Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Doc's Coming Back

[Boston.com story]

You'd be hard-pressed to find someone who has been more critical of Doc Rivers than I have during his tenure as head coach of the Boston Celtics. I've ripped him for his rotations, his choice of players, his handling of players, his tactics, pretty much everything to do with basketball. Over the past few seasons, he's grown on me. There are still a lot of things I disagree with. I think he buries players too quickly or for no good reason (Leon Powe, Marquis Daniels). I didn't think he did a very good job of integrating Nate Robinson this year. I blame him for how bad our offense at the end of quarters is, and for all the games we lost because we went to the Paul Pierce isolation play too early in the fourth quarter. (He says it's the players who have control of this, but as head coach, it's his job to take that control away, if necessary). And while I think he by and large outcoached Phil Jackson in this year's Finals, we still needed to try something else in the third quarter of Game 7, when everyone was tired.

But I'm glad he's coming back. Doc has been a great leader during these championship runs, somehow getting superstar egos and other difficult personalities to mesh. It wouldn't be the same to make a championship run without him.

Next year is going to be tough. It has the potential, in fact, to be tough to watch. Rasheed Wallace is retiring. Kendrick Perkins is going to be out until at least December after knee surgery scheduled for July 7. Defensive guru Tom Thibodeau has left to steer the Chicago Bulls. Kevin Garnett's going to be a year older. So, too, wil Paul Pierce and Ray Allen, assuming they come back. Even if they do, Boston will have seven guys under contract (eight if they sign second-round pick Luke Harangody) and not a whole lot of money to go out and fill up their roster. And it looks very likely that there's going to be at least one two-max player team to contend with in the Eastern Conference next year.

Frankly, I would have liked us to have guaranteed Thibodeau the job either this season (if Doc chose to leave, as he announced he was thinking of doing) or next (once Doc's contract was up), rather than refusing to do so and letting him go to Chicago. I think he's that valuable to the team. But I do think that Doc's the right guy to steer this ship.

Pierce Opts Out

[Boston.com story]

Before we all panic, this doesn't mean we've lost him, and I personally think there's a very good chance he re-signs with Boston and ultimately retires as a Celtic. But I'm sure there are some questions running through many people's heads, so let's take a look at them:

What does it mean to opt out? Basically, Paul Pierce had an option to stick around for another season at about $21.5 million, then become a free agent next year. Instead, he's chosen to forfeit that year in search of a long-term deal. I don't have a complete grasp of NBA salary cap rules, but I believe that I read that such a deal could be up to four years for $96 million if it comes from Boston, and four years for $93 million if it comes from another NBA team.

How can Pierce walk away from so much money? There are many considerations here:
  • The collective bargaining agreement (CBA) is up after this year, and the next one -- if there isn't a lockout -- is almost certainly going to be less lucrative/favorable to players. Pierce wants to get his new contract under the terms that are most favorable to him.
  • It's insurance against having a bad year or getting injured. It's unlikely that Pierce's new deal, wherever he signs it, will pay him the $21.5 million in 2010-2011 he would have earned if he had opted out, but he's eliminating some risks that you have to worry about more and more when you're an NBA veteran entering your mid-30s. (He's currently 32.) Let's say, for the sake of using round numbers, that Pierce gets $80 million over four seasons in a new deal. Averaged out -- and that's now how the NBA works, but for simplicity's sake, it works -- that's 20 mil per year. In such a scenario, Pierce would be paying $1.5 million to hedge against the chance that he suffers some career-ending injury or has a dip in performance next season that would reduce his value to less than what he could get this offseason (4 for 80, in our hypothetical). The risk is that he'll have a great 2010-2011 season and would actually command more in free agency next summer, but that seems unlikely at age 32 -- and don't forget the CBA.
  • If there was a summer that Pierce was going to get overpaid, it's this one. Forget his performance and the fact that the Celtics made a surprise run to the seventh game of the NBA Finals. You may not have heard this, but a large number of very high-profile NBA players are free agents this summer, and for two years now, teams have been giving away players to create cap room to sign one or two of them. But there's more cap room than there are marquee guys to fill it, and the teams that miss out on LeBron James and Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh may look to guys like Pierce to ensure they don't come away empty-handed. It's probably not the smart move, but GMs and coaches have pressure to win from fans, owners, and players. Besides, this is the NBA, where most moves aren't smart.
Why not let Pierce go instead of overpaying him and sign one of those free agents instead? Because we can't. NBA salary cap rules allow you to exceed the cap to re-sign your own free agents, but we wouldn't be able to go over the cap to sign someone like LeBron. I think I read somewhere that even if Pierce and Ray Allen leave, Boston would only have about $15 million in cap room. That's not enough to get a player that you could team with Kevin Garnett and Rajon Rondo and contend for a championship.

That leaves Danny Ainge with a couple options. He can let Pierce walk, in doing so signaling the closing of the current window and probably more or less eating the last two years of Kevin Garnett's hefty contract. Or he can bring back Pierce, and probably Ray, too, and making another run or two at it, perhaps throwing a way a couple of years in the future.

I think the latter is most likely, for a couple of reasons. First of all, and I wouldn't have said this when the playoffs started, but it's a little premature to say the window's closed. We came damn close to winning a title this year. I promised I'd never say the words "we would've won if Perk had played," but show me a Lakers fan who says he's convinced LA wins that series if Kendrick Perkins hadn't blown out his knee in the opening minutes of Game 6, and I'll show you a liar. Giving up now is a bad PR move; even if Danny thinks the window's closed, the team spent the last couple of months convincing a whole lot of people who pay for tickets that it isn't. I also have to think that it will be easier to rebuild with a 34-year-old Pierce making who knows what than it will to rebuild with a post-injury, 35-year-old Garnett. It's conceivable that a contender could take on Pierce's contract in a couple of years if we wanted to move him out for picks or other young assets; I don't see that happening with KG. Finally, re-signing Pierce and Ray buys a little time; the team should be relatively competitive with those two guys and that gives Danny time to find some diamonds in the rough through the draft or free agency. I'm not saying it's likely to happen; just that it's possible.

Mostly, though, I think we're re-signing Pierce because Doc Rivers announced he was coming back to coach, and I don't think he'd do that if we were re-building. But that's another post. Stay tuned.

Friday, June 25, 2010

Quick Cs draft thoughts

I usually love the NBA Draft, but I just couldn't get up for it this year. Maybe it's a hangover from losing to the Lakers. Maybe it's because I had to watch on DVR since it starts at 4:30 out here. Maybe it's because I just don't think it's that good of a draft class -- especially relative to all the hype it's gotten over the past couple of years.

I'll probably have some more draft stuff tonight or over the weekend, but here's what I think about Boston's two picks:

#19 overall: Avery Bradley, PG, Texas. I didn't like this pick much, but I'm starting to come around to it. The safe selection was James Anderson, a smooth SG with a sweet stroke out of Oklahoma State who was snapped up with the next pick by the San Antonio Spurs (given that franchise's draft history, it's a good bet Anderson will turn out to be a fine NBA player). With Ray and Tony's futures with the team uncertain, a backup wing who can shoot it fills a need nicely.

But Danny Ainge doesn't always play it safe in drafts, and I kind of agree with him here. I know very little about Bradley, just that he came into college with huge expectations -- I think some people had him ranked ahead of John Wall -- and was disappointing on a Texas team that imploded mid-year and finished well below its potential. On the Celtics, Bradley would spell Rajon Rondo -- let's not forget that no matter how young Rondo is, backup PG is a need, too -- and maybe even get a little time alongside him if he turns out to be a scorer.

Ainge has a rep for falling in love with guys that not everyone else is enamored with. Sometimes it works out (Rajon Rondo) and sometimes it doesn't (J.R. Giddens). Anderson was the safe pick, the pick you make when there isn't someone you love available. I think Ainge loved Bradley, and swung for the fences by with him. Time will tell.

#52 overall: Luke Harangody, PF, Notre Dame. Harangody's an interesting player to me, in part because I've been relatively silently singing his praises since his freshman year with the Irish, when he averaged 11/6. Heading into that season, there was a ton of talk about North Carolina's Tyler Hansbrough, and I thought there was no reason that Harangody couldn't produce similarly, at least offensive. He averaged a double-double that year, then nearly 23/12 as a junior, before putting up like a 22/9 last season with a few injuries.

The comparisons to Hansbrough aren't great since Harangody's got a bit more of a traditional post game than Hansbrough, who somehow scores most of his points on the interior by contorting his body so that it is parallel to the backboard, then releasing the ball well below his shoulder. I'm not in love with Harangody's post game, but he's got a little polish there. His outside shot is bizarre -- he has a very low release point and he, I swear, jumps two or three feet backwards when he shoots it -- but it goes in often enough that it can be counted as a weapon in his arsenal.

He's a pretty good rebounder with a big frame; give him some time with an NBA training staff and he could really fill out into one of the stronger players in the league. His defense needs a ton of work, however -- he's not a shotblocker and I think he gets pushed around at times. If he can get stronger and play defense with the same intensity he plays offense, he'll at least not be a total liability on that end.

Is Harangody a future NBA starter, which is the minimum you'd expect from a guy who basically averaged a double-double for three years in a conference like the Big East. Probably not. Is he the kind of guy who would've grabbed some minutes from Kevin Garnett and Rasheed Wallace in Game 7 against the Lakers, possibly winning us a championship? Absolutely. And for that, he's well worth the 52nd pick.

Friday, June 18, 2010

Los Angeles Lakers 83, Boston 79

[recap] [box score]

Some day, I'll look back on the 2009-10 Celtics and remember that they came within six minutes of beating the three best teams in the league without home court advantage.

Right now, it feels like we gave a championship away.




Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Could the Celtics Go Small?

The John Hollinger column I mentioned in my previous post apparently had a suggestion that the Celtics try, from time to time in Game 7, a lineup of Rajon Rondo, Tony Allen, Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, and Kevin Garnett. The rationale for this, I gather, is that it gets Tony Allen -- who has defended Kobe Bryant better, by far, than any other Celtic this series -- onto the court without taking Ray Allen and Pierce off of it.

Here's something I never thought I'd say: I like the idea of getting Tony some more PT. He's been not-terrible-to-decent offensively, and there's no denying that he's been our most effective Kobe-stopper. He crowds Kobe a little bit too much for my liking, but it's obvious to anyone watching that the shots Kobe gets with Tony checking him are tougher than the ones he gets with anyone else checking him.

I have no indication that Doc is even considering this strategy, but there are several things that concern me about its possibility:
  • We have not, to my knowledge, done this before. It'd be like a football team running the hook-and-ladder or Statue of Liberty on the last snap of the game, only without having practiced it beforehand. Sure, it may force LA to call an audible, too, but it's a big adjustment for us to make with the season on the line.
  • It would set up a pretty hairy Pierce-Lamar Odom matchup on defense, if the Lakers chose to exploit it and Odom was uncharacteristically assertive. Pierce has shown he can score on Odom, but I imagine that Odom's length would bother Pierce more than Pierce's, uh, nothing, would bother Odom. On the other hand, if the Lakers are giving the ball to Odom instead of Bryant and Gasol, it's probably a good thing for the Cs -- at least until Lamar gets going.
  • It would mean that Ray and Pierce aren't getting rest. I know, I know -- there's no Game 8 to rest up for, so everyone should be prepared to go the full 48 in Game 7. But the odds are overwhelmingly against us blowing out the Lakers on their homecourt; chances are, if we're going to win, we'll need a strong performance from our starters in the fourth quarter. To that end, every second of rest those guys can grab will be crucial.
  • LA killed us on the boards in Game 6, and that lineup would be extremely vulnerable on the glass. With Kendrick Perkins out, stops will be a bit tougher to come by than they were before, and we can't afford to give up extra possessions when we do get stops by not grabbing the defensive rebound.
With that said, I endorse this strategy in limited situations. If, for example, a couple of our bigs get into foul trouble and Doc doesn't trust Shelden Williams or Brian Scalabrine, then he might need to go small by necessity. Or if Kobe is getting everything he wants offensively but we need to keep our guards on the court because of what they are doing offensively, then bringing Tony in might be a solution.

In reality, though, I don't expect Doc to do anything fancy. He's not that kind of coach, and, anyway, I'm not sure the circumstances call for it. The Celtics minus Kendrick Perkins can beat the Lakers with hard work, team play, strong defense and attacking offense -- and every player on Boston's roster is capable of providing those things.

Perk Out for Game 7

This doesn't come as a surprise to anyone who watched the game last night, but Kendrick Perkins will not suit up in Game 7 due to the knee injury he suffered in the first quarter of Game 6. There are conflicting reports about whether the injury is a torn MCL and PCL or just a sprain of the ligaments, but Perk isn't having an MRI until he returns to Boston after the series and he officially isn't available for tomorrow night. For the sake of next season and Perk's future, let's hope it's just a sprain.

However, now is not the time to think about next year; next week is. Now is the time to think about what Perkins' absence means for Game 7 against the Lakers, and what adjustments need to be made.

The bad news is obvious. Perk is our best on-ball defender in the post, and while he hadn't consistently delivered his best work on that end this series, he had done a decent job on Pau Gasol (with Kevin Garnett sliding over to guard Lamar Odom when Andrew Bynum was out of the game, which was more often than not due to Lakers' young big's own knee injury). In addition, Perk is a reliable big body, of which we are now down to just three -- making foul trouble a real danger for Game 7. With Boston weakened on the front line, LA will probably look to dump it into Gasol more often in the hopes of getting Rasheed Wallace into foul trouble. The Lakers are best when the offense runs through Gasol, but they are sometimes reluctant, for some reason, to exploit him. But even Kobe Bryant should see that foul trouble to Wallace would be so detrimental to the Celtics that he can't help but go to Gasol early, and thus the Lakers offense may be more effective by accident.

There is some good news, or I guess at least a silver lining. For starters, Wallace has actually guarded Gasol fairly well in this series, although he has had trouble doing so without getting into foul trouble. If 'sheed can force Gasol to catch the ball off the block and contest his shots without fouling (content to live with the results of a contested shot) -- things Perk does extremely well -- then we may not miss Perkins at all defensively. If, however, Wallace gambles for steals and blocks in his typical fashion (which is okay when we're less reliant on him for minutes than we will be Thursday night), we could be in some trouble. Either way, I look forward to seeing, at least once, Gasol fall on his ass and then look up helplessly at the official when 'sheed breaks out the "pulling the chair" move.

Offensively, the news is better. There's a John Hollinger column on ESPN about how the Celtics are better off without Perkins, but I'm not an Insider and am not particularly inclined to go around searching for it. I have seen bits and pieces, however, from various blogs, and Hollinger has at least one thing right: Wallace is a much better offensive player than Perkins. Perk's offensive limitations allow the Lakers to guard Boston's starting unit close to 5-on-3, with Bryant backing well off of Rajon Rondo and whoever is guarding Perkins ignoring him unless Perk is standing within five feet of the basket. Wallace's range, which extends out to the three-point line, should unclog the paint for Rondo drives and Paul Pierce isolations, and keep the Lakers honest on pick-and-rolls with Pierce and Ray Allen. I suspect that LA will be more than happy, at least initially, to roll the dice with Wallace bombing away, and so he'll have to knock a couple down for this advantage to really bear fruit. (Fortunately, Wallace expertly didn't waste any of his makes on a lost cause in Game 6!) We don't need the 29 points on 5-for-7 from deep that he gave us in a January win at Toronto with Garnett out (though we'll take it), but the zero points on 0-for-6 from three-point land from Game 6 won't do, either. I'd love to see 'sheed step inside the arc for some of his offense, but at this point, I consider that something of a lost cause.

No matter how well 'sheed plays, however, he, Garnett, and Glen Davis are probably going to need help handling Gasol, Bynum (if he plays), and Odom, particularly on the glass. Last night, that guy was Shelden Williams, and he was, well, terrible. That leaves one other possibility: Brian Scalabrine.

When Shelden is playing regularly, like he was at the start of the season when Davis was out with a hand injury, he's a better option than Scalabrine. He's stronger, a better rebounder, a little more athletic. But he's out of rhythm now, and his performance in Game 6 was bad to the point of being painful to watch. (His play in four minutes in Game 2, his only other action of these Finals, was not much better.) I know Scalabrine hasn't played since March 28 and has barely even dressed for any games during the playoffs, but at this point, if Scalabrine can simply catch the ball most of the time it lands in his hands, he'd be an upgrade over Shelden.

Look, I know this isn't ideal, but there was a time, before we got Wallace, that this wouldn't have been so ridiculous a suggestion. Last year, Doc Rivers tabbed Scalabrine eight times as a starter; five times when Perkins was out and three when Garnett was out. In one of the former, against Phoenix, with Garnett guarding Shaquille O'Neal, Scalabrine held Amare' Stoudemire to 0-for-7 from the field, actually outscoring the five-time All-Star 4-to-3. Scalabrine defends and rebounds with every ounce of his by-NBA-standards-underwhelming ability. If he sees the court on Thursday, there won't be anyone on it playing harder than Brian Scalabrine.

Scal also has the ability, when left open -- and he gets left open a lot -- to knock down an open three or two. It's asking a lot of a guy to step in after not playing for two-and-a-half months and hit jumpers in Game 7 of the NBA Finals, but six or nine points from Scalabrine could be absolutely huge.

Heading into Game 6, there was a lot of chatter on the Internet about how, if Boston won the series, who would win the MVP was still an open question. Scalabrine will never be mentioned in that discussion. But in a series in which the best two players are wearing purple-and-gold, it may take a solid, if unspectacular, performance from a forgotten role player to push the team wearing green-and-white over the top.

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Los Angeles Lakers 89, Boston 67

[recap] [box score]

I'm not going to spend a ton of time analyzing Game 6, because I feel that from a Boston perspective -- and solely from a Boston perspective -- Kendrick Perkins' knee injury midway through the first quarter turned the game into a throwaway. Up until that point, and yeah, it was just six minutes, Boston had been playing more or less exactly the way I had hoped they would. The Celtics were running, Rajon Rondo was attacking, Ray Allen was off to a hot start. The defense wasn't nearly as sharp as it had been in Boston and Paul Pierce hadn't gotten gotten anything going, but I liked our offensive mindset. The score was 18-12 when Perkins went down, and there was nothing that suggested that this wouldn't be what almost everyone had to have expected it was going to be going in: a hard-fought battle that could go either way. There was certainly nothing to suggest that the Celtics would manage just 55 points in the final 40 minutes or so.

But Perk's injury happened, and from there, things really changed. Not from an X-and-O standpoint -- or, at least, not most significantly from an X-and-O standpoint. Our edge was gone, along with our energy and focus.

I thought, or perhaps I hoped, that it would be a temporary hiccup, that once we got to the end of the quarter, the longer break would give us a chance to regroup. Searching for silver linings, I thought maybe it would give us something to rally around -- you know, "Let's win it for Perk" type stuff. I thought that if we could keep it to a manageable deficit going into halftime, something like ten or 12 points, that would give Doc and Thibodeau time to scheme around not having the big fella. But it was not to be. LA was rolling, smelled blood, and we were shell-shocked. The lead was 20 at the half, and these things tend to snowball, and any chance of an improbable comeback went out the window when we came out missing layups to start the third. We executed offensively for a stretch, a stretch that coincided with the cable temporarily going out in my apartment, but we couldn't get stops and didn't get calls and we never threatened.

I don't blame our guys for this. While I would have hoped for a different reaction, it's hard to fault guys for losing their focus a bit when their teammate went down. These Celtics are a true team the way few NBA clubs are. Perk and Rondo are best friends. The vets see Perkins as a young -- he's still just 25 -- hard-working kid whose willingness to do the dirty work without receiving the credit is as important as his superb on-ball post defense and tireless rebounding. This wasn't "oh shit, how we gonna win this without Perk?" This was a bunch of guys who let their concern for their teammate affect their play, and it may have cost them a game.

I know how this looks, so let me be very clear: The words "Boston would have won if Perk hadn't gotten hurt" have not come out of my mouth or from my keyboard, and they won't even if things don't break our way in Game 7. The Lakers played very well tonight, and if there's one thing this series has taught us, it's that when both teams are clicking, very little, if anything, separates them. My reason for writing all of this is to explain why I'm not panicking about 67 points, about shooting 33 percent from the field, about being out-rebounded 52-39, about getting nothing from the bench until the game was well out of hand. Boston's performance was an anomaly caused by unforeseen circumstance. There's a big difference between knowing going into a game that someone won't play, and losing a player once a game has started. I'd have a different perspective had there not been such a stark contrast between our play pre-injury and our play post-injury.

That's not to say I'm not worried; I am. Beating LA was a tough enough task at full strength; we're still awaiting word on whether Perk will be available for Game 7, but the injury looked bad, he said he heard something pop, and even if he can go, he'll be limited. Rebounding has been key in the series -- the team that has won the battle on the glass has won each of the six games -- and LA had a big size advantage coming into the series. An absent or limited Perkins also effectively removes one body from our bench, which means we're that much closer to Shelden Williams playing meaningful minutes, a necessary experiment that was beyond disastrous this evening.

Moreover, the Lakers came alive on Tuesday. They seemed to be coming apart a bit after Game 5, outworked and outplayed, fractured, with little belief in themselves and even less in one another. I thought Game 6 was our best chance to take one of the final two games. Not a must-win situation, but I figured an LA win in Game 6 would give them some momentum heading into Game 7, and they'd be tougher to beat with that momentum behind them. That changed when Perk went down; I like our chances when we have two days to plan for not having him better than our chances when we lose him in the first quarter and have to adjust on the fly. But for the first time since Game 3, the Lakers are more than just Kobe Bryant -- and the Lakers, when hitting on most cylinders, are a most formidable opponent.

All to play for on Thursday night.

Get well, Perk.

Monday, June 14, 2010

Boston 92, Los Angeles Lakers 86

[recap] [box score]

When someone puts on a brilliant display of individual basketball, the way Kobe Bryant did Sunday night, it's sometimes difficult to keep sight of the big picture. As Kobe nailed jumper after jumper with Boston defenders draped all over him in the third quarter of Game 5, each shot seemingly more difficult than the previous one, it was hard to not be in awe of what he was doing.

And yet, during a stretch that spanned about 14 minutes of game time, in which Kobe scored 23 straight Laker points, Boston's lead went from one point to 13.

Here's what I think is most interesting, and perhaps most telling, about what transpired: There was absolutely no reason for Kobe to simply take over the game the way he did.

From the four-minute mark of the second period until just 2:15 remained in the third, Kobe scored 23 straight Laker points. The first two of those points actually gave LA a one-point lead, and it wasn't until the second half, when he tallied the first 19 Laker points of the third quarter, that Kobe really started forcing the action and looking to shoot on every possession, so let's narrow our focus to that starting point.

Los Angeles trailed 45-39 at halftime. Sure, 39 points are a paltry total for a half of basketball, and sure, no one on the Lakers was doing much offensively. But a six-point deficit is nothing to panic about, especially with Boston shooting somewhere around 60 percent for the game. All things considered, LA should have been relatively happy with its position.

But then Kobe tried to take over in the second half, and as much as people want to tell you "he kept the Lakers in the game," you could argue that he also took them out of it. Conventional wisdom in basketball is that when guys aren't involved in the offense, they don't play as hard, they don't rebound, they don't defend. It's why you reward big guys for running the floor by giving them the ball on the break. It's why you spread the ball around on offense.

As Kobe dribbled all over the floor Thursday night looking for an opening to shoot, launching 28-footers and double-clutch jumpers with defenders smothering him, his teammates gradually withdrew from the game. Even though he made those shots, his display prevented Pau Gasol and the other Lakers from finding a rhythm, kept Boston's bigs from having to work on defense and possibly getting in foul trouble.

A few more stats to drive this point home. During Kobe's stretch of 23 straight:
  • All five Boston starters scored. Paul Pierce had 14, Kevin Garnett had seven, Ray Allen had six, Kendrick Perkins had four, and Rajon Rondo had two points to go along with five assists.
  • Kobe made nine shots from the field. Three were assisted.
  • Boston made 15 shots from the field. Ten were assisted.
I am very confident that if this is the Lakers offense from here on out, we'll be celebrating our 18th championship later this week.

This was far from a perfect performance for Boston, however. Some negatives, in bullet form:
  • 16 turnovers. Rajon Rondo was the biggest culprit with seven; back his out and it's a much more acceptable number. Still, I was pleased with Rondo's play for the most part. From the get-go, he attacked, and even though his hands couldn't catch up to his brain sometimes and he forced the action on multiple occasions, we're much better off when he attacks. We need more of that mindset, with a bit better execution, in Game 6. Basically, we need him to play for a whole game like he did in the final few minutes of Game 2.
  • 16 offensive rebounds for LA. For the first time in this series, Boston seemed to make more hustle plays than LA, but the defensive glass was a problem. We need to do a better job of putting a body on guys and going to the boards (although we did out-rebound the Lakers for the second straight contest and third time in the series).
  • A three-plus minute scoreless stretch late in the fourth quarter. We went to the Paul Pierce iso offense with like four minutes to go and something like an 12-point lead. That's too early to slow the game down like that, even as Paul Pierce was having his best game of the series against an increasingly overmatched Ron Artest.
But, of course, there was plenty of good:
  • Pierce was really good all night. He didn't exactly match Kobe bucket for bucket and turned in a Jerry Stackhouse/Rip Hamilton line (27/2/2), but it's good to see him solving Artest a little bit.
  • Garnett was brilliant, and for the third straight game, looked to be as close to his old self as he's ever gonna get. 18/10/3 with two blocks and five huge steals. KG was flying all over the court in the second half and played a big part in keeping Gasol and Lamar Odom more or less under wraps.
  • The hustle plays I mentioned before were huge. In particular, I'm thinking of Ray Allen flying out of bounds to save the ball to Rondo after Rondo stripped Kobe, leading to a Rondo layup that put Boston up ten with 5:18 to go. I'm also thinking of the way Pierce ripped the ball away from Kobe after Artest missed two free throws down five with like 47 seconds left. There were others -- Tony Allen's spectacular stuff of Gasol, Rondo's acrobatic upturned-palm tip-in over two Lakers, a number of offensive rebounds and loose balls in the final quarter. It was nice to see these plays go our way.
  • Boston shot some absurd percentage for most of the game, finishing at 56 percent despite going pretty cold in the fourth quarter. Don't dismiss it as some sort of fluke: This was us finally converting the open looks we've been getting for three games now. I sound like a broken record, I'm sure, but we're getting good shots and the Lakers aren't. If this keeps up, we win. And keep in mind that Ray didn't hit a single three-pointer in three games in Boston. To win two of those games is more than we could reasonably ask for.
Back to LA for Game 6 on short rest. As well as we're playing and as much as Andrew Bynum's knee is limiting him and Artest is struggling and Gasol and Odom look like they are regressing into the players who shrunk from the spotlight in 2008, Boston needs to come out prepared to face the Laker team they saw in Game 1. They need to be prepared for anything: Disfavorable officiating, a good crowd, a positive offensive contribution from someone other than Bryant, another stretch where it seems that Kobe can't miss. Boston is talented enough and has the right scheme to weather these storms and emerge triumphant.

Tip's at 9 p.m. Eastern on Tuesday.

Sunday, June 13, 2010

Some pre-Game 5 thoughts

I said in my last post that I was feeling confident about Boston's chances in the rest of this series because of the quality of shots they were getting compared to those LA was getting. That remains the case, but it occurs to me that in order for me to be proven right in my optimism, we're going to have to convert these superior opportunities. Glen Davis and Nate Robinson are not going to win this series -- the starters are. Four of the five Celtics starters are legitimate scoring options, and each has undergone an up-and-down Finals. Mostly down, actually, for each individual, but they've alternated strong performances just enough to earn Boston a split of the first four games. (Give our effort on the defensive end of the court credit for that, as well.)

Paul Pierce is, of course, our usual first option, and he's been the most consistent against the Lakers thus far. He's hardly been a picture of dependability, however; after a strong Game 1, he endured a miserable 2-for-11 performance in Game 2, was hampered by foul trouble in Game 3, and did most of his damage in the first quarter of Game 4. We can win the series with him averaging 16.5 points per game, as he is now, and what's good is that he's doing it on 12 shots per night. Ron Artest is a tough matchup for him, and the fact that he's not forcing the issue is key to our success.

Ray Allen stole the show with a 27-point first half in Game 2, but he's been basically ineffective offensively the rest of the series (his defense on Kobe Bryant has been excellent, however). Ray has gotten great looks in the last three games, and there's no reason to think he won't continue to get them. Therefore, Ray finding his shooting stroke may well be the key to Boston's championship fortunes. I don't think we need him to light it up like he did in Game 2, when he hit his first seven three-point atempts. But we need something better than the 35 percent clip he's currently hitting at.

Kevin Garnett was labeled washed-up after truly horrific performances in the first two games, but his Game 3 performance, in which he repeatedly faced up against Pau Gasol and beat him off the dribble on his way to 25 points, erased any notion that the The Big Ticket was done. KG wasn't quite as effective in Game 4, but he remained aggressive, and the jumpers he did miss looked fine, unlike the ones he missed during the first two games, which looked awkward and tentative. I feel very confident about Garnett moving forward, especially given how aggressive he's been the last couple of times out, as we don't always see that side of him.

Rajon Rondo's triple-double in Game 2 had ESPN.com touting a nine-part series on his "legend," but aside from that game -- aside from the fourth quarter of that game, really -- he's had a rather pedestrian series. Rondo's job is a very difficult one. He's being guarded, sort of, by Kobe Bryant, who is content to play several feet off of him and help on the other Celtics. Rondo is therefore charged with choosing between his own offense, which is almost always available to him, and going to one of his teammates, any two of whom seem to to need help getting untracked at any given time. I think Rondo needs to establish his penetration early and force LA to guard him a little more honestly. The best opportunity for this is, I feel, when the ball comes back to Rondo, rather than as the first action of the offense. If Boston can get the Laker defense shifting by going to Pierce or KG or Ray, then Rondo's lanes open up. I also though Rondo has looked a little spooked by LA's shotblocking; the absence or limitation of Andrew Bynum due to knee injury may spur Rondo to take the ball to the hole more authoritatively.

On another note, I still think it's ridiculous that the NBA insists on this 2-3-2 format, but gave two full days off between Games 1 and 2 and between Games 4 and 5, when the teams remained in the same city, but only one full day of rest between Games 2 and 3 and between Games 5 and 6, when both teams must travel cross-country. It makes Game 5 all the more important for Boston, in my opinion, as the travel should hurt the older Celtics more than it hurts the Lakers -- especially going East to West, when LA has home court in Game 6.

Tip's at 8 p.m. tonight on ABC.

Friday, June 11, 2010

Boston 96, Los Angeles Lakers 89

[recap] [box score]

At this point, if you care enough to read the blog, you care enough to watch the games, so a narrative of what happened is pointless. I do want to repeat one thing that Sports Guy mentioned in his live chat on ESPN.com, which is that Phil Jackson went for the kill by leaving his starters in to start the fourth, and it backfired. Kobe Bryant and Pau Gasol had played big minutes heading into the period, and the Boston bench really outworked the Lakers' starters, at least in part because they had fresher legs. Give credit to Doc Rivers, too, for sticking with the bench. It takes a lot of guts to keep Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett, and Rajon Rondo sitting next to you, especially when guys in purple shirts with "Bryant" and "Gasol" written on the back are out on the floor. But Doc saw the spark that Nate Robinson and Glen Davis were bringing offensively, saw the fantastic defense Tony Allen and Rasheed Wallace were playing, and stuck with them -- all the way until just 2:50 remained in the fourth quarter.

It's nice to be posting about something other than the officiating, too. For the first time all series, I thought the refs let the players decide the outcome, and no one was plagued by foul trouble throughout the entire game -- the way it should be in the Finals. I'm sure LA fans have something to say about the late Pierce and-one, but it was a bang-bang play and it's hard to complain about those types of calls. It was certainly a much closer play than the very poor charging call that went against Pierce in the first half. A Boston fan friend pointed out a handful of other calls that went against the Celtics, and while I agree with him, I also was never really frustrated for more than a second or two with the officiating in Game 4.

So it's now a best of three series, and I have to say, I like our chances even more than I did at the beginning of the series. For three full games now, Boston has gotten significantly better shots than LA. We knocked them down in Game 2 and won; didn't in Game 3 and lost; and didn't for most of Game 4 and still won. While it is frustrating to see us miss layups and open jumpers the way we did Thursday night, it's encouraging that we're getting those types of looks, on the theory that they'll eventually start going in. On the other end of the court, it's seemed to me that LA has hit an inordinate number of very difficult shots. (They're hitting the open ones, too, but we're not giving them that many.) So while Kobe can stick his jaw out after every brilliant jumper with a Boston defender all over him and Lakers fans can applaud him for it, I'm comfortable watching him take those shots -- and I'm equally comfortable watching Garnett bang a few open 20-footers off the back rim. My tune will change, of course, if we continue to miss these shots for the rest of the series, but the percentages, I feel, are in our favor.

Game 5 is nearly as much of a must-win as Game 4 was. Expect a war.

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Upon further review...

If you watched the second and third games of the Finals, you know the prominent role the NBA's new replay review rules, which allow officials to review certain calls in the final two minutes of games, have played. In Game 2, an out-of-bounds call in Boston's favor was controversially upheld. Last night, in Game 3, three similar calls were reviewed, with the stripes twice ruling for Boston and once for LA.

Two problems with the replay system were revealed, or re-enforced, last night.

The first problem comes from the officials being able to review only certain types of calls. Down five with less than a minute to go, Paul Pierce missed a free throw. Lamar Odom went up for the rebound with Rajon Rondo, and the ball appeared to go off Odom's hand and out of bounds. The officials gave the ball to L.A. before heading to the monitor.

Replays clearly showed the ball going off Odom. But the replay also showed, just as clearly, Rondo grabbing Odom's wrist, forcing the big man to lose the ball out of bounds. The rules allow the refs to change an out-of-bounds call using replay, but not a foul call. The officials therefore had no choice but to award the ball to Boston.

What's so wrong with that, given that the ball was out on LA? A couple of things. First of all, there's something wrong with being able to reverse certain calls and not others. I understand that personal fouls require much more subjective judgment than out-of-bounds calls, and that using replay review for such judgments is problematic. But it seems equally problematic, in situations where the uncalled foul is a clear one (as in this case), to allow reversal of one call and not the other.

Secondly, only allowing certain reversals robs officials of the exercise of some discretion. On plays similar to this one, an official will often decide that the contact wasn't enough to warrant a foul call, but enough that it forced the player in Odom's to lose control of the ball. Equitably, then, an official will award the ball to LA. By forcing the officials to the monitor and not giving them the power to retroactively call the foul, the officials had no choice but to give the ball back to Boston. An alternative -- calling every single foul in that situation -- is not desirable; like in all professional sports these days, there's too much bending of the rules by the players to call it by the book.

The second major problem exposed last night came on the first replay review of the evening. Kevin Garnett had the ball in the post, and a Laker -- I don't remember which one -- came down and swiped the ball away. It went out of bounds, and the ball was awarded back to Boston. Upon review, it appeared that Garnett's hand was the last one on the ball before it went out of bounds, and the officials reversed the call.

I watch a ton of basketball, and this marked the first time in my life that I have seen a strip called this way. And yet it's not a unique way for a play like that to unfold. I can't give exact percentages or anything like that, but it often happens that a defender doesn't knock the ball cleanly away, as occurred here. Think about it: If the offensive player is holding the ball with his hands on either side of the ball (as KG was) and the defender slaps down on it, it will almost always roll down the sides of the offensive player's palm and onto the floor. The defender's contact with the basketball lasts merely for an instant; the offensive player remains in contact with the leather for a bit longer.

And yet in live action, this play is always -- not sometimes, not usually, not almost always -- called the way it was originally called: ball back to the offense. Why? Because it all happens too quickly for the naked eye. Only with the innovation of slow-motion can you see what's happened.

I've run this argument by a few others, and most of them make the same argument back to me: The point of the rule is for the refs to get it right, they got it right in this spot, so who cares? My contention is that a call is not "right" if the use of replay fundamentally changes the way the call is made. It's worth noting that the officials didn't immediately order a replay review; that came only after Boston called timeout and the Lakers asked the refs to look at it again. And that, I submit again, is because this play is never called this way. KG didn't stab for it and knock it out of bounds, and he didn't juggle it. It was a routine strip. I've seen someone strip the ball and knock it off the offensive player's leg or foot, but I've never seen someone strip the ball off of someone else's hand. But that's the call the officials made here.

I have little by way of a solution, other than to just junk the whole system altogether. Perhaps some of these problems would be eliminated if the refs could not use slow motion during review. The replay, at full speed, from perhaps different angles, would give them a chance to overturn a call they missed, but it would not allow them to fundamentally change the way the game is officiated the way slow motion replay does. Failing this or some other modification, however, I think the NBA would be best served by scrapping this type of review.

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Los Angeles Lakers 91, Boston 84

[recap] [box score]

This one stings. A lot.

I have lots of complaints about the officiating and some general thoughts about this game, but I'd be remiss not to mention some things that Boston did wrong in this game:
  • Obviously, the 21-5 run to end the first quarter killed us, and it continued into the second period as LA built a 17-point lead. I thought Doc made two mistakes here, both involving Kevin Garnett. KG had gotten off to a fantastic start and Doc removed him a bit early, and then let him sit for too long in the second.
  • With Paul Pierce in foul trouble (more on this later), we really bogged the offense down looking for Ray Allen. For a good stretch in the second half, our offense consisted of like 14 seconds of watching Ray run around screens trying to break free. This is bad under normal circumstances, because if it doesn't work, we're left with a bad look at the end of the shot clock. It was particularly bad on this occasion, because Ray went 0-for-13.
  • The 1-2 pick-and-roll that LA ran with Derek Fisher and Kobe Bryant killed us in the fourth quarter. We needed to switch it more than we did. I know Rajon Rondo on Bryant is not an ideal matchup, but Fisher has shown throughout his career that he can make open shots, particularly in the clutch. Bryant contested by Rondo is better for us than Fisher contested by no one.
Obligatory comment about the officiating: It sucked. It's sucked all series, and it sucked tonight. Kendrick Perkins' second foul, an allegedly moving screen, was awful, and they took Pierce out of the game by calling him for his fifth early in the fourth quarter while fighting Ron Artest for position defensively.

And now, the silver lining: Tonight convinced me, beyond all doubt, that we are good enough to win this series. Ray went 0-fer. Pierce was limited due to fouls. Rondo had a pedestrian game. LA got the majority of the calls. And yet we were right there. LA didn't have a great game offensively, but -- save the aforementioned difficulty guarding Fisher in the fourth quarter -- that was in large part due to Boston's excellent defense. Boston struggled offensively, but it wasn't all because of LA; Ray and Pierce had the same looks they had last game, good ones, but they just didn't knock them down. If we can keep up the same defensive performance, we'll win the series.

But that's a big if. There's zero margin for error now. The next two games are vital.


Monday, June 7, 2010

Boston 104, Los Angeles Lakers 93

[recap] [box score]

The Boston Celtics boarded a plane home Sunday night with a lot of unanswered questions. What the hell is wrong with Kevin Garnett? Can our bigs stay out of foul trouble? Why is LA beating us so badly on the boards and seemingly to every loose ball?

But they brought something else back East, too: A split in LA, which is really all they could have hoped for.

Game balls go to Ray Allen for his 27-point first half and Finals single-game record eight three-pointers and Rajon Rondo for taking over in the final few minutes, making several huge plays on both ends of the court. But this was a team win, a gutsy win in which Boston fought through the foul problems, fought through tough offensive nights from two of their best players, and fought through the Lakers taking away the momentum in the second half.

Bullets (strap in, because there are gonna be a bunch):
  • Might as well get the discussion of the officiating out of the way early. I'll be interested to see and hear to what degree Lakers fans blame the refs for this loss. Kobe Bryant sat a big portion of the second and third quarters with foul trouble, and picked up his fifth early in the last period, taking away some of his offensive aggressiveness and limiting his effectiveness defensively. Kobe's final three fouls were debatable. No doubt, his foul problems affected the outcome of the game. But it would take a lot of gall to bitch about the officiating in a game in which you held a 41-26 free throw edge (and keep in mind that Boston went to the line several times in the final seconds as LA tried in vain to get back into the game). Boston shot a bunch more threes and with LA's size advantage, they should get to the line more, but a number of bad calls seemed to favor the home team.
  • We can't win the series if Garnett doesn't play any better than he has in the first two games. He looks out of synch, even worse than he did at the beginning of the season, when he hadn't played in eight months and was trying to figure out how to be effective with a bum knee. He had six assists in Game 2 and got a late bucket to crawl in that actually seemed to spark the team, but he's been tentative on offense and he's not rebounding or defending. He also took himself out of rhythm early in the first, picking up his second foul by needlessly planting his shoulder into Gasol as the latter came upcourt. It was reminiscent of the somewhat bizarre incident in the Orlando series, in which Garnett, trying to draw the official's attention to the fact that Dwight Howard was handchecking him, repeatedly struck Howard with his forearm, drawing a quick second foul. I know he's a competitive guy who thrives on playing with an edge, but he needs to be smarter than that.
  • Ray was incredible in the first half tonight. We can't expect him to continue to shoot quite as well as he did on Sunday, but if the Lakers are going to guard him with Derek Fisher, we need to keep riding him.
  • Nate Robinson only played six minutes and was a -3 in that time, but his contribution was crucial. His seven points came at the start of the fourth quarter, when Rondo was gassed and needed a rest, and kept us within striking distance.
  • There are some ugly aspects to Glen Davis' stat line, such as 4-13 from the field and four blocks against. But he also had five offensive rebounds and some hustle plays late, and kept attacking despite several frustrating missed layups.
  • Shelden Williams was bad, but it's hard to blame him when he's played so sparingly.
  • We've been battling foul trouble since the Orlando series, but Sunday was the worst so far: Garnett, Davis, Kendrick Perkins, and Rasheed Wallace each had three fouls by halftime. The first two games of the series have been called very tightly, but even if it loosens up a bit once we're back in Boston, it's hard to see this problem ending any time soon, given LA's size and skill up front. To that end, and fully recognizing what I said about Shelden Williams, above, I wonder if it's worth dressing Brian Scalabrine instead of Michael Finley or Marquis Daniels. Finley's Game 1 performance suggests he would only possibly be useful in a situation where we need a three-pointer, and Doc has absolutely no faith in Daniels. All Scal would give us is another six fouls, but they might come in handy one of these games.
  • The best for last: Rondo was just remarkable in the fourth quarter tonight. His growth as a player can be summed up by his play in the last several minutes, when Bryant played well off of him. In the 2008 Finals, this strategy so rattled Rondo that Doc brought in the exiled Eddie House to close out Games 3 and 4 in LA. This year, a more confident Rondo attacked the basket repeatedly, and then nailed a huge jumper (reminiscent of Game 2 against Orlando) to put us up five. With KG in a funk and Pierce capably guarded by Ron Artest, Rondo is our second option on offense behind Ray. He also turned in the two signature defensive plays of the game, blocking a Fisher three-pointer from behind, and then poking the ball away from Bryant as Mamba rose for a three that would have cut Boston's lead to three with under a minute remaining. He was also seemingly the only Celtic going after defensive rebounds for a chunk of the game, and his offensive board and silky lefty putback with 3:19 to play put Boston up for good. All told, he had 19 points, 12 boards, and ten assists, with a great performance in crunch time. I love this kid.
Back to Boston for Game 3 on Tuesday, less than 48 hours after the conclusion of Game 2. A quick turnaround would seemingly favor the more youthful Lakers, but the Celtics will be sleeping in their own beds and will have what should be a great Garden crowd to pull them through.

Boston has technically swiped home-court advantage over the Lakers, but frankly, I expect that the series will end in LA; winning four in a row is probably too much to ask. But two out of three in Boston is probably vital, and Tuesday is the time to start.

Friday, June 4, 2010

Los Angeles Lakers 102, Boston 89

[recap] [box score]

First things first: All credit to the Lakers. I've been saying for a while now that I didn't think they were ready for the physicality of whomever their Finals opponent would be, and I found myself eating my words on Thursday night. Boston hardly put up much of a fight, but from jump street the Lakers killed the Celtics on the boards and won the race to pretty much every loose ball. They're a much tougher team, mentally and physically, than they were two years ago.

With that said, it's hard to imagine Boston playing a worse game than they did in Game 1. Some individuals are more culpable than others, but no one played well defensively, and other than Paul Pierce shooting 13 free throws, almost nothing went right on the offensive end.

Boston's biggest problem, I think, was the early foul trouble to Ray Allen. Ray versus Derek Fisher is our mismatch, and it was encouraging to see us recognize that early by going to him often. But the whistles shut him down, limiting him to 12 points in 27 foul-plagued minutes, including a very large chunk of the fourth quarter, when he played despite carrying five personals.

Someone at ESPN -- I think it was Mark Jackson -- said that Boston needed to find a way to get Pierce going. I disagree somewhat. As I mentioned last time. Ron Artest always does a nice job on Pierce and Boston would be making a mistake by relying on him too heavily. Pierce was wonderfully efficient on Thursday, scoring 24 points on just 13 shots. Boston should be able to win with their captain posting those kinds of numbers; they just need a partner in crime to step up.

Whatever the opposite of stepping up is, that's what Kevin Garnett did. Rarely have I seen him so out of synch: missing layups; mistiming his jump; struggling to catch the ball; foregoing open shots; firing passes over people's heads. My hunch is that KG's legendary intensity got the best of him and he was a little too worked up for this one. If not, Boston could be in some trouble. The other explanations are that he's physically not right or that he shrank from the moment, a reputation he seemed to shed in 2008. But based on the way he was fumbling the ball out there, I cast my vote for too fired up.

Tony Allen also had a terrible game. Pressed into early action due to Ray's foul trouble, Tony spent most of his 16 minutes, 33 seconds of court time fouling and turning the ball over. A year ago, none of this would have surprised me, but Tony's play this year has been a revelation, and Boston is going to need a lot better from him as the series wears on.

Nate Robinson, by contrast, was a positive influence again tonight, earning a +10 despite missing all three of his shots from the field and going scoreless. With Michael Finley apparently unable to keep up with LA's bench guards, I expect Nate to see some more playing time in this series.

Anyway, though there's plenty of reason for disappointment, there's also no reason to panic. Boston played a terrible game and LA played a pretty damn good one and yet, although the Lakes won handily, it honestly should have been a bigger margin of victory. It's not the start we wanted, but it's also not the end of the world.


Wednesday, June 2, 2010

Bring on the Lakers!

Before I get to the long overdue Finals preview post, a few personal messages:
  • First, I want to welcome into the world one of the newest Celtics fans, Harrison Budd Tinger, born on the morning of the Eastern Conference clincher to my good friends Brian and Mariah (Titlow) Tinger. Harrison, my man, you have two wonderful parents, and that gives you a head start in life. Since you're their son, I know you won't look back.
  • Second, congratulations to Dave and Carissa (Jobe) Clark, who graciously accomodated us Celtics fans during their wedding reception two weekends ago by making sure there was a TV present for Game 3 against the Magic. Thanks, guys; I haven't been to a party like that in quite some time.
  • Last, but certainly not least, congratulations to my dear friends Dave and Anna (Rack) Roberts, not the least bit because Friday's clincher mercifully kept them from having to deal with Celtics fans periodically running out of their wedding reception to watch a Game 7. I couldn't be happier for both of you.
Let's analyze basketball a little bit. Game 1 tips at 9 p.m. Eastern on Thursday night on ABC.
  • I've been saying since Game 1 of the conference finals that LA would struggle in Game 1 of the Finals against whoever they played. The Celtics and Magic play far more physically than Phoenix does; it's bound to be a shock to the Lakers. I'm not saying they can't handle it -- though it was the main X-factor in 2008 and it's up to the Lakers to prove things are different this time around -- just that it's going to take some adjusting. It's for this reason that I think Game 1 is our best opportunity to take one of the first two on the road -- which I think is crucial in this 2-3-2 format.
  • Speaking of the 2-3-2 format, the explanation I've always heard for it (recall that previous playoff rounds follow a 2-2-1-1-1 format) is that it cuts down on the coast-to-coast travel. That makes it curious to me that after Game 2 on Sunday, the teams will have fewer than 48 hours to fly from LA to Boston for Game 3 on Tuesday night. Given that the Celtics are older and a bit more banged up than the Lakers, the quick turnaround in theory works against Boston. This makes at least a split in LA all the more important, in my opinion.
  • Word is that Kobe Bryant will guard Rajon Rondo and Derek Fisher will check Ray Allen. The thinking on the Lakers side is that this saves Kobe from chasing Ray all over the court, and that Fisher, who can't stay in front of Rondo, can at least bother Ray by being physical. From a Boston perspective, Rondo will need to punish Kobe if he helps, not necessarily by knocking down open jumpers, but by attacking before Kobe can get back to him. The Kobe-on-Rondo strategy worked for a couple games in the 2008 Finals, but Rondo is now used to having guys playing off of him. He needs to attack, not just for points, but to make Kobe expend some energy on defense and possibly get into foul trouble.
  • Ray is going to be a key offensive player if Fisher guards him because it then becomes the best matchup we have (really, whoever Fisher is guarding is the best matchup we have). The offense we run for Ray is typically him coming off a maze of screens for a jumper, which won't fully take advantage of the mismatch. I'm interested to see if we'll run some of the same isolation plays for Ray that we often run for Paul Pierce.
  • Speaking of Pierce, while we don't want to forget about him offensively, we need to recognize that Ron Artest always guards him very well -- something we refused to pay attention to in the regular season matchups. We can't count on leaning on Pierce the way we tend to, at least not from the beginning. We need to have a Plan B.
  • Defensively, I expect we'll do what we typically do against the Lakers (and teams with players like Kobe): Dare them to beat us from the outside. Phoenix had a lot of success with a zone against LA in the Western finals, and while I don't expect a formal zone from us, forcing the Lakers to shoot 3s is certainly within our M.O. against them.
  • Kendrick Perkins is one technical away from a suspension, and having watched the big fella for years now, it's hard to be confident that he'll go six games in a series of this intensity without getting hit with something. He needs to be very careful, because we need him to counter the Lakers' frontcourt size.
When we were playing our second-round series with Cleveland, I was in the middle of final exams and often found myself watching the game in a bar or restaurant -- usually wearing a shirt with "Rondo" or "Pierce" printed across the back. On those occasions, I would invariably run into Lakers fans -- I live in LA, after all -- who told me that they were rooting for us. Not, I feel, because they wanted revenge for 2008 or because they wanted to see yet another chapter of the NBA's greatest rivalry, but because they figured they had a better chance of beating us than the Cavs -- an understandable sentiment, I guess, given that Cleveland had the best record in the league and Boston underwhelmed for most of the regular season.

Now that the Celtics have dispatched not only the Cavs but also the Magic in relatively convincing fashion, I suspect their tune has changed. And just in observing the talk around town, I detect just a bit of insecurity from the team and their fans. Some of it has to do with Boston's unexpected, inspired play over the past several weeks, and some of it, I'm sure, is because another Finals defeat to their bitter rival would be too much to bear, all but erasing last year's success.

You wanted us, LA.

You got us.