Game 1 musings

After last night's 102-89 loss to the Lakers in Game 1 of the NBA finals, Celtics coach Doc Rivers was asked if there was a silver lining to the defeat.

The answer is yes, because Boston can only play better.

This was a disaster from the start. The Celtics gave up too many offensive rebounds, and they lost 17 of 21 in the 50-50 game. That just means that the Lakers, who deserve tons of credit for the way they played, were more intense.

And that showed from the start. Pau Gasol proved he's going to be a handful throughout this series. He hit shots from the outside. He made putbacks. He hit little scoops en route to a 23-point, 14-rebound performance.

Too many Lakers, especially Kobe Bryant, but Shannon Brown and Jordan Farmar, got to the rim too easily. And even when they missed the shots, L.A. was there to get the offensive rebound, because the driving player pulled the forward out of place.

Offensively, Ray Allen never got into a rhythm, Kevin Garnett was awful with the exception of a small stretch and Rajon Rondo was contained. Paul Pierce, who scored a team-high 24 points, was the only bright spot.

Just a disaster, and history says this doesn't bode well for the C's. Phil Jackson's teams are 47-0 when they win the first game of a series. But again, the silver lining is that Boston was within striking distance despite playing horribly.

To me, a split in Los Angeles is mandatory. Game 2 now becomes Game 7. Because even though the series shifts back to Boston for Games 3-5, the Celtics won't sweep at home. For banner No. 18 to be hung in the rafters, more intensity is needed.

And I hope the Celtics remember that final 3-pointer from Bryant. It came with just seconds to go, with the game clearly out of reach, and it put the Lakers over the 100-point mark. It was a slap in the face.

MLB should learn from this mistake

It was a fairly routine 3-1 groundout. A ball hit between first and second base, first baseman fields it, throws to the pitcher covering first, runner is out by a half step.

Except he was called safe. Most of the time, that’s not a big deal. It’s baseball, umpires miss calls from time to time.

But this was a huge deal on Wednesday night. The call happened to come with two outs in the ninth inning of a perfect game. Detroit Tigers pitcher Armando Galarraga was ready to begin celebrating when Cleveland’s Jason Donald was ruled safe on a bang-bang play at first.

Watching the replay on TV, even Donald looked as if he couldn’t believe he was called safe. He hustled hard all the way down the line trying to beat the throw, but his reaction after the play tells me he knew he was out and felt bad Galarraga was robbed of a perfect game.

But umpire Jim Joyce didn’t see that replay until after the game, because baseball’s limited use of instant replay doesn’t cover close plays at first base in the last inning of a perfect game.

In every other major pro sport, a play of that magnitude would be reviewed. Not in baseball, though. NBA refs will stop a game to review whether a guy’s foot was on the 3-point line on a shot attempt in the second quarter. NFL coaches can throw the red flag and ask refs to review just about any play at any point during a game. NHL refs routinely stop a game to look at a goal to see if the puck actually crossed the goal line.

You know what all those examples have in common? The correct call eventually is made.

Yeah, stopping the game takes a little fun out of the moment of a goal, 3-pointer, touchdown catch or perfect game. But getting a call wrong takes all the fun out of it. I doubt David Tyree or Santonio Holmes minded too much when refs spent a few minutes taking a closer look at their amazing Super Bowl catches.

Joyce owned up to his screw-up after the game, saying, “It was the biggest call of my career, and I kicked the (expletive) out of it. I just cost that kid a perfect game.”

Joyce sounded like he was about to cry when he made those comments. Think he’s in favor of expanding instant replay this morning?

What makes a stadium important?

A press release arrived in my e-mail inbox this morning from SportsPro magazine. In its June edition, SportsPro ranked the 30 "most important sports venues" in the world.

What the hell consitutes an "important sports venue," you might ask? SportsPro editor David Cushnan explained it this way in the release: "The crucial thing to remember is that this is not a list of the best stadiums in the world; it is a ranking of the most important. We took many factors into account, including size, history, modernity and infrastructure, but we also examined the technology of each venue, as well as the versatility, originality and commercial performance."

That seems like a lot of conflicting criteria. And when examining the list, it seems the international magazine, based in London, should have narrowed its focus.

Like most ignorant Americans, I can't comment much on the venues outside the U.S. that made the list, like World Games Stadium in Taiwan, which earned the top spot.
But nine U.S. locations did make the cut, and I have some issues with a few, as well as one omission.

First, the ones that cannot be argued: Augusta National (No. 17), Madison Square Garden (No. 14), Fenway Park (No. 20). Regardless of your sports allegiance, no sane person could argue against the importance of these places in the American sports landscape.

A few inclusions I'm fairly indifferent about. I'm not sure if they belong on the list, but I'm not opposed, either: Flushing Meadows (No. 12), Bristol Motor Speedway (No. 28), Indianapolis Motor Speedway (No. 18). Two racetracks seems excessive, but whatever.

Here's where my beef begins, from least egregious to most egregious:

Yankee Stadium - A few years ago, no one would argue against the House that Ruth Built. But that house is gone, demolished in favor of a very expensive replacement. While the Yankees' new digs do retain some of the old charm, it's not the same.

Lucas Oil Stadium - It's a mystery how the Colts' relatively new arena could be considered important on an international scale. Unfortunately, SportsPro didn't provide explanation for the whole list (only the top 5), but this is an odd selection. What makes Lucas Oil more important than any other run-of-the-mill new stadium?

Cowboys Stadium - A few of the arguments against the new Yankee Stadium apply to the new Cowboy Stadium. Perhaps the old building, where Cowboys greats like Roger Staubach, Troy Aikman and Emmitt Smith became legends, was worthy of this list. But Jerry Jones' billion-dollar abomination is not. While it has hosted an array of sporting events, and will continue to do so, just the fact that it's gigantic and versatile doesn't mean it's more important than most arenas.

And finally, I realize I'm incredibly biased, but I was appalled that Lambeau Field didn't make the list. Even those who are not Green Bay Packers fans have to admit that it's at least in the top 10 most historic venues in the country. My contention is that it's more like top 5 or top 3, but again, I'm biased.

It's not just that it's old. It has history and character. It's home to, arguably, the most storied franchise in NFL history. Many of the NFL's all-time greats played home games there. No one will ever succeed in convincing me that Lucas Oil Stadium is more important than Lambeau Field, regardless of the definition of "important."

Those are my two cents. But here's the list. Let the debate begin:

1. World Games Stadium, Kaohsiung, Taiwan (pictured above)
2. Meydan Racecourse, Dubai, UAE
3. Cowboys Stadium, Dallas, USA
4. Wembley Stadium, London, UK
5. Soccer City, Johannesburg, South Africa
6. Sapporo Dome, Sapporo, Japan
7. All England Club, Wimbledon, UK
8. Yas Marina Circuit, Abu Dhabi, UAE
9. Veltins Arena, Gelsenkirchen, Germany
10. The Bird’s Nest, Beijing, China
11. Dubai Sports City, Dubai, UAE
12. Flushing Meadows, New York, USA
13. Camp Nou, Barcelona, Spain
14. Madison Square Garden, New York, USA
15. Melbourne Cricket Ground, Melbourne, Australia
16. Yankee Stadium, New York, USA
17. Augusta National Golf Club, Augusta, USA
18. Indianapolis Motor Speedway, Indianapolis, USA
19. Lord’s Cricket Ground, London, UK
20. Fenway Park, Boston, USA
21. Emirates Stadium, London, UK
22. Lucas Oil Stadium, Indianapolis, USA
23. Air Canada Centre, Toronto, Canada
24. ANZ Stadium, Sydney, Australia
25. Croke Park, Dublin, Ireland
26. Ryogoku Kokugikan, Tokyo, Japan
27. La Bombonera, Buenos Aires, Argentina
28. Bristol Motor Speedway, Bristol, USA
29. Signal Iduna Park, Dortmund, Germany
30. Las Ventas, Madrid, Spain

Celtics vs. Lakers: Does it get any better?

The first thing I heard upon walking into the newsroom this morning was an NBA finals prediction.

"Celtics in six," news editor, former sports editor and all-around Celtics nut Harvey Peters said.

I've decided not to make a prediction on the series, but I will admit that I'm not nearly as confident this year in the Celtics as I was two years ago. The Lakers have gotten significantly better - with the addition of Ron Arest - while Boston, which has played amazingly well in these playoffs, have gotten older ... that's a fact.

I will say that the key to the series will be Ray Allen, offensively and defensively against Kobe Bryant. He'll need big games and need to hit big shots in order for the Celtics to win. Rajon Rondo also will need to be the same player he was in the Cleveland series.

What do you think?