SportsRatings: College Basketball

Heat does the right thing, takes Beasley with 2nd pick of 1st round

Michael Beasley was drafted 2nd in the 2008 NBA draft, selected by the Miami Heat as expected. But for the weeks up to the draft, all that could be heard was talk like that in this Yahoo Sports article.

Given the buzz of complaints about Michael Beasley, you'd think the NBA sees only a half-empty glass.

Why don't they instead see the upside?

Here are samples of what's supposedly wrong with him:

“He’s almost always talking, and almost never on time,”

Always talking? Don't they tell players to communicate on the court?

"I don’t want to grow up too fast. I want to live my life...I want to have fun."

Isn't that a great attitude? When you love the game, and have fun playing it, your positive attitute infects your teammates. Isn't that a good thing?

But let's say they're right about Beasley: he's immature. Isn't as serious as he could be about basketball. Now look how good he's become with this lackadaisical attitude.

Now imagine how incredible he could be if he does mature, if his attitude does improve.

When Michael Jordan entered the league people said he was too cocky and disrespectful. Did that hurt him in the long run? Allen Iverson and Latrell Sprewell have done well enough for themselves despite image and behavior problems. All of a sudden being a thug is okay, but taking the men-in-shorts game of basketball less seriously is a cardinal sin?

I recall people criticizing Tiger Woods early on, saying his temper was too volatile and that it was going to hurt his career. This was when he was barely 21 years old and had just won a tournament despite having a temper tantrum and blowing a few shots. What the "experts" ignored is that he STILL won the tournament, despite his temper. And that he had many, many years to mature and work on the temper 'problem'.

Far from demonstrating his weakness, the episode showed how great Woods was capable of becoming. Months later, he won the Masters by the biggest margin in history, and was on his way to becoming one of the game's all-time greats.

If Beasley has problems that interfere with the team, then his older teammates will make sure that he falls into line. No rookie, even if he's the best player on the team, can go against his elder teammates. They will help set the "boundaries" that he's never had. And if he's playing well and helping the team as expected of a high draft pick, where's the problem?

So where IS the problem? It's not visible on-court, where his play was consistently stellar for Kansas State. Whatever issues he has haven't affected his play in over a year.

It's hard to see exactly what these teams are fearing due to his unserious attitude. What is the imaginable worst-case scenario? That he doesn't fit in with the team and has to be traded? His work ethic is lax and he somehow becomes a bust? He demands to perform a mime act at every halftime?

Whatever the potential downside, the upside is so great that any team would have been foolish not to take a chance on him. If Kevin Durant had fallen past #2 because he couldn't bench 200 pounds, that would have been foolish. Likewise dropping Beasley past #2--in some ways, even past #1--because of these concerns, is stupid. Or perhaps these 'concerns' were a ruse, being played up by teams a bit farther down the draft, trying to talk him down a few picks so they could have a chance to get their hands on him.

“He’ll never grow up,” [the source] said. “I doubt Michael is ever going to get it.”

Never? The kid is 19 and already they're certain he will NEVER mature? I'm glad that NBA teams have such genius psychologists as advisors. You know, the same ones that screen the league to so effectively keep all the malcontents and troublemakers out. Oh, wait...

Boston Celtics win NBA title in 6; final score 131-92

The Boston Celtics dominated the Los Angeles Lakers in game 6, exceeding 100 points with over 9 minutes to go and winning 131-92 to capture their 17th NBA title.

Only the first quarter was competitive as the Celts took a 58-35 lead at halftime, outscoring the Lakers 26-6 to end the half. The extended the lead in the 3rd and it became an outright demolition by the fourth, with the margin reaching 40 points. There was no chance of the type of comeback the Lakers almost pulled in game 3 and the Celtics did accomplish in game 4. By the end, the only question was whether the final margin would break the finals series record of 42 points.

Kevin Garnett played his best 24 minutes of the playoffs in the first half. Playing with intensity and diving for loose balls, he scored 17 points on 8 of 11 shooting in the period and ended with 26 for the game, tying Ray Allen for lead scorer honors.

An emotional Garnett screamed "Anything is possible!" after the game.

Deja Vu: Lakers take big 1st quarter lead, Boston roars back...but L.A. prevails, 103-98

Once again the Lakers jumped to a big lead, going up 18-5 en route to a 17 point lead at the end of the first quarter. This time, though, Kobe Bryant played a huge role, making four three-pointers and scoring 15 points.
Boston came back in the 2nd quarter led by 16 points from Paul Pierce while Bryant didn't score.

Boston tied the score twice in the 2nd half, even taking the lead for a while, but fell short 103-98. A steal on Pierce by Bryant--though clearly a foul--was a turning point in the game as the Lakers went up by four on Bryant's dunk. The Lakers held on in the most physical and hard-fought finish of the series.

Pierce finished with 38 despite being in foul trouble. Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen were slowed by fouls as well; Garnett missed two free throws and later a tip-in and didn't have nearly the fire that Pierce showed. Garnett finished with 13 points and Allen 16; Bryant had 25 points and Lamar Odom had 20 in another solid finals performance, shooting 8 of 10 from the floor.

Are the Lakers over? Odds of pulling out three in a row

After the Celtics' miracle comeback, most are declaring the series over. Going down 3-1, from which no NBA team has recovered in the finals, and in such an emotionally damaging manner, it would seem that the Lakers have dug themselves a monstrous hole, from which they have only a nominal mathematical chance to emerge as NBA champs.

So putting psychology and precedent aside, let's figure out that number: what are the odds that the Lakers still win the series?

Of course, this means winning three games in a row, one in L.A., and then two in Boston. To make the math simple, let's assume a 60% chance of winning at home and 40% chance on the road. In the simplest manner, the Lakers have a 0.6 x 0.4 x 0.4 or 9.6% chance. That's almost 10%, and probably more than most people are giving them after seeing their game four collapse.

But remember, the next game is in L.A., where they won ever playoff game until Thursday night. They have three days to forget what happened and move on. The key is to take everything one game at a time; if they think about the daunting task of winning three straight, they'll have no chance.

Boston, too, has to keep themselves in check. If they get the attitude that they only need to win one out of the next three, they could quickly be facing a game seven.

Though no team has come back from down 3-1, if the Lakers win Sunday to make it 3-2, the "3-1" curse really shouldn't matter any more. Many teams have won from down 3-2 (though I'm not sure any have won facing two road games).

If the Lakers win Sunday at home, then their odds of winning the series would increase to about 16%--the odds of them beating the Celtics back-to-back in Boston.

The odds are against them, for sure, but the odds were definitely against the Celtics making the huge comeback that they did in game four. The Lakers have to convince themselves that they can do something as amazing themselves. As long as they don't give up, the series is still alive, even if they're going to be 9-1 underdogs to pull it off.

Unbelievable! Celtics roar back from 24 down, go up 3-1: final score 97-91

As I had expected, the Los Angeles Lakers blew out the Boston Celtics from the start in game four, taking a 21 point lead in the first quarter.

What I did not expect was Boston's huge comeback, perhaps the biggest in NBA finals history, that erased the Laker lead in the third quarter and propelled them to win, 97-91, shocking the Staples Center crowd that was celebrating the prospect of a tied series just an hour earlier.

The Boston rally was similar to L.A.'s game 2 rally, but Boston had enough time to tie the game and take the lead midway through the fourth quarter. James Posey was the difference for Boston, scoring 18 points at key moments for Celtics, who went to a smaller lineup in the third quarter to spark them. Ray Allen scored on a left-handed layup as the Laker defense broke down, giving Boston a five point lead with 16 seconds left.

The first quarter was all Los Angeles, 35-14, as the Celtics played lackluster and completely uninspired ball, seemingly resigned to another road loss. They didn't play any better in the 2nd quarter, but the Lakers' effort level fell off a bit, but Los Angeles went into halftime up 18, 58-40. Lamar Odom played his best game of the series, shooting 8 of 11 from the field and scoring almost all of his 19 in the first half.

But Allen (19 points), Paul Pierce (20 points), and Kevin Garnett (16), finally got on track and took advantage when the Lakers stalled. Kobe Bryant never was a big factor, even when the Lakers were thriving, and couldn't bail them out in the end. Bryant finished with 17 on 6 of 19 shooting.

For the Lakers, worse than the prospect of being down 3-1--from which no finals team has recovered--is the mental letdown of seeing a perfect game turn into the perfect storm. It will take all of Phil Jackson's zen philosophies to get this team to forget about this one, and turn their attention to winning the sole remaining home game and keeping their chances alive.

NBA Finals Game 3: Lakers win at home, 87-81

Boston won two in Boston, now the Lakers have won one in L.A., beating the Celtics 87-81 in a sloppy game. Los Angeles should have put away Boston easily with Paul Pierce going 2 for 14 and Kevin Garnett hitting 6 of 21 from the field. But no one other than Kobe Bryant (36 points) and Sasha Vujacic (20) stepped up to make that happen, so the game was closer than it had to be.

As for Boston, two simple things could have put them up 3-0 and in complete control of the series. They were:

• Garnett should have drove inside and dunked the ball. He could have done this almost every time he touched it, but he rarely tried, being content to take long jumpers or pass the ball to Pierce for another miss. People have questioned his heart, but it's his mind that needs to be fixed: he still doesn't realize how dominant he could be, even after all these years in the league, so he settles for humble play rather than taking games over like Kobe does.


• The Celtics should have fouled at the end. Down 6 with a minute left, and Kobe Bryant has the ball. Do you think you're going to stop him? Bryant was struggling from the line, missing seven free throws, a couple of them hitting the front of the rim. Why not foul him, extend the game, and put some worry into the Lakers? Instead they watched time dribble away, and watched Bryant keep the game out of reach. And left Vujacic wide open for his last three pointer. Not a great end of game strategy by Boston.

In general, the Celtics didn't play like they wanted the win very badly, and the Lakers didn't play well enough to deserve it until the end. Now the stage is probably set for a Laker blowout in game 4, now that they have confidence that they can beat Boston. Game 5 is the wild card, but the way the playoffs have gone and the way the refs are calling for the home team, it could easily be 3-2 Lakers after Sunday night. Until someone wins on someone else's home court, neither team has really gained an advantage.

Can the Celtics sweep the Lakers? Updated odds.

Now that the series is 2-0, Celtic fans are wondering whether they can sweep the Lakers. In my earlier analyses, neither team had good odds of a sweep: Boston's chances ranged from 3.5% to 7%, while the Lakers' chances were from 5-9% depending on the per-game odds used.

This is because a sweep requires a team to win back-to-back road games, and neither team has lost back-to-back home games in the playoffs. In fact, Boston lost only once at home while Los Angeles didn't lose a home game at all. Consequently, the home team's odds of winning a given game are pretty high, lowering the overall odds of a sweep.

Now that Boston has won two home games, though, their odds are understandably slightly higher; the uncertainly of those wins is gone. But they still have to win the two road games, meaning the numbers won't be in their favor for a 4-0 run.

My earlier analyses put the odds of the Celtics winning a given game at the Staples Center at 43%, 37%, or 35.5%. In other words, they're more likely to lose on the road than win, let alone sweep. But if you think the Celtics have a greater chance than that, you can do the math yourself, because the calculation is pretty easy: just multiply the odds together, and there is your result.

For example, in Analysis 1, the Celtics have a .43 x .43 chance of a sweep, which comes out to 18.5%. Almost 1 in 5. Not very likely, but an improvement upon the single-digit odds they had coming in. The other 2 analyses yield about a 14% and a 12.5% chance. So overall, I'd say their odds of sweeping Los Angeles are about 15%.

Even if you think the Celtics are 60% likely to win a given game in L.A., that's still only a 36% chance that they'll win 2 in a row to complete the sweep. For a sweep to be the likely outcome--greater than a 50% chance--you'd have to believe that the Celtics should beat L.A. on the road at least 71% of the time. Most would say that's a bit high.

Of course, you can argue that a sweep often becomes more likely due to team momentum and psychology. If the Celtics win the first game in L.A., the Lakers will be in quite a hole, and depending on how they respond another Celtics win might become more likely.

But given this year's dominance by the home team, I think the low numbers are pretty realistic. The Lakers didn't roll over in game one, and almost miraculously pulled out game two; I don't think they'll have trouble defending the home court for at least one of the next two games. In fact, I'd say there's a good chance they win all three at the Staples Center. Momentum works both ways.

No matter how much you increase Boston's odds based on their home wins, one thing's certain: the Lakers' own meager odds of sweeping the Celtics have fallen to zero. But presumably they're not thinking about how to "avoid getting swept," they're thinking about winning the series. And for Boston's sake, I hope the Celtic players aren't talking about a potential sweep or they could be in for a rough ride in L.A....

Leon Powe's dunks: Powesterizing Walton, Turiaf

Leon Powe had the game of his life on Sunday night, scoring 21 points and keying the Celtic victory in game 2. Sorry I messed up the clip end...RedLasso's interface basically blows. But the content is good...

Leon Powe, Paul Pierce lead Celtics to Game 2 win: final score Boston 108, L.A. 102

Leon Powe 'powesterized' Luke Walton and Ronny Turiaf on back-to-back dunks, scoring 21 points as the Celtics beat the Lakers to take a 2-0 lead in the NBA finals. Paul Pierce added 28, 16 of them in a great first half, and hit 2 late free throws as Boston held on for dear life against a searing Laker comeback attempt.

Boston led by 24 with 7 minutes to go before the Lakers got the three going, cutting the lead to 2 after a Vladimir Radmanovic steal and dunk (on which he clearly travelled) and 2 Kobe Bryant free throws. Bryant finished with 30 points after being slowed down for most of the game by the swarming Celtic defense that kept him on the perimeter.

After taking an early 7 point lead, the Laker game faded and Boston built a double-digit lead, going into the locker room 54-42. A very poor 3rd quarter doomed the Lakers, digging them a hole from which even Bryant and Radmanovich couldn't extracate them. Boston was up 95-71 before Bryant, Radmanovich, Derek Fischer, and Sasha Vujacic combined for five three pointers in a 31-9 run that made it 104-102 with 38 seconds left. But Pierce was fouled on a drive, hit two free throws, and on LA's next possession he blocked Vujacic's three-point attempt to seal the win.

NBA Finals Game 1 Results: final score Boston 98, Los Angeles 88

Paul Pierce sparked a 98-88 win over the Los Angeles Lakers in Boston as the Celtics took a 1-0 lead in the 2008 NBA finals.

Pierce scored 8 quick 2nd half  points--including a 4-point-play--before leaving the game with a knee injury. Minutes later, he returned from the locker room and hit back-to-back three pointers, energizing the Celtics who regained the lead they had lost in the first half. Pierce finished with 22 points.

Sam Cassell provided a spark for the Celtics in the first half, hitting three quick jumpers and even taking a charge. Kevin Garnett's mid-range jumper was unstoppable early on as the Celtic star hit 6 of 9 shots for 16 points, but Garnett went cold in the 2nd half and finished with 24.

Behind almost the entire 1st half, Los Angeles rode a late 2nd quarter surge to 51-46 halftime lead. Kobe Bryant had only 8 in the first half after going 3 of 10 from the field, but led the Lakers with 24 for the game. Derek Fischer, Pao Gasol, and Lamar Odom were also in double figures for Los Angeles, as were Ray Allen and Rajon Rondo for the Celtics.

NBA Finals Odds, Analysis, and Predictions: Boston Celtics vs. Los Angeles Lakers

Boston Celtics (66-16, 12-8; #1 seed East)
Power Rating: 1st
Since All-Star break: 2nd
Trade/Injury Adj: 2nd
Home: 2nd; Road: 2nd

Los Angeles Lakers (57-25, 12-3; #1 seed West)
Power Rating: 2nd
Since All-Star break: 1st
Trade/Injury Adj: 1st
Home: 6th; Road: 1st

Playoff performance

Against Detroit the Celtics finally didn't need seven to win the series, and the Pistons were their toughest foe so far. Boston even won a couple of road games for the first time in the playoffs--but only after dropping their first home game, shattering the contention that they could count on their 4-3 home court edge to get them all the way to a championship ring.

The Lakers took care of the defending champ Spurs in five, after beating Denver in four and Utah in six. That gives them only three losses in the playoffs to the Celtics' eight, and against much tougher competition overall than Boston faced in the East. Quite simply, the Lakers have outperformed Boston lately. Though both were #1 seeds, the Lakers did to the West what Boston was expected to do in the East, while the Celtics have had a hard time getting simultaneous good play out of all of their stars.

Analyses - per-game odds, home and away

1 - Power Rating, full season

             at Boston        at Los Angeles
Boston          60%               43%
Los Angeles     40%               57%

Considering all games played this season, the teams are fairly evenly matched, and both are favored to win at home. Boston has a slight edge, though, as well as the extra home game in the 2-3-2 format, making them the favorite by this method. It should be close, though.

Verdict: Boston in seven.
Odds of winning series: Boston 56%; Lakers 44%
Odds of sweep: Boston 7%; Lakers 5%

2 - Power Rating, since All-Star Break

             at Boston        at Los Angeles
Boston          59%              37%
Los Angeles     41%              63%

As noted last round, the Lakers score as the best team post-all-star break, surpassing the Celts due to the latter team's lackluster playoff performance. While the Lakers edge Boston as the #1 team, the Celtics still have the home court in four of the seven games, and that's enough to keep the series very, very close. The Lakers end up as 51% favorites in the series, but it's clearly a tossup.

Verdict: Lakers in seven.
Odds of winning series: Los Angeles 51%; Boston 49%
Odds of sweep: Boston 5%; Lakers 7%

 

3 - Power Rating, Trade/Injury analysis

             at Boston        at Los Angeles
Boston          53.5%             35.5%
Los Angeles     46.5%             64.5%

The incarnation of Los Angeles with Pao Gasol has become the league's best team, bar none. Even filtering out Boston's games without Kevin Garnett doesn't raise them above the new Lakers' level. And unlike Comparison #2, it isn't that close even after the extra home court game is factored in. The Lakers win surprisingly easily, still likely taking seven games but with more certainty than before.

Verdict: Lakers in seven.
Odds of winning series: Lakers 59%; Boston 41%
Odds of sweep: Boston 3.5%; Lakers 9%

Prediction

Boston came into the playoffs a clear favorite, a shoo-in to reach the finals and the projected overall winner in 2 of the 3 analyses at the end of the regular season. But now, after each team won a dozen more games and knocked off three foes, it's the Lakers who come out on top in 2 of the three comparisons, with comparison 2 being essentially a tossup due to the Celtics' home court advantage. Now that Boston has shown vulnerability at home--and since the Lakers are the league's best road team--it's anyone's series. This should be one of the best NBA finals in recent memory, with a classic matchup between the Celtics and Lakers pitting the best regular-season squad against the league MVP.

I'm finally convinced that the Celtics recent woes are permanent, that they're not going to "turn it back up" now that they're so close, and that the Lakers have surpassed them as the league's best team, even enough to overcome an extra road game. While it wouldn't be a shock at all to see Kevin Garnett finally get a ring, I'm taking the Lakers to win it in seven.