Can the Lakers win a game under a total of 180 points?

[GoldenThroat]

No need for the use of profanity or is there a need to be snarky.

I am truly sorry if you want to hang your hat on beating the Celtics on the fact that you beat a team that this entire season hasn't been anywhere near as effective defensively as the Celtics have been.

The Spurs are a good Western Conference defense. They do good things. But they are not putting anywhere near the defensive pressure on their opponents or did put on Los Angeles as the Celtics have or will.

LA scored only 94 and 91 points against Boston in the regular season and now they have to play a finely tuned playoff defense that is holding opponents to under 88 PPG and an even more incredible 83 PPG at home during the playoffs.

Say what you want about the Spurs but thinking that this year they are anywhere near as good a team defensively as Detroit, Cleveland, or Boston is just isn't true either statistically or by what I have seen with my eyes.

Maybe last year and in a couple of other years yes, but not this year. The Spurs just didn't have that good of a defensive post season this year and hence they are playing golf right now.

The Lakers are in for a fight they just have not seen this year. Good luck to them finding a way to beat this defense 4 out of 7 times. No one else has.

The Celtics gave up 98.9 points per 100 possessions.
The Spurs gave up 101.8 points per 100 possessions.

As a result of playing in the Western Conference, the Spurs faced more offensively talented teams more frequently than the Celtics did.

The Celtics are the better defensive teams than the Spurs, but let's not act like the chasm is all that wide.

[ERod86]

The best defensive teams in order of efficiency this year was: Bos, Det, Clev, SA, LA.

The reason that SA didn't look as good in the 2nd and 3rd round is because they played the two best offensive teams in the NBA. Bowen didn't slow down, Kobe played the best ball of his career.

The Cs are the best defensive team in the NBA, and they are going to cause all kinds of problems for the Lakers, but the Lakers are pretty good defensively and a huge handful offensively.

[RockinRyA]

points per possession doesnt counts controlling the tempo-one of the best ways to defend a team

[GoldenThroat]

points per possession doesnt counts controlling the tempo-one of the best ways to defend a team

Points per possession actually accounts for tempo. That's what it's designed to measure.

[BudweiserCeltic]

points per possession doesnt counts controlling the tempo-one of the best ways to defend a team

Points per possession actually accounts for tempo. That's what it's designed to measure.

Actually, it's the other way around. It removes, tempo/pace from the equation... it's a meassure of efficiency.

[RockinRyA]

oh yeah? then why it doesnt show how many possessions a team is limited to? we have say the warriors, a running team.. gets to score tons of points.. however you slow the pace down.. lets say they have a huge ppp of 120.0 points every 100 possessions.. but u only allowed them 50 possessions, hence u limit them to 60 points.. does this stat show you that?

[GoldenThroat]

In a word, yes.

Some teams play at a faster pace than others. A team that averages 150 possession per game and surrenders 125ppg is more effective defensively than one who gives up 100ppg in 100 possessions.

If you limit a team to 50 possessions, as you suggest, you have also limited your own team to 50 possessions, so simply "slowing things down" isn't enough. It's the level of defense that you play per possession, no matter how many there are, that matters.

[nickagneta]

I for one have never been a subscriber of the whole per 48 minute stats or per 100 possions stats. They are meaningless in my book because they just are not realistic. People do not play 48 minutes per game and teams don't give up 100 possessions a game. 100 shots maybe, 100 possessions no.

I love it whne someone tries to point out to me how great such and such bench player is because they have a per 48 that is through the roof in some category. Except that player never plays more than 12 minutes a game because he isn't in good enough shape, or he is way too inconsistent, or because he just isn't that good.

These are unrealistic stats.

In baseball, possibly the greatest statistical sport there's no such thing as per 1500 innings or per 1000 at bats. The idea of such a stat to baseball statiticians would be laughable. People don't play 1500 innings a year or have 1000 at bats a year.

Baseball tends to break things down the other way which is to the smaller quantity not the estimated larger per quantity. They break things down to per inning or stat per how many at bats and the like. These are telling stats. The way the NBA does it is not.

I think if the NBA did things such as quantity of minutes per 10 rebounds or quantity of minutes per 20 points or the same thing for assists, steals, blocks and so forth then that would be a telling stat. The same would go for maybe number of stats per 100 points for a team stat. Or just leave it alone as it is.

The Celtics give up 89 PPG. The Lakers give up 99 PPG. That's a reality. So for my liking I deal with what's happening on a per game basis and per game, the Lakers are not in fact that great a defensive team.

But that's all just my opinion.

[CoachBo]

TP.

Per 48 is a number that's only trotted out whenever someone's trying to convince you that a player is better than he really is.

It's meaningless.

Your point about defense is well-taken. Defense will be the factor that turns this series, and I feel EXCELLENT about where the advantage lies in that area.

[Bahku]

I really don't like to make generalizations based on stats alone ... they're too imperfect. However, the indication here is pretty accurate, that the bottome line is: defense wins games ... period. I've yet to see a team with great offense and lacking defense, dominate a team that has great defense and decent offense. I honestly think the odds are stacked in the C's favor, and that, if they sustain their defense consistently, they'll have little problem winning.

A great example is the Celtics of Bill Russell's era, who were a monster defensive team. I've seriously seen few teams since then that are as great defensively as this present C's club. For that reason alone, I'd be worried if I were a Laker. (Not to mention KG, Pierce and Ray). I truly like the odds for us ... and the fact that we're the underdogs.

[LoyalLaker]

I've seriously seen few teams since then that are as great defensively as this present C's club. For that reason alone, I'd be worried if I were a Laker. (Not to mention KG, Pierce and Ray). I truly like the odds for us ... and the fact that we're the underdogs.

Edit - Unnecessary comment.  wdleehi

[nickagneta]

I've seriously seen few teams since then that are as great defensively as this present C's club. For that reason alone, I'd be worried if I were a Laker. (Not to mention KG, Pierce and Ray). I truly like the odds for us ... and the fact that we're the underdogs.

Edit - Unnecessary comment.  wdleehi

Hey now, this is a civilized debate, let's knock it off with the insults. Bring something to the table to refute it or don't sit at the table.

Discoflux is a Laker fan but he has shown himself to be a gentleman and a good debater bringing up valid points to the discussion. How about following his example.

[Bahku]

I've seriously seen few teams since then that are as great defensively as this present C's club. For that reason alone, I'd be worried if I were a Laker. (Not to mention KG, Pierce and Ray). I truly like the odds for us ... and the fact that we're the underdogs.

Edit - Unnecessary comment.  wdleehi

Hey now, this is a civilized debate, let's knock it off with the insults. Bring something to the table to refute it or don't sit at the table.

Discoflux is a Laker fan but he has shown himself to be a gentleman and a good debater bringing up valid points to the discussion. How about following his example.

Yup ... PSLakerFan and CuckRoller as well ... intelligent, articulate posters, who actually use their brains before they type. It's a shame that a classless few have to ruin it for the others ... shows you what some people's priorities are.

[nickagneta]

BTW TP4U Bakhu for the excellent example of the 60's Celtics and the way they dictated a game defensively.

You see, that's all this thread is really all about. I never meant it to break down into a discourse over the comparisions of San Antonio's, LA's, Cleveland's and Detroit's defenses. Who cares.

What is important is that history has taught us that great defesive teams will tend to dictate a defensive tempo in a game and if that is so in this series, can LA beat Boston at their own game? Can they win the low scoring game where every possession is important?

They don't have experience in this type of game and their defense hasn't shown that they can hold teams consistently low in scoring to be able to play these types of games.

And the defense dictating the way of a series is evident throughout sports history.

2006 Heat vs Mavericks offense
2004 Pistons vs Lakers offense
1993 Bulls vs Suns offense
1990 Pistons vs Blazers offense
1989 Pistons vs Lakers offense
1984 Celtics vs Lakers offense
1983 Sixers vs Lakers offense
2008 Superbowl
2003 Superbowl
2002 Superbowl
1991 Superbowl
2005 World Series
2004 World Series

There's a ton more.

I just don't see the Lakers forcing the issue and turning this series into a bunch of 110-103 type games. The offense will normally not dictate that type of result when confranted with a truly superior defensive team.

I still expect Laker wins but overall the Celtics defense and ability to win close low scoring games in a tough defensive struggle is the reason they win.

[Bahku]

BTW TP4U Bakhu for the excellent example of the 60's Celtics and the way they dictated a game defensively.

You see, that's all this thread is really all about. I never meant it to break down into a discourse over the comparisions of San Antonio's, LA's, Cleveland's and Detroit's defenses. Who cares.

What is important is that history has taught us that great defesive teams will tend to dictate a defensive tempo in a game and if that is so in this series, can LA beat Boston at their own game? Can they win the low scoring game where every possession is important?

They don't have experience in this type of game and their defense hasn't shown that they can hold teams consistently low in scoring to be able to play these types of games.

And the defense dictating the way of a series is evident throughout sports history.

2006 Heat vs Mavericks offense
2004 Pistons vs Lakers offense
1993 Bulls vs Suns offense
1990 Pistons vs Blazers offense
1989 Pistons vs Lakers offense
1984 Celtics vs Lakers offense
1983 Sixers vs Lakers offense
2008 Superbowl
2003 Superbowl
2002 Superbowl
1991 Superbowl
2005 World Series
2004 World Series

There's a ton more.

I just don't see the Lakers forcing the issue and turning this series into a bunch of 110-103 type games. The offense will normally not dictate that type of result when confranted with a truly superior defensive team.

I still expect Laker wins but overall the Celtics defense and ability to win close low scoring games in a tough defensive struggle is the reason they win.

Awesome examples, Nick! (TP) And you're right ... there's a ton more, in just about every sport, (although defense is obviously not as important in some arenas, it's almost always directly transferrable to better offense). I, too, expect the C's to have a lapse or two, which may translate to a couple of Laker wins, but if the C's sustain the defense they're known for this year, I like their chances ... very much. The amazing thing is that they've only been doing this for a single season ... can you imagine what kind of D they'll have if this core group stays together a while? I can't wait to see this team in another year or two ... and if I know Danny at all, defense will be at the forefront of his considerations when acquiring additional talent.