Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2024 7:22 am Post subject: A (The ?) Big Difference Between the Lakers and the Celtics
At one time it was considered that you had to have the best players to win a championship. I'm not certain this is universally true.
I will make the statement that arguably, LeBron and AD were the best tandem in the playoffs. If we look a PER, which has playoff specific data, the team with the only two players in the top 10 in playoff PER was the Laks, with AD at #2 and LeBron at #4, so not only two in the top ten, but two in the top four. Yes, this is PER and not perfect and barely considers defense, and yes, the Laks only played, and lost at that, one series, but, and to the point:
The reason they lost was clearly something other than AD and LeBron, the other players, coaching, a team that just has the Laks number, bad luck, or whatever. But it was not because of the big 2. What is certainly in the mix for the culprits would be just about everyone else. Reeves had a PER of 18, which is better than any of his regular or post seasons. Everyone else, was, let's not tempt the filter here, let's just say you don't want to step in it. Prince, was the next highest at 9.5, which is just over 60% of average.
You can't win in the playoffs with only 3 players that are about about 60% of average, approximately.
As a comparison, the Celtics (who beat the team to 18) had 9 players at average (15) or better, and not one in the top 10 in the playoffs.
I wish LeBron a bit of Brady in him. Brady took less than he deserved to allow the team to retain and recruit others so that the team was better. _________________ "A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
The Keltics went with acquiring starters Porzingis/Jrue sending out a fan favorite DPOY to make it happen. They also had decent coaching.
The Lakers gambled on backups Wood/Vincent holding on to their fan favorite without even making a move at the deadline. They also had poor coaching.
The difference in general is FO and coaching. _________________ “When it looks as if it is a realistic possibility, I want to focus on winning a ship like it’s a goal that can’t be denied. I didn’t see that this off season.”
Last edited by Hanging from Rafters on Tue Jun 18, 2024 10:36 am; edited 1 time in total
Hope you’re right, there are teams historically that are below the top tier…Bulls/76’ers/Pistons…but they said the same and have been wrong. _________________ “When it looks as if it is a realistic possibility, I want to focus on winning a ship like it’s a goal that can’t be denied. I didn’t see that this off season.”
Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2024 11:08 am Post subject: Re: A (The ?) Big Difference Between the Lakers and the Celtics
ribeye wrote:
At one time it was considered that you had to have the best players to win a championship. I'm not certain this is universally true.
I will make the statement that arguably, LeBron and AD were the best tandem in the playoffs. If we look a PER, which has playoff specific data, the team with the only two players in the top 10 in playoff PER was the Laks, with AD at #2 and LeBron at #4, so not only two in the top ten, but two in the top four. Yes, this is PER and not perfect and barely considers defense, and yes, the Laks only played, and lost at that, one series, but, and to the point:
The reason they lost was clearly something other than AD and LeBron, the other players, coaching, a team that just has the Laks number, bad luck, or whatever. But it was not because of the big 2. What is certainly in the mix for the culprits would be just about everyone else. Reeves had a PER of 18, which is better than any of his regular or post seasons. Everyone else, was, let's not tempt the filter here, let's just say you don't want to step in it. Prince, was the next highest at 9.5, which is just over 60% of average.
You can't win in the playoffs with only 3 players that are about about 60% of average, approximately.
As a comparison, the Celtics (who beat the team to 18) had 9 players at average (15) or better, and not one in the top 10 in the playoffs.
I wish LeBron a bit of Brady in him. Brady took less than he deserved to allow the team to retain and recruit others so that the team was better.
Even with Lebron hypothetically taking a vet minimum deal, we’d only have like 13 million in cap space or something like that (lakers nation podcast was talking about it)
For us to bring in talent to match what Boston has done, every single player on our roster would have to agree to take less (maybe even much less) than they’re worth.
Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2024 11:28 am Post subject: Re: A (The ?) Big Difference Between the Lakers and the Celtics
Brawn13 wrote:
ribeye wrote:
At one time it was considered that you had to have the best players to win a championship. I'm not certain this is universally true.
I will make the statement that arguably, LeBron and AD were the best tandem in the playoffs. If we look a PER, which has playoff specific data, the team with the only two players in the top 10 in playoff PER was the Laks, with AD at #2 and LeBron at #4, so not only two in the top ten, but two in the top four. Yes, this is PER and not perfect and barely considers defense, and yes, the Laks only played, and lost at that, one series, but, and to the point:
The reason they lost was clearly something other than AD and LeBron, the other players, coaching, a team that just has the Laks number, bad luck, or whatever. But it was not because of the big 2. What is certainly in the mix for the culprits would be just about everyone else. Reeves had a PER of 18, which is better than any of his regular or post seasons. Everyone else, was, let's not tempt the filter here, let's just say you don't want to step in it. Prince, was the next highest at 9.5, which is just over 60% of average.
You can't win in the playoffs with only 3 players that are about about 60% of average, approximately.
As a comparison, the Celtics (who beat the team to 18) had 9 players at average (15) or better, and not one in the top 10 in the playoffs.
I wish LeBron a bit of Brady in him. Brady took less than he deserved to allow the team to retain and recruit others so that the team was better.
Even with Lebron hypothetically taking a vet minimum deal, we’d only have like 13 million in cap space or something like that (lakers nation podcast was talking about it)
For us to bring in talent to match what Boston has done, every single player on our roster would have to agree to take less (maybe even much less) than they’re worth.
If the Lakers used their picks…they have 3FRPs/5SRPs…and player assets they look to be able acquire DJMurray/Caruso. I think that would match…or even exceed…the Keltics top 4.
AD-Porzingis
LBJ-Tatum
DJMurray-Brown
Caruso-Jrue
The difference would then come down to role players Hoford/White/Pritchard.
Could Rui/Vando/(AR or Dlo) match that? Maybe, worth a shot. It’s more possible for the Lakers to match the Keltics talent than it may seem. _________________ “When it looks as if it is a realistic possibility, I want to focus on winning a ship like it’s a goal that can’t be denied. I didn’t see that this off season.”
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 Posts: 3243 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2024 11:32 am Post subject:
Boston was on the cusp for years and then got very fortunate when Milwaukee made the deal for Lillard sending Jrue Holiday to a Portland team that was not looking to take on salary so Boston capitalized.
Milwaukee really did not see that one coming.
Also the Porzingis trade and the emergence of White.
But yeah, this Celtics team is similar to teams like the 2004 Pistons that won it all because of team chemistry and defense as opposed to most titles that are won by superstar dominance.
Yes. I've been saying this forever. Celtics don't have a big 2. They have a big 5. That's why they completely outclassed the Mavs on every front. Luka's game is dribble, slow it down and make plays for others. Celtics can adapt to any playstyle because their players are versatile, can defend multiple positions and space the floor. I'm convinced they would have beaten Jokic, too. That really speaks volumes about Brad Stevens' genius. Probably the most balanced team since the 03-04 Pistons, with no clear-cut best player.
The brutal reality is Lakers destroyed their championship window and core with the WB trade. KCP/Kuz/Caruso are quality role players. Kuz can give you Porzingis level production as a third guy. He just wanted to be the guy on another team and is finding out the hard way. However, it sounds like he didn't want to be here, so I can't blame rob for that one. What I do blame Rob for is the complete and utter mismanagement of assets. Zu/BroLo/Hart/Wagner/Dennis + multiple FRPs wasted and thrown away like candy. He never had a bigger vision for the team outside of "muh AD and Lebron". _________________ Yi Jianlian Fanboy. Respect The Chair.
Starting anew. I'm retiring my main.
Last edited by Denny_Russo on Tue Jun 18, 2024 11:57 am; edited 1 time in total
Jaylen Brown/Jayson Tatum aren’t MJ/Pippen. They are more like having 2 Pippens. I never thought having 2 Pippens could win a title, but if you stack the other 3 positions you can,
It comes down to having 5 guys that can all shoot 3s, and 5 guys that can all switch on defense. Very few teams have that. Celtics are a discount version of the Warriors at their peak. But it works right now bc the Celtics 5 are in their primes. Not many other teams in the league have a roster full of prime guys
Yes. I've been saying this forever. Celtics don't have a big 2. They have a big 5. That's why they completely outclassed the Mavs on every front. Luka's game is dribble, slow it down and make plays for others. Celtics can adapt to any playstyle because their players are versatile, can defend multiple positions and space the floor. I'm convinced they would have beaten Jokic, too. That really speaks volumes about Brad Stevens' genius. Probably the most balanced team since the 03-04 Pistons, with no clear cut best player.
The brutal reality is Lakers destroyed their championship window and core with the WB trade. KCP/Kuz/Caruso are quality role players. Kuz can give you Porzingis level production as a third guy. He just wanted to be the guy on another team and is finding out the hard way. However, it sounds like he didn't want to be here, so I can't blame rob for that one. What I do blame Rob for is the complete and utter mismanagement of assets. Zu/BroLo/Hart/Wagner/Dennis + multiple FRPs wasted and thrown away like candy. He never had a bigger vision for the team.
Add Randle to the list…at minimum as trade bait…on a cheap contract leading the team in both scoring and rebounds. Maybe they would have been able to keep Ingram…or at least Hart…in the AD overpay using Randle in the trade. Also, Drummond & Schroeder aren’t necessarily impact players but should still be contributing on the team.
Not trying to add to your list, but mine includes all yours plus the above. _________________ “When it looks as if it is a realistic possibility, I want to focus on winning a ship like it’s a goal that can’t be denied. I didn’t see that this off season.”
Lakers drafting ineptitude also contributed heavily to the Celtics title. I can excuse taking Ingram over Jaylen Brown, but the decision to take Lonzo Ball over an obvious stud like Tatum remains inexplicable to me.
Jaylen Brown/Jayson Tatum aren’t MJ/Pippen. They are more like having 2 Pippens. I never thought having 2 Pippens could win a title, but if you stack the other 3 positions you can,
It comes down to having 5 guys that can all shoot 3s, and 5 guys that can all switch on defense. Very few teams have that. Celtics are a discount version of the Warriors at their peak. But it works right now bc the Celtics 5 are in their primes. Not many other teams in the league have a roster full of prime guys
it tells you how water down the league is currently.
Joined: 24 Feb 2003 Posts: 6441 Location: Past left field
Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2024 12:37 pm Post subject:
The C's drafted / traded for / signed two way players (offense and defense).
The Lakers drafted / traded for / signed a bunch of one way players offense (AR, Rui, DLo, Wood) or defense (Vando, Reddish, Prince). Only two way players IMO AD and LBJ.
One way offensive players get a lot of press and lots of fans (Trae, Vince Carter, etc) but not a lot of championships. _________________ Darvin Ham is an idiot!
Lakers drafting ineptitude also contributed heavily to the Celtics title. I can excuse taking Ingram over Jaylen Brown, but the decision to take Lonzo Ball over an obvious stud like Tatum remains inexplicable to me.
Lakers drafting ineptitude also contributed heavily to the Celtics title. I can excuse taking Ingram over Jaylen Brown, but the decision to take Lonzo Ball over an obvious stud like Tatum remains inexplicable to me.
this
Lonzo over Tatum was all Magic's doing. Lonzo reminded Magic of himself, a flashy passer who has no jumpshot.
Lakers drafting ineptitude also contributed heavily to the Celtics title. I can excuse taking Ingram over Jaylen Brown, but the decision to take Lonzo Ball over an obvious stud like Tatum remains inexplicable to me.
This is just bulls.. t.
Tatum was not seen from anybody as the next big thing in that draft. Never. The consensus, it was really a consensus, was Fultz first and Lonzo the second. Hell, even Josh Jackson was seen as a better prospect. Tatum was considered a copy of Carmelo.
Ainge was the only one who believe in him and was so confident that he made the change with Philly.
the league was different back in 2016. that was during Steph Curry's peak years, and teams all wanted to build around an electric PG like Curry. that's why Sixers drafted Fultz, lakers took Lonzo. back then, there was no such thing as big wing, Tatum was considered a scoring SF/PF with nothing else, a dime a dozen type of player. JT just fall to Ainge's lap because of how the league was trending back then.
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 36399 Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Ithaca, NY -≥≥≥≥≥Berkeley, CA
Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2024 1:28 pm Post subject:
Compare what DLO did vs what Jrue Holiday or Derrick White did. Or what Rui did vs what Porzingis (when healthy) did.
Hard to win with two of your top five players having zero, if not negative, impact. _________________ Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:
My recollection is that Tatum was a higher floor, lower ceiling, more NBA ready player and that Lonzo was a lower floor, higher ceiling but needed time to develop.
Tatum is an extremely polished scorer, and he has a high floor because shot creation is at such a premium from the wing in today’s NBA. But just how high that ceiling is remains up for debate. There are clearly a few skills that Tatum needs to work on in order to reach his potential, and it starts with becoming a consistently excellent shooter.
The good thing about picking Tatum, though? His reputation among NBA executives in terms of work ethic is sterling. While some worry about the fact that he can occasionally avoid contact, he’s always going to work as hard as he can to get into the best possible shape and cultivate the best possible skills for his game.
Those intangibles make me believe that he is likely to get the most out of what is a considerable high-end set of physical gifts. It’s why I — along with many in NBA front offices — am higher on Tatum than most in the public sphere entering draft night. I have him currently at No. 2 on my board.
He’d be a tremendous fit in Los Angeles next to Swiss Army knife forward Brandon Ingram, terrific in Boston’s screen-heavy offense, great next to Dragan Bender’s skill and Marquese Chriss’ energy in Phoenix and a perfect replacement for Rudy Gay in Sacramento. Every team can use a wing in today’s league, and Tatum will be off the board quickly.
Ball:
Quote:
Overall Thoughts/Best Fits
Ball’s strengths could make him a star player, but his weaknesses could also hamper him in significant ways given how they tie directly to some of his elite skills. That gives him a wide set of potential outcomes — wider than any other top-five prospect in this draft. If he hits and the increased space of the NBA offensive zone helps him, he can be one of the best players on a title team. If some of the skills don’t quite translate, he’ll be useful as a ball-mover, but could end up being more of a role player.
Given that I tend to value certainty more than most, I have Ball No. 4 on my board as opposed to No. 2. While his upside may be slightly higher than that of Josh Jackson or Jayson Tatum if things break right for all of them, I believe the downside is also lower for Ball. Wings are worth their weight in gold in today’s NBA, and Tatum and Jackson have positional scarcity going for them.
In terms of fit, Ball is going to be best in a place that has a fellow ball-handler, as well as good defensive insulation around him. Having said that, he’s also just such a force of will on the basketball floor that he’s going to, in some way, imprint his style on whatever team takes him. The Lakers are a solid fit as long as the defensive pieces around him improve. The Celtics would also be a tremendous fit due to their unselfishness as well as their solid defensive structure. The 76ers, with Joel Embiid behind him and Ben Simmons to help with some of the creation responsibilities, might be the best spot. In all likelihood, Ball will end up in a place that suits him.
Celtics did virtually everything right over the past 7+ years in terms of drafting, roster and personnel moves and it still took impossible injury luck to make a Finals run and win a championship. Should be a lesson to anyone eager to blow everything up and rebuild. _________________ It was reminiscent of one of those Most Interesting Man in the World advertisements: "I don't always shoot 6-for-28 from the field, but when I do, I become the youngest player in league history to score 28,000 career points."
All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4Next
Page 1 of 4
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
