Something needs to be done to shake things up and not necessarily on the court.  These guys need to get whatever garbage there is floating around in their domes straightened out.  I’m not talking about going on a camping trip to find themselves or anything but maybe get a C’s legend to give a speech or show that comeback against the Lakers in the ‘07-08 playoffs where they didn’t give up.

At any rate, the Pacers have had Boston’s number in recent years for whatever reason.  Maybe it’s the ghost of Jim O’Brien.  Maybe there is some left over karma from Reggie clowning the C’s all those years.  Whatever it may be, I hope Boston has it in them to crush Indiana.

Danny Granger will be returning from his one game suspension from his tet-a-tet with Channing Frye so he’ll be rested and ready to do his usual damage of about 23 PPG. Brandon Rush got loose during Granger’s sit out with 24 PTS against the 76ers so he could pose a problem for the second unit that doesn’t really play one-on-one D well outside of Tony Allen who hasn’t been used much as of late.  Marquise plays alright defense but he isn’t as distracting/effective as a crazy legged TA.

What really concerns me is that Boston is not going inside nearly enough.  The only person who should take the majority of his shots from more than 15 feet is Ray.  Paul has been making some diving runs down the lane but isn’t finishing strong like he used to do.  Perkins needs to do one of two things; be more effective on the defensive end or fix his line-drive baby hook on the offensive side.  He is quickly turning into an Erick Dampier type center and that is not good for anyone.

If Gang Green can recover from their pummeling, take the standing eight and wipe off the gloves it will be not only a “W” in the record books but on the mental aspect of the game, too.  I don’t know how many more losses to non-playoff teams I can take.

Lee Herman covers the NBA and Boston Celtics for North Station Sports.
Find more of his great work here.

Where else can you start when talking about the Bruins than the cheap shot Marc Savard suffered on Sunday in Pittsburgh? Well, let me take back “cheap shot” and call it a well-timed, thoroughly legal check. Because apparently that is what Matt Cooke’s hit was according to the referees and NHL disciplinarian Colin Campbell. Despite the player on the receiving end being neither in control of the puck at the time of the hit or in any position to defend himself, there was no penalty on the play. Four days later, after a chance to review the whole incident, Campbell determined no suspension was necessary.

The circumstances surrounding this play make the fact that Cooke is not sitting for a while laughable. As you read this masterpiece, the NHL’s general managers are in Florida discussing hits to the head. Players disregarding their colleagues’ health has been an epidemic this year and action needs to be taken sooner rather than later. As Steve Begin wondered this week, does a player need to break his neck – or worse, die – on the ice before headshots are taken seriously?

Here is the most hilarious part about Cooke getting away scot free. On the same day Campbell announced there was no suspension, he outlined plans for suspension on just that type of play beginning next season. At the GM meetings, the managers announced a recommendation that “a lateral, back pressure or blindside hit to an opponent where the head is targeted and or the principal point of contact is not permitted” would at least be a penalty.

Almost immediately after that announcement came word that Cooke would not be suspended for ending a player’s season with a late, dirty and unnecessary hit. Across the league, hockey people had to follow suit with Campbell’s decision because there is no rule against contact to the head with shoulderpads. Unfortunately, it is hard to take Campbell serious if he doesn’t know the difference between a shoulder and an elbow. There is absolutely no doubt that Cooke came in with his elbow cocked and just ran through Savard. Campbell is clearly covering his tracks here, attempting to back the refs who missed the call.

However, the refs aren’t to blame. The hit came so far after Savard took his shot that they did what they are supposed to do and follow the play. The fact that Cooke came in two seconds after the play moved on shows how egregious the check was. I am sure if you asked any official on the ice, they would say they went with the puck towards goal and then turned to see a guy unconscious on the ice. That is not the zebras’ fault.

Leagues have people in Campbell’s role to take care of discipline above and beyond the officials. It is assumed that when incidents like this happen that a smart man with access to information will make the right decision. Campbell has again failed to meet those assumptions.

There have been a lot of comparisons between the Cooke hit and one Mike Richards put on Florida’s David Booth earlier this year. However, those comparisons should end with the fact that the player hit got messed up real bad. Booth was going through the neutral zone with his head turned away from Richards and made a back pass at the same time Richards engaged for what should have been a clean hit. Booth came down hard on his head and was out. Richards received a five-minute major for interference (huh?) but no suspension. In that case, Campbell couldn’t make the disciplinary decision because his son plays for Florida. Still, he felt it was okay to compare the two hits and say because Richards wasn’t suspended, that he couldn’t suspend Cooke.

So the gist of the situation is everyone agrees it was a vicious hit that was not needed by a player with a documented reputation as a dirty player. Seriously, Cooke has been suspended numerous times in his career. If this type of hit happens next year, that player will be suspended. Not this year, however, because the nitwits running the NHL are afraid to make an example out of a player. I could write 1000s of words on how dumb this decision is. However, I will leave you with one thought.

The best thing the NHL could have done, even if just for Cooke’s own personal well being, was to sit him until after March 18^th because the Bruins and Penguins play that night. The B’s will be without their best player and Cooke will be in the lineup. At this point, justice has been lacking twice. I doubt someone on the Bruins will let it pass a third time. And that is what the NHL really needs to be worried about. As Claude Julien discussed today, the league is still dealing with the fallout from Todd Bertuzzi’s attack on Steve Moore from 2004 that was in retaliation for a hit in a previous game. Hockey is a passionate and emotional game. Allowing players to take matters into their own hands to defend an injured teammate could lead to another Bertuzzi-Moore incident. If the NHL had come down on Cooke and showed its players that endangering another skater needlessly will be punished, then vigilante justice would not be needed.

Oh, and as for tonight’s game. These are important points for the Bruins. They currently sit in eighth place with 70 points. They B’s trail 7^th-place Montreal by two and sixth-place Philadelphia by four. A win tonight for the Black and Gold closes the gap on Philly and also allows the Bruins to pull away from the mediocre pack behind them hoping to snag the final playoff spot. Savard is out, obviously, and Zdeno Chara is a game-time decision at the point. Without Big Z, the B’s had trouble with Toronto. Imagine how difficult handling Jeff Carter, Claude Giroux, Simone Gagne and Mike Richards will be. Nevertheless, I will be there, in my Lucic sweater. Wish me luck.

The general manager’s meeting wrapped-up in Boca Raton, Florida, yesterday after three days of deliberating, discussing, and debating multiple NHL topics. The number one area of focus was blindside hits to the head, and the recommendations of changing the existing rule(s). The new rule, which could possibly take effect next season, would allow referees to call a minor or major penalty — hopefully the latter — to the violator who contacts an opponent where primary point of impact is to the head.

With Boston’s center Marc Savard possibly out for the season with a Grade 2 concussion, many people are still up-in-arms with Campbell’s decision — including Bruins’ brass, Peter Chiarelli.

From Examiner.com

“There’s a chance that Marc may be out for the year. He’s one of our best players. It’s devastating to us.” said Chiarelli this morning from Philadelphia’s Wachovia Center. “The league made it clear, Colin made it clear that he knows this players [Cooke] is a multiple, repeat offender.

“He knows how bad Marc is hurt” added Chiarelli “He couldn’t make that connection to levy a suspension. You know, it’s devastating to us.”

The Bruins, and even its coaching staff, have been ripped-apart nationwide for their lack of retaliation on Sunday following the incident. it could be in part due to the “last five minutes” instigator rule. And it could be because the Bruins were down 2-1 at the time — playing for two-points — fighting for their post-season hopes. Whatever the reason, Chiarelli wasn’t too fond of their response, or lack-there-of.

“I said yesterday that I was disappointed and I was disappointed. There are certain ways to react and I felt that we didn’t.  And I’ll leave it at that.” said Chiarelli.

There’s no doubt that the Bruins’ backers ticked-off for the Black-and-Gold’s lack of response to avenge their No. 1 center’s unnecessary injury on Sunday — and rightfully so. But the Bruins will host the non-suspended Matt Cooke and the Penguins in their first home game back from their long road-trip, at the TD Garden, next Thursday, Mar. 18. So maybe with Chiarelli’s recent comments and the recent ripping of the team’s heart and toughness by the Boston faithful,the Bruins will make Matt Cooke eat his lunch one-week from today.

Read more of Chiarelli’s comments on Examiner.com

Is Rajon Rondo the best point-guard in the NBA?

I ask this question not to set up an argument with myself, but because there are definitely points during games when I watch Rondo play and I think he is as good a point guard as there is in the NBA right now.  So, is he the best point-guard in the NBA?  Sometimes.

When Rondo is playing well, he dominates the game all over the court in a way I don’t think any other guard can or does.  As for statistics, Rondo is first in the NBA in steals at 2.47 per game (second place is Monta Ellis at 2.17).  He is third in assists, 9.8, behind only Steve Nash and Chris Paul. Rondo leads all guards in field-goal percentage, 51.7, and his 31 double-doubles rank seventh in the NBA and second among all point-guards (Nash has 38).

Anyone who has watched Rondo, however, knows statistics do not tell the whole story.  He can create havoc all over the court and on a near nightly basis, he has a move that I have to rewind to watch over again.

But, and here is where I will argue with myself.  Sometimes being the best point guard, or the best at anything, is not good enough to really be considered the best. The answer has to be better than sometimes.

While Rondo’s best is on a level with anyone else’s, he still has not found a way to maintain that level over long stretches.  He remains very inconsistent, not just from game to game, but in any given game he will go from making an impact to almost disappearing.

As exciting a player as Rondo can be, when his game drops off, he essentially becomes non-existent on the court.  There is no middle ground.  What really separates Rondo from the elite point guards is that far too often, this disappearing act occurs down the stretch of games.  The game will slow down and Rondo almost becomes a bystander to the action.

He is far too talented for that to happen as often as it does.  Until Rondo can maintain a more consistent level of play, he will remain just on the outside looking in at the game’s elite point guards.  Rondo is just 24, and has improved in nearly every statistical category each season.  So, he is getting close.

Jeff Hanisch / US Presswire

Are the Celtics closer to the Milwaukee Bucks than they are to the Cavaliers or the Magic?

I think the answer is yes.  Back on December 8, the Celtics, behind 25 points from Kevin Garnett, defeated the Bucks 98-89.  At that point of the season, Boston was 17-4 and the loss dropped Milwaukee to 9-11.  Since that point, the Celtics have gone 23-18, while the Bucks have done slightly better at 25-18.

Boston has struggled against the elite teams in the NBA as has been well documented.  They went into last night’s game against the Bucks having won four in a row, there longest winning streak since December.  The four wins came over Detroit, Charlotte, Philadelphia, and Washington.  Nice wins, but not exactly the cream of the crop.

Last night was a back and forth game, and the Celtics had a shot at the end to either win or tie.  The Bucks are currently the five seed in the Eastern Conference, in a close race with Toronto, Charlotte, Miami, and Chicago to fill out the bottom half of the playoff bracket.

It is possible the Celtic could see the Bucks again in the opening round of the playoffs.  And what no one would have thought at the beginning of the season may turn out to be true – a series between Boston and Milwaukee could match up two evenly matched teams.

Can anyone remember the last time the Big Three all played well at the same time?

I can’t.  Garnett had a relatively good night last night, with 14 points and 10 rebounds, just his second double-double in his last 27 games (it should be noted he had zero offensive rebounds and only one rebounds in the second half).  Allen and Pierce did not play well, though, shooting a combined 3-16.

Going through this year’s game, it is a stretch to come up with one game where all three player well.  In the win over the Bucks on December 8, Garnett had 25 points and nine rebounds, Pierce 15 points, five boards, and five assists, and Allen had 13 points. They shot a combined 18-31.

The previous night against Oklahoma City, the Big Three combined for 55 points on 20-33 shooting, with both Garnett and Pierce scoring over 20 points.  But Allen had just 11 on 4-11 shooting.

Against the Phoenix Suns back on November 6, they combined for 58 points on 25-46 from the floor, to go with 19 rebounds and 14 assists.  But Pierce shot just 5-15 and it was in a loss.

Going all the way back to opening night, a 95-89 win over Cleveland, Garnett, Allen, and Pierce totaled 52 points and 23 rebounds and shot 16-39 from the floor.

The answer then is it has not really happened this year, at least not at a level warranting the nickname “The Big Three.”  Two obvious ways of looking that: either they are due or they are over the hill and it isn’t happening.  You can decide for yourselves.

Let’s play a few quick games of Boston Celtics, would you rather:  Who would you rather see taking the last-second shot, Paul Pierce or Ray Allen?

For years, almost since his arrival in Boston back in 1999, it has been a foregone conclusion that the ball will be in Pierce’s hands when the game is on the line.

A funny thing happened though on Sunday against the Wizards.  The Celtics were down by a point with under 24-seconds to go. A play was drawn up for Allen to get an open look and it worked out perfectly, with Allen draining the game-winning three-pointer.

Afterwards, Allen said in an interview that the first option on the play was to get him the ball.  I nodded in agreement, because as great and as clutch as Pierce has been, at that moment, I trusted Allen more with the ball in the situation, and wanted him to get a look rather than an isolation play for Pierce.

Even last night, against the Bucks, Pierce had a shot to tie the game in the closing moments, but missed.  Neither Pierce (3-13) nor Allen (0-3) had good shooting nights from the floor, but before Pierce took the shot, I found myself thinking that if I was drawing up the plays, I would have tried to get Ray the shot as the primary option.

And lastly, who would you rather see playing, Rasheed Wallace or Shelden Williams?

Talent wise, it is not even close.  Williams is a very limited player, who can bang inside, score on put backs, and that is about it.  Wallace during this season, on a few occasions, has shown he can still be a major factor in games – most notably this occurred around the trade deadline when a cynical person could say Wallace decided to try in order to convince Danny Ainge not to think about trading him.  Once the deadline passed, Wallace went back to his minimal effort ways.

That is why I would rather see Williams out there. At least the guy is going to play hard, rebound, maybe get the team some second chances on offense.  Wallace does none of those things.  I have begun to notice that the only time Wallace grabs a rebound is when the ball comes right to him and he doesn’t have to move, jump, or box out.

We are not even done with year one of Wallace in Boston and I have long since tired of watching him play.  Every single time he shoots a three, I cringe.  I don’t even like it when he makes a three, because yes, the three points are good, but I know it just means there will be more threes on the way.

On a related note, as Doc Rivers continues to play the ever-improving, hard-working, effective Kendrick Perkins less and less minutes (the 25-year old is actually playing less minutes this year than he did last year), I wonder how fast Doc would bench Perkins for a long time if Perk ever decided to chuck up three-pointers at the rate Rasheed has?