As I write this, Game 5 of the NBA Finals goes off tonight in San Francisco with the Celtics and Warriors tied at two games apiece.
That is vexing to me as a writer because you will not see this until after it’s over, and going in I have no idea what is going to happen.
Part of that has to do with the rhythm of any seven-game series, while the other part, as Yogi Berra might say, is mental. By that I mean since Game 1 of the Milwaukee series the Celtics just can not stand prosperity. The latest example is Friday’s Game 4, where with a 2-1 lead and playing in front of a ravenous, frothing at the mouth crowd the series was there for the taking, especially after they jumped out to an early double-digit lead. But they didn’t/couldn’t keep their foot on the gas and let Golden State back in the game, which eventually cost them as under a barrage of late-game Steph Curry bombs they lost.
Give GS credit for staying the course and being tough enough to win in that environment. And the Celtics are hardly the first team to get bulldozed by Curry. But still, it seems like the C’s let a golden opportunity to take command of the series slip away.
However if you’ve been following this playoff season it shouldn’t have been a surprise really, as it’s had only two constants so far. One is that, by somehow going just 6-5 at home, the Celtics seem determined to make it harder on themselves. The other constant is their resilience. Just when you think they’ve put themselves in a hole they won’t get out of by losing all those supposedly vital home games, they do, thanks to being a ridiculous 8-3 in enemy buildings.
All of which brings me back to my original statement. I have no idea what’s going to happen in Game 5, let alone 6 and 7.
However, Curry’s brilliance aside, the unpredictability of the first four games speaks to why I much prefer the NBA playoffs to the NCAA Basketball Tournament. It’s a to each his/her own world. But, while watching the run of a dark horse is fun, you can luck out to win in a one-and-done tournament (see Villanova–Georgetown 1985), but outside of losing a key guy to an injury, you can’t luck out in a long series. You’ve got to earn it by surviving the inevitable ups and downs that come when excellent teams face each other seven times in a row. It builds friction among players that leads to increasing physical play and the kind of hard feelings that can form the foundation of a real rivalry. That rarely happens in the tournament.
There’s also the overreactions of the fans and pundits from game to game to enjoy. Like Steven A. Blowhard saying the Warriors looked in trouble after Game 1. Ridiculous. The C’s famed Mother’s Day massacre of L.A. shows Game 1 is just one game. Instead, most times, these things go game to game. Especially in the first four.
Then there was just last year when Phoenix dusted the Bucks by double figures in the first two games, to have the media spouting OMG, they’re dead because only four teams have ever climbed out of an 0-2 hole to win a title. Well guess what? It’s now five times because the best player in that series took it over after Game 2 to lead Milwaukee to win four straight, culminating with Giannis Antetokounmpo’s historic 50-point game in Game 6.
Which brings us to the point of this diatribe. While sometimes, like Cedric Maxwell in 1981 or Grant Williams in Game 7 vs. Milwaukee, an unexpected surprise happens. I’m standing by what I said before the series: that for the Celtics to win Jayson Tatum had to play Curry even and Jaylen Brown had to outplay Klay Thompson. So far the latter has happened, but with Curry averaging 34 per and making several backbreaking shots in the GS wins, the former has not.
And that’s where the series lies in the last three games — in the lap of Tatum, who has not played well in either of the last two series. At least not to the dominating level he showed in series wins over Brooklyn and Milwaukee.
It speaks to a guy’s talent when a big mouth like me can say a guy averaging 22 a game isn’t playing well. But the way to tell if a star is struggling, beyond the stats, is hearing announcers like the ABC crew bending over backward to talk about Tatum’s improved passing and floor game. That’s great and speaks well to the future. But Tatum isn’t paid to pass. He gets the big money for scoring big and imposing his will on big games. That’s what’s needed here because the Celtics won’t win unless he does.
Can he do that? Yes. Will he do it? I don’t have a clue. Though as of right now I’d bet on Curry, because Tatum hasn’t reached the point yet where you know he’s going to come through even when he doesn’t.
It was like that with Larry Bird. But even he suffered through some tough times, like his miserable games 3, 4 and 5 vs. Houston in the 1981 Finals, where he shot 11 for 37 as he scored just 8, 8 and 12 points in those games.
You can say it’s not fair to compare Tatum to Bird. But at that point he wasn’t Larry Legend. He was just in his second season and yet to win a title. But he came back in Game 6 to put 27-13-5 on the board in a 102-91 series-ending win.
Which brings us back to resilience. It’s been their calling card so far and how you win. You keep moving forward to get your groove back.
We’ll know by now if Tatum found his in Game 5.
