http://cbs2.com/johnirelanden-USSun, 06 Jul 2008 03:18:48 GMT5http://cbs2.com/johnireland
The only good thing that figures to come out of the way the Lakers ended the Finals is this:  they have to live with it for four months.  You would hope that they'll be so furious at their lack of effort that they'll return with a vengeance.

As I blogged about earlier, the Celtics weren't only the better team--they deserved to win.  Boston began the season by acquiring Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett.  They kept Paul Pierce.  Then coach Doc Rivers had a meeting that set the tone for their championship season.

"I told all three that if we wanted to win the title," Rivers said, "that we had to be a great defensive team.  Not a good defensive team, but a great one."

The "big three" bought into that, and the rest is, well, history. 

The Lakers now need to steal that playbook.  As Kobe Bryant said after that embarrassing game six blowout, LA can't win the title by focusing on offense.  The Lakers have to focus on defense and rebounding, or they won't even make it this far next year.

Individually, they also need to find a way to get some consistency out of Lamar Odom and Pau Gasol.  Both are great players, most of the time.  But as John Wooden used to preach, what makes a championship team is to be "at your best when your best is needed."  These guys simply weren't in the Finals.

On my radio show, we took calls from all kinds of Lakers' fans who want massive changes.  They called for Odom to be traded.  They want Phil Jackson fired.  One guy claimed he bought the rights to the domain name www.tradepaugasol.com.  All of these ideas are ridiculous.

If I was in charge, I would only make small changes, if any, to the current Lakers roster.  You can't evaluate this team until you see how they come together when the injured Andrew Bynum returns.  Once you see that team, you can decide to make big changes.

In the meantime, once the sting of that Finals debacle wears off, think about how far the Lakers came in just one season.  They started in Hawaii wondering if they were a playoff team, and whether or not Kobe Bryant would even be here.  They ended with a Western Conference title and Kobe won the MVP.
 
That's more than I expected, and really fun to watch.  Here's hoping for more of the same next year.]]>http://cbs2.com/johnirelandThu, 19 Jun 2008 02:29:35 GMThttp://cbs2.com/johnireland
Game one:  Celtics shot 38 free throws, the Lakers ten.  LA never had a chance.  
Game two:  Lakers fall behind by 24, Celtics fall asleep, wake up in time to win.
Game three:  Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett forget to show up, costing Boston any chance at a win.
Game four:  Lakers go ahead by 24, then fold like a house of cards and Boston takes a huge three games to one lead.

Then there was game five.  Everything we hoped the Finals would be and more.  All of the stars showed up--Kobe, Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom for the Lakers; Pierce, Garnett and Ray Allen for the Celtics.  Both benches played well.  Even the referees were perfect--they called 28 fouls on each team, and each team shot exactly 31 free throws.

But what made game five so fun to watch was the intensity.  Both teams hit the floor at least ten times each.  Pierce was spectacular, scoring a game-high 38 points, all while guarding Kobe and holding him to 25.

Kobe helped decide the game with a steal in the final minute, which he finished off with a game-clinching dunk.  

In the end, it was one of the best games of the year, and without question, the best game of the Finals.  Now, the question is whether or not the Lakers are going to back to Boston for a funeral, or to extend the series to seven games.

I know all of the statistics show that no team has ever done what the Lakers are attempting to do in the Finals.  28 times before a team has fallen behind three games to one, and no team has ever won the series.  But there's a first time for everything, and here's hoping this is that time for the Lakers.   

The Celtics have shown they are the better team, and at least in the Finals, Pierce has been a better player than Kobe.  But what I'd really love to see is a game seven.  If the Lakers can just find a way to win one game--game six--my guess is that the Celtics might panic in game seven on Thursday.

It's a tall order....but the great thing about sports is that you never know until they play the games.  Hopefully, the Lakers show up big on Tuesday night. ]]>http://cbs2.com/johnirelandMon, 16 Jun 2008 07:03:58 GMThttp://cbs2.com/johnireland
But here's the truth:  none of that matters because the Celtics are better.

They play better defense.  They have better veteran leadership.  They've played better down the stretch, and at almost every key moment of this series, it's Boston that has delivered. 

They were the best team during the regular season, and although they struggled early in the playoffs, they're the best team now.

Many so called "experts", including me, mis-read the Celtics.  When I saw how bad they were early in the post-season, I figured they had peaked early and we're gassed.  The truth is that those losses in Atlanta and Cleveland woke the Celtics up...and now they're playing like they were during most of the season.  While I never rule out a miracle, Boston should win its' 17th title at some point next week.

The Lakers are guilty of blowing an opportunity in game four.  There's no way they should have lost that game.  But were they really going to win the series anyway?  In 16 quarters so far during the Finals, Boston has controlled the tempo and dominated on defense.  In my mind, I don't think the Lakers would have won another two games anyway.

Of course, sportscasters don't decide the games and are wrong--a lot.  I'd love to see the Lakers shock the world and come back from this 3-1 deficit, but I don't think it's in the cards.

For that reason, I think it's important not to lose sight of the fact that the Lakers have gone farther this season than almost anybody thought they would.  At the start of the year, ten different ESPN experts tried to predict where LA would finish and not one had the Lakers in the top four of the West.  Instead, they won the West and made the Finals.

Next year, Andrew Bynum comes back and the Lakers will be favored to make it to the Finals again.  If I would have written that at the start of this season, any Lakers fan in his right mind would have been happy. 

I know it's easy to be disappointed, even mad, about what happened in game four.  But it's time to admit that this is probably where the ride ends--and it's been an unbelievable ride.]]>http://cbs2.com/johnirelandSat, 14 Jun 2008 04:56:31 GMThttp://cbs2.com/johnireland
--The Lakers won the game, but they can't win the series unless they make some changes.  The biggest problem continues to be that the Celtics are controlling the pace of the game.  100 points continues to be a number to watch.  I've mentioned several times on this blog that the Lakers were the best team in the NBA this year when they scored over 100 (54-10), and just plain awful when they didn't (3-15).  Now, consider that only six times in 23 playoff games have the Celtics allowed more than 100 points.  When they do, the almost always lose--they're 1-5 in those games.

But so far in the finals, the Celtics have held the Lakers to under 90 points twice, including game three.  That means these are half-court games, controlled by the defense.  That's Celtics basketball.  Lakers basketball is fast, open court, athletic.  They still haven't solved the problem of getting the scores and the pace up.

--I wouldn't bet that Kevin Garnett and Paul Pierce will have another game in the Finals like game three.  They combined to make just eight of 35 shots.  You have to give some credit to the Lakers defense, but Boston figures to rebound quickly from this. 

--While Garnett and Pierce struggled for one game, Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom seem to be struggling for the whole series.  Unless they snap out of whatever funk they seem to be in, the Lakers probably don't have enough to overcome Boston.

--Having said all of this, if the Lakers can find a way to win game four--any way to win game four--it could completely flip the series.  Even though Boston appears to be the better team after three games (five if you count the two played during the regular season), a best-of-three scenario gives LA a much better chance than digging out of a 3-1 hole.

Finally, I interviewed NBA Commissioner David Stern today on my radio show.  Obviously, the main topic of conversation was the allegations made by former NBA referee Tim Donaghy that the Lakers win over Sacramento in game six of the 2002 Western Conference Finals was fixed.

At the time, a lot of us who covered that game speculated that something was up.  Michael Wilbon said he had never, in 30 years of covering sports, seen anything like it.  The Lakers shot 27 fourth quarter free throws, and won to send the series to a game seven in Sacramento.  Personally, it didn't pass the smell test when it happened.

Stern says the accusations are "baseless."

He may be right.  It may be a total coincidence that the final numbers were so lopsided.  But even if Stern is correct, he has a bigger problem.  The public believes Donaghy, and that fact skews every game from this point forward.  Stern claims that the refs are graded, reviewed, and then reviewed again after every game.  He needs to make that information public.  People need to be able to go on the internet and read those reviews.  That way any time there is a problem, we'll know why the refs called what they did.

Transparency has never been more important, and if the NBA doesn't let the public in on their referee system, they deserve all of the abuse that they've been getting today.]]>http://cbs2.com/johnirelandThu, 12 Jun 2008 03:16:31 GMThttp://cbs2.com/johnireland
But the officiating in game two of the Finals was horrible.  And they had a good crew--Bob Delaney, Ken Mauer and Danny Crawford.  But you don't send Leon Powe to the free throw line eight times in the first half and send the entire Lakers team there once (twice if you count a technical foul).  At one point in this game, the Celtics had shot 24 free throws and the Lakers two.  In the end, the Lakers made 10 of 10 free throws, while the Celtics made 27 of 38.  That's indefensible.

By the way, Phil Jackson said afterwards that he's been a coach in 11 NBA Finals, and has never seen a game officiated like that. Powe played 15 minutes and shot more free throws (13) than his whole team.  He'll probably be fined, but he shouldn't be.

Having said that, it's not why the Lakers are down 2-0 in this series.  The problem is that the Lakers are allowing the Celtics to control the tempo of the games. Before the finals, the Lakers were averaging 106 points a game in the playoffs, but through two games, they are averaging 95 against Boston.  If you include the two regular season meetings, that number goes down even more.

You can make all of the excuses you want, including the refs, but there's no way that Boston holds the Lakers to that number over a four game span unless they've figured something out defensively. 

I mentioned this problem to Lakers' assistant coach Jim Cleamons when he came on my radio show on Friday.  He said that I'm over-analyzing this and that the only reason the Lakers' scores are down is because they're missing easy shots that they normally make.  But if that's true, wouldn't that problem correct itself at some point during those four games?

Time to face facts.  The Lakers can't beat the Celtics in a slow down, half-court kind of game.  I've seen every minute of all four meetings this year, and when the Lakers look good is when the speed of the game picks up.  When they fell way behind in game two, they started running the floor, getting open lay-ups, and bombing three pointers.  The result was a 29-9 run that got the Lakers back into the game.

They have to get the score up, any way possible. 

At the end of game two, and during most of the exhibition season, Phil Jackson played around with a full-court press.  Sometimes they employed it only after made baskets, other times, they did it on every possession, regardless of what happened when the Lakers were on offense. It's time now to go to the press, force some turnovers, and try to turn this into a track meet.  The Lakers are younger and more athletic than the Celtics, who are older and more experienced.  Time to try and turn the game into something that features the younger, more athletic types.

I think the Lakers will win at least two games in LA, guaranteeing a trip back to Boston (remember, the Celtics are 2-7 on the road in the post season, including 0-6 in Atlanta and Cleveland).  But if they want to win the series, the Lakers have to change to the tempo and pick up the speed.  ]]>http://cbs2.com/johnirelandMon, 09 Jun 2008 04:19:43 GMThttp://cbs2.com/johnireland
--The thing that worries me the most as a Lakers' fan is that the Celtics have now been able to hold the Lakers WAY below their average in all three meetings.  During the season, Boston beat LA by an average of 16 points, while allowing 94 in the first game, and 91 in the second.  In game one of the finals, they held the Lakers to 88 points.  I've pointed this out before, but during the season, the Lakers were 54-10 when they scored over 100 points (best in the NBA).  When they scored less than 100, the Lakers were 3-15.  Now, in three games against Boston, they haven't been close to 100 yet, and their total has decreased with each game.

--The Lakers played a terrible fourth quarter, but that's only part of the reason they lost.  To me, the two things they really failed at were rebounding (Boston outrebounded LA, 46-33), and their inability to come up with a defensive stop late.  They seemed to foul on almost every key possession, which allowed Boston to hold on to their lead down the stretch.

--Kobe Bryant had an off night (9 of 26 shooting), but he didn't get much help.  As a team, they made only 3 of 14 three-pointers, and missed seven free throws.  They also shot 41% from the field, which is too low.

--I'm really glad Paul Pierce wasn't seriously hurt when he went down in the third quarter.  Besides being an LA guy, he's the Celtics best player.  Nobody wants to win the title that way.  He recovered nicely a played a great second half.

That's the bad news.  The good news is that almost everybody I know picked the Celtics to win game one.  They had to.  A loss in that game would have given the Lakers a huge level of confidence, and allowed them to start thinking about clinching the series in LA.  Game two is when we find out what both teams of made of.

In game two, I'll be particularly interested to see how many points the Lakers score.  If they can get back up around 100, I think they'll be fine in this series.  If they continue to go backwards, and score less than 88, they are in big trouble.  I'm convinced LA will win a game in Boston, it might as well be on Thursday.



]]>http://cbs2.com/johnirelandFri, 06 Jun 2008 04:24:11 GMThttp://cbs2.com/johnireland
If you read this blog regularly, you may have noticed that I have nailed every single prediction I've made since the playoffs have started.  14 series predicted, 14 correct. 

If you've followed my career, you know that this doesn't happen.  I predict a lot, and I miss, a lot.  I stopped betting on sports after college, specifically for this reason.  Every time I thought I had a "lock", I would be heading home from Vegas in a car with six dollars (back then, I could pay for half a tank of gas and still buy something at the Barstow McDonalds).

But I've nailed every series in this post season. 

By the way, this isn't as impressive as it might sound.  I've picked mostly favorites, and had some luck along the way.  I picked San Antonio to beat New Orleans, and they almost got run out of that series.  I picked Boston to win every series, and they've needed seven, seven and six games to get to the finals.  But 14-0 is 14-0, so you should pay attention to what I'm about to write.

The Lakers are about to win the NBA championship.

I wouldn't have predicted that, even as recently as last month.  Boston was the best team I saw this year, and no team was even a close second.  The Celtics went 25-5 against the West this year--and the West was loaded with great teams.  I worked two games between the Lakers and Celtics, and in each case, Boston dominated LA.

But the Celtics I've seen in these playoffs are a different team than I saw during the regular season.  They peaked early.  They're still a great team, but now they don't get to the rim and the Hawks and Cavs have left a blueprint on how to beat them.  You don't have to guard Rajon Rondo outside, and because of that, you can send a second defender at Kevin Garnett.  Ray Allen has seemingly lost his confidence, and doesn't require a double-team any more.  Paul Pierce is still a great player, but he's not as great as Kobe.

The Lakers, on the other hand, seem to be playing better now than they have all season.  They've won all eight home playoff games, and 14 games in a row at Staples Center.  Kobe Bryant is the best player on the planet right now, and he has help.  Pau Gasol didn't play in either of the regular season games against Boston, so he should make a difference.  Lamar Odom, Derek Fisher, Jordan Farmar, and Sasha Vujacic are all playing well, and if left open, can decide a game.

This isn't to say that the Celtics can't win.  They have home court, which is a big deal, and if they get back to playing the way they did for the first five months, they would be a huge problem for the Lakers.

But based on everything I've seen, this is headed for a Lakers parade.  It reminds me a lot of the 1991 Finals.  The Lakers, with Magic Johnson, Sam Perkins and James Worthy, were a veteran team with three big stars.  The Bulls had a 28 year-old superstar in Michael Jordan, with a supporting cast that was all younger than he was.

This time around, the Celtics are the veteran team....while the Lakers, with a 29 year-old Kobe, are what the Bulls were in '91 (and by the way, the Bulls were coached that year by Phil Jackson).  The Lakers won the first game of that series, but the Bulls took the next four and won it in LA for their first of six titles in the 90's.

I won't predict that this is the first of six titles for the Lakers, but I will predict they'll win the title this year.  Lakers in six.  
  ]]>http://cbs2.com/johnirelandMon, 02 Jun 2008 12:52:39 GMThttp://cbs2.com/johnireland
"If it's a foul in the first quarter, it's a foul in the fourth quarter."

What he means by that is referees should have the same standards at the end of a game as they do in the beginning.  His point is that there should be the same standard for calling a foul all the time--that way the players know what to expect.

He's right of course, but it's not that simple.

An NBA official who I respect once told me, "if we wanted to, we could call a foul on every play.  Every time down the court.  But if we did that, it would ruin the game. The reality is that we try to call the fouls that give one team an unfair advantage over the other.  If it doesn't directly affect the flow of the game, it's sometimes better to just let it go.  Each time we blow a whistle, it should be because one guy illegally gained an advantage."

At the end of game five last night, Brent Barry was trying to dribble to get open when Derek Fisher jumped at him.  Fisher bumped Barry, but he didn't keep him from completing his dribble and he still got his shot off.  Based on that, I agree with what Spurs coach Greg Popovich said after the game:  "if I was the official, I would not have called a foul."

I'm stunned at how many smart people disagree with Popovich.  They point out that if the game wouldn't have been on the line, they would have called the bump a foul.  But I disagree.  I've seen many times at the end of a quarter when a ref let's something go because he doesn't want to reward a last-second shot with a foul that really doesn't affect the shot.

Plus, it's not as if San Antonio has a leg to stand on here.  Less than a minute earlier, the refs thought that Fisher's jumper didn't hit the rim (replays showed that it did).  They didn't reset the shot clock, forcing the Lakers to throw up a prayer.  That missed call is what allowed Barry to have a chance to tie the game in the first place.

Also, the Spurs shot seven more free throws than the Lakers (26 to 19), and benefitted from the most lopsided backcourt officiating I think I've ever seen.  In more than 65 combined minutes, Kobe Bryant and Derek Fisher went to the free throw line zero times.  Zero.  The league MVP scores 29 points and doesn't shoot one free throw?  It's hard to argue that you were wronged by the refs when numbers like that come in to play.

Bottom line is that it doesn't matter.  The Lakers now lead the series three games to one, and can finish off the defending champs with a win Thursday night at Staples Center.  Trust me....the Lakers need this game.

Let's say they lose Thursday.  That means we go back to San Antonio for game six, a game the Spurs would be favored to win.  If they do, it forces game seven at Staples next Monday.

The Spurs just won a game seven last week at New Orleans.  The last time the Lakers had a game seven was two years ago in Phoenix, when Kobe, Lamar and Phil lost to the Suns by 30 points.

You don't want a game seven against this Spurs team.  Here's hoping the Lakers take care of business in game five.

]]>http://cbs2.com/johnirelandThu, 29 May 2008 05:36:12 GMThttp://cbs2.com/johnireland
--the Lakers still lead this series two games to one, and can win it by simply winning both of their remaining home games

--the Lakers are 8-0 at home in the playoffs, while the Spurs are 2-6 on the road

--Phil Jackson is 40-0 in his career when he wins game one of a seven game series (as he did in this one)

But having said all of that, am I the only one who is worried that the Lakers have fallen behind by 20 points twice in this series?

In game one, the Spurs dominated for the first two and a half quarters before the Lakers made a great comeback and stole the game.

In game two, the Lakers dominated the Spurs from start to finish.

In game three, the Spurs dominated the Lakers from start to finish.

In other words, if you were counting by quarter, the Spurs would be ahead.  Of course, you don't count by quarter and the Lakers still maintain control of what's happening here---plus, they have home court.  

But I'm very anxious to see how competitive the Lakers are in game four.  As a Lakers' fan, I'm worried that the Spurs have figured something out here.  They're moving the ball, and now that Manu Ginobli has joined Tim Duncan and Tony Parker by finding his game---they're a triple threat once again.  The Lakers have a "big three" of their own with Kobe, Gasol and Odom---but only Kobe showed up for game three.  Gasol and Odom made a combined 9 of 29 shots, and Duncan (guarded mostly by Gasol, but sometimes by Odom) had his second monster game of the series with 22 points and 21 rebounds.

I won't be too concerned if the Lakers lose a close game, but if they fall behind by 20 again and get crushed, that's a very bad sign.  It would mean that the Spurs are a lot closer to winning a game in LA than the Lakers are to winning a game in Texas.

Of course, the Lakers could end this debate by simply winning game four. I'm 12-0 picking playoff series, and I picked the Lakers in seven, so I'm sticking with that.  Let's hope I'm right.]]>http://cbs2.com/johnirelandTue, 27 May 2008 02:50:50 GMThttp://cbs2.com/johnireland
Not to take anything away from the Lakers, who are playing their best basketball of the year, but something is wrong with the Spurs. 

The San Antonio team we saw in game one was the one I was expecting.  They moved the ball, went inside to Tim Duncan, got Tony Parker going early.  Sure, they blew a 20 point lead and lost, but it was a great game and I figured we'd see five or six more of those.

Instead, they didn't even show up for game two.

I have a few thoughts as to why the Spurs now stink, but I'm not sure I even believe most of this:

1)  They can't shoot.  In game two, the Lakers simply packed the middle on defense and dared the Spurs to punish them from the outside.  But even with wide open looks, the Spurs made only 34% of their shots.

2)  Manu Ginobli is hurt.  He's now made only 5 of 21 shots in the series, and scored a total of 17 points in two games.  He's too good for those numbers, so common sense dictates he's more injured than he's letting on.

3)  Because the Lakers are just giving the Spurs the outside shots, Tony Parker runs into trouble when he goes inside.  Parker was the leading scorer in the NBA this year from inside the paint, but now there is no room when he gets there.

4)  The Spurs are old, and when the Lakers run, the Spurs get tired.  There is no other explanation for why San Antonio has completely collapsed in the fourth quarter of both games.

Like I said, I'm not even sure I believe what I'm seeing, but the Spurs have some things to figure out.  My gut is telling me that the Lakers are going to throw the kitchen sink at the Spurs in game three, trying to break their spirit and take an unsurmountable three game lead.

Here's hoping it happens....]]>http://cbs2.com/johnirelandSat, 24 May 2008 07:12:26 GMT