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.