I thought Kobe still had a pretty decent game. He pissed me off in the first half though. I see the Lake Show winning the same way the Heat did. Demoralize the Celtics three games in a row, then escape with a victory over there.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jun 9 2008, 09:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Celtic Fan @ Jun 9 2008, 09:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jun 9 2008, 09:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If you weren't around to experience your teams championships, I don't know why you'd be bragging about them.</div> well I have been around to see the Celtics win titles, all 16 no? but 2 dismissing an era simply because you weren't there for it is asinine and ignorant. </div> Dismissing segregation, and the different rules/situations in that era, is ignorant to me. </div> segregation in college sure, but Wilt, Bill, the Big O, Elgin all played in the 60's, so I'm not sure where you are going with that train of thought. and wow, the rules have changed.. heck they've changed in the past decade too with the important elimination of the hand check rule, thus allowing PG's to peneatrate (and Kobe btw) much more easily. everyone played under the same rules, regardless of what era you played in so I don't see how that is relevant to winning in the league.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Celtic Fan @ Jun 9 2008, 09:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jun 9 2008, 09:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Celtic Fan @ Jun 9 2008, 09:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jun 9 2008, 09:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If you weren't around to experience your teams championships, I don't know why you'd be bragging about them.</div> well I have been around to see the Celtics win titles, all 16 no? but 2 dismissing an era simply because you weren't there for it is asinine and ignorant. </div> Dismissing segregation, and the different rules/situations in that era, is ignorant to me. </div> segregation in college sure, but Wilt, Bill, the Big O, Elgin all played in the 60's, so I'm not sure where you are going with that train of thought.</div> Are you saying the league was as well integrated compared to the 80's? All those players also have their stats inflated by pace, so the 80's is a superior era to me. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>and wow, the rules have changed.. heck they've changed in the past decade too with the important elimination of the hand check rule, thus allowing PG's to peneatrate (and Kobe btw) much more easily. everyone played under the same rules, regardless of what era you played in so I don't see how that is relevant to winning in the league.</div> Well to me the 60's were not one of the top eras in Basketball. It was inferior in various aspects. At best, all the rules you cited as "pros" have serious cons. Free Agency helps the C's stay together, all they have to do is win one big division basically, and 12 playoff games. Their titles do not have as much meaning imo, as the LA dynasty in the 80's.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lavalamp @ Jun 9 2008, 09:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Pegs is the king of bitching and whining lol. It gets tiring reading the same thing 30 times in one thread lol.</div> Bitch, shut up! You love my complaining
Bill Russell having more rings than fingers is insignificant according to what you're saying? You're joking, right?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Are you saying the league was as well integrated compared to the 80's? All those players also have their stats inflated by pace, so the 80's is a superior era to me.</div> I'm not trying to compare eras cause it's pointless, but I'm not a fan of the "pace" argument. One could say shaq's stats were mainly, because of his team slowing the pace down for him in a half court set. I could say Hakeem's stats are infalted, because the rockets threw the ball into him 90% of time on offense, lol..............The main point when looking past stats is that players like Oscar, Wilt, etc. were great players. I'll put it like this, Wilt played well against Kareem towards the end of his career, Kareem played well against Hakeem, Hakeem played well against Shaq, and so on..........
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jun 9 2008, 10:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Celtic Fan @ Jun 9 2008, 09:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jun 9 2008, 09:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Celtic Fan @ Jun 9 2008, 09:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jun 9 2008, 09:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If you weren't around to experience your teams championships, I don't know why you'd be bragging about them.</div> well I have been around to see the Celtics win titles, all 16 no? but 2 dismissing an era simply because you weren't there for it is asinine and ignorant. </div> Dismissing segregation, and the different rules/situations in that era, is ignorant to me. </div> segregation in college sure, but Wilt, Bill, the Big O, Elgin all played in the 60's, so I'm not sure where you are going with that train of thought.</div> Are you saying the league was as well integrated compared to the 80's? All those players also have their stats inflated by pace, so the 80's is a superior era to me.</div> No, I'm saying there wasn't a lack of intergration in the 60's. I'm also not arguing that the era was the best nor were the stats not somewhat inflated. I am saying winning in titles in the 60's does not diminish the accomplishment.. why would it. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>and wow, the rules have changed.. heck they've changed in the past decade too with the important elimination of the hand check rule, thus allowing PG's to peneatrate (and Kobe btw) much more easily. everyone played under the same rules, regardless of what era you played in so I don't see how that is relevant to winning in the league.</div> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jun 9 2008, 10:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Well to me the 60's were not one of the top eras in Basketball. It was inferior in various aspects. At best, all the rules you cited as "pros" have serious cons. Free Agency helps the C's stay together, all they have to do is win one big division basically, and 12 playoff games. Their titles do not have as much meaning imo, as the LA dynasty in the 80's.</div> You're entitled to your opinion, but to try and say winning in that era is lesser than it is now is IMO, ignorant. I only cited one rules change. A lack of Free Agency in the 60's allowed for all teams to keep their core together longer and thus play better basketball. What teams have played the best this decade? THe Pistons, Spurs and in the beginning the Lakers. What did they have in common? experienced players and a core that played together for several years. Remember it took Kobe and Shaq a couple of years playing together and having guys like Rick Fox, eddie Jones and Derrick Fisher grew with them. So back in the 60's more teams were cohesive like this because of the lack of ability for players to move from team to team, thus each game was harder to win. So yes they played less playoff games, but that didn't make it any easier. The 80's are my favorite era of basket, loads of talented and cohesive teams and tons of great players to watch.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (agoo101284 @ Jun 9 2008, 11:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Bill Russell having more rings than fingers is insignificant according to what you're saying? You're joking, right?</div> No, you misunderstood (or you're just purposely missing his point..). He's saying those rings are not as important as Kareem's rings.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Celtic Fan @ Jun 9 2008, 10:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jun 9 2008, 10:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Celtic Fan @ Jun 9 2008, 09:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jun 9 2008, 09:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Celtic Fan @ Jun 9 2008, 09:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jun 9 2008, 09:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If you weren't around to experience your teams championships, I don't know why you'd be bragging about them.</div> well I have been around to see the Celtics win titles, all 16 no? but 2 dismissing an era simply because you weren't there for it is asinine and ignorant. </div> Dismissing segregation, and the different rules/situations in that era, is ignorant to me. </div> segregation in college sure, but Wilt, Bill, the Big O, Elgin all played in the 60's, so I'm not sure where you are going with that train of thought.</div> Are you saying the league was as well integrated compared to the 80's? All those players also have their stats inflated by pace, so the 80's is a superior era to me.</div> No, I'm saying there wasn't a lack of intergration in the 60's. I'm also not arguing that the era was the best nor were the stats not somewhat inflated. I am saying winning in titles in the 60's does not diminish the accomplishment.. why would it. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>and wow, the rules have changed.. heck they've changed in the past decade too with the important elimination of the hand check rule, thus allowing PG's to peneatrate (and Kobe btw) much more easily. everyone played under the same rules, regardless of what era you played in so I don't see how that is relevant to winning in the league.</div> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jun 9 2008, 10:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Well to me the 60's were not one of the top eras in Basketball. It was inferior in various aspects. At best, all the rules you cited as "pros" have serious cons. Free Agency helps the C's stay together, all they have to do is win one big division basically, and 12 playoff games. Their titles do not have as much meaning imo, as the LA dynasty in the 80's.</div> You're entitled to your opinion, but to try and say winning in that era is lesser than it is now is IMO, ignorant. I only cited one rules change. A lack of Free Agency in the 60's allowed for all teams to keep their core together longer and thus play better basketball. What teams have played the best this decade? THe Pistons, Spurs and in the beginning the Lakers. What did they have in common? experienced players and a core that played together for several years. Remember it took Kobe and Shaq a couple of years playing together and having guys like Rick Fox, eddie Jones and Derrick Fisher grew with them. </div> There are 16-22 more teams now (depending on what title you want to look at). It is much harder for any team to dominate a decade in this case. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>So back in the 60's more teams were cohesive like this because of the lack of ability for players to move from team to team, thus each game was harder to win. So yes they played less playoff games, but that didn't make it any easier.</div> No it has pros <u>and</u> cons. Those cohesive teams would not stick together in more progressive times. Basically, you've stated nothing to make me think it was harder to win in that era. Add that to the fact that less games are required to win a title with a smaller talent pool of players, it makes it more insignificant to me.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Dream @ Jun 9 2008, 10:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Are you saying the league was as well integrated compared to the 80's? All those players also have their stats inflated by pace, so the 80's is a superior era to me.</div> I'm not trying to compare eras cause it's pointless, but I'm not a fan of the "pace" argument. One could say shaq's stats were mainly, because of his team slowing the pace down for him in a half court set. I could say Hakeem's stats are infalted, because the rockets threw the ball into him 90% of time on offense, lol..............The main point when looking past stats is that players like Oscar, Wilt, etc. were great players. I'll put it like this, Wilt played well against Kareem towards the end of his career, Kareem played well against Hakeem, Hakeem played well against Shaq, and so on.......... </div> You're not a fan, nor do you have a good empirical argument to go against these paced up numbers. Of course it matters. Not to say that they weren't great players.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Jun 9 2008, 10:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (agoo101284 @ Jun 9 2008, 11:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Bill Russell having more rings than fingers is insignificant according to what you're saying? You're joking, right?</div> No, you misunderstood (or you're just purposely missing his point..). He's saying those rings are not as important as Kareem's rings. </div> Yeah, exactly.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>You're not a fan, nor do you have a good empirical argument to go against these paced up numbers. Of course it matters. Not to say that they weren't great players.</div> I'm not even trying to get into an empirical argument, lol. I'm not denying that "pace" could've impacted their stats, but the problem with your argument is that it can be said for a lot of players......I can guarantee you Shaq's numbers wouldn't have been as good as they were had the Lakers ran all the damn time and never slowed the pace down................either way let's all stop living in the past and focus on the series at hand......
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Dream @ Jun 9 2008, 10:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>You're not a fan, nor do you have a good empirical argument to go against these paced up numbers. Of course it matters. Not to say that they weren't great players.</div> I'm not even trying to get into an empirical argument, lol. I'm not denying that "pace" could've impacted their stats, but the problem with your argument is that it can be said for a lot of players......I can guarantee you Shaq's numbers wouldn't have been as good as they were had the Lakers ran all the damn time and never slowed the pace down................either way let's all stop living in the past and focus on the series at hand...... </div> I can guarantee you Wilt would not have played as many minutes, nor could he dominate half court games at Shaq's pace as long as O'Neal did. Again, they were all great players, who need proper context.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Jun 9 2008, 10:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lavalamp @ Jun 9 2008, 09:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Pegs is the king of bitching and whining lol. It gets tiring reading the same thing 30 times in one thread lol.</div> Bitch, shut up! You love my complaining </div> It feels like we got a new Lakers fan.
Hey guys, why don't we keep on topic here. If you want to talk about history, make a thread in the proper forum. This isn't the place for it. Keep the discussion to this series, and talk history where it's appropriate.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jun 9 2008, 07:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Celtic Fan @ Jun 9 2008, 08:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jun 9 2008, 07:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't really care about those 1950's/60's championships either. One less round in the post-season as well. Modern day titles are where it's at.</div> whatever helps you sleep at night. one could say it was HARDER to do so then because the teams were more talented, definitely more cohesive without FA around and not diluted due to over expansion like the league has been for the past 15 years.. especially in the early 2000's. </div> Uh no, and more segregated. You can try to ignore the low amount of teams all you want. </div> Interestingly, the Celtics were led by one of the earliest black stars in the NBA - Bill Russell - in the 1960s. They even had the first black coach. The 80s were a different story as the only whiter team I've seen since, season over season, would be the Jazz. Even more interesting is that as "white" as those 80s Celtics were, the Lakers were "black." While the Celtics were restocking their team with white players like Pete Maravich and Bill Walton, the Lakers were restocking their team with Bob McAdoo, Maurice Lucas, and Mychal Thompson. It was a pretty big deal for Kurt Rambis to make the team and start as a white player.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumpman @ Jun 9 2008, 01:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Jun 9 2008, 10:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lavalamp @ Jun 9 2008, 09:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Pegs is the king of bitching and whining lol. It gets tiring reading the same thing 30 times in one thread lol.</div> Bitch, shut up! You love my complaining </div> It feels like we got a new Lakers fan. </div> Eh, I figure I'll let the Lakers have their glory while it's their time (rather them than Celtics or Spurs). Nets and Sonics are building up to where the Lakers are right now...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Jun 9 2008, 12:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumpman @ Jun 9 2008, 01:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Jun 9 2008, 10:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lavalamp @ Jun 9 2008, 09:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Pegs is the king of bitching and whining lol. It gets tiring reading the same thing 30 times in one thread lol.</div> Bitch, shut up! You love my complaining </div> It feels like we got a new Lakers fan. </div> Eh, I figure I'll let the Lakers have their glory while it's their time (rather them than Celtics or Spurs). Nets and Sonics are building up to where the Lakers are right now... </div> the Blazers too at this rate. Btw Pegs what team do you usually root for? for some reason I thought you came from the Houston forum haha (my other team).
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DynastYWarrioR6 @ Jun 9 2008, 01:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Jun 9 2008, 12:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumpman @ Jun 9 2008, 01:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Jun 9 2008, 10:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lavalamp @ Jun 9 2008, 09:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Pegs is the king of bitching and whining lol. It gets tiring reading the same thing 30 times in one thread lol.</div> Bitch, shut up! You love my complaining </div> It feels like we got a new Lakers fan. </div> Eh, I figure I'll let the Lakers have their glory while it's their time (rather them than Celtics or Spurs). Nets and Sonics are building up to where the Lakers are right now... </div> the Blazers too at this rate. Btw Pegs what team do you usually root for? for some reason I thought you came from the Houston forum haha (my other team). </div> Nets fan since...um 03, and Sonics fan since 95 (didn't really follow the NBA that close at the time, though), and I've followed the Nets more closely. If it was Nets vs. Sonics, I'd go Nets.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Jun 9 2008, 01:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DynastYWarrioR6 @ Jun 9 2008, 01:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Jun 9 2008, 12:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumpman @ Jun 9 2008, 01:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Jun 9 2008, 10:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lavalamp @ Jun 9 2008, 09:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Pegs is the king of bitching and whining lol. It gets tiring reading the same thing 30 times in one thread lol.</div> Bitch, shut up! You love my complaining </div> It feels like we got a new Lakers fan. </div> Eh, I figure I'll let the Lakers have their glory while it's their time (rather them than Celtics or Spurs). Nets and Sonics are building up to where the Lakers are right now... </div> the Blazers too at this rate. Btw Pegs what team do you usually root for? for some reason I thought you came from the Houston forum haha (my other team). </div> Nets fan since...um 03, and Sonics fan since 95 (didn't really follow the NBA that close at the time, though), and I've followed the Nets more closely. If it was Nets vs. Sonics, I'd go Nets. </div> Ah well then since you kinda sprang up on some of us Lakers fans in here cheering for us I'd like to formally welcome you here. By the way, the Nets were a great team to watch back when they made the Finals back to back.
