The Heat have the two best players in the series

[PosImpos]

Why would Kobe not be in the top ten? How many rings has he won in his career?

Hint: It is five times as many as Lebron and Wade combined.

Go Dallas.

I'd put Kobe in the top 5.  He has a bunch of rings, but he only won one of those rings as the best performing player on his team (2009).  2000-2002 Shaq was the main man on those teams, and last season Pau Gasol was the key player in their championship run and the true Finals MVP.  Still, Kobe is a historically great player . . . he's just getting old now, just like the Big 3.

[Onslaught]

Yes - the Heat do in fact have the best two players not only in the series but IMO the NBA in Wade and Lebron.

But last time I checked Boston has the best Team.

After the last two games I'm not so sure about that.

[Moranis]

which means historically the Celtics have almost no chance.  Now down 0-2, it really is bleak.  And I'm not being a doubter, or a downer, or a pessimist.  I'm just being realistic.  Don't get me wrong, I obviously will pulling for the Celtics and think we can still win the series, but it really is bleak, and no, this is not an overreaction, it is just reality.

I've actually spent some time looking and the only time I can recall a team with the two best players in the series that lost was when Denver beat Seattle in the 8 over 1 upset.  Of course that was a 5 game series.  

  Since you rarely get a Wade/Lebron level of players on one team, your decisions about which are the top two players in a given series will generally be pretty subjective.

it is, but by all means find another series where the team with the two best players in the series lost.

Certainly you could put the Lakers loss to the Pistons there, but there was just so much going on in L.A. at the time between kobe and shaq, it is hard to tell how much of that loss was really basketball related.

Aside from those two I'm at a loss.

[Eja117]

which means historically the Celtics have almost no chance.  Now down 0-2, it really is bleak.  And I'm not being a doubter, or a downer, or a pessimist.  I'm just being realistic.  Don't get me wrong, I obviously will pulling for the Celtics and think we can still win the series, but it really is bleak, and no, this is not an overreaction, it is just reality.

I've actually spent some time looking and the only time I can recall a team with the two best players in the series that lost was when Denver beat Seattle in the 8 over 1 upset.  Of course that was a 5 game series. 

mmmm historically the team with the two best players probably doesn't play against 4 vet all-stars with rings

[SHAQATTACK]

We have three Hall-of-Famers in their Mid-30's

They have two or three Hall-of-Famers in their Mid-20's

This is the NBA.  That's pretty simple math to figure out who that favors

THank you for posting this thought.  This pretty much summs it up.

 If we just had KG as a 25 year old and PP and Allen at 34 we'd still win EASY.

The train has dun left the station for our three super stars .  Still great players, just phyically can't compete with young superstars 4 quarters.

Pat Riley has changed the NBA .  FOr him and Jackson its always been about who could get the most superstars on one team. Usually , ones not in their prime. Now the goal is to sell the house , promise the ranch to get three supers on a team .

I hate this , but its the way to get an advantage. IF YOU choose wisely how to make up the team.

[SHAQATTACK]

We have three Hall-of-Famers in their Mid-30's

They have two or three Hall-of-Famers in their Mid-20's

This is the NBA.  That's pretty simple math to figure out who that favors

Yup.  The Celtics generally play better team basketball, but the NBA is more than ever about teams that have multiple superstars in their prime.

All respect to the Celtics for what they've done over the past few years.  It's been a great run, and I'm excited to see what comes next.  I can only hope that Danny can do a good job of making the right moves to get us back to relevance within the next 5 years.  In the meantime, there are a lot of exciting young teams in the NBA with a chance to challenge the established NBA elite (two of them are going at it right now in OKC).

Dwight Howard is the best combined player in the NBA . CP3 is the the primer guard.

Not telling DA what to do.

D12+CP3 = banner 18-22

All I can say is DANNY ANIGE ...PLEASE
GET er DUN

[Moranis]

which means historically the Celtics have almost no chance.  Now down 0-2, it really is bleak.  And I'm not being a doubter, or a downer, or a pessimist.  I'm just being realistic.  Don't get me wrong, I obviously will pulling for the Celtics and think we can still win the series, but it really is bleak, and no, this is not an overreaction, it is just reality.

I've actually spent some time looking and the only time I can recall a team with the two best players in the series that lost was when Denver beat Seattle in the 8 over 1 upset.  Of course that was a 5 game series. 

mmmm historically the team with the two best players probably doesn't play against 4 vet all-stars with rings

Miami and San Antonio recently beat Detroit under pretty similar circumstances (though it could be argued that San An didn't have the two best players).

Also, teams up 2-0 win the series somewhere in the neighborhood of 95% of the time. 

Historically speaking none of that bodes well for the Celtics. 

[Moranis]

We have three Hall-of-Famers in their Mid-30's

They have two or three Hall-of-Famers in their Mid-20's

This is the NBA.  That's pretty simple math to figure out who that favors

THank you for posting this thought.  This pretty much summs it up.

 If we just had KG as a 25 year old and PP and Allen at 34 we'd still win EASY.

The train has dun left the station for our three super stars .  Still great players, just phyically can't compete with young superstars 4 quarters.

Pat Riley has changed the NBA .  FOr him and Jackson its always been about who could get the most superstars on one team. Usually , ones not in their prime. Now the goal is to sell the house , promise the ranch to get three supers on a team .

I hate this , but its the way to get an advantage. IF YOU choose wisely how to make up the team.

Um, I hate to tell you this, but Riley didn't change squat.  That has always been the way to win.  Sure, before you had to do it through the draft and trades, but the teams that win are the ones that have multiple future HOFers with most in their prime.  I mean seriously look at the list of NBA champions and you are hard pressed to find teams that don't have at least one HOFer and most have 2 or 3, and the ones that didn't were one hit wonders.  The teams that win multiple championship win them because they have multiple HOFers.  The Minny Lakers to Bill's Celtics to the Showtime Lakers to the original Big Three, to the Bad Boys, to MJ and Pippen, to the Spurs, to the Lakers 3 peat, to the current Lakers.  They all have multiple HOFers.  It is just the way the NBA works (the 70's was the only time there wasn't a dynastic team or two and that was quite simply because of all the change).

[winsomme]

I'm very frustrated by the analysis of this series. We dominated this team this year when we controlled the paint.

Now that we can't do that. Now that we don't have that advantage anymore, people are pointing everything other than the MAIN thing that has changed in this matchup.

I don't like that Danny put us in a position where we need Shaq, but I do believe that he is the difference maker.

I just hope PP and Shaq can play in game 3 to test out this theory.

[Eja117]

which means historically the Celtics have almost no chance.  Now down 0-2, it really is bleak.  And I'm not being a doubter, or a downer, or a pessimist.  I'm just being realistic.  Don't get me wrong, I obviously will pulling for the Celtics and think we can still win the series, but it really is bleak, and no, this is not an overreaction, it is just reality.

I've actually spent some time looking and the only time I can recall a team with the two best players in the series that lost was when Denver beat Seattle in the 8 over 1 upset.  Of course that was a 5 game series. 

mmmm historically the team with the two best players probably doesn't play against 4 vet all-stars with rings

Miami and San Antonio recently beat Detroit under pretty similar circumstances (though it could be argued that San An didn't have the two best players).

Also, teams up 2-0 win the series somewhere in the neighborhood of 95% of the time. 

Historically speaking none of that bodes well for the Celtics. 

Well then it's a good thing instead of speaking historically we're speaking presently   

[Moranis]

I'm very frustrated by the analysis of this series. We dominated this team this year when we controlled the paint.

Now that we can't do that. Now that we don't have that advantage anymore, people are pointing everything other than the MAIN thing that has changed in this matchup.

I don't like that Danny put us in a position where we need Shaq, but I do believe that he is the difference maker.

I just hope PP and Shaq can play in game 3 to test out this theory.

we played them twice in the first 9 games.  I really can't count those games given all of the changes the Heat had, especially without Wade playing much of the pre-season.  However, even in those games, to say we dominated them in the paint, just isn't accurate.  In game 1, Shaq and JO combined for 10 points and 9 boards in 31 minutes and shot a whopping 3 of 10.  In the second game Shaq was 1 of 4 with 5 points and 7 boards in 21 minutes and JO was already hurt. 

Even in the third game, Perkins scored 15 points but had just 6 boards in 31 minutes.  That is the best game we had in the interior, and there was no JO or Shaq either.  Now you could argue that Perkins in the middle made Wade and Lebron avoid the paint, but I just don't believe that was the case based on what I remember of the game.  I think Wade just had a bad game and they lost a close game on the road because of it.

[pearljammer10]

Its pretty obvious that Wade and James are the best players in the series.

[ManUp]

No one on ourside has outplayed Bosh either so you could say 3 best players.

[PosImpos]

No one on ourside has outplayed Bosh either so you could say 3 best players.

I was thinking the same thing.

[Moranis]

No one on ourside has outplayed Bosh either so you could say 3 best players.

Bosh has played well, but that doesn't mean he is better then KG or Pierce right now.  He is certainly in that area, but I still think both KG and Pierce are better players then Bosh.  Probably not next year though.