afb@pucc-i (Michael Lewis) (02/12/86)
I wouldn't count on there being some different teams in the finals this
year...much as I'd like to see Milwaukee pull off another 4-0 sweep of the
Celtics. Randy Breuer is not an NBA-final caliber center, ditto for Lister
and *Mokeski*.
Then there's Houston, the upstarts of the West. They have as good a front
line as any in the NBA. If their backcourt of Lewis Lloyd and John Lucas was
up to that standard, then we'd be talking dynasty. But against the Lakers'
army of talented guards, one of whom is (arguably) the best guard to come along
since West and Robertson, they'll fall short. My feeling is reinforced by the
way Kareem took Akeem to school the last time they played (something around 40
points, I believe).
Denver is a fine team, with as good a pair of forwards as there are in the
league, but they lack the depth to hang with the Lakers. Houston also has this
problem.
In the East, there are Milwaukee and Philadelphia who could challenge for
a spot in the finals. Milwaukee, despite having 2 of the very best all-around
players in the league in Pressey and Moncrief and a true offensive force in
Terry Cummings, are short on frontcourt depth. If they could have picked up
Joe Barry Carroll, they would be going to the finals.
Philadelphia is a very good team, and they are on a serious tear right now.
Playing Erving at guard, which is only possible because Maurice Cheeks is one
of the top 5 or so point guards, is opening up some new possibilities for them.
However, they have one glaring weakness when matched up with the Celtics; they
have Barkley, at 6'6", playing *power* forward, with little more size backing
him up. McHale can shoot and rebound over him all day. Also, for some reason
Robert Parish seems to match up well against Malone (in much the same way as
Malone matches up well against Kareem...).
So now the matchup is set: LA vs. Boston, with Boston probably having the
home-court advantage. A lot of what happens will depend on what kind of shape
Bird's battered body is in. Let's face it, as good as Larry is on Offense and
at being at the right place on D, he really isn't very good at guarding *his*
man one-on-one, although he usually manages to keep his man off the boards.
So does he guard Worthy? Worthy doesn't rebound much, and he's lightning
quick. I think that Bird must guard Rambis. McHale is an outstanding player
but is not quick enough to prevent Worthy from lighting him up, like last year.
The bottom line is:
If (Kareem + Worthy) = (Bird + McHale + Parish) then the Lakers win.
That's oversimplifying things a bit, but I think that's the gist of it.
Both teams improved themselves about equally with the acquisitions of Lucas
and Walton, but they will have a bigger impact on Boston than LA, I think.
My prediction: Lakers in 7, one of the greatest championship series of all
time.lor@ucla-cs.UUCP (02/16/86)
In article <1293@pucc-i> afb@pucc-i (Michael Lewis) writes: > > I wouldn't count on there being some different teams in the finals this >year...much as I'd like to see Milwaukee pull off another 4-0 sweep of the >Celtics. Randy Breuer is not an NBA-final caliber center, ditto for Lister >and *Mokeski*. As a Laker fan, I do not want to see the Celtics in the final this year. Not because we are afraid of them, the Lakers have already paid back the choking in 1984. I want to see the Lakers redeeming another humiliation in the finals. You got it, the sweep from the 76ers in 1983. > Then there's Houston, the upstarts of the West. They have as good a front >line as any in the NBA. If their backcourt of Lewis Lloyd and John Lucas was >up to that standard, then we'd be talking dynasty. But against the Lakers' >army of talented guards, one of whom is (arguably) the best guard to come along >since West and Robertson, they'll fall short. My feeling is reinforced by the >way Kareem took Akeem to school the last time they played (something around 40 >points, I believe). > > Denver is a fine team, with as good a pair of forwards as there are in the >league, but they lack the depth to hang with the Lakers. Houston also has this >problem. It is thought that the Rockets are going to be the Lakers' main obstacle to the finals. After watching a couple Rocket games on TV, I am sure they have not been there yet. They may have a good front line; they may have some very talented players, but they don't know how to play good team defense (Just an Olajuwon clogging the middle is not adequate.) The same is true to Denver. There are only four defenses which can shut down the Lakers' flashy offense in a seven-game series: Boston, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, and New York. Unfortunately, the Bucks and the Knicks do not have the offense to beat the Lakers. In addition, the Rocket players do not have the experience. When they blow leads in the 2nd half, they could do nothing to stop it, they simply collapse. That's not the sign of a championship team. >However, they have one glaring weakness when matched up with the Celtics; they >have Barkley, at 6'6", playing *power* forward, with little more size backing >him up. McHale can shoot and rebound over him all day. Also, for some reason >Robert Parish seems to match up well against Malone (in much the same way as >Malone matches up well against Kareem...). I hope Goukas would use McAdoo against Parish and Malone against McHale. That would ease the matchup problem. > My prediction: Lakers in 7, one of the greatest championship series of all > time. If the series goes down the wire, do NOT bet on the Lakers. They can't win game 7 and the Celtics can't lose game 7. Blame it on another jinx or something. As a matter of fact, the Lakers won all three championships in game 6. I can't wait. Why don't they just cut the regular season and start the playoffs in February (right after the Super Bowl)? -- Eddy Lor ...!(ihnp4,ucbvax)!ucla-cs!lor lor@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU Computer Science Department, UCLA
srt@ucla-cs.UUCP (02/17/86)
The recent Laker-Celtics matchup in the Forum was an interesting preview
of what will probably be the championship series.
Boston seemed to have an interesting strategy. A league-wide tactic in
defense is to double the man down low with the ball. The idea is to prevent
the high percentage inside shot, while giving away the (presumably) low
percentage outside shot. Boston is taking advantage of this by pushing the
ball back outside, passing around the horn to the open man and taking the
unguarded deep jump shot. Why does this work? Two reasons:
First, teams are getting very good at taking (and taking advantage of) the
three point shot. There are players in the league now whose percentage on
an unguarded three point shot is very high for the distance involved; the
equivalent of an 18 footer. Bird, of course, comes to mind. And an
unguarded three pointer is exactly what tends to develop if you consistently
double down low.
Second, Boston is in the interesting position of having a team with very
consistent deep shooters. With the exceptions of Parrish and Walton nearly
everyone in the first two strings is a consistent and unselfish outside
shooter. When you can be confident in letting ANY open man take a deep
jumper, you've got the beginnings of a weapon against a doubling defense.
Of course, as with the pass in the NFL, you have to swing back and forth
between the low and outside games to keep a balance. And you need good
passers and guard like Dennis Johnson. But it works out to an interesting
strategy.
As with all outside shooting strategies, however, you live and die on the
bomb. A couple of bad shooting days could end you in a tournament situation.
The Celtics, however, have enough talent to overcome that kind of temporary
setback (unlike my beloved Bruins).
Anyway, the Laker-Celtic game gave us another Irishman to complain about -
Greg Kite, who laid some vicious hammers on McGee and Kareem. Didn't they
teach that boy no manners at BYU?
Scott R. Turner
ARPA: (now) srt@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA (soon) srt@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
UUCP: ...!{cepu,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!srt
FISHNET: ...!{flounder,crappie,flipper}!srt@fishnet-relay.arpalor@ucla-cs.UUCP (02/17/86)
In article <9020@ucla-cs.ARPA> srt@ucla-cs.UUCP (Scott Turner) writes: >The recent Laker-Celtics matchup in the Forum was an interesting preview >of what will probably be the championship series. > >Boston seemed to have an interesting strategy. A league-wide tactic in >defense is to double the man down low with the ball. The idea is to prevent >the high percentage inside shot, while giving away the (presumably) low >percentage outside shot. Boston is taking advantage of this by pushing the >ball back outside, passing around the horn to the open man and taking the >unguarded deep jump shot. Why does this work? Two reasons: > >First, teams are getting very good at taking (and taking advantage of) the >three point shot. > ......... >Second, Boston is in the interesting position of having a team with very >consistent deep shooters. > ........ >As with all outside shooting strategies, however, you live and die on the >bomb. A couple of bad shooting days could end you in a tournament situation. You miss another point, Scott. With all those big guys banging the boards, they do not really live and die on the bomb. What if they miss an outside shot? they grab the rebound and try again. What if they miss again? They simply snatch the loose ball from the showtime men and shoot one more time! This is nothing new. It is a typical Celtic strategy against the Lakers. This method has been proven successful. It is just annoying to see the Lakers standing around during those missed shots (here, Kareem is the main culprit.) Pat Riley has to be responsible too, for: i) not emphasizing rebounding enough. Since his became head coach four years ago, the Lakers have been outrebounded by Boston and Philly in most of their encounters. Remember Malone's dominance in the 1983 Finals? Today, the Lakers are still outrebounded by these physical teams from the East. How can a championship head coach make the same mistake year after year? ii) not using Lucas, a good rebounder, at all in the second half. Boston had a good shooting day in yesterday's game. However, if the Lakers do not hit the boards, Boston can still beat them any day, good or bad shooting. -- Eddy Lor ...!(ihnp4,ucbvax)!ucla-cs!lor lor@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU Computer Science Department, UCLA
plw@panda.UUCP (Pete Williamson) (02/18/86)
> > So now the matchup is set: LA vs. Boston, with Boston probably having the >home-court advantage. A lot of what happens will depend on what kind of shape >Bird's battered body is in. Let's face it, as good as Larry is on Offense and >at being at the right place on D, he really isn't very good at guarding *his* >man one-on-one, although he usually manages to keep his man off the boards. >So does he guard Worthy? Worthy doesn't rebound much, and he's lightning >quick. I think that Bird must guard Rambis. McHale is an outstanding player >but is not quick enough to prevent Worthy from lighting him up, like last year. >The bottom line is: > > If (Kareem + Worthy) = (Bird + McHale + Parish) then the Lakers win. > > That's oversimplifying things a bit, but I think that's the gist of it. >Both teams improved themselves about equally with the acquisitions of Lucas >and Walton, but they will have a bigger impact on Boston than LA, I think. > > My prediction: Lakers in 7, one of the greatest championship series of all > time. Assuming Boston can get by the SIXERS, (always a very tough task!), I believe that Boston will beat LA in six games. Regular season games aside, Boston is simply a stronger, deeper team anyway. Wild Bill Walton WILL make quite a difference in the LA matchup. Kareem must be continually banged to contain him to a mere mortal performance and Walton historically plays Kareem well. And without Kareem, LA is just another team. Boston with rotten performances from Parish and Ainge and without McHale can obviously beat LA. (Sunday's game was never in doubt). The game in Boston a few weeks ago wasn't even a game. All else being equal, the Lakers will not repeat this year. The above equation is oversimplifying. It is also wrong. Kareem and Worthy combined obviously outplayed Bird and Parish and McHale on Sunday. Team depth made the difference during the regular season. Hopefully it will make the difference during the playoffs. -- Pete Williamson "By hook or by crook, we will !!" ... #2