The daily digest of Twin Cities culture | Secrets of the City

^{(Photo by Evan Gole/NBAE via Getty Images)}

For casual basketball fans who stop by only in the postseason to get their taste of the NBA, the Los Angeles Lakers made their four-outta-five domination of the defending champion (now ex-champion) San Antonio Spurs exceeding simple to understand. MVP Kobe Bryant played exceptional basketball, particularly on the offensive end and especially in the second half, when the aging, dinged up Spurs were most vulnerable. Kobe racked up 52 points (or an average of 10.4) in the first halves of the five games, and 94 (18.8) in the second halves. And yet Bryant has become so talented that this almost effortless 29.2 points per game licking he put on the Spurs probably enhanced the defensive reputation of his primary matchup, Bruce Bowen. Whereas Bowen was beaten, his replacements were embarrassed, casually demolished, unable to even slow Kobe down a little bit, let alone prevent him from proving that this matchup would decide the game in LA's favor without plentiful reinforcements. Kobe's hang times were longer, his dribble penetrations quicker and smoother, his competitive instinct just a tiny bit keener. Best of all for Laker fans, and for Kobe's Laker teammates getting fitted for rings, his conference finals performance wasn't spectacular but clinical, and serious as a heart attack.

Who else on the Lakers had a really good series at both ends of the court? Certainly not the two long, quick, big men, Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom, nor point guard Derek Fisher. Role players Vlad Radmanovic and Jordan Farmar played better than expected, but neither one averaged double figures in points, or made the Spurs think twice about adjusting their priorities to try and stop them. No, take Kobe out of the equation and this is a 4-1 series the other way, even with Manu Gibobili hobbled.

On the other hand, the Lakers are very long, very quick, and very deep, and defensively, although their focus wandered and their immaturity showed on occasion, their athletic talent and persistent energy frustrated the hell out of San Antonio. Their rotations were rapid and varied, and that speed and unpredictability coupled with their obscuring length effectively robbed more open looks away from the Spurs than either Phoenix or New Orleans had been able to manage in the first two rounds.

It really would have been fun to see this series had Ginobili been at full capacity. In the normal course of events, the likes of Gasol/Odom/Vlad Rad/Turiaf/etc would have thwarted some of Manu's patented kamikaze penetration. And Ginobili's ankle woes likewise would have thwarted some of that penetration even against an ordinary team. But put the two together--the Lakers' interior D and Ginobili's lack of mobility to cut and twist in traffic--and that aspect of the Spurs offense was effectively eliminated. It thus became all about how many treys San Antonio could sink. And while that is an important part of the Spurs' attack, it can't be the meat *and* the potatoes of what they do.

Before we turn to the Celts and Pistons, a few words about the horrible officiating at the end of Game Four, and the equally horrible reactions by the players and commentators.

First of all, I understand it is the final seconds of a crucial playoff game. I understand that Bones Barry didn't "sell the call" by leaping up with a shot attempt into the body of Derek Fisher as Fisher leapt toward him. And I agree that both of these can be mitigating factors that keeps the whistle out of the officials' mouths-- *if* the play and the infraction are a borderline call. But this was a foul, flat out, and to argue that it wasn't is to engage in stupidity or delusion. Derek Fisher jumped into Barry, landed with his hands and elbows on Barry's neck hard enough to buckle his knees and torso and knock him off balance as he tried to dribble his way clear to attempt the shot. Does anyone disagree with that? If you don't call that, then where do you draw the line?

The NBA has a code of honor that you don't whine to or about the refs on a make-or-break play. The problem with having pretty much nothing but former players doing postgame commentary--Reggie Miller, Charles Barkley and Kenny Smith--is that they don't think rationally because they are following the code. Ditto Spurs coach Gregg Popovich, who obviously didn't want the controversy distracting his team's preparation for Game Five, and obviously instructed his players not to utter a peep of protest or rebuttal over the accuracy of the non-call. Consequently, the three commentators--who looked stricken, as if they were at a funeral, immediately after the game, knowing they'd have to render a judgment on something upon which their heads and hearts disagreed with their eyes--came around to blaming Barry, or patronizing him for "not being in that situation much before." Miller said it was "a good non-call," Barkley actually said that because the Lakers had outplayed the Spurs so thoroughly, the refs were reluctant to award potentially game-winning free throws to San Antonio. Smith at least acknowledged it was a foul, but essentially agreed with Miller.

I actually wrote a long item about this after the game, but it got eaten by the computer and I went to bed. But the gist of my sentiment, then and now, is that the refs swallowed their whistles three times in the final 90 seconds or so, an incompetent display that sets a very bad precedent. First, Tony Parker should have gotten a free throw as Lamar Odom ran through him as they tumbled out of bounds after Odom's goaltended on Parker's layup--that should have been a potential three point play. Second, the Lakers should have gotten a new 24 second clock after their jumper grazed the front iron on the next possession. This would have forced the Spurs to foul to get the ball back, sending the Lakers to the line for two shots. Third, Barry was obviously fouled while he was trying to get in position to shoot, meaning that, with LA over the limit, it was a two-shot foul (this is what the league office ultimately ruled the next day). Add it up and the Spurs should have had three foul shots, the Lakers two. Of course if Parker hits his free throw and/or the Lakes hit their free throws, who knows how that would have affected the final Barry possession. Bottom line, it was a tainted win for the Lakers, who were clearly the better team in this series, and deserved an unblemished demonstration of that.

On to the Celts and the Pistons. Once again, I'm late to the instant commentary party (I'll probably try to rectify that by posting three pointers for games during the Finals), and know that you don't need to hear me repeat kudos for the monster Game Five effort delivered by Kendrick Perkins, or to note Ray Allen's return to accuracy on his jumper. So I'll be a little counterintuitive and instead remind everyone how vital it is to have players delivering consistently strong performances this far into the postseason. That's another reason why Kobe was so obviously the MVP of the Lakers-Spurs series. In the Celts-Pistons matchup, barring any earthshaking, melodramatic development in the next game or two, the hands-down MVP should Kevin Garnett if Boston wins, and Rip Hamilton if Detroit triumphs.

Both KG and Rip play with all-star teammates in lineups that are renowned for spreading the scoring around to at least three players, and yet both are leading their respective teams in scoring by at least 6 points per game. The reason for this is consistency. While Allen or Perkins or even Paul Pierce for Boston, and Billups or McDyess or 'Sheed for Detroit have all had significant dropoffs in production during at least one of the five games that have been played thus far, Garnett and Hamilton keep delivering double-digit totals, while putting up gaudy or at least respectable numbers in other facets of the game such as rebounding, assists, blocks or steals. Each player's opposing coach has burned a lot of brain cells trying to figure out how to deter this high level of production, to no avail. That's impressive, and yet too easily overlooked as we anoint heroes on a game-to-game basis.

That said, there are some fascinating subplots involved as we head into Game Six in Detroit tonight: Will Lindsay Hunter's on-ball defense continue to checkmate the Celts' backup point guards to the degree that Rondo plays nearly the entire game again? And will the Celts finally counter by giving Pierce more play-making and ball-handling responsibilities while Rondo gets a blow? Given the stakes involved--two veteran teams with windows closing on shots at a ring, trying to avoid plummeting from highly successful regular seasons (the two best records in the NBA) to not even reaching the Finals--and the intensity of the suffocating defense each team plays--are the incidences of technicals, flagrants, and controversial non-calls going to continue to rise, and if so, which team keeps its cool? Is Ray Allen back for good this time? Will Flip Saunders continue to ride his veteran starters even if Stuckey is outplaying Billups and Maxiell keeps proving he deserves more burn? Should PJ Brown and Kurt Thomas announce that they won't sign with anybody until February and then again pick the playoff-bound team that is most complementary with what they bring to the table?

My answers: Yes, no, yes, Detroit in Game Six, nearly back but not all the way, yes, and emphatically yes.

I don't see Detroit winning two straight--remember, the Celts, like the Lakers, have never been behind in a series during this postseason--but I wouldn't bet against them at home.