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

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:

___________________________________________

rexhamer

click on one of our sponsors! OR REMOVE ADS

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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!

I just attack the Celtic Mystique because it will be brought up again this series. At least you agree there really isn't any.

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.

___________________________________________


Visit the worlds best website -
www.badass67.com - Black Sunshine

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

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!

___________________________________________