Barkley going after James...again!!

[BballTim]

So keep ignoring him quitting in game 4 - and he never even started to try in game 5...

And in game 5, he takes 2 shots in the 1st Q, 5 in the 2nd (fouled on four of them). 7 shot attempts for the repeat MVP in the swing game, and they still only trail by 6 at halftime.

(GAME 5 '08, he took 16 shot attempts in the 1st half, fouled on three of them).

So reality doesn't match your statements.

  The reality is that every time I point out something similar to your examples in the past you don't even try and address it. You just move on with another example like it never happened.

  By the way, getting fouled on 4 of 7 shots compared to 3 of 16 is pretty obvious evidence that the defense was playing LeBron a lot tighter in game 5 of 2010.

Kind of like you claiming the defense was better in '10 than in '08 - I guess qty of fouls = tightness of defense in your estimation...

More pertinent is LeQUIT only taking 6 shots in the 4thQ of game 4, which you haven't responded to - and just 14 shots in game 5, as the leader of the #1 seed at home in a tied series.

He quit in game 4 and the entirety of game 5, NOT "halfway through game 5" - it's OBVIOUS from watching the games!

  You claimed time and again that the 08 defense was significantly better than the 2010 defense in the playoffs. The 2008 team put up *slightly* better numbers but played more games against bad offenses. The 08 team played over half of their playoff games against teams that were in the bottom half of the league in offensive efficiency. In 2010 they played 20% of their games against such teams. Again, your claim was clearly wrong, but you're continuing on like I didn't post anything to refute your claim.

  You can talk all you want about things that are obvious from watching the games, but it's clear (as I originally stated) that you didn't understand how well the Celtics defense that you were watching was playing.

[LilRip]

Anyone who can watch the game film from games 6 and 7 against the Celtics in the playoffs in 08 and then watch the game film from games 5 AND 6 in this past year's playoffs and then try to say Lebron didn't quit isn't paying attention to the film. 

  By the same token, anyone who thought the Cavs would have won that series with a little more effort from LeBron wasn't paying attention to the series either. By the 3rd quarter of game 5 it became apparent that the Cavs had no chance of containing Rondo, that Jamison was no match for KG, that the Cavs weren't as good as the Celts or the Magic and that the Cavs had little hope of getting better in the near term. He may have managed to lose more valiantly but then he's the same guy that went to a team with an alpha dog in place to try and win with him. Not so surprising, I guess.

and yet, despite your claims of our alleged dominance, we were tied 2-2 after 4 games and they had a blowout to their name. as i've said numerous times, the first 4 games showed a competitive series. Look, we were a great team last year. We wouldn't have made it that far if we weren't. But we probably would've gone 7 games again and the series could've gone either way. Instead, as you said, it was over by game 5. But it wasn't because we were that much more dominant than them (unlike in the Heat series) instead, it was because the MVP version of LBJ had decided not to show up.

To put it in a Celtics context, if Rondo had stopped playing as aggressively, do u think we would've gotten past the Cavs? nope! Heart matters. and LBJ sealed his team's fate much like our fate would've been sealed if Rondo didn't give us his all. But Rondo played his butt off every game of the playoffs. Lebron just kinda did.

to quote MMacOH who put it quite aptly:

"Don't look at numbers, watch the game.  Watch his intensity.  He quit."



- LilRip

  The series wasn't that competitive. We gave way game 1, in control until late in the 3rd. We were up 25 in the 4th in game 2 in Cleveland. We played like crap in game 3, but probably should have been up 3-1 after the game 4 win. By the middle of the 3rd quarter in game 5 the series was pretty much over. We were handling LeBron, we were handling the Cavs, and they  couldn't control Rondo or KG. That's about when, by your reckoning, LeBron quit.

oh please. don't delude yourself. "gave away game 1"?? You talk as if the Cavs had no business winning that game. We had an 11 point lead with 6 minutes left to go in the 3rd. that's not dominant. that's still 18 minutes of basketball left! Add to that the fact that we were down 1 to enter the 4th anyway. So if we had "dominated" them for 30 minutes, they "dominated" us even more in just 18 minutes.

We blew them out game 2. And "we played like crap" means they blew us out in game 3.

Game 4 was a solid win for us, but let's not forget that we needed Rondo's superhuman trip-dub to win that. a 3 point lead with 2 minutes to go is not an example of us dominating them. The play of the game was Rondo's offensive rebound and floater with around a minute to go.

game 5 was the most important game for both sides up to that point and interestingly enough, that's when Lebron doesn't show up. However, us being up 13 with 6 minutes to go in the 3rd doesn't seal a game either, especially when you take into account Lebron's lackluster effort thus far. And being up 3-2 doesn't seal a series. If Lebron was into it during game 5 (and 6), we would've had a more competitive series. Too bad for them, Lebron didn't even give his team a chance. After quickly reviewing some stats and quickly browsing through the game.. yeah, game 5. lebron wasn't into that game.

**

fairweatherfan, the Celtics might've been the better team. And we might've still won even if LBJ didn't quit. However, i don't agree with the notion that the Celtics were so dominant over the Cavs that the series was essentially over in 5. It was when Lebron quit on his team and declined to really fight that the Cavs pretty much had zero chance of winning. And that's when we started looking dominant.

again, it's hard to look that bad when you're that good. that's why LBJ was still able to get his stats. but you know something's off when a player lacks the effort and aggressiveness that you've grown to expect from him.



- LilRip

  Sorry, pal. "deluding yourself" doesn't actually mean "having a different opinion than LilRip". Look it up.

  I have a question though, since you seem to be so tuned in to how LeBron thinks. Why did LeBron quit when he did? Cleveland had the best record in the league, and LeBron was the MVP. They went into the playoffs with a good shot at the title, and easily handled the Bulls. Why give up a shot at the title?

  According to you, he quit in the middle of game 5. Why then? Why play hard for one series and 4+ games and then give up when they were in a tossup of a series? Did he decide that he'd taken enough shots that year? Was it a sudden onset of boredom?  Did he suddenly decide he had no interest in winning a title?

no, that's not what deluding yourself means. But discrediting the Cavs effort and attributing our game 1 loss because we simply "gave it away" is a solid example of deluding yourself (unless you count winning first halfs as wins). The Cavs deserved to win that game. Calling the game pretty much over with an 11-point lead with 18 minutes left to play is delusional. Calling us giving the game away when we were down to enter the 4th in the first place is delusional. The Cavs came back from being down and they worked to erase that deficit. They played brilliant D and they won.

I've never claimed to be in tune with what Lebron was thinking. If anything, you're the one who's more in tune with him with your stance on the whole "he learned from Orlando series" and all that. I've called things based on his actions. And his actions/reactions/words say that he wasn't furious about this loss like he was with the Orlando 4-1 loss. And his actions say that he didn't fight for it in game 5 like he did in '08 against us, or even like in the previous games of the same series. I'm not discussing "why". I'm discussing "what". And what happened was he quit.

So who knows why. I'd assume you would know more about that. But point is, he did. If i were a fan of his, i'd be disappointed. I guess that's why Cavs fans are more upset than they really should be. It's because Lebron quit on them right when they needed him the most. Biggest game of the season and he tanks. Wonderful. I take back my "he quit mid-game" because he thoroughly quit in the game.

A player can play bad because that's how things sometimes go (kinda like Ray Allen in game 3 against LA). And a player can play bad because of lack of effort (kinda like Vince Carter with the Raptors). yes, we're a good team. but lebron quit. Series could've been close (as evidenced by the first 4 games), but Lebron quit. Series was over before 5.



- LilRip

[BballTim]

Anyone who can watch the game film from games 6 and 7 against the Celtics in the playoffs in 08 and then watch the game film from games 5 AND 6 in this past year's playoffs and then try to say Lebron didn't quit isn't paying attention to the film. 

  By the same token, anyone who thought the Cavs would have won that series with a little more effort from LeBron wasn't paying attention to the series either. By the 3rd quarter of game 5 it became apparent that the Cavs had no chance of containing Rondo, that Jamison was no match for KG, that the Cavs weren't as good as the Celts or the Magic and that the Cavs had little hope of getting better in the near term. He may have managed to lose more valiantly but then he's the same guy that went to a team with an alpha dog in place to try and win with him. Not so surprising, I guess.

and yet, despite your claims of our alleged dominance, we were tied 2-2 after 4 games and they had a blowout to their name. as i've said numerous times, the first 4 games showed a competitive series. Look, we were a great team last year. We wouldn't have made it that far if we weren't. But we probably would've gone 7 games again and the series could've gone either way. Instead, as you said, it was over by game 5. But it wasn't because we were that much more dominant than them (unlike in the Heat series) instead, it was because the MVP version of LBJ had decided not to show up.

To put it in a Celtics context, if Rondo had stopped playing as aggressively, do u think we would've gotten past the Cavs? nope! Heart matters. and LBJ sealed his team's fate much like our fate would've been sealed if Rondo didn't give us his all. But Rondo played his butt off every game of the playoffs. Lebron just kinda did.

to quote MMacOH who put it quite aptly:

"Don't look at numbers, watch the game.  Watch his intensity.  He quit."



- LilRip

  The series wasn't that competitive. We gave way game 1, in control until late in the 3rd. We were up 25 in the 4th in game 2 in Cleveland. We played like crap in game 3, but probably should have been up 3-1 after the game 4 win. By the middle of the 3rd quarter in game 5 the series was pretty much over. We were handling LeBron, we were handling the Cavs, and they  couldn't control Rondo or KG. That's about when, by your reckoning, LeBron quit.

oh please. don't delude yourself. "gave away game 1"?? You talk as if the Cavs had no business winning that game. We had an 11 point lead with 6 minutes left to go in the 3rd. that's not dominant. that's still 18 minutes of basketball left! Add to that the fact that we were down 1 to enter the 4th anyway. So if we had "dominated" them for 30 minutes, they "dominated" us even more in just 18 minutes.

We blew them out game 2. And "we played like crap" means they blew us out in game 3.

Game 4 was a solid win for us, but let's not forget that we needed Rondo's superhuman trip-dub to win that. a 3 point lead with 2 minutes to go is not an example of us dominating them. The play of the game was Rondo's offensive rebound and floater with around a minute to go.

game 5 was the most important game for both sides up to that point and interestingly enough, that's when Lebron doesn't show up. However, us being up 13 with 6 minutes to go in the 3rd doesn't seal a game either, especially when you take into account Lebron's lackluster effort thus far. And being up 3-2 doesn't seal a series. If Lebron was into it during game 5 (and 6), we would've had a more competitive series. Too bad for them, Lebron didn't even give his team a chance. After quickly reviewing some stats and quickly browsing through the game.. yeah, game 5. lebron wasn't into that game.

**

fairweatherfan, the Celtics might've been the better team. And we might've still won even if LBJ didn't quit. However, i don't agree with the notion that the Celtics were so dominant over the Cavs that the series was essentially over in 5. It was when Lebron quit on his team and declined to really fight that the Cavs pretty much had zero chance of winning. And that's when we started looking dominant.

again, it's hard to look that bad when you're that good. that's why LBJ was still able to get his stats. but you know something's off when a player lacks the effort and aggressiveness that you've grown to expect from him.



- LilRip

  Sorry, pal. "deluding yourself" doesn't actually mean "having a different opinion than LilRip". Look it up.

  I have a question though, since you seem to be so tuned in to how LeBron thinks. Why did LeBron quit when he did? Cleveland had the best record in the league, and LeBron was the MVP. They went into the playoffs with a good shot at the title, and easily handled the Bulls. Why give up a shot at the title?

  According to you, he quit in the middle of game 5. Why then? Why play hard for one series and 4+ games and then give up when they were in a tossup of a series? Did he decide that he'd taken enough shots that year? Was it a sudden onset of boredom?  Did he suddenly decide he had no interest in winning a title?

no, that's not what deluding yourself means. But discrediting the Cavs effort and attributing our game 1 loss because we simply "gave it away" is a solid example of deluding yourself (unless you count winning first halfs as wins). The Cavs deserved to win that game. Calling the game pretty much over with an 11-point lead with 18 minutes left to play is delusional. Calling us giving the game away when we were down to enter the 4th in the first place is delusional. The Cavs came back from being down and they worked to erase that deficit. They played brilliant D and they won.

I've never claimed to be in tune with what Lebron was thinking. If anything, you're the one who's more in tune with him with your stance on the whole "he learned from Orlando series" and all that. I've called things based on his actions. And his actions/reactions/words say that he wasn't furious about this loss like he was with the Orlando 4-1 loss. And his actions say that he didn't fight for it in game 5 like he did in '08 against us, or even like in the previous games of the same series. I'm not discussing "why". I'm discussing "what". And what happened was he quit.

So who knows why. I'd assume you would know more about that. But point is, he did. If i were a fan of his, i'd be disappointed. I guess that's why Cavs fans are more upset than they really should be. It's because Lebron quit on them right when they needed him the most. Biggest game of the season and he tanks. Wonderful. I take back my "he quit mid-game" because he thoroughly quit in the game.

A player can play bad because that's how things sometimes go (kinda like Ray Allen in game 3 against LA). And a player can play bad because of lack of effort (kinda like Vince Carter with the Raptors). yes, we're a good team. but lebron quit. Series could've been close (as evidenced by the first 4 games), but Lebron quit. Series was over before 5.



- LilRip

  Funny. You still don't seem to have a better understanding of the word delusional than "disagreeing with LilRip". The Celts were in control of game 1 until they went cold, and Rondo had a brief spell when he let Williams go off. It wasn't great defense. It was missing fairly easy shots. And I'm sorry if it offends  your sensibilities, but sometimes a team is clearly in control of a game when they're up by 11 late in the 3rd, or in control of a series when they're about to take a 3-2 lead. Not every time, but sometimes.

  I'm not the only person who noticed that the Cavs (and LeBron) were beaten into submission by a superior team. The fact that you didn't recognize what was happening doesn't mean that others didn't. You claim that James quit in the middle of game 5, and I claim that the series was all but over when the Celts started to pull away in the 3rd quarter. This (and the Celts defense on him) led to LeBron "quitting".

 Or we could go with your theory. LeBron still felt that the Cavs had a good chance of winning the series. If they could still win the series, they could still win the title. Lebron, though, for no real reason at all, decided to end a possible run at the title by quitting in the middle of a series for no apparent reason. The fact that he decided to quit at a point in time that many people felt the series was pretty much over was a huge coincidence and the two events were unrelated.

[LilRip]

Anyone who can watch the game film from games 6 and 7 against the Celtics in the playoffs in 08 and then watch the game film from games 5 AND 6 in this past year's playoffs and then try to say Lebron didn't quit isn't paying attention to the film.  

  By the same token, anyone who thought the Cavs would have won that series with a little more effort from LeBron wasn't paying attention to the series either. By the 3rd quarter of game 5 it became apparent that the Cavs had no chance of containing Rondo, that Jamison was no match for KG, that the Cavs weren't as good as the Celts or the Magic and that the Cavs had little hope of getting better in the near term. He may have managed to lose more valiantly but then he's the same guy that went to a team with an alpha dog in place to try and win with him. Not so surprising, I guess.

and yet, despite your claims of our alleged dominance, we were tied 2-2 after 4 games and they had a blowout to their name. as i've said numerous times, the first 4 games showed a competitive series. Look, we were a great team last year. We wouldn't have made it that far if we weren't. But we probably would've gone 7 games again and the series could've gone either way. Instead, as you said, it was over by game 5. But it wasn't because we were that much more dominant than them (unlike in the Heat series) instead, it was because the MVP version of LBJ had decided not to show up.

To put it in a Celtics context, if Rondo had stopped playing as aggressively, do u think we would've gotten past the Cavs? nope! Heart matters. and LBJ sealed his team's fate much like our fate would've been sealed if Rondo didn't give us his all. But Rondo played his butt off every game of the playoffs. Lebron just kinda did.

to quote MMacOH who put it quite aptly:

"Don't look at numbers, watch the game.  Watch his intensity.  He quit."



- LilRip

  The series wasn't that competitive. We gave way game 1, in control until late in the 3rd. We were up 25 in the 4th in game 2 in Cleveland. We played like crap in game 3, but probably should have been up 3-1 after the game 4 win. By the middle of the 3rd quarter in game 5 the series was pretty much over. We were handling LeBron, we were handling the Cavs, and they  couldn't control Rondo or KG. That's about when, by your reckoning, LeBron quit.

oh please. don't delude yourself. "gave away game 1"?? You talk as if the Cavs had no business winning that game. We had an 11 point lead with 6 minutes left to go in the 3rd. that's not dominant. that's still 18 minutes of basketball left! Add to that the fact that we were down 1 to enter the 4th anyway. So if we had "dominated" them for 30 minutes, they "dominated" us even more in just 18 minutes.

We blew them out game 2. And "we played like crap" means they blew us out in game 3.

Game 4 was a solid win for us, but let's not forget that we needed Rondo's superhuman trip-dub to win that. a 3 point lead with 2 minutes to go is not an example of us dominating them. The play of the game was Rondo's offensive rebound and floater with around a minute to go.

game 5 was the most important game for both sides up to that point and interestingly enough, that's when Lebron doesn't show up. However, us being up 13 with 6 minutes to go in the 3rd doesn't seal a game either, especially when you take into account Lebron's lackluster effort thus far. And being up 3-2 doesn't seal a series. If Lebron was into it during game 5 (and 6), we would've had a more competitive series. Too bad for them, Lebron didn't even give his team a chance. After quickly reviewing some stats and quickly browsing through the game.. yeah, game 5. lebron wasn't into that game.

**

fairweatherfan, the Celtics might've been the better team. And we might've still won even if LBJ didn't quit. However, i don't agree with the notion that the Celtics were so dominant over the Cavs that the series was essentially over in 5. It was when Lebron quit on his team and declined to really fight that the Cavs pretty much had zero chance of winning. And that's when we started looking dominant.

again, it's hard to look that bad when you're that good. that's why LBJ was still able to get his stats. but you know something's off when a player lacks the effort and aggressiveness that you've grown to expect from him.



- LilRip

  Sorry, pal. "deluding yourself" doesn't actually mean "having a different opinion than LilRip". Look it up.

  I have a question though, since you seem to be so tuned in to how LeBron thinks. Why did LeBron quit when he did? Cleveland had the best record in the league, and LeBron was the MVP. They went into the playoffs with a good shot at the title, and easily handled the Bulls. Why give up a shot at the title?

  According to you, he quit in the middle of game 5. Why then? Why play hard for one series and 4+ games and then give up when they were in a tossup of a series? Did he decide that he'd taken enough shots that year? Was it a sudden onset of boredom?  Did he suddenly decide he had no interest in winning a title?

no, that's not what deluding yourself means. But discrediting the Cavs effort and attributing our game 1 loss because we simply "gave it away" is a solid example of deluding yourself (unless you count winning first halfs as wins). The Cavs deserved to win that game. Calling the game pretty much over with an 11-point lead with 18 minutes left to play is delusional. Calling us giving the game away when we were down to enter the 4th in the first place is delusional. The Cavs came back from being down and they worked to erase that deficit. They played brilliant D and they won.

I've never claimed to be in tune with what Lebron was thinking. If anything, you're the one who's more in tune with him with your stance on the whole "he learned from Orlando series" and all that. I've called things based on his actions. And his actions/reactions/words say that he wasn't furious about this loss like he was with the Orlando 4-1 loss. And his actions say that he didn't fight for it in game 5 like he did in '08 against us, or even like in the previous games of the same series. I'm not discussing "why". I'm discussing "what". And what happened was he quit.

So who knows why. I'd assume you would know more about that. But point is, he did. If i were a fan of his, i'd be disappointed. I guess that's why Cavs fans are more upset than they really should be. It's because Lebron quit on them right when they needed him the most. Biggest game of the season and he tanks. Wonderful. I take back my "he quit mid-game" because he thoroughly quit in the game.

A player can play bad because that's how things sometimes go (kinda like Ray Allen in game 3 against LA). And a player can play bad because of lack of effort (kinda like Vince Carter with the Raptors). yes, we're a good team. but lebron quit. Series could've been close (as evidenced by the first 4 games), but Lebron quit. Series was over before 5.



- LilRip

  Funny. You still don't seem to have a better understanding of the word delusional than "disagreeing with LilRip". The Celts were in control of game 1 until they went cold, and Rondo had a brief spell when he let Williams go off. It wasn't great defense. It was missing fairly easy shots. And I'm sorry if it offends  your sensibilities, but sometimes a team is clearly in control of a game when they're up by 11 late in the 3rd, or in control of a series when they're about to take a 3-2 lead. Not every time, but sometimes.

  I'm not the only person who noticed that the Cavs (and LeBron) were beaten into submission by a superior team. The fact that you didn't recognize what was happening doesn't mean that others didn't. You claim that James quit in the middle of game 5, and I claim that the series was all but over when the Celts started to pull away in the 3rd quarter. This (and the Celts defense on him) led to LeBron "quitting".

 Or we could go with your theory. LeBron still felt that the Cavs had a good chance of winning the series. If they could still win the series, they could still win the title. Lebron, though, for no real reason at all, decided to end a possible run at the title by quitting in the middle of a series for no apparent reason. The fact that he decided to quit at a point in time that many people felt the series was pretty much over was a huge coincidence and the two events were unrelated.

Right, and then the Celtics proceeded to let the Cavs make all those buckets and miss all of theirs. Nope, nice try. Given that teams can sometimes be in control up 11 with 6 left to go in the 3rd, this was not one of those times. And it's not because the Celtics grew uninterested like they often did in the regular season or whatever reason you may suggest. It's because the Cavs played hard D and started getting buckets. The game was a tale of two halves. We looked very good in that first half, that much is true. But the Cavs are another team that can play pretty good D (surprise! it's not only the Celtics who play D!) and they won that game. 15pts in the 4th for us is not good. Couple that with 36 points in the 3rd for them (they closed out the quarter out with a 21-9 run) and voila, a Celtics loss. The Celtics can actually lose.

Yes, i claimed that before, but in my post previous to yours, i said that i made a mistake saying Lebron quit mid-game 5 because Lebron wasn't into game 5 at all. So no. Not "quit mid-game". It's plain ol' "he quit".

The events are very much related. Game 5 was the swing game and he inexplicably decided to not show up. There's never a reason to quit, so i can't fathom why he did it. But body language and play and output all point to that he did, especially when you compare that to how he regularly plays regardless of the opponent. We're one heck of a defensive team, but we're not that good. The best a defense can do is make it tough for Lebron to finish and make it tough for him to get comfortable (much like in '08). No defense, no matter how great, can make Lebron stand there in the corner and be passive. And no offense, no matter how great, can make lebron mail it in defensively either. And when Lebron decided to not show up, the series was over.

it's not about having a bad game. Kobe had a bad scoring game in game 7, but you can tell he wanted it. Can't say the same about Lebron. Seemed like he couldn't be bothered. Remember when Kobe quit on his team too? (i think they were even up 3-1 in the series) Yep, it was kinda like this. And Kobe's regarded as one of the most ferocious competitors in the league.

the Celtics played a good game in game 5, as to be expected, and i can credit them with that. I think we stood a good chance of advancing too regardless of Lebron's antics, but that's because i'm a Celtics fan. If the shoe was on the other foot, i'd think Cavs fans thought they had a good chance of advancing too, especially since the series was tied 2-2 and they had HCA. But Lebron quit and the Cavs couldn't have stood a chance. That's the story. We were good enough to advance. The Cavs were good enough to advance too. But they couldn't. At least, not without Lebron. We might've made the rest of the Cavs submit in the final minutes of that game 6, but Lebron had already quit way before his teammates did.



- LilRip

[BballTim]

Yes, i claimed that before, but in my post previous to yours, i said that i made a mistake saying Lebron quit mid-game 5 because Lebron wasn't into game 5 at all. So no. Not "quit mid-game". It's plain ol' "he quit".

  Haha. Your response to my pointing out that the time you claimed LeBron quit was the time I claimed the Celts had the series in hand is to change when you think he quit? Boy, that's not too obvious. I guess something had to give though.

[nba is the worst]

OK - to recap:

According to BBallTim, the Celtics' defense was better in 2010 than in '08 (with KG healthy) - just disregard the stats which show otherwise.  Ask the Lakers which defense was tougher, '08 or '10...

The reason for the worst home loss in Celtics' playoff history (yielding 16 more points than in any playoff game in '08) was not LeBron being unstoppable, it was that the Celtics "played terrible".

And because Tim thinks there was no "real reason LeBron would quit" in games 4-6, it must have been because the Cavs were "beaten into submission by a superior team". Anyone who thinks that no defense is capable of making a 2-time MVP stand around near halfcourt while his teammates go 4 on 5 just doesn't "understand how well the Celtics defense that you were watching was playing".

IMHO, that mindset is held by a minority of basketball fans (mainly Heat, Celtics, and LeBron fans), due to their biases.

When anomalies like this happen, I will believe my own eyes and basketball knowledge over a biased point of view from a fan every time...

I agree with LilRip and MMacOH - and many in the media throughout the sports world - although we may not know the reason, we saw Lebron quit on his teammates after game 3 - and that handed the Celtics the series.

[BballTim]

OK - to recap:

According to BBallTim, the Celtics' defense was better in 2010 than in '08 (with KG healthy) - just disregard the stats which show otherwise.  Ask the Lakers which defense was tougher, '08 or '10...

  Boy, you just don't give up, do you? The Lakers scored 94 points a game on 44% shooting against the Celts in the 2008 playoffs, and they scored 91 points a game on 42% shooting in 2010. You still have no stats that back up your point that the Celts defense in 2008 was significantly better than the 2010 defense was *in the playoffs*.

  I await your next post claiming that I'm disregarding the stats that say otherwise...

[LilRip]

Yes, i claimed that before, but in my post previous to yours, i said that i made a mistake saying Lebron quit mid-game 5 because Lebron wasn't into game 5 at all. So no. Not "quit mid-game". It's plain ol' "he quit".

  Haha. Your response to my pointing out that the time you claimed LeBron quit was the time I claimed the Celts had the series in hand is to change when you think he quit? Boy, that's not too obvious. I guess something had to give though.

nope. I changed my statement because we started really getting into it and i had the time to recheck my statements. I knew that LBJ quit, but relying solely on memory without double-checking anything, i estimated it was probably around halftime. Thats why at the time, i said i'd take your word for it that we were up 15 with around a little more than half the 3rd quarter to go.

So nope. The whole of Game 5, LBJ quit. Not just mid-way into the game like i originally said. My mistake. i don't see how that validates your argument of "the celtics were so dominant that the series was over before the 3rd quarter ended" though. The series was over when LBJ quit. That was probably before tip-off. Way to support your argument though. Nothing about game 1 and nothing about him standing around and tanking. to quote another poster:

"Lebron stood around and didn't try.  He would get the ball, dribble outside the 3 point line and then pass the ball off.  You can see from his facail expressions he wasn't in the game.  You can try and attribute that to good defense (the Celts plaed great defense overall), I see that as quitting."

nitty-gritty details aside, my main point has always been "The series would've been competitive if LBJ had not quit" while your stance has always been "the Celtics were so dominant that it forced LBJ to quit". I base my statement on the first 4 games of the series which were competitive, while on the other hand, you claim that we were so dominant in those first 4 games that it wasn't competitive at all. Albeit game 2 and 3 were blowouts for each team (something that happens in most series. there was even a blowout in our matchup against Chicago last year), we still needed a timely Rondo offensive rebound and put back (not to mention a superhuman trip-dub) to ice game 4 (and extend the lead to 7 i think) and the Cavs needed a set 3-pointer to ice game 1 (to extend the lead to 8 i think). If i weren't a Celtics fan myself, i'd just chalk you up to being a Celtics homer.



- LilRip

[BballTim]

Yes, i claimed that before, but in my post previous to yours, i said that i made a mistake saying Lebron quit mid-game 5 because Lebron wasn't into game 5 at all. So no. Not "quit mid-game". It's plain ol' "he quit".

  Haha. Your response to my pointing out that the time you claimed LeBron quit was the time I claimed the Celts had the series in hand is to change when you think he quit? Boy, that's not too obvious. I guess something had to give though.

nope. I changed my statement because we started really getting into it and i had the time to recheck my statements. I knew that LBJ quit, but relying solely on memory without double-checking anything, i estimated it was probably around halftime. Thats why at the time, i said i'd take your word for it that we were up 15 with around a little more than half the 3rd quarter to go.

So nope. The whole of Game 5, LBJ quit. Not just mid-way into the game like i originally said. My mistake. i don't see how that validates your argument of "the celtics were so dominant that the series was over before the 3rd quarter ended" though. The series was over when LBJ quit. That was probably before tip-off. Way to support your argument though. Nothing about game 1 and nothing about him standing around and tanking. to quote another poster:

"Lebron stood around and didn't try.  He would get the ball, dribble outside the 3 point line and then pass the ball off.  You can see from his facail expressions he wasn't in the game.  You can try and attribute that to good defense (the Celts plaed great defense overall), I see that as quitting."

nitty-gritty details aside, my main point has always been "The series would've been competitive if LBJ had not quit" while your stance has always been "the Celtics were so dominant that it forced LBJ to quit". I base my statement on the first 4 games of the series which were competitive, while on the other hand, you claim that we were so dominant in those first 4 games that it wasn't competitive at all. Albeit game 2 and 3 were blowouts for each team (something that happens in most series. there was even a blowout in our matchup against Chicago last year), we still needed a timely Rondo offensive rebound and put back (not to mention a superhuman trip-dub) to ice game 4 (and extend the lead to 7 i think) and the Cavs needed a set 3-pointer to ice game 1 (to extend the lead to 8 i think). If i weren't a Celtics fan myself, i'd just chalk you up to being a Celtics homer.



- LilRip

  Go ahead. Call me a homer. I heard it all last year, and that I had "green goggles" every time I'd disagree with people that said the current group of Celts were done and had no chance of winning the title. I must have been delusional or something, depending on who I was arguing with.

  And, I'm guessing that your taking the time to re-check your earlier statement was unrelated to the fact that that it dovetailed nicely with my argument? Just curious. Also, did you re-watch the game, or just remember it differently?

  And I don't think I said the Celts were overwhelmingly dominant, just that they were in firm control of the series. Kind of like how they were in control of game 6 when they were up by 9 with just over a minute left. It wasn't a complete blowout, and the Celts didn't thoroughly dominate the game from beginning to end, but the odds of Cleveland scoring 9 points in the last minute or so were slim at best, and that's assuming the shut out the Celts the rest of the way.

  However, if I did happen to claim that the Celts were thoroughly dominating the Cavs in the earlier parts of the series, I'll just reserve my right to change my earlier statements to better support my current argument. Just like you did.

[Celtics18]

So keep ignoring him quitting in game 4 - and he never even started to try in game 5...

And in game 5, he takes 2 shots in the 1st Q, 5 in the 2nd (fouled on four of them). 7 shot attempts for the repeat MVP in the swing game, and they still only trail by 6 at halftime.

(GAME 5 '08, he took 16 shot attempts in the 1st half, fouled on three of them).

So reality doesn't match your statements.

  The reality is that every time I point out something similar to your examples in the past you don't even try and address it. You just move on with another example like it never happened.

  By the way, getting fouled on 4 of 7 shots compared to 3 of 16 is pretty obvious evidence that the defense was playing LeBron a lot tighter in game 5 of 2010.

Kind of like you claiming the defense was better in '10 than in '08 - I guess qty of fouls = tightness of defense in your estimation...

More pertinent is LeQUIT only taking 6 shots in the 4thQ of game 4, which you haven't responded to - and just 14 shots in game 5, as the leader of the #1 seed at home in a tied series.

He quit in game 4 and the entirety of game 5, NOT "halfway through game 5" - it's OBVIOUS from watching the games!

I just re-watched game 4 of the Cavs-Celtics series, and it's not obvious to me at what point Lebron James quit.

To be completely honest, I didn't see him quitting at all.  The Cs came out playing inspired ball to start the 4th quarter.  They took over the game, but the Cavs got back in it with James as the catalyst midway through.


Please clarify at what point Lebron James quit so that I can try to find the evidence myself. 

[BballTim]

OK - to recap:

According to BBallTim, the Celtics' defense was better in 2010 than in '08 (with KG healthy) - just disregard the stats which show otherwise.  Ask the Lakers which defense was tougher, '08 or '10...

The reason for the worst home loss in Celtics' playoff history (yielding 16 more points than in any playoff game in '08) was not LeBron being unstoppable, it was that the Celtics "played terrible".

And because Tim thinks there was no "real reason LeBron would quit" in games 4-6, it must have been because the Cavs were "beaten into submission by a superior team". Anyone who thinks that no defense is capable of making a 2-time MVP stand around near halfcourt while his teammates go 4 on 5 just doesn't "understand how well the Celtics defense that you were watching was playing".

IMHO, that mindset is held by a minority of basketball fans (mainly Heat, Celtics, and LeBron fans), due to their biases.

When anomalies like this happen, I will believe my own eyes and basketball knowledge over a biased point of view from a fan every time...

I agree with LilRip and MMacOH - and many in the media throughout the sports world - although we may not know the reason, we saw Lebron quit on his teammates after game 3 - and that handed the Celtics the series.

  Just curious, but when you talk about the biases of others, are you trying to say that you have no bias at all against LeQUIT (opps! meant LeBron)? And did you rely on those same eyes and basketball knowledge to come to the opinion that the Celts defense in the playoffs this year wasn't very good?

[ImShakHeIsShaq]

I was on the Cavs forums AND chatroom during that series (every game last season) and EVERYONE mentioned/saw that LeBron had either quit (a lot of ppl said it B4 the "Decision" and during the games) or felt that something off the court/locker-room had went down... no one bought the injured elbow act from day 1, not even the LeBron fans(coach either)! Sure everyone has bad games now and then, but when people have watched the Cavs (for 40 yrs or so) and LeBron's ENTIRE pro career (watched every game/did radio shows afterward) notice a difference in his AGGRESSIVENESS and focus, you need to take note... these people didn't just say these things after he left but as they were happening. Do you think after watching all of his games they couldn't tell the difference between an angry/frustrated LeBron or a guy who somehow became a totally different player (as far as effort)? I don't know if he quit but he sure seemed different (demeanor) and it surely wasn't because of an elbow or Celts' D! That's why when the Gloria/West story came out ppl believed it... you can't give that type effort unless something was wrong! When your coach is at a loss for an explanation on your play, then you know somethings off... (not quoted)I didn't know there was something wrong with his elbow, the doctors haven't said anything to me. Most people are upset about the "Decision" and not going out like a true competitor, not by him leaving.

[Celtics4ever]

He doesn't care about winning.  Watch him after the games, there is no angst.  When Michael or Larry lost you could see it killed them.   Its just another day at the office for LeBron who is more worried about his "brand" than winning or losing too the kid don't see they are linked together.  All he does is ignore the fans.

[nba is the worst]

OK - to recap:

According to BBallTim, the Celtics' defense was better in 2010 than in '08 (with KG healthy) - just disregard the stats which show otherwise.  Ask the Lakers which defense was tougher, '08 or '10...

  Boy, you just don't give up, do you? The Lakers scored 94 points a game on 44% shooting against the Celts in the 2008 playoffs, and they scored 91 points a game on 42% shooting in 2010. You still have no stats that back up your point that the Celts defense in 2008 was significantly better than the 2010 defense was *in the playoffs*.

  I await your next post claiming that I'm disregarding the stats that say otherwise...

Why would I give up? I see you posted that others have mentioned your tendency to view things through green-colored goggles...

So, despite the 2% higher FG% against in '08, using points against ignores the big difference in victory margin - the Celtics in '08 avg'd +8.3 ppg, vs a - 3.4 in '10.

And you seem to be ignoring the '08 playoff numbers I already posted showing the '08 C's superiority:
'08, PA 88.8 ppg, opp FG% .426, margin 5.2
'10, PA 91.1 ppg, opp FG% .432, margin 2.8

The number of fts shot by opponents was 25.3 in '08 to 28.3 in '10. I'm not one who believes more fouls = "better" defense.

Vs. the Lakers, that really dwarfs the 2% difference in FG% against - the fta margin in '08 was + 21, 3.5 pg - in '10, -51, -7.3 pg.

To me, it's hard to understand how someone thinks the defense was better in a runner-up season than it was in a title season...

[RAcker]

This thread is still going and apparently has nothing to do with Barkley or LeBron?