The NBA got the Finals match-up it wanted between the Boston Celtics and Los Angeles Lakers. It starts tonight, so let's breakdown the match-ups:Point Guard - Advantage Lakers
Derek Fisher has been a key addition for the Lakers this year. Can you picture this team in the Finals with Smush Parker guiding it? Me neither. Rajon Rondo provides speed for the Celtics, but he has been shaky throughout the playoffs and continues to be left alone on offense as teams double Garnett and Pierce. Sam Cassell has been a bust as an addition to the Celtic backcourt, so the Lakers have a clear advantage here.
Wings - Advantage Lakers (barely)
Kobe Bryant & Sasha Vujacic vs. Ray Allen & Paul Pierce. The Series will be won or lost here. Can the Celtics hold Kobe in check for four games? Who will guard Kobe? Will Pierce go off again like he did in Game 7 against Cleveland. What about Ray Allen? Is he back or a question mark? Will Sasha give Pierce fits like he did Ginobili?
The answers to these questions will determine the outcome of the series. I cannot pick against the best player on the floor, so I'll go with Kobe and the Lakers here. If Ray Allen shows up, I might like the Celtics more in this regard.
Post - Advantage Celtics (barely)
Lamar Odom & Pau Gasol vs. Kevin Garnett & Kendrick Perkins. Garnett is going to bring energy, rebounds and points every night. Odom and Gasol can get lost at times (I watched Gasol no-show 12 straight playoff losses in Memphis). For that reason, I think Boston has an advantage here. Perkins is a non-factor. Again, I'll take the best player over two really good ones. Barely.
Bench - Advantage Lakers
The Lakers have a terrific bench led by Luke Walton. They bring energy with Rony Turiaf, Jordan Farmar, and Vladimir Radmanovic. The Celtics can only boast James Posey, P.J. Brown, and a bunch of inconsistent non-factors. The Celtics will have to play The Big Three (Allen barely counts these days) for big minutes in the series.
Coach - Advantage Lakers
9 Championship Rings vs. Doc Rivers. Next.
Motivation - Advantage Celtics
Kobe is playing for his first championship without Shaq, but he has to know that the future is extremely bright in Los Angeles for a run of Finals (remember, Andrew Bynum is out with a bum knee right now). For Boston's Big Three, this is their first and best (and perhaps only) chance for a championship.
Intangibles - Advantage Celtics
The biggest advantage here is the home court advantage in Boston. The Lakers will have to win at least one in Boston to win the series - no easy task. Posey could cause defensive problems for Bryant, but who can guard Garnett for the Lakers?
Prediction - Lakers in 7
In the end, I cannot pick Doc Rivers over Phil Jackson. I'm pulling for Garnett and Pierce to get rings (can't say I care about Ray Allen), but think the series will return to Boston at 3-2 Lakers and Kobe will take over in the final game to give Phil his 10th title.
Posts
11 comments:
Fact check - Radmonovic starts, Sasha (and his hair) come off the bench. My bad.
Its not finished yet, the NBA Finals? When it started, I could've swore that Hilary and Rudy were still the frontrunners for the presidential race.
The playoffs do take a while, but we have reached the Finals. Great game right now - Celtics pulling away in the 4th.
You know, if you count Florida and Michigan, throw out those bogus caucus states, follow the Republican rules and assassinate Barack Obama, Hillary is still the front runner. You are a sexist for suggesting otherwise.
If there are any relevant -isms to the primaries, I do think she is guilty of sexist treatment, but I've always thought she's gotten treated unfairly. The Florida votes should have counted; whether or not they violated primary rules has no relevance, because those people still deserve a vote. To not count Michigan makes more sense...anyway, I guess the Scenic City Sportsblog is not the place for this...unless you continue to go the way of Lupica.
...
The NBA Finals take way too long.
I imagine New York has its own take on the Hillary treatment. I don't see anything unfair or unusual about it. She was the front runner and assumed nominee going into Iowa, but ran a miserable campaign and ran out of cash. Since when did front runners not get rough treatment from the media? Obama got nailed with Wright and the bitter stuff once he looked like the nominee.
As for Florida, nobody campaigned there per Dean's instructions. I don't totally understand what happened with FLA and Michigan - did Dean warn them not to do it or they wouldn't be sat or was that just the reaction? Either way, it was especially weak for Clinton to try to claim Michigan's votes when Obama's name was not on the ballot. That was around the time I went from being don't-care-about-Hillary to anti-Hillary.
Bill seems to have completely lost it, much like the Lakers lost Game 1 to Boston.
It is weird how this has really affected Bill's legacy hasn't it? I'm not necessarily saying that she should have won, ran a great campaign or that Obama didn't have his share of difficulties, etc. I've just always been annoyed at how Hilary has been viewed. The Republicans have always perceived her as some sort of foaming-at-the-mouth Marxist, which has halways seemed bizarre to me, because her and Bill were fairly moderate. In the current campaign, she's been portrayed as this cold, calculating political animal who is completely out of touch. I think in both of these senses and others, the perception of her is a little skewed because of her being a woman. For example, I think she is just as calculating and hungry for power as any politician, but because she is a woman it comes across as worse. Don't get me started on the pantsuits...I hate to cite an "ism", but I do think she is perceived more harshly because she is a woman. Not that she didn't win, etc.
I could care less, again, about how the Dem political machine works. Who cares if Dean told them not campaign there. The people in Florida still have has much right to voice their choice as anyone else, and they still voted. Period. They deserved to have their vote counted, regardless.
I agree with you about Michigan.
I think Bill has been the greatest causality of the whole campaign.
I agree with much of what you wrote about Hillary. The whole "crazy liberal" stuff is just a way for people to make money talking about her. You are right - she is as Third Way as her husband who was never much of a liberal. There is a great article in The New Yorker about how the Republicans have used that Liberal insult for the past 40 years with great effectiveness, but it might have finally worn out its welcome.
Some of the Hillary stuff is clearly sexist - the calves comments and such. I think she deserved much of the "I'll do anything to win" criticism that came later. I imagine it was a dramatic shock to her system to lose the campaign. Who knew Obama would be such a good candidate.
Few comments-
1) I think the lakers win b/c of Jackson, period.
2) For Hillary to make such a loud and public claim to Michigan is repulsive and most of what I am so disappointed about in politics today. I am OK that she wanted to fight and it was her only hope but it was repulsive. There was an opportunity to show some grace and honor and she did neither. It disappoints me more that Obama and the DNC may now have to come up with a plan to retire the $5M+ that she has in campaign debt that is a direct result of her inability to step aside. If I had given $$ to teh obama campaign and it was going to be used to retire a loan to Hillary Clinton, I would be very, very disappointed.
3) Both FL and MI screwed up. Yes, people voted but this is a party contest not a national election. Some states have open primaries, some caucuses, some closed primaries where only registered dems can vote. Play by the rules or suffer the consequences. The primary system is not one that is enumerated as a fundamental right by the consituion, parties can choose candidates in all sort of manners. Were any of the libertarians or the green party upset that FLA moved their primary? These guys select candidates in a toally different manner. Republicans pick another way as well, winner take all. It's simply the rules of the game. Both states tried a power play and lost. The suggestion that people have been disenfranchised is a stretch at best. The way the dems split votes proportionally the impact of these states on the outcome was exactly zero.
4) Bill - I feel bad for this guy, very smart guy, great leader, he is going to be remembered for a cigar and a whiny campaigner.
JJ - you make a great point about Obama paying Clinton back. I didn't even think about that money coming from donors who gave it to him to beat her. I heard some nonsense about how she would not call off her campaign until her debt was covered and the vice-presidency was offered. I hope that isn't true.
You are right about Florida and Michigan. The caucus rules in Iowa meant people could not actually vote for who they wanted (if they did not get the magic 15% or however that worked). If the rules were in place up front, those people only have their own state to blame.
I can understand the arguments about how primaries work and how this takes the air out of Hilary's argument. I still believe that it is disenfranchisement in the sense that it is a poorly operated system. I could care less if the Consitution enumerates the right to a primary, the system should still be more responsive to the vote of its citizens. Its not a "stretch" to call it disenfranchisement when millions of people do not have a voice in an important matter simply because of their zip code. The rules are the rules and Hilary knew that, so I think you're right to say that she had no legitimate right to complain, but simply saying "this is how its always been done" does not legitimize a process. It can and should be made better.
I hope she did not demand help with her debt. I can actually see how the Obama campaign, by helping her out financially, can do wonders for party unity if seen as a magnaminous gesture. Seen purely for what it objectively is, it is kind of sour tasting--Hilary took the gamble, and that can be seen as honorable, but she should shoulder the burden--however, it would be a smart move on his part to help, because it would be interpreted as a magnaminous gesture, which is just the sort of symbolism that some of Hilary's jilted supporters might receive well.
In terms of "how its always been done," the primaries are all fairly new in American history, I believe. I know Lincoln was selected at the convention in 1860 rather than voted in by primaries. I don't know when the parties first held them instead of deciding upon candidates themselves.
No doubt that the Democrats need to re-examine their stupid rules. Here is hoping I don't hear the word "Super Delegate" again anytime soon.
Post a Comment