Boston Celtics' trident skewers Philadelphia 76ers

The Celtics' three-pronged attack was too much for the Philadelphia 76ers Wednesday night. Celtics 107, 76ers 91.

(AP Photo/Matt Slocum)
Boston Celtics' Kevin Garnett reacts after being fouled during the first half of Game 3 of an NBA basketball Eastern Conference semifinal playoff series against the Philadelphia 76ers, Wednesday in Philadelphia. Celtics won 107-91.

If you were looking to teach a clinic on what it takes to win an NBA basketball game, this would be exhibit A. The Boston Celtics, visiting the Philadelphia 76ers Wednesday night, showed what happens when you combine protecting the basketball with a powerful scoring offensive. Stunned by losing their game with Philadelphia on Monday night by one point in an anemic offensive display, the Celtics regrouped and took the crowd out of this game by the second quarter.

In Monday’s disaster in the T.D. Garden, the Celtics scored a whopping 57 points in three quarters. Wednesday night, they improved that total to 89. Three of Boston’s starters logged double-doubles:  Paul Pierce, sprained MCL and all, logged 24 points and added 12 rebounds; Kevin Garnett was his ageless self again, with 27 points and 13 rebounds, and Rajon Rondo sharpened the last tine on the trident, with 23 points and 14 assists. Mickael Pietrus was strong off the bench, hitting three of four three-point shots at strategically important times and helping to give starters much needed rest.

In fact, the score wasn’t even as close as it would suggest – the starters were out of the game by the fourth quarter. Boston’s field goal percentage for the game was 52 percent, which was 11 percent better than Philadelphia’s.

During the regular season, the Celtics were 24th in the NBA in total offense efficiency; in other words, fourth from the bottom. Critics have justifiably suggested that the Celtics could be their own worst enemy if they don’t pick up their offensive output – that their margin for error is very narrow. It would appear, for the moment at least, that the Celtics have silenced those naysayers.

As to their defense last night, the Celtics had only seven turnovers all game; in fact, it was a relatively tight contest in that sense, with Philadelphia having just nine of their own. Until that time, both teams were fairly careless with the ball - Boston having committed 30 turnovers over the first two games of the series as opposed to Philadelphia’s 27. And the Celtics succeeded in holding the 76ers, who clung to a five-point lead over Boston in the first quarter, to a total of 33 during the second and third stanzas.

Along with the gutsy play of Pierce, fighting through physical adversity, Kevin Garnett was the definitive leader – his furrowed brow, animated banter, and impassioned shooting serving to coalesce the team around him – almost daring the whole of Philadelphia to take him on. It’s sufficient evidence that if you can build momentum, regardless of whose court you’re on, you’re going to be tough to defeat – particularly if you play aggressive, fundamental basketball. And the Celtics appear to see this as a trend in subsequent games. As Garnett added after the blowout, “When you beat a team like this at home, you have to expect them coming out with a lot of energy … But we’ll be ready and we’ll have a lot of energy ourselves.”

The 76ers, this humbling performance at home aside, would seem to have more work to do. Their starters have been inconsistent, with the bench trio of Thaddeus Young, Jodie Meeks and Lou Williams adding 48 of the team’s 91 points. Young led the 76ers with 22 points. Guard Jrue Holiday’s scoring from game to game has been like a sound wave with its ups and downs, and the ordinarily unflappable Andre Iguodala was thoroughly frustrated all game long – he scored only ten points. In fact, the starters scored only 36 of the team’s entire scoring output.

The 76ers job in the remaining games is to cut through the Celtics’ tight and opportunistic defense, while forcing Boston to make ill-advised shots from the outside, as they often did against Atlanta in the first round. If they don’t, Philadelphia’s in real trouble. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.