Re: The Matchup Celtics vs Lakers

by **dbrown4** Wed Jun 02, 2010 8:46 am

Once again, LAL playing Wack-a-Mole and/or Pinata like ORL, CLE and MIA. Maybe Artest shuts down PP. It doesn't matter. There are 14 other severe problems that pop up when you do it, the least of which is Nate Robinson. But let's face it. ORL didn't plan on Nate and it cost them the series. SVG lumped Nate in with Ray's two 3's to open the 3rd quarter as the reasons they lost. Phil will make the same and/or similar mistake(s). The zone should have the Lakers worried. Just the threat of it. That's all we need in a series this tight.

I need to sign up for ESPN the Mag and get the Insider for free. That offer still holds, TJ? If so, I'll sign up today. Can you subscribe at their site? Thanks, db

by **bobheckler** Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:50 am

babyskyhook wrote:
bobheckler wrote:

I believe, however, we will see Kobe on Rondo a lot and not Fisher at all, except in the instances of mismatches. I don't think anybody thinks D-Fish has the speed to stay with Rondo and they won't even wait to find out that's true before changing assignments.

Bob-

You're absolutely right about the matchup. Kobe on Rondo and Fish on Ray is how it will go. It actually works out well for LA to switch them, as Fish can run through screens all day to keep up with Ray, and will draw at least one moving screen offensive foul per game. Running through those screens is something Fisher's body is better built for then Kobe's, and it takes a lot of energy that I'd rather not see Kobe expending. Kobe can stay in front of Rondo b/c he will lay off him a bit and dare him to shoot, as he did in the "08 Finals and as he recently did with Westbrook. Kobe's length will cause Rondo some problems too. Rondo will have a good series, but he won't run wild vs Kobe the way he would vs Fish.

bobheckler wrote:
We should use team movement to help Pierce against Artest. One-on-one, Artest is a physically punishing defender and Pierce is a little slower than he used to be. Breaking Pierce loose, even for a beat or two, with picks will increase Pierce's efficiency greatly over giving him the ball on top and iso-ing him on Artest. Artest feeds on that stuff, so we should starve him by making him fight through multiple screens.

Bob- once again, you're right on the money. I am hoping Doc isn't reading your posts, because I am hoping they will try to let Pierce iso on Ron, which IMO will be advantage Lakers. I think several other posters here seriously underestimate Artest and the kind of condition he's in. He is both bigger and slightly quicker than Pierce at this point in their careers, and his reputation as a great defender allows him to play physical. Pierce killed the Lakers in '08 as he shredded Vlad Rad and Walton. Artest will slow him down, and if they go into iso action, it plays right to Ron's strength. Ron on Pierce is the single biggest difference between '08 and '10, and it's the entire reason LA signed him last summer- for this type of matchup.

bobheckler wrote:
Odom's range and mobility could be a problem for us. The good news is: which Candy Man will show up? Will it be Trick or Treat for the Lakers? Sheed should take him into the low post as often as his back can stand it. Odom has great length, but I don't think he can handle Sheed in the paint. Make LA help Odom with doubles. Sheed has excellent court vision and will hit the open man. On defense, of course, if Odom hits a few 3s and then puts the ball on the floor, Sheed will be in deep doodoo.

Odom will be, as he always is for LA, the big X factor. If he's putting up 15 and 12, LA will be in great shape. If he disappears like he did in '08, LA is in trouble. Having watched the four games between the Cs and Lakers since the Finals very closely, I am certain that LA learned the hard lessons that the Cs taught them in '08 very well. Odom and Gasol have both gotten physically stronger and more aggressive, and the entire team plays (when motivated) with much more of an edge- they are much tougher mentally than they were in '08, which is why they lost that series ultimately. LO's increased toughness is a big part of it. the way he deals with KG now vs the way he dealt with him in the Finals is a night and day difference. We really saw it come to light last year in the game in the Garden that went to OT. Odom is def a key for LA.

bobheckler wrote:
I agree, advantage to Gasol over KG on the glass. Some of that advantage comes due to Bynum's ineffectiveness, so it's a double-edged sword for the Lakers. The silver lining for Celtic fans is that KG's length will bother Gasol's outlet pass more than he's seen in the playoffs to-date and that will slow them down and that's good for our older veterans and transition defense.

I agree. This is going to be a great matchup, but I give Gasol a slight edge at this point, which is a big change from '08.

I can't help it, but I keep looking at the series as '08 vs '10. To me, the key differences are as follows:

Rondo has blown up and is really blossoming. Advantage Cs vs '08.

Perk has matured and is playing well. Ad Cs vs '08.

KG playing well again, but not at '08 level. Advantage lakers vs '08.

Davis and Tony Allen playing great, solid contributions from Sheed and (potentially) Nate, but BBD, TA and Sheed have some health issues, while Posey, House, Powe, Brown, Cassell all had huge moments in '08. Posey and House were great throughout the '08 series. Wash vs '08 or advantage LA.

Ron Ron on Pierce instead of Vlad Rad/ Luke. The single biggest difference vs '08 and huge advantage LA vs '08.

Bynum (limited, but better than not playing, as was the case in '08). Adv LA vs '08.

Pau and LO's increased physicality and toughness, which has been on display every time they've played the Cs since '08 Finals. Adv LA vs '08.

Kobe trusts his teammates more now and will get more of his shots in the flow of the offense than he did in '08. Adv LA vs '08.

Pau is much more familiar with the triangle than in '08. Adv LA vs '08.

Home Court Advantage, which is even more important in the 2-3-2 format. Adv LA.

Burning desire for revenge. This might be as important as anything else on this list. The Lakers will be very fired up to win a ring and get payback vs the Cs at the same time. LA didn't have the right mindset in '08. They do now. Advantage LA vs '08.

The Cs showed the Lakers in '08 what it take to win a title. The Lakers approached the first two games in Boston without the necessary intensity to win it all. The Cs were tougher and fought harder in '08. The Cs were not going to be denied, and they humiliated the Lakers in Game 6. That bitter taste drove the Lakers all last year, and it has not been forgotten. They will come at the Cs with the type of intensity the Cs play with, and which makes most teams ultimately wilt. Neither will wilt this year.

It's going to be a knock down, drag out heavyweight brawl, with an emphasis on tough D for both sides. Contrary to media depictions, or the points that PHX was running up in the Con Finals, the Lakers have become a defensive oriented team now. They depend on that more than their offense. This is just one more lesson they learned from the Cs in '08. Think of the last 5-7 minutes of the Lakers-Cs game in LA this year. Neither side was giving an inch, and baskets were very hard to come by for both teams. I expect this series will consist of a lot of games like that, with all of the games being close.

The Cs were the better team in '08 and had some clear advantages. Since '08, Rondo's development is obviously huge, but I think replacing Vlad Rad with Ron Ron is the biggest difference of all. Pierce killed the Lakers in '08 and was the Finals MVP. Going up vs Artest is going to be much more challenging for him. Most of the rest of the differences since '08 fall in the Lakers favor in my opinion, and that has really evened things out vs where they were in '08.

Throw in the fact that homecourt advantage matters, and I see the Lakers winning this series.

I called LA-OKC, LA-Utah, LA-PHX, Bos- Mia, Bos-CLe and Bos-Orl correctly.

I'm calling this one Lakers in 6.

Although it wouldn't surprise me to see it go 7, given how well the teams match up with each other.

Either way, perhaps not surprisingly, I see the Lakers coming out on top this time. May the best team win.

BSH,

Kobe might be able to stay in front of Rondo assuming:
1. It's not a fastbreak and
2. Doc doesn't set up single or double screens to break Rondo free.

Considering Rondo's lethality often comes in the transition game, that doesn't help Kobe much.

Rondo and Allen get different screens set for them. Rondo's screens come to him and are set up where he is, and he goes around them. Ray Allen's screens, for example, will be set up strong side, when he's down low weak side, and he'll come all the way around baseline to get to the other side of the screen and receive the ball. Difference? More running for Allen's defender, more physical fighting through a guy standing right next to you for Rondo's defender. LA's perimeter defense is critical if they don't want Kobe to just get rubbed off and Rondo coming around those screens like he was shot out of a cannon. Kobe's extra 5" might help him recover some on a Rondo jumpshot, but if Rondo's already in the paint? I agree Fisher will pick up some moving screen calls (especially if Perk is setting them), but in the bigger picture Ray Allen has 4" on Fisher and can shoot quickly off of screens (obviously) but can drive also. If Ray's shot is dropping, you're going to see Shannon Brown come off the bench quickly because Ray's too big for Fisher. I wouldn't be surprised if we see Ray Allen posting up Fisher down low. I think the Celtics see that much of an advantage in that matchup.

Artest was signed for two reasons:
1. Ariza bolted (the fact that Kupchak and Buss put so much time and effort trying to re-sign Ariza when Artest was available and making it very clear he wanted to be a Laker tells me Ariza was their first choice) and
2. To be a Pierce-killer

Sorta like the reason why we signed Marquis Daniels. We lost Posey and we wanted a Kobe-killer.

On your specific items:

1. Yes, Rondo's development is a HUGE factor this year vs 08. Rondo is the hub of the wheel that everybody else plugs into. He is, what they refer to in the military, as a "force multiplier". If he's doing his job well, Ray Allen and Pierce and KG and Davis and Tony all have good games too. This is a big difference between the Lakers' #1 guy, Kobe Bryant. He's an amazing individual player, but I don't see him elevating the rest of his teammates' play. Sometimes, sure, like his 12 assist game earlier these playoffs, but usually it's "Shoot, Kobe, Shoot!". With Rondo it's "Move and Rondo will feed you. All of you".

2. I must disagree with you on the bench 08 vs 10. Sure, we're without Posey, House and Brown. But Tony Allen has played a magnificent playoffs to-date. His defense on DWade, LeBron and Vince Carter has been outstanding and he's been aggressive offensively as well. Tony Allen was not a factor in 08. Davis didn't play much in the 08 Finals, this year he is a factor. He has also added a pretty reliable 18-foot jump shot. In 08, he was strictly an under-sized low post player. It's hard to say about Nate vs House. I love House, but if Nate has games like the one against Orlando, we're good. Sheed and PJ are, IMO, a wash. If Daniels comes back, we have another good defender to throw at Kobe. That makes Tony and Daniels off the bench to help on Kobe while in 08 we only had Posey.

As far as the Lakers bench goes, I think they are weaker. Sasha Eurobitch was known as "The Machine" in 08 and was a key player for the Lakers. I believe he scored 20 in game 2 in 08. Now, he's useless. Loss for LA. Farmar hasn't really stepped up as much, quite frankly, as I thought he would. I liked Farmar in 08 and 09, not as much now. Let's call him a wash. Brown is a very nice plus for LA, but Walton has lost a bit, I think, from 08. As I have stated here and in other posts, Odom is the X factor.

3. Gasol is NOT going to be going over people's backs for key offensive rebounds like he did against OKC and Phx. Unlike those two teams, we can match up physically and mentally and put a body on him.

4. Odom is tougher, but his opponents this year weren't. It's easy to be tough when your opponents aren't playing defense like a bunch of meth-crazed wolverines (this could be one of my new, favorite phrases) like the Celtics have been playing throughout these playoffs. This team, now, is the team that started the season with a league-leading 23-5 record. Forget about the second half of the season and how many points we were giving up. Forget about our loss to the NJ Nets. That Celtic team isn't the one you're facing now, although I'm hoping that Phil, Kobe and the rest of the Lakers think we are. Unfortunately, I doubt it.

Bottom line, other than Artest, LA is still a finesse team. The way to disrupt finesse teams is by putting a body on them and not letting them just do what they want and hope they miss and we are good at that. When you throw a team off their game plan, whatever it is, you gain an advantage.

You called the earlier 6 series right. 6-1 is still very impressive. :-)

I don't make series predictions like "Celtics in 6" or "Lakers in 7". I've never been comfortable going that far out onto a limb. That probably explains why I'm not a "Vegas" type of guy.

bob

.

by **bobheckler** Wed Jun 02, 2010 10:05 am

BSH,

I forgot to mention Michael Finley. I don't expect him to get many minutes, barring injury or serious foul trouble to Pierce, but he is a veteran with a Championship ring and is a very dangerous shooter.

His outside shooting helps to offset the loss of Posey's 3s and he isn't going to be awed by the bright lights. He's been here before.

Another plus for the Celtics over 08.

bob

.

by **tjmakz** Wed Jun 02, 2010 10:10 am

dbrown4 wrote:Once again, LAL playing Wack-a-Mole and/or Pinata like ORL, CLE and MIA. Maybe Artest shuts down PP. It doesn't matter. There are 14 other severe problems that pop up when you do it, the least of which is Nate Robinson. But let's face it. ORL didn't plan on Nate and it cost them the series. SVG lumped Nate in with Ray's two 3's to open the 3rd quarter as the reasons they lost. Phil will make the same and/or similar mistake(s). The zone should have the Lakers worried. Just the threat of it. That's all we need in a series this tight.

I need to sign up for ESPN the Mag and get the Insider for free. That offer still holds, TJ? If so, I'll sign up today. Can you subscribe at their site? Thanks, db

dbrown,

1) FYI-Teams are only allowed 12 players in uniform during the playoffs, NOT 15.
2) Nate is a benchwarmer that had to play because of Rondo's injury. If he was that good, he wouldn't have had 8 DNP's in this year's playoffs.
3) The threat of a zone has Phil worried?
4) I love reading your posts. I never realized I was a fan of fantasy writings.
5) Here is the link to sign up for ESPN The Magazine and The Insider: http://insider.espn.go.com/insider/magazine/index

by **Sam** Wed Jun 02, 2010 10:10 am

TJ,

Regarding your remark about whether the press should have picked the Celtics after the 50-win season:

I agree with you that wouldn't have made sense. In fact, after having witnessed the Celtics being widely labeled as underdogs in a huge percentage of their 17 championship series, I really don't expect much of anything from anyone who's in the prediction business that I revere so greatly.

Sometimes I feel as though Rosalie and I are on two islands (for the sake of propriety) in terms of truly understanding the nuances and dynamics of what makes the Celtics different. As she tosses me a banana now and then, in return for an occasional fig, we seem to have a shared instinct for the dynamics and intangibles that (1) make the Celtics tick and (2) seem so elusive to so many.

It's sort of like trying to explain why Scal is actually a valuable player. Even reading that sentence will send scores of people into spasms of laughter. Neither Scal nor the team he represents catches the fancy of a lot of people when it comes to conventional evaluative criteria utilized by the masses.

I don't know about Rosalie, but I've come to grips with island life. It's almost like being in a secret club with tanning benefits for Rotisserie Rosie and Sunspot Sam. But we're not trying to be exclusionary. There are plenty of nearby islands available, and inhabitants will find it's always a rush to watch herds of birds drop in for their daily sunset feast that Rosie and I like to call "fruit of the loons."

The only price of your very own island is an ability (1) to see beneath layers of convention and (2) to make the leap of faith to a central island for our annual spring bash.

Sam

by **tjmakz** Wed Jun 02, 2010 10:24 am

dbrown,

By the time Nate took his first shot, Boston was already up by 11. (30-19).
Not planning for Nate cost Orlando the series? Boston already had a double digit lead...

by **bobheckler** Wed Jun 02, 2010 10:29 am

tjmakz wrote:dbrown,

By the time Nate took his first shot, Boston was already up by 11. (30-19).
Not planning for Nate cost Orlando the series? Boston already had a double digit lead...

TJ,

Our lead had been cut from 16 or so when Nate came in. In other words, Orlando had the momentum. He reversed it and put us up by 18 or so. That's big and SVG specifically said so.

I'm not sure how you "plan" for a player that has hardly gotten off the bench in a while, though.

bob

.

by **dbrown4** Wed Jun 02, 2010 10:31 am

Let's play it out, tj. Good luck. Isn't LA LA Land fantasy?

I'm just going by what SVG said. Nate certainly didn't hurt us. He did along with Ray let the air out of their tires. That's all SVG said. I'm just the messenger. LAL doesn't have an answer.

by **tjmakz** Wed Jun 02, 2010 10:37 am

bob,

I'm sorry, that's not true.
Before Nate hit his first shot Boston's biggest lead was 13, 32-19.
When Nate hit his first 3, Boston was up by 9, 32-23. That increased the lead to 12. They only lost 4 points off the lead.
To say that not planning for Nate cost Orlando the series, just isn't true.
The bottom line is, if Nate plays, then Rondo is sitting which is good for L.A.

by **cowens/oldschool** Wed Jun 02, 2010 10:37 am

bob
Another great post(the long one) agree wholeheartedly with all your points,our bench blows away theirs. cow

by **tjmakz** Wed Jun 02, 2010 10:39 am

dbrown4 wrote:Let's play it out, tj. Good luck. Isn't LA LA Land fantasy?

I'm just going by what SVG said. Nate certainly didn't hurt us. He did along with Ray let the air out of their tires. That's all SVG said. I'm just the messenger. LAL doesn't have an answer.

No, Nate didn't hurt Boston, he helped them. I doubt the Lakers worry much at all about Nate.
Don't over-inflate bench players. Nate has been a Garbage Time player.

by **LACELTFAN** Wed Jun 02, 2010 11:20 am

Guys like Nate have a funny way of appearing in big series and having an unexpectedly big impact...both teams have guys that could be that kind of unexpected role player. In fact, I'm going to go out on a limb and state that one player will unexpectedly have an impact on the series. I haven't a clue which side he plays for though...and I don't think the staff for either team will lose sleep worrying about that. They have enough on their plates already.

by **dbrown4** Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:45 pm

tj,

Here's where we differ. You think this series is all about match-ups, all measurable by stats, etc. For LAL vs. Celtics, let's face it past history has not boded well for LAL. The only teams to crack the safe were the Magic led teams of the 80's and it took them one more series of woe for the franchise to figure it out. For current LAL fans, yourself included, it's about logically matching up, position by position trying to crack the safe again. While match-ups are important, they are not the sole determinant of winning the championship.

"The Rondo Play" - You see Rondo steals the ball, ORL gives up two points. Celtics, ORL (per SVG), reluctant media sees this is an example of what the Celtics as a team are all about...all-out-hustle, sacrifice, determination, whatever it takes legally to win, game changers, series changers, stab to the heart, etc. rippling through the rest of the series, Ray starting the 2nd half with back-to-back 3's, etc.

Nate Robinson's 2nd quarter play - You see a playoff loser coming off the bench, virtual nobody, Nate scores 13 points, lead changes by 4 points. Not a big deal. We see laser-point accuracy of placing a complete unknown in and literally changing the game, firing up the crowd that feeds the Celtics like a match to a fire, navy-seal like, in and out and only ORL gets hurt and disheartened.

The Lakers are going down the same path all the other LAL teams except the Magic years went down in that they are looking for a logical way to beat Boston. Give us Artest to shut down PP, we've got Kobe, Pau has improved, Bynum is back and they all match-up better...now we can beat them. Weren't you heavily favored in 2008? Weren't the match-ups ridiculously in your favor?

Is this the best LAL team ever to take on the Celtics? Better than the 80's? Celtics don't beat the Lakers with match-ups. It's all about the intangibles. What lies between the ears and the chest. That's what drive Laker fans off the edge like the way you are indicating because on paper, this series should be over in 4 games with LA raising another banner. You're saying Lakers in 6 but you want to say 4. Hell, I was going to say Celtics in 4, but they came up short by not sweeping ORL.

I'll boil it down to one thing. It will never show up on the stat sheet. You will never be able to quantify it or measure it. Maybe KG will alude to it but he probably won't verbalize it unless he is asked directly and no one will. His interview with Bill Russell and what Bill predicted is what is driving KG and his very existence. It's not about wanting it more. It's about Celtic pride and all those champions and teams that have come before them and what the Celtics represent...winning championships. The championship is the end result but it's all made up with the Rondo Play and 12 minutes of Nate, all these little pieces. Is that enough to win the this year's championship? Maybe, maybe not. But it's an intangible the Lakers keep overlooking in one form or another sans the 80's Laker teams. ORL thought they matched up better than Boston. They didn't allow for a game-changing, series-changing play like Rondo or 12 minutes from Nate. They were all focused on the tangibles. Just like in 2008. You would say LAL had the better team going in v. Boston in 2008. You had every advantage. Why did LA lose?

We have nothing to lose this year. We're not even supposed to be here. But something has gotten us to the finals, 4 games away from another banner. Soft brackets? Ghosts of '69? What is it? Tell me, tj. Do the Lakers even know? Better hope they find out before tomorrow and can exploit it. Otherwise, this haunting's going to continue. You still have time to review the 80's Laker teams tapes that beat the Celtics and compare to this year's Laker team to see how they match up. Then verify with Phil via e-mail your research. That's the two teams you should be comparing. If you do an honest comparison, I really don't think you will like what you see.

Here's one more comparison. How about the Magic/Kobe interview? Kobe clearly wants more than anything to get a 5th championship so he can get in the Magic club. But Magic knows the difference between his teams of the 80's and Kobe's teams and that's why he's reluctant in that interview to let Kobe in. Kobe is close. He's figured out a few things and won 4 championships as a result. But Magic isn't ready to fawn all over him. He can tell by the way Kobe answered his question he's just not quite there yet. Magic "What's it going to take to win another championship?" Kobe "Two things. Need to play a little bit tougher and play better D." That's your man, tj. Magic knew right then, Kobe is still not there yet for what it takes to win 5. Will Kobe figure it out intra-series? Better hope so. That's your only chance.

by **LACELTFAN** Wed Jun 02, 2010 2:59 pm

dee- I like the way you think, of course I would, anyone with a math degree is alright in my book. But I think that you put to much emphasis on "intangibles". Both sides have intangibles, both sides play with heart and contrary to the bs that flies through the airwaves, both are tough and play D. Just as all of the Russell lore won't add up to 1 point, all of the Kobe revenge won't either. I think that the difference will be who gets into the groove more than the other. In short, which team plays as a team, more often. I think that was the difference in 08 and will be the difference this year also. It took a very long while but the C's finally all got on the same page during the playoffs. Will that team show up for the finals? If they do, the Lakers will be hard pressed (not a D reference) to repeat. If not, it will be over quickly. Having said all that, I'm sure glad I don't have to try and prove my conjecture...the great thing about sports...if you conjecture long enough...you're bound to get one right...law of averages....Ultimately(IMHO), sports analysis is a level playing field...it makes fools of us all...

by **tjmakz** Wed Jun 02, 2010 3:01 pm

dbrown4 wrote:tj,

Here's where we differ. You think this series is all about match-ups, all measurable by stats, etc. For LAL vs. Celtics, let's face it past history has not boded well for LAL. The only teams to crack the safe were the Magic led teams of the 80's and it took them one more series of woe for the franchise to figure it out. For current LAL fans, yourself included, it's about logically matching up, position by position trying to crack the safe again. While match-ups are important, they are not the sole determinant of winning the championship.

"The Rondo Play" - You see Rondo steals the ball, ORL gives up two points. Celtics, ORL (per SVG), reluctant media sees this is an example of what the Celtics as a team are all about...all-out-hustle, sacrifice, determination, whatever it takes legally to win, game changers, series changers, stab to the heart, etc. rippling through the rest of the series, Ray starting the 2nd half with back-to-back 3's, etc.

Nate Robinson's 2nd quarter play - You see a playoff loser coming off the bench, virtual nobody, Nate scores 13 points, lead changes by 4 points. Not a big deal. We see laser-point accuracy of placing a complete unknown in and literally changing the game, firing up the crowd that feeds the Celtics like a match to a fire, navy-seal like, in and out and only ORL gets hurt and disheartened.

The Lakers are going down the same path all the other LAL teams except the Magic years went down in that they are looking for a logical way to beat Boston. Give us Artest to shut down PP, we've got Kobe, Pau has improved, Bynum is back and they all match-up better...now we can beat them. Weren't you heavily favored in 2008? Weren't the match-ups ridiculously in your favor?

Is this the best LAL team ever to take on the Celtics? Better than the 80's? Celtics don't beat the Lakers with match-ups. It's all about the intangibles. What lies between the ears and the chest. That's what drive Laker fans off the edge like the way you are indicating because on paper, this series should be over in 4 games with LA raising another banner. You're saying Lakers in 6 but you want to say 4. Hell, I was going to say Celtics in 4, but they came up short by not sweeping ORL.

I'll boil it down to one thing. It will never show up on the stat sheet. You will never be able to quantify it or measure it. Maybe KG will alude to it but he probably won't verbalize it unless he is asked directly and no one will. His interview with Bill Russell and what Bill predicted is what is driving KG and his very existence. It's not about wanting it more. It's about Celtic pride and all those champions and teams that have come before them and what the Celtics represent...winning championships. The championship is the end result but it's all made up with the Rondo Play and 12 minutes of Nate, all these little pieces. Is that enough to win the this year's championship? Maybe, maybe not. But it's an intangible the Lakers keep overlooking in one form or another sans the 80's Laker teams. ORL thought they matched up better than Boston. They didn't allow for a game-changing, series-changing play like Rondo or 12 minutes from Nate. They were all focused on the tangibles. Just like in 2008. You would say LAL had the better team going in v. Boston in 2008. You had every advantage. Why did LA lose?

We have nothing to lose this year. We're not even supposed to be here. But something has gotten us to the finals, 4 games away from another banner. Soft brackets? Ghosts of '69? What is it? Tell me, tj. Do the Lakers even know? Better hope they find out before tomorrow and can exploit it. Otherwise, this haunting's going to continue. You still have time to review the 80's Laker teams tapes that beat the Celtics and compare to this year's Laker team to see how they match up. Then verify with Phil via e-mail your research. That's the two teams you should be comparing. If you do an honest comparison, I really don't think you will like what you see.

Here's one more comparison. How about the Magic/Kobe interview? Kobe clearly wants more than anything to get a 5th championship so he can get in the Magic club. But Magic knows the difference between his teams of the 80's and Kobe's teams and that's why he's reluctant in that interview to let Kobe in. Kobe is close. He's figured out a few things and won 4 championships as a result. But Magic isn't ready to fawn all over him. He can tell by the way Kobe answered his question he's just not quite there yet. Magic "What's it going to take to win another championship?" Kobe "Two things. Need to play a little bit tougher and play better D." That's your man, tj. Magic knew right then, Kobe is still not there yet for what it takes to win 5. Will Kobe figure it out intra-series? Better hope so. That's your only chance.

db,

History has nothing to do with this series. Do you think the Celtics championships from the 1950's and 1960's are going to have any relevance to this series? No way.
You seem to have this mystical idea about the Celtics team because of their history. For 20 years before Boston traded for Garnett and Allen, Boston was a non-contendor/non-factor in the NBA. I don't downplay the success of the Celtics organization, especially being 9-2 against the Lakers in the Finals. Since I have been an NBA junkie/Lakers fan, (30 years), the Lakers have been to the Finals now 16 times and are trying to win their 10th title. All of that does not impact the play on the court in this series.

You cherry pick 1 example of a success (Nate game 6) but fail to mention failures. Where is the laser point accuracy from Doc when it comes to inserting Finley? In Finley's last 62 minutes in the playoffs, he has scored 3 points, had 8 rebounds and had 2 assists. 62 minutes is not a typo-o.

Why do you ask if this is the best Lakers team to play the Celtics? Clearly the answer is no, but again, that has nothing to do with this series. If Bird and McHale aren't playing, then I am not too worried.

Garnett's interview with Russell means nothing on the court. It won't help Rasheed rebound the ball or won't help Pierce get free from Artest.
LA had no advantage over Boston in 2008. They were without their starting center, Pau had played a 1/2 season in this system and they had Radmonovic and Walton as their small forwards. They didn't score and played no defense.

You mention Celtics pride. So if LA wins, what do you say then? Would the loss be because of lack of pride? Where was the Celtics pride from 1987-2007? I understand that all teams go through bad stretches of years. The Celtics did, the Lakers did, the Yankees did. Don't over-glorify this Celtics team that has won 1 title. Even in the year they won, it took 20 games to get out of the East. They played their best ball in the Finals.

Boston should be in the Finals. They started off as the best team in the league, had many injuries, played poorly, but have earned back the Eastern Conf. crown. They are no longer a big underdog. If thinking they are helps you, then so be it. Boston is clearly the best team in the East. I was one that predicted Boston beating Orlando who was healthy, rested, and playing great ball over the last 2 months.

What Kobe/Magic interview are you even referencing? Please post the url.

by **LACELTFAN** Wed Jun 02, 2010 3:22 pm

tj-Same difference with this revenge crap also....That will help the Lakers for about a nanosecond, then they have to play basketball....It will all happen out there, no doubt.

by **tjmakz** Wed Jun 02, 2010 3:30 pm

I agree, the play on the court is what matters.
What Boston did in the 1950's, or Magic's supposed interview with Kobe or Russell's motivational speech to Garnett, will mean nothing as game 1 starts.

by **tjmakz** Wed Jun 02, 2010 3:31 pm

I don't expect to see the Magic/Kobe interview url from dbrown...

by **Sam** Wed Jun 02, 2010 4:14 pm

TJ,

Actually, I believe the Celtics' successes in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 2008 do have an impact on the current series. Not directly, which is what I'd expect Lakers fans to argue against. But indirectly, as follows.

I don't know of another franchise in the NBA (including the Lakers) in which the championship definition of greatness has been as deeply established for as long a time, and passed down through as many generations, as it has been with the Celtics. Only championships matter. The heritage of the current Celtics players has absolutely nothing to do with finals appearances. Nobody cares. The fans don't care. The players don't care. If that's true in L.A., it's certainly not borne out by the vast numbers of Lakers fans who talk trash about their 30 finals appearance. Fine, bridesmaids can be pretty too.

When the Celtics play in the finals, they're automatically accountable to their heritage. I'm sure they don't think, when they're standing at the free throw line, "Golly gee, I'd better not miss this one because I'm accountable to my heritage." But in thinking about the finals and what they mean, and in preparing mentally for the finals, and in getting themseves "up" for the finals. I personally guarantee it was a key factor at the time when Jack Kent Cooke was hanging up his balloons.

I believe history plays a greater role in the Celtics' perspective and resolve, whereas the possibility to make one's own imprint is more likely to play a greater role in the minds of competing players. The Boston Celtics' history as a criterion of greatness simply has far better established roots than those of any other team in the league. Championships are a huge part of what the Celtics legacy is uniquely all about.

I don't follow the Lakers closely, so I don't know how intertwined with the current team are Lakers legends of the past. But nothing can make me believe the notion of implicit accountability to Lakers' past greats is nearly so strongly emblazoned on their minds as is true of the Celtics. In fact, this is the first Celtics championship era that didn't include a player or coach from the Russell teams. And we all saw what an impact the reationship between Russ and KG had.

Not that the current Celtics don't also want to establish their own imprint on history. But that motivation simply adds to their sources of resolve.

I'm sure you won't agree with me. I've talked with many fans of other teams, and it's something they want so badly to believe their teams possess as well. But they don't. Accountability to the past was a HUGE part of the motivation that kept aging teams, year after year of losing future hall-of-famers to retirement, focusing intently on the next one. It was an incredible motivator; and perhaps only people who witnessed the immensity of it, up close and personal, can imagine how it could be handed down to current generations of Celtics.

None of this is a prediction of the outcome of this series, and you're absolutely right. The games still have to be played. I'm commenting solely on the matter of motivation. It's simply a way in which the Celtics are different. If you polled 1,000 basketball fans around the country and asked them what single word was most synonymous with each of the 30 NBA teams, the word most associated with the Celtics would be "champions" or "championships." More so than any other team.

Sam

by **dbrown4** Wed Jun 02, 2010 4:20 pm

TJ, I've given you everything you need to know on how to beat the Celtics. History has nothing to do with it. But from history, you can gleen some very important things so as to not repeat mistakes made or to repeat the same steps that lead to the same positive result. If there is anything to do with history, it's for the Lakers benefit. Maybe tradition is a better word. But the way the Lakers currently stack up on the eve of the Finals, it's just not likely to happen. Not in a 7-game series. The guy that beat the Celtics twice knows it and knows this current LA team doesn't know it or have it. Magic will pick the Lakers to win because his hearts with the Lakers, lest he will look like a traitor. Go back and listen to the Magic of the 80's after 1987 and he will tell you everything you need to know about how to beat Boston. Not necessarily the team, but Boston. It took everything for Magic to beat Boston. He's done it before! Don't you want to know what he knows? Or are you hellbend on the now and do it your way in 2010? Second verse same as the first. That's what shot LA in the foot in 2008. The Lakers are on trial for their lives here. Please tell me they haven't pinned their hopes to the same phone bill.

Pride stays in tact regardless of wins and losses. As long as we leave it all on the court and play like true Celtics, I'm not worried.

I beg to differ on the Garnett/Russell interview not having an impact on the court. It's quite simply KG's sole purpose which he chose to spread to the team. I believe KG has said something to the team a couple of years ago to the effect of, "I'm in the prime of me career. I'm on a mission. I'm winning 2 maybe 3 more championships here in Boston, with or without any of you guys. We're going to win it old school, just like the 16 teams before us did it. It will be a lot easier with you than without you, but I'll do it by myself if I have to. If I become injured along the way, I'll accept full responsibility for that. I will not let you down, nor will I let Mr. Russell down. I'm not going to be on the short side of anything Mr. Russell tells me or asks me to do. Failure on that is not an option. Not with what he represents to this organization and the NBA. All you mfers that are on board with that sign this piece of paper as your pledge to absolutely do everything in your power to bring it every second, every minute, every hour, every practice, every day, every game, every seires. If you ain't on board then hit the bricks. When you slack off, I'm going to be in your face because of this pledge. So don't sign unless you are really ready to back it up. You're going to have to answer to your family, too, because I'm going to have your wife and kids sign this! So if you want to come up short, you're going to have to face them and me! Will I help you? Absolutely! Just don't quit on me!" OK, Maybe not word for word, but something like that. It will help Rasheed rebound better and it will help Paul think of how he can and will beat Ron. If defense is all Ron's got, Paul will go Larry Bird on him. I don't know about you, but I don't want to have answer to KG when he's pissed about my effort. Ever. Hell, he made Glenn Davis cry on tv for all the world to see. But is Baby back in order? Back in line? Everyone is accountable to everyone. A true sign of team.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s31sFwpci5w

Thanks for the link. I'm signed up now. Very cool. Should have done this long ago!

by **beat** Wed Jun 02, 2010 4:22 pm

Sam

Sort of like what Havlicek said .......... I never felt we ever lost, we just ran out of time.

beat

by **Sam** Wed Jun 02, 2010 4:25 pm

Beat,

My favorite Havlicek quote was, "When we lost, we felt it was a mistake."

It truly is a championship-shaped mentality.

Sam

by **dbrown4** Wed Jun 02, 2010 4:44 pm

tj,

I just don't think this current Lakers team, as they currently stand and as Magic sees them, knows what it's going to take to knock off this current Celtic team. Yeah, there's alot of laughing, carrying on and some comraderie in the interview between the two, but Magic didn't get the right answer to his question. Magic knows the answer. Kobe just sees Boston as the last obstacle to the trophy, I think he said recently. I'm afraid it's a lot more to it than that as Sam points out.

I think that interview was done after 2008 playoffs, maybe in 2009. Also, I think there was more pieces to it.

by **tjmakz** Wed Jun 02, 2010 4:51 pm

dbrown,

The interview that you are referencing is from 2008. You made it sound like it was done this week.
Yes, Kobe said they needed to get tougher and play better defense. That is true from the 2008 team. Artest is a big part of that. Subtracting Radmonovic and adding Artest and Bynum into this series has made them much tougher and a MUCH better defensive team.

How long does it take to be a true Celtic? Was Posey a true Celtic? What about Cassell and PJ Brown?

Garnett can be motivated all he wants but if his knees are aching him and he puts up a 10 pt/5 reb game in game 1, Boston is in trouble. Each player has physical limitations/abilities and different levels of skills. Also, some will play better then normal and some will play worse. You can't dictate any of that. Garnett's self determination to his team/organization/Mr. Russell will only go so far.

When is the responsibility to the Celtics going to motivate Rasheed to rebound and play defense? Outside of a handful of games this postseason, he has been an embarrassment to the Celtics organization.

Pierce can't go Larry Bird on Artest because he can't hold Bird's jock. Bird was one of the greatest players of all time and in my opinion, a top 5 player in NBA history.

When was is that BBD cried? Last year or the year before? Was BBD "in line" earlier this year? How did Garnett let the team deterioriate so bad to the point of Rasheed screaming at Doc on the court and everyone was just sitting there, afraid to say a word?

Yes, ESPN Insider is cool. There is so much more to it then just headline stories. Besides everything else, if anybody is involved with fantasy sports, they have great analysis/stories that you don't find at other free sports websites.

Here's to a GREAT series...

by **mrkleen09** Wed Jun 02, 2010 5:17 pm

tjmakz wrote:Artest is a big part of that. Subtracting Radmonovic and adding Artest and Bynum into this series has made them much tougher and a MUCH better defensive team.

In 2008, they gave up 100.2 ppg. This year, the Lakers are 11th out of 16 playoff teams in opponent PPG giving up 101.7 ppg. Does that sound MUCH better to you?

tjmakz wrote:When is the responsibility to the Celtics going to motivate Rasheed to rebound and play defense? Outside of a handful of games this postseason, he has been an embarrassment to the Celtics organization.

You can say what you want - but unlike Odom - who the Lakers NEED to come up big if they are to have any chance, the Celtics dont need Rasheed to be a major factor in this series. Sheed will use up all 6 of his fouls by hacking, pulling, pushing and intimidating Gasol and Odom every minute he is on the court - and we all know those two guys are SOFT and can be taken out of their game by aggressive play.

tjmakz wrote:When was is that BBD cried? Last year or the year before? Was BBD "in line" earlier this year? How did Garnett let the team deterioriate so bad to the point of Rasheed screaming at Doc on the court and everyone was just sitting there, afraid to say a word?

Talk about grasping at straws - What difference does it make when Glen Davis cried? He has grown immensely since then - and when he draws 3 or 4 charges in one game and takes the ball at Odom's chest a few drives - you will see what a "big baby" he has turned into.

Glad to see the level to which you are questioning the green team. Unfortunately the Lakers coaches and players know better than to underestimate the Celtics.

by Sponsored content