EPT=)
NBA Playoffs 2010 - Page 187
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
bearbuddy
3442 Posts
=) | ||
|
Miss_Cleo
United States406 Posts
On June 19 2010 01:25 Butigroove wrote: Did Kobe really say that what this championship meant to him was having 1 more than Shaq? ... What a classless asshole. Remember what happened when Kobe didn't win the 2008 finals? Remember that "rap" shaq did after the feud was over? Shaq is a piece of shit, and Kobe deserves to say it. It was a bit crass, but whatever, | ||
OneOther
United States10774 Posts
On June 19 2010 11:30 Servolisk wrote: I doubt it. This year it could have gone either way, and if some other east team like cleveland and possibly orlando made it they could have won too. Then there are the free agents who are going to create 2 new contenders. Maybe LAL won't be the best LA team if Lebron goes to the clippers and Blake Griffin is healthy and they sign someone else ^_^ I am sure Wade is going to get Bosh or Stoudemire and other free agents. It would be sweet if they had Wade+Stoudemire+Ray Allen... perfect combo :O BTW for the Lebron/Kobe/Wade comparisons, you could compare how they all did vs. Boston and come up with this ranking: 1. Wade 2. Kobe 3. Lebron Miami is definitely going to build a contender around Wade this year, and there will be a lot of new up and coming teams with cap space like chicago and OKC which lower the odds for the older teams to continue success. Picking Wade as finals MVP now  Maybe absurdly premature, but no more than predicting a 3 peat :p Uhmm, this is the most absurd post I have seen in this thread lol First, Orlando and Cleveland were not good enough to beat LA or Boston in a seven game series this year. Period. Second, picking Wade as the Finals MVP when we don't even know anything about how free agency will turn out is much more absurd than the Lakers winning again. How are they remotely similar or comparable? Lakers are keeping their core players and will be the primary contenders again. I don't understand how predicting a three-peat for them is absurd at all, considering they just won two years in a row against Orlando and a very, very good team in Boston. Their players are coming back, too. The chances of Wade staying in Miami, getting a top player to come with him, signing championship caliber role players, forming good team chemistry, and winning the championship...compared to the chances of a team winning a third title after earning two in a row while keeping the same players...No. How does your ranking of Wade/Kobe/Lebron work? Kobe just beat Boston in the NBA Finals and he's behind Wade in that stupid ranking...what. I can't tell if you are kidding or not | ||
|
Subversion
South Africa3627 Posts
| ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
On June 19 2010 06:19 city42 wrote: You said he was "trashed" by the Pistons. I think you should hop over to dictionary.com before using a word you don't understand, if you truly understand that the series were close. Magic was on his way out? Are you just going to say that without any evidence to back it up? His numbers hadn't taken a drop at all. Second in the MVP voting, first team all-NBA, led the Lakers past the Blazers who had the best record in the NBA. The Lakers were ravaged by injury in the '91 finals, otherwise it would have been a 6-7 game series without question. Magic was absolutely not slipping at all. Also, if we're being super-technical here, Hakeem wasn't even relevant during Jordan's prime ('88-'92), so it's hard to qualify him as hyper-dominant. He was stuck on horrible teams and had huge attitude issues, very nearly getting traded. I just re-read the entire post I replied to, and there isn't even a mention of the Sonics directly...there was only the "considerably weaker defensive teams" line. Also, the Jazz were a good defensive team. Those years were skewed because Pat Riley ruined the league and every team decided to play brutal, physical games which resulted in very low scoring. Utah wasn't in Seattle's class on the defensive end, but they weren't exactly the '90 Nuggets. The pistons knocked Jordan out of the play-offs in several consecutive years... I would say trashed is appropriate. Yes, some of the series were close, but the overall score isn't. To me it seemed like Magic played worse than before. Regardless, the Bulls had Jordan in his prime, and good match ups. That's why my point about Hakeem stands, Jordan didn't play against great defensive teams (or teams with a hyper-dominant player) in the finals of his second three-peat, and like I said before EXCEPT the sonics, who were great defensively (they had Gary Payton srsly) and Jordan wasn't that great in that game statistically. I think I talked about the Sonics in my second post, I'm pretty sure. The Jazz weren't a good defensive team at all, at least not against the Bulls. | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
On June 19 2010 11:51 OneOther wrote: Uhmm, this is the most absurd post I have seen in this thread lol First, Orlando and Cleveland were not good enough to beat LA or Boston in a seven game series this year. Period. Second, picking Wade as the Finals MVP when we don't even know anything about how free agency will turn out is much more absurd than the Lakers winning again. How are they remotely similar or comparable? Lakers are keeping their core players and will be the primary contenders again. I don't understand how predicting a three-peat for them is absurd at all, considering they just won two years in a row against Orlando and a very, very good team in Boston. Their players are coming back, too. The chances of Wade staying in Miami, getting a top player to come with him, signing championship caliber role players, forming good team chemistry, and winning the championship...compared to the chances of a team winning a third title after earning two in a row while keeping the same players...No. How does your ranking of Wade/Kobe/Lebron work? Kobe just beat Boston in the NBA Finals and he's behind Wade in that stupid ranking...what. I can't tell if you are kidding or not Uhh, of course it was meant to be an unsubstantiated prediction, the point being it also is for the Lakers. They didn't cruise to a championship and the largest possibility is things get tougher. But I do expect the free agency to result in 1-2 very, very good contenders. All of these players can choose where they go and want to be on contenders, so it is likely. As for the ranking, are you kidding? Look at Wade's performance vs Boston vs Kobe's there is no comparison individually. Why would you count team results in comparison of individual players when the teams are drastically different? MPG FG% 3p% FT% OFF DEF RPG APG SPG BPG TO PF PPG Kobe: 41.1 0.405 0.319 0.883 1.7 6.3 8.0 3.9 2.1 0.7 3.9 3.9 28.6 Wade: 42.0 0.564 0.405 0.675 1.2 4.4 5.6 6.8 1.6 1.6 5.2 3.2 33.2 edit: And why did you say Cleveland is not good enough to beat LA this year so dismissively, lol... It's like you are purely going on Boston beat Cleveland and LA beat Boston therefore LA would have beaten Cleveland. | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
On June 19 2010 11:44 Miss_Cleo wrote: Remember what happened when Kobe didn't win the 2008 finals? Remember that "rap" shaq did after the feud was over? Shaq is a piece of shit, and Kobe deserves to say it. It was a bit crass, but whatever, LOL, first, in actual context it came off as a joke. Second, what kind of Lakers fan really calls Shaq a piece of shit, honestly. O_O Since I knew this would be on the net from some discussion elsewhere I looked up the Shaq and Kobe numbers on google when they played together. 2000 NBA Finals Shaq- 38 PPG, 17 RPG, 2.5 APG, 2.7 BPG, 61% FG 96/157 Kobe-16 PPG, 5 RPG, 4 APG, 1.4 BPG, 36% FG%, 33/90 2001 NBA Finals Shaq- 33 PPG, 16 RPG, 5 APG, 3.5 BPG, 63/110 57% FG Kobe- 24 PPG, 8 RPG, 6 APG, 1.4 BPG, 44/106 41% FG 2002 NBA Finals Shaq- 37 PPG, 12.25 RPG, 4 APG, 2.75 BPG, 50/84 60% FG Kobe-26 PPG, 5.75 RPG, 5 APG, .75 BPG, 36/70 51% FG combined: Shaq-36 PPG, 15.4 RPG, 3.7 APG, 3 BPG, 209/351 60% FG Kobe-20 PPG, 6 RPG, 4.6 APG, 1 BPG, 113/266 42% FG 2004 NBA finals 5 games loss Shaq= 27 PPG, 11 RPG, 2 APG, .6 BPG, 53/84 63% FG Kobe=22 PPG, 3 RPG, 4 APG, .6 BPG, 43/113 38% FG ... lol | ||
|
OneOther
United States10774 Posts
On June 19 2010 12:17 Servolisk wrote: Uhh, of course it was meant to be an unsubstantiated prediction, the point being it also is for the Lakers. They didn't cruise to a championship and the largest possibility is things get tougher. But I do expect the free agency to result in 1-2 very, very good contenders. All of these players can choose where they go and want to be on contenders, so it is likely. As for the ranking, are you kidding? Look at Wade's performance vs Boston vs Kobe's there is no comparison individually. Why would you count team results in comparison of individual players when the teams are drastically different? MPG FG% 3p% FT% OFF DEF RPG APG SPG BPG TO PF PPG Kobe: 41.1 0.405 0.319 0.883 1.7 6.3 8.0 3.9 2.1 0.7 3.9 3.9 28.6 Wade: 42.0 0.564 0.405 0.675 1.2 4.4 5.6 6.8 1.6 1.6 5.2 3.2 33.2 Okay so I guess you agree Orlando and Cleveland weren't good enough. Your prediction is unsubstantial, the Lakers being the definite favorite to repeat next year isn't. No shit they didn't cruise to a championship, they played an incredibly strong team in Boston. You are not supposed to cruise a championship, it's not a piece of cake to win the title lol. My main point is, at least make these predictions and start discussing it after free agency is settled. You don't even know which players are going where. You don't even know if Wade is staying in Miami, and there are other numerous factors as well. Lakers winning again after repeating this year isn't an unsubstantial prediction especially when they are keeping the same players. No I am not kidding. Your ranking just made no sense to me and I still don't know what you are trying to say. Boston became a much tougher team versus Lakers than they were against Heat after going through Cleveland/Orlando, and they were at their defensive peak. Remind me though, why are we looking at their numbers against Boston again? What does that ranking even mean? | ||
|
OneOther
United States10774 Posts
And why did you say Cleveland is not good enough to beat LA this year so dismissively, lol... It's like you are purely going on Boston beat Cleveland and LA beat Boston therefore LA would have beaten Cleveland. Because I actually watch basketball and know the game well enough to tell when a team is clearly better than the other? And yeah, results do speak for themselves. LA and Boston were evenly matched, and better than Cleveland in the playoffs. | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
And geez the prediction Wade will be the next finals MVP does not need to seriously be debated. | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
On June 19 2010 12:33 OneOther wrote: Because I actually watch basketball and know the game well enough to tell when a team is clearly better than the other? :| OK. Clearly. edit: unadaptable homer, lol... gg | ||
|
OneOther
United States10774 Posts
| ||
|
Butigroove
Seychelles2061 Posts
On June 19 2010 04:38 Smigi wrote: When Shaq won a championship with Miami, he was asked how he was feeling, and he said "one more then kobe bryant". Thats why Kobe said it. and thats why he said "I Don't Forget" after he said it. So both of them are class-less assholes? Hurray lol. | ||
|
OneOther
United States10774 Posts
On June 19 2010 12:36 Servolisk wrote: :| OK. Clearly. edit: unadaptable homer, lol... gg I mean, at least explain why you think Cleveland would beat LA in a best-of-seven. You can't just make a claim and not give explanations! Because for everyone who watched them get smacked by Boston, it's difficult to picture Cleveland beat LA in a series given how the Cavaliers lost their flair in the playoffs. Gotta get going though. Great season! See ya'll next year  | ||
|
Judicator
United States7270 Posts
Cleveland certainly has/had the talent to beat LAL, whether they have effort and focus to is a different story. The way they bowed out to Boston really makes me wonder about all the team-oriented factors. Edit: Someone get the Offseason thread started, the next season can't start soon enough | ||
|
Miss_Cleo
United States406 Posts
On June 19 2010 12:24 Servolisk wrote: LOL, first, in actual context it came off as a joke. Second, what kind of Lakers fan really calls Shaq a piece of shit, honestly. O_O Since I knew this would be on the net from some discussion elsewhere I looked up the Shaq and Kobe numbers on google when they played together. 2000 NBA Finals Shaq- 38 PPG, 17 RPG, 2.5 APG, 2.7 BPG, 61% FG 96/157 Kobe-16 PPG, 5 RPG, 4 APG, 1.4 BPG, 36% FG%, 33/90 2001 NBA Finals Shaq- 33 PPG, 16 RPG, 5 APG, 3.5 BPG, 63/110 57% FG Kobe- 24 PPG, 8 RPG, 6 APG, 1.4 BPG, 44/106 41% FG 2002 NBA Finals Shaq- 37 PPG, 12.25 RPG, 4 APG, 2.75 BPG, 50/84 60% FG Kobe-26 PPG, 5.75 RPG, 5 APG, .75 BPG, 36/70 51% FG combined: Shaq-36 PPG, 15.4 RPG, 3.7 APG, 3 BPG, 209/351 60% FG Kobe-20 PPG, 6 RPG, 4.6 APG, 1 BPG, 113/266 42% FG 2004 NBA finals 5 games loss Shaq= 27 PPG, 11 RPG, 2 APG, .6 BPG, 53/84 63% FG Kobe=22 PPG, 3 RPG, 4 APG, .6 BPG, 43/113 38% FG ... lol We all know Shaq is a great basketball player. He's a shit person though. Remember that TV show Shaq VS.? I read somewhere that it was actually Steve Nash's idea, and Shaq ripped it off therefore he had to give Nash credit as a producer. He also slept with Gilbert Arenas's wife IIRC. I just think that he's a media whore and a terrible person. | ||
|
Kazius
Israel1456 Posts
On June 19 2010 12:41 OneOther wrote: I mean, at least explain why you think Cleveland would beat LA in a best-of-seven. You can't just make a claim and not give explanations! Because for everyone who watched them get smacked by Boston, it's difficult to picture Cleveland beat LA in a series given how the Cavaliers lost their flair in the playoffs. Gotta get going though. Great season! See ya'll next year I'll play the devil's advocate here: Artest couldn't have guarded LeBron the way he did Pierce, while Cleveland have plenty of bodies to throw at Gasol and Bryant. Cleveland are younger than Boston, have a deeper rotation, a first class superstar, and in a prolonged series they'd have more than just willpower. Also, the refs give LeBron the same respect they give Kobe, and there'd be a lot more foul trouble in Laker-Land than in Cleveland, as opposed to the Boston series. They'd have home-court advantage, a much more flexible and adaptable rotation, and a better player to hand the ball to than Pierce or Rondo when things get hairy. Also, with LeBron there is no question of length of the players as they'd have as big or bigger players in both forward positions, and an injured center wouldn't have that big of an impact. Of course, I don't believe that - I think Boston matched up with the Lakers far better than Cleveland could, had far more determination, better coaching, higher intensity, and could hit every one of LA's weaknesses (and no, the Cavs couldn't) - only bad luck (Perkins injured, Gasol managing to escape the eyes of the refs with some rather blatant fouls) kept them from doing the unimaginable (the Lakers after all ARE the stronger team). Cleveland in it's current incarnation is far too one-dimensional and doesn't have the spirit needed to win championships. They are just far less convincing on-court than their numbers suggest, and get away with too much due to physical advantages making up for a lack of refinement and ball-movement skills; a true reflection of LeBron. | ||
Xeris
Iran17695 Posts
a b c There's a reason Jordan and Kobe are so great. They're fucking arrogant motherfuckers, and they know it.. they have to back it up :p | ||
|
igotmyown
United States4291 Posts
The 2010 Celtics team is still baffling to explain, but it mostly seems like a dominant defensive team (I think Wade was the only player who played well against them) with randomly good offensive performances from individual players. Ray Allen, Pierce, Garnett, and Rondo have put up performances ranging from abysmal to stellar throughout the playoffs, and one could argue that if Rondo or Allen or Pierce had done so early in the 4th quarter in game 7, the Celtics would have won. Cleveland is capable of beating the Lakers in a 7 game series, but they are also capable of being completely outcoached, overplaying bad players/matchups, and throwing out a season's worth of offensive sets. Cleveland has good ball movement and a reasonably balanced offense, just not when it counts. | ||
|
OneOther
United States10774 Posts
On June 19 2010 16:24 igotmyown wrote: You can't really say whether Lakers would beat Cleveland or vice versa. In 2008, people were talking about how good Cleveland was because they took Boston to the final minutes of game 7, whereas the Celtics annihilated the Lakers in game 6. The 2010 Celtics team is still baffling to explain, but it mostly seems like a dominant defensive team (I think Wade was the only player who played well against them) with randomly good offensive performances from individual players. Ray Allen, Pierce, Garnett, and Rondo have put up performances ranging from abysmal to stellar throughout the playoffs, and one could argue that if Rondo or Allen or Pierce had done so early in the 4th quarter in game 7, the Celtics would have won. Cleveland is capable of beating the Lakers in a 7 game series, but they are also capable of being completely outcoached, overplaying bad players/matchups, and throwing out a season's worth of offensive sets. Cleveland has good ball movement and a reasonably balanced offense, just not when it counts. I understand that transitive property doesn't work in basketball, but we can make an educated and reasonable assumption that Lakers would beat Cleveland in a best-of-seven. This assumption is based on the postseason performance we have seen from the Cavaliers, the caliber of the Boston team that they lost to, and the ultimate championship play from the Lakers. Of course you can't be hundred percent positive that Lakers would, but they would be the heavy favorites no matter how you look at it. One could say with a lot of confidence that the Lakers would win. | ||
| ||
