Category: NBA Finals (Page 38 of 58)

Michael Wilbon is being a little hard on himself (and everyone else)

June 15, 2008 / John Paulsen

Michael Wilbon writes for The Washington Post, hosts “Pardon the Interruption” on ESPN, and provides halftime commentary on the NBA for ABC, so he’s obviously a busy guy. Like most of us, he picked the Lakers to win the Finals, and now that they’re down 3-1 and on the verge of losing the series, he sees a number of reasons why we were all so wrong to pick against Boston.

The vast majority of us should be ashamed for being so blinded by the glare of the Lakers because it was all right there in front of us even before the championship series began. The Celtics aren’t just better than the Lakers; they’re superior.
The Celtics are going to win because of stunningly obvious reasons, because they have more good players, because they’re bigger and stronger up front, because they play infinitely better defense, because they kill the Lakers on the boards. We knew this coming into the series, in part, because Jackson told us all season long what the Lakers’ areas of vulnerability were.

It’s funny how exaggerated things become when a team goes up 3-1 (as opposed to being tied, 2-2) in a seven-game series. The Lakers are one comeback (Game 4) and one near-comeback (Game 2) away from being up 3-1, so all this talk of Celtic superiority is unfortunate.

It’s true that Boston is the better defensive team, but they aren’t “infinitely better,” as Wilbon puts it. During the regular season, Boston led the league in defensive efficiency (that is, the points per 100 possessions), while the Lakers were sixth. In the playoffs, the Celtics again are first in that statistic, while the Lakers are third. I think everyone would agree that the C’s play better defense, but “infinitely” better? I don’t think so.

With young Andrew Bynum unable to play because of his continued knee issues, the Lakers’ front court consists primarily of Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom. But they aren’t the most aggressive players even in optimum conditions, and there’s nothing optimum about those two having to go against four absolutely great Celtics players who are bigger, stronger and more aggressive: Kevin Garnett (the NBA’s defensive player of the year), bruising Kendrick Perkins, long Leon Powe and a professor of defense, 39-year-old P.J. Brown. It’s been a mismatch.

Did he just call Kendrick Perkins, Leon Powe and P.J. Brown “absolutely great”? I’ll admit that they’ve all had their moments in the playoffs, but don’t “absolutely great” players bring it just about every night? I wouldn’t use that term for Lamar Odom, or even Pau Gasol for that matter. The absolutely great players in this Finals are Paul Pierce, Kobe Bryant and Kevin Garnett.

We looked at the Celtics needing seven games to beat Atlanta, seven games to beat Cleveland and six games to beat Detroit, and figured any team that needed that many games to simply reach the NBA Finals wasn’t good enough and didn’t have enough energy left to win. Instead, we should have concluded the Celtics had been battle-tested in ways the Lakers hadn’t as they waltzed through the first three rounds of the playoffs.

All due respect to Mr. Wilbon, but Celtic fatigue wasn’t the reason I picked the Lakers in the Finals. I picked them because Boston looked so out of sorts against Atlanta and Cleveland. It wasn’t until midway through the Detroit series that the C’s started look like the team that won 66 games during the regular season. Even then, they didn’t inspire that much confidence.

As the Finals started, it’s almost as if they flipped a switch and turned that vaunted chemistry back on. Suddenly, Ray Allen’s jumper returned in full force and bench guys like Leon Powe had career nights that swung the momentum of the series.

The bottom line is that if the Lakers had pulled off that comeback in Game 2 or held the Celtics off in Game 4 – two games that down the stretch could have gone either way – we’d all be writing about a Finals locked up at two games a piece. Instead, we’ve got the normally calm and composed Michael Wilbon freaking out about how superior the Celtics are and how we should have all seen this from the start.

The truth is that the only part of the game where the Celtics are vastly superior is in the area of chemistry. The Celtics have it and the Lakers have struggled with it.

NBA, NBA Finals

Barstool Debate: Does Kobe Bryant compare to Michael Jordan?

June 13, 2008 / John Paulsen

Skill-wise, Kobe Bryant is (probably) the best player in the NBA, and since he’s won a few championships and plays shooting guard, the comparisons to His Airness are inevitable.

But has Kobe done enough in his career to deserve to be compared to MJ? John Paulsen and Anthony Stalter discuss this very topic in this week’s Barstool Debate.

John: I don’t know that there is anyone that truly compares to Jordan, even Kobe. They do have several similarities. Both are phenomenal all-around athletes. They’re both fierce competitors. But there’s something that sets Jordan apart. MJ won six rings and was the main guy for all of those championships. Kobe was Shaq’s sidekick during the Lakers’ three-peat, and while he was (and is) a great player, he was not the main reason that L.A. won those titles. He certainly made a big contribution, much in the same way Scottie Pippen contributed to the Bulls’ championships, but without Shaq, those Laker teams weren’t going anywhere. However, if Kobe and his Lakers can win a title this year, it will help his case. I think he needs to win two or three more rings as the lead guy in order for us to have a real debate about who is the better player.

Anthony: I don’t know if it’s fair to compare the two with Kobe still being an active player. Quite frankly, right now there is no comparison. MJ has four more league MVP awards, three more NBA Finals MVP awards, four more All-Star appearances and over 10,000 more points. It’s probably safe to assume Kobe will at least match MJ’s All-Star Game appearances, but it’s so hard to compare everything else considering Kobe’s full body of work isn’t completed yet. And while it’s true Kobe did have Shaq, it wasn’t like Jordan was playing with Teddy Ruxpin and the Hamburglar during the Bulls’ championship runs. Scottie Pippen, Horace Grant and BJ Armstrong formed a formidable team, plus Jordan eventually played with one of the best rebounders in NBA history when Dennis Rodman played in Chicago from 1995-1998. This might be another discussion in itself, but were MJ’s championship Bulls teams better than Kobe’s championship Laker squads?

John: You’re not getting off that easy, Stalter. You want to wait until Kobe is done playing before comparing the two players? What fun is that? It’s not like this is a 24 year-old we’re talking about. Kobe turns 30 this August and has played in the league for 12 years. Certainly, we must have some idea how he’ll compare with MJ when he finally hangs ‘em up. You’re right about the All-Star appearances – Kobe will probably get at least three or four more. If he plays for five more seasons, he’s likely to approach MJ’s point total as well. But he’s going to have a tough time catching Jordan in MVP awards and championships, and that might have more to do with Kobe’s personality than his sheer talent. Jordan had a reputation for being a hard ass, but his teammates wanted to go to war with him, and I don’t think there are too many Laker fans that would seriously argue that Kobe is a good teammate. For all the talk about L.A.’s magical season, I’ve seen the same ol’ Kobe in the 2008 Finals – barking at teammates, poisonous body language and condescending facial expressions. This is what sets Jordan apart – he didn’t show up his teammates (nearly as much).

Anthony: Damn it JP, you caught me. I was trying to sneak out of this one with my dignity since you’ve schooled me on previous NBA debates! I think if we’re comparing sheer numbers and achievements, we do have to wait until Kobe is done playing. But if we’re taking less of an analytical approach to the debate, then yes, Kobe has a long way to go to get on Jordan’s level. There’s a fine line between the two player’s styles of play. In some respects, one could view Jordan as being a selfish player with the amount of shots he took. But Jordan was rarely, if ever, accused of being a me-first guy. The same cannot be said for Kobe. So what does Kobe have to do then to get on Jordan’s level then? Win, but win the way Jordan did by becoming a team player? What defines a team player? As a non-Kobe supporter, what would he have to do to earn your respect as a fan and therefore, even mention him in the same breath as Jordan?

John: One thing that really jumps out at me when comparing these two players is their FG%. Jordan shot a career 49.7% from the field while Kobe shoots 45.3%. If not for MJ’s last few seasons, he would have finished over 50%, which is astounding for a guard. I don’t think anyone can criticize Jordan for being selfish when he is hitting half of his shots. Moreover, Kobe’s numbers will likely go down a bit as he gets older. He has always been a little suspect in his shot selection, and I don’t think anyone would say that about Jordan. But back to Kobe’s legacy… his numbers will ultimately compare, but Kobe has to be “The Man” on two or three more championship teams before a real comparison can be made. Winning one will be a big load off his shoulders, but it won’t be enough to erase four years of selfishness, perceived or not. For Kobe to be considered “The Greatest,” he has to stop with all the faces/barking at his teammates, quit complaining so much to the refs, and win a few more championships. The Lakers are young and talented, and are poised for a great run, but it’s up to Kobe to lead them to the Promised Land.

Anthony: I wonder which player had/has it tougher in terms of winning championships. As you noted, the Lakers are a solid young team, but the Western Conference is brutally tough and it’s so hard to repeat in the salary cap era. By no means am I saying Jordan and the Bulls had it easier, but was the league as competitive as it was in the mid-90’s as it is now? Who knows, maybe this is the last chance Kobe has to win a championship. After all, it took Kobe and the Lakers five years to get back to the NBA Finals. Nothing is guaranteed.

John: Well, the Lakers just lost Game 4 at home, so it looks like a title in 2008 is a long shot. Kobe still has a lot of work to do if he wants to pass up MJ. With the return of a healthy Andrew Bynum, I think the Lakers will be the favorite to win the 2009 NBA title.

Barstool Debates, NBA, NBA Finals

Kobe Bryant Kobe vs. Michael Michael Jordan

Celtics + Game 4 = 4-Ever

June 13, 2008 / John Paulsen

If you happened to see my post about Game 3, where I compared the Celtics’ failure to steal a win to that person in everyone’s past that is the proverbial “one that got away,” you’ll understand why I’m now saying that Game 4 is the Celtics’ soul mate.

Generally, when a team makes a humongous comeback like the Celtics did tonight, they don’t have the energy to win the game down the stretch. Boston was down 70-50 after two Vladimir Radmanovic free throws with 6:03 to play in the third quarter. Over those final six minutes, the Celtics went on a 21-3 run to cut the lead to two heading into the final period.

It was chemistry that kept the Celtics alive. There was no poisonous body language or yelling at teammates when Boston was trailing. They just kept their heads down, chanted ubuntu and chipped away at the lead. Much has been written about Paul Pierce’s defense this season, and he was terrific in making life difficult for Kobe Bryant tonight. Pierce’s block on Kobe’s turnaround jumper when the Celtics were still down 15 might have been the turning point of the game (and the series). He bounced back from a horrid Game 3 to post a workman-like 20 points, seven assists and four rebounds.

In fact, the so-called “Big Three” all had their moments. Kevin Garnett owned the glass and hit a couple of big shots during the run and down the stretch. Ray Allen, now known more for his outside jumper than his ability to penetrate, made two huge drives to the hoop. The first was an impossible (for a 32 year-old, anyway) reverse, double-clutch layup and the other was a clear out where he schooled Sasha Vujacic into a sweet left-handed layup. (If my son ever questions my insistence that he develop his off-hand, I’m going to show him that play.)

In a way, I think it might have been to the Celtics advantage that they got down by such a big margin. On the surface, this doesn’t make much sense, but with the game completely out of hand, KG looked relaxed for the first time in the series. Since nobody was really expecting the Celtics to win the game at that point, the pressure was off and they were able to pull of the mother of all comebacks.

On the flip side, it was interesting to see the Lakers succumb to the mother of all meltdowns. Once things got really dire for L.A., Kobe looked like he wanted to bite all of his teammates in the throat. That’s the problem with his style of leadership; the guys around him are afraid to screw up and that only increases the chances that they will.

And I can’t discuss the Lakers without mentioning Vladimir Radmanovic’s awful defense. With 2:10 to play and the Lakers down five, Jeff Van Gundy was excited when they brought in the same unit that made the big comeback in Game 2, which included Radmanovic at power forward. After a couple of free throws and a driving layup by Kobe, L.A. trailed by two, 89-87, with 1:30 to play. Things were looking up.

Then Vladimir Radmanovic happened.

He was covering James Posey who is, as Mark Jackson is so fond of saying, a “knockdown shooter.” Posey is slow, so there’s no real reason to worry about the drive. So you crowd him and force him to put the ball on the court. Anyway, Radmanovic does that, and Posey is forced to give up the ball to Allen on the opposite elbow. Vujacic had defensive position, but when Allen dribbled the ball, Radmanovic inexplicably let Posey go to provide help that wasn’t needed. Posey spotted up on the wing, Allen made the extra pass, and Posey knocked down a three pointer that put the Celtics back up by five with 1:13 to play. Where was Radmanovic? He was up past the top of the key, completely out of position.

Game (pretty much) over.

Series (pretty much) over.

No team has come back from a 3-1 deficit to win the Finals, but it’s not an impossible task. The Lakers need to take it one game at a time, get a win on Sunday and then go from there. The Celtics have a history of getting in their own way psychologically, so if the Lakers can win Game 5 and somehow force a pressure-packed fourth quarter in Game 6, anything can happen.

NBA, NBA Finals

Master of the Obvious: Curt Schilling says that Kobe isn’t a good teammate

June 12, 2008 / John Paulsen

I’m probably one of the last bloggers to pick up on this, but call me old-fashioned… I don’t really care what professional baseball players think about the NBA, especially when they say up front that they don’t know anything about the game.

Anyway, let the obligatory post continue… Curt Schilling got some sweet seats to Game 2 of the Finals and posted his thoughts about the experience on his blog. This is what he had to say about Kobe’s interaction with his teammates:

From the first tip until about 4 minutes left in the game I saw and heard this guy bitch at his teammates. Every TO he came to the bench pissed, and a few of them he went to other guys and yelled about something they weren’t doing, or something they did wrong. No dialog about “hey let’s go, let’s get after it” or whatever. He spent the better part of 3.5 quarters pissed off and ranting at the non-execution or lack of, of his team. Then when they made what almost was a historic run in the 4th, during a TO, he got down on the floor and basically said ‘Let’s f’ing go, right now, right here” or something to that affect. I am not making this observation in a good or bad way, I have no idea how the guys in the NBA play or do things like this, but I thought it was a fascinating bit of insight for me to watch someone in another sport who is in the position of a team leader and how he interacted with his team and teammates. Watching the other 11 guys, every time out it was high fives and “Hey nice work, let’s get after it” or something to that affect. He walked off the floor, obligatory skin contact on the high five, and sat on the bench stone faced or pissed off, the whole game. Just weird to see another sport and how it all works. I would assume that’s his style and how he plays and what works for him because when I saw the leader board for scoring in the post season his name sat up top at 31+ a game, can’t argue with that. But as a fan I was watching the whole thing, Kobe, his teammates and then the after effects of conversations. He’d yell at someone, make a point, or send a message, turn and walk away, and more than once the person on the other end would roll eyes or give a ‘whatever dude’ look.

In Kobe’s defense, the Lakers’ play was brutal for much of Game 2 and there is a ton of pressure (some of it self-applied) on Kobe to win a title without Shaq, so he can secure his legacy as one of the game’s greatest players. There has been a lot of talk about how great of a teammate he has been this season, but as the playoffs wear on and the pressure continues to mount, Kobe seems to be reverting to his old self. Watch his body language after a teammate makes a bad play – it isn’t pretty. He’s not good enough to win the series on his own, so only time will tell what kind of impact his “tough love” approach has on the rest of the Laker roster.

NBA, NBA Finals, Rumors & Gossip

Michael Wilbon weighs in on Refgate

June 12, 2008 / John Paulsen

In light of Tim Donaghy’s recent accusations about the officiating in Game 6 of that 2002 Lakers/Kings series, “Refgate” is gaining some steam. Despite David Stern’s condescending attacks on the messenger, there is a growing perception around the league that there has, at least in the past, been something fishy going on with the officiating in the playoffs.

Michael Wilbon makes a couple of interesting points::

It needs to be addressed now. Stern needs to empower an independent panel to investigate referees and their relationship with the league in much the same way Major League Baseball conducted an independent investigation into steroid use. Stern told us the U.S. Attorney’s office and the FBI had thoroughly investigated all of Donaghy’s claims. Yet, Bob Delaney, one of the three officials who worked the infamous Lakers-Kings Game 6 in 2002, told ESPN he had not been questioned. So, how thorough could the investigation have been? Did somebody forget? Was it a whitewash? Was Dick Bavetta, who also worked that game, questioned? Was Ted Bernhardt, the third official, questioned?

I would generally trust Stern when he says that all of Donaghy’s accusations have been investigated, but how do you conduct an investigation when you don’t even question (at least) one of the referees (Bob Delaney) that worked that infamous game? This is really starting to smell like a cover up, and the league needs to do what Wilbon suggested and empower an independent, thorough investigation.

Oh, by the way… Game 4 of the Finals is tonight.