RealGM

I don't know where to find such a stat. Can someone tell me where to look that up?

Overall the Lakers are 41-12 since February 1st, including 10 games Pau missed where they went 5-5. Since Gasol played his first game February 5th, the Lakers have been 34-7 with Gasol in the lineup, including the playoffs.

Overall the Celtics are 42-16 since February 1st, including the playoffs.

Thx EHL.

Just eyeballing it I think it's safe to say the Lakers have the better winning% since the trade for Gasol. Hence them being favored to win the series I would say.

I think they're favoured because of the Playoffs. They did beat three superior teams in 5 less games after all.

That's true BB! And yet why am I still rather uneasy about the upcoming series? Could it be because we don't have Home Court for the first time in the Playoffs?

Big Bird wrote:I think they're favoured because of the Playoffs. They did beat three superior teams in 5 less games after all.

I'm pretty sure the Cavs and Pistons would wax the Nuggets, I wouldn't say three superior teams. Even the Hawks would beat the Nuggets, that team has no heart/defense.

The Lakers played a very difficult schedule in the first half. Their schedule was ridiculously easy just as they got Gasol. I remember thinking when are they going to play somebody hard? Garnett, their leader, was injured and was recovering just as they played the West road trip in which they lost 3 in a row. Perkins had also been injured around that time. The comparisons are a little unfair.

Celtsfan1980 wrote:The Lakers played a very difficult schedule in the first half. Their schedule was ridiculously easy just as they got Gasol. I remember thinking when are they going to play somebody hard? Garnett, their leader, was injured and was recovering just as they played the West road trip in which they lost 3 in a row. Perkins had also been injured around that time. The comparisons are a little unfair.

I'm pretty sure the Celtics went 7-2 without Garnett and then lost those 3 in a row with Garnett back.

did we really lose our only 3 games in a row with KG coming back from injury?

I don't see any real comparison. Those records are pretty close aside from some fumbling by Ray Allen before the ECF.

I think it just goes to show that this year the two best teams in the league really did make it [since manu is injured]

Celtsfan1980 wrote:The Lakers played a very difficult schedule in the first half. Their schedule was ridiculously easy just as they got Gasol. I remember thinking when are they going to play somebody hard? Garnett, their leader, was injured and was recovering just as they played the West road trip in which they lost 3 in a row. Perkins had also been injured around that time. The comparisons are a little unfair.

If you get the winning % of the teams the Lakers and Celtics both faced since Feb. 1, you will see that the are not that far off. Both sub .500 I believe.

DarkAzcura wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



I'm pretty sure the Celtics went 7-2 without Garnett and then lost those 3 in a row with Garnett back.

Pierce and Allen were terrible against Phoenix so that would have been a loss, but it's safe to assume that they would have defeated both Denver and Golden State with a healthy Garnett. That's 4 losses that easily could have been wins.

Milan24 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-


If you get the winning % of the teams the Lakers and Celtics both faced since Feb. 1, you will see that the are not that far off. Both sub .500 I believe.

That is probably correct, but I'm more looking at the games immediately following the Gasol trade. There was maybe a 15-game stretch where they were playing one of the easiest schedules imaginable.

Celtsfan1980 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-


Pierce and Allen were terrible against Phoenix so that would have been a loss, but it's safe to assume that they would have defeated both Denver and Golden State with a healthy Garnett. That's 4 losses that easily could have been wins.

Garnett didn't play against Golden State? I remember seeing him in the game winning shot that Baron Davis hit. The Lakers did go 16-3 against the West top 8 seeds this season. Especially with Gasol in the lineup. The Celtic were 12 and 4.

demcanes26 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Garnett didn't play against Golden State? I remember seeing him in the game winning shot that Baron Davis hit. The Lakers did go 16-3 against the West top 8 seeds this season. Especially with Gasol in the lineup. The Celtic were 12 and 4.

He was still recovering from an injury, so how do you count that? The Celtics were 25-5 against the West, so it's better than the Lakers' record. I'm not sure what your point is.

Baron davis hit a game winner against us?

I do remeber the only 3 loss thing did involve PHNX because at the time it was pretty much the biggest loss ever on the season... I think it remained that way till the earlier playoff series.

celticfan42487 wrote:Baron davis hit a game winner against us?

I do remeber the only 3 loss thing did involve PHNX because at the time it was pretty much the biggest loss ever on the season... I think it remained that way till the earlier playoff series.

He sure did.

I knew I always like Davis. Anyone think he wants to opt out to play with his friend PP?

He's got about 4 hours before the Finals starts.

Big Bird wrote:I think they're favoured because of the Playoffs. They did beat three superior teams in 5 less games after all.

I believe they beat Utah in 6, not 5. I wouldn't say the Lakers had much of a matchup either over Boston since Denver probably would have been swept by most teams, and Utah played a No Yao Houston team.

It will be a good matchup.

^^The Lakers needed 15 games to the Finals, the Celtics 20. That's what I meant with "5 less games".

And I only answered the guy who wondered why the Lakers are the favourites. I don't necessarily agree with it.