In 2008, what if the Spurs played Boston in the Finals. Who Wins?

[LkrFan]

To put it in context, here is how they faired during the regular season:

Game 1: @Boston 98, Spurs 90 (Boston leads series 1-0)

Notable Spur stats:
TD - 10/20 for 22/14/6assts in 40 minutes
Manu - 7/15 for 21/4/4/2 in 38 minutes
Finley - 8/13 for 19 points in 32 minutes
Vaughn starts for TP (DNP)
Team FG% - 44.3%

Notable Celtic stats:
The Truth - 11/18 for 35/6rebs/2stls in 42 minutes
Ray Ray - 7/16 for 19/5/3 in 38 minutes
House - 4/6 for 10/1/1 in 14 minutes
Leon Powe starts for KG (DNP)
Team FG% - 46.5%

Game 2: Boston 93, @Spurs 91 (Boston wins season series 2-0)

Notable Spur stats:
TD - 4/8 for 10/8/3blks in 34 minutes (tired old shit bag #s even in 2008 :lol)
Manu - 10/18 for 32/4/2 in 33 minutes
TP - 7/14 for 17/5rebs/8assts/2stls in 37 minutes
Full squad
Team FG% - 43.8%

Notable Celtic stats:
The Truth - 8/13 for 22/8/5 in 44 minutes
KG - 7/15 for 21/8/2/2 in 39 minutes
Rondo - 9/18 for 20/6/3/3 in 29 minutes
Ray Allen (DNP)
Team FG% - 46.6%

LINK (http://espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=280317024)

So the Spurs were swept by the Celtics, but it was competitive. The Celtics beat the Spurs in game 1 without KG (TD got off on Big Baby and Leon Powe :rolleyes) and once again without Ray Allen (KG easily handled TD). The Celtics' defense held the Spurs to 44% shooting by average on both games. It didn't seem to matter if KG played or not in terms of the Celtics holding the Spurs team to a shitty shooting percentage (except for TD. When KG plays he gets off 8 shots - without KG he gets up 20 shots). The Spurs relied heavily on the 3 ball because they couldn't get the ball inside consistently shooting 19/53 in the two games.

People clown the Lakers for the 2008 debacle, but as you can see even if the Spurs made it to the Finals that year they suffer the same fate. The Lakers throttled the Spurs 4-1 so I would say the Spurs maybe eke out 2 wins if that Finals matchup occurred. But I doubt it.

Thoughts?

[Koolaid_Man]

To put it in context, here is how they faired during the regular season:

Game 1: @Boston 98, Spurs 90 (Boston leads series 1-0)

Notable Spur stats:
TD - 10/20 for 22/14/6assts in 40 minutes
Manu - 7/15 for 21/4/4/2 in 38 minutes
Finley - 8/13 for 19 points in 32 minutes
Vaughn starts for TP (DNP)
Team FG% - 44.3%

Notable Celtic stats:
The Truth - 11/18 for 35/6rebs/2stls in 42 minutes
Ray Ray - 7/16 for 19/5/3 in 38 minutes
House - 4/6 for 10/1/1 in 14 minutes
Leon Powe starts for KG (DNP)
Team FG% - 46.5%

Game 2: Boston 93, @Spurs 91 (Boston wins season series 2-0)

Notable Spur stats:
TD - 4/8 for 10/8/3blks in 34 minutes (tired old shit bag #s even in 2008 :lol)
Manu - 10/18 for 32/4/2 in 33 minutes
TP - 7/14 for 17/5rebs/8assts/2stls in 37 minutes
Full squad
Team FG% - 43.8%

Notable Celtic stats:
The Truth - 8/13 for 22/8/5 in 44 minutes
KG - 7/15 for 21/8/2/2 in 39 minutes
Rondo - 9/18 for 20/6/3/3 in 29 minutes
Ray Allen (DNP)
Team FG% - 46.6%

LINK (http://espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=280317024)

So the Spurs were swept by the Celtics, but it was competitive. The Celtics beat the Spurs in game 1 without KG (TD got off on Big Baby and Leon Powe :rolleyes) and once again without Ray Allen (KG easily handled TD). The Celtics' defense held the Spurs to 44% shooting by average on both games. It didn't seem to matter if KG played or not in terms of the Celtics holding the Spurs team to a shitty shooting percentage (except for TD. When KG plays he gets off 8 shots - without KG he gets up 20 shots). The Spurs relied heavily on the 3 ball because they couldn't get the ball inside consistently shooting 19/53 in the two games.

People clown the Lakers for the 2008 debacle, but as you can see even if the Spurs made it to the Finals that year they suffer the same fate. The Lakers throttled the Spurs 4-1 so I would say the Spurs maybe eke out 2 wins if that Finals matchup occurred. But I doubt it.

Thoughts?


In the battle on the teams that couldn't win back to back...I'd say the Celts....Garnetts knees were starting to give way in 2008...

[Venti Quattro]

Boston in 6

[LkrFan]

Boston in 6

You give the Spurs 2 wins? Explain.

[Venti Quattro]

You give the Spurs 2 wins? Explain.

Same as LA, great homecourt. But even if all 7 games were played in any homecourt other than Boston, they weren't going to be beaten in 2008.

[DMC]

What if Dallas played the Lakers this year?

Sweep. That's my prediction.

[hater]

:lol swept by Jose Juan Barea

[lefty]

Spurs of course


Duh

[Killakobe81]

LOL last year ... upset by the Memph Grizz who never won a playoff game

2010 Ousted by the Defenseless Suns

2009 Beaten by the alls Mavs (no Chandler yet)

2008 Beat by the Lakers, but what's new?

[lefty]

LOL last year ... upset by the Memph Grizz who never won a playoff game

2010 Ousted by the Defenseless Suns

2009 Beaten by the alls Mavs (no Chandler yet)

2008 Beat by the Lakers, but what's new?*
cough, collusion trade, cough

[pass1st]

Celtics were the best team that year, no real contest.

[Leetonidas]

Celtics.

[stretch]

Boston in 4, maybe 5

[TE]

Celtics by 6 or 7.

2008 was the last year the Spurs ever had a chance to make noise but ultimately failed to due to fatigue and old age. The Celtics big three was older in age but that necessarily doesn't account for mileage. The Spur's big three along with the rest of that old ass team had a lot of mileage by that year due to long playoff runs in prior years.

[Fabbs]

If Brent Barry goes up for the game winning shot and a homo tries to mount him, will he be rightly awarded three free throw attempts?

Doc Rivers > Poppycock in battle of the titans.

[Dex]

Celts. Spurs were struggling with a gimpy Manu that year in the playoffs (what else is new?), whereas the Celtics seemed to have the stars aligned for them.

[#41 Shoot Em Up]

Spurs lose.... simple as that

[stretch]

i still cant justify why the spurs lost 3 other games to the lakers despite thinking they got jobbed in one!

http://insideoutandbackwards.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/ralph-wiggum-playing-spoons.jpg

[LkrFan]

Same as LA, great homecourt. But even if all 7 games were played in any homecourt other than Boston, they weren't going to be beaten in 2008.

Point taken, but the Lakers beat the Spurs 4-1 in those playoffs. The Celtic defense >>> Lakers were that year with a Big 3 that could carry them offensively. I noted in my original post that TD got off on Big Baby and Leon Powe in their first game, but in game 2 when KG played he only put up 8 shots (officially) making 4.

TD is the focal point of everything the Spurs do as others have said. Even at his advanced age this is still the case. But when you put someone on him that is his equal (Pau in 2008) or better (KG in 2008) he does not dominate get to dominate like he did throughout his career against 6'8" scrub PFs and unathletic Cs. Anyway, the Celtics know that they can mostly have KG guard TD one on one then suffocate everyone else. In a playoff series you can really zero in on your opponents' weaknesses. No one did that better than Boston that year. The Spurs shot 53 3ptrs in their 2-game series against Boston because they couldn't establish a consistent low post presence. Even in TD's lone 22 point outburst he took 20 shots (officially) to get there.

Come to think about it, I think they would have swept the Spurs that year. I don't see one true mismatch the Spurs had. Rondo v. Parker. Ray v. Manu. KG v. TD. Who checks the Truth - Finley? I rest my case.

[LkrFan]

Celts. Spurs were struggling with a gimpy Manu that year in the playoffs (what else is new?), whereas the Celtics seemed to have the stars aligned for them.

The Celtics also had some vets like Cassell and PJ Brown that did damage for them. They were not going to be denied that year.

[LkrFan]

Celtics by 6 or 7.

2008 was the last year the Spurs ever had a chance to make noise but ultimately failed to due to fatigue and old age. The Celtics big three was older in age but that necessarily doesn't account for mileage. The Spur's big three along with the rest of that old ass team had a lot of mileage by that year due to long playoff runs in prior years.

Only way the series goes 6 or 7 is if there is some major injury to one of the Celtics Big 3. Yes they were old, but they their style of play complemented each other rather well. All could shoot the 3 (yes even KG has that kind of range). All has some semblance of a low post game. The Truth has a great midrange game. KG lead their stifling defense. Ray is an underrated complete player.

The Spurs Big 3 was good in 2008 - no lie - but Boston has every answer for them and then some. 5 at the most, but likely a sweep.

[mavs>spurs]

boston had da formidable 3 that year they had no excuse to not win it with such a strong squad mayne, allen/pierce/GK were all in there primes back then. plus they never rang b4 that so they were WAY more desperate then them spurs who had won 4 already.

[Fabbs]

I'll sniff Kobe's shorts forever.
Spurs up 20 game 1 and Lord Poppycock takes Bowen out of the game.
stenchs MVP Greg Pop.

[Proxy]

To put it in context, here is how they faired during the regular season:

Game 1: @Boston 98, Spurs 90 (Boston leads series 1-0)

Notable Spur stats:
TD - 10/20 for 22/14/6assts in 40 minutes
Manu - 7/15 for 21/4/4/2 in 38 minutes
Finley - 8/13 for 19 points in 32 minutes
Vaughn starts for TP (DNP)
Team FG% - 44.3%

Notable Celtic stats:
The Truth - 11/18 for 35/6rebs/2stls in 42 minutes
Ray Ray - 7/16 for 19/5/3 in 38 minutes
House - 4/6 for 10/1/1 in 14 minutes
Leon Powe starts for KG (DNP)
Team FG% - 46.5%

Game 2: Boston 93, @Spurs 91 (Boston wins season series 2-0)

Notable Spur stats:
TD - 4/8 for 10/8/3blks in 34 minutes (tired old shit bag #s even in 2008 :lol)
Manu - 10/18 for 32/4/2 in 33 minutes
TP - 7/14 for 17/5rebs/8assts/2stls in 37 minutes
Full squad
Team FG% - 43.8%

Notable Celtic stats:
The Truth - 8/13 for 22/8/5 in 44 minutes
KG - 7/15 for 21/8/2/2 in 39 minutes
Rondo - 9/18 for 20/6/3/3 in 29 minutes
Ray Allen (DNP)
Team FG% - 46.6%

LINK (http://espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=280317024)

So the Spurs were swept by the Celtics, but it was competitive. The Celtics beat the Spurs in game 1 without KG (TD got off on Big Baby and Leon Powe :rolleyes) and once again without Ray Allen (KG easily handled TD). The Celtics' defense held the Spurs to 44% shooting by average on both games. It didn't seem to matter if KG played or not in terms of the Celtics holding the Spurs team to a shitty shooting percentage (except for TD. When KG plays he gets off 8 shots - without KG he gets up 20 shots). The Spurs relied heavily on the 3 ball because they couldn't get the ball inside consistently shooting 19/53 in the two games.

People clown the Lakers for the 2008 debacle, but as you can see even if the Spurs made it to the Finals that year they suffer the same fate. The Lakers throttled the Spurs 4-1 so I would say the Spurs maybe eke out 2 wins if that Finals matchup occurred. But I doubt it.

Thoughts?

tl;dr

Nice troll attempt, bitch. Both teams healthy, Spurs in 6.

[FromWayDowntown]

Celtics in 3. Maybe 2 1/2.

[Prime KG]

Celtics in 3. Maybe 2 1/2.

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

Classic 2005 era ST humor for ya! Something that Mav Fan could never do.

[Ice009]

Manu was the best player on the court in that second game. Easily over everyone else on both teams. He was playing AWESOME at that point of the season. I think this was also one of the games he tweaked his ankle at the end of that game, coming down on it wrong after scoring, then re-injuring it again in the Suns series.

If Manu was healthy for the whole playoffs, the Spurs would have definitely had a chance against Boston. Kendrick Perkins said that the Celtics were hoping the Lakers made it as they didn't want to play the Spurs, so to me that says, they might have been a bit jittery going against the Spurs in game 1, and maybe the Spurs could have stole game 1 because of that. KG had lost to the Spurs twice before (KG had no fear against Gasol, TD would have been a different story), Ray Allen had lost to the Spurs before in the playoffs (not to mention Bruce Bowen who could get in Ray Allen's head like no other), all these things would have added up and the Celtics may have put some pressure on themselves against the Spurs, whereas against LA they felt no pressure the first two games.

Celtics were the better team all season, but IMO a fully healthy Spurs team would have had a chance, probably a better chance than LA did. Boston was definitely a very, very good team that season.

[Deuce Bigalow]

http://srejects.com/genius/LOL%20Shaq%21.gif

[21_Blessings]

In any semi-believable alternate reality scenario Bynum/Ariza would have been fully healthy so this outcome would not have been feasible after what Kobe did to that washed up franchise in the WCF.

[LkrFan]

tl;dr

Nice troll attempt, bitch. Both teams healthy, Spurs in 6.

I detect a hint of butthurtness in this post. You aight bruh? :lol

[LkrFan]

In any semi-believable alternate reality scenario Bynum/Ariza would have been fully healthy so this outcome would not have been feasible after what Kobe did to that washed up franchise in the WCF.

A lot of these cow tippers conveniently forget that we were down 2 starters. This thread is a reality check: even if they represent the WC in the Finals, they win one game - maybe. But since we were down two starters the Celtics would not have been denied as we saw.

[baseline bum]

Boston wins, but not by 39.

[LkrFan]

Boston wins, but not by 39.

In how many games? :downspin: