PLAYOFFS 2011 POST GAME MIAMI GAME 1

tjmakz,

First cite your source for the listener exposure market verses all of US. Are you quoting Arbitron Rating Book?

Second the Knick's happen to play in the Meca of All of Basketball, third they also had pretty good teams......fourth, NY happens to have more warehouses then any place else on earth.

112288

kleen,

I already said Jones should have received a flagrant. What did he do to deserve a T?
No matter how you try to spin it, Wade was called for a foul. That's all he deserved. Pierce should have moved on.

Here's your statement: "Absolutely incorrect. NOWHERE in the rule book does it say that refs should take into account how hard to collision is"

So, if a player "intentionally" bumps into or grazes another player, then that is the same as if he runs full bore at a guy and knocks the other player head over heals???

mrkleen09 wrote:

swedeinestonia wrote:Was it the lack of steps that was the difference or what?

Dont waste your breath Swede. Guy asked for an example, you gave him one - now he is changing his story.

Scola came up to set a pick. Fisher ran him over. Flagrant was called. Met every criteria TJ asked for....except for one. Him admitting he was WRONG.

Typical reply from a Lakers Troll.

kleen,

You must really be an unhappy person.
Life is too short to complain about everyone and everything.
Boston played poorly. Deserved to lose. Game 2 can change the series.

I am actually not saying anything about it, just trying to learn about the game. I can notice they are different plays and cant be compared directly but in a way they are similar.



Whoever knows better be the judge, I really did not think it should have been a flagrant (or O'Neals for that matter), Jones should have been a flagrant. T on Pierce for the headbutt on Jones and then nothing between Wade and Pierce other than a personal on Wade or maybe a T if they thought the foul had some kind of malicious intent.

tjmakz wrote:kleen,

I already said Jones should have received a flagrant. What did he do to deserve a T?
No matter how you try to spin it, Wade was called for a foul. That's all he deserved. Pierce should have moved on.

Here's your statement: "Absolutely incorrect. NOWHERE in the rule book does it say that refs should take into account how hard to collision is"

So, if a player "intentionally" bumps into or grazes another player, then that is the same as if he runs full bore at a guy and knocks the other player head over heals???

The collision between O'Neal and Jones was not hard and did not cause the fall, he fell cause he wanted to. If it did not seem to homer I would say it kind of looks like Jones is seeking some contact and kind of puts his elbow out some to create more.

112288 wrote:tjmakz,

First cite your source for the listener exposure market verses all of US. Are you quoting Arbitron Rating Book?

Second the Knick's happen to play in the Meca of All of Basketball, third they also had pretty good teams......fourth, NY happens to have more warehouses then any place else on earth.

112288

Yeah, ok, I am going to pull arbitron ratings for you. You can google that yourself.
The Knicks are #1 in radio and tv listeners and WFAN was the #1 rated sports radio network in the US.

ABC could have hired anybody else in the country but they decided to hire Breen. Because he was terrible or because Imus promoted him?
The complete opposite. He is talented and worked his way through the broadcasting ladder.

Since I know who Jackson and Van Gundy is in that bunch I guess I can figure out who Breen is.

I dont think he is too bad. Mark Jackson I do not like, he just repeats cliche one-liners and has nothing to add really.

Van Gundy can be entertaining and he knows basketball obviously. He is also not too afraid of having an opinion although one does not necessarily agree with it (James greatness and so on..)

tjmakz wrote:kleen,

You must really be an unhappy person.
Life is too short to complain about everyone and everything.
Boston played poorly. Deserved to lose. Game 2 can change the series.

Not unhappy at all.....just dont like you and your little kick the hornest nest and then stand back and pretend you are innocent act. It is wearing thin.

Outside wrote:I was hoping to see a discussion about game 1 and the series, but this is mired in a bottomless pit of complaints about refereeing and announcers. Oh my, calls didn't go your way. And announcers -- really?

Anyone interesting in discussing the actual basketball?

1. Offensive adjustments by the Celtics. Pierce will probably be fine, but they need to get production out of KG and Rondo. They can't rely on Ray carrying them all the time. Rondo needs to be aggressive but not press it. Penetrate and kick. Push it up the court a lot, even if it doesn't result in a shot. There was one play in game 1 when Rondo pushed the ball even though he didn't have numbers, and he kicked it to Pierce on the left side, who put up a shot that almost went in and got fouled. Two free throws, easy points, all by pushing the ball. Like I said, even if he winds up pulling the ball out and restarting the offense, pushing the ball is good. Then later, like the end of the first period or start of the second, take it to the hoop if there's an opening. For KG, run a couple of screen/rolls with Pierce to get KG early shot opportunities. Gotta get him in the game.

2. They need to recognize and stop any Miami role player who makes even two early shots. In their last two games, the Heat have gotten big games from two role players (20 by Mario Chalmers, 25 by James Jones). The Celtics can absorb high scoring from Miami's big three, but they're in trouble if someone else gets hot like that. They need to stay at home on any role player who even seems to be on a roll, even at the expense of not helping on Wade and LeBron.

3. Did anyone else notice that Wade and LeBron are playing much better together, not just settling for alternating isolations? I know that doesn't fit with the caricature of the Heatles as me-ballers, but it was noticable to me in game 1. The Celtics need to adjust by preventing whichever one of the two is off the ball from slashing uncovered. If they stop that action, they can get Wade and especially LeBron to revert to isolation plays, which is much easier to cover. And if they can do that to LeBron, his frustration level will rise dramatically, and he'll be much less effective. LeBron is more fragile than Wade, and getting in his head should be an objective.

Outside

Excellent post.

mrkleen09 wrote:

tjmakz wrote:kleen,

You must really be an unhappy person.
Life is too short to complain about everyone and everything.
Boston played poorly. Deserved to lose. Game 2 can change the series.

Not unhappy at all.....just dont like you and your little kick the hornest nest and then stand back and pretend you are innocent act. It is wearing thin.

Read Outside's post. Will you disagree with him too?

My original post kicked no hornets nest.
I don't have to agree with what you say.
I know that the emotional part of being a fan can cloud objective judgements.

tjmakz wrote:Read Outside's post. Will you disagree with him too?

My original post kicked no hornets nest.
I don't have to agree with what you say.
I know that the emotional part of being a fan can cloud objective judgements.

TJ - I am done here.

You came to this thread, said that BS call on O'Neil was a flagrant - said Doc was wrong and Wade did nothing wrong - and then went on to try and "educate" us by quoting from the rule book. And after that got a few of us upset...you try and pull the BS - oh, why is everyone out to get me card.

Swede proved your wrong...and instead of admitting it - you tried to back peddle - like the troll you are.

Shouldn't surprise us at this point - this is all right out of your usual playbook.

I'm surprised we haven't heard the inevitable "He who wins the first game, wins the series 78% of the time. If MIA wins the next game, it goes to 90%" bs From ESPN yet.

This gets back to my whole argument about importance of the order in which games are won. The short team, the one with non-HCA, immediately puts the most pressure on the HCA team by winning Game 1. We just weren't destined to win this one given several factors going into the game, (too much time off, age, whatever you want to call it) and then upon showing up just falling apart.

Now by losing Game 1, we essentially have to win Game 2 or it is pretty much over. Granted we can handle that kind of pressure and should show up for Game 2, the sad thing is, if we do lose Game 2, the fat lady starts clearing her throat. I'd like to think we will be one of the few teams to come back from down 0-2, but the truth is, when you are non-HCA, you have to win at least one game on the road, probably two, and we just wasted one of them, the most important one for setting the table. Good news is, there are 4 chances to do this. But if we are going to lose one of our 3 at home, which is likely, then we need to win two of the remaining three in MIA either Game 2, Game 5 and/or less likely Game 7.

If the split happens, it is the less favorable split of the two when order is important to the non-HCA team from the angle of who has the most pressure to win the next one. Winning first sets the precedent for the whole series. Winning Game 2 on the road after losing the first is more of desperation and then when you get home for 3 and 4 you still have to win both of those.

Adjustments by the Celtics will be made and Doc now knows Spoelstra is not kidding and drew first blood. But you have to win 4. Winning one game relatively convincingly isn't enough.

Something else on the horizon is another large break looming between Tuesday and Saturday from Game 2 to Game 3. This looks like yet another opportunity for us not to show up if you beileve the "old geyser" arguments now circulating. Good news is this is at home for us.

Overall, I didn't think we were blown out. Nine points isn't a blowout, especially in MIA. PP was thrown out. He knows better. We've been playing and retaining our emotions very well all season and for the most part walking away from situations like this. I'm sure PP got an earful from Doc. Don't know if Doc blamed him for the loss directly or indirectly, but I'm sure PP blamed himself. We'll see a different PP in Game 2 as well as RR, although he was near a 3D when all was said and done.

Can't look back. Can't change Game 1. It's in the books. This team has done nothing conventional all season. So losing Game 1 on the road falls right into that.

Don't worry too much about Jones. Support players will start bricking them up soon enough. Like Charles Barkley always says about the 3 ball...You die by it.

liked outside and dbrown's posts about THE BASKETBALL GAME !!!

thank you, both.

now back to the lion's den to take game 2, where we came remarkably close to stealing one sunday in spite of our early lapses. (as others have said, 9 points isn't a blow out.) i bet rondo and KG will show up for this one, ray is so steady and reliable and the captain usually is that they will be there too. and on to a big series from one and one.

Michael

mrkleen09 wrote:

tjmakz wrote:Read Outside's post. Will you disagree with him too?

My original post kicked no hornets nest.
I don't have to agree with what you say.
I know that the emotional part of being a fan can cloud objective judgements.

TJ - I am done here.

You came to this thread, said that BS call on O'Neil was a flagrant - said Doc was wrong and Wade did nothing wrong - and then went on to try and "educate" us by quoting from the rule book. And after that got a few of us upset...you try and pull the BS - oh, why is everyone out to get me card.

Swede proved your wrong...and instead of admitting it - you tried to back peddle - like the troll you are.

Shouldn't surprise us at this point - this is all right out of your usual playbook.

I am sorry the rulebook gets you upset.
I am not at all on the 'everyone is out to get me' card.
There is a large variance in the reasonableness and objectivity of the members here.
I know who is who.
I stand by eveything I said from:
1) JO deserving a flagrant
2) Ref should have put away the whistle and not ejected Paul
3) Jones should have received a flagrant but not a T
4) Wade should not have received a flagrant.
5) West deserved a T for throwing the ball at a player
6) Stand by my comments about Mike Breen
7) Stand by my comment about Fisher/Scola
Do not believe the games are fixed or the refs want Boston to lose
9) Stand by my comment about Boston losing game 1 because of playing poorly as a team
10) Believe Boston could change the series with a decisive win in game 2

If the above makes me a troll then I give you permisson to refer to me as The Troll or Laker-Troll or Resident-Troll or something similar.


PS: Swede proved me wrong on what point?

I don't care about the officials, my personal opinion (Which matters not to most) is that Tim Donaghy and to a lesser extent Brian Tuohy aren't totally liars or crackpots. Each team no matter the sport should play well enough to make the officiatting irrelevant. The announcers, I've posted in the past of my utter disdain for all but the baseball guys when it comes to the ESPN/ABC "on air personalities" (damn isn't it funny how plain ole announcer was good enough for Johnny Most, Chick Hearn, Curt Gowdy, Jim McKay, Vin Scully Harry Carey, and Pat Summerall) I could go on but I'm sure you get the point. The fact is that the Celts did not play well. Both Rondo and KG are going to have too be much more aggressive offensively, not only in this series but throughout the playoffs for this team to have any chance at a ring. For all that KG has done in his career I (again opinion) am dismayed at his career long refusal to develop a CONSISTENTLY EFFECTIVE low post game. McHale tried for years to implore and tutor him but he never seemed to embrace the notion. I am of the opinion (that word again) that he should have taken the opposite tack of Michael Jordan. As Jordan's athletic skills diminished and there were more and more equal or better athletes facing him he developed a deadly outside game. I think that KG should realize the same and use his biggest god given advantage, 7ft of height and wingspan to be a length rather than strength low post mismatch. While the defensive presence he has brought is undeniable and above reproach there have been times in the past that I've felt that Boston has actually been playing 2 on 5 due to Perk and Rondo's shortcomings and KG's reticience in being more aggressive offensively, especially when he has such a length/reach advantage over most other 4's he faces.

I was returning from a short trip yesterday and didn't see the game. I just finished watching it on DVR and for what it's worth here is what I came away with. Much of it has already been said.

* Miami played us tough.

* They showed the D they were supposed to have all season.

* Miami didn't play dirty or take cheap shots.

* They had a well executed game plan for us.

* The officiating was fair with only a couple of questionable calls.

* Rondo and KG were still in Boston. They better show Tuesday.

* We still need the bench to step up further.

I think earlier posts by BobH, Outside, DBrown and willjr sum things up pretty well.

We didn't lose by much all things considered. I expect we'll be better prepared for game 2 on Tuesday. If we can take the next one Tuesday in Miami I can see this series going 7 games. As long as Rondo and KG show up I still like our chances overall.

Regards

tjmakz wrote:Show me 1 video clip of when a player runs through a screen and it was called a flagrant foul.

swedeinestonia wrote:Fisher - Scola.

tjmakz wrote:PS: Swede proved me wrong on what point?

mrkleen09 wrote:

tjmakz wrote:Show me 1 video clip of when a player runs through a screen and it was called a flagrant foul.

swedeinestonia wrote:Fisher - Scola.

tjmakz wrote:PS: Swede proved me wrong on what point?

That is not running through a screen.
The player with the ball was 15+ feet away.
Fisher wasn't even running. He took 1 step and crushed Scola.

Much to my dismay, I was literally up in the air when this game took place. That could often be a reason simply not to comment on a given game due to lack of personal knowledge.

However, I don't need to have seen this game to have a pretty good idea of what occurred. The Celtics came out flat and were forced to play catchup the entire game. After trailing by a buzillion points, they deserve credit for coming within four at one juncture, but they had simply dug themselves too great a hole against a team that (1) was committed to playing excellent defense, (2) seemed to have a very good game plan, (3) drew some lightning in a bottle from one guy (Jones), and (4) had the usual offensive suspects to rely on when necessary.

My experience has consistently been that questionable calls by referees even out over time and are seldom-to-never the result of blatantly biased officiating. The fact that one or two bad apples may have been proven guilty of deliberately throwing games is the exception that proves the rule as far as I'm concerned.

I've had players tell me that a team that allows a game to be close enough for a bad call or two to be pivotal deserves what it gets; and, for all his baiting of referees, I believe Red Auerbach felt that way too. A team that gets off to a poor start and does not "out defense" the opponent typically needs to look in the mirror to finger the main culprits. And, in the Celtics' style of plan, PG play that is average-or-mediocre (perhaps owing at least partly to early foul trouble) is a warning sign at the very least.

My number one rule for being a fan continues to involve trying to follow the perspective adopted by the players. You can bet the farm that the Celtics players (and coaches too) aren't running around wringing their hands about referees right now. They're figuring out how to play much better in Game Two.

I'm willing to wager that there are a couple of teams in Los Angeles and Chicago that may be even more concerned than the Cs as the result of having given up home court advantage and surrendering second-half leads in doing so. But I bet they're not preoccupied by thoughts about referees nearly as much as on how to turn things around in a hurry. That's the way pro basketball works among the people on the firing line.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm devoting my energies as a fan to focusing on how the Celts can improve things in Game Two. Coming out smoking would be helpful. Adopting a much fiercer defensive stance from the outset wouldn't hurt either. I'm hoping that the second half of Game One will serve as both a tutorial and inspiration for the Celtics in Game Two.

I'm certainly not sanctioning anyone for expressing concerns about the refs, because the term "kill the umpire" has been a virtual rite of passage among sports fans for a long time. I'm simply expressing my personal perspective on how to expend my energies as a hopefully constructive fan.

Sam

Im with Sam, Go Celtics!

I want to clarify that I was not discussing the calls as a part of thinking they were biased but more just as general discussion if they got it "right" or not and also to learn what "right" is I understand now that it easily leads to infected discussions so I will be more careful in the future when it comes to that topic.

I am certain Paul and KG will come out on fire next game, lets hope they manage to stay on the floor so they can spend that energy playing instead of building grief on the bench getting early fouls.

Rondo does not really work like that it seems like but he will be up for the challenge and well Ray is Ray so you will get a whole lot of running (have fun Wade) and a couple of fade away 3s in the corner

Hey Swede. I hope that signature of yours is a tongue-in-cheek comment. I've heard disquieting things about the depressing effects of extended darkness in Sweden, and I hope it's not really effecting you adversely. If it is, I'm sure you'd find lots of us eager to talk with you about it, either on or off the board. And I hope the Celtics soon bring lifted spirits your way.

Sam

tjmakz wrote:That is not running through a screen.
The player with the ball was 15+ feet away.
Fisher wasn't even running. He took 1 step and crushed Scola.

Scola came up the set a screen on Fisher
Fisher ran him over
He got called for a flagrant foul.
This is EXACTLY the scenario you challenged us to find. We did, you are trying to weasel out of it now.

Spin it however you like...you are WRONG.

mrkleen why waist your time.

What else would Scola be going out there to do..................? Funny how some people are so blind.

Clearly it was a pick/screen whatever you want to call it. The player handling the ball never had a chance to use it even if he was supposedly 15 feet away.

No point in going any further. I agree on all your points.

beat

You must not know that to run you have to take more then 1 step.
Fisher didn't even turn to face Scola. He blaste him with his shoulder.

You are always wrong about your analysis, if it can be called that.
Just here to complain about something I guess...

tjmakz wrote:You must not know that to run you have to take more then 1 step.
Fisher didn't even turn to face Scola. He blaste him with his shoulder.

You are always wrong about your analysis, if it can be called that.
Just here to complain about something I guess...

I think the major difference was that Scola fell and Pierce did not, I do not think the force was really all that different, if anything there was probably more "force" in Wades movement.
Also Fisher is a pg/sg and Scola a pf where Wade and Pierce are pretty much physically matched. We all know Scola and falling though but it is unfortunate that it makes such a big difference what "happens" to the person receiving the contact. I do not know if that is the only difference between these plays but I do not think Scola fell like that because there was this enormous force applied from Fisher.