Jack’s Blog

According to the pundits, the only way for the Celtics to win Game Six of their Eastern Conference finals (and give them a chance to play for the NBA championship - because Lord knows, they didn’t want to have to return to Orlando tied at three after having led 3-0) was for Rajon Rondo to return them to their potent running game.  Sure enough, that’s exactly what the Boston floor general did as the Celts built up an early lead. 

But then, something not so funny happened on the way to the basket.  Rondo’s game was cooking!  After running the Magic into near submission, the latest NBA point guard phenom decided to take on three of the Magic defenders with one of his patented strong moves to the basket.  He elevated and got fouled, but hit the floor hard - with his left hip breaking his fall.  He remained on the floor for longer than anyone (except maybe the Magic) desired, grimacing in pain all the while.

Could the Big Green’s newly appointed leader be hurt so badly he couldn’t continue?  What would the Celtics do?  Enter 5′8″ Nate Robinson.  The same Nate Robinson who helped the Knicks by scoring 41 points on New Year’s Day against the Atlanta Hawks and the same guy who is credited for helping put the “fun” in dysfunctional for those same ‘Bockers.

When Danny Ainge made the deal for Robinson, he was criticized for “messing with the Celts’ team chemistry,” but head coach Doc Rivers maintained that the diminutive Robinson would not only help them, but help them win a playoff game.  After last night, Doc’s tarot cards could fetch a mean price on eBay.  Nate scored 13 points with a pair of assists and as many rebounds, but it was actually his defense that may have turned the game into a rout.

Often, when a team sees an opponent’s star go down, they have a tendency to let up, perhaps thinking fate is on their side.  Letting up is the wrong strategy when Nate Robinson is hounding you, as Magic PG Jameer Nelson was quick to discover.  Robinson forced turnovers and disrupted Orlando’s offense, on many occasions, making them initiate it with not as much time on the shot clock as they would have liked or farther away from the basket (and Dwight Howard) than they needed in order to be effective. 

When asked about his performance, Robinson, in an uncharacteristic display of humility, said, “They always told me be ready, be ready you never know.”  When Rondo went down following his being fouled, there was a hard knock heard on the floor of the arena.  As Frederick Phillips once said:

“It is often hard to distinguish between the hard knocks in life and those of opportunity.”

The Los Angeles Lakers were up 18, the Phoenix Suns fought back.  The, with under a minute to go, Ron Artest, with the Lakers up three, missed a free throw line jumper.  LA got the ball back & promptly kicked it out to Artest, who was standing wide open beyond the three-point line. 

For reasons unknown to knowledgeable basketball people, Artest, with 22 seconds on the shot clock, hoisted a three.  The result was identical to the others he’d shot from beyond the arc - a miss (other nouns would have described the shot more accurately).

The Suns rebounded the errant toss and jacked up 3 three’s of their own, the final one by Jason Richardson, which he banked in.  Tie game, 3.5 seconds left, time out Lakers - their ball at midcourt.  No one in the Staples Center was surprised when the inbounds pass went into Kobe Bryant.  I must admit I was shocked that Kobe turned and, while being double teamed, hurled the ball toward the hoop. 

With three-and-a-half seconds, I thought for sure Kobe would try and split the double team, attempting to draw a foul or at least, because the last thing Phoenix wanted to do was put him on the line, get a little closer for one of his game-winning baseline jumpers.

J-Rich, who displayed a ton of emotion following his (non-called) banker, must have been thinking about what he was going to say about his clutch 3.  Replays showed him ball watching - as Ron Artest, who just moments prior, was being vilified for taking the ill-advised shot when they could have run off 20 more seconds, possibly scored or got fouled and, for all intents and purposes, iced the game, dashed to the bucket and stuck back Kobe’s air ball as the horn expired, ending the game and giving the Lakers the oh-so-important Game Five victory.

I enjoy watching games but, honestly, I look forward to the analysis (before, halftime and post-game) as much as I do the actual contest.  Quite shocking were the remarks made by Kenny Smith and Reggie Miller, each saying he thought Artest’s decision was a good one.

Come on, guys.  Of course, Reggie, you’re right in saying he was wide open, had his feet set and it was a great look.  And Kenny is dead on when he said that if the shot goes down, it’s game over.  That’s what they would have - and possibly, should have - done!  But they were great shooters - in Miller’s case, the all-time leader in NBA made threes.  The guy with the ball in his hands, though, was a guy who is shooting 25% from beyond the stripe in the playoffs, meaning the probability of a pressure shot going down would about halve the percentage.

All that said, it was the comments from the leading characters that was most amazing to me.  When asked about the wisdom of the shot, given time and score (not even mentioning ineptness of the shooter), Artest talked about how you have to play the game, something about the playgrounds, yada, yada - meaning he still didn’t think it was a bad decision.  Although elated with the win, Kobe Bryant and Phil Jackson alluded to an error in Artest’s judgment.  Although hes a big-time talent, who gives it his all, there are times you’d swear Artest would play the game exactly the same if he had a frontal lobotomy.

As for the flip side, i.e. “hero to goat,” Richardson talked of how he thought Kobe’s shot was going to hit the rim, of how he checked his man just before the shot went up and of how Ron “slipped inside” (although it’s clearly evident that he stood flat-footed and watched the flight of the ball), never giving any consideration to attempting to block out his man.  He even mentioned about how Channing Frye said he should have grabbed it (in a good teammate’s way of trying not to throw his buddy under the bus at such a crucial time).  Once again, the video showed Frye tied up, attempting - and succeeding - to keep his man, Pau Gasol, from rebounding the miss.

As I blogged about a couple of days ago, this game was chock full of player complaints to officials (”What, no foul?” or “Who, me foul?”).  They are the world’s best athletes, but I’m beginning to think NBA stands for:

“N-o B-ody’s A-ccountable.”Â

Kendrick Perkins should have read my blog yesterday.  For those you who haven’t - and thank you to the many who contacted me by posting a comment, emailing me with kind words or calling my cell phone (I’m starting to figure out this “power of the Internet” thing everybody’s always talking about), the blog was about NBA players complaining - about every call - and even some of the non-calls too.

In this case, while Perkins does need to maintain better control over his emotions (after all, the game is about more than just him), the subsequent technical foul called by veteran official Eddie F. Rush was flat-out wrong.  While Perkins displayed disagreement, he was walking away from the action - and Rush.  There was absolutely no reason, other than Rush’s ego, for him to make that call.  And because it’s Perkins’ seventh technical of the post-season (who said Rasheed Wallace doesn’t have influence over the Celtics?), he, by rule, merits an automatic one game suspension.

The way the series has made a turnaround, the likes of which haven’t been seen since . . . yesterday, when the Phoenix Suns tied their series with the Lakers, the Celtics look like Friday’s game in Boston, although they still lead 3-2, is a must game.  Consider that they lost Game Four and then got hammered last night.  That means should they go down in Game Six, the deciding game will be in Orlando.  Don’t think that after winning three in a row and heading home the Magic won’t be a prohibitive favorite.  In a game of Friday’s magnitude, Boston had better have everyone on its roster.  Which definitely includes their starting center.

Doc Rivers (have you ever seen a calmer guy in such a stressful situation?) mentioned that, had Rush known the call would have automatically disqualified Perkins from Game Six, he probably wouldn’t have made it.  Slick move.  Why antagonize a league that holds in their hands the decision as to whether Doc’s club has to go into a pressure-packed game short-handed?  Plus, if he complains, he 1) gives his guys a reason to justify losing (it was the referee’s fault) and 2) gets hit with a fine which, in the current state of affairs, just adds insult to injury (to his bank account).

What Eddie Rush did reminds me of a story the late Jim Valvano used to tell.  In an NC State game in which V was coaching, he complained to an official about a call.  The ref hit him with a technical foul.  When Jim asked the guy why what he said deserved a tech, the zebra turned to him and said, “Jim, you showed me up.”

Valvano said to the guy (and this line should be retold at every officials’ meeting):

“Showed you up?  Who the hell do you think came to watch YOU!” Â

As frequent readers of this blog know, our younger son, Alex, is a basketball prospect (rising junior in high school).  Anyone who’s interested in basketball at this time of the year is tuned into the NBA playoffs.

While these games are played by the best athletes in the world, and are unquestionably exciting, as a parent, I have one major complaint.  And while I’m not a fan of tattoos, the tats aren’t what upset me.

Young players are tremendously influenced by those competing at the highest level, especially when the winner gets to be called World Champions.  After watching last night’s game between the Los Angeles Lakers and the Phoenix Suns, there was one thing the teams had in common.  It certainly wasn’t the defense.  The Lakers employ the traditional man-to-man while the Suns play mainly zone.  Offensively, the Lakers rely on the best player in the game (which has become more apparent now than ever); the Suns give the ball to Steve Nash and play pick-and-roll.  What bothers me isn’t aesthetics nor strategical.

My gripe is with the amount of complaining done by (seemingly) every player on the floor!  And of course, in a league where coaches’ jobs depend a great deal on getting along with (coddling) their players, the guys in suits fit right into the “attack the refs” philosophy (so as to be seen as “having the players’ backs”).  If a guy misses a shot, it’s almost like it’s his obligation to yell at the referee before running back to defend.  But these guys complain on every play - even when they score!  Maybe they truly feel that way, maybe they do it “to get the next call” (an act that couldn’t possibly work or else every other call would be a make-up), or maybe it’s a “save face” mechanism (”No wonder he missed - again - he got hit”).  What makes the player (or coach) look particularly bad is that the replays, more often than not, show the right call (or non-call) was made (or wasn’t).

NBA referees are the best in the business - after all, there’s no higher league - so it’s either let them call the game or play “call-your-on-foul” like in pick up games.  Imagine how absurd that idea would be.  My problem, as a parent, is that this childish behavior trickles down (more like cascades) to the levels below.  On any given day or night, in any game, at any level, spectators see the participants (many of them haven’t earned the title of “player” yet) driving to the basket, taking wild shots and then, after the inevitable miss, looking at the officials, arms out, gesturing as if a crime had been committed right under the guy in the striped shirt’s nose.

This behavior is so unbecoming - and its negative effect is compounded when the coach (head or assistants) scream at the refs.  Or worse, go to the stare (made famous by John Chaney - who actually was intimidating).  All kids who play (independent of the sport) aspire to play at the highest level - which often means “act like those who are there.”

I’ve always enjoyed reading good books, especially inspirational, motivational, self-help or auto- or biographical.  The one I’m currently reading is entitled The Oz Principle.  Near the beginning of it is a powerful quote which many in our culture need to adopt:

“Victimization holds that circumstances and other people prevent you from achieving your goals. . . Performance invariably improves when people take greater accountability and ownership for results.” Â

After the first two games of each conference finals, it looked like both were complete mismatches.  Coaches from the Lakers and the Celtics, although they’d never admit it, might have even begun to think about matchups and preparations for the impending NBA finals.

Then Game Three of the Western Conference finals began and the left-for-dead Phoenix Suns rose from the ashes to beat the visiting Lakers.  It was Pat Riley who said, “In the playoffs, nothing happens until a visiting team wins a game.”  So far, that hasn’t occurred in this series.  The Suns’ two worst defenders,  Steve Nash and Amar’e Stoudemire (according to Charles Barkley, who ought to know a poor defender when he sees one - and that’s an admission from Sir Charles himself - although he claims he made up for some of his defensive liabilities with ferocious rebounding), have decided to overcome their defensive shortcomings by simply blowing up the offensive end of the floor.

So now the Suns must protect home ice again in order to tie the series and place the pressure back on the Lakers.  Los Angeles, who throttled the Suns with their size and length at home, got a meagdose of exactly why Steve Nash was a two-time NBA MVP and Stoudemire looked every bit the manchild he is known for by scoring and rebounding and scoring and rebounding and . . .

After watching Game Three of the Eastern finals, that series had every mortician in New England pounding on the visiting team’s locker room door.  No one, this blogger included (heck, everyone included - and you can put the Magic players in that group after hearing their post-Game Three comments), gave Orlando an iota of a chance in Game Four.  After all, it was being played in Boston, fans notorious for understanding the importance of putting a team away whenever possible - and then go out and begin liquid celebrations.  

Maybe the Magic sandbagged the Celtics because the visitors started strong, hung in there after falling behind to begin the fourth quarter and even fought off match point after missing their last try for a win in regulation.  Boston rebounded, eschewed a time out and went into FUBAR mode on its turn to prevent OT.  Doc Rivers might be second guessing himself for not calling a time out, if only to rest his guys, who looked their age down the stretch and throughout the overtime period.

Now that series, although 3-1 in favor of the Men in Green, is headed back to DisneyWorld and to fans who thought the next time they’d see their beloved Magic they’d be in street clothes.  Doc has said all year that his guys, who during the regular season blew several late leads, couldn’t stand prosperity.  In these economic times, that reminded me of the quote:

“Most people can’t handle prosperity.  Then again, most people don’t have to.”Â

For a couple of years the “in” offense to run in high school and college has been the Dribble, Drive Motion.  It’s an offense predicated on the player with the ball being able to beat his defender off the dribble.  He then continues to the basket or kicks the ball out for a three point attempt by the teammate whose defender helped on the drive.  Should a post defender step up, the pass is made to the offensive post player for a layup or dunk.

The concept is based on the fact that most players are better offensively than their opponents are defensively.  This makes sense.  Think about the last time you drove, jogged or walked past a basketball court.  What did you see?  Kids shooting, dribbling, maybe even passing.  Ever see a kid doing defensive slides?  Ever have a kid jump out from behind a tree and take a charge on you?

One aspect this offense does not allow are screens.  Another is the mid-range game, i.e. the short jump, two-point jump shot.  It’s just not a part of the philosophy.  Many teams run this offense and many win.  Others run it and lose but that’s true with any offense.  In a large majority of cases talent dictates the winner of a game anyway.  Maximizing the squad’s talent is the coach’s job.

In the NBA, principles of the DDM are used but if a rule were passed that outlawed screening, NBA offenses, as we know them, would cease to exist.  Same for the mid-range jumper.  Take, for example, the four teams that remain.  Well, three because the Orlando Magic have yet to find an effective offense to run against the Boston Celtics (however, what they ran in the first two series worked fine as they swept both). 

The Lakers run the now-famous (or since the Bulls won their six titles) triangle offense.  Movement is predicated on where the ball goes.  Cutting and passing are of paramount importance. 

Phoenix’s offense would be hardest hit if a “no screen” was implemented as on nearly every possession someone is setting a screen for Steve Nash.  This strategy makes sense since Nash is a reincarnation of John Stockton, i.e. a guard who only needs a screener to get a piece of his defender, free him for a split second while he surveys the floor for a pass to the screener, a pass to another of his teammates (whose defender has left him to help stop the ballhandler) or a drive to the bucket for himself.  He also can split the two defenders and pass, drive or shoot or a jump shot - whether inside the three-point line or beyond it (if the defender chose to go under the screen).  If this sounds difficult to guard, ask the Lakers who tried in vain last night.

Finally, the Boston Celtics have a variety of offensive sets (if it were up to Rajon Rondo, they’d fast break every time).  One of the plays the Celts run has Ray Allen run off multiple screens.  There are a couple of reasons for this.  One is that Ray Allen is one of the premier shooters ever to wear an NBA uniform.  Yet another is that chasing Allen around that many screens and taking that many hits - from bodies like Kendrick Perkins, Big Baby Davis, Kevin Garnett (and his pointy elbows) and Rasheed Wallace (who will hit you with any and everything he can) - wears out a defender.  Because that defender becomes an offensive player when the ball exchanges hands, often there’s not much energy left to play at the offensive end.  Most great offensive players won’t give up their points, so they glide on defense, allowing Allen open shots.

Dribble, Drive Motion is the rage at the levels below the NBA, but don’t expect to see it take over at the professional level as long as screening is allowed.  Which only means:

“There’s more than one way to skin a cat.” (or “score a ball”).

When I was a young boy, my father took me to a New York Knicks game at Madison Square Garden.  I’m not sure what age I was but my guess is I was around ten or eleven.  I do remember it was the old Garden and I only have two memories of that game.

One was the haze that hung over the court.  At that time no one knew the true dangers of smoking.  In every movie the leading man (or woman) was a smoker and the message smoking conveyed was that the star wouldn’t have been nearly as cool if they weren’t a smoker (actually, there were often contests for people who turned in the most empty cigarette packs and even awards of cigarettes for athletic accomplishments; plus, being as rugged as the Marlboro man was every kid’s dream). 

But it was the other memory that really shook my world.  While the cloud of smoke that hovered midway up the arena is cemented in my mind, it wasn’t as eye opening an experience as the event that happened in the last few seconds of the game.  The Knicks weren’t very good in those days and they were going to lose on that day. 

My father was a toll collector on the New Jersey Turnpike and my mother was a secretary.  So, while we weren’t poor, going to a professional ball game was a luxury and neither my dad nor I would ever consider leaving early.  Hey, we were fans - and true fans stayed until the end, independent of the whether the outcome had already been decided. 

With seconds remaining in the game and the Knicks down 12 (I do remember that because of what occurred next), one of their guys made a jump shot.  The building erupted!  I couldn’t understand why everybody was cheering.  My Knicks were going to lose.  How could these people be so happy when the good guys were still so far behind?

When I asked my father what the deal was, he told me the Knicks were 11 point underdogs.  That jump shot cut the opponent’s lead from to 10.  At my age, there was a natural follow up question:  “What’s an underdog?”

On the train ride back to New Brunswick (where he’d parked our car for the one-mile trip home to Highland Park), I got a lesson in point spreads, complete with warnings that only fools (and later I learned, professional gamblers) bet.  One thing my father told me that stuck was that bookmakers (bookies for short) were businessmen, not gamblers.  They worked hard at their “jobs” (illegal as they might be) and set lines so that there would be an equal amount bet on each team.  “Then how can they win?”  That day I added a new word to my vocabulary - vigorish.  

Gambling has always been a thriving business in this country and growing up in New Jersey, I encountered some guys who made their living as professional gamblers.  Throughout the years, since I was a math major and am fascinated with numbers, I’ve followed the lines on football and basketball games.  I’ve spoken with many of my coaching friends and we all comment on how incredible it is that the outcomes of so many games wind up so close to the betting line.  In college basketball, it’s mind boggling because there are so many games.

So how the line on yesterday’s Boston-Orlando game was Boston by three is incredulous.  After the first two games in Orlando, it was apparent the Celtics had the Magic’s number - and the series was going back to Boston.  As if that wasn’t enough, Paul Pierce, in a post game interview, answered the question about how they wouldn’t lose focus being up 2-0 with the statement (and a wink), “Our fans won’t let us.”  The fans he was referring to were Boston fans, people who are known to have placed a shekel or two on a contest, especially those in which their hometown team involved.

What intrigued me was who those bettors were the bookies thought would take the Magic.  Maybe the gambling business is down and this one was a gimme, a trap to lure people into a world where they’re going to eventually lose.  A wise man gave me a bit of invaluable advice regarding gambling:

“A sure way of doubling your money is to fold it in half and put it back into your pocket.”

Has anything peaked the basketball world’s observation more than where LeBron James will wind up next year?  This discussion began as LeBron was walking to the locker room following the Cavs’ elimination from the NBA playoffs.  He had barely left the floor when a TV commentator said, “Could this be the last time LeBron wears a Cleveland uniform?” 

Then, on a daily basis (actually, several times a day), there were rumors and theories as to which franchise James would be taking his phenomenal game . . . and personality . . . and presence . . . and post-season failures next year.  Every day another person weighed in with his (or her) opinion, none of which were based on any kind of fact.  The safest bet is that LeBron himself doesn’t even know where he’s going, so how is it everyone else seems to know?

When asked about our sports nation’s overwhelming curiosity toward LeBron, former NBA head coach and current TV color commentator, Jeff Van Gundy, remarked:

“More people are interested in LeBron James and his free agency than in the remaining playoff games . . . which is a real sign of our athletic culture.”   

During a recent Florida Marlins game, their magnificently talented shortstop, Hanley Ramirez, while chasing a pop fly in between him and his left fielder, inadvertently kicked the ball all the way down the left field line.  Earlier in the contest, Ramirez fouled a ball off of his ankle and was attended to by the Marlins’ trainer.

Apparently the injury wasn’t severe enough to remove Ramirez from the game, which is why he was in when the shallow pop up was hit.  Subsequent to kicking the ball, Ramirez gave what was accurately described as a half-hearted effort at tracking down the ball - all the while with runners rounding the bases.  He was pulled from the lineup and benched the following game.

To make matters worse, when he was interviewed, 1) Ramirez claimed he was running as hard as he could (alluding to his ankle injury) although video replays showed what he was doing could only be called “dogging it,” 2) rather than apologizing for his abhorrent behavior, Ramirez compounded the problem by attacking his manager, complete with profanity, 3) maintained that the skipper didn’t understand because he had never played in the big leagues (even though anyone who’s ever played any sport which involves any act of a physical nature knows that hustle is the key word in a player’s vocabulary) and said he had lost respect for his manager.

The following day, two members of the Marlins’ organization, Hall-of-Famers Andre Dawson (soon-to-be) and Tony Perez (who have the title of special assistant to the team president), had a chat with the new breed shortstop.  According to reports, Dawson led the conversation with an introduction similar to, “I’ll be most of the talking because if you attempt to say anything, I might knock you on your butt.”  Part of the speech dealt with the expectations of any major leaguer, i.e. 100% effort, 100% of the time, but there was also mention that Ramirez needed to be a role model and leader. 

One reason is he is considered the most talented player on the squad.  Another has to do with the money he’s being paid.  Six years, $70 million!  Yeah, I think they figured, for that kind of bread, you’d hustle on every play, including, naturally, when the ball you kicked was 100 feet away and runners from the opposing team were circling the bases!

As with most of today’s athletes (and others in society who make glaring mistakes and then try to avoid accountability, only to have video footage show how wrong - and foolish - they are), Ramirez apologized.  Then he made the obligatory statement that he, and others like him, feel should end the conversation.  It’s time “to put those things on the side and keep moving forward.”

In the most recent copy of SI, in their “Players’ Poll” section, this week’s question (a survey of 347 MLB players) was “Whom would you build around for 10 years?”  Not surprisingly, 36% picked the Twins’ American as apple pie catcher, Joe Mauer.  In second place was Hanley Ramirez.  Granted, this poll was taken prior to the incident, so if that same question were asked now, it would be really interesting to see if there would a shift in the voting.

Think the answer’s obvious?  ESPN’s Sports Nation online poll question was (in essence), “What do you think of Hanley Ramirez being benched?”  The two choices were: “Necessary move to send a message” and “Picking an unnecessary fight with his star.”  Not surprisingly, 89% of the 31, 489 people who voted (including me) selected what any sane person would have.  Doing the math (see yesterday’s blog quote), that meant 3,464 people actually felt what Ramirez did should have been overlooked. 

Readers of this blog already know how highly I think of former coach and current TV color commentator, Jeff Van Gundy, whose wisdom far exceeds basketball.  On the day the Ramirez blunder took place (and after his tirade), Jeff made the following comment regarding the situation:

“More superstars are acting entitled rather than responsible.”

If any of you readers know Hanley Ramirez, forward this to them.  The quote, if nothing else.

While players always talk about taking it “one game at a time,” bloggers have the liberty to look ahead.  As far as the current NBA playoffs, why not?

The Lakers are up 2-0, having won both games at the Staples Center.  But their wins were more than just holding home court.  Phoenix just doesn’t look like a team that even thinks they can beat the Lakers.  Granted, they do make the outcomes tantalizingly close, but in the end, it’s too much - what’s the new (new, as in a few years now) word - length.  Teams used to be tall.  Nowadays tall’s not enough.  Your team has to be long too.  And if you don’t understand what I’m referring to, just watch the Lakers.  Long fits them - with no explanation necessary. 

The other series is also 2-0, but looks even worse for the team in the hole.  Orlando has lost both games at home and just doesn’t seem to have an answer for the Celtics’ - for lack of a better description - game plan.  If anyone listens to the TV broadcast, they’d have to be pretty dense if they didn’t come away with the point that color commentator Mark Jackson feels the best way for the Magic is NOT to run the initial offense through Dwight Howard, especially if they feel there best option is to have Howard try to score with his back-to-the-basket game.

So, rather than dissect the remainder of those games, let’s jump ahead to the Lakers and the Celtics (inevitable) series.  The match ups are fascinating.  Fisher vs. Rondo at the point.  If Fish thought guarding Steve Nash was a difficult task (and it is), he might consider using some sick leave against Boston.  However, where the Magic struggle guarding Ray Allen - chasing him around all those screens (not exactly Vince Carter’s forte) - LA has a couple of guys who are rather adept defenders.  Whether Kobe or Ron Artest guards Allen isn’t as much of a concern because their defensive prowess is such that the other could D-up Paul Pierce.  Now, defending Pierce isn’t a slice of heaven but being shadowed by Bryant or Artest is no day at the coast either.  In addition, one of those Celts (but probably not both at the same time, as the Suns discovered in Game 2) has to guard Kobe - and that takes several ounces of energy, as well as providing a feeling of humility.

Next, the match up of Gasol and KG.  Advantage?  I’d give it to whichever guy is on offense.  Finally, Perkins and Bynum, the nearly forgotten fifth starters, might be the X-Factor, although because each club has a deep bench, the center position is, more than likely, a wash.  So, what about the benches?  Both provide spark. 

Odom (in reality a starter) is probably the most talented of anyone not out there for the opening jump, but Big Baby and Tony Allen have found their confidence.  ‘Sheed never lost his.  On the other side, Jordan Farmar has made momentum shifting plays (example: last night) and Shannon Brown can be a freakish human highlight video.

Not lacking for interest - or impact - is the coaching match up between two master motivators, Phil Jackson and Doc Rivers.

One day at a time?  Sorry, as far as most fans are concerned. the cry is:

“Bring it on!” Â