Showing posts with label basketball. Show all posts
Showing posts with label basketball. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Friday, June 13, 2008
Don't call it a comeback!
Not much to say about last night's NBA game other than IT WAS THE BIGGEST COMEBACK IN NBA HISTORY!
After trailing by 21 after 1 quarter and 18 at halftime, the Celtics outscored the Lakers by 24 in the second half to win by 6!
I don't think the Lakers can score enough when the Celtics are playing their best defense. In other words, I think the Celtics are better.
A little-known fact that Celtics fans might want to know: the first quarter deficit can all be laid at the feet of Databoy. Had he not wanted to play a second game of Thurn and Taxis, I would have been watching the game from the start (at Landru/Ilse's). Since it's clear that the Celtics' turnaround started when I was paying more attention to them, and they only really kicked in after Reno 911 was over, it's clear that me watching them is the key!
I'm not going to indulge in predictions. As I see it, one of two things will happen on Sunday. Either the Lakers will be so demoralized from the loss last night that they'll show up and lay a stink bomb, or they'll regroup and play their hearts out and win easily.
Or it'll be a close game. :)
I think I've covered all the bases here.
After trailing by 21 after 1 quarter and 18 at halftime, the Celtics outscored the Lakers by 24 in the second half to win by 6!
I don't think the Lakers can score enough when the Celtics are playing their best defense. In other words, I think the Celtics are better.
A little-known fact that Celtics fans might want to know: the first quarter deficit can all be laid at the feet of Databoy. Had he not wanted to play a second game of Thurn and Taxis, I would have been watching the game from the start (at Landru/Ilse's). Since it's clear that the Celtics' turnaround started when I was paying more attention to them, and they only really kicked in after Reno 911 was over, it's clear that me watching them is the key!
I'm not going to indulge in predictions. As I see it, one of two things will happen on Sunday. Either the Lakers will be so demoralized from the loss last night that they'll show up and lay a stink bomb, or they'll regroup and play their hearts out and win easily.
Or it'll be a close game. :)
I think I've covered all the bases here.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Celtics v Lakers
OK, so the NBA got the finals that ABC has been wishing for. This could be the most-watched NBA finals since Jordan retired in '98. A lot of the conventional wisdom is that the Lakers should be favored. This seems curious to me, since
a) the Celtics had a lot more wins this season
b) the Celtics were 2-0 against the Lakers this season
c) the Celtics have home court advantage
I think people are judging the Cs poorly in light of their less-than-impressive performances against the Cavs and especially against the Hawks.
The Celtics are an older team. They do not match up well against young, athletic teams like the Hawks and Wizards. But...the Lakers are not a young, athletic team like the Hawks and Wizards.
As for the Cavs series, it is true that, if the Cs play as poorly against the Lakers as they did against the Cavs, they will lose. Kobe is at least as good as LeBron, and the rest of the Lakers are far better than the rest of the Cavs.
But with that in mind, we should note that the Cs played considerably better against the Pistons than they did in the first two rounds. I think that for Pierce, Allen, and Garnett, the big pressure on them was to actually make the Finals. All three had made the conference finals before, only to come up short.
It is hard to foresee how this will play out, because it's hard to figure out exactly how well various players will play. I think we can pencil in Kobe and KG for excellent performances. My gut feeling is that Pierce will have a solid series, and be dominant in at least two games. So it may come down to the less predictable players: Ray Allen, Lamar Odom, and Pau Gasol.
A lot has been written about how good Gasol is, but though he is smooth and quick, he is not a particularly physical center. I think Kendrick Perkins can hold his own, if he uses physical play to keep Gasol in check. As for Odom, I don't think that the Cs have to do much - whether he plays well or not seems to be random. And whether Ray Allen has shaken off his shooting slump remains to be seen, though his shooting in the last two games against the Pistons was excellent.
Bottom line: there appears to be a conventional wisdom that the NBA is an individual game, and whichever team has the best player is going to be the team that wins. This is at best a facile explanation. The Pistons never had the "best player", but they won twice in 89-90 and once a few years back. Michael Jordan never won a Finals by himself, nor did Magic, Bird, Shaq, or Dr. J. And really, if you want this theory debunked as thoroughly as possible, consider Wilt's career.
Consider the 1986 Celtics-Bulls series, when MJ lit up the Cs for 62 points, and the Bulls still lost. Bird described MJ as "God" at that point. MJ was clearly the best player in the series, and, again, the Bulls still lost.
I would give a slight edge to Kobe over KG as "the best player", but it's not a big advantage by any means.
I feel pretty sure the Celtics will win Game 1. We'll go from there. The odds are really stacked against the Lakers in the 2-3-2 format. They either have to win two games in Boston or win three in a row at home and at least one in Boston.
I would put the Cs as slight favorites here. Incredibly, considering they won 66 games, they are generally being underrated by the media.
a) the Celtics had a lot more wins this season
b) the Celtics were 2-0 against the Lakers this season
c) the Celtics have home court advantage
I think people are judging the Cs poorly in light of their less-than-impressive performances against the Cavs and especially against the Hawks.
The Celtics are an older team. They do not match up well against young, athletic teams like the Hawks and Wizards. But...the Lakers are not a young, athletic team like the Hawks and Wizards.
As for the Cavs series, it is true that, if the Cs play as poorly against the Lakers as they did against the Cavs, they will lose. Kobe is at least as good as LeBron, and the rest of the Lakers are far better than the rest of the Cavs.
But with that in mind, we should note that the Cs played considerably better against the Pistons than they did in the first two rounds. I think that for Pierce, Allen, and Garnett, the big pressure on them was to actually make the Finals. All three had made the conference finals before, only to come up short.
It is hard to foresee how this will play out, because it's hard to figure out exactly how well various players will play. I think we can pencil in Kobe and KG for excellent performances. My gut feeling is that Pierce will have a solid series, and be dominant in at least two games. So it may come down to the less predictable players: Ray Allen, Lamar Odom, and Pau Gasol.
A lot has been written about how good Gasol is, but though he is smooth and quick, he is not a particularly physical center. I think Kendrick Perkins can hold his own, if he uses physical play to keep Gasol in check. As for Odom, I don't think that the Cs have to do much - whether he plays well or not seems to be random. And whether Ray Allen has shaken off his shooting slump remains to be seen, though his shooting in the last two games against the Pistons was excellent.
Bottom line: there appears to be a conventional wisdom that the NBA is an individual game, and whichever team has the best player is going to be the team that wins. This is at best a facile explanation. The Pistons never had the "best player", but they won twice in 89-90 and once a few years back. Michael Jordan never won a Finals by himself, nor did Magic, Bird, Shaq, or Dr. J. And really, if you want this theory debunked as thoroughly as possible, consider Wilt's career.
Consider the 1986 Celtics-Bulls series, when MJ lit up the Cs for 62 points, and the Bulls still lost. Bird described MJ as "God" at that point. MJ was clearly the best player in the series, and, again, the Bulls still lost.
I would give a slight edge to Kobe over KG as "the best player", but it's not a big advantage by any means.
I feel pretty sure the Celtics will win Game 1. We'll go from there. The odds are really stacked against the Lakers in the 2-3-2 format. They either have to win two games in Boston or win three in a row at home and at least one in Boston.
I would put the Cs as slight favorites here. Incredibly, considering they won 66 games, they are generally being underrated by the media.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
celtics, hoyas, and media attention
Watched the Cs lose their 5th straight road playoff game. The formula was the same: the starters played well, the bench was mediocre, and then they couldn't score in the 4th quarter.
Barkley and Magic talked about this on the post-game show. Where a lot of the media attention in the Hawks series was on the Cs' defense, the real story, imho, is how clunky their offense is. Barkley and Magic pointed out that the Cs cannot get easy baskets in a half-court offense. This is exactly the problem. Down the stretch in close games, they are throwing up absurd 3-pointers. That's a sure path to losing.
Hmm...who does this remind me of? Oh, right! The Hoyas! The Hoyas have always (well, most of the the time) been a great defensive team, but aside from Iverson, they've always had trouble scoring consistently against good teams. Like this version of the Celtics, they are in great shape when they pound weaker teams, but I don't trust them in close games.
Having said all of that, the media attention poured on the Celtics is really excessive. There are 4 conference semifinals going on. In the first 16 games, the home teams have gone 15-1. And yet the coverage would make you think that the Celtics are uniquely doomed, even though their regular season record has given them home court advantage as long as they stay in.
When asked point-blank whether the Celtics needed to win a road game to win the title, Barkley said point-blank 'no'. And then gave his "boy is that question stupid" look. I like Barkley as a commentator. He doesn't bother to buy into the idiotic narratives that the media create to kill time. Aka Shaughnessy hype.
Part of the problem right now is that this Celtic team appears to listen to the media noise. I miss the days of Bird, who never gave a rat's ass what anybody else thought.
I'm not convinced this team will win, but I am also not convinced they will lose. They are surely a better team than Cleveland. But right now I think the Lakers and Hornets are playing much better.
Barkley and Magic talked about this on the post-game show. Where a lot of the media attention in the Hawks series was on the Cs' defense, the real story, imho, is how clunky their offense is. Barkley and Magic pointed out that the Cs cannot get easy baskets in a half-court offense. This is exactly the problem. Down the stretch in close games, they are throwing up absurd 3-pointers. That's a sure path to losing.
Hmm...who does this remind me of? Oh, right! The Hoyas! The Hoyas have always (well, most of the the time) been a great defensive team, but aside from Iverson, they've always had trouble scoring consistently against good teams. Like this version of the Celtics, they are in great shape when they pound weaker teams, but I don't trust them in close games.
Having said all of that, the media attention poured on the Celtics is really excessive. There are 4 conference semifinals going on. In the first 16 games, the home teams have gone 15-1. And yet the coverage would make you think that the Celtics are uniquely doomed, even though their regular season record has given them home court advantage as long as they stay in.
When asked point-blank whether the Celtics needed to win a road game to win the title, Barkley said point-blank 'no'. And then gave his "boy is that question stupid" look. I like Barkley as a commentator. He doesn't bother to buy into the idiotic narratives that the media create to kill time. Aka Shaughnessy hype.
Part of the problem right now is that this Celtic team appears to listen to the media noise. I miss the days of Bird, who never gave a rat's ass what anybody else thought.
I'm not convinced this team will win, but I am also not convinced they will lose. They are surely a better team than Cleveland. But right now I think the Lakers and Hornets are playing much better.
Monday, May 05, 2008
Celtics advance
After seeing the Celtics struggle in Atlanta three times, it was gratifying in a very belated way to see them blow away the inferior, sub-.500 Hawks yesterday.
The series raises questions that are still troubling. Why, after having gone stone cold in the second half twice in Atlanta, did they have exactly the same problems in Game 6? To be fair, I think their effort was a bit better in Game 6 than in Game 4. But they suffered because Pierce had bizarrely fouled out and Ray Allen was stone cold.
The game 7 thrashing was so complete it went past the point of being embarrassing for the Hawks to where it was embarrassing for the Celtics. Why, if they were so superior, did it take this long?
So, here come LeBron James and the Cavs. To put this in perspective: the Cavs, not the Pistons, are the defending Eastern Conference champions. Anybody who takes them lightly is a fool. (I'm looking at you, Gilbert Arenas.)
The series raises questions that are still troubling. Why, after having gone stone cold in the second half twice in Atlanta, did they have exactly the same problems in Game 6? To be fair, I think their effort was a bit better in Game 6 than in Game 4. But they suffered because Pierce had bizarrely fouled out and Ray Allen was stone cold.
The game 7 thrashing was so complete it went past the point of being embarrassing for the Hawks to where it was embarrassing for the Celtics. Why, if they were so superior, did it take this long?
So, here come LeBron James and the Cavs. To put this in perspective: the Cavs, not the Pistons, are the defending Eastern Conference champions. Anybody who takes them lightly is a fool. (I'm looking at you, Gilbert Arenas.)
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Thursday, November 15, 2007
the streak
On Tuesday, October 16, the Cleveland Indians won Game 4 of the ALCS. Since then, none of the three major Boston franchises have lost.
- the Red Sox took the last three games of the ALCS, and then swept the World Series in four games.
- the Patriots have won three games in a row, as part of their 9-0 start to the season
- the Celtics have won their first 7 games of the NBA season
The latter is the most surprising. Apparently this is the best start since 1972-3.
Which is kinda weird, seeing as there was this guy named Bird who played on the team throughout the 80s, along with a few other pretty good guys.
I don't think this team is as good as the '86 Celtics. Of course, the entire league is flatter now - there are more teams and the average team is, IMO, worse. Individual players are better than they were in the 80s, but team play is a lost art.
The Celtics have the advantage of playing in the awful Eastern Conference. They won't play the Spurs or Suns until February. Of course the streak won't last that long, as they have a stretch in December where they play the Pistons and then go on a four-game West Coast road trip right after Christmas. The last game of the four is at the Lakers, and it's the second game in two days.
Of course, the Lakers might have gotten rid of Kobe by then, so who knows?
I'm talking about the Celtic's winning streak, which we all know isn't going to last, to avoid talking about another streak, which I don't want to jinx.
- the Red Sox took the last three games of the ALCS, and then swept the World Series in four games.
- the Patriots have won three games in a row, as part of their 9-0 start to the season
- the Celtics have won their first 7 games of the NBA season
The latter is the most surprising. Apparently this is the best start since 1972-3.
Which is kinda weird, seeing as there was this guy named Bird who played on the team throughout the 80s, along with a few other pretty good guys.
I don't think this team is as good as the '86 Celtics. Of course, the entire league is flatter now - there are more teams and the average team is, IMO, worse. Individual players are better than they were in the 80s, but team play is a lost art.
The Celtics have the advantage of playing in the awful Eastern Conference. They won't play the Spurs or Suns until February. Of course the streak won't last that long, as they have a stretch in December where they play the Pistons and then go on a four-game West Coast road trip right after Christmas. The last game of the four is at the Lakers, and it's the second game in two days.
Of course, the Lakers might have gotten rid of Kobe by then, so who knows?
I'm talking about the Celtic's winning streak, which we all know isn't going to last, to avoid talking about another streak, which I don't want to jinx.
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
KG to Celtics, Gagne to Red Sox
OK, this is a move I can get behind, and it validates the trade for Ray Allen somewhat.
Kevin Garnett is still one of the five best players in the NBA and he should be able to maul the light Eastern Conference, esp. with Pierce and Allen on the team. My understanding is that Al Jefferson is a real talent who will be missed. But it is doubtful that he will ever be at Garnett's level. I'm psyched.
Also, the Red Sox grabbed Eric Gagne, who a few years back was the best reliever in baseball by far. He's not at the same level any more, but the key aspect of this trade is to keep him off the Yankees. The Yankees' bullpen is awful except for Mo Rivera, and bringing in Gagne as a set-up guy would have made them very hard to beat late in the game. For the Sox, Gagne, Okajima, and Papelbon makes for quite possibly the best Red Sox bullpen ever.
Kevin Garnett is still one of the five best players in the NBA and he should be able to maul the light Eastern Conference, esp. with Pierce and Allen on the team. My understanding is that Al Jefferson is a real talent who will be missed. But it is doubtful that he will ever be at Garnett's level. I'm psyched.
Also, the Red Sox grabbed Eric Gagne, who a few years back was the best reliever in baseball by far. He's not at the same level any more, but the key aspect of this trade is to keep him off the Yankees. The Yankees' bullpen is awful except for Mo Rivera, and bringing in Gagne as a set-up guy would have made them very hard to beat late in the game. For the Sox, Gagne, Okajima, and Papelbon makes for quite possibly the best Red Sox bullpen ever.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Ray Allen to Celtics
You know, Ray Allen graduated from UConn before they won their first NCAA championship. Which was in 1999.
Ray Allen was a great player. But he's on the wrong side of 30. What we are seeing here is the phase of a franchise known as "desperately trying to win before the GM is fired".
I sure as hell hope the C's have some play other than "play Ray Allen alongside Paul Pierce". Um, guys? They play the same freakin' position!
Jeff Green is going to be a good pro. And he would have made a better fit for the Cs than Ray Allen will.
I just don't get it.
Well, maybe next year the Cs will win the lottery. They certainly will have plenty of chances to do so. Trading a young, healthy, good player for an over-the-hill shooting guard was pretty much exactly the opposite of "useful". Let's face it: Danny Ainge has no plan here. He has no idea of how he's going to build a winning team, in what order, and which players are going to be the most useful. The Roy-for-Telfair trade of last year's offseason is still hurting the Cs.
Well, at least Ainge is doing his part to bring quality basketball to the Pacific Northwest.
Ray Allen was a great player. But he's on the wrong side of 30. What we are seeing here is the phase of a franchise known as "desperately trying to win before the GM is fired".
I sure as hell hope the C's have some play other than "play Ray Allen alongside Paul Pierce". Um, guys? They play the same freakin' position!
Jeff Green is going to be a good pro. And he would have made a better fit for the Cs than Ray Allen will.
I just don't get it.
Well, maybe next year the Cs will win the lottery. They certainly will have plenty of chances to do so. Trading a young, healthy, good player for an over-the-hill shooting guard was pretty much exactly the opposite of "useful". Let's face it: Danny Ainge has no plan here. He has no idea of how he's going to build a winning team, in what order, and which players are going to be the most useful. The Roy-for-Telfair trade of last year's offseason is still hurting the Cs.
Well, at least Ainge is doing his part to bring quality basketball to the Pacific Northwest.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
RIP, DJ
Way too young to go. DJ was a great defender an a great true point guard. Can't believe he's gone at the age of 52. I expect there will be plenty of praise for the man over the next week, so I'll spare any readers, most of whom probably are not terribly interested in basketball or the Celtics. I assume that DJ will make the Hall of Fame, and he should get in this year, I hope. Not only did he win two championships starting for the Celtics, he always was the Finals MVP when he won a title with Seattle in 1979. I should think that's enough.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Duke unranked!
They've dropped out of the hoop rankings.
Of course, UConn is in much worse shape. Right now they're the bottom seed (#12) for the Big East tournament, which would pretty much rule out the NCAAs.
Of course, UConn is in much worse shape. Right now they're the bottom seed (#12) for the Big East tournament, which would pretty much rule out the NCAAs.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Super Bowl week basketball thoughts
I wish the game were over already. It's bad enough that the Pats aren't in it, but the Colts? Ugh.
So, since I've been focused on footbal for the past five months, and ignoring other sports, I thought I'd take a look at my basketball teams to see how they are doing.
Ugh.
UConn has several "promising" players, but they have been losing quite a lot recently. Also, I don't really have much of a tie to Connecticut anymore since Mom moved to NOLA. I doubt my UConn allegiance will last forever. If/when Calhoun retires, what ties me to the school?
My "other" college team is Georgetown, and they're doing a bit better under JTIII, but I haven't followed them enough to know if they can make a Final Four run. I'm doubting it.
And then there are the Celtics. I looked at the standings and saw that not only have they lost their last ten games, but the only team in the NBA with a worse record is Memphis. And their top three scorers are all injured! Greg Oden sweepstakes, here we come! But as any long-suffering Celtics' fan will tell you, playing for the lottery sweepstakes is a bad idea. Even the worst team has relatively slim odds of getting the #1 pick. Back in the Duncan year, when the C's had two picks in the lottery and the highest odds of winning the Duncan rights, their odds were only about 30%. Now a lot of innumerates will say "they had the highest odds of winning, so it's surprising they didn't win". But, um, duh, they had a 70% chance of not winning the top pick! (And then, when they lost that shot, their odds of getting the #2 pick were actually lower, since the Grizzlies at the time were prevented by the rules from getting the #1 pick but were allowed to get the #2 pick.)
Anyway, the C's suck right now. I don't think they'll ever put together an exciting team under Danny Ainge and Doc Rivers. Of course the standard for the Celtics is "NBA finals at least".
Update: correction - the Celtics have now lost 13 in a row. Oh, and Paul Pierce was supposed to be out for "2 or 3 weeks" starting from some date in mid-December. Why, again, is Sebastian Telfair on this team?
So, since I've been focused on footbal for the past five months, and ignoring other sports, I thought I'd take a look at my basketball teams to see how they are doing.
Ugh.
UConn has several "promising" players, but they have been losing quite a lot recently. Also, I don't really have much of a tie to Connecticut anymore since Mom moved to NOLA. I doubt my UConn allegiance will last forever. If/when Calhoun retires, what ties me to the school?
My "other" college team is Georgetown, and they're doing a bit better under JTIII, but I haven't followed them enough to know if they can make a Final Four run. I'm doubting it.
And then there are the Celtics. I looked at the standings and saw that not only have they lost their last ten games, but the only team in the NBA with a worse record is Memphis. And their top three scorers are all injured! Greg Oden sweepstakes, here we come! But as any long-suffering Celtics' fan will tell you, playing for the lottery sweepstakes is a bad idea. Even the worst team has relatively slim odds of getting the #1 pick. Back in the Duncan year, when the C's had two picks in the lottery and the highest odds of winning the Duncan rights, their odds were only about 30%. Now a lot of innumerates will say "they had the highest odds of winning, so it's surprising they didn't win". But, um, duh, they had a 70% chance of not winning the top pick! (And then, when they lost that shot, their odds of getting the #2 pick were actually lower, since the Grizzlies at the time were prevented by the rules from getting the #1 pick but were allowed to get the #2 pick.)
Anyway, the C's suck right now. I don't think they'll ever put together an exciting team under Danny Ainge and Doc Rivers. Of course the standard for the Celtics is "NBA finals at least".
Update: correction - the Celtics have now lost 13 in a row. Oh, and Paul Pierce was supposed to be out for "2 or 3 weeks" starting from some date in mid-December. Why, again, is Sebastian Telfair on this team?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)