Question for LnGrrrR & Celtics fans.....

[Kobe_5_Duncan_4]

My guess on the whole Perkins thing is that Ainge is rolling the dice the Lakers won't make the finals and Boston will. Someone brought back Ace's thread about the Spurs being top 5 started last September, where I correctly predicted the Spurs and Mavs would do well this season, simply because it's win now or it's over, just like the Celtics. And to think I was scorned for that, lol. Moving Perk for Green, if you look at it as a move to the future, risks the potential to win now. Boston still has to rebuild when Pierce, Allen, and Garnett retire in a few years.

Anyway, I am not certain if HCA really means anything to Boston. No team in the NBA has lost more playoff series (18) than Boston when holding HCA. That's 4 HCA playoff series lost before Bill Russell, 1 with (1958) and 13 after he retired. Will they fail with HCA again this year? Let's wait and see, they do excel at it.

That makes no sense, highly doubt Ainge was thinking that.

What Ainge was likely thinking is that by letting Tony Allen go this past summer and losing their best on ball defender they have a hole in their roster which could prove to be fatal in the playoffs against the Heat and Lakers for that matter. But more specifically the Heat.

I think watching Paul Pierce struggle mightily against Lebron a couple weeks before the deadline terrified the Celtics. He had no legitimate backup. In the past they relied on the outstanding bench play of James Posey and then last season on the strength of Tony Allen's defense on Wade, then Lebron, then Kobe. He defended all 3 players arguably as well as anyone in the league in the playoffs last season.

And so, the need for a backup SF became their priority; someone who can not only relieve Pierce but also someone they will look to defend Lebron in spurts the same way Allen and Posey did in years past.

Ainge may not have been thinking clearly when he made his move but I know that he was not thinking "hey the Mavs and Spurs have a neat regular season record so the Lakers won't be in the Finals anyway." That's just comical.

[Kobe_5_Duncan_4]

HCA is not crucial for Boston. Problem is, they traded away their starting center for horrible reasons. The fact they are relying on Shaq and Jermaine has killed my excitement for them for the rest of the season. Shaq is a fat piece of who tires out very very quickly. Jermaine is an even bigger piece of who is always injured. Kristic is soft. I HATED that trade and still hate it. The day they traded Perkins, the Celts season and this current era was officially finished. My excitement for this final run ended. Again, they are relying on 2 worthless players to fill the void from Perkins.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Have they failed with this current lineup? Thats the only statistic that matters now.

Well, depends on how you define Doc Rivers' statement they have never lost with that old starting lineup. They did lose with it last year, I don't care if Perkins was out. If Bryant and Bynum were 100% Lakers sweep them, and case closed.

Although it is quite true they have never lost with this current lineup, they haven't won with it either. However, sports is full of traditions of teams that can't win in certain situations, Chicago Cubs, and until recently, the White Sox and Red Sox. Even the San Francisco Giants just got their first le in about 60 years, while the Texas Rangers, tracing back to their time as the expansion Washington Senators, remain leless. Ask Cleveland when it last won a championship. Those teams and their lineups changed a mul ude of times over the years. I'm simply pointing out that the Boston Celtics franchise is consistent with losing series in which they hold HCA, in fact, it out numbers their les won, 18-17.

Let's break it down further; Key players: les won to HCA series lost, years lost.

Nobodies: 0-1 (1948)
Cousy: 0-3 (1951, 1952, 1956)
Russell: 11-1 (1958)
Havliceck/Cowens/White: 2-3 (1972, 1973, 1975)
Bird: 3-7 (1980, 1982, 1983, 1985, 1988, 1990, 1991) McHale and Parish not on 1980 roster. On all others.
McHale/Parish/Lewis 0-1 (1993)
Pierce:1-2 (2005, 2009)

See, much of what we perceive about Boston's greatness is because of Russell's tenure. Outside of that 13 year period, Boston is not as great a franchise as you might think. If you take out Russell's years, the Celtics have won 6 les and lost 17 series they held HCA in. Hey, Boston may win it all this year, but this ugly trend will stick around unless they keep winning les, and in bunches. If they stay in lottery contention or a 5-8 seed, they will never get HCA and won't be able to lose with it to make things worse.

It's just an observation. Since it has happened so often, you can call it a curse if you want. I believe it will happen again, probably this season.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

That makes no sense, highly doubt Ainge was thinking that.

What Ainge was likely thinking is that by letting Tony Allen go this past summer and losing their best on ball defender they have a hole in their roster which could prove to be fatal in the playoffs against the Heat and Lakers for that matter. But more specifically the Heat.

I think watching Paul Pierce struggle mightily against Lebron a couple weeks before the deadline terrified the Celtics. He had no legitimate backup. In the past they relied on the outstanding bench play of James Posey and then last season on the strength of Tony Allen's defense on Wade, then Lebron, then Kobe. He defended all 3 players arguably as well as anyone in the league in the playoffs last season.

And so, the need for a backup SF became their priority; someone who can not only relieve Pierce but also someone they will look to defend Lebron in spurts the same way Allen and Posey did in years past.

Ainge may not have been thinking clearly when he made his move but I know that he was not thinking "hey the Mavs and Spurs have a neat regular season record so the Lakers won't be in the Finals anyway." That's just comical.

Hey, it's my , history2B. Dude, get back in the thread linked in my signature and continue getting beat down.

The thought that Ainge made the trade in anticipation the Lakers wouldn't be there is a perfectly logical assumption. Did you ever hear of Oc 's Razor? It basically states in light of all possible explanations, the simplest one is most likely to be true. Trading Perkins essentially means Boston doesn't beat the Lakers because the Irish twins can't be counted on for health. Since the window to win is now, trading Perkins is doable only if you roll the dice and hope the Lakers don't make it. It's that simple. I am not the only one to state this, and you can't refute it. As I said, Boston's rebuilding mode is when their Big 3 break up, not now. It's le or bust, and Boston just broke up a full house to go for 4 of a kind.

Please continue to be stupid.

[Muser]

Why the Boston gave Jermaine all that money i'll never know.

[Kobe_5_Duncan_4]

Hey, it's my , history2B. Dude, get back in the thread linked in my signature and continue getting beat down.

The thought that Ainge made the trade in anticipation the Lakers wouldn't be there is a perfectly logical assumption. Did you ever hear of Oc 's Razor? It basically states in light of all possible explanations, the simplest one is most likely to be true. Trading Perkins essentially means Boston doesn't beat the Lakers because the Irish twins can't be counted on for health. Since the window to win is now, trading Perkins is doable only if you roll the dice and hope the Lakers don't make it. It's that simple. I am not the only one to state this, and you can't refute it. As I said, Boston's rebuilding mode is when their Big 3 break up, not now. It's le or bust, and Boston just broke up a full house to go for 4 of a kind.

Please continue to be stupid.

Thanks but no thanks Daddy_Of_All_ gots . I don't argue with people who predicate their arguments entirely on fallacies. It's a waste of time not to mention bit space.

Back to Boston. The Celtics are better prepared to tangle with the Lakers with Perkins on board for sure. But if they can't advance far enough to meet them it wouldn't matter. That's the more logical explanation.

[Kobe_5_Duncan_4]

Why the Boston gave Jermaine all that money i'll never know.

Worst signing of the offseason compounded now by the fact that they dealt Perk to save money that they wouldn't have to re-sign him this summer.

When they give Green a sizable multi-year contract it will be that much funnier.

[LnGrrrR]

And so, the need for a backup SF became their priority; someone who can not only relieve Pierce but also someone they will look to defend Lebron in spurts the same way Allen and Posey did in years past.

But why target Jeff Green then? Maybe I'm wrong, but he isn't known as a defensive specialist/lockdown defender. Is this a case of them just getting the best backup SF they could get?

[LnGrrrR]

The whole " les won to HCA series lost" is a poor statistic, because frankly, you can only win one le a year, while there are multiple opportunities to lose a series in which you have HCA.

It's useless as a statistic unless we can see the records of other teams and compare, or we look at something more fair like series won with HCA vs series lost with HCA.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Thanks but no thanks Daddy_Of_All_ gots . I don't argue with people who predicate their arguments entirely on fallacies. It's a waste of time not to mention bit space.

Back to Boston. The Celtics are better prepared to tangle with the Lakers with Perkins on board for sure. But if they can't advance far enough to meet them it wouldn't matter. That's the more logical explanation.

Nice cop out. You got owned and out argued in that thread. Not to mention countless others. You know it, and everyone at SpursTalk knows it.

I dare you to prove I based my arguments on fallacies. you can't do it, period. I would love to hand you yet another ass-whooping.

By the way, before the trade, Boston had every reason to believe they would make the finals, and with HCA. They had best record in the east, 3-0 on Miami, 2-0 on the Bulls. they even beat the Spurs and the Lakers. Now, they may have killed their team chemistry, all the Boston stars miss Perk and didn't like the trade. You fail at interpreting facts that are in front of you., Boston had few worries about getting to the finals. I am sure they aren't aware of the obsure fact I have pointed out in this thread how HCA doesn't always help them.

So, history2B, want to dance around again? Bring it.

[Kobe_5_Duncan_4]

Nice cop out. You got owned and out argued in that thread. Not to mention countless others. You know it, and everyone at SpursTalk knows it.

I dare you to prove I based my arguments on fallacies. you can't do it, period. I would love to hand you yet another ass-whooping.

By the way, before the trade, Boston had every reason to believe they would make the finals, and with HCA. They had best record in the east, 3-0 on Miami, 2-0 on the Bulls. they even beat the Spurs and the Lakers. Now, they may have killed their team chemistry, all the Boston stars miss Perk and didn't like the trade. You fail at interpreting facts that are in front of you., Boston had few worries about getting to the finals. I am sure they aren't aware of the obsure fact I have pointed out in this thread how HCA doesn't always help them.

So, history2B, want to dance around again? Bring it.

Yeah the Ainge was thinking the big bad mighty Spurs would be in the Finals so he pulled the trigger on that Jeff Green-Perkins trade because Perk would have been too slow for the likes of San Antonio's awesome frontcourt.

Just like every stance you take; stupid and illogical.

[Kobe_5_Duncan_4]

But why target Jeff Green then? Maybe I'm wrong, but he isn't known as a defensive specialist/lockdown defender. Is this a case of them just getting the best backup SF they could get?

That's exactly why I felt the move was fatal. It didn't yield the type of defender they needed. You know they were targeting Shane Battier initially right? but couldn't get the pieces Houston wanted in return.

Doc mentioned they shot down the 1st offer for Perk from an unspecified team for unspecified players but that when this deal surfaced they bit.

They panicked and made a hasty move.

[ohmwrecker]

I don't necessarily think the Celtics need hca, but it would greatly increase their chances.

The Bulls notoriously give the C's fits in the POs and this could be the year they finally get over. The Celtics hold a 2-1 advantage over the Bulls, but one of those wins was vs a Boozerless Bulls team. The other two were split dominant performances with the Bulls getting the most recent win. Their last meeting of the regular season on April 7th should be epic.

The Magic can beat the Celtics, but they will have to be playing their best ball of the year to do it. It will take a dominant series performance from Howard and superb perimeter shooting for the Magic to win. However, the Celtics have plenty of firepower too and their perimeter and team defense is good enough to let Howard get what he wants and try to shut down everyone else.

The Heat would be the best ECF opponent for the Celtics, if they make that far . . . or, if they might wind up matching up in the semis.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

The whole " les won to HCA series lost" is a poor statistic, because frankly, you can only win one le a year, while there are multiple opportunities to lose a series in which you have HCA.

It's useless as a statistic unless we can see the records of other teams and compare, or we look at something more fair like series won with HCA vs series lost with HCA.

I agree with what you say in principal. To me, the 3 greatest accompishments of the Celtics were done without HCA. 1968 they came back from down 3-1 to Wilt's Sixers in the ECF and breezed in the finals. In 1969 they won every series without HCA. In 1974 they beat the Milwaukee Bucks in the finals without it. True, the Bucks were missing their starting SG, Lucius Allen, but still it's impressive.

On the other hand, getting HCA is a key goal. Of Boston's 18 home court series losses, they had the best record in the NBA six times: 1958, 1973, 1975, 1980, 1982 and 1985. That's six potenital les squandered right there, plus 4 others by Bird and company, a team that won 3 of them. Even so, 18 HCA playoff losses in franchise history is not something to be proud of, and to me, rather embarrasing.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Yeah the Ainge was thinking the big bad mighty Spurs would be in the Finals so he pulled the trigger on that Jeff Green-Perkins trade because Perk would have been too slow for the likes of San Antonio's awesome frontcourt.

Just like every stance you take; stupid and illogical.

Hey, expected reply from the guy who thnks Bill Russell is the greatest basketball player of all time. That's so easy to refute it isn't funny, oh I already did.

Here it is in simplistic form. Red Auerbach solved the relatively new professional sport of basketball and won constantly, but he did it over 50 years ago. At least three generations of players followed who watched Russell and subsequent greats play:

Those born about 1950-1960 who watched Russell play, (Kareem, Dr. J. Moses, Bird)
Those born 1960-1980 (Magic, MJ, Hakeem, Bryant, KG, Karl Malone, Timmy)
Those born after 1980 (LeBron, Wade, Durant, Rose, Howard)

Anyone that assumes that not a single player has become better at basketball than Bill Russell is smoking some seriously bad dope.

Just because you think the Lakers will make the finals and not the Spurs doesn't mean that's going to happen.

You are stupid and illogical, just admit it. Unless you like getting clowned and punked. Thanks for bringing it, got more?

[LnGrrrR]

Even so, 18 HCA playoff losses in franchise history is not something to be proud of, and to me, rather embarrasing.

Just for comparison, how many have the Lakers lost? Curious.

[Giuseppe]

Daddy Troll
&
Kobe_5

A most enjoyable debate.

Just fine.

[midnightpulp]

I leave History alone for the day, only to log on and see him getting owned. Guess my advice to him to know his place wasn't regarded.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Just for comparison, how many have the Lakers lost? Curious.

I actually have the answer, 9 times:

1951 WCF vs. Royals
1969 Finals vs. Celtics
1973 Finals vs. Knicks
1977 WCF vs. Blazers
1981 Round 1 vs. Rockets
1986 WCF vs. Rockets
1990 2nd round vs. Suns
1996 Round 1 vs. Rockets
2004 Finals vs. Pistons

I didn't check the Spurs and Mavs, but even with their great regular seasons last several years, I doubt their history has that many.