that a Suns loss doesn't hurt much, and comments that you made leading up to Game 6 and comments after a heart breaking loss shows that it's not really a big deal to you, especially after you said "A suns loss hurts for about 30 minutes." So I'm not just assuming things, I'm going off of your words and your tone.

Like I said before the game, seems like you're really in this thread to talk trash to Lakers fans instead of supporting the Suns. So what I said is not out of line or off base in any way.

And you still haven't addressed the statement that the Lakers got all the calls. I think you just threw that out there just to talk more trash. The statement is totally false. You just made that up based on nothing that happened during the game. Are we supposed to take you seriously when you just make stuff up in a debate?

So WTF do you want to hear? That I beat myself up over a loss, that I go off the deep end? Sorry but I don't do that. Doesn't mean I don't care or that I don't want the Suns to win. And if saying the Lakers got all the calls in the last game is "trash" talking then boy do you have some thin skin. You are out of line calling out my support for the Suns. In fact, I'm done even trying to even chat with you because you're just a blind Laker fan and all you care about is tthe Lakers winning, even at the cost of being a dbag to your fellow Broncos fan.

gunns
05-28-2010, 05:32 PM
It was a quick list of Lakers...

Ok, I thought you were being a homer as far as talent and I was being kind.

Jason in LA
05-28-2010, 06:06 PM
So WTF do you want to hear? That I beat myself up over a loss, that I go off the deep end? Sorry but I don't do that. Doesn't mean I don't care or that I don't want the Suns to win. And if saying the Lakers got all the calls in the last game is "trash" talking then boy do you have some thin skin. You are out of line calling out my support for the Suns. In fact, I'm done even trying to even chat with you because you're just a blind Laker fan and all you care about is tthe Lakers winning, even at the cost of being a dbag to your fellow Broncos fan.

First of all you say that I'm out of line for questioning your loyalty to the Suns, but you questioned Lakers fans loyalty to the Broncos. Didn't you do that, or is there somebody else named "Zona" around here? So don't give me that BS. When it's turned back on you, you get all bent. So who is being thin skinned? And how can you get pissed off at somebody doing what you did? That makes no sense.

You said that the Lakers got all the calls, which is flat out wrong. So I'm thin skinned for pointing that out? You were making up points. Excuse me for saying that you were wrong. If you're going to debate then don't make stuff up.

And I'm being a dbag to a fellow Broncos fan? All I did was argue against your points, but you called me "clueless" and started acting all condescending. Simply because I was debating your points. I didn't say one insulting thing to you. I just debated your points. So who was being a dbag? It was you who personally attacked me, not the other way around.

And yes, all I care about is the Lakers winning (when football season is around all I care is about the Broncos winning). That's the goal.

If you're done chatting with me than so be it. :thumbs: Talk about thin skinned ;D

oubronco
05-28-2010, 07:41 PM
Talk about getting all the calls the Celtics can do no wrong

ZONA
05-28-2010, 09:25 PM
First of all you say that I'm out of line for questioning your loyalty to the Suns, but you questioned Lakers fans loyalty to the Broncos. Didn't you do that, or is there somebody else named "Zona" around here? So don't give me that BS. When it's turned back on you, you get all bent. So who is being thin skinned? And how can you get pissed off at somebody doing what you did? That makes no sense.

You said that the Lakers got all the calls, which is flat out wrong. So I'm thin skinned for pointing that out? You were making up points. Excuse me for saying that you were wrong. If you're going to debate then don't make stuff up.

And I'm being a dbag to a fellow Broncos fan? All I did was argue against your points, but you called me "clueless" and started acting all condescending. Simply because I was debating your points. I didn't say one insulting thing to you. I just debated your points. So who was being a dbag? It was you who personally attacked me, not the other way around.

And yes, all I care about is the Lakers winning (when football season is around all I care is about the Broncos winning). That's the goal.

If you're done chatting with me than so be it. :thumbs: Talk about thin skinned ;D

I do believe it was me who also said, right after I made that comment about the Laker fans liking that team more then the Broncos, that it was stupid on my part. At least I apologized for that comment. You still continue to call out my loyalty for the Suns every chance you get and no apology ever came from you. I'll start off again, saying sorry if there was anything that I put in this thread that offended you. This didn't start out well when this series started and alot of Laker fans were high on their horse saying the Suns were gonna get rolled and basically could do nothing in this series. This isn't some personal war against you and once again, if you took anything I said personal and it offended you then I APOLOGIZE. It's pointless for us to continue this back and forth BS.

ZONA
05-28-2010, 10:03 PM
This is a question for those of you watching either or both series on TNT in HD. How's the quality of you're feed? I've got to say that mine sucks so bad, that the last game, I actually watched the 2nd half in non HD, it was that bad. The screen does a jitter and the sound cuts in and out badly. The last game was an all time low, there was more jitter and sound loss then there was good feed. So I change to another HD channel (like HBOHD or ESPNHD) to see if it's my box and those channels in HD were fantastic. It does happen from time to time on other channels but it's been pathetic on TNTHD during the games. Wonder what the hell is causing this. I've had DirecTV out to the house about 6 months ago and they checked all my lines and my dish and boxes and everything checked out ok. I wonder if it's just TNT's feed. Comments?

Maximus
05-28-2010, 10:35 PM
This is a question for those of you watching either or both series on TNT in HD. How's the quality of you're feed? I've got to say that mine sucks so bad, that the last game, I actually watched the 2nd half in non HD, it was that bad. The screen does a jitter and the sound cuts in and out badly. The last game was an all time low, there was more jitter and sound loss then there was good feed. So I change to another HD channel (like HBOHD or ESPNHD) to see if it's my box and those channels in HD were fantastic. It does happen from time to time on other channels but it's been pathetic on TNTHD during the games. Wonder what the hell is causing this. I've had DirecTV out to the house about 6 months ago and they checked all my lines and my dish and boxes and everything checked out ok. I wonder if it's just TNT's feed. Comments?

The hd broadcast was flawless on my end. The only problem is TNT's obsession with all those stupid camera angles. They did cut back a lot though. You might want to change out your box or check your hdmi cables don't go cheap on your connection cables!!!

ZONA
05-29-2010, 03:34 AM
The hd broadcast was flawless on my end. The only problem is TNT's obsession with all those stupid camera angles. They did cut back a lot though. You might want to change out your box or check your hdmi cables don't go cheap on your connection cables!!!

Yeah, I didn't go cheap on my cables and stuff. I went with high end Monster stuff. It's really only a handful of channels that do it and like on TNT for example, no problems today. I recorded 2 things and nothing. But when the games come on, it sucks big time. It's frickin the most weird thing. There are quite a few HD channels where I've never seen the problem. How could it be a box if one channel is great and another has problems and even then, only sometimes. The sound cuts out at the same time the screen jitters come so I think the connects are not the problem. It's got to be somehow tied to the HD info streaming in at certain times, maybe. I don't know. It's frustrating to say the least.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
05-29-2010, 03:45 AM
Frankly, I'd say he is correct. He has won more titles with the Bulls. Not like the Lakers don't have a chance to match that will Phil as the HC.

You missed my point.

He implied, in his attempt to make his case that Red > PJ, that the titles PJ won with the Lakers somehow don't count.

BTW, most of the titles the C-bags won back in the Bill Russell era were won when the league had seven teams and the C-bags had all the best players. Since there has been parity in the league, i.e., since the Bird-Magic era, the Lakers have been WAY more successful than the Smeltics. Red Aurbach was a punk before he died. He talked sh*t about Phil Jackson, saying "he'll never be as great as me; he had all the best players just handed to him," etc. What a load of crap from an old and bitter fool who will never be as good as Phil Jackson.

*WARHORSE*
05-29-2010, 05:41 AM
I'm having a hard time rooting for the Celtics to win tonight. I just hate that team and think it would be the funniest thing if they blew their lead and lost the series. But I really want the Lakers to beat Boston for the title, and a Boston win gives the Lakers home court advantage. Before the last two games I was kind of worried about Boston. They looked unbeatable. But looking at the last two games, they'll be an extremely tough opponent for the Lakers (if the Lakers take care of business), but that Boston team is very beatable. Having home court advantage is going to be huge.

This cracks me up just like all the pundits who jumped off the Celtics after those two losses.

This is the same Boston team that lost to the Cavs by 30 a series ago.

They lose, theyre old.

First of all, the fourth game was an overtime game which we had in our hands, and uncharacteristically Paul Pierce lost the ball on the last possession in regulation. But that game was a step up by the Magic, and Boston played poorly and still almost beat them.

The fifth game Bostons bigs got in early foul trouble, the Magic was lighting up the threes, and the refs took out the only guy who could one on one Howard on the defensive end.


Puleeeeze.


Dwight Howard was tremendous, but plain and simple Boston is a better playoff team, its over.

They got spanked tonight, and theyre lucky it wasnt in four.

Boston gets a rest, and their intensity across the roster, and desire to win is second to none.

I cant wait to play Pau, Bynum and Odom. Three soft players right there, with old man Fishhead and an mia Artest.


Doc Rivers is a better coach right now than Phil Jackson. Dont even bother arguing that one, rings and all.

worm
05-29-2010, 06:22 AM
This cracks me up just like all the pundits who jumped off the Celtics after those two losses.

This is the same Boston team that lost to the Cavs by 30 a series ago.

They lose, theyre old.

First of all, the fourth game was an overtime game which we had in our hands, and uncharacteristically Paul Pierce lost the ball on the last possession in regulation. But that game was a step up by the Magic, and Boston played poorly and still almost beat them.

The fifth game Bostons bigs got in early foul trouble, the Magic was lighting up the threes, and the refs took out the only guy who could one on one Howard on the defensive end.


Puleeeeze.


Dwight Howard was tremendous, but plain and simple Boston is a better playoff team, its over.

They got spanked tonight, and theyre lucky it wasnt in four.

Boston gets a rest, and their intensity across the roster, and desire to win is second to none.

I cant wait to play Pau, Bynum and Odom. Three soft players right there, with old man Fishhead and an mia Artest.


Doc Rivers is a better coach right now than Phil Jackson. Dont even bother arguing that one, rings and all.

Congrats on your first post in this thread that has been going on all year.

FADERPROOF
05-29-2010, 07:12 AM
Any chance suns-lakers makes it to game 7?

Beantown Bronco
05-29-2010, 07:38 AM
any chance suns-lakers makes it to game 7?

41%

Jason in LA
05-29-2010, 08:21 AM
Any chance suns-lakers makes it to game 7?

Yes. But the Lakers smell blood and will be looking to end it tonight.

Jason in LA
05-29-2010, 08:27 AM
This cracks me up just like all the pundits who jumped off the Celtics after those two losses.

This is the same Boston team that lost to the Cavs by 30 a series ago.

They lose, theyre old.

First of all, the fourth game was an overtime game which we had in our hands, and uncharacteristically Paul Pierce lost the ball on the last possession in regulation. But that game was a step up by the Magic, and Boston played poorly and still almost beat them.

The fifth game Bostons bigs got in early foul trouble, the Magic was lighting up the threes, and the refs took out the only guy who could one on one Howard on the defensive end.


Puleeeeze.


Dwight Howard was tremendous, but plain and simple Boston is a better playoff team, its over.

They got spanked tonight, and theyre lucky it wasnt in four.

Boston gets a rest, and their intensity across the roster, and desire to win is second to none.

I cant wait to play Pau, Bynum and Odom. Three soft players right there, with old man Fishhead and an mia Artest.


Doc Rivers is a better coach right now than Phil Jackson. Dont even bother arguing that one, rings and all.

Nobody has jumped off the Celtics bandwagon. But the notion that they were unbeatable, which was floating around, is gone. It's going to be a great series (if the Lakers take care of business against the Suns). I'm glad the it will be the Celtics because of the home court advantage. Yeah, the Cavs and Magic had home court over the Celtics, but the Lakers aren't the Cavs or Magic. Home court is going to be big, especially if the Lakers win the first two games at home. When teams win Games 1 and 2 at home they win the series like 80% of the time.

As for who is the better coach, when did Phil forget how to coach? And a few years ago Doc was almost out of a job. I find it funny that people will say that Doc has become a better coach, like Phil has lost something. Phil is as good as he always has been, and Doc isn't as good as that.

TDmvp
05-29-2010, 08:38 AM
he had all the best players just handed to him



I agree with most of that post L.A. ... But Phil has had the 2 best players of the last 20 years pretty much handed to him...

I mean I'm pretty sure Doug Collins would have won titles as the Bulls head coach as soon as the Pistons faded ...


And when he got to L.A. they was loaded , if anything Del Harris was holding them back...


I don't think Red taking shots at Phil was fair , Phil is a good guy and coach as much as i dislike his teams. But saying Phil was handed great teams is a fair statement ...

FADERPROOF
05-29-2010, 09:45 AM
Yes. But the Lakers smell blood and will be looking to end it tonight.

Thats why I see it ending tonight, Lakers should take care of business and not let it even get to game 7.

Maximus
05-29-2010, 10:25 AM
Yeah, I didn't go cheap on my cables and stuff. I went with high end Monster stuff. It's really only a handful of channels that do it and like on TNT for example, no problems today. I recorded 2 things and nothing. But when the games come on, it sucks big time. It's frickin the most weird thing. There are quite a few HD channels where I've never seen the problem. How could it be a box if one channel is great and another has problems and even then, only sometimes. The sound cuts out at the same time the screen jitters come so I think the connects are not the problem. It's got to be somehow tied to the HD info streaming in at certain times, maybe. I don't know. It's frustrating to say the least.

Very interesting. have you checked the signal strength coming in on the 119 transponders. That signal has to be strong. If its not 85 or better this could be the problem.

Jason in LA
05-29-2010, 11:18 AM
I'd say that it's in the Lakers best interest to avoid a Game 7 at all costs.

In the 3rd period in Game 5, when the Lakers were up by 18, I was thinking that if it came to a Game 7 it's a wrap. The Suns can't win in LA. They had their brakes blown off in Game 1, and outside of a late 3rd period run in Game 2 they were pretty much blown out that entire game. But when they came back in Game 5 I think that gave them the belief that they can win at Staples. So I really don't want them coming back here. The Lakers better not reply on home court advantage to win this series. If it comes down to it, I'll take the Lakers in a Game 7 at home, but that could be a huge loss for them. So win tonight and don't worry about it.

phillybroncosnut
05-29-2010, 12:57 PM
Come on philly!!!

If we took the best position for position and matched them up the Lakers would smoke any Celtic team.

Back Court:

Magic Johnson
Norm Nixon
Gail Goodrich
Kobe Bryant
Nick Van Excel
Byron Scott

Center:

Kareem
Wilt
Shaq
Gasol
Divac
Macadoo

The Lakers have too many

Did you honestly put Van excel and Vladdy on the lis of the all time greats? Come on Maxy... Bob Macadoo? teehehehe

Here's the deal man. We could debate Lakers Celts all day and neither of us will give an inch. The one thing I am noticing is Laker fan blantant disregaurd to give the Celts and their all time great players any respect. I'm obviously gonna say Bostons all time starting 5 team is better then the Lakers and you'll do the same. I just dont understand why Laker fan cant show a little respect.


Here's my all time starting 5:
1-Bob Cousy
2/3-Havlichek
2/3Bird
4-McHale
5-THE Bill Russell

Thats 31 NBA titles and 8 NBA MVP awards in the crummy starting 5

The other thing is, these are all time Celts. You guys can "claim" wilt, shaq, Kareem etc, but those players played a number of years in other cities. I mean, if you want to claim them as yours, so be it but thats like sloppy seconds in my opinion....zing

azbroncfan
05-29-2010, 02:20 PM
First of all I didn't say or imply that the team that shoots less free throws consistently wins. You said that the team that shoots more free throws usually wins. My point was that there are greater factors than free throw, which is true.

I don't have the stats that show the stats that factor in the most for a win. Back when the Lakers had Shaq and were a poor free throw shooting team they showed a graphic during a game. Sorry, but I don't have a screen shot of it to prove the point. Anyway, the graphic that was shown showed how likely a team was going to win a game when leading in a certain category. Leading in free throws ranked fourth. Teams that led in FGs were more likely to win the game. Second was leading in rebounding, and third was turning the ball over less than the opponent.

Now if a team shoots 20+ more free throws, that can change things a lot.

Sense I don't have that graphic, I took a look at the regular season stats. In the top 10 of attempted free throw shooting, three of those teams didn't make the playoffs. Teams 10-20, Portland was 12, Lakers 17, Spurs 18, and Bulls 20. The Lakers had the third best record in the league and they were ranked 17th in free throw attempts. Looking at the bottom 10 of the league, Miami 21, Atlanta 23, Dallas (#2 seed i the West) 25, and Milwaukee 29.

I'd say that those rankings show that free throw attempts is a factor, because 7 teams in the top 10 made the playoffs while only 4 teams in the bottom 20 made it. But it shows that simply leading in free throw attempts doesn't mean a team is going to win or be good.

Again, my point was not that the team that shoots less free throws consistently wins. That would be a silly point and I don't see why you tried to put that on me. My point was that it is not the biggest factor. There are always exceptions, like one team shooting 20+ more free throws.

When the Lakers played Utah, the free throws attempts for each team where reasonably close to each other in each game. And the better team won all four games. In the series against the Thunder the free throw attempts were reasonably close in the games at LA, and the Lakers didn't have too many problems. In Oklahoma City the Thunder were getting a good 20+ free throws per game and the Thunder won there twice. Look at this series. In LA the free throws were reasonably close and the Lakers won easily. In Phoenix the Suns have had a 20+ advantage and they've won those games.

So I was looking through the stats, looking for a stat that just jumps out to why teams win. One stat that really jumped out was opponents FG percentage. The top 12 teams in that category all made the playoffs. No team ranked lower than 18th in the league made it.

Interesting, the Suns had a lower FG percentage (and scored less points from the field) in both games at Phoenix. Usually that leads to a loss. But when you get 20 more free throws a game, that changes things.

Not a suns fan but I laugh that you guys keep pointing to the OKC series for FT disparity. Well Durant led the league in FT shots so they do get to the line for one and the team that shot more FT's one the game. Yes the Lakers shot more FT's in 3-4 games don't really care to look it up again and could care less to. What Laker fans do is add up all the FT's and use it as an argument. Well since OKC and Phoenix seem to be getting to the line more there isn't any chance that it could be the way they play vs the way LA plays could it? It's not that the refs refuse to blow the whistle for LA.

Jason in LA
05-29-2010, 02:28 PM
Not a suns fan but I laugh that you guys keep pointing to the OKC series for FT disparity. Well Durant led the league in FT shots so they do get to the line for one and the team that shot more FT's one the game. Yes the Lakers shot more FT's in 3-4 games don't really care to look it up again and could care less to. What Laker fans do is add up all the FT's and use it as an argument. Well since OKC and Phoenix seem to be getting to the line more there isn't any chance that it could be the way they play vs the way LA plays could it? It's not that the refs refuse to blow the whistle for LA.

Well, like I said before, none of you guys responded to my post where I said that the Lakers lost Game 4 because of their own doing, not because of the refs. You guys say that all Lakers fans want to do is talk about the refs, but that's all you guys want to talk about. When I posted something blaming the Lakers poor play on defense, only ones who responded were other Lakers fan. When I, or another Lakers fan say anything about the refs, you Lakers haters/Suns fans jump all over it. So don't complain about the debate about the refs, because you guys keep it going just as much as some of the Lakers fans.

And my point in the post that you quoted was that free throws isn't as big of a factor that you made it out to be. You didn't respond to that at all. You just went back to Lakers fans complaining about the refs. If anything my point shows that the refs didn't cost the Lakers the game, but you keep arguing that I'm complaining about the refs as reasons why the Lakers lost. Seems like you're just reading what you want to read.

Jason in LA
05-29-2010, 02:54 PM
Did you honestly put Van excel and Vladdy on the lis of the all time greats? Come on Maxy... Bob Macadoo? teehehehe

Here's the deal man. We could debate Lakers Celts all day and neither of us will give an inch. The one thing I am noticing is Laker fan blantant disregaurd to give the Celts and their all time great players any respect. I'm obviously gonna say Bostons all time starting 5 team is better then the Lakers and you'll do the same. I just dont understand why Laker fan cant show a little respect.


Here's my all time starting 5:
1-Bob Cousy
2/3-Havlichek
2/3Bird
4-McHale
5-THE Bill Russell

Thats 31 NBA titles and 8 NBA MVP awards in the crummy starting 5

The other thing is, these are all time Celts. You guys can "claim" wilt, shaq, Kareem etc, but those players played a number of years in other cities. I mean, if you want to claim them as yours, so be it but thats like sloppy seconds in my opinion....zing

I'll give you Wilt, because his best days weren't with the Lakers. But Shaq and Kareem won a combined 8 titles with the Lakers. So lets not act like their best days were somewhere else. Now if you argue that Kareem had some great years with the Bucs, you're right. But he won half his MVP awards and most of his titles with the Lakers, and he played over 2/3s of his career with the Lakers. Shaqs best years are clearly with the Lakers. His only MVP and all of his NBA Finals MVPs are with the Lakers.

On your list, I'll take Magic over Cousy. Bryant over Havlichek. Okay Bird over Worthy. I'll take Baylor over McHale. Now at center, I won't even include Wilt. Give me Kareem or Shaq over Russel. I respect Russel, he's one of the greatest centers ever. But he's not the greatest center ever. Yeah, he has the rings, but that was in a time where there weren't very many teams and no free agency. Once the Celtics got the best players it was a wrap for a decade for the rest of the league. Russel wasn't even the greatest center of his era. Wilt was.

azbroncfan
05-29-2010, 03:08 PM
And my point in the post that you quoted was that free throws isn't as big of a factor that you made it out to be. You didn't respond to that at all. .

Yes I did I said point to me where a team has won a bunch of games losing the FTA/FT made battle? You just said you saw something on TV sometime that pointed to FG percentage. True if you shoot like LA did games 1 and 2 you won't lose to anyone. 58 percent from the field and 50 percent from 3 pt but you can't sustain that. The way you through rough stretches is with FT's and the team that shoots more FT's wins I would dare say 75 percent of the time.

Jason7730
05-29-2010, 04:20 PM
Let's go Sun's! It would be VERY interesting if they can pull off this game and take it back to LA for game 7!

FADERPROOF
05-29-2010, 04:23 PM
Yes I did I said point to me where a team has won a bunch of games losing the FTA/FT made battle? You just said you saw something on TV sometime that pointed to FG percentage. True if you shoot like LA did games 1 and 2 you won't lose to anyone. 58 percent from the field and 50 percent from 3 pt but you can't sustain that. The way you through rough stretches is with FT's and the team that shoots more FT's wins I would dare say 75 percent of the time.

Cavs lose the free throw battle all the time, 61 wins in regular season with the worst FT% in the league.

Jason in LA
05-29-2010, 05:10 PM
Yes I did I said point to me where a team has won a bunch of games losing the FTA/FT made battle? You just said you saw something on TV sometime that pointed to FG percentage. True if you shoot like LA did games 1 and 2 you won't lose to anyone. 58 percent from the field and 50 percent from 3 pt but you can't sustain that. The way you through rough stretches is with FT's and the team that shoots more FT's wins I would dare say 75 percent of the time.

My point was that there are other factors that are more important than FTs. I didn't say that FTs weren't important. FGs, rebounds, and turnovers play a larger factor (according to the stat that I saw). And looking at the stats that I presented, it shows that FTs aren't as big of a factor that you are making them out to be. Seeing that there are playoff teams who rank high in FTs, in the middle of the pack, and at the bottom of the league.

And yet, we're still talking about FTs. I post something that puts the blame on something other than FTs and there is no discussion. But if there is FT talk then you Lakers haters/Sun fans are all over it. So my point is don't get all bent about a debate that you are just as much a part of.

ZONA
05-29-2010, 11:03 PM
Oh well, the Suns made an excellent push there at the end yet again, but frickin Mr. Basketball and his I can't miss jack, steals the show yet again. I respect the hell out of Kobe but I hate that MF. I mean, what more can a team do besides force him to shoot off balance fade away shots, and he still sinks them. And it's not like it's one here or there, it's almost always. He's inching ever so close to MJ status in my book. He's playing the best I've ever seen him play right now. I still hate him and the Lakers but I'll give them Kudos, they won fair and square. No whining or complaining about FT's or refs from me. It was a great series and even though the Suns fell short, they proved to me that they were a great team indeed, even though many people on here didn't think so. They showed me they can totally hang with the best there is. I actually think they have more better players then the Lakers but the Lakers have the ultimate weapon and he delivers, as much as it pains me to say it.

I can only hope they bring back alot of these guys and make a few tweaks here or there. Maybe get another 7 footer bench guy who can rebound like a MF. If they do lose Amare, that should leave them far enough under the cap to snag somebody like Boozer. Boozer doesn't score as well as Amare but the Suns have shown they can get that scoring in alot of places. Boozer will be better on the defense and rebouding though. I also look forward to seeing Dragic again, in his 3rd year. This guy is fearless and talented and he'll no doubt play even more minutes next season.

I'll still watch the finals and check in here some, but now it's time to gear up for the Broncos. It was fun chatting with you Flaker fans for the most part and again, things sometimes get heated and we say stupid things. I've said some and some of you have said some and even though some of your posts made me want to bash your frickin skulls in with a pipe, I understand it's all in fun and I'm over it. !Booya! My team is done and life goes on.

May the best team win.

worm
05-30-2010, 12:09 AM
Oh well, the Suns made an excellent push there at the end yet again, but frickin Mr. Basketball and his I can't miss jack, steals the show yet again. I respect the hell out of Kobe but I hate that MF. I mean, what more can a team do besides force him to shoot off balance fade away shots, and he still sinks them. And it's not like it's one here or there, it's almost always. He's inching ever so close to MJ status in my book. He's playing the best I've ever seen him play right now. I still hate him and the Lakers but I'll give them Kudos, they won fair and square. No whining or complaining about FT's or refs from me. It was a great series and even though the Suns fell short, they proved to me that they were a great team indeed, even though many people on here didn't think so. They showed me they can totally hang with the best there is. I actually think they have more better players then the Lakers but the Lakers have the ultimate weapon and he delivers, as much as it pains me to say it.

I can only hope they bring back alot of these guys and make a few tweaks here or there. Maybe get another 7 footer bench guy who can rebound like a MF. If they do lose Amare, that should leave them far enough under the cap to snag somebody like Boozer. Boozer doesn't score as well as Amare but the Suns have shown they can get that scoring in alot of places. Boozer will be better on the defense and rebouding though. I also look forward to seeing Dragic again, in his 3rd year. This guy is fearless and talented and he'll no doubt play even more minutes next season.

I'll still watch the finals and check in here some, but now it's time to gear up for the Broncos. It was fun chatting with you Flaker fans for the most part and again, things sometimes get heated and we say stupid things. I've said some and some of you have said some and even though some of your posts made me want to bash your frickin skulls in with a pipe, I understand it's all in fun and I'm over it. !Booya! My team is done and life goes on.

May the best team win.

Rep. Props brutha. Personally I think you love the Suns more than you want to let on in this thread or years past...but whatever. It is all secondary to are shared Bronco blood.

If Kobe get #5....like I said at the very beginning of this season....at some point you need to factor him into the GOAT conversation.

Haters gonna hate...but Kobe has a shot in the next 3 years. So close he can prolly taste it.

PS. I would still pick Bron first if I was a GM. :)

gunns
05-30-2010, 12:43 AM
I'll give you Wilt, because his best days weren't with the Lakers. But Shaq and Kareem won a combined 8 titles with the Lakers. So lets not act like their best days were somewhere else. Now if you argue that Kareem had some great years with the Bucs, you're right. But he won half his MVP awards and most of his titles with the Lakers, and he played over 2/3s of his career with the Lakers. Shaqs best years are clearly with the Lakers. His only MVP and all of his NBA Finals MVPs are with the Lakers.

On your list, I'll take Magic over Cousy. Bryant over Havlichek. Okay Bird over Worthy. I'll take Baylor over McHale. Now at center, I won't even include Wilt. Give me Kareem or Shaq over Russel. I respect Russel, he's one of the greatest centers ever. But he's not the greatest center ever. Yeah, he has the rings, but that was in a time where there weren't very many teams and no free agency. Once the Celtics got the best players it was a wrap for a decade for the rest of the league. Russel wasn't even the greatest center of his era. Wilt was.

Wilt coming into the league brought out the best in Russell. In their matchups, 142 times, Russell won 85, Wilt 57. Russell led his team to 9 championships to Wilts one in the 10 years they played against each other. Please.

phillybroncosnut
05-30-2010, 12:47 AM
Wilt coming into the league brought out the best in Russell. In their matchups, 142 times, Russell won 85, Wilt 57. Russell led his team to 9 championships to Wilts one in the 10 years they played against each other. Please.

This..... Beat me to it.

Also, you cant add Shaq to the mix. Shaq was a physical specimen that was impossible to stop due to his size. Not ability. You are slapping Kareem, THE Bill Russell and Wilt dead in the face for even bringing up Shaq's name. Its embarrassing

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
05-30-2010, 04:51 AM
Wilt coming into the league brought out the best in Russell. In their matchups, 142 times, Russell won 85, Wilt 57. Russell led his team to 9 championships to Wilts one in the 10 years they played against each other. Please.

But that was during an era when there was no parity in the league, there was only 7 teams, and the C-bags had all the best players, so your comparison doesn't mean much.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
05-30-2010, 04:54 AM
Not a suns fan but I laugh that you guys keep pointing to the OKC series for FT disparity. Well Durant led the league in FT shots so they do get to the line for one and the team that shot more FT's one the game. Yes the Lakers shot more FT's in 3-4 games don't really care to look it up again and could care less to. What Laker fans do is add up all the FT's and use it as an argument. Well since OKC and Phoenix seem to be getting to the line more there isn't any chance that it could be the way they play vs the way LA plays could it? It's not that the refs refuse to blow the whistle for LA.

Only someone like yourself who, as you put it, "doesn't care to look it up," or who doesn't really watch the games would post something like this. Ha!

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
05-30-2010, 04:56 AM
Oh well, the Suns made an excellent push there at the end yet again, but frickin Mr. Basketball and his I can't miss jack, steals the show yet again....

Don't worry - there's plenty of room left on the Celtics bandwagon. :giggle:

ohiobronco2
05-30-2010, 07:40 AM
Let's go Celtics. ;D

Now I feel dirty. Time to take a shower.

Beantown Bronco
05-30-2010, 08:23 AM
But that was during an era when there was no parity in the league, there was only 7 teams, and the C-bags had all the best players, so your comparison doesn't mean much.

I'll never understand this argument. 7 teams and no parity? What?

Imagine if there were only 7 teams today. That would mean that 80% of the stiffs in this league wouldn't be playing. It would be a league of all stars. The very definition of parity.

Unless you are saying that in the Celtics heyday, there were only 5 great players in the entire world. Good luck with that argument.

gunns
05-30-2010, 12:11 PM
But that was during an era when there was no parity in the league, there was only 7 teams, and the C-bags had all the best players, so your comparison doesn't mean much.

First off it depends on what you mean by parity. If your are talking about evenly distributing the advantage for an NBA championship, the 70's was the only time there was true parity in the NBA...8 different champions, no back to back. Other than that each decade has been dominated by a team or 2 teams. Right now there is probably more parity in MLB than there is truly in the NBA. When you only need two stars on a 5 man starting roster, a salary cap hasn't truly created parity in the NBA.

The Celtics had the ALL the best players? The Lakers had Jerry West and Elgin Baylor, Wilt had Paul Arizin, Jerry Lucas and Nate Thurmond, Celtics had Cousy, Russell, and I'll add Sam Jones to boost your argument. Not much of a boost and that doesn't include other teams.

Jason in LA
05-30-2010, 02:01 PM
This..... Beat me to it.

Also, you cant add Shaq to the mix. Shaq was a physical specimen that was impossible to stop due to his size. Not ability. You are slapping Kareem, THE Bill Russell and Wilt dead in the face for even bringing up Shaq's name. Its embarrassing

I call BS on that one big time. You can't say that a guy isn't as good because you don't respect certain attributes. I've always found that a very lame argument. Shaq played center... right? So yes, you can ad Shaq to the mix. Did Shaq have the skills of some of the great centers? No. Does that mean that the other centers are better? No. If you want to make an argument that the other centers are better don't base it solely on Shaq's use of his size and strength opposed to skills. It all ads up. Dribbling ability, post moves, shooting ability, all attributes. So is height, size, and strength. But people want to discredit the attributes that made Shaq great. Sorry, but that's just a lame argument.

azbroncfan
05-30-2010, 02:03 PM
Only someone like yourself who, as you put it, "doesn't care to look it up," or who doesn't really watch the games would post something like this. Ha!

It's because I already looked it up and can't remember exact number but LA won the FTA battle in all but maybe one of the wins in OKC series. The only question remains is how long til you start pissing and moaning about the refs in the finals? By the way LA was in bottom half of FTA's in regular season which has more to do with soft playing style vs the refs calling a bad game.

Jason in LA
05-30-2010, 02:22 PM
It's because I already looked it up and can't remember exact number but LA won the FTA battle in all but maybe one of the wins in OKC series. The only question remains is how long til you start pissing and moaning about the refs in the finals? By the way LA was in bottom half of FTA's in regular season which has more to do with soft playing style vs the refs calling a bad game.

What are you talking about? When you're in a debate you should really look things up. You are so far off on this one it's silly. The Thunder shot way more free throws than the Lakers by a lot, especially in OKC. Actually, the games in OKC, the Thunder had a lopsided advantage in that category. I posted the numbers in another thread. You know what, I'm going to look it up....

Okay, just looked it up. The Thunder shot more free throws than the Lakers in 5 out of the 6 games. The only game that the Lakers shot more free throws was Game 5 at Staples. In Game 3 the Thunder shot 34 free throws to the Lakers 12. Game 4 was 48 to 28. Game 6, which the Lakers won in OKC, the Thunder had a 31 to 14 advantage. In total the Thunder had a 194 to129 advantage.

Yep, you're dead wrong.

And you're still talking about free throws, so don't complain when others bring it up.

phillybroncosnut
05-30-2010, 06:27 PM
I call BS on that one big time. You can't say that a guy isn't as good because you don't respect certain attributes. I've always found that a very lame argument. Shaq played center... right? So yes, you can ad Shaq to the mix. Did Shaq have the skills of some of the great centers? No. Does that mean that the other centers are better? No. If you want to make an argument that the other centers are better don't base it solely on Shaq's use of his size and strength opposed to skills. It all ads up. Dribbling ability, post moves, shooting ability, all attributes. So is height, size, and strength. But people want to discredit the attributes that made Shaq great. Sorry, but that's just a lame argument.

Shaq couldnt hold Russell Wilt or Kareems jock. I wont even waste my time argueing it.

As far as Russell only playing against a handful of teams, that just shows how DOMINATE he was. Instead of playing 90% of games against weak teams, he had to go against the best of the best. Lets not mention the size difference between THE and Stilt. It will just validate the point even more

phillybroncosnut
05-30-2010, 06:28 PM
I'll never understand this argument. 7 teams and no parity? What?

Imagine if there were only 7 teams today. That would mean that 80% of the stiffs in this league wouldn't be playing. It would be a league of all stars. The very definition of parity.

Unless you are saying that in the Celtics heyday, there were only 5 great players in the entire world. Good luck with that argument.

I shoulda read your's first.... You have the same thought as me.... you just verbalized it better

Jason in LA
05-30-2010, 07:17 PM
Shaq couldnt hold Russell Wilt or Kareems jock. I wont even waste my time argueing it.

As far as Russell only playing against a handful of teams, that just shows how DOMINATE he was. Instead of playing 90% of games against weak teams, he had to go against the best of the best. Lets not mention the size difference between THE and Stilt. It will just validate the point even more

Well I'm not surprised that you don't want to waste your time arguing it. Because your argument appears to be based on attributes that you for what ever reason do not respect. It's not a sound argument to begin with.

As for the centers of that time, yes, Wilt and Russel had to play against the best every night because there weren't very many teams. But that doesn't mean that the centers they went up against were great. There were only a few seven footers at the time.

One of my older brothers, who was around to watch basketball in the '60s, always says that Wilt was overrated. He's not saying that Wilt wasn't great, but he has always contended that outside of Russel, Wilt didn't play against anybody. He said that there were only a few 7 footers, and the only one who was coordinated was Wilt. So I looked up the teams of 1960. There was only one other 7 footer who started in the league that year. He didn't appear all that good because he only made two All Star games in his career. How hard could it be to make the All Star game with only eight teams? So it appears that the center position can't even compare to what it evolved into over the years. Wilt would have been great in any era, but would he average 50 points per game if he played in the '80s, '90s, or 2000s? Hell no.

Now, back to Shaq and Russel, it depends how you look at the match up. If you just want to take Russel vs. Shaq straight up, it's just silly. Russel was listed at 6'9" 215. I'd say that's a small forward now a days. He'd have to bulk up to play power forward. He'd get destroyed by Shaq, who was 7' and over 300 lbs. It wouldn't even be fair. Shaq dominated players taller and a lot bigger than Russel. If you want to debate over who dominated his opponents at a greater rate, then that's a different argument. Russel would stand a chance.

gunns
05-30-2010, 08:13 PM
Well I'm not surprised that you don't want to waste your time arguing it. Because your argument appears to be based on attributes that you for what ever reason do not respect. It's not a sound argument to begin with.

As for the centers of that time, yes, Wilt and Russel had to play against the best every night because there weren't very many teams. But that doesn't mean that the centers they went up against were great. There were only a few seven footers at the time.

One of my older brothers, who was around to watch basketball in the '60s, always says that Wilt was overrated. He's not saying that Wilt wasn't great, but he has always contended that outside of Russel, Wilt didn't play against anybody. He said that there were only a few 7 footers, and the only one who was coordinated was Wilt. So I looked up the teams of 1960. There was only one other 7 footer who started in the league that year. He didn't appear all that good because he only made two All Star games in his career. How hard could it be to make the All Star game with only eight teams? So it appears that the center position can't even compare to what it evolved into over the years. Wilt would have been great in any era, but would he average 50 points per game if he played in the '80s, '90s, or 2000s? Hell no.

Now, back to Shaq and Russel, it depends how you look at the match up. If you just want to take Russel vs. Shaq straight up, it's just silly. Russel was listed at 6'9" 215. I'd say that's a small forward now a days. He'd have to bulk up to play power forward. He'd get destroyed by Shaq, who was 7' and over 300 lbs. It wouldn't even be fair. Shaq dominated players taller and a lot bigger than Russel. If you want to debate over who dominated his opponents at a greater rate, then that's a different argument. Russel would stand a chance.

Uh, Russell played against Wilt, who was listed at 7' 1" 275 lbs and he handled him just fine.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
05-30-2010, 08:46 PM
I'll never understand this argument. 7 teams and no parity? What?

Imagine if there were only 7 teams today. That would mean that 80% of the stiffs in this league wouldn't be playing. It would be a league of all stars. The very definition of parity.

Unless you are saying that in the Celtics heyday, there were only 5 great players in the entire world. Good luck with that argument.


Oh, we acknowledge you own the stone age, but this evidence is quite telling:

Magic vs. Bird era:
Lakers 9 finals appearances and 5 NBA titles
Celtics 5 finals appearances and 3 NBA titles
Head to head Lakers 2-1
Advantage Lakers by a mile.

Kobe Bryant vs. Paul Pierce era
Lakers 6 finals appearances and 4 NBA titles. 1 season missed the playoffs
Celtics 1 finals appearance and 1 NBA title. 5 seasons missed the playoffs.
Head to head, Celtics 1-0
Advantage Lakers by a million miles.

Here is the season by season comparison between the Lakers and the Celtics in the modern era:

1979-80: Lakers: Won F; Celtics: Lost ECF, Edge Lakers (1)
1980-81: Lakers: Lost WC 1st Round; Celtics: Won F, Edge Celtics (0)
1981-82: Lakers: Won F; Celtics: Lost ECF, Edge Lakers (1)
1982-83: Lakers: Lost F; Celtics: Lost ECSF Edge Lakers (2)
1983-84: Lakers: Lost F; Celtics: Won F, Edge Celtics (1)
1984-85: Lakers: Won F; Celtics: Lost F, Edge Lakers (2)
1985-86: Lakers: Lost WCF; Celtics: Won F, Edge Celtics (1)
1986-87: Lakers: Won F; Celtics: Lost F, Edge Lakers (2)
1987-88: Lakers: Won F; Celtics: Lost ECF, Edge Lakers (3)
1988-89: Lakers: Lost F; Celtics: Lost EC 1st Rd, Edge Lakers (4)
1989-90: Lakers: Lost WCSF; Celtics: Lost EC 1st Rd, Edge Lakers (5)
1990-91: Lakers: Lost F; Celtics: Lost ECSF, Edge Lakers (6)
1991-92: Lakers: Lost WC 1st Round; Celtics: Lost ECSF, Edge Celtics (5)
1992-93: Lakers: Lost WC 1st Round; Celtics: Lost EC 1st Rd, Edge Neither (5)
1993-94: Lakers: Missed PO; Celtics: Missed PO, Edge Neither (5)
1994-95: Lakers: Lost WCSF; Celtics: Lost EC 1st Rd, Edge Lakers (6)
1995-96: Lakers: Lost WC1st Round; Celtics: Missed PO, Edge Lakers (7)
1996-97: Lakers: Lost WCSF; Celtics: Missed PO, Edge Lakers (8)
1997-98: Lakers: Lost WCF; Celtics: Missed PO, Edge Lakers (9)
1998-99: Lakers: Lost WCSF; Celtics: Missed PO, Edge Lakers (10)
1999-00: Lakers: Won F; Celtics: Missed PO, Edge Lakers (11)
2000-01: Lakers: Won F; Celtics: Missed PO, Edge Lakers (12)
2001-02: Lakers: Won F; Celtics: Lost ECF, Edge Lakers, (13)
2002-03: Lakers: Lost WCSF; Celtics: Lost ECSF, Edge Neither (13)
2003-04: Lakers: Lost F; Celtics: Lost EC 1st Rd, Edge Lakers (14)
2004-05: Lakers: Missed PO; Celtics: Lost EC 1st Rd, Edge Celtics (13)
2005-06: Lakers: Lost WC 1st Round; Celtics: Missed PO, Edge Lakers (14)
2006-07: Lakers: Lost WC 1st Round; Celtics: Missed PO, Edge Lakers (15)
2007-08: Lakers: Lost F; Celtics: Won F, Edge Celtics (14)
2008-09: Lakers: Won F; Celtics: Lost ECSF, Edge Lakers (15)

Edge Lakers 21-6-3

Tiebreaking the neutral years:
1992-93 Lakers 39-43, Celtics 48-34, Edge Celtics
1993-94 Lakers 33-49, Celtics 32-50, Edge Lakers
2002-03 Lakers 50-32, Celtics 44-38, Edge Lakers

Edge Lakers 23-7.

What’s interesting is the head to head count in the finals is 2-2 between the Lakers and the Celtics in the modern era. It would be well in the Lakers favor if Boston won a few ECF’s where they had home court advantage. Instead the Lakers beat a team better than the Celtics for the crown. Those years are 1980, 1982, and 1988. Toss in 2002 when the Celtics lost to the Nets without HCA, and it could have been Lakers 6-2 over the Celtics in the modern era. Heck, even last year Lakers beat the Magic, the team that eliminated the Celtics.

Now, in the NBA’s most competitive era, the Lakers not only stand miles above the Celtics, they are several steps above the entire NBA! The Lakers are in the mix constantly. Most of the other NBA champions of the modern era face long periods of failure. I have proved my hypothesis. Clearly, the Lakers are the greatest franchise in the NBA’s history, while Boston is in a fight to brag for rights to 4th best!

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
05-30-2010, 08:50 PM
Boston sports fans are the biggest idiots of all fan bases, there is just no way around it.

When it comes to baseball, they refuse to talk about how the Yankees historically own them, saying "we don't care about the past" and "what have you done lately?" But, magically, when it comes to basketball, all they want to talk about is what the Celtics did to the Lakers in the 60s. Celtics fans were nonexistent for 20 years! Then they get Garnett and start barking? KG with all of his "celtic pride" refused a trade to go to Boston until they got Ray Allen.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
05-30-2010, 09:02 PM
Wilt coming into the league brought out the best in Russell. In their matchups, 142 times, Russell won 85, Wilt 57. Russell led his team to 9 championships to Wilts one in the 10 years they played against each other. Please.

Bottom line: The Lakers are a better franchise than the Celtics. In 63 seasons we finished better than the Celtics by a margin of 37-24. Your mentality is to only count titles and head-to-head. That's called Cherry Picking, and easily refutable. Of course you don't want to count your bad years because there are so many of them!

http://i694.photobucket.com/albums/vv307/SocioPC/faker666.jpg

gunns
05-30-2010, 09:13 PM
Bottom line: The Lakers are a better franchise than the Celtics. In 63 seasons we finished better than the Celtics by a margin of 37-24. Your mentality is to only count titles and head-to-head. That's called Cherry Picking, and easily refutable. Of course you don't want to count your bad years because there are so many of them!

http://i694.photobucket.com/albums/vv307/SocioPC/faker666.jpg

Sweetie, my comments were about Wilt and Russell, based on a statement that Wilt was better than Russell. Wilt only played for the Lakers basically the last year of Russell's stint in the NBA. It was not about the Lakers against the Celtics.

The fact of the matter though is that the Celtics do hold the numbers over the Lakers. I am not a Red Sox fan so that argument does not include me. Lakers had their drought too. They won the two years after the last Celtics win before two years ago and then had a drought. The real bottom line is that no matter how you spin it the numbers are still there. And Laker fans know it, which makes it such a great series each time.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
05-30-2010, 09:44 PM
The fact of the matter though is that the Celtics do hold the numbers over the Lakers.

This post completely refutes that claim:

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2854175&postcount=1614

Most titles doesn't necessarily = "best" - that's cherry picking.

gunns
05-30-2010, 09:52 PM
This post completely refutes that claim:

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2854175&postcount=1614

Most titles doesn't necessarily = "best" - that's cherry picking.

That's because you choose to overlook the overall numbers because it suits your argument.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
05-30-2010, 09:59 PM
Lakers had their drought too.

Not if you're comparing the two teams in the modern era (I already posted the numbers, BTW.)

The Celtics wandered in the wilderness for 20+ years. Ha!

Also, it was comparatively easy to win a championship back in the stone age in an 8 team league if you had the best team. Win your conference, and you get to take a bye while the second and third place teams have a playoff. Then host the conference finals, and, in the Celtics case, host the NBA finals.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
05-30-2010, 10:00 PM
That's because you choose to overlook the overall numbers because it suits your argument.

Not at all.

The Lakers have owned the Celtics since the Magic/Bird era no matter how you analyze it.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
05-30-2010, 10:02 PM
The real bottom line is that no matter how you spin it the numbers are still there.

Wrong.

I already posted the numbers - and you have yet to attempt to refute them.

ohiobronco2
05-30-2010, 10:21 PM
Celtics have more titles. That is all that matters. Lakers are the 2nd best franchise in NBA history. Next......

ZONA
05-30-2010, 10:44 PM
Don't worry - there's plenty of room left on the Celtics bandwagon. :giggle:

I don't do bandwagon's. I don't care which team wins the finals. I had a friend many years ago and every other year there for some time, we'd see him sporting a Cowboy's cap one year, then the next year it was a 49'ers cap, and so on. It always seemed who ever won the Superbowl, that's the cap he was wearing the next year. I don't keep in touch with him but no doubt he still has both his Celtics Championship cap from a few years ago and his Lakers Championship cap from last year, hahahaha.

broncocalijohn
05-30-2010, 11:00 PM
Oh well, the Suns made an excellent push there at the end yet again, but frickin Mr. Basketball and his I can't miss jack, steals the show yet again. I respect the hell out of Kobe but I hate that MF................................................ .................................................. .................................................. .............................................. I'll still watch the finals and check in here some, but now it's time to gear up for the Broncos. It was fun chatting with you Flaker fans for the most part and again, things sometimes get heated and we say stupid things. I've said some and some of you have said some and even though some of your posts made me want to bash your frickin skulls in with a pipe, I understand it's all in fun and I'm over it. !Booya! My team is done and life goes on.

May the best team win.

great thing about this post is it took over the alloted 30 minutes you give to basketball when your team loses! I know your concentration will be on the Broncos for now on, but you can always jump on the bandwagon for the next two weeks.

24champ
05-30-2010, 11:05 PM
Been a real busy week and weekend for myself. Haven't been able to check in, but I am real pumped up for this matchup and I think the Lakers are going to be ready to take it to the Boston Craptics and avenge 08'.

24champ
05-30-2010, 11:08 PM
http://justiceleagueunlimited.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/bostonsucks1.jpg

Maximus
05-30-2010, 11:14 PM
Did you honestly put Van excel and Vladdy on the lis of the all time greats? Come on Maxy... Bob Macadoo? teehehehe

Here's the deal man. We could debate Lakers Celts all day and neither of us will give an inch. The one thing I am noticing is Laker fan blantant disregaurd to give the Celts and their all time great players any respect. I'm obviously gonna say Bostons all time starting 5 team is better then the Lakers and you'll do the same. I just dont understand why Laker fan cant show a little respect.


Here's my all time starting 5:
1-Bob Cousy
2/3-Havlichek
2/3Bird
4-McHale
5-THE Bill Russell

Thats 31 NBA titles and 8 NBA MVP awards in the crummy starting 5

The other thing is, these are all time Celts. You guys can "claim" wilt, shaq, Kareem etc, but those players played a number of years in other cities. I mean, if you want to claim them as yours, so be it but thats like sloppy seconds in my opinion....zing

Bob Cousy couldn't play outside his era... He's a one armed bandit Norm Nixon and Van Excel would destroy him. Hondo Havlicheck... Imagine him trying to deal with James Worthy, Elgin Baylor or Jerry West every night... Hell Eddie Jones would take him to school. Larry Bird well larry is larry but He needed help against worthy too. Kevin McHale is the toughest matchup you have... Russell... I'll put shaq or Kareem on him he cant hang with Shaq at all!!!!

BTW McAdoo Was the League MVP and Scoring leader with the Buffalo Braves he was a great rebounder too...

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
05-30-2010, 11:36 PM
Celtics have more titles. That is all that matters. Lakers are the 2nd best franchise in NBA history. Next......

ROFL!

By your logic, Princeton is the best school when it comes to college football.

Get your reading comprehension game together and then come back here and try to refute anything in the posts to which you're responding.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
05-30-2010, 11:39 PM
Celtics have more titles. That is all that matters.

Funny - Celtic apologists like you seem to abandon that argument when you're trying to make your case that Red > Jackson. Ha!

ZONA
05-30-2010, 11:50 PM
great thing about this post is it took over the alloted 30 minutes you give to basketball when your team loses! I know your concentration will be on the Broncos for now on, but you can always jump on the bandwagon for the next two weeks.

Well it took me longer then 30 minutes to stop laughing the first time I saw your pink trophy.

Just curious, how long do you brood over a loss, all frickin day? Guess that means your a real fan of you're team. Some of just grow up and realize pouting around forever doesn't change a damn thing. You can let sports ruin you're whole day if you like, I choose to move on and find something constuctive to do.

ZONA
05-30-2010, 11:53 PM
Bob Cousy couldn't play outside his era... He's a one armed bandit Norm Nixon and Van Excel would destroy him. Hondo Havlicheck... Imagine him trying to deal with James Worthy, Elgin Baylor or Jerry West every night... Hell Eddie Jones would take him to school. Larry Bird well larry is larry but He needed help against worthy too. Kevin McHale is the toughest matchup you have... Russell... I'll put shaq or Kareem on him he cant hang with Shaq at all!!!!

BTW McAdoo Was the League MVP and Scoring leader with the Buffalo Braves he was a great rebounder too...

Nobody could hang with Shaq during his prime. He by far had the most non fouls called that were commited against him. People hacked him ALL the time and I bet only half of them were called. Even Howard today in his prime would have had a hard time trying to body Shaq.

ohiobronco2
05-31-2010, 09:16 AM
Funny - Celtic apologists like you seem to abandon that argument when you're trying to make your case that Red > Jackson. Ha!

Find the post where I said Red is better than Jackson. Seriously, I'm challanging you to find it. I think Jackson is argueably the best coach in the history of the NBA. He has won the most titles. The one thing that everybody says about Jackson is that he has only been a success because he has been able to coach guys like Jordan and Bryant, buy every great coach has had great players. The thing is, it must be incredibly difficult to manage these star players and get them to buy in to his philosophy. Besides, the NBA has changed since Red coached, especially when it comes to the salary cap.

Jason in LA
05-31-2010, 09:22 AM
Uh, Russell played against Wilt, who was listed at 7' 1" 275 lbs and he handled him just fine.

On basketballreference.com Wilt is listed at 250 lbs. Also, on one site it says that he entered the league at 250 and gained weight later in his career. I'm not sure when he gained weight, but it appears that he did later in his career. With the Lakers he looks a lot bigger than he was earlier in his career. He was a much more dominate player earlier in his career, when he was slimmer.

As for Russell doing just fine, I found this on the 142 games that they played against each other:

"Chamberlain averaged exactly 28.7 points and 28.7 rebounds a game during those 142 games, the point totals brought down a bit by his late-in-career transformation from relentless scoring machine to more well-rounded player. In the early years Wilt scored 50 or more points seven times against Russell, including a high of 62 on January 14, 1962. By the time we could start referring to these men as "aging warriors," the numbers were a bit more back to earth. Wilt's high game in their final year was 35, and three times he scored in single figures.

Russell's totals against Wilt were 14.5 points and 23.7 rebounds per game. His highest-scoring game against his arch rival was 37.

But Russell had the ultimate trump card. He wound up on the winning side more often than not. In the 10 years in question, Russell won nine championships to Wilt's one. The argument will rage on forever: Did Wilt just not know how to win, or did he lack the supporting cast that Russell enjoyed?

Take the night he scored the 62. The Celtics won the game, 145-136. The Celtics led by 31 in the fourth quarter. Wilt scored 42 in the second half, but his team was never in the game. Russell fans say that was an all-too-familiar scenario when these two played, especially in the first five or six years of their duels."

So Wilt dominated Russell. The fact that the Celtics still one goes to show how great that team was. And with no free agency, there was no beating them for that decade.

Now if you pop Shaq in there, at 300+ lbs, it wouldn't be fair. The thing that made Shaq great was that for a guy his size he was really quick and had really good agility. Shaq was built to play around 300, but Wilt really wasn't. Now Shaq was better when he was playing at or just under 300 lbs, but he was still great just over 300. The problem was when he was way over 300. But there is no way that Russell could have done anything with Shaq, especially with a slimmer key. Shaq, like Wilt did until the lane was widen, would have just camped out pretty much under the basket and it would have been a dunk every time. There would have been no stopping the guy.

FADERPROOF
05-31-2010, 09:25 AM
The NBA is still going on? Wasn't sure since they seem to take 17 days off between rounds.

azbroncfan
05-31-2010, 09:27 AM
And you're still talking about free throws, so don't complain when others bring it up.

Well I am done talking about it and I may have been off by a few FT's but the point I was trying to make is Laker fans just use total FT's for the series argument and not per game argument. OKC went to FT line the second most amount of times in regular season vs LA who was at bottom half of the pack and Laker fans want to point to ref bias. LA shot 3 less FT's in game 1 and 2 and only were outshot a lot in game 6 win. Bottomline is if you get to the line a lot you get a great shot of winning the game.

ohiobronco2
05-31-2010, 09:58 AM
ROFL!

By your logic, Princeton is the best school when it comes to college football.

Get your reading comprehension game together and then come back here and try to refute anything in the posts to which you're responding.

Princeton, intersting. I didn't know there was a real way to crown a champion in college football. See in the NBA there is this thing called playoffs. It is an elimination tournament. You get down to the final two teams and the winner is given a tropy and a parade (unless you are in LA and you can't afford one :D. Yes, I know they eventually came up with the money.) Each team has been successful and both were founded in 1946. The Lakers have won titles in 1949, 1950, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1972, 1980, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1987, 1988, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2009. Celtics 1957, 1959-1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986 & 2008. The Celtics and Lakers have met in the finals 11 times (this will be the 12th) and I believe the Celtics have won that matchup 9 times. What is left to argue?

ohiobronco2
05-31-2010, 10:00 AM
The NBA is still going on? Wasn't sure since they seem to take 17 days off between rounds.

Hilarious! It is pretty ridiculous.

RhymesayersDU
05-31-2010, 11:15 AM
Mini "controversy" brewing here:

Basically, an LA Times writer makes fun of Paul Pierce getting stabbed. Which is pretty ****ty no matter which way you slice it. The line was "By the way, Pierce's idea of a fun night is going clubbing and getting stabbed. Good times!"

First: Here is an article about the original article:
http://www.nesn.com/2010/05/los-angeles-times-writer-jokes-about-paul-pierces-stabbing.html

Second: The LA Times removed the article, but Google cache has it:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:PacJLWbhBnsJ:latimesblogs.latimes.c om/sports_blog/2010/05/ted-green-your-guide-to-hating-the-celtics.html+http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/sports_blog/2010/05/ted-green-your-guide-to-hating-the-celtics.html&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari

FADERPROOF
05-31-2010, 11:18 AM
Mini "controversy" brewing here:

Basically, an LA Times writer makes fun of Paul Pierce getting stabbed. Which is pretty ****ty no matter which way you slice it. The line was "By the way, Pierce's idea of a fun night is going clubbing and getting stabbed. Good times!"

First: Here is an article about the original article:
http://www.nesn.com/2010/05/los-angeles-times-writer-jokes-about-paul-pierces-stabbing.html

Second: The LA Times removed the article, but Google cache has it:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:PacJLWbhBnsJ:latimesblogs.latimes.c om/sports_blog/2010/05/ted-green-your-guide-to-hating-the-celtics.html+http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/sports_blog/2010/05/ted-green-your-guide-to-hating-the-celtics.html&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari

Apparently you follow Bill Simmons on twitter as well!

RhymesayersDU
05-31-2010, 11:19 AM
Hahaha, good call. Yes.

FADERPROOF
05-31-2010, 11:23 AM
Simmons is usually pretty good on twitter, lets his homerism show way too much at times though and his tweets during Celtic games are sometimes unbearable.

Jason in LA
05-31-2010, 12:18 PM
Well I am done talking about it and I may have been off by a few FT's but the point I was trying to make is Laker fans just use total FT's for the series argument and not per game argument. OKC went to FT line the second most amount of times in regular season vs LA who was at bottom half of the pack and Laker fans want to point to ref bias. LA shot 3 less FT's in game 1 and 2 and only were outshot a lot in game 6 win. Bottomline is if you get to the line a lot you get a great shot of winning the game.

Off by a few? lol Man you were off by a lot. Actually you were just wrong.

A lot of the arguments were per game. Like games 3 and 4 at Phoenix. Both individual games were one sided. So were all three of the games in OKC, not just Game 6. They were out shot by 19 in Game 3 and 20 in Game 4. They were out shot by 17 in Game 6, which they won.

My point to you was that not all Lakers fans were putting the blame on free throws. But points that were not about free throws were ignored. Arguments were made from Lakers fans and from the other side about the refs, not just Lakers fans.

Jason in LA
05-31-2010, 12:22 PM
Mini "controversy" brewing here:

Basically, an LA Times writer makes fun of Paul Pierce getting stabbed. Which is pretty ****ty no matter which way you slice it. The line was "By the way, Pierce's idea of a fun night is going clubbing and getting stabbed. Good times!"

First: Here is an article about the original article:
http://www.nesn.com/2010/05/los-angeles-times-writer-jokes-about-paul-pierces-stabbing.html

Second: The LA Times removed the article, but Google cache has it:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:PacJLWbhBnsJ:latimesblogs.latimes.c om/sports_blog/2010/05/ted-green-your-guide-to-hating-the-celtics.html+http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/sports_blog/2010/05/ted-green-your-guide-to-hating-the-celtics.html&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari

Wow, that's just bad taste by the writer and the LA Times. I hate the Celtics, but it's not on a personal, off the court level.

When I was reading the story about this I thought it was going to be TJ Simers. Dude is pretty much an ass. I'm surprised it wasn't him.

Beantown Bronco
05-31-2010, 12:51 PM
Boston sports fans are the biggest idiots of all fan bases, there is just no way around it.

When it comes to baseball, they refuse to talk about how the Yankees historically own them, saying "we don't care about the past" and "what have you done lately?" But, magically, when it comes to basketball, all they want to talk about is what the Celtics did to the Lakers in the 60s. Celtics fans were nonexistent for 20 years! Then they get Garnett and start barking? KG with all of his "celtic pride" refused a trade to go to Boston until they got Ray Allen.

Outside of a jhns post, this has to be the most idiotic, inaccurate and overall most retarded post I've read in awhile.

azbroncfan
05-31-2010, 01:02 PM
Off by a few? lol Man you were off by a lot. Actually you were just wrong.

A lot of the arguments were per game. Like games 3 and 4 at Phoenix. Both individual games were one sided. So were all three of the games in OKC, not just Game 6. They were out shot by 19 in Game 3 and 20 in Game 4. They were out shot by 17 in Game 6, which they won.

My point to you was that not all Lakers fans were putting the blame on free throws. But points that were not about free throws were ignored. Arguments were made from Lakers fans and from the other side about the refs, not just Lakers fans.

In the wins for the winning team dude. Game 1 and 2 of OKC there was 3 more FT's for OKC. Big advantage. Shows LA did a good job getting to the line and not fouling. Game 3 and 4 OKC killed them at the line. Game 5 LAL got to the line again and shot more FT's in a big win. Game 6 LAL did a great job stealing the game that they got killed in FT diff. See a trend that is all I am saying is you get to the line you win. Pull up top 10 teams from regular season and see what you find. Only one team didn't make the playoffs from there. LA going to the line less isn't a ref's not calling fouls but LA not playing as aggressive as the other teams. When they play aggressive they win by getting to the foul line to add extra points to their high FG percentage.

Jason in LA
05-31-2010, 01:19 PM
In the wins for the winning team dude. Game 1 and 2 of OKC there was 3 more FT's for OKC. Big advantage. Shows LA did a good job getting to the line and not fouling. Game 3 and 4 OKC killed them at the line. Game 5 LAL got to the line again and shot more FT's in a big win. Game 6 LAL did a great job stealing the game that they got killed in FT diff. See a trend that is all I am saying is you get to the line you win. Pull up top 10 teams from regular season and see what you find. Only one team didn't make the playoffs from there. LA going to the line less isn't a ref's not calling fouls but LA not playing as aggressive as the other teams. When they play aggressive they win by getting to the foul line to add extra points to their high FG percentage.

It's not so much the style of play. It's more of the home team getting the calls. That's what annoys me about the NBA, especially during the playoffs. Home team gets too many calls. The Lakers are in the middle of the league in terms of free throw attempts, so at home the free throws are about even, but on the road they get killed in free throws. The two teams can play the exact same style of play and the home team would still get the calls. I'd rather see every game called the same so teams know what to expect. They know what they can and can't do. But it's so inconsistent that it can ruin a game.

Jason in LA
05-31-2010, 01:36 PM
Bob Cousy couldn't play outside his era... He's a one armed bandit Norm Nixon and Van Excel would destroy him. Hondo Havlicheck... Imagine him trying to deal with James Worthy, Elgin Baylor or Jerry West every night... Hell Eddie Jones would take him to school. Larry Bird well larry is larry but He needed help against worthy too. Kevin McHale is the toughest matchup you have... Russell... I'll put shaq or Kareem on him he cant hang with Shaq at all!!!!

BTW McAdoo Was the League MVP and Scoring leader with the Buffalo Braves he was a great rebounder too...

These arguments are tough. Are we comparing the players straight up, or are we comparing them to the era that they played in.

Like, Bob Cousy was a greater player than Nick Van Excel. Not even an argument.

But if the two played against each other, in their prime, Van Excel would kill Cousy. If Van Excel could be time warped back into the '60s he'd not only start over Cousy but he'd be in the HOF right now. If Cousy was time warped into the '90s, he wouldn't even make an NBA roster. A lot of players back then could only dribble with their dominate hand. Right handed players couldn't go left to save their lives.

But when comparing them to their era, Cousy was a greater player. He accomplished more than Van Excel.

To take it a step further, when comparing the greatest teams, I don't think that makes the '60s Celtics the greatest ever, even though they won more than any other team. The system was perfect for them to win every year. No free agency, so when they got the best players it was pretty much a wrap for the rest of the league. To make the NBA Finals all a team would have to do is win their division. So beat out three other teams in the regular season and you're in the finals. Then just win one series and you're champs. So it's easy to see how they racked up so many titles.

phillybroncosnut
05-31-2010, 01:44 PM
Its so hard to compare 2 completely different era's, but if your gonna, todays players wouldnt be able to play when you actually had to dribble, not carry, and you could only take 2 steps, not 8. Also, the actually played something called defense back then

gunns
05-31-2010, 02:10 PM
On basketballreference.com Wilt is listed at 250 lbs. Also, on one site it says that he entered the league at 250 and gained weight later in his career. I'm not sure when he gained weight, but it appears that he did later in his career. With the Lakers he looks a lot bigger than he was earlier in his career. He was a much more dominate player earlier in his career, when he was slimmer.

As for Russell doing just fine, I found this on the 142 games that they played against each other:

"Chamberlain averaged exactly 28.7 points and 28.7 rebounds a game during those 142 games, the point totals brought down a bit by his late-in-career transformation from relentless scoring machine to more well-rounded player. In the early years Wilt scored 50 or more points seven times against Russell, including a high of 62 on January 14, 1962. By the time we could start referring to these men as "aging warriors," the numbers were a bit more back to earth. Wilt's high game in their final year was 35, and three times he scored in single figures.

Russell's totals against Wilt were 14.5 points and 23.7 rebounds per game. His highest-scoring game against his arch rival was 37.

But Russell had the ultimate trump card. He wound up on the winning side more often than not. In the 10 years in question, Russell won nine championships to Wilt's one. The argument will rage on forever: Did Wilt just not know how to win, or did he lack the supporting cast that Russell enjoyed?

Take the night he scored the 62. The Celtics won the game, 145-136. The Celtics led by 31 in the fourth quarter. Wilt scored 42 in the second half, but his team was never in the game. Russell fans say that was an all-too-familiar scenario when these two played, especially in the first five or six years of their duels."

So Wilt dominated Russell. The fact that the Celtics still one goes to show how great that team was. And with no free agency, there was no beating them for that decade.

Now if you pop Shaq in there, at 300+ lbs, it wouldn't be fair. The thing that made Shaq great was that for a guy his size he was really quick and had really good agility. Shaq was built to play around 300, but Wilt really wasn't. Now Shaq was better when he was playing at or just under 300 lbs, but he was still great just over 300. The problem was when he was way over 300. But there is no way that Russell could have done anything with Shaq, especially with a slimmer key. Shaq, like Wilt did until the lane was widen, would have just camped out pretty much under the basket and it would have been a dunk every time. There would have been no stopping the guy.

I'm well aware of those stats, and that's exactly what they are, stats, which never tell the whole story. Wilt had his games and Russell had his. But the remarkable thing about Russell was his ability to adjust to whomever he was playing. He was a great passer, and this one area where he helped make his teammates better players. Having a great game against another player is not always scoring, rebounding, blocking, etc. It's doing what needs to be done to win that game and that's often defending 4 players instead of just one. Bill was great at that. That's why he dominated Wilt, he was smart enough to allow Wilt to have his own game and not allow the rest of the team. 62 pts in a game means nada if you don't win. A reason why he won 85 of those 142 games and 9 championships to Wilt's one. And Russell was never known as a scorer. He was pure defense

RhymesayersDU
05-31-2010, 02:43 PM
Its so hard to compare 2 completely different era's, but if your gonna, todays players wouldnt be able to play when you actually had to dribble, not carry, and you could only take 2 steps, not 8. Also, the actually played something called defense back then

Blah blah blah. I get it, everything is better back in the day, they don't make things like they used to, etc.

Even if what you're saying was true, the older players couldn't deal with today's athleticism. Not even close.

Jason in LA
05-31-2010, 02:46 PM
Lakers had their drought too. They won the two years after the last Celtics win before two years ago and then had a drought.

Yes, that was a drought. After the '88 title and before the '00 title, the Lakers made the playoffs every year except once, made it to the Western Conference Finals three times and the NBA Finals twice. They were still competitive during their drought, where the Celtics were bottom feeders for much of their drought. And if the Celtics aren't careful they might be back to bottom feeders again. The Lakers won't have that problem. There will be somebody after Kobe.

Really thinking about it, the '90s, which is the decade that Lakers fans would love to forget about, is better than a lot of teams best decade.

Now my point isn't to say that the Lakers have a better history than the Celtics. As much as I think the Celtics were able to get over on an unevolved system in the '60s, they still won those titles. They didn't have to do much to win them, but they still won them, and the Lakers won five titles in that same system. That's why I'm pissed that the Lakers blew it in '08. If they won the title there then they'd be going for the tie at 16 each. Now they have to win this year and next just to tie. Miss opportunities suck.

brother love
05-31-2010, 02:58 PM
Its so hard to compare 2 completely different era's, but if your gonna, todays players wouldnt be able to play when you actually had to dribble, not carry, and you could only take 2 steps, not 8. Also, the actually played something called defense back then

Are you insane. Todays teams would eat those teams alive. Guys today are too big and too athletic. Do you know what a guy like Kobe would do to them?
It would be ugly.

Jason in LA
05-31-2010, 03:01 PM
Its so hard to compare 2 completely different era's, but if your gonna, todays players wouldnt be able to play when you actually had to dribble, not carry, and you could only take 2 steps, not 8. Also, the actually played something called defense back then

You've come up with some really funny posts in this thread. I'm not sure if I should take some of the stuff you say serious.

The dribbling ability of players today is some much better than that of players of yesterday, and it has nothing to do with carrying the ball or taking eight steps. That's just a silly point.

The Celtics of the '60s are a far greater team , then lets say, today's Clippers. But if the two teams played each other, even under the rules of the '60s, the Clippers would beat the **** out of the Celtics. It wouldn't even be fair. Again, the Celtics are the greater team because of their accomplishment, but compared to players and teams of today, straight up, it would be laughable. Kind of like matching up a current football team with a great team from the '60s. The worst NFL team of today would wipe the floor with the best team of the '60s.

Jason in LA
05-31-2010, 03:06 PM
I'm well aware of those stats, and that's exactly what they are, stats, which never tell the whole story. Wilt had his games and Russell had his. But the remarkable thing about Russell was his ability to adjust to whomever he was playing. He was a great passer, and this one area where he helped make his teammates better players. Having a great game against another player is not always scoring, rebounding, blocking, etc. It's doing what needs to be done to win that game and that's often defending 4 players instead of just one. Bill was great at that. That's why he dominated Wilt, he was smart enough to allow Wilt to have his own game and not allow the rest of the team. 62 pts in a game means nada if you don't win. A reason why he won 85 of those 142 games and 9 championships to Wilt's one. And Russell was never known as a scorer. He was pure defense

The Celtics dominated the Warriors and the rest of the league, but to say that Russell dominated Wilt is laughable. Wilt handed Russell his ass on numerous occasions. 62 points against Russell doesn't mean anything because the Celtics won? Are you serious? On an individual level, that's an ass whoppin'. No other way to look at it. It says that Wilt was light years ahead of Russell, but overall the Celtics were the better team.

You are right, Russell wasn't a scorer, he was a defender. And he gave up 62 to Wilt and over 50 a number of times, meaning that he couldn't stop Wilt.

Just because a player is on a better team doesn't mean that he was a better player.

And just to add in a point about Shaq, nobody would say that Russell was a good defender if he ever had to defend Shaq. Shaq would go for a lot more than 62 points.

gunns
05-31-2010, 03:39 PM
The Celtics dominated the Warriors and the rest of the league, but to say that Russell dominated Wilt is laughable. Wilt handed Russell his ass on numerous occasions. 62 points against Russell doesn't mean anything because the Celtics won? Are you serious? On an individual level, that's an ass whoppin'. No other way to look at it. It says that Wilt was light years ahead of Russell, but overall the Celtics were the better team.

You are right, Russell wasn't a scorer, he was a defender. And he gave up 62 to Wilt and over 50 a number of times, meaning that he couldn't stop Wilt.

Just because a player is on a better team doesn't mean that he was a better player.

And just to add in a point about Shaq, nobody would say that Russell was a good defender if he ever had to defend Shaq. Shaq would go for a lot more than 62 points.

Reread what I wrote and you might get what makes a great player great. And an ass whoopin is only when you win, Russell did what he had to do to win the game, he allowed Wilt to dominate the game, but he was the only one. Russell was THE reason those Celtic teams went to 11 championships and that didn't mean dominate one single player in a game.

"There are two types of superstars. One makes himself look good at the expense of the other guys on the floor. But there's another type who makes the players around him look better than they are, and that's the type Russell was" ~Don Nelson

"That team (the Celtics) wasn't so great until he got there. Once he got there, he (Bill Russell) was the piece that they were looking for. A lot of people have said to me, "Wilt, what if you had that team? Boy, you would never have lost!" NOT TRUE. If I was on their team, I would be taking away from some of what the other guys were doing. Everybody had a role on that team. (Tom) Heinsohn wouldn't be getting the same number of shots, nor would (Bill) Sharman, nor would (Bob) Cousy because I'd be shooting the ball a whole lot more. Bill Russell gave them just what they needed. I would've given them a little bit more in certain things, which I think would have made the team NOT AS GOOD. I've always believed that he made that team exactly what it was supposed to be. And you couldn't get any better."
~Wilt Chamberlain

RhymesayersDU
05-31-2010, 03:57 PM
Wilt was obsessed with stats. Yeah he scored a ton of points, but he did so at the expense of his teams winning. There's a reason his teams were 4-5 in Game 7's. There's a reason why his teams had a Conference Final/NBA Finals record of 48-44. There's a reason why Wilt's teams were 10-11 in elimination games.

Also relevant is that in 1962, the year Wilt averaged 50 points, Russell held him to 22 points (and scored 19 himself) in Game 7 of the Eastern Conference Finals.

Also in 1968, Russell held Wilt to 14 points in Game 7 of the Eastern Conference Finals again. BR scored 12.

Playoff averages:
Wilt: 160 games -- 22.5 PPG/24.5 RPG/4.2 APG

Russell: 165 games -- 16 PPG/25 RPG/4.7 APG


At best, Wilt was the greatest regular season player of all time. Past that, he wasn't anything special. The guy was an egomaniac obsessed with his own stats and that's it. No doubt the guy could score. But a true winner he was not. And isn't that what it's all about? Sure, we can pour on the individual accolades to Wilt. But what do we remember about players? We don't remember stats. We remember championships. There's no justifiable reason why he shouldn't have won more championships. And it's not his supporting cast.

Jason in LA
05-31-2010, 04:03 PM
Reread what I wrote and you might get what makes a great player great. And an ass whoopin is only when you win, Russell did what he had to do to win the game, he allowed Wilt to dominate the game, but he was the only one. Russell was THE reason those Celtic teams went to 11 championships and that didn't mean dominate one single player in a game.

"There are two types of superstars. One makes himself look good at the expense of the other guys on the floor. But there's another type who makes the players around him look better than they are, and that's the type Russell was" ~Don Nelson

"That team (the Celtics) wasn't so great until he got there. Once he got there, he (Bill Russell) was the piece that they were looking for. A lot of people have said to me, "Wilt, what if you had that team? Boy, you would never have lost!" NOT TRUE. If I was on their team, I would be taking away from some of what the other guys were doing. Everybody had a role on that team. (Tom) Heinsohn wouldn't be getting the same number of shots, nor would (Bill) Sharman, nor would (Bob) Cousy because I'd be shooting the ball a whole lot more. Bill Russell gave them just what they needed. I would've given them a little bit more in certain things, which I think would have made the team NOT AS GOOD. I've always believed that he made that team exactly what it was supposed to be. And you couldn't get any better."
~Wilt Chamberlain

I totally understand what you were getting at, so there is no need to re read it. I just don't agree with it at all. Giving up 62 points to one player is in no way helping your team win. That's a major excuse for getting an ass kicking. Russell got his ass kicked, and his teammates bailed him out. He didn't do what he had to do to win. That's kind of a crazy way to look at it.

Sorry, but Russell wasn't even close to being as good as Wilt. Put Russell on the Warriors and they wouldn't have won anything.

gunns
05-31-2010, 04:31 PM
I totally understand what you were getting at, so there is no need to re read it. I just don't agree with it at all. Giving up 62 points to one player is in no way helping your team win. That's a major excuse for getting an ass kicking. Russell got his ass kicked, and his teammates bailed him out. He didn't do what he had to do to win. That's kind of a crazy way to look at it.

Sorry, but Russell wasn't even close to being as good as Wilt. Put Russell on the Warriors and they wouldn't have won anything.

You don't get it, but then you don't want to get it. Russell's teammates bailed him out? LOL I'll chalk it up to youth.

gunns
05-31-2010, 04:53 PM
This post completely refutes that claim:

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2854175&postcount=1614

Most titles doesn't necessarily = "best" - that's cherry picking.

I'm wondering what the definition of "modern era" is.

phillybroncosnut
05-31-2010, 05:16 PM
You've come up with some really funny posts in this thread. I'm not sure if I should take some of the stuff you say serious.

The dribbling ability of players today is some much better than that of players of yesterday, and it has nothing to do with carrying the ball or taking eight steps. That's just a silly point.

The Celtics of the '60s are a far greater team , then lets say, today's Clippers. But if the two teams played each other, even under the rules of the '60s, the Clippers would beat the **** out of the Celtics. It wouldn't even be fair. Again, the Celtics are the greater team because of their accomplishment, but compared to players and teams of today, straight up, it would be laughable. Kind of like matching up a current football team with a great team from the '60s. The worst NFL team of today would wipe the floor with the best team of the '60s.

LMAO.... That was a good laugh. Thanks for that

FADERPROOF
05-31-2010, 06:50 PM
Outside of a jhns post, this has to be the most idiotic, inaccurate and overall most retarded post I've read in awhile.

I wouldn't say Boston has the most idiotic fanbase...obnoxious, annoying irritating, nauseating, unbearable fanbase is more like it.

FADERPROOF
05-31-2010, 06:56 PM
You've come up with some really funny posts in this thread. I'm not sure if I should take some of the stuff you say serious.

The dribbling ability of players today is some much better than that of players of yesterday, and it has nothing to do with carrying the ball or taking eight steps. That's just a silly point.

The Celtics of the '60s are a far greater team , then lets say, today's Clippers. But if the two teams played each other, even under the rules of the '60s, the Clippers would beat the **** out of the Celtics. It wouldn't even be fair. Again, the Celtics are the greater team because of their accomplishment, but compared to players and teams of today, straight up, it would be laughable. Kind of like matching up a current football team with a great team from the '60s. The worst NFL team of today would wipe the floor with the best team of the '60s.

Before you answer this one, please think hard about it: If I took the 1968 Green Bay Packers and put them up against the 0-16 Lions of 2 years ago, who would win?

brother love
05-31-2010, 07:16 PM
Before you answer this one, please think hard about it: If I took the 1968 Green Bay Packers and put them up against the 0-16 Lions of 2 years ago, who would win?

The Lions. They would go 5 wide a make Ray Nitchke have to cover a wide reciever. Or they could just run behind 300lb lineman and smash it down their throats. Like anyone of those db's could cover Calvin Johnson.

FADERPROOF
05-31-2010, 07:35 PM
The Lions. They would go 5 wide a make Ray Nitchke have to cover a wide reciever. Or they could just run behind 300lb lineman and smash it down their throats. Like anyone of those db's could cover Calvin Johnson.

Ok so we have 1 person needing a psych evaluation...any others?

Jason in LA
05-31-2010, 09:36 PM
You don't get it, but then you don't want to get it. Russell's teammates bailed him out? LOL I'll chalk it up to youth.

So when somebody doesn't agree with you that means that they don't get it? Really? I'm going to have to use that one.

Playing the youth card too? I guess. That's an easy way to get out of a debate.

Jason in LA
05-31-2010, 09:44 PM
Before you answer this one, please think hard about it: If I took the 1968 Green Bay Packers and put them up against the 0-16 Lions of 2 years ago, who would win?

I'm kind of wondering why you would pick the '68 Packers, who didn't make the playoffs.

Anyways, I'd take the Lions. I'd even take the Lions over the '66 and '67 Packers.

Is this a trick question or something?

If it were the '66 Packers, who are obviously a greater team than the Lions from two years ago, I'd still take the Lions. How many of those Packers players could even make an NFL roster today. If the argument is who is greater, well the '66 Packers. Super Bowl champs. They reached greatness, while the Lions of two years ago reached the lowest point any team has reached. But most players from the 60s just couldn't play today, especially the linemen.

Jason in LA
05-31-2010, 09:45 PM
LMAO.... That was a good laugh. Thanks for that

Wow, great insight.

cutthemdown
05-31-2010, 10:20 PM
Before you answer this one, please think hard about it: If I took the 1968 Green Bay Packers and put them up against the 0-16 Lions of 2 years ago, who would win?

IMO the lions would kill them. Maybe by 3-4 tds.

cutthemdown
05-31-2010, 10:22 PM
I'm wondering what the definition of "modern era" is.

IMO everything since the merger is the modern era.

HAT
05-31-2010, 10:31 PM
Before you answer this one, please think hard about it: If I took the 1968 Green Bay Packers and put them up against the 0-16 Lions of 2 years ago, who would win?

This is a joke right?

Lions win that match up 88 out of 100.

broncocalijohn
06-01-2010, 12:21 AM
Before you answer this one, please think hard about it: If I took the 1968 Green Bay Packers and put them up against the 0-16 Lions of 2 years ago, who would win?

Lions easy as the Packers of 68 are either close to 70 years old or dead. Without Lombardi, who coaches the team? 68 Packers would just be to old and slow to keep up with the Lions. But, if they did play, I would have the score Lions 10, Packers 7 in OT.

Jason in LA
06-01-2010, 09:35 AM
I was thinking about where LeBron should go that will give him the best chance at winning a title. One team came to mind that I'd be shocked if he went to. That would be the Clippers. Yes, the Clippers.

I really don't see why that team was so bad last year, because they do have talent there. Seems like they just quit on the season. Maybe they quit on the coach from the get go.

Their lineup would be kind of sick. Former All Star Baron Davis at point. Very talented Eric Gordon at SG, LeBron at SF, Blake Griffin at PF, and All Star Chris Kaman at center. Yeah, that's a scary lineup. Three All Stars, and if Blake lives up to the hype that's four all stars. With the right coach, that's a lineup that could make a run at a title.

The Clippers play in LA, in one of the best areas in the league, the Clippers recently built state of the art training facilities. It almost seems perfect for LeBron. Except for one thing. It's the Clippers!!!! Yeah, too good to be true. LeBron wouldn't touch that team.

24champ
06-01-2010, 11:46 AM
The Clippers play in LA, in one of the best areas in the league, the Clippers recently built state of the art training facilities. It almost seems perfect for LeBron. Except for one thing. It's the Clippers!!!! Yeah, too good to be true. LeBron wouldn't touch that team.

Yeah it is the Clippers and more importantly it is Kobe's town. Be weird for Lebum to be #2 in LA.

RhymesayersDU
06-01-2010, 01:29 PM
It would be weird until the Clips beat the Lakers and the bandwagon that is SoCal turns to LeBron as their new favorite son.

/stirs pot

FADERPROOF
06-01-2010, 05:32 PM
I'm kind of wondering why you would pick the '68 Packers, who didn't make the playoffs.

Anyways, I'd take the Lions. I'd even take the Lions over the '66 and '67 Packers.

Is this a trick question or something?

If it were the '66 Packers, who are obviously a greater team than the Lions from two years ago, I'd still take the Lions. How many of those Packers players could even make an NFL roster today. If the argument is who is greater, well the '66 Packers. Super Bowl champs. They reached greatness, while the Lions of two years ago reached the lowest point any team has reached. But most players from the 60s just couldn't play today, especially the linemen.

Did math wrong as usual, either Super Bowl Packers team is what I was shooting for.

The Lions went 0-16, which also shows that most of those players shouldn't be playing today.

FADERPROOF
06-01-2010, 05:33 PM
Lions easy as the Packers of 68 are either close to 70 years old or dead. Without Lombardi, who coaches the team? 68 Packers would just be to old and slow to keep up with the Lions. But, if they did play, I would have the score Lions 10, Packers 7 in OT.

I still might go with the Packers, but the close to 70 or dead does give Detroit apuncher's chance.

ohiobronco2
06-01-2010, 05:44 PM
It would be weird until the Clips beat the Lakers and the bandwagon that is SoCal turns to LeBron as their new favorite son.

/stirs pot

Probably not too far from the truth. :approve::stirstir:

ohiobronco2
06-01-2010, 05:47 PM
So when somebody doesn't agree with you that means that they don't get it? Really? I'm going to have to use that one.

Playing the youth card too? I guess. That's an easy way to get out of a debate.

A fellow Laker fan of yours uses this tactic. Well that or you don't watch enough NBA. :D

FADERPROOF
06-01-2010, 06:44 PM
this thread has gotten interesting, David Stern really needs to check this thread out if he wants to argue that there isn't any lag time between conference finals to NBA championship rounds.

ZONA
06-01-2010, 07:50 PM
It would be weird until the Clips beat the Lakers and the bandwagon that is SoCal turns to LeBron as their new favorite son.

/stirs pot


The Clippers should just move back to San Diego. LA is the Lakers show and they will never get respect. They've had 6 winning seasons as a whole. That's epic suck. They need to go back to San Diego and give some of that suckiness to the Chargers, hahahaha.

RhymesayersDU
06-01-2010, 09:12 PM
this thread has gotten interesting, David Stern really needs to check this thread out if he wants to argue that there isn't any lag time between conference finals to NBA championship rounds.

I've seen you complain about the wait earlier in the thread. Doesn't the NFL do the same thing? The MLB does too, at least a few days. Unsure on the NHL.

ohiobronco2
06-01-2010, 10:00 PM
this thread has gotten interesting, David Stern really needs to check this thread out if he wants to argue that there isn't any lag time between conference finals to NBA championship rounds.

FADER, don't be upset. You have the Braxton Miller commitment to look forward to. :D

azbroncfan
06-02-2010, 08:49 AM
I've seen you complain about the wait earlier in the thread. Doesn't the NFL do the same thing? The MLB does too, at least a few days. Unsure on the NHL.

You have to admit Rhymes that the NBA has dragged out this playoffs rediculously long. There was 5 days rest between LA and Phoenix game 1 and 2. Why? It took 3 weeks for round 1. These layoffs have caused me to lose interest.

Mr.Meanie
06-02-2010, 08:52 AM
You have to admit Rhymes that the NBA has dragged out this playoffs rediculously long. There was 5 days rest between LA and Phoenix game 1 and 2. Why? It took 3 weeks for round 1. These layoffs have caused me to lose interest.

Yeah I'm sure it was the schedule that has caused you to lose interest. Not the Suns getting sent back to the basement. Ha!

24champ
06-02-2010, 12:40 PM
Black Mamba going to avenge for 08'.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/t0MD9nHdpOs&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/t0MD9nHdpOs&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

ohiobronco2
06-02-2010, 01:17 PM
Black Mamba going to avenge for 08'.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/t0MD9nHdpOs&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/t0MD9nHdpOs&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

Looks like he's having menstral cramps.

gunns
06-02-2010, 02:13 PM
So when somebody doesn't agree with you that means that they don't get it? Really? I'm going to have to use that one.

Playing the youth card too? I guess. That's an easy way to get out of a debate.

No, the part about you not getting it is because of what you come back with and it's entertwined with the youth part. Bill Russell was THE reason the Celtics won. If not defending Chamberlain and allowing him to get 62 pts, yet winning the game, I'd say Russell's strategy worked. He sacrificed some stats but basically played well in games against Chamberlain because Chamberlain was unable to help his team win. Chamberlain had no problem with being the sole star on his team. Russell made the whole team stars. The goal is to win and that's what Russell did for his team. When I say reread, maybe you should do that. Read what Chamberlain said about Russell. Even he knew. I still say Russell handled Chamberlain very well and I saw him do it. You have a narrow view of what handled means.

24champ
06-02-2010, 02:39 PM
Looks like he's having menstral cramps.

Or maybe he is disgusted at the sausage grabbing Celtic players. :spit:

http://i46.tinypic.com/2463ome.jpg

FADERPROOF
06-02-2010, 03:00 PM
I've seen you complain about the wait earlier in the thread. Doesn't the NFL do the same thing? The MLB does too, at least a few days. Unsure on the NHL.

The NBA to NFL comparison would be if the Super Bowl is played in March and teams get 6 weeks off.

NHL plays every other day in the playoffs regardless of switching cities, and MLB is the only other real messed up playoff system with some lay-offs between games.

Why didn't this series start yesterday? 2-3 days rest isn't enough?

gunns
06-02-2010, 03:10 PM
IMO everything since the merger is the modern era.

There were two.

gunns
06-02-2010, 03:12 PM
The NBA to NFL comparison would be if the Super Bowl is played in March and teams get 6 weeks off.

NHL plays every other day in the playoffs regardless of switching cities, and MLB is the only other real messed up playoff system with some lay-offs between games.

Why didn't this series start yesterday? 2-3 days rest isn't enough?

MLB isn't as bad as the NBA. They start the first of Oct and are generally done by the end of Oct. The NBA starts the middle of April and finishes the middle of June.

ohiobronco2
06-02-2010, 03:26 PM
Or maybe he is disgusted at the sausage grabbing Celtic players. :spit:

http://i46.tinypic.com/2463ome.jpg

:spit::rofl:

Jason in LA
06-02-2010, 06:25 PM
No, the part about you not getting it is because of what you come back with and it's entertwined with the youth part. Bill Russell was THE reason the Celtics won. If not defending Chamberlain and allowing him to get 62 pts, yet winning the game, I'd say Russell's strategy worked. He sacrificed some stats but basically played well in games against Chamberlain because Chamberlain was unable to help his team win. Chamberlain had no problem with being the sole star on his team. Russell made the whole team stars. The goal is to win and that's what Russell did for his team. When I say reread, maybe you should do that. Read what Chamberlain said about Russell. Even he knew. I still say Russell handled Chamberlain very well and I saw him do it. You have a narrow view of what handled means.

I 100% understand what you were saying. I just don't agree with it. Why is that a concept that you cannot understand? It's not that I have a narrow view of what being handled means. I just don't agree with it. It's a bad spin job .

And it's laughable to think that Russell simply allowed Wilt to go for 62 points in a game. That's not helping your team win. In that game the final score was 145-136. Giving up 136 points means that defensively you got your asses handed to you and you won because you lit the opponent up on the other end of the court. Giving up 136 points and 62 points to one player in that game isn't the way to win a game. Sorry, but I'm sure Red didn't come up with a stradgy that called for his team to have to score 145 points to win.

So if Russell was really being more of a team player, could he have gone for 62 points against Wilt if he wanted to? Could he have gone 50+ a number of times against Wilt? Could he have averaged over 50 points per game in a season or go for 100 points in a game? Ah... hell no.

Russell wasn't an offensive player. He was a beast on defense, but he couldn't stop Wilt. I'm sure he tried to, but he failed at it. Saying that he let Wilt score 62 points is just a spin job, and a bad one at that.

To take it a step farther, if Russell was on the Warriors, would they have won title after title? If Wilt was on the Celtics, would they have won less titles?

And you've still avoided the topic about Russell matching up against Shaq. Shaq would have scored 100 on him, and Russell wouldn't be able to do anything to stop him.

FADERPROOF
06-02-2010, 06:32 PM
MLB isn't as bad as the NBA. They start the first of Oct and are generally done by the end of Oct. The NBA starts the middle of April and finishes the middle of June.

True but only 8 teams make the MLB postseason...on a curve that would be about 2 months worth of postseason for the MLB if they had 16 teams in.

MLB is a lot of waiting on the next round since there are only 4 1st round series and so on...MLB schedules it with the ESPN/FOX channels based on that.

RhymesayersDU
06-02-2010, 07:25 PM
The NBA to NFL comparison would be if the Super Bowl is played in March and teams get 6 weeks off.

NHL plays every other day in the playoffs regardless of switching cities, and MLB is the only other real messed up playoff system with some lay-offs between games.

Why didn't this series start yesterday? 2-3 days rest isn't enough?

I mean, I hear you. I understand it can be frustrating. But such is life when you have to get every game on national TV. Believe me, I'd like the first round to go back to 5 games to start. So I understand the playoffs can drag.

But as a fan of the game, I'm willing to look past the scheduling stuff that happens to be able to see every playoff game.

Jason in LA
06-03-2010, 08:17 AM
Finally game day!

There are some interesting match ups. Looks like Kobe is going to guard Rondo, which I think will really help the Lakers. Some people think that it will wear Kobe out, but I don't think so. If he's guarding Allen he'll have to chase him through screens all over the place. The Lakers will have their two best defenders on the Celtics two best offensive players. I think Peirce is going to have a really tough time with Artest. Peirce killed the Lakers two years ago. He won't be lighting up Artest.

Simply having Bynum is going to take a lot of pressure off of Gasol. Perkins will have to guard Bynum and Garnet will have to stay with his man this time around. Less players to shadow Kobe. The the Lakers two best offensive players should have an easier time against the Celtics defense.

Home court is huge too. If the Lakers can protect their court in Games 1 and 2 then it's going to be tough for the Celtics to beat them, even with the three games in a row in Boston. When the home team wins Games 1 and 2 I believe they win the series like 80% of the time.

I'm really loving the Lakers chances. Two years ago I was hoping that the Lakers could pull it off, because going in the Celtics were the better team. A lot of people picked the Lakers because the Celtics struggled through the Eastern Conference playoffs. But the Celtics were the team to beat that year. This year the Lakers are the team to beat.

24champ
06-03-2010, 03:51 PM
I am amped up, ready to kick the crap out of anyone that wears leprechaun green around Tinseltown. Love seeing the Laker flags on the freeways and everyone is honking at each other.

Here is a good pump up video prior to the series...very well done. Go Lake Show!:~ohyah!:

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/E3byGp0fpHA&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/E3byGp0fpHA&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

cutthemdown
06-03-2010, 06:45 PM
Lets go lake show!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jason in LA
06-03-2010, 08:29 PM
In the first half it seemed like the refs were calling a lot of fouls on both teams. If this keeps up then this series will be decided by bench players from both teams.

HAT
06-03-2010, 10:00 PM
In the first half it seemed like the refs were calling a lot of fouls on both teams. If this keeps up then this series will be decided by bench players from both teams.

Bench Schmench....C's are a 50 win #4 seed, nothing more. They have no chance. I bet The Lakes to sweep @ 7-1 which probably won't happen but this series ain't going longer than 5.

Jason in LA
06-03-2010, 10:04 PM
That was just the Lakers taking care of business. There are a lot of games to go, but that's a great start for the Lakers. The three best players on the court were all on the Lakers. Obviously Kobe and Pao, but I'd put Ron Artest's efforts over Paul Peirce. He didn't show up until the 4th period, where he padded his stats a bit.

Lakers led in shooting, rebounding, and turned the ball over less. That's how you win games.

One thing that I really liked was that the Lakers did it from the paint all game long. They only took 10 three pointers. The drove to the basket all night and there wasn't much that the Celtics could do to stop it. That was kind of surprising. The Lakers weren't soft at all.

If the Lakers can do the same thing in Game 2, this series could be over quick. That would mean that a win in either Game 3 or 4 would wrap it up. I'm liking this a lot so far.

OBF1
06-03-2010, 10:06 PM
1 down, 3 to go

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
06-03-2010, 10:07 PM
In the first half it seemed like the refs were calling a lot of fouls on both teams. If this keeps up then this series will be decided by bench players from both teams.

C-bags ended up shooting more FTs than the Lakers in this game - and they made more of them.

Still, it wasn't enough to bail them out.

Garnett = Gasol's prison b*tch. Part of this is because Pau is no longer being shoved around by Perkins since Bynum is playing. It forces KG to actually have to play defense against one of the best offensive big men in the NBA.

http://www.clublakers.com/images/smilies/ball1.gif

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
06-03-2010, 10:11 PM
That was just the Lakers taking care of business. There are a lot of games to go, but that's a great start for the Lakers. The three best players on the court were all on the Lakers. Obviously Kobe and Pao, but I'd put Ron Artest's efforts over Paul Peirce. He didn't show up until the 4th period, where he padded his stats a bit.

Lakers led in shooting, rebounding, and turned the ball over less. That's how you win games.

One thing that I really liked was that the Lakers did it from the paint all game long. They only took 10 three pointers. The drove to the basket all night and there wasn't much that the Celtics could do to stop it. That was kind of surprising. The Lakers weren't soft at all.

If the Lakers can do the same thing in Game 2, this series could be over quick. That would mean that a win in either Game 3 or 4 would wrap it up. I'm liking this a lot so far.

We destroyed them in the paint and on the boards.

Their "big 3" were sucking wind almost from the tip.

Jiminy Cricket (supposedly the key to the Smeltics' success in this series) was almost a non-factor.

3 more wins to go! http://www.clublakers.com/images/smilies/ball1.gif

cutthemdown
06-03-2010, 10:14 PM
We destroyed them in the paint and on the boards.

Their "big 3" were sucking wind almost from the tip.

Jiminy Cricket (supposedly the key to the Smeltics' success in this series) was almost a non-factor.

3 more wins to go! http://www.clublakers.com/images/smilies/ball1.gif

Was it just me because I'm not feeling well or was that game sort of strange? It didn't seem like a finals game to me.

Jason in LA
06-03-2010, 10:18 PM
It didn't really seem like a Finals game because it wasn't all that close. The Lakers played with the lead for damn near the entire game. Celtics went up 2-0 and that was their only lead. The Lakers went on a mini run to close out the first half and the Celtics never got close. This series had a ton of hype, so the game was kind of a dud because it was just one team having their way with the other team. This was supposed to be a war, but it wasn't at all. And at one point it seemed like a long promo for that movie that Chris Rock is in.

cutthemdown
06-03-2010, 10:21 PM
That was just the Lakers taking care of business. There are a lot of games to go, but that's a great start for the Lakers. The three best players on the court were all on the Lakers. Obviously Kobe and Pao, but I'd put Ron Artest's efforts over Paul Peirce. He didn't show up until the 4th period, where he padded his stats a bit.

Lakers led in shooting, rebounding, and turned the ball over less. That's how you win games.

One thing that I really liked was that the Lakers did it from the paint all game long. They only took 10 three pointers. The drove to the basket all night and there wasn't much that the Celtics could do to stop it. That was kind of surprising. The Lakers weren't soft at all.

If the Lakers can do the same thing in Game 2, this series could be over quick. That would mean that a win in either Game 3 or 4 would wrap it up. I'm liking this a lot so far.

The lakers made a lot of extra passes also. Seems like they were always making one more pass to more open player.

cutthemdown
06-03-2010, 10:23 PM
Lakers going to do it again.

TDmvp
06-03-2010, 10:40 PM
The Lakers really looked way faster and fresher .

But to me that was one of the slowest feeling games I have seen in awhile.

I was watching it with a couple people and there was so many calls against both teams that I just didn't see and they both agreed .

It to me felt like the refs was letting both teams know right from the start that they wasn't putting up with no BS... and i can live with that.

Lots of foul calls in the 1st Q, and just so many ticky tack calls on picks and stuff on both teams bigs.

I think every time i seen Kobe draw a foul it was for something I didn't see , hand checking i guess.

The refs had zero to do with the out come because the Laker was just way better tonight ...

But man to me the refs seemed to be sending a message ...


I'm shocked Rasheed (who I'm not a big fan of) didn't get did 2 T's

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
06-03-2010, 10:42 PM
Lakers going to do it again.

The Smeltics just look old and slow against this Lakers team.

BTW, Magic just offered a public apology to Kobe on Sports Center for prematurely passing the 'best player' torch to LeChoke. Ha!

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
06-03-2010, 10:44 PM
But to me that was one of the slowest feeling games I have seen in awhile.


That's because both teams prefer to play a half-court offense.

Therefore, it's more of a "grind it out" kind of game (vs. run and gun.)

Jason in LA
06-03-2010, 10:57 PM
It's funny how LeBron has become a big joke since getting booted out of the playoffs for the second year in a row. Maybe there should be a revote on his MVP award.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
06-03-2010, 11:02 PM
It's funny how LeBron has become a big joke since getting booted out of the playoffs for the second year in a row. Maybe there should be a revote on his MVP award.

Ha!

Now all the pundits are backpedaling and acknowledging Kobe is the best player in the game.

cutthemdown
06-03-2010, 11:22 PM
The Smeltics just look old and slow against this Lakers team.

BTW, Magic just offered a public apology to Kobe on Sports Center for prematurely passing the 'best player' torch to LeChoke. Ha!

Kobe IMO is the best player ever. Even greater then Jordan. I say that because I don't think Kobe get's as many calls as Jordan did. Man Kobe makes some amazing shots that most basketball players would shoot about 5% on.

cutthemdown
06-03-2010, 11:25 PM
Ha!

Now all the pundits are backpedaling and acknowledging Kobe is the best player in the game.

Wait until he wins it again after this. When it's said and done the list of greatest players will be:

Kobe
Jordan
Magic

24champ
06-04-2010, 12:59 AM
Not this time, Craptics are in for a world of pain.

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/sp/getty/e5/fullj.307e8ee94be400d334a854592994252f/307e8ee94be400d334a854592994252f-getty-bkn-nba-final-lakers___celtics.jpg

cutthemdown
06-04-2010, 01:09 AM
Bynum being able to play, Artest, give the lakers something we didn't have in 2008. What have Celts added? Not to mention How much better Gasol is now.

Celtics better worry about even competing.

cutthemdown
06-04-2010, 01:10 AM
Ha!

Now all the pundits are backpedaling and acknowledging Kobe is the best player in the game.

Did you catch that look in Kobe's eye's? Man he is focused.

24champ
06-04-2010, 01:10 AM
Very cool of Ron Ron...



With Game 1 of the NBA Finals starting in just a few hours -- TMZ has learned two Los Angeles Lakers fans will be sitting courtside at the Staples Center ... on Ron Artest's dime.



The two $9,000 tickets were given away this morning in a contest on Power 106 radio in L.A. -- but the winners had no idea that Ron paid for them out of his own pocket.

We called Ron to find out why he shelled out for the seats and he told us, "Most of my fans can't afford the ticket prices to come to any of the games, let alone the Finals. I wanted to treat a fan to something they would normally never have access to, so they could feel like one of the stars for the night."

Ron added, "I feel like just a regular person at the end of the day, and I wanted to be able to share my first Finals experience with one of my regular fans."

http://www.tmz.com/2010/06/03/ron-artest-los-angeles-lakers-tickets-courtside-boston-celtics-nba-finals/#comments

24champ
06-04-2010, 01:17 AM
Bynum being able to play, Artest, give the lakers something we didn't have in 2008. What have Celts added? Not to mention How much better Gasol is now.

Celtics better worry about even competing.

Like I said way earlier in the thread, "one game, series not make." The Lakers sent the Celtics a message tonight that they haven't forgotten 2008 and they are going to fight for the Championship. Let's not forget that while last year the finals looked easy on paper, in reality after we blew out the Magic in Game 1 that the series went on to 2 different overtime games.

It's a little early for the sweep talk, and I know the Craptics are going to come out on Sunday Night ready to fight back. They don't want to go home down 0-2.

broncocalijohn
06-04-2010, 01:21 AM
Kobe IMO is the best player ever. Even greater then Jordan. I say that because I don't think Kobe get's as many calls as Jordan did. Man Kobe makes some amazing shots that most basketball players would shoot about 5% on.

you were doing really well until you posted this. Jordan is the best. As a Kobe fan, I can admit to this. Nice win but I still see it going 6 games.

24champ
06-04-2010, 01:24 AM
you were doing really well until you posted this. Jordan is the best. As a Kobe fan, I can admit to this. Nice win but I still see it going 6 games.

On the ESPN postgame show, Magic Johnson took back his words about Lebum being the best in the NBA today and gave that title back to Kobe Bryant. Also said that Kobe is now in the discussion for the Greatest player ever and when his career is over, he certainly could be the best to ever play.

broncocalijohn
06-04-2010, 01:26 AM
On the ESPN postgame show, Magic Johnson took back his words about Lebum being the best in the NBA today and gave that title back to Kobe Bryant. Also said that Kobe is now in the discussion for the Greatest player ever and when his career is over, he certainly could be the best to ever play.

not there yet. We are talking all time. Right now that is all Air Jordan.

24champ
06-04-2010, 01:42 AM
not there yet. We are talking all time. Right now that is all Air Jordan.

He's in the discussion as it is. Magic and Van Gundy have said so tonight.

cutthemdown
06-04-2010, 01:55 AM
He's more then in the discussion. In fact if Kobe got treated by refs like Jordan did he would have even better numbers.

broncocalijohn
06-04-2010, 02:10 AM
Bynum being able to play, Artest, give the lakers something we didn't have in 2008. What have Celts added? Not to mention How much better Gasol is now.

Celtics better worry about even competing.

The huge difference is defense and especially defending the paint. Watching back in 08, i thought i was watching a John Wayne movie called North To Alaska. Saloon doors were in full effect in that championship game. Well, those doors have been removed for 2010.

24champ
06-04-2010, 02:15 AM
He's more then in the discussion. In fact if Kobe got treated by refs like Jordan did he would have even better numbers.

He needs to get 6 Championship rings to be more than in the discussion. Right now Kobe is working on number 5.

cutthemdown
06-04-2010, 02:22 AM
He needs to get 6 Championship rings to be more than in the discussion. Right now Kobe is working on number 5.

Well if he doesn't catch Jordan then he's probably not going to catch him. I do think though that Kobe can do everything on a basketball court that Jordan could and then some. He may be more dedicated to basketball then Jordan was who played baseball one yr.

I'm a homer for Lakers though so I'm not best person to ask. Sort of like asking whose better Elway or Montana.

cutthemdown
06-04-2010, 02:23 AM
The huge difference is defense and especially defending the paint. Watching back in 08, i thought i was watching a John Wayne movie called North To Alaska. Saloon doors were in full effect in that championship game. Well, those doors have been removed for 2010.

Plus Lakers were still getting used to not having Shaq.

missingnumber7
06-04-2010, 08:43 AM
The huge difference is defense and especially defending the paint. Watching back in 08, i thought i was watching a John Wayne movie called North To Alaska. Saloon doors were in full effect in that championship game. Well, those doors have been removed for 2010.

The Lakers looked as if they were out to OUT PHYSICAL the Celtics last night. Not just that, but it seemed as if KG was somewhere else all night long. He has a lot of horrible miscues all night long.

And as far as defensive difference. I think the huge difference is adding Artest, he brings a defensive swagger to the team.

The thing that Kobe has improved since 08 is his post offense. He posts up alot stronger now than he did before and works to stay in the post, where as before he would stop and if he didn't get the ball he would go and get the ball leaving the post. Last night he got away with a ton in the post. Alot more than most G/F's get away with.

oubronco
06-04-2010, 08:57 AM
Like I said way earlier in the thread, "one game, series not make." The Lakers sent the Celtics a message tonight that they haven't forgotten 2008 and they are going to fight for the Championship. Let's not forget that while last year the finals looked easy on paper, in reality after we blew out the Magic in Game 1 that the series went on to 2 different overtime games.

It's a little early for the sweep talk, and I know the Craptics are going to come out on Sunday Night ready to fight back. They don't want to go home down 0-2.

This series is far from over but the Celtics may not be able to do anything about going home down 0-2

Jason in LA
06-04-2010, 01:17 PM
Game 2 is a big game for both teams. If the Lakers win it then they have total control of the series. When the home team wins the first two games they win the series like 80% of the time. The Celtics would have to win all three games at home. The only chance Boston has is going back to LA up 3-2. If they go down 0-2 then the chances of coming back to LA up a game is going to be very slim. If Boston pulls out Game 2, then we'll have a really good series on our hands.

bombay
06-04-2010, 01:37 PM
Love that Buss is lowballing Phil Jackson. He's going to repeat what Jerry Krause did in Chicago; prematurely break up what had been an NBA champion.

R8R H8R
06-04-2010, 02:27 PM
Bynum being able to play, Artest, give the lakers something we didn't have in 2008. What have Celts added? Not to mention How much better Gasol is now.

Celtics better worry about even competing.

Age.

ZONA
06-04-2010, 07:57 PM
Game 2 is a big game for both teams. If the Lakers win it then they have total control of the series. When the home team wins the first two games they win the series like 80% of the time. The Celtics would have to win all three games at home. The only chance Boston has is going back to LA up 3-2. If they go down 0-2 then the chances of coming back to LA up a game is going to be very slim. If Boston pulls out Game 2, then we'll have a really good series on our hands.

That is so played out man. Game 1 is a very big game, for both teams. No wait, it's game 2. Nah, game 3 is the biggie. Nope, wrong again, game 4 is always the swing game. Wrong again, it's game 5 that is the most important...........yada yada yada. Oh, I'm not picking on you. You hear this from the TV guys also. Every single game, they are saying how big the current game is. Duh. Every game is an important or "big" game.

FADERPROOF
06-04-2010, 08:08 PM
What a difference 2 years makes...

2008 started the Pau Gasoft nickname for the way Kevin Garnett abused him.

2010 Pau Gasol crushes Garnett of any inside game he has.

ZONA
06-04-2010, 08:15 PM
What a difference 2 years makes...

2008 started the Pau Gasoft nickname for the way Kevin Garnett abused him.

2010 Pau Gasol crushes Garnett of any inside game he has.

Yeah, Gasol looked great out there. Except for his wuss ass blatent flop, which he got a foul called on him for. That was funnier then ****.

Jason in LA
06-04-2010, 11:31 PM
That is so played out man. Game 1 is a very big game, for both teams. No wait, it's game 2. Nah, game 3 is the biggie. Nope, wrong again, game 4 is always the swing game. Wrong again, it's game 5 that is the most important...........yada yada yada. Oh, I'm not picking on you. You hear this from the TV guys also. Every single game, they are saying how big the current game is. Duh. Every game is an important or "big" game.

When the home team wins the first 2 games at home in the 2/3/2 format, they win the NBA title 93% of the time. So yeah, Game 2 is big for both teams.

Only team that I can think of who won the first two games at home then blew the series was the Mavs, and they damn near ended the series in game 3. Blew like a 13 point 4th period lead and then lost the next three games to the Heat. If they hold that lead that series is over.

So yes, it is a big game for both teams.

ZONA
06-04-2010, 11:38 PM
When the home team wins the first 2 games at home in the 2/3/2 format, they win the NBA title 93% of the time. So yeah, Game 2 is big for both teams.

Only team that I can think of who won the first two games at home then blew the series was the Mavs, and they damn near ended the series in game 3. Blew like a 13 point 4th period lead and then lost the next three games to the Heat. If they hold that lead that series is over.

So yes, it is a big game for both teams.

Yup, it is. But so is game 1, 3, 4..........

Jason in LA
06-05-2010, 12:06 AM
Yup, it is. But so is game 1, 3, 4..........



I'm not saying that the other games aren't big. Of course those other games are big too.

I'd say Games 1 and 2 are both huge because the road team is trying to get a split, which they really need if they want a legit chance at winning the series. The home team is trying to get the sweep, which will make it very hard to beat them in the series. Since Boston lost Game 1 they need this game. The Lakers could really take control of the series with a win because it would pretty much force the Celtics to have to win all three games at home. That's a very tough task.

FADERPROOF
06-05-2010, 05:13 AM
Yup, it is. But so is game 1, 3, 4..........

I a team wins the first 2 games, it forces the other team to beat them 4 out of 5 games in order to win the series. Game 2 is big because it pretty much clinches the title for the Lakers if they win it.

TDmvp
06-05-2010, 05:27 AM
Even spookier maybe then my Celts losing was Jason Bateman and Dustin Hoffman making out in the crowd ...


No wonder the Celts couldn't knock down a shot , they was still in shock from seeing Rain Man make out with the kid from the Hogan Family.

I call for a ban on kiss cams
Hilarious!
http://cdn.theblemish.com/images/2010/06/jason-dustin-kiss-02.jpg

Maximus
06-05-2010, 10:40 AM
Like I said way earlier in the thread, "one game, series not make." The Lakers sent the Celtics a message tonight that they haven't forgotten 2008 and they are going to fight for the Championship. Let's not forget that while last year the finals looked easy on paper, in reality after we blew out the Magic in Game 1 that the series went on to 2 different overtime games.

It's a little early for the sweep talk, and I know the Craptics are going to come out on Sunday Night ready to fight back. They don't want to go home down 0-2.

This is true the series isn't over. I'm expecting the Lakers to teach another lesson in game 2. The Lakers are not the sissy pushovers that Cleveland and Orlando were. The Lakers have 1 assassin ( Kobe ) a hitman ( Fisher ) a Capo ( Gasol ) and the Consigliere ( Phil Jackson ) Did I forget the enforcer ( Artest )

Boston beat teams that didn't have killer instinct or a player who commanded the ultimate respect. The Lakers have 2 Kobe and Fisher. Make no mistake about this series... Its all about Kobe writing another chapter in the history books. Boston is in his way. He's already got the media apologizing for their insolence... LeBron the best in the game... Lebron the best ever... Bah! If 2008 wasn't enough... The Lebron disrespect has taken him to another level!

FADERPROOF
06-05-2010, 12:20 PM
Im sure in another couple weeks game 2 will be played.

Jason in LA
06-05-2010, 12:45 PM
This is true the series isn't over. I'm expecting the Lakers to teach another lesson in game 2. The Lakers are not the sissy pushovers that Cleveland and Orlando were. The Lakers have 1 assassin ( Kobe ) a hitman ( Fisher ) a Capo ( Gasol ) and the Consigliere ( Phil Jackson ) Did I forget the enforcer ( Artest )

Boston beat teams that didn't have killer instinct or a player who commanded the ultimate respect. The Lakers have 2 Kobe and Fisher. Make no mistake about this series... Its all about Kobe writing another chapter in the history books. Boston is in his way. He's already got the media apologizing for their insolence... LeBron the best in the game... Lebron the best ever... Bah! If 2008 wasn't enough... The Lebron disrespect has taken him to another level!

I agree. Boston can still win this series, especially if they win Game 2, but this is a team that they haven't played. This Lakers team isn't soft like the '08 team. Even though they have a lot of the same parts, they got rid of a few really soft parts, Bynum is there (even though he's not 100% it's better than not having him there), Artist brings a toughness and grit, Pao has gotten tougher, and the Lakers are already champions. They proved their toughness last year by winning it all, and this year I'd say they are even tougher. They have that championship swagger. LeBron certainly doesn't have it, and the Celtics were able to enforce their will on the Cavs. The Magic still don't have it so the Celtics were able to make quick work of them. The Celtics aren't going to be able to do that against the Lakers.

The Game 1 beat down doesn't mean that this will be a short series. There have been many series where the team that got their ass kicked in Game 1 went on to win the series. But if the Celtics don't bounce back really quick, this could be a short series. That's why Game 2 is so big.

Looking forward, if the Lakers win Game 2, then Games 3 and 4 are make or break for the Celtics. They have to win both of those game. But the Lakers don't. That's why I'd say that Game 2 is so huge. It's huge for both teams.

Jason in LA
06-06-2010, 10:35 AM
Pao Gasol's comments about Kevin Garnett were interesting. I'd say that sometimes it is good not to be open and honest with the media. Players have to give those generic BS answers that everybody knows is not true.

Seemed like Gasol was asked to give his opinion of KG, and he said what everybody already knows, he's not as explosive and takes more jump shots. Listening to Gasol's tone when answering the question, he wasn't talking trash or putting KG down, and he finished by saying that KG is still a great player, but the media is going to spin his comments a different way and make it seem like he was talking trash.

Kobe had an off the record comment that speaks to this. Before the Suns series he was asked to do an interview on a LA sports talk radio station. He turned it down saying that he didn't want to have to say good things about the Suns. By doing the interview he'd have to praise them and all that BS, which he really didn't feel like doing.

If a player is a speak your mind and talk trash type of guy, then go ahead and say what you think. But Pao isn't one of those guys. I wouldn't be surprised if he just lit a fire inside KG.

ohiobronco2
06-06-2010, 01:48 PM
Pao Gasol's comments about Kevin Garnett were interesting. I'd say that sometimes it is good not to be open and honest with the media. Players have to give those generic BS answers that everybody knows is not true.

Seemed like Gasol was asked to give his opinion of KG, and he said what everybody already knows, he's not as explosive and takes more jump shots. Listening to Gasol's tone when answering the question, he wasn't talking trash or putting KG down, and he finished by saying that KG is still a great player, but the media is going to spin his comments a different way and make it seem like he was talking trash.

Kobe had an off the record comment that speaks to this. Before the Suns series he was asked to do an interview on a LA sports talk radio station. He turned it down saying that he didn't want to have to say good things about the Suns. By doing the interview he'd have to praise them and all that BS, which he really didn't feel like doing.

If a player is a speak your mind and talk trash type of guy, then go ahead and say what you think. But Pao isn't one of those guys. I wouldn't be surprised if he just lit a fire inside KG.


Of course he did. These guys use all kinds of things to motivate themselves. I don't think Pau really meant anything by it and I'm not saying I disagree with his comments, but you have to know that just about anything the media runs with will be used as motivational material. I expect a different Celtic team tonight, don't know if it will matter though.

Jason in LA
06-06-2010, 02:07 PM
I'm also expecting a different Celtics team, well, mentally. Especially KG. But can they physically be that team anymore? Can KG use that fire to turn back the clock a couple years? And if they can, will it be enough to beat this Lakers team? We'll find out in a few hours.

Maximus
06-06-2010, 02:29 PM
I'm also expecting a different Celtics team, well, mentally. Especially KG. But can they physically be that team anymore? Can KG use that fire to turn back the clock a couple years? And if they can, will it be enough to beat this Lakers team? We'll find out in a few hours.

I expect them to play harder but the result will be the same. They are buying into the idea that they were not physical etc. They actually played the same way during the regular season against us. They were as physical as they could get. The only thing is they didn't hustle to the loose balls. It wasn't about physicality, the lakers were just quicker. If you're out of position your physicality is neutralized.

Bottom line is the celtics are making excuses along with the media. The celtics were ranked second to last in rebounding. This means that they are not as physical as they and the media think they are. I expect them to over compensate on the offensive boards. The result will be a lot of missed shots this game because they will concentrate on physicality more than playing ball. Lakers by +10 tonight!!!