by WCT, The Ship of Fools
This year's NBA postseason was quite a learning experience for basketball fans. We learned that NBA refs fix games (well, this postseason let us further know that NBA refs fix games), and we learned that Boston has some douche-y sports fans. Hmm, maybe these playoffs didn't teach us that much new stuff after all. In any case, even if we knew most of the ancillary stuff that goes along with the NBA, we did learn a lot of actual basketball information. Lets take a quick recap of the on-the-court stuff we learned since the first-round series tipped off way back in February (it was February right? Or does it only seem like it has been that long?)
We can stop with the whole "Kobe=Michael" nonsense - Kobe deserved the MVP award, because it was a regular season award, and Kobe lifted the play of his teammates during the year in a way that no one thought he could. But if you think that Michael Jordan would ever, ever allow his team to be embarrassed by almost 40 points in a close-out game, you're crazy. If you think that Michael would ever, ever allow his team to blow a 20+ point lead in a pivotal Finals game (at home!) you're nuts. Kobe allowed both to take place. In the same series. These playoffs taught us that Kobe probably doesn't even compare to LeBron James. James, with an equally garbage supporting cast (if not worse) pushed the Celtics to 7 games in a hard-fought series. In fact, in the Cavs-Celts series, it took a missed gimme in the final seconds for the Celtics to win game 1, and an other-worldly performance by Paul Pierce for the Celtics to win game 7. Otherwise, that was a very close series. The Lakers, on the other hand, got their doors blown off in the Finals.
Kobe is a great, great player, and there is no shame in not being as good as Michael Jordan. In fact, it is probably unfair that MJ is the measuring stick for Kobe just because they play the same position, and have won a lot of titles under Phil Jackson. But the fact is, those comparisons should stop.
A lot of people were wrong in picking the winner in this series - The ease with which the Celts disposed of the Lakers was a surprise, but the actual outcome should not be. What should be surprising is the number of people that picked the Lakers before the Finals began. The Celtics were the best team in the NBA record-wise for the entire season, and beat LA in their only regular season meetings. Why is everyone so surprised? Most thought that the Celtics record was inflated due to a weak Eastern Conference, which segues perfectly into the next thing we learned...
The Eastern Conference is AT LEAST as good as the West, if not better - For years, conventional NBA wisdom has been, the West is better, the East is weak. All record and accomplishments in the East should come with a disclaimer, blah blah blah. No more my friends. The Lakers series was by far the easiest series the Celtics had to win this postseason. The goddamn Hawks provided more resistance than the Lakers did.
The eventual champs were pushed to 7 games against Atlanta, 7 games against Cleveland, and the 6 game series with Detroit included three single-digit Celtic wins. The Lakers waltzed through a pathetic Denver team, a very good Utah team, and an old-looking group of San Antonio Spurs. The Finals were never in doubt. The Lakers had a historic collapse in game 4, were very lucky to win games 3 & 5, and were absolutely destroyed in game 6. I'm sorry, you can no longer make the argument that the West is better.
The Lakers are soft - First of all, congratulations to the Celtics. They deserve all of the accolades for winning the championship this year, their 17th in the 62 years of their existence (27% of all championships awarded in that time. Not even the Yankees can claim that kind of dominance) and I do not want this rant to take anything away from them.
That said, the way the Celtics pushed the Lakers around inside was laughable. Pau Gasol's scoring went from 22 points per game against Denver, to 14 against Boston (including 11 in game 6), Vladimir Radmanovic is 6-10 and averaged fewer that 5 rebounds per game, Lamar Odom seemed to disappear in the fourth quarters of games, and the "defense" that Sasha Vujacic played on Ray Allen, in the closing seconds of game 4, when the Lakers absolutely positively needed a stop, was a disgrace. Without so much as a crossover dribble, Allen blew by Vujacic like he was nailed to the floor. The Celtics embarrassed the Lakers for the better part of the entire 6 game series.
Friday, June 20, 2008
WHAT THESE NBA PLAYOFFS TAUGHT US
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Subscribe to the Epic Carnival
4 comment(s):
The Celtics may be the best team in the NBA but the Eastern Conference is NO WHERE NEAR the western conference. The Celtics went to 7 against the hawks because they didn't play well, but played tremendous against the Lakers. C'mon dude you've got to be kidding me just because the Celts had a harder time with the hawks doesn't mean the EC is better.
Don't take this the wrong way WCT, but do you watch much basketball?
It'd be a mistake for the Lakers to base their future plans based entirely on their performance in the Finals against the Celtics.
Likewise, it would be a mistake for us to assume that the Celtics played the same way against both the Lakers and the Hawks.
If the Hawks/Lakers were to match up, it's not a series.
The Celtics team that played in the finals were a totally different team to the team that played the Hawks, despite having the exact same roster.
In the Finals, once they got there, Boston came to play. LA, after promising so much throughout the playoffs, barely showed up at all.
If you can honestly assert that the East is better than the West based on the back of two games (other than games 4 & 6, what are you basing your 'dominance' on?), then you haven't been paying attention to the entire series.
Sorry, this wasn't intended as a rant on you WCT... but there's some pretty fallacious thinking going on in this post.
Regards...
Sheesh... correction:
"...then you haven't been paying attention to the entire series."
should read as:
"...then you haven't been paying attention to the entire season."
Apologies!
I never said that the Hawks were better than the Lakers, nor did I say that a Hawks/Lakers finals would be a good series. What I said was that the Hawks offered more resistence than the Lakers did, and that is inarguable.
I know there are different matchups and whatever, but the fact is the constant was the Celtics, and the variable was their opponent, and they had a tougher time going through the east than they did going through the Lakers. I was merely pointing out that the ease with which the Lakers won 2 of their 3 playoff series in conference, plus the difficulty with which the Celtics won their playoff series, combined with the complete domination of the Celtics over the Lakers led me to the conclusion that the West is no longer dominant over the East, as has been the case for the last few years.
Post a Comment