NBA Finals Lakers and Celtics: Who's gonna win?

[michaeljohn]

Well, Celtics actually didn't have to go 7 games....Lakers and Celtics finals...

What will happen:

First 2 games in Boston, split, series tied 1-1
Next 3 games in LA, Lakers win 2 of 3.
Back to Boston, Lakers close out Celtics in 6.

This happened in 1985. It will happen again.

[canu]

I'm thinking Boston will take it 4-2

[michaeljohn]

ESPN has all 8 writers picking Lakers over Celtics. I didn't expect but a bare majority for LA. These are the guys who are supposed to know things....

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs

Las Vegas has LA as a slight favorite.

If I was told before the playoffs began that LA and Boston would be in finals, and their records would be 12-3 and 12-8, I would have said it would be Boston who was 12-3, and I think almost everyone would agree. However, the Lakers breezed through the incredibly stacked western conference.

Some people still perceive Kobe as an individualist. During the dynasty with Shaq, Kobe kept to himself. He was a loner. Now, Kobe has taken on the leadership role. This team hooks up socially all the time. The whole team has met for dinner to watch the other series' finish to see who they play next. You just know last night when the Celtics won and the players chanted Beat LA, that the Laker players just smiled and stepped up their motivation to win even more.

History: Yeah, Celtics lead 8-2 but the first 7 were in the Russell era. Back then, there were 10 teams or fewer in the league. Win your conference, get a first round bye, then play the finals. Sorry, pick any of those Celtic teams in the 11 of 13 championship run, put them in the league today, and they don't make the playoffs. Boston hasn't done much since they had their first and only dynasty. They won the east with the best record over 10 times since then, and failed to even make the finals more than they did or in some cases, lost in them.

The Laker team is deeper than Boston, and younger. Garnett, Allen, and Pierce never won a thing. Their ages are showing. Garnett disappears in crunch time, and Aleen has been in a huge slump. He won't even take the key shots. It usually takes a team a few years together to get things to jell. Most of the key Lakers have been there before and won it all, or been on the team for a few years. Adding Gasol to the mix gives LA another decisive piece.

Hell, I am just a fan, what do I know. I'll either be right, or wrong. At least I take a stand. Don't just vote, comment!

[michaeljohn]

I am going to debunk the myth of the so-called Celtic mystique. They have had some great teams since the Russell era, but far from the tradition set that preceded them. Mystique is only in the minds eye. Evidence shows they were second fiddle to many better teams over the years that they later had great squads.

Ok, 1957-1969. 11 titles in 13 seasons. No arguments about their dominance. They were the greatest collection of players ever seen during their run. However, this is an older era. Everyone who played in the NBA then is at least 60+ years old now. Kareem was a rookie the next season, and he's been retired since 1989.

After missing the playoffs for 2 years, Celtics drafted smartly, picking up superstars Dave Cowens and Jojo White to add to the firepower that former 6th man John Havlicek offered. However, their run wasn't all that impressive, considering their regular season results.

1971-72 Best record in the east, Lost to New York Knicks in ECF
1972-73 Best record in the NBA, 68-14, Lost to New York Knicks in ECF
1973-74 Best record in the east, won NBA championship over Milwaukee and Kareem Abdul Jabbar without HCA in 7 games. That was a great series, 5 games were won on the road, including the final 3.
1974-75 Best record in the east, won on tiebreak. Lost to Washington in ECF.
1975-76 Best record in the east. Golden State, the defending NBA champs and the team with the best regular season record, lost WCF to Phoenix (42-40). Beat Phoenix 4-2. Meh, no one was winning back-to-back in this era, so yeah, Boston would have won against GS. This was too easy though. Forget that double overtime game 5 and Gar Heard. Celtics won that game anyway.
1976-77 Fell to 4th in east, lost in eastern semi's.

1977-1979 Havlicek retired in this period, but even with White and Cowens, Celtics fell to about 30 wins a year.

Ok, now the 13 year Larry Bird era, 1979-80 to 1991-92 Let's break it down into 4ths, or as close as we can.

1979-80 to 1982-83. Best record in the NBA first 3 years. Result? Philadelphia played in 3 finals, Boston 1. At least the Celtics won the year they made it. It was an odd year as in 1976. All the best teams in the west kept losing early, and the Celtics played Houston in the finals who went 40-42.

1983-84 to 1987-88. Best record in the NBA first 3 years, and best in east last 2. Four finals appearances, splitting them 2-2 with a 1-2 record against the Lakers. Never had a back-to-back for Bird. Their best successes in the Bird era but only 2 titles in 5 years.

1987-89 to 1991-92. First season fell to 42-40 with 8th seed and out to Pistons in 3 in first round. second year, 4th best record in the east, out in first round to 5th place Knicks in 5. Third year had the second best record in the east to Chicago and MJ, but lost to Detroit in second round. Last year for Bird, tied for 3rd-4th best record in east, but out in round 2 to Cleveland. Quite a fall from grace these last four to five years! Pistons, and then the Bulls were the beasts of the east.

Since Len Bias died in 1986 from a cocaine overdose (Their top draft pick who they expected to help win more titles along with Bird), Celtics haven't done much since. I have referred to it as "The Curse of Len Bias", destined to outlast baseball's "Curse of the Bambino" against the Red Sox. Boston did make it to the ECF in 2002 before losing to NJ. I forgot all about that as the Celtics until this year are really old news. Think about it, most players in the NBA are too young to have seen them win it all! 1986 is 22 years ago, so anyone under 30 wouldn't remember much if they saw it happen.

I'll post more about why the Lakers are the most storied franchise in the NBA later. Yeah, Celtics are ahead of LA 8-2 in series victories, but look at how many times they were favored to get to the finals but ducked us by losing in the ECF:

1972
1980
1982
1988
2002 LOL Celtic mystique indeed!

Now we have them in 2008 right where we want them! Payback is a bitch!

[MrEfrisk]

Gonna be a great finals to watch, cant wait!

[michaeljohn]

A little bit about the NBA's first dynasty, the 1948/49 to 1953/54 Minneapolis Lakers. They won 5 titles in 6 years. Honestly, this team wouldn't stand a chance in the league today. First, no jump shooters. Next, no 24 second shot clock. Finally, their superstar George Mikan wouldn't make it in the league today as he played back then. Although he was the first dominant big man in the league, miles ahead of the competition, one glaring fact speaks for this generation....The 3 second key was 3 feet wide then. They changed the rule years later to keep Wilt Chamberlain away from the basket. Mikan could post up and score at will right? Well, he did score a lot, but his lifetime field goal percentage was about 40%. End of discussion.

However, the NBA was brand new, and these Lakers set the table for league success and the great teams and players that soon followed.

[michaeljohn]

I love the part where Kobe is getting MVP chants in Boston Garden last year:

ZTkvcmFb6aM

[Jabooty_3]

blah blah blah with the old stuff....

I'd like to see Boston win

[93crawler]

Celtics have home court advantage throughout the series, and as was proven in the East Semi's, they can indeed win on the road---twice in that series. Allen has finally got his shot back, and I think the Celtics are simply deeper in the bench. The little bitch Kobe will get his points every game probably, but the rest of the Celtics team matches up very well against the Lakers. Should be a very good series, one for the history books. I think the Celtics in 6. Pau Gasol and Odom, are very good, but the Celtics have a very deep bench, especially with big guys.

MJ, that video you posted doesn't mean shit. Garnett is the better player, over Gasol. I think Odom is actually better than Gasol--more rounded. I could care less what the "experts" have to say, experts are consistently proven wrong---they're only offering "educated" guesses.

[BackdoorJesus]

The Spurs were a better team than Boston is; the Lakers should take them handily.

[koЯnut]

and I think the Celtics are simply deeper in the bench.


:bowrofl:

Seriously?

[Draggon]

tl;dr...

[MrEfrisk]

Phil knows how to win championships while Doc Rivers has not won one as a coach. The lakers have a very great record with Gasol. Theres no way Boston is going to win this series.

[michaeljohn]

I think the Celtics are simply deeper in the bench.


In the one maybe two games the Keltics manage to win, one of their bench guys will go off with 25 points like Brent Barry did in our series with SA. Other than that, you are going to be in for a rude awakening. The video is pure smack, I stick my neck out for the Lakers, and get the shame if I'm wrong. Read what BDJ says, he is very correct. Spurs would have beaten Boston, they had everything to gain. Undisputed dynasty status (Many of their fans make bogus claims otherwise, but no back-to-backs. Don't make me go into this, been there, done that) and a chance to go down in history as one of the greatest units ever. Lakers proved they are better than the Spurs. Oh, how many bench points did you get in game 5 vs. Detroit? I think it was a 3 point play in the 4th quarter by Posey when the Pistons roared back from 17 down. Lakers match up better against the Keltics than you are aware.

Oh, Keltics is correct phoenetical pronunciation of this Irish word.

[93crawler]

God damn you're arrogant MJ, this is one of the many reasons I don't talk much about sports--everyone thinks they're a fucking expert. It's spelled Celtics on their jerseys, website, and everything else related to them, so I could care less about the "Keltics" way of saying it. Regardless of what happens, they have been very impressive, from winning just 24 games last year, to having the best record in the league a year later. The Lakers are definitely a good team, and it will be a very good series, but I will always hate, HATE, Kobe--he's one of the biggest bitches in the league, I can't stand the prick. I'm done, talk all the shit you want, there are far more Lakers fans on here than there are anything else.

[michaeljohn]

Just talking smack is all. Don't take me seriously. Yes, Celtics is spelled Celtics everywhere, but pronounced Keltics outside of USA. I like all teams in sports as I have said before, except the New York Yankees and the Dallas Cowboys. I am mostly arrogant against the Spankees, George Steinbrenner is to thank for that. See my thread about that moron in EOTH from last year or so.... I don't think I am as arrogant about my all time favorite team (Lakers) as one sirdrinkalot though is about his. That guy disappeared after the Pats lost. You know I won't if the Celtics win. If Boston wins, I'll be giving them props here.

Lakers have a few nicknames too, I have seen Fakers, Flakers and Takers. I have alsoo seen Smelltics, Meltics, and Celpricks. My favorite is Gang Green which they called them last year. Since they have had such a hard time with the Hawks and Cavs, I took a fancy to that and did use it.

Kobe is nowhere near my favorite Laker of all time. Chamberlain, West, Baylor, Hairston, Goodrich, Erickson, Riley, Abdul-Jabbar, Magic, Worthy, Cooper, etc. are all way ahead of him among my faves. Kobe is also one of the most hated players in the league. The man has actually changed. Aside from not being a ball-hog anymore he trusts his teammates. He used to keep to himself, dress after a game not talking to anyone, then leave. Now, he hangs with the entire team, even on off days. They go out to dinner together to watch the clinching games of other series to see who they play next. Would love to see a video of the Laker team reaction during the ECF trophy presentation the other night. Big blunder by the Celtic owner, huge locker room fodder for LA. Did you catch it? The announcer mentions LA and Boston have met 10 times before in the finals. Celtic owner blurts out, "Yeah, and we won 8 of them!" Way wrong thing to say, lol.

[michaeljohn]

Oh, by the way, Kobe Bryant is the reason myself, and many others are here in the first place. www.kobewatch.org is how I discovered Webrats in July of 2003, looking for pics of the chick he commited adultry with, Kate Faber. You may add BackdoorJesus, YaMon, and TigerLand to the list of members. Webrats just wouldn't be the same old place without us!

[rexhamer]

MJ:

There will be a lot more to say during this series, but I must call you and BDJ out on one point. How can you say the Spurs are better than the Celtics? I give them props for being defending champs, but:

Season - Celts 66-10 record, Spurs, 56-26 ( and don't tell me how tough the West was, Celts blew through them all)

Feb. 10 in Boston: Celts 98, Spurs 90
March 17 in SA, Celts 93, Spurs 91

So, please explain how the Spurs are better than the Celts and why that ensures a Lakers win?

Let's take it a step further - Celts just beat the Pistons. Can I say the Pistons were better than the Lakers at 59-23 (Det) vs. 57-25 (LAL)? They split their two games during the regular season.

[michaeljohn]

MJ:

There will be a lot more to say during this series, but I must call you and BDJ out on one point. How can you say the Spurs are better than the Celtics? I give them props for being defending champs, but:

Season - Celts 66-10 record, Spurs, 56-26 ( and don't tell me how tough the West was, Celts blew through them all)

Feb. 10 in Boston: Celts 98, Spurs 90
March 17 in SA, Celts 93, Spurs 91

So, please explain how the Spurs are better than the Celts and why that ensures a Lakers win?

Let's take it a step further - Celts just beat the Pistons. Can I say the Pistons were better than the Lakers at 59-23 (Det) vs. 57-25 (LAL)? They split their two games during the regular season.
You have good questions and they are very easy to answer. First and foremost, you have to understand that playoffs and regular season are mutually exclusive events. All the regular season does is generate revenue to pay salaries, determine the playoff seedings, and set home court advantage if a series goes to seven games. HCA is not always needed to become NBA champion or a series winner. Have a look this year and last for current relevance.

Regular season is different from the playoffs as well, because you go weeks or months without playing the same team twice. Plus, you see many other teams in between. Playoffs get to see up to 7 games versus the same opponent. Now, preparations become most important.

Eastern Conference was much weaker than the west in terms of the number of quality teams, so their records are a bit higher than they would have been if the east had to play more games in the western conference. Note that Atlanta and Cleveland wouldn't have made the playoffs had they been western teams. Look how they did in the postseason!

To answer your last question first, Detroit at 59-23 is not necessarily better than the Lakers 57-25 because of who they each had to play, and how many times they had to play them.

Now, why is San Antonio better than Boston? First and foremost, they were the defending championships, and their big 3 has been intact since the 2002/03 season. Without Robinson, they won 2 of the previous 3 titles. They won 2 in the 5 years preceeding that, for 4 of 9 overall. Playoff experience does tell a lot, and champions that know how to win always have an edge agasinst teams that don't. This doesn't mean they will always win, as San Antonio never repeated. As pointed out above, the Spurs had every reason in the world to repeat.

As far as the Celtics 2 wins over the Spurs go, remember last year? Cleveland won both their games against San Antonio. Boston won their game in SA with a huge comeback. They were on a roll at this time, sweeping the Texas triangle. SA is good enough to make the playoffs and top seeding isn't their primary concern. Their coach, Greg Popovich, limits the minutes of his key players to keep them fresh for the post season. Arguably, he may be the current greatest Coach in the NBA. Oh, by the way, Phoenix was 3-1 vs. San Antonio in the regular season. Spurs paid them back in the playoffs 4-1. To close this part of the argument, a big 3 with experience a proven coach has to be favored over another big 3 without previous seasons of team experience and an untested coach.

So, even though the Celtics did blow through the west, that was the regular season. Of course you know the Laker team you beat twice isn't the same Laker team that you will meet in 2 days! Look again above my earlier post where I show the Celtics history since the Russell era of how they did when they got NBA or East best record. They failed to even get beyond the ECF more often than not!

To close, if you don't quite understand it, regular season is one thing, playoffs are another. You get game 7 in Boston if it goes that far. Before that, it's all even for home court serve. Lakers in five, six at the most.

[michaeljohn]

I've got my "Where Boston Sucks Happens" video above. Here are a few more smack vids:

fxwd58mzBMM

YjCndtxRzzU

LLyxVP2805Y

Zg4qQ-z_BPw

Xm4Jrk2WN9g

[rexhamer]

Obfuscation! Obfuscation! Obfuscation! Look it up. You throw out a lot of info, but don't really get to the point.

The regular season and playoffs are "mutually exclusive"? I presume you are trying to say that regular season results are not a good indicator of playoff performance. The facts do no support this. Yes, the regular season sets seeding, and that is an indicator of teams' relative strength and performance. This year there have been 14 playoff series. Thirteen have been one by the higher seed, the only one that was not was SA (#3) vs. NO (#2). And they finished the regular season with identical records, NO getting the #2 seed on a tie-breaker. And though I don't have the time for gathering the stats, I would bet a week's pay that, since the NBA began, higher seeds have won more series than lower seeds. Have there been upsets - sure. But the MAJORITY of the time the higher seed wins. Therefore we can look at the regular season in relation to the playoffs.

SA was better than Boston because they were defending champs and had their big three together? Coach limits their minutes and doesn't care about seeding? How did that work out this year? Fact is that the Celts beat them twice.

I would certainly acknowledge that the West was stronger this year (has been for a while). But you say that Atlanta and Cleveland would not have made the playoffs in the West and point to their playoff results as some kind of vindication. They were #4 and #8 in the East and lost to higher seeds. Same thing happened to the #4 and #8 seeds in the West. What is your point?

As for your earlier posts, I am not sure what you point about he Celtics "myth" (your words). You're saying the Celtics teams of the 60's couldn't play in today's NBA - no kidding! For a variety of reasons that I do not need to go into, this holds true in every sport (with th possible exception of hockey). A team or individual's greatness must always be measured relative to their era. In the late 50's it was Minn. Lakers. In the 60's the Celtics. No other pro franchsie can boast 11 championships in 13 years.

Did the Celts dominate like that in the 70's or 80's? Certainly not, and nobody says they did anyway. There is no disagreement in Boston that, although we enjoyed the Celts run in the 80's, LA actually was more dominant. We concede this. And nobody here thinks the Celts dominated the 70's. Only two championships, but what team had more in the 70's? You note that over the years the Celts have had the best season record but did not win a championship. Are they the only team that ever experienced that? No. And what happened to the Lakers in 81 and 86? Were they "ducking" the Celts.

There is also nobody here that thinks "mystique" has any bearing in this (or any other current) playoff series. Just ask the Yankees (or Packers and Canadiens for that matter). This series will be won or lost by what today's players and coaches do. And since the majority of national media are picking the Lakers, I guess there is not as much concern about Celtics mystique as you may believe.

I will be offline for the weekend, but we can pick this up later. I say Celtics edge in defense and rebounding will allow them to prevail in six games. Defense wins championships!

[michaeljohn]

Obfuscation! Obfuscation! Obfuscation! Look it up. You throw out a lot of info, but don't really get to the point.
Obstination! Obstination!
Here's a word for you:
Obstinate
Main Entry: ob·sti·nate
Pronunciation: \ˈäb-stə-nət\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French obstinat, Latin obstinatus, past participle of obstinare to be resolved, from ob- in the way + -stinare (akin to stare to stand)
Date: 14th century
1 : perversely adhering to an opinion, purpose, or course in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion <obstinate resistance to change>
2 : not easily subdued, remedied, or removed <obstinate fever

I did get right to the points, you missed them all. Or you refuse to acknowledge them. They are quite valid.

The regular season and playoffs are "mutually exclusive"? I presume you are trying to say that regular season results are not a good indicator of playoff performance. The facts do no support this. Yes, the regular season sets seeding, and that is an indicator of teams' relative strength and performance. This year there have been 14 playoff series. Thirteen have been one by the higher seed, the only one that was not was SA (#3) vs. NO (#2). And they finished the regular season with identical records, NO getting the #2 seed on a tie-breaker. And though I don't have the time for gathering the stats, I would bet a week's pay that, since the NBA began, higher seeds have won more series than lower seeds. Have there been upsets - sure. But the MAJORITY of the time the higher seed wins. Therefore we can look at the regular season in relation to the playoffs.
Yeah, your argument about the regular season fails. Boston rolled over Atlanta in the regular season, 3-0. Had to go 7 games in the playoffs. First sign that Boston has exploitable weaknesses. They should have won that series no worse than 4-1. Phoenix beat San Antonio 3-1 in the regular season and lost to them in the playoffs 4-1. See, it isn't so much as whether the higher seed wins, but how they win. SA was playing championship ball against the Suns. What were the Celtics playing? If the power rankings were kept current in the playoffs, Celtics would have dropped to number 8 after beating the Hawks. Just check Fox Sports/NBA/Power rankings. Many teams took a turn at the top of the pack this year with much jockeying for position.

SA was better than Boston because they were defending champs and had their big three together? Coach limits their minutes and doesn't care about seeding? How did that work out this year? Fact is that the Celts beat them twice.
Yeah, Celtics beat them twice, as I pointed out above; the game in San Antonio required about a 20 point comeback. It was also during the Boston Texas Triangle sweep. Part of Boston's incredible regualr season. I explained above how regular season prepeartion is different; Teams don't see each other for weeks or months....Playoffs allow better preparations. This is quite obvious but it went right by you. It's all explained above in at least two of my posts. SA is better than Boston, they are the defending champs.

I would certainly acknowledge that the West was stronger this year (has been for a while). But you say that Atlanta and Cleveland would not have made the playoffs in the West and point to their playoff results as some kind of vindication. They were #4 and #8 in the East and lost to higher seeds. Same thing happened to the #4 and #8 seeds in the West. What is your point?
My point was exactly my point. Boston went 7 games against 2 teams weaker than anything that came out of the west. Again, look how the Celtics struggled against weak opposition. Implied is Lakers are hot, Celtics are not. That's been stated already in this thread.

As for your earlier posts, I am not sure what you point about he Celtics "myth" (your words). You're saying the Celtics teams of the 60's couldn't play in today's NBA - no kidding! For a variety of reasons that I do not need to go into, this holds true in every sport (with th possible exception of hockey). A team or individual's greatness must always be measured relative to their era. In the late 50's it was Minn. Lakers. In the 60's the Celtics. No other pro franchsie can boast 11 championships in 13 years.
I believe you could pick a number of teams from the NFL or MLB during the Russell era and find them very competitive today. Those sports haven't evolved as much as basketball has. Think about it, when the Russell era ended, Bird and Magic were still kids! These are the guys that revived the NBA and set the stage for the talent we have in the league today. The 1968 Cardinals with Bob Gibson and his 1.12 ERA would have a field day in MLB today. Dodgers with Koufax and Drysdale as well. Pitching wins games, and they don't pitch as they used to. There were some pretty potent Yankee teams in the early part of the Russell era. Pick any of Lombardy's Green Bay championship teams and let them show the Patriots what football is really all about. How about Jim Brown and the Cleveland Browns?

Did the Celts dominate like that in the 70's or 80's? Certainly not, and nobody says they did anyway. There is no disagreement in Boston that, although we enjoyed the Celts run in the 80's, LA actually was more dominant. We concede this. And nobody here thinks the Celts dominated the 70's. Only two championships, but what team had more in the 70's? You note that over the years the Celts have had the best season record but did not win a championship. Are they the only team that ever experienced that? No. And what happened to the Lakers in 81 and 86? Were they "ducking" the Celts.
Knicks also had two championships in the 70's. In 1981 the Lakers lost in the first round. Magic was injured most of the year. Every good team in the west lost that year in the playoffs, look it up. Weird year. I believe I stated that. 1986 we lost to Houston in the WCF. We won the first then lost 4 straight. Well, you ducked us a lot more than we ducked you!

There is also nobody here that thinks "mystique" has any bearing in this (or any other current) playoff series. Just ask the Yankees (or Packers and Canadiens for that matter). This series will be won or lost by what today's players and coaches do. And since the majority of national media are picking the Lakers, I guess there is not as much concern about Celtics mystique as you may believe.
I just attack the Celtic Mystique because it will be brought up again this series. At least you agree there really isn't any.

I will be offline for the weekend, but we can pick this up later. I say Celtics edge in defense and rebounding will allow them to prevail in six games. Defense wins championships!
Ok, opinion noted. Lakers will win in 5 or 6. Celtics in 6 as you say will be very hard. This requires keeping HCA in Boston and winning one in LA. (Plus win one more in LA for every LA win in BOS) Probably easier for you to make a case for Celtics in 7. But who knows? We agree the players and coaches will decide this. Give me all the hell you want if I am wrong about the outcome.

[joerockhead]

I hope the Lakers win it all, I will not watch much, as I am not a huge fan anymore.
I do like Kobe, he has become a great player. Ability, and now sharing and leading.

Also, I dislike the Celtics. When they lose they cry. WHen they win, the act like they are better then other's. Screw em.

But here is something fun -
February -
Tue 19 @ Denver L 118-124 (And my Nuggets SUCK!!) Hahaha!
Wed 20 @ Golden State L 117-119
Fri 22 @ Phoenix L 77-85
March
Fri 14 @Utah L 92-110


So, NO. They did NOT blow through the West.

Good luck to both teams, may they both play and not have any injuries, and may they be sportsman.

[michaeljohn]

Well, game one to Boston. Really was a great game, back and forth. Time to see what this Laker team is made of! Only need to win one on their court.

[canu]

Go Green,I'm thinking this because my Spurs went out

[michaeljohn]

Go Green,I'm thinking this because my Spurs went out
no comment on the Spurs vs. Celtics argument above?

[growlmon]

I've been a Celtic fan for many years. I hope they win.

[michaeljohn]

Here's my line of thinking on this series. What I saw happening was a split of the first two games. Then back to LA. I figured LA would win 2 of 3 and head back to Boston and win in 6, as they did in 1985. Chance to win in LA 4-1, yes.

So, after tonight, my scenario exists or Boston is up 2-0. If the latter happens, the Lakers are virtually forced to win all 3 in LA. It would be very hard to go and win two games in Boston down 2-3. Or, if LA loses two in LA, it's over.

I don't advocate a cheap shot like McHale's clothesline of Rambis in 1984 for the Lakers to get physical, but I expect them to mix things up a bit. They should test just how injured Pierce and Perkins are.

At least now that we have one game to go on, it makes speculating a bit easier.

So far:
Boston's bench is playing better than LA's bench.
Celtic defense is good, but not unbeatable.
Lakers will keep Cassell in check, no way he hits 4 shots with Kobe guarding him.
Pierce's injury was part real, part drama queen. Too quick of a return to be serious.
Lakers made some poor choices in the 4th quarter and were still competitive.
Game 1 reminded me of Lakers' game 3 losses in Utah and San Antonio. They bounced back nicely after those poor efforts, winning 2 of 3 road games. The loss was in overtime to Utah in game 4.

Should be another exciting game tonight!

[koЯnut]

Wow wow wow. Lakers can't get a call for shit tonight. Unless they get those calls back at Staples, the Celtics (along with the guys in stripes) are going to win.

Call the fucking games straight down the middle NBA. I don't care what city you are in.

:jerkit:

[michaeljohn]

Wow wow wow. Lakers can't get a call for shit tonight. Unless they get those calls back at Staples, the Celtics (along with the guys in stripes) are going to win.

Call the fucking games straight down the middle NBA. I don't care what city you are in.

:jerkit:
yeah, the free throw disparity is unbelievable. well, I'll concede this one, and I was wrong about getting a split in the first two games. Now LA has to take it one game at a time. No margin for error now. Now it's really time for this Laker team to show what they're made of or....

:sadwavey: in a hurry

[michaeljohn]

As soon as I concede the game, Lakers cut a 24 point lead with under 8 minutes left to 2 with 38 seconds left but it was too big of a deficit to overcome. Lesson, don't get down that big in the first place!

[BackdoorJesus]

Yep incredibly one-sided officiating it seems in that last game.

Well, I'm still hopeful that the Lakers can rally back from behind, play the basketball we all know that they are capable of, and catch a break or two from the refs.

So far not the predictable Finals that many expected, but that's what makes it exciting.

[joerockhead]

As soon as I concede the game, Lakers cut a 24 point lead with under 8 minutes left to 2 with 38 seconds left but it was too big of a deficit to overcome. Lesson, don't get down that big in the first place!


I quit checking when it was 91 to 71.

NBA wants 7 games for the $$$$$


And what is this Game 1 Thursday, and Game 2 Sunday! How many days will this series last?

[michaeljohn]

And what is this Game 1 Thursday, and Game 2 Sunday! How many days will this series last?
The schedule seems to be for ratings. If it goes seven games, Thur/Sun/Tue/Thu/Sun/Tue/Thu

The problem is, there are travel days between the Sun/Tue combinations. This should help LA a bit, being younger. Funny, I actually feel better now down 0-2 than when it was 0-1. The foul controversy will go away and things will be fair. The comeback shows LA can compete. No margin for error though, just take it one game at a time. At least series is in LA now. Boston isn't in a great deal of urgency as when they lost game 2 at home to Detroit, so LA could get back in this in a hurry.

[Jabooty_3]

The games in LA only have one day rest, which is good for time. I didn't catch the game till the 7min mark of the 4th so I missed most of the officiating. I did notice the huge free throw disparity after the game.

7 game series aren't just about money, they are exciting! I wanted the Pens to keep winning just to add more tension to the game, regardless of who pulled it out.

[MrEfrisk]

Lakers can still win this championship if they manage to win all 3 games in LA. Theyll be up 3 to 2 and will just have to win one out of two games in Boston. They failed to win one in the first two games in Boston but I doubt they will do the same in the last 2 games. If Boston wins at least one in LA, they will be champs.

[michaeljohn]

I'm going to rant here. Seems the referee, Tim Donaghy, already facing prison for fixing games, has blown the whistle again.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/8231176/Donaghy-says-refs-fixed-playoffs;-Stern-says-no

Obviously, this is the LA vs Sacramento series in 2002. I remember all the Kings fans bitching about the refereeing in game 6. Now, I would say, they were probably right. I have seen plenty of other series where I suspect a fix was on, even big name players probably on the take. We know Phoenix was cheated by Donaghy against San Antonio last year. Wouldn't surprise me to see many more...

Now, the question is, Did the Lakers and the Celtics benefit in their previous series from a fix? It's what the league wanted. Plenty of people are crying just that. I won't go as far to say this series is fixed, to me, it makes no sense. NBA gets its dream matchup, let the teams fight it out. The 38-10 free throw disparity in game 2 backs up a fix claim, but I wish to believe in the integrity of the league.

Damnit, my team can't win every year, but it seems they have benefited from at least one fix, and most likely, been victims as well. I just want a clean series, I am proud of this Laker team, we weren't expected to be here when opening day arrived last fall.

[michaeljohn]

Ugly game. Both teams looked like shit. Unless it was just great defense on both sides. Lakers got to the free throw line, and couldn't hit them,. Neither could Boston. 4 players in double figures, Garnett got there in the last minute. Oh well, LA won a game they had to. Now, start over in two days. I am more interested in comments to my post above this, and for canU to reply with what I asked him. Or, just talk about the series or this game.

[Jabooty_3]

Celts still gonna take it

[RaiderNation666]

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg273/patrickmdryan/LAKERS.gif

laker's in 6 all the way!!

[BackdoorJesus]

Last night was rough, but I think The Lakers only need a couple tweaks to beat the Celtics' game plan.

While I am considerably less confident than I was before the series started I still think The Lakers have what it takes to overcome, execute and take it all the way in these finals.

[michaeljohn]

Last night was rough, but I think The Lakers only need a couple tweaks to beat the Celtics' game plan.

While I am considerably less confident than I was before the series started I still think The Lakers have what it takes to overcome, execute and take it all the way in these finals.
I am feeling good about tonight. Read this post I found elsewhere:

Karma is a b**** isn't it? First Paul Pierce fakes the funk and tries to show up and mock Kobe Bryant and the Lakers, next thing you know Kendrick Perkins sprains his ankle minutes later and then Rajon Rondo twists his foot two days later. Talk about coming back to bite you where it hurts. See Boston, this is what you get when you try to fuck with the City of Angels. No good graces will come your way.

And it's not over. Believe me. There's more of this karma thing on its way, special delivery directly to every Boston fan's doorstep. Air mail special with Kobe's you-know-what tea-bagging on all of your green and white faces.

Go ahead Boston Celtics fans. Believe you've won. Believe the L.A. Lakers are done. Believe your team is better. I dare you. The Lakers' defense swarmed Boston every which way but loose and the Celtics buckled under pressure like they did when they blew a 24-point lead just one quarter earlier. Finals rookie Doc Rivers was lost as well, unable to come up with an answer for the Lakers' adjustments on defense.

And through all the commotion over the last five periods between these two teams, the MVP has been carefully choosing his spots on the floor while studying what the Celtics are trying to do (Lakers come back from 24 down). And he is getting ready for the kill (Kobe D's up Rondo, Pierce, Allen, and the entire Celtics offense). Translation: Boston doesn't stand a chance.

Like the venomous slithering snake, the MVP is slowly but surely shedding his skin, moving ever so cleverly, and allowing his poison to do its thing and inflict its power. Such is the Celtics' predicament over the next two games. Rivers is thinking, "How on earth are we going to prevent ourselves from being down 3-2?"

While the entire eastern seaboard continues to think the Lakers are all about Kobe Bryant, L.A. Lakers fans remain patient. It's all about Kobe, huh? If it were, then who grabbed 12 rebounds and helped limit Kevin Garnett to 6-21 shooting? Who came off the bench to knock down big shot after big shot, score 20 points, and basically matched Ray Allen in production? Who made the adjustment of the series by putting Kobe on Rondo (thanks for taking my recommendation, Phil) immediately as the game started, not only taking Rondo out of his game but the entire Celtics' offense as well, which culminated in the actor Paul Newman, er Pierce, blowing his first Finals audition in L.A.?

Celtics fans want to taunt and call the Lakers soft? Go ahead. We double dare you. We'll see who's in foul trouble the next game.

You want to underestimate a team that put the defending champions out of their misery? Go ahead. Think like you're tough. Your team name is symbolized by a 3-foot leprechaun yet you employ a 6-ft tall mascot to look like a leprechaun at your home games. Talk about not staying true to the game and being what you are not. All of a sudden you want to say your team is tough just because KG throws down a couple dunks and Perkins throws a couple of staredowns after he scores? Who are you kidding Celtics fans?

I've watched KG since he was in high school and he's never been among the strongest or toughest big men in the NBA. He was always a finesse 7-footer who had handles for a big man and is really a small forward playing the four. When Rasheed Wallace, Chris Webber, Shaq, Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, Horace Grant, Brian Grant, Arvydas Sabonis, and David Robinson were all in the Western Conference, Garnett was being pushed around so much he decided to settle for jumpshots. That's why his game is that way today. Boston tries to intimidate you by setting moving picks, grabbing your arm while refs aren't looking, and veteran trashtalking. The only reason guys like Sam Cassell, James Posey, and PJ Brown look as good as they do is because the media is giving them all kinds of credit for having been there before. So it makes the young Lakers role players that much more disadvantaged. Let's see if Brown tries his silly staredown and grin when Kobe or Fish runs into him.

Boston wants to believe that Game Three was in their hands. They want to believe that they were in the game the entire time and if Pierce and Garnett hadn't missed all those shots, they'd have won. Obviously, that's to be expected when you're up 2-0 and your opponents' second and third best players have been mediocre at best.

But what Boston fans don't realize (or are choosing to avoid) is that the Lakers are figuring them out with each passing quarter. They're just taking a little longer to figure out the Celtics' schemes because they are such a balanced team. No team has given the Lakers matchup problems like Boston has. But it doesn't mean the Lakers are done. All this entails is that the Lakers now have to outsmart, outexecute, outthink their opponent. It just means the Lakers have to work harder. And there's no team in the NBA this year that's worked as hard as the Lakers to get where they're at considering all of the expectations, or lack thereof, that were placed on this team.

This is where great thinkers Phil Jackson, Tex Winters, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Jim Cleamons, Kurt Rambis, Frank Hamblen, and Brian Shaw come into the picture. Now this is an ensemble of toughness, if there ever is one. These guys have so many rings collectively you'd use up your fingers and toes. This coaching staff has so much pride, expertise, and mental toughness it will rub off on the players. And it started to happen in Game Three and will continue tomorrow night.

Go ahead Boston fans. Talk your smack. I triple dare you. Some of you will give just a little credit to the Lakers defense and how they stepped up their intensity. But ALL of you will say Boston lost because two out of their Big Three had awful games. That's fine with me. I just hope you're not trying to psyche yourself out.

The bottom line is the Celtics lost because they couldn't stop the Lakers when it counted. Yes, it was because of Kobe. And yes, Kobe is the featured player on the team. But don't be mistaken Laker adversaries. This is a TEAM. You heard me. Team. T-E-A-M. The Lakers win as a team. They lose as a team. And they even miss free throws as a team.

Lakers fans will say that L.A. would have blown out the Celtics had they converted on their free throws. Possibly so and most likely. And Celtics fans have already affirmed their belief - the Celtics are "clearly the better team" according to Lisa H. And to only lose by six even when the Lakers had all of those free throw attempts? I can already feel it. The overconfidence of Celtics' fans has got them believing that the Lakers missed their free throws because they were nervous. I'll tell you what... if a team doesn't go to the free throw line for two games, you're going to miss some foul shots. The Lakers had no practice at the free throw line, plain and simple. I bet they come out and shoot 80% in Game Four.

Don't even worry, Lakers fans. We got them right where we want them. It's the Celtics fans who are uptight, and that's why they have to go out and talk down on the Lakers after every game they win instead of talking about the positive things their team did to win. It's an inferiority complex issue. Trust me on that one. Even after a loss, the Celtics faithful will still talk their trash and put to light all the bad things that happened to the Lakers. And for them to think three games prove that the Celtics are clearly the better team is complete disillusionment. How can you seriously believe, after losing a 24-point lead in less than 8 minutes at your house in a crucial fourth quarter and come out the following game and put up so many bricks you could revive the Berlin Wall, that your team is far superior to the Lakers? I don't really want to bring up the past but had the Lakers received their fair share of calls in games one and two, this series could easily be 2-1 Lakers or even 3-0.

If Lakers fans "refuse to see the light" and are being blinded by the "glare of Hollywood". then Boston fans must be in denial about the reality television show called "Kobe Does Boston." The biggest mistake the Celtics will make is to believe the Lakers are a one-man team. A greater mistake they will make is to disregard the two players who have been cold all series long. But the greatest mistake they will make is to underestimate the character of this squad and believe their "confidence is not very high", as LISA H says, reassuring herself in the process.

I will say this: if this series is so one-sided, then how come Boston is not up 3-0? And don't even say the refs gave the Lakers calls because you deserve to get smacked upside the head if you do.

But knowing the Celtics, they will be feeling good about the way they lost. Even Doc Rivers' comments after the game implied this, mentioning how Boston could have won the game and failing to give credit to how the Lakers took them off their rhythm. Big mistake, because if you are saying you feel good about a loss, it's the first sign you're making an excuse for a bad performance and the first symptoms of weakness for the Boston Celtics in this series. How can a coach and a team feel good or confident about a loss in which the entire team plays one of the ugliest games in the biggest series of their lives? My point is, no person playing in the NBA Finals should feel good after losing.

[michaeljohn]

here's the rest:

The Lakers are playing mind games with the Celtics' overconfident demeanor. They are figuring them out slowly but surely. The Lakers have unleashed the rabid killer that is Kobe Bryant after keeping him tame in the first two games. The Celtics felt the wrath of his fire and anger for the first time on Tuesday. They will adjust by reimplementing their original gameplan for games one and two and attempt to respond to Kobe's sudden offensive onslaught.

But Boston has a major problem. Now that Kobe's on fire, his teammates will soon follow. We all know THE MVP leads by example and we all know his energy and passion rubs off on his teammates. We've seen it all year and we're going to see it again. As the Lakers coaching staff methodically dissects the Celtics using their years of experience and expertise, guys like Sasha, Fisher, Odom, Gasol, Radmanovic, Ariza, Walton, and Turiaf are meditating again and starting to believe.

The brash Celtics faithful wants to think less of Kobe's teammates and call them "dwarfs", although L.A.'s frontline is 7-0, 6-11, and 6-10 respectively. Boston wants to believe it's over. They're hoping and praying for the Lakers and their fans to collapse on the floor like a certain player who wears number 34 in green. The Truth is (no pun intended), Celtics fans are as uneasy and tense on their couch as their own team is on the Staples Center floor.

Celtics fans want to say the Lakers have no chance to win this series because the Lakers are all about Kobe. They want to taunt us and say the team in purple-and-gold has very little hope. Go ahead and underestimate Kobe and his ability to make others better players. Now that he's figured out a way to penetrate that defense, it automatically makes the other players better. You watch and listen to what I'm saying. Go ahead and overlook the Bench Mob.

Lakers Nation dares you.

THE ASSAULT CONTINUES...

Game Four Prediction: Los Angeles Lakers 104, Boston Celtics 88

[michaeljohn]

First quarter, Lakers 35 Boston 14. Lakers ahead 14-6 in rebounds, and 10-1 in assists. This is the real Laker team. Be scared Boston. If Lakers lose this one, they are chumps. Expect at least one Boston run.

[michaeljohn]

First quarter, Lakers 35 Boston 14. Lakers ahead 14-6 in rebounds, and 10-1 in assists. This is the real Laker team. Be scared Boston. If Lakers lose this one, they are chumps. Expect at least one Boston run.
LAKERS are CHUMPS! Congrats Boston, you wanted it more than we did.

[canu]

It's over now, congrads Celtics what a come back.

[93crawler]

I didn't catch the game last night, who won? Ah just kidding, the Celtics come back from a 24 point deficit to win in LA! I turned the game off half way through the second quarter, and thought it was over, and then turned it one half way through the third quarter to see that they were only down by 6! Biggest comeback in finals history, and Pierce, or Garnett didn't even have that good of a game. You guys gave me shit for saying that Boston's bench was deeper, and better than LA's, and now who is full of it.

All odds makers picked LA, and now they are looking ridiculous. Gasol, Odom, and the rest of the Lakers haven't really lived up to the hype. Garnett, and Pierce aren't even playing at their full potential, the only one that has been consistent has been Ray Allen. But they have consistently got key players from the bench to perform, like Powe in game 2, and Posey, and House came up big in last night's game. Kobe wasn't even much of a threat last night.

I'm still sticking with my original statement, Celtics in 5, or 6 at the most. The Lakers are overrated, and all you Lakers fans can blow me.

[michaeljohn]

yeah, and who's an arrogant son a of a bitch now. Fuck you in the ass, you hypocrite.

[michaeljohn]

It's over now, congrads Celtics what a come back.
You know what's funny. I called the Spurs better than the Celtics in this thread earlier, and invited you to respond, but you never did. Now, it seems whatever you might want to say to agree with that may have no merit, Boston should win this series. Instead, you rooted for Boston, which beat your team. Hey, LA has lost in the finals before and come back strong the next year. I am not worried about our future. Everyone but Fisher is younger than Kobe. However, the Spurs should be worried. A better result for Spurs fans is a Laker championship, because a Laker defeat makes us hungrier next year. Spurs team is in need of an overhaul. Other teams will be rising.

I said earlier, congrats Boston, you wanted it more than we did. If anyone doesn't know "it" means a title, wanted is in past tense, and congrats is a concession....Well, you need to learn to read and comprehend. So what's to be said about the Laker meltdown in game 4? It's been said everywhere else, so no point in adding other than what I said above. Boston wanted it more. The prognacastion of this series if it was just starting now, would have to be the same. Boston had issues, LA didn't. However, Boston fixed theirs. Can the Lakers win this series? Doubtful. Probably, Lakers will come out hot in game 5 and then fold again. I've seen that happen before, many times when it wasn't our year. There is no thinking about a game 6, or even a game 7 at this point.

I don't believe in "What ifs". If you mess something up, deal with what you have now. Boston needs to win one game to win the title. Lakers can't lose any. Duh. "If we lose this", as I said before, we weren't expected to be here. "If we lose this" as quoted above is a pretty big if, but "if" the series was over, they wouldn't play game 5. I am not holding my breath for a miracle. Next year, is a whole new ballgame.

Two things I hate are people who don't read threads before they shoot their mouths off. Congratulations to the Celtics was given above. Admission of I was wrong was given. The other thing I hate are hypocrites. People bitch when you say something they perceive as cocky, then come back with profanity to rub it in your face. Your PM to me failed big time.

Hey, I made this thread to invite participation. If I were a true expert, I wouldn't be here, I would be cashing my winnings in Vegas. Yeah, Lakers have stunk up the finals. They will be back, and winning it again. Your team probably won't.

[michaeljohn]

Can the Lakers win this series? Doubtful. Probably, Lakers will come out hot in game 5 and then fold again. I've seen that happen before, many times when it wasn't our year. There is no thinking about a game 6, or even a game 7 at this point.


Well, this time Lakers didn't fold after surrendering a 17 point lead. Just play game 6. Lose it, it's over, Win it, and anything can happen.

[michaeljohn]

no way Lakers can come back down 30, lol. Boston just wanted it more. Next year, probably Odom will get traded. I'd dump Walton too. Wonder if Phil Jackson will get the boot? However, Lakers are still the best team in the west. Spurs are fading. Suns and Mavs are dropping.

Anyway, Once we get our center back, Bynum, we should be right in the thick of the hunt. Now, the league has to deal with some hungry and talented Lakers! I still see a dynasty emerging again in LA as long as Kobe can play like Kobe.

If this series were starting over, smart money would still be on LA. They just weren't hungry enough.

[MrEfrisk]

no way Lakers can come back down 30, lol. Boston just wanted it more. Next year, probably Odom will get traded. I'd dump Walton too. Wonder if Phil Jackson will get the boot? However, Lakers are still the best team in the west. Spurs are fading. Suns and Mavs are dropping.


To get rid of Jackson would be one of the dumbest moves in nba history. I dont think that will happen.

[canu]

All I can say is the NBA finals had some great games and really close ones,I guess Boston wanted it more this year than the Lakers,hell it's only been what 26 years
since Celtics have won.

[Anibal]

I didn't catch the game last night, who won? Ah just kidding, the Celtics come back from a 24 point deficit to win in LA! I turned the game off half way through the second quarter, and thought it was over, and then turned it one half way through the third quarter to see that they were only down by 6! Biggest comeback in finals history, and Pierce, or Garnett didn't even have that good of a game. You guys gave me shit for saying that Boston's bench was deeper, and better than LA's, and now who is full of it.

All odds makers picked LA, and now they are looking ridiculous. Gasol, Odom, and the rest of the Lakers haven't really lived up to the hype. Garnett, and Pierce aren't even playing at their full potential, the only one that has been consistent has been Ray Allen. But they have consistently got key players from the bench to perform, like Powe in game 2, and Posey, and House came up big in last night's game. Kobe wasn't even much of a threat last night.

I'm still sticking with my original statement, Celtics in 5, or 6 at the most. The Lakers are overrated, and all you Lakers fans can blow me.

Are you fuckin serious ?

I read this guys post im just thinking if you have a brain that works... Boston had the better team Paul Pierce is a fantastic player you add Kevin Garnett probably the best in his position and Ray Allen a guy that can score a 3 every single fuckin time he is open and on top of that he is good defender. I wanted the Lakers to win because i knew it was going to come down to Kobe socring 50 points or so for them to win. That is because Gasol and Odom arent as good as Allen and Garnett, fuck like no where near as good as them.

Kobe wasnt a threat? well the guy isnt a machine and when you dont have players that can back you up you are fucked... i mean how did your great celitcs do before KG and Allen got there ? Dont fuckin talk shit when its that easy to do it. Yes LA was playing better and the so called experts said that LA was there pick, that and all the reasons that fin gave for LA being a better team does not change the fact that Boston has better players than LA and in a final series where neither team plaid there best the team with the better players won. You are saying that pierce and garnett didnt play well in every game well the fact is that between the three of them they average at least 60 points per game... that is more than what Odom Gasol and Kobe where doing.

I fuckin hate people that pick the better team and then when they win they act like douchebags.

That being said, i guess KG and Pierce deserved a title after years and years of playing like superstars and not having other guys there to help them. You get 3 superstars on your starting lineup best record on the regular season and an nba title... great season, i think LA need to get rid of Odom for any other player that can make the easy and normal baskets jajajaja seems like Odom can only score the super hard and complicated way.

[Jabooty_3]

I'd pick Boston again and again, better team won

[michaeljohn]

I'd pick Boston again and again, better team lost

Fixed.

Booty, you don't know shit. Yeah, it's easy to say this when Boston won. They finally played this series like the better team, but preceding this, Boston was pushed to the limit by two weak teams. Those were teams they should have swept. This is why they were the underdog. Ok, so they finally got it together when it counted. I am not bitter, we weren't supposed to be in the finals. Where were the Spurs? Fishing. Lakers will be back, Boston won't. Too many old players. Now, the Lakers are really pissed off!

I am not trying to win an argument, or anything. Both teams did not live up to their hype. Consensus is, worst finals in years. Stern got what he wanted, but every decent team out there that didn't make it probably would have beaten either LA or Boston in the finals this year. (Based only on the way they played the 6 games).

[rexhamer]

Hey, not that it matters, but I was away and then had some technical issues with the computer. I was able to check this thread on occassion, but didn't have the opportunity to reply. I only say that so nobody thinks I have been lurking waiting for the results before chiming back in.

Having said that - no trash talking or insulting here. MJ - I admire your passion and loyalty, but I have to call you out on:

"If this series were starting over, smart money would still be on LA." What did you see in this series that would lead you to that conclusion? Are you saying that, if Stern immediately ordered another best-of-seven series, LA would again be a 2-1 favorite, chosen to win the series by the overwhelming majority of national media?

"so they finally got it together when it counted." You, and most of the national media, focused too much on the first two Celtic series. And keep in mind that the Celts only struggled on the road in those series and took care of business at home pretty handily. Yes, they did not play like favorites, but what about the Detriot series? Two road wins against one of the toughest home teams in the NBA? ialso thibk the effect of Gasol was vastly overrated. Although he turned out to be more effective than I thought, it was only in spurts. He never really had the kind of impact that affected the outcome of any game.

"Lakers will be back, Boston won't. Too many old players." The Big 3 are in their early thirties. No spring chickens for sure, but add in the continued development of 23-year old Perkins and 22-year old Rondo, and no reason to think they cannot get back to the finals again over the next 2-3 years. It looks like Detroit may be re-loading, so I don't see any immediate threat to them in the East.

"Consensus is, worst finals in years." That is certainly not the consensus here, of course. But I am curious who is saying this? Can you provide some links?

And just to note that I am not trash talking after the fact, I picked the Celtics in six on page one of this thread.

[michaeljohn]

Hey, not that it matters, but I was away and then had some technical issues with the computer. I was able to check this thread on occassion, but didn't have the opportunity to reply. I only say that so nobody thinks I have been lurking waiting for the results before chiming back in.

:bsflag: I checked, you have been logging in regularly. :owned:

Having said that - no trash talking or insulting here. MJ - I admire your passion and loyalty, but I have to call you out on:

Thanks. Most of the rest you say is easy to respond to.

"If this series were starting over, smart money would still be on LA." What did you see in this series that would lead you to that conclusion? Are you saying that, if Stern immediately ordered another best-of-seven series, LA would again be a 2-1 favorite, chosen to win the series by the overwhelming majority of national media?

No, it is impossible to start a series over. I guess I wasn't clear what I was saying. Let's let this settle next year, does that make sense?

"so they finally got it together when it counted." You, and most of the national media, focused too much on the first two Celtic series. And keep in mind that the Celts only struggled on the road in those series and took care of business at home pretty handily. Yes, they did not play like favorites, but what about the Detriot series? Two road wins against one of the toughest home teams in the NBA? ialso thibk the effect of Gasol was vastly overrated. Although he turned out to be more effective than I thought, it was only in spurts. He never really had the kind of impact that affected the outcome of any game.

Too much attention on the first two series? :rofl: Those series showed plenty of Celtic weaknesses. Either Boston corrected them, or the Pistons and Lakers weren't as smart. Against Detroit, they had the advantage that Billups was far from 100%. Gasol was playing out of position. He was pressed into center duty when Bynum went down and the trade occured. Laker results with Gasol in the lineup were % wise as good as Boston's regular season. Plan was to move him to forward, but Bynum never healed. You will see the real Laker team next year.

"Lakers will be back, Boston won't. Too many old players." The Big 3 are in their early thirties. No spring chickens for sure, but add in the continued development of 23-year old Perkins and 22-year old Rondo, and no reason to think they cannot get back to the finals again over the next 2-3 years. It looks like Detroit may be re-loading, so I don't see any immediate threat to them in the East.

They got what they want, complacency will set in. Everyone will be gunning for them. Perkins and Rondo aren't all that impressive. Decent, but they ride the coattails of the others. See, a defending champ usually remains with about the same team the following year. The rest of the league adjusts. some for the better, some for the worse. Rarely does a defending champ repeat anymore. They used to, but the Spurs have jinxed everyone anyway. They are a great team, close to a dynasty but not there yet. Oh, speaking of the Spurs, there was a great article on how they are kicking themselves for not beating LA, because they would have eaten Boston alive. I can get it if you can't find it. No one foresaw the finals matchup we just had a year ago, now did they? A new beast will rise in the least, lol, make that east.

"Consensus is, worst finals in years." That is certainly not the consensus here, of course. But I am curious who is saying this? Can you provide some links?

Meh, it's in quite a few places.

And just to note that I am not trash talking after the fact, I picked the Celtics in six on page one of this thread.
Well, every possible outcome was picked somewhere by someone, you just got it right.

[ronnym]

Congrats to Boston on number 17.

In game 6, it looked like Lamar Odom was the only one on the court for the Lakers with any pride. He was relentlessly driving the lane on offense and pestering KG and Posey on D. While everyone else on the Lakers was just kind of standing around, he looked like he wanted to thrown down.

It turned out to be true about the east vs. west - tough defense-minded teams vs. finesse offensive teams.

[michaeljohn]

:bsflag: I checked, you have been logging in regularly. :owned:

I also want to add you have 24 posts in 3+ years here. Did you ever read my signature? There are a few other basketball threads in this forum, none of which you have participated in. Typical bandwagon fan, come in when the goods look ripe, and stay in when you're right. The fact that I refuted your "obfuscate" post and you hid until the series was over backs this up quite well. Next year, when the new season starts and a thread gets going about the NBA, we expect you to be a contributor. If not, your credibility stays as low as it has been.

[Jabooty_3]

It's no use entering your sports threads because you're dead set against the teams you don't like and always root for socal, it's ok.

Boston was the best team in the league from day one of the season and it was their year.

[michaeljohn]

It's no use entering your sports threads because you're dead set against the teams you don't like and always root for socal, it's ok.

Boston was the best team in the league from day one of the season and it was their year.
You obviously didn't follow the power rankings all season long. Boston was not on top (therefore the best) from day one. Many times, several teams were ahead of them. Quite a few teams had a turn at the lead, and they rightly deserved it. Lakers were even number 1 before the Gasol trade, right when Bynum went down. Had they kept the power rankings going into the playoffs, Boston would have been #8 after the first round. If you posted anything substantive to back up your claim to show you knew something about the sport, you too would have some credibility.

Dead set against teams I don't like? I have clearly stated many times I don't like but two teams in professional or college sports and that's it. The rest I like, or don't care about. If Boston hadn't have stumbled so badly in the first two rounds, I wouldn't have been riding them so much in here. Clearly, they deserved the roasting they got, and this is why everyone in the country picked the Lakers. Boston should have had the 12-3 record going into the finals and not the Lakers. LA could have been at 12-8 due to the competition in the west. Had this been the case, then Celtics would have been the overwhelming favorites.

The only other SoCal team I have heavily promoted is the USC Trojans. Since they have been in the title hunt for several years, supporting them is logical. They don't always make it to the title game, but they did win the Rose Bowl convincingly against a certain proven overrated conference from the midwest the last two seasons....Your "no use entering your sports threads" argument fails. For now, it's just your opinion.

[sir_drinkalot]

Power rankings?? lol. Useless. Just like the NFL. The only power ranking worth mentioning is a teams record. That will tell you everything you need to know. :nono:

[michaeljohn]

Power rankings?? lol. Useless. Just like the NFL. The only power ranking worth mentioning is a teams record. That will tell you everything you need to know. :nono:
way wrong. a team's record shows aggregate season, current injuries or trades do not appear in the standings. Power ranking shows how a team is doing currently. This is why the Lakers were overwhelming favorites before the series. Meanwhile, is this your first post since the SuperBowl? Brady is still running! see below.

http://www.badongo.com/t/a/3818839

[sir_drinkalot]

way wrong. a team's record shows aggregate season, current injuries or trades do not appear in the standings. Power ranking shows how a team is doing currently. This is why the Lakers were overwhelming favorites before the series. Meanwhile, is this your first post since the SuperBowl? Brady is still running! see below.


Yes O' powerful mod. And I can tell that anyone who disagrees with you is automatically wrong but... If the power rankings showed the Lakers as an overwhelming favorite, it kinda proves my point.

And nevermind Brady, he'll be fine. How'd YOUR team do?
:mags:

[michaeljohn]

Yes O' powerful mod. And I can tell that anyone who disagrees with you is automatically wrong but... If the power rankings showed the Lakers as an overwhelming favorite, it kinda proves my point.

And nevermind Brady, he'll be fine. How'd YOUR team do?
:mags:
You know, the reason I win arguments here is because I do my research. It has nothing to with me being a mod. If you bothered to read this thread, you would have seen this issue addressed:

http://forums.webrats.com/post2855369-4.html

By your rationalization, Boston would have won every year after the Russell era that they had the league best record, but they didn't. There is a lot of failure on the Celtic's part in the past in the above link, look at it.

Yeah, my team lost to your team, congrats. I stuck around and am facing the music. After the Patriots choked, you disappeared rather than show your face. I didn't even care about the SuperBowl. I just find it funny you chose this moment to return. Actually, no I don't. It's already public knowledege you are a Celtic Bandwagon fan. http://forums.webrats.com/post2619226-17.html
http://forums.webrats.com/post2619411-18.html

Yeah, my team will be back, will yours?

[Jabooty_3]

you also pimp the Angels a lot

I'll admit I didn't watch any of the season cause I had other things going on. But before the season even started it was Boston's title to win or lose.

I don't hate the lakers, I've cheered for them before. It was nice when they first started winning with Shaq. I wanted them to win with Malone and Payton (only after making it past the Wolves first) so they could have their rings. Both of those teams got outplayed, period.

[michaeljohn]

you also pimp the Angels a lot

I'll admit I didn't watch any of the season cause I had other things going on. But before the season even started it was Boston's title to win or lose.

I don't hate the lakers, I've cheered for them before. It was nice when they first started winning with Shaq. I wanted them to win with Malone and Payton (only after making it past the Wolves first) so they could have their rings. Both of those teams got outplayed, period.
Actually, I think I pormote the Rally monkey and its website more than the Angels, along with the fact they own the Yankees over the Torre era more than promoting the Angel team. They have been pretty damn good since 2002, but the Rally Monkey seems to have seen better days. In 2002 he rocked!

Back to basketball, and a question for a T-Wolves fan. Are you happy with what you received from Boston in the Garnett trade? Honestly. Or would you have rather had what the Lakers offered, Bynum and Odom? Myself, I am glad the deal we offered didn't go down. Bynum came into his own, and the addition of Gasol made Odom a more versatile player for the Laker team. Kobe, Bynum, Gasol, and Odom, > Kobe and Garnett, plus maybe Gasol. We only went for Gasol when Bynum went down, another team probably would have gotten him instead. I know Phoenix was after him before the Lakers got him.

[BackdoorJesus]

Yeah, my team lost to your team, congrats. I stuck around and am facing the music. After the Patriots choked, you disappeared rather than show your face. I didn't even care about the SuperBowl. I just find it funny you chose this moment to return. Actually, no I don't. It's already public knowledege you are a Celtic Bandwagon fan.
http://forums.webrats.com/post2619226-17.html
http://forums.webrats.com/post2619411-18.html

Yeah, my team will be back, will yours?
BWAHAHA :bowrofl: :pwn:

Fuckin' drinkalot, the beantown bandwagoneer, finally shows his face on the board 4 months after his beloved Patriots take it in the shorts.
But only after the Celtics, that he didn't give two shits to Sunday about until maybe last month, beat LA in the finals.

pathetic, dude. :usuck:

having said that I'm sorry The Lakers went down, but it was pretty much foregone after game 4 when they blew that huge lead they built up, and then in game 5 when they blew another huge lead I could see that Boston really was only playing game five half-assed so they could win in the Garden and have their big celebration.

Like michaeljohn said - The Celtics wanted it more and played for it (just like the NY Giants did, BTW) and that is what makes a championship team.

[sir_drinkalot]

BWAHAHA :bowrofl: :pwn:

Fuckin' drinkalot, the beantown bandwagoneer, finally shows his face on the board 4 months after his beloved Patriots take it in the shorts.
But only after the Celtics, that he didn't give two shits to Sunday about until maybe last month, beat LA in the finals.

pathetic, dude. :usuck:

having said that I'm sorry The Lakers went down, but it was pretty much foregone after game 4 when they blew that huge lead they built up, and then in game 5 when they blew another huge lead I could see that Boston really was only playing game five half-assed so they could win in the Garden and have their big celebration.

Like michaeljohn said - The Celtics wanted it more and played for it (just like the NY Giants did, BTW) and that is what makes a championship team.

Did I say something to offend you? I hope so but I didnt mean to.
Did I come in here beating my chest about my beloved Celtics? no. And your right, I am a bandwagon Celtics fan ok? Get over it.

I didn't expect the Celts to win, I mean holy shit! Did you see the power rankings??!! They had no shot. But we'll take it.
:mags:

Y'all have a nice day. :)

[cubiche]

didnt really care who won. props to the celtics for winning, but they have 3 superstars so its kind of hard to not win with that much talent. its cool they're not big headed and are willing to work together.

[BackdoorJesus]

Did I say something to offend you? I hope so but I didnt mean to.
Nope - I am hardly offended by your ilk; I could give a shit about you and even less about what you think...you're just getting the abuse that you were due four months ago when your Patriots lost & you ran into hiding like a little girl. :rolleyes:

Now that you can finally man up & rear your arrogant head around here once more you're just getting some postponed payback for being such an enormous douchebag during the football season. :usuck:

Beyond that, live well & go with God, my friend.

[sir_drinkalot]

Nope - I am hardly offended by your ilk; I could give a shit about you and even less about what you think...you're just getting the abuse that you were due four months ago when your Patriots lost & you ran into hiding like a little girl. :rolleyes:

Now that you can finally man up & rear your arrogant head around here once more you're just getting some postponed payback for being such an enormous douchebag during the football season. :usuck:

Beyond that, live well & go with God, my friend.

Holy shit Jesus! Quit being so vague. How do you really feel? Cripes!
:clemson:

[BackdoorJesus]

heh heh you're OK in my book Drinky, I just felt the need to serve you up a nice helping of humble pie a la mode seeing as you finally came back to the boards after your Patriots' crushing defeat earlier this year :)

Remember I'm a Raiders fan - seems I get nothing out of football but schadenfreude these days.

[rexhamer]

Hey, I'm back after even more technical difficulties. And MJ - I really don't give a s**t if you believe me. This has been an entertaining thread and I will try to contribute more to increase my credibility, although I always thought quality counted more than quantity!

[sir_drinkalot]

Hey, I'm back after even more technical difficulties. And MJ - I really don't give a s**t if you believe me. This has been an entertaining thread and I will try to contribute more to increase my credibility, although I always thought quality counted more than quantity!

Yup, quality counts. So i'm gonna lock myself in my mommies basement and start doing some SERIOUS research like MJ so I dont sound like an idiot so much.
:)

[michaeljohn]

Hey, I'm back after even more technical difficulties. And MJ - I really don't give a s**t if you believe me. This has been an entertaining thread and I will try to contribute more to increase my credibility, although I always thought quality counted more than quantity!
so, when are you ever going to post some quality? bandwagon fan and lurker/leecher until you prove otherwise.

[sir_drinkalot]

so, when are you ever going to post some quality? bandwagon fan and lurker/leecher until you prove otherwise.

Aww give Rex a break. He MUST be credible..he's from Boston!! Jeez
:waldo:

[michaeljohn]

Aww give Rex a break. He MUST be credible..he's from Boston!! Jeez
:waldo:
ummmm.....he is a she. :rolleyes:

[sir_drinkalot]

ummmm.....he is a she. :rolleyes:

Well good! We need more female sports fans on here. Their opinions are undeniably undeniable..and stuff. So Rex, please continue to wax poetic about our Patriots.

:waldo:

[BackdoorJesus]

ummmm.....he is a she. :rolleyes:
actually I seriously doubt the veracity of the gender in that profile.

as a mod I can see email addresses, and I doubt that one belongs to a girl IRL.


carry on...

[rexhamer]

ummmm.....he is a she. :rolleyes:


For the record, Rex is a he. Was that some attempt at humor?

[BackdoorJesus]

it's your profile dude, you set it - look at the gender icon under your name in the post.

If you want to change it go into your profile settings in the User Control panel

[rexhamer]

it's your profile dude, you set it - look at the gender icon under your name in the post.

If you want to change it go into your profile settings in the User Control panel

I guess I will need to pay more attention to things like that. I did not put that there in the first place, but I will try to change it.

[michaeljohn]

I guess I will need to pay more attention to things like that. I did not put that there in the first place, but I will try to change it.
Of course you put it there. You registered this account and everyone who signs up is asked what their sex is. No mod would have changed it, no one knew who you were until this thread.

:zaplurker

[rexhamer]

I guess you learn something new everyday. Although I am sure I did not click any box indicating I was female. Looks like the same thing with Sir_D.

[sir_drinkalot]

I guess you learn something new everyday. Although I am sure I did not click any box indicating I was female. Looks like the same thing with Sir_D.

Ummm nope, let me check. Yup, male.

You, however remain female. Something your not telling us? Hmm??

[rexhamer]

I was merely pointing out that your avatar also notes "whore".

[sir_drinkalot]

I was merely pointing out that your avatar also notes "whore".

Did you look at yours? Dude??
:mags:

[rexhamer]

Sir D - don't take any of this the wrong way. I noted earlier that it was on mine , but I never put it there. MJ inferred that I did when I registered. I can assure you I did not do anything (and remember ,this was three years ago) of the kind when I registered.

I only noted that you had it also, thinking maybe you knew how to change it.

For the record, I really don't care what it says - on yours, mine, or anybody's.

[michaeljohn]

when you register it asks for your sex. you had to enter female.

see for yourself ma'am: http://forums.webrats.com/register.php?

[rexhamer]

If you say so. Now the real question - how do I change it? I've gone in to User CP, and cannot find a place to edit that particular line.

If it cannot be changed, then so be it.

[michaeljohn]

If you say so. Now the real question - how do I change it? I've gone in to User CP, and cannot find a place to edit that particular line.

If it cannot be changed, then so be it.
you ask a supermod nicely about it. we do things for people that act cool around here.

[sir_drinkalot]

you ask a supermod nicely about it. we do things for people that act cool around here.

*hint hint*

A little diplomacy goes a long way. Just ask me!

[BackdoorJesus]

you ask a supermod nicely about it. we do things for people that act cool around here.
meh...I changed it for him cuz I'm cool like that :)

[rexhamer]

OK, thanks. Apparentaly I only need to be clubbed over the head to get a hint!!

Another question - I know some of the common acronyms (LOL, IMO, FWIW), but what is "meh"?

[sir_drinkalot]

This probably belongs in a different thread but, I believe 'meh' pretty much means your not impressed or dont give a shit.