The Boston Celtics took a 2-0 lead over
the Los Angeles Lakers last night by holding off the Lakers late and
escaping with a 108-102 victory at home.
The storyline after game 1 was the Celtics advantage on the glass (46-33).
The storyline after game 2 is the Celtics advantage at the free throw line.
Boston shot 38 free throws in game 2. LA shot 10.
Credit Boston’s offense for attacking the basket and drawing fouls but game 2 was a horribly officiated ballgame.
The Lakers were robbed of at least 10 free
throw opportunities. The most notable being a lob to Gasol in the 2nd
quarter where he caught the ball in mid-air, finished, and was raked
across the forearm and sent to the floor. No whistle.
With the Lakers leading 19-18 in the first
quarter, Kobe Bryant was whistled for two questionable fouls within a
minute and four seconds of one another. The first call took place under
the Celtics basket when Bryant and Allen were jockeying for position on
the baseline, the second came with Bryant sealing Allen on a post-up
opportunity on the elbow. Neither call was warranted.
With Bryant forced to the bench due to
foul trouble, the Celtics went on a 12-3 run before Phil Jackson was
forced to burn a timeout to get Kobe back in the game at the 9:40 mark
of the second quarter.
Once again, Paul Pierce led the way for
the Celtics. Pierce scored 28 points on 9-for-16 from the field and
4-of-4 from the 3-point line. Vladimir Radmanovic, Luke Walton, and
Trevor Ariza (7 minutes) have been completely ineffective defending
Pierce in this series. They’ve fallen for nearly every pumpfake he’s
thrown at them and that’s allowed Pierce to get into the paint, draw
fouls, and create for others.
Time after time, Rajon Rondo penetrated
the Lakers defense and got open looks and easy buckets for his
teammates. Rondo finished with 16 assists. Four short of the Lakers
total as a team.
Leon Powe came off the bench and provided
instant offense for Boston. Powe was 6-of-7 from the field and 9-of-13
from the free throw line, scoring 21 points. Powe shot more free throws
than the entire Lakers team and scored nearly as many points as the entire
Lakers bench.
After shooting just 42% from the field in game 1, the Lakers shot 49% from the field in game 2.
The Lakers posted Kobe up on multiple
possessions but it came at the expense of their offensive continuity.
Once again, there was little ball movement. Pau Gasol shot 67% from the
field but received only 12 shot attempts. Lamar Odom scored 10 points
but was ineffective.
Odom lives off the strong to weakside
passes that put the defense out of position and allow him to catch the
ball at the free throw line extended. Those passes have been few and
far between in this series.
The lone brightspot offensively for the Lakers has been the Bryant-Gasol pick-and-roll.
But the Lakers haven’t run that play enough.
Of even larger concern to the Lakers is their defense.
They’ve been unable to keep Pierce, Allen,
and Rondo out of the paint. They’ve given up too many back-breaking
3-pointers in transition. And they’ve failed to match the physicality
of the Celtics.
If LA is to have a chance of evening this
series on their homecourt and forcing an elimination game in Boston,
several adjustments are in order.
1. Place Kobe on Pierce
Pierce is averaging 25 points a game on
63% from the field and 88% from the 3-point line. The only Laker who
has slowed Pierce down for stretches has been Bryant. Foul trouble is a
concern but Coach Jackson has to trust Kobe to play smart and not
fall for the shots fakes and jab steps that Pierce utilizes.
The Lakers have received next to nothing
from their shooting forwards so the most logical solution is to play
Bryant at shooting foward and insert Vujacic at shooting guard.
Shooting forward Trevor Ariza is a
reliable defender but he’s still working himself back from injury and
received only 7 minutes of playing time in game 2. It’s hard to
believe Trevor couldn’t produce more than Luke Walton has. Walton is
averaging 1 point and shooting 25% through the first two games of the
NBA Finals.
2. Stop dribble penetration
Second year point guard Rajon Rondo is
outplaying veteran point guard Derek Fisher. Fisher is shooting just
41% from the field and 29% from the 3-point line. He has been incapable
of keeping Rondo in front of him defensively. Reserve Jordan Farmar has
been effective defending Rajon but is averaging only 13 minutes a game
while shooting 57% from the field and 75% from the 3-point line.
Despite a sprained knee, Pierce has routinely driven past Radmonovic and Walton as if they were running in sand.
3. Get back in transition
The Celtics have hit several game changing
3-pointers in transition where the Lakers failed to locate their
defensive assignments on the run.
4. Check out
Although the Lakers rebounded well in game
2, they still allowed the Celtics 10 offensive rebounds. Second chance
points after a solid defensive possession take the wind out of a
defense’s sails. The Celtics are getting second chance opportunities
because the Lakers — 1 through 5 — are failing to put a body on their
man after the shot goes up.
5. Continue to trust in their bench
The Lakers have received significant
contributions from their bench during the playoffs. But they’re still a
relatively inexperienced bunch. Inexperienced players rarely contribute
on the road, much less in the NBA Finals. The familiar surroundings of
the Staples Center should help them get back on track.
6. Reverse the basketball
It's
Kobe's responsibility to move the ball and create for his teammates
against the NBA's best defense. Bryant is a great mid-range
jumpshooter and connected on a good percentage last night but the
Lakers have to make the Celtics work for full 24 second possessions
rather than settle for one pass and a contested jumper nearly every
time down the floor.
For the Celtics to steal a game in LA or
close the series out on the Lakers homecourt, they’ll need to carry
their defensive intensity and offensive execution to the West Coast but
with the knowledge that they won’t enjoy the homecourt officiating they
received in game 2.
I'm sure you're loving this but it's not over Rooster.
The 0-2 deficit isn't the death sentence it used to be. Utah and Cleveland came back last year. San Antonio came back this year after being blasted in their first two games versus New Orleans.
I don't buy any of the conspiracy theories but I also don't buy the notion that the Celtics shot 28 more free throws simply because they were "more aggressive."
Hoffman, LA had 28 total fouls to Boston's 21, not a big difference. The free throw difference was that Boston was driving to the hoop and LA was settling for jump shots. It's that simple.
Hoffman (and everybody else too), the Lakers lost because they were outplayed and Boston couldn't miss. But anyone who thinks that game was called fairly isn't a basketball fan, they are merely fans of their team. To those of you who think this is penance for what happened game 2 against Utah, don't forget game 4 against Utah. And remember what the real basketball fans said when that happened. It's called home court advantage and the other team will get theirs. So don't worry laker fans, we'll get at least one like this back home.
mattm5150 - Welcome. I agree that Boston outplayed LA.
slshusker - Nine games? I wouldn't be opposed to that. I wouldn't mind seeing these two teams go at until the start of next season either. The quality of competition has been great.
BleedPRPL&GLD - I'm of the opinion that it's not a series until the home team loses. Let's hope it's not a series until game 6 or 7.
hoff I agree with you that Kobe got picked on on the first foul....he got caught up in a screen.
The second one he deserved...he threw an elbow albeit not a hard one...but still an elbow.
As for the calls...The Lakers did get cheated out of some foul shots. But so did the Celtics....Gasol didn't get called for at least THREE on Garnett when Garnett went to the hole.
You need to look at these things without purple and gold glasses on.
i think you said in it here. thge c's went to the line more because they were agressors. to the victors go the spoils. when the the lakers made their run, it was first time all game they were doing the agressing. thats what happens. when you attack the basket you get to the line. the celtics just arent letting la attack the basket.
I didn't see Bryant throw an elbow. I saw him seal Allen and Allen looking at the official directly after to help draw a foul. The official took the bait and blew the whistle.
The Celtics might have been cheated out of a few foul shot opportunities but they weren't cheated out of as many as the Lakers were.
There's no bias to that statement. It's a matter of fact.
54fulltiltfulltime - Thank you. And congratulations on two very impressive perfomances from your Celtics. They're playing like champions.
JoshQPublic - I'm not questioning any of the Celtics trips to the line. They were good calls. I just wish the game had been called the same on both ends. The Lakers were getting bumped and bodied under the basket and while penetrating the lane and the officials weren't making the same calls.
Granted, if all the fouls that should have been called -- were called -- Boston still would have had a free throw advantage. To their credit, they kept on attacking the Lakers defense.
But why shouldn't they? They were being put on the line time after time.
NO TEAM in this year's playoffs has gotten 3.8X the number of free throws as the other team.
The Lakers were much more aggressive than in game 1, even outrebounding the Celts. For the 1st half to end with effectively a 19-1 free throw advantage (since the technical ft wasn't based on a play) is just wrong! Basketball just doesn't work that way. Odom was fouled every time he went inside and released a shot, nothing called. ABC showed numerous replays with Celtic fouls on shots that weren't called, and several of the "turnovers" were non-calls.
On the fouls you mention on Kobe, the first one had some contact arguably could have gone either way, but the 2nd was Kobe reacting to the Allen handcheck and brushing his hand off, a horrible call as the announcers mentioned.
The most free throws Boston shot relative to their opponent was in the game 4 loss to the Pistons, where they had 13 more than Detroit. Delaney and Crawford ref'd that game also...
In the 1st 20 playoff games for the Celtics, they shot 95 fewer free throws than did the Hawks, Cavaliers, and the Pistons. As they play the handchecking physical defense that is Tom Tthibodeau's trademark, that makes sense.
In just two games against the Lakers, they have shot 35 more free throws.
Impossible to blame on the contrasting syles of the 2 teams.
Start the investigation, gentlemen!
Last edited by nba is the worst on June 10th at 6:24 AM.
The Lakers averaged 22 fouls in the first three rounds. They've committed an average of 29 in the first two games of the NBA Finals.
I find it hard to believe that they're suddenly committing fouls they didn't commit against the Nuggets, Jazz, and Spurs.
But maybe that's just me.
The Celtics, although a great defensive team, aren't a defensive team like the Spurs who commit few fouls regularly. The Spurs committed the 2nd least fouls during the regular season.
This is kind of funny. The Lakers were vaulted into the Finals by virtue of a horrible missed-call by Bennett, and Lakers fans actually tried to ignore it by saying that's basketball. POT, MEET KETTLE.
While one can never know if Barry (90% free-thrower) would have sunk all 3 shots, he probably would have made two to send it to OT.
Point? I saw two ticky-tac fouls on Kobe, although the second one he threw an elbow, so that's probably why it got called. But I also saw a Laker take at least four steps and the ref swallowed the whistle. It goes both ways.
I'm sure Bennett will help the Lakers out at Staples Center.:)
We've already discussed the missed call on Barry. It was a terrible non-call.
But the Lakers were already robbed by two prior miscues from the officials.
I don't think anyone (I'm certainly not) is saying the Lakers lost solely because of the officials last night. Which is what you're saying allowed the Lakers to advance to the NBA Finals.
I'd just like to see a little more consistency on both ends.
I have no doubt the officials will make up the alleged no-calls in Los Angeles!
And yes, I don't see the Lakers being able to adjust to the swarming D unless, and this is a big unless, their entire team can hit 60% of all of their 12+ ft jumpers.
"The lone brightspot offensively for the Lakers has been the Bryant-Gasol pick-and-roll.
But the Lakers haven’t run that play enough."
Excellent observation. The Lakers need to do more of this to spread the floor and more importantly, help open things up for the "confused" Lamar Odom.
I like your idea of putting Kobe on Pierce but I'd rather opt to have Kobe on Rondo and take my chances with Fish chasing Allen around screens than have Sasha on Allen for the majority of the game. Vujacic hasn't been as effective on the road but who knows? It may change at home.
Phil needs to find more time for Ariza so he can guard Pierce and limit the minutes of VladRad, who's back to being a space cadet.
By disrupting Rondo with Kobe, the Celtics won't be able to attack the heart of the Lakers' defense as Rondo had done continuously throught game two on his way to 16 assists. Rondo spearheads the Celtics' attack on offense and the Lakers need to put a stop to that. Pierce will get his even if Kobe we're guarding him, so why put Kobe in danger of getting into foul trouble?
And Farmar obviously can't stay in front of Rondo, so you wear him down by putting Kobe and Fish on him throughout the game.
Similar strategy to the Bulls' putting Pippen on Magic Johnson in 1991 in order to slow down the Lakers' offense.
1. I don't think Kobe can stick Pierce. I don't the Lake show has anybody that does. But at this point, they better try something.
3. Against the Spurs, they played great transition D. I refuse to believe it's because the Celtics are THAT MUCH faster than San Anton. Lakers look lax on D.
5. They have no confidence in their bench because the bench has no confidence in itself. They're playing horribly.
It's no coincidence that Garnett, Powe, Perkins, and Brown have become the Rodman, Salley, Laimbeer, and Mahorn to Kobe's Jordan. Having a ton of solid big men is the best and only way to contain the best scorer in the league.
There are striking similarities between the evolution of MJ and Kobe.
MJ had to battle the best defensive team of the era, who knew how take Michael out of his game, limit him to a lot of jumpshots, and prevent him from penetrating at will.
Boston, the best defensive team in the NBA today, is doing the same thing to frustrate Kobe.
I disagree, I think Kobe is capable of containing Pierce.
I've watched both games multiple times and Pierce has been hesitant to attack anytime he's been defended by Bryant. His eyes light up when V-Rad and Walton are defending him.
I normally don't complain about bad officiating, because it usually is equally bad for both teams. This was THE WORST case of home cooking I have ever seen. The Lakers were beating Boston in every aspect of the game when the officials took the Lakers out of the game, out of their rythem, out of two of their star players (Kobe and Lamar). At on point one single Celt had been to the line 9 times and the entire Laker team only once. Dont tell me that's by accident, I forgive accidents. This crew needs to be checked for gambling debts, if you know what I mean.
If that's the case, then Phil needs to go big and match the Celtics' length.
Put Lamar and his length on Pierce, while playing Turaif and Gasol at the same time at PF and C. Have Kobe stick Allen and Fish/Farmar/Vujacic on Rondo.
At this point, Phil shouldn't even worry about a lack of backup big men if he plays Turiaf, Gasol, and Odom at the same time. It's do or die and plus you still have Mbenga and Mihm on the bench anyway.
If the Lakers continue to field a small lineup and have Kobe expend a lot of energy guarding Pierce, L.A. will be in trouble because Boston feasts on small lineups. The 24 point Lakers' comeback using a small lineup was great and all, but sooner or later Boston will figure out how to break them down.
But if you put the hustling Turiaf on Perkins, Gasol on KG, and Odom on Pierce, the Lakers can now contend with Boston's length, which has been so key for them defensively.
"Kobe expends more energy chasing Allen from baseline to baseline than he does defending Pierce."
I disagree. Pierce's size, length, height advantage, and muscle would tire Kobe, especially when Pierce operates in the low post.
Pierce's inside-outside game makes Kobe more susceptible to foul trouble than Kobe simply chasing Allen around the floor and contesting jumpshots. Kobe is better off guarding Allen because of this.
And because of Pierce's superior footwork, he can make Kobe work on defense a lot more than Allen can.
If the concern with Kobe is foul trouble then why risk it even more when you've got three or four capable 6-10 guys to put on Pierce? Plus tell me of a time Kobe has stopped Pierce. I don't believe its ever happened. Pierce has a tremendous height advantage over Kobe and can shoot over him anytime. Even the 6-8, 6-9 Lebron couldn't contain Pierce.
It's nice to have Kobe shadow Pierce on and off during the game. But if you stick Kobe on Pierce for an entire game, I'm tellin' you... the Lakers will lose every time because Allen will go wild. And when Allen is scoring 25 on outside shots, that means the entire paint is wide open for Pierce and KG to dominate.
You don't stop Pierce. But you sure can limit his effectiveness by throwing three, four, five different defenders at him the entire game. You gotta swarm him to limit his effectiveness.
Hoff, on a note unrelated to your blog, let me ask you of your opinion of an aspect Kobe Bryant's offensive game. I have very little against Kobe's style of play and am not one that really cringes when the Kobe-MJ talk creeps up, but after watching Kobe in the playoffs and the Finals, I have only just realized how much better MJ was. The question is pretty simple? Does Kobe make things too hard on himself? I remember that at one point in this or last season Prince Charles said that T-Mac doesn't take any regular shots, only fade aways, and it seems the same can be said of Kobe. Jordan on the other hand, had such a complete game that he could get any shot he wanted at any time at any spot on the floor, and more often than not they were not of the twisting, falling to the side variety that Kobe consistently chucks up. Kobe is clearly very talented and makes a fair share of his nearly impossible shots, but i guess what I am getting at is whether or not it is a good thing if he takes and makes those shots. He should be able to get better looks, but he just doesn't, and if you could help me understand why, i would greatly appreciate it.
BTW, i don't believe that the answer is that defenders nowadays are just that much better.
"Putting Kobe on Pierce," Jackson said, "was the difference in tonight's game. It was more difficult for him to work to get free. He still had, I thought, some instrumental plays down the stretch. But it made the difference for us tonight."
MJ took better shots. He made much better decisions overall than Bryant does.
But MJ was a post-up scorer during the last 3-peat. He didn't iso and play his man facing the basket as much as Kobe does. He sealed him, backed him down, and took that patented fade-away jumper. It was unstoppable.
Kobe doesn't have that in his arsenal. He hits a few from time-to-time but he hasn't perfected it like MJ did.
So that's part of it.
Another part that might influence your opinion is that you're thinking of that second 3-peat Jordan and not the first 3-peat edition or the pre-championship Mike. During those years, MJ took and made all sorts of acrobatic shots. But as his athleticism faded, he became a more efficient scorer.
We may see that from Kobe before his career is over. Remember, Kobe is only 29 years old. MJ retired from the Bulls for the second time when he was 35. He didn't win his first championship until he was 27.
In conclusion, Kobe has a ways to go to catch up with Mike.
Thanks for asking me that question, I appreciate that.
Thanks for the answer, Hoff, appreciate it. It just struck me as odd how Kobe, for all his immense ability and talent, doesn't seem to take any easy shots, excluding layups and dunks. My immediate thought was that Jordan got better shots because he was so fundamentally sound and didn't have to resort to extreme creativity, but after looking at some tape of his earlier games, you are right that he took some real tough ones, although still not as difficult as the ones that Kobe is taking these days, and Mj should be praised for that, not criticized, as i have heard from quite a few on other sites.
very good analysis in the comparison between MJ and Kobe.
when MJ's mental game caught up with his physical abilty...they had a baby that turned out to be that deadly turn around post move.
imagine when Kobe's mental game starts to come up.
Another thing to consider is MJ's role with the Bulls.
Given both players scoring ability, one would assume their roles would be the same.
But that's not true. Kobe doesn't have a Scottie Pippen to be the playmaker. More often than not, Kobe is asked to distribute and score so he's not positioned 'behind' the defense like MJ was.
I hate it when people discount Pippen because he played with Mike. Scottie Pippen was a GREAT basketball player in his own right and would have been with or without Jordan.
HOFFMAN: But I'm sure you didn't miss the KOBE ON RONDO matchup when the game started. This was an even more brilliant move, considering Kobe had already guarded Pierce some in game two with little success but had never guarded Rondo.
This set the tempo for the Lakers' defense to stifle Boston's ball movement and penetration and take RONDO out of his game, which is the point I was trying to make because Rondo was the one shredding our defense and picking up assist after assist after assist.
Thereafter, Kobe guarded Pierce on and off throughout the game. Just like I said, Kobe cannot guard Pierce for an entire game because he will tire himself out considering the load he has to assume offensively. Fortunately for Kobe and the Lakers, it was Pierce who played tired and never found his stroke from the beginning tip.
But what Jackson did was to stop Boston's offensive flow on offense by initially putting Bryant on Rondo, and then eventually Kobe slid over and started to guard Pierce.
Of course, Phil will mention to the media (the public) that the "difference" was Kobe guarding Pierce. I expect him to do that and the more so since Pierce had an off night.
But another reason Phil would say this (and we know how often he loves to play psychological mind games) is because he doesn't want to put attention to the fact that he made a brilliant move, which is put Kobe on Rondo. He doesn't want to give too much attention to this adjustment so that Boston players wouldn't think that the Lakers benefitted from it tremendously.
If you ever read the Art of War by Sun Tzu, you would know why the PHILosopher did this.
When you're in war, you would never want to give credit or give attention to what allows you to overcome challenges and be successful. You never disclose to your enemy, "We were able to win because we did this..." Hence, Jackson chooses not to attribute his team's turnaround on defense to taking Rondo out of the game completely. Instead, he points out the obvious - Pierce's bad shooting night - and attributes that to Kobe's defense.
Psychologically, by making it public, it makes more of an impact on the Lakers' opponent because now Pierce is sitting at home thinking how great of a job Kobe did guarding him and how everyone noticed it (just go along with me and keep thinking psychological impact here). Meanwhile Rondo is thinking "Damn, Kobe sure affected my play" while Doc is thinking "If Phil is gonna use Kobe on Paul, then I have to find a way to get Paul open". The entire time, the C's are trying to adjust to something which the Lakers won't have to make any counteradjustments to because if Boston spends their entire time trying to free up Pierce in Game Four, L.A. can easily put Kobe back on Rondo and disrupt what the C's are trying to do on offense once again.
The lesson is this: Why give the enemy a strategic and tactical advantage by advertising what REALLY went right for you in your strategy?
"But another reason Phil would say this (and we know how often he loves to play psychological mind games) is because he doesn't want to put attention to the fact that he made a brilliant move, which is put Kobe on Rondo. He doesn't want to give too much attention to this adjustment so that Boston players wouldn't think that the Lakers benefitted from it tremendously."
Dizz, with all due respect, I think you're reading WAY too much into this.
Doc Rivers KNOWS how effective Kobe was on Rondo. Everyone that watched the game knows.
Stating that, instead of Kobe's effort on Pierce would have meant nothing in terms of strategy. Kobe defended Pierce late in game 2 as well. I'm fairly certain that match-up took place late in game 1 too.
I love basketball. While many basketball fans enjoy the month of March, I prefer the months of April, May, and June. I look forward to productive chats, heated debates, and honest opinions.
