Boston Celtics vs Cleveland Cavaliers: NBA Eastern Conference finals, Game 7 live scores, blog

Also what is the difference kyrie on or off the court seems to have same influence defensively

If Kyrie was there they probably would have shot better from three but there is an assumption that nothing else would have changed which seems unlikely, also that the only shots he’s taking away were Rozier’s. If he takes shots away from Tatum, Horford and Brown it’s a completely different offence that you can’t just go: add 10% to Roziers threes and sweet victory. And is it that much of a shock that Kyrie isn’t there? Chris Paul is considered injury prone and there hasn’t been a 7 year stretch he’s played fewer regular season minutes than Kyrie. Kyrie gets banged up easily, it’s unfortunate but when you say this guy has played 75 games once in his career and then broke down in the playoffs then at some point you have to just bank on Kyrie not being available. Also remember his last 19 games he was only a 1.5 +/- in a 9-10 run (we can call it 9-9 to take out his final game) versus the 9-6 finish without him. It’s not like he was setting the world on fire at the back end of the year and I think part of it was his drop off back to typical D.

Definitely could be the Sixers / Celtics, there are a few clubs though that are one player leap/free agent from spoiling it (plus if Toronto continue as a regular season monster then the Celtics and Sixers may have to meet in the same round again). Not sure how it is an underestimation of Ainge or Stevens. I would have though not seeing Kyrie and Heyward as a “big difference” is a credit to Stevens’s ability to continue to develop Tatum and Brown if they get playing time? I think the “biggest difference” is if Tatum and Brown have typical second & third year development. As a wing combination they will be scary good and, with Horford/Baynes, could be a defensive juggernaught. As to Ainge I’m not discrediting him either, haven’t said he’s done anything wrong at all. If anything his plan probably has come to fruition a year or two earlier than he expected but that brings what we call “quality problems” with it. I think he will make a decision in the coming two years and try to get value for the players he sees not part of the core and wouldn’t be surprised if he was decisive and moved one this year. For mine that has to be Irving or Hayward, and Hayward retuning from injury probably makes him harder to move (but the more logical positional choice) I just don’t see how the long term best course of action for Boston is to have Kyrie and Hayward take the lion’s share of possessions or minutes from Brown and Tatum.

Would you prefer I phrased it finished “his” year rather than “the” (though getting injured is also Kyrie being Kyrie but SMH). Fact is he slipped back into No D Kyrie. Agree they have to let hope Horford stays for less but he’s probably their most influential player. If they let Horford walk then they’ll have some structural issues on both ends of the floor.

I never thought this realistically possible, but I'm finally ready for the MJ vs LBJ GOAT discussion - as a MJ diehard from the 90s, I didn't think I'd ever see another player who could equal MJ - wow. I wouldn't mind one more championship on LBJ's CV, but I'm sure some would argue with some legitimacy that he's possibly done enough... look forward to the next roar article on the topic with the stats to accompany it! I know some feel frustrated with this Celtics team - but what a performance without 2 of their stars - Danny Ainge is able to work magic with his rosters, if you don't mind waiting a few years in between potential championship teams...

I think you are underestimating Ainge and Stevens. Plus I am pretty sure with Kyrie out there they would not have shot so poorly from three. I guess we will see next year. Depending what LeBron does we might see a 76ers Celtics play off series this time next year.

Not sure you can say Kyrie finished the season being Kyrie not playing D when the bloke was not on the court playing! What are you on about? There is zero chance that the Celtics give Horford a max contract.

Gee, you're pompous aren't you? Just because you have a different opinion on what is an acceptable performance doesn't mean we're on different "levels". I'd love to know why you think the performance was acceptable. What about Terry Rozier shooting 2-14 from the field is good? Or Jaylen Brown shooting 5-17? What makes you think they put in maximum effort for the entire night? And what positives can the Celtics possibly take out of this loss? I'd love to know what someone "on your level" thinks.

Why the personal attacks here Mushi? What has Joel ever done to you personally?

Then how does it influence your assessment of these players? Now it sounds like you are irrationally holding them to account for past promises? No you don't get the point about probability. Rozier and Brown both had higher than their regular season TS% in the Playoffs (when it normally goes down) mean reversion is an unfortunate mistress. As to bosses understanding there is plenty of research around variability of performance and how good managers need to build systems to account for this. If you’re boss expects 100% consistent performance then I’d suggest you change roles as it is unattainable for a human being As to what I do what do I do for a living I’m not sure it’s relevant at your level

“Game 7 at home would have been guaranteed if the Celtics actually showed up and tried their hearts out, so that’s not insipid logic.” They tried. To suggest otherwise is just ridiculous. To say they didn’t “show up” is likewise a position completely bereft of thought – they ahd the lead for a good chunk of the game. Are you saying you can get a lead in a game 7 without even showing up. “That one game out of 101 just happened to be the game that knocked them out, and not a single player put forward an acceptable performance. Not insipid logic.” Yep still insipid logic. It’s 1 out of 101. If you honestly believe that not a single player had an acceptable performance then I’m not sure you’ve ever watched basketball before. “They didn’t win the series, so that point doesn’t even need a rebuttal.” I believe they were an underdog in the Bucks series in Vegas early on (I think after the OT win but could be wrong)– they also were an underdog in the sixers series (but closed it out early) “Who cares if four of their guys are on rookie contracts? That doesn’t excuse the performance today.” In terms of rocking up next year there is this little thing called “development” so those rookie contract guys are probably, on balance, going to be better next year. Also how was the performance inexcusable? The two guys that bricked (rozier and brown) had better TS% during the playoffs than in the regular season. If Tatum's perfomance was inexcusable then there should be only about 10 guys a llowed to play in the NBA next year “And why do fans always have to be positive about their club? I don’t think there’s anything wrong with calling out your team when they’ve not performed as they should have.” They don’t “have” to be. But “as they should have” well that’s an assumption I couldn't disagree with more. Also a point here I don’t "have" to accept insipid uninsightful dribble from an internet commentator. No laws either way. But people that throw their team under the bus like this have a special place in sports hell in my view.

I know only one player was on the squad four years ago, but the point is the "bright future" stemmed from the bounty of high draft picks the C's managed to get over the past few years. Those players are new to the list, but they're mostly the product of said draft picks, hence the "bright future" reference. It really wasn't that hard to understand. I don't understand your point about Jayson Tatum. He was probably the only Celtic that played at an NBA standard tonight. You can't tell me that Terry Rozier shooting 0-10, or Jaylen Brown shooting 3-12 isn't choking. I get your point about probability, but the fact this happened to both of them in the biggest game of their lives suggest they let the moment get the better of them. That is the definition of choking. The Cavs did nothing special on defence, the Celtics just went away from the offence that was working for them early in the match. At the very least, this showed that Boston wasn't willing to work hard for the people that paid their hard-earned to watch them. Your simple world argument is bizarre. These guys are paid millions of dollars to put the ball in the basket, so when they fail to do that, they deserve any criticism that comes their way. I don't know what you do for a living, but I'm sure your boss wouldn't be happy if you performed like that under pressure.

4 years… Um only one player on that team was there 4 years ago. But thanks for proving my point about the quality of your thought process. Top notch analysis Jason Tatum should be run out of town because he didn’t help them win when he was at high school… Insipid. Again on the choking it is what simpletons use to dress up lack of thought. The team played way better in the playoffs than they did during the last half of the regular season, If they were prone to choking it would have already happened. I’m guessing you were never that good at maths were you as you don’t understand probability at all, just because they didn’t go in doesn’t mean every miss was a result of choking. Shooters sometimes just miss more often. Yes they took some bad looks (there is another team out there in case you didn’t notice they had the other jerseys on) as every team does but the issue for both sides was not making clean looks. That is normally just luck, but also worth remembering that the Cav’s missed many sitters also – and clanged them. In a simple world an 80% free throw shooter is still going to miss 2 of 2 from the line 1 in 20 times (not entirely correct due to second free throws being higher and late game fatigue) – if it ends up being in a game where you are 1 behind simpletons run around screaming choke when it’s just that humans are not robots.

Game 7 at home would have been guaranteed if the Celtics actually showed up and tried their hearts out, so that's not insipid logic. That one game out of 101 just happened to be the game that knocked them out, and not a single player put forward an acceptable performance. Not insipid logic. They didn't win the series, so that point doesn't even need a rebuttal. Who cares if four of their guys are on rookie contracts? That doesn't excuse the performance today. And why do fans always have to be positive about their club? I don't think there's anything wrong with calling out your team when they've not performed as they should have.

Your failure to see it is not at all surprising. Your base case is that a game 7 win at home is guaranteed and the only thing that can stop it is such a pathetic performance form the home team that they need to be disowned. Insipid logic You would turn your back on them based on the outcome of 1 of 101 games. Insipid logic You would turn your back on them despite them winning a 7 game series they were Vegas under dogs in. Insipid logic. You would elect not to show up next year to follow a team where four of the top six players are still on rookie contracts based on the outcome of one game. Insipid logic.

They shot less than 20% from behind the arc, and less than 35% in total. That's choking. And yes, the Celtics did give up. If they hadn't, they would have continued going with the pick-and-roll offence that was killing the Cavs early. But they didn't want to put in the effort required, so they started with one-out offence and a bunch of ill-timed, jacked-up threes. That's choking. And why should their age or experience give them a free pass? Celtics fans have been hearing about this "bright future" for three or four years now, but have yet to see any results of said future.

What's there to be proud of Mushi? The fact the C's lost their first Game 7 at home since 1982? Or the fact they lost their first ever series they were leading 2-0? Or the fact two of their supposed "guns" shot 3-22 between them in the biggest game of their lives? Or the fact they were 10-0 at home, but got scared of LeBron and choked away an unloseable game? I'm failing to see where the insipid logic is.

https://hoopshype.com/2018/04/25/michael-jordan-lebron-james-best-ever-debate/

This is jsut such insipid logic. Because they "let you down" (by not winning against a guy who has won that series what 8 times ina row?) in one game you diwown them. You make mumagers look like EQ giants

This "choking" thing is a ridculously shallow and insipid crutch for those incpaable of processing information. The other team is actually playing to win, the Celtics didn't give up at any point when the game was still alive and never seemed owerwhlemed at all. They just got beaten by another profesisonal team that happens to have a reasoanbly handy best player. If you look at the misses and it seems more likely that the cavs role players choked. It is just that they were bailed out by the curve of probability. So many cavs open threes bricked but you watch a lot of the Celtic's misses and they were in and out - that's just bad luck. That was an incredibly young team that just got to a game 7 of a conference finals. Better than last year when people still showed up.