bruce@godot.UUCP (Bruce Nemnich) (06/16/84)
No, no other team but the Lakers has been in the finals 4 of the last 5
years, but that is because the two top teams in the NBA in the last 5
years are in the same division (Celts and 76ers, of course). One of
those two teams has been in the finals all 5 years and won 3
championships. They have the two best records over that period despite
playing 75% of their games against the much tougher conference. Sigh.
I think the best Celtic team of the last 5 years was '82, but they lost
a wonderful series to the 76ers, and the 76ers looked totally drained
thereafter against the Lakers. Boston-Philly meetings over the last 5
years have been a constant source of enjoyment; the most consistently
intense and dramatic basketball anywhere (though this Laker series was
pretty good :-)).
Though it is difficult to separate the objective from the subjective, I
*do* think the better team won. First, I think a flashy fast-break team
which scores 25% of its points on slam dunks off of breaks can't help
but look great, and more power to 'em. That's exciting and entertaining
to watch, but I think it can be deceptive: there is much more to the game
than that, and beyond that, the Lakers aren't an exceptional team. There
are three big areas worth noting, in no particular order.
1) Half-court offense. The Lakers did not show much ball movement or good
movement without the ball, though Kareem did show a ability to kick the
ball out to a guard when he didn't have a shot. Kareem is almost all of the
half-court offense, and he was neutralized by Parish in the 2nd half of the
series. Parish was consistenly moving Kareem out to the 11-14' range; when
Kareem was hitting at that distance, the Laker half-court offense looked
reasonable; when he wasn't, it didn't. It could have been worse: Worthy saved
them several times by hitting desperation shots when well-guarded, and Magic
hit the *wide-open* 18-20' set shot all series (but not when anyone was near
him).
2) Defense. This has a lot to do with the half-court offense talk
above. Everyone keeps saying the Celtics won games 2 and 4 by "luck" or
that the Lakers "gave it to them." One must realize that it wasn't just
a couple of key breaks the Celtics got; I counted 6 possesions in the
final two minutes of regulation and overtime of game 2 and 5 in game 4
during which the Lakers could have put the game out of reach, and they
were denied on all of them. Not once did they get a good shot, muchless
make one. The Lakers scored 0 points on the fast break in the 4th
quarters and overtimes of those games. Also, the Laker offense looked
completely different once DJ was defending Magic (game 4 on). Much more
half-court game, to the big advantage of the Celtics. The only really good
defense I saw out of the Lakers was in the closing minutes of game 7, but
the Celts put out some of their own to shutdown the rally.
3) Rebounding. Let's face it, the Celtics dominated the boards, as I
expected them to. They *had* to, the way they were shooting. LA tried
to be more aggressive in the 2nd half of the series, but it only
resulted in sending the Celtics to the line.
These are big holes.
I certainly don't agree the Lakers outplayed the Celts in 5 games; then
again, I am not sure what the term means, if scoring the most (or
allowing the fewest) points is not a good meter. If it means being able
to control the pace & play the kind of game you want, I'd give the last
3 games to the Celtics, except for 12 minutes of game 6. I'll call game
4 dead even (the best-played game, in my opinion); though the Lakers
lead most of the way, the Celtics were doing everything right on offense
but hitting the shots. The Lakers were only ahead because everything they
put up went in, not because they controlled the action. And if you are going
to give LA part of game 6, you must give Boston part of game 2.
The Celtics easily had the best regular-season record, winning 8 more
games than the Lakers despite playing in the tougher conference. LA had
a very strong 2nd half; the Celts were consistent all the way (32-9
first half, 30-11 second). The Lakers peaked for the series; the
Celtics didn't (the first 3 games were as bad as they have played all
season). And the Celtics won.
The Lakers played better than their record would indicate. They do have
tremendous athletic ability (I'll never forget James Worthy in game 2:
he took the ball on the break above the top of the circle and layed it
in *without dribbling*. He was called for traveling, but it was amazing
he got there in 3 steps! It was the longest travel I have ever seen
(about 23')). They are very good and exciting to watch.
--
--Bruce Nemnich, Thinking Machines Corporation, Waltham, MA
{decvax!cca,ihnp4!mit-eddie,allegra!ias}!godot!bruce, BJN@MIT-MC.ARPA