Congrats Laker friends!

[Reality]

So you are posting shooting stats to prove what exactly?  That good defense was played?    I am going to put exactly what I am getting at in ( ) so there is no dancing around or trying to twist points being made.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since we are talking about Kobe's horrible shooting  let us also look at this stats for the Celtics:

Ray Allen, Paul Pierce: 8 for 29

(What is this getting at Reality?  That when Kobe shoots poorly the Lakers can still win as long as the other stars are shooting just as poor.)

Indeed, Bostons two top fga's got 12 fta's combined.
Kobme and Gasol got 28

In the final quarter Rondo, Allen, and Pierce only made 4 shots between the 3 of them.

(What is this getting at Reality? Its pretty tough to win games when your 3 best players can only generate 4 buckets in the 4th quarter and dont try to go towards the rim as a bulk of their shots came 17 or more feet out)

Maybe if they jumped up and down -with the ball- and then shot and made it from close range their percentage would go up.  Do you think the refs would extend that to them also?
I'll check with some non Lakers or review the 4th myself to see how your "take it to the rim" stats line up.  As with the rest of the games.

As to a play by play review, I'm up to that any time any day with any of you.
But i have no intention of going round and round on points that are clear as a bell.
As another board poster said "You could have Stern and the refs make a deathbed confession and most if not all in Lakerdom would still not believe them."

[Reality]

So you are posting shooting stats to prove what exactly?  That good defense was played?    I am going to put exactly what I am getting at in ( ) so there is no dancing around or trying to twist points being made.

How about attempts in the paint?  Surely this points to who might have been attacking the rim more right?

The Lakers had 21 attempts in the paint
The Celtics had 11 attempts in the paint

If espn is to be believed
Shots in the Paint 4th qtr
Lakers 3
Boston 4

Game points in the paint
Lakers 38
Boston 36

You're claiming the Celtics had only 11 attempts from the paint the entire game yet espn has the Celts down for 36 points in the paint? 

[Laker Fan]

Ah well, the silence WAS golden, even if only for a couple of days, back to missing posting here.

Again, thanks for the true sports fans here who are classy enough and noble enough to come in here and offer congratulation without all the yeah but... garbage.

JN, JoMal, Rick, I appreciate your kudo's, it's cats like you that keep me at least checking in occasionally, (even if you and I RARELY see eye to Rick, at least you give credit where credit is due)

[Reality]

Ah well, the silence WAS golden, even if only for a couple of days, back to missing posting here.

Again, thanks for the true sports fans here who are classy enough and noble enough to come in here and offer congratulation without all the yeah but... garbage.

JN, JoMal, Rick, I appreciate your kudo's, it's cats like you that keep me at least checking in occasionally, (even if you and I RARELY see eye to Rick, at least you give credit where credit is due)

Those "cats" had all-favorable comments re your Lakers, so you appreciate their posts on this thread yes got it. 
Could we get you to expound on your own posting? 

Bolding below is mine, quotes are from Derek Bodner.
Derek Bodner

First of all, I don't ban people (on this side of the forum).  Never have, never will, never want to.  I don't run these forums.  I don't moderate these forums.  All I do is run the server that hosts it.  That's it.

Second, I responded to you coming from the point of view as a poster not as any sort of authority running the forum.  I responded to yours and not rick's for two reasons:
I generally ignore a lot of what rick posts, because I so often disagree with the assertions he makes.  I happened to read your post.

Perhaps more importantly, I feel you're extremely hypocritical.  Not cursing doesn't change the content of your post.  It doesn't make you better.  It doesn't make you civilized.  You've been a pretty constant condescending, demeaning, and attacking horses behind for quite a while now.  The fact that you don't say 4 letter words while doing so doesn't change that.  The fact that you "only" attack one or two posters shows your pettiness, and that you're really no better than those you are attacking.

Dabods goes on to list about 10 of your demeaning posts and adds:

and that's just going back through your last 30 posts!

Nearly every one of those posts were unprovoked.  You were not responding to the person calling you names.  You were bringing them up on your on volition.  You have taken EVERY OPPORTUNITY YOU'VE GOTTEN to call someone else names, to tell everyone how stupid you feel they are, how superior you are.

What's your response?  "Oh, well he does it too!  nyah-nyah-nyah"?  Really?  What are we, 7?  I thought you were the one promoting your superiority and their inferiority?

Seriously, can the elitism, put the person on block, or shut up.  If you can't see you're part of the problem, them I'm sorry.

http://forums.phillyarena.com/index.php?topic=5538.15

[WayOutWest]

Ah well, the silence WAS golden, even if only for a couple of days, back to missing posting here.

Again, thanks for the true sports fans here who are classy enough and noble enough to come in here and offer congratulation without all the yeah but... garbage.

JN, JoMal, Rick, I appreciate your kudo's, it's cats like you that keep me at least checking in occasionally, (even if you and I RARELY see eye to Rick, at least you give credit where credit is due)

F U too Dan!!!

I hear ya, same goes for me. 

Can't wait to see what develops when the FA market is open for buisness.  Two years ago when the Lakers upgraded you saw several teams get in to an "arms race" in response.  It will be interesting IMO.

[westkoast]

So you are posting shooting stats to prove what exactly?  That good defense was played?    I am going to put exactly what I am getting at in ( ) so there is no dancing around or trying to twist points being made.

How about attempts in the paint?  Surely this points to who might have been attacking the rim more right?

The Lakers had 21 attempts in the paint
The Celtics had 11 attempts in the paint

If espn is to be believed
Shots in the Paint 4th qtr
Lakers 3
Boston 4

Game points in the paint
Lakers 38
Boston 36

You're claiming the Celtics had only 11 attempts from the paint the entire game yet espn has the Celts down for 36 points in the paint? 

Did you know that when a player gets fouled that it does not count as a shot attempt unless of course it is an AND 1?   So yes, that is exactly what I was saying.  I am not 'claiming' anything as much as I looked at the shot attempt chart on Yahoo.com and typed up part of my response.  Some of us actually will do their own research before talking.  Unlike yourself who just makes things up OR copy and pastes his ideas from other boards.   The idea that I just made up that stat is funny.  The Celtics had more attempts in the paint but if they got fouled it wouldn't show up.  Same goes for the Lakers.  Go to yahoo.com look up the box score (we all know you know how to do that) and go look it up yourself.  On top of that, YOU WATCHED THE GAME RIGHT?!?!  How would the Celtics have more attempts in the paint when the Lakers were beating them on the offensive glass and were getting a number of put backs?  SERIOUSLY THINK FOR A MINUTE.

They also lost points in the paint, thanks for putting that up there.  I can't believe I let that one slide.  So the Lakers won overall rebounding, offensive rebounding, points in the paint, had less turnovers, had less fouls, handled 2nd chance points, had more shots in the paint, had more total shot attempts........do you see where I am going with this?  The Celtics did an excellent job of holding them to putrid shooting numbers but lost in every other category.  That is why they lost the game.

Another stupid comment I need to slap down before I too leave the board until FA info heats up is the idea that Ray Allen and Paul Pierce, two jump shooters, would have more free throws than a guy in the post and someone who did a little bit of slashing (not enough in my book but clearly he was trying to get to the paint more than Ray Allen or Paul Pierce)  Did you just not think this one through Reality?  Were you too busy making juice to try to scratch a little bit more deeper than the surface as to why two jump shooters wouldn't shoot more free throws than a guy who operates on the block?  If you watched the game then you would know just how many of those free throws came when he was trying to put balls back in or grabbing offensive rebounds.  That tends to happen when you are undersized.  Not to mention that the Lakers did not get into the penalty in the 4th quarter early.  The Celtics did, at a time when Kobe Bryant dominates the ball, so it is pretty easy to put 2 and 2 together.

Joe Vancil already called out your bs on your attempts to try to call people out to do all the research only so you can try to dance around when they tell you to do it yourself by spinning it around as 'you don't want to do your homework'  The very fact that I barraged you with all these stats and your only responses were lame attempts at best proves that I really shouldn't waste my time crunching numbers, looking over stats, and providing points.  You can do that.  You know as soon as you give a legit argument to the stats that you were given on the previous page.

Before I go, quoting what dabods opinion is on how he personally thinks people should react to you means little.  Not because no one likes DB, hes pretty awesome, but because it is only his opinion and not everyone elses.  He himself will tell you he is not god around here so stop quoting him like these are verses from the gospel.  You've annoyed many people on this board.  It became super clear just how annoying you are when you went after Joe Vancil.  I think most of us assumed it was your undying hate for the Los Angeles Lakers and anything associated with them but really, you are just annoying    That db quote is not saving face for you, sorry.  Spend the off-season doing a better job of being a regular, normal, not flaming poster.  Maybe you will see the results next year.

[Joe Vancil]

A quick word of congrats to the Laker fans.  (I've been out-of-town.)

The key to game 7 was REBOUNDING.  LA did it, and other than Rondo, Boston didn't.  A missing Perkins was HUGE for Boston.

Felt that Ray Allen fared the worst of all the Celtics.

Felt that Ron Artest was the key to the game for the Lakers.

Felt that Garnett under-performed.  Felt that Kobe's play was, for the most part, sub-par.  Felt that Pierce took on too much of the burden.  Felt the only Celtics who could really feel good about Game 7 were Rondo, Wallace, and if you want to count him, Scalabrine.

The turnover outlet-passes by Boston were especially horrible.  Big Baby especially needs to learn to make an outlet pass, and Rajon Rondo needs to learn how to receive one.

Rondo's 3-pointer that he hit at the end of the game shows you his ceiling.  I'm surprised he wasn't arrested for part of the after-game riot by throwing a brick into a crowd afterward, which shows just how far he has to go to get to that ceiling.

I may start a Rondo thread in a bit.  I'd like some folks to give a take on him.

[WayOutWest]

I may start a Rondo thread in a bit.  I'd like some folks to give a take on him.

Over-rated, IMO the most over-rated player in the league today.  Don't get me wrong, I think he's a very good player but not anything close to where people are placing him.

[Reality]

The key to game 7 was REBOUNDING. 

Not at all.
Halftime Offensive Rebounds
Lakers 15
Boston 2
Score Boston 40 Lakers 34

Under 4 minutes left in 3rd qtr Offensive Rebounds
Lakers 18
Boston 5
Score Boston 54 Lakers 45

At this point the fouls shots are 11 Lakers 10 Boston.
If you pick it up from here, the FTAs are clearly the biggest factor as the Flamers go on a 21-5 advantage.
I'll be reviewing with ref in training if you are interested Joe.  Wanted to hash this before the LeBron party rolled on July 1st but logistics etc causing a delay.
By the way the Kome drive to the hoop where he bodyslams a completely set Sheed, most uninformed (like Marc Jackson) think because Sheeds foot was in the inner arc it's auto defensive foul.  Not true at all.  Will wait till ref in training can view in person.  It's all about the defensive block boundries and when Kome got the ball, which he recieved well outside of the defensive block.

Felt that Ray Allen fared the worst of all the Celtics.

Felt that Ron Artest was the key to the game for the Lakers.

Felt that Garnett under-performed.  Felt that Kobe's play was, for the most part, sub-par.  Felt that Pierce took on too much of the burden.  Felt the only Celtics who could really feel good about Game 7 were Rondo, Wallace, and if you want to count him, Scalabrine.

Allen the worst Celtic by far, aggree.  Had tons of open shots with nothing but Swisher guarding him.  Bricks.
Garnett but he got some the hypocrittical ref treatment on his D vs Gasol on him.  Ditto Pierce guarding Artest and vice versa.  Will break it down later.

Artests' trey near the end was one of the hugest buckets of the game.

[Joe Vancil]

Reality,

The fact is that if a team shoots like LA was shooting in the early going, they should be blown out.  So why weren't they?  REBOUNDING.  Rebounding is what kept them close, and it was rebounding that pulled them back into the game, and espeically *OFFENSIVE* rebounding.  It's been that way for years, and it will continue to be among the biggest keys in basketball.

Extra rebounds mean extra possessions and extra shots - and in the end, that leads to frustration fouls.  Skander sells this idea better than I do, but I agree with him - the offensive rebound is the most demoralizing play to good defense.  You've done your work, you've got them to miss a shot - maybe a bad one - but instead of hurting them, all of your effort was wasted, because they have the ball and you have to do everything all over again.

Look at it this way, Reality:

Boston had approximately 93 possessions - Los Angeles had approximately 113.  Which team do *YOU* think wins that game?  If both teams shoot 42%, Boston has 78 points, and Los Angeles has 95.  In fact, if you take what each team actually shot, it's 73 points for LA, and 76 for Boston - and that's BEFORE TURNOVERS (which favored LA).  With a HUGE advantage in shooting percentage, Boston can't pull away, just based on number of possessions.

And if you want to look at free throw shooting - why don't we?  The top three rebounders were also the top 3 people shooting free throws. 

That game was lost on the boards.

[WayOutWest]

Reality,

The fact is that if a team shoots like LA was shooting in the early going, they should be blown out.  So why weren't they?  REBOUNDING.  Rebounding is what kept them close, and it was rebounding that pulled them back into the game, and espeically *OFFENSIVE* rebounding.  It's been that way for years, and it will continue to be among the biggest keys in basketball.

Extra rebounds mean extra possessions and extra shots - and in the end, that leads to frustration fouls.  Skander sells this idea better than I do, but I agree with him - the offensive rebound is the most demoralizing play to good defense.  You've done your work, you've got them to miss a shot - maybe a bad one - but instead of hurting them, all of your effort was wasted, because they have the ball and you have to do everything all over again.

Look at it this way, Reality:

Boston had approximately 93 possessions - Los Angeles had approximately 113.  Which team do *YOU* think wins that game?  If both teams shoot 42%, Boston has 78 points, and Los Angeles has 95.  In fact, if you take what each team actually shot, it's 73 points for LA, and 76 for Boston - and that's BEFORE TURNOVERS (which favored LA).  With a HUGE advantage in shooting percentage, Boston can't pull away, just based on number of possessions.

And if you want to look at free throw shooting - why don't we?  The top three rebounders were also the top 3 people shooting free throws. 

That game was lost on the boards.

Channeling the spirit of Allen Iverson.....

LOGIC?  Maaaannnn....we talk-n bout LOGIC.

[Reality]

Reality,

The fact is that if a team shoots like LA was shooting in the early going, they should be blown out.  So why weren't they?  REBOUNDING.  Rebounding is what kept them close, and it was rebounding that pulled them back into the game, and espeically *OFFENSIVE* rebounding.  It's been that way for years, and it will continue to be among the biggest keys in basketball.

Extra rebounds mean extra possessions and extra shots - and in the end, that leads to frustration fouls.  Skander sells this idea better than I do, but I agree with him - the offensive rebound is the most demoralizing play to good defense.  You've done your work, you've got them to miss a shot - maybe a bad one - but instead of hurting them, all of your effort was wasted, because they have the ball and you have to do everything all over again.

Look at it this way, Reality:

Boston had approximately 93 possessions - Los Angeles had approximately 113.  Which team do *YOU* think wins that game?  If both teams shoot 42%, Boston has 78 points, and Los Angeles has 95.  In fact, if you take what each team actually shot, it's 73 points for LA, and 76 for Boston - and that's BEFORE TURNOVERS (which favored LA).  With a HUGE advantage in shooting percentage, Boston can't pull away, just based on number of possessions.

And if you want to look at free throw shooting - why don't we?  The top three rebounders were also the top 3 people shooting free throws. 

That game was lost on the boards.

When you are ready to give specific numerous examples of this in the last 14 minutes, let me know.
For that matte when Boston blew it's 11 point lead it was *NOT* due to rebounding.
If you *CANNOT* give specific numerous examples (as you claim this is how the Lakers both got back in and won).....
I counted 2.

[Reality]

MVP!
MVP!
MVP!

The only meaningful post you have given, and will give in this thread, but it's a beauty!

[westkoast]

Nevermind.  I was going to make a comment but I am not doing Reality's leg work for him so he can try to spin up extra bs in the mean time.

[Joe Vancil]

Reality,

The fact is that if a team shoots like LA was shooting in the early going, they should be blown out.  So why weren't they?  REBOUNDING.  Rebounding is what kept them close, and it was rebounding that pulled them back into the game, and espeically *OFFENSIVE* rebounding.  It's been that way for years, and it will continue to be among the biggest keys in basketball.

Extra rebounds mean extra possessions and extra shots - and in the end, that leads to frustration fouls.  Skander sells this idea better than I do, but I agree with him - the offensive rebound is the most demoralizing play to good defense.  You've done your work, you've got them to miss a shot - maybe a bad one - but instead of hurting them, all of your effort was wasted, because they have the ball and you have to do everything all over again.

Look at it this way, Reality:

Boston had approximately 93 possessions - Los Angeles had approximately 113.  Which team do *YOU* think wins that game?  If both teams shoot 42%, Boston has 78 points, and Los Angeles has 95.  In fact, if you take what each team actually shot, it's 73 points for LA, and 76 for Boston - and that's BEFORE TURNOVERS (which favored LA).  With a HUGE advantage in shooting percentage, Boston can't pull away, just based on number of possessions.

And if you want to look at free throw shooting - why don't we?  The top three rebounders were also the top 3 people shooting free throws. 

That game was lost on the boards.

When you are ready to give specific numerous examples of this in the last 14 minutes, let me know.
For that matte when Boston blew it's 11 point lead it was *NOT* due to rebounding.
If you *CANNOT* give specific numerous examples (as you claim this is how the Lakers both got back in and won).....
I counted 2.

"When Boston blew it's 11-point lead."

How do you have ONLY an 9-point lead (54-45 at 3:27 left in the 3rd, Boston's last big margin (which I think you're mistakenly calling 11)) , when you're holding your opponent to 32.5% shooting (and lower at the time)?  Because you're getting killed on the boards.

For that matter, with an 9-point lead, how did the Lakers tie the game?  By getting 11 rebounds to Boston's 6 during the 9-point comeback.  5 more possessions, before turnovers.

At 64-64, the game was last tied.  From that time forward:

LA Rebounds:   9  (3 offensive)
Boston Rebounds: 4 (2 offensive)

5 more possessions.

I'm not saying free throws had nothing to do with it.  I'm saying that with more possessions, with rebounding, you've got the ball more, and that means more fouls drawn.

It starts with rebounding.  It always does.