RSS
Home
How the Celtics match up with the NBA finalists, Part I (Lakers)
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
.jpg)
AP Photo/Chris Carlson: Kobe and Phil represent a nice model for the Celtics to try and follow
Today is Part I of a two part article, analyzing how the Cs compare to the two finalists for the NBA crown. Clearly, these two teams have something that the Celtics don’t, so why not match the Celtics up with each to determine why they are title contenders, and the Celtics aren’t?
Today, we’ll compare the Celtics to last year’s runner-up, the Lakers.
Point guard:
Rajon Rondo vs. Derek Fisher
This is a difficult comparison because these players are polar opposites despite the fact that they play the same position. They play differently, and are in much different stages in their careers. Fisher is turning 35 this year, while Rondo is just a precocious 23. Fisher is signed for next year only (and will be fortunate to get anything more than a 1-year deal after this season), at about $5 mill. Rondo is signed through 2010-2011 (player option) for about $6.5 mill total.
Rondo is one of the fastest players in the league, and prefers to play with his foot on the gas. He is an excellent facilitator, and has a decent tear drop in addition to his slashing style. He is an excellent rebounder, a good defender, and a horrible shooter.
Fisher is older, and can push the ball up the floor, but is more of a half court player. He generally defers to his teammates when it comes to slashing and scoring in the paint. He is a solid defender, but doesn’t defend or rebound his position in any noteworthy fashion. However, he is a decent shooter, and reliable from beyond the arc, especially in crunch time (OK, that shot was from a few years back, but it’s still cool). He has always had a knack for hitting the big shot, which definitely can not be said about Rondo.
So while Fisher is the better shooter, Rondo is just an overall better player, and is getting better while Fisher is on the downside of his career.
Advantage: Celtics
Shooting guard:
Ray Allen vs. Kobe Bryant
OK, this is an easy one. It’s Kobe all the way. Bryant is one of the best players of all-time, while Ray Allen has had a very good career that still pales in comparison to Bryant’s. Kobe put it best when referring to Allen: “Don’t even put dude and me in the same place.” I’m assuming that by place, he meant sentence. If so, then for the most part that’s true.
Kobe is a better defender, rebounder, and overall offensive threat. Allen, however, is a better 3-point shooter and free-throw shooter. The latter to simply point out that Allen is a better shooter, while the former prove that Kobe is a better overall player. Throw in the fact that Kobe is one of the most feared players in the league with the ball in his hands, and that he is three years younger than Allen, and it’s no contest.
Advantage: Lakers
Small forward:
Paul Pierce vs. Lamar Odom
This is a discussion that not many pure basketball fans would like to have. On one side, you have The Truth, Paul Pierce. He has been rejuvenated since the arrival of Kevin Garnett, but for his career, he has mostly been a scorer and not much more. He is now a good defender, and decent rebounder, but for the majority of his career, those attributes were lacking. Odom, on the other hand, is blessed with a ton of natural ability and athleticism. Yet, he is not even the second best player on his own team. He has the ability to take over games, and has the physical advantage in any matchup, as he is always either going to be taller and/or quicker than the man guarding him.
When both are motivated, which is too infrequent of an occurrence throughout their careers, Pierce is the better player. He is the better scorer, and is comparable to Odom from a defensive perspective, although Odom definitely gets the nod here due to his length and shot blocking ability.
Despite the fact that Odom is two years younger, and is the more gifted athlete, Pierce is the choice. He is just vastly superior to Odom offensively, and Odom doesn’t win in any other category to a significant enough degree. Throw in the fact that while they both can be questioned in regards to motivation and effort, it is clear that Pierce wants his place in Celtics history, while Odom plays like he’s content with retiring as an overpaid, slightly better than mediocre player.
Advantage: Celtics
Power Forward:
Kevin Garnett vs. Pau Gasol
This is probably the most interesting matchup between these two teams, as you again have very different players manning the same spot on their respective rosters.
Pau Gasol, first and foremost, is a great offensive player. He has strong low post moves, a soft touch, and is a good passer. You stick him at the four, and you know that your team has a player who can provide you with nearly 20 ppg for at least the next couple of years.
That last sentence can be said for Kevin Garnett as well. However, he gets his points a little differently. He can extend into the perimeter, providing some range to his arsenal. Plus, he uses his uncanny intensity when cutting to the hoop for alley-oops and drives. When Garnett is coming your way with the ball, or with the ball coming his way, look out.
The aspects of their games that really separate them are their defense and rebounding. Garnett is superior in both categories. He is a double-double waiting to happen, while Gasol is more of an 18/8 waiting to happen. Garnett intimidates his opponents with his defense, and it’s well-documented that his defensive presence has greatly helped the Cs. Gasol does not provide anything remotely close in this regard, and can even be considered a liability when facing a physical front line. He can block the occasional shot, but he’s not KG.
If you didn’t check out the video two paragraphs back, check it out. That’s all you should need if you’re still undecided.
Advantage: Celtics
Center:
Kendrick Perkins vs. Andrew Bynum
This is a bit of an incomplete comparison, since Perkins has been slow in his development and Bynum has been battling injuries throughout his career. However, when both are healthy and playing, the choice needs to be Bynum. He’s younger, more skilled from an offensive standpoint, and has more of a center-type build, standing two inches taller than Perkins. Once Bynum adds some more weight and muscle with a more consistent training program (free from injury, etc.), he’ll be even more of a dominating presence inside, particularly from the defensive and rebounding perspectives.
I like Perkins’ game, but he needs to play the way that he did during this year’s playoffs (where he averaged nearly a 12/12) more often in order to win this matchup. Right now, from the stunted sample sizes from both players, Bynum simply has the better stats, plus has the height and age advantages over Perk.
I don’t like Bynum’s injury history, but Perkins’ own shoulder problem shows that he’s not exactly in mint condition either.
Advantage: Lakers
Bench:
Potential expiring contracts aside, the Celtics clearly lose this battle to LA. In fact, it’s not even close.
The Celtics rely on Eddie House, Big Baby Davis, and Leon Powe for support. These guys are fine players. However, you throw in the likes of Stephon Marbury, Brian Scalabrine, Tony Allen, and Mikki Moore, and the picture gets a little murkier. Definitely some good with the bad mixed in there.
As for the Lakers, they call Luke Walton, Shannon Brown, Josh Powell, Sasha Vujacic, and Jordan Farmar into action. Throw in the gravely underachieving, but still highly skilled shooter, Adam Morrison, and you have a solid group of backups there.
The Lakers have a good mix of shooting, ball handling, and defense. The Celtics have Davis, Powe, and House, plus the outside shooting of Brian Scalabrine (with his atrocious defensive to go along with the rest of his below average offensive game), and that’s about it.
Advantage: Lakers
Coach:
Does this really need to be discussed? A coach who is gunning to win the most championships in NBA coaching history, the zen philosopher of the triangle offense, the leader of men…versus a decent player’s coach who couldn’t get out of his own way until KG arrived?
Advantage: Lakers
So, we see that the Western Conference champs have the edge at SG, C, the bench, and at the head coach spot. Enough said, right? Well, no. The Celtics have the Big Three, while the Lakers have the Big Superstar, plus one very good supporting player, a good but inconsistent 3-man, more depth, and better coaching. The Celtics were the better team last year because they coupled the Big Three with solid depth (see not only Davis, House, and Powe, but also James Posey, PJ Brown, and Sam Cassell). The Celtics are without the latter three from that list, and their roster is clearly weaker for it.
The Lakers are proving that depth is more important than trying to rely on a couple of superstars to win you a championship. You still need those superstars, but they need to have some sort of depth below them to help fill in the gaps. The Celtics lost Garnett for the playoffs and his absence was palpable. If the Lakers lost Bryant, they most assuredly would be out of the playoffs by this point, but it’s no guarantee that the Celtics would still be standing even with Garnett. The Lakers, on the other hand, were the clear Western favorite since the season started, and their playoff performance has only confirmed why this belief was a sound one.
If the Celtics want to get themselves back into the same conversation as the Lakers, they need to considerably improve their bench, and continue to work on the development of their secondary starters.
Related Articles:
Comments
