The Celtics were beat pretty badly Thursday night by the Lakers. But, should we feel that the series is already over? If you read the Los Angeles Times today, you would think the Celtics have already lost. The tone of these articles basically makes the reader feel that it is inevitable that the Lakers will be World Champions.
I really don't like writers or media members that are homers. If your team was terrible last night, you tell that story. If they were great the next game, you tell that story. I can't stand writers who make judgments after one game.
This leads me to LA Times' writers T.J. Simers and Bill Plaschke.
Their columns today made me feel that they think the Celtics have already lost the entire series. I would tell them they shouldn't make judgments after one game. They might be surprised what they see in Game 2.
Let me start with T.J. Simers. His column is titled, "These Lakers-Celtics really aren't that interesting." The point to his article was the game was too boring, and that the Celtics just aren't any good.
How did these guys beat Orlando and Cleveland? Or is it just an indication of how weak the NBA is these days, the Lakers having to only beat Oklahoma City, Utah and Phoenix to get here.
This just isn't interesting, the Lakers up by 20 after three quarters in a series that is supposed to be compelling, meaning everything to these so-called tough Celtics -- everyone forgetting they just aren't any good.
I've got to believe the people of Boston are smarter than they look and act, admitting right now, "This is the team we watched all year."
As for everyone else, The Finals are not just played for NBA fans, but television viewers across the land -- the championship for any sport an opportunity to showcase the best it has to offer.
Simers has made a judgment on the Celtics after just one game. He thinks Garnett is old. He also believes that Rajon Rondo should be called "Rajon Floppo." His article has this same tone throughout. Don't you think you need to see maybe a few more games in this series before you think the Celtics "just aren't any good?"
Bill Plaschke has a similar tone in his column, "Lakers push the Celtics into submission in Game 1." He actually is insinuating the series might be over because of Phil Jackson's record of winning the first game of the series.
But relax, Boston, it's only one game, even if, um, er, Phil Jackson's teams are 47-0 in series in which they win this game.
What amazes me about these articles is I get the impression that these writers have not been watching the Celtics in the playoffs. If they had watched, they would have seen the Celtics get blown out at home against the Cavaliers. The Celtics bounced back after that loss and actually won the series. The Celtics also did not play well in Game 5 against Orlando and got beat. The Celtics came back in Game 6 and won the series. It is possible to bounce back after a loss. Also, just because Garnett and Rondo did not play well in Game 1 does not mean they will be terrible in Game 2 and beyond.
I don't think these writers should be making snap judgments on the Celtics after one game. They might be surprised in what they see in Game 2.