Andrew Ungvari writes for the Bleacher Report, and his articles and insights on the game of basketball are amazing. Upon waking up ( with a splitting hangover not settled from yesterday's on-court skirmish between the yellow & green, and booze ), I decided to look at what everyone had been writing about the game. Ungvari, although his analysis has been on-point, is a good representation of a lot of today's analysis on the game.
My whole point of writing this article is to confront his viewpoint, and offer a more fluid treatise on what transpired from game three, comparing, contrasting, contradicting, and reviewing Ungvari's remarks.
Ungvari
1) Kobe on Rondo to start the game.
I thought this was a very smart move by Phil Jackson. It caught Rondo off-guard. He hadn't been the same player on the road in the playoffs as he had been at home. I'm interested to see what happens in Game Four. I'm sure the Celtics will scheme to make the Lakers pay by finding Ray Allen, and exploiting his match-up with Derek Fisher.
Red Sox Maniac
1) Kobe on Rondo
Actually, this is a very good play. But if anything, it comes to show all of those people that felt that Fisher somehow has been playing a good game against Rondo. Not did the Lakers' put their best defensive player against our 5th option scorer and quarterback, but they had put it Farmar to do the same thing. Whoever has been analysing that Derek Fisher and Rajon Rondo at point was a push for both teams, need to take a look on how much the game-plan was implemented against Rondo. Kevin Garnett didn't get this much attention, which makes perfect sense since he the best player on the team?
People have underestestimated Rondo, but now are simultaneously praising the game-plan used against him. He is a great point guard, and for all the Rondo nay-sayers, now you see that the Lakers went out of their way to disrupt his game.
.Ungvari
2) The Third Quarter
The Celtics still own the third quarter. Tonight, they outscored the Lakers 25-17. In five games against the Lakers this year, the Celtics have outscored them 145-110 in the third quarter.
Red Sox Maniac
2) The Third
Can't argue with that. The disparity of game two negates a median number. If a team scores a plus 18 against a team in one quarter of one game, in series where only three games are played, the sample is too small for analysis. We are always good in the 3rd, and from that I really can't argue.
Ungvari
3) The Fourth Quarter
As dominant as the Celtics have been in the third frame, unfortunately for them, this isn't hockey. In the past two games, they've been outscored in the fourth quarter by a margin of 68-44.
Red Sox Maniac
Ahh, gotta argue with this. The Lakers have been good in the 4th, but again, the disparity of game two. Of course they have been outscored. Of course, the Lakers have played a great game in the last frame. But much of game two you can attribute to the Celtics lapse ( read my NBA Finals analysis ) more than a Lakers' run. If you have been watching the Celtics, you have been much acquainted throughout the entire season the "lapse" in play.
The 4th quarter in game three was actually in favor of the Celtics more than it was the Lakers. The Celtics were down by two, and the Lakers had a great transition set-up to Vujacic ( The Player of the game, by leaps and bounds ), who nailed a three. That was coupled with the fact that the next play for the Celtics, Paul Pierce had the opportunity get an easy shot and missed his layup, thereby solidifying the five-point lead, and ruining the chances of the Celtics making a legitimate late-quarter run.
It favors the Celtics because they had their chances and missed them. But, if these shots were going down ( and a lot of these shots were easy and/or close to the basket, not jumnp-shots ), if just two of our missed layups ( and missed free-throws ) were made in the 4th, we would have Boston fans going to the nearest store ( or cleaning closet ) to bring out the brooms. The Lakers held on, especially with Bryant closing the door with his amazing shots in the end, but the 4th quarter disparity does not correlate to how close the game could've been lost by the Lakers.
Ungvari
4) Different Perspectives
It's funny how fans of both teams are looking at the game. Celtics fans are saying the team played horribly, and yet they only lost by six. Lakers fans are saying their team played horribly, and yet they still won the game.
Both schools of thought are correct. The Celtics got 19 points on 8-for-35 shooting from Kevin Garnett and Paul Pierce. The Lakers got 13 points on 5-for-18 shooting from Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom.
If I told you before the game that Kobe Bryant and Sasha Vujacic would count for 63% of their points, I doubt you'd think the Lakers would win.
- B/R Ticket Guide
4) Maybe...
Absolutely right. But playing horribly on your own home court vs. the road is something to think about. It is game three of the Finals, and the Lakers, being down two games, play one of their worst games of the season in front of Jack Nicholson? Not very funny, by Lakers standards.
The Lakers played not horribly more than people are still unaware of how good the Celtics defense is. If it takes the last game of the series to prove that the Lakers will never be able to play their transition game, so be it.
Ungvari
5) The free throw disparity.
Nobody is surprised that the Lakers shot 12 more free throws after the Celtics outshot them by 28 in Game Two. A bigger surprise came from the fact that the Lakers missed 13 of their 34 free throws, including seven misses by Kobe Bryant and five by Pau Gasol.
Despite the disparity in attempts, the Lakers only had six more points off of free throws than the Celtics did.
It was interesting to hear Doc call out Phil Jackson for "whining" about the free throws in his post-game news conference. He might have done more harm than good by eliminating his right to complain later in the series.
Red Sox Maniac
5) Even game with the refs
The only part of the game where I was flinging my hands over my head was the 1st quarter. Kobe ran into the lane and received a lot of fouls. He got bumped a lot, but in comparison to the rest of the game, these fouls were a litte bit of a karma kick-back for the disparity in game two.
As a Boston fan, I felt there was a disparity, but at the same time, the game was called pretty evenly for the most part. The Lakers played good defense, and we didn't make our shots when we had the opportunity.
Ungvari has mentioned Doc Rivers doing more harm than good by talking about Doc Rivers' critique of Phil Jackson's complaints of the officiating in game two.
Fist of all, this isn't Jeopardy, or Wheel of Fortune. If Doc wants to rant about Phil, or vice-versa, they can do it as much as they want. If I wanted to write about Ungvari's article 80 times on the Bleacher Report, I have free reign to do so. There isn't a three strikes policy for talking about other coaches in the NBA. Not that I'm aware of, I guess.
Ungvari
6) The box score.
It's pretty crazy how close the teams were in the box score. They were within one turnover, two blocks, four steals, four rebounds, and two assists of one another. Also, the difference in shooting from behind the arc was 1.5%.
Red Sox Maniac
Very true. It was a close game. It was a crazy struggle.
Ungvari
7) I counted three.
Kobe Bryant, Sasha Vujacic, and Jordan Farmar. Those were the only guys that showed up for the Lakers tonight.
Trevor Ariza definitely looked better than he did in Game Two. He knocked down a couple of shots, and shook off a little rust. The more he plays, the less we'll see Vladimir Radmanovic and Luke Walton.
Red Sox Maniac
Trevor Ariza has barely played in the playoffs, so I don't expect him to come into his own in the series. I know a rebuttal would be "Well, Leon Powe is on your team and look at what he did!"
Not to be mean, but Leon Powe is better than Ariza. Ariza is just not as good as Powe. And Powe will probably not have another game like that anytime soon, or even get that amount of playing time.
I still contest this as a disagreement of how people don't attribute the Lakers game to the Celtics defense.
Ungvari
8) Kwame Gasol
Pau Gasol had nine points, 12 rebounds, and zero blocks in tonight's game. In his only Game Three of last year's playoffs, Kwame Brown had 19 points, six rebounds, and two blocks against the Suns.
...I'm just saying.
Red Sox Maniac
8) Who are the Big Men For The Celtics Again?
Pau Gasol was handled really well by Kendrick Perkins. He is a smart player who picked up some key rebounds throughout the game. His game was stifled by the strong side of Perkins and the weak side of Garnett. Plus, the ball was in Kobe's hands 30% of the time, and even when he posted up, it usually went right back out to disrupt the transition defense of the Celtics.
His game is going to be hurt because the transition and interior defense is really good, but it will make his team better because the Celtics will have to continuously occupy him with the great defenders, thus leaving their backsides vulnerable to cuts by Vujacic, Kobe, and Farmar.
Ungvari
9) The Injury Report
The Celtics have now had three players go to the locker room with injuries in three games. We don't really know how Kendrick Perkins's ankle is because he hasn't stayed out of foul trouble long enough to get a read on him.
Rajon Rondo's ankle looked fine, although I was surprised Doc Rivers left him on the bench for that long when Rondo returned from the locker room. He played the last eight minutes of the game, hit one jumper, grabbed one offensive board, and committed two fouls.
The bigger question, though, is Pierce's knee. You can count the number of times he drove to the basket in Games Two and Three on two hands. He had two days off between Games One and Two, and only one day off, and an airplane ride between Games Two and Three. Kobe did a good job of guarding him. I doubt he'll be in foul trouble as early in Game Four as he was tonight. I'm interested to get a read on the knee with three games in five days.
Red Sox Maniac
9) The Injury Retort
I think I'll do a Da' Tara and finish this off at the end...
Ungvari
10) The longer the series goes, the more I think the Lakers will benefit.
Tonight's game was the Celtics' 23rd playoff game. It was the Lakers' 18th. Kevin Garnett had looked tired in the fourth quarter of every game in the series, and the Celtics had had three starters forced to leave the court to get medical attention.
The pressure is still squarely on the Lakers. But if they win the next two games, they'll ride a ton of momentum against a team that is older and more banged-up heading back to Boston.
If the Lakers can win Game Four on Thursday, I think we're in store for one hell of a Game Five on Sunday.
Red Sox Maniac
10) The Longer the series Goes, The More I Think Lakers Fans Are Delusional
I don't mean to step on anyone's toes, but if you are a Lakers fan, and somehow believe that going into a game six or seven is going to help your team, you might as well stop watching basketball now, and impede the emotion of heartbreak from entering your life after Garnett holds the Finals trophy.
I would be scared if I was a Lakers fan because:
A) The Celtics have played against the Lakers with backups. The Lakers beat the Celtics by six and they had no point guard for 18 minutes ( House is a shooting guard ), The Lakers had Pierce and Perkins who still have injury issues, and the Celtics' best player ( Kevin Garnett ) went 6-21.
Not only did he shoot 6-21, but most of those shots were OPEN. He didn't miss them because of tenacious defense, or disruption from the Lakers, but from having a bad game.
B) The combination of Pierce and Garnett went 8-35. 8-35! If they made just two of the open or easy opportunities they had, the Lakers would've lost. The Lakers didn't play well, but the Celtics nearly beat the golds playing their worst game of the season.
The Lakers had other players who didn't contribute ( Gasol & Odom ), but they pale in comparison to the scoring options of Garnett and Pierce. The Celtics beat themselves, and the Lakers barely survived on their own home court.
But, the Lakers almost one in game one, right?
C) The Celtics have played their game in every single game against the Lakers this year. The Celtics even beat the Lakers on the end of back-to-back road games. The Celtics have played their style of offense and defense, and the Lakers have had to adjust. Kobe has bailed out the Lakers with his amazing talent, but he ( based on Ungvari's analysis ) is going to have to guard Pierce? And Rondo? And Allen? And Posey?
How long are the Lakers going to ride on Kobe's back. 23 games vs. 18? Garnett has missed 15 games this season. Ray Allen has missed 6-7. Rondo hasn't even reached more than 30 minutes playing time. And they all were rested for at least five games before the playoffs begin.
The Lakers have been playing in the intense Pacific Division for the past 50+ games. They have had to battle to reach the top, whereas the Celtics have been able to stroll throughout the regular season.
The fatigue game may be a factor, but if so, I'll take my chances with the team that has been resting all season, and when they play, have been playing with great intensity during the game. There is no way anyone can currently take a Lakers team that can't implement their offensive scheme, cannot play defense, and nearly lost to a team where two of their best scorers didn't show.
If I am a Lakers fan, I would want the series to end as quickly as possible. Because right now, I don't consider that Lakers fan's dream is the dominance of the green. If Eddie House is holding fort on your own court, and Leon Powe can run the entire floor against the four players, I would have to worry about how many times I feel that Kobe can save the Staples center from the nightmare that has been the Celtics game.
Great article, Andrew, but I have to draw criticism against the perception that Lakers fans believe that they somehow have the upperhand against a team that they have barely beat ( with backups playing ) in just one game.
comments (10) write a comment »
write a new comment
5 months ago
It's kind of difficult to look objective when you call yourself RedSox Maniac. I'd consider you a little less biased if you gave the Lakers credit instead of just assuming whatever success they had was solely due to something isolated that the Celtics will never do again.
This was my favorite part:
"I don't mean to step on anyone's toes, but if you are a Lakers fan, and somehow believe that going into a game six or seven is going to help your team, you might as well stop watching basketball now, and impede the emotion of heartbreak from entering your life after Garnett holds the Finals trophy."
Are you saying that Laker fans should hope the series ends in five games? C'mon, Homer. Don't underestimate the momentum of a team riding a three-game winning streak in the Finals; especially when said team has a starting backcourt with 6 rings and a head coach with 9 as a coach and another as a player. The Celtics have relied on outside shooting in this series and it's a whole different animal when your season is on the line. This is the farthest anyone on that team has ever made it with the exception of one tainted ring and two that were won when they were still made out of bronze.
Did you ever think that the Lakers might just be adjusting to the Celtics style of play? Their defensive intensity was on par with that of the Celtics last night. If that continues then you'd have to give the edge to the team with the better offense. The Celtics held the Lakers to under 90 points and still lost.
If you want to gravy-train off of my articles there's nothing I can do about it. At least just try to be a little objective, Homer.
from 5 months ago
I was pretty objective.
You can't possibly think that the Lakers have a better shot the longer the series goes. mathamatically, sure, but game seven in Boston isn't something I can see helping the Lakers. That is being plenty objective, only because its game 7 in Boston against the top team in the league. I don't make up the stats: ESPN does.
Many teams have won championships. The team you just beat to get to the championship touted more rings than Kobe, and Phil Jackson has touted rings with no less thanks to Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Shaquille O'Neal, and Kobe Bryant. Who by the way, maybe 4 of the top 10 players of all-time. Objective.
Lakers adjusting? Maybe, but you would have to prove that with analysis and not maybe. Maybe doesn't cut the fact that their adjusting kept the game nearly even until 3 minutes left in the game, and the Lakers barely were able to play their game even with a struggling Garnett and an injured Rondo ( you lost the lead because of Posey and Eddie House, how am I suppose to be bias?)
The name is a beacon of light that will shine on or over your articles. Its good since you will remember it for the rest of your life.
My real name is Marquis Hunt. I go to Umass. And I know how to analyze sports better than you know.
I love you Andrew, but welcome to my world. My criticisms are amazing, and will only make you a better writer. Catch up.
from 5 months ago
Who said the series is going to go to Game 7 if the Lakers win the next two and head back to Boston up 3-2. Sure I give the Celtics the edge in Game 7 but I'd give the edge in Game 6 to the Lakers (if they win three in a row).
The Spurs don't have more rings than Kobe. Tim Duncan and Robert Horry do. Ginobili, Bowen and Parker have just as many. I thought you didn't make up stats.
Next, if you think Scottie Pippen is one of the top ten players of all-time then I can't believe I'm actually having a conversation with you.
As for the Lakers adjusting, you'd have to be blind to not see how much more intense they played defensively last night as opposed to the first two games.
I'm you're such a beacon of light and I need to catch up to your brilliant analysis, then why are you using my name to get people to read your stupid articles?
You go to UMass? So I'm dealing with someone who wasn't even alive the last time the Celtics were in the Finals?
C'mon, Chump.
from 5 months ago
I said the Spurs have more rings than Kobe. I am right. Kobe has 3 rings, Duncan has 4. I don't know where I didn't make sense in that sentence. I didn't put people like Horry or Fisher because they have switched around to different teams.
I gave the reason why Phil Jackson has so many rings. You might not think Scottie Pippen isn't top 10, but top 30? Top 50? That is still an asset to win, unless you disagree. I don't know how much sense that would make, but go on ahead.
Defensive intensity. That isn't adjusting. They are suppose to play like that to impede the offense. They MAY BE adjusting, but there are too many cons to notice if the difference makes them a better team. From there, I said you should write a different analysis.
I used your name because I actually like your articles. If you can't take criticism than I am sorry. But I will continue to applaud and critique your work. You are writing on an open blog system.
If anything, I have said nothing but good things about you. At the same time, I am an arrogant prick and I think I know everything. It is a great asset, and also a great fallacy. I think you are a great writer, but no one leaves my criticism ( unless your name is Peter Gammons ).
Just agree to disagree. I said welcome to my world, because I use to pick games for money, and I lose money if I am wrong. So forgive me if I use my occupation of objectivity and analysis to critique your work. I won't stop so I guess you're going to have to live with it.
5 months ago
Red, why can you never give The Lakers any props?
At all?
I read a lot of these articles and usually, the writer is biased but will give the other team some respect.
I get that you hate them. And that's cool.
I HATE the Celtics. I was RAISED to hate them.
But, dude, I give them their props.
Do you just think they suck totally?
5 months ago
I give a lot of the teams respect. I never said they sucked.
Are any of you reading my articles?
If anything, 90% of America thinks the Lakers were going to win easy. The Las Vegas lines had them winning by 9, and a lot of people lost their money. I'm being objective because I put my predictions out there, and if I am going to put my money where my mouth is, I don't have time to be a homer.
Being a homer is not having content. My name says one thing, but my articles speak for themselves.
Thank you Zina.
from 5 months ago
You're articles do speak for themselves. They say "I'm a homer. Listen to my bullshit."
from 5 months ago
Well, maybe you never said they sucked, per se.
I'll give you that.
But, though I read all of your articles, I've never heard you say anything about them that's good or even just threatening to the Celtics...
Just wondering what you think of the Lakers - as a team.
If we were to imagine that it wasn't them vs. the Celtics at this point in the year....
5 months ago
I did.
In my analysis article, I mentioned as the 1st threat that the Celtics can't guard all of their shooters.
I mentioned in my article that Gasol is a smart player, takes the right shot, and if he doesn't get a shot, he passes. I said he will be taken out of the game but no in a bad way; he decoys a better defensive player ( Garnett ), so there will be more cuts to the basket ( again mentioned in this article ).
I then mentioned that I am picking the prediction based on my knowledge, but stated that Kobe can do anything to turn the game around. I only mentioned it once because that is a given. I am not going to be the 1,000,000th person to say that Kobe can change around the game.
Being objective, you can't predict amazing games. Lebron James against Detroit. Dwayne Wade against Detroit. Sheed Wallace against the Lakers ( who had Malone and Payton, old, but nonetheless a stacked team, no less ).
You can't analyze greatness, but only dwell on the possibility that you will see it the next game. I think Kobe is the greatest player of all-time. If you want me to write a treatise on Bryant, I will.
I'll send you my article I wrote for my school on his greatness and how the dynamic that people assumed his guilt but simultaneously were defensive about the Duke Lacrosse's team story. Public scrutiny assumed one guilty and one innocent, even though the stories were relative, and both women had psychological issues.
If anyone wants him to win, it would be me. The only reason I get on Kobe's case is that his style, not necessarily his game, but something to do with his make-up doesn't allow his team to win.
The Lakers have had to bring in pretty much a really great team in order to get to the Finals. I feel that Kobe is good enough that he doesn't need that much talent, but simultaneously he feels ( as does most basketball-watching people ) that he needed MORE talent to get over the hump.
I am upset because I think he is better than what he is now. And he could win a championship ( including this year ) having the team ride on his shoulders. But there is a hierarchy to his game that always seems to influence negatively with the Lakers' ability to win ( pre-Gasol ). To be honest, I don't know what it is, and I would pay $1,000 for anyone who could write a book analyzing such a disparity.
The most clutch and best player in the NBA not to be able to keep his team in Finals contention ( without Shaq ). This year, or the future, hopefully will put an end to that disparity.
If you read my articles, you would see that I always tout him. But I pick on him for his whining to the refs and his players. I would pick on anyone doing that. I never talk about him much because he gets enough respect from me. I wrote about him for so long sometimes I feel I am obligated to forget about him in my analysis, for which I am sorry.
But you can't analyze the possibility of greatness, just as you can't analyze the possibility of nuclear bomb going off in the US. But its good to try to predict, and back it up with some heavy content, which is what I hope you are looking at through my articles.
5 months ago
ps: If you're team wins, you are #1. If your team loses, they are number #2.
Doesn't mean they suck, or even close to per se. I don't see losing in the Finals being equivalent to sucking. Unless you found me saying the Lakers sucked ( I will give you money if you find that quote with my name on it ), don't get offended. Its called analysis, with a pinch of Celtics hope.
write a new comment