themeparkman25 Posted March 2, 2009 Posted March 2, 2009 ^Two consecutive losses though. That hurts when you only had 10 up until that point.
Bolliger&Mabillard Posted March 3, 2009 Author Posted March 3, 2009 ^Two consecutive losses hurt. But not as much as one loss to the Clippers.
Bolliger&Mabillard Posted March 3, 2009 Author Posted March 3, 2009 A loss to a team that is battling to solidify home court advantage, oh well. A loss to a team that's struggling to get the 8th playoff spot, understandable. A loss to a team that has very little reason to keep playing this season other than the fact that they have to...
Jew Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 ^Uhm...So the Lakers getting blown out by their likely opponent in the first round without their starting PG isn't at least a slight cause for concern?
Wes Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 ^^ Hm yes that makes perfect sense, especially since the Lakers have lost to the Bobcats and Kings this season.
BeemerBoy Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 ^^^ Actually, the only way that loss could ever mean anything is for overall home court advantage at the end of the season. Besides that, there's a flip way to look at it. And don't get me wrong, I understand the comedic ramifications of us losing to the doormat of the league, blah blah blah. Also, it really doesn't bother me all that much anyway. Â Here's why - it was a loss at the end of a six game western road swing. Until that game, we were 4-1 against the Hornets, Mavs, Jazz, Suns, and Nuggets. What happened in L.A. was nothing more than a "let down" game. Everyone knows that the top teams in the league, and especially the defending champs, are gonna get the worst teams' best efforts when they play each other. Â The loss to the Clips was nothing more than a let down game at the end of a big road trip. Even professional sports gamblers will tell you that these are the prime games to look for because it's easier for the underdog to cover the spread against a road-weary favorite....if not beat 'em outright.
Bolliger&Mabillard Posted March 4, 2009 Author Posted March 4, 2009 Everyone knows that the top teams in the league, and especially the defending champs, are gonna get the worst teams' best efforts when they play each other. Â For the sake of the arguement, the same could be said for the Lakers losing to sub -.500 teams earlier in the season in taht of Sacramento, Indiana, etc. The very same could be said for Boston losing to teamsn like Golden State or the wins Charlotte,New York or Indiana were able to get out of them. I'm just saying that L.A. has done a better effort than the the Celtics of extinguishing that flame of sub par teams wanting to beat the favorite. I hope that makes sense.
BeemerBoy Posted March 4, 2009 Posted March 4, 2009 ^ Yep, I agree that Boston has lost its share of games to teams they normally wouldn't. However, I really don't mind those games at all....seriously. I mean, I'm always more concerned about how we match up and perform against the teams we're certain to meet in the playoffs. Those "shockers" are good copy for SportsCenter and the fans of those crappy teams at the end of the year to say, "Look, one of our 15 wins was against _______." That's about it, really.
Bolliger&Mabillard Posted March 4, 2009 Author Posted March 4, 2009 ^At least that we can agree on. L.A.'s one loss to Sacramento won't really mean much unless Boston or Cleveland finishes 1 game ahead of us...then that's when they should kick themselves in the ass over losses like that.
Jew Posted March 5, 2009 Posted March 5, 2009 ^Agree on what? Now you're saying the Lakers last two loses are worse than the Celtics losing to the Clippers?
Bolliger&Mabillard Posted March 5, 2009 Author Posted March 5, 2009 ^That was never my point. Please read what I said about L.A.'s last two road games. I clearly stated the Lakers dropped their last two on the road to teams that had more of a "need-t0-win" mentality, so those TWO losses weren't as bad as a loss to the Clippers. Indeed L.A. has had it's share of questionable losses earlier in the season, but they've seemed to be more careful after the all-star break, especially since it isn't so much of a no-brainer anymore that Boston will have the league's (or even the conference's) best record. A loss to a pathetic team like the Clipps will haunt a team more than to a loss to say, Denver or Phoenix if you loose home court advantage by two games or fewer.
Jew Posted March 5, 2009 Posted March 5, 2009 ^I'm still confused. Now we are talking about homecourt advantage in the playoffs? The Lakers are only 1/2 game ahead of the Cav's for the best record. TWO loses certainly f*cked the Lakers over as much as the one loss to the Clippers did for the Celtics. Â Not to mention the loses were on the road to two likely playoff opponents. Which is also bad. Since I'm pretty sure playoff games are all "need-to-win." Unless the Lakers, a team already using fatigue as an excuse for those loses, enjoy going 7 games for every playoff series because it is OK to lose on the road in "need-to-win" games for their opponents. Â So long as they beat the Clippers, right?
BeemerBoy Posted March 5, 2009 Posted March 5, 2009 Personally, I think playing for home court advantage is overrated. In essence, if you go into any series as the underdog, all you have to do is split the first two games. And if you're not good enough to win one of two on the road, then maybe you shouldn't be there to begin with.
Hercules Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 I was going to say a few weeks ago that I thought the Jazz were going to make a run...... My friend and I actually bet at the beginning of every season on who will win the East and West. This year I picked the Jazz in the West and have looked like an idiot for most of the season. I'm glad they picked it up.
Bolliger&Mabillard Posted March 13, 2009 Author Posted March 13, 2009 ^If Carlos Boozer hadn't been non-existant this season you'd may not have looked like that same idiot earlier on. A preseason scouting report would tell you they've got a solid squad. Derron Williams AK-47, Paul Milsap. The talent is there, the coaching experience is there. I guess they just didn't have that "spark" this season. If Boozer can step up next season at close to 100% Utah can be a solid contender in the west.
BeemerBoy Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 I'd call Utah the Atlanta Braves of the NBA, but at least Atlanta managed to win one.
Hercules Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 ^^ Already talking about next season for them? They are the fourth seed in the West at this point. Who knows what might happen in the playoffs. Â ^ Completely agree.
Bolliger&Mabillard Posted March 14, 2009 Author Posted March 14, 2009 ^I just don't see Utah causing any upsets. As boring as it seems, we're going to see the standard Lakers-Spurs Conference finals, but as of right now the winners still up in the air. Utah's good, but plenty of teams are season good. I don't see them being a top teir team this playoff season. Next year however, I see them taking a hard, series loss this season as motivation to finish maybe 1st or second next season.
Wes Posted March 18, 2009 Posted March 18, 2009 Yeah, I have a feeling the Cavs are gonna end up with the best record in the league. Â When does Bynum get back?!?!
itsme102 Posted March 18, 2009 Posted March 18, 2009 Sixers with the very unlikely win against the Lakers last night. 9 times out of 10 Igoudala misses that shot. Fun game to watch though.
Bolliger&Mabillard Posted March 18, 2009 Author Posted March 18, 2009 God forbid that Trevor Ariza put two hands up or jump or contest the shot
themeparkman25 Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 So two back to back losses hurts the Lakers regardless of there position in the playoffs or not and that is an interesting move by the Celtics in shutting down KG. Should be a fun post season!
Bolliger&Mabillard Posted April 1, 2009 Author Posted April 1, 2009 ^Home court advantage isn't goig to be that big of a deal for L.A. unless Cleveland makes it all the way. There's more competition in the east than west, so Cleveland will have to play tougher teams. L.A. won't have to work so hard to beat the teams here while Cleveland would more than likely get worn out faster. So even if they make it to the finals, will they be playing with the same intensity as they are now?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now