The Matchup Celtics vs Lakers

TJ,

Yes, if the teams in 1962-63 could have had fielded eight players simultaneously, all eight Celtics would have been future hall-of-famers. And there was one starter and one very important role player who wouldn't have been among those eight. But, in large part part, Celtics players haven't become hall-of-famers simply on the strength of their individual feats. They've become hall-of-fame players at least partly because what set them apart was their excellence in enabling one the team. Not a scoring champion among them.

And, by the way, no, it wasn't at all embarrassingwatching the Nets, 76ers and Pacers playing in the finals against the Lakers? Why would it be? I never watched a second of those games. I already knew those weren't Celtics' years. That's all that mattered. See what I mean?

Listen, I've long since accepted the fact that fans from areas other than Boston—especially those who did not experience the extended buildup of the Celtics culture—prefer to try to keep things on a "What have you done for me lately?" basis. But, actually, it's a fact that cultures don't usually sprout in one year (e.g. 2008). They gestate over long periods of time. To say that any inspiration they'll get in this series will emanate only from 2008 is like saying his tete a tete with Bill Russell had absolutely no impact on KG in the 2008 championship series just because the Celtics hadn't won a championship lately. Why would Russ have even mattered to KG if not for the mystique and heritage that Russ represented?

Whether it accounts for 2% or 5% or 15% or 50% of the total motivation in a championship series, the Celtics championship-oriented culture, honed over more than half a century, impacts current Celtics more than players on other teams are impacted by corresponding heritages.

It doesn't mean the Celtics will win this series, and I've never once intimated that it does, because I don't make predictions (which I happen to think are ill-advised).

Go Celtics!

Sam

Sam,

Boston probably has had two of the 5 greatest players of all time. I don't see how you can focus so much on The Team when they have had tremendous individual talent.
When they traded for KG, he was still a GREAT player that just finished in the top 10 of MVP voting and when they traded for Allen, he just came off his highest scoring average of his whole career. (26.4ppg).
I am a big NBA fan, not just a Lakers fan, so I do watch the Finals and playoffs, even if LA has been eliminated.
Focusing on 17 for Boston and for some to discredit or minimize the Lakers 30/31 Finals appearances because they beat or played other teams is short-sighted.
Would Boston fans rather have had Boston lose to LA in the 2000-2002 Finals or to not make it there?
2nd place is not great for Boston or LA but I would rather see LA make it there and lose then to not make the playoffs or to be eliminated earlier in the playoffs.

bobc33 wrote:Reading Bill Simmons and he says Ray Allen and Kobe hate each other. For how long and why? Can anyone help?

I only know it goes back pre 2008...I think I heard the story during the finals in 2008 but have forgotten...there is no love lost between these teams.

tjmakz wrote:Sam,

Boston probably has had two of the 5 greatest players of all time. I don't see how you can focus so much on The Team when they have had tremendous individual talent.
When they traded for KG, he was still a GREAT player that just finished in the top 10 of MVP voting and when they traded for Allen, he just came off his highest scoring average of his whole career. (26.4ppg).
I am a big NBA fan, not just a Lakers fan, so I do watch the Finals and playoffs, even if LA has been eliminated.
Focusing on 17 for Boston and for some to discredit or minimize the Lakers 30/31 Finals appearances because they beat or played other teams is short-sighted.
Would Boston fans rather have had Boston lose to LA in the 2000-2002 Finals or to not make it there?
2nd place is not great for Boston or LA but I would rather see LA make it there and lose then to not make the playoffs or to be eliminated earlier in the playoffs.

You guys are used to losing, it's no big deal....we aren't!
Just kidding tj....

In today's press conference, Kobe made the following statement:

"I only think about this one matchup," Bryant said. "The happy times of Magic winning against Boston, or the sad times of Jerry West losing to them, has no impact on me whatsoever. I have a series to play. I have a series to win. I'll just focus on that."

http://cbs2.com/sports/Andrew.Bynum.Knee.2.1729544.html

History is today for the players.

LACELTFAN wrote:

tjmakz wrote:Sam,

Boston probably has had two of the 5 greatest players of all time. I don't see how you can focus so much on The Team when they have had tremendous individual talent.
When they traded for KG, he was still a GREAT player that just finished in the top 10 of MVP voting and when they traded for Allen, he just came off his highest scoring average of his whole career. (26.4ppg).
I am a big NBA fan, not just a Lakers fan, so I do watch the Finals and playoffs, even if LA has been eliminated.
Focusing on 17 for Boston and for some to discredit or minimize the Lakers 30/31 Finals appearances because they beat or played other teams is short-sighted.
Would Boston fans rather have had Boston lose to LA in the 2000-2002 Finals or to not make it there?
2nd place is not great for Boston or LA but I would rather see LA make it there and lose then to not make the playoffs or to be eliminated earlier in the playoffs.

You guys are used to losing, it's no big deal....we aren't!
Just kidding tj....

And the Florida Marlins have never lost a World Series...

Why would you think about that kind of stuff, at this time?
You know how the press is... Do you think Pau is soft? Are the Lakers remembering the humiliation of game 6?Will you slit your wrists if you lose? That kind of garbage, to get a story. I'm amazed that more players don't just get up and walk away...

worcester,

I just can't believe you truly believe what you wrote. It is disturbing. I think you need to read through the discussions in this thread.
"If the Celts win this Finals, it will be a result of Celtic Pride - which translates as a practical matter as an elevated sense of dedicated team play - and superior mental toughness, not because the Celts had better individual players than the Lakers." What a slap in the face this is to the Lakers organization and their fans for you to claim Superior Mental Toughness.

The Lakers 5 titles from 49-54 should be discredited? But you think it is ok to count the championships starting in the 56-57 season when Boston won their 1st? If you didn't want to minimize their early titles, you wouldn't make such a statement.

LA lost to Boston in 2008 primarily because because they did not have their starting center and had Radmonovic as their starting SF.

If anyone wants to back worcester, please step forward.

Nice job editing your previous post.
Why don't we throw out all the titles before the NBA/ABA merger?
Or before the 3 point line?
What a coincidence that you only want to recognize titles from when Boston won number 1.
Where was the Celtics Superior Mental Toughness from 1987-2007?

BSH

Now the good stuff begins. Less than 24 hours till the big game and you and TJ are beginning to show your true colors.

You will see in this series that Ron Artest is a fraud and that the Lakers are no better defensively than they were when the Celtics embarrassed them in 2008.

You will also see the Rasheed, Tony Allen, Glen Davis and Nate Robinson are MILES better than the Lakers sad bench.

Let the games begin.

Kleen-


one of us will be eating our words re: Artest in a couple of weeks. That's going to add a fun level to watching the series. We'll see who's right and who's wrong. We both think we're right. Time will tell.

I think the bench comparison really comes down to whether you consider Odom a part of the bench. I tend not to b/c he always closes games and is part of their best lineup.

Without LO, there's no comparison between the benches. But I've been bemoaning the Lakers bench since October, so that's not news. I do think Boston's bench was stronger in '08, though, as Posey and House killed the Lakers, while Brown, Powe and Cassell all helped them win at least 1 game. I don't think the Cs bench is as strong as that version was. Again, we shall see.

It's funny. Even though I enjoy having you as the antagonist in our once-in-a-blue-moon jousts, I actually always like it when we find something that we agree on- maybe it's so rare.

So I'll leave this on that note. I agree with you- the good stuff is about to begin.

bobc33 wrote:Reading Bill Simmons and he says Ray Allen and Kobe hate each other. For how long and why? Can anyone help?

It goes back to the Seattle days and started over either a girl, money or both. The full story has never really come out.

worcester wrote:BSH - I certainly did not mean to insult you or other Laker fans, and I prefaced my remarks about Celtic pride by saying the Lakers were and are a great team...and yes, I probably do have a selective memory about the Celts diving on the floor for loose balls more than the Lakers, but understand this. My comments were really about the Celts vs. the Lakers, not the Lakers vs. the Magic or Suns, Nets, Philly etc.

It all comes down to selective memory, I guess. Because you didn't specify that it was just C's-Lakers you were talking about. You said, "Sorry Laker fans, but can you recall even two or three incidents when the men in purple and gold volunteered themselves for a similar hardwood massage to win a game?"

It's a ridiculous statement.

But it's actually even more ridiculous if you were only referring to Lakers-Celtics. Because how on earth could the Lakers beat the Celtics of the '80's two out of three times when "Celtic pride has motivated our players to exceed their own expectations of themselves and to go more than the extra mile" ? How could the Lakers, who couldn't even be bothered to get on the floor for a loose ball, somehow beat those teams 2 out of 3 times ?

They beat them because your whole assertion that the Lakers didn't compete as hard as the Cs is BS. The lakers were on the floor just as much as the Cs and played just as hard. The Lakers had more talent, more clutch players, and were mentally tougher. Just like the Cs of the '60's had more talent, more clutch players, and were mentally tougher than the Lakers of the '60's.

But both teams were competing all out- in the '60's and the '80's. Why do you think the Cs players of that era had so much respect for West ? BEcause he didn't compete ? Because he didn't dive for loose balls ? Nonsense. They respected West because he gave his all, just like both teams always have. Well, at least until 2008.

worcester wrote:
I've watched the Celts play the Lakers since the 1950's, and my memory and experience of Boston-LA Finals matchups is that the Celtics have played much tougher than the Lakers, both mentally and physically. That's how the Celts earned their 9-2 advantage over the Lakers. Going back to the days of the Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, Wilt Chamberlain Lakers, LA has had superior overall talent compared to the Celtics. In almost every Finals matchup between them that I can think of, the Lakers talent has on paper exceeded that of the Celts, especially when one factors in injuries at game time. Yet the Celts have usually won. Lakers have usually lost.

There's no doubt that the Cs got into the Lakers heads after a few series wins. They definitely had a big mental edge that started once Selvy missed that shot in '62 and grew bigger as the decade went on and the Cs kept beating them.

I think you're underselling the talent level of the Cs though. Outside of '69, when the Cs were at the end of their run, the Cs had more talent, or at least as much talent, as LA did. In '59 and '65 it wasn't even close. There's a reason they kept winning all those years, and not just vs LA. They were the most dominant team of the era (or of any era). You don't dominate like that without incredible HOF talent. And heart. And coaching, etc, etc.

worcester wrote:
My most recent memory of an LA-Celtic Final was 2008. Certainly you must admit that LA, although perhaps proud, was not nearly so mentally and physically tough then as the Celtics.

If you've read any of my posts over the last 9 months about the 2008 Finals you'll know that I totally agree with you. The Cs won that series because they were mentally tougher than LA. End of story.

worcester wrote:
Yes, there were two LA teams in the 80s that rose to the occaision against the Celtics and barely beat them.

Can't quite give them their due, can you ? The two best teams to ever appear in the NBA and the Lakers won 2 out of 3.

Lakers over Cs 4-2 both times. Barely beat them ? 4 of the Cs 9 wins over Lakers (3 in the '60's and in '84) were in 7 games. Who's barely beaten whom ?

worcester wrote:
If the Celts win this Finals, it will be a result of Celtic Pride - which translates as a practical matter as an elevated sense of dedicated team play - and superior mental toughness, not because the Celts had better individual players than the Lakers. Artest, Gasol, Bryant, Odom, and Fisher are a formidable group of talented players. We'll see if they have the pride and mental and physical toughness to beat Boston. Let the games begin.

Once again, I think you're underselling your talent level. The Cs have the 3 future HOFers. They are just as formidable as the Lakers talent-wise. That's what makes this such a great matchup. THey are so even.

But I agree with you in that at this level, when teams are evenly matched, the winner will be determined by mental toughness- the ability to overcome adversity, to execute down the stretch and to make plays at the end of games.

I can't wait. Let the games begin.

worcester wrote:
One more thing, about 17-15, please remember that 5 of those Laker wins came in the George Mikan era, before even jet travel was existent.

You sound just like a Laker troll on BDC trying to discredit the Cs past by saying what happened in the '60's doesn't matter. Nice argument.

If you want to draw an arbitrary line, how about 1980 ? Lakers have won 9 rings since then, while the Cs have won 4. And the Cs went 21 years between Finals appearances, spending a number of years in the lottery while LA missed the playoffs only twice.

Or how about 2000 ? Laker sonw a title that year while Cs were in the lottery. LA's won 4 titles since 2000, while the Cs have 1.

See how fun it is to draw arbitrary lines ?

Sorry, guys and gals. I didn't mean for this to degenerate into a borderline BDC-type thread. I do give everyone credit for remaining civil and convivial, something that doesn't happen on BDC and in staying in line with Sam and the board's wishes right when we knew it was Celtics v. Lakers. I do accept full responsibility for this and if the board so chooses to revoke my membership, I will abide fully. And to tj, if I've offended you in any way with my ramblings, for that I apologize. And to the other Laker fans on this board, I do not hold a grudge against you and if I've offended anyone of you, for that I apologize. I like the Celtics, you like the Lakers. Clearly, it is difficult to keep cool heads when these two teams meet. Sam and the board wisely tried to put the clamps on a little with a pre-emptive strike, but for true Celtic and true Laker fans, we all know what's on the line.

While my responses tend to be rather verbose and wordy, with lots of crazed comparisons, etc. That's just the way I tend to think. Ideas come out with no filter. I'll work on that going forward.

My intent in the beginning was to point out that the Laker's teams from the 80's figured out how to beat Boston the team as well as Boston the whole organization. Magic and the Laker organization at the time, realized that to finally beat the Celtics, it would have to be a combination of strategic and tactical not just tactical. That's why LALs line-ups didn't change from 1984 to 1985 barring 3 no-names each season. Beating Boston, Magic figured, couldn't be done the way it was done all through the 60's. The same result was achieved, even bringing in Wilt as the saving grace.

To beat Boston on the court, you have to beat the whole orgainzation which includes the intangibles. That's what Magic and the Lakers figured out and did. And it took them one painful series of being close in '84 to recognized it and then they turned it around the following season. Otherwise the Lakers probably would have swept us 3-0 in the 80's. You can tell from Magic's current analysis on TV, he's so jacked to see the Lakers have a chance to dethrone the Celtics again. His whole demeanor changes. But at least from the time of the Kobe/Magic interview where Magic asks about Kobe's next title and hoping to play Boston again (implied) Magic knows that the getting stronger and playing better defense won't beat Boston and that this team will more than likely come up short. That's all tactical. Strategic is top down. I think LA is missing that one piece again, that's all.

All I'm saying is, in my opinion, this year's Laker team has once again chosen the tactical approach to beating Boston that was used in the 60's, 1984 and 2008. Bring on Wilt (Artest, Bynum's back, etc.) Doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result is, well...Magic's teams have your answer on how to beat the Celtics.

If I'm wrong, I'll gladly admit it. I myself have always wanted that phrase above proved wrong. I'd prefer it not to be revealed at the expense of the Celtics, but if it happens here, so be it. I'm a hard head just like anybody else. I still do the same things over and over again expecting a different result and 100% of the time I'm disappointed. If I am right, just like Sam and his lop-sided "betting", I won't say a word or gloat. Not in my nature.

dbrown,

I am also sorry for letting this get past the point where it should have.
Adding Artest for Radmonovic is NOT doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.
Not once did Magic or Kobe imply that playing better defense and being a stronger team would still result in a loss to Boston.
The Lakers teams of the 1980's had the most talent of any Lakers team and they executed their game plan quite well for the most part.
This Boston team is a shell of the 80's teams.
Please name one thing that this LA team won't or can't do tactically that will lead to a loss in the series.
Can you explain where the intangibles were from 1987-2007?

dbrown

I think we as Celtic fans on a Celtic board should not have evey stinking little thing we say analized like a dead rat, in a lab somewhere in east LA. I see no need to continually defend ourselves in our unabashed love for OUR team on this forum.

Are some of our thoughts a little far out there, perhaps, but so are mine.

I LOVE THE CELTIC"S plain and simple. Since I can remember the voice of Johnny Most cutting thru the STATIC of AM radio WBZ Radio 103!! I actually felt sadder loosing him than when the Lewis and Bias tragedies occurred.

I want the Celtic's to choke the life out of the Lakers, I want 4 stinking blowouts like game 6 in 08.

I want to see Phil fumble with interviews after the losses. Looking for words that he cannot find.

I want to see Kobe on the bench shaking his head AGAIN as the clock winds down, not once, but 4 straight games.

I want us to win on OUR floor!

And most of all I want to see another banner go up this fall.

None of what I said above may happen and if so life will go on. But my feelings for and about the Celtic's will reamin unchanged.

I'm NOT predicting anything, just things I'd love to see. This is just one older guys opinion, which needs no defense nor is there debate on these feelings either. Will I be disappointed should we loose? of course but really nothing will change win or lose with me.

beat

beat,

I think you are respected for your love of the Celtics.
What separates you from others is that you don't make up baseless ideas/propoganda, you stick to your feelings for Boston and against L.A.
I have no response to your comments above because they are how you feel. On this Celtics forum, you should be able to say these things freely.
When others ignore facts/statistics and can't recognize others viewpoints, then I feel it is an open invitation to converse/debate them.

tjmakz wrote:beat,

I think you are respected for your love of the Celtics.
What separates you from others is that you don't make up baseless ideas/propoganda, you stick to your feelings for Boston and against L.A.
I have no response to your comments above because they are how you feel. On this Celtics forum, you should be able to say these things freely.
When others ignore facts/statistics and can't recognize others viewpoints, then I feel it is an open invitation to converse/debate them.

TJ

I said it when you first came here - and you have made a good showing here and there in the interim.

Tj

Some Facts are always up for debate. And if I say Bird was better than Magic to me that's a FACT. Do I need stats to back me up? No.
It's many times the old saying 1/2 full 1/2 empty.

Stats are always there, they are in black and white, but they mean nothing going forward as they are a only record of the past.

Certainly trends can be found but to say Artest will shut down PP because he is alledged to have controlled Durrant (somewhat) means NOTHING going forward. Pierce is NOT Durrant. How does one factor in heart?

Anyway it's now only hours away before the guns begin to smoke and tracers are in the air. As Johnny Most used to say "prepare for basketball battle"

If I am to look at one thing I thing first and foremost in the game tonight it will be to see how Bynum moves and if he is able to play well and get up and down the floor. In their last game he really appeared to be hurting a couple of times just going end to end. Not that it alone is a key but to me it will help dictate how Phil is forced to coach the game.

In listening to ESPN radio a few moments ago, the "experts" are saying they refs will call it loose and let contact go. They are right soooooo much. No one knows how it will be called until it is. And then the true chessmatch begins during and after the game with comments from coaches and players maybe not directly being critical but certainly with a questioning attitude.

Anyway we shall all see shortly. Thank goodness. Then we will have something to discuss!

beat

That's not it at all. The Lakers and Kobe currently think the moves they have made will beat Boston this year or at least win a championship. They brought in Artest to shut PP down probably (or maybe it was for LeBron), put Bynum back in. Traded Ariza. It just looks and sounds very similar to "Let's get Wilt out here. That will finally be enough to beat the Celtics."

It's like Sam said earlier, somewhere in this thread or another. Tactically these two teams will do what they are going to do on the court and are very well matched up. But if we have an edge, I think it's in all the intangibles mentioned already. Motivation, tradition, history, team synergy, etc., I think we have the edge there. Will that determine the series, maybe, maybe not. But we're all looking for an edge and when all else appears equal, a slight psychological edge may very well be the tipping point. This series will be measured in inches, by razor-thin margins.

I think you and I disagree on the percentages of physical/match-ups vs. intangibles in determining the winner. Actually, we may even believe the respective percentages are the same, it's just the degree and inpact of how much each determines the outcome. For the Celtics, I just think there is a little more hidden than revealed, more internal than external that determines how they win.

I'm very confident if Magic were asked how his teams beat the Celtics, he would say it was a complete, over the top obssession for the top down to finally be the organization that would topple one of the greatest Celtic teams every assembled. The Lakers didn't want to just win another championship. They wanted to win another championship at the expense of Boston. And that is exactly what they did. Twice. Kobe has already stated he doesn't care who he plays in the finals. I just don't think this team of Lakers is obsessed enough to beat Boston the team or Boston the organization, that all. If they are and they win, congratulations. I'm wrong. We all want the trophy. As Doc said, nobody wants it any more than anybody else.

From 1987-2007 we didn't win any championships. Had some misfortune with Len Bias, Reggie Lewis. Tragic. What happened would shake any organization to its core. I think the intangibles swung the other way. Intangibles can and do have a negative side as well.

Well, the jury is still out, but if this current Celtic team pulls this out, for all the crap we've been through to get here, it's going somewhere in the top 3 greatest of all time Celtic teams for me, shell or not.

beat,

It is hard to live in a progressive society if people claim opinions as facts.
Bird vs. Magic is an opinion.
Stats do mean something. Over a long sample size they show patterns and give a pretty good indication of what we can expect going forward.
Saying Artest's D on Durant means something is crazy talk. Should LA just throw that out the window and start Walton because what Artest did previously was meaningless?
It has been notated how unsuccessful Pierce has been against Artest over the last 3 years and 40 or so posessions when Artest was playing Pierce 1 on 1 on defense. I will forward those numbers if you missed them.
You are right that nobody knows how the games will be called.
Perkins is a much better matchup for Bynum then the centers for OKC, Utah or Phoenix. Perkins lack of mobility and offense will be a relief for Bynum on defense.

I'm trying to stay out of this little brush fire that seems to have popped up, but there is one point that I think has not been addressed by anybody yet.

The Lakers are a slower team than they were in 08. More mature, mentally tougher, but slower.

Ron Artest is more of a halfcourt player while Ariza was a full-court greyhound. There has been a lot of discussion about whether Artest can/will stay in front of Pierce. There was no doubt Ariza could. Ariza played limited minutes in 08, Jackson making the dumbass coaching decision to keep Radman on Pierce, but if he was on the team now he'd be getting serious minutes and that's the matchup I'm referring to. It would take more than a single screen to rub off Ariza, maybe not so with the phyically stronger but slower Artest.

Fisher is a little slower.
Bynum is hobbled.

Gasol, Bryant and Odom are unchanged. Farmar is unchanged and Brown represents an upgrade in speed, if for no other reason, that he's getting more minutes.

Speed was an advantage the Lakers had over us in 08. Now? Not as clearly. In fact, if Kobe's guarding Rondo, who's going to keep up and match up with Tony Allen full court? If it's Brown, which would be a matchup that makes sense, then the Lakers outside shooting goes down (Fisher plays his role in the triangle perfectly. He's the outside player in the "2", often along with Bynum; while Gasol/Bryant and Artest are the "triangle").


bob

.