« Compromise | Main | Working Group » Finals Thread18 Jun 2008 09:55 am I've been remiss -- any thoughts on Boston's crushing win. I've been thinking, as have a lot of folks, that the Lakers are going to be monstrous next season if Andrew Bynum is able to return at anything like the level he was playing earlier this season. That still seems probable to me, but it's not clear that Bynum solves the defensive problems that mostly seem to me to be holding LA back. Comments (137)
I think we should all probably be wary, especially today, of making NBA predictions. Gawd, just a beatdown. And such a hideous series. That said, Bynum's benefit in the early days of the season was his ability to protect the rim. He's a space eater who, by virtue of his bulk and relative speed, makes it much harder for anyone to get to the basket by barreling down the lane. Assuming that Bynum returns to full health and that the Lakers are able to arrange a more permanent ski injury for Vlad, the Lakers should be fine next year. 
The team they ran out there may have had the softest front line in NBA finals history. They didn't belong in the finals with this unit, but got there because Manu sprained his ankle and was worthless in the conference finals. Much like Utah was simply out of their league last year when they made it to the conference finals because of the Golden State upset of Dallas, the Lakers advanced further than their talent warranted. Certainly, Bynum makes them less soft, and Gasol is a more natural four. Vlad-Rad is hopeless, and they need a long-term solution at point. I don't think it is at all clear cut that they make it back to the Finals during the Kobe era, but the outlook for next year has to be brighter than at any point since Shaq left.
Personal fouls were dead even in this game, putting a lot of loose talk from early in the series to bed, one hopes.
Hey Matt - Good prognostication skills re: this series, and the Celtics in general. Ha ha
It's a nice way to wash out the bad racial stuff from the 1980s. Oh please. Sure the Celtics had some yahoo white fans in the 80s, but the "bad racial stuff" is really all the fault of a Knicks fan with an axe to grind (Spike Lee). And maybe a little carry over taint from the Red Sox awful record on race. It had nothing to do with the Celtics themselves. And remember, the Celtics were the first team in the NBA to draft a black player, the first to have a black coach, and were led by a black player to all of their 1960s titles. There is probably no pro team that has less to be ashamed of when it comes to race than the Celtics.
What the Lakers need to do is replace Vlad Rad with a big man. I mean Ronny is the only backup big that they have. What Bynum's return does is shift Gasol and Odom to their more natural positions at the 4 and 3, respectively. They still need another big, maybe sign someone with the veteran exception.
"and that the Lakers are able to arrange a more permanent ski injury for Vlad" Everyone picks on Vlad because he looked so awful on defense against Pierce, but the dude consistently had a better +/- than his teammates. In other words, the Lakers were consistently better in this series when he was on the floor than on the bench. Yet he spent more time on the bench than on the floor. I really put the blame for the Lakers' performance on PJ. If you keep calling the Euros "soft" and "space cadets" and "blockheads", is it any wonder that the Euros don't come through for you when you need them? PJ reminded me of the way that George Karl was consistently verbally undermining J.R. Smith instead of getting the most out of his talents despite his limitations. You never heard Doc Rivers whining to the press about Rondo's or Perkins' limitations. Perhaps Jackson can't coach Euros. "And such a hideous series." It was a pretty good series, unless you are a Lakers fan...
Bynum at the 5 and Gasol at the 4 is a better lineup for LA, but Odom cannot play the three consistenty. And while Bynum improves the interior defense, LA's guards will still be horrible at keeping people out of the lane. But the most important thing LA has to address is the immaturity of their team. They're down by 30 with 5 minutes left, no practical chance to win the game, and THEN they start trapping and pressing full court? That was the clearest example ever of phony hustle, trying to get a couple of cheap steals and dunks at the end of a loss so they can feel better about themselves. Mike
It had nothing to do with the Celtics themselves. I'm not sure even Bill Simmons believes that. I think he has written as much. I know Bill Russell-the Celts' first black coach, IIRC--once said, post-championships, that he'd rather be a streetcleaner in SF than a mayor (or king or champion or something) in Boston. In any case, Boston today is not the Boston of yesteryear.
What a smackdown. The Lakers seemed flat, almost disinterested. Was that their GM (maybe the owner?) yawning in the stands? Where was the sense of urgency in the third quarter?
Vanya - you may be right about the organization, but the environment for non-white fans in the Boston Garden in the 80's was notoriously hostile, and they took a lot of pride in Bird as the Great White Hope of the NBA. Actually, when I thought to check during this series it still looked pretty monochromatic in the stands, but that may be a result of a limited sample.
but that may be a result of a limited sample. Probably the result of the price of a ticket.
but the dude consistently had a better +/- than his teammates. I'd be careful about the direction of causation.
SCMT, that was the city of Boston in the 60's and 70's, not the Celtics organization. Russell says as much. Unlike the Red Sox, who actually had buffonishly inept and poisonously racist ownership and management at the time, the C's under Auerbach's hand were genuinely racially progressive in a place and time that really wasn't. It's all about white ethnics, specifically white working class irish/italian catholics. MA has always been blue, and is perceived as liberal, but it really is unique compared to, say, Minnesota or the west coast states. I'd wager that 2008 will be one of the first times MA goes for the Dem by a smaller margin than many, many other states
And remember, the Celtics were the first team in the NBA to draft a black player, the first to have a black coach, and were led by a black player to all of their 1960s titles. And who are the most beloved heroes in Boston sports lore? Ted Williams and Larry Bird. Bill Russell has more rings than those two combined and squared.
Lakers need to get rid of Odom. He's horrible. If they can somehow turn Odom and Vlad into a decent, tough 3 and a backup 4/5, they'd be doing themselves a favor. As it is, they were just way too soft.
"the "bad racial stuff" is really all the fault of a Knicks fan with an axe to grind (Spike Lee)" Welcome to Boston.
Oof. I'm not sure I've ever seen a more immature team, and one coached by the 'Zen master'. Missed switches resulting in finger pointing and arguing, especially Farmar. Yuck. The Laker's bench was atrocious. And ultimately, the Lakers showed themselves as a bunch of whiners, complaining to the refs after almost every basket. Double yuck.
The Celtics have a better shot of being back in the finals next year than the Lakers. Assuming Rondo takes 1,000 jump shots a day over the summer, Allen rests his legs, and Ainge makes some incremental improvements to the bench, the Celtics should be the favorite out of the East. While Bynum is a young, solid 13/10 player, he doesn't fully address the Lakers' problems on defense. A healthy Manu and a younger bench will make the Spurs a top contender again, and Utah and New Orleans have good prospectives. Dallas is finished and so is Utah, most likely. The overall balance of power between conferences is slowly balancing.
You should probably swallow your pride, get off your high horse and apologize to Doc Rivers. You wrote about Rivers' coaching as if you have any idea how to run a middle school basketball team let alone a professional one. Oh no, maybe it was Tom Thibodeaux who was actually calling the shots, especially in Game 4 when Doc clearly outcoached Phil.
I'll go out on a limb and say that, barring a major shakeup or another favorable playoff draw, the Lakers won't be back any time soon. They've been exposed as soft and even the return of Bynum won't help much (he's nice, but he's limited, especially on defense). Odom or Gasol will have to go, and I'm sure Kobe would like to get rid of them both. They need help at PG (Farmar absolutely killed them) and the Euros either need to learn some D or they have to go. They seem like a regular season team, nice offensive spread, etc., but they don't have the athletes to compete against the best. Plus, I can't imagine the rest of the team giving maximum effort for Kobe the raving egomaniac after this disaster of a series.
I'm a Bostonian, and happy to see the Celtics win. But apart from the outcome, this postseason has been somehow disappointing. The C's didn't play well in the first two series, but home-court swung it for them. The Pistons series was ok, but Allen was in a horrible slump and Pierce had some invisible games. I think I would have preferred to see the C's play I also hope Doc will give Pierce and Garnett more rest. There was a lot of skepticism about whether the over-30's could go the distance: and I think the performances in the Finals rather justify that skepticism. Even though they won, Garnett looked exhausted at times, and Pierce's injury was a scare. It just happened that injuries to other teams had even more impact (Billups, Ginobili,
And who are the most beloved heroes in Boston sports lore? Ted Williams and Larry Bird. And me.
"I'd be careful about the direction of causation." How else do you explain the causation other than the Occam's Razor explanation of concluding that the Lakers are simply a better team with Vlad on the floor, no matter how embarrassing the perception of his play seems to the eyeball? Stick Vlad in the corner, and Kobe has something to do with the ball when he drives and the defense collapses into the lane. Stick Vlad on the bench, and Kobe has nothing to do with the ball when he drives and the defense collapses into the lane. In Game 5, as ABC went to commercial, their mikes picked up Kobe plaintively wailing to the coaching staff, "But what do I do when I get to the lane?" From a Lakers' perspective, why should it matter how Vlad appears aesthetically, as long as he makes the team better when he's on the floor? Why bench him if he makes the team better? If I were a Lakers' fan, I'd want PJ's head, not Vlad's.
, the C's under Auerbach's hand were genuinely racially progressive in a place and time that really wasn't. Yeah, I don't deny that. I think the claim--which I think I saw advanced by Simmons, among others--is as follows: 1. The Celts didn't have a problem with African-Americans. The obvious counterargument--which is a pretty good one--is that the Eighties Celts were great. Even Sichting scared the fuck out of me.
don't forget portland. the early returns on post-injury oden (pre-clearance) are that he's better and more versatile than he was pre-injury.
If I were a Lakers' fan, I'd want PJ's head, not Vlad's. I'm beginning to think Simmons' theory from yesterday is right: For someone who's allegedly the best coach of his generation, how could he not figure out how to stop the high screen with Pierce and KG in Game 5, and why can't he figure out a way to get Kobe going in this series? Throw in the disrespectful way Kobe treats him during games -- Damon's crew was shocked by that running subplot, by the way -- and is anyone else starting to wonder if Jackson coaches the Lakers just because they pay him a ton of money and he's dating the owner's daughter and that's it? I mean, he can't LIKE most of these guys, right? He sure doesn't seem like he's enjoying these games, that's for sure. Do you think he goes home after every Lakers game, pours himself a glass of wine, lights up a Cuban, watches one of the old Bulls games from the '90s and just fights back tears for an hour or so thinking about how much he hates coaching Kobe? You wouldn't rule it out, right? Also how has no one yet posted a link to the greatest interview of all time.
Congratulations to the Celtics, and LA's own Paul Pierce. As much as I detest the idea of a Celtic championship, I am happy for KG and Ray Allen - two class acts. Doc Rivers coached circles around the Zen master. All the Laker runs were made when Kobe was in facilitator mode, and he was just too impatient over the series to keep dishing rather than hoisting up bad shots and driving into a sea of white and green. Matt, can you please call the election for McCain today and stay with that prediction until Novenber?
I agree with Petey about Phil Jackson and his coaching staff. If you look at this series objectively, the difference in coaching was huge. I'm not saying there was a difference in coaching decisions in the finals per se, but rather that over the last year, the Celtics had perfected an awesome defense, as well as a sound offense with lots of passing and pick and rolls. The Lakers, in comparison, looked disorganized, particularly on defense. Athletically, the Lakers are ok. A lot of the difference has to be coaching. This is why all the pre-final predictions based on the "fact" that Phil Jackson >>> Doc Rivers look so comical now.
Adande has a great column from a few months back about the Celtic's and race some people might be interested in.
And who are the most beloved heroes in Boston sports lore? Tom Brady, by a mile. F those old guys. I remember clearly that in the 1970s and early 80s the most beloved heroes in Boston were Yaz and Bobby Orr. The whole Ted Williams hero worship is a complete rewrite of history, Ted wasn't beloved when he actually played in Boston, and he wasn't beloved by anyone I remember in the 1960s and 70s. I remember older guys talking about Warren Spahn, not Ted. It was probably after the '86 fiasco that people started looking back to find Red Sox icons to be proud of in lieu of any actual rings.
Richard Cownie, You are the definition of the turd in the punchbowl. Wow. You must be a lot of fun at parties. Just an amazing playoff to run to watch as a Celtics fan. It was fascinating to watch the team figuring things out as they went along...improving from game to game and series to series. It was somewhat stunning to see how much better the Celtics were than the Lakers by the end. As for the tired debate on Boston and race, it really isn't that complicated. If you attended a Celtics game in the 80's in the Garden, you heard uncommon vitriol hurled at Robert Parish - that was never directed at Bird or McHale - for rather obvious reasons. The fans were racist, as was much of Boston. The Celtics organization, in contrast, was anything but racist. The various conspiracy theorists who claim the Celtics intentionally assembled a team of white guys are simply wrong. That would go against everything Red Aurbach stood for. None of these points should be controversial. Since the 80's the city has changed enormously. While enclaves of provincial, blue collar whites still exist, the demographics have shifted dramatically. Many blue collar whites have been priced out of the suburbs by gentrification and the less wealthy neighborhoods now have large immigrant populations. Meanwhile, the city has become a hotbed of progressive politics among the affluent whites, young professionals, and students that have priced out so many blue collar whites. Manny Ramirez, David Ortiz, Randy Moss, and Kevin Garnett are now fan favorites in Boston. Conservative, all-American white guy Curt Shilling - although appreciated by fans - is the subject of eyes rolling and sarcastic comments. The city's racist past is what is what is - but I would say Boston is pretty similar to any other northeastern city at this point in terms of race relations.
And who are the most beloved heroes in Boston sports lore? Ted Williams and Larry Bird. I actually think Yaz and Bobby Orr are at the top of the list in Boston, along with Bird. Williams was sort of a Barry Bonds figure during his career, without the whole steroid angle: brilliant talent who was considered aloof, unpleasant, and selfish, and played badly in his only WS (Bonds dominated in his only WS, but still has a reputation for "never winning the Big One").
I am again baffled by the mystique of Andrew Bynum, who averaged 13 points and 10 rebounds a game for two months. This is what it takes to demonstrate you're going to be some sort of dominant force? Really? Ridiculous.
I'm not a Lakers fan, but I'm seriously baffled that people don't think the Lakers are going to be the favorites in the West next year. Their age and salary situation is the most envious in the league. They also played really well in the playoffs before losing in 6 games to a team that was the best team in the league all year. The knee jerk reactions after a terrible game are almost laughable.
Sorry, meant to say enviable...
Freddie,
I agree with everything Petey said, except his proclamation that the Lakers are the closest think to a lock you'll ever see. Oh, and the part about the only drama surrounding the series was if the Celtics could win two games. OH OH, and the part about Boston's backcourt being too weak to make Kobe work....but everything else we're in complete agreement.
1. Big Papi is by far the most beloved player in Boston today, and-- no joke-- he's almost surpassed Larry Bird on the all-time list. Seriously. The love for David Ortiz is huge. 2. I will say again, Kobe Bryant has less time as a transcendent player than you guys think. Between regular season and playoffs he's played something like 37,000 NBA minutes. He's an old 29; the stars of yesteryear hadn't play nearly those kind of minutes at 29. I know they played games in college and Kobe didn't, but there's a big difference between a Larry Bird playing 30 college games against 180 pound defenders from State U and Kobe playing 82 games plus playoffs against NBA athletes. His window is not large, if you ask me.
"Just an amazing playoff to run to watch as a Celtics fan. It was fascinating to watch the team figuring things out as they went along...improving from game to game and series to series. It was somewhat stunning to see how much better the Celtics were than the Lakers by the end." I guess I don't really watch it as a Celtics fan:
Bynum doesn't have to be a dominant force, and I'm not sure people are acting like he is. But if he plays like he did at the beginning of the season, the Lakers would clearly be the best team in the league. How can anyone have watched this series and say that? It's not just bad interior defense. It's terrible defense all around, stagnant offense if Kobe isn't killing, and terrible chemistry. This team is more than one piece away.
I like that Boston won with the black dudes this time around. I said to my husband (this was the first game in the series we'd caught), "Back when we were in high school, I wouldn't have expected to see a Boston/Lakers series where the Boston guys were the black ones."
How can anyone have watched this series and say that? Because this series isn't the full set of Lakers games they've watched.
somecallmetim, the celts did "what they needed to do." you mean, they weren't supposed to draft bird, because drafting bird would prove they were racists? you mean they weren't supposed to trade joe barry carroll for kevin mchale and robert parish because, after all, that added a white player and that would prove they were racists? the celts did what they needed to do to become a winning team, period. as others have said, boston has a racist heritage, but not the celts. meanwhile, as for the series, i still can't understand how the lakers interior defensive liabilities went unexposed earlier, because they are awful. i'm not sure why anyone thinks there was a "coaching" solution to that problem, btw: sometimes, players just don't have the skill set.
SCMT,
Freddie, Bynum is like 12 years old. A legit 7-footer who's athletic and can defend and has a decent touch and who averaged 13 and 10 in his first real playing time? I think most teams would love to have that guy. If Vlad Rad doesn't have to start at the 3, he's a decent guy to have. A starting 5 of Farmar/Fisher, Kobe, Odom, Gasol and Bynum looks pretty damn good, with Sasha, VladRad, Walton, Fisher/Farmar and Mihm/Turiaf off the bench. All the key guys are young, except Kobe and Odom, and those 2 aren't old enough to really be declining yet. I'd say they're the favorite to win the West, until Portland finds a PG and gets a chance to play together for a couple years. Boston? I could see them doing it again next year. However, their big 3 are all going to get worse every year. I'd say they've got one more year to contend for the title before Ray Allen breaks down. Pierce and KG will decline more slowly. By the way, anybody read Bill Simmons casually refer to Pierce, again and again, as the team's "best player"? Has the world gone insane? That's even worse than reflexively calling Kobe the best player in the league. You can make that argument for Kobe, even though I'd take LeBron. But there's no possible way Pierce is better than KG. It's just nuts.
But if he plays like he did at the beginning of the season, the Lakers would clearly be the best team in the league. No. No. No.
It's a nice way to wash out the bad racial stuff from the 1980s. What the hell are you talking about? The Celtics have the most progressive racial history of any NBA team (first black player, first black coach). KC Jones was the coach in the 80s remember.
More than one piece away, Freddie? Whah? They were literally two games away. Get serious, or watch more basketball.
meanwhile, as for the series, i still can't understand how the lakers interior defensive liabilities went unexposed earlier, because they are awful. Yeah. I know it's only 2 weeks ago, but I'm wondering how they ever beat the Spurs. Why didn't Tony Parker torch them for, like, 30 points a game? Was it really all about Manu being injured? Would they gave gotten blown out by the Hornets had NO been able to win Game 7 against the Spurs? I also agree with Stacy - and contra Freddie - that Bynum didn't need to bring them gigantic scoring nights. He needed to patrol the lane (he's a good shot blocker) and cut down on Boston's offensive rebounds (and maybe get a few of his own). That's within Bynum's capabilities, at least as shown the first half of the year. I still think Boston would have won the series - I was one of the few on the predictions thread who did predict that Boston would win - but it wouldn't have been this much of a beatdown.
No, no, no? Are you serious? They were just the favorites to win the Finals, and had the number 1 seed in the West without him. They were two game away from being the best team in the league WITHOUT him. This thread is insane.
This is a very bizarre thread. The people here dismissing Bynum clearly didn't watch any NBA in the beginning of the season. The Lakers had the best record in the West for a bit before they got Gasol. Seriously, people, try to watch a bit more basketball.
Seriously, how can you say they're "more than one piece away" when they made the Finals? How many "pieces" make up the difference between losing the finals in 6 games and winning the finals? I'm not a Lakers fan at all, but all the hating because they were only the 2nd-best team in the league is a little silly.
Ted Williams was never considered selfish by the people who knew him best, his teammates. Yes, he could be extraordinarily difficult, even an asshole, but the comparison with Bonds is inapt. The guys Williams played with overwhelmingly considered him a good teammate. I highly suspect the "Garnett is an underachiever" meme will continue on from here, particularly among those ignorant of the centrality of defense in championship basketball. Garnett is an underachiever only if you consider not being one of the top twenty or so basketball players of all time an example of underachievement. His versatility on defense is what makes this Celtic team a historically great one on the defensive side, and for all the criticism his offense garners, he still draws a lot of double teams. If he had benefitted from teammmates like Duncan had for the past 12 years, little or none of the negative chatter about Garnett would exist. If Rondo's shooting improves, and Rivers and Ainge figure out a way to rest Garnett more during the regular season, the Celtics will be very formidable again next season, maybe even more formidable.
It's a nice way to wash out the bad racial stuff from the 1980s. What the hell are you talking about? The Celtics have the most progressive racial history of any NBA team (first black player, first black coach). KC Jones was the coach in the 80s remember. Anyway, after 22 years since the last championship crushing the Lakers in this fashion was very satisfying for this Celtics fan. It's a nice way to wash out the bad feelings from the tragedies that befell the franchise starting with the death of Len Bias and leading to years of mediocrity or just outright putridity (i.e. last year). Paul Pierce outplayed Kobe and Garnett was awesome last night. With their smothering defense you gotta believe that barring major injuries, Celts will be back in the Finals next year too, probably facing the Lakers again. The rightful and natural state of the universe has returned. Amen.
Al,
I'm a huge Rondo booster. I watched him play in high school and had him pegged as great very early. And, at the time, I wasn't concerned about his shooting because he didn't have to do much shooting (no one could stay in front of him in HS) and he had good form in warm-ups and at the line. I never thought he'd be awful. Then he went to UK and Tubby Smith hated him and he lost his confidence. And even then, when he wasn't over thinking ("Should I take this shot? Or will I go straight to the bench if I do?"), his form always looked good to me (for instance, he more consistently hit shots with the shot clock winding down b/c he knew he wouldn't be "blamed" for taking a bad shot and even hit a couple of game winners). This lack of confidence in his shot carried over to his first year. This year there has been a big improvement now that he has been certified as the starter. And he may improve a little more with more confidence. But all the people up-thread who think he can become a much better shooter are unrealistic. I'm quite sure he's taken a lot of jumpshots (ie 1,000s) in the past and I'm sure he plans to practice shooting in the future. And the silly thing is, it isn't that important that he be automatic on the jumper. He can still produce this kind of line: 21 points, eight assists, seven rebounds, six steals, and just one turnover without it. The problem is his confidence. And the thing I fear the most about his development is that Doc Rivers kind of seems to hate him.
I'll say it again, you can't blame the 80s Celtics for their racist fans, that's just nuts. There were plenty of viciously racist fans at Patriots games in the 80s as well, and the 80s Patriots had a star white player in a "black" position (Craig James, RB) but Spike Lee is not a huge Jets fan and the Patriots didn't dominate the league the way the Celtics did so Spike had no reason to smear them.
Will Allen,
If you attended a Celtics game in the 80's in the Garden, you heard uncommon vitriol hurled at Robert Parish - that was never directed at Bird or McHale - for rather obvious reasons. The fans were racist, as was much of Boston. I went to many Celtics games in the 1980's in the Garden and don't know what you're talking about. I'm certainly not going to say there are no racists in Boston, but c'mon now. And the reason that Bill Russell and other C's of the pre-Bird era are not revered in Boston is that no one cared about basketball in those days. Boston is not a basketball town -- a decent Bruins team will always outdraw a decent Celtics team, but there haven't been many decent Bruins teams in years -- and the NBA in the 1960s and 1970s was nothing like the NBA in the 1980s, once Bird and Johnson arrived on the scene. Even with this championship, the Celtics are #3 in Boston, behind the Red Sox and the Patriots.
Everyone who said the Lakers were going to win this series-- particularly SCMT, who mocked me for thinking otherwise-- is banned from posting on basketball for awhile. The Lakers are soft, their coach is apathetic and over the hill, they have terrible chemistry, and Kobe, Odom and Gasol are not going to get any better. If you think that a team that gives meaningful minutes to Sasha Vujacic, Vladimir Radmanovic and Luke Walton is seriously going to win a championship next season, you're off your gourd. Oh, and Bynum is not a plus defender. Don't know how that rumor got started.
"I agree with everything Petey said, except his proclamation that the Lakers are the closest think to a lock you'll ever see. Oh, and the part about the only drama surrounding the series was if the Celtics could win two games. OH OH, and the part about Boston's backcourt being too weak to make Kobe work....but everything else we're in complete agreement." In my defense, I didn't realize before the series started that Phil Jackson had Alzheimer's. The real prophet from that thread was too many steves, who wrote: if you see Kobe running through picks chasing Ray Allen all night, then Phil will have switched brains with Doc. And that's exactly what we saw for the first two games, which is when the series was essentially decided. ----- FWIW, I also figured Lamar! spending far more time guarding Pierce than what the Zen brain trust ended up dictating. And I figured the Lakers would employ ball pressure whenever Rondo wasn't on the floor. And I figured that the Lakers would let Pierce have his outside shot and take away the drive, rather than the other way around. But what do I know? I'm not burning sage in my living room, after all.
This is starting to sound pretty personal with Freddie. Listen, just because you predicted the Celtics to win the series doesn't mean you know shit about basketball. Seriously, your posts make it sound as though you didn't start watching the NBA until this postseason.
Doesn't the fact that you were all sure the Lakers would dominate this series compel you to maybe stop making predictions with such certitude, like you're sure they'll be championship-caliber next year? It's like talking basketball with Bill Kristol.
Geez, Freddie, we're not speculating oil prices here, we're bullshitting about sports. Everyone talks about sports like they know what's going to happen. Of course no one knows if the Lakers are going to be close to the Finals next year, but I guarantee that you won't find one person that knows the NBA who thinks they'll be worse next year.
Was anybody else waiting for Doc Rivers to take Michelle Tafoya in his arms, dip her and lay one on her in the postgame interview? Maybe Michelle told Doc to knock it off. He was on his best behavior in the Finals, if you don't count some sublte leering.
Here's what has me utterly baffled by the Lakers: sure, they looked better defensively against the Spurs because Ginobili was hobbled. But Ginobili is a pretty mediocre defender even when he's healthy. So why did they look so much better offensively against the Spurs? The Spurs are a really good defensive team and Tim Duncan is a really good interior help defender, but Kobe was getting to the rim anytime he wanted. Yes, the Celtics played picture-perfect help defense against Kobe for nearly the entire series. It was a thing of beauty. But were they that much better than the Spurs? Are the Spurs overrated defensively? Were they just worn out by the N.O. series? I don't get it.
OH OH, and the part about Boston's backcourt being too weak to make Kobe work Yeah, that was the kind of bizarre part about Petey's predictions. With Posey and Pierce, they certainly had the guys to make Kobe work - even absent Ray Allen's unexpected contributions to defending Kobe. The thing with Boston is that they really don't have any big weaknesses on defense - they can guard the quick point with Rondo, they can guard the scoring swingman with Pierce and Posey, they can guard the active big with Garnett and they can guard the large big with Perkins. Put that altogether with good team defense, and you see why they had such a great defensive season, and why it continued in the postseason.
too many steves - Garnett is, for sure, more talented than Pierce. Much more. But there's a reason Pierce was the Finals MVP, and not just because he's the longest tenured Celtic. The Celtics don't win without Garnett drawing double team after double team, and they don't win without him anchoring that stifling D, but Pierce: led the team in scoring, submitted the single best individual game of the finals (albeit in a narrow loss), was Garnett's equal in finding ways to contribue when his shot wasn't working, didn't blanch in the clutch in Game 5, defended Kobe as well as I've ever seen it done (but props to Allen and Posey for also doing great work here, and yes, without the big men as a backstop the guys checking Bryant couldn't have been so bold), and down the stretch over the past few games was clearly The Guy, whether for his own scoring or the opportunities he created for others, with the ball in his hands, taking control. He's, at least, the Cs best player in the way Billups was the Pistons "best player" in their 2004 win.
If you attended a Celtics game in the 80's in the Garden, you heard uncommon vitriol hurled at Robert Parish - that was never directed at Bird or McHale - for rather obvious reasons. All remember were the yells of "Chieffff". If anyone was hurling vitriol at Parish it was only because he wasn't sharing his blunts with them.
"Everyone who said the Lakers were going to win this series-- particularly SCMT, who mocked me for thinking otherwise-- is banned from posting on basketball for awhile." But you didn't have any special insight into how the series was going to play out, Freddie, just as you don't have any special insight into how the Lakers' roster is going to play out next year. Getting things right for random reasons doesn't win you much intellectual cred. Spit on Your Haircut, on the other hand, had an eerily perfect crystal ball on how the series was going to play out. I discounted his post because I didn't think Jackson was brain-dead enough to play out the particular matchups SoYH outlined.
Bynum doesn't have to be world beating for the Lakers to be the favorites. Let's assume the season turns out the exact same w/ the Celtics and Lakers meeting in the Finals with the same lineups, but the Lakers add Bynum. All the Lakers need is to be 7 points better in 2 games and they win the series. Actually, less than that, if you don't count the intentional fouls. Look at what the loss of Perkins did for the Celtics defense in game 5. Bynum means more to the Lakers than Perkins does. Take out last night and this series was extraordinarily close. Yes, even with Bynum, the Lakers' interior defense is inferior to the Celtics. However, their defense doesn't need to be great, it just needs to become marginally better.
Sounds like PJ is pinning this one on the Lakers' big men: "They overran us. Garnett knocked Pau down in the land and scored an easy basket in the first four or five possessions and set kind of a tone that they were going to establish an aggressive form, and we never met that energy all night. So we have to get some players if we're going to come back and repeat, to have that kind of aggressiveness that we need." Hmmmm. Would hate to trade either Gasol or Odom before we have a chance to see how they play with Bynum.
you mean, they weren't supposed to draft bird, because drafting bird would prove they were racists? you mean they weren't supposed to trade joe barry carroll for kevin mchale and robert parish because, after all, that added a white player and that would prove they were racists? Also: They got Danny Ainge from the Toronto Blue Jays after drafting him in a round that doesn't even exist anymore, a deal any other team in the league would have be thrilled to make. And they traded a white back-up center (Rick Robey) to Phoenix to get Dennis Johnson.
I guess we'll see! To be continued in November. By the way, Petey, you weren't just wrong, you were comically, cosmically wrong. You were once-in-a-lifetime wrong. You were so wrong you almost passed through wrong and came back into right. I'll keep my own counsel on the NBA from now own, Petey, mmmkay?
"Were (the Spurs) just worn out by the N.O. series?" I think that had a lot to do with it. With 3 days rest and a healthy Ginobili, I think that's a totally different series.
So why did they look so much better offensively against the Spurs? I don't think the Spurs' help defense is as good as the Celts' help defense. The Celts' ability to recover after helping was pretty remarkable, as was the quickness of their hands in disrupting passes. FWIW, I also figured Lamar! spending far more time guarding Pierce than what the Zen brain trust ended up dictating. Huh. I thought he'd spend more time on Garnett. And I continue to wonder if the Lakers would have been better off putting Ariza on Pierce and forgoing the three point shooting of Vlad, and the attendent spacing. The Lakers looked sufficiently awful that I don't know where the blame should lie.
Freddie, when you say, "once-in-a-lifetime wrong," remember that who you're talking about. The Lakers have good company in John Edwards and the 07 Mavs.
Everyone who said the Lakers were going to win this series-- particularly SCMT, who mocked me for thinking otherwise-- is banned from posting on basketball for awhile. Learn to live with disappointment.
Kobe does probably qualify as a "trust fund scumbag,' no? I'm surprised Petey was rooting for him.
btw, someone said something about racist vitriol and parish in the '80s: i was a season ticket holder in those days and i have no idea what the person is talking about. i'd say the fan favorites were bird, chief, dj, mchale in that order (with some ironic greg kite love, of course!).
Mo writes: "And who are the most beloved heroes in Boston sports lore? Ted Williams and Larry Bird. Bill Russell has more rings than those two combined and squared." The most popular athlete in Boston these days is David Ortiz - yes, even more popular than Tom Brady. Times have changed. Get over the past.
I can't remember which game it was in, but there was a sequence when a pick was set that resulted in Garnett guarding Bryant out near the top of the key, and Bryant actually had to respect Garnett, instead of blowing by him effortlessly like he would most big men. Posey had some great moments guarding Bryant. Ray Allen had his moments, and of course Pierce was terrfic, all accompanied by consistently great help defense. The Celtics are simply a terrfically versatile team on defense, as evidenced by what they did over the last six games to what by many measures might be the best offense in the league.
"Boston? I could see them doing it again next year. However, their big 3 are all going to get worse every year. I'd say they've got one more year to contend for the title before Ray Allen breaks down. Pierce and KG will decline more slowly." Individually, Pierce, Garnett, and Allen are on the But I certainly would like to see them all getting more rest in the regular season. And after all the early-season talk of how the C's weakness was the bench, by the end it seemed the bench did just fine, even in some tight playoff games. They could use a better backup PG though.
With 3 days rest, refereeing that doesn't require an official apology from the league,and a healthy Ginobili, I think that's a totally different series. There. Fixed.
"Kobe does probably qualify as a "trust fund scumbag,' no? I'm surprised Petey was rooting for him." I was mildly rooting for Boston. Paul Pierce is tits. I've always liked the guy. I just happened to think LA had the winning roster.
FWIW, I also figured Lamar! spending far more time guarding Pierce than what the Zen brain trust ended up dictating. OK, I was going to agree with Petey about some of this stuff until it became clear he's trying to pin this one on Jackson instead of realizing that the Celtics would have kicked L.A.'s butt regardless of coaching strategy. No question that not pressuring House (not to mention Cassell) was stupid. But that wasn't as stupid as Doc Rivers doing everything he could to ruin Rondo's confidence by leaving him out of the games for vast stretches of time, so that's more than a wash. As for stopping Pierce, Odom Schmodum! There was no stopping the Captain this series, and that's why he's the MVP. He stepped up big time and changed his place in history. It was the Celtics defense and poise that won this series, along with two major intangibles: 1. No Kobe team is ever going to rally well because they don't have the necessary comaraderie. 2. Every time the Celtics got on an offensive roll, the Lakers choked offensively. It was amazing to watch. They just rolled over and started missing open shots. That the Celtics are a TEAM, when most teams are assemblages of players, can't be counted as an intangible. Then there was the Celtics' bench, which was much better than the Lakers'. Then there was the under-rated Rondo, whose name you Lakers fans still can't seem to utter, except in relation to missed jump shots. If all you see is Rondo's missed shots, you won't know what hit you next time either. Let's get give some credit to the victors here. The Celtics kicked the Lakers' ass. The Lakers didn't administer their own self-ass-kicking
"Boston is not a basketball town -- a decent Bruins team will always outdraw a decent Celtics team, but there haven't been many decent Bruins teams in years -- and the NBA in the 1960s and 1970s was nothing like the NBA in the 1980s, once Bird and Johnson arrived on the scene." Growing up there in the Cowens / Havlicek / Jo Jo / Charlie Scott era, you could have fooled me. We ~played~ hockey, but loved the Cs.
The Celts biggest obstacle next year resides in Cleveland, not LA. LeBron rose to the occasion and almost willed his team into the finals, while Kobe faded from view when his team faced elimination. If the Cavs make some prudent moves, they could win the championship next year.
If the Cavs made some prudent moves, they wouldn't be the Cavs anymore. This was a team that thought Wally Szczcvkweriak and the Ghost of Ben Wallace was the answer to their problems. That trade did make them marginally better, but it left them in exactly the same spot: not good enough. I think Stern should seize LeBron by eminent domain and redistribute him to a team that will put some decent players around him.
...i'd say the fan favorites were bird, chief, dj, mchale in that order (with some ironic greg kite love, of course!). Don't forget about M.L. Carr. Also, K.C. Jones (a black guy for the uninitiated) was, yup, their coach. And this was during an era when African-American coaches were still relatively rare. Come to think of it, last night makes, I think, the fifth NBA championship won by African American coaches of the Boston Celtics. No other franchise can claim more than one.
"I think Stern should seize LeBron by eminent domain and redistribute him to a team that will put some decent players around him." Now if you could add LeBron to the Celtics then I
I think Stern should seize LeBron by eminent domain I think Stern should be seized by some very big hairy goons and forced into somebody else's domain. Possibly my favorite moment of last night was him getting booed.
There was no stopping the Captain this series, and that's why he's the MVP. He stepped up big time and changed his place in history. I think this is right - Pierce will definately have a different legacy now. I still don't think he's a Hall-of-Famer, but at least you can't laugh at the discussion now. If he's able to play at this high level for another 3-4 years and get another ring, you've got to consider him. Until this year, I had always considered him a bit of a choker, ever since he came up very small at Kansas in the Final 4. To me, his enduring NBA legacy prior to this year was Eastern Conference Finals 2002, Game 4 against the Nets, when he was at the free throw line with a chance to tie the game with 1 second left (culminating a second straight deadly comeback) and giving the C's a chance at a 3-1 series lead, but he bricked the free throw. But now that legacy is erased.
Re: Parrish's treatment by Boston fans. My statement about Parrish receiving abuse from Boston fans is hearsay, albeit what I regard to be credible hearsay taken from a lengthy discussion on Boston's racist past on the old Mean Green Celtics message board, in which numerous old timers claimed that Parrish was attacked by fans based on his race on a routine basis. I could obviously be wrong.
I wish people would take a statistics course, and reflect on the signifigance of sample size, before opining on a player being a "choker" or "clutch". If there is a more tiresome cliche in sports I don't what it is, and unlike most cliches, there is hardly any observable truth to it.
Boston is not a basketball town -- a decent Bruins team will always outdraw a decent Celtics team, Right, and it's not a college town either.
Seriously the Bruins, and the NHL in general, have been on a decline since 1975. Maybe things have changed since I left, but my point was that the Celtics teams of the 1960s did not have the draw that they've had since Bird arrived.
I don't the folks in here defending Boston's past relationship when it comes to sports and race are remembering what it was like a few decades ago. Even in 1990, Dee Brown (Celts 1st round pick) encountered housing bias (as do some people more recently): http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2003/09/07/for_blacks_bus_mix_up_hits_home/ Anyone who claims that there never were problems and that Boston teams were incredibly progressive, read "Shut Out: A Story of Race & Baseball in Boston". The remarkable thing about last night is that the heroes now look very different and are entirely beloved. Times have changed, and that's the point.
I know I'm echoing some of what's already been said, but let me chime in. In stark contrast to the Red Sox, the Boston Celtics have probably the most progressive racial history of all the teams in the 3 majors sports: 1) They drafted the first black player Finally, it will never make sense to me that people call the '80s team racist because it had several good white players on it. Winning with white players isn't racist, it's winning. Who wouldn't have wanted Bird, McHale, Ainge, Walton? Say what you will about the city and the fans, but please recognize that's a separate issue. It is unfair to the Celtics organization and Red Auerbach's memory to perpetuate the false notion that the franchise is racist.
Congrats to the Celtics, they were completely dominant and during the playoffs showed that great defense (one of the best of all time) can always beat great offense (i.e., LeBron and then Kobe, the two ballers players alive). Paul Pierce made sure he's going to the Hall of Fame by sheer will. That guy plays the way you wished all players played - that is, he ain't waiting for jump shots, if he's got the ball and the C's need a bucket, he goes to the basket, hard. Great stuff by The Truth! KG redeemed. The guy might be on and off on offense, but his defense never changes, it's the best in the league, hands down. Ray Allen redeemed. Though we'd lost him against Atlanta and Cleveland. But dude has heart. Played great D against Kobe too. Plus hit a Finals Record in total three pointers and with 7 in the final game. Class guy, as classy as they come. Plus he was right about Kobe when he called him out after the Shaq trade and just got the last laugh. Oh yeah, and signed his ticket to the Hall of Fame, too. The Lakers are a callow team and just weren't ready for this. The folks who said they were lucky Manu was injured were right - this team doesn't get by the Spurs if Manu is playing healthy. That being said, they are young and should be back. They need to get Ron Artest! Nobody will call them soft then, and they need a 3 man big time! If you think about it, Danny Ainge thought this was the C's year and so put guys like Posey, PJ Brown, House and Cassell on the bench, vet talent and leadership. Mitch Kupsuck didn't do this, but I think he didn't think they were ready to make the next step. So he underestimated his own team. No doubt he won't next year and puts some vets on his bench. Did people really think Luke Walton, Farmar, Ariza and Turiaf were a great bench? Really? REALLY? Lots of so-called analysts should lose their jobs over that hackjob picking the Lakers. Anyway, the Celtics play the game the RIGHT WAY! They play defense like it's the only thing that matters, they pass the ball, they trust each other. If a kid wanted to learn how to play team ball, he's watch them. Props to KG - Paul Pierce and Ray Allen stepped it up big time, but never before did those guys try on defense like they did with KG back there. As they've said before, you just don't want to let KG down. Great stuff. As to all the Boston is racist talk, you guys need to step out of the 70's and get your butts back to the present day. Boston loves Randy Moss now! And Big Papi is the most beloved athlete in the city. Things change. Though some things, like the Celtics waxing the Lakers again, are finally back to the way they used to be.
Dee lives, just because you are the most recent i'll point to you: do you not understand the difference between community racism and a specific organization? boston has a long heritage of racism, of that there is no doubt. the celtics do not have a long heritage of racism. (the red sox did, of course: tom yawkey was a drunken racist.) is it that difficult for you to grasp the distinction? dee brown running into problems buying a house is indicative of a community problem; a story about baseball has nothing to do with the celtics. this is not that complicated.
This is not true. I wasn't there, so I don't know how racist those fans were or not, but franchises are frequently judged by the quality of their fans, and this is how it should be. When a team wins, we hear about it from their fans. If they're world class assholes, that matters.
I don't the folks in here defending Boston's past relationship when it comes to sports and race are remembering what it was like a few decades ago. I haven't seen anyone defending "Boston's past relationship when it comes to sports and race." I've seen people saying that the Celtics organization, as led by Red Auerbach, were a shining exception to the racism that was so prevalent in Boston over the last sixty-odd years (and before, of course).
howard, I know you weren't doing it, but since Ted Williams was wrongly criticized above, I want to note that Williams was not a party to the racism within the Red Sox organization. Williams was ahead of his time in advocating that Negro League players be made eligible for the Hall of Fame. I guess I'm a Williams fan, in that I find him to be one of the more complex and fascinating Hall of Fame caliber athletes, warts and all. I just prefer that the warts be portrayed accurately.
I don't like the NBA; baseball's my game, and to the extent I like basketball I prefer the college game, all of which I guess makes me the complete opposite of Matt in this context. Anyway, I did watch most of this game, mostly because I loathe the Lakers in general and Bryant in particular, and was enjoying watching them be embarrassed. I was struck by the Lakers' terrible defense; they often seemed to be just standing around while Boston shot at will. I thought this was due to them knowing they were beaten, but I gather from this post that they're just poor on defense in general. I'm always surprised when a poor defensive team from any sport reaches the finals (defense is usually crucial to winning); frankly this makes me wonder why so many experts (including you, Matt!) picked the Lakers to win rather easily.
Will, absolutely: the red sox racism problem was ownership, pure and simple (and interestingly enough, now that they actually have intelligent ownership, they've had superb results - imagine that!).
beckya57, to be fair, it's true that last night, at a certain point it was clear that the lakers were beaten and they knew it and just gave up altogether, so their defense was worse last night than it had been overall. but as several of us noted earlier in the thread, i agree that it's amazing that it took until the finals for it to become clear just how poor the lakers interior defense was: coach van gundy made a good point during game 5 when he said the lakers look to block shots whereas the celts want to draw charges. meanwhile, when it comes to rotations, the celts were magnificent and the lakers were, in general, a step too late.
"By the way, Petey, you weren't just wrong, you were comically, cosmically wrong." Indeed. ----- So, is the moral of the story that LeBron is clearly more valuable than Kobe? Or is the moral of the story that if Kendrick Perkins had switched uniforms that the Lakers would've won the series? ----- Cleveland really ought to find a way to pull the trigger on Michael Redd. ----- KG's post-game interview with Michelle Tafoya was pretty damn good. ----- It's the circle, the circle of life! San Antonio rips Phoenix's heart out with a dramatic Game 1 win. Then LA rips San Antonio's heart out with a dramatic Game 1 win. Then Boston rips LA's heart out with a dramatic Game 1 win.
I have an honest request for basketball help. I'm missing out. I don't enjoy watching the game - and enough people do, that I think if only I had an education, I could appreciate the game as well. I like watching football and baseball - I understand the dynamics of what is going on there. Establishing the ground game to open up the passing game - how the effectiveness of the line translates in to effectiveness of one tactic or another. And in baseball, I understand how the pitcher approaches hitters based on tendencies and game situation... And I appreciate those dynamics because scoring has consequences. In baseball - a one-run game isn't boring ... the threat to tie is always there ... I am unable to appreciate basketball in the way I'm unable to appreciate arena football. An individual score doesn't appear to have great consequence. And so what *does* have great consequence? I have looked in to the game a bit ... and found a dynamic between the inside game - and the outside game ... and that matchups are key ... as is scoring momentum. But honestly, I don't get it. How do you appreciate the whole game ... not just the drama of the closing minutes (which is fun) ... but the WHOLE game? What evolution are you watching? Please help me out - I'm missing it! thx
jackifus, i divide team sports between "flow" games (basketball, soccer, hockey) and "event" games (baseball, football), and from that division, you can probably guess what it is that at least 1 of us likes about basketball for 48 minutes: watching the flow. and, of course, the tremendous athleticism. but really, if you don't like it, you don't like it: i wouldn't feel like it's something you need remedial education on. (i, for example, watch a lot of soccer and a little basketball nowadays, but i don't watch hockey at all, life being too short, etc.)
That's an interesting request, jackifus: tell me how to enjoy basketball. Most of the time I'm not watching because of strategy, or because each individual bucket has any "meaning." I'm not even watching to see who wins. I'm watching because I think basketball at its best is the closest thing to poetry in motion. You don't have to know anything about the pro game to appreciate it; a well-played, high-level pickup game can be almost as beautiful. I also love it because more than any other sport, it allows the players to express their individual personalities through their play. But I'll think more about your question. I'll probably come up with something that's more in the vein of what you're talking about. Here's a start: watch a game with some friends who are patient and knowledgable fans, and have them talk to you a little, but not nonstop, about what's going on.
"I like watching football and baseball ... But honestly, I don't get (basketball). How do you appreciate the whole game ... not just the drama of the closing minutes (which is fun) ... but the WHOLE game? What evolution are you watching?" Football is about war. Baseball is about getting rich. Basketball is about sex. Follow your bliss.
This probably goes along with Petey's 'basketball is about sex' theme, but I don't think there is anything as enjoyable about watching an ENTIRE basketball game come down to the last few minutes or seconds. There is something about watching all the events leading up to that finale. You need to see all the grunt work to truly appreciate the climax. I love football and baseball as well, but nothing beats watching a basketball games with other knowledgable basketball fans.
Yeah, I don't know about attempts to tell someone how to appreciate something for which they have no apparent affinity, but I guess it works sometimes. Take one part howard's observation about "flow" sports: I really like watching the flow of a game and tracking the momentum shift, which especially in person but even a little bit through the mediation of television is the sort of thing an engaged fan can "feel" and ride on. There's a fun little charge about knowing "OK, they're making a run now" and watching it unfold. Take one part too many steve's "poetry in motion" answer. Well played basketball (even, to me, of the stifling defensive variety) is a more enjoyable (to me) aesthetic experience and comes closer than most team/ball sports to capturing the excitement of transcending human physical limitations. And I'll add my own comment, which may be more to your interest: angles. The way I appreciate American football is completely different than the way I appreciate soccer, tennis, or especially basketball, because I love (and, in increasing order, understand) those games on the level of a beautiful and flowing exposition of geometric possibilities. Who sees what potential pass, how does the opening of that passing angle force a defender to change his trajectory which opens up a new path to the basket...I love watching and anticipating the shifting webs of players as they stretch and collapse trying to create or deny a scoring opportunity.
The best way to enjoy any sport IMO is to learn more about it. The easiest way to explain basketball to a neophyte is to take them out in the driveway and show them how the pick and roll works. The pick and roll is basketball, and if you can understand that - which I think you can in it's simplest form in under 5 minutes - then you gain a greater appreciation for the game. Of course, very hard to explain in words. But on the driveway, easy. What is the pick and roll? It's a basketball "play," the most important one really, because if you can't defend it, the other team can pick you apart. But what am I talking about? The best way to gain a greater enjoyment of basketball is clearly to watch "Red on Roundball," which is a series of short films with Celtic coach Red Auerbach, the greatest coach/executive ever, giving instruction in the finer points of basketball. Youtube has an entire collection. It's amazing stuff. Better than even the Bobby Jones movies on golf. Here's Red on Roundball on the Alley Ooop, with NBA legends Pete Maravich and David Thompson: http://youtube.com/watch?v=_Iy5G9qudpQ If you watch this video, then next year watch even one New Orleans game, you will see Chris Paul execute this play with Tyson Chandler, and when you see it you will jump out of your seat. It's a beautiful thing! Also, read: www.freedarko.com
“The Boston Celtics have probably the most progressive racial history of all the teams in the 3 majors sports: Thank you for all of this. Let me also add a few others. They had a black G.M.; M.L. Carr, who was also one of those 5 coaches. Let me also draw another distinction; between Boston and the state of Massachusetts itself.
jackifus, let me second Rock It on "Red on Roundball," which was a 1970s era half-time presentation on nba broadcasts. you can find all 22 "red on roundball" episodes here at nba.com:
I wish people would take a statistics course, and reflect on the signifigance of sample size, before opining on a player being a "choker" or "clutch". Oh, give me a break. We watch the games. I don't need a statistics course to tell me that these things are subject to revision as we get more results.
"By the way, Petey, you weren't just wrong, you were comically, cosmically wrong." FWIW, I deserve to miss one. While I'm only a break-even bettor on the NBA overall, I've had the prior six Finals pegged better than the average bear. - I had the Western Conference blowouts in '02 and '03 (with the CW). ----- Reviewing the series boxscore, Ray-Ray's line really jumps off the page above all others. Rumors of his demise appear to have been highly exaggerated. But via eyeball, it was simply Paul Pierce's third quarter in Game 1 that made the difference. He ripped LA's beating heart right out of its chest.
I enjoy all of these sports, for diferent reasons, although I'd say soccer and hockey can sometimes suffer terribly when it becomes too easy for the athletically inferior team to play defense. To enjoy baseball, you really need to appreciate the strategy behind each at-bat, and how that strategy changes as the game progresses. If you do appreciate what it means to have the count go to 2-0 with men on first and second, trust me, there are few things more gut wrenchingly suspenseful than a 1-0 playoff or World Series game. You die with each pitch. Football is is some respects the most complex game, given 44-plus starters and 22 players on the field at any given time, and that complexity is paired with the elemental nature of two extremely strong athletes violently colliding on each play. By the way, jackifus, not to be pendatic, but in today's NFL, it is more commonly accurately said the passing game opens the door for the running game. In all of these sports, it really is interesting to see conventional wisdom overturned. I'd agree basketball is the most beautiful game, and playing defense in basketball is hard, hard, hard, so when it is done well, and not merely via lax enforcement of rules, it is something to behold. I think hockey is getting to whre it should have been all along; a tremendously entertaining game in the playoffs, when the right rules are in place, and they are enforced correctly. I suppose many people don't see the similarity between hockey and soccer, but I really think soccer could be improved by making defense harder to execute.
"I think hockey is getting to whre it should have been all along; a tremendously entertaining game in the playoffs, when the right rules are in place" I think basketball has incorrectly moved away from where it was: The zone rules instituted almost a decade ago prevent a single dominant player from absolutely controlling a playoff series in the same way. I used to think of zones as the "anti-Iverson rule", but even if that wasn't the motivation, it still produces a somewhat diminished opera.
relative to petey's comment, ray-ray rediscovered his shot in game 5 of the piston series, and from that moment on, the celtics had all the balance on offense they needed (this showed in particular in his 3-point shooting: atlanta, cleveland, and the first 4 piston games, he was 25-83 on 3s; games 5 and 6 against the pistons and the laker series, he was 30-56 on 3s).
(I could say certain things about certain bloggers…and their predictions…and not betting their trust funds on sporting events…but I won’t.) I’m not saying that the Lakers wouldn’t have been better with Bynum healthy. But the notion that LA almost won is just plain stupid. The Celtics destroyed the Lakers last night by the second biggest margin in NBA Finals history, 39 points, that’s not close. The Lakers only had success when the Celtics lost their defensive focus. Since when is Bynum a defensive superstar? And when the Celtics turned their attention back to defense, the Lakers blew 20 points leads in their own building! Yes, the Lakers won two games, big freaking deal. The 1985-1986 Celtics beat the Houston Rockets in 6 games, you want to try to make an argument that Houston almost won? The 91-93 Bulls never did it, Michael “God in Disguise” Jordan. And the Bulls of 96-98, who faced far weaker competition than their 91-93 counterparts, couldn’t sweep the Finals either. Sweeping the Finials is a hard thing to do and it evidently has little to do with the strength of your opponents. Even the 1960’s-era Celtics, some years having half their roster destined for the Hall of Frame, only did it once. In fact, it’s only been done 6 times in NBA history. I loved last night’s game, because I’m a Celtic fan. But if I wasn’t, I would have been slightly sad. In the 4th quarter, if not the 3rd quarter, just about every Laker not named Kobe Bryant flat out quit. (I can’t believe I just praised Kobe.) It was embarrassing! Celtic scrubs out hustling Laker starters for loose balls even though the Celtics are up by 30. No one bothering to guard Ray Allan even though he’s draining 3 after 3 after 3. Rondo stripping the ball away from veterans, even though it’s the Finals and he’s in his second year. All of the Lakers’ European players acting like Adm. Stockton at the ’92 debates; “who am I, why am I here”. It raises the question, is the West not as good as it used to be and the Lakers are proof of that? Or is the West still strong but the Celtics are just that good? Or did the Lakers just get lucky and a team like New Orleans would have throttled them and given the Celtics a much harder time of it? No matter which it is, the Lakers need more than a healthy Bynum. A fair amount of their players need heart and testicle transplants. If not, things might get unpleasant if and when the Lake Show meets up with Mr. Paul or Mr. Oden and their respect teams in next year’s playoffs.
Hey - thanks so much for the comments. I really do appreciate them ... The notion of flow games rings true ... I appreciate soccer a lot in fact... and perhaps that's a good analogy for me if I put aside my obsession with the importance of a single score. the pick and roll - am familiar (played lacrosse)... and the instructional videos - will devour them. The tip to watch particular players in New Orleans gives me something to structure my watching around ... meanwhile absorbing the spirit of things. Great idea. And the description of physical poetry and expression - rings true as well. And it explains some of the behavior on the court - taunting for the *way* in which a point was scored instead of just about the score. I've always felt sport to be a form of improvised art ... I appreciate the direction. thanks again.
"with Michael “God in Disguise” Jordan". and "Hall of Fame" Damn lack of sleep!
Raindog, i don't have time to check it out right now, but i've been searching memory for what is the biggest margin in a deciding game in the finals? it strikes me that it was more like +20 or so - watch, i'll be exposed in a moment for flawed memory - but i can't remember a deciding game (even in 1-sided series) margin anywhere close to 39 in the finals.
All you Spurs fanboys whining about the massive "injuries" afflicting your flopping hero Ginobili, recall that Kobe has been playing, since February, with a torn ligament in a finger on his shooting hand. And he still averaged more than 30 ppg while shooting better than .500 from the field through the Western Conference Finals. The Lakers lost because, aside from Kobe, their team just isn't very good. Gasol is the only all-star (one-time). Look at all the all-stars on the Celtics (big three, and Cassell surely made an all-star game). The Lakers are a collection of not-terribly-good role players, while the Celtics have 3 bona fide Hall of Fame players, all basically at their prime (Ray-Ray, earlier in the playoffs, perhaps looked past it, but he sure didn't last night). Kobe is still the best player currently playing in the NBA, LA as a team is not as good as Boston.
Oh, I meant to post the URL for Kobe's injury. "Bryant suffered the injury -- initially described as a dislocated pinkie -- on Feb. 5 against New Jersey. The Lakers disclosed Thursday that the damage was more extensive than first thought, with Shin's examination revealing a complete tear of the radial collateral ligament and an avulsion fracture, in which a small bone fragment had been pulled off by a tendon." http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/allstar2008/news/story?id=3246576
Jackifus, as long-time Celtic fan, what I look for in a basketball game is teamwork and heroic action. That's why many Celtics fans were so disappointed in recent years, and would have been happy to see Paul Pierce traded. And that's why it was such a delight to watch Celtics games this year and see everyone on the same page, and all the players sacrificing their individual glory for the team.
Kobe is still the best player currently playing in the NBA. Like Hell he is. LeBron's better. Seriously, there's no comparison, because winning is first and foremost mental, and it's obvious all's not well inside the mind of America's Most Beloved Family Man. Kobe would not have any rings were it not for the fact that he once played with a player considerably more potent and dominating. LeBron will win several rings before he retires, and unlike Kobe, he will inarguably have been the best player on those championship teams.
Uh, ok TSBSC. How about the fact that LeBron has a terrible mid-range and 3-pt shot? Kobe's skillset is far more complete than LeBron's at this point. Maybe LeBron will wind up eclipsing him, but right now Kobe is a better player, no contest. And I live in Cleveland and love LeBron, but he's just not on the same level as Kobe right now.
This is my favorite Dave Cowens story, the truth of which I cannot verify.... Cowens gets called for what he thinks is a marginal charge, and says something to the ref. A few minutes later he gets called for what he thinks is an even more marginal charge, says something a little more rustic, and gets teed up. The next time he gets the ball, this time out near half court on a fast break, he purposely zeros in on a defender about at the free throw line, runs full speed at him, lowers his shoulder and knocks the guy through the air about 20 feet. He turns to the ref, and says, "Now, THAT, is a fucking charge!!!!
The problem with shoehorning Bynum into the Lakers' offense is that he's a low post, non-transition player (and he's not Shaq). The Lakers offense flourished with Gasol operating in the high post and finding open wings in the triangle. Against any team except the Celtics (and possibly Detroit), that triangle is deadly. But a team with blitzing wings and the DPOY is going to be hard to run a set offense against. You could make the argument for a Bynum-Gasol-Odom frontcourt, but that's an awfully slow team that would have a hard time defending against most power forwards in the NBA. I suppose the Lakers will look to move Odom this summer for a more defensive-oriented perimeter forward, but that still doesn't solve the lack of quickness in the front court (with a Bynum-Gasol combination). More likely is that you see Gasol continue to get starter's minutes with Bynum coming off the bench to take advantage of matchups. That should be a tough Lakers team. I'm actually calling Portland and New Orleans as my darkhorse WCF contenders this year, with the assumption that Portland moves Lafrentz and some youth for another critical piece.
ynodfq pfvxowi pmglkhe jpobawu ufdcrqpej rlbzsv spnw
Comments closed July 02, 2008. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I like that Boston won with the black dudes this time around. It's a nice way to wash out the bad racial stuff from the 1980s.
Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | June 18, 2008 10:06 AM