There's no shortage of drama in the 2016 NBA playoffs. We've got five series remaining in the first round, and four are far from decided. The East, in particular, has provided fans with matchups that have been more even than we anticipated. The Hawks-Celtics and Heat-Hornets series are all even at two games apiece, and the Pacers are giving the Raptors more problems than most expected, though find themselves one game away from being ousted.
In the West, the Clippers suddenly find themselves in a bad spot against the Blazers after losing stars Chris Paul and Blake Griffin to injuries. The Warriors also lost their superstar, yet are proving they'll be just fine against the Rockets.
Our NBA experts take a look at some of the more interesting questions surrounding the opening round in our latest 3-Man Weave.
The Hawks have been sharper, and the Celtics have found ways to win with hustle. Can Boston keep up to come back in this series?
Ken Berger: The Celtics have a tremendous home-court advantage that helped fuel them in Games 3 and 4. But on the actual floor, Boston is overmatched talent-wise -- and talent ultimately rules the day the deeper you get into a playoff series. Having said that, the Hawks had better realize that the Cavs are resting up and waiting for them in the second round, and they do not want to give the Celtics any life early in this game. If the Celtics somehow find a way to junk-up the game and force a Game 7, I don't see the Hawks losing that one on their home floor. From their perspective, better to not even entertain that possibility.
Matt Moore: I think they will, just based on kind of how this series has gone and what the Celtics do. The Hawks are more talented, have sharper execution, better personnel, are healthier, smarter, and have made better adjustments as the series has gone on. And yet Boston took the two in Boston. They're hustle junkies and manage to keep their foot to the floor at all times. Marcus Smart continues to step up and you can't expect Isaiah Thomas to have as bad a game as he did in Game 5. I expect this to go seven, just on account of how downright stubborn the Celtics can be, and how they respond whenever things get tough.
Zach Harper: Technically, it's possible. The Celtics get buy on creating chaos, thriving within that chaos, and playing harder than their opponents. The problem with that is the Hawks have incredible discipline within their system and they have far more top talent than the Celtics. The role players are even as good, especially with the injuries to Avery Bradley and Kelly Olynyk. So not only is Boston in trouble from a talent standpoint, but they also can't seem to consistently get their strategy to work either. It's not a poor game plan; it's just hard to execute it when you're going to Jared Sullinger, Evan Turner, and Isaiah Thomas while the opponent is going to Paul Millsap, Al Horford, and Jeff Teague.
Throw in the fact too that if the Hawks are hitting the open shots their offense generates, which is exactly what happened in Game 5, then the Celtics simply don't have the firepower to keep up. Unless they can find ways to keep the next two games, with obvious emphasis on Game 6, in a state of chaos and panic, they don't really have a chance of keeping up with Atlanta.
The Heat believe there’s been unfair officiating in the series against the Hornets. Do they have a fair case?
Berger: Sure, because getting the Heat out of the playoffs as soon as possible is a priority for everyone, since who in their right mind would want to see a Heat-Cavs conference finals? I mean, come on. These officiating conspiracies get weirder every year. The team that is more aggressive gets the benefit of the doubt when there's contact -- at every level of basketball, including this one. Plus, I don't remember anyone complaining when the Heat were up 2-0.
Moore: No. They have gotten a number of unfortunate calls on 50/50 calls, and there are any number of screenshots that the Heat fans have used to illustrate an unfair balance of what is and isn't a foul. But those are isolated incidents and there are dozens every game. What is most evident is that the Heat have tried to stay home on Charlotte shooters at all time, leaving the Heat's bigs in one on one coverage out of the pick and roll and the Hornets are tearing them to pieces. Goran Dragic meanwhile, has zero isolation possessions in this series, and is often just probing the defense instead of relentlessly attacking. Dragic has to be more aggressive if he wants the calls that Jeremy Lins is routinely getting.
Harper: Not really. Aggressive teams usually get the 50-50 calls and the Hornets have been far more aggressive. Are they flopping? Sure, some times. We also have to remember that a flop is sometimes selling a call and not always fabricating what isn't there. It's stuff the Heat can be really good at doing. They're getting all of the calls they were getting in the regular season. Their free throw rate is even up a couple of ticks. But the Hornets' free throw rate is through the roof compared to the regular season. The Heat aren't attacking the paint as much as they usually do and that's hard to draw fouls when you're shying away from where most of the contact happens. If they want to blame officiating for why this series is tied 2-2, I'm not sure they're mentally prepared to close it out when they should have a good advantage.
Why are the Raptors struggling with the 7-seed Pacers, and what does this mean for them if they advance?
Berger: Two factors have been key: 1) Paul George, and 2) the Raptors are settling for shots instead of attacking and working for better ones. This one has seven games written all over it -- and it feels like one of those letdown scenarios in which the underdog Pacers force a seventh game and then Toronto finally figures it out and blows them out at home. As far as what it means for the Raptors if they advance, it means ... nothing. Ugly or not, your job is to get to the next game and get to the next round. As long as the Raptors do that, the next series against Miami or Charlotte will be a new entity unto itself.
Moore: Paul George. He's the best player in this series, and that's proof that if you play good defense and you have the best player, you're going to have a chance in every game. Mostly Toronto has struggled because their stars have been bad. DeMar DeRozan finally stepped up in Game 5 and that saved the Raptors' bacon. But if he and Kyle Lowry continue to miss shots and fail to be effective, the Raptors aren't going to win this series, point blank. Indiana has done a lot to put themselves in this position, but they're still limited offensively. If Toronto gets anything from DeRozan and Lowry, they should win ... but those guys have been awful overall in this series. If that doesn't change big time, they may not get out of this round, and if it returns in the second round, they'll be out in five games or less in the semifinals.
Harper: Speaking of free throws, when your team relies on free throws for their efficient offense and then don't get the same calls you normally do, it's really hard to keep up with your game plan. That's the issue with the Raptors right now. Kyle Lowry and DeMar DeRozan have been bad. They're making bad decisions in the shots they take and they're not getting calls they're used to creating. Instead, they're missing bad looks. Lowry has made up for it a bit by making good decisions for other teammates, and DeRozan had a monster Game 4. But the Raptors working for better looks and not giving up so many good 3-point looks to the Pacers would go a long way toward closing this out.
Which one Clipper do you expect to inexplicably step up in Chris Paul and Blake Griffin's absence, and will it even matter against the Blazers?
Berger: Dare I say Austin Rivers? He's erratic and turnover-prone at times, but he plays with a lot of emotion. The Clippers can't control the talent disadvantage they're staring at, but they can control how much passion they bring to the floor. As poor as Rivers' decision-making is at times, he's the classic front-runner; meaning, as his confidence grows, so does his impact on the game. With Chris Paul out, Rivers will have the ball in his hands more than just about anybody, and he has the most potential to influence the game -- for better or worse. If I know Doc Rivers, he's going to rally his team around the concept of playing with nothing to lose. That's right up his son's alley. Oh, I almost forgot the second part of the question. Will it matter? No. No, it won't.
Moore: I'll go with Cole Aldrich. Aldrich has played surprisingly well and he's reached that point where he's hung on long enough in this league to just be productive by sheer experience. He's a good screener, passer, and can make a few shots. There's a reason he was a top-15 pick. He's working hard. It won't be enough to save the Clips, but I do expect Aldrich to continue to surprise people by making quality plays.
Harper: Jamal Crawford averages almost 30 points as a starter this year, right? Sure, it's only five games but he's managed to step up and shoot 46.1/45.2/91.7 in those five games. I think he can score as a focal point of the offense against Damian Lillard and CJ McCollum. The question of whether or not it will matter is the tough part. If you get Jamal and Austin Rivers and Paul Pierce to all step up in the same game, then we've got ourselves a stew going. Otherwise, the Blazers just have the talent advantage the rest of this series.
