Before big money contracts were involved players were not going after the highest dollar. They were playing because they loved the sport. Were they under payed, probably, but the game play was different as well.
You're dreaming. Players were trying to get as much money as they possibly could. They just weren't able to in the days before arbitration or free agency. Either a player accepted what the team offered or they didn't play next season. Very few players were good enough to actually hold out for more money, but even they were only getting an offer from one team, not bids from multiple teams. People imagine that the old days were better because players weren't rich and spoiled. But is it right that almost all of the major leaguers had winter jobs because baseball didn't pay enough to support their families? While the owners were making money hand over fist? In no other profession in the U.S. were employees prevented from working for someone else the way major leaguers were back then. It was indentured servitude.
Was it me, or did it look the like the Lakers didn't even show up the game 6? It was hard to watch. Talk about a freaking blow out.
It pains me to say it, but I agree. After Posey and House hit back-to-back, wide-open threes in the second quarter, they pretty much stopped playing defense in any way. It doesn't bother me that they lost to the team that played better, since that's how it should be. It bothers me that they let themselves be embarrassed. It hurts much worse than the 2004 loss to the Pistons.
I don't think it's really a commentary on the relative strength of the Pistons or the rest of the Western Conference. I think it's a matter of the Celtics' defense thoroughly disrupting the Lakers' offense. If you think about it, it's a lot like how the Giants beat the Patriots in the last Super Bowl. The Lakers were used to running their offense a certain way and the Nuggets, Jazz and Spurs were unable to slow it down enough. The Celtics figured out how. The Lakers were used to out-rebounding their opponents, as they had almost all season, but the Celtics turned that around. Fewer rebounds meant fewer transition baskets, more half-court defense, and fewer possessions, all of which helped screw up the Lakers' scoring. The Lakers looked around at each other and said, "It's not working like it's supposed to. What's Plan B?" There was no Plan B. I'm tempted (as I was earlier today) to pin this on Phil Jackson, but one really can't expect any team to completely alter their game plan at the end of the season and expect it to succeed.
I also think the Celtics used the first few rounds to mold their team for playoff-style basketball. Most of the Celtics' rotation wasn't on the team last season, and it took them a while to gel for the postseason game. In contrast, the Lakers only got two new players in the last year that get much playing time: Ariza and Gasol. Ariza is just barely back from injury and couldn't have much impact. Gasol's arrival went so well in the regular season that no adjustments seemed necessary.
If the Celtics were playing like they did against the Hawks in the first round, the Lakers would have won the finals. I'm not saying that to take anything away from them. Championship teams get better as the playoffs go on and play their best when it's most needed. The Celtics did it and the Lakers definitely didn't.
It's amazing how much things can turn suddenly in the playoffs though. Except for Game 6, the teams were closer than they appeared. If the Lakers complete the comeback in Game 2, does the Game 4 collapse still happen? If the Lakers had won both of those games (which was not implausible), suddenly it's the Celtics that are on the ropes. But that's why the playoffs matter so much. Lose one game and the whole series can go south. You can't give away games and expect to win the title.
