Moore: good defender and shot blocker?

[winsomme]

well i agree to an extent, but whether he was stiff or not stiff, he got the job done.....which is really the only important thing, isn't it?

personally, i could care less if Moore has had a less than stellar career up till this point when all is said and done. if he makes the plays, he makes the plays...

my bottom line is a matchup of him and Varejao. he is going to have to do everything in his power to keep that guy off the glass.

Pachulia was another pain in the neck from last year....

Speaking of Varejao... you know what really bugged me in last year's series with Cleveland? It was watching Varejao and our random backup big both flop at the same time!! 

It looks so pathetic to watch 2 hulking dudes falling to the floor after a little contact. Moore will bring some more flopping to the team. Sadly it works within the silly foul rules of this game. 

Sorry to go off topic... Flop-ejao really gets me sometimes. Oh well, fight flops with flops....

yeah, Varejao has really turned into a guy that you need to game plan for. Why he gets those flop calls is beyond me.

i would think an official would be embarrassed to suckered by his histrionics...

[BballTim]

  The consensus was Lakers in 5 or 6. So you're going to try and defend those predicted the Lakers would win?

  And a big difference between making predictions and analyzing something that actually happened is that it's easier to sound like you know what you're talking about when you're analyzing. Nobody knows what the stock market will do, but everyone can tell you why it did what it did.

the difference in predicting something and an analyzing something that actually happened is you are discussing concrete events.

maybe everybody can tell you what happened in the stock market (ie it went down), but the expertise is in explaining why it happened.

we all know the Cs won the Title. But you are in the minority, it seems to me, in assessing the impact that PJ had in that eventuation.

  Being in the minority doesn't intimidate me in the least, especially when you're trying to strengthen your point by calling everyone who agrees with you an expert.

are they not experts? what point are you making here?

All i wanted know was if you were aware that the consensus opinion on PJ was that he was a key piece in us winning a Title...

  I'm aware that you've claimed that the concensus opinion was that he was a key piece in us winning a title, and that you claim that experts from far and wide thought PJ played great for us in the playoffs. I think I disagree with your premise.

  You could claim that PJ played great down the stretch for us in game 7 vs the Cavs. That, to you, means that we would have lost to the Cavs if we didn't have him. I disagree with the basis of the assumption. If we are at that point in time (late in game 7, score tied or close to tied) then he's instrumental. But if we have someone other than PJ playing all of his minutes in the series we wouldn't be at that same point. Maybe whoever takes his minutes plays better in game 6 and we win then. Maybe he plays more or better earlier in game 7 and we're up by 10 at that point.

[BballTim]

put your money where your monuth is cordobas. pledge to c's blog that you will in fact turn of the TV every time moore comes in the game, not to be turned back on until grande and cornbread indicate he's been taken out by doc.

My english is not very good, but what part of "I appreciate players like Moore" and "he's going to be helpful because he adds some depth and offers a different dimension from the bigs we have" you didn't understand? He's replacing POB, for Christ sake. Moore is a legit NBA player, POB was never close to that.

Again, I'm not 12 years old anymore to be so emotionally invested into individual players or to believe every Celtics player is flawless. One day, you'll get this

  It never ceases to amaze me how some people come to the conclusion that they're the only objective people here.

TP4U

I'm sorry for the lack of objectiveness of saying things like "Moore is going to be helpful because he adds some depth and offers a different dimension from the bigs we have" or "he's not a good or even a decent shot-blocker".

  One could argue that claiming a 6-11 guy is a terrible shot blocker for a 7 footer isn't objective, or just how ridiculous your claim is that people disagree with you mainly because they're emotionally invested in players or they think the Celts can do no wrong.

[winsomme]

  The consensus was Lakers in 5 or 6. So you're going to try and defend those predicted the Lakers would win?

  And a big difference between making predictions and analyzing something that actually happened is that it's easier to sound like you know what you're talking about when you're analyzing. Nobody knows what the stock market will do, but everyone can tell you why it did what it did.

the difference in predicting something and an analyzing something that actually happened is you are discussing concrete events.

maybe everybody can tell you what happened in the stock market (ie it went down), but the expertise is in explaining why it happened.

we all know the Cs won the Title. But you are in the minority, it seems to me, in assessing the impact that PJ had in that eventuation.

  Being in the minority doesn't intimidate me in the least, especially when you're trying to strengthen your point by calling everyone who agrees with you an expert.

are they not experts? what point are you making here?

All i wanted know was if you were aware that the consensus opinion on PJ was that he was a key piece in us winning a Title...

  I'm aware that you've claimed that the concensus opinion was that he was a key piece in us winning a title, and that you claim that experts from far and wide thought PJ played great for us in the playoffs. I think I disagree with your premise.

  You could claim that PJ played great down the stretch for us in game 7 vs the Cavs. That, to you, means that we would have lost to the Cavs if we didn't have him. I disagree with the basis of the assumption. If we are at that point in time (late in game 7, score tied or close to tied) then he's instrumental. But if we have someone other than PJ playing all of his minutes in the series we wouldn't be at that same point. Maybe whoever takes his minutes plays better in game 6 and we win then. Maybe he plays more or better earlier in game 7 and we're up by 10 at that point.

If we had someone other than PJ and he played worse, we could have been behind by more.

We can play the "maybe" game all day. The fact is that we won and many people note that the physical play of PJ off the bench was a key factor. I happen to agree with the observation.

You seem to argue that unless there is statistical evidence to back this up, then the position is meritless. My feeling is that the sheer numbers of basketball people who note his importance as all the evidence i need. maybe not enough to convince you, but at least to feel like I'm not imagining it...

I mean, how many analysts when they talk about the Cs this year mention "how we replace PJ and Posey" as a key to our ability to repeat?

Phil Jackson called us "more vulnerable" this year and I am afraid there is some merit to that because we have lost a lot of our toughness off the bench...

anyway, now that we have beat this thing silly and we seem to know how the spots were filled, we actually get to see how important these factors all are/were...