Boston 107, Philadelphia 91

[recap] [box score]

As I was thinking about Game 3, in the hours leading up to it, I was struck by the thought that in the past five seasons, you could predict Boston's success in a post-season series based on how they played immediately following a game they weren't supposed to or shouldn't have lost:

1. In the 2007-08 season, the championship season, Atlanta and then Cleveland each took Boston to seven games -- but the Celtics went 8-0 in the Garden. It wasn't until the Eastern semis against the Pistons that the Celtics coughed up home court advantage, in Game 2. Boston went to Detroit, won Game 3 by 14 and the series in six.

2. The following year, Boston dropped Game 1 in Boston, eked out a win in Game 2, then took home court back in a Game 3 blowout that was the only lopsided affair of a truly epic playoff series.

3. In 2009-2010, Boston went up 3-0 on a pre-Big Three Miami, lost Game 4 in South Beach, then closed the series out in five. They then lost a winnable first game in Cleveland to LeBron James and the Cavs, bounced back with a Game 2 victory, then mysteriously didn't show up for Game 3 and got blown out at home. Rather than pack it in, the Celtics turned the momentum of the series, winning the fourth game -- then the fifth, then the series-deciding sixth. In the Finals against the Lakers, Boston rebounded from a Game 3 loss to take the next two at home, putting them on the brink of a championship that went unfulfilled when Kendrick Perkins tore his ACL in the opening minutes of Game 6.

There are exceptions, but generally speaking over the last five seasons, when Boston has found itself in a tough spot in the postseason and immediately dug themselves out of it, they've won. When they haven't, they've lost. Other than those first two series way back in 2007-08, the Celtics hadn't won a series in which they lost consecutive games -- and hadn't lost a series in which they'd avoided back-to-back losses.

Having written that all out, it seems sort of obvious -- avoid consecutive losses, and you'll do well. But before the game Wednesday night, I was nervous, and thinking "Boy, we'd better win tonight." The pressure was particularly heavy because of how poorly the team had played in both Games 1 and 2 -- we sort of assumed that the problem was a lack of focus, a failure to take Philadelphia seriously, but in this compressed season, with Paul Pierce and Ray Allen hurting, there was always the chance that we simply didn't have what we needed. A third straight lackluster performance, especially from Pierce, would have severely shaken my confidence.

Writing this a few hours after the game, I obviously feel much better. The Celtics did more or less what I hoped they'd do, which was come out and defend like they had in Boston while finally playing with some energy and purpose on offense.

What was particularly interesting about this game, however, is that despite the large margin of victory, Boston wasn't in control from the beginning. In fact, the opening moments went about as poorly for the Celtics as they could have gone. Kevin Garnett was called for two early touch fouls and Pierce missed something like his first six shots, while Philly came out hot from the field. But Rajon Rondo kept us within striking distance and Pierce finally broke through, moving quickly on the catch to escape the double team and driving and dunking on two consecutive possessions. Still, all the loose balls seemed to be falling Philly's way; down two at the end of the first quarter, Rondo made a steal but couldn't quite corral it, and the ball bounced right to Louis Williams, who made a long three-pointer at the horn. Coming on the heels of the lucky shots the Sixers hit in Game 2, and the fact that the refs had taken KG (our best offensive weapon with Pierce ailing) out of the game, it suffices to say that I was very frustrated at the end of the first quarter.

I didn't have to worry long. Boston took control in the second quarter and didn't look back. Garnett came back in and scored three straight buckets, and Boston set the tone for the rest of the game with a 33-17 second quarter. The loose balls kept finding Philly -- at one point in the third quarter, the Sixers scored on three consecutive possessions on which the Celtics deflected a pass or dribble right to another Sixer -- but Boston never lacked for a response.

Almost everyone got into the act, but credit for this win should be distributed more or less equally among Pierce (24 points, 12 rebounds), Garnett (27 and 13), and Rondo (23 points, 14 assists). Pierce shook off his knee injury, two bad games, and a rough opening few minutes to register the first real Truth-like performance since he re-tweaked his knee in Game 4 of the Atlanta series. The Sixers simply cannot guard Garnett, who is getting no protection from the officials and would be putting up even bigger numbers if Elton Brand weren't allowed to manhandle him in the post. And Rondo responded to the (oft-aimed) criticism that he too often subordinates his scoring in favor of passing by doing both beautifully. He had a number of brilliant assists in this game, including a sweet behind-the-back dish to Pierce in traffic on the break, but my favorite was a much simpler play late in the game, with the outcome more or less decided. Philly trapped the ball in the left corner and Rondo flashed in to the paint. He received a pass in the middle of the lane and was momentarily wide-open for a layup or short jumper. Most players would have taken the shot themselves. But Rondo, knowing that a) Mickael Pietrus was spotting up in the right corner, and b) the guy who was supposed to guard Pietrus would be coming over to try to challenge his shot, pivoted quickly and fired the ball to Pietrus almost before he had a chance to look. Pietrus caught the pass, and with enough time to make and eat a Croque Madame (and wash his hands afterwards!), drained the three. It was just a great instinct play from a point guard who sees the floor the way very few have in the history of this game.

The Celtics won convincingly despite getting a combined three points (on just three shots) in a combined 45 minutes at the two-spot from Avery Bradley and Ray Allen. If there's one negative about this game, that was it -- both are nursing injuries, and it'd be nice to have some assurance of meaningful offensive contribution from these two going forward. But all in all, this was a very satisfying -- and more importantly, reassuring -- win.

Game 4 is Friday night in BostonPhiladelphia (8 p.m. Eastern, ESPN). It's a must-win for Philly, and it'll be interesting to see how they react. Here's hoping that the Celtics' focus from Game 3 carries over.