no1marauder

Originally posted by MoneyManMike
What?! You seriously believe that home court doesn't have any significance in the playoffs?! Really, how long have you been a basketball fan? I challenge you to go look up NBA and college teams' home and away records and then try to tell me that home court isn't important.

About the Denver game...at least it wasn't the Clippers lol who happen to ...[text shortened]... be losing to the Kings by 20 right now. How did you guys lose to the Clippers?! Hilarious.

Please read the stats I just gave you SLOWLY this time. Home court advantage in a series is a little bit different than playing on one's home court in one game. But you'd have to actually know something about basketball to grasp that concept.

We lost to the Clips at the end of a successful road trip without our best player and with our best scorer having an injured thumb. They shouldn't have lost anyway, but hey things happen in a long season. What's your excuse for losing to the team with the worst record in the NBA this year (the Kings)?

EDIT: How'd home court advantage work out for the Lakers in 2004 against the Pistons?

As to Starbury's debut, it was a mixed bag. On the plus side, he went 4 of 6 shooting in 13 minutes, dished out a couple of assists and gave the Celts a penetrating back up point guard that they have lacked (and he's a better outside shooter than Rondo). On the negative, he made some poor decisions with the ball (3 TOs) and his defense was awful, particularly against Brandon Rush. The Celtic defense as a whole allowed too much penetration and easy layups without KG (Mikki Moore also played bad D) which was the major reason they never put away the Pacers (though a wins a win).

Overall, considering he hadn't played in 13 months, I guess it wasn't too bad. His role s/b limited to backing up Rondo and playing 10-15 minutes and he's a better option at backup point than Eddie House (who isn't a PG to begin with). Perhaps as he learns the Celtic defensive system, he'll play better D though D ain't his speciality (then again Ray Allen was never considered a good defensive player but he's performed well in that area as a Celtic).

As to intangible, if he starts any crap, I think he'll get a quick heave-ho, so I think he'll be on his best behavior and motivated to play well so somebody might give him a contract next year. He seemed to react well with the Celtic players and coaches last night, so so far, so good.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Please read the stats I just gave you SLOWLY this time. Home court advantage in a series is a little bit different than playing on one's home court in one game. But you'd have to actually know something about basketball to grasp that concept.

We lost to the Clips at the end of a successful road trip without our best player and with our bes ...[text shortened]... )?

EDIT: How'd home court advantage work out for the Lakers in 2004 against the Pistons?

Of course home court advantage has relevance in the playoffs. Remember that crazy series two years ago where the Warriors upset the Mavs? In that series, the Warriors won the first game at Dallas and effectively stole Dallas's home court advantage. The Warriors then used the emotional energy at Oracle Arena to win all of their remaining home games in that series against a superior team. Dallas was 67-15 that year and they ranked 5th in defense while the Warriors were barely above .500 with a 42-40 record. Now imagine if the Hawks had stolen a game at the Garden last year, its plausible that they could have upset Boston the way the Warriors upset Dallas.

I kind of see home court advantage in the NBA or sports in general as similar to advantages in chess. If you secure an advantage in the opening or middle game, you should be able to win in the endgame if you play solidly, but you still have to earn the win which means there is still a chance that you could blunder away your advantage. I think pro-sports are more volatile than chess in that home court advantage are more psychological than chess advantages that are tangible. That being said, most of the time playoff teams are mentally strong and they can overcome playing on the road in a 7 game series, which is one of the reasons that playoffs are so exciting. But poise and mental strength don't automatically diminish the relevance of home court advantage. Therefore, I don't think you are justified in downplaying home court advantage in basketball just because your team wouldn't have it if the playoffs started today. Remember that your team used it twice last season to escape from a young Hawks team and then Lebron James.

As far as that Clipper game. I am getting tired of lingering on it and I am pretty sure that nobody is going to remember this game years from now, but I have to respond to your excuses. While the Celtics were missing KG, the Clippers were also missing Al Thorton, Chris Kaman, and Eric Gordon (who got injured in the 1st or 2nd quarter). So basically the Clippers only had two good offensive players to rely on in Zach Randolph and Baron Davis. About Pierce's thumb, I don't think it affected his game that much. It probably would have been a different story if he had dislocated his index and/or middle fingers, which are the fingers relied most on in a jumpshot. Anyways, I knew making the game out to be bigger than it was would push some of your buttons and I have had my fun with it. 😀

Originally posted by MoneyManMike
Of course home court advantage has relevance in the playoffs. Remember that crazy series two years ago where the Warriors upset the Mavs? In that series, the Warriors won the first game at Dallas and effectively stole Dallas's home court advantage. The Warriors then used the emotional energy at Oracle Arena to win all of their remaining home games in o be bigger than it was would push some of your buttons and I have had my fun with it. 😀

I notice you failed to deal with the Laker loss to the Kings. Not very surprising. The Lakers tour through Denver and Phoenix didn't turn out as well as the Celtics' recent one either. The idea that the loss of KG (we do have other injuries as well) isn't as important to the Celts as the loss of three very average players to the Clips is ridiculous. In any event, it's a long season and you lose a few games you shouldn't. I'll take a 4-2 road trip against 5 .500+ teams even if it ends with a disappointing loss.

The stats are the stats; #1 seed hasn't meant much this decade. Trying to use the Warrior-Dallas series to prove your point that #1 seed is important is bizarre to say the least.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I notice you failed to deal with the Laker loss to the Kings. Not very surprising. The Lakers tour through Denver and Phoenix didn't turn out as well as the Celtics' recent one either. The idea that the loss of KG (we do have other injuries as well) isn't as important to the Celts as the loss of three very average players to the Clips is ridiculous. In a ...[text shortened]... -Dallas series to prove your point that #1 seed is important is bizarre to say the least.

umm that game was a long time ago but from what I remember the Lakers were overconfident and decided not to take good shots or play defense, thus the young and athletic Kings got into a running game with the Lakers (kinda like the Sunday game versus the Suns) and ultimately won. I remember everyone in Laker Nation was really pissed off about it and the LA media was very critical of the team. I think it served as a wake up call early in the season and the Lakers used it to build up focus for that X-mas game.

But back to the Clippers game. The Clippers injuries were significant because it meant that Fred Jones had to defend Ray Allen and Mardy Collins had to defend Paul Pierce. So basically two below average bench players had to guard two all-stars. Not to mention Barron Davis fouled out in the last 20 or so secs of the game and Mardy, Fred, and Zach had to get it done all by themselves to win the game.

I guess there is no convincing you that home court is important in the playoffs but at least Lebron, Pierce, Kobe, and the national media agree with me.

The Celts, without KG and with Big Baby being ridiculously ejected early in the third, still manage to thrash LeBron and the Cavs. The Truth continues to show he is the best big game player in the league as he completely outplays King James.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The Celts, without KG and with Big Baby being ridiculously ejected early in the third, still manage to thrash LeBron and the Cavs. The Truth continues to show he is the best big game player in the league as he completely outplays King James.

Ridiculously ejected...come on man that was a blatant flagrant 2 foul. I know the NBA is soft nowadays, but those are the rules. And Lebron continues to disappoint me when it comes to the big stage. First he got swept by the Spurs in the finals, then he missed clutch free throws against Boston in last year's playoffs, then he was quiet in the 2nd half vs Spain in one of the biggest games in international basketball, and now last night's game continuing his poor performances vs Boston. Very disappointing...and he is suppose to be the air apparent and quote end quote best player in the NBA by some people in the media.

About Paul Pierce being the best big game player, don't you think he gets a lot of help from Ray Allen, the greatest three point shooter in NBA history, and Eddie House, Mr. Instant Offense, who are both pretty clutch themselves?