Here is some interesting research -- so interesting in fact that you will hear no doubt hear it again -- but remember, you heard it from ME first! :-D Anyway...

In the last 14 years, when it has come down to just the last 2 teams in the NBA Finals, the team with the best defense during the regular season has won the NBA Championship every time, except for the New Jersey Nets, and in 2001 when the Lakers beat the 76ers -- but that year injuries caused Shaq to miss 8 games, Kobe to miss 14 games, Horace Grant to miss 5, and starting point guard Ron Harper to miss 47, so the Lakers regular season defensive rating is misleading. (The previous season the Lakers had the #1 defense in the NBA).

So if you are looking for a team to bet on in the Finals, the odds are VASTLY in favor of the better defensive team.

In fact, in the last 28 years (which is all I wanted to research back to), except for the aforementioned Laker team, and a Rockets team that had regular season injuries to Hakeem Olajuwon,  Clyde Drexler, Vernon Maxwell, Robert Horry and Ortis Thorpe, the NBA Champion was always in the top 10 defensively.

In fact, in the last 28 years, 18 NBA Champions were top 5 defensive teams during the regular season preceding their championships.

And in the last 28 years, only 3 NBA Finals have not had at least 1 top 5 defensive team (2006 Heat vs. Mavs, 1995 Rockets vs. Magic, and 1982 Lakers vs. 76ers), and in every instance, the eventual champs defensive ranking was skewed due to injuries to key players such as Shaq, Wade, Olajawon, Kareem, Magic, Cooper, etc.

So, if you adjust for injuries, over the last 28 years EVERY NBA Finals has had at least 1 top-five defensive team in it, and adjusting for injuries, the better defensive team has won every NBA Finals for the last 14 years... unless its point guard was Jason Kidd. Hmm, I wonder if Mark Cuban knew that before he traded for him last year.  ;)

At any rate, those statistics may take some of the mystery out of predicting the Finals.

Now that the Lakers have learned they cannot just shoot their way past the Celtics defense, ranked #1 in the regular season, it will be interesting to see if they up their defense in the regular season from last year.

If they don't, then we probably shouldn't be predicting a Lakers parade next June.

If you are a Lakers fan, what are your fears for tonight's game? To start the conversation, how 'bout:

(1) FOUL TROUBLE

What kind of a nightmare would it be for the Lakers is to have Kobe Bryant get into foul trouble -- especially early. The Celtics can absorb foul trouble to one of their Big 3 and probably still be fine. The Lakers would be sitting ducks with Kobe on the bench in foul trouble.

(2) INJURY

We don't want an injury happening to a player on EITHER team -- after all, we don't want Celtics fans claiming the only reason they lost was because _____ was injured.

(3) TANTRUMS

At best, whining erodes your mental toughness. It puts you in the mentality of a victim, not a champion.

At worst, any brawl or similar outbreak would stain basketball's most legendary rivalry. Lakers and Celtics alike need to make their minds up now that nothing like that would happen on their watch, that they will pass the rivalry to the next generation untainted.

(4) HOLLYWOOD BALL

The Lakers can't win doing just the fun and glamorous stuff like 3-pointers, they've got to do the dirty work too, like defend and rebound.

(5) HERO SYNDROME

We don't need any Lakers breaking away from the game plan with "I'll save us" syndrome. That goes for #24 of course, but 10 times doubly so for anyone not sleeping with Vanessa Laine Bryant. Play inspired, but play within yourself.

(6) TITANIC CAPTAIN COMPLEX

If the ship is obviously going down, don't resign yourself to the fate of going down with it. Most of us didn't like to see the Suns eliminate the Lakers without Kobe trying to do SOMETHING extraordinary about it. I admired his restraint, but if the game plan clearly hasn't worked for 45 minutes, it probably isn't going to work the last 3 minutes either, so go for it!

(7) TRUNKINESS

This is a military term for people who are anxious to go home. We don't need any Lakers starting their summer vacation early. Everyone needs to do everything to support the success of their team, including cheering on the bench. Leave it all on the floor and pick up no regrets.

(8) POOR OR UNEVEN OFFICIATING

I don't want to see calls favoring Boston because they are the home team. I don't want to see calls favoring the Lakers to extend the series. I don't want to see calls favoring all-stars. I just want to see a fair and well-officiated game, and if they can't do that, then at least do not be biased, or worse, be zealous to not appear biased and blow your whistle according to some ill-conceived quota system. Please, just call the game and call it well.

(9) WHAT IF THE LAKERS AREN'T GOOD ENOUGH?

The Boston Celtics are the best team money can buy. They had the best record in the regular season. They have the best defense in the NBA. They hold the record for the biggest turnaround in the history of the NBA. They swept the Lakers in the regular season. The Celtics have 3 all stars who are probable hall of famers. They have an assistant coach, Tom Thibideau, who is a defense guru and the mastermind of the best defense in the NBA. They have a veteran bench that has outplayed the Lakers' bench all series.

The Lakers have their starting center out for the season, their backup center's been out for 2 seasons, and their power forward is now playing center. Their key players, Bryant and Gasol, hadn't even played together for half the season prior to the playoffs. The Lakers defense ranked 19th in the NBA, meaning it's closer to the bottom than to the top. They have just 1 all star.

Maybe the Lakers just aren't good enough THIS YEAR to beat the Celtics.

Maybe this is just the Celtic's year.

Well, that's a fear I can live with.

I'm okay with Kevin Garnett finally getting a championship ring. I'm happy for Ray Allen if he gets to ride on a float with his kids. I'm relieved for Danny Ainge, who may have been fired had he not pulled off the trade of the decade.

And one thing that makes it easier to be this happy for the Celtics is ... next year Bynum will be back! :-)

Ignore the swank of people brandishing predictions. It's all wishful thinking anyway. No one knows who might get injured, or who might step up for the game of his life. This series has been unpredictable and still is.

And ignore those who would have you believe the Lakers are lucky to be down 3 games to 2. The truth is, the Celtics are lucky as well.

Yes, it can be argued that the Lakers have not dominated the Celtics at home, but then again, the Celtics have not dominated the Lakers in Boston either.

With potentially 2 games left of the NBA season, here are 4 reasons for the Lakers to feel confident and the Celtics to perhaps feel a bit uneasy.

REASON 1 -- The Celtics have struggled with the Lakers in Boston as well as in L.A.

Lest we forget...

Game 1:

- It was a 2 point game to start the 4th quarter.
- It was a 4 point game with 5:43 to go.
- It was a 5 point game with 1:49 to go.

With better defense and rebounding (35 to 51!), the Lakers could easily have stolen game 1.

Game 2:

- The Celtics had a 22 point lead to start the 4th quarter
- With 22 seconds left in the game, it was just a 2 point game.

Again, the Celtics barely won, despite the advantages of a HIGHLY suspect +28 free throw differential, and a 39 to 46 rebounding advantage.

Game 3:

Lakers won (by the way, for the first time, rebounds were almost even: 56 to 57).

Game 4:
- The Lakers led with 4:22 left to go.
- It was a 3 point game with 0:40 to go.

Game 5:
- Lakers won (rebounds exactly tied 51 to 51)

As you can see, this series could have easily already been won by the Lakers, had the younglings taken defense, rebounding, and ball movement seriously.

Yes, it can be argued that the Lakers have not dominated the Celtics at home, but then again, the Celtics have not dominated the Lakers in any of their victories over the Lakers, including the two in Boston.

Conclusion: Every game in any town is up for grabs.

REASON 2 -- The Lakers have steadily been overcoming their deficiencies as the series progresses.

The Finals started with the Celtics overpowering the Lakers on the boards by 12 rebounds a game. Not any more. Rebounding went from a Celtics' feast, to dead even.

The Lakers likewise improved their assists, from 20.5 per game as a team to 21.7, meaning they probably improved their ball movement.

Also, the Celtics used to own the Lakers in the 3rd quarter, to the tune of +10.8 points per game in games 1 through 4,. Not any more. The Celtics were -6 in game 5. That is a 16.8 point improvement for the Lakers' 3rd quarter performance.

With 2:35 left in the disastrous 2nd quarter, Jordan Farmar launched an air ball 3-pointer, the Celtics got the long rebound, and 8 seconds later, Ray Allen buried a 3-pointer. The Lakers brought the ball down court, and struggled against the Celtics defense until Kobe broke them down with dribble penetration. Then with just a few seconds on the shot clock, Bryant passed the ball to Farmar at the arc, where Farmar had just shot an airball seconds earlier. Farmar had to shoot and Kobe knew it, but Kobe trusted Farmar and Farmar buried the 3-pointer as the shot clock expired. You could almost see Farmar's confidence grow, and he became more productive and was on the floor to finish the game for the Lakers.

The Lakers are evolving. Whether it is rebounding, ball movement, 3rd quarter performance or teamwork, they're improving.

By contrast, the Celtics are diminishing by attrition. Key players are out or hobbled. The longer the series goes, the more you have to believe the Lakers have the advantage.

The key to power is growth. A growing root can split a rock.

REASON 3 -- Clutch plays at clutch time.

Celtics coach, Doc Rivers, calls on his players to not take hero shots. In game 5, they may have taken a good thing too far.

Garnett had a chance to tie the game in the critical closing moments, but missed back to back free throws. Pierce had two critical turnovers in clutch time.

When the chips are down, the Celtics are not making the big plays you need to in order to close out close games.

By contrast, the Lakers have the best closer in basketball, even if he's been struggling. If game 6 or game 7 is close, the Lakers probably have an advantage.

REASON 4 -- The Bigger They Are ...

The Boston Celtics are the best team money can buy. They had the best record in the regular season. They have the best defense in the NBA. They hold the record for the biggest turnaround in the history of the NBA. They swept the Lakers in the regular season. The Celtics have 3 all stars who are probable hall of famers. They have an assistant coach, Tom Thibideau, who is a defense guru and the mastermind of the best defense in the NBA. They have a veteran bench that has outplayed the Lakers' bench all series.

The Lakers have their starting center out for the season, their backup center's been out for 2 seasons, and their power forward is now playing center. Their key players, Bryant and Gasol, hadn't even played together for half the season prior to the playoffs. The Lakers defense ranked 19th in the NBA, meaning it's closer to the bottom than to the top. They have just 1 all star.

The Celtics are the better team, and commentators Marc Jackson and Jeff Van Gundy said so during game 5.

So why can't the mighty Celtics close out these upstart Lakers then?

The more you think about it, the more amazing it is.

The Celtics are a brilliant defensive team.

Just ask LeBron James. In his first 5 games against the Celtics, LeBron James shot 31%. LeBron also averaged 5.4 turnovers a game. Were it not for LeBron's 11.2 free throws per game, he would barely be found in the scoring column. :-)

Likewise, Kobe has been hampered by the Celtic wall.

In the 1st 3 rounds of the playoffs, Kobe shot 51%. However, against Boston's defense, Kobe has shot 42.2%. Defensively, the Celtics are doing something right.

In fact, the Lakers abandoned the triangle altogether late in the game, game 5. With Kobe and the ball at the top and the floor completely spread, the Lakers simply dribbled down the shot clock and then attacked the rim, improvising shots then fighting hard for rebounds.

The Lakers bench has been a serious disappointment in the Finals. Ronny Turiaf has more fouls than points, and only 3 rebounds in 5 Finals games. In game 5, Chris Mihm had 0 points, 0 rebounds, 1 turnover and 2 fouls in just 2:46. Luke Walton had 5 fouls in 10 minutes, two of them being very dumb fouls in the 4th quarter which put the Celtics in the penalty early.

"We'd like to have our bench give us a better bump," Jackson said. "Right now their bench is playing a little bit better than ours is. We've got some guys performing off the bench but not the unit."

When you consider all this, there is no WAY the Finals should still be going, yet not only have the Celtics not been able to close out the pesky Lakers, but the Lakers have had a chance to win all the games they've lost. Even in Boston.

No, the Lakers are not in a great position. They are facing elimination, down 3 games to 2, and playing the final 2 games in the heart of hostile territory.

But then again, the Lakers have been at a SEVERE disadvantage the entire series, and yet they are still here!

Seriously, this series is still up for grabs. The only prediction I would listen to is the guess that from here on out, the games will probably be ugly and hard fought, as these two weary, battled-tested conference champions attempt to impose their will on the other.

So please, ignore the blathering fan-prattle and pompous prognostications. This series has not been decided either way, neither is it the low-ratings sweep the Spurs had over the Cavs. This is hoops drama at its highest: this is another chapter of the most storied rivalry in basketball. Both teams have earned respect, and it's time we all gave it.

Chris Mihm was the difference maker for the Lakers in game 5 of the 2008 NBA Playoffs. I realize this flies in the face of conventional wisdom, but think about it.

In game 4, the Lakers had a 21 point 1st quarter lead, but ended up losing the game.

In game 5, the Lakers had just a 17 point 1st quarter lead, (so the Celtics had them just where they wanted them), until Phil Jackson pulled out his secret weapon: Chris Mihm.

Mihm had 0 minutes in game 4 and the Lakers lost. Mihm had 2:46 in game 5, and the Lakers won.

Obviously, Chris Mihm was the difference! (Yes, I'm kidding.)

But seriously folks, I actually do think Chris Mihm was the difference maker -- well, not Chris Mihm per se, but the fact that Phil Jackson had the courage to play Mihm, particularly after the squall of criticism Jackson weathered for his game 4 player substitutions.

To me, this proves that Phil Jackson still has the courage, creativity and brilliance it takes to win. I am honestly impressed, and you should be too.

The Mihm experiment obviously failed; he had 0 points, 0 rebounds, 2 fouls and 1 turnover in 2:46.

But then again, Ronny Turiaf actually has more fouls than points so far in the NBA Finals, thus putting a very good free throw shooting team on the line. And in 50+ minutes over 5 games, Turiaf has grabbed whopping total of 3 measly rebounds. He's not exactly earning his minutes, is he? For comparison's sake, backup point guard Jordan Farmar has 10 rebounds so far this series, more than three times the total of the Lakers backup center.

Seriously, with production like that from Turiaf, and with DJ Mbenga in street clothes, Phil Jackson would have been an imbecile not to give Chris Mihm a try.

Chris Mihm was once one of the better centers in the league, but thanks to injuries Mihm has basically not played basketball in 2 years.

It wasn't like Phil put Mihm in during a critical point of the game. Jackson experimented with Mihm early in the game and when the Lakers had a 17 point lead.

So, given Turiaf has been MIA, and Mbenga was unavailable, that it was early in the game and the Lakers had a 17 point lead, didn't it make sense to give Mihm a try? And the fact that playing Mihm surprised everyone, that Phil Jackson was the only person to see that this substitution made sense, doesn't that make Jackson brilliant?

Had Mihm played well, Phil might have even been able to play him again in the second half and move Pau Gasol to power forward, Lamar Odom to small forward, and play Kobe Bryant with whichever other guard is playing well. Alas, Mihm looked terrified out there and played terribly.

The same courage and creativity it takes to give Mihm a try, is the courage and creativity it took for Jackson to bench Michael Jordan in game 6 of the 1992 NBA Finals, with the Bulls down big against the Trailblazers, and play long forgotten reserve, Bobby Hansen.

And this is the same courage and creativity it took to play Jordan Farmar (with Fisher, Bryant, Odom and Gasol) at crunch time of an elimination game. Farmar hadn't been playing well in the playoffs, but in game 5, Farmar was effective at blowing by Sam Cassell and Eddie House to get to the rim and finish with a layup, or by assisting a teammate to easily score.

Without that courage and creativity, and with Vujacic having a bad game, Phil would have had to go with Radmanovic at crunch time. Who feels good about THAT decision?

Oh wait, I hear you: what about Trevor Ariza?

After game 4, I was one of the many clamoring for Ariza to get more minutes in game 5, but when I saw Ariza on the floor in game 5, I got worried. Ariza passed on totally open shots, literally. Trevor Ariza earned a seat on the bench by failing to shoot when open. The Celtics defense is bad enough 5 on 5, but if the Celtics are able to guard the remaining Lakers 5 on 4, the Lakers are dead.

Lest I give Phil Jackson too much credit for Farmar's success, I have to mention Kobe Bryant as well.

Remember when Farmar launched an airball 3 pointer? The very next play, Kobe Bryant passed the ball to Farmar at the arc, and Farmar knocked down the 3-pointer. Kobe Bryant unimpeachably manifested confidence in Farmar, even when he had a good reason not to. I'm sure that built Jordan Farmar's confidence, and helped him to play better the rest of the game.

Kobe Bryant, for those too jaded to see it, really does make his teammates better.

Of course, Chris Mihm wasn't really the difference in game 5, Phil Jackson and Kobe Bryant were.

I just thought I'd use Chris Mihm to point out to those whose faith in Phil Jackson might be wavering how brilliant Phil Jackson really is, so fear not, and be believing.

The Zen Master is still on his game.

Here is another way of looking at this. In the Finals, the Celtics are averaging 96 points per game. The Lakers are averaging 92 points per game.

That isn’t that much to make up, is it? In fact, the Lakers seriously could have swept the Celtics had they defended 5 points better … which, from what we’ve seen, seems VERY doable.

The Celtics averaged 100.5 points per game during the regular season, so they are -4.5 in the Finals.

The Lakers averaged 108.6 in the regular season, so they are -16.6 in the Finals.

The Celtics’ defense is very obviously having an effect on the Lakers. Therefore, regardless their substitution pattern, it seems HIGHLY unlikely that the Lakers could come up with 16.6 extra points in the 3 remaining games of the Finals, and satisfy us spoiled fans with the offensive success we’ve all grown accustomed to seeing from them all season. Consequently, we really need to get over our offensive criticisms of the Lakers and quit beating them up over it.

The answer is in defense, 5 more points of it.

Is there enough room for improvement in the Lakers defense to prevent the Celtics from scoring less than one basket per quarter?

Hold the Celtics to 22 points per quarter, hold a big gold trophy next weekend.

I can't believe how quickly the blogging world has turned on Phil Jackson. And while were at it, I do not get the criticisms I've been reading of Sasha Vujacic or Pau Gasol. Phil is NOT to blame, unless you think that players not taking their coach seriously is the coach's fault.

About the only explanation I can find for people knocking Jackson, Gasol and Vujacic, is that these fans are JUST LIKE the Lakers' players ... they are too focused on offense, and do not take defense seriously enough.

"Defense wins championships" is not just a cliche', it is the truth, and Lakers players and fans alike seem to think the Lakers can win a title allowing the Celtics to score 98, 108 and 97 points per game, even when the Celtics have allowed their opponents to score only 90.3 points per game all season long ... and the Celtics were no where NEAR as motivated as they are now to defend.

The math doesn't add up!

Pay attention to the post game comments, and you can see the that the Lakers are not on the same page as their coach. Phil Jackson alone seems to understand that the Lakers need to take defense more seriously.

These young Lakers have NOT played good defense all year, and that has put them at odds with Jackson. To be specific, the Lakers had the 19th best defense in the NBA this season, allowing opponents to score 101.4 points per game.

By contrast, the Celtics allowed their opponents to score an average of 90.3 points per game.

Given that pace slows down in the playoffs, it is more than reasonable to assume that, for the Lakers to win ANY game against the Celtics, the Lakers will need to hold the Celtics to 90 points or less.

The ONLY time the Lakers did that these Finals, they won. Shouldn't THAT be enough evidence to convince them? Hold the Celtics to 90 points or less, you win. Don't do it, and you lose. Four games have borne that out, how about believing it now?

In the 1st quarter of game 4, the Lakers held the Celtics to 14 points. That defensive effort, combined with the Lakers' rebounding and ball movement, created easy offense for the Lakers as well, hence the 21 point Finals record.

After the first quarter, the Lakers defense let up. In the 3rd quarter, it was exactly as bad as it had been all season. The Celtics scored 31 that quarter.

Remember the sound bites of Phil Jackson in the locker room and on the floor at half time? Repeatedly he warned his players, "Win the 3rd quarter. Are you listening? Win the 3rd quarter and we'll be fine."

Phil Jackson coached in the CBA, where playoff seeding was determined not only by wins, but how many QUARTERS a team won. If Jackson could get the Lakers to think in terms of winning quarters, then he could get a more consistent defensive effort all game long, rather than the big effort at the beginning that vanishes until the 4th quarter when it is painfully obvious it is needed.

After the game, Kevin Garnett commented on how surprised he was that the Lakers were not giving the effort in the 2nd half that they gave in the 1st half.

SUBSTITUTIONS

For all of you baffled by Phil's substitutions, he was not subbing for offense. He was subbing for defense, to stop the bleeding.

Phil Jackson understands what, apparently, not everyone does: the Lakers are NOT going to outscore the Celtics. The Celtics will not allow that. Therefore, the Lakers are going to have to hold the down Celtics scoring to win.

If I were coach, I'd tell my players that the magical number is 22, that way he might be able to make the Lakers give a more consistent defensive effort. If the Lakers can hold the Celtics to 22 POINTS PER QUARTER, the Lakers will be in a position to win.

A NEW HOPE

As a reminder, the Lakers could have potentially won all 3 of the games they lost. The problem always was, they let the Celtics score too much.

The series is not over, but if the Lakers players don't wisen up, defend, rebound and move the ball, it will be.

ABOUT PAU AND SASHA

Not only am I not critical of Phil, I don't get these criticisms of Pau.

Pau is NOT the Lakers starting center, guys! Bynum is! Pau is playing out of position, as is Ronny Turiaf. If healthy, Bynum and Mihm are supposed to be the inside force, and Pau will do his scoring on lobs as he cuts to the rim, not post up play. And Pau has the foot speed to keep up with the Boozers in the league, and the length to really bother them defensively.

As for Sasha letting Allen "walk" by him at crunch time, the worst thing Sasha could have done was foul Allen, that would have been a guaranteed 2 points for the Celtics. Of the 1000's of people who have played in the NBA over the decades, Ray Allen is the 7th best free throw shooter to ever play in the league. By letting Allen by him, Sasha was presumably sending Allen to help, BIGS that would alter Allen's shot or cause him to pass the ball. The team defense is to blame here, not Sasha.

In truth, the team defense is to blame for the hole the Lakers are in. Not Phil Jackson, not Kobe's shot selection, not Radmanovic's lack of hard fouls, not Sasha's letting Ray Allen go by.

Seriously guys, if you are looking critically at the Lakers offense, you are looking at the wrong side of the floor.

The Celtics have the best defense in basketball. That best defense, was NEVER more motivated than it was last night. Naturally, the Lakers are not going to perform as well as expected against that, even the great Kobe Bryant. To expect otherwise is to ignore reality.

If the Lakers score better Sunday, cool. But if it happens, it will be because the Laker defense has allowed them to run out for easy scores. It won't be because they've magically solved the Celtics defense and can now score as everyone expects them to do.

The Lakers need to defend to win.

That's easy to overlook because it is so cliche' to keep saying, "Defense wins championships," but the saying has endured for a reason. And frankly, the Lakers (and probably their fans) don't take defense seriously yet.

And so it was, that the Lakers #24, in his 24th Finals game of his career, was part of a 24 point meltdown that is now in the record books.

All that will be but a footnote though, if the next Lakers record is to become the 1st team to overcome a 3-1 deficit.

That record is the Lakers' for the taking, if they will rebound, move the ball, and play defense as if this season depended on it. Because it does.

Lakers fans: brace yourselves. They'll be no home cooking tonight. The friendly whistles the Celtics enjoyed the first two games of the 2008 NBA Finals in Boston will not likely be reciprocated for the home team Lakers in game 4.

How could they be?

Here it is hours before game 4 of the 2008 NBA Finals, and the biggest story today isn't Rondo's ankle, is it? The big story is Tim Donaghy's accusations that the Lakers were beneficiaries of an NBA playoffs conspiracy.

With a huge story like this hanging over their heads, how could NBA officials not go out of their way to show that they do not favor the Lakers?

Ironically, the solitary voice calling for reformation of NBA officiating is the Lakers Coach, Phil Jackson. Jackson is calling for NBA officials to have their own separate organization, not under the authority of the NBA. You don't need to have a "high basketball IQ" to see how that would help. "It seems to be more consistent with what we want to have happen to keep it from being influenced," Jackson said.

The worst thing about the Tim Donaghy story though, is David Stern. I don't want to hear his denials, and I especially don't want to hear him act as if the only problem the NBA has with officiating is this lone, rogue official. I want to hear him say he will reorganize NBA officiating so transparently that it will forever be above su####ion again.

It's not like Tim Donaghy is the only reason to reform officiating.

2. Mark Cuban is another good reason. Wouldn't setting up another organization separate from the NBA pull the rug out from under these headline grabbing conspiracy theorists?

3. And in Mark's defense, doesn't it feel somewhat un-American to fine someone for practicing his right to free speech? The Mark Cubans and Jeff Van Gundys should not be made to pay for expressing their opinions on officiating, especially when so many others are getting away with it for free.

4. Joey Crawford is another good reason for ref reform. Refs are as human as anyone else, and just as a player or a coach can get caught up in the heat of the moment, so can a referee. A real and transparent grievance procedure would help keep refs in line.

5. Right now, every officiating change is seen as a reaction to a past problem, and subsequently becomes an admission of guilt. Take for instance, the controversial shot Chauncy Billups took at the end of the 3rd quarter in game 2 against the Orlando Magic. If the NBA allows video replay for these situations next year, it is basically admitting the call was blown this year. There are some things the NBA doesn't want to admit, therefore there is a built in reluctancy in the current system to make necessary changes.

6. A study by University of Pennsylvania professor Justin Wolfers and Cornell graduate student Joseph Price analyzed NBA box scores over 13 seasons through 2004 and found that Black players received fewer fouls (4.33 per 48 minute game) than White players (4.97 per 48 minute game). It also found that white refs were more likely to call fouls on black players, and that black refs were more likely to call fouls on white players. The REAL news, however, is that when the NBA dismissed this study, it said it has done more robust studies than this on this topic but has not released the results. WHY?! Why can't the NBA be more transparent with the world about officiating?

Like most of you, I love this game. I watch it, I study it, I blog it, I play it, I coach it and I officiate it. If water-boarded though, (or for a free salmon dinner at Chili's), I'd confess that the one thing that ruins this game for me is not Craig Sager's suits, but basketball officiating.

Officiating has left me with a bad taste in my mouth so many times as a fan, as a player and as a coach, and even as a ref. Either I've swallowed my whistle in support of a fellow official who made what looked to me to be a bad call, or I myself have left games frustrated at how well hard it is to do a good job for the coaches and players who left it all on the floor.

Consequently, over time, I've developed some RADICAL ideas for improving officiating of basketball. Like what? Well, like ....

A BOARD OF GOVERNORS

What do we want from NBA Officials? Only three things really.

1. Accuracy - We want officials to not miss calls, and to make the right calls when they make them.

2. Consistency - If it is a foul for one team, then it should be a foul for the other team... regardless who the home team is. If it is a foul at the beginning of the game, it should be a foul in the closing seconds as well... regardless if some dip stick announcer thinks otherwise. If it is a foul for a rookie, it should be a foul for an established super star as well... regardless if some veteran player feels he deserves more "respect." Stop with the nonsensical unwritten officiating policies and just be consistent.

3. Recourse - Right now, if a player or a coach feels a call was missed or incorrect, they have two options: complain to no avail, or suffer in silence and hope the bad calls even out in the end. Are you telling me this is the best we can do?! We're the species who have been to the moon and back, who cured the plagues of the dark ages, who -- I'll finish this later. I need to go, and I have to post this before game 4 starts for the beginning to make any sense. Sorry.

4. Continuity - Don't slow the game down.

LINE JUDGES

Soccer has line officials, volleyball has line officials, tennis has line officials ... why doesn't basketball?

Answer: greed.

They don't let fans onto the ice in hockey, they don't allow fans onto the pitch in soccer, they don't allow fans on the field in football, they don't allow fans onto the court in tennis, but in basketball, they sell tickets all the way up to and around the teams themselves.

And in the NBA, they then stuff photographers and videographers in front of them. How many times in the playoffs have fans held their breath as NBA stars crashed into cameras and camera men? Yet it doesn't change.

Other major sports seem to be able to cover their games from a safe distance for the players, why can't they do the same for the NBA?

Now, as a person who has enjoyed courtside seats on the floor with my family, I can say that I'd hate to see courtside seats go, but then again, I wouldn't mind if they were another 3 or 4 feet away from the sidelines for safety's sake... especially if that also made room for line officials, and for better basketball officiating.

Basketball needs to add sideline officials.

Sideline officials could watch all lines and make calls such as: 3 in the key, defensive 3 seconds, the restricted "no charge" area offensive fouls, shot clock violations, backcourt violations, and basically free up the 3 on-court officials to watch and monitor player contact.

(more to come)

I've got some good news and I've got some bad news.

The good news is that Lakers are a good outside shooting team.

The bad news is the NBA Finals are played indoors. ;-)

But seriously folks, in game 1 of the 2008 NBA Finals, the Lakers played as if they thought championship basketball can be played from their comfort zone, chucking up outside shots.

This group of Celtics players may not have much championship experience, but unlike the young Lakers players, the veteran Celtics' collective years of disappointment seem to have taught them that championships are EARNED, not bequeathed.

If you are a Lakers' fan, you better hope these young guys aren't too proud to take correction, because if you study Phil Jackson's championship teams, you will find that 9 out of 9 of them did 3 things better than their opponents, and the Lakers did NONE of those things better than the Celtics in game 1.

True, the Lakers have won games in this years' playoffs when they haven't bested their opponents in these 3 areas -- and maybe that's why these younglings aren't taking them seriously this year, but they would be smarter to decide now, once and for all, that now is not the time to tinker with his championship formula.

Just what are these three keys to Phil Jackson's success?

The first year the Chicago Bulls won the NBA Championship, 1991, they were +2.4 in rebounds per game over their opponents, +2.4 in assists, and that season they had the 7th best defense in the NBA.

The 1992 championship Bulls team was +4.4 in rebounding per game over their opponents, +5.3 in assists, and had the 4th best defense in the NBA.

The 1993 championship team was +3.3 in rebounding per game over their opponents, +2.6 in assists, and had the 7th best defense in the NBA.

The 1996 championship Bulls were +6.6 in rebounding per game over their opponents, +5.4 in assists, and had the best defensive team in the NBA.

The 1997 championship Bulls were +5.0 in rebounds per game over their opponents, +3.1 in assists, and had the 4th best defense in the NBA.

The 1998 championship Bulls were +5.2 in rebounds per game over their opponents, +4.4 in assists, and were the 3rd best defense in the league.

For the Chicago Bulls, the three keys to championship success were superior defense, ball movement, and rebounding.

Let me pause here to point out that the Bulls outrebounded their opponents even before they acquired Dennis Rodman. And while Bulls highlight reels tend to give the impression Michael Jordan was taking on defenses 1 on 1, or 1 on 5, statistically, Jordan's points came with the help of ball movement, as did the points of the entire Bulls team.

The Triangle Offense gets a lot of press, but it is just a system, a means to an end. When Phil Jackson's teams had superior defense, rebounding and ball movement over their opponents, they won championships.

And how did the system work when Phil Jackson brought it to Shaquille O'Neal's Los Angeles Lakers?

The 2000 championship Lakers were +3.9 in rebounds, +4.0 in assists, and had the best defense in the NBA. By the way, the year before Phil Jackson got there, the Lakers were 23rd out of 29 teams defensively.

The 2001 championship Lakers were +3.4 in rebounds, +2.8 in assists, and swept their opponents in the first, second, and third rounds, winning the NBA Finals over Philadelphia with only 1 loss the entire playoffs.

The 2002 championship Lakers were just +1 in rebounds, +3.0 in assists, and had the 7th best defense in the NBA that season.

The next year, when the Lakers lost in the Finals to the Pistons, they still led their opponents in rebounds and assists, however they were just 19th in the league defensively.

In game 1 of the 2008 NBA Finals, it has been widely and incorrectly reported that the Lakers were outrebounded by 13. The truth is the Lakers were -19 in rebounds in game 1.

Why the disparity? Not all rebounds can be attributed to a single player, some are batted around a bit before they are corralled. These rebounds that cannot be credited to a specific player are designated in the box score as "team rebounds," and since they fall outside the matrix's totals line, these rebounds are often overlooked. But make no mistake about it, they are rebounds, and the Lakers weren't hustling to these loose balls either.

As for ball movement, the Lakers were more competitive in the first half, when they had 14 assists on 19 field goals. In the second half, the Lakers had just 7 assists on 13 field goals. The Lakers stopped moving the ball.

And as for defense, the Lakers gave up 46 points in the first half, and 52 points in the second half. How does THAT happen? Shouldn't the youthful Lakers be running circles around the older Celtcs as the game goes on? Especially when the Lakers are supposed to have a great bench?

In short, the Lakers are ignoring Phil Jackson's tried and true championship formula, and they don't seem to believe it is even important.

After game 1, Ronny Turiaf said, "I think we've managed pretty well as of right now. Last time I checked, when we played Utah, they outrebounded us by 15 and we won the game. I don't think the rebounding made the difference tonight."

How embarrassing.

If the Lakers don't wise up, they'll get to watch the Celtics celebrating their first championship since team president, Danny Ainge, was a player for the Celtics.

In fact, Celtics team ownership has said that if the Celtics win, they will retire Ainge's #44 jersey.

I like Danny Ainge, I always have. Do you think the Lakers like him that much as well?

Phil Jackson's system requires defense, rebounds and ball movement. The Celtics' defense forces opponents to settle for outside shots.

Championships are EARNED, not bequeathed.

Do you know anyone who predicted that the 2008 NBA Finals would feature the Lakers verses the Celtics? Me neither.

As of last night, the Lakers and the Celtics have the best records in the West and East respectively. Actually, the Lakers are tied with the Suns for the best record in the Western Conference, but the Lakers have beaten the Suns both times they’ve met this year, so the Lakers would have the number 1 seed in the West if the playoffs were to start today.

But of course, the playoffs do NOT start today, which is a good thing for the Lakers, since their promising young center, Andrew Bynum is expected to miss at least the next 27 games due to a knee injury.

However, if the Lakers start losing, it will be hard to know how much of that is because Bynum is gone, and how much of it is due to their schedule.

The Lakers next games are against Phoenix, Denver, San Antonio, Dallas and Cleveland. Then, after a home game against the Knicks, the Lakers embark on a grueling, nine-game road trip January 31 at Detroit. The Lakers only have 3 home games in February.

It’s possible that the difficulty of their coming schedule would have slid the Lakers back down the standings a bit anyway, but Kobe might beg to differ.

After last night’s overtime squeaker over the lowly Sonics, Kobe Bryant told KCAL TV, "We're a championship-caliber team when [Andrew Bynum] is in the lineup."

Wow, what a reversal! It takes a big man to admit he is wrong, and Kobe seems to be that man.

When Kobe trashed Bynum this last summer, Bynum’s numbers were about half of what they are this year, and most of us would have agreed that Jason Kidd or Jermaine O’Neal would have helped the Lakers more than Bynum had up until that point.

Kobe has already publicly acknowledged he should not have publicly trashed his teammate like he did, but sometimes people can turn criticism into a rallying cry or a wake up call of sorts.

It is reminiscent of when Larry Bird called out the Celtics for not being very tough after their loss to the Lakers in game 3 of the 1984 NBA Finals. Larry was right, but rather than whine about Larry publicly trashing them, Larry’s teammates came back with a vengeance.

To his credit, Andrew Bynum has likewise risen to the challenge.

This year, Andrew Bynum:

• Leads the entire NBA in field goal percentage
• Ranks #2 in the NBA in efficiency rating per 48 minutes
• Is #4 in the NBA in rebounds per 48 minutes
• Is #11 in the NBA in rebounds
• Is #11 in the NBA in double doubles
• Is #9 in the NBA in blocks

And Andrew Bynum is improving as the season goes on. Since 2008 started and before getting hurt, Bynum:

• Has averaged 70% shooting
• Averaged 17.4 points per game
• Averaged 12 rebounds per game
• Averaged 2.8 blocks per game

Bynum’s growing reputation has forced opposing defenses to pay more attention to him, making the game easier for the rest of the Lakers.

And yet Andrew Bynum is not even listed as someone you can vote into the All Star Game. Granted, Bynum will never draw more votes than Yao Ming, but Andrew Bynum is at least as deserving to be on the ballot as is Andris Biedrins, Brad Miller, Erick Dampier, Mehmet Okur, Pau Gasol, LaMarcus Aldridge, Tyson Chandler, Marcus Camby, and Chris Kaman.

This year Andrew Bynum has almost doubled his averages from last year and is everyone’s leading candidate for most improved player.

At age 20, there seems to be plenty of improvement ahead of Bynum. After Drew’s last outing, a 25 point, 17 rebound performance, he said, “I’m dying for a 20 and 20 game. I’ve been so close like that two, three times. Philly, this game, and I think another game I got like 10 boards in the first quarter and finished with 11.”

You’ve got to love how he’s set goals for himself and his improvement, and makes a real effort to reach them.

Jordan and Pippen. O’Neal and Bryant. And now Bryant and Bynum ... has Phil Jackson found his 3rd dynamic duo?