Vancouver over Chicago
If I learned anything from the first round of the playoffs, it was that Roberto Luongo can be excellent for stretches and basically shut down a hot team.
He, and solely he, is why I’m taking Vancouver to beat the Blackhawks. There are a few other options, such as questions in Chicago’s net, their relative inexperience and their reliance on outscoring, not keeping the score down. I think this has potential to be a good series, but if Luongo plays as he did in the first, it could be over in a hurry.
Detroit over Anahiem
With the Ducks the latest of the annual winner over the Sharks, an average team is going to play a very good one.
The Ducks aren’t going to win this series nine times of ten, but they could make it interesting in most of those. I would be more receptive of them if they still had somebody a little more proven then Hiller in net, but still: they did shut down the number one seed. And the Wings have been upset before.
Just not this year. Wings are too powerful and can shoot out the lights.
Eastern Conference coming up tomorrow!
First round accuracy: 2-2
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Monday, April 27, 2009
Double Overtimes Duel - '86 vs '09
Okay, so yes, there were similarities. Both went to two overtimes, both featured the same two teams. There were even two great breakout performances.
But don’t kid yourself. Sunday’s two-overtime duel between the Celtics and the Bulls was nothing like their two-OT duel that was Michael Jordan’s coming out party in 1986.
Let’s set them up.
In ’86, the Bulls were facing a great Celtics team. They were not a great team and finished with a 30-52 record, albeit mostly because of a nagging foot injury for Jordan (indeed, it was their worst record in the Jordan era). But to beat the Celtics – who had lost exactly one home game all season and who had been to the last two NBA finals – would have been an upset of exceptional proportions.
Game two was the second time Jordan lit up twice times in that series, scoring 49 in game one and 63 in game two (he spend game three in foul trouble and finished with just 19), and basically carried his team as far as they got – namely, a three game sweep against a team that was just too good to handle.
In 2009, the Celtics were a team ripe to be upset. Kevin Garnett, the foundation of their defence and a vital part of their big three, was ruled out on the cusp of the postseason. In his absence, Paul Pierce and Ray Allen had to pick up some slack and reserve big men Glen Davis and Brian Scalabrine got many more minutes then usual.
On the other hand, the Bulls of 2009 were a team that came together at the right time, winning seven of their last ten games, with two of those losses by five points or less. Rookie Derrick Rose was the best of his class, averaging 17 points and six boards a game. One would be foolish to overlook Ben Gordon and John Salmon’s contributions too: together they led the team in minutes and points.
It was a 2-seed vs an 8-seed, but an upset wasn’t all that unlikely.
Let’s look at the teams.
2009’s Bulls team is a little more balanced. Yes, Rose had another great game – his third triple-double in four games – but he’s got a solid supporting cast. Gordon, who hit that ridiculous three to tie the game up late. Even Noah, who made some clutch plays down the stretch that helped tip the game.
Even the Celtics aren’t as powerful. The ’86 C’s were one of the great teams in recent memory, basically six hall of fame players deep: Bird, McHale, D.J., Ainge, Parish and Walton coming off the bench.
And while I’m not doubting that Ray Allen and Paul Pierce are great players, it would be foolish to put this Celtic team in the same breath as the ’86 team – especially without KG. The 85-86 Celtics lost one game at home and only three in the playoffs.
Not to sound flippant, but Glen Davis is not and never will be Robert Parish or Bill Walton and maybe not even Tom Kite.
Let’s look at the finishes.
Sure, Jordan was ice-cold in ’86, nailing free throws at the Garden with no time left. He was clutch, carrying the Bulls into extra time. But he only got to OT because of a stupid play by McHale, who left his man to try and make a block.
In overtime, Jordan launched a wide-open jumper that would have given the Bulls the lead with two seconds left… but it clanked out (Ditto for Bird, who hit the back of the rim on a long three). Then, in the second OT, the Celtics pulled away.
On Sunday, the Bulls lasted through two breakneck OT periods on top of a great 48. Salmons, hit four clutch free throws and blocked a potential game winner. Gordon hit a huge three to tie the game at 110. Allen hit a late three in regulation to send the game to OT. It was a bona-fide classic.
Yes, there were missed shots: Rose missed a game winner at the end of the fourth, Allen had a late shot blocked in OT. And the second OT wasn’t that competitive: if the game was a tug-of-war, it was when one side runs out of steam and falls slowly towards the mud. Still, I’d much rather watch that then ’86 any day – Jordan and Bird be damned.
So, which one is best?
If one had to choose between these two games – both excellent games, mind you – one would have to wildly different answers for wildly different reasons. ’86 was a coming out, the opening chapter to a legendary NBA career. ’09 was a great game that will likely be played on ESPN Classic (although had it been broadcast on TNT… maybe on NBA-TV in a couple years).
Of course, context means a lot, too. Had MJ lit up against Don Nelson’s Bucks, would we remember it as fondly ? If Larry Bird doesn’t say “that was God disguised as Michael Jordan”, do we even care? Maybe.
In this sense, it’s too early to say anything about Sunday’s game. Was it a coming-out for Rose? Or was it a spurt of greatness on national TV? Or will it be doomed to vague memory, like that great three-OT game in the 1993 Finals.
I hope not. Because if I had to choose which one to watch later tonight, I’d take ’09 in a heartbeat.
But don’t kid yourself. Sunday’s two-overtime duel between the Celtics and the Bulls was nothing like their two-OT duel that was Michael Jordan’s coming out party in 1986.
Let’s set them up.
In ’86, the Bulls were facing a great Celtics team. They were not a great team and finished with a 30-52 record, albeit mostly because of a nagging foot injury for Jordan (indeed, it was their worst record in the Jordan era). But to beat the Celtics – who had lost exactly one home game all season and who had been to the last two NBA finals – would have been an upset of exceptional proportions.
Game two was the second time Jordan lit up twice times in that series, scoring 49 in game one and 63 in game two (he spend game three in foul trouble and finished with just 19), and basically carried his team as far as they got – namely, a three game sweep against a team that was just too good to handle.
In 2009, the Celtics were a team ripe to be upset. Kevin Garnett, the foundation of their defence and a vital part of their big three, was ruled out on the cusp of the postseason. In his absence, Paul Pierce and Ray Allen had to pick up some slack and reserve big men Glen Davis and Brian Scalabrine got many more minutes then usual.
On the other hand, the Bulls of 2009 were a team that came together at the right time, winning seven of their last ten games, with two of those losses by five points or less. Rookie Derrick Rose was the best of his class, averaging 17 points and six boards a game. One would be foolish to overlook Ben Gordon and John Salmon’s contributions too: together they led the team in minutes and points.
It was a 2-seed vs an 8-seed, but an upset wasn’t all that unlikely.
Let’s look at the teams.
2009’s Bulls team is a little more balanced. Yes, Rose had another great game – his third triple-double in four games – but he’s got a solid supporting cast. Gordon, who hit that ridiculous three to tie the game up late. Even Noah, who made some clutch plays down the stretch that helped tip the game.
Even the Celtics aren’t as powerful. The ’86 C’s were one of the great teams in recent memory, basically six hall of fame players deep: Bird, McHale, D.J., Ainge, Parish and Walton coming off the bench.
And while I’m not doubting that Ray Allen and Paul Pierce are great players, it would be foolish to put this Celtic team in the same breath as the ’86 team – especially without KG. The 85-86 Celtics lost one game at home and only three in the playoffs.
Not to sound flippant, but Glen Davis is not and never will be Robert Parish or Bill Walton and maybe not even Tom Kite.
Let’s look at the finishes.
Sure, Jordan was ice-cold in ’86, nailing free throws at the Garden with no time left. He was clutch, carrying the Bulls into extra time. But he only got to OT because of a stupid play by McHale, who left his man to try and make a block.
In overtime, Jordan launched a wide-open jumper that would have given the Bulls the lead with two seconds left… but it clanked out (Ditto for Bird, who hit the back of the rim on a long three). Then, in the second OT, the Celtics pulled away.
On Sunday, the Bulls lasted through two breakneck OT periods on top of a great 48. Salmons, hit four clutch free throws and blocked a potential game winner. Gordon hit a huge three to tie the game at 110. Allen hit a late three in regulation to send the game to OT. It was a bona-fide classic.
Yes, there were missed shots: Rose missed a game winner at the end of the fourth, Allen had a late shot blocked in OT. And the second OT wasn’t that competitive: if the game was a tug-of-war, it was when one side runs out of steam and falls slowly towards the mud. Still, I’d much rather watch that then ’86 any day – Jordan and Bird be damned.
So, which one is best?
If one had to choose between these two games – both excellent games, mind you – one would have to wildly different answers for wildly different reasons. ’86 was a coming out, the opening chapter to a legendary NBA career. ’09 was a great game that will likely be played on ESPN Classic (although had it been broadcast on TNT… maybe on NBA-TV in a couple years).
Of course, context means a lot, too. Had MJ lit up against Don Nelson’s Bucks, would we remember it as fondly ? If Larry Bird doesn’t say “that was God disguised as Michael Jordan”, do we even care? Maybe.
In this sense, it’s too early to say anything about Sunday’s game. Was it a coming-out for Rose? Or was it a spurt of greatness on national TV? Or will it be doomed to vague memory, like that great three-OT game in the 1993 Finals.
I hope not. Because if I had to choose which one to watch later tonight, I’d take ’09 in a heartbeat.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Official North of the 400 NBA Playoff picks, first round
Eastern Conference
No. 1 Cleveland vs. No. 8 Detroit
Obviously Cleveland in this series. I think Detroit's too old and too banged up to even pose much of a threat, really. Cavs in five.
No. 2 Boston vs. No. 7 Chicago
You know what, now that Garnett's maybe out for the whole postseason, I feel like the Bulls can pull off a huge upset. I like the way they've been playing lately, there's some good matchups and if they can steal an early win in Boston they'll have a great chance at winning this series. I'm going to go out on a limb and say the Bulls in seven.
No. 3 Orlando vs. No. 6 Philadelphia
I don't know if I'm sold on Orlando going too deep, but I think they'll get past Philly without a lot of problems. Orlando in five.
No. 4 Atlanta vs. No. 5 Miami
I'm taking Miami since I really like the way Wade's played this season and I haven't really seen Atlanta play much. Miami in six.
Western Conference
No. 1 Los Angeles Lakers vs. No. 8 Utah
I think the Jazz are starting to self-destruct and the Lakers will walk all over them. I don't even think it'll even have a close game. Lakers in 4.
No. 2 Denver vs. No. 7 New Orleans
I really like this matchup. More then anything, I like the Billups/CP3 matchup. It's a great point against a George Karl-coached point, so I think it'll be neat. I like what little I've seen of the Nuggets, so I'm going to take them to win in six.
No. 3 San Antonio vs. No. 6 Dallas
I also really like this too. Normally I'd like the Spurs, but with Manu out and Duncan hurt, this could go either way. And since the Spurs are relying on Roger Mason Jr. to make big shots, I'll take the Mavs in seven.
No. 4 Portland vs. No. 5 Houston
Another cool series, too. I really like Houston this year (mostly because I want them to win without T-Mac) but Portland is fun to watch and I like Brandon Roy a lot. I think Portland's inexperience will be a factor, though, so I like Houston in six.
No. 1 Cleveland vs. No. 8 Detroit
Obviously Cleveland in this series. I think Detroit's too old and too banged up to even pose much of a threat, really. Cavs in five.
No. 2 Boston vs. No. 7 Chicago
You know what, now that Garnett's maybe out for the whole postseason, I feel like the Bulls can pull off a huge upset. I like the way they've been playing lately, there's some good matchups and if they can steal an early win in Boston they'll have a great chance at winning this series. I'm going to go out on a limb and say the Bulls in seven.
No. 3 Orlando vs. No. 6 Philadelphia
I don't know if I'm sold on Orlando going too deep, but I think they'll get past Philly without a lot of problems. Orlando in five.
No. 4 Atlanta vs. No. 5 Miami
I'm taking Miami since I really like the way Wade's played this season and I haven't really seen Atlanta play much. Miami in six.
Western Conference
No. 1 Los Angeles Lakers vs. No. 8 Utah
I think the Jazz are starting to self-destruct and the Lakers will walk all over them. I don't even think it'll even have a close game. Lakers in 4.
No. 2 Denver vs. No. 7 New Orleans
I really like this matchup. More then anything, I like the Billups/CP3 matchup. It's a great point against a George Karl-coached point, so I think it'll be neat. I like what little I've seen of the Nuggets, so I'm going to take them to win in six.
No. 3 San Antonio vs. No. 6 Dallas
I also really like this too. Normally I'd like the Spurs, but with Manu out and Duncan hurt, this could go either way. And since the Spurs are relying on Roger Mason Jr. to make big shots, I'll take the Mavs in seven.
No. 4 Portland vs. No. 5 Houston
Another cool series, too. I really like Houston this year (mostly because I want them to win without T-Mac) but Portland is fun to watch and I like Brandon Roy a lot. I think Portland's inexperience will be a factor, though, so I like Houston in six.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Third annual NHL Playoff picks - Western Conference
And here's part two, with my western picks, briefly:
San Jose over Anahiem
First, the Sharks are good. Nabakov has been excellent this season, winning 41 games and posting a goals-against of 2.44. And they're a solid offensive team, even now Jonathan Cheechoo's scoring touch has all but vanished. The Ducks will be hard pressed to match them.
Detroit over Columbus
A popular pick this spring is to choose Columbus and there are pretty solid reasons. Steve Mason has been nothing short of superb this year, etc. But they're over-thinking it. Detroit's offence will keep the pressure on Mason and they will get to him. I wouldn't expect this series to go very long.
Vancouver over St. Louis
Mostly because I think St. Louis is playing with house money since they've made it this far. They're old and Vancouver's Luongo can come up big in the postseason. I can see this one getting over in a hurry.
Calgary over Chicago
Because Chicago is young and still inexperienced. They remind me of the Penguins of a couple seasons ago, the ones that faced the Sens in the first round. Come next year, they might go a lot deeper, but for now they'll just give chase to the Flames.
San Jose over Anahiem
First, the Sharks are good. Nabakov has been excellent this season, winning 41 games and posting a goals-against of 2.44. And they're a solid offensive team, even now Jonathan Cheechoo's scoring touch has all but vanished. The Ducks will be hard pressed to match them.
Detroit over Columbus
A popular pick this spring is to choose Columbus and there are pretty solid reasons. Steve Mason has been nothing short of superb this year, etc. But they're over-thinking it. Detroit's offence will keep the pressure on Mason and they will get to him. I wouldn't expect this series to go very long.
Vancouver over St. Louis
Mostly because I think St. Louis is playing with house money since they've made it this far. They're old and Vancouver's Luongo can come up big in the postseason. I can see this one getting over in a hurry.
Calgary over Chicago
Because Chicago is young and still inexperienced. They remind me of the Penguins of a couple seasons ago, the ones that faced the Sens in the first round. Come next year, they might go a lot deeper, but for now they'll just give chase to the Flames.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Third annual NHL Playoff picks - Eastern Conference
It's time for the second season to begin, so here's some playoff picks for the NHL.
Boston over Montreal
Bob Gainey got the Habs under control late this season, when it looked like they had peaked early. Still, they're a team that was a sleeper pick by some (myself included) to win the Cup in October; now they barely made the playoffs. Goalie Carey Price will have to be strong in net and a few Habs - Kovalev and Kostitsyn in particular - will have to play a lot better then they have throughout the season.
Boston, on the other hand, just missed winning the Presidents trophy, albeit in a weak division - the only other team from it are the Habs - but have looked great. Tim Thomas has stood out as one of the best goalies in the NHL and looks able to carry his team. And these Bruins faced a much better-playing Habs last year in the playoffs and took them to seven games. I expect this year, they won't even have to go that far. I like the Bruins in five.
Washington over New York
Yes, the Rangers look good. Even Avery. And Lundqvist looks good. But the Rangers haven't endeared themselves to me, not yet. I don't think they're deep enough, I don't know if they have enough experience and as a whole they look like a team in transition between leaders - in other words, they miss Jagr.
The Caps are great though. They can score in bunches and look to improve from last year, when they left the postseason early. Ovechkin will force Lundqvist to play great; nobody on the Rangers will push Theodore that hard. With him, they won't go deep, but I think they can outscore the Rangers in seven games, which is what I think this series will go to.
Carolina over New Jersey
Martin Brodeur has had a great season, setting records and winning games. He's bound to be feeling better then he has in any postseason in recent memory, as he's played less games this year then he has in over a decade. And he's part of a good Devils team, too, that can score.
But Carolina is peaking, as they say, at the right time. Cam Ward is hot, maybe the hottest goalie in the East, and I think that makes the Canes - excuse the cliche - a dark horse to go deep. It will be tough for them and I'm still not sold on their offense, but if Ward keeps playing at this clip, they have a good shot at beating the Devils, maybe in as little as five games.
Pittsburgh over Philadelphia
The Flyers are solid - not great, not bad - and they know the Penguins; one could say a rivalry has formed between the two teams, especially after last season's meeting between the two. They're about the same as the Penguins, in record and statistically - but they're not as deep. After a handful of heavies, they drop off pretty quickly. But I like their tandem of goalies.
I do like the Penguins, though, who are about as good as last year, if a little more shallow. But Crosby and Malkin are still the best 1-2 punch any team in the East has and Fleury's won 35 games; no easy feat in a tight division that sent three teams to the playoffs, with none seeded lower then fifth. They'll have a tough time, I imagine, but this is a winnable series for the Pens. I like them in six.
Boston over Montreal
Bob Gainey got the Habs under control late this season, when it looked like they had peaked early. Still, they're a team that was a sleeper pick by some (myself included) to win the Cup in October; now they barely made the playoffs. Goalie Carey Price will have to be strong in net and a few Habs - Kovalev and Kostitsyn in particular - will have to play a lot better then they have throughout the season.
Boston, on the other hand, just missed winning the Presidents trophy, albeit in a weak division - the only other team from it are the Habs - but have looked great. Tim Thomas has stood out as one of the best goalies in the NHL and looks able to carry his team. And these Bruins faced a much better-playing Habs last year in the playoffs and took them to seven games. I expect this year, they won't even have to go that far. I like the Bruins in five.
Washington over New York
Yes, the Rangers look good. Even Avery. And Lundqvist looks good. But the Rangers haven't endeared themselves to me, not yet. I don't think they're deep enough, I don't know if they have enough experience and as a whole they look like a team in transition between leaders - in other words, they miss Jagr.
The Caps are great though. They can score in bunches and look to improve from last year, when they left the postseason early. Ovechkin will force Lundqvist to play great; nobody on the Rangers will push Theodore that hard. With him, they won't go deep, but I think they can outscore the Rangers in seven games, which is what I think this series will go to.
Carolina over New Jersey
Martin Brodeur has had a great season, setting records and winning games. He's bound to be feeling better then he has in any postseason in recent memory, as he's played less games this year then he has in over a decade. And he's part of a good Devils team, too, that can score.
But Carolina is peaking, as they say, at the right time. Cam Ward is hot, maybe the hottest goalie in the East, and I think that makes the Canes - excuse the cliche - a dark horse to go deep. It will be tough for them and I'm still not sold on their offense, but if Ward keeps playing at this clip, they have a good shot at beating the Devils, maybe in as little as five games.
Pittsburgh over Philadelphia
The Flyers are solid - not great, not bad - and they know the Penguins; one could say a rivalry has formed between the two teams, especially after last season's meeting between the two. They're about the same as the Penguins, in record and statistically - but they're not as deep. After a handful of heavies, they drop off pretty quickly. But I like their tandem of goalies.
I do like the Penguins, though, who are about as good as last year, if a little more shallow. But Crosby and Malkin are still the best 1-2 punch any team in the East has and Fleury's won 35 games; no easy feat in a tight division that sent three teams to the playoffs, with none seeded lower then fifth. They'll have a tough time, I imagine, but this is a winnable series for the Pens. I like them in six.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)