Someone was saying that the Lakers will keep their core. True. But don't forget one thing: Phil Jackson is likely leaving for good. I hope not, because he's the best coach ever.
Man tough luck Celtics. Rajon and Ray with super clutch 3s but same with Artest. AND Kobe just had an ok game. Hard to beat Lakers when Kobe's teammates are getting work done. Decent back and forth series.
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.
Rofl OneOther I can't believe you're actually qualifying this opinion -- LA would 100% destroy Cleveland if they played this year. That Cavs team simply didn't want it badly enough. They quit in 3 of the 6 games against Boston, including the last 2 minutes of an elimination game. The disparity in effort / focus / desire is so great, if Cleveland played LA in 10 bo7s they probably wouldn't win any. Cleveland is what it is -- a great regular season team. But they did not play well at all in the playoffs, and they wouldn't beat LA. They probably have the best player, but the Lakers' #2 3 4 5 6 players are all better than Cleveland's. It's not even close.
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.
Rofl OneOther I can't believe you're actually qualifying this opinion -- LA would 100% destroy Cleveland if they played this year. That Cavs team simply didn't want it badly enough. They quit in 3 of the 6 games against Boston, including the last 2 minutes of an elimination game. The disparity in effort / focus / desire is so great, if Cleveland played LA in 10 bo7s they probably wouldn't win any. Cleveland is what it is -- a great regular season team. But they did not play well at all in the playoffs, and they wouldn't beat LA. They probably have the best player, but the Lakers' #2 3 4 5 6 players are all better than Cleveland's. It's not even close.
I've got to agree with Hotbid. Lebron's "everything's okay" speech after their first loss, and the later game meltdown was just a sign that he doesn't quite have the attitude necessary yet to push it through. Hopefully he will comeback next year with a killer instinct, and drive his teammates to play up to his level.
As for LA/Boston, that was one of the most brutal defensive series I've seen. I would have never guessed the series would be won on the offensive boards for LA.
EPT
I feel like over the past few years we've developed a formula oO!~
