kings beat lakers...*sigh*

So you think officials have anything to do with scoring points shane?

Well, when fouls are called, if the player is in the act of shooting, they get at least two free throws...once ten fouls are called, the teams are in the bonus...they also determine whether or not a three pointer is a three pointer...so they have a LOT to do with scoring points.

What is it that you believe the officials needed to do to make the Queens win? You are complaining about something that could also get on the Lakers side since most of the fouls that were called on Shaq in Sacramento wouldn't be called in Los Angeles.

I said horrible officiating on both sides...I was talking about the flagrant foul committed by Kobe Bryant that would have given Mike Bibby two shots and the Kings the ball, thus ending the game...

If you check, I didn't say the Lakers Swept the Queens in wins, I said they swept them all over the court.

Either way...the Lakers didn't sweep anything...taking the defending champions to seven games, one of which should have been won by the kings had it not been for poor calls, to seven games isn't exactly sweeping them...

Lakers won even with that horrid officiating, calling fouls on Shaq with every drama Divac was making.

Shaq has good post moves if he bothers to use them...the only thing is, he'd much rather commit an offensive foul that is never called and barrel into the defensive player...

Yeah right, like the refs were scoring the points.

I never said, nor did I insinuate...apparently you've never played basketball. If the refs are screwing you over, it's kinda hard to win. When that's the case, and it continues to happen, you begin to think that you can't win because the refs won't let you...no matter how good you are, poor officiating DOES affect the mindset of a player.

I'll tell you what, try to watch the game again as a Laker fan and you will see that the refs were all against Shaq & Co. Even Pollard was making dramatic falling like they were in some theatre and the refs were calling all that.

Yeah...how about you watch any game the Lakers play versus anyone and you will see that the majority of Shaq's post moves are offensive fouls because he knocks the offensive player over when they're set...it works both ways, buddy.

I give credit to the Lakers who won as visitors even with the refs against them all the time, all the Queens fans had to shut their mouth up and Divac didn't make again the comment he made cause obviously was embarrassed that even they had home court advantage, they couldn't do anything to avoid a loss.

Divac makes one comment...Shaq constantly derides the Kings and Mike Bibby...and Divac should shut his mouth. Riiiight...

LOL, So? I don't know but as far as I'm concerned, you only need to win by 1, after that if you win by 2 or more that's extra.

You said the Lakers blew them out...7 points, probably at least 5 of which were off free throws, is not a blowout...

No, they were just trying to prove they can win a game 7 out of their court, there was no other way than playing around with the Queens & dolls until they got to that desired game 7.

You have got to be kidding me. The Lakers were PLAYING AROUND???? with the Kings? Are you daft? The Lakers barely survived that seven game series, and you say the Lakers were messing around? So they did that to make a statement? Christ, why am I arguing with you?
By the way, you're as bad as the Lakers...way to disrespect a great team, real classy...

They were showing they had heart the whole time, how? winning the games they had to win to take the series to a game 7.

Yeah, THAT'S true, that other crap you were saying is just...ignorant and arrogant...

Get back to 95 Shane, and tell me who were the champs. I'm just going to describe to you what they did but you can tell me who those were.

They went to the playoffs as number 6 seed. They won as visitors in a last 5th game against the Jazz who were extremely favorites over them as any 3 seed who faces the 6th place.

Next, they had to face the number 2 seed of those playoffs Suns who as well were all the way favorites to take away their throne, as a result, they got the series to a maximum of games and won that game as visitors as well.

Next?, Spurs, number 1 seed of those playoffs facing number 6, who were your favorites? Spurs. But those number 6 didn't care who the favorites were, they had a mission to complete and they showed they didn't need to finish 1st to win a series.

Then after that they got to the Finals as visitors as well and swept the favorites from the East side (number 1 seed Magic with Shaq, Penny, Nick Anderson & D. Scott).

Now, you tell me who those were and tell me if you believe there's no way a 6th or 7th seed can win a championship. Plus, I don't want to talk about the Knicks who even they lost, they became the only 8th seed to show up in any NBA Finals.

Ohhhh, I see, so when the Lakers aren't a 1 seed, they're gonna win it all and you bring history up; when the Lakers ARE a 1 seed, they're gonna sweep their way to the playoffs, toying with the Kings on the way.

Notice that the 7 games first round is on the Lakers side. They do have to go against Spurs, Queens & Mavs. They can win against the Mavs, they would go one on one against the Spurs and the Queens can just get scared again. Why do the Queens need Bibby to step up and no Webber?. I consider Bibby does more than Webber on those games.

The Kings are deeper and younger, as are the Mavs, and Shaq's toe is still sore and Kobe is nursing a knee injury...hmm, who does a seven game series favor, the really deep, young, healthy team, or the team that's expended a ton of energy to get to sixth place? I'm gonna go with the healthy deep team...the Lakers have already shown this year that their bench is horrid and that Kobe and Shaq are the only scorers on the team...

Again, if they win by 1, they won. If they win by 7-10, they won convincently.

No. Seven to ten points is not convincing. It's scraping by in the NBA...if teams are within 5 points, they foul. If they're down by five points, they'll have to shoot at least one three during that time. Three pointers aren't as likely to go in, so the odds are that the team that's winning gets the rebound increases. Because the clock continues to run and one team is losing, the team that is losing fouls the other team in the hopes that they miss their free throws. However (I'm sure you've seen at least ONE game in your life), the team that's winning tries to get the ball in the hands of their best or most clutch free throw shooter. Because of that, teams usually attempt around 10 free throws in the last minute of a close (as in two possesion) game...winning by 10 is NOT convincing...

The Lakers are the Champs cause they never lose confidence on their game, if the official called bad, there's still another game. If the Queens couldn't get one game and they wanted to win, they couldn't stay thinking about that special game, they had to continue cause that's why is a series, this is not a superbowl that if you lose one game there's no tomorrow.

In the Lakers case, it's arrogance, not confidence...that game said a lot for the series and put the pressure on them, and that pressure was on them BECAUSE of the officials, not because of the Lakers...that's the point.

Again Shane, get back to the videos and watch those games as a Laker fan and you will see those officials were on the Queens side most of the time.

How about you watch them as a Kings fan? I'm a fan of neither team, but the Kings were robbed.

Plus, Lakers have talent as well (Shaq, Kobe, Horry, Fox, Fisher, George)

Kobe and Shaq are talented, Horry's washed up and a shell of what he used to be, Fox is a defender who can't score (but when he does, it's a lot), and George and Fisher are inconsistant...yeah, they're even on the same level as the Championship Rockets or even this years Kings or Mavericks...

But the refs are not an excuse, you cannot say "we lost our confidence because the refs cheated us" a real champion ignores the referee's and rises to the occasion whether they were cheated out of a win or not, all champs have had to come through bad officiating and take their beatings

I didn't say they used it as an excuse, and I never said it took away their confidence. I said they lost some confidence and it demoralized them...and you want to know why the Kings aren't the champions? Because the refs didn't call a flagrant foul in the last minute of play in a pivotal game...

As for that blatant Flagrant, granted it was a foul, but COME on, Bibby was all over Kobe on that play too so Kobe elbowed him off, so if the Refs were not going to call the first offense on Bibby, why call this blatant flagrant on Kobe?

Let em' play!

Yeah, you know why throwing elbows is illegal? Because it can seriously hurt a player. Bibby may have been all over Kobe, but what he was doing couldn't break Kobe's jaw or cause serious injury...elbows can. It was a flagrant foul that wasn't called. Period. You DO NOT ignore flagrant fouls, I don't care what league you're in. There's a reason why they penalties are so severe for them...look at Ron Artest this year, and he isn't throwing elbows....

As much as I hate the Laker Bashing/Ref excuses, I have to disagree, the Lakers did not sweep the Kings all over the court, they barely got out alive, and it was not because of the Refs, which as I said whoever was home got the calls. it was because they dug in deep and came out with more grit than the Kings, and deep down I think the Lakers know they got away with one last year and are more vulnerable than ever this year.

Exactly my point, but some people are dolts...

The 7 game series is actually not to the Lakers strength, if they do not get up to a 4 seed or 5, it will be against them because having the play the Kings/Mavs/Spurs in rounds 1&2&3 will wear their veterans down and they have not got any bench players worth speaking of. so I will be very suprised to see them repeat again, as for the Rockets, the West then was not as tough as the West now, I dont know if the Lakers can hold up 3 straight 7 game series against the top 3 in the west. so I think its important that they go on a run and play the Blazers/T'Wolves then the Mavs/Spurs/Kings will only come up 2 more rounds.

Wow, two good posts looking at things objectively...good job, we need more posters like you. *thumbs up*

Either you want to admit it or not, it's on the Lakers side, why? cause in a short series Lakers can easily get swept by the Queens who will have their first 2 at home, then they were just going to get to LA and depending on how the Lakers were going to play they might have taken that one as well and the series was gonna be over.

Now, if the Queens win the first 2, there's still a lot to go thru since they have to get to LA and win 2 more straight to sweep the series.

Who says they want to sweep? What if they want to just play with the Lakers and prove they can win in a seven game series? Hmmm?

Now I ask you something, when have you seen a team with 4 players with 10 or more rebounds in a game?, what would you call it if they are just taking all the boards in the game plus the performance of 2 of those players with 30 + points?. I agree the Queens did their best but once this was set, there was no way the Queens were going to win that game, again, either you like it or not, that's the reality.

You gave four players for the Lakers, and only three for the Kings...give every player's stats for both teams, then a fair comparison can be made. I don't care if it was Mark Madsen during trash time, show all stats...yours were biased, anyway, you have three forwards and a big guard vs. a panzy center, a panzy forward and a point guard...and you were comparing rebounds...

Now I ask you something, when have you seen a team with 4 players with 10 or more rebounds in a game?, what would you call it if they are just taking all the boards in the game plus the performance of 2 of those players with 30 + points?. I agree the Queens did their best but once this was set, there was no way the Queens were going to win that game, again, either you like it or not, that's the reality.

So what...it just means a lot of shots were missed. Two guys had thirty points for the Lakers, so what? You didn't show bench production, you didn't show enough statistics....you showed stats favorable to your argument. Show the rest of them...you may be right, but it's completely biased....

Christ, why am I arguing with you?

don't worry karl, scubilete doesn't know anything about the game.

don't worry karl,

You're calling me Hot Karl when your name is that of a moronic washed up profesional wrestler....my heart is bursting.

moronic

how so

and i don't agree that he is washed up. he still manages to make everyone in a stadium get on their feet and cheer for him and put together a supurb match. Hogan is, was, and forever will be known as the man that put wrestling on the map, so whether or not u decide to think as him as 'washed up' or not, you have to give the man the respect he deserves.

how so

Wrestling's moronic...do I need to say more?

and i don't agree that he is washed up. he still manages to make everyone in a stadium get on their feet and cheer for him and put together a supurb match. Hogan is, was, and forever will be known as the man that put wrestling on the map, so whether or not u decide to think as him as 'washed up' or not, you have to give the man the respect he deserves.

That's because they're generally unintelligent hicks in the first place...they cheer for an entire NASCAR race for christ's sake...

Why don't you talk about basketball in the NBA section?

Hulk Hogan, .

Ohhhh, I see, so when the Lakers aren't a 1 seed, they're gonna win it all and you bring history up; when the Lakers ARE a 1 seed, they're gonna sweep their way to the playoffs, toying with the Kings on the way.

No, last year they were not number 1 and won the championship as well, if I remember well they were number 3 cause the leader of the other division takes the 2 spot. After all, you didn't answer who were those and with that you are just telling me the Lakers still have a chance even if you don't admit it.

The Kings are deeper and younger, as are the Mavs, and Shaq's toe is still sore and Kobe is nursing a knee injury...hmm, who does a seven game series favor, the really deep, young, healthy team, or the team that's expended a ton of energy to get to sixth place?

Whatever you say Shane, I don't think you are talking about the same guy who averaged 40 ppg during one entire month and the other one who is just unstoppable.

In the Lakers case, it's arrogance, not confidence...that game said a lot for the series and put the pressure on them, and that pressure was on them BECAUSE of the officials, not because of the Lakers...that's the point.

That's just your opinion.

but the Kings were robbed.

, Did you call the police?

Horry's washed up and a shell of what he used to be, Fox is a defender who can't score

All you need is a good clutch shooter and a good defender. I don't remember well but I think Horry's shot cost a very significant game to the Queens, you can tell me if I'm wrong.

Exactly my point, but some people are dolts...

However you didn't get my point and didn't answer my question. The only thing why I brought the Rockets year is because they were in the same situation Shane, and they didn't need home court advantage to get the championship once again. Plus they were more vulnerable than never that same year.

What if they want to just play with the Lakers and prove they can win in a seven game series? Hmmm?

You can ask them what have happened the last 2 years then if that's the plan they have. After what happened last time, I don't think anyone wants to get a Lakers team in a 7th game.

You gave four players for the Lakers, and only three for the Kings...give every player's stats for both teams

Well, it was really difficult to find any information about that game, however if you get it, post it and then a fear comparison can be made.

yours were biased, anyway, you have three forwards and a big guard vs. a panzy center, a panzy forward and a point guard...and you were comparing rebounds...

First, I brought those who had the best game. 2nd: I don't think the Queens players you are calling panzy can be called like that since they are the leaders of the team. 3rd: I didn't compare rebs, I made that bold cause obviously I don't think any team you can think of have ever made that accomplishment of having 4 players with 10 or more rebs. I was comparing the points were Lakers had 2 with 30+ & the Queens had just one big guy who was not the one who is supposed to step up.

you may be right, but it's completely biased....

No, I'm right and you are not wrong but you are just against the winners and complaining too much. If you want you can get the whole boxscore showing the Bench which Lakers didn't need that obviously. Then you will find out that Webber (the big guy) didn't do what he was supposed to, and the Queens to take the Lakers to overtime needed help from Bibby cause Webber was simply not going to do his complete job.

How about you watch them as a Kings fan?

I did, I was asking why Webber was not taking the ball to the basket more often, and I'm sure that's what they needed.

Christ, why am I arguing with you? By the way, you're as bad as the Lakers...way to disrespect a great team, real classy...

, you don't have to argue, since I'm giving my opinion of the game and you are still making weird comments that the Queens were disappointed by one call. Like the Lakers got all the good calls, I'll tell you what, if the Lakers were with the officials on their side, they would have won by 40, they won as visitors "something you don't want to give them credit for, and I don't care if you do or don't cause you have your opinion" and they won the championship.

Last edited by scubilete on Fri Apr 04, 2003 1:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

about the officiating and the lakers getting most the calls for FT's and etc. i couldnt help but laugh my head off. lets look at it shall we.

Game Lakers Kings
1 16-22 W 16-17 L H
2 15-25 L 23-38 W H
3 H 8-15 L 21-35 W
4 H 18-27 W 18-26 L
5 17-23 L 22-33 W H
6 H 34-40 W 18-25 L
7 27-33 W 16-30 L H
Totals: 135-185 134-204
.729% .656%

so to me the King actually had the help from the refs, even in game 7, lakers only had 3 extra, and they shot .818% while kings...lol, shot .533%
so the kings have no-one else to blame but themselves about the games.
if they could hit there free throws, they prolly would be the defending champs.

Scub, please your points are well taken but a little off base, the Kings and Lakers series would have still been close had the Lakers gotten all the calls, as for the Lakers only needing one defender and a close shot, that is provided that they even get in the situation where Horry can hit that close shot, the Kings bench runs circles around the Lakers, and the Lakers Fisher/Horry/Fox are not getting any younger and I dont think can carry the load this year, and as I stated before who is on the Lakers bench who can be counted on to contribute consistently?

Spurs vs Kings in the Finals.

Laddas, great stats.
That was exactly one of the points I tried to make, the Kings got alot of opurtunitys late in a couple of those games to make FTs and they couldnt, and that is just inexcusable to me, especially when afterward your going to complain about the ref's, one thing that ticked me off last series was both teams berating the refs, and I think the Lakers got more of the benefit of the doubt because they had won it before while the refs attitude to the Kings was, hey you have not won anything so shut up and play.

Shane
I am not saying it was not a flagrant, but I think Bibby was in too close anyway, a similar thing happened earlier in the series with Christy when he was up too close to Kobe, and Iverson has gotten numorus elbows due to his over agressive defensive play.

Hulk Hogan,

Yeah, he's hillarious...

No, last year they were not number 1 and won the championship as well, if I remember well they were number 3 cause the leader of the other division takes the 2 spot. After all, you didn't answer who were those and with that you are just telling me the Lakers still have a chance even if you don't admit it.

The Lakers won as a one seed a couple years ago...I know how the playoff system works, and I never said that the Lakers didn't have a chance...

Whatever you say Shane, I don't think you are talking about the same guy who averaged 40 ppg during one entire month and the other one who is just unstoppable.

Yeah, why did he have to average 40 for an entire month? Because Shaq was hurt and the rest of the team sucked...so the Lakers have Kobe and Shaq and a bunch of washed up and inconsistant role players...throw in the fact that Kobe and Shaq aren't entirely healthy and expended a ton of energy to get INTO the playoffs in the first place, and that makes a seven game series in favor of whoever they're playing, be it a one, two, or three seed...if those teams are winning their games, they're more likely to be able to rest their starters. For instance, Duncan probably sat out the majority of the second half in the Spurs rout of the Grizzlies...he'll be much fresher for the playoffs. But that stuff has nothing to do with how well teams do in the playoffs, not at all!

That's just your opinion.

So Shaq calling the Kings the Queens isn't arrogance? Or bashing the Kings - even though the Lakers have lost to them at least once this year (don't feel like looking it up) - and the fact that the Kings are second place and the Lakers are battling UTAH?! (they're the sixth seed) and Phoenix and Houston and Golden State?! and Seattle for the playoffs? The Lakers might be lucky to be IN the playoffs this year...it's arrogance, trust me.

All you need is a good clutch shooter and a good defender. I don't remember well but I think Horry's shot cost a very significant game to the Queens, you can tell me if I'm wrong.

You have a good clutch shooter...Kobe Bryant...and you have a good defender...Kobe Bryant and Shaq...Fox isn't the defender he used to be, and he never was a scorer. Devean George isn't worth much, and Fisher is incredibly inconsistant...then you compare those guys to the Mavericks and Kings who have Van Exel, Lafrentz, Bradley, Finley, Nowitzki, Nash and Jackson, Bibby, Stojakavic, Webber, Pollard, Turkoglu, Christie....hmm, which teams are stronger? Those guys play as a team...the TEAMS mop up the Lakers, but Kobe and Shaq give the Lakers a chance. You can't even compare benches...the clutch guy for the Lakers who stepped up - but wasn't supposed to - was Horry. For the Kings, it was Bibby.

However you didn't get my point and didn't answer my question. The only thing why I brought the Rockets year is because they were in the same situation Shane, and they didn't need home court advantage to get the championship once again. Plus they were more vulnerable than never that same year.

What question? And they aren't in the same situation, Hakeem was only out for a few games and Horry was in his prime, Cassell was getting there. Drexler was still great...so what's your question, and how do the Lakers of today compare to the Rockets of then? Dominant big men and guards? They have Horry? That's all, because the Rockets had more talent than the Lakers do, and the Rockets weren't limping into the playoffs and playing catchup....

You can ask them what have happened the last 2 years then if that's the plan they have. After what happened last time, I don't think anyone wants to get a Lakers team in a 7th game.

I was mocking your idiotic statement that the Lakers were toying with the Kings last year....they went to seven games on PURPOSE. Please...

Well, it was really difficult to find any information about that game, however if you get it, post it and then a fear comparison can be made.

You found the information...I shouldn't have to provide it because you entered it into the discussion. If you're not willing to bring all of the stats into the picture (for instance, Webber had 11 assists...who was he passing to? Someone had to get the points, and it wasn't just Bibby and Divac), then the use of those stats in debate is POINTLESS.

First, I brought those who had the best game. 2nd: I don't think the Queens players you are calling panzy can be called like that since they are the leaders of the team. 3rd: I didn't compare rebs, I made that bold cause obviously I don't think any team you can think of have ever made that accomplishment of having 4 players with 10 or more rebs. I was comparing the points were Lakers had 2 with 30+ & the Queens had just one big guy who was not the one who is supposed to step up.

1st: How do we know they had the best game? Because you said so? We can't determine who had the 'best' game by seeing 7 players out of 24's stats, you CAN'T.
2nd: You're calling them the entire team the Queens, but I can't call two soft players panzies? What the hell?
3rd: You listed more stats for the Laker players and only two stats (save Webber) for the Kings, so the Lakers players look MUCH better. How many assists did Bibby have? How many free throws did Bibby and Webber and Divac attempt? How many turnovers did Kobe have? We need ALL of these things to make accurate statistical analysis. You're giving HALF the argument and making the other side look bad. Poor debating skills, and your stats are basically ignored by me...the only thing that showed me is that Kobe and Shaq almost scored 70 points and that the Kings and Lakers missed a lot of shots...

No, I'm right and you are not wrong but you are just against the winners and complaining too much.

The only thing I said was that the Kings were demoralized by poor officiating at the end of game four which cost them the game. I'm mentioning officiating in ONE game. You aren't right because you're too biased to make any sort of clear judgement on this...you MIGHT be right, but you don't know because you can't see past your own short-sighted opinion...as for me complaining, where am I complaining? Fact: Kobe threw an elbow. Fact: Throwing elbows are flagrant fouls. Fact: The flagrant foul was not called in the last minute of play. Fact: The Kings lost. Coincidence? Hmmm...demoralizing? Yes...

If you want you can get the whole boxscore showing the Bench which Lakers didn't need that obviously. Then you will find out that Webber (the big guy) didn't do what he was supposed to, and the Queens to take the Lakers to overtime needed help from Bibby cause Webber was simply not going to do his complete job.

If I wanted to....but I want you to because you introduced the information to the discussion. If you're going to introduce stuff, do it in its entirity and don't ask others to do what you should have done.

I did, I was asking why Webber was not taking the ball to the basket more often, and I'm sure that's what they needed.

Um, considering you were talking about watching the officiating from the Lakers perspective, I told you to watch the officiating from the Kings perspective.

you don't have to argue, since I'm giving my opinion of the game and you are still making weird comments that the Queens were disappointed by one call.

How are they weird? The Kings players WERE disappointed, why wouldn't they have been? It would have given them a huge advantage - a win.

Like the Lakers got all the good calls, I'll tell you what, if the Lakers were with the officials on their side, they would have won by 40, they won as visitors "something you don't want to give them credit for, and I don't care if you do or don't cause you have your opinion" and they won the championship.

I never said they got all the good calls, but they sure as hell got the call when it mattered most, now didn't they? A FLAGRANT FOUL that was NOT caclled tends to be important in the last minute of play. How many times do I need to spell that out to you? Do you want some flash cards? Maybe a nice video of the elbow connecting with Bibby's jaw? Maybe a copy of the rule book on flagrant fouls and what the entail? You OBVIOUSLY need something of the sort because I was talking about one call in one game and you bring up all seven games and stats that didn't matter because they weren't complete....I'd swear you didn't even know what we were debating...

about the officiating and the lakers getting most the calls for FT's and etc. i couldnt help but laugh my head off. lets look at it shall we.

Considering that was never said...the only thing I said about free throws were in the last minute of play, and that was non-specific...that's true about 7th grade JV basketball, they foul at the end of games...

so to me the King actually had the help from the refs, even in game 7, lakers only had 3 extra, and they shot .818% while kings...lol, shot .533%
so the kings have no-one else to blame but themselves about the games.
if they could hit there free throws, they prolly would be the defending champs.

I never said they didn't...what started this was Shaq's unsportsmanlike chiding of the Kings, then it went to the non-called flagrant foul - which did demoralize the Kings some - and now it's to this debate (that appeared because Scub has no idea what this discussion is about) about why the Kings lost the series...

Shane
I am not saying it was not a flagrant, but I think Bibby was in too close anyway, a similar thing happened earlier in the series with Christy when he was up too close to Kobe, and Iverson has gotten numorus elbows due to his over agressive defensive play.

So Christie got elbowed by Kobe in the same series? So that's two flagrants Kobe should have had...

Comparing Iverson's getting elbows because he drives into the lane is different than Kobe Bryant using an elbow to knock his defender to the ground. When you have Bill Walton crying flagrant foul against the Lakers, it's a flagrant foul...a flagrant is a flagrant. Period.

Now, just to get this back to the original line of discussion: the Lakers are being arrogant and disrespecting their opponents when their play has been substandard for the Laker teams of late. I don't remember how it came up, but the Kings losing in game seven was brought up and I said it was partly because the Kings were demoralized by the poor officiating at the end of game four which cost them the game. That poor officiating was a non-called flagrant foul committed by Kobe Bryant, but apparently everyone was taking that as me saying the Kings lost because of that one call. I never said that, nor did I imply that. The main thing, as Laddas showed, was poor free throw shooting down the stretch. However, saying the Lakers are that much better than the Kings when it took the refs to take some of the Kings steam way is just insane, uneducated, and arrogant. Of course, Scub IS calling the Kings the Queens, so that's about as arrogant and ignorant as you can get on this subject...

The comment about just needing those 2 was cause Shane brought up that those players are too old. I don't care if a player is old, if they are good in defense and can hit big shots, I want them on my team. That's why I said that about Horry & Fox.

Yeah, why did he have to average 40 for an entire month? Because Shaq was hurt and the rest of the team sucked...

No Shane, it was in February, Shaq was ok in Feb.

so the Lakers have Kobe and Shaq and a bunch of washed up and inconsistant role players...

Always has been the same way, one year they had Rice, another one they had Rider but always inconsistent and still winning.

throw in the fact that Kobe and Shaq aren't entirely healthy and expended a ton of energy to get INTO the playoffs in the first place, and that makes a seven game series in favor of whoever they're playing, be it a one, two, or three seed...

Shane, try to get this. Now whoever who faces the Lakers need to win 4 games not 3. Let's suppose the playoffs already started with the old format, the Queens already won 3 games and for some reason the commissioner says, "No, now you have to face that team one more time cause there's a change in the playoff format, you will need to beat the Lakers one more time to get to the next round", do you think it really was on the Queens side?.

Now they have to face the Lakers one more time & they have to win 4 games not 3 like used to be. Maybe is in favor of whoever who faces the Lakers but why can't it be on the Lakers side as well? What makes you think the 5 game series was on the Lakers side? If I want to see the Lakers facing the Queens, I need to see them in a 7 games series not in 5.

So Shaq calling the Kings the Queens isn't arrogance? Or bashing the Kings

No Shane, that's part of the Show. They need to make everything look like they hate each other when after the game they shake hands and go out for a drink.

then you compare those guys to the Mavericks and Kings who have Van Exel, Lafrentz, Bradley, Finley, Nowitzki, Nash and Jackson, Bibby, Stojakavic, Webber, Pollard, Turkoglu, Christie....hmm, which teams are stronger?

Shane, you don't need to compare them one by one if everytime they struggle when they face the Lakers. You can take any 2 of those players and still none of them can be compared to Shaq & Kobe. You have 4 great players in the Mavs, do you think they will win?

What question? And they aren't in the same situation

Of course they are, the rockets got to the playoffs as number 6 and struggle the entire season just like the Lakers are.

and how do the Lakers of today compare to the Rockets of then?

No the question would be how can't you compare them.

because the Rockets had more talent than the Lakers do, and the Rockets weren't limping into the playoffs and playing catchup....

No?, that's why I asked you to get back with the videos of the season.

Webber had 11 assists...who was he passing to?

Once again and hopefully for the last time since your understanding is not that bad, I don't think I have to repeat everything 7 times. I quoted those with outstanding performances, if Christie scored 8 points, he didn't show up in the report.

1st: How do we know they had the best game? Because you said so? We can't determine who had the 'best' game by seeing 7 players out of 24's stats, you CAN'T.

Obviously by stats Shane.

2nd: You're calling them the entire team the Queens, but I can't call two soft players panzies? What the hell?

No, you can call them anyway you want, but obviously those you are calling panzies are the leaders of the team and the best players they have so for you Shaq & Kobe are extremely superior and Webber & Bibby are just 2 pieces of shit when those are the 2 of the best players of the Queens.

so the Lakers players look MUCH better. How many assists did Bibby have? How many free throws did Bibby and Webber and Divac attempt? How many turnovers did Kobe have? We need ALL of these things to make accurate statistical analysis.

Again, try to get the Boxscore cause that's all the info I got, even I can provide the site where I got those so you can see the only thing that was told was the info I posted and I'm not a moderator of that site.

You aren't right because you're too biased to make any sort of clear judgement on this...

No, I'm right and you are unable to admit the other facts of the game.

If you're going to introduce stuff, do it in its entirity and don't ask others to do what you should have done.

So everytime someone says Jordan scored 20 points they need to get the boxscore so you can believe it?, You are getting too noisy here.

I told you to watch the officiating from the Kings perspective.

I did, you just quoted the answer.

The Kings players WERE disappointed, why wouldn't they have been?

If they wanted to win the series was up to them, now you are saying the Queens lost cause they didn't get that call and that's just one game which was not the last one either for you to keep saying that.

You OBVIOUSLY need something of the sort because I was talking about one call in one game and you bring up all seven games

Cause the Queens needed to win 4, not 1. That's the only reason a full series is brought up to discussion when you come and say someone didn't win the series cause just one game, that's pointless cause there were more games and you are still obcessed with that particular one.

I'd swear you didn't even know what we were debating...

Of course I know, I was stating that the Lakers wanted a 7th game badly with the Queens to show them Lakers can win out of their court in that situation when you came with your comments that the refs are the responsible that the Lakers won the series or that game.

Since I was talking about game 7 not game 4 or 3, that's why I posted those stats showing you that the Lakers won the game, either you like it or not. Forget game 4 cause anyway that was not the last game of the series. Like the gamewiz & myself told you, cause looks like you won't believe it, if you want to win, you need to continue playing cause that's how you can get anywere. The Lakers were down 2-3, they didn't stay thinking about that last game they were supposed to win, NO. They came back and played with heart to win at home and have an extra game where anything could have happened, that's how a team with determination plays, not thinking about that call, I still believe you are the one making them look like idiots cause I bet they were not thinking about that call for so long.

No Shane, it was in February, Shaq was ok in Feb.

He wasn't 100% in february though, still healing and not playing as well.

The comment about just needing those 2 was cause Shane brought up that those players are too old. I don't care if a player is old, if they are good in defense and can hit big shots, I want them on my team. That's why I said that about Horry & Fox.

Those two are having horrible seasons and haven't hit big shots or played great defense this year...and the playoffs haven't started, so you can't judge how they'll do this year because they're playing horribly...

No Shane, it was in February, Shaq was ok in Feb.

Colin covered that one...Shaq was playing like half a game...

Always has been the same way, one year they had Rice, another one they had Rider but always inconsistent and still winning.

Fisher, Horry, and Fox used to be consistant...they'd get they're 12-15 points a game and play good defense, making open threes. Are they doing that this year? Nope...and Rider doesn't count, he rarely played.

Shane, try to get this. Now whoever who faces the Lakers need to win 4 games not 3. Let's suppose the playoffs already started with the old format, the Queens already won 3 games and for some reason the commissioner says, "No, now you have to face that team one more time cause there's a change in the playoff format, you will need to beat the Lakers one more time to get to the next round", do you think it really was on the Queens side?.

Yes. Just a few words, shouldn't need an explanation: Depth, fresh legs going into playoffs. Lakers are fighting into the playoffs, so they won't be so fresh because Shaq and Kobe will be playing 40 minutes a game so the Lakers win...that's two more games the Lakers have to have Shaq and Kobe on the floor for 40 minutes. Now, if the Lakers face the Kings and beat them in seven games, they face the Kings. Or the Spurs. See the problem? The Lakers don't have the depth or the young legs or the healthiness to fight through seven games. They can do it, but they don't have the advantage versus the Mavs, Kings, or even the Spurs which is depth.

Shane, try to get this. Now whoever who faces the Lakers need to win 4 games not 3. Let's suppose the playoffs already started with the old format, the Queens already won 3 games and for some reason the commissioner says, "No, now you have to face that team one more time cause there's a change in the playoff format, you will need to beat the Lakers one more time to get to the next round", do you think it really was on the Queens side?.

It works both ways, and I've already said that the Kings and Mavs and even Spurs have the depth to stay fresh. If the Lakers play seven games in the first round, Kobe's playing 280 minutes and Shaq will be too, and that's not even thinking of possible overtimes. I never said the Lakers couldn't win, or they wouldn't win, but I said that the deep teams that are top seeds have an advantage because of depth and the fact that they have more energy coming into the playoffs because they HAVE been winning. How do you NOT understand this?

No Shane, that's part of the Show. They need to make everything look like they hate each other when after the game they shake hands and go out for a drink.

Yeah, that's part of the show. I bet Doug Christie and Rick Fox have drinks all the time, then they hug and cry...

Shane, you don't need to compare them one by one if everytime they struggle when they face the Lakers. You can take any 2 of those players and still none of them can be compared to Shaq & Kobe. You have 4 great players in the Mavs, do you think they will win?

Together those four great players can score more than Shaq and Kobe combined, and then the other four good players can score their points and get their boards and they can win. Sacramento's done it this year, so has Dallas. They've shown they can beat them, and Sacramento took them to seven games, and that was pre-Keon Clark and Bobby Jackson wasn't sixth man of the year last year AND Peja was hurt, so the Kings team is much better this year and they're much deeper. Now, tell me that all of those good to great players don't equal Shaq and Kobe's output?

Of course they are, the rockets got to the playoffs as number 6 and struggle the entire season just like the Lakers are.

They didn't struggle like the Lakers did...

Once again and hopefully for the last time since your understanding is not that bad, I don't think I have to repeat everything 7 times. I quoted those with outstanding performances, if Christie scored 8 points, he didn't show up in the report.

You're making me repeat everything. Webber had 11 assists, that means he was doing other things to make his team mates better, so the fact that he only scored 20 points isn't important. You didn't give Webber, Divac, or Bibby's stats for assists, free throws, or anything else like you did the Laker players. I SAID that in the previous post. If you're posting stats for comparison, post ALL of the damned stats in the SAME categories. It's simple to understand, I could tell that to a fourth grader and they'd understand it...

Obviously by stats Shane.

IF YOU HAD PROVIDED ALL OF THE STATS FOR ALL 24 PLAYERS STATS COULD TELL. But you didn't, which is what I said. Read it CAREFULLY this time. I made it nice and big for you...

No, you can call them anyway you want, but obviously those you are calling panzies are the leaders of the team and the best players they have so for you Shaq & Kobe are extremely superior and Webber & Bibby are just 2 pieces of shit when those are the 2 of the best players of the Queens.

OK, I call them panzies, you call them pieces of shit. You're lecturing me on it? Webber and Divac have been called soft for most of their careers, if not all. Bibby's more of a leader than Webber is, he takes charge more often. Don't say I can't call them soft and panzies when you're calling them pieces of shit. Kobe may be extremely superior, but Shaq isn't so much anymore...more dominant, yes, more superior, not so much...

Again, try to get the Boxscore cause that's all the info I got, even I can provide the site where I got those so you can see the only thing that was told was the info I posted and I'm not a moderator of that site.

How about you do as I ask? It's NOT my job to provide stats that you brought up. If I ask for more info for your argument, YOU provide it, I don't. Understand?

No, I'm right and you are unable to admit the other facts of the game.

"I'm right, you're wrong... because I SAID SO!!!" You haven't proved anything...you gave one sided stats, you're ignoring everything I'm saying and what you do pay attention to you don't understand and misinterpret, even though I've repeated my position many times.

So everytime someone says Jordan scored 20 points they need to get the boxscore so you can believe it?, You are getting too noisy here.

I'm getting too noisy? What's the even mean? And no, they don't need to; however, if they're comparing Jordan's stats to another player, they would need to post a box score or a comparison of all stats between two players. Otherwise, it's just pointless.

I did, you just quoted the answer.

Um...no, you didn't. You said "I saw the Kings should have gone to Webber more." I was talking about the officiating in one game, but apparently you can't understand stuff even if it's said more than twice....

If they wanted to win the series was up to them, now you are saying the Queens lost cause they didn't get that call and that's just one game which was not the last one either for you to keep saying that.

They would have been up 3-1...that would have been a huge advantage for the Kings, no? It would have been a great morale booster, too. However, losing that one game because of horrible call demoralized them and put a little bit of doubts in their mind. They're human...they choked in Game 7, but going into LA would have been a lot better in game 5 if they had a two game cushion....

Cause the Queens needed to win 4, not 1. That's the only reason a full series is brought up to discussion when you come and say someone didn't win the series cause just one game, that's pointless cause there were more games and you are still obcessed with that particular one.

They would have been up 3-1. Big advantage, already went over that. The Lakers would have been on their heels as opposed to riding the momentum of a close win. You don't have a clue what you're talking about when it comes to basketball, all you know are stats and the fact that you like the Lakers...

Of course I know, I was stating that the Lakers wanted a 7th game badly with the Queens to show them Lakers can win out of their court in that situation when you came with your comments that the refs are the responsible that the Lakers won the series or that game.

Pardon my language, but are you fucking retarded? THE LAKERS DID NOT WANT A SEVENTH GAME. Who wants to go to a seventh game to prove a point? Arrogant bastards, which the Lakers are, but they aren't stupid. TRYING for a seven game series is moronic because you're that much more likely to lose. I never said the refs were the reason the Lakers won the series, quote me where I said "The Kings lost because the refs were in the Lakers pocket and not because the Kings choked in game seven." Quote me, show me where I said this stuff. You're a damned imbecile, how many times do I have to repeat myself?

Since I was talking about game 7 not game 4 or 3, that's why I posted those stats showing you that the Lakers won the game, either you like it or not

Oh, so I could bring up the fact that the Raptors beat the Knicks the other night, give some stats, and we'd be talkign about that now? Because I was talking about it? See, when someone starts a discussion about game four, and you start talking about game seven, well, it's kinda dumb...considering I never said anything about game four having to do with the outcome of game seven. Saying a teams morale is lowered is different than saying a team lost because of an earlier game...

Forget game 4 cause anyway that was not the last game of the series.

It probably would have been the second to last game of the series if it had been called right...if that flagrant had been called, the Kings go up 3-1 and the Lakers are playing out of a hole instead of a tie...duh.

The Lakers were down 2-3, they didn't stay thinking about that last game they were supposed to win, NO. They came back and played with heart to win at home and have an extra game where anything could have happened, that's how a team with determination plays, not thinking about that call, I still believe you are the one making them look like idiots cause I bet they were not thinking about that call for so long.

Ohhh, so wanting to win the series and wanting to prove to everyone they can win a game seven are the same thing in your mind? Well, they kind of are, but see, wanting a game seven to stay alive in the playoffs is different than the arrogant sounding comment you made. The Lakers were the favorite for that game, if I remember right...so it's not like it was a huge surprise. The Kings had "choked" (ie screwed by officials in game 4) and lost a little confidence, and the Lakers had momentum after winning the sixth game - which was actually the must win, since if they lost, they were done....but ignore every other game of the series because the Lakers were trying for seven games and let the Kings win three, right? That's what you were saying wasn't it?

I'm out of this stupid discussion, I'll be back when Scubillet learns to debate intelligently and not force me to be redundant...

I never said the refs were the reason the Lakers won the series, quote me where I said "The Kings lost because the refs were in the Lakers pocket and not because the Kings choked in game seven." Quote me, show me where I said this stuff. You're a damned imbecile, how many times do I have to repeat myself?

If you can't win when you play well because of horrid officiating, it's going to make you feel helpless...credit the 7 game win more to the refs than to Shaq watching Divac's comments...

Sorry Shane.

Pardon my language, but are you fucking retarded? THE LAKERS DID NOT WANT A SEVENTH GAME.

I don't think teachers are supposed to call "F" retarded anyone since that would leave them as the only "F" retarded and with no education. Regarding the other other statement, Shane, if you can't win in 5 games, you need to take the series to a 7th and final game, either you want to admit it or not. Who would tell me after 5 games, Lakers down 3-2, Lakers didn't want to take the series to a 7th game?

Those two are having horrible seasons and haven't hit big shots or played great defense this year...and the playoffs haven't started, so you can't judge how they'll do this year because they're playing horribly...

I understand the playoffs are not there yet but look at your comments and you will see you are confused.

Kobe and Shaq are talented, Horry's washed up and a shell of what he used to be, Fox is a defender who can't score (but when he does, it's a lot)

So, I don't have to say much, you answer and then you reply against your own comments, you are out of shape buddy.

Now, if the Lakers face the Kings and beat them in seven games, they face the Kings. Or the Spurs. See the problem?

Always has been the same Shane, if they got rid of the Blazers, they were getting the Spurs, if not the Queens. However if your point is that the way is not easy, that's clear, I didn't say it was. I said it's convenient to have 7 games than 5 games, since they don't have home court advantage, now they are getting 2 games at home if they were going to get swept, anyone who wants to beat them have to win 4 games instead of 3 against them. And nobody wants to face those Lakers Shane, I assure you that.

I never said the Lakers couldn't win, or they wouldn't win, but I said that the deep teams that are top seeds have an advantage because of depth and the fact that they have more energy coming into the playoffs because they HAVE been winning. How do you NOT understand this?

Shane, it's not that I don't understand it, it's that you pointed that out when was not needed. I quoted the system is on the Lakers favor, that's when you brought that up which has always been the same way but remember and forget about the 2nd round, the first round used to be the best of 5 which was a very short series that if you take in mind like last year the Queens would have won since they got 3-2 the series, now is a 7 games series which means they have to face 2 more games if that case happens. I didn't say the Lakers is a better team than anybody or that they were going easy, all I said is for me the change is on the Lakers favor.

When I brought the Rockets up was cause you were trying to make me believe the Lakers couldn't do much cause they were in a 7th spot so I brought that up as an example that anything can happen, at last you have come to your old form of being optimist, and not like those fans who keep saying Never.

Yeah, that's part of the show. I bet Doug Christie and Rick Fox have drinks all the time, then they hug and cry...

Well, I don't know if you had the opportunity to see Jordan being punched, kicked & smacked down by D. Rodman who after all finished being his teammate, I would say Jordan's favorite.

Now, tell me that all of those good to great players don't equal Shaq and Kobe's output?

Always the same thing Shane, why don't you open your mind a little?, I'm not saying they don't have a better team but what you don't get is that they have always had a better team with the same results. Yes, last year they had Stojacovic injured but they had B. Jackson coming and making that big contribution. Again, I'm not saying the Lakers are better than they are, all I'm saying is that last year they were better as well and the Lakers didn't care that.

They didn't struggle like the Lakers did...

Yes they did, they finished 6th with a 47-35 record when the Spurs (62-20), Jazz (60-22), Suns (59-23), Stle (57-25), Lakers (48-34). Obviously the Spurs were supposed to win it all like you see, if not the Jazz or Suns, the Rockets faced them all and took them out of their way one by one.

IF YOU HAD PROVIDED ALL OF THE STATS FOR ALL 24 PLAYERS STATS COULD TELL. But you didn't, which is what I said. Read it CAREFULLY this time. I made it nice and big for you...

Again and for the last time, that was the stats provided to me, however I'm going to make the link so you see it by yourself that I didn't hide anything or I had the boxscore and didn't want to provide it to you.

"I'm right, you're wrong... because I SAID SO!!!"

No Shane, I'm right and you're out of shape. Obviously you need to get your mind in shape since your arguments are not organized and you are getting already excited calling me names when all I'm doing is explaining you something you are supposed to understand but you don't want to or can't.

See, when someone starts a discussion about game four, and you start talking about game seven, well, it's kinda dumb...

See?, now you are calling yourself dumb, I don't understand you. Go back and check who started talking first and who quoted who and you will see I was clearly talking about game 7 when you brought the facts of game 4 to the thread, something that would be kinda dumb to do, but you did.

you're ignoring everything I'm saying and what you do pay attention to you don't understand and misinterpret, even though I've repeated my position many times.

No, when I ignore something, take it like at least I try to see your point of view and didn't want to make any more comments. And the points you meant that I paid atte. to that I didn't understand or misinterpreted it, it's obviously cause you won't get mine and you bring points that are not part of the subject, like that foul call which had nothing to do with a 7th game.

I was talking about the officiating in one game, but apparently you can't understand stuff even if it's said more than twice...

The officials, the officials, that's all you have been repeating Shane, I do understand you but once you get there, you can't think the officials are going to give you anything, you need to win the games with them or without them. When I said I watched the game as a Queens fan is cause I wanted Webber to take charge, since he's the leader, he was supposed to do that. Didn't you see Shaq taking the game where he wanted?, Shaq even got his free throws, that's what a leader does. If you know Webber is the best of that team, you expect him to do more.

However, losing that one game because of horrible call demoralized them and put a little bit of doubts in their mind. They're human...

Yes, they are human and the Lakers are the Champs, that's the difference here. If you act as a champ, you forget what happened that day and come back to win the next game, like they did but you keep saying they didn't get that good after that.

they choked in Game 7, but going into LA would have been a lot better in game 5 if they had a two game cushion....

I do understand that obviously but notice that they were not getting to LA, they got to their home where they got the revenge on that call and Lakers couldn't do much but wait for the next game like is supposed to be.

The Lakers would have been on their heels as opposed to riding the momentum of a close win.

If that's the case, the Lakers were facing elimination already in game 6 and they didn't care that.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about when it comes to basketball, all you know are stats and the fact that you like the Lakers...

No Shane, you don't have any idea what you are talking about when it comes to basketball since you just watch games looking at the officials and not at the players, and yes, I'm a proud Lakers fan, always have been, had my bad years but the compensation has been sweet (3 championships in a row).

The Lakers were the favorite for that game, if I remember right...

Once again, you are wrong. In a game 7 anything can happen but the balance would go to whoever who is at home, in this case the Queens.

but ignore every other game of the series because the Lakers were trying for seven games and let the Kings win three, right? That's what you were saying wasn't it?

Was not exactly what I was saying but obviously there was no other way to get to a game 7 without winning 3 games, right?

generally unintelligent hicks in the first place...they cheer for an entire NASCAR race for christ's sake...

yeh, and losers actually cheer when a player touched a ball past some line after getting past losers in helmets in one game

generally unintelligent hicks in the first place...they cheer for an entire NASCAR race for christ's sake...

yeh, and losers actually cheer when a player touched a ball past some line after getting past losers in helmets in one game

geee, there are a lot of losers, considering nfl is one of the most popular sports in america(starting to become pretty popular worldwide to)
and i'd like to see you get past one if them "losers" with a helmet and get past that line for a TD, lol

because they're generally unintelligent hicks in the first place

this statement is stupid for somebody supposed to be a nerd. i give u a D-

and i'd like to see you get past one if them "losers" with a helmet and get past that line for a TD

i'd like to see 10 of those 'losers' with helmets try to stop 1 brock lesner

Why don't you talk about basketball in the NBA section

u brought it up, not me

this statement is stupid for somebody supposed to be a nerd. i give u a D-

Supposed to be a nerd? Considering I never said anything that would make me 'supposed to be a nerd,' you're still a moron...

]i'd like to see 10 of those 'losers' with helmets try to stop 1 brock lesner

Well, considering those guys could bench press brock lesner...

u brought it up, not me

You switched topic, dumbass, not me...

i'd like to see 10 of those 'losers' with helmets try to stop 1 brock lesner

10??
well lets see
Warren Sapp,Ray Lewis,Julius Peppers,John Abraham,Takeo Spikes,Jason Taylor,Derrick Brooks,Peter Bolware,Lavar Arrington,Simeon Rice

ok theres 10 for ya
now lets see Brock Lesner try get through them without a script