Seven Takes: Are the NBA Finals Over?
Plus five takes from NBA Substack on Game 2 and what it tells us
We asked a dozen leading NBA voices on Substack a pair of questions:
1. Are the NBA Finals essentially over?
Check out their answers and subscribe!
|
Over is a strong word, but the Celtics have sure made it a valid question by fixing one of their most significant issues in recent seasons: They've suddenly won five in a row at home after going 15-15 in their previous 30 playoff games at TD Garden. And they just survived 10-for-39 (25.6%) shooting on 3-pointers β precisely the sort of Boston comedown from deep that Dallas was counting on to spark a series-tying road victory β to avoid a third Game 2 loss in these playoffs. So, yeah, it's looking rather bleak for the Western Conference champs.
|
The history certainly isn't good if you are Dallas. In the NBA Finals all-time, teams whoβve won the first two games of the series at home have gone on to win the title 84.8% of the time (they're 28-5 under that scenario).
The Mavs improved their margin from -18 in Game 1 to -7 in Game 2, and they actually struck fear into Boston's heart for a split-second with under two minutes to go, but they also got a 30-point triple-double out of Luka DonΔiΔ and still lost. (It was the first time all playoffs that happened.)
Never say never, though. The same sample that produced the 28-5 record for teams that go up 2-0 at home also saw those teams go justΒ 12-21 (36.4%) in Game 3 on the road. So there's a good chance we see Dallas steal one back on Wednesday night, and then we're right back to these Celtics having to answer questions about closing out a 2-1 lead in the Finals again.
|
This series isnβt over, and I refuse to let Neil Paine tell me otherwise!
All jokes aside, the rest of this series hinges on whether or not Kyrie Irving can find himself again. Due to both his 7-of-18 shooting performance in Game 2 and overall lack of trademark Kyrie craftiness in the lane, the Mavericks' ability to move the ball and score has become nonexistent.
While it's unlikely he plays this poorly the rest of the way, anything close to it would send Dallas right back down to (according to Kyrie, flat) Earth.
|
I don't necessarily think the Finals are over,Β no. Boston held serve at home. That's what they were supposed to do, right? On to Dallas.
The problem is that the Mavericks don't look very threatening right now. One of the obvious talking points from tonight was the horrific 3-point shooting from Boston, but Dallas shot evenΒ worse, albeit on fewer shots.
For a half tonight, Luka put the cape on. He can win a game by himself, and I expect he will. But I'm less and less convinced he can win the series by himself. Let's find out.Β
|
The Finals arenβt over. Not to be clichΓ©d, but the whole βUntil someone wins on the roadβ deal applies here. The Mavericksβ role players should be better at home.
That being said β¦ the Celtics won the bad-shooting game. When Boston lost this year, it was usually on a bad-shooting night. That doesnβt bode well for Dallas. And if Jayson Tatum can find his shot, then the series really is over.
Ray LeBov |
Coming back to win after trailing 2-0 is a monumentally difficult task; it has happened only five times out of 36 in the NBA Finals. The closeness in Game 2 of each of Dean Oliver's "Four Factors" gives some hope (and a half-court prayer that banked in played a role). As always, a major injury (how healthy is Kristaps PorziΕΔ£is?) could turn the series around.
TheΒ Mavs need far better play from Irving to have a chance; their roster after the top two stars is much weaker.Β ButΒ thatβsΒ easier said than done due to the CelticsβΒ stifling defense.Β Can strategic counters play enough of a role, given the likely impact of counters to the counters?
|
A series being 2-0 doesnβt mean itβs over. But this series being 2-0 means itβs over.
Bostonβs ability to beat teams off the dribble with (literally) five different guys was always going to be overwhelming for the Mavs. Jayson Tatum, Jaylen Brown, Derrick White, Kristaps PorziΕΔ£is, Jrue Holiday β each can be trusted with the ball in his hands, and when thatβs the case, thereβs often no answer. Dallas should be proud of its run β but it doesnβt have the offensive horses (nice) to beat Boston four out of five times. This is a wrap.
2. What does Game 2 tell us about the Finals going forward?
|
Game 2 reveals more to us about Dallas than I'm sure theΒ Mavs would like. Luka DonΔiΔ looked gassed, Derrick Jones Jr. and P.J. Washington were flustered and misread some crucial moments, and Kyrie Irving, for all his ability to bend the speed of a game at will, looked out of step. The Celtics didn't have to deploy any wild new schemes to stay ahead because Dallas had only just adjusted to what they saw in Game 1.
Game 2 also revealed a potentially short series, if the Mavs don't figure out some remedies for their in-game staying power.
|
What Game 2 told me about this series is that elite depth beats top-line talent. Dallas doesn't have the players to step up when Kyrie Irving's water is being shut off by Jrue Holiday (and sometimes Derrick White).
Jayson Tatum has had some awful shooting luck through two games, but Jaylen Brown, Kristaps PorziΕΔ£is (in Game 1), Holiday (in Game 2) and White have helped overcome that.
Luka DonΔiΔ is amazing, even against a top-flight defense. But there's no offensive backup plan for Dallas without Kyrie performing at a high level.
|
Game 2 showed just how much better Boston is defensively. Dallas has been incapable of rattling the Celtics, as Boston had no issue identifying whom to attack on drives and exploiting the Mavs' inability to stay in front of them.
Boston, on the other hand, is using its depth on the perimeter and trusting its switches to stymie anything Dallas wants to do off the dribble, putting Kyrie in prison in the process.
|
Game 2 tells us that superteams arenβt about superstars anymore. As teams hyper-optimize their strategies, weaknesses (or lack thereof) become far more important than strengths.
Watch Luka DonΔiΔ slump so hard his fingers kiss the ground after every wide-open 3 his nervous teammates brick. Watch Boston hungrily feast on DonΔiΔ and Kyrie Irving on the other end.
The Celticsβ weakest defensive link might be Jayson Tatum, a giant gazelle with wings, and their weakest offensive link might be Jrue Holiday, who led the team in scoring and played like the best big man in the game despite standing 6β4β.
What is Dallas supposed to do? What could anyone do? Even Superman had a weakness; good luck finding Bostonβs.
|
Game 2 is a reminder that the size of the blunder Milwaukee made when it traded away Jrue Holiday cannot be overstated. It was clear he'd go to a contender and potentially push that team into dynasty territory.
Now we have a worst-case scenario for the rest of the league: adding an Iguodala-type impact player to an already good team. We might be witnessing the beginning of three straight Boston titles.
Shearer nails it. What is being dismantled in this series are not just the Mavs and the purported superiority of the Western Conference, but the whole flawed "they have the best player on the court" line of reasoning that is so wrong and pervasive. First, we were instructed it was Brunson and those unstoppable Knicks, then they said...no wait...it's Anthony Edwards...no, no, hold on...it's Luka Doncic.
No, actually it's the dudes the media spent 10 months criticizing as not good enough and vulnerable because they lacked star power. I'm not a fan of Boston, but I am a fan of reality.
Sure, Michael Jordan was the best player on the court in the 90s as was Nikola Jokic last year. However, alongside their excellence was a deep roster of talent necessary to win it all. The Nuggets this year still had the League MVP on the floor but lost key pieces of depth off last year's team and were never the same all year. They didn't "put it together in the Playoffs" as so many pundits wrongly predicted. It turns out that the roster matters a ton.
Our obsession with star culture, endless ESPN highlight loops and social media clicks has taken up permanent residence in the NBA. Yet, basketball remains at its core a team game with offensive and defensive components. Boston is simply a much better team with too much balance and too many weapons on offense along with a differential commitment to defense that suffocates their opponents. When the only "adjustment" the pundits are telling me Jason Kidd needs is for Dallas to play better... you know it's over.
Yet, the whole Luka Doncic "is the best player on the floor" narrative is still being foisted on the public as tonic for all the wounds of reality...despite the Mavs not having reached a pedestrian 100 points in either game so far. I'm not a Luka critic at all, but I'm not sure his performance matters to the outcome when Dallas has so few real weapons on offense to spread the attention of the defense from Kyrie and him.
Some championship series have a precipitous quality about them. Fairly early on one team can realize that the other team is simply much better and the goal changes. It changes from winning the Trophy to "let's not get swept guys." That happened to Minnesota against Dallas, and you can feel it coming here too.
As fans and the media continue to describe some convoluted once in a lifetime path to a Game 7 where the underdog can theoretically still win it ("they still gotta win one on the road") the lights go out very quickly. I sense darkness is on the rise and closing in on Dallas here. Soon Mark Cuban and others will be busy this off season building a much better roster around their best player on the floor. You know, players like Jalen Brunson and Kristaps Porzingas.
Not only will the Celtics take this series, but also the next couple of championships? Now thatβs a prediction.