michaeljohn

click on one of our sponsors! OR REMOVE ADS

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:

___________________________________________

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

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

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.

___________________________________________