"2010 NBA Playoffs: Phoenix Suns Deny Los Angeles Lakers a 3-0 Lead" - BleacherReport.com

[Originally published on BleacherReport.com]

Sometimes in sports, one team does not win; instead, the other team simply loses, perhaps by beating itself.

For instance, in football, one team may give its opponent great field position throughout most of the game, either via turnovers, failure to consistently convert on offense, or botched special teams assignments.

In baseball, one team may commit one too many errors on defense, or a pitcher may issue one too many base-on-balls.

And in basketball, one team may commit too many unforced errors and compound that problem by playing poor transition defense, thus allowing easy and often-times uncontested shots.

In Game 3 of the Western Conference Finals on Sunday night, however, the Los Angeles Lakers did not proverbially hand the Phoenix Suns the win, as if to say: "Here you go, take it."

Rather, the Suns defeated the Lakers in "we are going to snatch it from you right out of mid-air" fashion.

L.A. kept peeping into the room of victory, but when it came time to seal the deal and secure win number one of these conference finals, Phoenix slammed the door on the Purple and Gold for good. This was thanks in large part to a 17-6 late-fourth quarter run and a series-breakout performance by Amare Stoudemire, who tied a career playoff best with 42 points to go along with 11 rebounds.

All things considered—playing on the road in a hostile environment, battling a team with its season essentially on the line, and getting bare contributions from Andrew Bynum, Lamar Odom, and Ron Artest, notably—the Lakers gave themselves an opportunity to extend their postseason winning streak to nine games and more importantly, to take a commanding 3-0 series lead.

But it was Phoenix that dominated down the stretch by capitalizing on coach Alvin Gentry's in-game adjustments and making all the timely plays.

Early in the affair, the Suns implemented a zone defense—which caused L.A. to settle for long jump shots instead of getting dribble penetration and maintaining an inside-out gameplan. These are the two main reasons why the Lakers were able to operate so efficiently on offense in games one and two. Accordingly, the disparity in both free throw attempts (22 more) and makes (21 more) favored Phoenix, because the Suns were the more aggressive team.

The zone defense also created 17 L.A. turnovers, six of which came in the first half of the final frame. In all, those miscues led to 16 Phoenix points, frequently via the fastbreak where the Steve Nash-led Suns predominantly excel.

Although the Lakers shot 48 percent from the floor, a clip that usually gets the job done on the road, 32 of their 87 attempts came from downtown, and L.A. only converted on nine of those treys (28 percent, for all of you non-math majors). As they say, long shots lead to long rebounds, which Phoenix milked for 18 fastbreak points.

On point, the Suns did everything to stay away from biting the apple of Eve: They surrendered only seven turnovers, shot an incredible 88 percent from the charity stripe, and committed only 21 fouls.

If the Suns can duplicate the same effort and urgency that they displayed on Sunday night during Tuesday's Game 4, the sun will not start to set on Phoenix's postseason push just yet.

You can contact Josh Hoffman at JHoffMedia@gmail.com.

"2010 NBA Playoffs: Why the Kobe Bryant-Pau Gasol Duo Is Superior to Shaq-Kobe" - BleacherReport.com

[Originally published on BleacherReport.com]

Last week I posted a Facebook status that read: "As good as the Shaq-Kobe duo was, Kobe-Pau is better."

Within minutes I received a barrage of critical comments, including:

"That's just outrageously false."

"You're an idiot."

"[That is] almost as retarded of a statement as 'the Suns have a chance against the Lakers'."

And my personal favorite: "You are worse than the 'Fisher' 'Lies' girls."

With those sort of responses, you would think I said something along the lines of: "If LeBron James wants to take the fastest route to Championship Circle and Ring Road, he should sign with the Los Angeles Clippers" (the funny thing is: I truly believe that, but that is for a different debate).

In any event, it is undeniably understandable why many people may dispute my initial assertion.

After all, O'Neal and Bryant were the Adam Sandler and Rob Schneider of the Los Angeles Lakers teams that won three straight titles to begin the new millennium—teams that secured 67 wins during the 1999-00 regular season (the most by the boys in purple and gold since 1971-72) and finished the 2000-01 postseason 15-1 (an NBA record).

In doing so, the tandem developed a dynasty that could have very well crowned Shaq and Kobe the most prodigious one-two punch in franchise history and arguably the best that the NBA has ever seen.

There is no need to rehash the egotistical onslaught that occurred over time and ultimately unleashed O'Neal from L.A., nor is there a rational reason to point fingers more than five years after the fact, but the break-up was about as bad as a non-romantic relationship can get.

Fast-forward six seasons and the Lakers are two games away from forging their third Finals appearance in as many years—all because of the Will Ferrell and Vince Vaughn-like faction, better known as Bryant and Gasol.

Just as the Ferrell-Vaughn movies are funnier than those of the Sandler-Schneider variety, the Kobe-Pau connection is superior to the Shaq-Kobe showing.

For one thing, the original Superman (at least in basketball) and the Kobester never worked together with such skill, success and consistency as the Big Spaniard and Black Mamba do. With regard to the former, most of the time it was either O'Neal predominantly imposing his indefensible size and strength on the inside, or Bryant dexterously dominating on the perimeter and in isolation situations.

Sure, they stung the Portland Trailblazers with that unforgettable alley-oop in the 2000 Western Conference Finals, but Shaq and Kobe were more dysfunctional than present-day extremist Israelis and Palestinians alike.

When Gasol joined forces with Bryant and the Lakers in 2008, he was more than aware of Kobe's alpha-male attitude—so much so that Pau was more than pleased with taking a backseat in Bryant's stretch limousine.

If Shaq and Kobe would have adopted that approach any which way, they may still be racking up rings today.

Returning to reality, it was irrefutably obvious that Bryant and Gasol were both willing and able to successfully co-function from day one.

Today, the Kobe-Pau pick-and-roll (or pick-and-pop) is the most difficult collaboration to defend in the league.

O'Neal was (and still is) largely limited as a screener, whereas Gasol is as gifted as they come.

He is a threat to hit the 15-footer if he elects to remain on the outside, where he can also take you off the dribble; he is more agile and has better footwork than Shaq, both in the post and once he receives the pass after rolling toward the rim; if he decides to establish himself down on the block, he is essentially ambidextrous and can go as far as fading away if and when he faces up to the basket.

While O'Neal was (and again, still is) a proficient passer, Pau also prevails in the playmaking department. And perhaps most perceptible of all, he is a significantly superior free-throw shooter, which puts most opponents in the "pick your poison" position at the end of a game. Because Shaq was a liability at the line, the O'Neal-Bryant behemoth became much more unbalanced.

Aside from the in-game assessments, it is overwhelmingly apparent that the previous duo does not nearly have the same compatibility and common sense to "figure it out" as the current one continues to display.

But you do not need me to convince you of that observation, because Kobe concluded it first.

"As soon as he came here he fit in instantly," he told TNT's Craig Sager after Wednesday night's Western Conference Finals Game Two. "Since that point it's just been about making it even better and trying to perfect what we do together."

Bryant would have never said the same when he played with Shaq (and vice versa)—but with Gasol, it's a brand new, considerably better ballgame.

You can contact Josh Hoffman at JHoffMedia@gmail.com.

"NBA Playoffs: 3-2 Celtics Lead 'Absolutely No Surprise'" - BleacherReport.com

[Originally published on BleacherReport.com]

If I would have said to you on April 14—the last day of the 2009-10 NBA regular season—that the Boston Celtics and Cleveland Cavaliers would meet in the Eastern Conference semifinals and through the first five games, (a) Boston would have a 3-2 series advantage, (b) the Celtics catapulted the Cavs into consternation in Game Five via a 32-point pounding at Quicken Loans Arena (where Cleveland held the league's best regular-season record), and (c) two of Boston's three wins have come on the Cavs home court by an average of 28 points, you would have probably asked me to take a drug test or insisted that I be checked into a mental institute.

Chances are I would have agreed to either arrangement, because at the time, Boston embodied an old and unquestionably inconsistent team that had just notched its seventh loss in the last 10 regular-season games. Even head coach Doc Rivers admitted he was unsure of what he was going to get from his team each game.

Meanwhile, Cleveland was in the midst of cementing its "Sure, the Los Angeles Lakers are the defending champions, but you might want to start considering us the favorites" campaign.

Sure, the Cavs dropped their final four games of the regular season, but that's because they all but suited up their cheerleaders after racking up the NBA's best record in early April.

Fast-forward five weeks to May 11 and suddenly, that Cleveland campaign is looking more and more like a colossal cloud of confusion.

Which should be absolutely no surprise to anyone who understands the game of basketball.

You don't have to be Doug Collins or Hubie Brown or any other former NBAer to know that basketball is a game of matchups. This notion is magnified even more in the "second season" because every possession is as critical as post-9/11 airport security.

Well, not quite, but you get the point.

With regard to the Cavs-Celtics clash, there is only one Cleveland player who presents an immediate and incessant mismatch to Boston. His name is LeBron James. He's won back-to-back MVPs.

You might know who he is.

Other than James, the Cavs are incredibly capricious. You don't know what his supporting cast is going to bring to the table.

It could be a five-course gourmet meal, but it could also be a bowl of rice and beans.

For example, Mo Williams can score 20 points on 8-for-14 shooting and dish out six assists, like he did in Cleveland's Game One win, but he can also combine to shoot 7-of-26, just as he did in the Cavs' three losses.

In any event, Boston presents many more matchup problems to Cleveland—and Game Five was a darn good indication of that.

First, it was Kevin Garnett, whose height and length was far too much for the smaller Antawn Jamison (who is shorter than James, by the way) to handle on the Celtics' offensive end. Garnett finished with 18 points and six rebounds, compared to Jamison's nine points on 10 shots.

Then, Paul Pierce finally prevailed for seemingly the first time this series. In Games One through Four, he shot just 32 percent from the field (22 percent from downtown) and averaged six points under his regular-season mark.

Why?

Because his primary defender—that "James" kid—is bigger, stronger, and quicker than Pierce, who was unable to shake the first-team all-defenseman during that four-game stretch.

But in Game Five, Pierce often found himself with favorable matchups, sometimes working against the less physically-fortunate Anthony Parker, other times finding himself freed from his defender via a screen.

Eventually, this enabled other Boston players—like Ray Allen, who led all scorers with 25 points—to become more involved and therefore have a profound impact on the game, largely because Cleveland was forced to focus their attentions on the upstart efforts of Garnett and Pierce.

Ultimately, the Celtics established a first-half tempo that carried over to quarters three and four, a tempo the Cavs simply could not match.

After the game, Garnett told TNT's David Aldridge that, if the Celtics are going to make their second conference finals appearance in three years, the team needs to treat Thursday's Game Six as if it is a do-or-die Game Seven.

If the Cavs hope to court King James back to Cleveland for at least another season, they better do the same.

You can contact Josh Hoffman at JHoffMedia@gmail.com.

"Los Angeles Lakers: 'Never Underestimate The Heart Of a Champion'" - BleacherReport.com

[Originally published on BleacherReport.com]

Even after the Los Angeles Lakers seized all the momentum by holding their home court and taking a 2-0 series lead against the Utah Jazz in the Western Conference semifinals, Game Three had all the makings of an L.A. letdown.

For one thing, EnergySolutions Arena (home of the Jazz) is arguably the most hostile environment of all the venues that house the remaining playoff teams (the Lakers and Staples Center, the Suns and US Airways Center, the Celtics and TD BankNorth Garden, the Cavaliers and Quicken Loans Arena, the Magic and Amway Arena and the Hawks and Philips Arena—for all you who suffer from short-term memory loss).

To add stale popcorn to a mundane movie, the Lakers had yet to truly pull out the urgency card during this postseason. Considering Game Three was as close to a must-win for Utah as Wesley Matthews' eventual tip attempt with under a second left, I would have been no less surprised if L.A. had a 2-1 series lead heading into Game Four than I was to hear that BP's stocks were rapidly sold leading up to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

As expected, the Jazz jumped out to a strong start, holding the Lakers to just 17 first-quarter points on 29 percent shooting, including 1-of-6 from downtown. Still, the Purple and Gold plowed its way through a first-frame fog and trailed by only five points through 12 minutes.

In the second stanza, Utah unveiled its largest lead of the game (13), a point at which the Lakers were all but forced to look themselves in the mirror and ask, "Flight or fight?" Apparently L.A. had done enough flying on its way to Salt Lake City, because by first half's end, the Lakers were behind by a mere four points despite zero field goal attempts and points from Andrew Bynum, and just four points on 1-of-4 shooting by Pau Gasol -- all of which were compiled in the first frame.

Come the third period, the two teams really buckled down, exchanging body blows and jaw breakers that did everything but break each other's proverbial jaw. Suddenly, the game became a paradigm our great grand kids' grand kids may very well be watching on ESPN Classic, which will probably be called ESPN Antiques by that time. When it was all said and done, nine lead changes and six ties had surfaced, and you just knew that a fourth quarter of fireworks was on the horizon.

After losing 82-80 to begin the final frame, the Jazz scored six of the period's first eight points and looked poised to pick apart L.A., just as they had done in each of the series' first two games at this juncture of the game. Still, the Lakers remained cool, calm and under control, taking what Utah gave them and throwing it right back in the Jazz's face as if to say, "If you thought we were not a clutch jump-shooting team, you might want to revise your game plan."

Purée a 3-for-6 shooting quarter for Ron Artest, a Kobe Bryant trey that tied the game at 106 with under a minute remaining and a deep triple from the right perimeter by Derek "Silent Assassin" Fisher, who yanked the lead out of Utah's grasp for good. And you have the gravy for a 3-0 L.A. potato mashing.

If you whited out the final score of Game Three's box score, anyone in their right mind would have assumed the Jazz jolted the Lakers. After all, they had a higher field goal percentage from the floor (including from three-point land); they attempted 12 more free throws and made 26 to L.A.'s 16; and they out-rebounded the Lakers, accounted for five more assists and never had a bigger deficit than four.

Perhaps most advantageous of all, Utah had a sellout crowd of almost 20,000 on its feet for most of the final 24 minutes, waving their white towels, barking at every perceivably bad call and even going as far as to chant, "Fisher sucks!"

Yet after a fourth quarter to never forget, the scoreboard read: LA Lakers 111, Jazz 110.

It was a game L.A. had absolutely no business winning.

Check that, it was a game the Lakers had absolutely no business even attempting to win.

But that is what championship-caliber teams do: They win games that they probably should not have won. They defy odds.

They make the improbable all too possible.

If nothing else, former Lakers head coach Rudy Tomjanovich said it best.

"Never underestimate the heart of a champion."

You can contact Josh Hoffman at JHoffMedia@gmail.com.

"Los Angeles Lakers' Ron Artest: "Tru 'Princess' Warier"" - BleacherReport.com

[Originally published on BleacherReport.com]

Amid an age in which the Internet has engendered Facebook friends and 140-character communication called tweets, you would think that grown men would still act like, well, grown men.

Especially someone who grew up in New York's Queensbridge Projects, the largest public housing development in North America.

Who saw his home go up in flames at an early age.

Who lived among 12 people in a two-bedroom apartment.

Who was raised in a neighborhood so rough that he claims to have witnessed murder on a basketball court.

And who has since been judged and jailed, shunned and shuffled, pounded and punished.

You would think these experiences would produce a person so mentally stout that it would take a near-death disaster to stagger his psyche, if it's at all possible.

You would also think I am talking about a bum who boasts a slab of cardboard that reads, "Obama ain't the only one who wants change."

Or a delinquent drug dealer.

Or heck, even the troubled Lawrence Taylor.

But brace yourself, because instead I am recounting the thin-skinned, strikingly-sensitive Ron Artest.

Yes, the same Ron Artest who wanted to go fisticuffs with a Detroit fan who poured a drink on his face during a 2004 Pistons-Pacers game, for which the NBA suspended Artest 73 games plus the playoffs, the longest non-drug or betting related suspension in league history.

On Thursday night, Artest apparently posted various tweets criticizing Los Angeles Lakers coach Phil Jackson —tweets that came after the Lakers took a 2-0 advantage in the Western Conference semifinals.

Instead of approaching his coach about his complaints, Artest hid behind the text of Twitter, like a 12-year-old girl hides behind AOL Instant Messenger to end a relationship she never really wanted to be a part of in the first place.

If the Lakers were on the brink of postseason elimination, I could understand why Artest may feel the need to vent his frustrations via his Twitter feed.

Or perhaps if he was unreasonably benched by Jackson.

But with the Lakers having emerged victorious in their last four games and now just two wins away from advancing to the conference finals for the third straight season, there is no rational reason why Artest should be complaining about a common occurrence in sports—coaches critiquing their players in the media.

On Ron Artest's Wikipedia page , the author notes that Artest "earned himself nicknames such as Tru Warier" while "playing in some of New York City's high profile summer basketball tournaments."

Since its creation, Wikipedia has been discounted for not being completely credible. Ron Artest's entry is simply another example.

After all, the author forgot to type "Princess" in between "Tru" and "Warier."

You can contact Josh Hoffman at JHoffMedia@gmail.com.