So, no, I’m not quitting my job just because the Knicks went Italian on Thursday and drafted Danilo Gallinari with the sixth pick overall in the NBA Draft.

I still stand by my assertion that the Knicks needed to do something to curb that fan base’s frustrations and anger with what has been a joke franchise for nearly a decade. Sure the fans don’t always (in fact rarely) have the right answers and you can find a fast way to sink your ship by reacting based on cheers and boos, but I thought this was a chance to throw the faithful a bone. Was he the best player available at that point in the draft (very debatable) or did they draft on need?

In the post the other day talking about busters and sleepers, I bunged up and forgot to mention Texas’ D.J. Augustin, who went No. 9 to Charlotte. That spot appears to be a bit higher than a lot of people figured he would go, but getting a capable and talented point can rarely be seen as a bad move. As we’ve seen recently (see: New Orleans, Utah), getting a guy who can run your show can mean the world. With Chris Paul and Deron Williams, the aforementioned two teams turned their fortunes pretty drastically and while Augustin might not end up in the category of those other two, I think he gives Charlotte a lot of hope that he can have the same affect on the Bobcats fortunes as the other two did with theirs.

I will begrudgingly say that one of the deals I liked the most was the one the Boston Celtics did in the second round to get Bill Walker. The C’s dropped some cash off for Washington in return for the K-State product who went 47th overall. Walker, you might remember, was once upon a time getting big-time pub as a potential lottery pick before an ACL injury slightly sidetracked that promise. What the Celtics get here is a complete steal. Think about it: If he doesn’t ever get back to the skill level for which he once was regarded, then all you’ve done is drop a bit of change. However, if he pans out to be a solid, contributing NBAer — and his athleticism, past headline-making and pure ability seem to say he could do that at the least — well then you’ve just pillaged another role player who should fit nicely in the Boston plans. Because, let’s face it, the Celts aren’t a team that needed a revamping or help right away anyway. With that luxury in their hands, they can take a flyer on a player like Walker and if it pans out, it was genius.

We’re hours away (let’s say 30-ish upon writing this) from the NBA Draft and, of course, the biggest debate is over who goes No. 1 to the Chicago Bulls. It’s not as enticing a debate as last year’s Greg Oden-or-Kevin Durant discussion, but it is decidedly more intriguing than 2006 when the Toronto Raptors took Andrea Bargnani with the No. 1 pick and Adam Morrison whent to Charlotte with the No. 3. Lamarcus Aldridge went No. 2 but ended up in Portland, which took Tyrus Thomas and sent him east to Chi-City.

And even though this year’s draft is far from the finest group of potential pros, it’s nowhere near as wretched as the 2000 version which featured, among other dogs, the likes of Darius Miles (LA Clippers, 3rd), DeMarr Johnson (Atlanta, 6th), Jerome Moiso (Boston, 11th), Etan Thomas (Dallas, 12th), Mateen Cleaves (Detroit, 14th) and Jake Tsakalidis (Phoenix, 25th).

But the Bulls have to feel like they can do much better this year than that 2000 class when they absolutely crapped their picks away with … wait for it …: Marcus Fizer (4th), Chris Mihm (7th, traded to Chicago for Jamal Crawford), Dalibor Bagaric (24th), A.J. Guyton (32nd), Jake Voskhul (33rd), Kalid El-Amin (34th).

Fizer was the NCAA player of the year that season at Iowa State but never averaged more than 12.3 points per game, which he did in his second year with the Bulls.

So rather than mock draft like every other blogger and sports site seems to do, I’m going a different route here at The Scrum. (Side note: Mock drafts from web sites with no particular affiliation are some of the most pointless things you can possibly read. If we don’t know who you are, why are we reading who you think is going where?)

Instead, let me just guess — because from owners to GMs to analysts to reporters, that’s all anyone is doing — at who is going to be the most likely busters (using ESPN.com’s mock draft as a rough outline for who might go when. The closer they are to the top, the more buster points they get).

Brook/Robin Lopez, C, Stanford: One half of a nearly-dynamic brother duo, TSN.ca (yeah I went to another site) has Brook going at No. 5 to the Memphis Grizzlies, proving once again that TSN should stay away from talking about basketball and is better off covering guys named Markus rather than guys named Marcus. Anyway, Chad Ford’s mock on ESPN has Brook going No. 10 to New Jersey.

Do we even know which Lopez brother is better? Ford later has younger brother Robin going to Toronto at No. 17, which should make Raptors fans sufficiently nauseous.

Here’s Ford’s logic on Robin, who averaged a less than inspiring 10 ppg/5 rpg at Stanford: The Raptors really need size, toughness and rebounding. While Lopez doesn’t project as a great scorer in the pros, he’s a big, rugged player who could solidify the Raptors’ front line.

Yeah, those guys really go over well. There is no doubt that is the exact type of player the Raptors need — right now as a team they’re pillowy soft — but if you’re already accepting that he can’t score the ball at this level, well that’s a pretty big acceptance.

Meanwhile, Brook seems to translate as an average NBA player. He’s an inside-out 7-foot-1 centre who has been knocked for his rebounding. If he goes in the top five of this draft, consider him the bust of the year.

Kevin Love, C, UCLA: I know, I know. Everyone LOVES Kevin Love. He’s the best NBA-ready big man in the draft. He sees the floor as well as any big man in the past 10 years (or something). He reminds everyone of Bill Walton.  It isn’t 1978 anymore, however. Love’s back-to-the-basket ability in the NCAA is one thing, but there’s red flags with him that stand out on an NBA stage. There’s not much explosiveness, his athleticism is middling and … I’m sorry to say this … he’s white. OK, there you go. White big men aren’t effective. Can we all just acknowledge that now? I don’t care if it’s the aforementioned Voskhul or Mihm, Todd MacCulloch, Travis Knight, or Spencer Hawes, there’s a murderer’s row of guys who had a light complexion who, at best, were one-year wonders. And get off me about MacCulloch. I know he had bad feet and had to retire early and I know NBC did an opening-montage piece on him during the NBA Finals one year. It doesn’t mean you’d draft him and lean your team’s hopes on the pick.

When you’re lauded mainly for your outlet pass, as Love is, that doesn’t translate into big-time difference-maker in the NBA.

Danilo Gallinari, SF, Italy: Ford has him going No. 6 to the Knicks. I think the long-suffering NYK fans deserve better than this. I’ll admit to ignorance here — as I would like other analysts to also do — and fully confess that this opinion is based solely on the “I am very worried if my team drafts a Euro because no one ever sees them and, well, they play in Europe” theorem. Say what you want, but it’s a pretty air-tight theorem.

And don’t start arguing the cases of Tony Parker or Manu Ginobili or Leandro Barbosa who, while not all Europeans are still foreign to the U.S., because for every one of those players you reference, there’s at least two or three names we can find that none of us have ever heard of.

One last thought: Ford believes Gallinari goes to the Knicks. If he’s still on the board when New York approaches to pick I will bet my career that they don’t take him. Why? Because one of the most passionate, loyal and devout fan bases in sports might actually set the place on fire. Listen, Gallinari could end up being a great pro (see, you don’t know either) but if you’re the Knicks and you are wanting to assuage the frustration in that infuriated fan base, which has been put through the wringer, are you seriously going to pick a player who will require you to dig up grainy scouting video to show your fans just to prove that he did, in fact, play basketball somewhere last season? It might be fairly weak reasoning but I honestly think you need to do some PR work there and grabbing a good player who the fans have actually heard of is the way to do that.  

Joe Alexander, SF, West Virginia: Similar logic here to above with the Knicks and Gallinari, because Ford has Alexander going No. 8 to the Milwaukee Bucks.

Bucks fans are a tortured group, so much so that they happily latched on to ESPN.com’s Bill Simmons and his half-joking quest to become the new Milwaukee GM. That’s a desperate group right there. If the Bucks take Alexander, who is 6-foot-8 and weighs in at a svelte 220 pounds, those fans too might revolt. Alexander is an inside-out style player who struggles shooting the three. So, y’know, kinda struggling with the ‘out’ in that description. And he’s 220 sooooooo ‘inside’ might be a problem, too.

---

That’s a few of the guys who I think are going to get picked and become marginally to utterly useless for the poor saps who pick them. But every year there’s a few guys who go unnoticed, don’t get the pre-draft hype and eventually turn into great players and everyone is left standing around asking “how did we let him pass us by?” So who might those guys be? Well, we’ll go to the other end of the mock and go from there with a couple players who might make some noise:

Donte Greene, SF, Syracuse: A guy who once upon a time was regarded as a lottery pick, he’s free-falling because scouts are hesititant about his unrefined game. He might be leaving too early. Then again, he could be falling late to a team that would be very lucky to get a guy of his ability in the final picks of the first round.

Roy Hibbert, C, Georgetown: Hibbert is being projected in the mid-to-late first round area but most mocks have him going much later than Ohio State’s Kostas Koufos, who may have more skills than Hibbert. Yet if you’re trying to get a big man late in the first round Hibbert would be someone you’d have to be happy with.

Brandon Rush, G, Kansas: Ford has Rush going in the middle of the first round (15 to Phoenix) and this is that perfect spot in the draft to find guys who are real good but for whatever reasons aren’t gaining the attention of the lottery guys. So, Rush isn’t a lottery-area guy so he’s not being raved about or garnering all the publicity but he’s a player who has gained extended playing experience in college (he’s a junior, which for underclassmen in this day and age is downright veteran). He’s a 6-foot-7 shooting guard, tremendous size for the ‘2′ and he knocks the three down at a good clip. He’s an underrated player who can play a couple of positions and could step in right away in the right situation. If you consider him a sleeper, then consider him MY sleeper of the draft.

For whatever that’s worth.

---

So there’s a few names and I’m fully admitting to guesswork here because, after all, that’s what drafts are. You roll your dice and hope for the best.

So that sucked.

It’s now two days removed from the Boston Celtics comeback in Game 4 at Staples Centre and I’m still not even in a place where I can speak about it like an adult. See, that’s the thing: I’m an adult in age only when it comes to these things.

So I was pretty much inconsolable all Wednesday night after the Lakers epic collapse and I’ve only graduated slightly from those depths.

That said, the comment on our last post provides a good discussion for today’s post in advance of Game 5 back in L.A.

So where does the Zen Master’s role in all this lay? Winning all those games and all those titles grants you some — often unneccesary — slack and shelter from the wrath. Probably isn’t right considering any other coach would have been lambasted for coaching misdeeds had they been in Phillip’s position overseeing such a monumental breakdown.

The thing folks have always said about Jackson is that he lets his guys play through the tough times rather than calling timeouts and asserting his will into the game. He would rather his players work it out on their own and he’s been doing it for years. Trust me, as a Laker fan it can be maddening to watch gigantic runs go against your team and your coach seemingly not try to do something to stop it.

That said, I’m not sure what it was Phil could have done to stop what was going on. Momentum is a funny lady, as Phil said in the third-quarter interview, and it just wasn’t coming back L.A.’s way. Why? Well for one, Kobe Bryant looked genuinely beaten down and just didn’t have that “I’m taking this thing over” look that we’re so used to seeing at those stages of games. And no one else — and I mean no one — on that Laker team seemed willing or capable to step up and make a big play when it was needed. The Lakers played like they were in panic mode for most of, if not all, of the fourth quarter, while the Celtics came out looking like they were pre-destined to stomp them out.

In hindsight should Jackson wear some blame? I can’t see why not. Could any coach have stopped what was happening? I’m not so sure. That game, I think, went beyond Xs and Os and trying to scheme to beat the other guys. At some point the players on the court just have to play and it was clear that wasn’t happening with L.A.

Just one last point: The last post wasn’t truly meant to arrogantly extol  the virtues of Jackson. Truth be told, I’ve never had a particular affinity for him, dating back to when he was with Chicago and I was one of the folks who was dead-set in the belief that he was just a fortunate coach in the right place and right time. I’m not 17 anymore, however, and I can see a little better and understand better what it is he does with the teams he coaches. As I said in the last post, to get this Laker team in the final, is nothing to scoff at. So it’s hard to make the point without coming off as the homer to your team, but let’s be real here, anyone who could ever suggest that this coaching match-up is “even” is truly off base. It’s almost not worthy of an argument.

Me being me, however, I apparently had to devote 1000 words to it and put my curse on my beloved team.

Now do you see why I don’t want to talk about these things?

Before the NBA Final began, the Boston Herald had the audacity to suggest — in its playoff position-by-position comparisons — that the coaching match-up of Doc Rivers v. Phil Jackson was … wait for it …

Even.

Jackson, who has long been slapped with the ‘pick-a-winner’ label, nonetheless has nine titles to his name and has undertaken a pretty impressive coaching effort to get this L.A. Lakers team into the championship series.

Rivers, on the other hand, once worked for ABC.

And so it seems that anyone considering the coaching match-up (Jackson has coached for 17 seasons, Rivers nine; Jackson has nine titles, Rivers none; Jackson is 976-418-.700 liftime, Rivers is 339-328-.508) as even, can’t possibly be competent enough to cover that particular sport for a living.

Now Rivers has taken some heat for his coaching style — although never in the Boston media it would seem — and the closing moments of Tuesday’s Game 3 should be an indication of why that particular match-up is nowhere near even.

Rivers, after temporarily double-teaming, allowed the NBA’s greatest closer to go one-on-one against arguably Boston’s poorest perimeter defender. So there was Kobe Bryant, with one minute to go in the game and the result still in the balance, allowed to go head-to-head with Ray Allen and he promptly proceeded to hit a deep step-back ‘J’ followed by a pump-fake-up-and-under in the lane that essentially sealed things. Allen was barely noticeable.

But what led to that decision? Rivers had double-teamed Bryant in the fourth to get the ball out of the hands of the MVP and it worked marginally and forced the Lakers to get their points elsewhere (Pau Gasol tipped in a Lamar Odom miss after Odom was the generator of the set play out of a time out). However, with about 1:40 to go in the game and the Lakers up two, that double team was extended well out past the top of the key, almost near halfcourt. Kevin Garnett joined Allen in trapping Bryant. The thought here is likely that Garnett brings some length to make passes out of the double team tougher and the double should take away Bryant’s ability to dribble out of the trap.

So what happens? Bryant merely makes a simple pass to Odom at the top of the key — he’s free because of Garnett doubling — a slight penetration towards the hoop draws the remaining Boston defenders and Odom kicks to a waiting Sasha Vujacic who hits a three in the corner that allowed the Lakers to breathe a sigh of relief with 1:36 to go.

The next time down, the Celtics were going one-up on Bryant and No. 24 assumed his usual role of icing a game.

The Celtics still have to feel fine about their situation. They can look at Garnett’s subpar effort, Paul Pierce being invisible and then check the scoreboard and still know, despite all that, they were right there with a chance to win the game. Plus, it’s still 2-1 with, at the very least, two games in Boston possibly as their fall-back.

The Lakers, meanwhile, got one. It’s nothing more than that. Well, that and they’ve succeeded in injecting at least an ounce of life into a series that, with a Boston win on Tuesday, would have been well on its way to being a corpse.

With the Celtics taking a 2-0 lead in the NBA Final, time to re-visit the four keys The Scrum provided last week and see how they’ve played out in the first two games in Boston.

• Los Angeles’ so-called depth: A lot of experts had L.A. winning this series and a big reason, in their minds, was the Lakers’ depth and ability to go nine or 10 deep on their bench. We questioned the veracity of that given the lack of big-game experience on that bench and some of those players’ penchant to waver in the category of consistency. The Lakers did in fact go nine deep in Game 1 but got just 15 points on 5-for-13 shooting from their bench. Game 2 was marginally better but not nearly enough and, on top of that, starting forward Vlad Radmanovic did his space-cadet thing for extended periods of both games, looking like he didn’t know how to spell NBA, never mind play in it.

• Who has the bigger big-gamers?: Lamar Odom and Pau Gasol weren’t involved nearly enough in Game 1 and, after a solid start for Gasol in Game 2, L.A. virtually abandoned its inside game on the offensive end. Kevin Garnett, meanwhile, had a big double-double, Paul Pierce hit big shots and Ray Allen, although still not quite himself, seems to have a dagger to deliver when the Celtics truly need it.

• Who can win on the road?: Well, apparently not the Lakers who were abysmal in Game 2 and only slightly better in Game 1. Now the Lake Show pretty much HAS to win all three in a row at home before heading back to Boston for what they hope is Games 6-7. Even winning two of three in L.A. would mean the Lakers would be down 3-2 and needing both in Boston to win it all and that is not a good proposition.

• Which team’s “other guy” steps up?: If you watched Game 2, then all that needs to be said to answer this question is “LEON FREAKING POWE?!?!?” The rookie from Cal had 21 points in under 15 minutes off the bench and the Lakers were tortured inside. In Game 1 it was Rajon Rondo who had 15 points and Sam Cassell, off the bench, who added eight early on as the Celts went inside-out effectively.

The concern for the Lakers heading into the series was their ability to match the physicality of the Celtics, especially down low. Game 1 they absolutely did not do that, losing the rebound battle 46-33 and 10-7 in O-boards. Game 2 was better, but the Lakers still got bossed around and the Celtics took 38 free throws to 10 by the Lakers.

The free-throw disparity rightfully annoyed the Lakers after the game. This was not a team settling for jump shots and residing on the perimeter. While Boston attacked, it’s not accurate to say the Lakers didn’t do the same. Were the Celtics more disciplined on the defensive end? Perhaps. But in any game — never mind during the championship final — you’d better have a clear-cut example that one team deserved 28 more free throws than another, and I don’t think you saw that in Game 2.

Game 3 on Tuesday at least allows the Lakers their friendly confines, but only one day to make any adjustments they need. Unfortunately for them, it’s hard to alter a psyche in 24 hours.

We don’t have the historical frame of reference at the tip of our fingers here and, even so, there’s likely not a ton of historical data to back it up, but let’s just say — for argument’s sake — that the Stanley Cup final of 2008 was the most lopsided series — that appeared close — of all time.

In this modern era of short-term memory, it’s easy to forget — amidst the tension and drama of Game 5 — that Games 1 and 2 really only had one team on the ice. After 4-0 and 3-0 losses on the road, the Pittsburgh Penguins left some people (me) jokingly suggesting that the Detroit Red Wings would become the first team to win a Cup without having a goal scored against them.

Yet the Pens managed, somehow, to push that thing to six games, even though the circumstances of Game 5 gave them no chance at all. They were dominated in that game as they had been throughout the series, but they managed to sneak one in here and there.

And that’s what the final felt like: A straw-weight jabber just trying to get a shot at the heavyweight’s nose when it’s exposed.

The Penguins mustered a Lilliputian-like four shots in the third period of Game 5 in Detroit, a game that held their fate in its balance. Not exactly inspired, all things considered. Yet one of those shots, produced a goal that was a part of creating one of the great Cup final games ever, even if Pittsburgh was only there for half of it.

And Game 6 held the same. Detroit needn’t worry about where the Cup was going, because the Red Wings showed that it was only a matter of time before it was residing in the Motor City.

The Penguins were out-matched, out-played, and out-shot in all six games and their lone credit is that they somehow — against all those odds — managed to take the thing that far.

In the end, it was painfully true they weren’t on the same level as the team that claimed the Cup.

Like that plucky straw-weight, they looked happy to be there until they took the roundhouse that ended it all.

I, David Larkins, am completely superstitious, to a point that some of the things I do in the name of cheering for my teams can’t even be called superstitions.

Here’s the thing: I don’t turn my cap a certain way during a game because the last time it was tilted slightly to the right Kobe Bryant hit a deep three and started a 10-0 run. I don’t order a special kind of blue cheese when watching the Winnipeg Blue Bombers. And I don’t have any particular routine or method of coaxing wins out of the Nebraska Cornhuskers, Pittsburgh Steelers or San Diego Padres, either (although I’m expecting a letter from Pads GM Kevin Towers any day now asking me to devise one).

But I wear Husker red every Saturday game day, I have a porcelain Blue Bombers doll on my work desk that I will NOT let any non-Bomber fans even touch and I’ve gone six weeks without washing a Jerome Bettis jersey just because the Steelers were on an improbable run to a Super Bowl title in 2005-06.

But the thing I do the most — and this is one of those “non-superstitious superstitions” that I’ve gravitated towards — is I refuse to talk about big games that my teams are playing in. In February of ‘06 you’d have been hard-pressed to get any opinion out of me on what was going to happen between Pittsburgh and Seattle. Same too with the Winnipeg-Saskatchewan Grey Cup, which — as we all know — was only won by the Roughriders because we had to field our No. 2 unit.

And as the Boston Celtics and Los Angeles Lakers get prepared to launch a throwback NBA Final, I’m staying pretty mum with any predictions. That would ruin everything. I know it’s not something that works well when you’re in the business of writing about sports but c’est la vie.

I will, however, read as much as I can on the big games and saturate myself with as much coverage as I can. And (cue the next superstition), I’m very worried about the Lakers. Why? Because everyone and their pet monkey is picking the Lakers to win this series. And, even more than potentially jinxing a series myself by talking about it, that’s the thing I hate most: When everyone in the world is siding with your guys. It’s a sure sign you’re going down in flames.

On a “let’s actually put some thought into this and not rely on non-existent basketball gods” note, I don’t fully understand the runaway love for the Lake Show. At least not as it has manifested itself this week with all experts whole-heartedly scribbling their predictions down in royal purple and gold.

Everyone seems motivated more by the fact that the Celtics needed two Game 7s to get to the Eastern Conference final and that they had been 0-6 on the road during that time, against a team that barely deserved to be in the playoffs and then against a team that was one star and a bunch of other guys you won’t be able to name in 10 years. (For fun, 10 years from now try to remember who the starting lineup for the Cleveland Cavaliers was. Heck, try it in 10 minutes and you likely can’t get more than three names right).

Yet here were the Lakers blitzing through a shellshocked Denver team, rallying against a darn good Utah team and then whacking the defending NBA champions. Both Boston and L.A. are in the same place right now, just one team looked better in getting there.

And that appears to be the biggest criteria for everyone. That and the fact the Lakers have the biggest X-factor player in the NBA right now in Bryant. Obviously any game he’s playing in you have to give the Lakers more than a fighting chance.

Let’s also not forget that Boston blitzed L.A. in two regular-season meetings, even though one of those came before the Lakers had acquired Pau Gasol from Memphis, which is a far-from-insignificant fact.

So if you believe that the playoffs are about momentum, then you’d likely be feeling Los Angeles right about now. If you feel it’s about adjustments and depth and personnel and Xs and Os, then you maybe don’t believe it’s as clear cut.

All I’m saying is I don’t fully understand the love affair much of the media is having with the Lakers, insofar as their predictions. I mean, I get it. But I don’t get it.

This is not going to be any kind of cakewalk for either team. It also won’t be like 1987 or 1984 — classic series for both cities — and it’s not Showtime vs. Celtics Fundamentals, like it was when Magic was running the point and Larry was dropping threes.

What will it come down to? Here’s four things:

• Los Angeles’ so-called depth: The Lakers have been lauded this year for being able to go deep into their bench and that’s true. Where that is questionable, however, is just how much can they get out the deepest stretches of their reserves? You can talk about the Lakers being able to go 11-deep in their rotation of players, but what is more important than just being able to send a lot of players out is what those key athletes — the sixth through ninth men — are giving you. Luke Walton, who was outstanding against Denver, has been close to a liability in the last two rounds. Sasha Vujacic has been able to throw daggers at times but his consistency is a question. Ronny Turiaf is muscle, Vladimir Radmanovic is a bench player dressed up as a starter and is completely unpredictable and Trevor Ariza and Jordan Farmer — while bringing totally different styles to the table — are young and barely battle-tested. So, on one hand, you’ve just named another five guys that will get regular burn, and that’s a nice luxury. But on the other hand whether you can really rely on it is a different matter.

• Who has the bigger big-gamers?: A lot of talk about the Celtics Big Three of Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen but each of them has done some disappearing acts at some point, most famously Allen whose struggles from the field have been well-documented throughout the playoffs. The Lakers’ big three would be Bryant, Gasol and Lamar Odom, one of the most significant swing players in the series. Odom creates difficulties for any team because of his ability to play inside-out. He can draw a bigger defender away from the basket, he can post up smaller types and his versatility at 6-foot-10 with some small-guard skills makes him a tough match-up for any team. Garnett has the same type of game, of course, but how dominating will he choose to be? When he’s determined and wanting it, he’s a beast. When he defers to other players, he’s just another guy on the floor.

• Who can win on the road?: The unique 2-3-2 format for the Final changes things slightly in terms of what games are most pivotal and what I’m going to suggest might seem completely absurd. First, there are veterans on this Lakers team who have played in big games before — Derek Fisher’s leadership has to be an intangible — and somewhere along the line the Lakers have to win in Boston if they want to be meeting Larry O’Brien in a few weeks. Playoffs are all about moxy and determination, and so too is winning road games, which makes any “I’ve been here before” edge you can find such a big deal. Now here’s where I go loony: The Celtics don’t have to win a game on the road to win the title, which makes Game 1 arguably one of the most pivotal, given the C’s penchant for laying a turd away from the Garden. If the Lakers win Game 1, home court is theirs. If Boston wins it, there’s a HEAP of pressure on L.A. to get Game 2 because, even with Games 3-5 in Los Angeles, winning back-to-backs or two out of three against Boston would be a formidable task and the last thing L.A. would want is to have to try to stay alive in what would be an absolute madhouse in Boston.

• Which team’s “other guy” steps up?: We all know what the guy wearing 24 for L.A. can do, but who else makes plays for the Lakers? If the Celts are physical with Gasol and if they don’t let Odom get near the rim and get stuff going towards the basket, then now you’ve turned the Lakers into a jump-shooting team and they’re one leg up by defending the paint. That would make players like Radmanovic, Vujacic, Farmar and even Walton crucial because you need your supporting players to carry you at times. Conversely, if the Celtics would be well-served if they can get good, physical, productive minutes from Kendrick Perkins. So while the Lakers bigs need to match-up and play with some good Boston bigs, the Celtics guards are ones who have to prove themselves against L.A.’s smalls. Fisher is a good one-up defender and can potentially make Rajon Rondo’s life difficult, and the Celtics won’t have Tony Allen healthy to defend on Bryant, which he did well during the regular season. James Posey perhaps slides into that role temporarily. Boston has to find someone outside of the Allen, Garnett, Pierce triumvirate and still get what it expects out of those three.

Game 1 is Thursday and please forget I talked about any of this.

It is almost comical that the NBA has, for once, come out and admitted an err in judgment.

On a critical play in Game 4 of the Western Conference final, Derek Fisher was sent in the air by a Brent Barry pump-fake, causing the Los Angeles Lakers point guard to bump against the left shoulder of the San Antonio Spurs shooter, who stayed on the ground and then, a second later, flung an ill-fated shot towards the hoop as the last seconds ticked off the clock and L.A. bolted out with a 3-1 series lead.

The debate over Fisher’s foul is a joke when you consider the widespread inconsistency that permeates this league and every single game in these playoffs.

James Posey can literally two-hand LeBron James as he drives across the key, with no intent on playing the ball, but Ronny Turiaf is ejected for a hard-foul that wasn’t remotely near some of the hits in these playoffs that would have made NHL players take notice.

This isn’t about one team over the other. It’s about the NBA’s laughable policing of its playoff games. One play you’re calling a defender for a hand check, and the other minute you’re letting a body contact go because it happened in the final five minutes of a game when all the players are scrapping and clawing.

Here’s the reality: If Derek Fisher is lifted in the air and bumps Brent Barry in the first quarter of that game, it’s a foul. But, like it or not, because it was in the final few seconds of a critical game, it was what it was: A final whistle.

The injustice here is not towards the San Antonio Spurs — although they have beef — but rather to the NBA fan in general. I’ve been watching this league for the better part of 20 years and I still found myself watching the highlight a few times questioning whether it was a foul or not.

And do you know why I debated? It had nothing to do with the play itself and everything to do with how the NBA has discredited itself with inconsistency. A hand check in the first quarter is an infraction, but a body foul in traffic is disregarded. The charge/block call — the most debated and challenged foul call in basketball — is rewarded to whomever sells it the best. As long as it’s in the right part of the game for your team.

But here was the NBA a day after Game 4 coming out and saying it — and the officials in charge — was wrong in the call, much like the NFL has been known to do the Monday following a controversial call. Where it becomes a circus, however, is this is the rare time the NBA has made the leap to say someone in its organization was wrong in an on-court decision. But in a sport where there’s potentially a call every 30 seconds, it’s silly to find one call up for debate and put it on display on the same networks that would rather focus on replays of the innocuous 17-foot jump shot than the controversial foul that happened seconds before.

So the NBA decided to make that call its concession. An acceptance that not everything goes the way that its planned. And as such, the Spurs would have been well advised to have someone like Bryant taking the shot for them.

Knowing the NBA, they’d have been more likely to get that call.

An interview with New York Rangers assistant coach Mike Pelino; plus, thoughts on the NBA playoffs, Dwyane Wade and Star Jones, Bill O’Reilly, Beverly Hills 90210, and Rita MacNeil.

We heard so much about how loud the EnergySolutions Arena in Salt Lake City could get. We heard about the tin roof, the plastic chairs and how the small surroundings reverberated the screams and cheers of its dwellers to make it one of the loudest arenas in the NBA. But what we learned Friday was that those things also help to make the boos a lot more punctuated as well.

I’ll save my opinions on the Utah fans who booed Derek Fisher when he returned there in the regular season. This is just too easy of a topic to go off on and if you find yourself putting a hate on for a classy and respected player like Fish, I’m not sure I have anything I can say that will make much sense to you anyway. You clearly live by different rules.

And I won’t go off on the Utah fans who felt the need to throw garbage towards the Lakers bench during timeouts of the fourth quarter on Friday. Again, you and I don’t have a lot in common. I passed Grade 3.

Oh but Utah couldn’t get enough of booing every single call that went against its team in Game 6, to the point the Jazz faithful broke into regular chants of “Ref You Suck.” And this wasn’t an isolated group, either. This was loud and clear enough to distinctly hear each word. And I won’t make the gimme Utah-related joke of “well it’s easy for the fans to be loud: It’s not just a fan cheering, he gets his multiple wives to join him.”

I won’t make that joke. It’s above me.

The booing of the refs. The last bastion of a fanbase whose team isn’t doing anything right and they have nowhere else to turn with their angst. But EVERY call? That’s Utah for ya. They’ve made an art out of being mind-blowingly dim.

For the record? NBA refereeing is the most inconsistent and frustrating sports entity to observe. I’ve put these guys ahead of CFL refs in the category of “this might make me put a ban saw to my frontal lobe.” CFL refs are incompetent. NBA refs are, by all accounts quite competent, but seemingly swayed and altered so easily by the player involved in a call or by the game situation that you know — I mean, you KNOW — they play things differently.

Did Utah have a right to be a bit peeved with the calls Friday night? In some instances. I thought the block call on Paul Milsap on a driving Kobe Bryant in the fourth quarter was suspect and I had no doubt in my mind that it would have been a charge if it had occurred in the second quarter.

But, for the record, the personal foul calls ended up 24 against Los Angeles and 26 against Utah. The foul shots attempted favoured L.A. 38-25 with it also taken into consideration that the Jazz were intentionally fouling late in the game, as well as shooting threes to get back in the game (i.e. not attacking), while L.A. was aggressive and going to the rim. You know, where fouls get called?

When it comes to the NBA, I’ve learned to not bother screaming when a call gets made. I hate bad refereeing, but I hate inconsistency more. And that’s what you get with the NBA. But because there is no rhyme or reason to what they are calling, it serves no purpose to scream and yell and holler when your team gets jobbed because — know what? — you’ll get it paid back to you sooner rather than later.

But the refs didn’t have the Jazz shooting 35 per cent for most of the game. The refs didn’t put them behind by 19 in the first half and they didn’t put them down 26-12 nine minutes into the game. Direct your ire somewhere else. Such as Carlos Boozer who, technically, still wears a Utah jersey but you’d be hard-pressed to figure that out, what with how much is awful play assisted the Lakers in this series.

So moving on to the West final: I had someone ask me who I, as a Laker fan, was pulling for in the New Orleans-San Antonio series. Ironically I had begun blogging after Game 2 of that series about such things as, to paraphrase, “remember when we respected the San Antonio Spurs?”

Well that’s changed, hasn’t it? So much so that my answer to the above “who ya pulling for” question is undoubtedly New Orleans. For as old and slow and up and down the Spurs have been against New Orleans, there isn’t a thought in my head that San Antonio would be an easy final opponent for the Lakers. San Antonio is a tough place to win and, say what you will about those grizzled old dudes, they are still the champions and they still turn it on when they absolutely need to (even if what they’re turning on now has gotten decidedly more low-flow).

The match-up for Los Angeles with New Orleans would seem to be a better one as well. The length and size of the Lakers would be a tough match-up for New Orleans, even with Tyson Chandler and a healthy David West, but the Lakers wouldn’t be sad to see one of NO’s top guys under the weather when the final rolls around.

So we have two Game 7s and only one will be close. Despite how San Antonio has played in New Orleans (beyond dreadful), the Spurs will make it worth watching this time around. The Boston Celtics, meanwhile, will do Cleveland like they did Atlanta.

Final predictions:
Boston 93, Cleveland 78
San Antonio 97, New Orleans 94