I posted this a moment ago on my Buzz. Then I decided to post it on here, because I want to know your thoughts. Now, disclaimer: I fully allow that this thought process may be entirely insane. It's not actually something I believe... yet. I'm just throwing it out there, hoping you guys will toss it around for a moment, consider it, and tell me where I'm wrong—or if I'm right. Weigh in, please.
"Two of Allen's shots were blocked by off-the-ball defenders Ron Artest and Pau Gasol as the Lakers focused their team defense against him following Allen's Finals-record eight threes in Boston's Game 2 victory." Ian Thomsen, SI.com
Interesting thought hit me like a brick when I read this, and I haven't yet decided if it has validity, or if it needs to be thrown out altogether.
But for Ray Allen's record-breaking, once in a lifetime performance in Game 2, the Lakers would have won that game. And even then, it was pretty close right up to the end. So— is the perception that these two teams are evenly matched accurate, or could it be a false sense of parity resulting from one highly improbable performance that simply won't occur again in this series?
Put it another way: If Ray Allen has a normal Game 2, or even a pretty good game by his standards, the Lakers probably win. Now it's 3-0, and things are feeling pretty lopsided. So... why are we acting like these teams are evenly matched, when the only reason Boston has even one win is because of an event that may not be replicated in the next twenty years?
So, you tell me: Does this thought that suddenly hit me out of nowhere have any validity, or are these teams evenly matched even without Ray Allen's career night in Game 2?
What do you think?
This series is much more lopsided in favor of the Lakers than it appears to be. (60 votes)
These teams are every bit as evenly matched as they seem. (61 votes)
These teams aren't evenly matched, but it's actually Boston that is clearly better. (19 votes)
You're an idiot. (18 votes)
158 total votes