Since this is a Celtics forum

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    OK....I have stayed out of the arguement for quite a while.....I am now simply responding to a recent comment....the "mother of all arguements" now shifts the #1 ranking to the Lakers because they have the most regular season wins in league history (3125 .620%), with the Celtics at #2 (3067 .595%)..

    taking a closer look here....

    Regular season head to head Celtics lead 153-123 (.554%)

    Playoff games head to head Celtics lead 43-31 (.581)

    Total games head to head Celtics lead 196-154 (.560%)

    Bottom line, the Celtics have the advantage in both games won and playoff series won head to head in the all time series...

    please take note....no sarcasm...just statistics.... 

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Fiercest34's comment:

     

    It's really hilarious that queenshag would instantly jump from one argument to another if he loses the original argument.

     

    queenshag: Show proof where it said the west was weak in the 80s.

    Fierce: http://hoopsanalyst.com/blog/?p=73

    queenshag: Lakers have the edge in all-time regular season wins.

    DUH!

     



    NO, it's his MO........... have you seen how he's distorted OUR argument?

    2008 - Bynum got hurt, the lakers jumped in on MEM and stole Gasol from the Bulls......Gasol was brought in to play center until Bynum returned.....they had no center.......

    NOW he's all about - "can you prove if Bynum had NOT been hurt, they would NOT have traded for Gasol?"

    "Bynum's injury was the impetus for the Gasol trade." - Mitch Kupchak

     

    Dont' know what else he wants or needs to be proven WRONG!!!

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Fiercest34's comment:

     

    You asked for proof, I gave you proof that the west was weaker in the 80s.

    Now you want to jump to all-time regular season records?



    It's your logic, if you used regular season records, it means the Lakers are a greater franchise.

    In other words, I asked for proof, you don't have it unless it's proof that supports our claim.

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Fiercest34's comment:

     


    You're going to lecture me about english when english is not even your first language.

    English is your first language? doesn't look like it. How would you use a present tense for something that's yet to happen?

    So, you lied about the 1940s and the 2010s, that

     "The Lakers are the only NBA team to lose in the Finals in every decade."

     

    Speaking of english, if you know how to read, that article I showed you clearly stated that the western conference was weak in the 80s. 

    This is merely an opinion, not a fact. It's your opinion that regular season record can back up this speculation that the west was weak in the 80s, I happen to disagree. So what do you have? your opnion vs mine.

    In other words, I have facts that the Lakers made 8 finals and won 5 championships. By your standard that making 4 finals and winning 4 championship means "dominate", the Lakers dominated in the 80s.

     

     

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Fiercest34's comment:

     

    It's really hilarious that queenshag would instantly jump from one argument to another if he loses the original argument.

    queenshag: Show proof where it said the west was weak in the 80s.

    Fierce: http://hoopsanalyst.com/blog/?p=73

    queenshag: Lakers have the edge in all-time regular season wins.

    Your camp's own standpoint, only championship matters, nothing else, not even missing the playoffs (i.e. regular season sucks).

    Now when the you get nothing to support the west is weak, you have to resort to regular season?

    Do you think I'll let you?



     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Red-16Russ-11's comment:


    NO, it's his MO........... have you seen how he's distorted OUR argument?

    2008 - Bynum got hurt, the lakers jumped in on MEM and stole Gasol from the Bulls......Gasol was brought in to play center until Bynum returned.....they had no center.......

    NOW he's all about - "can you prove if Bynum had NOT been hurt, they would NOT have traded for Gasol?"

    "Bynum's injury was the impetus for the Gasol trade." - Mitch Kupchak

     

    Dont' know what else he wants or needs to be proven WRONG!!!



    Now there you go again. Just one after after saying that you gave up, you are smarting again.

    "Bynum's injury was the impetus for the Gasol trade." - Mitch Kupchak

    And there you go again, trying to use A=>B to equate to !A=>!B.

    And this is only my claim? Are you willing to admit that "had bynum not injured, no gasol trade" is NOT your argument?

     

     

     

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Duke4's comment:

     

    one other note.....since this discussion is about the Celtics and Lakers, it is my opinion that the most important factor is head to head all time....that said, I realize that it is only my opinion and I understand that Laker fans will have their own opinions....I am trying to take a more civil approach to these discussions since there is really no reason to just try and pi$$ off fans who believe otherwise....after all, we are all entitled to our thoughts and opinions....fair enough...?

     



    One requirement of an objective discussion is to avoid cherry picking facts to argue. By limiting the context to head-to-head and finals record, it's just that, cherry picking facts to try to boost up your argument.

    Not only is head-to-head an illusion, it's an attempt to mislead. You are rewarding the Celtics for failure, i.e. failing to reach the finals is a credit to the Celtics, while the Lakers reaching the finals but losing is a penalty.

    This distortion is all against our sporting convention, namely

    winning == good

    playoff advancement == good

    But your logic is simply

    team A -

    Year N: winning championship

    Year N+1: 1st round elimination

    Year N+2: missing playoffs

    result = 1-0

    team B -

    Year N: losing in the finals,

    Year N+1: winning championship;

    Year N+2: losing in the finals,

    result = 1-2

    Thus Team A (1-0) is better than team B (1-2), by rewarding it's failure.

     

     

     

     

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Red-16Russ-11's comment:


    NO, it's his MO........... have you seen how he's distorted OUR argument?

    2008 - Bynum got hurt, the lakers jumped in on MEM and stole Gasol from the Bulls......Gasol was brought in to play center until Bynum returned.....they had no center.......

    NOW he's all about - "can you prove if Bynum had NOT been hurt, they would NOT have traded for Gasol?"

    "Bynum's injury was the impetus for the Gasol trade." - Mitch Kupchak

     

    Dont' know what else he wants or needs to be proven WRONG!!!

    You said:
    NOW he's all about - "can you prove if Bynum had NOT been hurt, they would NOT have traded for Gasol?"

    Are you saying that this speculation is only what I am all about? It's not your claim that I challenged?

    This is EXACTLY the root cause that led to a 2-year  argument.

    You are using some irrelevant facts to assert this claim "Had Bynum not injured, no Gasol trade" as the truth.

    What irrelevant facts?

    1) Gasol was brought in to play center during Bynum's injury, thus it means "Had Bynum not injured, no Gasol trade"

    Gasol was expected to play center only for 1.5 months, as Bynum was expected to return in March. The fact that he failed to return didn't change the expectation during the trade that Gasol was expected to play PF in late March/April/playoffs. Since this was the expectation, why wouldn't the Lakers trade for him to strengthen the squad? You claimed that "trading for Gasol was not a viable option" before the injury, why wasn't it a viable option?

    So what does "Bynum injury causing the trade" have to do with  "Had he not injured, the trade would stlll have happened"? Would the Lakers not be interested in strengthening the squad that's lingering between 3rd and 6th in the conference? Why aren't they interested in such a trade? that's the key point you have no way to answer.

    The SI article you cited exactly supported that: Bryant claimed that the trade was due to his outburst rather than the Bynum injury. In other words, the article supported my claim, not yours.

    - the fact you cited recently, that Memphis was about to trade Gasol to Chicago for Noah, Deng, etc.

    This one is even more head-scratching. How would this fact be relevant to "Had Bynum not injured"? The point is, Memphis would take the best available package by conventional wisdom. So if Bynum not injured, why wouldn't the Lakers be able to offer a better package (Kwame & changes + Marc Gasol)  than the Bulls to Memphis? There is absolutely no connection to that.

    See, I have no problem with the fact that

    ""Bynum's injury was the impetus for the Gasol trade."

    If this is your argument, we wouldn't have done this for 2 years. It's the inverse (!A=>!B) that you preach that bothers me. Now, are you trying to say that the inverse is only my argument? not yours? Your own posts:

    http://www.boston.com/community/forums/sports/celtics/on-the-front-burner/since-this-is-a-celtics-forum/100/6312998?page=8

    9/7/2012 01:17:37 EDT
    "prove without a doubt that the lakers would not have Gasol if Bynum wasn't injured!"

    9/7/2012 01:25:43 EDT
    "Since they didn't approach MEM until after Bynum got hurt.............I said the trade would not have happened."

    http://www.boston.com/community/forums/sports/celtics/on-the-front-burner/since-this-is-a-celtics-forum/100/6312998?page=7

    9/7/2012 10:45:35
    "and the trade would not have been made if he didn't get hurt"

    See, you have to make up your mind whether the inverse ("Had bynum not injured...") is your stand or not.

    But knowing you, you can't stand challenged when push comes to shove, you'll use your standard "bye", "I am done", "I won't argue with you anymore", "i am tired of showing any more proofs" stunts again. And come back again within 24 hours to claim that " I win", "I've shown all the proofs", "'Had Bynum not injured..." is not your claim"...

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    Head to head is an illusion.........?  ....w o w........

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Duke4's comment:

     

    Head to head is an illusion.........?  ....w o w........

     


    Yes, because if the other wins the championship as often as you do but lose in the head to head, what does it mean?

    It means when you win, your opponent advances to the finals;

    but when your opponent wins, you wimp out in the early rounds.

    Why do you reward early exits?

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    KingShaq is an illusion.......................

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    King....just wondering....are you by any chance a Rams fan.....?   .....I sure am...

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Duke4's comment:

     

    King....just wondering....are you by any chance a Rams fan.....?   .....I sure am...

     




    Duke, please tell me YOU at least get my argument!!

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    yes, I do Red! ....I amost fell over when I heard the details on ESPN the day of the trade...I couldn't believe how one sided it was...and I was a Gasol fan....still am.....one of the most talented big men I've seen over the years...

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Red-16Russ-11's comment:

     

    KingShaq is an illusion.......................

     




     

    Illusion is not trying to use "Bynum injury => Gasol trade" to imply "no Bynum injury => no Gasol trade". That's for sure.

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Fiercest34's comment:[/QUOTE]

    You're a fraud!

    All you asked was proof that the western conference was weaker in 80s. I gave it to you.

    [/QUOTE]


    That's your problem. You think just by giving some garbage, that constitute proofs, just like RedRust did: "I talked to ESPN LA" (but can't furnish any recording of what they said), that constituted proofs that no Bynum injury => no Gasol trade.

    Your proof is not relevant. How can you use regular season record to prove the east is stronger? We are talking about playoffs!!!! Basically, your small thinking have been trying to discredit the regular season:

    - Lakers superior record in the regular season doesn't count

    - Celtics flaming out in the regular season doesn't count as discredit (your own standpoint), because they would have gotten lottery picks.

    Yet when it helps you to prove that the East is stronger, then count the regular season records. See how you want to move the goalposts? do you think I'll let you?

     

     

     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Fiercest34's comment:

    How can your opinion be valid when you're just a troll antagonizing Celtic fans?

    And my standard is if you're unbeaten in the Finals, you're a dominating team. The Lakers never dominated. Only a fool like you would say a 5-3 Finals record is dominating.  




    Simple, because I catch contradictions in your opinions (your usage of regular season, since you have been discrediting the regular season by saying "missing playoffs are good, it translates to lottery picks").

    And your standard also consists of contradictions. So you are unbeaten in the finals but beaten in the early rounds/missing playoffs == dominating team.

    So you are giving credits teams for early playoff exits.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share