Dallas Mavericks 122, Boston Celtics 84.
An epic beating, yes. But does this mean anything beyond a single game? Does such a clear-cut result have any predictive value for what might happen in the rest of these NBA Finals? Are the Celtics really in trouble NOW?
If this were a regular season game or the first game of a playoff series, it might be easier to answer “yes” to these questions. Normally, the point difference has a high predictive value, especially when operating with small game samples.
Let’s start with the good news for Dallas. Due to its lopsided Game 4 victory on Friday, Dallas is plus-6 for the series despite being eliminated in the first game before losing more respectably in the next two.
Additionally, some elements of Friday’s game look like they could be repeated in Game 5 and beyond. The Mavs were much more invested in protecting the rim, which may seem strange given Boston’s approach to bombs, but one of the big stories from Game 4 was 2-point efficiency: Boston n He had just 18 paint points in the first three quarters (during which point both teams emptied their benches) on 9-of-23 shooting, and several of the Celtics’ 13 turnovers to that point came on forays paint. Even Luka Doncic entered the party, contributing to a rim-protection stop on Jayson Tatum.
The Mavs also landed on a rotation that suits them, excising Jaden Hardy And Tim Hardaway Jr. of the mix after being ineffective in the first three games and increasing the minutes for Derek Lively II (who replaced after just two and a half minutes) and Josh Green. I still wonder if Dallas should consider starting Lively and Green, because neither Derrick Jones Jr. neither Daniel Gafford had the same impact as these two submarines. Regardless, the rotation adjustments are repeatable.
A longer race for Maxi Kleber also helped, although he didn’t really dominate the ball. Kleber’s extra size was a real factor on defense — Dallas played bigger lineups throughout Friday’s game — and was one of the reasons why, after his first 12 minutes on the court, he had a plus/minus of plus-21 despite registration no statistics at all at the time.
Finally, remember that Dallas also went on a 21-2 run in the fourth quarter of Game 3 before succumbing in that one. In the last five quarters of basketball, the score is Dallas 151, Boston 105. Ouch.
Part of this is likely due to our colleague Seth Partnow’s so-called “play better” adjustment. Doncic, perhaps embarrassed after enduring public criticism after being torched multiple times in Game 3, he had perhaps his best defensive game of the playoffs. (Thanks to Steph Noh for doing my video work for me.)
GO FURTHER
Dončić and Mavs reject criticism, extend NBA Finals: ‘He’s grown up’
Several other Dallas efforts and scramble plays stood out (Ben Taylor highlighted many of them). here), something that was much harder to find in the gang in the first three games.
On the other hand, Boston was terrible. Tatum repeatedly missed open shots and forced dribbles and shots in traffic. Jrue Vacations suffered from a strange inability to grip the basketball with both hands, finishing with five turnovers en route to an NBA Finals record of minus-38. Jaylen Brown scored only three field goals. And even when the initial defensive efforts were good, the Celtics were hampered on the boards.
However, we might also have a takeaway or two, especially related to a single player. Yes, Boston will surely play better in Game 5, and Dallas can only take a step back from its peak performance in Game 4. (That’s actually a compliment. The Mavs were awesome.)
Celtics center Kristaps Porziņģis warms up before Game 4 of the NBA Finals in Dallas. (Peter Casey / USA Today)
The common feature of much of what has happened over the past five quarters is the lack of Kristaps Porziņģis. Dallas was able to protect the paint more successfully due to the absence of Porziņģis’ deep shooting threat, particularly in Game 4, when the 38-year-old Al Horford didn’t appear to have much left in the tank after playing 37 minutes just two days earlier.
In the minutes outside Horford, Xavier Tillman Sr.the lack of perimeter threat was glaring; while he made a wide-open corner 3 in Game 3, in more typical situations he operates as a non-shooter. Late in the first quarter, as Friday’s game began to wind down, he had a notable high when Holiday drove and kicked it over the 3-point line on the right wing and Tillman didn’t even look at the edge. The reset allowed Dallas’ defense to get back into position, and Boston ultimately struggled to escape a Holiday runner that missed just before the shot clock expired.
Porziņģis, in his 44 minutes, has as many points in this series as Horford and Tillman combined in 132 minutes. Even when the Zinger didn’t hurt Dallas in 3 (he only did two in his two games), he punished any turnover by shooting directly at a helpless Mavs defender from the free throw line area francs. Boston is plus-25 in its limited series, a number that stood out even before the Game 4 carnage in its teammates’ stats.
GO FURTHER
Joe Mazzulla warned the Celtics they were vulnerable, then Dallas fought back to extend the NBA Finals
So, Porziņģis playing in Game 5 would be an important piece that would tip the scales in Boston’s favor, not only because of his quality, but also by taking away Tillman’s minutes and giving Horford extended relief. The Celts Porziņģis was active for Game 4 but chose not to play it; it’s reasonable to think he might try on Monday.
However, there’s an even bigger reason to think Boston shouldn’t worry too much about the Game 4 blowout: We’ve seen this movie before.
I noted above that in the regular season, a result like this would have a lot of predictive value. In the playoffs, historically, that’s just not the case. The reason, of course, is that human nature remains undefeated: a team leading 3-0 or 3-1 and playing away may find many more reasons to pull the plug and post if things don’t go their way. GOOD. Soon.
Witness two years ago, for example, when the Warriors of the Golden State leads the Memphis Grizzlies 3-1 in the second round before game 5. Knowing that they still had a game 6 at home, and that Ja Morant was out for the series, human nature took over: the Warriors trailed by an unfathomable 52 points after three quarters in a blowout 134-95 loss. They went on to win the championship.
This is not our only example. The 1996 Chicago Bulls were one of the greatest teams of all time, but put a big postage stamp on Game 4 in Seattle after taking a 3-0 series lead; their 107-86 loss was only their second double-digit loss all season.
There is more. The 2000 Lakers had a dominant team en route to their first championship of the Shaquille O’Neal era, but were sluggish in a 120-87 loss to the Indiana Pacers in Game 5 before winning the title in Game 6. A generation earlier, the Philadelphia 76ers defeated Magic Johnson and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, 135-102, in Game 5 of the 1982 Finals before the Lakers won it in the next match in Los Angeles. And in 2017, the Warriors took a 3-0 lead against an overmatched opponent. Cleveland Cavaliers team before giving up a first quarter of 49 points and succumbing 137-116 in the fourth game; they came home and clinched it in game five.
Conversely, I was surprised at how rare it was for a series with 3-1 comebacks to feature a no-show blowout like this. The closest parallel is probably that Detroit Pistons first round victory Orlando in 2003, when the Magic led 3-1 and lost Game 5 in Detroit by 31; Detroit also won the next two to clinch the series.
The Houston Rockets’ 3-1 comeback against the Los Angeles Clippers in 2015, it’s something of a parallel; THE Rockets Outscored Los Angeles by 21 in Game 5 in Houston, even though it was a competitive game most of the time. The now-forgotten (except perhaps to Mavs fans) 2003 series between Dallas and Portland is also somehow qualified; Portland trailed 3-0, won game four by 19 and ultimately forced a game seven before falling. But it was not a capitulation like that of Friday; Portland trailed in the fourth game at halftime.
The Mavs face history no matter what, as teams down 3-0 are 0-156 in best-of-seven play. NBA playoffs; this total includes Conference Finals opponents Dallas and Boston in the previous round. But even being down 3-1, with two games remaining to make a comeback, the Mavs have extremely long odds, as other teams in this situation have lost 98 percent of the time.
If Dallas wins Game 5, those odds shrink to something more realistic; the Mavs would still need to win two more times, but 3-2 has been achieved relatively frequently. If Porziņģis can’t return, the last two games are much more indicative of where things stand going forward.
However, history says that it was probably more a loss of human nature than a watershed. Most teams in the Celtics’ position that suffered a similar fate immediately took care of business and ended the series in the next game. Boston will have home-court advantage, a possible return of Porziņģis and a “play better” adjustment on their side to try to add their name to the roster.
(Top photo: Tim Heitman/Getty Images)
