look at some of these geniuses:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailydime ... ime-080605
Lakers The Pick For Almost All Our Experts
Editor's Note: Here's how our experts called the Lakers-Celtics series.
Henry Abbott, TrueHoop: Predictions do not sit well with me: One of my favorite things about sports is that I enter the arena not knowing what will happen. I don't want to predict! But I do, and I did. I have already been on ESPN.com saying I think the Lakers will win in five. That was when I was high on having seen L.A. beat the Spurs, however. Now I have sobered up. I don't think it'll be in five anymore. I think it'll be in seven, and I have no idea who will take it ... and I love it that way.
Chris Sheridan, ESPN.com: I see the Lakers winning at least one of the first two games in Boston, then getting two at home and closing it out back in Boston with a vintage performance by Kobe Bryant. Biggest statistical factors: The Celtics' rebounding and the Lakers' 3-point shooting. Lakers in six.
David Thorpe, Scouts Inc.: The Lakers will win in six games or fewer by taking one of two on the road and either sweeping at home or finishing things in Game 6.
Their superior offense and system gives them more margin for error from any individual player. They have two answers for Boston's terrific defense, Kobe and the triangle offense.
Title series experience and Phil Jackson help, too.
John Hollinger, ESPN.com: Lakers in six. The Lakers have been on fire since acquiring Pau Gasol -- they're now 34-7 in the 41 games he's played, including 12-3 in the playoffs against a trio of 50-win teams. Obviously, Boston is no slouch, either, with 66 wins and home-court advantage, but one gets the impression the Celtics peaked too soon. L.A. is right on time.
J.A. Adande: Normally experience is worth one game in the Finals, and with two starters who have been there before (Kobe and Derek Fisher), the Lakers should have the edge in Game 1. They won't sweep the middle three at home, but if they can mature at the rate they did the past two series, they will be able to finish in Boston in Game 6.
Tim Legler, ESPN: The Celtics have been the most complete team in the NBA all season and KG's heart cannot be overstated.
The game inevitably will slow down in the fourth quarter, and I will put my money on the team that defends, rebounds and is more physical. Celtics in seven.
Jalen Rose, ESPN: Lakers in six. One reason is Phil Jackson. The guy who has won nine championships is going to press the right buttons at the right time.
Also, Kobe Bryant. The motivation to win without Shaq is huge.
Marc Stein, ESPN.com: Lakers in five. Kobe and Co. just have too much in their favor.
They're deeper, fresher, younger, more versatile -- and they have a crucial experience edge in this series of Finals newbies with Kobe "The Closer" and Derek Fisher's savvy. They've already won huge games in hostile environments like Utah and San Antonio, so I see L.A. winning at least one of the first two games in Boston, then really hurting the Celts at home.
Curious ESPN.COM trend
Moderators: bisme37, Froob, Darthlukey, Shak_Celts, Parliament10, canman1971, shackles10, snowman
-
giambijuice
- Pro Prospect
- Posts: 844
- And1: 151
- Joined: Feb 10, 2006
IEcelticfan wrote:look at some of these geniuses:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailydime ... ime-080605
Lakers The Pick For Almost All Our Experts
Editor's Note: Here's how our experts called the Lakers-Celtics series.
Henry Abbott, TrueHoop: Predictions do not sit well with me: One of my favorite things about sports is that I enter the arena not knowing what will happen. I don't want to predict! But I do, and I did. I have already been on ESPN.com saying I think the Lakers will win in five. That was when I was high on having seen L.A. beat the Spurs, however. Now I have sobered up. I don't think it'll be in five anymore. I think it'll be in seven, and I have no idea who will take it ... and I love it that way.
Chris Sheridan, ESPN.com: I see the Lakers winning at least one of the first two games in Boston, then getting two at home and closing it out back in Boston with a vintage performance by Kobe Bryant. Biggest statistical factors: The Celtics' rebounding and the Lakers' 3-point shooting. Lakers in six.
David Thorpe, Scouts Inc.: The Lakers will win in six games or fewer by taking one of two on the road and either sweeping at home or finishing things in Game 6.
Their superior offense and system gives them more margin for error from any individual player. They have two answers for Boston's terrific defense, Kobe and the triangle offense.
Title series experience and Phil Jackson help, too.
John Hollinger, ESPN.com: Lakers in six. The Lakers have been on fire since acquiring Pau Gasol -- they're now 34-7 in the 41 games he's played, including 12-3 in the playoffs against a trio of 50-win teams. Obviously, Boston is no slouch, either, with 66 wins and home-court advantage, but one gets the impression the Celtics peaked too soon. L.A. is right on time.
J.A. Adande: Normally experience is worth one game in the Finals, and with two starters who have been there before (Kobe and Derek Fisher), the Lakers should have the edge in Game 1. They won't sweep the middle three at home, but if they can mature at the rate they did the past two series, they will be able to finish in Boston in Game 6.
Tim Legler, ESPN: The Celtics have been the most complete team in the NBA all season and KG's heart cannot be overstated.
The game inevitably will slow down in the fourth quarter, and I will put my money on the team that defends, rebounds and is more physical. Celtics in seven.
Jalen Rose, ESPN: Lakers in six. One reason is Phil Jackson. The guy who has won nine championships is going to press the right buttons at the right time.
Also, Kobe Bryant. The motivation to win without Shaq is huge.
Marc Stein, ESPN.com: Lakers in five. Kobe and Co. just have too much in their favor.
They're deeper, fresher, younger, more versatile -- and they have a crucial experience edge in this series of Finals newbies with Kobe "The Closer" and Derek Fisher's savvy. They've already won huge games in hostile environments like Utah and San Antonio, so I see L.A. winning at least one of the first two games in Boston, then really hurting the Celts at home.
now you know why i don't watch or read espn. their opinions are usually painfully wrong and thus meaningless. it's hard to tolerate their ignorance. maybe i should admire them because it's hard to be so wrong so often. at least they are consistent.
-
GuyClinch
- RealGM
- Posts: 13,345
- And1: 1,478
- Joined: Jul 19, 2004
Ah but this is what makes sports so fun. Sportswriter is one of the few "professions" that regularly feature people that are often qualifed in a completely different field then the one they cover..
They are often at best - english majors or journalism majors for the most part. It's no different from the opinion of a blogger - outside of their additional access and sometimes superior writing skills.
Pete
They are often at best - english majors or journalism majors for the most part. It's no different from the opinion of a blogger - outside of their additional access and sometimes superior writing skills.
Pete