Author Topic: Over simplification in debunking, "The game 7 myth"  (Read 6704 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Over simplification in debunking, "The game 7 myth"
« on: March 07, 2011, 04:53:17 PM »

Offline Carhole

  • Derrick White
  • Posts: 283
  • Tommy Points: 63
The rambling rant alarm has been sounded read on at own risk.

Since the Perkin's trade I have heard this horrific statement so many times on tv, radio and have read it in print.

"All of you said that Perkins was the difference in game 7 and that is so not true. Even worse it is pathetic and the Lakers could easily say the same thing about the 08 finals regarding Bynum"

First off, let me say that even though I do fully believe we win game 7 if perk does not blow out his knee, I also believe that saying to lakers fans (or anyone else) that the title is some how cheapened and you didnt really "beat" us is a sore losers mentality and ridiculous to say.

The game was played and (gulp) the team with the most points at the end won, those are the rules. More power to the Lakers

Now to debunking, the debunking of, the game 7 "myth". Maybe it just bothers me because I finally heard even Shaugnessy say it but we did loose that game on the boards! I know, I know our offense went into a shell from the the 8 min mark of the third through the rest of the game but there were some big reasons for that:

  • The lakers forced the ball away from PP and KG. Even doubling PP at half court on 3 consecutive possessions after he hit the 3 from the top of the key.

    Kobe ignoring the existance of rajon rondo to swallow up any defensive rebound between the charge circle and foul line. That is where so many of the cheap offensive rebs are found during a game and we got none and Kobe had 15+ boards.

    Rondo was petrified to penetrate and go to the line.

    Ray couldnt throw it in the ocean until the last 2 mins of the game

All that being said, the lakers couldnt score either. We were still keeping them from getting any good looks at the basket through their initial O. The only thing that kept them from shooting below 25% in that game was THE PUTBACKS! If Kendrick had bodied up Gasol (which with Bynum's limited minutes he almost definitely would have) so KG could go back to Odom as in 08. I believe we have 3 extra defensive boards and can seal the game away.

Also, Kendrick was our only big man that would actually box out, his absence was a big reason (imo) that KG only had 3 boards. Perk and KG were a great pair defensively, perk cleared the space KG cleaned up the board.

But most importantly last year Perk was an established player. We know what Perk could do (and what he couldnt do) so saying that he was worth 5 points in a slug it out defensive battle of a game 7 does not seem that far fetched to me.

Here is why it is 100% different then someone trying to sell the lakers loss in 08 as a gift because bynum was out.

1 - bynum to that point had started less than 82 games in his career! He was still a huge work in progress. There is no way to have any understanding of his value to the team. The lakers played the final two thirds of the season and the entire playoffs without him. They didnt just randomly lose him two nights before the final game of the season and have to adjust on the fly.

2 - Most importantly, the Celtics THRASHED the laker's. Bob Ryan referred to it as the first ever "6 game sweep". The lakers were not winning that series and in fact 1 of the 2 games they won, happened to come in game 5 when perk did not play!

08 was a much better team handling a very good team

10 was two very good teams battling it out and one of those teams losing a pretty nice piece for the deciding game.

Both titles were earned and well deserved but to

Gresh, Zo, Dale (RIP), Felger, Mazz, Curly Haired Dan and every other person who has said that 08 and 10 were the same situation and even out. I am definitively telling you - they were not.

God I want the Celtics to beat LA in June
« Last Edit: March 07, 2011, 05:12:44 PM by Carhole »

Re: Over simplification in debunking, "The game 7 myth"
« Reply #1 on: March 07, 2011, 04:56:51 PM »

Offline Mike-Dub

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3578
  • Tommy Points: 28
Great post TP.
"It's all about having the heart of a champion." - #34 Paul Pierce

Re: Over simplification in debunking, "The game 7 myth"
« Reply #2 on: March 07, 2011, 05:07:36 PM »

Offline Megatron

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1586
  • Tommy Points: 136
Injured KG with 3 rebounds and relying on a washed up Rasheed Wallace who was never a good "in-the-paint" guy and wasnt even a true center was the reason we lost.

The fact that we were even in a game 7 on the road with KG on one leg was a miracle in its own.

We didnt deserve to win last year, not after that terrible regular season and having multiple injuries on our roster, we just werent the better team under those circumstances.

Re: Over simplification in debunking, "The game 7 myth"
« Reply #3 on: March 07, 2011, 05:09:22 PM »

Offline Carhole

  • Derrick White
  • Posts: 283
  • Tommy Points: 63
Great post TP.

Thanks, great response!

TP

Re: Over simplification in debunking, "The game 7 myth"
« Reply #4 on: March 07, 2011, 05:15:42 PM »

Offline wdleehi

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34115
  • Tommy Points: 1612
  • Basketball is Newtonian Physics
Injured KG with 3 rebounds and relying on a washed up Rasheed Wallace who was never a good "in-the-paint" guy and wasnt even a true center was the reason we lost.

The fact that we were even in a game 7 on the road with KG on one leg was a miracle in its own.

We didnt deserve to win last year, not after that terrible regular season and having multiple injuries on our roster, we just werent the better team under those circumstances.


The Celtics were good enough to win a title last year.


The depth at C doomed them game 7.  That's why we saw the Oneals in the offseason. 


A few more defensive rebounds means a few less 2nd chance points for the Lakers and a few more offensive possessions for the Celtics.  In a close game, that is often the difference in winning and losing. 



Re: Over simplification in debunking, "The game 7 myth"
« Reply #5 on: March 07, 2011, 05:21:54 PM »

Offline The DarkPassenger

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 556
  • Tommy Points: 46
I think that one over looked reason to why the Celtics lost Game 7 was minutes played by the starters. As soon as those minutes for our guys started going over 40 minutes we were in trouble and it showed because toward the end of the game they had lost there legs and Lakers were still going. Kobe was still use to playing 40 plus.

Overall it was not THE reason but I do see it as one of the reasons. Garnett played 38 minutes, Paul played 46 minutes, Rondo played 45 and Ray played 45. Wallace played 36 and the only member of the bench who saw the floor for a significant amount of time was BBD at 21 minutes. Playing those kind of minutes is not our game and I had a bad feeling the whole game cause both benches were literally invisible and that played into the hands of the Lakers.

Rebounds was one of the factors and so was the refs (to a lesser degree though) and the points the op said but this was over looked I believe. You could say that players should be in shape to play those kind of minutes but we weren't. We had a big lead at one point, so I would have thought that Doc would sit some of the older guys, yeah it's "Game 7" but you need to have energy to play still towards the end of the game. I don't know, just a thought, or an observation really. 
"Talent wins games, but teamwork and intelligence wins championships." - Michael Jordan

"Music washes away from the soul the dust of everyday life."- Red Auerbach

Re: Over simplification in debunking, "The game 7 myth"
« Reply #6 on: March 07, 2011, 05:22:24 PM »

Offline RebusRankin

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9143
  • Tommy Points: 923
21-6 fta advantage for Lakers = a stolen title.
Let's also add Gasol being allowed to mug KH and KG getting a ton of foul calls that were ticky tack in the first few games plus Artest "accidently" kneeing" Ray after his record setting 3 pointers amde game.

Re: Over simplification in debunking, "The game 7 myth"
« Reply #7 on: March 07, 2011, 05:32:10 PM »

Offline Dunn

  • Sam Hauser
  • Posts: 150
  • Tommy Points: 11
Injured KG with 3 rebounds and relying on a washed up Rasheed Wallace who was never a good "in-the-paint" guy and wasnt even a true center was the reason we lost.
I guess I should just disregard the 13 point lead Sheed and KG help build before Rasheed tweaked his back? I like your version Carhole, unforntunately you don't mention Glen Davis's part in this because it undeniably went downhill after he subbed in. I know he doesn't get all the blame but whoever still thinks worse of Rasheed needs explain his role in that big lead vs Baby's role in trying to keep it. I understand we didn't deserve it, seems like every injury struck every single vital nerve this team needed to finish. The way Sheed began and ended last tells me everything I need to know about how good he was, besides all of Detroit can back me up.

Re: Over simplification in debunking, "The game 7 myth"
« Reply #8 on: March 07, 2011, 05:34:15 PM »

Offline wdleehi

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34115
  • Tommy Points: 1612
  • Basketball is Newtonian Physics
23 offensive rebounds (vs 32 defensive rebounds by the Celtics)


23 extra offensive plays.  Win by 4. 



The Celtics defense was good enough except for ending possessions. 

Re: Over simplification in debunking, "The game 7 myth"
« Reply #9 on: March 07, 2011, 05:41:38 PM »

Offline mgent

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7567
  • Tommy Points: 1962
I agree about the Bynum thing.

On top of that we didn't take Bynum from them but Perk was hurt when we were up 3-2 by the Lakers.
Philly:

Anderson Varejao    Tiago Splitter    Matt Bonner
David West    Kenyon Martin    Brad Miller
Andre Iguodala    Josh Childress    Marquis Daniels
Dwyane Wade    Leandro Barbosa
Kirk Hinrich    Toney Douglas   + the legendary Kevin McHale

Re: Over simplification in debunking, "The game 7 myth"
« Reply #10 on: March 07, 2011, 05:43:04 PM »

Offline GreenEnvy

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4673
  • Tommy Points: 1043
I had to stop reading after halfway through. I don't want to even think about it. Far and away the worst sports moment of my life.

It's over. It's done. I don't even care about what woulda/coulda/shoulda happened had Perk played. He didn't. We lost. We are never getting it back.

I will say I'll probably never fully get over it or forget that night and the feeling the next day.

All I care about is #18, we didn't get it last year, but it's there for the taking this year.
CELTICS 2024

Re: Over simplification in debunking, "The game 7 myth"
« Reply #11 on: March 07, 2011, 05:43:24 PM »

Offline Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32826
  • Tommy Points: 1733
  • What a Pub Should Be
I do not recall these events.

Guess they've been blacked out from my memory.


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Re: Over simplification in debunking, "The game 7 myth"
« Reply #12 on: March 07, 2011, 06:09:07 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123


  So the point of this thread is to debunk myths that you don't like and replace them with other myths?

Re: Over simplification in debunking, "The game 7 myth"
« Reply #13 on: March 07, 2011, 06:13:35 PM »

Offline ejk3489

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2233
  • Tommy Points: 215
I had to stop reading after halfway through. I don't want to even think about it. Far and away the worst sports moment of my life.

It's over. It's done. I don't even care about what woulda/coulda/shoulda happened had Perk played. He didn't. We lost. We are never getting it back.

I will say I'll probably never fully get over it or forget that night and the feeling the next day.

All I care about is #18, we didn't get it last year, but it's there for the taking this year.

Yeah, this.

I still can't believe people have gone back and watched that game again. I couldn't even handle the beginning of part 1 of the Association because it was too painful.

Re: Over simplification in debunking, "The game 7 myth"
« Reply #14 on: March 07, 2011, 06:14:55 PM »

Offline Carhole

  • Derrick White
  • Posts: 283
  • Tommy Points: 63
Injured KG with 3 rebounds and relying on a washed up Rasheed Wallace who was never a good "in-the-paint" guy and wasnt even a true center was the reason we lost.
I guess I should just disregard the 13 point lead Sheed and KG help build before Rasheed tweaked his back? I like your version Carhole, unforntunately you don't mention Glen Davis's part in this because it undeniably went downhill after he subbed in. I know he doesn't get all the blame but whoever still thinks worse of Rasheed needs explain his role in that big lead vs Baby's role in trying to keep it. I understand we didn't deserve it, seems like every injury struck every single vital nerve this team needed to finish. The way Sheed began and ended last tells me everything I need to know about how good he was, besides all of Detroit can back me up.


There were obviously additional things that "could have" changed the outcome. BBD's performance being one. Them calling an obvoius hack on KG's layup by gasol in the 4th with the game tied. But that wasn't really the purpose of the rant.

It was the media types trying to say that people are crazy for thinking perk could have been the difference and if you state that argument then you have to be willing to accept some taint on the 08 title when the two events are simply not comparable. It was a 4 pt game. We gave them 23 extra possessions. And the game before that we lost our best space maker on the defensive glass. You can make a direct correlation between those two things.

You can't however make a direct correlation to a team getting whoop in a series. After having played 2/3 of the season, winning the entire western conference and being a heavy favorite without a player who only had started 80 games for them the past two years.