Skip to main content

Lakers take 1-2 series lead

Have you ever heard the saying that it's not a series until a team wins on the road? If not, good for you, because it's stupid. By that logic, the Hornets-Spurs second round series this year, which went to seven games, was not a series until the Spurs won Game Seven. In other words, it was not a series until it was over.

In any event, the home teams have won the first three games of the NBA Finals, but still plenty has happened. Boston struck first, taking Game One by ten points. Paul Pierce went down (briefly) with an injury, and it appeared the series was over, but he came back, hit some memorable threes, and his team cruised.

In Game Two, the Celtics appeared well on their way to a blowout before the Lakers almost stole the win. It was one of the craziest games ever. I've never seen a team give up such a brain-dead easy basket as Leon Powe's coast-to-coast dunk and still threaten to win the same game in a championship series. I still can't make sense of it.

Finally, tonight in Game Three the Lakers returned home and defended their home court. Boston's offense was terrible, but give credit to the Lakers. Not sure if they mentioned it on the broadcast for a nine hundredth time, but it helped a lot when the Lakers had Kobe on Rajon Rondo. That made it hard for the Celtics to defend Kobe in transition!

I actually liked the Celtics' chances after a quarter, when they'd faced down the Laker onslaught and remained firmly in a game, but the offense never got on track. Ray Allen shot very well, but Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett certainly didn't, going a combined 8-for-35 from the floor. I feel bad for Cagey but he really has no excuse for not shooting better. Also, I saw quickly why the Sports Guy hates when Sam Cassell plays so much—it's like Sam wants the Lakers to win.

Kobe played well, not perfect but well, and the fact that the Lakers won despite such an unimpressive showing from other key players is a bad sign for the Celtics. But the biggest upset for me so far is how wrong I was about this series—I do care about it, and so far it's shaping up to be a good one.

Comments

John said…
The series is shaping up to be a good one, but I still like Boston to win it. True, the Lakers got nothing from their role players, but two of the Celtics' star players played very poorly, and they still only lost by 6 on the road. I expect KG and/or Pierce to come out stronger in game 4, and I don't think the Lakers' defense will have an answer if two of the Celtics' big 3 get on track at the same time.

And where was Powe last night? Have you ever seen a guy turn in such a huge performance in the Finals only to be unceremoniously benched in the next game?
Mike said…
I like Boston, too, mostly because their victories were more impressive, the late comeback in Game Two notwithstanding.

I'm not sure Powe will ever play again. Sucks to be a bench guy, but it would especially suck to be a bench guy for a coach who has no consistency in his rotation.

Popular posts from this blog

Did CU ever win the Pac-12?

In 2010, I bet a college buddy of mine (who longtime readers may remember as the only other contributor to Hole Punch Sports) that CU’s football team would not win the Pac-12 in the next 15 years. Guess what? It’s time for me to gloat, because I was right. Why we were doomed Back in the day, a lot of people made the argument that CU should join the Pac-12 because we’d get so much more TV money there. Of course, given college football is the answer to the question, “what if you had a sport where multiple teams were like the Yankees, and you created a whole universe of haves and have-nots?”, then yeah, you want to be aligned with some of the haves. But the question in my mind wasn’t, “will CU be better off with more money?” That’s an obvious yes. The question I asked was, will CU be any more competitive in their own conference if they’re competing against teams who are also getting more money? I couldn’t see why they would be. The mathematical angle Legend has it that Cowboys runn...

National Basketball Association Finals Preview Blowout!

If you're looking for a stereotypical matchup breakdown for the NBA Finals between the Detroit Pistons and San Antonio Spurs, (Game One is tonight, 7 o'clock Mountain, ABC), you've come to the right place! Center: Ben Wallace, Pistons vs. Nazr Mohammed, Spurs Wallace might be the league's top defender, winning his third Defensive Player of the Year award this season and leading the Pistons in both blocks and steals. It's said he's an improved offensive player, but he still scores primarily on tips and wide-open dunks. "Big Ben" is horrific from the foul line, connecting on 42.8% this season. Also, his brother has taken on NBA players and can probably beat up Mohammed's brother. Mohammed has been a good fit for the Spurs since being traded from the Knicks. It appears Isiah Thomas may have finally made his first mistake as general manager in New York, as Mohammed has started every Spurs' playoff game, averaging 8.1 points to go with a solid seven...

Forget Brett Favre (*)

From my 2007 NFL season preview : Favre's not as good as he once was-who is?-but he's not the disgrace people make him out to be...I don't think he "deserves" to go out with another Lombardi or anything, but I hope he gets to leave on a good note. Oops. What a mistake. And I even knew this day was coming. Let me say that Brett Favre deserves to go down in history with whatever records he earns, so long as a giant asterisk is placed by each and every one of them. As you may have heard, Sunday's victory over the New York Giants made Favre the winningest quarterback in NFL history. I don't know what ESPN did on TV, but this record practically went unnoticed in the places I follow sports. But it's of crucial importance to me. Why? "Maybe someday down the road it will mean a lot," a typically humble Favre said after the 149th win of his career, moving past Hall of Famer [and indisputable greatest quarterback of all time] John Elway. Humble...