The Celtics really are better than the Lakers, so I don't understand why everyone is so surprised they are up 3-2. Celtics have 3 superstars as compared to 1 superstar for the Lakers. Though, with Kobe, anything is possible.
Printable View
The Celtics really are better than the Lakers, so I don't understand why everyone is so surprised they are up 3-2. Celtics have 3 superstars as compared to 1 superstar for the Lakers. Though, with Kobe, anything is possible.
I don't feel the Celtics is the better team. Sadly in a short series, and yes 7 games is short, the poorer team can often snatch victory.
koolzach " At this point in his career, I question Ray Allen being a superstar. Actually, though he's been a great SHOOTER, was he ever a guy who sold tickets? That's my definition of a superstar player in ANY sport.
I would say Pau Gasol's skills are better than Ray Allen's and Fisher is equal to Allen at this point in time, making the 'superstars' actually work out to be around 2 to 2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by belial
Allen may not be a "superstar" player anymore but he is alot better than fisher. Fisher would never be asked to guard the other teams best scorer (as allen did the entire Detroit series), he isn't a player that his team can rely on, and only averages 28 mpg, and 11 PPG.
I wouldn't consider Gasol a superstar either, he has a tendancy to vanish for most of games, and while he can dominate at times he doesn't do it consistently , nor to you EXPECT him to. (actually i think Gasol and Allen are a closer comparison)
But I'm not sure why people are surpised either, after all the team with more wins (66-57) better head-to-head record (2-0) better scoring differential (10.3-7.3/game) and better rebounding diff (3.1-1.4/game) is leading.
Ray Allen used to be a superstar. He has worn down a little bit, but still a star. He has one of the best strokes in the NBA, and he is a good defender. Allen has been on video game titles, and up there with the league leaders in ppg; I would classify him as at the very least, a star.
Derek Fisher is NOT even close to a star. I like Fisher, and I think he is a good PG, but he doesn't have very good numbers; he and Rondo are about equal.
Even so, when you got 3 players in a lineup who score around 20 ppg or more, and are veterans with some playoff experience, who are hungry for a ring - The team will be awesome, which is the case with the Celtics.
I still predict that the Lakers will win in 7, though. Might just be that I am a huge Lakers fan, and a huge Kobe fan, but we shall see. As TO says... get the popcorn ready.
Okay, you make some points regarding Allen...I'm willing to concede a bit on that front. I do agree, also, that Fisher was NEVER a star. Nice player, nice piece of a team, but never a star player.
One reason I was favoring the Lakers was that, yes, Boston racked up a ton of wins...but against who? There weren't exactly a lot of good-very good teams out East that presented a big challenge. Teams in the West play a much more competitive schedule right now, because it's a deeper conference. And Boston hadn't impressed me in any playoff round prior to this one.
Interesting thought But look at teh numbers and who they playedQuote:
Originally Posted by Arctic Blast
Boston vs the "deeper [western] conference" was 25-5 an .833 win %
their finals opponent Detroit (the 2nd best record in the league) was 22-8 (.733) both better than the Lakers 20-10 effort vs the "weaker" east or thier .711 vs the west.
The Lakers had to play SA (23-7 v east) to reach the finals (a team without it best scorer, Manu playing uselessly on a bum ankle)
The lakers were were 2-4 vs the PO teams boston played, and 9-7 vs all eastern PO teams
The celtics: 4-2 vs LA PO opponents, and 12-4 vs Western PO teams.
So - - don't believe the hype just cuz Jim Rome and Skip Bayless scream loud enough.
It's a known fact that the Western Conference is much deeper (look at the standings and talent). If I am not mistaken, didn't Boston play a lot of the weaker Western Conference teams?
Um, 2 vs each one just like every other team.Quote:
Originally Posted by koolzach1
Boston Vs the West
PO teams :12-4
non PO team :11-1
vs team .500 or better: 16-4
Laker vs the east:
PO teams :9-7
non PO teams :12-0
vs team .500 or better: 6-6
so the celts killed all the the west and the lakers feasted on the poor bottom half of the east.
I said 'neither' because other than Game 4, both teams are talented and playing hard for the most part. Even if you include Game 4, every game has been pretty close at the end. These are two pretty evenly matched teams. The Celtics took one in LA, but I figured the Lakers would also take 1 in Boston, and they almost did. If they had done so, it would be the Celtics fighting for their survival.
I think the Celtics have a bit more talent, which is why they won more games in the regular season. But I don't think the Lakers are down 3-2 because they choked. Did the Celtics "choke" in the first half of Game 4? Why is it that when you play horribly in the first half of a game, they don't call it a choke?
:)
Oh and is anyone less interested in this game/series than Phil Jackson ??
I mean really what is up ??
Ok maybe Kobe I think he's given up.Quote:
Originally Posted by gRYFYN1
on the 2nd to last possession (Perkins Block), i don't think he made it past half court
On thier last possession he jacks a long the as soon as he touches it with 6 sec left.
And as far as who's team this is, the answer Peirce has played 71:58 of the last 72:00 min.
Way to roll over and die. Jeez.