I learned a very important lesson today

Tsoprano · 02-02-09, 10:50 PM

Yea, unreal.

I had Portland though so i'm not complaining.

pavyracer · 02-02-09, 10:53 PM

You can't cap in-game injuries. Lakers lost Bynum at Minnie and still trounced the Wolfies.

fearless · 02-02-09, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by pavyracer

You can't cap in-game injuries. Lakers lost Bynum at Minnie and still trounced the Wolfies.

You can't compare what Bynum means to the Lakers and what CP3 means to the Hornets. The Lakers got to the finals without Bynum and without CP3 the Hornets wouldn't make the playoffs. I think they might be a 30 win team.

What a terrible comparison.

pavyracer · 02-02-09, 11:03 PM

Can you tell me how to cap in-game injuries so I wouldn't lose my bets?

fearless · 02-02-09, 11:15 PM

Originally posted by pavyracer

Can you tell me how to cap in-game injuries so I wouldn't lose my bets?

You can't but comparing what Bynum means to the Lakers to what CP3 means to the Hornets is ridiculous. I think the Lakers could win the championship without Bynum. Without CP3 the Hornets aren't a playoff team.

Mac4Lyfe · 02-02-09, 11:18 PM

The Laker's can't win a title without Bynum. Did you now see last years finals??? The Lakers are soft as butter without Bynum.

fearless · 02-02-09, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by Mac4Lyfe

The Laker's can't win a title without Bynum. Did you now see last years finals??? The Lakers are soft as butter without Bynum.

I don't agree. I think Jackson cost the Lakers as much as anything in the Finals:

http://forum.sbrforum.com/players-talk/80856-if-i-owned-lakers-i-would-fire-jackson.html

pavyracer · 02-02-09, 11:29 PM

Lakers can't win without Bynum. The bench is horrible.

ZBOIZ · 02-02-09, 11:30 PM

how bad is chris paul injury??????????????

fearless · 02-02-09, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by pavyracer

Lakers can't win without Bynum. The bench is horrible.

They got to the finals last year without him. Sometimes I want to put you on ignore for your ridiculous comments.

yisman · 02-02-09, 11:33 PM

Originally posted by fearless

After Paul went out the Blazers couldn't do anything right

You mean the Hornets.

ZBOIZ · 02-02-09, 11:33 PM

groin injury I just found out

pavyracer · 02-02-09, 11:36 PM

Originally posted by fearless

They got to the finals last year without him. Sometimes I want to put you on ignore for your ridiculous comments.

Win means championship you dumbass. If you pick 4 monkeys and let them play with Kobe they will make the playoffs but will not win an NBA championship without Bynum. What a tool you are. Name one team the last 12 years that won a championship without a center.

Mac4Lyfe · 02-02-09, 11:41 PM

Originally posted by fearless

They got to the finals last year without him. Sometimes I want to put you on ignore for your ridiculous comments.

Yeah and they got their asses handed to them. The Cav's made it to the finals a couple of years ago too. Doesn't mean they would magically win it all the next year standing pat. The Lakers are a totally different team without Bynum. His brings a toughness they haven't had since Shaq left. His inside outside game has improved and his on ball defense is great. Gasol is a great player but he still has a lot of European bball in him where he can't take the bumps. Gasol and Odum are like Nowitski. Good players but don't want to go up against guys that are physical.

Even several broadcasters said today that the Lakers are done without Bynum. Now they are worried that even when he comes back that there will be a huge dropoff. They can beat many teams without him but once they meet the elite teams there going to get beat.

fearless · 02-02-09, 11:41 PM

Originally posted by pavyracer

Win means championship you dumbass. If you pick 4 monkeys and let them play with Kobe they will make the playoffs but will not win an NBA championship without Bynum. What a tool you are. Name one team the last 12 years that won a championship without a center.

No team has won a championship without a center.

Cartwright was an old, slow, below average center for the Bulls.

In 2004-2005 the Lakers not only didnt' make the playoffs, they went 34-48. That was one after they made the finals and Kobe was most definitely playing.

You're wrong about everything and you call me a dumbass?

After this thread is over I'm putting you on ignore unless you can redeem yourself here.

pavyracer · 02-02-09, 11:43 PM

dumbass
dumbass
dumbass

Mac4Lyfe · 02-02-09, 11:47 PM

Cartwright was a baller even if he was old and slow. The dude was a double double machine. He could D up any opposing center and had great low post moves and could pass the rock.

The Lakers can play inside out with Bynum. With him gone they are pretty much an outside shooting team. That changes things drastically. Do you really think the Lakers could beat the Celtics, Magic or Cav's without Bynum??? No way... The West is very down the past 2 years so them getting to the finals is not that big of a deal. Once they get there they will get trounced.

fearless · 02-02-09, 11:48 PM

Originally posted by pavyracer

dumbass
dumbass
dumbass

That's insightful. Can you talk intelligently about anything?

fearless · 02-02-09, 11:52 PM

Originally posted by fearless

That's insightful. Can you talk intelligently about anything?

Pavy - "If you pick 4 monkeys and let them play with Kobe they will make the playoffs"

My answer - In 2004-2005 the Lakers not only didn't make the playoffs, they went 34-48.

If you admit that you're wrong I won't put you on ignore pavy. Otherwise, I realize that you're a lost cause.

Mac4Lyfe · 02-02-09, 11:56 PM

Cartwright was very instrumental in the Bulls title runs. I stand corrected on his rebounds as he didn't average over 10+ but his offense and his defense especially over other bigs was very crucial. You have to have a big man to go up against guys like Duncan, D Howard, , Chandler/Garnett, Perkins, Ilgauskas, etc... The Lakers were abused last year by the Celtics. The C's out physicalled them the entire series.

donjuan · 02-03-09, 01:24 AM

LT Profits is very wise, he says no bets with juice over -120.

This isn't wise at all. I would only suggest it if you have a strong dislike of money. See: pretty much every +ev bet on the Super Bowl.

onlooker · 02-03-09, 01:33 AM

Originally posted by ZBOIZ

groin injury I just found out

When I seen him grab the inside of his thigh, I figured it was a groin. I am currently suffering from a pulled groin. It is no fun.

Cloak & Dagger · 02-03-09, 01:45 AM

Originally posted by Tsoprano

Yea, unreal.

I had Portland though so i'm not complaining.

BigAL · 02-03-09, 01:54 AM

Originally posted by fearless

No team has won a championship without a center.

Cartwright was an old, slow, below average center for the Bulls.

In 2004-2005 the Lakers not only didnt' make the playoffs, they went 34-48. That was one after they made the finals and Kobe was most definitely playing.

You're wrong about everything and you call me a dumbass?

After this thread is over I'm putting you on ignore unless you can redeem yourself here.

are you forgetting the mighty Will Purdue???

diogee · 02-03-09, 01:59 AM

Huge injury for the Hornets...without CP3 they can't possibly go anywhere. Easily one of the most important players to his team in the nba. Saw the same thing in the GS game a few days ago...he sat for the 1st 6 minutes of the 4th qtr after he controlled the 3rd and the team completely faltered.

fearless · 02-03-09, 02:03 AM

Originally posted by diogee

Huge injury for the Hornets...without CP3 they can't possibly go anywhere. Easily one of the most important players to his team in the nba. Saw the same thing in the GS game a few days ago...he sat for the 1st 6 minutes of the 4th qtr after he controlled the 3rd and the team completely faltered.

Exactly. This is from the ESPN board. I couldn't agree more with the part in bold, this game made me realize the same thing. Thus I don't think I'll bet on the Hornets again this year.

If I'm a Hornets fan, this game made me realise that CP3 is basically the whole team. The bottom line is, CP3 is better than anyone on the Blazers. Arguably, he's more valuable to his team than anyone else in the league. However, he goes down and the team plays like absolute, total crap. The conclusion I draw is that CP3 is a great player, but Portland is a better team. After all, they beat New Orleans in NO with Roy playing his worst game of the year, no Steve Blake, no Martell Webster, and an ineffective Greg Oden. Yes, CP3 went down, but Portland was down by 16 at the time. They're a deeper team, and will only get better.

frostno98 · 02-03-09, 02:08 AM

"You Play to win the Game"!

pico · 02-03-09, 02:33 AM

interesting thread.

HKim · 02-03-09, 04:52 AM

in last year championship, LA wasn't so bad without Bynum, but just very sorry that they couldn't show their competence against Boston as much as they showed theirs against San antonio before ...

fearless · 02-03-09, 04:54 AM

Originally posted by HKim

in last year championship, LA wasn't so bad without Bynum, but just very sorry that they couldn't show their competence against Boston as much as they showed theirs against San antonio before ...

http://forum.sbrforum.com/players-talk/80856-if-i-owned-lakers-i-would-fire-jackson.html

jjgold · 02-03-09, 05:38 AM

Paul is the entire team over there

HKim · 02-03-09, 05:38 AM

Originally posted by fearless

http://forum.sbrforum.com/players-ta...e-jackson.html

because Boston ran out of their stamina in playoff games,
i expected that LA would take advantage of this Boston's weakness with its young players.
but Jackson didn't use its bench a lot~~

VegasDave · 02-03-09, 05:51 AM

Originally posted by fearless

LT Profits is very wise, he says no bets with juice over -120. I used to be the opposite, almost every bet had big juice but I've seen the error of my ways.

Originally posted by donjuan

This isn't wise at all. I would only suggest it if you have a strong dislike of money. See: pretty much every +ev bet on the Super Bowl.

+1 to donjuan.

If the Celtics were -150 on the moneyline hosting the Clippers, you wouldn't bet the Celtics at that number because "anything can happen"?

Of course anything can happen, but a good bet is still a good bet.

"Bad beats" will work themselves out over the long run; as many will go for you as they will against you. If the right side happens to be -130 for a game, it isn't a bad bet just because the sky could fall down on the team you picked.

fearless · 02-03-09, 05:57 AM

Originally posted by VegasDave

+1 to donjuan.

If the Celtics were -150 on the moneyline hosting the Clippers, you wouldn't bet the Celtics at that number because "anything can happen"?

Of course anything can happen, but a good bet is still a good bet.

"Bad beats" will work themselves out over the long run; as many will go for you as they will against you. If the right side happens to be -130 for a game, it isn't a bad bet just because the sky could fall down on the team you picked.

Yeah, I'm still considering LT Profit's theory.