Since this is a Celtics forum

  1. 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:

     

    Phil Jackson and Mitch Kupchak agree with me...........................

     




    Where did Phil and Kup agree with you that "Had Bynum not injured ..."?

    They said "Bynum injury => Gasol trade" == "No Bynum injury => No Gasol trade"? Where did they say that?

    Still don't want to give up that A=>B is not equal to !A=>!B? Do you think I'll let you use "Bynum injury => Gasol trade" to equate to the inverse?

     

     

     

     
  2. 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 be late for work again.

    I already showed you the proof. It's you who refuses to accept the truth.

    5-3 Finals record is not dominating. That's a fact!

    Moving the entire field are we?




    Your proof is soundly refuted by your own disregard of the regular season. 5-3 is not dominating may or may not be a fact, but by your own logic, it is, unless you can proof that  8>4 is not a fact, and 5>4 is not a fact.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. 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:

     

    In response to KingShaq's comment:

    See, when you get cornered, just move the goal posts.

    This is about the Lakers' team opponents, not individual opponents. Show us the NBA's position that the western conference teams are weak that reaching the final from the west doesn't count.


    When everything fails, just bring up 1-on-1 street ball, Dr. J vs Dale Ellis, Tom Chambers vs Isiah. Yet when I showed you the 20 HOFers the Lakers faced in the playoffs, you wimped out with only "Alex English". Yep, Alex English is a HOFer, and you have no way to refute that fact.

    And you have absolutely no way to substantiate your claim. Besides, the Lakers making the 8 finals is still way better than the Spurs making 4 finals. Using YOUR LOGIC, the Lakers dominated, unless you can tell us a team is better to lose in the early rounds than in the finals, i.e. you think early playoff exit is good.

     




    I didn't move the goal post. It was you who asked for proof about the west being weak in the 80s.

    When I gave you an article about how the west was weak, you not only moved the goal post, you moved the entire field when you said the report must come from the NBA. 

    Seriously!




    Seriously, you ever showed any NBA proofs that the 80s west was weak? interesting...

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. 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:

    regarding the question of whether or not the NBA wrote the article saying the West was weaker in the 80's...this "who is better" thread was started when a Laker fan posted an article written by a journalist (Hollinger) who is a Laker supporter...he had his opinion just as "our guy" Bill Simmons does as a Celtic fan

    ....evidently Laker fans took it as the "gospel"....why is it so different when another journalist points out what happened during the 80's....?

    again...I ask this respectfully....no sarcasm or anything....just continuing the dialogue.

     




    Um.... treating it as gospel == treating it as fact? You obviously have trouble understanding what is fact and what is not.

    Let me get it really slow to you:

    - Lakers franchise better than the Celtics franchise - Hollinger's opinion, which I concur

    - the west of the 80s was weak - opinion, not a fact

    - the west teams of the 80s have worse records than the east teams, thus the west was weaker - opinion, not a fact, since it's someone's opinion to use regular season records to compare teams, yet on other occasions he disregard the regular seasons.

    - the Lakers reached 8 finals and won 5 titles in the 80s - fact

    - the Lakers reached 8 finals and won 5 titles in the 80s BECAUSE THE WEST WAS WEAK -- an opinion, not a fact, thus Fierce confused what a fact and an opinion is.

    - the Lakers dominated the 80s - a conclusion drawn from Fierce's logic (because he claimed that 4 finals and 4 titles == dominate).

     

     
  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:

     

    Why the Spurs are more dominant?

    Because every time they made it to the Finals they won.

    The Lakers couldn't even beat the same Pistons team the Spurs beat in 2005.

     And like I said, it doesn't matter what you say, as long as you'll be here until June 2013, I'll have an audience.



    "Every time they made it to the Finals" is an arbitrary qualification. What about the times they flamed out in the 2nd round? the conference finals? Is it better or worse than losing in the finals?

    So you advocate losing again.

     

     

     
  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 don't need to hear it from the NBA. Every NBA fan of the 80s know that the Sixers of Dr. J, the Celtics of Larry Bird, and the Pistons of Isiah Thomas were great teams. Not like the Nuggets of Alex English, the Sonics of Dale Ellis, and the Suns of Tom Chambers. If you just use your common sense you would have figured it by now.

    And just a tip, if your common sense is crappy, just like your crappy Laker team, you'll continue to clean dumpsters and urinals all your life. 

     




    Oh, so you resort to "you don't need proofs", "if you don't believe me then you don't have common sense"?

    Good, it means you don't have anything to back up your wishy washy.

    In other words, making the finals from the west is still better than not making the finals from the east...

     

     
  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:

     

    We all know 5-3 is not dominating. The Lakers were closer to being dominant in the 2k era when they went 5-2 in the Finals. But in the 80s, there is no way the Lakers dominated that era. 

    The Lakers lost to Dr. J, Larry Bird, and Isiah Thomas. Ugh!




    5-3 can't be "not dominating", since it's 5-3-1-0-1-0. Is 5-3-1-0-1-0 better or worse than the Spurs' (1999-2008) 4-0-2-3-1-0?

    You don't think you can wipe out the Spurs' 6 seasons of failure, do you?

    That's interesting...

     

     

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. 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 dfurypos' comment:

     

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

    In response to dfurypos' comment:

     

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

    In response to KingShaq's comment:

     

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

     

    I'm tired of your pontificating..............you know nothing about basketball and are a fountain of misinformation.........you have probably never played a REAL team sport in your life (kicking balls around a field "doesn't count"), and you only come on here to annoy people..........get a life!!!




    And you are up to personal attack again. Why bother when you can't argue? or when others don't accept your distortion? No matter what, I caught your hand in the cookie jar regarding this "no Bynum injury => no Gasol trade", and you have no way to back out, no matter how many times you yap, how many times you claim you give up, how many times you claim you showed the proofs.


    You have no way to get off the hook.

     




     

    Phil Jackson and Mitch Kupchak agree with me...........................

     



    You putting yourself in the same sentence as Mitch is laughable!  :):)

     




    I didn't...............he already said it, and I posted it!!  BIG difference, bloggy, but you wouldn't understand the difference

     



    No you said it!  :ok:

     




    Nope, I reported what Kupchak and Jackson said to back up my argument.........bloggy

     
  13. 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 BloggetyBloop's comment:

     

    I didn't...............he already said it, and I posted it!!  BIG difference, bloggy, but you wouldn't understand the difference

     

    -----------------------------------------------------

    For the record, I have been faithful to our bet, but since you are accusing me of being another poster, I had to return sooner. What should it matter anyways considering Fiercest34  made a wager to not return until next month a long time ago, and he never left and is still makes the most ludicris posts on the board.

     




    You never honored the bet, since you are Fake Fury.....you HAVE no honor, you are a liar and a welcher!!

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. 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 KingShaq's comment:

     

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

     

    Phil Jackson and Mitch Kupchak agree with me...........................

     




    Where did Phil and Kup agree with you that "Had Bynum not injured ..."?

    They said "Bynum injury => Gasol trade" == "No Bynum injury => No Gasol trade"? Where did they say that?

    Still don't want to give up that A=>B is not equal to !A=>!B? Do you think I'll let you use "Bynum injury => Gasol trade" to equate to the inverse?

     

     

     

     




    Never said the inverse- only said  - because Bynum got injured is the reason the lakers have Gasol.....the rest YOU made up and made the argument - by moving the goal posts again.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. 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 BloggetyBloop's comment:

     

     

    For the record, I have been faithful to our bet, but since you are accusing me of being another poster, I had to return sooner. What should it matter anyways considering Fiercest34  made a wager to not return until next month a long time ago, and he never left and is still makes the most ludicris posts on the board.

     




    You never honored the bet, since you are Fake Fury.....you HAVE no honor, you are a liar and a welcher!!

    ----------------------

    Fake Fury is a man into himself. Please show any proof that he and I are the same person. I won't be holding my breath. 

    BTW, does Fiercest34 have any honor? Is he also a liar and a welcher? As always, thanks for playing.

     

     

     




    Fierce also welched, and I told him he did.

     

    If Fierce jumped off a building, would you?

     

    Welcher!!!

 
  • This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    How would you even know that if you weren't on the board already?  Are you trying to tell me you have self-control?  YOU, Bynumizahero, who boasted "that was easy" when you came back on???  You can't stay off this board...........if you're not Fake Fury, I'm not Hedley!!

     

    You are a liar and a welcher!!

     
  • 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:


    Never said the inverse- only said  - because Bynum got injured is the reason the lakers have Gasol.....the rest YOU made up and made the argument - by moving the goal posts again.



    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 how idiotic you are? you know full well that I've all these evidence saved, just to exposes your lie like this.

     

     

     
  • 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 really want to talk about failures? 

    The Lakers have a 16-15 Finals record for a measly .516 %.

    The Lakers are the only team to lose in the Finals every decade since the 1950s.

     



    Yep, the Lakers made 31 finals, the Spurs made 4. How's making 31 finals a failure while the one making 4 was considered "dominate"?

    Yep, the Lakers made the finals in EVERY DECADE since the 1940s, while the Celtics didn't. The Spurs are even worse, only made the finals in 2 of the decades.

    You are a weird concept of "failure". You think losing in the final is a failure/"not dominate" while losing in the early round is not?

     

     

     

     

     
  • 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 pretending to forget?

    Here:

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

    While the Celts battled with Philly, Milwaukee, and Detroit, the Lakers had their way with decent teams like Denver and Portland for the entire decade.

     




    You pretend to forget? that's YOUR OPINION that regular season records are counted against the Lakers opponents in the west. I certainly don't agree with that.


    But wait, you claimed that teams doing worse in the regular season is actually better, i.e. go for lottery picks.


    See, it's your own claim that goes against your own opinion...

     

     

     
  • 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:


    We're only talking about the Finals here, not the playoffs.

    Like I said, when you lose an argument, you move the entire field.

    And why are you only talking about the Finals? You mean the NBA seasons are only about the finals? Then how are the finalists determined? flipping coins?

    When your argument is totally shot, just cherry pick a small part of it: we only talk about the finals, we don't talk about anything else before that.

    "The Celtics only played in the NBA for 21 seasons".

    See, you may want to ignore the Celtics' 45 seasons of futility, but do you think I'll let you?

    The Spurs went to the Finals 4 times and they won 4 times. Clearly a dominant team. 

    I mean you can say if the Spurs make it to the Finals, they will surely win.

    So fill in the blanks:

    If the Spurs don't make it to the Finals, _____________

    If the Celtics don't make it to the Finals, ______________

    Don't forget, the Spurs/Celtics fail to make it to the finals more often than not. Now, you are trying to use a non-representative sample (small minority) to illustrate your point. But knowing your ignorance, can't blame you for that....

    But if you're only 5-3 in the Finals, it's not a sure thing that you'll be champs because it has been proven that you lost to 3 different east teams in the Finals.

    The Celtics only lost to the Lakers and the St.Louis Hawks in the Finals.

    Your Lakers even have a losing record to the Knicks in the NBA Finals.

    But it's not a sure thing that the Celtics will make it to the finals. As a matter of fact, it's a long shot. Its odds (31.8%) are even less than the Lakers winning in the finals (51.6%). So in other words, I like the chance of the Lakers winning in the finals than the Celtics making it to the finals.

     

     

     



     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share