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

Five mini-columns

In this in-between time at the start of football and late-but-not-that-late in the everlasting baseball season, there's not any one topic that stands out, so I thought I'd give you my well thought out opinions on five things in sports (originally ten, but I let No. 3 run so long that I thought I'd cut it short (having now finished this, I realize the word short is out of place here)). This probably means I'll have nothing to write about for weeks, so enjoy. Keep in mind that a) I came up with this list at 2 a.m. this morning (I couldn't sleep and I'm not kidding; you have no idea the kind of pressure that comes with running this website) and b) I'm still not making any money off this, so if it makes no sense, blame yourself (which, interestingly enough, also makes no sense). And we're off! 1) Maurice Clarett vs. Ohio State: Before you skip down to No. 2, which I would certainly do in your position, hear me out. There is actually a little timeliness to t...

And now that it’s gone, it’s like it wasn’t there at all

I never thought this blog would last longer than Jay Cutler's career with the Denver Broncos. He was a talented young prospect so good that the Broncos, a powerhouse organization only one game removed from the Super Bowl the season before, traded up to get him—or, in other words, a player whose upside was so huge, the team sacrificed its present to get his future. And now? He's gone . How did it come to this? * * * Often I'll play devil's advocate with a move like this; you know, I'll try and explain how it makes sense from the other side of the table. Today, during the most disastrous Broncos offseason in memory—and the draft hasn't even happened yet, so settle in—I just don't have it in me. I don't think move is really defensible from a football standpoint. But what the heck: as the article above says, the Broncos are sending Cutler and a fifth-round draft pick this month to the Chicago Bears for quarterback Kyle Orton, Chicago's first-rounder in t...

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...