There is definately one celebration for me today, and if the Lakers can take care of business today, there could be two things to celebrate. As those of you who commented on my post-game Lakers/Spurs blog know, this is my birthday (I'm 24). So, before I begin my preview of tonight's game, I decided to see what sports events happened today (this is a one-time only thing for me, so whoever does those "This week in sports" blogs is safe):

On this day in:

1911: The first Indy 500 is held.

1922: Baseball is ruled a sport (not business) and isn't included in antitrust legislation.

1980: Larry Bird is named ROY in the NBA.

1984: The Red Sox retire Ted Williams' number.

1995: Indiana and Orlando play a memorable Game 4 of the Eastern Conference Finals. The lead changes hands four times late until Rik Smits hits the game winner at the buzzer for a 94-93 victory.

1997: John Stockton sinks a buzzer-beating 3 to send the Utah Jazz to their first NBA Finals as they beat Houston 103-100 in game 6 of the Western Conference Finals.

2004: Kevin Garnett wins his final playoff game as a Timberwolf when Minnesota beats the Lakers 98-96 in game 5 of the Western Finals.

And who could forget:

1993: Jose Canseco takes the mound for a relief pitcher appearence during a Rangers/Red Sox game. He pitches the 8th, gives up 3 runs and 2 hits, plus 3 walks. The Rangers lose 15-1, and to add injury to insult, he injures his arm and misses the rest of the season.

Ah, the memories.

Now then, let's look at the Lakers/Spurs matchup. Can the Spurs avoid elimination? Or can Kobe move one step closer to a career-defining ring? Here are my keys for each team:

Spurs keys:

1. Be the Man-u, Ginobili!: If the Spurs want to play again at home this year, Ginobili must come up big. It's great when Brent Barry has a huge game, but Manu inspires his team when he goes off. Plus, it takes pressure off of Duncan and Parker to carry the load.

2. Take the open shots: It sounds childishly simple, but the Spurs have passed on a lot of open looks (I commented Tuesday that Robert Horry had become "I Don't Want The Shot Bob!"). If you're open (Timmy), take the shot. You have nothing to lose, so don't worry if you miss.

3. Don't let Kobe beat you: Again, fairly obvious, but you know Kobe will come for the throat tonight. He's so close to the Finals, he can taste it! Make players like Odom and Fisher, plus Vlad Rad and Sasha V, shoot to win.

Lakers keys:

1. Forget about the finish to game 4: Yeah, the NBA admitted they made the wrong non-call at the end of game 4, but I'm talking about the stuff before that; the Barry three, the Parker goaltend-that-shouldn't-have-been, and two bad shots by Kobe. Throw that out, and come out swinging tonight!

2. Lamar Odom, please hit a shot or more!: Kobe is the undenyable top player here, but Odom is the X-factor; when he's playing well, they're virtually unbeatable. He didn't have his A-game on display in SA, but maybe the home crowd gets him going.

3. A steady diet of Kobe, please!: In the end, this game is where superstars leave their mark on the game. Kobe not only has a berth in the Finals on the line, he has his enitre legacy at stake as well. That's all I need to know to say Kobe will go off tonight and try to send the Spurs home as ex-champs!

So, who wins? The Spurs have to be demoralized that they got ripped off at home by incompetent referees, and they will bring fire tonight. I just don't see that as being enough to stop the Lakers now. The Lakers advance to the Finals with a seven point win.

Tonight's game may go down as one that could end the Spurs' dynistic run, albeit in controversial form. The champs fought valiantly, but the Lakers won the game 93-91 and can now wrap up their first conference title (and make their astounding 29th trip to the NBA Finals) at home on Thursday (my birthday; cheap plug, I know). The Lakers nearly blew a seven point lead by allowing Brent Barry to hit a three, and Tony Paker getting a goaltend, while Kobe Bryant threw up bad shots on successive possessions. However, let's get to the end-of-game controversy.

I'll ask the universal question; was Barry fouled at the end? I like the analysis of ESPN's Tim Legler, who said if Barry had kept moving, he would have gotten the call. Essentially, if Barry had pulled a Billups, or something closer to Spurs fans, a Ginobili (we'll get to him in a moment), he would have gotten FTs and likely won the game for the champs. If you ask me about the play, yes, Derek Fisher fell on him, but Barry intended for contact to occur (not a bad idea), and the refs didn't give him the contact. So, I say the call wasn't incorrect.

And for all you Spurs fans who will undoubtedly say something on every post-game blog like "That was an obvious foul, you no good Laker lover!!", or "We told you Joe Crawford has a bias against us!" (btw, wasn't Crawford refereeing a game against the Spurs a method I gave for the road team to win back in my "Does anybody want to win a road game? Solutions to fix the problem!" blog?), the Spurs had a substantial advantage at the foul line, so don't give me that. Look at the real reason your team lost; Manu stunk, and stunk big time!

The Spurs have proven they are only as good as Manu's play; he played terrific in game 3 with 30 points, only to revert to games 1-2 form with only 2 FGs. Granted, Barry was huge off the bench with 23 points, but there is a tangible difference between Manu going off and Barry going off; when Manu goes off, the Spurs' energy level rises, and it inspires the team to do well. When Barry goes off, only he gets pumped up by it. The team's inability to shoot straight (they played like the Celtics did last night, missing often from the field but getting a lot of FTs) cost them tonight.

So, after all of that has been said, are the Spurs done in this series? I've learned not to count them out until it's over (although I picked L.A. to win in six before this series began). 3-1 down is a hard mountain to climb, but the Spurs are the champs until that title is taken from them. So I'll hold final judgement until after game 5. But if L.A. wins, they'll have a tremendous advantage in the Finals since Boston and Detroit will have hurt each other in a brutal series.

Final thoughts:

Sasha V (I can't spell his name) needs to know when to not shoot. he could have been the goat of the game if they had lost.

Wasn't it nice to hear just straight commentary most of the night? You don't hear Doug Collins imitate Al Pacino, do you, Jeff?

Kobe didn't close late with those two bad shots at the end. Bet ya he comes out with a vengence in game 5.

I though Robert Horry was "Big Shot Bob". Now he "I Don't Want The Shot Bob"!

There were a lot of no-calls for both teams. And complaints by the players and the fans were rampant. I thought the fans would riot "Frankenstein"-style after the game!

We've now had about two days to wonder about tonight's game 2 between the Spurs and Lakers. So, what are the keys to winning for each side? I'll say that this game is critical for both teams, but more so the Lakers. Not to sound like many commentators/columnists, but the Spurs can probably shrug off another loss; they fell behind 0-2 to New Orleans and won the series, so they could do it again. But here are each team's keys to winning:

Spurs keys:

1. Maintain the tempo from game one: If they keep the game half-court and methodical, they shouldn't be concerned.

2. Manu, please maintain control!: Ginobili was a major factor in why the Spurs lost game 1; he was reckless and probably forced too many shots to get out of a slump (think AI). If he can show some control, there won't be as many turnovers as game 1.

3. Encore, Tim Duncan!: Duncan was great in game one... until late, when he stopped attacking the basket and passed on open shots. Duncan must maintain his early game preformance for 48 minutes; that's bound to draw fouls on Gasol and Odom, and keep the tempo in their favor.

Lakers keys:

1. 48 minutes, Kobe: Did you listen to Craig Sager's interview with Kobe after the game? He said that Phil Jackson said he was running the Bermuda Triangle early in the game! It's nice that the MVP wasn't forcing on Tuesday, but he needs to give a full effort all game, especially now that he has a target on his back for his comments after leaving the court.

2. More balanced scoring: It's amazing that the Lakers won when they got little outside of Kobe, Pau Gasol and Sasha V (don't ask me how to spell it!). Derek Fisher needs to know when to shoot, and Lamar Odom needs to step up tonight for a Laker win.

3. Keep up the bench production: The Laker bench was good in game 1; Sasha provided offensive help and played great D on Ginobili, and Ronny Turiaf was solid off the boards and on defense (except at times on Duncan). If they get similar production, they'll win.

So, who wins the game? The Spurs will have had a night to rest (in their hotels), and that will help immensely. But I don't see Kobe having an off half again tonight. He'll be more consistent, and the Lakers know that they can't afford to give the champs confidence as they go back home. I'll say the Lakers win tonight (forget about a score; that's too much!).

After a debate more passionate than I've seen in quite some time, the Spurs and Lakers played two games last night. The first 2 1/2 quarters belonged to the champs, who eventually took a 65-45 lead. The last quarter and a half belonged to league MVP Kobe Bryant, who showed that the Lakers have the one critical element the Hornets lacked; an elite closer.

Kobe's performance was Jordan-esque, as in the Jordan of 1991. Like Mike did during that playoff run, Kobe held back on shooting early (3 attempts in the first half) and distributed the ball. In the second, when his team needed it the most, he took over, and Bruce Bowen (or anyone, for that matter) who guarded him had no chance to stop him. Despite getting off games by Lamar Odom (8 points) and Derek Fisher (who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn yesterday), Kobe and Pau Gasol gave them the scoring necessary to win. Even more iimportantly, they proved they could win a Spurs-type game.

If you're the Spurs, you're probably thinking these things:

1. We lost a 20-point lead yesterday, but...

2. We established our tempo, and Manu Ginobili was terrible, and we were tired, so it's not completely bad.

The Spurs looked every bit jet lagged after a blistering start, and Ginobili looked the worse for ware; he was out of control (in a bad way), shooting 3-10 from the field, including missing a potential three to take the lead late. If anybody's game is predicated on energy, Ginobili's is, and he had none of it. The Lakers did an outstanding job of limiting Ginobili and Tony Parker's drives to the paint (just 10 points in the paint between them) and their defense late in the game was impressive. But the Spurs have to be encouraged by the fact they did everything they wanted to do last night. Now all they have to do is maintain that for the entire game.

The Spurs of last night reminded me, though, of the mid-to-late 90s Knicks; they can go through long dry spells during a game, and they hit that wall late, when the fresher Lakers made every key play down the stretch. Now, they face a big game 2, and though I said recently the Lakers would win the first two, if the Spurs play the same way tomorrow that they did yesterday, and Ginobili resembles the player he can be, they could easily steal this game. Tim Duncan was a beast (30 points and I think 18 boards), and if I'm Phil Jackson, I wouldn't keep putting Ronny Turiaf on him; that's akin to guarding a in-his-prime Shaq with Tom Tolbert! Nonetheless, tomorrow's game should be fun to watch.

 

Before I begin today, let me address last night. I said in my blog that the Spurs' run at their second straight title would end last night. And, of course, that didn't happen. I was ready to use today's post to write an apology letter (and that would have been the enitre post). After sleeping on it, however, I came to the conclusion that the thought of it would be boring and longwinded. But most of all, it would have been bitter, and I don't want to sound bitter (cynical, yes; bitter, no). So, I'll keep it brief; Sorry, Spurs fans. You obviously showed the championship mettle that the Hornets lacked, and congrats on the victory.

Now then, let's use this post more wisely; to preview the Spurs' matchup with the Lakers, a matchup many people (including Jalen Rose, Jay Mariotti, Skip Bayless, etc.) wanted to see. As I said yesterday, the Lakers probably prefer this matchup not for any mismatches they could exploit, but to affirm thier ascent by beating the best the NBA has to offer. Let's look at it position-by-position and give an early prediction (take it for what it's worth; a stick of gum):

Point Guard: Tony Parker vs Derek Fisher appears, on paper, to be a mismatch, but to use an oft-heard comment, Fisher has the championship savvy (he has as many rings as Parker does) and is still a good defender. If he can just keep Parker in check and hit a few threes, the Lakers will live with that.

Shooting Guard: How can you choose against the MVP of the league? No offense to Manu Ginobili, but Kobe always wins in a comparison. Expect Bruce Bowen to defend (and try to roughhouse), but Kobe will get his points.

Small Forward: Ginobili will instead guard Vlad Radmanovic (who cares about spelling?), who is too streaky for my tastes. Radmanovic and Luke Walton (who didn't do much against Utah) will do for "Sir Flops-a-Lot" what Ginobili does on Kobe; they'll let Kobe defend Manu, and guard Bowen instead. Good idea.

Power Forward: Let's assume that Tim Duncan is the center here (he is listed as one, after all). So,the matchup here is Fabricio Oberto and Kurt Thomas against Lamar Odom and Ronny Turiaf. Oberto showed his usefulness by facilitating scores through his passes, and Thomas was a offensive rebounding beast in limited minutes last night. But if Odom plays like he did against the Jazz, and slashes to the rack on these slower defenders, he could be the biggest factor in this series.

Center: The head-to-head matchup everyone is curious about is Duncan versus Pau Gasol. The last time these two met in the postseason (2004 1st round), Duncan dominated, and the Spurs swept. That won't happen here (the sweep, mind you), but Gasol didn't have to defend premier post players in the prior two rounds (Marcus Camby and Memhet Okur don't qualify), and that could be a problem for the Lakers. Expect the Spurs to use Duncan like last night and have him attack the D early and often to slow the tempo in their favor and open up the perimeter game (the Spurs shot only 37% from two last night, but were 42% from three).

Coaches: Unlike the Eastern coaches matchup, few coaching duels today are better than Gregg Popovich and Phil Jackson. These are the gold standard for coaches, with 13 titles and 14 Finals berths, among other accolades, in their careers. In four head-to-head matchups, Jackson has a 3-1 series edge and a 14-7 overall playoff record against Popovich, but he had Shaq for all four series. How he fares with Gasol will be key (here's where Andrew Bynum's injury really hurts). Whoever establishes his tempo will win this series.

Prediction: Game one is critical for both teams; the Spurs have been here before (now I sound like Mariotti), whereas most of the core Lakers haven't (Kobe excluded, of course). I'll say the Lakers win game one, and in fact, the home team will win the first four games. The Lakers then win game 5 at home, and in a mild surprise, The Lakers end the series in SA in six. The Spurs' run will end at home, to the delight of David Stern and the NBA executives who can't wait for their demise (so, that means the Spurs will win if my luck continues).

 

Tonight, we could see the end of a dynasty (perhaps) and the emergence of a new guard, or see the dyansty move one step closer to cementing itself as a team to be remembered as one of the very best when the Spurs face the Hornets in game 7 of their series. It seems funny that even though this should be talked about as a classic struggle, all that seems to be talked about is Robert Horry nailing David West in the back to knock him out of the rest of game 6 (for the record, I feel that while Horry did give a clean foul by definition, he meant to hit West in the back, but that's water under the bridge). I choose to focus on something that didn't get as much acclaim.

Watching ESPN recently, I came across Jalen Rose (who must be in a competition for dumbest outfit with Don Cherry with his bowtie look), and they asked Rose (proud possessor of zero NCAA titles and zero NBA titles) who would win game 7 tonight. He said "It has to be the Spurs". Let me get this straight, Jalen; you say New Orleans shouldn't win tonight? The Spurs have to win tonight? To be clear, Rose then went on to say the Lakers (waiting in the wings) would rather play SA not because they match up better, but that they would rather beat the Spurs. Are you saying that the Hornets playing the Lakers wouldn't entertain us?

If I'm L.A., I just want to win the title, no matter whose playing. Beating the Spurs would be poetic justice, but it's not about beating who you want to beat; just ask the 1990 Pistons. They would have prefered to beat L.A in the Finals, but did they lose to Portland? Hell no! So, now that I've ranted, let's pick a winner!

The biggest whine I've heard besides Horry's foul is that the Spurs are so much more experienced in game 7 than thye Hornets. I think that's overrated. The Spurs are 1-1 in the Duncan era in game 7, and both times they played at home. And don't tell me Byron Scott doesn't have his team ready; he played game 7's with the Lakers, and his last title was won in game 7. He'll have his team ready. Pay attention to the third quarter; the Hornets have made their move in all three prior home games there.

So, who wins? I'll say the Hornets will end the Spurs' quest to repeat tonight; the homecourt edge, plus Duncan's inconsistency in NO will haunt the champs. I just hope that guys like Rose, Jay Mariotti, and Skip Bayless are watching when it happens. Because the Spurs won't return the same if they lose; for guys like Horry, Michael Finley, Brent Barry and even Bruce Bowen, this could be the last rodeo together. But the Hornets will win tonight, I'll say 105-101.

At the beginning of every NBA season, you hear commentators say "This team needs home court advantage to win in the playoffs. That refrain is heard all through the season. And usually, those guys are right. However, what's going on in round 2 of the playoffs makes me wonder if homecourt is the only way teams can win in this round.

Including last night's games, the home team is an incredible 19-1 in round 2. Only the Pistons in game 4 of their series with Orlando, and the final score was 90-89! The Celtics, the team with the best regular season record, are winless in five road playoff games (by the way, the last team to make the Finals without a road victory in the playoffs was the 1963 Lakers, and they only played one playoff series to get there). How has homecourt suddenly become unstoppable?

With that in mind, here are some possible solutions to allow the road team a chance to win at least once in the games coming up:

Have Robert Horry hipcheck someone (Chris Paul) into the boards, forcing a benched David West and Tyson Chandler to get off the bench, leading to their one-game suspension for game 7 in New Orleans: Hey, it worked against Phoenix, didn't it?

Have Joe Crawford re####ame with Tim Duncan, then allow them to really fight: Crawford would give the stoic Duncan a war, but the smart money is on Duncan.

Have DeDoNothing Stevenson badmouth one of the road teams' best players and call them overrated before the game: It made LeBron want to knock out the Wizards, and I found a way to keep my nickname in the news.

Warn the Hornets, Lakers and Celtics the 'consequences' of another Spurs-Pistons Finals matchup: That thought, in Stern's mind, is scarier than the 'Saw' series! He'll threaten the Lakers with a Kobe trade if they fail to make it!

Tell the remaining teams if they fail to win on the road, some of the players will be traded to the Knicks!: A fate worse than death, perhaps? They'll play their butts off to win then!

Have Tony Romo sing for the home team before their game: They'll be so frazzled, they won't be able to concentrate and stop the opponent!

Take the home team to watch 'Speed Racer' before the game: See above.

If they fail to win, the road team's players must watch all of Shaq's movies... without a break!: See the Knicks above.

Yeah, this may be sarcastic, but what's preventing these teams from winning A ROAD GAME? I'm not saying that every win should be on the road, but a figure closer to round 1's figure (7 of 10 wins by the home team) would do. What makes these games so hard to watch is that, for the most part, they are blowouts, and blowouts don't interest the casual fans and make diehards fall asleep, too.

So, what's your take? Does this homecourt dominance take away from the excitement of the playoffs? And what would you suggest to fix it? Let me know! Until then, may everyone run should Romo sing in front of a theater showing 'Speed Racer'!

Since I've spent a considerable amount of time this weekend to study for my French final today (Parle vous francais!), here are some random NBA thoughts from the weekend:

Cavs win at the buzzer: Once again, DeDoNothing Stevenson and Agent Zero's words come back to haunt them. When will athletes learn that they shouldn't upset the great players? LeBron didn't hit the game winner, but he made the plays when it counted, and that's the reason the Cavs are up 3-1 and likely to finish the series in 5.

Pistons win to even series: I've made two Pistons bashing blogs recently, and since I didn't watch game 4, I'll just say the Pistons needed the win, and hopefully, this will spring them to a series win. But, as always, we'll see if their motivation stays with them.

Spurs get clobbered in Phoenix: This was as ugly a game as you'll ever see from the Spurs. Everything that worked perfectly in game 3 didn't in number 4. Maybe they just took it easy knowing that nobody comes back from 3-0. Let me remind you that the Pistons did the same thing last year against the Bulls, and it may have cost them against LeBron. Let's hope S.A. finishes the deal in 5.

Lakers go for the sweep: Seems ironic that Kobe will win his first playoff series since 2004 in Colorado, where many of his problems began. The Nuggets "defense is optional" play hurt them against a team that can play both ends, and when they get swept, let the catfights (AI vs Melo, AI & Melo vs Karl) begin.

Hawks win first playoff game since 1999: To give you an idea of how long that is, consider this; they beat the Pistons that game, and the starting five was Mookie Blaylock, Steve Smith, Tyrone Corbin, LaPhonso Ellis and Dikembe Mutombo. Nice to see the Hawks manage to avoid the sweep. But this may inspire the C's to start rolling again, so look out!

Houston on the brink of elimination: What a surprise. And to all you Rockets people who cried when I said in February that they wouldn't win a playoff series, I'm not the one to say... oh, never mind. This series did give us the quote of the series, when Tracy McGrady took the blame for everything (The Suns being down 3-0, people getting Budweiser instead of fancy beer), but without Yao to match up, they had no chance. And McGrady will now be 0-8 in 1st round series. What a waste.

Well, there are the thoughts. Hopefully, after today, I'll be able to watch the playoffs uninterrupted. Until then, au revior!

Continuing my series of lists counting down the 50 greatest NBA teams (according to me), here are the next ten in the list, #'s 40-31:

40. 2001-02 Los Angeles Lakers: The Lakers had won two straight NBA titles, and had just come off the greatest run in NBA playoff history. They now sought to make it three in a row, something only three teams (50s Lakers, 60s Celtics and 90s Bulls) had done. As had become their custom during their run, the Lakers coasted through the season, going 58-24. But the Sacramento Kings swooped in to claim the Pacific by three games. With an intense rivalry between both teams, a Lakers-Kings showdown made for good box office.

The Lakers coasted through the first two rounds, pounding Portland 3-0 for the second straight year, and the Spurs 4-1, before their showdown with the Kings. Sacramento took two of the first three, and appeared ready to take game 4, before an errant shot under the basket bounced to Robert Horry, who sank a three to win the game. The Lakers took the series in seven after Sacramento stopped hitting free throws down the stretch.

The NBA Finals were anticlimatic; the Lakers swept the New Jersey Nets, marking the first time the Lakers swept a Finals series. Shaquille O'Neal won Finals MVP for the third straight time, joining Michael Jordan as the only players to win three straight. O'Neal and Kobe Bryant both were first team All-NBA (1st time for Kobe). As it turned out, it was the end of the Lakers' run, as the team was dismantled two years later (but are now poised to regain the title).

39. 1996-97 Chicago Bulls: The Bulls had set a league record with 87 wins (including playoffs) the previous season, and what could this team do for an encore? Michael Jordan continued to lord over the league, claiming his ninth scoring title with a 29.6 average. The Bulls had a chance to win 70 games again before a last-game loss to New York dropped them to 69 wins. There were concerns that this team might not have the juice to run to another title.

The Bulls quickly showed those fears should have been unfounded, as they rolled past Washington (3-0), Atlanta (4-1) and Miami (4-1) to reach the Finals. There, they faced the Utah Jazz, who were making their first trip. The series had several memorable moments.

Game one went to Chicago 84-82 as Jordan hit a jumper over Bryon Russell (we'll see them again later in the countdown) after Karl Malone, the regular season MVP, missed two critical free throws. They took game two at home, then lost two straight in Utah. Prior to game 5, Jordan came down with the flu, and there were wonders if he could play, or play effectively.

Jordan would proceed to put on one of the greatest performances in NBA history, scoring 38 points (including a key three late) to lead Chicago to a 90-88 win. Game six featured similar drama, as with the game tied at 86, Jordan jumped in the air... and hit Steve Kerr with a pass. Kerr swished the jumper, and after the Jazz turned the ball over, the Bulls had thier fifth title in seven years. Jordan won his 5th Finals MVP.

38. 1994-95 Houston Rockets: The Rockets had reason to feel good. They had won a dramatic Finals in 7 over the Knicks the year before, and were favorites to keep the repeats going (each of the three previous title holders repeated). But their season was a struggle, as they didn't look like the defending champs.

Then, in February, management made a bold move, trading Otis Thorpe to Portland for Clyde Drexler, reuniting Drexler with former University of Houston teammate Hakeem Olajuwon. The Rockets still finished 3rd in the Midwest (6th overall) at 47-35, and no team had won a title from that low a seeding.

The Rockets faced division rival Utah first. The Rockets came back from 2-1 down to win the series in five. Then, they faced Phoenix, who had taken them to seven the previous year. Phoenix went up 3-1, but couldn't put Houston away. The Rockets won three straight (including a 115-114 game seven in Phoenix), then dispatched San Antonio in six, to reach the Finals against Orlando.

Game one saw Orlando take an early 20 point lead, but Houston fougght back (aided by a record seven threes by Kenny Smith) to tie it late. After Nick Anderson missed four free throws late that would have sealed it, The Rockets won in OT. The Magic never recovered, and Houston sewpt the series. Olajuwon was named MVP.

37. 1959-60 Boston Celtics: The Celtics were now two time defending champs, and the 1959-60 season saw them firmly establish themselves as the dominant force in the league. Even with the Warriors adding rookie Wilt Chamberlain (ROY and MVP that season), the Celtics finished ten games ahead of Philly with a 59-16 record. In the first playoff meeting between Bill Russell and Chamberlain, the C's had little trouble, winning in six games.

That led to a showdown with the St. Louis Hawks, who withstood a seven game series with the Lakers (in their last season in Minneapolis) to make the Finals. The series went seven, and with Russell scoring 22 and adding 35 rebounds, the Celtics won 122-103 for their third straight title.

36. 1981-82 Los Angeles Lakers: The Lakers had just come off a tumutuous 1981 season, where their title repeat dreams were dashed by Magic Johnson's knee troubles and dissention in the ranks, leading to a 1st round ouster by Houston. While some of the trouble seeds were dumped in the offseason, Johnson and coach Paul Westhead didn't see eye to eye, as Westhead's power philosophy clashed with Johnson's push-it-up style. Westhead was fired after a 7-4 start, and Johnson was actually booed a little in L.A.

The Lakers tried to convince Jerry West to take over as coach, but he refused, and they settled for Westhead assistant Pat Riley (West agreed to sit next to Riley early on to ease him in). Riley pushed the tempo up, and the Lakers (with the help of midseason addition Bob McAdoo) won 50 of their last 71 games to finish first in the West.

The playoffs turned into their showcase. The Lakers rolled past Phoenix and San Antonio in sweeps, leading to a rematch of the 1980 Finals against the 76ers, who survived a seven game series with the defending champion Celtics.

The series was full of blowouts. The closest game was a seven point finish in game one, as Riley and Billy Cunningham outschemed each other. The Lakers won the series in six, with Johnson winning his second Finals MVP. It was the first of five titles for Riles as a head coach.

35. 1978-79 Seattle Supersonics: The Supersonics had come agonizingly close to the NBA title in 1978, losing the seventh game to Washington 105-99 after Dennis Johnson went 0-14 in the game. The Sonics, with coach Lenny Wilkens in for a full season, won the Pacific division with a 52-30 record, and secured home court throughout the West.

In the playoffs, they beat the Lakers in five, then survived a tough seven game series with Phoenix to make the Finals, and once again face the Bullets, who themselves won a seven game finals against the Spurs.

The Sonics lost game one after Larry Wright hit two free throws with no time on ther clock. The loss only inspired the Sonics. With Johnson and Gus Williams scoring over half their teams' points in the series, the Sonics won four straight for their only NBA title. Johnson was named Finals MVP.

34. 1977-78 Washington Bullets: The Bullets had had no luck at all in their two previous Finals appearences. Both times (1971 and 1975) they had been swept. So when they quietly won 44 games and finished second in the Central division (3rd in the conference), no one expected much.

After winning their 1st round series with Atlanta 2-0, the Bullets surprised the Spurs by beating them 4-2 in round two. Agianst the Sixers, who had swept New York in their second round matchup, the Bullets won game 1 in Philly, a crucial victory, and won in six games.

The Finals matchup with Seattle was hard fought. Each team traded victories in the first six games, before the Bullets cliamed the title in game seven, primarily by holding Dennis Johnson to 0-14 shooting. Wes Unseld was named MVP, and it was the only title for both Unseld (984 games played) and Elvin Hayes (1,303 games).

33. 1968-69 Boston Celtics: The Celtics looked like a tired team throughout the 1968-69 season, as they struggled to a 48-34 record, the worst record since Bill Russell joined the team. Russell still was effective as a rebounder (third in the league) and the Celtics had an aura around them that, even without home court advantage, they could win a title.

In round one, they turned back the Sixers 4-1, looking like the old Celtics. Against the Knicks in the Easten finals, Russell held Willis Reed in check, and they took the series in six. Still, few expected them to beat the Lakers, who not only had Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, and Wilt Chamberlain, but had vengence in their minds for six prior Finals losses to Boston.

The Lakers won the first two games, Boston fired back with two, and the teams split games 5 & 6. Ther seven game was at the Forum, and as fate would have it, the Celtics discovered a agenda program of Lakers owner Jack Kent Cooke. Cooke planned a big celebration with lots of baloons in the rafters and a Chick Hearn interview with Baylor, West and Chamberlain.

The Celtics stormed out and led by double figures after three. The Lakers fought to within two, then Don Nelson (yes, that Don Nelson) hit a jumper that bouned high off the back rim, and in. The Celtics won 108-106. The baloons came down without fanfare the next day. In August, Russell retired. He left with 11 titles in his 13 pro seasons, a record that's unlikely to be matched.

32. 2002-03 San Antonio Spurs: Since last year's team is too new to be ranked, this team will have to suffice. The 2003 Spurs came out determined to regain their throne. With the defending champion Lakers looking vulnerable, the West was as open as it had been in four years.

Tim Duncan captured his second straight MVP, finishing 7th in scoring and 3rd in boards. The Spurs won 60 games to finish 1st in the West, and after having some trouble with the Suns in round one, they faced the Lakers, who had ended their season each of the prior two seasons.

The Spurs had little trouble with the shaky Lakers this time; they won 4-2, including a 28 point thumping in the clincher, then beat Dallas 4-2 to reach the Finals against the Nets.

The series certainly wasn't an artistic classic (only once did a team reach 100 points; SA in game one), but the Spurs clawed their way to their second title of the Duncan era. Duncan was Finals MVP, and Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili had their first rings.

31. 2003-04 Detroit Pistons: As the years have passed, it dawns on me just how special this series was. It may prove to be the only title for this era's Pistons, the one time they caught lightning in a bottle, and by doing so, ending a potential dyansty in the making.

Coming off a postseason where they were swept by the Nets, Detroit finished second in the Central (3rd in conference) with a 54-28 record. They smashed Milwaukee in 5, setting up a rematch of the conference finals in round two. The Pistons took the first two games, then the Nets took the next three (including a triple OT classic in game 5) and seemed poised to deliver the KO shot. But the Pistons won games 6 & 7, holding Jason Kidd scoreless for the first time in his playoff career, to face Indiana in the con. finals.

There, the Pistons outslopped the Pacers in six, the signature moment coming in game two, when Tayshaun Prince blocked a Reggie Miller layup attempt to preserve victory. Still, they were heavy underdogs against the Lakers. They not only had won three of the last four titles, but they wanted rings for Karl Malone and Gary Payton.

The Pistons claimed game one, but L.A. won game two when Kobe Bryant sank a game-tying shot and dominated OT. When the series shifted to Detroit, however, the dissenting Lakers, without the injured Malone, couldn't stop the stampede (or Kobe taking bad shots). The Pistons won all three home games (the first to do so since the 2-3-2 format began in 1985) and the title to boot. Chauncey Billups was named MVP, the first player to win the award without a prior All-Star appearence since Dennis Johnson in 1979. Shortly thgereafter, the Lakers were dismantled.

There are the next ten. Tomorrow will be #'s 30-21. See ya then!

I apoligize for being inactive recently. My grandmother has been seriously ill in the hospital, and I've spent most of the past week at her bedside, praying for her to get better. I won't go into details, but she has been the single biggest influence in my life, and has raised me like I was her son. Thankfully, she's recovering well, and hopefully soon she'll return home and resume her normal routine.

Now, back to sports. It's officially April, and now I feel it's time to present some awards. Here are my picks (along with runner-ups in most cases) of the major NBA awards:

MVP: Kobe Bryant, Lakers: Say what you will about his attitude, Bryant has been a key reason the Lakers are back as a relevent team again. While Gasol and Bynum have been hurt, he has kept his team in the thick of a brutal Western race. And, frankly, it's about time he got an MVP.

Runner-up: Chris Paul, Hornets: There will be arguements for Kevin Garnett and LeBron, but Paul is the engine for the surprising Hornets, as he leads the league in assists and has New Orleans primed for a major playoff run. Thus, he's my runner-up.

Coach of the Year: Maurice Cheeks, Sixers: I'm not knocking Byron Scoot or Doc Rivers, or even Phil Jackson; they've all done remarkable jobs this season. But each has major talent to work with. Cheeks has Andre Igudola... and a bunch of youngsters and bench fodder. Yet he has the Sixers in the playoffs with a winning record in the Least, er, East, marking their first trip to the postseason since 2005.

Runner-up: Byron Scott, Hornets: Scott gets runner-up because no one expected the Hornets to be near the top of the West. Scott has done a magnificent job of molding this young team into a contender the same way he did the Nets; by letting a special PG lead the way.

Defensive Player of the Year: Marcus Camby, Nuggets: He leads the league in blocks per game (by a wide margin) and is second in rebounds. And, by the way, he does it on the run-and-gun Nuggets, who play defense only if the moon is in the correct phase.

6th Man Award: Leandro Barbosa, Suns: Because, simply, no one else stood out enough to win the award. I actually wouldn't mind if someone could give me another candidate (and before you Manu people chime in, he plays starter minutes, so that skewers his stats).

Rookie of the Year: Luis Scola, Rockets: Whoa, no Durant? Well, Scola has been instrumental in the Rockets' surge since January. While he would become the first ROY to win the award averaging fewer than 10 PPG, the Rockets have lost only 4 or 5 games since he became a starter.

Runner-up: Kevin Durant, Sonics: Durant finishes second because his team stinks, and he has needed a lot of shots to get his points (on a bad team, which skewers any productive players on such teams). I call it the John Starks effect. Durant has a bright future, but he shouldn't win ROY by default.

All-NBA 1st Team:

G Chris Paul, Hornets

G Kobe Bryant, Lakers

F LeBron James, Cavaliers

F Kevin Garnett, Celtics

C Dwight Howard, Magic

Executive of the Year: Mitch Kupchak, Lakers: Kupchak gets the award because he made the unsung moves to make the Lakers a contender again. And any exec who can trade Kwame Brown's corpse for Pau Gasol should be EOY.

Runner-up: Danny Ainge, Celtics: Like Kupchak, Ainge made the moves to make Boston relevent again after 21 years of dormancy. Ainge took a chance, and it paid off, big.

Now, as far as the playoffs go, here are my favorites in each conference, ranked 1-8 based on my preference, not on current seeding. They are:

West

1. Lakers (provided Gasol and Bynum are healthy, they're the deepest team)

2. Spurs (to be the best, you must beat the best. Until they lose, they're the best)

3. Hornets (inexperience an issue, but Paul and Scott will guide them nicely)

4. Suns (Shaq was brought in to win a title, after all. Right?)

5. Jazz (need to show they can win away from home consistently)

6. Rockets (no Yao will hurt them against elite bigs in playoffs)

7. Warriors (lightning won't strike twice)

8. Nuggets (no defense except Camby = no playoff series wins)

East

1. Celtics (Garnett, Pierce and Allen are hungry for a ring)

2. Pistons (if they overcome conplacency, the biggest threat to Boston)

3. Cavaliers (LeBron can win series himself)

4. Magic (Howard is emerging as maybe best C in game)

5. Sixers (a sleeper to pull an upset 1st round win)

6. Wizards (can't stay healthy... or play defense well)

7. Raptors (a poor man's Wizards)

8. Whoever is 8th (Hawks, Pacers, Bulls, etc.; it doesn't matter; they'll get swept)

There you are. Disagree? Just drop me a line. Gotta go; Kwame Brown's corpse is being moved out of the morgue!

Yesterday, after lsitening to all the sports shows, one conlcusion can be made crystal (not as in Billy) clear; A rematch of the 2005 NBA Finals is something everyone can live without. Most hope that both the Spurs and the Pistons do not, under any circumstances, make the Finals. There are reasons for such hopes. I'm here to give my reasons why, and to clear up some misnomers.

1. It's not star power, silly. It's star wattage: The most common misperception is that both teams lack star power. That's ridiculous. The Spurs feature Tim Duncan, perhaps one of the greatest big men in history, along with Mr. Eva Longoria (Tony Parker) and the Grandmaster Flopper (Manu Ginobili) who also happens to be one of the best clutch players on the team. Detroit has Chauncey "Mr. Big Shot" (and Mr. Give me the Free Throw, Refs!) Billups, Rasheed Wallace and Richard Hamilton. So what's not to like about that?

The problem is that none of these guys seek the attention that comes with stardom. In many ways, the NBA has created that problem. Even Michael Jordan, the posterboy for I over team (in terms of media coverage) said as much in an ESPN the Magazine article. Remember the league in the 1980s? When the Lakers and Celtics met in the Finals, it wasn't strictly Magic vs Bird (although that was a big draw), it was Lakers vs Celtics. The teams were the big attractions, and the league was at it's best marketing those teams. After Jordan dominated the league, it became all about the star players.

With that being the case, it's no wonder the Finals have had bad ratings in recent years. The Spurs are the ultimate team, yet their Finals have been the worst rated ever. Even when you had Lebron James last year, the ratings tanked. So let's not say a Spurs/Pistons final is bad because of no star power; there's no wattage in those stars.

2. Because the Lakers and Celtics is what Stern really wants in the Finals: Stern will not say it publically, but he wants these teams in the Finals not so much because of star wattage (Kobe vs the Big 3) but because the cities have star wattage. He wants to see Jack Nicholson jaw with whoever comes from Beantown. No other league tries to slant their championships through big cities more than the NBA. MLB does it because of their salary structure, but the NBA wouldn't mind if the Finals were exclusively in big cities like L.A., New York, Boston, etc. Look at the NFL; they don't have a team in L.A. (yet) and yet the Super Bowl does just fine. Why not market the teams instead of the cities?

3. Defense wins championships, but not ratings: Just observe the game last night; the Pistons won 84-80, a score that would be good in the 1950s, but not so much today. Need more data? Look at the Finals in 2005; they were just the second Finals since the league went to a 2-3-2 format to go seven games, and few people outside of S.A. and Detroit cared. It was because the defensive style of both teams doesn't appeal to people. The Spurs have won the most games in the league since 2001-02, and Detroit is third (behind them and Dallas) because nobody plays defense better than these teams traditionally have. But while both can run the ball occasionally, they'd rather set up isolational plays for their slashers (Parker/Ginobili and Billups/Hamilton) to draw fouls and get free throws. It wins games, but I can't watch slop ball for very long before I get bored and change the channel.

Looking at these three reasons (there may be more, but these are key), it's no wonder the NBA would feel like it took a shot in the stomach if these two teams meet in the Finals. I'm from Detroit, and it makes me feel ill (although if the Pistons faced the Lakers, it might work out). Hopefully, the curse of the Spurs (never won back-to-back) and the Pistons (complacency) causes one or both to lose in the playoffs. Let's just hope.

Looks like the deal is finally done: Jason Kidd is back in Dallas. The trade was approved by the NBA today, and suddenly Dallas is... getting completely ripped off. I said last week, when Devean George initially blocked the deal (he was taken out of this trade) that Dallas was getting fleeced by giving up five players and two draft picks for an aging player who may not lead you to the promised land. I stand by that today. But I am interested in whether George will be able to rest easy now that Kidd's in town. With all Dallas gave up, cutting him would be hard to do. But the question now becomes: Who is the favorite in the loaded West?

Take a quick glimpse of the standings, and you'll see that there are only 4 1/2 games between the top seed (New Orleans at the moment) and the #8 seed (a tie between Golden State and Denver). There's little room for error for any team. Is it obvious to us that all the major trades have occured among West teams? Here's how (today) I'm handicapping the race:

1. Spurs, 2. Lakers, 3. Suns, 4. Mavs, 5. Jazz, 6. Hornets, 7. Nuggets, 8. Warriors

Why do I still say the Spurs are the favorites? Simply put, you must beat the best to be the best. The Spurs aren't the defending champs for nothing. That said, you must wonder if this team is getting too old to compete, but all these big moves were made to counter Tim Duncan's excellence. You think Phoenix would trade for Shaq if they weren't thinking about how Duncan has torn them to shreds in the playoffs? Duncan makes the West revolve and do everything to counter him.

The Lakers are #2 in spite of Kobe's injury. My feeling is that he'll shoot the ball even if all his ligaments in his shooting hand were torn! There's no way he'll shut it down when he has easily his best team since Shaq left (by the way, the Lakers probably sent Byron Scott some cash for resting Kobe in the All-Star Game). Kobe will produce as well as he always does, and the Lakers pose the most serious threat to SA's title hopes.

What about Phoenix and the aforementioned Mavs? Both trades these teams made did the one thing neither could afford: deplete depth. The Suns usually only play seven guys, so can Shaq play over 30 minutes a night? And will he be a late-in-his-career Wilt Chamberlain (pass and defend willingly) or the Shaq who stunk it up earlier this year? One doesn't know. The Mavs now must worry that their C position can be manned almost exclusively by Erick Dampier, which is about as likely as Roger Clemens passing a lie-detector test. And who will spell Kidd? Jason Terry? Jerry Stackhouse? Neither one can run the show when Kidd sits, and the hoped for offensive revival will resemble what it did before the deal.

How about the current top seed? The Hornets have surprised almost everybody, but it's been four years since they last made the playoffs (they were still in the East!). And only Peja has experience in the postseason. They will do well if they win one round. And none of the other teams has a legit chance of making the Finals. So, in the end, there are four legit title contenders.

You know who the REAL winner in all this is? The Pistons and the Celtics! Their road to the title got much easier. There are no real threats in the Least (Lebron won't make magic happen twice, the Magic aren't ready), and whoever comes out of the West will take a major beating to win those series. So if I was a betting man, I'd bet on either of those teams. And for the NBA's sake, it better be the Lakers and Celtics, because a Detroit-SA rematch would be akin to putting George Bush on Jeopardy!! But that's another issue. Until next time, may Devean George rest much easier!

Today, I found out just how in little esteem the NBA's history is held by Robert Horry. Just a short time after claiming his seventh world title (the first non-Celtic to do so), he commented that his current Spurs team could beat the 1980s Lakers and Celtics, saying that the players today are much better than the players on those teams and making statements that those players played only to the right side of the court. Where does he get off saying that ####?

Obviously, Horry must be referencing the fact that players today are physically more gifted than the 80s Lakers and Celtics. Duh! That's to be expected as time and technology gets better. Of course the players are physical freaks. They are undoubtfully more able to make SportsCenter highlights than the other teams. But does that mean the teams are better? Hell no! In fact, I'd say the Lakers or Celtics could destroy the Spurs! Here's why, in a nutschell: The Spurs' era is a different era than the 1980s were.

In the '80s, teams scored a lot more than the Spurs have scored in their four title reigns. The Showtime Lakers defined the run-and-gun style that pleased the crowd and was highly successful, and even though the Celtics didn't always run it up, they scored plenty and were successful, as well. Does anybody recall this year's Final? It was dreadful! No real action, just two slow, walk it up and score just enough to win teams slugging it out in a forgettable final. No doubt that the Spurs are the best team of this generation, but even if you compare these teams physically, it's hard to justify Horry's statement. Here's a look at the lineups for each team (the '88 Lakers, the '86 Celtics and today's Spurs):

1988 Lakers                            1986 Celtics                             2007 Spurs

C Kareem Abdul-Jabbar       C Robert Parish                      C Fabricio Oberto                        

PF A.C. Green                          PF Kevin McHale                     PF Tim Duncan

SF James Worthy                 SF Larry Bird                            SF Bruce Bowen

SG Byron Scott                      SG Danny Ainge                       SG Michael Finley

PG Magic Johnson                PG Dennis Johnson               PG Tony Parker

Bench

PG-SG Michael Cooper        C-PF Bill Walton                      SG-SF Manu Ginobili

C Mychal Thompson            SF-SG Scott Wedman            SG Brent Barry

PF Kurt Rambis                     PG Jerry Sichting                    PG Jacque Vaughn

(for the sake of argument, we'll stop there)

Let's compare the positions, shall we? Center is not even close: Kareem is the best stats C of all time, and Parish gets lost in the shuffle because of his running mates. Oberto doesn't even deserve to be listed near them. Magic and Dennis would give Parker fits and, unlike Larry Hughes, would have found a way to keep him out of the paint. Bird and Worthy would have dominated Bowen. Get the picture? Only Duncan over McHale and Green is a worthy argument.

I know that Horry is simply expressing his opinion, and you must have confidence in your team, but his Spurs would struggle against the '80s Lakers and Celtics. Duncan can only do so much when you consider that seven of the players on those two teams above (Magic, Kareem, Worthy, Parish, Bird, McHale and Walton) were members of the 50 Greatest Players club, and only Duncan would qualify if there was an addition of ten to the list today. So Bob, show the past some respect! I sure would rather watch a historic game than one of these finals games today!

In the wake of the Spurs winning their 4th title in nine years and, in many minds, cementing their dynasty (I guess they qualify), the question can now be asked; where does the league's most overlooked star, Tim Duncan, rank in the pantheon of greatness? When you stop to consider it, he ranks very high, perhaps, as many say, the best power forward of his, or any, generation. Let's compare to other greats of the position:

Karl Malone: Before Duncan, probably a consensus best pick. But this argument ends quickly, because of the rings. And Malone didn't develop an all-around game 'til the back end of his career. And Duncan didn't abandon his small market team in the attempt to win gold, like Malone did when he joined the Lakers (and still failed).

Charles Barkley: Ditto here. Barkley was a more amazing player given his lack of height, but he too chased the ring (with two teams) and never seemed to be the true leader a championship team needs. We know where Duncan's motivation is. You never were sure with Sir Charles.

Elvin Hayes: Hayes may have been the definative power forward of his era, but he too wasn't willing to blend into a team, hence his winning only one title despite playing over 1,300 games. And isn't it fitting that it was unselfish Wes Unseld who was the MVP of that '78 Bullets team. Great talent, but not great teamwork.

Bob Pettit: Reaching into the way back machine, Pettit had the misfortune of playing during the Celtic dynasty, but was the prototype of what a prototype PF should be, once leading the league in scoring and rebounds. Perhaps the only legit competiton for Duncan, and often overlooked in the conversation.

Of all these and other stars, Duncan stands alone. He's been the bedrock of a team destined to be remembered as an all time great, and he's unfailingly consistent; his stats this year are similar to his rookie year in 1998, and he was a key in the Spurs' sweep of the Cavaliers, preventing LeBron James from dominating the paint like he did against Detroit. When all is said and done, he should be remembered as the best PF of all time and the central figure of a, well, dynasty. Period.

Tonight, the Spurs attempt to sweep the Cavs in an anticlimatic final series. When they do so, it will be their fourth title in nine years. What bothers me is the recent barrage of commentators calling them a legitimate dynasty. I just don't see it that way. The terms of what is considered a dynasty must have changed since I last saw them. To me, a dynasty is a team that consistently is a champion or lords over their sport (think Yankees) in such a way that they are always in the hunt for a title. The Spurs have been consistently good (they have never missed the playoffs in consecutive years and have won at least 53 games every full season since 1998) but have they been the preeminent team? The biggest strike against the dynasty argument is that they never won back-to-back titles during this run. Every NBA team that was a legit dynasty (the '50's Lakers, the '60's Celtics, the '80's Lakers, the '90's Bulls, and to a degree, this decade's Lakers) had at least two in a row during their run. Four titles in nine years still means you've won less than half of the titles during your run. Let's wait until the '08 Finals; if they win there, then they are a dynasty. Strike two: who did they beat? They didn't beat the Kobe-Shaq Lakers during their run on top in the West Finals; they beat a selfish Portland team (1999), a young Dallas team (2003), a green Phoenix team (2005) and got a big assist from Commissioner Stern to get a free pass to a young Utah team this year. That's not even the Finals, where they faced an injured Knicks team (1999), a small Nets team (2003), the Pistons with a defensive blunder by Rasheed Wallace (2005) and the Cadavers, er, LeBrons, er, Cavs here. The competiton was either too young, too unwatchable, too hurt, or a combo of both, and they took advantage. That's not what a dynasty does; The Lakers of the '80's had the Celtics to deal with, and those battles were classics that defined the league. In a way, the Spurs define the league today as well; their boring, roughhouse, walk it up as much as possible style (if it is a style) wins games, but drags the quality of play down as well. Even their coach, Gregg Popovich, admitted their win on Tuesday "sent the league back ten years". That's not the way a dynystic team should win by. Bottom line: the Spurs are a solid team that could be a legit dynasty if they win next year and make it five out of ten. Until then, stop with the dynasty talk!