How can you figure out who will win, when there's no consistency?

[rickortreat]

The games in this series have been so different from one another, that it has been difficult to discern any trends.  The only constant has been Kobe playing spectacular basketball, but everything else is in flux.  Particularly with the Lakers, the performance of Odom. Gasol and the injured Bynum have been like night and day from game to game.

The last two games have been pretty one-sided, One team builds the lead and holds it by continuing to play.  Not very exciting when the game isn't close. Thing is, who knows which team will show up. For a while it appeared like Boston could do whatever it wanted, but last night LA's defense clearly bothered them and made the difference in the game. This is the exact opposite of what happened in the previous game, where Boston's defense kept LA off balance, and this enabled them to run down the court and get easier baskets in transition.

The defensive effort isn't consistent from game to game, and I think the defense is determining the offense. One team is running down hill, forcing turnovers and bad shots. It's harder to stop a team in transition, and the best way to stop that is with good offensive execution. 

A big factor will be Kendrik Perkins, who's early injury was probably the biggest factor in Boston's collapse and inability to climb back in.  He provides interior defense, rebounding and garbage scoring, and all of those things influence the pace and therefore the control over the game.  If he can't play in game 7, this gives LA an edge.

[Reality]

Concur.
Where is Bostons emotion?
After Phil Jackson is caught on tape calling them "4th qtr losers" and a guy who poses in a burqua hat and mascara tells his team to "man the h up", Boston has nothing to say in response?  Pierce in the postgamer acted like he was the cock of the block, when reported said "What about your statement that the Celtics would end the series in Boston" he showed zero humility and gave some evasive answer.  Also on the Phil comment, Pierce said Phil is correct!  KG just shrugged his shoulders and said he had nothing to say, which could be taken as the high road and let your play do the talking.  Problem is you didn't. 

Get a spine Boston or we get to welcome NBA 2010 era basketball, where the Championship teams toughest guy wears mascara and burqua hats.

[rickortreat]

Found out that Perkins will NOT play, which IMO gives a strong edge to LA.  Still it's not like Boston will run out of bodies with Davis and Wallace ready to go. 

I still like Boston, but only if they get a spine as you say, and play like we've seen them do.  Pierce hasn't really had a dominate game in this series. Ray Allen had one, but 4 games off and 2 on isn't going to get it done.  Garnet should be doing more, as well.  Chances are, this is the last hurrah for the Celtics, these guys don't loo old,. but they are playing that way!

It seems silly to bring this up,but you really have to want to win as well as have the ability. You can't be content to trade baskets ad you can't be satisfied unless your team is outscoring the other. These players now how to win, but I've yet to see a game this series where both teams put out the same effort and it was their absolute best.

It makes me sick when they compare this series with other Boston-LA championships.  Fewer people are watched game 6 this  series than the last time the two met.  I think part of the reason is the performance on the floor. Not very entertaining basketball.

[Joe Vancil]

I think the advantage belongs to LA.  Boston doesn't have Perkins, the game is at LA, and Paul Pierce can easily mistakenly get himself into a shooting contest with Kobe Bryant at this kind of stage.  Rivers was on the Celtics about not trusting each other last game, and a Game 7 is only going to exaggerate that.

LA is where they want to be, with the advantages they want to have, in a situation which lends itself to their style of play, with - dare I say it - MORE EXPERIENCE than the other team.  This is LA's dream scenario.

[Laker Fan]

I think the advantage belongs to LA.  Boston doesn't have Perkins, the game is at LA, and Paul Pierce can easily mistakenly get himself into a shooting contest with Kobe Bryant at this kind of stage.  Rivers was on the Celtics about not trusting each other last game, and a Game 7 is only going to exaggerate that.

LA is where they want to be, with the advantages they want to have, in a situation which lends itself to their style of play, with - dare I say it - MORE EXPERIENCE than the other team.  This is LA's dream scenario.

I think I agree with you pretty much on all fronts Joe. now, with the luxury of hindsight, we can all see it played out pretty much as you outlined, that and Rick's assessment that their was no passion in Boston's play, with the exception of Davis and Robinson, I saw little if any fire from the Celtics. Not so LA, they looked dazed in the 1st half, probably wondering if Kobe was going to lose this one all by himself, but even at that, they were showing AMAZING hustle on the glass and that all by itself was the deciding factor, and in the first half kept them close when they should have been getting blown out. Pierce was such a non-factor even though he led all scorers for Boston and had the most rebounds that we have to look at why, when he is such a scoring force normally, one man, Ron Artest is the answer, Pierce looked angry but not focused or determined, Ron took him out of his game, which is creating his own shot, additionally, LA never double teamed him because by himself, he wasn't disrupting their defense enough to threaten them, they stuck to their defensive plan which was brilliant and the best I've seen from them all year. believe me, they don't lock Boston down the way they did this game would have been over in the 1st quarter, or at least midway through the second.

Losing Perkins was a huge factor but Bynum's limited minutes and 2 points offset that loss, Perkins absence gave Gasol room to work in the paint when Kobe finally got around to involving his team mates, Gasol was VERY active in the paint and when that happens, LA is usually going to win.

Poise matters, and LA didn't panic (like I did) in the 3rd when Boston looked like they were going to run away with it, it made all the difference, we can talk about defense winning championships, about the team the wins the battle of the boards wins the game, that this is still a big mans game and you must run an inside out offense to negate good defense and they are all true and well taken points, but when you put ALL those old adages together in one game, it also proves you can overcome a HORRIBLE shooting night, and TERRIBLE half of basketball and still win, that is what poise does. I think Phil Jackson deserves some credit for that, how he got Kobe to start trusting his team mates in the second half when all indications were he intended to do it all by himself in the first half is beyond me but you'd better believe that had that style of play continued, Boston would have won the series.

[Joe Vancil]

I think the advantage belongs to LA.  Boston doesn't have Perkins, the game is at LA, and Paul Pierce can easily mistakenly get himself into a shooting contest with Kobe Bryant at this kind of stage.  Rivers was on the Celtics about not trusting each other last game, and a Game 7 is only going to exaggerate that.

LA is where they want to be, with the advantages they want to have, in a situation which lends itself to their style of play, with - dare I say it - MORE EXPERIENCE than the other team.  This is LA's dream scenario.

I think I agree with you pretty much on all fronts Joe. now, with the luxury of hindsight, we can all see it played out pretty much as you outlined, that and Rick's assessment that their was no passion in Boston's play, with the exception of Davis and Robinson, I saw little if any fire from the Celtics. Not so LA, they looked dazed in the 1st half, probably wondering if Kobe was going to lose this one all by himself, but even at that, they were showing AMAZING hustle on the glass and that all by itself was the deciding factor, and in the first half kept them close when they should have been getting blown out. Pierce was such a non-factor even though he led all scorers for Boston and had the most rebounds that we have to look at why, when he is such a scoring force normally, one man, Ron Artest is the answer, Pierce looked angry but not focused or determined, Ron took him out of his game, which is creating his own shot, additionally, LA never double teamed him because by himself, he wasn't disrupting their defense enough to threaten them, they stuck to their defensive plan which was brilliant and the best I've seen from them all year. believe me, they don't lock Boston down the way they did this game would have been over in the 1st quarter, or at least midway through the second.

Losing Perkins was a huge factor but Bynum's limited minutes and 2 points offset that loss, Perkins absence gave Gasol room to work in the paint when Kobe finally got around to involving his team mates, Gasol was VERY active in the paint and when that happens, LA is usually going to win.

Poise matters, and LA didn't panic (like I did) in the 3rd when Boston looked like they were going to run away with it, it made all the difference, we can talk about defense winning championships, about the team the wins the battle of the boards wins the game, that this is still a big mans game and you must run an inside out offense to negate good defense and they are all true and well taken points, but when you put ALL those old adages together in one game, it also proves you can overcome a HORRIBLE shooting night, and TERRIBLE half of basketball and still win, that is what poise does. I think Phil Jackson deserves some credit for that, how he got Kobe to start trusting his team mates in the second half when all indications were he intended to do it all by himself in the first half is beyond me but you'd better believe that had that style of play continued, Boston would have won the series.

The loss of Perkins was HUGE for Boston, because LA owned the offensive boards in game 7.  If you want to lose a game, allow the other team to get offensive rebounds.  If Perkins is there, he's there for one purpose - to rebound - and that was what Boston needed, although they'd have needed to find offense from somewhere.  Ray Allen was dreadful, much to my disappointment.  On the bright side, I can see him being a role player by joining the Cavaliers (who re-sign LeBron) and playing at a very high level, since after this, it's unlikely that Boston keeps him.  I thought Rivers did a terrible job in having Pierce go one-on-one against Artest so often.  And Boston, when they stopped using Wallace and Davis, stopped having any sense of offensive rhythm.

The player who impressed me most was Rajon Rondo.  Good defense, good presence, good toughness.

Artest was PHENOMENAL, and in my opinion, he was the difference in Game 7.  And no one should ever bad-mouth Gasol.

When Ray Allen missed the free throw, that was when I knew for certain it was LA's game.

[Laker Fan]

The loss of Perkins was HUGE for Boston, because LA owned the offensive boards in game 7.  If you want to lose a game, allow the other team to get offensive rebounds.  If Perkins is there, he's there for one purpose - to rebound - and that was what Boston needed, although they'd have needed to find offense from somewhere.  Ray Allen was dreadful, much to my disappointment.  On the bright side, I can see him being a role player by joining the Cavaliers (who re-sign LeBron) and playing at a very high level, since after this, it's unlikely that Boston keeps him.  I thought Rivers did a terrible job in having Pierce go one-on-one against Artest so often.  And Boston, when they stopped using Wallace and Davis, stopped having any sense of offensive rhythm.

Artest was PHENOMENAL, and in my opinion, he was the difference in Game 7.  And no one should ever bad-mouth Gasol.

I did say Perkins loss was huge, I just pointed out that for all he was able to play or contribute, the loss of Bynum was nearly equal in its impact as it meant LA's presence in the front court would have been greatly diminished had it not been for Gasol's monster effort, especially in the low post. It was amply demonstrated how much Perkins loss affected them on the boards but I have my doubts it would have made a game changing difference had he been there, I've rarely seen LA go nuts with intensity on the offensive glass like they did, they were boxing out, hustling for loose balls and just flat embarrassing Boston in that area, that and their defense was just too much to overcome in the end.

I agree Artest was the difference, the fire in his eyes and the effort on both ends was amazing, same for Gasol, FIERCE effort to overcome the 3rd quarter run Boston made and that all started with bryants FINALLY realizing what was happening was mostly his fault.

[Joe Vancil]

The loss of Perkins was HUGE for Boston, because LA owned the offensive boards in game 7.  If you want to lose a game, allow the other team to get offensive rebounds.  If Perkins is there, he's there for one purpose - to rebound - and that was what Boston needed, although they'd have needed to find offense from somewhere.  Ray Allen was dreadful, much to my disappointment.  On the bright side, I can see him being a role player by joining the Cavaliers (who re-sign LeBron) and playing at a very high level, since after this, it's unlikely that Boston keeps him.  I thought Rivers did a terrible job in having Pierce go one-on-one against Artest so often.  And Boston, when they stopped using Wallace and Davis, stopped having any sense of offensive rhythm.

Artest was PHENOMENAL, and in my opinion, he was the difference in Game 7.  And no one should ever bad-mouth Gasol.

I did say Perkins loss was huge, I just pointed out that for all he was able to play or contribute, the loss of Bynum was nearly equal in its impact as it meant LA's presence in the front court would have been greatly diminished had it not been for Gasol's monster effort, especially in the low post. It was amply demonstrated how much Perkins loss affected them on the boards but I have my doubts it would have made a game changing difference had he been there, I've rarely seen LA go nuts with intensity on the offensive glass like they did, they were boxing out, hustling for loose balls and just flat embarrassing Boston in that area, that and their defense was just too much to overcome in the end.

I agree Artest was the difference, the fire in his eyes and the effort on both ends was amazing, same for Gasol, FIERCE effort to overcome the 3rd quarter run Boston made and that all started with bryants FINALLY realizing what was happening was mostly his fault.

I can't agree that the loss of Bynum was anywhere near the equal in impact.  Bynum's loss means that you give scorers - Odom and Gasol - minutes in a game where LA needed the scoring.  Perkins addition means you reduce the minutes of Wallace and Davis, who only effective in the very early going, while reducing the scoring of the Lakers (because now Bynum has to play), and reducing the LA rebounding advantage (and, unbelievably, turnovers).  Perkins/Bynum mean a lower scoring game.  That favors Boston in that particular game.

[westkoast]

The loss of Perkins was HUGE for Boston, because LA owned the offensive boards in game 7.  If you want to lose a game, allow the other team to get offensive rebounds.  If Perkins is there, he's there for one purpose - to rebound - and that was what Boston needed, although they'd have needed to find offense from somewhere.  Ray Allen was dreadful, much to my disappointment.  On the bright side, I can see him being a role player by joining the Cavaliers (who re-sign LeBron) and playing at a very high level, since after this, it's unlikely that Boston keeps him.  I thought Rivers did a terrible job in having Pierce go one-on-one against Artest so often.  And Boston, when they stopped using Wallace and Davis, stopped having any sense of offensive rhythm.

Artest was PHENOMENAL, and in my opinion, he was the difference in Game 7.  And no one should ever bad-mouth Gasol.

I did say Perkins loss was huge, I just pointed out that for all he was able to play or contribute, the loss of Bynum was nearly equal in its impact as it meant LA's presence in the front court would have been greatly diminished had it not been for Gasol's monster effort, especially in the low post. It was amply demonstrated how much Perkins loss affected them on the boards but I have my doubts it would have made a game changing difference had he been there, I've rarely seen LA go nuts with intensity on the offensive glass like they did, they were boxing out, hustling for loose balls and just flat embarrassing Boston in that area, that and their defense was just too much to overcome in the end.

I agree Artest was the difference, the fire in his eyes and the effort on both ends was amazing, same for Gasol, FIERCE effort to overcome the 3rd quarter run Boston made and that all started with bryants FINALLY realizing what was happening was mostly his fault.

I can't agree that the loss of Bynum was anywhere near the equal in impact.  Bynum's loss means that you give scorers - Odom and Gasol - minutes in a game where LA needed the scoring.  Perkins addition means you reduce the minutes of Wallace and Davis, who only effective in the very early going, while reducing the scoring of the Lakers (because now Bynum has to play), and reducing the LA rebounding advantage (and, unbelievably, turnovers).  Perkins/Bynum mean a lower scoring game.  That favors Boston in that particular game.

A hurt Bynum is a wash with Odom 3 out of 4 nights as far as offensive production goes.  A semi-healthy Bynum is the Lakers 3 best offensive weapon.  This is a guy who did erupt for 40 points earlier in the season.    The Lakers are use to playing with out Bynum and can easily make up the points when they lose him.  The Celtics need Perkins for rebounding and no one else is strong enough to help out quite like he does.  I would agree that Perkins was the bigger loss at that point.