PDA

View Full Version : Is Boston too old?



JasonJohnHorn
05-19-2010, 08:33 AM
Early in the regular season many of you out there asked: Is Boston too old.

I'm not a "Boston" fan exactly, I just like watching good basketball, so I am no a Boston "homer" by any stretch of the imagination. My answer then: no.

My answer now: Um... NO!!!

Boston has yet to lose a series with Garnett in the line up. Howard has yet to win a series where Wallace is on the opposing team.


For all the doubters: Paul Pierce is still the second best small forward in the league, and the best one left in the playoffs, there still isnt a power forward who is better on defence than Garnett, there is still not a better pure shooter than Ray Allen and Rondo is still one of the best young point guards in the league. And Sheed, well, he is Sheed, for better or for worse.

I just want to give props to boston where it is due: they raised the bar beating the best team in the east, and now doing well against number two. Win or lose Boston has proved they still got what it take.

Though I won't be putting any money against LA in the finals, I will be pulling for Boston.

JordansBulls
05-19-2010, 08:36 AM
I mentioned several times that when the playoffs started that the Celtics would turn it on like that 1995 Rockets team where they just kept beating teams that were favorite over them.

barreleffact
05-19-2010, 08:47 AM
im an LA fan, but unfortunately idk how I feel about another boston LA rematch. it would likely end the same as before considering the officiating in these playoffs as-well-as other more obvious things such as LA has yet to face a team with quality bigs. Nobody in the west can touch LA's bigs...boston can. Nobody in the league is as physical as boston either. is boston too old? barring injury boston could be the favorite to win this year, as well as next depending on who they sign and re-sign.

JasonJohnHorn
05-19-2010, 08:55 AM
Well, I dont think you need to worry too much Barreleffact. LA has the best defensive small forward and one of the best defensive shooting guards (although allen did light up Kobe in 08). as for the Bigs, LA didnt have a 100% Bynum (and they may not this year) but with Odom and Gasol... I'm sure LA will pull out back-to-back titles this year.

That said, I will be pulling for Boston, I'll just being putting my money on LA ;-)

And MJB... I got your back. I do remember you specifically sticking up for Boston. Their window is closing, but they still got what ti takes to compete at the highest level. You are often one of the more reasonable and unbias poster I've noticed on here.

barreleffact
05-19-2010, 08:59 AM
Well, I dont think you need to worry too much Barreleffact. LA has the best defensive small forward and one of the best defensive shooting guards (although allen did light up Kobe in 08). as for the Bigs, LA didnt have a 100% Bynum (and they may not this year) but with Odom and Gasol... I'm sure LA will pull out back-to-back titles this year.

That said, I will be pulling for Boston, I'll just being putting my money on LA ;-)

And MJB... I got your back. I do remember you specifically sticking up for Boston. Their window is closing, but they still got what ti takes to compete at the highest level. You are often one of the more reasonable and unbias poster I've noticed on here.

hope you're right. but paul pierce doesnt have to be good anymore for them too win. boston is so physical and they have rondo so unless they cross match kobe onto rondo n fish onto allen, rondo will b the x factor as he's been all playoffs.

ManRam
05-19-2010, 09:15 AM
They're doing what I thought SA would do this year; mail it in during the regular season, save your energy for the playoffs, and beast. I picked the wrong "old" team.

They are "old", but not ancient. Sheed is 35, Allen is 34, Garnett is 33, and Pierce is 32. It isn't really rare for guys to still perform at a very high level in their mid-30s.

No, they are not too old, especially since this is such a balanced team and energy can be conserved by all these guys.

avrpatsfan
05-19-2010, 09:16 AM
No.

hitman127
05-19-2010, 09:18 AM
The thing about boston is that they have not wowed us like the year they joined together and won it all. But thats because they dont have to. Last year they did not have Garnett and gave teams a hard time. they are still one of the most if not most complete team in the leauge. They remind me alot of the pistons during their last run at the eastern confrence finals a couple years ago but better offensively.

xbrackattackx
05-19-2010, 09:21 AM
Boston is like a half dead Lion...It's almost dead but its still a freaking lion.

MacFitz92
05-19-2010, 09:22 AM
I think Paul Pierce is underrated as well, but 2nd best SF in the league? That's the deepest position in the NBA...

You think Pierce is better than KD and Melo?

RadiantShot
05-19-2010, 09:22 AM
Yes, they are old, but the fact still remains; They are Champions. I'll never underestimate the heart of a champion, no matter how old they are, or how much the odds are against their favor.

effen5
05-19-2010, 09:25 AM
Boston is old as **** but the way they are playing who cares....they are hitting on all cylinders right now, and as a bulls fan thats hard to say.

RipVW
05-19-2010, 09:25 AM
LA's going to have their handsful against Rondo. Rondo is a top 5 PG who is athletic.

Also, Garnett is a 7fter with the athleticism to both guard Gasol and make him work on defense. If Garnett plays like he has been, Gasol could be neutralized. If Garnett plays like he did at the end of the Cavs series, then he could even be an advantage. Rasheed Wallace can do some of this too.

The Lakers better bring thier 3 pt shooting because Kobe will face the same defense that gave him fits 2 years ago and the same defense that frustrated Lebron this year.

All in all, I fear that this would be a series that would hinge too much on the refereeing. That just seems to be the way things work in the NBA now days.

strokeman
05-19-2010, 09:39 AM
I honestly think this team is almost as good as the team that won 2 years back simply because Rondo is now a threat. Heís not only the defensive guy he was during the last run, now he is scoring and putting pressure on the opponents to defend him!
If its LA vs Boston itís going to be interesting, they matchup well.

If Odom is balling like he has been, he could determine the series, he is too quick for KG or Sheed, and thanks to age he may be able to play then in the post. LA upgraded with Artest who match Pierce well defensively, it would be interesting to see if they let kobe play Ray Ray or Artest because ray runs around a lot of screens.

So If its LA vs Boston itís going to be interesting!

spoonhoops
05-19-2010, 10:24 AM
Next year Boston will be too old, right?

GrumpyOldMan
05-19-2010, 10:32 AM
Good defence ages well. Now they have a young star in the making with the big 3. They will be tough.

RipVW
05-19-2010, 11:54 AM
I think the biggest mismatch in a Lakers Celtics final would be Rondo vs Fisher. Thats a huge mismatch and its a bad place to have a mismatch like that.

CowboysKB24
05-19-2010, 12:01 PM
Next year Boston will be too old, right?

You would think so, but I don't think many people will be counting them out. Their defensive is so impressive.

ballpd05
05-19-2010, 12:06 PM
Naw they shutting the critics, including me, up... But if they win will anyone say the only reason the Lakers won is because KG was hurt???

Tragedy
05-19-2010, 12:09 PM
Boston rested their old guys all season long, got to 50 wins without them, and now they're playing like they're 25 again. It was a great strategy. Yes, KG, Allen, and Pierce are old, but they're all still, at the very least, SOLID basketball players. And if they're rested, they're very, very good.

GSW Hoops
05-19-2010, 12:21 PM
Taking 2 games in Orlando is a heck of an accomplishment, but let's not give the series to Boston yet.

Shaddix
05-19-2010, 12:25 PM
They play basketball, the only demanding non skill-wise thing is stamina, the skills remain as long as you aren't over 34/35. This isn't a contact sport and you see Recchi and Lidstrom rip it up in the NHL in their 40's.

xBLAMEITON24x
05-19-2010, 12:34 PM
I think the biggest mismatch in a Lakers Celtics final would be Rondo vs Fisher. Thats a huge mismatch and its a bad place to have a mismatch like that.

Lakers and Celtics matchup well i doubt fish will guard rondo, he never has before since defending ray allen would running around the court so kobe defends rondo so he wont burn all his energy.

Kingz4L
05-19-2010, 12:37 PM
Naw they shutting the critics, including me, up... But if they win will anyone say the only reason the Lakers won is because KG was hurt???

Of course, wouldnt you think so?
dont you think that if Jordan didnt retire he would of had 8 straight championships. Everyone knows Houston got those rings because MJ retired, KG's Injury pretty much gave the Lakers that Trophy, Not saying they didnt earn it, just saying that they didnt face the best team...And Laker fans dont give me the Bynum crap, he is not in KG's level of value.

amoore87
05-19-2010, 12:42 PM
it dont matter right now when rondo is do what hes doin

USMCLaker
05-19-2010, 12:44 PM
Gee, imagine that a Boston Celtic's fan asking if the C's are too old. Already trying hard to develop that underdog persona, nice try but they are the favorites.

Corey
05-19-2010, 12:45 PM
They're doing what I thought SA would do this year; mail it in during the regular season, save your energy for the playoffs, and beast. I picked the wrong "old" team.

They are "old", but not ancient. Sheed is 35, Allen is 34, Garnett is 33, and Pierce is 32. It isn't really rare for guys to still perform at a very high level in their mid-30s.

No, they are not too old, especially since this is such a balanced team and energy can be conserved by all these guys.

The important thing about the age aspect you mentioned is that the big three are all in pretty good shape. Ray Allen is at the top of the league in terms of straight conditioning. KG is in ridiculously good shape. Pierce, not as good as the other two, but he's younger.

The fact is, with the games spread out so much, it greatly benefits the Celtics because the coaching staff is one of the best at making adjustments, and the old guys get rested legs each game.

Super.
05-19-2010, 01:02 PM
Boston = Star Slayers

USMCLaker
05-19-2010, 01:13 PM
Boston = Star Slayers

Boston=Brick Layers

JasonJohnHorn
05-19-2010, 03:56 PM
I think Paul Pierce is underrated as well, but 2nd best SF in the league? That's the deepest position in the NBA...

You think Pierce is better than KD and Melo?

I know KD and Melo put up better numbers, but if I'm in a playoff series and you give me a choice at who I want starting at small forward, I'd say LBJ and then Pierce, and even then I'd be wrong because Pierce ended up showing LBJ up in the second round.

Please dont get me wrong, I know Melo and KD are great, and KD hasnt reached his full potential just yet, but I think because of his experience and his talent and his high basketball IQ, he is a better weapon to have in the playoffs, and that is when it really counts. I will agree that Melo and KD will get you more win in the regular season, but Pierce has been pacing himself all year and has to because of his age, but I'm sure if Pierce had gone head-to-head with KD or Melo, he would have pulled ahead of them, even if the numbers suggested otherwise.

He's just one of those players whose got such a high IQ, and he's a great defender, and a solid playmaker (the best playmaker at his position I think, outside of LBJ), and a versatile scorer.

But you are right, it is a deep position and there is certainly a case to be made for Melo and KD.

JasonJohnHorn
05-19-2010, 04:02 PM
Next year Boston will be too old, right?

Umm.. I may have to agree with that... lol. They certainly have a short window, but you never know. If they can move Allen's expiring contract for Rip Hamilton (and maybe even Gordon), they could extend their window, but they'd also need to get a young stud in the front court, because Garnett and Wallace are both up there.

Chronz
05-19-2010, 05:56 PM
I know KD and Melo put up better numbers, but if I'm in a playoff series and you give me a choice at who I want starting at small forward, I'd say LBJ and then Pierce, and even then I'd be wrong because Pierce ended up showing LBJ up in the second round.
What did Pierce do aside from allow Bron to lock him down? Are you really trying to say Pierce > Bron?

PatsSoxKnicks
05-19-2010, 06:12 PM
Early in the regular season many of you out there asked: Is Boston too old.

I'm not a "Boston" fan exactly, I just like watching good basketball, so I am no a Boston "homer" by any stretch of the imagination. My answer then: no.

My answer now: Um... NO!!!

Boston has yet to lose a series with Garnett in the line up. Howard has yet to win a series where Wallace is on the opposing team.


For all the doubters: Paul Pierce is still the second best small forward in the league, and the best one left in the playoffs, there still isnt a power forward who is better on defence than Garnett, there is still not a better pure shooter than Ray Allen and Rondo is still one of the best young point guards in the league. And Sheed, well, he is Sheed, for better or for worse.

I just want to give props to boston where it is due: they raised the bar beating the best team in the east, and now doing well against number two. Win or lose Boston has proved they still got what it take.

Though I won't be putting any money against LA in the finals, I will be pulling for Boston.

I agree with pretty much everything you said but Pierce is not the 2nd best SF in the league (don't forget how awful he was in the series against the Cavs) and you'd have to be an idiot to believe that. He is probably the best SF left in the playoffs though.

rocky4104
05-19-2010, 06:18 PM
Boston is old as **** but the way they are playing who cares....they are hitting on all cylinders right now, and as a bulls fan thats hard to say.

agree.. i'll always take being old and winning than young and on early vacation

jackdawson
05-19-2010, 06:36 PM
Yes, they are old, but the fact still remains; They are Champions. I'll never underestimate the heart of a champion, no matter how old they are, or how much the odds are against their favor.

THIS. Couldn't have said it better.

PatsSoxKnicks
05-19-2010, 06:45 PM
I know KD and Melo put up better numbers, but if I'm in a playoff series and you give me a choice at who I want starting at small forward, I'd say LBJ and then Pierce, and even then I'd be wrong because Pierce ended up showing LBJ up in the second round.

Please dont get me wrong, I know Melo and KD are great, and KD hasnt reached his full potential just yet, but I think because of his experience and his talent and his high basketball IQ, he is a better weapon to have in the playoffs, and that is when it really counts. I will agree that Melo and KD will get you more win in the regular season, but Pierce has been pacing himself all year and has to because of his age, but I'm sure if Pierce had gone head-to-head with KD or Melo, he would have pulled ahead of them, even if the numbers suggested otherwise.

He's just one of those players whose got such a high IQ, and he's a great defender, and a solid playmaker (the best playmaker at his position I think, outside of LBJ), and a versatile scorer.

But you are right, it is a deep position and there is certainly a case to be made for Melo and KD.

You do realize Pierce wasn't very good against the Cavs right?

His numbers:
29-84- 34.5% FG
8-26- 30.8% 3 Pt shooting
13.5 PPG, 3.67 APG, 4.67 RBPG

The Celtics were also worse defensively when Pierce was on the floor as opposed to Tony Allen in the Cavs series.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2010/news/story?page=DisappointingPlayers-100510


Pierce's failures aren't for a lack of effort, but it's hard to find an area of the game in which he's helping the Celtics. He's shooting 40 percent from the field for the postseason, and against Cleveland, that mark has dropped to 32 percent, with about as many turnovers (11) as assists (12) and rebounds (12) in the series.

As much as Pierce has struggled with his trigger, the stats on the defensive end are more telling. The C's are almost 15 points better defensively per 100 possessions in the postseason when Pierce is riding the pine.

This article was written after game 4 and he did have a decent game 5 but his game 6 was pretty poor. And the Celtics (against the Cavs) were generally better defensively when Tony Allen was on the floor instead of Pierce.

Pierce's PER in the playoffs thus far is 14.1 which is much lower than Carmelo's and even Durant's 16.6 PER.

Now for Celts fans, I'm not doing this to bash Pierce, he's a very good player but I thought I'd point out to this very misguided fan that Lebron was better than Pierce in that series and it wasn't even close.

The Celtics team is still better though. But I'm sure even Celts fans remember being really frustrated with Pierce during the Cavs series and part of that was the great D Lebron played on him.

Also, Pierce is a good defender but let's not make him all NBA first team defender here, the Celtics defense is good because they play great TEAM defense and because Perkins and Garnett are amazing defensive players.

The difference in that Cavs Celts series was really 1a Rondo and 1b Garnett.

PatsSoxKnicks
05-19-2010, 06:54 PM
As for the topic at hand, the real difference in Boston is that Garnett appears to be his old self. And he is such a great defender that he makes Boston's D that much better. Obviously Perkins is a really good defensive player too. Those 2 easily make up the best defensive frontcourt in the NBA. And I think the Lakers will find that out when they end up losing the finals to the Celtics. That and the fact that they won't be able to stop Rondo.

StickyGreenFan
05-19-2010, 06:55 PM
I think the biggest mismatch in a Lakers Celtics final would be Rondo vs Fisher. Thats a huge mismatch and its a bad place to have a mismatch like that.

IF fisher has to cover rondo, yea its a mismatch but the team will help. theyve done a good job of defending westbrook, williams, and nash so far. u cant stop these guys but u can make everything harder for em and hope it slows em down

Shaddix
05-19-2010, 07:19 PM
IF fisher has to cover rondo, yea its a mismatch but the team will help. theyve done a good job of defending westbrook, williams, and nash so far. u cant stop these guys but u can make everything harder for em and hope it slows em down

Those PG's play nothing like Rondo. Rondo has speed that compares to Chris Johnson of the Titans. I dunno what strategy the Lakers would use to guard him, but it deff wouldn't be the same one they use on those 3 PG's.

BkOriginalOne
05-19-2010, 07:29 PM
Rondo is young and he is their engine.

Lakersfan2483
05-19-2010, 07:39 PM
Early in the regular season many of you out there asked: Is Boston too old.

I'm not a "Boston" fan exactly, I just like watching good basketball, so I am no a Boston "homer" by any stretch of the imagination. My answer then: no.

My answer now: Um... NO!!!

Boston has yet to lose a series with Garnett in the line up. Howard has yet to win a series where Wallace is on the opposing team.


For all the doubters: Paul Pierce is still the second best small forward in the league, and the best one left in the playoffs, there still isnt a power forward who is better on defence than Garnett, there is still not a better pure shooter than Ray Allen and Rondo is still one of the best young point guards in the league. And Sheed, well, he is Sheed, for better or for worse.
I just want to give props to boston where it is due: they raised the bar beating the best team in the east, and now doing well against number two. Win or lose Boston has proved they still got what it take.

Though I won't be putting any money against LA in the finals, I will be pulling for Boston.

Paul Pierce is not the 2nd best small forward in the game at this stage in his career. Carmelo Anthony and Kevin Durant are clearly better at this point in their respective careers, it's not even up for debate. The Celtics have better seasoned vets and better teams than the aformentioned players above. The rest of the post is pretty good, the C's have a very talented team that understands how to win.

*Lebron would not have locked down Melo or KD the way that he locked down Pierce this year, period.

JordansBulls
05-19-2010, 07:41 PM
What did Pierce do aside from allow Bron to lock him down? Are you really trying to say Pierce > Bron?

He won with an inferior team.:)

Lakersfan2483
05-19-2010, 07:46 PM
You do realize Pierce wasn't very good against the Cavs right?

His numbers:
29-84- 34.5% FG
8-26- 30.8% 3 Pt shooting
13.5 PPG, 3.67 APG, 4.67 RBPG

The Celtics were also worse defensively when Pierce was on the floor as opposed to Tony Allen in the Cavs series.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2010/news/story?page=DisappointingPlayers-100510



This article was written after game 4 and he did have a decent game 5 but his game 6 was pretty poor. And the Celtics (against the Cavs) were generally better defensively when Tony Allen was on the floor instead of Pierce.

Pierce's PER in the playoffs thus far is 14.1 which is much lower than Carmelo's and even Durant's 16.6 PER.

Now for Celts fans, I'm not doing this to bash Pierce, he's a very good player but I thought I'd point out to this very misguided fan that Lebron was better than Pierce in that series and it wasn't even close.

The Celtics team is still better though. But I'm sure even Celts fans remember being really frustrated with Pierce during the Cavs series and part of that was the great D Lebron played on him.

Also, Pierce is a good defender but let's not make him all NBA first team defender here, the Celtics defense is good because they play great TEAM defense and because Perkins and Garnett are amazing defensive players.

The difference in that Cavs Celts series was really 1a Rondo and 1b Garnett.

:clap:

Lakersfan2483
05-19-2010, 07:53 PM
As for the topic at hand, the real difference in Boston is that Garnett appears to be his old self. And he is such a great defender that he makes Boston's D that much better. Obviously Perkins is a really good defensive player too. Those 2 easily make up the best defensive frontcourt in the NBA. And I think the Lakers will find that out when they end up losing the finals to the Celtics. That and the fact that they won't be able to stop Rondo.

If the Lakers and the Celtics do in fact meet in the Finals it's going to be a knock down, drag out fight. It won't be like in 08, the Lakers are a much better defensive team now and don't have the matchup issues like they did in 08. We don't have guys like Vlad Radmonvic trying to stick Paul Pierce and Odom guarding a center in Perkins. It's going to be a great series if both teams meet up and I think the Lakers will prevail this time.

Chronz
05-19-2010, 09:12 PM
He won with an inferior team.:)

How do you figure?

PatsSoxKnicks
05-19-2010, 10:25 PM
He won with an inferior team.:)

:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused: :confused:

How did Pierce win with an inferior team? :confused::confused::confused:

I'm really that confused. I mean I realize Lebron is probably the best player in that series but the next FOUR best players were all Celtics. Hard to see how Pierce won with an inferior team.

iggypop123
05-19-2010, 10:27 PM
when the term too old gets used its in relation to injuries. the celtics do not have any.

PatsSoxKnicks
05-19-2010, 10:27 PM
If the Lakers and the Celtics do in fact meet in the Finals it's going to be a knock down, drag out fight. It won't be like in 08, the Lakers are a much better defensive team now and don't have the matchup issues like they did in 08. We don't have guys like Vlad Radmonvic trying to stick Paul Pierce and Odom guarding a center in Perkins. It's going to be a great series if both teams meet up and I think the Lakers will prevail this time.

I think it'll be a great series but I just think Perkins and Garnett will be able to neutralize the Lakers bigs, which I think is the key to the series. I could be wrong though. It'll def be interesting to see how the bigs matchup.

JasonJohnHorn
05-19-2010, 10:31 PM
What did Pierce do aside from allow Bron to lock him down? Are you really trying to say Pierce > Bron?

I wouldnt say Pierce is better than LBJ, but this is twice the Peirce's team has gotten the better of him. Just like Tayshuan Prince, Pierce just seems to have LBJ's number.

Of course this is a team game. Peirce relies on his teammates, and he his teammates out performed LBJ's teammates, but LBJ did shoot a lower percentage for most of the series even though he had a solid game.

He's not better, but I think with all the hype around Durant, and Melo, Pierce's all-around game, basketball IQ and defense get overlooked, and those are the things that help you in the playoffs.

Saad
05-19-2010, 10:38 PM
Well, I dont think you need to worry too much Barreleffact. LA has the best defensive small forward and one of the best defensive shooting guards (although allen did light up Kobe in 08). as for the Bigs, LA didnt have a 100% Bynum (and they may not this year) but with Odom and Gasol... I'm sure LA will pull out back-to-back titles this year.



Kobe guarded Rondo, Fisher guarded Allen.:eyebrow:

Shaddix
05-19-2010, 10:50 PM
Why would anyone bring stats into the Pierce argument, he plays with 3 other stars. Especially any Boston fan, who cares what they say, cuz Boston will just win anyway. I rhymed, I know. ;)

Sportfan
05-19-2010, 10:55 PM
Celtics are too old.....by like KG said "ANYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTHHHHHHH HHHHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGII IIIIIIIIIIIIIISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS PPPPPPPPPPPPPPOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

word

JordansBulls
05-19-2010, 11:10 PM
:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused: :confused:

How did Pierce win with an inferior team? :confused::confused::confused:

I'm really that confused. I mean I realize Lebron is probably the best player in that series but the next FOUR best players were all Celtics. Hard to see how Pierce won with an inferior team.

Cavs won 61 games and were the only 60+ win team in the league. Celtics were the #4 seed and only won 50 games. Also every analyst picked the Cavs to win the series.

http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2010/matchup/_/teams/celtics-cavaliers

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/playoffs/clebos

Tufnel_11
05-19-2010, 11:31 PM
:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused: :confused:

How did Pierce win with an inferior team? :confused::confused::confused:

I'm really that confused. I mean I realize Lebron is probably the best player in that series but the next FOUR best players were all Celtics. Hard to see how Pierce won with an inferior team.

I have to agree with you. Celts are better top to bottom even though Lebron is awesome.

PatsSoxKnicks
05-19-2010, 11:53 PM
I wouldnt say Pierce is better than LBJ, but this is twice the Peirce's team has gotten the better of him. Just like Tayshuan Prince, Pierce just seems to have LBJ's number.

Of course this is a team game. Peirce relies on his teammates, and he his teammates out performed LBJ's teammates, but LBJ did shoot a lower percentage for most of the series even though he had a solid game.

He's not better, but I think with all the hype around Durant, and Melo, Pierce's all-around game, basketball IQ and defense get overlooked, and those are the things that help you in the playoffs.

Go and read post 36 of mine. I addressed this. Pierce is a good player and is def overlooked but lets not turn him into the 2nd coming. He was horrible in the Cavs series. Lebron thoroughly outplayed Pierce, even with Pierce's good game 5 and Lebron's bad game 5.

Don't mistake 1 player vs. what a team does. Also, Pierce's D is decent but the Celtics play great TEAM defense and the D really starts with Perkins and Garnett. BTW, Lebron shot 44.7% for the series, which is lower than his averages but its not a horrible %.

LA_Raiders
05-19-2010, 11:55 PM
yes they are old, but they are playing wise ball...

PatsSoxKnicks
05-19-2010, 11:58 PM
Why would anyone bring stats into the Pierce argument, he plays with 3 other stars. Especially any Boston fan, who cares what they say, cuz Boston will just win anyway. I rhymed, I know. ;)

The Celtics actually played better defense in the Cavs series when Pierce was off the floor and Tony Allen was in (see post 36). And Pierce's shooting %'s were horrible in the Cavs series.

Pierce was horrible that series but you're right, the Celts have 3 other stars which is why they are the better TEAM. So that is why they win. With the Celts, it's all about the team, it doesn't matter if one guy has a bad series because other guys step up.

But the most important Celtic is still Garnett (defensively), although offensively it's Rondo.

PatsSoxKnicks
05-20-2010, 12:04 AM
Cavs won 61 games and were the only 60+ win team in the league. Celtics were the #4 seed and only won 50 games. Also every analyst picked the Cavs to win the series.

http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2010/matchup/_/teams/celtics-cavaliers

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/playoffs/clebos

Great, let's give the Cavs the KINGs of the Regular season title. They actually bothered to TRY in the regular season. The Celtics did NOT, they were more concerned with being healthy. (Remember all those Spurs teams that would sleepwalk through the regular season and turn it on in the playoffs?)

Perhaps, everyone was too blinded by the regular season (which really doesn't mean anything) and not enough people were looking at the TALENT. I'll admit, I was one of them. But, I've learnt my lesson. The regular season means NOTHING. And let's stop thinking it does because the Celtics and even the Lakers to a degree (let's be honest, they could have won more games in the regular season) have proven that it doesn't mean much.

Like I said earlier, Lebron was the best player in the series, the next FOUR best players were all on the Celtics, so you tell me, how are the Cavs the more talented team? Having a deep bench doesn't help when your starting 5 isn't nearly as good.

We all should have seen this coming with the Celtics.

And really, how can you say the Celts are the inferior team when they beat the Cavs in 6 in a series that wasn't even that close?

iggypop123
05-20-2010, 12:15 AM
I think it'll be a great series but I just think Perkins and Garnett will be able to neutralize the Lakers bigs, which I think is the key to the series. I could be wrong though. It'll def be interesting to see how the bigs matchup.

if you watched the last lakers celtics matchup in LA in the 4th quarter that is how the game will be. front lines will negate each other. pierce is better than artest and kobe is better than allen. the games will be ugly but exciting. that was the most entertaining game that was so horrible offensively. celtics scored 11 points that quarter.

PatsSoxKnicks
05-20-2010, 12:31 AM
if you watched the last lakers celtics matchup in LA in the 4th quarter that is how the game will be. front lines will negate each other. pierce is better than artest and kobe is better than allen. the games will be ugly but exciting. that was the most entertaining game that was so horrible offensively. celtics scored 11 points that quarter.

Yeah but I think its been pretty obvious the Celts didn't bother with the regular season. I just don't think its a good idea to use 2 regular season games (which is a small sample size) as a predictor as to what will happen in this series.

This Boston team is playing much better and Garnett is probably the healthiest he's been all season. The key could be Rasheed since Big Baby is going to be useless in this series (defensively) because he's too small.

Chronz
05-20-2010, 12:31 AM
I wouldnt say Pierce is better than LBJ, but this is twice the Peirce's team has gotten the better of him. Just like Tayshuan Prince, Pierce just seems to have LBJ's number.
So then why are you basing him being better than superior players on how far his team advances rather than HOW he contributes to that bottom end? What makes you think Prince had LBJ's number and not just the advantage that he was his teams fourth option?


Of course this is a team game. Peirce relies on his teammates, and he his teammates out performed LBJ's teammates, but LBJ did shoot a lower percentage for most of the series even though he had a solid game.
Lower %? Bron put up huge #'s and totally clamped down on Pierce, theres nothing more a superstar can do. I mean what your saying is technically true, but Im not sure what your deriving from this.


He's not better, but I think with all the hype around Durant, and Melo, Pierce's all-around game, basketball IQ and defense get overlooked, and those are the things that help you in the playoffs.
Agreed, but just because people underrate Pierce doesnt mean you have to go ahead and overrate him with outlandish claims centered around, simple team A winning over team B analysis.

Chronz
05-20-2010, 12:32 AM
Cavs won 61 games and were the only 60+ win team in the league. Celtics were the #4 seed and only won 50 games. Also every analyst picked the Cavs to win the series.

http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2010/matchup/_/teams/celtics-cavaliers

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/playoffs/clebos
Yes can you refute his claims now?

Jenceman
05-20-2010, 12:44 AM
Boston is like a half dead Lion...It's almost dead but its still a freaking lion.

ahahaha that made me laugh

Jenceman
05-20-2010, 12:45 AM
I think the biggest mismatch in a Lakers Celtics final would be Rondo vs Fisher. Thats a huge mismatch and its a bad place to have a mismatch like that.

The Lakers have faced Westbrook, Deron, and Nash so far. They will do just fine.

USMCLaker
05-20-2010, 12:54 AM
ahahaha that made me laugh

haha, Nice.

kvrnm
05-20-2010, 01:12 AM
The Lakers have faced Westbrook, Deron, and Nash so far. They will do just fine.

lol none are playing at rondos level,... but go ahead and think that bruh

USMCLaker
05-20-2010, 01:19 AM
Fisher>Rondo Haha even I had to laugh when I said that.

But, that's okay still looking forward to a rematch.

kvrnm
05-20-2010, 01:22 AM
Fisher>Rondo Haha even I had to laugh when I said that.

But, that's okay still looking forward to a rematch.

haha appreciate the honesty bruh

michelangelo
05-20-2010, 01:46 AM
The bulls won their last three rings with three core players well into their thirties:

Jordan: 33-35
Pipp: 30-32
Rodman: 35-37

The Celtics' Big Three aren't on that level, but they have a top 5 caliber PG in addition.

Avenged
05-20-2010, 02:20 AM
Oldies but goodies. ;)

iggypop123
05-20-2010, 03:17 AM
lol none are playing at rondos level,... but go ahead and think that bruh

i hope you are a celtics fan and have watched every time they match up and realize kobe guards rondo not fisher. in fact its a perfect cross matchup cause allen never posts up on fisher. kobe gets to roam like he did against westbrook. rondo is more methodical in his approach, while westbrook was more of a lower my head and try to dunk. lets kobe roam easier.

SeoulBeatz
05-20-2010, 03:48 AM
Is Boston too old?

...apparently not. i hate kg now but good for them proving the doubters wrong.

JayW_1023
05-20-2010, 06:24 AM
Boston is old...but also that gives them more savvy and smarts than any team in the league.

Add up to the fact that Rajon Rondo plays much more mature than most players his age.

JayW_1023
05-20-2010, 06:24 AM
Boston is old...but also that gives them more savvy and smarts than any team in the league.

Add up to the fact that Rajon Rondo plays much more mature than most players his age.

ryder78c
05-20-2010, 07:12 AM
No there not too old KG 34 Ray 34 pierce 32 Rondo 24 perkins 25

ages added up and divided by 5 = 29.8

Fisher 35 Kobe 32 Gasol 30 artest 30 bynum 22

ages added up and divided by 5 = 29.8

Boston isnt to old KG is old but can take players out of there zone and with the lineup they have its either gonna be boston in 6 with Rondo MVP or LA in 7 Kobe MVP depending on if boston can beat LA at home

Bynum<Perkins (i think the way perkins guarded Dhoward bynum will have problems)
Gasol>KG (gasol on his A Game Kg getting old)
Artest=Pierce(depends on if paul is shooting Good or artest is on his D)
Kobe>R.Allen (the kobe Ray Rivalry from early in there career "might get heated")
Fisher<Rondo ( rondo will be the key factor in this series)
Odom=Davis (both key players off the bench)
Brown=Rasheed (depends on who can step up more)
Farmar<T.Allen or daniels or Robinson (i'd take any of the 3 over farmar)

JordansBulls
05-20-2010, 08:43 AM
Great, let's give the Cavs the KINGs of the Regular season title. They actually bothered to TRY in the regular season. The Celtics did NOT, they were more concerned with being healthy. (Remember all those Spurs teams that would sleepwalk through the regular season and turn it on in the playoffs?)

Perhaps, everyone was too blinded by the regular season (which really doesn't mean anything) and not enough people were looking at the TALENT. I'll admit, I was one of them. But, I've learnt my lesson. The regular season means NOTHING. And let's stop thinking it does because the Celtics and even the Lakers to a degree (let's be honest, they could have won more games in the regular season) have proven that it doesn't mean much.

Like I said earlier, Lebron was the best player in the series, the next FOUR best players were all on the Celtics, so you tell me, how are the Cavs the more talented team? Having a deep bench doesn't help when your starting 5 isn't nearly as good.

We all should have seen this coming with the Celtics.

And really, how can you say the Celts are the inferior team when they beat the Cavs in 6 in a series that wasn't even that close?

The Cavs were easily the more talented team considering they won more games than anyone and had the HCA. Not to mention they had a 3x finals mvp and 1x league mvp player in Shaq and a 2x allstar in Jamison who they got for free.

And the Cavs were up 2-1 in the series and lost the pivotal game 5.

It's called an upset.

jetsRsnitchaz
05-20-2010, 08:59 AM
Of course, wouldnt you think so?
dont you think that if Jordan didnt retire he would of had 8 straight championships. Everyone knows Houston got those rings because MJ retired, KG's Injury pretty much gave the Lakers that Trophy, Not saying they didnt earn it, just saying that they didnt face the best team...And Laker fans dont give me the Bynum crap, he is not in KG's level of value.

u couldn't have said it any better:clap:

JasonJohnHorn
05-20-2010, 09:30 AM
So then why are you basing him being better than superior players on how far his team advances rather than HOW he contributes to that bottom end? What makes you think Prince had LBJ's number and not just the advantage that he was his teams fourth option?


Lower %? Bron put up huge #'s and totally clamped down on Pierce, theres nothing more a superstar can do. I mean what your saying is technically true, but Im not sure what your deriving from this.


Agreed, but just because people underrate Pierce doesnt mean you have to go ahead and overrate him with outlandish claims centered around, simple team A winning over team B analysis.

LBJ did clamp down on Pierce. I agree completely, and James put up solid numbers, espcially early in the series, but game 5? LBJ shot 21%. Game 6: 38%, despite the triple-double. Game 4 LBJ sot 38% as well. And game 2 was 46%, still well below his regular season average. Now Pierce didnt do it ever game, James had a solid game three and took him to school that night, and, and played ver well in game 1 as well. But over 6 games Pierce had James playing below his season average for FG%, which means that even if the PPG and APG and RPG averages were where they were during the regular season, James wasnt getting those numbers as effciently as he did during the regulars season. Even his turnovers were crazy high. James had 27 turnovers in 6 games, putting him at nearly 4.5 a game, much higher than his regular season average, and if you pull out game one and three, the nights that James owned Pierce, the other four games James has 24 turnovers! 24 turnovers in 4 games? Pierce did everything to keep James out of his game plan, and force him to play a game he wasnt used to playing. That is what a great defender does. Now, James is the best player on the planet, so as great as Pierce is, James is GOING to have great nights. But Pierce played tough and showed why he is the type of guy you want on your team when the playoffs roll around. Do you think Melo or Durant would have been able to make LBJ post such low percentages and cause so many turnovers? Or provide the type of ball handling while Rondo was on the bench resting that Peirce does?

Peirce had the ability to focus on his man defensively because he knew that guys like Rondo, and Allen, Garnett and Wallace could pick it up on offence. That is an advantage that James didnt have, so Pierce took a step back for that part of the game and trusted in his teammates so that he could do what his team needed him to do the most, and that is why I would rather have him playing small forward for me in the playoffs than anybody in the league outside of James.

You ask me who I want on my team for the regular season... I'll take James, then Durant, then Melo, then Pierce. But you ask me who I want when the playoffs roll around, I'm taking LBJ, then Pierce, because Pierce knows how to make adjsutments to his game. On nights when he got taken to school, he came back the next night and made the adjustments needed (and part of that no doubt is having a solid coach like Doc Rivers on the sideline).

Pierce isnt young enough to do all these things night in and night out like he used to, but he still has game and he's still a preimere defender and likely the best ball handler at his position outside of James.

I know that Durant would post better numbers than Pierce if the two met up in the playoffs, and I know Melo would to, but Pierce would have both of them playing far less efficiently than they did in the regular season, just as he did with James, and when a team relies so much on one person like the Cavs to with James, and like the Thunder do with Durant, and arguably the Nuggets do with Melo, having that star playing playing at 3/4 efficiency for a 7 game series is huge.

Now, what ever damage Pierce did to James, James did to Pierce three-fold. Offensively there is no question that Pierce's focus on defence diliuted his game and that shot low percentages as well. I would agree that he was almost a non-factor. But he knew to trust his teammates and do what was most needed of him. He has a great understanding of basketball and appreciates as much as anybody that it is a team sport.

So yeah, Pierce is lucky that he knows his own team is talented enough to weather a bad series from him. you can fault James for not having the depth and offensive diversity on his team to help him out the way Garnett, Rondo, Allen and Wallace help out Pierce. Mo Williams is a decnet point gaurd, but likely barely a top ten point guard, let alone a top five (I'd put Nash, Kidd, Rose, Westbrook, Rondo, D-Will and CP3 all above him for sure, and I think there is a case for Baron Davis-whose game has fallen since his move to LA, Jameer Nelson and several of the rookie point guards that came into the league this year). So you can fault James for that, but despite his numbers, I think Pierce was a huge difference maker in that series.

RadiantShot
05-20-2010, 09:32 AM
JasonJohnHorn, I was just wondering, how many words-a-minute do you type? I always see long walls of text from you, whenever you respond, or make a thread. :)

xbrackattackx
05-20-2010, 09:35 AM
LBJ did clamp down on Pierce. I agree completely, and James put up solid numbers, espcially early in the series, but game 5? LBJ shot 21%. Game 6: 38%, despite the triple-double. Game 4 LBJ sot 38% as well. And game 2 was 46%, still well below his regular season average. Now Pierce didnt do it ever game, James had a solid game three and took him to school that night, and, and played ver well in game 1 as well. But over 6 games Pierce had James playing below his season average for FG%, which means that even if the PPG and APG and RPG averages were where they were during the regular season, James wasnt getting those numbers as effciently as he did during the regulars season. Even his turnovers were crazy high. James had 27 turnovers in 6 games, putting him at nearly 4.5 a game, much higher than his regular season average, and if you pull out game one and three, the nights that James owned Pierce, the other four games James has 24 turnovers! 24 turnovers in 4 games? Pierce did everything to keep James out of his game plan, and force him to play a game he wasnt used to playing. That is what a great defender does. Now, James is the best player on the planet, so as great as Pierce is, James is GOING to have great nights. But Pierce played tough and showed why he is the type of guy you want on your team when the playoffs roll around. Do you think Melo or Durant would have been able to make LBJ post such low percentages and cause so many turnovers? Or provide the type of ball handling while Rondo was on the bench resting that Peirce does?

Peirce had the ability to focus on his man defensively because he knew that guys like Rondo, and Allen, Garnett and Wallace could pick it up on offence. That is an advantage that James didnt have, so Pierce took a step back for that part of the game and trusted in his teammates so that he could do what his team needed him to do the most, and that is why I would rather have him playing small forward for me in the playoffs than anybody in the league outside of James.

You ask me who I want on my team for the regular season... I'll take James, then Durant, then Melo, then Pierce. But you ask me who I want when the playoffs roll around, I'm taking LBJ, then Pierce, because Pierce knows how to make adjsutments to his game. On nights when he got taken to school, he came back the next night and made the adjustments needed (and part of that no doubt is having a solid coach like Doc Rivers on the sideline).

Pierce isnt young enough to do all these things night in and night out like he used to, but he still has game and he's still a preimere defender and likely the best ball handler at his position outside of James.

I know that Durant would post better numbers than Pierce if the two met up in the playoffs, and I know Melo would to, but Pierce would have both of them playing far less efficiently than they did in the regular season, just as he did with James, and when a team relies so much on one person like the Cavs to with James, and like the Thunder do with Durant, and arguably the Nuggets do with Melo, having that star playing playing at 3/4 efficiency for a 7 game series is huge.

Now, what ever damage Pierce did to James, James did to Pierce three-fold. Offensively there is no question that Pierce's focus on defence diliuted his game and that shot low percentages as well. I would agree that he was almost a non-factor. But he knew to trust his teammates and do what was most needed of him. He has a great understanding of basketball and appreciates as much as anybody that it is a team sport.

So yeah, Pierce is lucky that he knows his own team is talented enough to weather a bad series from him. you can fault James for not having the depth and offensive diversity on his team to help him out the way Garnett, Rondo, Allen and Wallace help out Pierce. Mo Williams is a decnet point gaurd, but likely barely a top ten point guard, let alone a top five (I'd put Nash, Kidd, Rose, Westbrook, Rondo, D-Will and CP3 all above him for sure, and I think there is a case for Baron Davis-whose game has fallen since his move to LA, Jameer Nelson and several of the rookie point guards that came into the league this year). So you can fault James for that, but despite his numbers, I think Pierce was a huge difference maker in that series.

Thanks for the bedtime story.

Super.
05-20-2010, 09:47 AM
Cavs won 61 games and were the only 60+ win team in the league. Celtics were the #4 seed and only won 50 games. Also every analyst picked the Cavs to win the series.

http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2010/matchup/_/teams/celtics-cavaliers

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/playoffs/clebos

Regular season wins mean NOTHING when you get into the Post-Season other than seeding


The Cavs were easily the more talented team considering they won more games than anyone and had the HCA. Not to mention they had a 3x finals mvp and 1x league mvp player in Shaq and a 2x allstar in Jamison who they got for free.

And the Cavs were up 2-1 in the series and lost the pivotal game 5.

It's called an upset.

It wasn't an upset. The Celtics were built to do this. Sneak through the regular season...and turn on the beast mode in the playoffs.

The only people who didnt see this coming were Cav's fans and ESPN (who suck LeBrons dick anyway)

JordansBulls
05-20-2010, 09:53 AM
Regular season wins mean NOTHING when you get into the Post-Season other than seeding



It wasn't an upset. The Celtics were built to do this. Sneak through the regular season...and turn on the beast mode in the playoffs.

The only people who didnt see this coming were Cav's fans and ESPN (who suck LeBrons dick anyway)


compare every star player in series with HCA and series where they didn't have HCA and you will see the difference.

Let's say you played 15 series with HCA. You probably are at least 80-90% in those series. So probably 12-3 or 13-2 or maybe even 14-1.

However if you play 10 series without HCA, you more than likely are like 4-6 or 3-7 or something like that.

$KnicksAndKobe$
05-20-2010, 09:57 AM
Regular season wins mean NOTHING when you get into the Post-Season other than seeding



It wasn't an upset. The Celtics were built to do this. Sneak through the regular season...and turn on the beast mode in the playoffs.

The only people who didnt see this coming were Cav's fans and ESPN (who suck LeBrons dick anyway)

So their built to do worse than the Cavs in the regular season so the Cavs can get HCA against them? Did they also let the Cavs lead the series 2-1?

It was an upset.

Dee_Edge
05-20-2010, 10:06 AM
...another classic finals soon to come.

I have to say...GO BEANTOWN!!!

Chronz
05-20-2010, 11:18 AM
The Cavs were easily the more talented team considering they won more games than anyone and had the HCA. Not to mention they had a 3x finals mvp and 1x league mvp player in Shaq and a 2x allstar in Jamison who they got for free.

And the Cavs were up 2-1 in the series and lost the pivotal game 5.

It's called an upset.
THATS IT, THATS YOUR ANALYSIS?

What does having HCA have to do with being the better team? You should know better than that.

n83417
05-20-2010, 11:57 AM
They are not too old. They are too experienced.

Too experienced for their opponents to stand a chance.

"Talent wins games, but teamwork and intelligence wins championships."
- Michael Jordan

Can we say the Celtics live by this quote? Having the most talented player (LBJ) will win games (regular season) but a smarter team that plays a "team game" with "teamwork" (Celtics, Lakers) That, sir, will win you the championship.

I understand that may have been a little redundant, but the word "team" was nowhere to be found in Cleveland's game plan.

JasonJohnHorn
05-20-2010, 12:24 PM
JasonJohnHorn, I was just wondering, how many words-a-minute do you type? I always see long walls of text from you, whenever you respond, or make a thread. :)

lol

I'm a freelance copy writer with a lot of free time ;-)

I know my posts are a little long sometimes, but the one thing I cant stand is answers without content. I like to think when I read, and I think when I write. Though, perhaps I should try and cut down a little ;-)

Super.
05-20-2010, 12:38 PM
So their built to do worse than the Cavs in the regular season so the Cavs can get HCA against them? Did they also let the Cavs lead the series 2-1?

It was an upset.

No. They coasted all season long. Have you seen the way some of these players have played this post-season as compared to the regular season?

Besides, how much has HCA really been an advantage this post-season?

Cleveland couldn't capitalize
Orlando is down 2.

We'll see you in LA

Super.
05-20-2010, 12:40 PM
compare every star player in series with HCA and series where they didn't have HCA and you will see the difference.

Let's say you played 15 series with HCA. You probably are at least 80-90% in those series. So probably 12-3 or 13-2 or maybe even 14-1.

However if you play 10 series without HCA, you more than likely are like 4-6 or 3-7 or something like that.

How well did HCA work out for Cleveland and Orlando?

WashedOut87
05-20-2010, 12:50 PM
Next year, KG, Ray Allen & maybe Pierce will be too old. But with the play of Glen Davis, Tony Allen and Rondo. I'd pick Boston to win it all this year.

ZioAx
05-20-2010, 12:53 PM
Next year, KG, Ray Allen & maybe Pierce will be too old. But with the play of Glen Davis, Tony Allen and Rondo. I'd pick Boston to win it all this year.

IMO the big 3 wont be back next season. Ainge knows we have to get younger quick.

Chronz
05-20-2010, 01:12 PM
So their built to do worse than the Cavs in the regular season so the Cavs can get HCA against them?
When the core of your team is of championship caliber, regular season isnt as important. The C's showed what they were at full healthy early in the year, and spent the 2nd half of the year biding their time.


Did they also let the Cavs lead the series 2-1?
No they lost those trying to win in the REG SEASON.


It was an upset.
Various degrees of upset, this one falls under understandable given the circumstances (Boston had all the best players, and all of Brons teammates dropped their level of play from reg to playoff season.)

Chronz
05-20-2010, 01:12 PM
compare every star player in series with HCA and series where they didn't have HCA and you will see the difference.
Yea their teammates

JordansBulls
05-20-2010, 01:24 PM
Not many players have ever played with a guy who won league mvp and 3 finals mvp's before.


Eastern Conference for 2009-2010

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?page=OffseasonPredictions09-EastStandings

#1 Cavs 61-21
#2 Boston 57-25
#3 Orlando 56-26


http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?page=OffseasonPredictions09-EastChamps

Cavs - 32 Votes
Celtics - 13 votes
Orlando - 8 votes


http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?page=OffseasonPredictions09-NBAChamps

Lakers - 19 votes
Cavs - 18 votes
Spurs - 8 votes
Celtics - 5 votes
Orlando - 3 votes


http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/preview2009/news/story?page=Predictions0910-Cavaliers



Last year's collapse in the Eastern Conference finals only made LeBron hungrier and more willing to expand his game. Now, opponents can expect to see him in the post more. Scary. And look for a resurgence from a truly motivated Shaq.




The Cavs were the best team in the East before collapsing against the Magic, and they've gotten even stronger in the offseason. Shaq and Anthony Parker should help shore up their bench. Still, they lack the athletic bigs to match up with the Magic in a seven-game series.

Chronz
05-20-2010, 01:33 PM
LBJ did clamp down on Pierce. I agree completely, and James put up solid numbers, espcially early in the series, but game 5? LBJ shot 21%. Game 6: 38%, despite the triple-double. Game 4 LBJ sot 38% as well. And game 2 was 46%, still well below his regular season average. Now Pierce didnt do it ever game, James had a solid game three and took him to school that night, and, and played ver well in game 1 as well. But over 6 games Pierce had James playing below his season average for FG%, which means that even if the PPG and APG and RPG averages were where they were during the regular season, James wasnt getting those numbers as effciently as he did during the regulars season. Even his turnovers were crazy high. James had 27 turnovers in 6 games, putting him at nearly 4.5 a game, much higher than his regular season average, and if you pull out game one and three, the nights that James owned Pierce, the other four games James has 24 turnovers! 24 turnovers in 4 games? Pierce did everything to keep James out of his game plan, and force him to play a game he wasnt used to playing. That is what a great defender does. Now, James is the best player on the planet, so as great as Pierce is, James is GOING to have great nights.
Now if you apply the exact same analysis for Bron youll discover he more than outdid that defensive job on Pierce. The point isnt that Pierce didnt do a decent job defending, we all know hes always been a willing defender but the issue is about the entirety of his game, his contributions to the team vs superior players. Like I dont need to see Bron defeat Pierces team to know hes a better player. Just like I didnt need to see him defeat Tayshaun, so again, why point to a playoff series to determine the best anything, atleast to the degree it seems your going?




But Pierce played tough and showed why he is the type of guy you want on your team when the playoffs roll around. Do you think Melo or Durant would have been able to make LBJ post such low percentages and cause so many turnovers? Or provide the type of ball handling while Rondo was on the bench resting that Peirce does?
Depends, do they have the same defensive support? Prolly not the way Pierce could, but they wouldnt have to in order to leave a bigger impact on the game. Like Melo wouldnt have let Bron single handedly shut him down the way Pierce did. Anyways my quarrel with your claims wasnt so much about Melo-Durant as it was Bron. Those other 2 guys are better in my eyes but I do feel Pierce is closer than given credit for, but Bron? Saying even then Id be wrong is going too far.


Peirce had the ability to focus on his man defensively because he knew that guys like Rondo, and Allen, Garnett and Wallace could pick it up on offence.
The really sad part is knowing he didnt have to carry the offense, yet not even being able to play effectively with such a minimal burden. Thats how you know Pierce has really dropped off.



That is an advantage that James didnt have, so Pierce took a step back for that part of the game and trusted in his teammates so that he could do what his team needed him to do the most, and that is why I would rather have him playing small forward for me in the playoffs than anybody in the league outside of James.
So youd take Pierce because of his teammates?


I know that Durant would post better numbers than Pierce if the two met up in the playoffs, and I know Melo would to, but Pierce would have both of them playing far less efficiently than they did in the regular season, just as he did with James, and when a team relies so much on one person like the Cavs to with James, and like the Thunder do with Durant, and arguably the Nuggets do with Melo, having that star playing playing at 3/4 efficiency for a 7 game series is huge.
Sorry bro, I get the point your trying to make I just dont trust your statistical insight. No offense

Chronz
05-20-2010, 01:33 PM
Not many players have ever played with a guy who won league mvp and 3 finals mvp's before.


Eastern Conference for 2009-2010

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?page=OffseasonPredictions09-EastStandings

#1 Cavs 61-21
#2 Boston 57-25
#3 Orlando 56-26


http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?page=OffseasonPredictions09-EastChamps

Cavs - 32 Votes
Celtics - 13 votes
Orlando - 8 votes


http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?page=OffseasonPredictions09-NBAChamps

Lakers - 19 votes
Cavs - 18 votes
Spurs - 8 votes
Celtics - 5 votes
Orlando - 3 votes


http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/preview2009/news/story?page=Predictions0910-Cavaliers
Why do you post stuff that has nothing to do with whats being said?

Gibby23
05-20-2010, 01:36 PM
Why do you post stuff that has nothing to do with whats being said?

I wonder that all the time.

Raoul Duke
05-20-2010, 01:43 PM
Just like Tayshuan Prince, Pierce just seems to have LBJ's number.

Tayshaun is my dawg, but he hasn't been able to guard Lebron for like three years now. Lebron eats him up every time we play the Cavs.

Sly Guy
05-20-2010, 02:23 PM
Why do you post stuff that has nothing to do with whats being said?

I lol'ed.

PatsSoxKnicks
05-20-2010, 05:34 PM
The Cavs were easily the more talented team considering they won more games than anyone and had the HCA. Not to mention they had a 3x finals mvp and 1x league mvp player in Shaq and a 2x allstar in Jamison who they got for free.

And the Cavs were up 2-1 in the series and lost the pivotal game 5.

It's called an upset.

You realize Shaq is 38 years old right? I mean, he's had a great career, but he's not the same player who won those 3 finals MVPs and league MVP. The Celts players are babies (age-wise) compared to Shaq.

Jamison's a good player but in his long career, he's managed 2 all star games (which really shouldn't be what we're looking at when determining how good a player is). Anyways, are you going to tell me he's better than KG?

And I'll point out while the Cavs were up 2-1, did we not all forget that it took a comeback for the Cavs in game 1. The Cavs were outplayed for most of game 1. The Celts should have won that game. You can't really say that for any of the games the Celtics won. Now granted, I don't think this means anything but I just thought I'd point it out.

And you still have not bothered to refute my point that while Lebron is the best player in that series, the next FOUR were Celtics. I'm still waiting for a response to that.

Look at the starting lineups, and tell me with a straight face that the Cavs are more talented. They're deeper but deeper doesn't necessarily mean better.


compare every star player in series with HCA and series where they didn't have HCA and you will see the difference.

Let's say you played 15 series with HCA. You probably are at least 80-90% in those series. So probably 12-3 or 13-2 or maybe even 14-1.

However if you play 10 series without HCA, you more than likely are like 4-6 or 3-7 or something like that.

When you're talking about championship level teams, HCA really means nothing. You think a championship level team can't win on the road?

JordansBulls
05-20-2010, 05:54 PM
You realize Shaq is 38 years old right? I mean, he's had a great career, but he's not the same player who won those 3 finals MVPs and league MVP. The Celts players are babies (age-wise) compared to Shaq.

Jamison's a good player but in his long career, he's managed 2 all star games (which really shouldn't be what we're looking at when determining how good a player is). Anyways, are you going to tell me he's better than KG?

And I'll point out while the Cavs were up 2-1, did we not all forget that it took a comeback for the Cavs in game 1. The Cavs were outplayed for most of game 1. The Celts should have won that game. You can't really say that for any of the games the Celtics won. Now granted, I don't think this means anything but I just thought I'd point it out.

And you still have not bothered to refute my point that while Lebron is the best player in that series, the next FOUR were Celtics. I'm still waiting for a response to that.

Look at the starting lineups, and tell me with a straight face that the Cavs are more talented. They're deeper but deeper doesn't necessarily mean better.



When you're talking about championship level teams, HCA really means nothing. You think a championship level team can't win on the road?

Yes they win on the road, however how many times do championship teams win series where they don't have the HCA?

Here is a list of title teams to Win without HCA:



06 Heat*
04 Pistons*
98 Bulls
95 Rockets*
93 Bulls*
85 Lakers
82 Lakers
79 Sonics
78 Bullets* (won in game 7)
77 Trailblazers*
75 Bullets*
74 Celtics (won in game 7)
73 Knicks*(won ECF in game 7)
69 Celtics* (game 7)
58 Hawks

* Won their conference without HCA


So 15 teams out of last 50 years.

PatsSoxKnicks
05-20-2010, 06:15 PM
Yes they win on the road, however how many times do championship teams win series where they don't have the HCA?

Here is a list of title teams to Win without HCA:




So 15 teams out of last 50 years.

Nice research but what does this have to do with what we're talking about?

I don't see how this helps prove that Cleveland is better than Boston.

I'll even add something else, using that quote in your sig, wouldn't you agree Boston plays with better teamwork and intelligence than Cleveland?

Now add in the fact that Boston has the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th best players in the series and you can see why Boston is better. Not to mention the fact that they actually won the series.

Gibby23
05-20-2010, 06:21 PM
Nice research but what does this have to do with what we're talking about?

I don't see how this helps prove that Cleveland is better than Boston.

I'll even add something else, using that quote in your sig, wouldn't you agree Boston plays with better teamwork and intelligence than Cleveland?

Now add in the fact that Boston has the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th best players in the series and you can see why Boston is better. Not to mention the fact that they actually won the series.

Boston already proved who was better.

PatsSoxKnicks
05-20-2010, 06:49 PM
PER
Celtics
PG Rondo- 19.18 (5th out of all PG)
SG R. Allen- 15.22 (16th out of all SG)
SF Pierce- 18.24 (8th out of all SF)
PF Garnett- 19.51 (9th out of all SF)
C Perkins- 15.08 (29th out of all C)

Cavs
PG M. Williams- 16.18 (23 out of all PG)
SG A. Parker- 9.9
SG D. West- 13.86 (33 out of all SG)
SF Lebron- 31.19 (1st)
PF Jamison- 17.33 (19th out of all PF)
PF Varejao- 15.87 (31 out of all PF)
C Shaq- 17.92 (14th out of all C)

Lebron's got the best PER, then the next 3 are all Celtics. And that's not even considering that of the Celts big 3, they all missed time with injury and were in and out of the lineup. The PER's for the Celtics Big 3 were all lower than their career averages. Makes sense considering they were all out w/ injuries and the fact that they're older.

Also consider the fact that Shaq isn't able to play a full game because of his age and conditioning.

BTW, career PERs of the Celts big 3
R. Allen 19.4
Pierce 20.8
Garnett 23.6

You get the Celts big 3 playing at that level, and they easily have the next 4 best players on the court.

Also, consider a guy like Jamison is going to under perform in the playoffs when facing taller players. His regular season career PER is 18.6 vs 16.8 in the playoffs. Add in the fact that he's being guarded by Garnett, who's an outstanding defensive player, and you get the reason for Jamison's non existence in the playoffs.

PatsSoxKnicks
05-20-2010, 06:51 PM
Boston already proved who was better.

Read the other posts, my point all along has been that Boston is better, that Bulls fan (and some others) is trying to say that Boston was the inferior team.

IrespectNumber3
05-20-2010, 07:06 PM
Ok, He is right, Cleveland was the best team for 82 games. If the NBA Championship was determined from 82 games they would win every year. The point I'm trying to make is Cleveland does not have the mental toughness to get to the Finals and Win the finals. They have * 1 * capable player of hitting a big shot. Boston Has 3 guys who can hit big shots to close games.

Better teams/ Champions close games every time.

Until we do not have a big 3 or we don't a team that has multiple threats ( Magic, Lakers, Boston) or Lebron is on a team of such caliber. He will never get a ring. Point blank period.