So remember a few days ago, when the Blob tsk-tsked at all the prisoner-of-the-moment types who were saying the Warriors were in trouble because the Celtics beat them in Game 1 of the NBA Finals?
("No," you're saying)
Well, I did. Actually what I said was, in Game 2, Steph Curry would probably score eleventy-hundred points, and the Warriors would drop 29 threes or something, and they would win, I don't know, 176-12 something.
Turns I was off a tad.
Turns out the Warriors only won Game 2 by 19, 107-88, after leading by as many as 30 points in the fourth quarter. And Steph didn't go for eleventy-hundred points, only 29. And the Warriors would not drop 29 threes, only 15.
On the other hand, 36-year-old Al Horford did not score 26 points with six threes for the Celtics, either, the way he did in Game 1. This time he scored two points on four shots. And he didn't attempt a three after making 6 of 8 in Game 1.
In other words, he was the very archetype for these NBA playoffs, which have been nothing if not completely inconsistent. Team A blows out Team B in one game; Team B blows out Team A in the next. It's been a special circle of hell the all the instant analysts out there, those professional sports watchers who can sniff Portents and Omens at 20 paces -- even if those Portents and Omens only have a shelf life of 24 hours or so.
More astute observers would have observed the obvious, which is that Al Horford wasn't going to put up 26-and-six again, at least not in this lifetime. And the likelihood the Celtics as a team would go 21-of-41 from the arc, the way they did in Game 1, was perilously close to zero.
And so, on to Game 3. On to Boston.
Where the Celtics will adjust the way the Warriors adjusted in Game 2, and Boston will slow down Curry just enough to keep the Warriors from putting together one of their fabled nuclear runs. And the home team will pull out the win by, oh, let's say eight or 10 points.
After which the instant analysts will once more commence with their "See, this is how you beat the Warriors" narrative.
At least that will be consistent.
No comments:
Post a Comment