Is LA Doomed?

Probably. But I wouldn't go as far as Marc Stein:

If the Lakers can't hold a 70-50 lead in a must-win game -- in a building where they were 9-0 in these playoffs -- how are they going to drag themselves out of a 3-1 hole?

Which has never been done in Finals history.

As he himself acknowledges, "I suppose you could counter with a reminder that the Celtics just pulled off their own Finals first." And, indeed, you could. Obviously, you'd be crazy to place an even odds bet on the Lakers at this point but the mere fact that no team has ever come back from a 3-1 hole in the Finals doesn't mean it's impossible. On the contrary, if the NBA survives for years and years at some point it's inevitable that someone will do it. And the current situation, where Boston has an older team coming off a grueling playoff run and currently suffering from a lot of injuries seems like as good a time as any. Certainly, I'll be watching game five with interest and not just assuming a Boston win.

Comments

Not sure which Celtic's team you're watching when you say this: "I'll be watching game five with interest and not just assuming a Boston win."

You're not blinded by CDS as a Bullets fan, are you?(Celtic derangement syndrome, natch) Cause the Lakers are all kinds of inferior to these Celts, and an assumption of the C's winning game five against a demorilized, out-manned squad isn't a bad assumption to work from.

Posted by A Different Matt | June 14, 2008 1:00 PM

Game 5 may well be worth watching, but certainly not because the series is in any serious doubt. Someday someone will come back from 3-1, but it will a team that has 6 and 7 at home.

Posted by nolaboyd | June 14, 2008 1:08 PM

The refs will be working to ensure games 5 and 6, so the real question is whether LA can win in Boston in game 7.

Posted by Mike | June 14, 2008 1:17 PM

Matt, do you really hate Boston that much? You sound like Olbermann on the eve of the Pennsylvannia primary.

Posted by Jasper | June 14, 2008 1:23 PM

Mike -

Allowing Boston to come back from a 24 point deficit on the Lakers' court just took all the suspense out of the series. There's no point in the league stepping in now. If the league tried to influence the series now, they'd just be confirming what a bunch of skeptical fans are looking for.

Posted by A Different Matt | June 14, 2008 1:43 PM

Someday someone will come back from 3-1, but it will a team that has 6 and 7 at home.

Or else a team that's fairly evenly matched against its competition. That's the problem in this series: Los Angeles is simply in way over its head against this year's Celtics. They're too dependent on a single, somewhat overrated player (albeit one who often displays a brilliant offensive game); they're too soft around the basket; their defensive game is several orders of magnitude inferior to Boston's; their bench is weak; and they're apparently being out-coached (Jackson's got a brilliant resume, and all, and I don't doubt in his prime he was one of the best ever, but I do tend to doubt he's in his prime now. I can understand the virtues of remaining calm under fire, but Jesus, Phil Jackson looks like he's on heroin).

Anything's possible, and I suppose the Lakers could win three in a row, but there's absolutely no evidence to think they're capable of doing so. People read waaaaay to much into the Celtics' struggles in the first three rounds. I strongly suspect the outcome would be little different for LA had it been the Pistons to emerge as the Eastern Conference champs.

One final thought: is there really any doubt that Kobe is not as talented as LeBron James? I'm not suggesting Kobe didn't deserve the MVP this year. But I will say I'm sure I'm not alone among Celtics fans in saying playing against LeBron in a game 7 was terrifying. There may the the odd stat here and there in favor of Kobe, but statistics can lie. I think LeBron is in the Shaq/MJ/Duncan category. I think Kobe ain't.

Posted by Jasper | June 14, 2008 1:50 PM

I am Celts fan, but I certainly don't assume they'll win Game 5. Game 6, on the other hand, is a different story.

By the way, I actually expect the Celts to be better next year. The basic equation is the improvement in Rondo's game (and to a lesser extent Powe's and Perk's) minus the age related depreciation of the Big Three. On balance, with Rondo and Powe going into just their third year and KG and Allen at 32, I think that equation is in the C's favor for next year at least.

Posted by AJ | June 14, 2008 2:14 PM

3 of the 4 games could have gone either way. Yes, Game 4 was an epic, catastrophic loss, but sure, LA has a chance to win Game 5.

AJ, good point about Rondo. I hope he can improve his ability to drive and score. Too often when he penetrates, he's looking to pass. He has good moves, and obviously became a better shooter as this season went on; I don't see why he can't continue to improve.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | June 14, 2008 2:41 PM

I'm a Lakers fan and there's a good chance they'll win game 5. However, I won't even fathom the idea of them making a comeback unless they win game 6. The odds of that are pretty slim, to be generous.

Posted by Mo | June 14, 2008 2:53 PM

3 of the 4 games could have gone either way. Yes, Game 4 was an epic, catastrophic loss, but sure, LA has a chance to win Game 5.

Good point. If Game 2 was officiated almost as fairly as Game 4, we'd be talking about the epic collapse of the Celtics. Of course, if the queen had balls, she'd be the king.

Posted by Mo | June 14, 2008 3:24 PM

People read way too much into the "no team has come from 3-1 behind to win a series." First of all, teams have come from behind 2-0 to win 5-game first round series, which is not much different. Second, most teams that are down 3-1 are significantly inferior to the team that is beating them.

In this case, I would say that the Lakers and Celtics are pretty a even matchup. (Keep in mind that if the Lakers had completed their comeback in Game 2 and the Celtics had fallen short in theirs in Game 4, we'd be having the same conversation about the Lakers' inevitability of closing the series in Game 5.)

If each game were a fair coin toss, the Lakers would win the series 12.5% of the time. In this case, the Celtics have home-court advantage and are probably playing a bit better ball; on the other hand, the Celts do have some injuries to deal with. So overall, I'd estimate the Lakers chances of coming all the way back at about 8-10%.

Posted by Mike | June 14, 2008 3:56 PM

If the Lakers play four quarters of basketball and/or the C's suffer another game 3 type shooting slump, the Lakers may win. However, if the C's shoot at least 40% and play their usual hard-nosed defense, there won't be another game. And I agree with AJ that, though the big three are aging, Rondo, Perkins, and Powe are only growing stronger. This nucleus should be contending for several more years to come.

Posted by jeer9 | June 14, 2008 4:02 PM

I am Celts fan, but I certainly don't assume they'll win Game 5. Game 6, on the other hand, is a different story.

By the way, I actually expect the Celts to be better next year. The basic equation is the improvement in Rondo's game (and to a lesser extent Powe's and Perk's) minus the age related depreciation of the Big Three. On balance, with Rondo and Powe going into just their third year and KG and Allen at 32, I think that equation is in the C's favor for next year at least.

Posted by AJ | June 14, 2008 4:39 PM

Let's remember the last time Boston had a gigantic comeback in the playoffs - Game 3 of the Eastern Conference Finals in 2002. Boston came back froma 21 point deficit in the 4th quarter to beat the Nets and take a 2-1 series advantage. You would have thought the series over - with no way a team could recover from such a devastating loss. But what happened next? The Nets took the next three games to win the series. So it is not like a team couldn't come back from this type of loss to beat the Celtics.

Posted by Al | June 14, 2008 4:49 PM

I think it's crazy to say that the Lakers are "overmatched" or "in over their heads." They've obviously been outplayed, and the Celtics do look like a better team, but it's not like LA is getting blown out every game. These look like 2 pretty evenly matched teams, and the Celtics have taken a 3-1 lead because they're on top of their game, while the Lakers aren't.

I exepct LA to win Game 5, and maybe even Game 6, but I don't think they can min the series. Coming back from 3-1 ain't going to happen when you're playing the last 2 on the road against a very good home team.

Jasper, I'll say it again: there's no way Kobe deserved the MVP. LeBron is clearly better, and had a clearly better season. You say "statistics can lie," but the stats -- all of the stats, pretty much -- are in LeBron's favor.

Posted by too many steves | June 14, 2008 6:28 PM

Boston has serious injuries. Pierce, Rondo, and Perkins are all injured. Also, the games have been close. So, there's a to worry about if you're a Celtics fan, which I am.

Posted by Jim W | June 14, 2008 9:00 PM

It was supposedly impossible to come back from 3-0 in the world series too.

Posted by Dilan Esper | June 14, 2008 10:14 PM

To my knowledge, no team has ever come back from being down 3-0 in the World Series.

Posted by Dan | June 14, 2008 11:07 PM

Good point Dan. I think the Celtics are the better team because they have shown they can effectively negate Kobe Bryant. I think if someone said, take Bryant and, say, Peirce out of the game, which team would win after that. It would be a no brainer that the Celtics would. And for the record, I would suggest while the games have been close, the Celtics have not gotten anywhere near what Garnett is capable of. I will be shocked if their is a game 6 and even more shocked if there is a game 7. I think the last loss is just too much to overcome if you are the Lakers. I also agree with Matt that Kobe is nowhere near Jordan. I do not even think he is near Bird or Magic. Lebron either for now.

Posted by craig | June 15, 2008 2:47 PM