Posted by HoopsAvenue on June 12, 2008 under Boston Celtics, NBA Playoffs | 
What would you do if your Doc Rivers? You can either stick with Rajon Rondo or give more minutes to Eddie House and Sam Cassell. Each of the three come with major liabilities. So, here’s the breakdown:
- Rajon Rondo – He’s the best out of the three at running the offense, but everybody knows he can’t\won’t shoot. It reminds me of Avery Johnson when he was on the Spurs. Eventually Avery hit a few jumpers and the Spurs were able to win the ’99 Championship. If Rondo can knock down a few shots, the Celts would be on their way, but the smart money says he isn’t going to bother shooting them. The real problem is that the Lakers are putting Kobe on Rondo and just letting Kobe roam on D. Not everyone thinks Kobe is a great defender, but I think most would agree he is great when he has the opportunity to roam. I don’t think the Celts can afford to play Rondo in crunch time.
- Eddie House – House is clearly the best shooter out of the three, but his ballhandling is shaky, very shaky. For good reason, Doc Rivers is uncomfortable having House on the floor as a point. However, Ray Allen is a decent ballhandler and it would make sense to go with a backcourt of House and Allen on occasion. This is a pretty good option when the Lakers start exploiting Rando’s lack of shooting.
- Sam Cassell – Unfortunately for the Celts, Sam is not the man he used to be. It’s a wonder he gets any minutes at all. I’d keep him on the bench.
Conclusion – There’s no good solution here, but I would give House more minutes late in the game and let Allen do some of the ballhandling. Every possession gets so important late in the game and having to play 4 on 5 only amplifies the pressure on The Big 3. House would make their lives a whole lot easier.
What would you do?
Posted by HoopsAvenue on June 11, 2008 under NBA Playoffs, Tim Donaghy |
As fixed as Game 6 of the 2002 Western Conference Finals actually looked, it always felt better to assume it just looked fixed and wasn’t actually fixed. Now that disgraced former NBA referee Tim Donaghy is alleging that it was indeed fixed, it makes you wonder. Of course there is the possibility that Donaghy just picked the two series (also ’05 Mavs-Rockets) that looked the most fixed to give his claims some credibility.
It’s impossible to ignore the allegations though, especially if you recall what happened during the 2005 Mavs-Rockets series (the Lakers-Kings situation was mostly just fan outrage). In that series, then Rockets coach Jeff Van Gundy asserted after one particular game that he had received a call from a referee not working the playoffs that the league had issued a directive to its referees to call more fouls on Yao Ming. Van Gundy was fined $100,000 and refused to reveal the identity of the referee. It’s the fact that Van Gundy actually gave some details that makes you think maybe something was going on.
Here’s a look at Donaghy’s actual claim (Team 3 = Mavs, Team 4 = Rockets):
“Team 3 lost the first two games in the series and Team 3′s owner complained to NBA officials,” the letter says. “Team 3′s owner alleged that referees were letting a Team 4 player get away with illegal screens. NBA Executive Y told Referee Supervisor Z that the referees for that game were to enforce the screening rules strictly against that Team 4 player. Referee Supervisor Z informed the referees about his instructions. As an alternate referee for that game, Tim also received these instructions.”
Not so interesting if you ask me. Doesn’t this happen all the time? The league office notices something isn’t being called and asks that it be called. There seems to be little merit here. Donaghy is going to have to draw up more of an anti-Rockets conspiracy than that to make me a believer.
Obviously the Lakers-Kings Game 6 looked fixed, but the free throw discrepancy there was only 40-25. Game 2 of this year’s Finals favored the Celtics 38-10. So should we believe every game is fixed?
I’m sure the mainstream sports media will have fun with this one for a while, but it’s only the surface facts that are intriguing. Once you get to the details, Donaghy sounds like your average conspiracy nut.
Posted by HoopsAvenue on June 10, 2008 under NBA Playoffs |
38-10. That was the free throw disparity last night. 38-10 in the Celtics favor. Now, Kobe, if you ignore sarcasm, “didn’t notice it,” but Phil Jackson was less politically correct talking about how his team will have to do a better job creating “illusions” for Game 3. Illusions, after all, are what the referees make calls based on, argues Jackson. You’ve gotta love the Zen Master. Every post-season, especially in the Finals, he creates the best in-between-game story lines. The best thing about his quotes is that they aren’t just vociferous rants, but they actually hold quite a bit of substance and truth to them (Yes, Sacramento is basically a cow town, get over it, Kings fans).
Let’s break down the genius of the Zen Master here. First off, instead on a Mike Ditka-esque tirade, he brings up the idea of how referees are influenced by the crowd noise, intensity of the teams, and other intangible factors. He is right. Referees are refereeing an illusion, but nobody ever brings it up that way. Coaches might rant about how the fans get in the ref’s head and other cliches ad nauseam, but to label it an illusion somehow adds some sort of intrigue to the criticism. Subconsciously, the Zen Master has just created his own illusion that the referees are too weak-minded to objectively call the game. He’s called into question their ability to block out distractions and do their job. It’s almost a subtle challenge. Whether or not it’s the right time to bring up the point with 3 straight home games coming up, though, is up for debate. Regardless, maybe the Lakers ought to show up for the first 40 minutes of the game.
Posted by HoopsAvenue on June 7, 2008 under NBA Playoffs |
So all anybody is talking about after Game 1 of The Finals is whether or not Paul Pierce aka The Truth really hurt his knee as badly as his theatrics would lead you to believe. Ok, let’s see, guy goes down, needs about half the team to carry him off the court, rolls to the tunnel in a wheelchair, and he’s back in about a minute of gametime (knocking down 2 big 3s shortly later no less)? Any Laker fan would tell you he was faking it, but I’m going to have to disagree. He was merely exaggerating. First of all, watching the replay, it’s clear his leg moved a bit awkwardly after Kendrick Perkins landed on him. There’s no way to fake that in the heat of the moment. So the next question is whether he was really hurt by the play. I think he was, but not to the extent he led us to believe. Pierce might be a relatively smart player, but he’s no evil genius ready to concoct a fake injury plot in the split second he had to react to that play. He is, however, very capable of exaggerating the extent of his pain as all players are (just watch any player be in excruciating pain on defense only to look perfectly healthy when his team gets the ball back).
The thing is you can’t blame Pierce for exaggerating the extent of his injury. I would argue he wasn’t even conscious that he was exaggerating. It’s just what NBA players do. It’s almost like an extension of flopping. You don’t even realize you are doing it, but you become so accustomed to it that when you get hurt, you lie down, have everyone feel bad for you, and then sometimes it isn’t really that bad and you return as the hero. Saying Paul Pierce was exaggerating would be like saying Allen Iverson carries the ball on his crossover or Manu Ginobili flops. Duh.
Loading ...