Congrats Laker friends!

[Laker Fan]

You're spitting in the wind Joe, spitting in the wind

[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.

"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.

Rebounding is hardly the main point historically leading to NBA championships.
Utah vs Boston two straight years, want to fill us in on who won the rebounding battle?  Many other examples.
Field goal percentage allowed otoh, is.
Dabods ran some stats, i cannot find them exactly but, 2006 and back the ONLY team to win a championship while yielding a higher percentage fg to their opponent was the WA Bullets.  Thats it.

Your Laker Gm comback stats are wayy off.  The 11 point lead to tied was only a one or two advantage Laker offensive boards.
How did they stay in the game early, you claim rebounds.  The reality was it was by Boston missing so many of their own shots.

Will do a play by play coming up.  Will be viewing with NBA ref in training.
The biggest laugher by far is the Gasol *block* of KG with Van Gundy saying "hand is part of the ball, good block".  Plenty more.

[Joe Vancil]

By Utah vs. Boston, I think you're referring to Utah vs. Chicago.  Fine.  Let's look at those games.

1998:
                Rebound Winner     Off. Reb. Winner           Game Winner
Game 1:   Utah (42-41)             tie (8-8)                      Utah (88-85)
Game 2:   Utah (38-36)             Chicago (18-9)            Chicago (93-88)
Game 3:   Chicago (50-38)        Chicago (11-9)            Chicago (96-54, not a misprint)
Game 4:   Chicago (44-40)        Chicago (17-13)          Chicago (86-82)
Game 5:   Utah (37-33)             Chicago (13-11)          Utah (83-81)
Game 6:   Utah (33-22)             Utah (10-5)                 Chicago (87-86)

Rebound Winner record:  4-2
Offensive Rebound winner record, 3-2-1

1997:
Game 1:   Utah (43-36)             Utah (12-10)               Chicago (84-82)
Game 2:   Chicago (41-35)        tie (11-11)                  Chicago (97-85)
Game 3:   Utah (47-35)             Utah (14-8)                Utah (104-93)
Game 4:   Utah (39-38)             Chicago (10-5)           Utah (78-73)
Game 5:   Utah (45-42)             Utah (13-10)               Chicago (90-88)
Game 6:   Chicago (50-36)        Chicago (15-5)            Chicago (90-86)

Rebound Winner record: 4-2
Offensive Rebound winner record:  2-3-1

Overall record:
Rebound Winner:  8-4
Offensive Rebound Winner:  5-5-2

And this is an example of how the rebound winner *DOESN'T* win? 

You picked one of the *STRONGEST* arguments, and two series where 9 of the 12 games played were decided by 5 points or less, and the rebound winner *STILL* won at a .667 clip.

[westkoast]

By Utah vs. Boston, I think you're referring to Utah vs. Chicago.  Fine.  Let's look at those games.

1998:
                Rebound Winner     Off. Reb. Winner           Game Winner
Game 1:   Utah (42-41)             tie (8-8)                      Utah (88-85)
Game 2:   Utah (38-36)             Chicago (18-9)            Chicago (93-88)
Game 3:   Chicago (50-38)        Chicago (11-9)            Chicago (96-54, not a misprint)
Game 4:   Chicago (44-40)        Chicago (17-13)          Chicago (86-82)
Game 5:   Utah (37-33)             Chicago (13-11)          Utah (83-81)
Game 6:   Utah (33-22)             Utah (10-5)                 Chicago (87-86)

Rebound Winner record:  4-2
Offensive Rebound winner record, 3-2-1

1997:
Game 1:   Utah (43-36)             Utah (12-10)               Chicago (84-82)
Game 2:   Chicago (41-35)        tie (11-11)                  Chicago (97-85)
Game 3:   Utah (47-35)             Utah (14-8)                Utah (104-93)
Game 4:   Utah (39-38)             Chicago (10-5)           Utah (78-73)
Game 5:   Utah (45-42)             Utah (13-10)               Chicago (90-88)
Game 6:   Chicago (50-36)        Chicago (15-5)            Chicago (90-86)

Rebound Winner record: 4-2
Offensive Rebound winner record:  2-3-1

Overall record:
Rebound Winner:  8-4
Offensive Rebound Winner:  5-5-2

And this is an example of how the rebound winner *DOESN'T* win? 

You picked one of the *STRONGEST* arguments, and two series where 9 of the 12 games played were decided by 5 points or less, and the rebound winner *STILL* won at a .667 clip.

You do realize you are debating with someone else from another message board via proxy of Reality?

He is copy and pasting arguments from other boards and people which is why he cannot argue them himself.  You've already proved your point 3x over heh

[WayOutWest]

You do realize you are debating with someone else from another message board via proxy of Reality?

He is copy and pasting arguments from other boards and people which is why he cannot argue them himself.  You've already proved your point 3x over heh

LOL, quit throwing rocks in the fishing pond wk.  Joe V is actually debating with and ENTIRE board, not just one person.  I've seen threads asking for arguments and pics that end up here only to get PWN3D anyway.  Part of the reason I became bored.  If I want to argue with "Spurs Talk", I'll just go there myself, they respond much quicker.

[Reality]

By Utah vs. Boston, I think you're referring to Utah vs. Chicago.  Fine.  Let's look at those games.

1998:
                Rebound Winner     Off. Reb. Winner           Game Winner
Game 1:   Utah (42-41)             tie (8-8)                      Utah (88-85)
Game 2:   Utah (38-36)             Chicago (18-9)            Chicago (93-88)
Game 3:   Chicago (50-38)        Chicago (11-9)            Chicago (96-54, not a misprint)
Game 4:   Chicago (44-40)        Chicago (17-13)          Chicago (86-82)
Game 5:   Utah (37-33)             Chicago (13-11)          Utah (83-81)
Game 6:   Utah (33-22)             Utah (10-5)                 Chicago (87-86)

Rebound Winner record:  4-2
Offensive Rebound winner record, 3-2-1

1997:
Game 1:   Utah (43-36)             Utah (12-10)               Chicago (84-82)
Game 2:   Chicago (41-35)        tie (11-11)                  Chicago (97-85)
Game 3:   Utah (47-35)             Utah (14-8)                Utah (104-93)
Game 4:   Utah (39-38)             Chicago (10-5)           Utah (78-73)
Game 5:   Utah (45-42)             Utah (13-10)               Chicago (90-88)
Game 6:   Chicago (50-36)        Chicago (15-5)            Chicago (90-86)

Rebound Winner record: 4-2
Offensive Rebound winner record:  2-3-1

Overall record:
Rebound Winner:  8-4
Offensive Rebound Winner:  5-5-2

And this is an example of how the rebound winner *DOESN'T* win? 

You picked one of the *STRONGEST* arguments, and two series where 9 of the 12 games played were decided by 5 points or less, and the rebound winner *STILL* won at a .667 clip.

That's nice.
When you get up to .998, let me know.
"The last NBA champion to yield a higher shooting percentage to its opponent than its own shooting percentage were the 1978 Washington Bullets." -thru 2006, when i have time I'll run 2007-2010.

I'd already posted the .667 rebound winner Finals series here:
http://forums.phillyarena.com/index.php?topic=2574.0  "Rebounds = Rings"
Even then about 4 of those series rebound *winners* were by one single rebound, ie the Marketing Fakers year 2001.  Won the series rebound battle with Indy by one rebound.

Back to your stats.  Using your stats,
Utah won the rebounding battle 4 games in 1997, 4 games in 1998.
Utahs record in those 4 games?  2-2 both years.
.500
Chicago lost the rebounding battle 2 games to 4 in both 1997 and 1998 yet won both series 4-2.

Sticking to the exact topic at hand, the Lakers shot 32% in game 7 yet won.  I will do a play by play, many of their two possession (offensive rebound) trips did *NOT* result in a basket.  Most notably during the catchup phase and end run.  It was FTs being the big difference maker.  Kobme Bryant ended up 6-24.

[Reality]

You do realize you are debating with someone else from another message board via proxy of Reality?

He is copy and pasting arguments from other boards and people which is why he cannot argue them himself.  You've already proved your point 3x over heh

LOL, quit throwing rocks in the fishing pond wk.  Joe V is actually debating with and ENTIRE board, not just one person.  I've seen threads asking for arguments and pics that end up here only to get PWN3D anyway.  Part of the reason I became bored.  If I want to argue with "Spurs Talk", I'll just go there myself, they respond much quicker.

I post on this board, then i post the same thing on the ST board (or vice versa).
You and weaksause try spinning/fabricating this as it's "another person" posting when i fact i made the posts on both boards.
Self ownage by you at its finest -again!   
Weaksause, you and HideyW.O.W. are like a couple of chiajuajas being walked down a West Hollywood mall with you dog Kobe jerseys on.
Barking mindlessly at anyone, yip yip yip not knowing at all what you are saying just hoping it pleases your Laker master.

And weaksause your stoopid attempt to twist my most appropriate dabods reference answer to Laker Fan Dan was beyond lame.  Spittin in the wind, bois.

[Joe Vancil]

Same series you picked for the rebounding example:

1998

1:  Utah (.447-.415)   Utah
2:  Utah (.493-.425)   Chicago
3:  Chicago (.487-.300)   Chicago
4:  Utah (.423-.370)   Chicago
5:  Utah (.507-.387)   Utah
6:  Chicago (.507-.500)   Chicago

1997
1.  Utah (.461-.447)   Chicago
2.  Chicago (.464-.403)   Chicago
3.  Utah (.446-.440)   Utah
4.  Utah (.453-.421)   Utah
5.  Chicago (.444-.413)   Chicago
6.  Utah (.400-.383)   Chicago

Utah won both series shooting percentages 4-2, but lost the series 4-2.

Shooting percentage is only .667 in the exact same series.  Looks like I'm not the only person who needs to get closer to .998.

Back to your stats.  Using your stats,
Utah won the rebounding battle 4 games in 1997, 4 games in 1998.
Utahs record in those 4 games?  2-2 both years.
.500
Chicago lost the rebounding battle 2 games to 4 in both 1997 and 1998 yet won both series 4-2.

Change "rebounding battle" to "field goal percentage" in the above message.  I would have re-typed it, but I'm feeling lazy today.

[Reality]

Change "rebounding battle" to "field goal percentage" in the above message.  I would have re-typed it, but I'm feeling lazy today.

Run it thru for 25 years, lazybones.