Summary of the Series
P.J. Washington contributed with two crucial 3-pointers and scored eight points, sparking a significant 22-2 run for the Mavericks. Despite this pivotal moment, Dallas found itself grappling with the need for additional scoring support beyond Luka Doncic and Kyrie Irving.
Throughout the series, the Celtics have consistently showcased a broader array of leading scorers, emphasizing their depth and effectiveness as a team.
Dallas's Struggles with Boston's Strategy
The Mavericks faced substantial difficulties against Boston's strategic decision not to double-team Doncic. The Celtics implemented single coverage on both Doncic and Irving, effectively minimizing the impact of Dallas's role players. This strategy exposed one of Dallas's critical weaknesses: their dependence on opportunities created by their superstar ball-handlers.
Boston's role players often found success in these situations, whereas Dallas's supporting cast faltered when the stars were neutralized. This dynamic became a recurring theme throughout the series.
Boston’s Depth vs. Dallas’s Reliance on Stars
Boston's bench players significantly outperformed those of Dallas, highlighting the Celtics' depth as a notable advantage. This series underscored the contrast between Boston's balanced team approach and Dallas's reliance on their stars. The Celtics did not overburden their role players. Instead, they allowed them to play to their strengths, while Dallas's supporting cast struggled without the consistent scoring rhythm set by their superstars.
Key contributors such as Tim Hardaway Jr. experiencing a decline, and Jaden Hardy's lack of experience, further disrupted Dallas's offensive flow. The Mavericks' system, at times, appeared ill-suited to facilitating consistent scoring opportunities for their role players.
Illustrative Quotes from the Series
Washington's 3-pointer with 1:04 remaining in the third quarter highlighted the dire state of Dallas's offensive contributions beyond their stars. It was the first 3-pointer made by any Maverick except Doncic or Irving that evening. Reflecting on the series dynamics, it was clear that four of the top six scorers were Celtics, underscoring Boston's balanced scoring distribution.
The Mavericks averaged more than 16 corner 3-point attempts per game, a high volume that proved detrimental in previous matchups. However, the Celtics adopted an opposing strategy here. By removing these crucial shots, the Celtics effectively disarmed every Maverick except Doncic and Irving.
Dallas's challenges were exacerbated by their acquisition of role players at relatively low costs because of their limited potential as shot-creators.
Boston's defensive strategy allowed them to tolerate occasional outside shots from Jones or post-ups by Washington, a calculated risk to dismantle Dallas's offensive game plan.
The timing for Dallas also appeared unfavorable. For some key players, it was either too soon in their development or too late in their careers to make a significant impact, leaving a void that a third true shot-creator could have potentially filled.
Boston's Balanced Approach
While the Celtics may not have a top-tier player like Doncic, they possess at least five, perhaps six, players who could credibly be ranked among the top 50 in the league. Contributions from players like Sam Hauser, who made more 3-pointers in the series than all Mavericks reserves combined, underscored this depth.
Boston adopted a methodical approach, asking less of their supporting players, allowing them to excel within their roles. This strategic simplicity facilitated their overall success. The Celtics crafted a roster and scheme where no individual was tasked beyond their capabilities.
Dallas's Shortcomings
Conversely, the Mavericks teetered on the brink of elimination because of their over-reliance on superstars and the inability of their specialized supporting cast to adapt when faced with intense defensive pressure. The evident need for a reliable third shot-creator remained unaddressed, further unveiling the limitations of the current roster.
In summary, the series vividly illustrated the effectiveness of Boston's depth and balanced approach. In contrast, Dallas's dependence on their star players left them vulnerable to strategies designed to neutralize those stars. It is a classic case of a well-rounded team outperforming a star-dependent roster, with the former proving more effective in this series.