They are not the same team they were

In Mid-May Boston went 6-0 and gave up just 85 ppg in those 6 games.
Since then, they have gone 3-4 and given up 96 ppg.
They do not seem to have the same defensive intensity/will/desire/energy as they did a month ago.
It could be as simple as an older team running out of gas at the end of a long season.

tj

In so doing you sell your team the Lakers short. The Lakers are pretty good on o. And Kobe looked pretty 'tired' at the end of game 4. A tired star with high miles getting older?

That's what OKC thought too.
The strive for 5 continues for Kobe...

thats what "king James" and "superman thought too. Kobe's next.

And if they win the next two games, they will be 5-4 since mid-May, which is still UNimpressive. They will also be the World Champions.

Another way of looking at this is that they are 9-4 since the time you started counting. I wonder why you started counting in mid-May?

Since the playoffs begain, April 27th, the Celtics are 14-7.

Since the playoffs began for the Lakers, they are 14-6. The Lakers were 8-2 in the first 2 series but are only 6-4 in the last two series. Is this evidence that the Lakers' record and stats in the playoffs have been padded by facing weak talent (such as a Utah team without its starting center and SF)?

Per 36 minutes of play, Kobe Bryant is:

09-10 regular season - 45.6%fg%, 33% from 3, 4.6apg, 3.0TOpg, 2.4fouls/gm, 25ppg

Playoffs vs Boston - 40.9%fg%, 37% from 3, 4.1apg, 3.8TOpg, 3.6fouls/gm, 25.5ppg.

So, is the lousy fg%, fewer assists per game, higher turnovers per game and 50% more fouls made, evidence of almost 32-year old Kobe Bryant, with almost as many career minutes on his body as KG and who has played more mpg this season than usual and is averaging 40mpg this series, wearing out?

Or is it just a reflection of the better defense by the Celtics (notably Tony Allen) and that he's guarding a much quicker player in Rondo?

Really, TJ, I thought you would have come up with a better argument than this.

The good news for Celtic fans is: if you're right and we've been lacking in intensity the last series and a half, then God Help the Lakers, because we're tied 2-2 despite our diminished intensity. If we turn it on again...

bob

.

Thanks for an extended laugh! That was a good one, TJ.

Talk about selective, twisted stats. Cherry-picking a series-overlapping period during which they rather easily dispatched a team with the league's second-best record and are tied with the best in the west. That's not just taking stats out of context; it could only be described as warped.

What counts is not some excerpted skein covering carefully selected portions of overlapping series to try to invent a warped point. What counts is the result of each series taken on its own.

Speaking of which, the Lakers are only playing .500 ball over the last four games. And, omigosh, they're currently on a 0-1 losing streak. How awful. How frightening for the entire West Coast. The Lakers must be old and decrepit. Oh my god. The sky must be falling for them.

TJ, you may want to focus on areas other than statistics in attempting to disparage the Celtics. Frankly, your efforts in the statistical arena are (searching for a non-offensive word here) wanting.

But, hey, keep 'em coming if you wish. It's always worthwhile to enjoy a little statistical exercise along with some comic relief.

Sam

Yeah neither team has faced a team this damn good. I have been shocked by the Lakers defense. In truth this is a defensive series. And it is two two. So clearly the teams are very evenly matched. It's great hoop! The teams and fans cant STAND each other. SWWEEEEEETTTT!

I smell desperation in the Lakers camp. They are blanketing the national media with things like this....trying to justify why they are still the better team.

Funny stuff.

tjmakz wrote:In Mid-May Boston went 6-0 and gave up just 85 ppg in those 6 games.
Since then, they have gone 3-4 and given up 96 ppg.
They do not seem to have the same defensive intensity/will/desire/energy as they did a month ago.
It could be as simple as an older team running out of gas at the end of a long season.

It could be but probably not. It's 2 to 2....are the Lakers running out of gas? Doubtful...
I'm going to go way out on a limb and say...the team that is most aggressive, focused and executes the best...with just a dash of luck, will win 2 more games, the other won't. You don't know which is which, even with all your stats. Isn't it great?

Sam wrote:Thanks for an extended laugh! That was a good one, TJ.

Talk about selective, twisted stats. Cherry-picking a series-overlapping period during which they rather easily dispatched a team with the league's second-best record and are tied with the best in the west. That's not just taking stats out of context; it could only be described as warped.

What counts is not some excerpted skein covering carefully selected portions of overlapping series to try to invent a warped point. What counts is the result of each series taken on its own.

Speaking of which, the Lakers are only playing .500 ball over the last four games. And, omigosh, they're currently on a 0-1 losing streak. How awful. How frightening for the entire West Coast. The Lakers must be old and decrepit. Oh my god. The sky must be falling for them.

TJ, you may want to focus on areas other than statistics in attempting to disparage the Celtics. Frankly, your efforts in the statistical arena are (searching for a non-offensive word here) wanting.

But, hey, keep 'em coming if you wish. It's always worthwhile to enjoy a little statistical exercise along with some comic relief.

Sam

Sam,

Of course, that was an example of stat cherry picking on my part. It just shows how anyone can pick stats from a certain period and make them fit their argument. It was like dboss's statement the other day how Boston's D is getting better because the Lakers points have slightly decreased. Boston fans were as quiet as a North Montana night after games 1 and 3 but loved to throw out irrelevant stats after games 2 and 4.

tj

I THOUGHT that was strategory or reverse phsych on yur part!

And i was only QUIET BECAUSE I WAS IN NORTHERN MONTANA.

jeb65 wrote:And i was only QUIET BECAUSE I WAS IN NORTHERN MONTANA.

jeb,

Damn, he really played into your hands on that one, didn't he?

bob
P.S. How is Northern Montana anyway?

.

bobheck

I am so juiced to do this movie! It is a shifting period film (50's to 70's) and northern montana is essentially untouched. The place is breathtaking. It was 50 degrees when I left. I was last in Montana to design a movie called The Slaughter Rule in the middle of the winter and bubba you cant get prepared for that kind of cold.

jeb

TJ,

I'm a Boston fan. Let's go head-to-head, just for fun. Search around and find any "irrelevant stat" that I have posted. There are plenty of posts to pick from.

I'm not about to try to defend every statistic posted by every Celtics fan. But dboss' stat that you claim is irrelevant looks pretty relevant to me. It's true that the Lakers' scores have decreased with every successive game in this series: from 102 to 94 to 91 to 89. You may try to slant it any way you wish by using the word "slightly." But a 13% decline in scoring over four games, with every single change over each successive game being in a consistently negative direction, would hardly be called "slight."

PPG, of course, is not the only criterion of a good defense. But it's pretty good because it is the net result of everything involved in a good defense...certainly far more valid than just one of many defense factors such as opponents' shooting percentage.

I suppose the conclusion could be either that the Celtics' defense is steadily improving or the Lakers' offense is becoming increasingly ineffective. Which conclusion would you prefer?

Sam

The N. Montana reference was in honor to my buddy, jeb.

A 4 game sample size means nothing to game 5.
In the regular season Boston started out 6-0 and was giving up 81.5 ppg.
Game 7 Phoenix beat Boston in Boston and scored 110 points.
Those first 6 games meant nothing in game 7.

dboss was right that for four games LA's points have gone down.
But I am also right that Boston is 3-4 in their last 7 games giving up 96 ppg after going 6-0 and giving up 85 ppg.

What these stats mean to games 5 and 6 is nothing.

tj-
This is one area where you and I are on the same page...throw out the stats...Game 5 will probably not look like 4 and 6 not like 5...etc....

Here's an article about KG, the Celtics and TEAM

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2010/columns/story?columnist=broussard_chris&page=celticsteam-100611

bob

.

bobheck

beautiful-true

Hey tj-
just a quick question....You're over here on a Celtic site, you and I know ( others here probably wouldn't agree) that your team has a better than 50-50 chance of winning this whole thing...Why would you care if a Celtic fan was doing a little sabre rattling?
You're team has the edge....why not just sit back and say..."we'll see.."

Why would Celtics fans here care about a Lakers fan doing a little Celtic rattling?
Pretty much just a little trash talking before a big game.
A little friendly chatter never hurt anyone.
This just solidifies our belief in our team.
We are getting close to the point where either me or you guys are going to have to eat some crow. We'll see....

TJ,

In the first six games of the season, the Celtics were playing different teams that did not bear any resemblance to the Suns. The only thing it proves is that one should not mix apples and oranges in statistical comparisons. Which is exactly what you did in your anemic example that cherry picked a portion of the Magic series and combined it with the Lakers series to prove.....precisely nothing. And simply repeating an irrelevancy doesn't suddenly make it relevant.

Here's a little apples-and-oranges example that may help you see the error of your ways:

• In their first three series of these playoffs, the Lakers averaged 105.7 PPG.

• Against the Celtics in these playoffs, the Lakers have averaged 94 PPG.

Ooooh, the Lakers must be in a woeful offensive slump...UNLESS you see the apples and oranges fallacy.

Keep on truckin'. This takes me back to my years of correcting stat exams.

Sam

Sam,

Are you saying that Phoenix defense is as good as Boston and should have held LA to 94 ppg? If not why would use reference such irrelevant stats?

Gotta go out.
Will be back with a real doozie for you guys that shows why LA will win tonight.

As I clearly stated, I used such irrelevant stats to try to teach you how ridiculous it is to mix apples and oranges. It's why I used the word "fallacy"(or misconception) in connection with trying to combine apples and oranges.

Oh good, another prediction coming up. Perhaps the only exercise more ill-advised than the misuse of statistics.

Sam