Lakers-Celtics

It's the matchup the hater in me was dreading. Already the hiatus is filling with stuff about the top ten moments in Lakers-Celtics history and hearing how "Meaning no disrespect to 28 other teams, thanks for getting out of the way." But the good news is that we have a scenario where I think it's pretty clear that L.A. is the superior team, but they're not wildly superior and Boston has home court since the Lakers played much of the season without their current roster.

Consequently, I think the outcome's genuinely in doubt. I'd give the edge to L.A. but I'm surprised to see nine out of ten ESPN.com people agreeing with that since my level of confidence in that pick is pretty low.

Comments

t I'm surprised to see nine out of ten ESPN.com people agreeing with that since my level of confidence in that pick is pretty low.

The Lakers have played well in the playoffs and the Celts haven't. I don't know why you're surprised. Or put another way, the team taken to seven by Atlanta is, fairly or not, never the favorite.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 2, 2008 12:57 PM

But here's the thing: once we got to the Conference finals, isn't Lakers-Celtics the preferred contest? I guess I would have ranked it Lakers-Celtics, Lakers-Pistons, Spurs-Celtics, Spurs-Pistons.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | June 2, 2008 1:01 PM

Personally, I only think homecourt "advantage" applies in game 7. Up until then, I believe it helps to start on the opponent's floor. This gives them two must win games before the teams have really had a chance to feel each other out.

If it goes 7 games, than yea, home court wins. But it looks like Lakers in 6 to me.

Posted by Mark | June 2, 2008 1:02 PM

I think a lot of people are picking Lakers with a low confidence level. I am -- I'd say Lakers in 7.

The nostalgia doesn't really bother me at all. I think the general quality of play right now is as high as it's been since the late '80s, so bring on the national hype, let everybody see it.

Posted by too many steves | June 2, 2008 1:04 PM

The only real question for me is whether or not Boston can win two games.

LA is as close to a lock to win the series as injuries permit in this sport.

-----

"The Lakers have played well in the playoffs and the Celts haven't. I don't know why you're surprised."

It's not just that. It's the matchups.

If Detroit had won the East after looking just as mediocre as Boston, the Pistons would've at least had a viable shot against LA, which the Celtics basically don't.

Boston's backcourt is just too weak to make Kobe work hard, which is a necessary predicate to being competitive with LA overall.

Posted by Petey | June 2, 2008 1:13 PM

'm surprised to see nine out of ten ESPN.com people agreeing with that

Check again -- LA is only ahead now 58-42.

Posted by Scott de B. | June 2, 2008 1:16 PM

I love people like Petey, who, no question about it, would have given the 2004 Pistons no chance against the Lakers. And we know how that turned out, one of the most obscene dominations in Finals history. Why be a sports fan if you're only going to be a front-runner.

The truth is, nobody knew the Patriots would destroy the Giants, no matter how many lead-pipe lock guarantees they made, and no one knows what will happen in this series.

Posted by Freddie | June 2, 2008 1:16 PM

I want to pick an old fight. As I recall, Matt Yglesias argued that LeBron James was hands down the best player in the league over Kobe Bryant.

Some of us strongly disagreed. Does Matt wish to revisit that discussion?

Posted by Armando | June 2, 2008 1:32 PM

Freddie, it's a good point, but thats the great thing about the superbowl - anything can happen in a given game. The finals are a best of 7 and the better team with the better coach will win it. Not every single time, but much more often than you see upsets in the superbowl.

Posted by Dan | June 2, 2008 1:35 PM

We'll see. If I had to bet money on it right now, I'd say the Lakers would win, though I wouldn't have all that much confidence in the bet.

The big question to me is whether the Celtics continue to grow. After winning no games on the road in the first two series, they win two against Detroit - because they had to. You do get the sense that the teams is responding to stress by growing.

The matchups are intriguing. I'll be most interested to see how the Cs handle Gasol, and what that will do to the help defense their big men play on Kobe. That's really the secret to their success, when they're playing well on D - Perkins and Garnett do an unbelievable job helping the guards stop drives. Can they do that against Gasol, who's a real threat to take jump shot or drive to the basket?

As for the backcourt, much depends on whether the officials are willing to call fouls on Derek Fisher. He's not nearly fast enough to stay with Rondo unless he's grabbing.

Posted by TedL | June 2, 2008 1:37 PM

I don't see what Matt would revise his opinion there, Armando. I think LeBron is clearly better than Kobe, too. The Lakers are obviously a better *team* than the Cavs, but that doesn't mean Kobe's better than LeBron.

Posted by too many steves | June 2, 2008 1:38 PM

The only chance for the Celtics is if Rondo overperforms.

Posted by sherifffruitfly | June 2, 2008 1:39 PM

I pick Boston, but like everyone else have low confidence. My only thought is that Posey (together with Pierce, and maybe Tony Allen) may be able to do a pretty good job on Kobe at the defensive end, and Garnett should be able to shut down Gasol. OTOH - Phil Jackson vs Doc Rivers worries me. The state of coaching in the East is just so bad that Doc may have been the better coach in all three of Boston's previous matchups; he was certainly a better coach than the execrable Flip Saunders. But against Phil? Uh, no.

Posted by Al | June 2, 2008 1:43 PM

When I say "Lakers in 7," what I mean is, "Lakers in a competetive series." I woulnd't be surprised if they win it in 5 or 6, but I don't think the Celtics will roll over like the Cavs did last year.

How good are the Lakers going to be next year, assuming Bynum recovers? They might win every title until the Portland dynasty of the 2010s kicks in.

Posted by too many steves | June 2, 2008 1:43 PM

Boston's backcourt is just too weak to make Kobe work hard, which is a necessary predicate to being competitive with LA overall.

Maybe. I think Rondo's going to give LA fits. His long arms make him a better defender against Fisher, and a better help defender as Kobe gets funneled to the middle. It's the Celts front line that I don't trust.

The truth is, nobody knew the Patriots would destroy the Giants, no matter how many lead-pipe lock guarantees they made, and no one knows what will happen in this series.

The truth is that nobody knows the sun will come up tomorrow, but I know which way I'm betting.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 2, 2008 1:45 PM

If KG guards Gasol, who guards Odom? I'm expecting either Odom or Gasol to have a huge series. I don't see the Celtics handling both of them. Whoever Kendrick Perkins is guarding is going to run circles around him.

Posted by too many steves | June 2, 2008 1:50 PM

If KG guards Gasol, who guards Odom?

Pierce, with the Celtics going small (Posey on the floor). As good as Perkins was last series, I don't think the matchups favor him in this one, so he'll probably get somewhat less floor time.

Posted by Al | June 2, 2008 1:54 PM

"I love people like Petey, who, no question about it, would have given the 2004 Pistons no chance against the Lakers."

Ugh. The Washington Monthly has purged their comments from 2004.

I actually called the '04 Finals series a 50/50 matchup in pages of the blogosphere that were, up until recently, googlable. This was the thread, judged by this context.)

IIRC, I wrote that Detroit's speed could give LA real problems, that Big Ben could play Shaquille without doubling, and that folks should bet Detroit at the excessive odds then being offered.

This series is not like that series. Barring injury, Boston just can't matchup to LA in a way that'll let 'em win 4 games.

Posted by Petey | June 2, 2008 1:54 PM

The truth is that nobody knows the sun will come up tomorrow, but I know which way I'm betting.

2004 Finals.

Also should I go back to the predictions thread and point out everything you got wrong? This goddamn hubris....

Posted by Freddie | June 2, 2008 1:55 PM

Also should I go back to the predictions thread and point out everything you got wrong?

Sure, whatever floats your boat. I'm not sure what it would demonstrate. If you can find a place where I've claimed to infallible, that might be a better place to start.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 2, 2008 2:00 PM

Here is my question: why do people, in the realm of sports, make iron-clad guarantees, then get them wrong over and over again, and continue to make those guarantees? Wouldn't eventually you say something like "You know, I keep getting these wrong-- maybe I should say that I think this is going to happen, but I don't really know." I mean I just read that Bill Simmons column right before posting here, and it drove me crazy. I can't understand it.

Posted by Freddie | June 2, 2008 2:03 PM

"The only chance for the Celtics is if Rondo overperforms."

Right. And what's the under/over on how many games Rondo is going to overperform? One and a half?

Boston's backcourt is severely exploitable. I think Detroit would've handled Boston if they'd had a healthy Billups for the whole series because they'd have been able to exploit Boston's backcourt woes. And LA has a far more potent backcourt than a healthy Detroit.

Posted by Petey | June 2, 2008 2:05 PM

"And LA has a far more potent backcourt than a healthy Detroit."

Uh, no. They've got Kobe and a bunch of players who wouldn't beat out Rodney Stuckey in the Pistons lineup.

Mike

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

In a series against a good point guard, Derek Fisher is a liability. Against Rondo, maybe not. Rondo sure has the natural gifts to make Fisher look bad, but he might not be able to exploit them in this series, at his age.

Posted by too many steves | June 2, 2008 2:15 PM

But LA had that same backcourt during the regular season, no? When Boston beat them both at home and on the road?

I know this isn't the same LA team, and I would probably say that LA is the narrow favorite this time around (if LA had homecourt advantage, it wouldn't be so narrow).

But if LA's backcourt is just miles above Boston's, why weren't they able to exploit that advantage during the regular season?

I think the matchups might actually slightly favor Boston, but Doc Rivers is no Phil Jackson and the C's have been wildly inconsistent during the playoffs (thanks, in large part, due to the absence of any coherent identity on the offensive end). I suspect the Lakers will win, probably in six, but I wouldn't count out the Celtics at all.

Posted by C's fan | June 2, 2008 2:21 PM

Rondo has been overperforming for most of the playoffs - that's one of the reasons the Celtics have gotten this far. Which is not to say that you can count on it (you can't; that's why it's called "overperforming") but he's the only one on the team who seems to have approached anything resembling a groove. Not bad for a rookie.

Anyway, Matt's just angry that Boston is in the finals of another sport. What a scumbag.

Posted by Angry Sam | June 2, 2008 2:24 PM

The clear advantage goes to LA's bench. Boston's second best player(Pierce) is maybe slightly better than LA's(Gasol) but that is their only advantage. They would basically need Perkins to play like he did in Game 5 the entire series. Fisher will expose Rondo. I can't imagine this game going more than 5 games. And yes, Freddie, this is an iron-clad gaurantee. I've never been wrong.

Posted by Stacy | June 2, 2008 2:27 PM

But if LA's backcourt is just miles above Boston's, why weren't they able to exploit that advantage during the regular season?

I don't think it's the backcourt. It's the front court improvement, which, among other things, means you can't pay as much attention to Kobe (e.g., the backcourt). As someone else said above, they're going to have to pick whether they want to stop Odom or Gasol.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 2, 2008 2:27 PM

Angry Sam, did you miss the Pistons series? Rondo looked good sometimes, but his consistent failure to hit open jumpers meant the Pistons got to play 5-on-4. Since helping is the only D that Fisher is good for anymore, that's perfect for the Lakers.

Posted by too many steves | June 2, 2008 2:27 PM

"They've got Kobe and a bunch of players who wouldn't beat out Rodney Stuckey in the Pistons lineup."

It's still a more potent backcourt than a healthy Detroit.

Boston not only has no one to run around with Kobe on the defensive end and make him work hard to do what he does, but on the offensive end, Kobe is going to be able to take Rondo and thus play center field.

They're basically fucked. For want of a Bruce Bowen clone, the kingdom is lost.

Posted by Petey | June 2, 2008 2:28 PM

A bit off topic, but is it true that Jerry West literally handed the Lakers the trophy after the Lakers clinched the west?

Posted by MP | June 2, 2008 2:35 PM

Isn't James Posey kind of a Bruce Bowen clone? At least, a lower-middle-class-man's Bruce Bowen?

Posted by too many steves | June 2, 2008 2:35 PM

"But if LA's backcourt is just miles above Boston's, why weren't they able to exploit that advantage during the regular season"

1) You can't expose and exploit individual matchups during the regular season in nearly the way you can in a playoff series.

2) Gasol makes Kobe significantly harder to team cover. Post defenders can't help on Kobe without freeing Gasol.

Posted by Petey | June 2, 2008 2:38 PM

Posey's not quite as good at spraining the shooter's ankle by sliding his foot under their feet during their jumpshot. So maybe not a poor man's Bruce Bowen, but they're certainly not in the same tax bracket.

Posted by Stacy | June 2, 2008 2:38 PM

Whether it's been a recent development or has been true (but unnoticed) all season, LA has a very good and versatile backcourt. If Fisher can't keep up, they'll just put Farmar or Sasha V in there and they should be fine. Sasha's come on great these last couple of months and no one seems to notice that he's 6'7" If the Celts can put a defensive wall around the basket and frustrate Kobe's drives, they'll make it interesting.

Posted by Steve V | June 2, 2008 2:46 PM

"Posey's not quite as good at spraining the shooter's ankle by sliding his foot under their feet during their jumpshot. So maybe not a poor man's Bruce Bowen"

I figure Posey will get minutes covering Kobe. But I don't think he has the quickness to do what's necessary.

Posted by Petey | June 2, 2008 2:47 PM

What Posey has to do is bother Kobe's jump shot (and he will be better than Bowen in that regard, given that he's taller and longer than Bowen) and funnel Kobe's drives to Garnett. That's eminently doable.

Posted by Al | June 2, 2008 2:57 PM

I love people like Petey, who, no question about it, would have given the 2004 Pistons no chance against the Lakers. And we know how that turned out, one of the most obscene dominations in Finals history.

Of course, three injuries to key Laker players didn't hurt either. Seems like the Pistons do quite well against the Lakers when they're down key players.

Isn't James Posey kind of a Bruce Bowen clone? At least, a lower-middle-class-man's Bruce Bowen?

And how did Bowen do against Kobe in the last series?

Posted by Mo | June 2, 2008 3:07 PM

Of course, three injuries to key Laker players didn't hurt either.

Also, team cohesion was falling apart. I was mildly astonished that they made it to the finals.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 2, 2008 3:12 PM

Celtics in 6.

Lakers are overrated with all this hype.

Pau Gasol is good, but not great. KG and Perkins will control him on offense and on defense Gasol is a non-factor.

Odom is a wild card - he can be great, but he can stink it up.

If Odom is forced to guard Pierce, Odom will self-destruct, as he will be eaten up and will be in foul trouble all the time.

If Odom is forced to guard KG, who guards Pierce? Kobe? Then who guards Allen? Vlad Rad? Uh no. Walton? Uh no. Sasha? Please stop me from laughing.

The experts would tell you the Lakers win the matchup war, but these eyes say different.

Fisher might still be able to play jumpshooters, but how does he stay in front of Rondo? No chance at that. And Rondo will pick Fish's pocket enough times to make Laker fan think Farmar is the answer. No. Farmar is a front runner, if it's going well he will score for you, otherwise he disappears.

Plus Posey > Lakers bench by himself.

Plus home court advantage.

Plus Red >> Phil

Kobe Bryant is the best player in basketball (LBJ is a close second), but the Celtics are the best TEAM in basketball, and the best team wins.

Posted by The Foulness | June 2, 2008 3:36 PM

Did everyone miss the Celtics/Cavs playoff series? It seems like the Cs were able to handle the only player in the league even more unguardable than Kobe, and managed to win games even when Bron-Bron had a great performance.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | June 2, 2008 3:51 PM

"And how did Bowen do against Kobe in the last series?"

Perfectly adequately. The job description is to make Kobe work, not to shut him down.

The Spurs' problems were on the offensive end with the case of The Missing Ginobili, not on the defensive end. Their perimeter defense was good enough to make them competitive.

Posted by Petey | June 2, 2008 3:53 PM

Foulness, if Ray Allen plays like he's been playing, nobody needs to guard him. Actually, what probably happens is, Fisher guards Ray Allen and Kobe "guards" Rondo, which means Kobe leaves Rondo alone and helps out all over the floor.

Um, I don't think Red is going to coach against Phil. I think Doc will be doing the coaching, and Phil >>>>>> Doc. And while you might think James Posey is better than Walton, Farmar, Sasha, Turiaf (Ariza is even back), if you've been watching the playoffs so far, the Lakers bench has been worlds better than Boston's. Sam Cassell is such a drain on that team that he negates any positive impact from Posey. PF Brown is held together with duct tape. And Doc benching Leon Powe is just inexplicable.

I'm personally going to root for the Celtics, because I still have a soft spot from my hero-worship of Larry Bird when I was a kid, but I don't see them doing it. They've run into a team with a top 3 that's almost as good as theirs (better, if Allen keeps stinking up the joint), and top to bottom, they've just got more talent, more youth, and especially more speed. If the Celtics can slow the pace down they can win 2 or 3 games, but I don't see them winning the series.

Standard caveat: I could be 100% wrong.

Posted by too many steves | June 2, 2008 3:57 PM

"Did everyone miss the Celtics/Cavs playoff series? It seems like the Cs were able to handle the only player in the league even more unguardable than Kobe, and managed to win games even when Bron-Bron had a great performance."

Bet 'em. You can get almost 2 to 1 odds. It's a sucker bet, though.

LA is a much better team than Cleveland, and Boston had better options at the '3' than they do in the backcourt.

Even if the supporting casts were equivalent, which they aren't, Boston could defend LeBron far better than they can defend Kobe.

Posted by Petey | June 2, 2008 4:04 PM

Did everyone miss the Celtics/Cavs playoff series? It seems like the Cs were able to handle the only player in the league even more unguardable than Kobe, and managed to win games even when Bron-Bron had a great performance.

Mike

I don't see how the Celtics/Cavs series does anything but bode extremely poorly for the Celtics. They Cavs took the series to 7 games and actually outscored the Celts 592 to 588. Now I think LBJ may be a better overall player than Kobe, but Kobe has much better teammates. The Celtics were only able to slow down LBJ for a couple of games... but that ain't happening in this next one.

Posted by mpowell | June 2, 2008 4:04 PM

Even if the supporting casts were equivalent, which they aren't, Boston could defend LeBron far better than they can defend Kobe.

This is also true, as Kobe has a better outside shooting game than LBJ.

Coming into the playoffs, I would give the Celtics the edge. They did have a great regular season, even if the Lakers did upgrade with Gasol. But as it stands, they took 14 games to get past Atlanta (are you kidding me?) and the Cavs. And then 6 to get past an injured Detroit squad. The Lakers dispatched the Nuggets and Utah in 10, both better than the Cavs or Hawks, and the defending champs in 5. The Celtics playoff shortcomings are predictable: KG already plays 100% in the regular season, is not as valuable as a crunch time player and they have a terrible coach. So not only have they obviously not been playing as well in the playoffs, but there is good reason for this poorer play to persist into the finals.

Posted by mpowell | June 2, 2008 4:13 PM

"They Cavs took the series to 7 games and actually outscored the Celts 592 to 588."

When did the NBA start deciding playoff series based on cumulative score?

If the argument is that the Lakers have better players around Kobe than the Cavs did around LBJ, that's one thing. But the mania of "Kobe! Kobe! Kobe!" basicaly beating the Cs single-handed is disproved by how they were able to handle LeBron. And if you think dealing with a 6 foot 9, 260 pound point guard isn't harder than dealing with a really, really great 2 guard, think again.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | June 2, 2008 4:13 PM

MBunge, the point is not that the NBA should give the series to the Cavs, the point is, the Celtics were very lucky to win. Usually, the team that scores more points over the course of the series also wins more games.

Posted by too many steves | June 2, 2008 4:19 PM

When did the NBA start deciding playoff series based on cumulative score?

Obviously, they did not. Why don't you at least think about what I could be suggesting here? The big difference between the Atlanta series and the Cavs series, was that Boston blew Atlanta out at home and lost close games on the road. You could tell that if they just got their act together, they could win 1 or 2 on the road. And they never looked bad at home. In the Cavs series, the home team always won, but there were some close games both ways. And the fact that the scores were so close is a much worse indicator than if they followed the pattern from the Atlanta series.

Also, LBJ may be easier to guard if you have a player like KG down low. But KG does not help you as much when a guy is hitting outside shots. Posey may be taller than Bowen, but I seriously doubt he will upset Kobe's shooting game as much, and will in all likelihood end up committing more fouls.

Posted by mpowell | June 2, 2008 4:19 PM

Boston not only has no one to run around with Kobe on the defensive end and make him work hard to do what he does, but on the offensive end, Kobe is going to be able to take Rondo and thus play center field.

Oh please. Who will the Lakers use to guard Ray Allen, Derek Fisher? As Allen has gone, so has the Celtics offense gone all year long (in the sense that they are nearly unstoppable when Ray is on). Kobe, as the Lakers' best defender, will have to defend Allen. This is not to say that Kobe is not fully capable of shutting Allen down - he is. But the notion that they would stick him on Rondo is a little silly.

As for the alleged weakness of the Boston backcourt, on what planet is Derek Fisher a measurably better PG than Rajon Rondo? True, Rondo has confidence issues scoring the ball. But for all the sagging that defenders supposedly do off of Rondo, he averages far more assists than Fisher in the playoffs. And grabs many more rebounds. And scores at the same rate.

Is Kobe/Fisher superior to Rondo/Allen? Of course. But Rondo is a better player than Derek Fisher over the course of 40 minutes. Maybe not in the clutch when you need a big shot at the very end of a game...but as a productive PG, Rondo is superior over the course of a game. And that superiority helps reduce Kobe's significant advantage over Allen.

Posted by owenz | June 2, 2008 4:23 PM

Maybe you've missed this owenz, but Allen has looked like a weak-*ss washed up veteran far more often than not in these playoffs. I remember people noting before the season started, that for similar-type guards, this was the year to look for a notable decline due to age. No surprise to see this kicking in at the end of a long season.

Heck if Ray Allen plays great, Boston is a much better team. But if Allen plays about as well as he has, yes, Fisher could guard him. Heck, anyone on the Lakers could guard him. And at that point the Laker's backcourt is massively better. You could say a lot is riding on Allen. But that's really only true if you think he's at all capable at producing at a high level for a full series. And he may just be too old at this point.

Posted by mpowell | June 2, 2008 4:29 PM

"As for the alleged weakness of the Boston backcourt, on what planet is Derek Fisher a measurably better PG than Rajon Rondo?"

Earth.

Posted by Petey | June 2, 2008 4:30 PM

The funny thing is if you told me the Lakers and Celtics were facing each other and told me that one team went 7-7-6 and the other went 4-6-5 to get to the finals, I would've guessed the Lakers were the former team and the Celtics were the latter.

Based on that I would say the Celtics would roll due to being less beat up. However, as it stands, the older team took a beating to get to the finals, has a far, far worse coach* and is playing against the best player on the floor. Sure the Celtics were able to shut down Lebron, but that's all they had to do, the Lakers can play inside out ball, have a big man that can hit long shots (did you see them pick and roll the Spurs to death in game 5?) and have a deeper bench. Not to mention, the only Celtic with a ring (Cassell) is currently their greatest liability.

As for Posey vs. the Laker bench. Here's a side by side comparison of Poset w/ Vujacic:

__MPG__PPG_APG_SPG_BPG_FG%__FT%__3P%
P 24.6 7.4 4.4 1.5 0.3 .418 .809 .380
V 17.8 8.8 2.1 1.0 0.1 .454 .835 .437

Personally, I'd rather have Vujacic. His defense is pretty good (not as good as Posey's), but his offense is much better. Then you add in the rest of the Laker bench, which is superior to the Cs (especially in the playoffs.

Ray Allen is the major X-factor. If he plays like he did in game 6 of the Detroit series, the Celtics win, if not, the Lakers win.

Posted by Mo | June 2, 2008 4:30 PM

BTW, Foulness is talking out of his a** when he says that Farmar's "a front runner." The B-team backcourt (Farmar/Sasha) have repeatedly been the catalysts of big come-from-behind runs with their defense. Farmar is a magnet for the timely, game changing steal.

Posted by Steve V | June 2, 2008 4:32 PM

Fisher has already matched up against Iverson, Williams, and Parker. I think he can hold his own against Rondo. Sasha may be the toughest defender Allen has faced so far in these playoffs.

Posted by Bum | June 2, 2008 4:32 PM

Not to mention, the only Celtic with a ring (Cassell) is currently their greatest liability.

James Posey won a ring with the Heat.

Posted by tinisoli | June 2, 2008 4:39 PM

Who will the Lakers use to guard Ray Allen...

If he plays like he has for most of the playoffs, they won't need anyone to guard him.

He's had a handful of good games, but he's probably the main reason the Celtics have gone 7-7-6 with home court advantage.

Having said that, if history is any indication, not a good sign that both Matt and Petey are predicting a Lakers victory.

I was feeling pretty good before I saw this post.

Posted by SoCalJustice | June 2, 2008 4:40 PM

It seems to me that the Lakers can get some non-trivial points from their bench, while the Celtics are very unlikely to do the same. Of course, this will result in various know-nothings attributing a Celtic loss to Garnett's inadequacies.

Posted by Will Allen | June 2, 2008 4:41 PM

owenz, prepare to be surprised. There's no way the Lakers will have Kobe chasing Ray Allen around through screens all night long. Fisher can do that just fine. If you watched the Celtics-Pistons series, you saw Billups guarding Ray Allen and Hamilton on Rondo, and Hamilton would just sag off and help out. Hamilton's a better choice for that role than Billups because he's bigger, has longer arms, can bother shooters when he's coming from his rover position. Kobe and Fish will probably do the same thing.

Maybe I'm the one who's crazy, and Derek Fisher really is an average or above NBA point guard. I've always considered him a liability, even back in his prime, but he's held his own with some good point guards in these playoffs. I'd still rather have Rondo, unless my team was constructed so that the most important thing the PG does is hit open jumpers.

Posted by too many steves | June 2, 2008 4:43 PM

"MBunge, the point is not that the NBA should give the series to the Cavs, the point is, the Celtics were very lucky to win."

Considering that in the Lakers/Spurs series the Lakers benefited from both plane trouble for the Spurs and one of the worst no-calls in league history...I wouldn't be talking about the Celts being lucky.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | June 2, 2008 4:43 PM

Celtics defense is MUCH better than anything the Lakers have yet seen.

How will LA matchup?

Perkins v Gasol
KG v Odom
Pierce v Vlad
Allen v Kobe
Rondo v Fisher

Let's start with the guards.

Kobe wins any matchup, and the C's will throw Ray Allen, Pierce and Posey at him, with Posey taking crunch time duties and Ray Allen the beginning of games when Kobe isn't being aggressive.

But Rondo is better than the Fisher/Farmar combo. Fish is still clutch, but we're talking one shot in a series clutch. Otherwise, Rondo will be blowing by him repeatedly and getting steals on D.

Kobe guarding Ray Allen will frustrate Ray to no end, but can Kobe really (not have to) guard Rondo as Van Gundy says? So Fisher will play Ray Allen? Ray would shoot over Fisher all day. Fish can't hang with Ray Allen. No way. So Kobe has to play Ray.

And if not Ray, Kobe has to play Paul Pierce. Are the Lakers really gonna cover Pierce with Vlad Rad? Really? With Walton? Really? I don't think so. They need to either try Odom on Pierce (though Pierce is too much for Odom, and anyway Lakers need Odom to guard KG). Or they need to play Kobe. Ariza might be given spot duty but Ariza ain't that good and Pierce will torch him. Which means you're gonna see Kobe on Pierce a lot. And since it's hard to see Vlad Rad or Walton keeping up with Ray Allen, the Celtics are gonna have a matchup plus with one of those guys every game. Maybe Phil plays Ariza more, but dude is not that good and is really a liability right now.

Perkins will play Gasol most of the time. Lakers win this matchup but not by that much. This is not as bad a matchup for the Celtics as you'd think. Gasol doesn't like physical, and Perkins is a beast and will push him around. Perkins should limit/equal Gasol's rebounds so that's a wash, and Perkins strength is D, and he should do an adequate job on Gasol. On offense, Perkins will get his 8-10 because Gasol won't be able to keep him off the offensive glass and if Gasol helps on KG or Pierce, they dish to Perk for layups.

KG v Odom is gonna be crazy. KG is better, but Odom is a tough cover and will do okay covering KG especially if KG settles for jumpshots. But they won't always be guarding one another.

Whatever - you know what's gonna decide this series? Three point shooting. Team that shoots better, wins. Both are excellent from three. But Boston closes out on shooters better.

Posted by Spit on Your Haircut | June 2, 2008 4:45 PM

Dude, MBunge, the Lakers beat the Spurs in 5 games. It's not like it was a close series, and the officiating swung it one way or another. Even if the refs get the Fisher/Barry thing right, that game still goes to OT.

Posted by too many steves | June 2, 2008 4:48 PM

"Perkins will play Gasol most of the time. Lakers win this matchup but not by that much."

Petey, set this guy straight...

I guess I can't argue any more that Fisher will guard Allen, just like Billups/Stuckey did. We'll just have to wait and see. But again, if you see Kobe running through picks chasing Ray Allen all night, then Phil will have switched brains with Doc.

Posted by too many steves | June 2, 2008 4:53 PM

Derek Fisher is 6-1. Ray Allen is 6-5.

There is simply no way you can guard Ray Allen with Derek Fisher. Unless you think Ray has forever lost his shot. Which maybe he has. But I doubt it. Whether it goes in or not, though, Ray Allen will have zero trouble shooting over Derek Fisher, even if Fisher is in his shorts.

So I just don't see how the Lakers can play Kobe on Rondo and then have Kobe roam on defense.

If they could, it would be brilliant strategy, and the Celtics poison, but I don't see how it happens, because Fisher or Farmar can simply not cover Ray Allen. They won't even be able to cover Rondo very well.

And anyway, if Kobe is covering Rondo (or even Ray Allen!), who is gonna cover Paul Pierce?

Vlad Rad, Walton and Sasha can not cover Paul Pierce, even in their dreams.

Posted by The Foulness | June 2, 2008 4:53 PM

Uh, Rodney Stuckey is 6'5" and Chauncey Billups is 6'4".

Fisher is a shrimp.

Fisher can't guard Ray Allen.

Ya'll have lost your marbles.

Posted by Hairpiece | June 2, 2008 4:58 PM

I don't think this series is going to come down to these 1-on-1 matchups that The Foulness and Spit on Your Haircut are dissecting here. Of course, if the game comes down to Paul Pierce vs Luke Walton, the Lakers are in trouble, but that's not going to happen, because Phil Jackson is not a moron.

I think the real difference between the teams is this: if Ray-Ray's shot isn't falling, the Celtics' offense can get very stagnant. They have a hard time getting good shots. That almost never happens to the Lakers. They're running the triangle so well this year, and getting out on the break nicely, that they don't even need Kobe to take over to get quality shots almost every time down. Of course, the Celtics are a great defensive team, so it might not be so easy. That's why I'm saying it will be a 6 or 7-game series.

The other big advantage for the Lakers is their bench. Phil went long stretches against SA with 4-5 non-starters out there and they held their own. That never happens with Boston. If 2 of the big 3 are on the bench, their offense just looks terrible. You can blame Sam Cassell and PJ Brown, but I blame Doc for relying on his 98-year-old guys instead of the young legs.

Posted by too many steves | June 2, 2008 5:00 PM

The thing is, playing a defensive team like the Pistons or the Celtics is like moving to a planet with a stronger gravitational field. It's not so much basketball as the prevention of basketball. The Celtics aren't going to be torching anybody, but they might win a grind-it-out series. The Celtics of the first half of the season would be the favorites. Now, who knows?

Posted by Robert Fiore | June 2, 2008 5:11 PM

"It's not like it was a close series, and the officiating swung it one way or another. Even if the refs get the Fisher/Barry thing right, that game still goes to OT."

If cummulative point totals show the Cs were "lucky" to beat the Cavs, sleep deprivation and a horrible call that could have given the Spurs 3 free throws when they were down by two sure seems like good luck for the Lakers.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | June 2, 2008 5:11 PM

"Having said that, if history is any indication, not a good sign that both Matt and Petey are predicting a Lakers victory."

I'm not "predicting" an LA victory. I'm saying that barring injury, Boston has no chance whatsoever.

At 80/20, I'd still bet the Lakers.

Posted by Petey | June 2, 2008 5:13 PM

James Posey won a ring with the Heat.

My bad. But my point still stands, the Lakers have key leaders with championship experience, the Celtics don't.

The thing is, playing a defensive team like the Pistons or the Celtics is like moving to a planet with a stronger gravitational field. It's not so much basketball as the prevention of basketball. The Celtics aren't going to be torching anybody, but they might win a grind-it-out series. The Celtics of the first half of the season would be the favorites. Now, who knows?

Last I checked the Spurs were a hell of a defensive team and the Lakers did fine against them.

If cummulative point totals show the Cs were "lucky" to beat the Cavs, sleep deprivation and a horrible call that could have given the Spurs 3 free throws when they were down by two sure seems like good luck for the Lakers.

Somebody call the waaahmbulance (wah, wah, wah, wah). Seriously, the Barry foul was non-shooting (and canceled out by the missed call earlier which would've given Kobe 2 shots). The plane thing was the Spurs' fault. If they won their series against NO in less than the max, rest wouldn't be an issue. The lesson. Take care of business and you'll be fine.

Posted by Mo | June 2, 2008 5:19 PM

"Seriously, the Barry foul was non-shooting"

I'm not a Spurs fan...but have you ever, you know, actually watched an NBA game? That same exact play happens in the same exact way hundreds, maybe thousands of times in an NBA season. 99% of the time it's a shooting foul, 1% of the time it's a non-call and once every thousand years it's an offensive foul, like they called on Pierce in game 6.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | June 2, 2008 5:25 PM

Hey, I'm a Laker fan. I'm just a Laker fan with traumatic memories of 2004. The theme in the expert commentary that intrigues me is that the Celtics are not a great ball-handling team. If you watched the Spurs series you know that could be a big problem for them.

One notes a certain difference in tone: Aggressive bluster from the Celtics backers, quite confidence from the Laker side. Not that that proves anything.

Posted by Robert Fiore | June 2, 2008 5:25 PM

barring injury, Boston has no chance whatsoever

Awesome. Not quite as unequivocal as last year's "Barring the Mavs' plane going down, [Golden State] ain't gonna beat Dallas", but it's basically the same idea.

Posted by Al | June 2, 2008 5:25 PM

"No chance whatsoever" -- Petey, I do not think that means what you think it means. However small a chance you think the Celtics have, obviously it's a non-zero chance. Just like last year, the Warriors were underdogs against the Mavs, but as we learned, they did not have zero chance. Unless the Lakers are playing a WNBA team in the Finals, their opponent is going to have a non-zero chance of winning.

Posted by too many steves | June 2, 2008 5:28 PM

In the spirit of more information and less bluster, here's an article that looks at how the C's defended Kobe during the regular season.

http://tinyurl.com/6fkhvb

Now I'm going to read it myself.

Posted by PJ | June 2, 2008 5:28 PM

BTW, how great would it be if the seven-game series were cumulative score? Starters would play despite a blowout score. The difference between winning by 20 and winning by 10 would be more important that the difference between winning by 2 and losing by 2...

Posted by Al | June 2, 2008 5:30 PM

Gotta disagree with MBunge on this Barry call/noncall. While I'll certainly agree that most times, and with most players, that is called a foul, I have a really hard time believing that could have been a shooting foul. He clearly wasn't making any attempt at shooting when the foul occured. Your percentages add up to 100%, but they leave out the correct call. Non-shooting foul in the bonus. Overtime.

Posted by Stacy | June 2, 2008 5:34 PM

MBunge, watch the replay again. No one, and I mean no one, argued that it should have been a 3-shot foul. Barry was actually dribbling when he was fouled. After he got hit, he picked up his dribble and shot. It wasn't a continuation play where he was hit as he was picking up his dribble. It was a simple non-shooting foul, 100 times out of 100. Well, 99, because they blew it this time.

Anyway, a blown call at the end of one game -- but the Spurs lost 4 out of 5! And don't give me the airline bullshit, that stuff happens. Kobe gets food poisoning, MJ has a cold, whatever. It's not worth bitching about. A blown call that's so bad the league comes out and admits it was blown is worth bitching about, but it didn't swing the series.

Posted by too many steves | June 2, 2008 5:34 PM

"Last I checked the Spurs were a hell of a defensive team and the Lakers did fine against them."

Celtics held opponents to fewer points, lower field goal and 3-pt percentages, allowed fewer assists, had a greater rebound differential, blocked more shots and had more steals than the Spurs. Oh, and they also scored the ball a lot more.

Posted by MBunge | June 2, 2008 5:34 PM

""No chance whatsoever" -- Petey, I do not think that means what you think it means. However small a chance you think the Celtics have, obviously it's a non-zero chance."

While I'd bet Lakers at 80/20, I'd bet Celtics at 90/10. Of course, it's a non-zero chance. These things always are. Kobe turns an ankle, and the series changes.

Posted by Petey | June 2, 2008 5:37 PM

This is an extremely efficient Celtics squad on both ends of the court, and while Gasol wasn't around for the first two games, Bynum was. The difference isn't as major as some would like it to appear. Defensively, the Celtics have the edge at every position except in the matchup between Kobe and Allen. However, Posey is the first off the bench in this series, and even Tony "Clownshoes" Allen can contribute on that end of the court. The Celtics also hold a monster rebounding advantage.

I think this series is close. If the Lakers win it, they'll have to do it in 5 or less. I think the Celtics will not lose the series on their home court.

Posted by Joel | June 2, 2008 5:45 PM

The bare fact is that the Celtics have demonstrated that they can beat the Lakers and the Lakers haven't demonstrated that they can beat the Celtics yet. That said, "Gasol = Bynum" seems to be a great security blanket for the Celtic supporters. Bynum won Rookie of the Year? Bynum was an All-Star?

If the Celtics don't play better defense against the Lakers than the Spurs (let's say even better), they'll lose.

Posted by Robert Fiore | June 2, 2008 5:57 PM

Perkins will play Gasol most of the time. Lakers win this matchup but not by that much. This is not as bad a matchup for the Celtics as you'd think. Gasol doesn't like physical, and Perkins is a beast and will push him around. Perkins should limit/equal Gasol's rebounds so that's a wash, and Perkins strength is D, and he should do an adequate job on Gasol. On offense, Perkins will get his 8-10 because Gasol won't be able to keep him off the offensive glass and if Gasol helps on KG or Pierce, they dish to Perk for layups.

If this matchup is close, it's true that the Lakers are in trouble. But that's not the story here. Gasol is really good. And he fits really well in the Lakers offense. Sending a big body out there just isn't going to get the job done. Gasol can run the floor and shoot the ball. Perkins may get a few more rebounds, but I don't see him stopping Gasol.

Posted by mpowell | June 2, 2008 6:02 PM

"Sending a big body out there just isn't going to get the job done. Gasol can run the floor and shoot the ball. Perkins may get a few more rebounds, but I don't see him stopping Gasol."

Does anyone even watch the games before shooting their mouth off? Perkins is a tremendous half-court defender. True, Gasol can outrun him up and down the court, but if the Lakers are running a lot it's not going to be Perkins' fault.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | June 2, 2008 6:16 PM

"No one, and I mean no one, argued that it should have been a 3-shot foul. Barry was actually dribbling when he was fouled."

So, you really have never watched any NBA games, have you?

Mike

Posted by MBunge | June 2, 2008 6:22 PM

"Anyway, a blown call at the end of one game -- but the Spurs lost 4 out of 5!"

And by the way, I'm not arguing that the Lakers didn't soundly beat the Spurs. I'm just pointing out that it's silly to call the Cs "lucky" for beating the Cavs because there are always things that break in favor of one team that beats another.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | June 2, 2008 6:27 PM

Yes, MBunge, nobody watches the games but you.

The super-generous continuation calls you're talking about are almost always on drives to the hoop. If you want to get a shooting foul on a jump shot, you have to actually get fouled in the act. I've never, never, never seen a guy get fouled, take a dribble, and then shoot a jump shot, and get a shooting foul out of it.

Posted by too many steves | June 2, 2008 6:36 PM

Last year the Cavs were 2-0 against the Spurs in the regular season. How'd that work out for them? And at least in that case the Spurs were the exact same team. When the Celtics faced the Lakers they were still gelling and getting used to playing together (they were 9-8 at the first meeting).

Celtics held opponents to fewer points, lower field goal and 3-pt percentages, allowed fewer assists, had a greater rebound differential, blocked more shots and had more steals than the Spurs. Oh, and they also scored the ball a lot more.

The Celtics also played against easier competition. Would you rather face the Knicks 4 times or the Warriors? The Jazz or the Wizards? If Atlanta and Cleveland can get the Celts to 7, the Lakers can take it.

Posted by Mo | June 2, 2008 7:06 PM

"Celtics held opponents to fewer points, lower field goal and 3-pt percentages, allowed fewer assists, had a greater rebound differential, blocked more shots and had more steals than the Spurs. Oh, and they also scored the ball a lot more.

The Celtics also played against easier competition. Would you rather face the Knicks 4 times or the Warriors? The Jazz or the Wizards? If Atlanta and Cleveland can get the Celts to 7, the Lakers can take it."

I'm all for pointing out that the Western conference is better, but the Celtics did fine against the West. They beat top West teams on their home courts. The Celtics's stats during the regular season were staggering, too staggering to be explained away only by a weak conference. Boston looked really weak in the first round, but they took care of the East champs, and the Pistons, who would be a solid team in the West. They're better now than they were against the Hawks.

As fro the Perkins-Gasol matchup, I'm guessing that KG will spend some time on Gasol. If the Lakers win it, it will be Kobe getting it done not Pau. Should be a great series.

Posted by Colatina | June 2, 2008 7:29 PM

I thank MBunge for holding the Celtic fort on this one. I think you Laker fans sound desperate. Let's meet here again when the Celtics win in seven. And that means you, Petey.

No question the Lakers should be favored -- based essentially on Kobe and on the Celtics' dismal performance in the first two rounds. But what more than a few commentors here seem to have missed is that Ray Allen has come out of his slump, not for one game, but for the last two, and when Allen isn't slumping, the court opens up for the Celtics, and they know how to use it.

Also, there's a bunch of ignoramuses dissing Rondo. Rondo will eat Fisher's lunch. Rondo may play unevenly, but he's brilliant offensively, not just defensively. There, I said it. So just go on counting him out, and we shall see.

The biggest things the Celtics have to fear at this point are Doc leaving Sam Cassell in there too long (ie., after he misses a single shot), and the bad Paul Pierce regularly throwing the ball away or losing it on one of his misguided spin moves when he's double-teamed. Everyone and everything else is going to work for them as well as it should -- Rondo, Allen, K.G., Perkins, and their defense.

My bet is that even Doc has learned his lesson on Cassell, and that the good Pierce will show up for enough games to take the Lakers in seven. I won't be surprised if they split at home and take only one on the road. But if the Celtics return to Boston down 3-2, the Lakers can kiss it all goodbye.

Posted by Walter Crockett | June 2, 2008 8:01 PM

Celtics versus Western Conference opponents: 25-5

Basketball is all about matchups, and for what its worth, the Cleveland Cavaliers presented a very tough matchup for the Celtics. Namely because Lebron is the most physically dominating player relative to his position in the NBA, but also because the Cavalier have one of the best big-man rotations in terms of interior defense. Kobe can certainly score at will, but don't expect many mismatches inside. Not in the Lakers' favor at least.

Posted by Joel | June 2, 2008 8:23 PM

Favoring the Lakers pretty much depends upon assuming that they're a totally different team than they were when they played the Celtics, not just with the addition of Pau (and Ariza) but also with the players who were there all season. The weird thing is ... they are, in fact, a totally different team. The backcourt, Odom, Radmanovic are all playing much better than they were in the first half, and they look like a totally different team even though only a couple of players have changed. Maybe it's naive to rely on that as they go up against a team that shellacked them both times they played, but that's where things stand.

Posted by Steve V | June 2, 2008 8:51 PM

I think the Lakers are favored, but I just don't see this mismatch some are calling ...

Boston is a much better defensive team than anyone the Lakers have seen. The Spurs are a pretty good defensive team at this point (Bowen ain't what he used to be), but the Celtics are a *great* defensive team. When they are locked in, they defend from the 2 feet beyond the three-point line to the basket, and their bigs (KG and Perk) are quick enough and active enough to defend the pinch posts and other aspects of the triangle that put pressure on bigs. And their perimeter defenders have been very good all year.

Eddie House is likely to get the lion's share of the backup point guard minutes instead of Cassell. He couldn't match up against Billups defensively, but he's fine against Fisher. With him on the court, the Celts have more shooting. This isn't a huge deal, but it'll be a factor in one game this series, I predict.

The Celtics are more physical at most positions than the Lakers. Rondo is actually a very physical defender, Perkins is a beast, KG is extremely physical, and Pierce has become a very good, physical defender (poor Tayshaun Prince was abused all series). Allen/Kobe is a clear advantage to the Lakers, though (on this and just about every other way). I think the Lakers will have trouble holding up on the rebounding end because of the overall gap, which is especially marked in the front-court.

Finally, the only thing more overrated than coaching in basketball is managing in baseball. It's OK and all, but it's just really unlikely to turn the series. There's always a Grady Little possibility, but that's pretty rare.

To me, if Pierce can win the 3 matchup at a level in the same ZIP code as Kobe wins the 2 matchup, the Celtics take the series. I just think that's not the more likely scenario, so I think the Lakers are going to win. But it ain't a mismatch. The Lakers are going to find the going a little rougher offensively than they are used to.

Posted by Brian | June 2, 2008 11:00 PM

I think it's crazy to suggest that the regular season matchups between these two teams is any indication of how the series will play out. The two regular season games between these teams showed two very different Lakers rotations, both of which we will not see replicated in any game of the finals.

Turiaf started the game on November 23rd, with Mihm playing 14 minutes off the bench. Neither contributed much in that game, and Bynum also stunk it up, for what it's worth. Radmanovich came off the bench, played 29 minutes, and did a reasonably good job, but he still was not a starter at that point, as he is now.

On Dec. 30th, Trevor Ariza started, playing 25 minutes and contributing 8 points, 3-6 from the field, none of it from beyond the arc, while Radmanovich played four whole minutes off the bench. Despite fouling out, Bynum had a modestly better game than he did in November, but nowhere near the level required to win, and nowhere near the level at which Gasol has been playing since arriving in LA. Also worth noting, Kwame Brown put in 16 minutes of modest contribution, mostly on the boards.

Vujacic played a combined total of 19 minutes in both games, 11 minutes in the November game and 8 minutes in the December game, going 2-6 and 0-4 from three, attempting only one shot (a three) on Dec. 30th.

The regular season games mean exactly nothing. The Lakers are a very different team now.

Posted by dave | June 3, 2008 2:13 AM

I've never, never, never seen a guy get fouled, take a dribble, and then shoot a jump shot, and get a shooting foul out of it.

Larry Johnson. Four-point play.

Posted by Antid Oto | June 3, 2008 4:34 AM

"I've never, never, never seen a guy get fouled, take a dribble, and then shoot a jump shot, and get a shooting foul out of it."

By the rules, if you take a dribble, it's no longer continuation.

Posted by Petey | June 3, 2008 3:29 PM