• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Official NBA Playoffs Thread (Predictions Welcome!)

Page 56 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Celtics played a great game yesterday.

Baby davis and robinson are psycho sometimes, but what the celtics displayed as a team is the level of emotion and commitment that's needed to win a championship. Finally they pulled it together as a unit late in the game, where their defense spurred their offense.
 
Flipped Gazelle said:
It's been pretty fun. Things got really frantic at times last night.
Click to expand...

There was still that loose ball possesion in the 2nd half that ended up with Farmar getting essentially high/low tackled and there was no call. There were bodies flying everywhere. I still can't beleive that one was allowed to play out.
 
AznMthr said:
my faith is renewed. by the truth. with the series split 2-2, i now predict celtics in 7! maybe even 6, but unlikely.
Click to expand...

I want it to go 7 so the Laker fans will be that much closer to tasting victory. They're fucking obnixious, I have a neighbor who has 10 of those Laker flags in the windows of his big ass SUV. I understand 1 or maybe 1 on each side. But 10? really? I have 2 bets with him on the series, the 1st bet was Lakers win $100 bucks. The 2nd was a $20 bet that the Lakers would sweep Boston. You gotta be an idiot to bet on a sweep, as much as I like the Celtics no way in hell I would have bet him the opposite before game 1 started.
 
cheezy321 said:
http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/16542/tim-donaghys-questionable-punditry

A good read for all those NBA conspiracy theorists out there
Click to expand...

Interesting, but nothing surprising, IMO. I'm one of the folks who believes that the "conspiracy" is more player-focused; allow certain players (LBJ most egregiously) to bend the rules in order to build star power. Shaq offensive-fouled constantly by driving his shoulder into defenders, and that was almost never called. Although it was mitigated somewhat by the fact that he sometimes would get hacked by smaller players and refs didn't call that, either.

The 2 times where I really felt that there might be a conspiracy to influence a series win was in 2006 with Dwayne Wade getting every conceivable call against Dallas, and Game 6 of the 2002 West. Conf. Finals, where IMO there was a conspiracy to ensure a Game 7, by giving LA an inordinate # of FT's.
 
Flipped Gazelle said:
SNIP
Click to expand...

100% in agreement with you. I think 'star treatment' in the NBA is absolutely real. 2006 NBA finals and the treatment of Dwayne Wade was ridiculous. They changed some of the rules back in the day to allow Shaquille O'Neal to become a star. Not only the pushing, but the elbows as well.

Does the star treatment affect the outcome of the game? Sometimes.

Is there some broader conspiracy? No
 
The NBA is the same way as the NFL. Defense is a four letter word. Everything is geared for the offense/offensive player. If there is a rule or interpretation it will indubitably be biased for the person in the scoring position.

We don't sing songs of praise about defensive stands or playmaking...it's always about scoring points. Stars get the preference because they are the best with putting points on the board.
 
vi edit said:
The NBA is the same way as the NFL. Defense is a four letter word. Everything is geared for the offense/offensive player. If there is a rule or interpretation it will indubitably be biased for the person in the scoring position.

We don't sing songs of praise about defensive stands or playmaking...it's always about scoring points. Stars get the preference because they are the best with putting points on the board.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with you a little bit there. The NBA is not traditionally a "defense" league. I know a lot of people grew on NBA ball in the 90's, but in the decades prior to that offense ruled.

Defensive statistics today are given greater emphasis than 50 years ago. Back then, there weren't official stats for blocks and steals. Now, these are 2 of the more glamorous statistics. How many times per game do we hear Mike Breen talk about how Rondo's set a Celtics record for steals, or how he & Kobe are 1st team all-defense?

Detoit's "Bad Boys" of ~ 20 years ago really got the ball rolling with thuggish defense, followed by NY, Miami. This was aided & abetted by so many new players coming in to the league who wanted to play isolation basketball; everyone was trying to be Jordan. So not only was defense tough & physical, but offense got stagnant. At this point, few players could hit mid-range jumpers. The league tried to increase scoring by moving in the 3 pt line, but that backfired and simply created more congestion because 3 pt shooters were no longer far away enough to space the floor, and the resultant congestion actually helped the defense; it was one less step for a defender to run at the 3 pt shooter.

So the NBA eventually moved the 3 pt line back to it's current distance. Since then, a few interesting defensive adjustments occurred: the NBA started really cracking down on hand-checking; the "restricted area" around the hoop was established; and zone defenses were allowed.

Another thing to think about: NBA courts are too small. The current 94' x 50' dimensions were established when players were shorter, weaker, slower. The court needs to be enlarged, and the baskets raised, in order to return the league to it's original proportions.
 
Last edited:
Flipped Gazelle said:
I have to disagree with you a little bit there. The NBA is not traditionally a "defense" league. I know a lot of people grew on NBA ball in the 90's, but in the decades prior to that offense ruled.

Defensive statistics today are given greater emphasis than 50 years ago. Back then, there weren't official stats for blocks and steals. Now, these are 2 of the more glamorous statistics. How many times per game do we hear Mike Breen talk about how Rondo's set a Celtics record for steals, or how he & Kobe are 1st team all-defense?

Detoit's "Bad Boys" of ~ 20 years ago really got the ball rolling with thuggish defense, followed by NY, Miami. This was aided & abetted by so many new players coming in to the league who wanted to play isolation basketball; everyone was trying to be Jordan. So not only was defense tough & physical, but offense got stagnant. At this point, few players could hit mid-range jumpers. The league tried to increase scoring by moving in the 3 pt line, but that backfired and simply created more congestion because 3 pt shooters were no longer far away enough to space the floor, and the resultant congestion actually helped the defense; it was one less step for a defender to run at the 3 pt shooter.

So the NBA eventually moved the 3 pt line back to it's current distance. Since then, a few interesting defensive adjustments occurred: the NBA started really cracking down on hand-checking; the "restricted area" around the hoop was established; and zone defenses were allowed.

Another thing to think about: NBA courts are too small. The current 94' x 50' dimensions were established when players were shorter, weaker, slower. The court needs to be enlarged, and the baskets raised, in order to return the league to it's original proportions.
Click to expand...

You don't want Big Baby running over kids again
 
Should the Lakers sit Bynum for Game 5?

If Bynum's knee is not as good as it was in Game 3, should the Lakers just hold him out for Game 6? LA is clearly capable of beating Boston w/o Bynum, and even if LA loses Game 5, they still have home court advantage, and (hopefully) a more whole Bynum available for Games 6 & 7.
 
Flipped Gazelle said:
Should the Lakers sit Bynum for Game 5?

If Bynum's knee is not as good as it was in Game 3, should the Lakers just hold him out for Game 6? LA is clearly capable of beating Boston w/o Bynum, and even if LA loses Game 5, they still have home court advantage, and (hopefully) a more whole Bynum available for Games 6 & 7.
Click to expand...
I'm not a doctor but what kind of long term damage will Andrew Bynum will do to his knee by keep playing? If he will be fine with the off season surgery, then he should keep playing. The man can't catch a break with knee injuries.
 
techforums said:
I'm not a doctor but what kind of long term damage will Andrew Bynum will do to his knee by keep playing? If he will be fine with the off season surgery, then he should keep playing. The man can't catch a break with knee injuries.
Click to expand...

I'm no doctor, either, but from everything I've read Bymun is unlikely to do lasting damage to his knee.

My thinking behind not playing Bynum: say he could play at 50% tonight, and then 50% again for Game 6. Would the Lakers be better served not playing Bynum at all tonight if it meant he would be at 80% for Game 6?

Bynum says he's feeling better since he got his knee drained again on Friday.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top