tnayrbrocks wrote:Outside of Garnett and a little bit of Allen in the first half, really none of the celtics got it done. The Lakers really had control of that game until Pierce went down and came back. And this was with a struggling Kobe, but we'll just have to see as the series goes on.
Control of the game? I mean, sure, they went on a 6-0 run to grab a four-point lead before Pierce left with an injury, but that's not exactly a commanding grip on the game. And that stretch where the Lakers held a lead prior to Pierce coming out and up to the quick comeback by Rondo and Allen while Pierce was out took place over a two-minute stretch. Neither team had control of that game until the Celtics were up by about six or so at the end of the game, and it wasn't because they started playing better; it was because they held the lead while running down the clock (important in and of itself, though, of course).
I'm just saying, except for a Pierce injury that could have been disastrous, the Celtics never looked in any horrible danger of letting the game slip out of hand. The Lakers NEVER took a commanding lead in that game and the Celtics had the lead for the majority of the game. It was very clear both teams were in the game right up until the end. It wasn't as if the Celtics had some sort of miraculous comeback, and neither team went on a huge run at any point in the game. It was a pretty back-and-forth, balanced game.