Lakers vs. Celtics: Who wins?

by acr on May 31, 2010 7:01 AM EDT

So the NBA got exactly what it wanted for the finals, a premier match up of two teams that have a long and hated rivalry between them. And there's a huge tv audience to boot (beats the hell out of a Milwaukee vs. OKC match up for ratings). Who wins this thing?

I'm going with the Celtics. Not that I have any statistical reason, just that I like them better than the Lakers. The big four lead the Celts- Garnett, Allen, Rondo and Pierce. I suppose having healthy heads of Glen Davis (concussion) and Kendrick Perkins (psycho) will play a part. Nate Robinson will see if he can stay hot off the bench as well. The Lakers will rely on Kobe and his crew of Gasol, Lamar Odom, Derek Fisher and Ron Artest. In the playoffs the Lakers have averaged more points per game, more 3 point attempts, blocked shots and offensive rebounds than Boston. The Celtics have averaged about 10 points per game less than LA in the playoffs but more have more steals and have shot a higher percentage from behind the three point line. Most of the other stats look about even.

So what will be the difference the playoffs? Well from above the health of Perkins and Davis for the Celts. LA's advantage on the offensive boards has kinda propelled their offense. Add to that the new found team shot blocking and the total stats seem to favor LA. I suppose holding Kobe under 30 a game will be a priority as well. But that's easier said than done. Boston has had some recent succes vs. a superstar opposing player. The Celts held LeBron James to 22 points per game in their four wins against Cleveland. In their two losses against the Cavs LJ averaged 36.5 points per game. In the Lakers' two losses against the Suns, one game saw Amar'e Stoudemire drop 42 points, the other game saw the Lakers beaten on the boards to a tune of 36-51. Kobe had 36 and 38 points, respectively, in each of those games. So maybe winning the battle of the boards will be more important than holding Kobe under 30 a game. I guess the final piece of the puzzle will be whether the Celtics try some zone defense ala Phoenix, and whether it is successful at all. They have a few days to get their plan together, I suppose.

The best I can tell, Boston has five losses in the playoffs, once to Miami and twice to Cleveland and Orlando. In the loss to the Heat, Boston lost the rebound battle 35-43, although the Celts had more offensive boards. In the two losses to the Cavs, Boston was outrebounded 71-96, including one game where they lost on the boards by 15. Against the Magic, in two losses, the Celts were out rebounded 73-86, including one game being out rebounded by 17. Let's face it, we are talking about a Boston team that finished next to last in the NBA in total rebounds per game AND ranked very last in offensive boards. I'm not sure how often a team makes the NBA finals with stats like that. But anyway, here they are vs. the Lakers come this Thursday. When Boston won their title back in '08 at least they ranked closer to the middle of the league in rebounding. So I guess we get back to Davis and Perkins. Their play, especially on the boards, will be important.

Tip Off is June 3 at 9:00 PM Eastern in L.A. If the series goes seven games it'll be drug out over the next two weeks.

Poll

Who wins?

Lakers

10 votes

Celtics

5 votes

15 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 6 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I like the NBA, more as a fan of one team though (Toronto Raptors…unfortunately), and I really can’t get excited at all about the playoffs. I mean, was there any chance it wasn’t going to be the Lakers in the West? Any chance it wasn’t going to be one of the Big 4 in the East? Gimme the NHL playoffs in a heartbeat. Both leagues are better than the MLB by virtue of having more teams in the playoffs. My Blue Jays haven’t been to the playoffs in 17 years and aren’t nearly as incompetently managed as teams like the Pirates or Royals…comes down to getting buried in an economically unfair division. 3 of the 6 teams with 30 wins are in the AL East, and the Red Sox have 29… @#$%$#!!!!

That’s the end of my rant…I’ll take the LAkers.

by brewerm on May 31, 2010 8:09 AM EDT reply actions

You guys are in a tough division, no doubt. And you guys seem to have an endless string of starting pitchers that can be called up and do well- how many of those guys are on the dl now? Seems like a lot. But the Rays being in your division (and winning it a couple years back) doesn’t help your “economically unfair division” argument. Heck those 30 win teams this year include the Rays, Reds and Padres. And owing Vernon Wells some $90+ million over the next 4 1/2 years is gonna hurt. Especially when Alex Rios is doing well in Chicago for much less money.

by acr on May 31, 2010 9:42 AM EDT reply actions

Fair point about the Rays. Let’s not forget they were a complete laughingstock for an entire decade averaging 10,000 a game in total obscurity. Friedmann is an excellent GM(?) and has done wonders for them, but so has picking players like Longoria, Price, Upton, and Niemann. Toronto never sunk to the edge of oblivion in order to draft studs like these…

Wells was signed because they were trying to compete with teams like the Yankees and Red Sox, the only way possible without being a complete joke and drafting studs. The majority of credit goes to the Rays organization for generally being smarter than everyone else. And at least one of the Reds or Padres will be sunk by the end of the season, if not both. Both of these teams play in crappy divisions, although the Reds do have 6 teams in their division (more inequality).

Just wait on Rios…he had some nice stretches in Toronto too, enough to warrant signing that contract in the first place. He made an All-star team before. Just give it some time before he shuts it off…the frustrating part is that he’s capable of playing like this but he just doesn’t care enough to do it consistently.

I’d also add that even if some small market teams have success, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the league is economically balanced. Management of the roster should be an important component of fielding a team, and teams that do this better than others should be rewarded, which just isn’t the case in baseball. Oakland or Minnesota have been very well run for years but really may not have had the same success in the division with the Yanks/Red Sox…

A salary cap is the reason why well-run organizations like the Patriots and Colts contend for years (not to mention 2 stud QBs) and organizations run quite poorly like the Raiders are a joke. It limits the impact financial resources can have and makes that up with managerial competence and skill.

I’ve never watched a single playoff game for one of my favourite teams and I’ve been watching them for 15 years…and considering they’re not run like the Pirates there’s something wrong with that.

by brewerm on May 31, 2010 10:40 AM EDT up reply actions

I think part of the problem is that the NFL is driven by a tv contract as much as anything else while baseball is driven by ticket sales. I remember the Rays and their original attempt at fielding a team- trading away Bobby Abreu for Kevin Stocker and then signing the likes of Jose Conseco, Vinny Castilla, Greg Vaughn and Fred McGriff. What a mess. But anyway, I’m not a big fan of a salary cap. I don’t think there’s any incentive for poorly managed teams to do better. There’ll always be the Pirates and Royals of the world but why should they be given revenue from other clubs? Ewing Kaufman set up some sort of trust to pretty much ensure the Royals staying in KC for the foreseeable future so it’s not like the fans can be threatened with a move to Portland. I’ve seen stats of some of the revenue sharing that the Royals received in the past- whatever the “luxury tax” amount is. And the Royals were not a bit better after receiving the money. They have had a lot of draft picks either #1 overall or near the top and only Billy Butler and Zach Greinke have made anything of themselves. And then they sign free agents Jose Guillen 3 years/$36M and Gil Meche 5 years/$55M. Guillen has ended up costing just under a million dollars per homer he’s hit for KC and Greinke has cashed in for about $1.2 million per win he has delivered. On another note, KC has done much better in the Rule 5 draft, nabbing Soria and making a trade for Alberto Callaspo

An interesting piece I heard the other day was that the Blue Jays pitching is strong because they draft pitching ahead of hitters, partly because they have a difficult time signing free agent pitchers. And that Ricky Romero was drafted instead of Troy Tulowitzki for just that reason.

by acr on May 31, 2010 1:17 PM EDT reply actions

I will take the Lakers, but not at -160 ML in Vegas. The difference maker will be having four home games vs three.

As far as the inequalities brought up by the other poster, I tend to agree. Baseball needs an overhaul on how to make things fairer for all 30 teams. If you have a salary cap you need to also have a salary floor. The Yankees can pay such huge salaries because they make a ton of money in the New York market. Perhaps a third team should be allowed to move in to NY?

I feel sorry for fans in cities like Toronto, Baltimore, KC, Pittsburgh etc… when will they ever be able to sniff the playoffs again? To keep fan interest high in small and medium sized markets, I would suggest a version of a relegation system. There will still be some details to work out but here is how it would go.

You would have three tiers or leagues. Tier #1 would have the best teams and Tier #3 would have the worst teams. At the end of each year, the top two teams and bottom two teams would move up/down a tier. With of course the bottom two in Tier #3 and the top two in Tier #1 not moving. The top five teams from Tier #1 would make the playoffs and be seeded 1-5. The top two teams from Tier #2 would make the playoffs and be seeded 6-7 and the top two teams from Tier #3 would have a one game playoff for the 8th and final playoff spot.

This 5-2-2 distribution would be fair and allow teams from all across the spectrum to have a reasonable chance at making the playoffs each and every year. No longer would a team be blocked by two or even three juggernaughts in their division, year after year after year.

For more details on my idea.
vr, Xei

by Xeifrank on Jun 2, 2010 9:25 AM EDT reply actions

Maybe we can get these off topic posts moved to a new thread? The economics of baseball is a good topic that deserves it’s own thread.

Anyway, I think the bottom line is that teams that draft well (including Rule 5), watch the waiver wire and make good trades are going to be able to complete. Teams with large payrolls have more the luxury to make more mistakes but an expensive contract for a bad player ends up biting them back pretty hard. I think last year was the first time we had the NL and AL league championship series with all four teams having payrolls over $100M.

Should low payroll teams with bad management get rewarded with revenue sharing? Absolutely not. Teams are mostly corporations that zero out their revenues/expenses every year anyway. So they can make it look like they are spending on paper when they really are not. I think the Royals are a good example of that.

The low payroll clubs that seem to do best are those with the best returns on drafts and trades anyway. A payroll floor would help but part of that floor would have to include bonus money used for draft picks- assuming teams can make decent picks.

by acr on Jun 2, 2010 10:52 PM EDT reply actions