Boston Versus Indiana Preview
Eastern Conference Finals
#1 Boston (64-18) vs. #6 Indiana (47-35)
Season series: Boston, 3-2
Indiana can win if…Tyrese Haliburton pushes the pace to the extent that Indiana scores 115-120 ppg while shooting efficiently. The Pacers led the league in regular season scoring (123.3 ppg) and regular season field goal percentage (.507), and they averaged 115.3 ppg on .532 field goal shooting in their second round victory versus the New York Knicks. They rewrote the NBA record book with their 130-109 game seven victory at New York, shooting .671 from the field overall and .763 from the field in the first half. Haliburton led the Pacers in scoring (21.3 ppg) and assists (7.0 apg) versus New York.
Midseason acquisition Pascal Siakam has been more up and down than one would expect from a two-time All-NBA selection/two-time All-Star who was a key player for the 2019 NBA champion Toronto Raptors; in 13 playoff games this year his scoring has ranged from 12 points to 37 points, but he averaged 20.0 ppg and a team-high 6.4 rpg versus New York with scoring totals in between 14 and 26 points. It may not be realistic to expect him to win his matchup versus Jayson Tatum, but for the Pacers to have a chance in this series that matchup must not be a landslide in Tatum's favor.
Boston will win because…the Celtics are too talented and too big for the Pacers. Jayson Tatum has finished in the top six in MVP voting in each of the past three seasons. This season, Tatum averaged 26.9 ppg, 8.1 rpg, and 4.9 apg; his scoring has dipped in the 2024 playoffs (24.3 ppg) but his rebounding (10.4 rpg) and assists (5.8 apg) have both increased. Tatum led both teams in scoring (26.8 ppg), rebounding (10.4 rpg), assists (6.2 apg, tied with Darius Garland), steals (1.6 spg) and blocked shots (1.0 bpg, tied with Evan Mobley and teammate Al Horford) as Boston defeated Cleveland 4-1 in the second round. Tatum joined Julius Erving (1976 ABA Finals) and LeBron James (2016 NBA Finals) as the only players to lead both teams in all of those categories in a playoff series since steals and blocked shots have been official statistics (1973 for the ABA, 1974 for the NBA).
Jaylen Brown is a strong second option for Boston, averaging 23.1 ppg on .554 field goal shooting during the playoffs. Third option Derrick White (18.2 ppg during the playoffs) has led the Celtics in scoring twice in 10 playoff games while also playing tough defense. Jrue Holiday has championship experience with Milwaukee and is a steadying influence at both ends of the court.
Holiday, White, and Brown can take turns guarding Haliburton, using their size and quickness to cut off driving angles and contest shots.
Kristaps Porzingis has missed Boston's last six playoff games with a strained left calf. The Celtics are cautiously optimistic that he can return to action during the Eastern Conference Finals. During the regular season, he ranked third on the team in scoring (20.1 ppg), second in rebounding (7.2 rpg), first in blocked shots (1.9 bpg), and first in field goal percentage (.516) among players who attempted at least four field goals per game. His playoff production was not nearly as good, but he poses matchup problems at both ends of the court. If Porzingis can play, this would enable the Celtics to manage the playing time of soon to be 38 year old Al Horford, who had a flashback performance in the series clincher versus Cleveland (22 points, 15 rebounds, five assists, three blocked shots) but could wear down if forced to play heavy minutes.
Other things to consider: The Celtics have reached the Eastern Conference Finals six times in the past eight years. That is a rare feat in the 53 years since the NBA realigned into a two conference format, but the Celtics have not won an NBA championship since 2008; the only other teams to reach the Eastern Conference Finals or Western Conference Finals at least six times in an eight year span each won at least one championship:
Philadelphia 76ers: 1977-78, 1980-83 (won championship in 1983)
L.A. Lakers: 1980, 1982-89, 1991 (won championships in 1980, 1982, 1985, 1987-88)
Boston Celtics: 1980-82, 1984-88 (won championships in 1981, 1984, 1986)
Chicago Bulls: 1989-93, 1996-98 (won championships in 1991-93, 1996-98)
Detroit Pistons: 2003-08 (won championship in 2004)
Golden State Warriors: 2015-19, 2022 (won championships in 2015, 2017-18, 2022)
Four of those six teams had at least one member of my pro basketball Pantheon (Julius Erving from the 76ers, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Magic Johnson from the Lakers, Larry Bird from the Celtics, and Michael Jordan from the Bulls). One of the least talked about and most underrated aspects of Erving's underrated career is that his teams played in pro basketball's version of the "Final Four" 10 times in the first 14 seasons of his 16 year career (and he was indisputably the best player on eight of those 10 squads while serving as a strong second option on the other two).
Consistently reaching the Conference Finals is special because the NBA is designed to create parity based on the structuring of the Draft, the free agency rules, and the salary cap rules; that preference for parity means that it is common for a team to reach the "Final Four" at least once every 15-20 years, but it uncommon for a team to repeatedly go that far in the playoffs. Daryl Morey served as Houston's General Manager for 13 years and has been Philadelphia's President of Basketball Operations for the past four seasons. His teams have never reached the NBA Finals, and have advanced as far as the Conference Finals just twice. He is touted--and touts himself--as someone whose use of "advanced basketball statistics" gives him an advantage, but the reality is that since 2008 10 of the 15 Eastern Conference teams and 11 of the 15 Western Conference teams have reached the Conference Finals at least once. The NBA's built-in parity spreads the wealth (literally and figuratively). Morey's 2015 and 2018 Houston teams, the 2019 Portland Trail Blazers, and the 2021 Atlanta Hawks are examples of teams that made fluky, unsustainable playoff runs to the Conference Finals; they each benefited more from the league's built-in parity than from anything specific that they did, and that is why none of those teams enjoyed sustained success. The Boston Celtics stand in marked contrast to those teams; it is a significant accomplishment to defy the league's built-in parity and rise above the pack to consistently advance to the "Final Four."
However, an NBA team's historical reputation hinges on winning at least one NBA title. If the Celtics win a championship then they vault themselves into the select group of teams listed above; otherwise, they remain in the same tier with the 1994-2000 Indiana Pacers, who reached the Eastern Conference Finals five times and the NBA Finals once, but never won a championship.
Boston will defeat Indiana in six games.
Labels: Boston Celtics, Indiana Pacers, Jaylen Brown, Jayson Tatum, Pascal Siakam, Tyrese Haliburton
posted by David Friedman @ 4:20 PM
5 Comments:
I’d stop short of saying that if this Celtic team doesn’t win the championship this year they never will but if they don’t, it’s valid to question what has to happen for them to finally break through. The first two rounds were essentially bye rounds and they are notably better on paper than the three other teams left in the playoffs. It’s also worth mentioning that during the six ECFs appearances in eight seasons they were defeated at home twice in game seven and they squandered a 2-1 lead when they finally did get to the Finals.
Needless to say, they have by far the most pressure on them to win the championship of all the teams remaining and anything less than a championship will be an excruciatingly bitter disappointment.
Michael,
I disagree with the all-or-nothing notion that "anything less than a championship will be an excruciatingly bitter disappointment".
There's no shame in being runner-up or in making the final four in the NBA Playoffs, so long as the Celtics put forth their best effort.
What more can you ask?
What's really shameful is the "tanking to the top" syndrome that has infected the league lately, and I'm glad David recently called out Mark Cuban and I also want to take a moment to question the alleged "greatness" of Greg Popovich. I just don't get how a coach can have character, yeah I'm talking in old-school terms, and yet sellout his team for several losing seasons just to get a no. 1 pick.
Whatever happened to building up a championship from the ground up? From instilling into the organization a winning mentality. Pop's tank job makes me want to put those five championships more on Tim Duncan than on Pop.
Anyway, back to the Celtics. The Timberwolves seem the better team regardless. So I don't see why the Celtics likely loss to the Wolves, in the event they meet in the Finals, would be such "an excruciatingly bitter disappointment."
It's like when Andy Roddick lost three Wimbledon finals in the 2000's and Ivan Lendl lost a couple of Wimbledon finals in the 1980's. At least Roddick and Lendl competed at the highest level. I'm sure they were disappointed, maybe even "excruciatingly bitterly disappointed." But that's on them and their worldclass-talent feelings. Not for some internet warrior to judge.
I guess I'm pushing back against the "winning is the only thing" mentality.
To give another example, a basketball example, mad props to the Utah Jazz even though they lost twice to the Bulls in the Finals.
No shame in losing the chip to MJ then and there wouldn't be any shame in losing the chip to the Wolves defensive juggernaut now.
Anonymous, there's no shame in making the Final 4, true, obviously. But, the Celtics were clearly the best team in the league this season and have underachieved for several postseasons now. But I guess they're just not as good as most think they are. But, with the route the Celtics have to the Finals, it would be a huge disappointment to not make the Finals at the very least. None of their opps would be title contenders ever. You still have to go out and play, but it's a cakewalk to the Finals for the Celtics almost as much as any team could ask for.
CFs still have to be played, but the Wolves have never made it past the 1st round until this playoffs and while they're good, they're not that great of a team, so yea, it'd be a big disappointment if the Celtics lost to them. The Jazz in the late 90s were actually a great team. No shame they lost to the Bulls, but it's different. Some years, the 4th or 5th best team would win the title if they played in several other seasons, while the champion some seasons wouldn't make the CF in other seasons. So yes, there's a lot more than just winning and perspective is needed.
Anonymous,
The Celtics were not "clearly the best team in the league this season." That's preposterous. They were the best three-point shooting team, which may translate into regular-season success. But as David has pointed out time and time again, overreliance on the three is a high-variance strategy that doesn't translate into supreme playoff success.
I'd argue that what's "clear" is that the Wolves and the Nuggets are the two best teams in the league. That is, if you define "best team" in terms of who's most likely to win the championship.
I figured that the winner of the Wolves/Nuggets series will win the title and I stand by that.
Wolves or the Nuggets would be favored against the Celtics because of their superior size and depth. Speaking of depth, the Wolves beat the Nuggets precisely because of their superior depth.
I suspect that, if the Wolves and the Celtics meet in the Finals, David will do a "Celtics can win if..." and a "Wolves will win because..." type of analysis.
Celtics are too reliant on the three to beat the Wolves four times in a seven-game series.
You can disagree, but it's hardly preposterous. While the West was stronger this season, the Celtics won 7 more games than any other team in the league, which is a large margin. They also led the league in net rating at 11.6, with OKC 2nd at 7.4, another very large margin. Their starting unit is much better than any other starting unit, if healthy, which Porzingis often isn't. The Celtics finished 1st in 3's made, but 2nd in %. The Pacers weren't too far behind them either. Both teams tied for 1st in the league in eFG%. Both are great offensive teams, the Celtics actually rate higher at #1 to the Pacers at #2. But, the difference is defensively. The Celtics are #3 while the Pacers are #24. The Celtics should win easily on paper, but that often doesn't happen.
You can think the Wolves and Nuggets are the 2 best teams, but they're hardly the clear 2 best teams. The Celtics lapped both in the regular season in record and efficiency. So far in the playoffs, they haven't overcome the Celtics. All 3 teams overall have done well, though all 3 have had hiccups. But rarely will any team have smooth sailing even with a relatively easy road to the Finals.
The Wolves/Nuggets were top 4 teams in the league this year, so obviously they're on the short list for winning the title. The Wolves will not be favored vs the Celtics unless major injuries hamper the Celtics, which if Porzingis remains out, they might be the case. But this hypothetical series could go either way. Depth rarely is a factor in the playoffs unless a team has absolutely nothing after their first 2-3 guys, such as the 2004 Lakers-at least in the Finals. The Wolves/Nuggets both could go and went 8 players deep. The Celtics can still go 7-8 players deep without Porzingis and will likely be more rested before the Finals than the Wolves too. Every team in the league is very reliant on 3's. The Celtics are top 3 offensively and defensively and will have homecourt advantage. The Wolves are #1 defensively, but #16 offensively. The Wolves are also just advancing past the 1st round for the 1st time with this crew. It almost always takes teams several seasons to progress to the title in the NBA.
Post a Comment
<< Home