Day 13: Blazers-Mavericks (Game 6)

The first round of the NBA Playoffs is finally over and consequently, so is my Daily NBA Blog series. I know what you're thinking: "Who cares? I didn't really read any of them anyway, well, maybe the Bulls ones, and I skimmed over a few points in the others. I figured you'd be regurgitating the same old, tired story lines and didn't really feel like rereading them from a less reputable source."

Well, imaginary reader, you're not entirely wrong. But why such harsh judgement? Just because I've been known to come up short a time or two hundred doesn't mean I can't trump history and come through in the clutch. With the Dallas Mavericks as my witness, I'm asserting myself and shattering the preconceived notions that define me.

The Blazers were the popular upset pick (I picked them in six!) in the first round. Portland seemed to have put it all together, fully incorporating Gerald Wallace into their plans. They also put the clamps on Dallas in the last week of the season. Add to the equation Dallas' fair reputation as Playoff choke-artists and the ingredients for an upset seemed to be layed out in a straight line on the kitchen counter.

The most fascinating thing about this series is that, save for the last five minutes of Game 6, it went according to "plan." Dallas and Portland each took their first two home games. Dallas started Game 5 sluggish, slowly recovered, and blew Portland out in the second half. It was the type of "false-confidence" game Dallas has so willfully provided over the last five years. Just when you think they're destined for something great, they uphold your expectations and drop them at the pace of a JJ Barea floater.

Let's head to the the 44 second mark of the third quarter in Game 6. Jason Terry hits a long jumper to put the Mavericks up 75-58, the largest lead they would have all game. All the better. They have built up a lead perfectly suited to make Dallas fans think they're in control, and just close enough to make NBA fans feel like the Mavs can fuck this up. Portland follows with a LaMarcus Aldridge layup and two Gerald Wallace free throws to close out the quarter. 75-62. The seeds of a collapse have been planted.

The fourth quarter also begins according to "plan." Portland gets off to a 9-2 run and Dallas' 17-point lead from four minutes ago has suddenly dwindled to six with just under ten minutes remaining. Then Dirk Nowitzki happened. Dallas starts pounding the ball in the post to Nowitzki and he makes three straight shots, including his patented, one-legged fadeaway that I can't even convert regularly on my mini-hoop. Aldridge matched Nowitzki's brilliance and the game seemed to be heading towards a battle of bests. Give the ball to your best player, get the hell out of the way, and hope he can outscore the other team's best player.

A Gerald Wallace dunk with five and a half minutes left put the Blazers within one. The Blazers seemed poised to take over the game but didn't convert a field goal attempt for five minutes. The Mavericks inexplicably went away from Nowitzki but Terry, Marion, and Kidd put Portland away with a number of clutch shots of their own.  Nowitzki closed the game out with eight straight free throws.

Portland's future of contending for a Championship rests on Greg Oden's knees; not an enviable position. Meanwhile, Dallas reversed the choke narrative that had been written for them and we can finally see the Kobe-Dirk match up that somehow has alluded us all these years. With the NBA as their witness, the Dallas Mavericks asserted themselves and broke from the preconceived notions that defined them. But can they do it again? And again, and again....

Since it went so well the first time (semi-sarcasm) here are my second round picks:

EAST

(1) Bulls vs. (5) Hawks ---> Bulls in 5

(2) Heat vs. (3) Celtics ---> Heat in 7

WEST

(8) Grizzlies vs. (4) Thunder --->  Thunder in 6

(2) Lakers vs. (3) Mavericks ---> Lakers in 6  

Shout out to the Grizzlies, whose Game 6 victory I only caught parts of. Hence, I won't be writing about it. Zach Randolph is the best story of the Playoffs so far.

Day 12: Heat-Sixers (Game 5)

Discussions surrounding the Heat started to become a little ridiculous after Game 2. The Heat were coming off an easy 21 point victory, and one writer wondered if winning big was detrimental to the Heat. Yes, the Heat somehow became more susceptible to an upset because they blew a team out. The article argued that because the Heat struggled to close games during the regular season, mopping the floor with teams in the postseason was simply a recreation of their successful runs. What the Heat really needed was to learn how to finish close games.

I digested this opinion and immediately thought, would we be asking the same question if it was the Lakers, Spurs, or Celtics rolling through the first round? Of course we wouldn't. We'd say these teams were elevating their game come Playoff time and priming themselves for the long stretch. Basically, we'd spin this positively.

But not when it comes to the Heat. Everything about the Heat is looked at critically. Some of that is the left over animosity following "The Decision" and some of it is fueled by the fear that the Heat may take over the league. The Heat haven't won anything yet, their critics will point out; and that is why we're allowed to question their crunch time struggles.

Strangely enough, Game 2 was the only one-sided affair. The four other games followed a similar pattern. The Sixers got off to a fast start, the Heat quickly squashed them in the second quarter, and both teams played relatively even in the second half, with the Heat converting down the stretch. With the exception of Game 2, every game was decided by 8 points or less. I'd call those close games. The Heat have proven themselves capable of closing out games in this series, but even that isn't enough. Boston's transition defense is better and they play at a slower pace. The Heat will need to beat Boston in order to earn any respect.

I've always maintained (speaking in generalities of course) that beating the Heat came down to limiting Chris Bosh. My line of thinking went: LeBron and Wade are going to score their customary 50 to 60 points regardless of how well you play them. Miami's team outside of the Big Three couldn't be counted on for any significant production. Therefore, Bosh and his 18 points per game were the wild card. If you could limit him to 10 or 12 and force the supporting cast to beat you, then you stand a pretty good chance of winning.

My thinking was largely molded from the Bosh's performances in Miami's opening game against Boston (8 points, 3-11 shooting) and his infamous 1-18 game in Chicago. The way I remembered them, Miami's losses were the result of poor games from Bosh and the supporting cast, while LeBron and Wade went off. The Game 4 loss seemed to support my theory. Bosh (12 points) and everyone not named Wade or LeBron (17 combined points) had their worst game of the series, and Wade and LeBron combined for 53.

My memory failed me.

Wade was just as likely to have a bad game as Bosh in games the Heat lost. Bosh averaged 18.7 ppg during the regular season, 17 ppg in Heat losses. In every Heat loss each member of the Big Three participated in, at least one of them had a bad game. But they also won plenty of games when either LeBron, Wade, or Bosh put together a less than stellar performance. They did it with great defense and timely scoring from their supporting cast.

So far the supporting cast has come through: 34, 30, 25, and 33 points in Games 1, 2, 3, and 5, and lockdown team defense. But we don't want to hear about that. How will the Heat respond when they have the ball for the last possession, down by two. Who takes the shot? LeBron did in Game 4 and the Heat lost. Ultimately, the Heat will be judged in the closing seconds of a ball game. The closing seconds figure to mean more against Boston.  

Day 11: Bulls-Pacers (Game 5)

Basketball fans are forever trying to be more than spectators. It's why you won't hear from a fan, "The Chicago Bulls needed to rebound better," but "We needed to rebound better." It's why authentic jerseys, even amongst middle age men, are so popular. It's why the Internet, and Twitter more specifically, are being used to try and get inside the mind's of athletes.

But fans are spectators. That's what they pay for -- to sit in their seats and watch their team play. Little is owed to them except for a team putting forth maximum effort. Now and then, they receive a little more. A home crowd loves to be acknowledged. Not just as thousands of color-coordinated people, but as an integral part of the basketball experience.

Taj Gibson and Joakim Noah played the Bulls' version of the Bash Brothers in Game 5. They protected the rim, more than matched the physicality of Indiana's frontcourt, and played to the crowd the way only the greatest ego-bruising duo could.

The final six minutes of the third quarter were a microcosm of the Bulls' season. With Rose sitting on the bench with four fouls, the offense struggled, surrendering most of an 11-point lead. Rose didn't sit out for more than three minutes before he reentered the game. He proceeded to score or assist on 15 of the Bulls' final 23 points to end the quarter. Included in that barrage were three Rose three-pointers, an aspect of his game he struggled with all series. The Bulls led 82-65 at that point, but as the quarter closed, Josh McRoberts was ejected for retaliating after what he called "an elbow to the throat" from Noah. Noah and Gibson buddied up like Franklin and Bash to gloat and urge the 20 thousand in attendance to do the same. They also accounted for five of the Bulls' nine blocks on the evening. It was a pretty fun night for them.

When players encourage a crowd reaction they're really saying, "You're part of this too." They want you to share, alter, or revel in the moment the same way they are. The normally mild-mannered Luol Deng did the same thing in Game 1, urging the crowd to get loud after Hansbrough put a hard foul on Rose. The Bulls rarely played to the crowd in the regular season. Maybe it's the bigger stage and the realization that home court could be a determining factor on the road to the Finals, but the Bulls have made the Playoffs more of a collective experience. It's more fun (and intense) that way.

Carlos Boozer scored two points in Game 5. If he's not scoring there's no reason for him to play, and he didn't play much. Gibson took most of Boozer's minutes, anchoring the defense along with Noah. Whether it's his toe injury or something going on mentally, Boozer needs to get it together. He had an overall excellent Game 2 and followed with three straight poor performances. Gibson will continue to get more minutes for defensive purposes anyway, but Boozer is Chicago's only legitimate low-post scoring threat. Playing on the perimeter is too risky for an entire game, especially as defensive pressure and intensity heighten deeper into the Playoffs.

I've always been a fan of Keith Bogans. I'll admit, part of the reason why I like Bogans so much is because of all the stupid ways Bulls fans have tried to downgrade, or failed to realize what he brings to the table. Bogans isn't on the floor for his offense and, as I explained in the post linked above, there are not enough shots to go around for Bogans to be a scorer anyway. Bogans is a lock down defender at the shooting guard position. He's a guy that his teammates like and respect, and a player that can get under the opposition's skin. Bogans only attempted 11 shots heading into Game 5, and he converted on four three-pointers. He made five of his seven attempts in Game 5.

Bogans' job is to keep defenses honest. The Bulls can and will win if he contributes next to nothing on the offensive end (Games 1 and 2) and they will also lose when he contributes next to nothing (Game 4). The point being that Keith Bogans doesn't win or lose the Bulls games. When Bogans can, by his standards, explode like he did in Games 3 and 5, he gives the defense something extra to think about. I would expect Bogans to have 2 or 3 games every series where he's unconscious. It's not out of the question considering he hasn't attempted a bad shot all year and 90 percent of his looks are wide-open threes. Keep thinking of replacement shooting guards. Meanwhile, Keith Bogans is quietly helping the Bulls win games.  

Day 10: Spurs-Grizzlies (Game 4)

I skipped Days 7-9 of the Daily NBA Blog because I visited my brother at college this weekend and didn't have time to write as a result. Who knew that simply stepping foot back on a college campus unleashed in me the three habits I'd since kicked so well: too much pizza, beer, and irregular sleep patterns. I still managed to catch large chunks, if not every game in its entirety and came away with a few thoughts that I forgot to write down. So much for that.

Maybe it was the Guinness, but Zach Randolph dancing to DJ Khaled's "All I Do Is Win," after Memphis notched a 91-88 win to take a 2-1 series lead over San Antonio, was the weekend's most memorable NBA moment. Why? Because of the improbability of the scene. If you would have told me before the playoffs that Chris Paul would hop in his time machine, single-handedly will his team to two victories over the best team in the NBA, and, in a matter of days, convince NBA observers that he was still the best point guard in the NBA, I would have believed you. If you would have told me that Brandon Roy would make four clutch shots IN A ROW, with the game on the line, to even up the series in Portland, I would have believed you. If you would have told me the Knicks would struggle, LeBron would miss a game winner, and Dwight Howard would put up 30 and 15 despite showing very little interest in the games, I would have believed all that too. But Randolph, dancing at midcourt, soaking in an adoring crowd's attention? Not for a second.

Zach Randolph is the type of athlete who hometown fans are skeptical of embracing (see: Portland, New York, LA). The fact of the matter is that Randolph as been a remarkably consistent model of productivity in his ten years in the league. He's long figured out the on court stuff (to an extent, but let's not get into that). His off-the-court behavior is what garners him the most attention and why, even after putting together his fourth 20-10 season in the last five years, he is not mentioned with the game's elite players. Why would Memphis fans, knowing Randolph is due for a screw-up, let their guard down and become emotionally invested in him? Here's one big reason:



After the game, the Spurs exited the floor, and Memphis fans stood and applauded Randolph as he danced, seemingly in slow motion, as he always does, to the beat of his own drum. He had signed a 4-year 71 million extension with the Grizzlies just days prior. Since coming to Memphis, Randolph has stayed out of trouble and played well. He deserved this moment, and I was happy for him and the Grizzlies franchise on their first home playoff win.

The Grizzlies and Pacers agreed upon a trade the day of the February 24th trade deadline that reportedly was going to send OJ Mayo to Indiana in exchange for Josh McRoberts and a 1st round pick. The trade was voided because it didn't meet the 3 PM deadline. Both sides tried to blame the other for the mix-up, but this fact remains: both teams, at least for their first round series', are better without the trade.

Mayo has been the most valuable player off a Memphis bench that has outplayed San Antonio's bench this series. Not only can he come off the bench and provide an offensive spark for the second unit like he did in Games 3 and 4, but can play major minutes if Memphis needs his three-point shooting, like they did in Game 1. McRoberts has been one of the centerpieces of Indiana's physical play. Along with Foster, he has come off the bench and not only offered hard fouls, but been aggressive on the boards. Both of these areas have given the Bulls trouble. If the Mayo-McRoberts trade goes through, I don't think either Indiana or Memphis is as successful in their respective series' as they have been up to this point.

Much of the talk after Game 4 centered around the end of the Spurs dynasty. First of all, the series isn't over. I don't think anyone would be surprised if San Antonio could mount a comeback. But even if they can pull off a miracle and advance, they're not beating Oklahoma City. All dynasties must crumble, but the Spurs have done so in such surprising fashion. They've compromised some of the defensive end and have preferred to rest Duncan more and try and outscore teams. Their biggest advantage during the regular season was their superior three-pointing shooting; tops in the league. Through the first two games in which they went 1-1, they shot 40.6 percent from behind the arc. Since then, 0-2 and 21.2 percent in Games 3 and 4.

Tim Duncan was routinely stripped when the Grizzlies doubled him. He also had a difficult time trying to pass out of the double team. Tony Parker played well, but his counterpart Mike Conley, as he has all series, kept up with him. Conley mid-range game was surprisingly effective and he only turned the ball over once. Spurs fans had been begging for Tiago Splitter to make an appearance and he finally did. Splitter provided a spark, hitting 5 of his 9 shots, but his production was negated by the collective effort of the Grizzlies' bench. Every player but one on Memphis' roster scored in Game 4. That stat says it all.

If this is in fact the end of the Spurs, then perhaps we should reflect on their remarkable regular season. Most teams gradually fade into obscurity, slowing dipping in the Playoff standings before missing the Playoffs all together and dismantling the roster. The Spurs finished one game off the NBA's best record and were 46-10 at the All-Star break. They weren't always the most entertaining team, but they always managed to surprise us in one way or another. 

Day 6: Bulls-Pacers (Game 3)

The Pacers played Game 3 like a team who knew they were overmatched. They tried every trick in the book. Flopping, hard fouls and screens, and sticking their legs out on contested threes and passes, among other things. I'm not about to criticize Indiana for anything they did. In a Playoff series, adjustments are the key. The Pacers outplayed the Bulls in different facets of Game One and Two (some may say the entire games themselves) and still came up empty. They had to do something. Sure, flopping and cheap shots are dirty and dishonest, but what were they supposed to do? Roll over? If anything, the Pacers' style of play in Game 3 was a testament to how good the Bulls are at pulling out victories, even when they don't play well.

Indiana's physical play was the story of this game. Stacey King and Scottie Pippen were ready to suit up and give a hard foul to who ever was closest. Jeff Foster and Josh McRoberts came off the bench took turns clobbering the Bulls, trying to outdo the other each time. Foster in particular drew the ire of Chicago fans when he deliberately came down on Rose's face, prompting a reaction from Rose. Not much later, he swung a blatant elbow to Deng's head, which put him to floor. That's what Foster does. He's in the league for two reasons: to get rebounds and try to get under his opponent's skin.

Some people, King and Pippen included, were quick to criticize the Bulls for failing to retaliate. I think the opposite. Let Indiana try to play their bully brand of basketball. The second Chicago tries to make this in to a shoving match is the second Indiana can take advantage of them. The Bulls are a more talented BASKETBALL team. Playing basketball is what they do best. If Indiana can get Chicago thinking about fouls and how to retaliate, they've got them off their game plan, which is exactly what they want.

I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but the bench was awful for a third straight game. The Pacers' bench has outscored the Bulls' bench 27-25 in Game One, 43-22 in Game Two (that number is a bit inflated because of Collison's injury), and 32-20 in Game Three. I maintain that the bench goes as Brewer goes, and Thibs has been weary of playing Brewer. Although he did come up with two clutch free throws and a couple big rebounds to end the game as something positive to build on.

Kyle Korver has really saved the Bulls. 13 points, 4-4 threes in Game One, 5 points and one huge three in Game Two, and 12 points and three threes in Game Three. The Pacers have been trapping Rose as he crosses half court, usually forcing him to give the ball up to Noah at the top of the key. Indiana's defense was really active today and deflected a bunch of interior passes that the Bulls normally execute. Anyway, with the trap on late in the 4th quarter, Korver will get some open looks. As strange as it is to say, he's been just as valuable as Rose in closing games this series.

The Pacers have given it a valiant effort but are probably going to be swept. Things have looked picture perfect for them at times, but ultimately they're going to fall well short. Kind of like this Jeff Foster jumper.    

Day 5: Nuggets-Thunder (Game 2)

The NBA regular season is a long, sometimes predictable grind. The good teams will almost always beat the bad teams. Guys won't be playing as hard as they do in the Playoffs, and JaVale McGee will make you wish he was on your team and then quickly rescind that wish in a span of two minutes. To break the monotony, NBA followers and writers alike latch on to the exciting and unpredictable. What will Blake Griffin do next? Can the Spurs keep up their pace after the All-Star break? Anything having to do with the Miami Heat. These were all intriguing questions/issues because there were so many different ways to tell each story. They were consistent NBA stories, made better because of the thought that the way we felt about them could change drastically at any moment.
Then there was the Thunder -- a team that had a spectacular year, but fell short of the preseason hype surrounding them. Oklahoma City pushed the Lakers to their limit in last year's first round, and Kevin Durant led Team USA to Gold over the Summer in the FIBA World Championship. The Thunder were supposed to challenge for the top seed in the West and Durant was supposed to be the runaway MVP. That would have been a great, somewhat predictable, but ultimately intriguing storyline. A young, gifted player joins the ranks of the game's elite. He takes his team from an 8 to a 1 seed in the matter of one year and wins the MVP while doing so. Sound familiar? That was Derrick Rose and the Bulls. Chicago had the season Oklahoma City was expected to have.

Perhaps the bar was set to high. The Thunder did improve after all. They went from a 50-32 8-seed, to a 55-27 4-seed. Here are Durant's numbers this year compared to last:

2010-11: 27.7 ppg, 6.8 rpg, 2.7 apg, 46% FG, 23.7 PER
2009-10: 30.1 ppg, 7.6 rpg, 2.8 apg, 47% FG, 26.2 PER

His numbers were slightly lower, but not enough of a drop off to become an MVP afterthought like he was this year. The Playoffs are the great equalizer. In an ever-alternating Western Conference, the race to the Finals is wide open. The Thunder were one of many well-written drafts this year. Now they're a favorite to become the story.

What is wrong with Wilson Chandler? Denver's tattooed and scruffy small forward has contributed next to nothing on the offensive end. He scored nine points on just 4-10 shooting in Game One, and added only four points without converting a field goal in Game Two. The problem runs far deeper than shot selection. Chandler has always taken bad shots -- he just normally makes more of them. Chasing around Kevin Durant thirty minutes a game seems to be getting to him. Chandler likes to take his man off the dribble, begin to drive, then inexplicably step back for a fade away 18-footer. His legs aren't there for that shot, and unfortunately for Denver, they need more offense out of him to win.

James Harden's beard (and Harden too!) went off for 18 points in Game Two. Harden has to be one of the most frustrating players to watch in the NBA. He has the skills to be great. He can shoot from anywhere in the building, take his man off the dribble, finish in traffic, and defend when he wants to. Yet, the 4th overall selection in 2009 has reveled in mediocrity up to this point. I realize this is only his second year, but you never know what you're going to get on a night-to-night basis. Charles Barkley made a great point (shocking, I know) about Harden. He stated that Harden would be starting now, but his head coach Scott Brooks wants to bring him off the bench to provide a spark, similar to how the Spurs used to use Manu Ginobili.

Harden provided that spark in Game Two, showcasing all of the talents that I wish he could lay out on his kitchen table and super glue together. If the Thunder are going to contend, they need a reliable third scorer to take the pressure off Durant and Westbrook. They can't be expected to combine for 65 every night, let alone the 72 they posted in Game One. Harden is the only Thunder player capable of playing the third wheel. It's going to be difficult for anyone to beat them if Harden can efficiently give them 16-18 a night.

The Nuggets have become a fan favorite after the Melo trade. They dealt their big name/distraction that didn't want to be there and became a better team. All while the Knicks made little to no improvement after supposedly receiving the prize of the transaction. But sure enough, the Nuggets miss Carmelo Anthony. Not for the entire game, but they miss Carmelo Anthony in crunch time.

The Nuggets were the highest scoring team in the NBA. After trading Melo, they were off to the races, literally. Their uptempo style ran teams out of the gym. The Nuggets have a remarkable EIGHT players that averaged double figures for them this year. But that's part of the problem. The new-look Nuggets have not been in many close games during the season, but in games decided by 8 points or less, including Game One, they are 3-6. 

The Nuggets right now are a bullpen filled with guys that can throw 95 mph with movement, but none of them have a defined role. We've seen the Closer-By-Committee fail countless times in baseball and Denver's basketball version is doing the same. They don't have anyone they can count on to win a game for them in the closing seconds. Playoff games, or at least 4 out of 7 in a series are typically close. The Nuggets' success was fun because of what they represented, but they could really use a player like the one they dealt away. 

Day 4: Magic vs. Hawks (Game 2)

I think of Dwight Howard as an aggressive driver. He has a vision of where he wants to go but is constantly impeded by basketball's version of "No Left Turn" signs, slow drivers, and radar-gun-toting police officers. Howard wants to take his sweet ass time on the free throw line. He wants to swing the ball over his head but a defender's cheek bone is always in the way. He wants to run the floor and establish quick low-post position, but there's always a smaller, inferior player waiting to flop into the third row. Howard recognizes the game's expansiveness but is unable to adapt to the traffic cones scattered across the court.

Worse yet, Howard doesn't trust the police...er....referees. He believes they are out to get him. Watch how LeBron, Wade, or 2011 Derrick Rose operate. They're confident that when the time comes, they can force the referee to rule in their favor. Howard operates with the knowledge that it's him against the world. He'll receive a blow to the ribs or a slap across the face and can do nothing but flash that incredulous stare. He knows that the slightest, well, slight of the referee's hand will get him T'd up, and still is unable to contain himself.

But make no mistake, Howard has been contained. It could be his personality or it could be his wavering confidence in the ref's ability to protect him, but we're not seeing Howard fully realized. He's arguably the most dominant player in the game and there is not one NBA observer who thinks he couldn't be more dominant. Will Howard learn to suppress his aggressiveness just enough to avoid the squad car nestled within the bushes? Can he recognize where the squad cars typically hide? Or will he be content as the driver of a Maserati, going 45 miles per hour along with the Camrys?   

The Magic will always be about Howard. At least until he bolts to LA, anyway. His teammates can sometimes be nothing more than scenery. Dwight could morph into 1962 Wilt Chamberlain, average 50 and 25 a night (not as much of a stretch as it seems playing 48 minutes a night), and the Magic would still lose. Howard does his thing, but Orlando is still viewed as a team that lives and dies at the three-point line. Howard's defense and offensive numbers are constant but it is Orlando's three-point shooting that puts them over the top.

How then, did they win Game 2 after draining only five of their 23 three-pointers? Unexpected contributions from Howard, of course. Forget about Dwight's numbers, Atlanta has defended him masterfully in this series so far. They've refused to double team him, allowing the four-headed monster (Jason Collins, Etan Thomas, Josh Powell, and Zaza Pachulia) to go one-on-one. All four have enough size and strength (and six fouls) to hang with Howard for the required five to twenty minutes. Collins in particular has done a great job of stripping the ball from Howard in the post. Dwight already has 15 turnovers in two games, in large part due to Collins' active hands.

The Hack-A-Howard strategy backfired on Atlanta in Game Two. Howard, who shot 59 percent from the line this year, went 15-19 from the line. Sure, Jason Richardson's three to put Orlando up seven with just over a minute to play was the biggest shot of the game. Al Horford's early foul trouble and subsequent inability to get into the flow of the game was huge. The fact that Howard only attempted 12 shots is a painful reminder that even he can disappear during crucial stretches of a game. But ultimately, Howard's free throw shooting was the difference. That's probably not what Orlando wants to rely on to win a game.

Howard has sat out TWO minutes through the first TWO games. The Magic barely came out with a win from their home court advantage. Exactly how many of his teammates can Howard pile into that Maserati? It is on the verge of breaking down.

Day 3: Bulls-Pacers (Game 2)

Free-throw disparity was one of the hot button issues from the first game. The Bulls out shot the Pacers 32-17 from the line. Derrick Rose himself shot four more free throws in Game One than Indiana's entire team. Whenever one player, and a superstar player at that, out shoots an entire team from line, questions are sure to arise. Is said player receiving superstar treatment? Is (in Indiana's case) the underdog getting the raw end of the deal? To simply look at free throw disparity and assume the Bulls were getting the majority of the calls is lazy thinking. Rose went to the line 21 times because he drove to the basket practically every possession in the second half and forced the referees to blow the whistle. The Pacers, on the other hand, were content to settle for perimeter jumpers. Chicago frequently doubled the post in Game One and left open outside shooters.

Game Two was played differently, and what do you know, the free throw attempts were more evenly dispersed. Chicago still out shot Indiana 34-27, but the higher number of Pacer free throws were the result of less open perimeter shots and consequently more fouls in the paint.

I'm worried about Ronnie Brewer. Brewer sprained his thumb against New York and missed the final game of the regular season against New Jersey. He's playing through the pain and has looked uncomfortable doing so. It has flown under the radar, but Ronnie Brewer has been a non-factor in the first two games. If the NBA compiled an All-NBA Bench Team (which they really should), Brewer would have been the two-guard. He was the defensive spark that ignited this year's most effective bench.

Brewer so far has looked awkward with his shot and entry passes. He's also appeared more passive on the defensive end, which limits the second unit immensely. The second unit as a whole have been ineffective so far this series and Thibs has chopped their minutes as a result. The biggest reason for this, in my opinion, is Brewer's passive play. Hopefully this is a passing phase and not a potential problem heading into the tougher rounds.

The Boozer-Hansbrough match-up has been fascinating to watch. Hansbrough hung 22 on Boozer in Game One, consistently knocking down his mid-range shots when Boozer helped off him. The Bulls pounded the ball in to Boozer in the first half of Game Two this time he had his way with Hansbrough. The two also earned double technicals with three minutes remaining in the game.

Hansbrough and Boozer are prototypical "Make 'Em Mad" players. Boozer because of bobbling head, demonstrativeness, and incessant yelling. Hansbrough because of his Ritalin-like focus, whiteness, and pesky play. Basically, both are annoying as shit. Especially if you have to play against one of them in the playoffs. They've been prodding at each other in both games, like a kid poking a rabid dog with a stick. Eventually the leash will break. The leash will probably be Game Three.

The Pacers held the Bulls to 54.5 percent shooting in the paint. Incredibly, they shot the same number of shots and an identical field goal percentage in the paint in Game One. But the Pacers were tougher around the rim in Game Two. They fouled rather than give up easy buckets. Even the majority of Chicago's made shots were highly contested. Indiana has made Chicago earn it at the line. And they have. The Bulls as a team have shot 80 percent from the line this series (53-66). Derrick Rose has done the bulk of the damage (31-34, 91 percent).

Day 2: Celtics-Knicks (Game 1)

A Celtics-Knicks first round match up wasn't supposed to happen. Then trades happened. The Celtics were the top team in the East and expected to reach the NBA Finals for a second straight year. Hours before the trade deadline they traded center Kendrick Perkins, who many considered the anchor of their very good defense. The Celtics went into a tailspin, finished the season 15-12 and dropped to the 3-seed in the Eastern Conference. Perkins had missed most of the season when the Celtics were playing well, so he hardly was the sole reason for their collapse. But his departure certainly became the easy answer. Undoubtedly, the close-knit Celtics were at least damaged emotionally by the unexpected trade.

Three days prior to Boston's deal, the Knicks acquired their year-long target, Carmelo Anthony. The much scrutinized Knicks finished the season 14-14 with Melo and were accused of giving up too much for him. What often goes overlooked is that New York was only 28-26 before the Melo deal, so record-wise, they weren't much worse. The new look Nuggets finished the season 18-7 and improved to a 5-seed, fueling much of the criticism the Knicks received. Both limped unexpectedly into the playoffs and created for themselves an unlikely match up.

Jermiane O'Neal, yes that Jermaine O'Neal, could be the key to the series. Jermaine was supposed to back-up the bigger, more famous O'Neal, but 350-pound 39 year-olds generally have a difficult time getting back into basketball shape. Shaq's expected presence was one of the big reasons the Celtics felt they could trade Perkins. He didn't play in Game One and it is unclear when or if he will ever play again. So naturally the other O'Neal went 6-6 from the field, provided Boston's only shot-blocking presence (something they badly needed), and took a couple of crucial charges that quelled New York's third quarter runs. Forget his offense, if O'Neal plays defense like he did today all series, Boston will easily control the paint. Remember, that wasn't a given coming into this series.

Rajon Rondo has a jumpshot only his mother could love. Just look at that thing. Does Ray Allen politely suggest that he keep his elbow in? How can Rondo's shot possibly be this bad when he has one of the greatest shooters in NBA history as a teammate and possible mentor? The Knicks didn't respect Rondo's shot either. Doc Rivers said they left Rondo wide open in practice to simulate what the games were going to be like. How about that for a confidence booster. Maybe not so surprisingly, it worked. Rondo knocked down three of his six mid-range attempts. He got to the basket at will even though his defenders were playing three feet off of him. If he makes that shot even 40 percent of the time, how can you defend him? I don't think there's a way.

Once upon a time, Bill Walker resided at the end of the Celtics' bench during the 2008-09 season. He never got in the game but was the typical overbearingly excited and supportive 12th man. He's familiar with this Boston team. When Carmelo Anthony picked up two quick fouls, Walker entered the game as his replacement. He immediately got in Rondo's face. Then he got tangled up with O'Neal, and jawed with Pierce. It's always fascinating to watch a guy play against his old team. More often than not, he plays with a greater intensity level and is more effective because of it. Walker won't play enough minutes to have an enormous impact in this series, but couldn't he be used to get in Boston's head? The last thing the Celtics will put up with is a former bench-warmer trying to show them up. This could become an interesting subplot.

I should probably conclude with Melo's shooting woes, broken down by quarter. He didn't attempt a shot in the 1st quarter. He made 4 of his 7 attempts in the 2nd quarter, including two threes. He went 1 of 7 in the 3rd quarter. He finished 0-3 in the 4th quarter, including a stupid long three to end the game with six seconds remaining on the clock. That's 5-18 for the game and if you take away the one good quarter: 1-11. Expect a big Game 2 from Carmelo. 

Day 1: Bulls-Pacers (Game 1)

Due to his slightly over exaggerated comments about the Bulls, Danny Granger became the story of Game One even before the game started. When asked whether he would prefer to face the Bulls or Celtics in the Playoffs, Granger said Chicago. "Chicago, they go as Derrick Rose goes," he stated. "If you can make a concerted effort to stop Derrick Rose, you have a better chance of beating them."

To be fair, Granger didn't say anything inflammatory, or even ridiculous. Many people feel Boston, because of their playoff experience, will be a tougher out. And the Bulls do tend to lean heavily on Rose for their offense.

Part of the lore surrounding Rose during his 2011 MVP campaign is the Jordan-esque memory he seems to have developed regarding past performances. Jordan was the master of self-motivation. He scoured the Earth for anything that could be perceived as a slight against him or his team. Rose is the same way. It has been no coincidence that some of his most dominant performances have come against teams that beat the Bulls earlier in the season. The Bulls' 115-108 overtime loss against Indiana the last time the two met, coupled with Granger's comments, figured to fuel Rose to a monster performance. Much of the onus then fell on Granger's shoulders, as many looked to see if he could back his words up in Game One.

While Granger is Indiana's best player, I felt Tyler Hansbrough was going to be the key to this game. He torched the Bulls for 29 points on 10-19 shooting in their last meeting against the Boozer-less Bulls. I thought he'd be able to exploit Boozer on the offensive end and he did. Hansbrough provided the usual hustle plays, crazy eyes, and ability to knock down that damn mid-range jumper that Boozer gave him all game. Granger's 18 points in the second half (including the first eight to start to half) fueled the Pacers, but he won't go off like that from behind the arc all series. Hansbrough is the disconcerting match up because he can do what he did today every game.

I'm not normally one to harp for too long on stats, but today I will make the necessary exception. The Bulls are the best team in the NBA at defending the three-point line. They held teams to 32.6 percent shooting during the regular season, best in the league, and gave up less threes than anyone this year. The Pacers went 10-18 from three-point line. That's an  unacceptable 55.6 percent.

The Bulls are also the best rebounding team in the NBA. They out rebounded Indiana 49-34 (21-13 on the offensive glass) but were outscored 9-8 on second chance points. They gave up 10.1 offensive rebounds a game during the regular season. With a rebounding advantage as sizable as the Bulls' was today, there's no excuse for being outscored in second chance points. Three-point shooting and second chance points were what kept Indiana in the game. If the Bulls performed even remotely close to what they normally do in these areas, this is a double digit victory.

The Bulls closed out the game on a 16-1 run. After two Deng free throws, Rose scored or assisted on 12 of the Bulls' last 14 points. I'm not sure there is any other player I would want on my team at this point to close a game. Rose adjusted during crunch time. His shot wasn't falling (he went 0-9 from three) so he attacked the basket, as he did all game. He attacked the basket with reckless abandon, hammered home an "And 1," spun into the lane to finish off a 7-foot floater, made two more free throws and set up a wide-open Korver three with his penetration.

Watching the end of this game, it's easy to see why Chicago's critics think the Bulls are too dependent on one player. But look at the shots Deng and Korver knocked down this game. Those two, along with Boozer will have to pick up the slack when the ball is inevitably forced out of Rose's hands. Deng and Korver stepped up today. I'm not buying that this game somehow exposes an offensively flawed team. Team defense and rebounding were the two biggest issues today. Bigger than anything that happened on the offensive end.

Whan that Aprille with his shoures soote

English poet Geoffrey Chaucer devoted the last thirteen years of his life to writing The Canterbury Tales. You probably at least read excerpts of it during high school. If not, you may or may not have dodged a bullet, depending on your feelings about Middle English, adultery, organized religion, or countless other acts of foolishness.

The Canterbury Tales is about 30 people from all rungs of society, including Chaucer himself as the narrator, and their religious pilgrimage from London to Canterbury. The night before they set out, the group of pilgrims eat dinner at a Southwark tavern. In the middle of the dinner, the owner of the tavern, known as the Host, proposes that each member of the group tell stories during the pilgrimage to help pass the time. The Host states that each pilgrim is to tell four tales, two on the way to Canterbury and two on the way back to London. He decides to accompany the group and nominates himself as the judge of the tales. The pilgrim who he deems the winner is to receive a free dinner from his tavern at journey's end.

A simple calculation tells us that Chaucer intended to compose 120 tales, but died before he could complete them. His unfinished manuscript included only 24 tales. He was overly ambitious, to say the least.

I'm about to undertake an overly ambitious project of my own. The plan, starting tomorrow with the Bulls game, is to document an NBA playoff game everyday until they are no longer playing Playoff games everyday. These won't be of the boring preview/recap variety. Actually, I have no idea what they're going to entail, but they will be here. So check back in, whether occasionally or just for the Bulls games. I'm interested in the game-by-game subtleties of each series, as well as the outcome.

But before all that, here are my first round picks:

EASTERN CONFERENCE

(1) Bulls vs. (8) Pacers ---> Bulls in 4

(4) Magic vs. (5) Hawks ---> Magic in 6

(3) Celtics vs. (6) Knicks ---> Celtics in 6

(2) Heat vs. (7) Sixers ---> Heat in 5

WESTERN CONFERENCE 

(1) Spurs vs. (8) Grizzlies ---> Spurs in 5

(4) Thunder vs. (5) Nuggets ---> Thunder in 6

(3) Mavericks vs. (6) Blazers ---> Blazers in 6

(2) Lakers vs (7) Hornets ---> Lakers in 4

Whether An Adventure Or Journey, It Was A Good Run

This post is best read with the video above playing.

Champions League commentators have been fond of calling Tottenham's run an adventure. An adventure suggests venturing into unknown territory with a possible element of danger involved, even a sense of impending doom. The commentators were evidently on to something.

Tottenham hadn't qualified for the Champions League in over 50 years and had their fair share of missteps against some of Europe's finest teams. Everything that could have went wrong did in their 4-0 loss in the first leg against Real Madrid. That would be the 'unknown territory' and 'element of danger' aspects of an adventure. The impending doom part happened yesterday.

The score this time was a more respectable 1-0 loss at White Hart Lane. However, Ronaldo's lone goal (again Ronaldo, of all people) should have been saved. And just like that -- the end. Tottenham couldn't muster a goal despite setting a furious pace out of the gate. The aggregate was insurmountable anyway, but a positive moment to end on would have been nice.

While an adventure was certainly an appropriate term to describe Tottenham's time in the Champions League, I prefer to think of it as a journey. A journey has a less cynical tone to it, and suggests a learning experience. Because that is really what this was -- a learning experience. Players don't go to Tottenham expecting to play in the Champions League.

In the second stanza of his poem "Journey's End," J.R.R. Tolkien describes the reconciliation process at the end of a journey:

Though here at journey's end I lie
In darkness buried deep,
Beyond all towers strong and high,
Beyond all mountains steep,
Above all shadows rides the Sun
And Stars for ever dwell:
I will not say the Day is done,
Nor bid the Stars farewell.
 
Journey's end, but the sights seen and lessons learn remain forever. I was happy to be a very small part of that journey, 4,000 miles away, watching on my computer.

Those Dreaded Bandwagoners

"No bandwagon fans!" Say it with me. "No bandwagon fans! We remember everyone. From Eddy Curry, to Eddie Robinson, to James F'n Edwards. You don't belong in the same seats as we do. What high school did Derrick Rose go to? And what is his favorite mid-afternoon treat? I betcha can't answer me those simple questions with your bandwagon-hoppin' ass."

As much as I'd enjoy engaging in luminous "discussions" such as the one above, I just can't. The notion of a bandwagon fan, and even more so, the hate directed towards them is puzzling. The Bulls have surpassed 60 wins for the first time since the 1998 Championship year. They've clinched the number one overall seed through out the playoffs. Derrick Rose is going to be this year's MVP. These type of accomplishments get a team noticed. With notoriety comes the dreaded bandwagon fans.

Let's first recognize the player/fan distinction. Rose, like MVP's who pull off at least one highlight-reel moment per game, has added some fans to an already extensive list. Basketball fans all over the country tune in to Bulls games to watch Rose play. They could care less about the team's success, although things get a bit murky because a superstar's individual success usually correlates with his team's success. I went through a similar infatuation period with Allen Iverson during his peak years in Philadelphia. I was an Iverson fan, thrust into rooting for the 76ers by default.  I wanted to see more A.I., and that meant the Sixers had to win.

These type of fans get lumped in with bandwagoners. Ironic in the sense that players don't truly build MVP cases until fans, analysts, and writers outside of their market start to embrace them. The Bulls fans who didn't want Rose/non-Bulls fans to sit at their table were the same one's claiming he got no respect from the media. I think that was a proper example of irony. If not, I give up.

Fans living in a state other than the one where their team is located are often categorized as bandwagoners. This can be true, but ignores the reality that people move away from home and take their fan allegiances with them. There are Bulls fan in California, New York, Texas, Florida, even across Europe and Africa. Some are from Chicago and others aren't.

But what about those who aren't from Chicago? Let's say for example they began rooting for the Bulls during the 1990s and have continued ever since. They didn't previously have ties the city or the organization but have since remained loyal to the franchise. We wouldn't call them bandwagoners--but at one point they were. They were originally attracted to the Bulls because they were winning/had star power, and whether they stuck by them or not, were on the dreaded bandwagon at one point.

Somewhere in Iowa little Timothy saw Derrick Rose on SportsCenter and pretends to be him when he plays outside in the front yard. He watches the Bulls from time to time, whenever they're on national TV, and notices they're really good. The state of Iowa doesn't have a NBA team, so the Bulls become his team. Little Timothy could have just as easily picked the Timberwolves, but they're not on national TV and don't have a player that makes the plays Derrick Rose does. Some Bulls fans want nothing to do with Timothy. They say he isn't a real fan because he didn't watch any of their games last year. He didn't have to suffer through Vinny Del Negro. He doesn't even know that we traded LaMarcus Aldridge for the God-awful Tyrus Thomas on Draft Night. He wasn't even alive to see the six Championships and would have been too young to remember the fallout of those teams.

Timothy will remain a Bulls fan for the rest of his life. 2011 happened to be the perfect storm of style, substance, and W's to lure him in. Timothy is a fictional character made up for the purpose of this post. But there are thousands of Timothys from all over the world. They're the new generation of Bulls fans and they had to start somewhere. Don't deny them. You're no more of a fan than they are. A 40-year old isn't smarter than a 20 year-old because they've lived 20 years longer.

An important element of the sports fan's experience is the communal bond. It's fun to interact with fellow fans on the Internet. Live games are much better when the venue is packed. Wearing the same colors, jerseys, and hats make us feel like we're part of something. But ultimately, being a fan is a singular experience. A team's successes, failures, and players over the years will mean something different to each person. Bulls fans who live to drop names like Ron Mercer and Khalid El-Amin are going to have a different perspective and understanding of this team's success than someone who began watching this year.

That singular perspective is why I'm surprised so many people care about bandwagon fans. What does this team mean to you? Why does it matter how anyone else chooses to enjoy this team? The Bulls gained some lifetime fans this year. They also gained some passing fans who will move on to the next team eventually. Like it or not, we're all in this together. I long for the day when fans realize they're not in competition with each other. Until then, enjoy these Michael Ruffin Spanish League highlights.

Poise: What Is It Really?

The word "poise" is often used in professional sports, especially in conjunction with the losing side. We hear how a team was unable to maintain their poise in a loss, or that the underdog needs to remain poised in order to pull off an upset. Poise is somehow only a factor in sports during a crucial moment or after a game is decided. It's so much more than that.

How about speaking of a team's poise after they've virtually been defeated, but the game is still in progress? That's what I'd like to talk about because, for all intents and purposes, Tottenham lost Tuesday's Champions League match against Real Madrid with 75 minutes remaining. Former Arsenal striker/Tottenham assassin Emmanuel Adebayor headed home a corner four minutes into the game. He slipped past Aaron Lennon's injury replacement, Jermaine Jenas, and headed the ball past both the goalkeeper and Luka Modric on the far post. 1-0.

It gets better. Peter Crouch, the same Peter Crouch who stands 6'7 and is expected to do one thing (win balls in the air) recklessly challenged Sergio Ramos and picked up a yellow card shortly after the goal. Eleven minutes later, the same Peter Crouch, who really shouldn't be sliding under any circumstances, picked up a second yellow for another reckless challenge, this time on Marcelo, and once again on a ball he wouldn't have won anyway.

So with 75 minutes remaining, Spurs were at a goal disadvantage and a man disadvantage against a team more talented in every facet of the game. These are the situations in which "poise" is normally discussed. And of course, it would be said that Tottenham lost theirs.

In the meta-football universe we're operating in for the purpose of this post, I'd like to argue the opposite, in fact. The goal and Crouch's challenges were a series of bad mistakes, completely separate from the team's collective identity. The team showed their true colors in those remaining 75 minutes, when they were beaten mercilessly and left fending for their lives.

This is how I like to imagine this match. Two friends walk out of a bar. Both strong and imposing young men. The type of guys no one would pick a one-on-one fight with. As they exit left and head towards a dark alley, one of the men heads back into the bar because he left his wallet, or something else, a jacket, maybe. Now alone, the less forgetful friend continues walking. Four young pick-pockets hide behind a rusted dumpster waiting to pounce and rob him for all he's worth. The four gangly cowards may have reconsidered if it was still the two men, but down to one they happily engage in a vicious ass-whooping. Kicks, punches, steel-toes, spiked bats, tire irons -- the whole nine.

The hapless friend, left to fend for himself curls up and tries his best to absorb the blows. He's bloodied and his swollen left eye begins to shut. But he doesn't play dead. He continues to get up -- relishing the violence. He would have preferred to be lying in bed, enjoying the comfort of his own home, but he can't. This is a beating he has to take -- and he takes it, without complaint. That was Tottenham on Tuesday.

Poise to me is more than staying calm under pressure. It is also about self-respect and respect for the game. It's easy to give up. Everyday people give up on their dreams, relationships, and even life itself. Overmatched athletes quit on a regular basis when they can't keep up. Poise is about resisting the urge to quit, even though you know your best isn't good enough. Poise is about continuing to play your ass off, even after Ronaldo scores the fourth goal, one that should have been saved at that, and blows kisses to the raucous crowd like the consummate douche that he is.

Every fan experiences an "A-Ha" moment when they either realize or are reminded why they love their team. Strangely enough, mine came in a 4-0 blowout in which Tottenham embarrassed themselves and the EPL in the Champions League Quarterfinals. They took their beating, and came back for more, refusing to back down. They weren't intimidated by the historic Real Madrid and their lineup filled with world-class players. The score didn't reflect it, but I still felt like Tottenham belonged.

Poised they were, at least in my meta-football universe. Now let's grab this 4th spot and do it again next year.