Lakers-Celtics Finals-Who's Going To Win?

[primetime]

Hey Flock, since you're talking about doing homework, how about you do yours. Let's take a look at something for a moment.

No doubt Tim Duncan is a great player. One of the NBA's greatest players of all time. He is a 4 time champion. 3 time Finals MVP. No doubt, Tim is a fantastic player.

But, what happens when the Spurs play the Lakers in the playoffs? What is their record against the Lakers? They have faced each other 6 times in the playoffs since Duncan entered the league. He's 2-4. The Spurs beat the Lakers in 1999 and 2003. The Lakers have beaten the Spurs in 2001, 2002, 2004, and 2008. How come the "Big fundamental" can't get past the Lakers in the playoffs?

In fact, Kobe Bryant, not Shaq, is the main reason why the Lakers get past the Spurs in the playoffs. Look it up. Shaq gets bottled up playing the Spurs, but Kobe kills them everytime. Especially in 2001, Kobe Bryant destroyed the Spurs.

Cy/Mig, I am going to forgive you because of your age. Kobe Bryant and no other Laker were "riding the coattails" of Shaq during their three-peat. Shaq was a major contributor no doubt, but without Kobe Bryant's ruthlessness, Robert Horry's clutch shots, and even Derek Fisher's clutch shots, Shaq doesn't get to the Finals to trounce those creampuff centers of the East. Learn history before you chime in about the Lakers.

This NBA Finals will be fun to watch. It reminds me of the 80's with the intensity of the games. Too bad the Celtics are old. This could carry on for years...

 

[Mitchell]

I just went to SI.com, and four out of six "experts" pick the Celtics to win the series.

My experience with the NBA Finals is that the team with home court advantage usually wins. I can think of only two times in recent memory when this did not happen. In 2004, the Pistons won the title, even though the Lakers had home court advantage in the Finals, and in 2006, Miami won the title, even though Dallas had home court advantage.

The extra game at home seems to really make a difference, even though we have not seen a seventh game of an NBA Finals series since 2005.

I think it will be a very good, interesting, close series, but I think the Lakers will win for several reasons. Phil Jackson, Kobe Bryant, home court, and the revenge factor, that the Lakers will be extremely motivated, to pay back the team that denied them the title in 2008.

Mitch

 

[FlockOfSeagulls]

Hey Flock, since you're talking about doing homework, how about you do yours. Let's take a look at something for a moment.

No doubt Tim Duncan is a great player. One of the NBA's greatest players of all time. He is a 4 time champion. 3 time Finals MVP. No doubt, Tim is a fantastic player.

But, what happens when the Spurs play the Lakers in the playoffs? What is their record against the Lakers? They have faced each other 6 times in the playoffs since Duncan entered the league. He's 2-4. The Spurs beat the Lakers in 1999 and 2003. The Lakers have beaten the Spurs in 2001, 2002, 2004, and 2008. How come the "Big fundamental" can't get past the Lakers in the playoffs?

In fact, Kobe Bryant, not Shaq, is the main reason why the Lakers get past the Spurs in the playoffs. Look it up. Shaq gets bottled up playing the Spurs, but Kobe kills them everytime. Especially in 2001, Kobe Bryant destroyed the Spurs.

Cy/Mig, I am going to forgive you because of your age. Kobe Bryant and no other Laker were "riding the coattails" of Shaq during their three-peat. Shaq was a major contributor no doubt, but without Kobe Bryant's ruthlessness, Robert Horry's clutch shots, and even Derek Fisher's clutch shots, Shaq doesn't get to the Finals to trounce those creampuff centers of the East. Learn history before you chime in about the Lakers.

This NBA Finals will be fun to watch. It reminds me of the 80's with the intensity of the games. Too bad the Celtics are old. This could carry on for years...[/QUOT




How come if Kobe is the '' ultimate closer '' his teams have LOST twice in the Finals. Yet Duncan has managed to WIN EVERYTIME he makes the Finals.

Bottom line is Duncan is batting a 1000 when it comes to NBA Finals. Kobe is only hitting .666 so far. So you tell me which % you would rather have ?

 

[Cy/MiG]

Cy/Mig, I am going to forgive you because of your age. Kobe Bryant and no other Laker were "riding the coattails" of Shaq during their three-peat. Shaq was a major contributor no doubt, but without Kobe Bryant's ruthlessness, Robert Horry's clutch shots, and even Derek Fisher's clutch shots, Shaq doesn't get to the Finals to trounce those creampuff centers of the East. Learn history before you chime in about the Lakers.

I know my Lakers history quite well:

Titles won by the Lakers post Mikan and pre Wilt: 0

Titles won by the Lakers post Wilt and pre Kareem: 0

Titles won by the Lakers post Kareem and pre Shaq: 0

Titles won by the Lakers post Shaq and pre Gasol: 0

But I'm sure that the presence of an athletic big body in the middle has nothing to do with any of the Lakers titles. It's merely just coincidental.

 

[vladtickleman22]

I finid it hilarious people think bringing in Ron Artest was a bad move. Can someone tell me what Artest has done to make it a bad move? The Lakers are in the NBA Finals again....What changed?

The Celtics are going to be formidable, but here in LA, believe me, we remember Game 6 of the 2008 Finals. The Celtics utterly humiliated us. Gatordade baths, Eddie House beating his chest like he was a good player, KG snarling. For me, this is about getting our manhood back. He need to prove we can beat Boston. Plus, the "Black Mamba" is gearing up for this. If the Lakers pull this off, Kobe Bryant (and D-Fish) will have 5 rings. Gotta beat those Celtcis!!!

The gatorade baths, Eddie house beating his chest, KG snarling. NONE OF THAT WAS MEANT TO HUMILIATE THE LAKERS! It was celebrating 22 YEARS of no nba title. Any time in ANY sport would do the same if they had just won a title after more then 20 years. Whether they were at home or away. If you take that as a shot at the Lakers or at LA then you take this shit WAY TOO SERIOUSLY.

 

[primetime]

Man, you guys are reaching....

Flock, Even Laker greats like Magic Johnson and Jerry West lost in the Finals before. Shit happens. But, I notice you ignore one glaring fact. Duncan has a hard time beating the Lakers when it counts. Only 2 out of 6 times did he beat them in the postseason. How come Timmy can't beat LA?

Cy/Mig, you are looking at an interesting trend that ALL Lakers fans notice as well. But also notice, none of those big men won without aq tremendous back court player either... Now, do your homework and look that up too. That point I am making is Kobe Bryant did not all of the sudden develop this "killer instinct". He's had it all the time. If you weren't a little kid at the time, you would have noticed it. That is why I forgive you.

One more thing, back to your big men analysis. What happened to a Magic Johnson-less Laker team in the 1989 Finals? Kareem was there.... Oh, and the 1980 Finals, Kareem wasn't there, but Magic was....

Vlad, yes, I know they didn't intentionally design their emotions just for the Lakers. However, no matter WHO they played, that was still disrespectful and this Laker team has not forgotten that.

Oh, and trust and believe, there wouldn't have been no Gatorade bath at the Staples Center. Trust and believe that.

 

[Cy/MiG]

and in 2006, Miami won the title, even though Dallas had home court advantage.

Thanks to Bennett Salvatore.

 

[Cy/MiG]

How come Timmy can't beat LA?

Shaq... Gasol...

Also, the Spurs beat LA in 98-99 and 02-03.

Cy/Mig, you are looking at an interesting trend that ALL Lakers fans notice as well. But also notice, none of those big men won without aq tremendous back court player either... Now, do your homework and look that up too. That point I am making is Kobe Bryant did not all of the sudden develop this "killer instinct". He's had it all the time.

Okay then, how about these trends:

The Lakers never won less than 50 games or missed the playoffs when they had Shaq. Without Shaq and Gasol, they never won more than 45 games, missed the playoffs once and lost in the first round twice.

Number of NBA Finals Appearance post Mikan and pre Wilt: 6

Number of NBA Finals Appearance post Wilt and pre Kareem: 0

Number of NBA Finals Appearance post Kareem and pre Shaq: 1

Number of NBA Finals Appearance post Shaq and pre Gasol: 0

If you weren't a little kid at the time, you would have noticed it. That is why I forgive you.

So ages 13-18 is a 'little kid'?

One more thing, back to your big men analysis. What happened to a Magic Johnson-less Laker team in the 1989 Finals Kareem was there....

I know he was, which was my point in the first place.

Kareem played 80 games for the Lakers during the regular season and 24 in the playoffs.

Also, if Isiah wouldn't have gotten injured and they called fouls correctly, the Lakers lose that series.

Oh, and the 1980 Finals, Kareem wasn't there, but Magic was....

Again, Kareem played 82 regular season games and 15 out of 16 in the playoffs.

The Lakers didn't win the title without Kareem, they only won one game.

 

[primetime]

Cy/Mig, um, you're 23 right? Which would make you approximately 13 when Kobe won his first title in 2000, and 9 years old when Kobe entered the league. YES, A LITTLE KID. You didn't pay attention to details like Kobe's killer instinct back then. That's why I said I would forgive you due to your age.

Dude, if you noticed, I said Duncan is 2-4 against the Lakers in the playoffs. Timmy has issues with the Lakers and guess what? It was Kobe that was the main dagger to finish them off, not Shaq. Maybe if you were old enough, you would have paid attention to that simple fact.

Nice job pointing out the obvious. Now, can you tell me how these same big men won a title, WITHOUT a tremendous guard on their team?

What do you mean, call fouls correctly? Weren't the Pistons the "Bad Boys" with all their physicality? Oh yeah, that's right, the Lakers are favored by the officials...

Nice job pointing out the Lakers won one game without Kareem in 1980 to win the title. Just like Mr. O'neal would not get past San Antonio without Kobe Bryant. Bottom line is, the team wins games. Not just because a big man is there. It is a collective effort.

Right now, it is 1 down....three to go. Still a loooooooong way to go.

 

[BButtonLuver]

ALL I know is the Lakers kick some Green ass tonight...east defense lmao..where was it??

 

[Cy/MiG]

Cy/Mig, um, you're 23 right? Which would make you approximately 13 when Kobe won his first title in 2000, and 9 years old when Kobe entered the league. YES, A LITTLE KID. You didn't pay attention to details like Kobe's killer instinct back then. That's why I said I would forgive you due to your age.

tsk, tsk, tsk. Your age argument is silly and regardless, from 96-98 (age 10 and up) I was a little too occupied with MJ [and Grant Hill] to care about the Lakers losing in the second round every year.

I watched Kobe and Shaq win titles, so I know how good both are. I never questioned Kobe's 'killer instinct', in fact, in another thread I stated that it's second only to MJ with the potential to tie or surpass it.

Dude, if you noticed, I said Duncan is 2-4 against the Lakers in the playoffs. Timmy has issues with the Lakers and guess what? It was Kobe that was the main dagger to finish them off, not Shaq. Maybe if you were old enough, you would have paid attention to that simple fact.

Then why did Shaq get the MVPs???

Hint: It's because he dominated and meant more to the team than Kobe (since good centers are and were rarer), proved later by the fact that he led the Heat to the East Finals and then a Title after he left the Lakers while the Lakers wallowed in mediocrity UNTIL GASOL ARRIVED.

Kobe-Shaq was a mutual relationship, they made each other better. Continuing to lick Kobe's popsicles and giving him all the credit is absurd considering his track record without a true big man.

What do you mean, call fouls correctly? Weren't the Pistons the "Bad Boys" with all their physicality? Oh yeah, that's right, the Lakers are favored by the officials...

Game 6:

41-year old Kareem Abdul-Jabbar then got the ball on the Lakers' trip down the floor and posted up Bill Laimbeer for his signature skyhook. As Kareem shot, Laimbeer was whistled for a controversial foul, as TV replays seemed to indicate there was no contact. Jabbar then coolly sank the two free thows to put the Lakers up 103-102.

Game 7:

The Pistons got the ball to Thomas at midcourt with seconds remaining as fans began to enter the court, and Thomas was knocked to the ground by Magic Johnson, who began celebrating with 2 seconds left on the clock. Thomas was unable to get off a shot, no foul was called, the referees ignored the fact that fans were on the floor before time expired, and the game was over

I don't need to be over 23 to know the Piston's got F'd in the A.

Nice job pointing out the Lakers won one game without Kareem in 1980 to win the title. Just like Mr. O'neal would not get past San Antonio without Kobe Bryant. Bottom line is, the team wins games. Not just because a big man is there. It is a collective effort.

True. So giving Kobe sooooo much credit as you do is crap. Gasol, Bynum and Odom mean just as much, if not more than one Kobe Bryant.

But having a big man in the middle is a huge part of success in the NBA and anybody who knows the game will agree.



Congrats on the game 1 win. Best wishes on the rest of the series.

 

[primetime]

Cy/Mig, are you losing track of your arguments? Did you forget why I asked for your age? I asked because you said that Kobe JUST DEVELOPED this killer instinct after Shaq left. Um, NO. Kobe has ALWAYS had the killer instinct. He's had it since he first entered the league. But you were too young to notice this because all you saw was Shaq's performance in the NBA Finals and NOT paying attention to the rest of the playoff series before the Finals. Don't blame you, you were just a child. I was making a comparison between him and Lebron, who does not have the killer instinct.

Another lesson. You placed a quote of mine in bold, then your "point" is completely way off. You highlighted my comment, "It was Kobe that was the main dagger to finish them off, not Shaq". Then you follow up with "Then why did Shaq get the MVPs???". Well, WHO AM I TALKING ABOUT? I'm talking about beating the Spurs. Funny, I don't remember Shaq getting MVPs when the Lakers beat the Spurs 4 out of 6 times.

By the way, Shaq DID NOT lead the Heat to the title in 2006. That was Dwayne Wade. Shaq spent much of his time on the bench waving a towel for D-Wade and Alonzo Mourning as they made their comeback against the Mavericks. Get the story straight....

You say I am giving Kobe all the love for leading his team to the title without recognizing the big men. Well, the same can be said for the big men. Gasol got ZILCH when he was in Memphis. Shaq gets NO titles without Kobe, or D-Wade. Like I said, all big men, need a good guard to win titles as well. It goes both ways.

Funny how you bring out those quotes concerning the 1988 finals. What is the source of those quotes? Detroit newspapers? Dude, if you want to talk about crappy officiating, then we can discuss every NBA game. What is a foul? The Pistons literally mugged people on the court and not get called. You bring up some ridiculous quotes from a Detroit biased media source as your evidence of crappy officiating. Bill Laimbeer is notorious for his cheap shot fouls during each game. Did the refs always call those? NOPE. Hell, Michael Jordan shoved Bryon Russell into the 9th row during his final shot for the Bulls. Want to gripe about that too? Detroit lost the series. Period.

I have always said it is a team effort and someone can LEAD their team to a championship. People give Shaq way too much credit for the 3-peat in LA. Kobe Bryant was a major factor in helping brining those titles to LA. He wasn't riding anyone's coattails. The Lakers won because everyone played together. Shaq is not THE reason for those championships. Keep in mind that Shaq wasn't a Laker his whole career. How come he wasn't winning titles BEFORE he played with Kobe and the rest of the Lakers? Get it right.

 

[Cy/MiG]

Cy/Mig, are you losing track of your arguments? Did you forget why I asked for your age? I asked because you said that Kobe JUST DEVELOPED this killer instinct after Shaq left. Um, NO. Kobe has ALWAYS had the killer instinct. He's had it since he first entered the league.

If I was wrong, I would admit it... but I'm not. You're thinking of the 'Where Do You Think Lebron Goes.. Or Does He Stay' thread. Here's proof (parts highlighted for emphasis):

While it's true that Kobe always had the 'killer instinct', but it never kicked into 'MJ levels' until after the Lakers traded Shaq.

...

Kobe on the other hand had Shaq as a 'crutch' (Phil was going to Shaq in the clutch, he was unstoppable in his prime) and it wasn't until after Shaq was gone that he really harnessed that 'killer instinct' (the 83 point game).

But please don't misconstrue what I'm saying, I may hate Kobe and all, but he is on the MJ level of killer instinct FOR SURE now (and has been for 3-4 years now). Few players are or ever have been as good as he is right now.

Please keep better track of your points.

But you were too young to notice this because all you saw was Shaq's performance in the NBA Finals and NOT paying attention to the rest of the playoff series before the Finals. Don't blame you, you were just a child. I was making a comparison between him and Lebron, who does not have the killer instinct.

All I saw was Shaq's performances because they stood out more. Shaq and Horry were the most dominate things that stand out of the Lakers dynasty to me, not Kobe, because Horry made huge shots and Shaq crushed his 'competition'. Sure Kobe did his thing, but it's not as if he was scoring 30 PPG against Clyde the Glide or anything.

Shaq was the steak (main course), Kobe was the sauce and fries (good side dish), Horry and co were the [alcoholic] beverage that helped wash everything down smooth and Phil was the plate that held it all together.

Shaq is not THE reason for those championships. Keep in mind that Shaq wasn't a Laker his whole career. How come he wasn't winning titles BEFORE he played with Kobe and the rest of the Lakers? Get it right.

Thanks for stating the obvious about Shaq not being a Laker his whole career. Because obviously I was 'too young' to know he was drafted by the Magic, helped LEAD THEM TO THE FINALS, and wouldn't possibly remember when the Magic traded Webber for Penny. Nope, I don't know any of that because I was 'too young'.

Three reasons why Shaq never won titles before 1999-2000:

1. Phil, MJ and the Bulls
2. He entered the league in 93 and it took him 3-5 years to get his game down, hit his prime and become truly unstoppable (just like Kobe didn't become the player he is today until his third title and for sure AFTER Shaq left; Kobe was elite early, but he became epic once Shaq was gone).
3. The competition [in the Western Conference] before the lockout was better. After 98/99 the Sonics and Jazz were falling apart, the Rockets were long dead and the Spurs were rebuilding around TD. Other than the Blazers, the West had no legit #2 team (until Mento came out of nowhere and later Dallas). And of course the East was terrible for years and still is the weaker of the two conferences.

 

[theticklingmaster]

I never got to comment before the series, but it's better late than never. I thought that the Celtics would win because they play more of a team-style offense & team-style defense than the Lakers. As good as Kobe Bryant is, the Lakers don't really do all that much if he fouls out, which he came very close to doing. The next four best players in the series wear Celtic jerseys. They play one of the best team defenses I have ever seen, & they really do share the ball a lot with each other.

 

[Jerry67911]

ALL I know is the Lakers kick some Green ass tonight...east defense lmao..where was it??

Are you still wondering where it's been?

 

[Tickle Fiend]

A certain Lakers fan, THAT'S YOU PRIMETIME!, has been mysteriously quiet on this topic lately. Could it be that he sees the end is near?

 

[primetime]

Not quite.... Notice my last post came after game 1 of this series. I tend not to say anything during the series. So far, the Celtics are up 3-2 to my surprise. However, all this means is the the home court has held form. In a 2-3-2 series, the "home" team would be down 3-2 when it comes to the first elimination game, which is why I hate 2-3-2.

The Lakers played like absolute crap the last two games. The sad thing is, as hot as the Celtics were shooting yesterday, they only won by six. If the Lakers play like they're supposed to do, I will be attending a parade this weekend..... But, they have to play to their abilities. If they don't then the stupid green monster wins another championship and I will be pissed beyond belief. I hate the Celtics...

Oh yeah, don't expect me to disappear from the Sports forum should the Lakers lose. I am man enough to take the abuse from those who would just LOVE to rub it in my face if the Lakers lose. I know there are a lot of you just waiting to "get me" should the Lakers fall. It's all good. That's what sports is all about. Too bad people can't do the same if the Lakers win the title.

 

[Heeko]

The vultures are circling and everyone is ready to count the Lakers out. They haven't lost just yet. Maybe it's just me, but for some reason I caught something in Kobe's eyes after game 3 that said "All we need to do now is win in LA". History however, is not in the Laker's favor. I believe the last team to win down 3-2 going back home was the Rockets vs the Knicks.

Sad part is, should the Lakers lose (and they haven't yet), all this would mean is Kobe is no better than "Prince" James. They both would have lost in the playoffs and both favored to win. Is this what "MVP's" do? If so, New York might be better off saving their money.

BUT, that remains to be seen. Should be a great last two games! *if necessary

 

[FlockOfSeagulls]

Not quite.... Notice my last post came after game 1 of this series. I tend not to say anything during the series. So far, the Celtics are up 3-2 to my surprise. However, all this means is the the home court has held form. In a 2-3-2 series, the "home" team would be down 3-2 when it comes to the first elimination game, which is why I hate 2-3-2.

The Lakers played like absolute crap the last two games. The sad thing is, as hot as the Celtics were shooting yesterday, they only won by six. If the Lakers play like they're supposed to do, I will be attending a parade this weekend..... But, they have to play to their abilities. If they don't then the stupid green monster wins another championship and I will be pissed beyond belief. I hate the Celtics...

Oh yeah, don't expect me to disappear from the Sports forum should the Lakers lose. I am man enough to take the abuse from those who would just LOVE to rub it in my face if the Lakers lose. I know there are a lot of you just waiting to "get me" should the Lakers fall. It's all good. That's what sports is all about. Too bad people can't do the same if the Lakers win the title.

wait a minute....

First of all Kobe ( I am named after a steak )Bryant is getting fouled everytime he touches the ball!!

The Lakers are just ''coasting'' again because they know they have the last two games at home .

The Celtics are playing dirty basketball; their defense isn`t that good

these are things the self proclaimed '' ultimate Lakers fan '' has wanted to say but has bit his tongue .

Lighten up dude. Again, I will give the Lakers their shot. They absolutely can win the last two games and win the series. But you also have to be honest and admit you gotta like the Celts chances .

 

[primetime]

The only thing about the last 2 games was the officials let them play instead of making it a free throw shooting contest.

But I have to remind people that whenever the Lakers play poorly and lose to games, they rebound. Against Oklahoma City, the Thunder ran past the Lakers at their home stadium. All of the sudden, the Lakers were old and slow compared to the young guns. What happened? The Lakers lose two in a row against Phoenix. What happens? Kobe reminds them of who he is and the rest of the Lakers show up. The only unfortunate thing about this series is the 2-3-2 format where game 5 was held in Boston, not LA. If it was 2-2-1-1-1, the Lakers would be up 3-2 at this point. Boston played well in game 5 and still only won by 6 points. Their crowd was rocking, Pierce was going off, Rondo and "donkey" made a bunch of layups, and the Lakers still only lost by 6. Boston won't have their crowd with them this time....

This series just got real interesting......

 

[FlockOfSeagulls]

The only thing about the last 2 games was the officials let them play instead of making it a free throw shooting contest.

But I have to remind people that whenever the Lakers play poorly and lose to games, they rebound. Against Oklahoma City, the Thunder ran past the Lakers at their home stadium. All of the sudden, the Lakers were old and slow compared to the young guns. What happened? The Lakers lose two in a row against Phoenix. What happens? Kobe reminds them of who he is and the rest of the Lakers show up. The only unfortunate thing about this series is the 2-3-2 format where game 5 was held in Boston, not LA. If it was 2-2-1-1-1, the Lakers would be up 3-2 at this point. Boston played well in game 5 and still only won by 6 points. Their crowd was rocking, Pierce was going off, Rondo and "donkey" made a bunch of layups, and the Lakers still only lost by 6. Boston won't have their crowd with them this time....

This series just got real interesting......

Series is more than interesting if you are Lakers fan . Lakers fans should be shitting their pants about now!


Don`t buy the 2-2-1-1-1 crap your selling ; no offense . That just reeks of excuses . The Lakers still may win dude. So please save the excuses if the Lakers lose. History tells us this will be so! lolol

 

[Heeko]

Unless the Lakers repeat another 'worst collapse in NBA Playoff history' performance it looks like a game 7. The Lakers can do what they want to, when they want to and how they want to. I hope the Celtics left their wallets at home. The Celtics had this game lost before they took the court.

Onto game 7! Mush! Mush!..

 

[ScottTickle888]

Game 7 indeed. LETS GO BOSTON!

 

[Mitchell]

Well, I'll post to admit that I was wrong about my initial prediction of Lakers in six. While I can't claim to have watched all of this series, the parts I have seen show two teams that really are battling it out.

I think the Lakers will win tomorrow night. I just dont see them losing a Game Seven of the NBA Finals on their home floor. I also don't recall the last time an NBA team lost a Finals Game Seven on their home floor. If it did happen, it must have been many, many years ago.

Mitch

 

[Cy/MiG]

Kendrick Perkins to sit out game 7 w/ torn knee ligaments:

http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/nba/news/story?id=5294006

Hope you all had/bet Lakers in 7...

I'll be the first to give a congrats to Primetime and his Lakers for winning it all.

I'd give props to Kobe, too, but with Perkins out Gasol should be the one to destroy the Celts and receive the most honor.