2024 NBA FINALS: #1 Boston Celtics vs #5 Dallas Mavericks (BOS leads 3-0)

[rapstarter]

You scoff but yet you don't have a sense of humor.

Nevertheless it wasn't me that ran Porzingis over like a clod in the middle of the lane trying to run down the court.

And it's clear you have zero sense of anything if you think there was anything out of control or unnatural about that play.

Your ability to detect sarcasm has not improved but what can I say, Canada and cultural differences and what not, I get what I deserve here. Anyways Lively told you he was gunning for his leg if you'd been paying attention.

Watch on YouTube

And you took that as him trying to purposely injure Porzingis? It was a normal basketball play. Maybe it's the Bostonian culture looking for the worst in a black man (even if half!). Cultural differences and all that, so I can let that go as well.

Strike: Race-baiting/Trolling

[Bob8]

Luka was a liability on defense in game 2.

The Celtics targeted him over and over and the Mavs defense collapsed because he couldn't keep anyone in front of him.

This could have easily been a blowout if Boston had made their open 3s.

Luka's obviously a great player but a lot of his work on offense gets undone by his defense when he plays like this. This was easily one of the worst defensive performances I've seen on this stage by a superstar.

He can get by on defense against a 4-out offense with the 5 roaming behind him. He has no one to bail him out against Boston's 5-out. He has to step up.

Celtics scored 107 and 105 points and we're talking about Mavs D? Really? On the other hand Mavs scored miserably 88 and 97? Do you really believe that Mavs lost because of D?
In game 2 Mavs outside Luka have been able to hit 11% of open 3s. They made 2 3s.

But if you insist talking about Luka's D, Mavs plan is to direct Celtics penetration to help, which I agree is more capable than Luka to defend, and to rotate him and others primarily defenders to shooters. I understand that GB is not the place for serious discussion, but basketball is a little more complex than it seems.

The Mavs defensive gameplan is not to collapse in the paint and leave the Celtics shooters wide open on the perimeter. This is what happened repeatedly in game 2 off of Boston's dribble penetration against Luka. So I appreciate your smug energy, but I'd argue that making the argument that the Mavs defense was sound in game 2 isn't "serious discussion", if anything.

The reason why it didn't cost Dallas more points and a blowout was Boston's lower-than-usual conversion on their open 3s. You don't evaluate a scheme merely by the outcome in a single game, but also by the process and the type of shots it generates. Dallas played with fire all game long on defense and it started with Luka's defense.

Obviously, Luka played great on offense, and Dallas's shooters shot horribly. This was another issue for Dallas. Not the sole issue.

I don't know why I would need to make the second point when highlighting the first.

Maybe you have a Luka problem. I don't know.

Discussion goes like that,

1. Celtics D is great, that's why Mavs outside Luka made only 2 3s, shooting 11% wide open 3s.

2. Mavs D is awful, especially Luka's, but Mavs are lucky that Celtics couldn't hit wide open 3s.

3. Tatum is attacking Luka relentlessly and shooting 6/22.

Reasoning par excellence.

[Bob8]

Except that Luka has been horrible on defense and one or two plays don't make up for all the bad ones where he looks like he isn't even trying. Prime Harden esque.

Even on plays where his man easily beats him he tries to reach for a steal the same way Harden used to do lazily. Hey.. sometimes it'll work and net in a turnover but just overall pathetic level of effort.

Directing Tatum and Brown in help D is by design.

But let say that Luka is awful in D. Just imagine how awful must Tatum be, struggling to score against the worst defender in playoffs. Luka would have scored 150 against himself, Tatum can't score 20.

The levels of copium by fanboys.

Can't defend Luka's putrid defense so lets attack another player's putrid play. Whether Tatum is **** or not, it doesn't change what Luka is on defense. Sorry folks.

You're saying that Tatum can't score against the worst defender in the league?

[California Gold]

Focusing on highlights/lowlights when the number clearly disagrees is not adding to the objective discussion. It's cherry picking. It's like looking at the clips of all the missed shots and saying a player had an off-shooting night, when the box score says something liek 10/17 3FG

Cherrypicking? No there's plenty of evidence showing how Luka was on defense through these two games. Luka has a ton of fanboys on this board, it's a tough thing to get a meaningful objective discussion. It's no different though than other players we've seen here over the years.

Full data says otherwise, so yeah, it's cherry picking. That's literally what focusing on highlights/lowlights is. If you only looked at players' highlights, you'd think everyone shoots 100%.

No, not really. Because I'm not saying he hasnt made any plays on defense. I'm saying he's a piss poor defender and it's clear as day. You can actually objectively say that the Celtics would've lost that game had Tatum not gotten all those assists from those drives that were quite easily blow by's off of Luka. The Mavs don't really have great individual defenders on their team so it may have been moot regardless of who was guarding Tatum but if you take away 5-6 of those drives the end result may have looked a lot different. The Celtics played poorly on offense even with all of that. The net difference at that point is that the Mavs have two great closers to steal that game away with both teams playing poorly offensively, but the Mavs individual defense was piss poor in comparison and thus those drives that Luka contributed against giving very little effort as clearly seen when you go back and rewatch the game may very well have resulted in the reason the Celtics ultimately won.

[California Gold]

Directing Tatum and Brown in help D is by design.

But let say that Luka is awful in D. Just imagine how awful must Tatum be, struggling to score against the worst defender in playoffs. Luka would have scored 150 against himself, Tatum can't score 20.

The levels of copium by fanboys.

Can't defend Luka's putrid defense so lets attack another player's putrid play. Whether Tatum is **** or not, it doesn't change what Luka is on defense. Sorry folks.

You're saying that Tatum can't score against the worst defender in the league?

Tatum hasn't been able to hit wide open shots - what does it matter whether he's got a man in front of him or not? He's not playing great offensively. It's too bad that the Mavs (mainly Luka) allowed him to blow by and create easy layups for Jrue. Take most of that away and we're looking at a 1-1 series right now.

[canada_dry]

Maybe whatever better team you're thinking of should have tried a little harder to defeat their clearly inferior competition and make it out of the Western Conference so they could hand a devastating loss to this wilting Celtics team.

A better team like a healthy team out east maybe. Or another one of the western conference teams that got beat by a team that dallas matched up better against.

Denver comes to mind.

Maybe a healthy luka could have made em die by the 3 tonight.

Sent from my SM-G960W using RealGM mobile app

The idea that there was a team in the East that could compete with the Celtics when healthy is silly. The Celtics dominated the East from start to finish. The only teams that bothered the Celtics all season were OKC, Minnesota and Denver. None of them were beat up and all were dispatched with ease in the West conference playoffs.

I don't really think so myself. I think the celtics were the best team especially with the bucks and sixers out of the conversation.

I think the point remains that they haven't played a caliber of team that could make them pay for their over reliance on 3 point shooting on nights those shots aren't falling, like game 2.

So it doesn't really prove the criticism of being too reliant on the 3 untrue imo. Its untested against the top teams.

Sent from my SM-G960W using RealGM mobile app

[rapstarter]

Cherrypicking? No there's plenty of evidence showing how Luka was on defense through these two games. Luka has a ton of fanboys on this board, it's a tough thing to get a meaningful objective discussion. It's no different though than other players we've seen here over the years.

Full data says otherwise, so yeah, it's cherry picking. That's literally what focusing on highlights/lowlights is. If you only looked at players' highlights, you'd think everyone shoots 100%.

No, not really. Because I'm not saying he hasnt made any plays on defense. I'm saying he's a piss poor defender and it's clear as day. You can actually objectively say that the Celtics would've lost that game had Tatum not gotten all those assists from those drives that were quite easily blow by's off of Luka. The Mavs don't really have great individual defenders on their team so it may have been moot regardless of who was guarding Tatum but if you take away 5-6 of those drives the end result may have looked a lot different. The Celtics played poorly on offense even with all of that. The net difference at that point is that the Mavs have two great closers to steal that game away with both teams playing poorly offensively, but the Mavs individual defense was piss poor in comparison and thus those drives that Luka contributed against giving very little effort as clearly seen when you go back and rewatch the game may very well have resulted in the reason the Celtics ultimately won.

They allow 107 points per 100 possession with Luka on the floor. You take away 5-6 drives away, and that's basically a GOAT-level defense against a team many say have no weakness. You could play this "5-6-plays" hypotheticals in million different ways too.

[California Gold]

Full data says otherwise, so yeah, it's cherry picking. That's literally what focusing on highlights/lowlights is. If you only looked at players' highlights, you'd think everyone shoots 100%.

No, not really. Because I'm not saying he hasnt made any plays on defense. I'm saying he's a piss poor defender and it's clear as day. You can actually objectively say that the Celtics would've lost that game had Tatum not gotten all those assists from those drives that were quite easily blow by's off of Luka. The Mavs don't really have great individual defenders on their team so it may have been moot regardless of who was guarding Tatum but if you take away 5-6 of those drives the end result may have looked a lot different. The Celtics played poorly on offense even with all of that. The net difference at that point is that the Mavs have two great closers to steal that game away with both teams playing poorly offensively, but the Mavs individual defense was piss poor in comparison and thus those drives that Luka contributed against giving very little effort as clearly seen when you go back and rewatch the game may very well have resulted in the reason the Celtics ultimately won.

They allow 107 points per 100 possession with Luka on the floor. You take away 5-6 drives away, and that's basically a GOA-level defense against a team many say have no weakness. You could play this "5-6-plays" hypotheticals in millions different ways too.

For sure I'm not saying that's the only reason they could've won, it was just one way. Ultimately you can probably blame their offense first and foremost. But the Celtics played horrid offensively, shot as bad as they could shoot from 3, and that usually nets in a loss for them. But the X factor ended up being the layups that they generally don't even attempt to take because of all the drives from guys like Tatum and Brown. I've watched the Celtics play at other times this season, a game like this type of shooting would've been a loss most of the time because they are so reliant on the 3. The fact that they even scored over 100 for how bad they were from 3 is surprising enough and most of those were good looks that they were getting.

[Bob8]

The levels of copium by fanboys.

Can't defend Luka's putrid defense so lets attack another player's putrid play. Whether Tatum is **** or not, it doesn't change what Luka is on defense. Sorry folks.

You're saying that Tatum can't score against the worst defender in the league?

Tatum hasn't been able to hit wide open shots - what does it matter whether he's got a man in front of him or not? He's not playing great offensively. It's too bad that the Mavs (mainly Luka) allowed him to blow by and create easy layups for Jrue. Take most of that away and we're looking at a 1-1 series right now.

Nobody can take Celtics 3s away. Mavs decided to take driving to the rim away.

You can't win in the Finals, if everyone except Luka make only 2 3s, shooting 11% and other star can't hit anything.

[Yinwest]

A better team like a healthy team out east maybe. Or another one of the western conference teams that got beat by a team that dallas matched up better against.

Denver comes to mind.

Maybe a healthy luka could have made em die by the 3 tonight.

Sent from my SM-G960W using RealGM mobile app

The idea that there was a team in the East that could compete with the Celtics when healthy is silly. The Celtics dominated the East from start to finish. The only teams that bothered the Celtics all season were OKC, Minnesota and Denver. None of them were beat up and all were dispatched with ease in the West conference playoffs.

I don't really think so myself. I think the celtics were the best team especially with the bucks and sixers out of the conversation.

I think the point remains that they haven't played a caliber of team that could make them pay for their over reliance on 3 point shooting on nights those shots aren't falling, like game 2.

So it doesn't really prove the criticism of being too reliant on the 3 untrue imo. Its untested against the top teams.

Sent from my SM-G960W using RealGM mobile app

“sixers out of the conversation”

[Yinwest]

6ers, 76ers LMFAO

[California Gold]

You're saying that Tatum can't score against the worst defender in the league?

Tatum hasn't been able to hit wide open shots - what does it matter whether he's got a man in front of him or not? He's not playing great offensively. It's too bad that the Mavs (mainly Luka) allowed him to blow by and create easy layups for Jrue. Take most of that away and we're looking at a 1-1 series right now.

Nobody can take Celtics 3s away. Mavs decided to take driving to the rim away.

You can't win in the Finals, if everyone except Luka make only 2 3s, shooting 11% and other star can't hit anything.

They did? If they tried to take the rim away then they did a piss poor job of it because that's the only reason the Celtics won that game. I agree the Mavs offense was putrid, and even Luka in the 2nd half looked gassed after scoring 23 in the 1st. You need 2-3 guys to score over 15 in this series for the Mavs to have a shot at winning in a reasonable fashion. The Mavs 3 pt defense honestly wasn't that great either, the Celtics missed a lot of great looks.

[rapstarter]

No, not really. Because I'm not saying he hasnt made any plays on defense. I'm saying he's a piss poor defender and it's clear as day. You can actually objectively say that the Celtics would've lost that game had Tatum not gotten all those assists from those drives that were quite easily blow by's off of Luka. The Mavs don't really have great individual defenders on their team so it may have been moot regardless of who was guarding Tatum but if you take away 5-6 of those drives the end result may have looked a lot different. The Celtics played poorly on offense even with all of that. The net difference at that point is that the Mavs have two great closers to steal that game away with both teams playing poorly offensively, but the Mavs individual defense was piss poor in comparison and thus those drives that Luka contributed against giving very little effort as clearly seen when you go back and rewatch the game may very well have resulted in the reason the Celtics ultimately won.

They allow 107 points per 100 possession with Luka on the floor. You take away 5-6 drives away, and that's basically a GOA-level defense against a team many say have no weakness. You could play this "5-6-plays" hypotheticals in millions different ways too.

For sure I'm not saying that's the only reason they could've won, it was just one way. Ultimately you can probably blame their offense first and foremost. But the Celtics played horrid offensively, shot as bad as they could shoot from 3, and that usually nets in a loss for them. But the X factor ended up being the layups that they generally don't even attempt to take because of all the drives from guys like Tatum and Brown. I've watched the Celtics play at other times this season, a game like this type of shooting would've been a loss most of the time because they are so reliant on the 3. The fact that they even scored over 100 for how bad they were from 3 is surprising enough and most of those were good looks that they were getting.

Of course, and I get what you are trying to say, but IMO the most straightforward hypothetical for the Mavs in all this is, what if Kyrie or other Mavs hit their open 3s or any shot in general. At the end of the day, that's where the biggest and clearest drop off in the Mavs performance has been -- not defense for whatever reason (e.g., Boston not playing well).

[Bob8]

No, not really. Because I'm not saying he hasnt made any plays on defense. I'm saying he's a piss poor defender and it's clear as day. You can actually objectively say that the Celtics would've lost that game had Tatum not gotten all those assists from those drives that were quite easily blow by's off of Luka. The Mavs don't really have great individual defenders on their team so it may have been moot regardless of who was guarding Tatum but if you take away 5-6 of those drives the end result may have looked a lot different. The Celtics played poorly on offense even with all of that. The net difference at that point is that the Mavs have two great closers to steal that game away with both teams playing poorly offensively, but the Mavs individual defense was piss poor in comparison and thus those drives that Luka contributed against giving very little effort as clearly seen when you go back and rewatch the game may very well have resulted in the reason the Celtics ultimately won.

They allow 107 points per 100 possession with Luka on the floor. You take away 5-6 drives away, and that's basically a GOA-level defense against a team many say have no weakness. You could play this "5-6-plays" hypotheticals in millions different ways too.

For sure I'm not saying that's the only reason they could've won, it was just one way. Ultimately you can probably blame their offense first and foremost. But the Celtics played horrid offensively, shot as bad as they could shoot from 3, and that usually nets in a loss for them. But the X factor ended up being the layups that they generally don't even attempt to take because of all the drives from guys like Tatum and Brown. I've watched the Celtics play at other times this season, a game like this type of shooting would've been a loss most of the time because they are so reliant on the 3. The fact that they even scored over 100 for how bad they were from 3 is surprising enough and most of those were good looks that they were getting.

Yes Cetics were bad, but Mavs outside Luka were even worse. I don't believe they made only 2 3s in entire season. Kyrie, the biggest Mavs hope besides Luka didn't hit a 3 in this series.

[Chanel Bomber]

Celtics scored 107 and 105 points and we're talking about Mavs D? Really? On the other hand Mavs scored miserably 88 and 97? Do you really believe that Mavs lost because of D?
In game 2 Mavs outside Luka have been able to hit 11% of open 3s. They made 2 3s.

But if you insist talking about Luka's D, Mavs plan is to direct Celtics penetration to help, which I agree is more capable than Luka to defend, and to rotate him and others primarily defenders to shooters. I understand that GB is not the place for serious discussion, but basketball is a little more complex than it seems.

The Mavs defensive gameplan is not to collapse in the paint and leave the Celtics shooters wide open on the perimeter. This is what happened repeatedly in game 2 off of Boston's dribble penetration against Luka. So I appreciate your smug energy, but I'd argue that making the argument that the Mavs defense was sound in game 2 isn't "serious discussion", if anything.

The reason why it didn't cost Dallas more points and a blowout was Boston's lower-than-usual conversion on their open 3s. You don't evaluate a scheme merely by the outcome in a single game, but also by the process and the type of shots it generates. Dallas played with fire all game long on defense and it started with Luka's defense.

Obviously, Luka played great on offense, and Dallas's shooters shot horribly. This was another issue for Dallas. Not the sole issue.

I don't know why I would need to make the second point when highlighting the first.

Maybe you have a Luka problem. I don't know.

Discussion goes like that,

1. Celtics D is great, that's why Mavs outside Luka made only 2 3s, shooting 11% wide open 3s.

2. Mavs D is awful, especially Luka's, but Mavs are lucky that Celtics couldn't hit wide open 3s.

3. Tatum is attacking Luka relentlessly and shooting 6/22.

I don't know what you're even arguing, or who you're arguing against.

The Celtics defense was great and the Mavs shooters failed to make their open 3s. Both things can be true.

Dallas's defense allowed 18 wide-open 3s and 16 open 3s. Boston's defense allowed 11 wide-open 3s and 12 open 3s. The volume isn't remotely comparable. That's before even factoring in the quality of shooters, which is superior on Boston's side for those types of shots.

So again, Boston had a better process when it comes to their defense in terms of allowing 3s.

As far as point #3, the comment isn't about man defense when contesting the shot. It's about being unable to contain dribble penetration, which leads to the defense collapsing and leaving elite shooters open. Tatum got 12 assists largely off of those drives. And it's how Boston got such an outsize amount of wide-open 3s. They just didn't convert as they usually do.

[Chanel Bomber]

Leaving Derrick Jones Jr, Josh Green and PJ Washington wide-open from 3 isn't the same as leaving Derrick White, Jrue Holiday and Sam Hauser wide-open from 3.

Neither team shot well on their wide-open 3s. But considering the shot volume disparity (18 3FGAs for Boston to 11 for Dallas on wide-open 3s), and also the quality of shooters, Boston actually left more points on the table due to their bad shooting than Dallas, even if at face value Dallas shot a worse percentage on lower volume.

[Bob8]

The Mavs defensive gameplan is not to collapse in the paint and leave the Celtics shooters wide open on the perimeter. This is what happened repeatedly in game 2 off of Boston's dribble penetration against Luka. So I appreciate your smug energy, but I'd argue that making the argument that the Mavs defense was sound in game 2 isn't "serious discussion", if anything.

The reason why it didn't cost Dallas more points and a blowout was Boston's lower-than-usual conversion on their open 3s. You don't evaluate a scheme merely by the outcome in a single game, but also by the process and the type of shots it generates. Dallas played with fire all game long on defense and it started with Luka's defense.

Obviously, Luka played great on offense, and Dallas's shooters shot horribly. This was another issue for Dallas. Not the sole issue.

I don't know why I would need to make the second point when highlighting the first.

Maybe you have a Luka problem. I don't know.

Discussion goes like that,

1. Celtics D is great, that's why Mavs outside Luka made only 2 3s, shooting 11% wide open 3s.

2. Mavs D is awful, especially Luka's, but Mavs are lucky that Celtics couldn't hit wide open 3s.

3. Tatum is attacking Luka relentlessly and shooting 6/22.

I don't know what you're even arguing, or who you're arguing against.

The Celtics defense was great and the Mavs shooters failed to make their open 3s. Both things can be true.

Dallas's defense allowed 18 wide-open 3s and 16 open 3s. Boston's defense allowed 11 wide-open 3s and 12 open 3s. The volume isn't remotely comparable. That's before even factoring in the quality of shooters, which is superior on Boston's side for those types of shots.

So again, Boston had a better process when it comes to their defense in terms of allowing 3s.

As far as point #3, the comment isn't about man defense when contesting the shot. It's about being unable to contain dribble penetration, which leads to the defense collapsing and leaving elite shooters open. Tatum got 12 assists largely off of those drives.

Mavs players didn't shoot 11% for 3 because of good D or because they're that bad, but because it was off night for them. The same goes for Kyrie. And there was where they lost, not in D.

Mavs got Kyrie to lower Luka's workload. The problem is that Kyrie is awful. You can't expect from Luka or anyone else to do everything in offense, scoring and playmaking and play good D. Mavs need normal Kyrie more than anything.

And Luka had 11 assists, while being defended great. If you blame Tatum's assists on Luka, you should blame Luka's assists and great shooting on someone too. Or admit that Tatum is few levels worse offensive player than Luka.

[Chanel Bomber]

Discussion goes like that,

1. Celtics D is great, that's why Mavs outside Luka made only 2 3s, shooting 11% wide open 3s.

2. Mavs D is awful, especially Luka's, but Mavs are lucky that Celtics couldn't hit wide open 3s.

3. Tatum is attacking Luka relentlessly and shooting 6/22.

I don't know what you're even arguing, or who you're arguing against.

The Celtics defense was great and the Mavs shooters failed to make their open 3s. Both things can be true.

Dallas's defense allowed 18 wide-open 3s and 16 open 3s. Boston's defense allowed 11 wide-open 3s and 12 open 3s. The volume isn't remotely comparable. That's before even factoring in the quality of shooters, which is superior on Boston's side for those types of shots.

So again, Boston had a better process when it comes to their defense in terms of allowing 3s.

As far as point #3, the comment isn't about man defense when contesting the shot. It's about being unable to contain dribble penetration, which leads to the defense collapsing and leaving elite shooters open. Tatum got 12 assists largely off of those drives.

Mavs players didn't shoot 11% for 3 because of good D or because they're that bad, but because it was off night for them. The same goes for Kyrie.

Mavs got Kyrie to lower Luka's workload. The problem is that Kyrie is awful. You can't expect from Luka or anyone else to do everything in offense, scoring and playmaking and play good D. Mavs need normal Kyrie more than anything.

And Luka had 11 assists, while being defended great. If you blame Tatum's assists on Luka, you should blame Luka's assists and great shooting on someone too. Or admit that Tatum is few levels worse offensive player than Luka.

Luka's a better offensive player than Tatum. Most people know this. I don't need to "admit" that when criticizing Luka's defense. This is juvenile stuff.

Luka's a great player and he deserves to be held to a high standard. His defense in game 2 was awful.

There's no need to point out Kyrie's anemic performance to distract from that fact. Both things can be true and people have the right to highlight the issues they find most interesting.

[Bob8]

Leaving Derrick Jones Jr, Josh Green and PJ Washington wide-open from 3 isn't the same as leaving Derrick White, Jrue Holiday and Sam Hauser wide-open from 3.

Neither team shot well on their wide-open 3s. But considering the shot volume disparity (18 3FGAs for Boston to 11 for Dallas on wide-open 3s), and also the quality of shooters, one could argue that Boston left more points on the table due to their bad shooting than Dallas, even if at face value Dallas shot a worse percentage on lower volume.

Difference is that Jrue and White made 6 3s, DJJ, PJ and Josh made 1.

[SweetTouch]

titles are won by some luck and when it comes to luck most of it comes down to players being available

porzingis being out changes everything, in 52 minutes with porzingis on the bench the +/- is even

mavs are ready now with no vaseline

At the end of day injuries happen in sports all the time