Why No Talk of Suspension?

After turning the ball over in the third quarter of Saturday night's game, a perhaps frustrated Dwayne Wade of the Heat proceeded to (i) grab Rajon Rondo and (ii) swing his legs under him, while throwing Rondo to the ground. It's Rondo's dislocated elbow that has gotten all the attention (with the video -- rated at least PG-13 -- here.)

Rondo got hurt on the play. Although he came back into the game, it's unclear whether he will be able to play tonight, in an important Game Four, and his one-armed effectiveness is definitely at issue.

Was Wade intended to hurt Rondo? It's clear that he intended to foul the Boston point guard, mostly like to prevent the kind of break-away that occurred later (after Rondo returned) off of a comatose Chris Bosh. (Although as Jeff Van Gundy notes on the telecast "the ball was already out of bounds.")

Moreover, it was not Wade's first foul, nor first overtly-aggressive play of the day, or the series.

In addition, the Heat themselves, doth protest too much after the game. Here's Wade: "We play this game as competitors..You never want to see anyone get hurt, no matter what it is, what kind of injury it is. Kudos for him for coming back." (emphasis added)

Wade yesterday: “It’s a physical game, the game of basketball is a physical game. I’m not a dirty player, it’s physical. Everyone falls to the ground, everyone gets hurt, people get up.”

Here's teammate LeBron James: "You definitehttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifly don’t want to see anyone have freak injuries. The competitors that we all are, us against Boston, you definitely don’t want to see nothing like that happen. Injuries aside, you hope the best for him. You hope that it’s not as bad as it looked. You hope it’s not something that affects him long term."

Finally, Heat Coach Erik Spoelstra: “I’m not answering questions about that. I’m done with that. Moving on....It looked like a normal contact foul...[Rondo] just landed on it wrong. Those things happen. There was a lot of contact. Some of the plays were a lot more physical than that, where guys didn’t get hurt. Those are tough plays."

No flagrant foul was called on the play by the officials at the game. However, the NBA rule book permits the League Office to post-facto assess fouls as "Flagrant-1" or "Flagrant-2" fouls after the fact, making its assessment on factors including:

1. The severity of the contact;

2. Whether or not the player was making a legitimate basketball play (e.g., whether a player is making a legitimate effort to block a shot; note, however, that a foul committed during a block attempt can still be considered flagrant if other criteria are present such as recklessness and hard contact to the head);

3. Whether, on a foul committed with a player's arm or hand, the fouling player wound up and/or followed through after making contact;

4. The potential for injury resulting from contact (e.g., a blow to the head and a foul committed while a player is in a vulnerable position);

5. The severity of any injury suffered by the offended player; and

6. The outcome of the contact (e.g., whether it led to an altercation).

In the NHL, the players on the ice would tell an observer whether the foul (or hit, in hockey) was seen as a clean but unfortunate injury, or something more sinishttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifter. In baseball, we'd know the next time Wade came to the plate.

With no fighting, no beanballs, and no true enforcers in a post-Pacers NBA, the retribution -- if required by the Code of the Game -- will be more subtle. Celtics Coach Doc Rivers, perhaps already anticipating a tough-guy response from some of his players (mostly likely Kevin Garnett), tried to defuse the tension: "I don’t know if it was a hard foul...Let’s put it like this: He didn’t intend to hurt Rondo. I don’t honestly believe that 99 percent of cases in our league that the player ever intends to hurt anybody but he did. It just happens."

Notwithstanding Doc, watch what happens when Wade goes to hole tonight.

This series is about to get a lot more physical.

Don't Give Them a Chance...

When the Celtics failed to close out the Magic last night (losing in OT, 96-92, after having been outplayed by Orlando for much of the game), few NBA observers seemed to be worried.

After all, having seen the pistol-whipping that the Cs administered in Games 1-3, who would think that this Magic team could climb out of the heretofore insurmountable 0-3 hole?

Of the 279 teams across all sports that have gone up 3-0, all but 4 have gone on to win; and three of the comebacks have occurred in the NHL (1942 Toronto; 1975 Islanders; 2010 Flyers.)*

(*-Yes, we all know the other 0-3 winner.)

88 NBA teams have gone up 3-0, and each one of them has gone on to win the respective series. But of those 88, just 14 have been situations where the 'better' team (i.e., the team that held home court advantage in the series) went down 0-3.

So the odds aren't in favor of the Magic. But if you were going to script a comeback -- a young, athletic team (which by the way, had a very successful regular season) that seemed lost for 3 games finding its sea legs when a sloppy, disinterested veteran team already seemed to be looking to get ready for the NBA Finals -- it would look something like this.

If the Magic protect home court in Game 5, the pressure will turn to the Celtics on Friday night.

On Second Thought...

Only one team made a statement in Ithaca Saturday night.

Cornell 86
Harvard 50

Cornell may break into the Top 25 (in the ESPN/USA Today poll -- they are well out of the T-25 in AP) next week.

And in the NBA, the Celts have a made a statement of a different type this week, losing @ORL, @ATL, and to LAL at home.

With KG in the line-up.

(And with Paul Pierce (interestingly) turning down a shot to win at Crunch Time to throw a floating pass to Ray Allen.)

Head East, Young Man...

With the NBA season approaching the half-way mark, Celtic fans have been squirming as a team that once rashly promised to win 72 games has now been treading water for several weeks (5-8 since Christmas Day, when they stood an impressive 23-5).

This Friday in Atlanta has become a surprising test -- the Celtics need a win to avoid a four-game sweep at the hands of the Hawks. Although the Cs can point to absence of C Kevin Garnett as a big reason why the defense has been shaky recently, in reality, the Celts' swoon started even before Garnett went down.

Another team that has been slumping lately has been the Lakers. The defending champs looked great early, reaching a high-water record of 28-6 before slipping and losing 5 of their last 10.

But while the Celtics can point to Garnett's legs, the Lakers have a more troubling problem: going on the road. (In fairness, Ron Artest and Andrew Bynum are both "day-to-day". But then again, aren't we all, Mr. Costello?)

The Lakers have played the fewest road games in the NBA, save only the SA Spurs. (Actually, both the Spurs and Lakers have played 17 'true' road games, as the Lakers played the Clippers (as a visitor) once this season so far.) And in addition to playing few road games, the LAL have won very few as well -- just 10-8 so far.

The Lakers are at the White House this afternoon, being feted by POTUS for their championship last spring. But with five more road games on their current East Coast trip -- and coming off a statement loss in Cleveland on Thursday night, Sunday's game in the new Boston Garden will take on significance for both teams: the Lakers to prove that they can beat elite teams on the road.

The Celtics just have to show that they are still worthy -- or healthy enough -- for the 'elite' label.

Holiday Traditions

Holiday traditions take years to develop. Turkey, pumpkin pie, and the Detroit Lions have meant "Thanksgiving Day" for millions of Americans.

Christmas Day has long been the NBA's showcase, although never totally obscuring presents, tinsel, and Santa Claus. This past Christmas, the NBA upped the ante by offering almost a full day of games, including Heat/Knicks, Celtics/Magic, Clippers/Suns, and Nuggets/Blazers. And the highlight of the day was the defending champion Lakers hosting King James and the Cavs.

The NHL has taken ownership of New Years Day with its Winter Classic, played this afternoon at the historic park at the Fens. The third Classic is a regular league game played on an unusual surface - the irregular ice of an outside rink. And it seems that the NHL has found a marketing jackpot and put it's product into the national consciousness.

But another sport used to own New Years: College Football. The old Bowl system meant wall-to-wall games, and with a "mythical" national championship at stake, oftentimes three or even four games were "must-see" TV. Starting with the first BCS Championship Game in January 1999, college football has devalued its (erstwhile) signature day, and most (if not all) of the top-5 teams do not play at all on January 1st. (The most competitive game - on paper - is the Sugar Bowl featuring #5 Florida and #4 Cincy. The most compelling (non-championship game is the Fiesta Bowl with #6 Boise State vs. #3 TCU).

There are plenty of problems with the current BCS system - including 3 undefeated teams this year, including one for sure (the BSU/TCU winner) who will be unbeaten at the end of the year. But giving up "ownership" of a National holiday is another issue that the NHL - for one -isn't complaining about.

The Value of the Gold Glove

The Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract is clearly the touchstone (minus of course, about 241 references to The Karate Kid) for Bill Simmons' Book of Basketball (the BOB)(*). But Simmons also clearly looks to another James book -- Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame -- as a way to try and re-define what it means (in the respective sports) to be a HOFer.

(*) About which more later.

One tool for both analysis is the contemporary voting on awards: MVPs, All-Pro teams, Gold Gloves. James' view on contemporary evaluation of players is summed up as follows:

I advocate that we pay close attention, in evaluating Hall of Fame candidates, to the player's performance in award voting while active -- MVP voting, Gold Glove voting, in-season and post-season All-Star teams. If a player hits .267 with 63 RBI, but wins the MVP award, what does that mean at the time? It means that there was a widespread perception, at the time, that the player's collateral skills (defense, baserunning and leadership) were of exceptional value. Similarly, if a player drives in 162 runs and is hardly mentioned in the MVP voting, what does that mean? It means that there is a widespread perception, at the time, that the player's skills were not good.

The baseball Gold Gloves were awarded last week, and two surprises occurred in the American League: for the fourth time in the last six year, Yankees SS Derek Jeter was awarded a GG, and in the outfield, Torii Hunter and Ichiro each won their ninth consecutive GG, together first-timer Adam Jones (BAL).

Hunter, Ichiro, and Jones are not necessarily bad picks individually by themselves(*), but as highlighted by AP fav Joe Posnanski, the three necessarily cause the omission of Franklin Gutierrez; as explained by JoePos, Gutierrez saved perhaps 31 runs over an "average" centerfield in 2009, although alternative statistics show more in the range of 10-11 runs saved. In any event, there seems to be growing consensus that Guiterrez should won a GG.

Jeter has become a favorite whipping boy for GG critics; his win this year (after two years 'off') restarted the debate around his 'value', although JoePos argues that whether or not he was deserving this year, he had a better defensive year than in the 2004-2006 period, when he won 3 straight. (Or more to the point, over his career, Jeter gets to about 91% of the balls that the average AL shortstop gets to, which means that Yankees pitchers give up an extra hit (a ball not handled) every other game.)

But the larger question is what do we learn from GG awards?

JoePos posits that "We all know that the Gold Glove has become something to reward good offensive players who seem to be pretty decent in the field too." And perhaps that's good enough.(*)

(*)- Of course, such a definition makes the Silver Slugger award -- meant to reward the best offensive player at each position -- superfluous. Such analysis also does not explain the multiple awards to Omar Vizquel (only one GG season with OPS+ above 100) and Eric Chavez (won two GG with OPS+ in the 104-108 range.)

But in a world where the statistical analysis of baseball has broken through, and OPS+ and VORP are cited by mainstream publications, what does it say about the democratic process (as exemplified by Gold Glove voting, which is currently done by managers and coaches (not voting for their own players)?

Or perhaps, like Joe Morgan, the managers and coaches in voting for the Gold Gloves are trying to maintain the power of the "insider."

After all, how good a fielder can Franklin Gutierrez be if he's never won a Gold Glove?

Bird on the Refs

Larry Legend weighed in this week on the problems of NBA refs:

I know our league has got the best officials in the world. I think overall they do a tremendous job. There are different ways that different officials officiate, but we should be very honored we do have the best.

Does that mean the NBA officials are the best basketball officials in the world?

Or, considering that Bird was talking about the problems that baseball umps had in the 2009 post-season, is he claiming that NBA refs are the best sports officials in the world?

Hmmmm..

Things That Make You Go Hmmm... (NBA Edition)

* Disgraced former NBA ref Tim Donaghy has written in book while in prison for the last year. After Triumph Books (an imprint of Random House) apparently bought the rights to the book last year, it is alleged that pressure from the NBA made them re-think, and ultimately decided not to go forward with the project. Deadspin has excerpts (also, in fairness, the source for the NBA-is-killing-the-book rumor) from the book, some of which are explosive (i.e., that refs regularly bet on games, or on events within the game that they had control over, like who would be the first to call a technical foul.)

The excerpts on fellow NBA referees are more damaging than any allegation of betting on NBA games. Here's what he has to say about Dick Bavetta:

Studying under Dick Bavetta for 13 years was like pursuing a graduate degree in advanced game manipulation. He knew how to marshal the tempo and tone of a game better than any referee in the league, by far. He also knew how to take subtle — and not so subtle — cues from the NBA front office and extend a playoff series or, worse yet, change the complexion of that series.

The 2002 Western Conference Finals between the Los Angeles Lakers and the Sacramento Kings presents a stunning example of game and series manipulation at its ugliest. As the teams prepared for Game 6 at the Staples Center, Sacramento had a 3–2 lead in the series. The referees assigned to work Game 6 were Dick Bavetta, Bob Delaney, and Ted Bernhardt. As soon as the referees for the game were chosen, the rest of us knew immediately that there would be a Game 7. A prolonged series was good for the league, good for the networks, and good for the game. Oh, and one more thing: it was great for the big-market, star-studded Los Angeles Lakers.

In the pregame meeting prior to Game 6, the league office sent down word that certain calls — calls that would have benefitted the Lakers — were being missed by the referees. This was the type of not-so-subtle information that I and other referees were left to interpret. After receiving the dispatch, Bavetta openly talked about the fact that the league wanted a Game 7.

"If we give the benefit of the calls to the team that's down in the series, nobody's going to complain. The series will be even at three apiece, and then the better team can win Game 7," Bavetta stated.

As history shows, Sacramento lost Game 6 in a wild come-from-behind thriller that saw the Lakers repeatedly sent to the foul line by the referees. For other NBA referees watching the game on television, it was a shameful performance by Bavetta's crew, one of the most poorly officiated games of all time.

* While anyone who's ever watched an NBA game closely will tell you that particular refs can influence the flow of a game. Refs certainly have a role in other sports, as well, although their effect is rarely so pronounced -- or so discussed. Even when a baseball umpire misses a call (or two), it is seen as just that: a missed call. Not part of an orchestrated plan emanating from the Commissioner's office. (Indeed, the missed calls in this year's ALCS resulted in umpiring changes for the World Series. Missed calls in the NBA are treated with the transparency and openness of a failed Five Year Plan in the old Soviet Union.)

* Donaghy has creditability problems, no doubt. But Bill Simmons is a favorite of the league; his new book (The Book of Basketball) on the history of the NBA(*) is number one on the New York Times best-seller list, and his calls are taken by NBA Commissioner David Stern (see BOB, page 137, footnote 89)(**)

(*) - More to come on the BOB.

(**) - Referencing that Stern believes that the advent of cable TV had a bigger impact on 'saving' the NBA than the arrival of Bird and Magic; both events occurred around 1980] "How do I know this? I called the commish and asked him. We talked for 35 minutes."

* Simmons himself has written extensively on the problem with NBA referees, including during the playoffs last spring:

We still don't know why certain referees get assigned to certain games, why Bennett Salvatore always seems to be involved when a home team needs a win to change the momentum of a series, why Joey Crawford keeps getting assigned to Spurs games, why Danny Crawford keeps getting assigned to Mavericks games, why Bill Kennedy would get assigned to a big Celtics game only six weeks after an argument cost Doc Rivers money. We are told that referees don't matter, but that's the thing: They do...

One other thing to chart: Does the NBA "control" the outcomes of certain games by assigning referees with certain call patterns? For instance, the 2008-09 Celtics were the most physical team in the league. Let's say they were leading a series 3-2 and the NBA wanted a Game 7. Would it assign some of its most whistle-happy refs to that game? Or let's say the NBA needed Utah to pull out a must-win game at home. If it had one or two refs with a history of being intimidated by tough crowds, would it feed them to the wolves in Utah? So let's see this stuff on paper. We have hundreds of stat-obsessed lunatics tracking Derek Jeter's defensive range or unearthing new ways to rip off VORP; we couldn't find a few of them to pick apart officials and assignments?

* And in the BOB (page 131), here's Simmons on the 1977-78 season:

The bad luck extended beyond Walton going down: the league barely missed out on a Sixers-Nuggets Finals in '78 ("Thompson versus the Doctor!") and a thoroughly entertaining Spurs-Suns Finals in '79 ("Davis and Westphal take on the Iceman!") If Stern had been running the league in '78 or '79, you might have seen that decade's equivalent of Dick Bavetta or Bennett Salvatore reffing a few of those pivotal Spurs-Bullets, Sixers-Bullets, and Nuggest-Sonics games. And you know it's true.(FN 79)

(FN 79)- Four perfect candidates: Seattle at Denver, '78 (Game 5, series tied at 2); Philly at Washington, '78 (Game 6, Bullets leading 3-2); Seattle at Phoenix, '79 (Game 6, Phoenix leading 3-2); Washington at San Antonio, '79 (Game 6, Spurs leading 3-2). The less sexy team won all 4 of those games. Um, this never happens anymore. Not sure if you've noticed.

* Bavetta himself told the Orland Sentinel that he may retire at the end of the year.

* Unexpected retirements are an NBA tradition in the Stern era.

When Amazing Happens from 15 Feet

The NBA's playoff ad campaign is brilliant: a pianist plays stark thirds, an empty basketball court and arena slowly (thanks to a reverse-CGI) filled to life with Kobe to Shaq...Bird's steal...Magic's Junior Sky-hook.

There's one other "Amazing" highlight that brings the NBA's past to its future: Dr. J's swoop. For NBA fans of a certain age, it defined all that basketball could be -- power, mid-air acrobatics, and grace. That moment was seared -- thanks to countless replays -- on the mind of millions.

But who saw it live? Only the 18,000 or so in Philadelphia's Spectrum who were in attendance for Game Four of the 1980 Finals. For everyone else, the 1980 Finals were consigned to late night television -- speaking of amazing -- on 'tape delay.'

The NBA of the late 1970s was a much different league than the one declared "Fannnn-tastic" just a few years later. It was a league that had gone through the 1970s built on terrific teams (the post-Russell Celtics, Knicks, and Lakers in the first half of the decade, the immortal Blazers in 1977), but after the ABA merger, it was a with little defense, little charisma, and little fan support (the 1979-80 Lakers drew 582,882, good for 3rd in the League; the Lakers this season drew 778,877, a 33% increase in numbers, good for 8th in the League.)

But presented with two well-known (thanks to the 1979 NCAA Final) and marketable stars -- Magic and Bird -- the NBA turned to a star-based system. The teams became identified by single players, and thanks to the leadership of the two most prominent; renewed interest in college basketball created interest in the pro game, culminating with the 1984 draft (3 of the top 5 players were eventual Hall of Famers, highlighted by His Airness, and the other was Sam Perkins, who played in 1286 games(*)) and interest and attendance spiked, from 450,331 (10,983 per game) in 1979-80 to 641,616 (15,649 per game) ten years later.

(*-While NBA games played is not the only measure of a player to be sure, it's more games than every player drafted at #4 from 1985 to 1994 (Rasheed Wallace was the #4 in 1995, and he's still active. Inserting footnotes in the text -- Hat tip to Joe Pos.)

But as teams -- and marketing campaigns -- were built around stars, the league had to make some tricky choices. Fans came out to the stadium to see Michael, Dominique, and Isiah, and it wasn't doing anyone any good to see them on the bench with foul trouble.

More important -- and more ominous for the integrity of refereeing -- stars became subject to kid glove treatment. In 1979-80, the top five in free throws attempted were Moses Malone (#1), World B. Free, Dan Issel, John Drew, and Reggie Theus. Malone and Issel were legitimate stars (both are in the Hall of Fame), but the other three were good, but not great players who played in a total of 5 All-Star Games.

Contrast with 1989-90, where the top five in FTA is dominated by Hall of Famers (Karl Malone, David Robinson, the Chuckster, Jordan and Patrick Ewing.)(**) FTA per game were also up slightly during the period, from 56 per game in 1979-80 to 57 per game in 1989-90, although defenses were becoming more physical in the era of the Detroit Bad Boys.

(**- Analysis of one year's top 5 FTA may not make the argument airtight, but here's top 5/FTA in 1978-79: Free, Malone (HOF), George McGinnis, Cedric Maxwell, and Drew; here's 1988-89: Karl Malone, Barkley, Jordan, Moses Malone, and Hakeem, all HoFers)

Here's another set of data: in 1977, Dr. J led the NBA in playoff FTA with 7.05 per game (134 in 19 games; in 1978, Dennis Johnson led with 7.22 FTA per playoff game (159/22 games); in 1979, it was Elvin Hayes with 6.84 FTA per playoff game (130/19 games).

In 1987, Bird led the league with 8.39 FTA per playoff game (193 FTA in 23 games); in 1988, it was Adrian Dantley with 7.73 FTA per playoff game (178/23 games); in 1989, it was Jordan with 13.47 FTA per playoff game (229/17 games).

In 2007, LBJ led with 9.8 FTA per playoff game (196/20 games); in 2008, it was Kobe with 9.23 (194/21 games); and currently LBJ leads with 14.5 FTA (188/13 games).

Weighted averages among the leaders: 1977-79 = 7.05 FTA per playoff game; 1987-89 = 9.52 FTA per playoff game; and in 2007-09 = 10.70 FTA per playoff game.

But by focusing on stars, and protecting them around the basket, the NBA turned into a multiple-rule league: one set of rules for regular season; and one for the playoffs had long been established. But by allowing stars to roam free -- and rewarding them with trips to the line, the NBA went down the road of creating "stars" and rewarding them. The trend has continued to the present day with the ultimate peak (nadir?) being reached in the 2006 Finals, when Deee-wayne Wade put the refs in his Fave Five with 97 FTA in the 6 game Finals.

So while getting refs younger or more in shape or less subject to home crowds may help alleviate some of the criticism that the calls are getting throughout the Internets, its also true that the double-standard has yet to be addressed, and is argubly getting worse.

So it wasn't just that LBJ got bailed out at the end of regulation in Game Four in Orlando; it's that he knew he would.

Sports = Entertainment

From the dawn of history, professional sports was always co-existed with the "entertainment world."

Babe Ruth was either traded so that Harry Frazee could -- or could not -- finance "No, No Nanette." The Celtics usually have a long West Coast road trip in mid-February, so that travelling shows (currently "Disney on Ice") can use the Garden.

But it has only been in the past few decades that sports has morphed into entertainment. Red Auerbach, who was a link to the original NBA of the 1940s, refused to allow danceteams or other "modern" entertainment at the Garden. In 2004, he said: "They're just waiting for me to die so they can get cheerleaders."

(The Celtic Dancers are in their third year, beginning the first season after Red's passing.)

But the point of this post is not to complain about the post-modern "Fan Experience."

Rather, when Big-Time Sports began competing directly for the American consumer's entertainment dollar, a Rubicon was crossed.

Sports heroes have become treated like celebrities, been paid like celebrities, and begun living their lives like celebrities. Salaries followed.

But there's a difference between sports and pure entertainment: we don't care what entertainers have to do to stay at the top.

If Madonna needs a little help to stave off the next generation of teeny-boppers, no one cares. Sure, it's fuel for the tabloids and gossip pages, but no one cares. Her music either sells or it doesn't; in fact, we don't even care what 'post-production' needs to be done on the album to improve her voice.

And it's not just music -- body doubles abound in Hollywood: Julia Roberts got help from a body double in Pretty Woman. Halle Berry has received "double" help from Barbara Alexandre. And of course stunt men -- while being replaced by CGI in recent years -- have been around since the days of Eisenstein.

There's no pretext in show biz -- the entertainment is entertaining. If it's not, we won't watch, and don't care. And if the Big Star needs a little help -- from a surgeon, or a strength coach, or a teleprompter, or even a little pick-me-up in the morning, we don't see it, and we don't care.

But sports is -- or was -- different.

The competitive aspect of sports is what made it compelling. Could one athlete outtrain, outwork, or outlast their opponent?

We measure athletic achievements, both to separate them from one another, but also to show the separation from mere mortals.

The compelling images from our childhood are of superhuman achievement: Dr. J dunking from the foul line. Kirk Gibson limping to the plate, then fist-pumping around the bases. Michael Jordan ripping the heart out of the City of Cleveland.

What does it mean for our children's memories?

Jerry Seinfeld once famously summarized modern sports as follows: "You are standing and cheering and yelling for your clothes to beat the clothes from another city. Fans will be so in love with a player, but if he goes to another team, they boo him. This is the same human being in a different shirt! They hate him now! Boo! Different shirt!! Boo!"

When will we reach the point that we now root for our chemists to whip up better concoctions than the other team's chemists?

And will we pay $100 a ticket to see it?

No. -- er rather -- No 18

Bad news out of Waltham this afternoon: Kevin Garnett is being "shut down" for the rest of the regular season.

While shutting down Manny became an integral, and annual, part of the Red Sox stretch drive, it's a different story in basketball. Teams should be peaking at this time of year, as the Spurs have made into an art form (e.g., in 2006-7, they started 24-11, but closed 16-3 before losing their last three (meaningless) games, and won the NBA Championship.)

The Celts were blessed with a relatively injury-free 2007-08, and the Big Three (Paul Pierce (then 30), Garnett (31), Ray Allen (32)) played 80, 71, and 73 games, respectively. And each logged close to 1,000 minutes in the playoffs.

But at those ages -- ancient in NBA-years -- and load-levels, injuries are part of the game. While Pierce and Allen have played 75 and 74 games respectively, Garnett will have missed a quarter of season; he has also been playing limited minutes for the past few weeks, so his 'game' totals are somewhat inflated.

And that assumes he returns full strength when the Playoffs start.

The Cs got by the Cavaliers last year thanks to hot-shooting and home (court) cooking. This year, the road to the NBA Finals goes through the Quicken Loan Arena.

It's beginning to feel like 1964 all over again.

Jumping the Shark with Stephen Curry

A year ago, Stephen Curry was an after-thought to most the casual fans of the NCAAs. Davidson was a #10-seed (facing perennial crowd-favorite Gonzaga) and seemingly destined for a second-round exit (at best) against mighty Georgetown.

Two weeks later, Davidson was stopped only by eventual champ Kansas (in a game that, quietly, may have been the most important in Bill Self's career), and Curry was a national star. Many projected NBA drafts (Curry is currenly a junior) have him taken in the first round.

But while Curry is a great player -- and story -- he is not infallible.

And yesterday, in a first-round NIT game against South Carolina, analysis of Curry (by Hubert Davis) may have jumped the shark.

Normally, when a player puts together a second half that includes 6 turnovers, albeit in the course of scoring 32 overall, he is accused -- as Eric Devendorf was in the Big East tourney -- of "keeping both teams in the game."

But not to Davis. Instead, each turnover, it seemed, was the fault of a Davidson's player not moving to where Curry expected him to. Even the balls thrown straight out of bounds.

While it may be true, as Davis claims, that NBA players will be able to corral those errant passes, it's also true that NBA points guards who log 7 turnovers in 35 minutes won't be playing in "The League" for very long.

No matter what Hubert Davis says.

All-Time Great Prefaces

From David Halberstam's "The Breaks of the Game"

"Fame," O.J. said, walking along, "is a vapor, popuularity is an accident, and money takes wing. The only thing that endures is character."
"Where'd you get that from," Cowlings asked.
"Heard it one night on TV in Buffalo," O.J. said. "I was watching a late hockey game on Canadian TV and all of a sudden a guy just said it. Brought me right up out of my chair. I never forgot it."
-- From an article by Paul Zimmerman, Sports Illustrated, November 26, 1979, on O.J. Simpson.

The next (and final) line in the Zimmerman piece:

"The character of O.J. Simpson will endure. It will be his legacy."

And who's on the cover of that issue of SI?

All-Time Great Scouting Reports

On Eddie House: "Won't shoot it unless he has it in his hands." (Page 74)

On Jerry West: "Okay guys, West can only go right. But don’t concern yourself with that because you can’t stop him anyway. He’s been going right for twenty years." (Page 197.)

From Seven Seconds or Less, by Jack McCallum.

Win It For... (Part III)

...Brad Lohaus.

...Chris Corchiani.

...Dana Barros.

...Ed Pinckney.

...Dave Gavitt.

...Rick Pinito.

...DeCovan Brown.

...and (summer league signee in 2002) Oliver Miller.

Win It For... (Part II)

...Pervis Ellison.

...Ricky Davis.

...Alaa Abdelnaby.

...Marcus Banks.

...Mark Blount.

...James Blackwell.

...Eric Montross.

...Alton Lister.

...Andrew DeClercq.

...Travis Knight.

...Ron Mercer.

Win It For...

One of the most authentic elements of the Red Sox run to the 2004 World Series title was a thread posted on Sons of Sam Horn, entitled it simply "Win It For..."

SoSH readers then contributed there own stories -- of grandfathers, brothers, friends -- who were life-long Red Sox fans and who, in many cases, were not living at the time the Sox appeared to be ready to win the long-awaited title. (Former Sox players, like Johnny Pesky, still alive then and now, and Ted Williams, not, were also featured.)

The SoSH thread was then turned into a book that was published to modest acclaim.

With the Celtics firmly in command in the second half last night, thoughts turned to a "Win It For..." thread for old Celts.

Red Auerbach would be featured prominently in any such thread; the new-look Celts, with hard-nosed defense and an unselfish core group of KG, Ray-Ray Allen, and Paul Pierce, would have been appreciated by Red even in today's NBA.

...Johnny Most.

...Reggie Lewis and ...Easy Ed Macauley (the only Celtics with their numbers retired without a World Championship ring; Macauley was traded in 1956 for Bill Russell.)

The wags had some fun with some other memories of Celtics past:

...Acie Earl.

...Todd Day.

...Dino Radja.

...Xavier McDaniel.

But perhaps the most compelling "Win It For..." would be a young man, who 22 years ago tonight, flew back from Boston to his dorm at the University of Maryland, having just been selected as the 'heir apparent' by the then-World Champion Boston Celtics.

Before 9:00am the next morning, Len Bias' dream was gone.









And it took the franchise until last night to get back on top.

Hat tip: AH

Urgency

Twenty-three years ago, in Game One of the 1985 NBA Finals, the Celtics administered the worst whipping ever in a Finals game to the Lakers. A year removed from the riveting 7-game 1984 Finals, Celtics fans anticipated a quicker resolution, and the opening game gave no reason for doubt. The final score of the "Memorial Day Massacre" was 148-114, but the game wasn't-as-close-as-the-score-indicated.

But a funny happened on the way to the repeat championship (at that time, no team had won back-to-back championships since the 1967-68 and 1968-69 Celtics, and it was seen as an extremely difficult feat; since that time, of course, the NBA has had five(*) different "teams" win six different sets of at least two championships in a row: Lakers (1987, 88); Pistons (1989, 90), Bulls (1991-93), Rockets (1994, 95), Bulls again, (1996-98) and the Lakers with a totally new group (2000-02))

The Lakers rebounded from the humiliation of Game One in 1985, with Kareem Abdul Jabbar (a year removed from the meltdowns(**) in Games Five and Seven in 1984) apologizing to his teammates privately for his 'effort' in Game One. LA went on to win the Championship by beating the Celts in the old Garden in an impressive six games; it was the first time that an opposing team had ever won a championship on the parquet. Kareem reached personal redemption by scoring 36 and 29 points, respectively, in Games 5 and 6 (with the Lakers winning both) on his way to being named Finals MVP.

Fast forward 23 years to last night, as the young Lakers suffered one of the most devastating defeats in NBA Finals history. After building leads of 24 points in the first half, allowing the Celts to slip back into the game late in the second quarter, and then ending the half with a flurry (including a Jordan Farmer running three-pointer as time ran out), the Lakers appeared in control.

As late as half-way through the third, the lead was still at 20, when Doc Rivers went small (House, Garnett, Posey, Allen, and Pierce) and the vise was tightened defensively. By the end of the third, Brown's dunk over Kobe cut the lead to 2, and the Celts were back in business.

The fourth quarter was one of the defining moments in the careers of Pierce, Garnett, Allen (who turned back the clock like Kevin McHale in the 1992 playoffs, with his blow-by (off the dribble, no less) of Sasha Vujacic with 0:16 left), and frankly, Kobe. Four days after famously abusing and embarrassing his teammates during Game Two, Kobe (while going 4-8) disappeared in the fourth; we probably won't hear much more criticism by Kobe on Sunday night.

The Lakers are young, and perhaps thinking of next year when they will add a (presumably healthy) Andrew Bynum and mid-level exception to the mix. Like a freshman-laden NCAA team, they are dreaming of multiple trips to the "Final Four" and are sure that a championship will follow.

The Celts, on the other hand, are laden with the NBA equivalent of fifth-year seniors. KG, Allen, and Pierce have labored in the backwaters of the NBA for the past decade. Their collective moment for redemption -- ironically, like Kareem in the twilight of his career -- is now; don't expect the Lakers to be boarding the plane for Boston on Sunday night.


(*)-The Bulls would win two sets of multiple championships, but both times with squads built around Jordan and Scotty Pippen; the Rockets' inter-regnum was of course during the Jordan gambl-- er, baseball sabbatical.

And speaking of the time Jordan spent with the Birmingham Barons, why would anyone think that the NBA is ever engaged in conspiracies for marketing purposes? Right, David Stern?

Hello?

Mr. Commissioner, are you there?

(**) - Between 1984 and 1985, the NBA moved from a 2-2-1-1-1 format to a 2-3-2 format, meaning Game Five in 1985 was played in LA, rather than in Boston.

Get To the Rim

Late in the second half of Game Three last night, ABC's Jeff Van Gundy noted that the Celtics might have their best chance to win a game in Los Angeles, as the Lakers were getting almost no contributions from both Lamar Odom (foul difficulties) and Pau Gausol (tough shooting night).

For a while the Celtics seemed to have the lackadaisical attitude that a loss on the Lakers' home floor was no big deal. For much of the first quarter, they were satisfied with settling for long-range jumpers and no offensive rebounds. Kobe, meanwhile, clearly took the attitude that he was going to get all the way to the rim on the Cs, rather than settling for the awkwardly-angle jumpers that -- while often going in -- had not in the two games in Boston. (The hip-checks and moving screens that certain Laker bloggers complained about in Games 1 & 2 were also called against the Cs, with one big one essentially ending the game late in the fourth.) Bryant also was essentially turned into a "rover" on defense, matching-up (not really defending) with Rajon Rondo and literally daring him to shoot the 18-footer.

But with missed layups, foul shots, and some sharpshooting from Ray Allen (the only one of the 'Big 3' who game to play the entire game last night), the Cs hung around the first half, and when Rondo went down with a twisted ankle, forgotten man Eddie House stretched the Laker defense (as Van Gundy quickly noted) and gave Kendrick Perkins and KG room to operate on the low block.

For a brief moment in the fourth, the Cs were in the position to put the game away. But Doc Rivers went with a strange lineup early in the fourth (Powe, PJ Brown, House, Posey, and Allen) and the moment was lost. The Lakers retook the lead on Kobe's wide open three (top of the key) on a broken play, and the Cs never regained their footing. Two Gausol put-backs on Lamar Odom drives proved the point that Van Gundy and others have made time-and-again: when you get to the rim, at any level of basketball, good things happen.

Tactically, the end-game defense was confusing, at best. With two minutes remaining, the Cs ran a double at Kobe (with KG) early in the shot clock; Kobe found Odom at the top of the key, and delivered to a wide-open Sasha Vujacic for a three-ball (sidenote: before this series is over, Vujacic's name will be in the small club of hated Boston-team opponents along with Dennis Rodman and Claude Lemieux). On the succeeding two possessions, the Cs brain-trust left Ray Allen on an island with Kobe, and Bryant made successive 17-footers over Ray-Ray.

While Cs fan-bloggers seem to be rejoicing in the moral victory (after all, it was a true elimination game for the Lakers), Van Gundy's point is real: the Cs had a golden opportunity to end the series, and left it there.

The Cs still look to be the better team, and will likely still win this Series outright. But the Lakers were ready to be put away, and as it has done many times this year, the Cs let a good team off the hook. The Lakers -- like the Cavaliers in the 2nd Round -- know what they are doing at crunch time: getting the ball to Kobe and letting him create.

Finally, could there have been a worse day for the NBA to revisit the Tim Donaghy situation? After Game Two's refereeing disaster, the free throw disparity went to the Lakers (34-22) in Game Three (although admittedly with reason, as the Lakers were clearly driving at the rim throughout much of the first half). But there's no question that the consistency and/or lack thereof among the refs has become a major subplot in the NBA Playoffs.

Donaghy's claims about Game Six of the 2002 Lakers/Kings series and the treatment of Yao Ming in a 2005 Rockets/Mavs series seemed to be backed-up by contemporaneous facts. The Rockets coach Van Gundy was himself fined $100,000 in 2005 for his comments about the officiating, and gave a strange interview with Mike Breen last night at halftime -- on the one hand trying to avoid giving any credibility to Donaghy's statements, but on the other unwilling to admit that he had been wrong in the substance of his comments (he did admit that he "went about it the wrong way" by raising the issue in public.

What is more interesting is the procedural background. Donaghy is apparently up for sentencing (as part of his plea bargain) and the NBA demanded restitution of $1 million for damage incurred by the league by Donaghy's actions. (If Donaghy doesn't have the money to pay the league, his sentence could be extended.)

So after a year where the Donaghy scandal had faded to the background, to be replaced by a "NBA Dream" (and ABC/ESPN Dream) Finals of Lakers/Celtics, the Donaghy matter was revived because the NBA needed to try and collect an extra $1M?

What's wrong with this picture?

Never a Doubt

Celtics fans should be heartened by last night's win in Game One, especially when one considers that the Cs gave the Lakers every opportunity to steal a win (and home court advantage). Consider these plays:

* With 3 minutes left in the third quarter, on a two-on-one fastbreak, Ray Allen (who has spent the last four weeks throwing his aging body into any opposing player to try and get himself to the free throw line to 'grind' his way out of a shooting slump by manufacturing points), decided to try an around-the-back pass rather than challenge his nemesis, Kobe.

* After doing his best to shoot the Cs out of the game with several brutal attempts in crunch time (including the previous possession), Sam Cassell decided to become a pass-first guy with 0:02 left on the shot clock and 7 minutes left.

* Despite a decided rebound advantage, the Cs gave up two key offensive rebounds in the fourth quarter to Pau Gausol (one with 6:11 left and the Cs clinging to a 4 point advantage, the other a minute later, with the deficit at 6).

* Two separate back-court violations -- which get called once per leap year in the NBA -- both of which may have been influenced by the large icon of the Larry O'Brien NBA Championship Trophy which was laid down over the centerline area:
-- In the first quarter, the Lakers' Pau Gausol was called for a back-court violation, although the replay showed that the call should not have been made.
-- In the fourth with 9 minutes left, KG saved a bad pass by taking off just short of the center-court line; although replays confirmed the (non)-call, it easily could have been whistled. The Cs ended up converting on the broken play.

* Ray Allen missed only his 5th foul shot of the entire playoffs (he's shooting 92.9%) with 2:33 left.

Despite all this, and a general lack of ability to 'score the basketball' in the fourth quarter on the part of the Cs, the Lakers couldn't close the deal. As Kobe said after the game, it was a "nice little kick in the ass."

Stay classy, Kobe.

And we'll see you on Sunday, for a game that has now become a 'must-win' for...the Lakers.

With the 2-3-2 format, which is unique for any team sport (excepting baseball, where the home court is not nearly as important as in basketball or hockey), the pressure on the visiting team to 'steal' a game on the road in the first two games is enormous.

With almost no chance to win the Series if they return to Boston for Game 6 with a 2-3 deficit, the Lakers have to either win Game Two, or else win three games in a row in LA (Games 3, 4, and 5).

We'll see if Kobe can convert the bunnies.