Barkley going after James...again!!

[Snakehead]

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

It's a pointless "LeBron quit" vs "our defense was great" argument that neither side will give up on, why I gave up a while ago.  Like usual, the truth is in the middle: LBJ gave up eventually because of our defense, which made him give it up to his teammates and no one stepped up.

Though now this thread is a 08 vs last year comparison... that's when you should retire the thread if it's THAT off topic.  The team itself and competition are all different, and if Perk wasn't hurt we would of probably making the "last year couldn't of been better if we didn't win it all" argument not really true.

But anyways, I bow out of this thread for reals now.

[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.

  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?

I have what I would consider conflicting biases wrt LeBron.

I'm biased in his favor due to his level of talent and the resultant ability to take over games and score at will vs the toughest defenses in the league.

I'm biased against him due to his ridiculous ego but mostly due to him tanking this series, whatever his reason(s) were.

Btw, for you to claim that I have "the opinion that the Celts defense in the playoffs this year wasn't very good" is untrue. I said the '08 defense (and team) was better,  IMO...

[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...

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.

  Yes, I've been accused of wearing green goggles before. It's especially tough on my ego when such a taunt comes from someone who doesn't understand that margin of victory doesn't always mean better defense. You must think the Suns have probably been the best defense in the league over the last 5-6 years because they're almost always top 10 in margin of victory and frequently top 5.

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

  First of all, you posted the 08 team's stats. I posted the 2010 numbers, and I addressed the differences in a couple of separate posts:

In 08, the Celts gave up 89 points a game on .426 shooting. In 2010, they gave up 91 points a game on .432 shooting. The numbers were very close. Also, the 4 teams that the Celts played in 08 were ranked 3rd, 6th, 16th and 20th with the 7 game series against the 16th and 20th ranked teams. In 2010 they played teams ranked 4,6,11 and 19, with the fewest games against #19. So the 2010 team put up almost the same numbers against somewhat better offenses.

  And

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.

  So yes, aside from the fact that I posted those stats and commented on them in multiple posts I've been "ignoring" them.

  Also, consider this: you watched the Celts play Cleveland in 2008 and 2010 and, by watching you decided that Boston's defense was better in 2008 than in 2010. But you also have to factor in that in 2010 Cleveland was 6th in the league in offense, and in 2008 they were 20th in the league.

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.

  No, you're one that believes better offense = better defense.

  The only reason our defensive stats weren't significantly better against the Lakers in 2010 than in 2008 was that we gave up so many offensive rebounds. Even though we gave up 5 more a game our defensive efficiency was about the same both years. In 2008 we gave up 1.25 points per shot. In 2010 it was 1.19. Fewer points per game, fewer points per shot, worse fg%, almost identical defensive efficiencies. 2010 either wins or at worst ties in the better defense vs the Lakers debate.

  By the way, you looked at fg% and fta, but you also have to consider three point shooting. 7.2 makes a game on .347 shooting in 2008, 5 a game on .280 shooting in 2010.

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...

  I'm sure it is. I'm sure it will absolutely amaze you that the team with the best defense doesn't win the title every single year.

[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

  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.

i re-watched it. some guy had it on youtube (along with a lot of the games in the playoffs). other than a few nice assists (where you could make the case that he was playing facilitator early on, kinda like how Kobe goes about sometimes) he wasn't into the game. again, great D can make someone have a bad game but great D can't make someone play passive on both ends of the floor. LBJ took himself out of game 5. Our D just exacerbated the matter.

having faith in your team isn't being a homer. But grossly overrating your own players or discrediting other teams and using that to credit your team would qualify as being a homer, i think. For example, game 4 of the '08 Finals. Lakers fans who say that they "gave away" game 4 implies that it was more of their fault rather than the Celtics actually digging deep, playing D, playing together and making big shots. Truth is, the Celtics won that game. Being up 24 with 24 minutes to go is nice but it doesn't seal the game. And i'm sure you agree with that example because it favors the Celtics. Yet, the similar thing happened in game 1 of this series, albeit in a smaller scale. Whatever "control" we had at halftime was taken from us by the Cavs at the start of the 4th.

We were a contender last year, that much i can agree with. And the Cavs were a contender too. I thought the series was close, up until game 4. As the other poster said, i don't think Lebron quit game 4. But then again, i didn't re-watch it. I'll take his word for it though. I do remember that the Rondo offensive rebound and putback iced what was a competitive game.

lastly, i highly recommend you changing your statement from Celtics dominating or controlling the Cavs earlier in the series to one where the Celtics weren't because well, they really weren't.



- LilRip

[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.

  Yes, I've been accused of wearing green goggles before. It's especially tough on my ego when such a taunt comes from someone who doesn't understand that margin of victory doesn't always mean better defense. You must think the Suns have probably been the best defense in the league over the last 5-6 years because they're almost always top 10 in margin of victory and frequently top 5.

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

  First of all, you posted the 08 team's stats. I posted the 2010 numbers, and I addressed the differences in a couple of separate posts:

In 08, the Celts gave up 89 points a game on .426 shooting. In 2010, they gave up 91 points a game on .432 shooting. The numbers were very close. Also, the 4 teams that the Celts played in 08 were ranked 3rd, 6th, 16th and 20th with the 7 game series against the 16th and 20th ranked teams. In 2010 they played teams ranked 4,6,11 and 19, with the fewest games against #19. So the 2010 team put up almost the same numbers against somewhat better offenses.

  And

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.

  So yes, aside from the fact that I posted those stats and commented on them in multiple posts I've been "ignoring" them.

  Also, consider this: you watched the Celts play Cleveland in 2008 and 2010 and, by watching you decided that Boston's defense was better in 2008 than in 2010. But you also have to factor in that in 2010 Cleveland was 6th in the league in offense, and in 2008 they were 20th in the league.

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.

  No, you're one that believes better offense = better defense.

  The only reason our defensive stats weren't significantly better against the Lakers in 2010 than in 2008 was that we gave up so many offensive rebounds. Even though we gave up 5 more a game our defensive efficiency was about the same both years. In 2008 we gave up 1.25 points per shot. In 2010 it was 1.19. Fewer points per game, fewer points per shot, worse fg%, almost identical defensive efficiencies. 2010 either wins or at worst ties in the better defense vs the Lakers debate.

  By the way, you looked at fg% and fta, but you also have to consider three point shooting. 7.2 makes a game on .347 shooting in 2008, 5 a game on .280 shooting in 2010.

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...

  I'm sure it is. I'm sure it will absolutely amaze you that the team with the best defense doesn't win the title every single year.

So, because the numbers were "close", the defense in '08 is worse because of opposing teams' ranking? I disagree.

The margin also includes differences in pace, but clearly, the '08 Celtics were better offensively.

But bigger differences are the fouls and rebounding.  I'd say rebounding is part of defense.

All of this stat review is peripheral to the original point - which is that after leading his team to a 2-1 lead while handing the Celtics their worst home playoff loss in history, in games 4-6, for unknown reasons, LeQUIT!

[Celtics4ever]

I think LeBron is a softie. Remember the finals he got the Cavs too?  He really carried to a victory no?  Lead them to a sweep.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_NBA_Finals

This guy is a choke artist.

Game 1 of the finals 14 pts.
Game 4 his team facing a sweep 24 pts.

Some of you have clearly bought into the NBA's latest and greatest propoganda machine.  I watch the games and analyze them and this guy has a tendency to vanish when games matter throughout his career.

He quit on his team but he has bigger problems.  Its hard to win when you don't give a [dang].  Which is good for us, bad for the Heat.  He is one of the best there when there is no pressure.   But clutch he ain't.

This guy can't carry the league, lowest finals ratings ever.  Many people see through the hype some don't but what can you do?

[Snakehead]

I think LeBron is a softie. Remember the finals he got the Cavs too?  He really carried to a victory no?  Lead them to a sweep.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_NBA_Finals

This guy is a choke artist.

Game 1 of the finals 14 pts.
Game 4 his team facing a sweep 24 pts.

Some of you have clearly bought into the NBA's latest and greatest propoganda machine.  I watch the games and analyze them and this guy has a tendency to vanish when games matter throughout his career.

He quit on his team but he has bigger problems.  Its hard to win when you don't give a [dang].  Which is good for us, bad for the Heat.  He is one of the best there when there is no pressure.   But clutch he ain't.

This guy can't carry the league, lowest finals ratings ever.  Many people see through the hype some don't but what can you do?

Man, tell me if you remember a worse team outside of one player ever playing in the Finals.  Only one I can think of is the 76ers team led by Iverson, and he at least had Mutombo.  LeBron's best teammates that year: Big Z, Drew Gooden, Larry Hughes.... yeah...     Donny Marshall, speaking of him leaving the Celtics broadcast team, was even on that team!  Give me a break.

And this was against the Spurs dynasty, a great defensive team with a far superior coach, maybe the best PF ever, Manu (who can be as good as anyone for stretches at a time) and Tony Parker.

I don't want to post in this thread but some of you just don't even acknowledge common sense and facts.




Also, here's a list of the top players in "Clutch" production last year... guess who's on top by a pretty sizable margin? That big choke artist "LeQuit"

http://www.82games.com/0910/CSORT11.HTM

You can find similarly awesome clutch stats for previous years.  Just because he isn't a great jump shooter doesn't mean he isn't a good clutch player.  It hampers what he can do, because it can be extremely hard to get to the rim, but guess who has by far the most shots at the rim in clutch moments in recent years?  LeBron.  And he can create plays and play great defense in the clutch.




EDIT: Here's another one, Game Winning Shots (doesn't include last year, but several before:

http://www.82games.com/gamewinningshots.htm

LeBron also wins, has 6 ast compared to Kobe's 1 and shoots a far better percentage with more FG's made and less attempted.



At the bottom of that page?  Playoff Game Winning Shot stats.  Guess who are at the top?  Kobe and LeBron, identitcal except LBJ has 1 ast compared to Kobe's 0.

[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...

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.

  Yes, I've been accused of wearing green goggles before. It's especially tough on my ego when such a taunt comes from someone who doesn't understand that margin of victory doesn't always mean better defense. You must think the Suns have probably been the best defense in the league over the last 5-6 years because they're almost always top 10 in margin of victory and frequently top 5.

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

  First of all, you posted the 08 team's stats. I posted the 2010 numbers, and I addressed the differences in a couple of separate posts:

In 08, the Celts gave up 89 points a game on .426 shooting. In 2010, they gave up 91 points a game on .432 shooting. The numbers were very close. Also, the 4 teams that the Celts played in 08 were ranked 3rd, 6th, 16th and 20th with the 7 game series against the 16th and 20th ranked teams. In 2010 they played teams ranked 4,6,11 and 19, with the fewest games against #19. So the 2010 team put up almost the same numbers against somewhat better offenses.

  And

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.

  So yes, aside from the fact that I posted those stats and commented on them in multiple posts I've been "ignoring" them.

  Also, consider this: you watched the Celts play Cleveland in 2008 and 2010 and, by watching you decided that Boston's defense was better in 2008 than in 2010. But you also have to factor in that in 2010 Cleveland was 6th in the league in offense, and in 2008 they were 20th in the league.

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.

  No, you're one that believes better offense = better defense.

  The only reason our defensive stats weren't significantly better against the Lakers in 2010 than in 2008 was that we gave up so many offensive rebounds. Even though we gave up 5 more a game our defensive efficiency was about the same both years. In 2008 we gave up 1.25 points per shot. In 2010 it was 1.19. Fewer points per game, fewer points per shot, worse fg%, almost identical defensive efficiencies. 2010 either wins or at worst ties in the better defense vs the Lakers debate.

  By the way, you looked at fg% and fta, but you also have to consider three point shooting. 7.2 makes a game on .347 shooting in 2008, 5 a game on .280 shooting in 2010.

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...

  I'm sure it is. I'm sure it will absolutely amaze you that the team with the best defense doesn't win the title every single year.

So, because the numbers were "close", the defense in '08 is worse because of opposing teams' ranking? I disagree.

The margin also includes differences in pace, but clearly, the '08 Celtics were better offensively.

But bigger differences are the fouls and rebounding.  I'd say rebounding is part of defense.

All of this stat review is peripheral to the original point - which is that after leading his team to a 2-1 lead while handing the Celtics their worst home playoff loss in history, in games 4-6, for unknown reasons, LeQUIT!

  Look, let's look at part of one of your earlier posts:

  "I'm enjoying the selective ignoring of the points I made.

Nothing about how the Celtics' defense was CLEARLY superior in '08, holding their opponents to a phenomenal 88.8 pts on .426 FG, doubling the avg victory margin of the '10 Celts - yet the Cavs were able to win the home games."

  So this was about your claim that the 08 defense was CLEARLY superior. I countered that the 2010 team was worse in the playoffs and you disagreed. The fact is that, even when you factor in fouls and rebounds and pace the defensive stats in the playoffs for those 2 years were almost identical. And that's with the 2010 team playing against better offenses. You were CLEARLY wrong about the Celts defense.

[nba is the worst]

OK BBallTim - to me the Celtics were CLEARLY better on both sides of the ball in'08.

Why don't you start a Forum post about which team was better defensively, and see how many agree with you?

Again - you don't address the original point - which is the guy quitting had nothing to do with the Celtics' defense.

[Snakehead]

OK BBallTim - to me the Celtics were CLEARLY better on both sides of the ball in'08.

Why don't you start a Forum post about which team was better defensively, and see how many agree with you?

Again - you don't address the original point - which is the guy quitting had nothing to do with the Celtics' defense.

Sorry but this post is nonsensical.  Tim provides good analysis and stats that back up his points very well and you just say "Well to me they were clearly better in 08" ?

The defense last year was at least as good, if not better.  Like Tim points out, the teams they faced had better offenses and the Lakers were certainly a better team now than they were back then AND had Andrew Bynum this year.  The Cavs were also a better team.

And if you think LBJ quitting had nothing to do with the Celtics D... not sure what to say.  So if he "quit", why didn't he "quit" against the Bulls crappy D?  Because it was easy to beat that team.  The Celtics played D that made LBJ defer to his teammates and no one stepped up and LBJ himself couldn't get near the paint at a number of times.  He was frusterated and hampered by our D. 

To say it has nothing to do with it?  You do not understand basketball.  You clearly have not played the game.  Anyone who has at all, at any level, understands that tough D frusterated a team and hampers what they are trying to do, especially if a team depends on one player to completely run their offense and that player is unable to do what he wants to do on the court.

[BballTim]

OK BBallTim - to me the Celtics were CLEARLY better on both sides of the ball in'08.

Why don't you start a Forum post about which team was better defensively, and see how many agree with you?

Again - you don't address the original point - which is the guy quitting had nothing to do with the Celtics' defense.

  You can't really argue that in a vacuum. I'm saying that a main reason Lebron was struggling was our defense, and you're claiming that our defense was significantly worse than it really was.

  As for the new thread. if you went back through many of the threads during the playoffs there were tons of posts that praised the Celtics defense in the playoffs. But even if there weren't, and everybody agreed with you thaz our defense *appeared* to be worse in 2010, they'd be wrong.

  There's a way to judge how well a defense plays that includes all the things that we discussed. FG%, 3 pointers, foul shots, offensive rebounds, turnovers, pace. It's called defensive efficiency, or points per possession (or points per 100 possessions) allowed.

  If I start a thread showing that the defense in 2010 was statistically as good as the defense in 2008 even though the 2010 team faces better opponents, I don't think as many people are going to chime in and say "regardless of how well they performed, the 2010 team's defense was CLEARLY worse" than you think.

[Celtics4ever]

Snakehead doesn't MIA have a forum?  If LeBron quit walking I don't want to say what would happen to you, lol.  I give you one thing you got his back and have about every excuse under the sun ready to cover it.

None of your arguments can convince me he isn't vastly over rated and lacks heart.  I lived in Ohio since 68' moved in '10.  I 've seen his high school games live have you?   I seen him play at the Q have you?   I 've seen his body langauge that the TV doesn't show.  Have you?   I have to pay for NBA pass to see my Celtics but I got to see Queen James for free all the time.   

I think this guy has about as much will to win as a sloth.  He is soft and weak.   I used to play a guy with a mindset just like him.  Oh, he was all state this and that and averaged 36 points a game in High School but he never ever beat me once, on the court because he was a mental wuss.  At the park, in the gym, I know how to get into his head and beat him and get him off his game.   The big things LeBron lack is killer instinct and a will to win, athletically he is off the board.  His skills aside from his shooting are phoenomenal ( he is a mediocre to slightly above average shooter at best).  Toughness is innate, you can't fake it or pretend your tough because a real tough guy is going to test you.

Wade is tough and will not give up.  I seen him will a team to beat Dallas in the finals.  Bosh and LeBron are not.  I think PP will whip on him again, we know Bosh is owned by KG and Allen is a good foil for Wade.

[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.

i re-watched it. some guy had it on youtube (along with a lot of the games in the playoffs). other than a few nice assists (where you could make the case that he was playing facilitator early on, kinda like how Kobe goes about sometimes) he wasn't into the game. again, great D can make someone have a bad game but great D can't make someone play passive on both ends of the floor. LBJ took himself out of game 5. Our D just exacerbated the matter.

having faith in your team isn't being a homer. But grossly overrating your own players or discrediting other teams and using that to credit your team would qualify as being a homer, i think. For example, game 4 of the '08 Finals. Lakers fans who say that they "gave away" game 4 implies that it was more of their fault rather than the Celtics actually digging deep, playing D, playing together and making big shots. Truth is, the Celtics won that game. Being up 24 with 24 minutes to go is nice but it doesn't seal the game. And i'm sure you agree with that example because it favors the Celtics. Yet, the similar thing happened in game 1 of this series, albeit in a smaller scale. Whatever "control" we had at halftime was taken from us by the Cavs at the start of the 4th.

We were a contender last year, that much i can agree with. And the Cavs were a contender too. I thought the series was close, up until game 4. As the other poster said, i don't think Lebron quit game 4. But then again, i didn't re-watch it. I'll take his word for it though. I do remember that the Rondo offensive rebound and putback iced what was a competitive game.

lastly, i highly recommend you changing your statement from Celtics dominating or controlling the Cavs earlier in the series to one where the Celtics weren't because well, they really weren't.



- LilRip

  Kudos for re-watching the game. I'm not about to.

  Maybe I'm not explaining myself well. I agree with you that, although I felt the Celts were the better team through the first four games, and the Celts were IMO in a better position after game 4, either team could have won the series at that point. It was, as you said, fairly competitive. However, Cleveland wasn't going to win the series unless they found a way to contain Rondo. When they showed in game 5 that they weren't capable of doing so they were in serious trouble. They still *could* still win, but the odds were long and they knew it.

[Snakehead]

Snakehead doesn't MIA have a forum?  If LeBron quit walking I don't want to say what would happen to you, lol.  I give you one thing you got his back and have about every excuse under the sun ready to cover it.

None of your arguments can convince me he isn't vastly over rated and lacks heart.  I lived in Ohio since 68' moved in '10.  I 've seen his high school games live have you?   I seen him play at the Q have you?   I 've seen his body langauge that the TV doesn't show.  Have you?   I have to pay for NBA pass to see my Celtics but I got to see Queen James for free all the time.   

I think this guy has about as much will to win as a sloth.  He is soft and weak.   I used to play a guy with a mindset just like him.  Oh, he was all state this and that and averaged 36 points a game in High School but he never ever beat me once, on the court because he was a mental wuss.  At the park, in the gym, I know how to get into his head and beat him and get him off his game.   The big things LeBron lack is killer instinct and a will to win, athletically he is off the board.  His skills aside from his shooting are phoenomenal ( he is a mediocre to slightly above average shooter at best).  Toughness is innate, you can't fake it or pretend your tough because a real tough guy is going to test you.

Wade is tough and will not give up.  I seen him will a team to beat Dallas in the finals.  Bosh and LeBron are not.  I think PP will whip on him again, we know Bosh is owned by KG and Allen is a good foil for Wade.

I actually lived just outside Cleveland up until 3 years ago, when I moved back to Mass, and I did see him play in high school AND at the Q.  I lived in Valley View, just outside Cleveland and not far from Akron.  I watched the Cavs when they were terrible, when Fat Shawn Kemp came there and later when the best player was Darius Miles, and then up until the LBJ years.  Thanks though.

I just like facts and reality to be foremost in my arguments.  You can call them excuses, I'll go with stats and facts, because that's what they are.  LeBron has been a great player at the end of games his whole career, though he is not a great jumpshooter.  Apparently if you don't shoot jump shots you are useless to most people in clutch situations.

You can say whatever you want but my eyes and facts and statistics show LeBron is not a choker.  He may not have the Jordan or Bird cutthroat level of compeitiveness, but that doesn't mean he doesn't want to win. If you swapped LBJ with Kobe and he played for LA they would of won the title soundly.  The truth is LBJ has always had a mediocre team around him, I was in Cleveland and I watched all those guys play for years and know their abilities. Coach Brown was also a complete joke.  Scott will be a big improvement, but as for the roster, watch how good that team is this year.

To say he doesn't want to win at all is baseless.  Especially considering he just went to a team where he will sacrifice MVP awards and personal stats to win.



Everyone can say I love LBJ so much, I just like him as a player, I watched him for years in Ohio, and some of the things said about him don't make any sense. I wouldn't go to a MIA forum because I am a CELTICS FAN first and foremost, and I don't need to belittle other players with non-factual jabs. I think our D and play was what drove LBJ to be frusterated and yes, eventually quit.

Before "The Decision" you wouldn't hear this kind of crap or if you would most would shoot it down.  Everyone should clear their head of that and view him as a basketball player.  If you don't like him as a person, fine, but as a player he is the leagues best.

[BballTim]

Snakehead doesn't MIA have a forum?  If LeBron quit walking I don't want to say what would happen to you, lol.  I give you one thing you got his back and have about every excuse under the sun ready to cover it.

None of your arguments can convince me he isn't vastly over rated and lacks heart.  I lived in Ohio since 68' moved in '10.  I 've seen his high school games live have you?   I seen him play at the Q have you?   I 've seen his body langauge that the TV doesn't show.  Have you?   I have to pay for NBA pass to see my Celtics but I got to see Queen James for free all the time.   

I think this guy has about as much will to win as a sloth.  He is soft and weak.   I used to play a guy with a mindset just like him.  Oh, he was all state this and that and averaged 36 points a game in High School but he never ever beat me once, on the court because he was a mental wuss.  At the park, in the gym, I know how to get into his head and beat him and get him off his game.   The big things LeBron lack is killer instinct and a will to win, athletically he is off the board.  His skills aside from his shooting are phoenomenal ( he is a mediocre to slightly above average shooter at best).  Toughness is innate, you can't fake it or pretend your tough because a real tough guy is going to test you.

Wade is tough and will not give up.  I seen him will a team to beat Dallas in the finals.  Bosh and LeBron are not.  I think PP will whip on him again, we know Bosh is owned by KG and Allen is a good foil for Wade.

I actually lived just outside Cleveland up until 3 years ago, when I moved back to Mass, and I did see him play in high school AND at the Q.  I lived in Valley View, just outside Cleveland and not far from Akron.  I watched the Cavs when they were terrible, when Fat Shawn Kemp came there and later when the best player was Darius Miles, and then up until the LBJ years.  Thanks though.

  I hate to break this to you guys but some of LeBron's HS games were on espn. My son, who was in grade school at the time, had seen some of LeBron's games. When we went to Test Track at disney he wanted to get his picture taken in the Hummer they had on display "just like LeBron did".

  I saw quite a few of Larry Bird's regular season college games on tv, btw.