When (chalk) dust clears, Lakers are most fraudulent of failed favorites

So far this year, the chalk has taken a beating in its biggest moments. The Patriots, Southern California, Memphis, Big Brown, tennis' No. 1 seeds and Tiger Woods at the Masters, and then needing to go to 19 overtimes in the U.S. Open. Only the Tennessee women and the Red Wings have closed their respective deals very convincingly.

And when the chalk loses, it reminds us that we're not half as smart as we think we are, always a valuable lesson for the preternaturally cocksure.

The Lakers didn't just get beat, they got beat down. (Getty Images)

So if you're looking for a place to put the Lakers after the Celtics beat them with wrenches and chisels for nearly two weeks, think the first category. In fact, think Big Brown, only with a good hoof and without a trainer who was nuttier than a barn owl.

The Lakers really did fail spectacularly, at least when you measure them not against the Celtics but against the court of public blowhardedness. Going down as they did, after blowing big leads so routinely, stripped them of a fair amount of the satisfaction they might have taken from the season.

And no, we're not doing the two most popular topics, Kobe Doesn't Get It Done Again and Phil Getting Outcoached By Doc. Those are shorthand, those are misleading and those are cheap. We are also not allowing the If Only Bynum Were Healthy argument, because that can never be settled. You can only deal with the facts you have, not pretend about the players you don't.

We're talking about the Lakers as a unit, and as a unit, they were monumentally unprepared to do a thing this difficult. The Celtics were better at every position not named Bryant, and they were wise enough to exploit those superiorities with a breathtaking remorselessness. Maybe we got fooled by them struggling to beat the Atlanta newbies and the Cleveland one-mans, but they were eminently the superior team in the Finals by a large enough margin to convince the soothsayer class that they need some work on their sooths.

The Celtics were, and make no mistake about it, a lot better than folks thought they were (and I'd include myself, except that I had no idea who would win before the series started). The Western Conference emitted a record number of 50-game winners, but none of them really made you drop your jaw during the postseason, and the Celtics looked too much like home warriors to convince disinterested analysts to feel very comfortable.

And ultimately, the Celtics would have beaten the Lakers under any conditions, largely because the difference between the two teams was so great that it is hard to see how Andrew Bynum could have been that important.

See, the Lakers didn't just get beaten, they got beaten down. To lose Tuesday as they did indicated a sense of "What the hell?" that championship contenders should never show at any point in their development. Giving in so willingly is a bad sign, and this wasn't garbage-time. They were outscored by 19 points in the second quarter, which wasn't even the quarter they were poorest in. It's as if they used their first five games of Finals experience to realize that they didn't have to wait until after halftime to give in.

And that's what separates them from the Patriots, who were too smug; or Memphis, which thought the game was over too soon; or women's tennis, which might be transitioning into the Ivanovic Era; or men's tennis, which may be transitioning out of the Federer Era; or USC, which lost to Stanford, for God's sake; or even Big Brown, who was steroid-free, didn't get to train enough before the Belmont, whose trainer really is a whack-job and ultimately is still a horse and is largely disinterested in this debate.

The Lakers went out so thoroughly that it is fair to wonder if they can be championship-ready at any point. Their lack of defensive interest was most troubling, because while their matchups weren't good, they weren't this not good.

They blew large leads, and when confronted by a large deficit, they caved completely. That's about as comprehensive as it gets.

Now, as we know, every year is different and different conditions prevail in all 30 markets. Maybe New Orleans is ready to make the next big step, or maybe the Hornets fall back. Maybe Detroit's new direction makes the Pistons worse instead of better. Maybe Utah is next year's darling. Nobody knows, not even you, so stop acting like you do. You're the one who said Big Brown was a lock, remember?

But the Lakers were the least chalk-worthy of this year's chalk, because they went south, they went free-falling, so much that they cannot be trusted next year. They might win it, but this much is certain:

They won't be chalk next time.

Ray Ratto is a columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle.