RealGM

Some people are picking Lakers in five. That means Lakers have to steal one in Boston, then win three in a row at home (something that hasn't been done before [I don't think]; if it has been done, it's only been a few times).

And this is assuming that the Lakers are a significantly better team than the Celtics. We can look at statistics to compare: Celtics had the better record, winning nine more games, and having a win margin +3 more than the Lakers. But the Lakers had to play in the tough conference. Well, the Celtics' record against the West was 25-5. The Lakers, meanwhile, only had a 20-10 record against the Leastern conference. Looks like the Celtics win here.

So let's compare head-to-head meetings. In the first game against them we won by 13 points, 107-94. At halftime we were up by 18. In the second game we won by 19 points, 110-91. This was before Chris Wallace gave the Lakers Gasol for a bag of Ruffles potato chips.

So will Gasol completely negate our dominance over the Lakers? Will he not only negate our dominance over the Lakers, but make the Lakers dominant over us? Seems like a bit of a stretch.

So now this brings us to the post-season records. Lakers fans will certainly deploy the "Hawks took you to seven games" argument. Well let's look at the Celtics' and Lakers' post-season records more closely.

Lakers rolled through the finals, first sweeping Nuggets. No surprise there: Lakers swept them in the regular season too, winning games 127-99, 111-107, and 116-99. A huge margin of victory.

Next, Lakers were taken to six games against Utah. They did slightly worse against Utah than they did in the regular season, in which they beat them 3/4 times. All three of these wins against Utah in the regular season were without Gasol. To spell it out for you: A Gasol-less Lakers beat Utah three times in the regular season, but got taken to six games in the playoffs with Gasol on the team.

Next, there's the Spurs. They did better against them in the playoffs than in the regular season, in which the series was split, 2-2. But one of their losses was without Gasol or Bynum. Still, the Lakers did slightly better against the Spurs in the post-season than in the regular season.

So now for the Celtics. The Hawks series was strange. People accuse us of merely squeaking past them. The fact that they took us to seven games is misleading. Nonetheless, we absolutely destroyed them at home, just as we should.

Cleveland split with us in the regular season, and played us as tough as any team in the league. It's no surprise then that they took us to seven games and almost beat us. If there's one team that was capable of doing it, it was them.

In the regular season, we won 2/3 games against Detroit, though they played us tough. This is reflected in our playoff series with them, too.

So if you compare the playoffs with the regular season, things went according to plan. The two deviances are the Hawks winning at home, and the Lakers beating the Spurs faster than they should've. And I think these two reasons are the core as to why people think the Lakers will beat us. The strangeness in our inability to win on the road seems to be solved, however, with two road wins against Detroit. Lakers are looking good in the playoffs, but their record pretty much reflects how they did against those teams in the regular season. Same for the Celtics, except for road losses to the Hawks...

So the main question is can Gasol really make that much of a difference to overcome their struggles against us? One noticeable difficulty the Lakers had with us is their ability to defend us. Gasol has always been known as a horrible defender. So this area is markedly worse than before. So Gasol's offense has to be absolutely dominant for the Lakers to have a chance against us.

So I ask you this: do you think Gasol can dominate against us? I highly doubt he can dominate Perk and PJ Brown, but that's just me. What I'm trying to get at is that it's pretty ridiculous for every ESPN expert to pick against us, some saying we will lose in five games. The ability for them to even make this a series against us will largely rest on whether or not Gasol can dominate against us.

I don't expect Gasol to dominate, but if you have Pierce on Kobe and have to settle for Ray Allen on Lamar Odom suddenly he could be a big factor.

Not that I'd be comfortable depending on Odom to produce to help carry a team, but he has had good playoff series before -- especially in Dwayne Wade's first year with the Heat.

to touch on the atlanta series.......

people made a big deal about that, we had a hard time against them. at home we killed them. on their court the games were all close. maybe one out of the 3 was not as close but the score didnt reflect how close those games really were. atlanta didnt kill us on their floor. we lacked intensity and still was in all those games in atlanta.

so to me that series was over blown. especially since atlanta was never in a game in boston.

Actually there's more pressure on Ray Allen than ever before to be productive. He's the key to Boston's chances. The Lakers don't need Gasol to be great, but Boston does need Ray to be very good just to have a chance.

I really like Perk on Gasol! Perk had another phenomenal defensive game yesterday. He can really limit Gasol with his physical defense, I just hope refs won`t be too much on LA side...

cavsfan_osiris wrote:Actually there's more pressure on Ray Allen than ever before to be productive. He's the key to Boston's chances. The Lakers don't need Gasol to be great, but Boston does need Ray to be very good just to have a chance.

If there's pressure on Allen it's more on the defensive end, mainly if he has to defend Kobe; so yes, he does have to be very good in that regard. On the offensive side, there was an immense amount of pressure on him due to his struggles, and I think that's lifted. He's been on fire lately so I'm not worried about that. We'll be able to put points up on the Lakers relatively easily, so I'm not too worried about scoring.

thebirdman wrote:I really like Perk on Gasol! Perk had another phenomenal defensive game yesterday. He can really limit Gasol with his physical defense, I just hope refs won`t be too much on LA side...

Perk versus foul trouble will be a big factor.

Obviously dealing with Kobe will be a major factor - Posey should see more time.

Overall match ups are fascinating here.......Offense versus defense..... KG versus Odom will be significant......the career hunger of PP, KG, and Jesus versus Kobe's superb overall game.

The Celtics might be underrated just now as they are a different team offensively when Ray Allen is on his game.

The Lakers will surely lay off Rondo to double other folks so the 2nd year kid will be in the spotlight again.

2-3-2 is a BIG factor.....the Celts MUST hold serve at home.

idrinkrootbeer wrote: Gasol has always been known as a horrible defender.

Which is absolutely false.
Anyway I think your logic is flawed.
Lakers with Gasol are a completely diferent team that without Gasol.
And the equation is not Gasol Lakers= Gasoless Lakers+offense-defense.
With Pau, Odom is playing way better than before. He is now a 3rd option, not a second one.
With Pau, there is no Kwame Brown out there flumbling passes and screwing things up.
Etc. etc.

cavsfan_osiris wrote:Actually there's more pressure on Ray Allen than ever before to be productive. He's the key to Boston's chances. The Lakers don't need Gasol to be great, but Boston does need Ray to be very good just to have a chance.

you are right. I have said this about every series. ray allen shoots lights out we dont lose. the reason we have had a tough time (other than defensive lapses) is the ability not to match hoops. ray allen was killing us. with him being money, thats hard to beat cause PP and KG are pretty consistent, to some level.

What I really want is that EVERY expert pick Lakers

The interesting thing about this series is usually you say let the best player do it alone and shut everyone else down, because the best player will get his points. But letting Kobe do his thing is scary because he CAN DO IT ALONE!

I'd also add that the Hawks are a much better home team than they are on the road. At home, they had the same record as the Magic, Wizards, and Raptors. If Bibby had been with the team all year long, they likely would have been 2nd only to Detroit and us for the best home record in the east.

MOMENTUM!

Lakers are 12-3 in the Playoffs and the Celtics are 12-8

Five more losses,

anyone can argue the match-ups because they are completely subjective, but wins & losses are absolute

Whoever gets to 16 Wins first is the Champ!

ShowtimeFan wrote:MOMENTUM!

Lakers are 12-3 in the Playoffs and the Celtics are 12-8

Five more losses,

anyone can argue the match-ups because they are completely subjective, but wins & losses are absolute

Whoever gets to 16 Wins first is the Champ!

your getting too caught up in wins and loses and how they compare.

its the finals, it means nothing now. this is another level than all the other playoff series.

we could talk about the regular season celtics, but does it really mean anything. nope!

its a whole new ballgame now. its 0-0 and this is for thr championship. dont expect the celtics to be what they were early in the playoffs. they have only got stronger and stronger.

you remind me of kobe, a bit too overconfident.

i like you're analysis. i think gasol will be good but his impact might be a wash.

the game will really be won/lost with the benches. the LA bench is really starting to play well and they really came through the other night when down 17. the boston bench has been prone to giving up leads mainly cuz sam cassell has been terrible. this is where the series will be won/lost...

The Hawks series will go down as a bit of boon for the C's. Our own "fans" used that logic to decide the C's wouldn't get by Cleveland. And then everyone said we couldn't be Detroit because we had a hard time with Cleveland.

Truth is - those series mean nothing now in the finals. The C's aren't the same team now that they were at the start of the playoffs. I don't know if it's a return to form or a sign of growth as a team. But the C's have surived their slump and should go into the series playing very well.

This long layoff does worry me some..but I still love their chances in this series. In a way it reminds me of the old Lakers Celtics series because I feel the C's are just the bigger stronger tougher and meaner team - whereas LA is the finesse team.

Pete

its funny cause the celtics were never blown out in atl. still everyone wants to use that a measuring stick of the celts.

plain and simple, the hawks never had a chance to take a lead in that series cause they were never in any of the boston home games. not even close.

I wish people would let it go. its a cheap shot and a joke. the celtics are not the first #1 team to go 7 games in the first round. I cant imagine unless I am wrong.

I mean give me a break. detroit went 4 straight games down to the lebrons. still, eveyone thought detroit was a sure win early against us this year.

the arguements are too funny.

GuyClinch wrote:The Hawks series will go down as a bit of boon for the C's. Our own "fans" used that logic to decide the C's wouldn't get by Cleveland. And then everyone said we couldn't be Detroit because we had a hard time with Cleveland.

Truth is - those series mean nothing now in the finals. The C's aren't the same team now that they were at the start of the playoffs. I don't know if it's a return to form or a sign of growth as a team. But the C's have surived their slump and should go into the series playing very well.

This long layoff does worry me some..but I still love their chances in this series. In a way it reminds me of the old Lakers Celtics series because I feel the C's are just the bigger stronger tougher and meaner team - whereas LA is the finesse team.

Pete

This. End of discussion.

PS I wish friggin' fans could be classy to each other, like the players. I love this board, and have for years, but if now that the Cs are in the Finals we get every (Please Use More Appropriate Word) saying "YOU guys can't win" and then personally insulting us like we're on the team, I'm going to puke.

People are overlooking Rondo is going up against Derek Fisher and not Chauncey Billups anymore...Rondo is going to have a big series.

idrinkrootbeer wrote:Some people are picking Lakers in five. That means Lakers have to steal one in Boston, then win three in a row at home (something that hasn't been done before [I don't think]; if it has been done, it's only been a few times).

And this is assuming that the Lakers are a significantly better team than the Celtics. We can look at statistics to compare: Celtics had the better record, winning nine more games, and having a win margin +3 more than the Lakers. But the Lakers had to play in the tough conference. Well, the Celtics' record against the West was 25-5. The Lakers, meanwhile, only had a 20-10 record against the Leastern conference. Looks like the Celtics win here.

So let's compare head-to-head meetings. In the first game against them we won by 13 points, 107-94. At halftime we were up by 18. In the second game we won by 19 points, 110-91. This was before Chris Wallace gave the Lakers Gasol for a bag of Ruffles potato chips.

So will Gasol completely negate our dominance over the Lakers? Will he not only negate our dominance over the Lakers, but make the Lakers dominant over us? Seems like a bit of a stretch.

So now this brings us to the post-season records. Lakers fans will certainly deploy the "Hawks took you to seven games" argument. Well let's look at the Celtics' and Lakers' post-season records more closely.

Lakers rolled through the finals, first sweeping Nuggets. No surprise there: Lakers swept them in the regular season too, winning games 127-99, 111-107, and 116-99. A huge margin of victory.

Next, Lakers were taken to six games against Utah. They did slightly worse against Utah than they did in the regular season, in which they beat them 3/4 times. All three of these wins against Utah in the regular season were without Gasol. To spell it out for you: A Gasol-less Lakers beat Utah three times in the regular season, but got taken to six games in the playoffs with Gasol on the team.

Next, there's the Spurs. They did better against them in the playoffs than in the regular season, in which the series was split, 2-2. But one of their losses was without Gasol or Bynum. Still, the Lakers did slightly better against the Spurs in the post-season than in the regular season.

So now for the Celtics. The Hawks series was strange. People accuse us of merely squeaking past them. The fact that they took us to seven games is misleading. Nonetheless, we absolutely destroyed them at home, just as we should.

Cleveland split with us in the regular season, and played us as tough as any team in the league. It's no surprise then that they took us to seven games and almost beat us. If there's one team that was capable of doing it, it was them.

In the regular season, we won 2/3 games against Detroit, though they played us tough. This is reflected in our playoff series with them, too.

So if you compare the playoffs with the regular season, things went according to plan. The two deviances are the Hawks winning at home, and the Lakers beating the Spurs faster than they should've. And I think these two reasons are the core as to why people think the Lakers will beat us. The strangeness in our inability to win on the road seems to be solved, however, with two road wins against Detroit. Lakers are looking good in the playoffs, but their record pretty much reflects how they did against those teams in the regular season. Same for the Celtics, except for road losses to the Hawks...

So the main question is can Gasol really make that much of a difference to overcome their struggles against us? One noticeable difficulty the Lakers had with us is their ability to defend us. Gasol has always been known as a horrible defender. So this area is markedly worse than before. So Gasol's offense has to be absolutely dominant for the Lakers to have a chance against us.

So I ask you this: do you think Gasol can dominate against us? I highly doubt he can dominate Perk and PJ Brown, but that's just me. What I'm trying to get at is that it's pretty ridiculous for every ESPN expert to pick against us, some saying we will lose in five games. The ability for them to even make this a series against us will largely rest on whether or not Gasol can dominate against us.

I am just curious by the answer to this....but what exactly is misleading about your 7 game series with the Hawks?

I mean....my view is that the regular season is one season in itself and the playoffs is another......but you did in fact get taken 7 games by the losing record Hawks. I dont see what is so misleading about that.