The Celtics lost again, and now find themselves in an extremely precarious position: down 0-2 to the Knicks and heading to New York for the next two games of the Eastern Conference Semifinals. This is not a position that a 61-win defending champion is supposed to find itself in, so what the hell is going on here?
It can be frustrating to attempt any meaningful analysis of a Celtics loss, because the team's style of play only ever produces one answer: The three-point shot wasn't falling. The Celtics blew 20-point leads in both Game 1 and Game 2 because the shots they count on to go in simply did not. Boston set an NBA playoff record by missing 45 threes in Game 1, and lost Wednesday night's contest, 91-90, behind a 10-of-40 shooting display from behind the arc. If a few more of those shots hit at their average rate, the Celtics are up 2-0 right now.
True as it may be, I find this sort of conclusion unfulfilling, as it often reads like absolution. The Celtics have spent years building the perfect three-point generating machine, and have never allowed results to alter process. They have created something like the bloodless, actuarial version of the Russell Westbrook Experience, in which pyrotechnic decision-making is replaced by rote action, leading to the same conclusion: You just have to take what comes and live with the results. And who is to argue, really? Sure, the Celtics were knocked out by an eight seed in the 2023 playoffs, but they moonwalked to a title last season. Even if they can't get their three-point percentage up in time to avert disaster in this current series, a championship speaks for itself.
What this analysis of the Celtics does overlook, however, is that Boston's process and results are not produced in a cleanroom. There is another team on the floor, and they are not just bystanders waiting around to see if and when the regression to the mean will begin. A two-game stretch of awful shooting can create the opportunity to flip a series on its head, but someone actually has to step into that opportunity in order to make something happen.
Mikal Bridges's series statistics do not immediately suggest that he is the guy most forcefully seizing what the Celtics are offering. He has scored 22 total points and has shot 9-of-31 from the floor, but he has also produced two game-ending defensive highlights. In Game 1, he was there to rip the ball from Jaylen Brown on the final possession of overtime, negating any opportunity for a potential game-tying shot. In Game 2, he was there to get a hand on Jayson Tatum's panicked attempt to turn a buzzer-beating jumper into a pass:
Bridges was 0-of-8 from the field through the first three quarters of Game 2, and then scored 14 points in the fourth. The Knicks were still down by seven when Bridges hit his final shot of the game, but they had been down by 15 at the start of the quarter and needed every one of Bridges's points in order to stay attached long enough for Jalen Brunson and Karl-Anthony Towns to finish things off.
It's hard to remember now, but there was a fair amount of angst surrounding this Knicks team heading into the playoffs. A lot of it was aimed at Bridges, who had a perfectly decent regular season but will always be known as the guy the Knicks traded five first-round picks to get. You can log heavy minutes and play as much competent defense as anyone could ask for, but 17 points and three rebounds per game are never going to look like a proper exchange for five first-round picks.
But who could possibly care about future draft picks today? "Value" is a subjective term in the NBA, and you never really know what a player can and will provide until he is put in position to do something that counts. For as much as the Celtics have struggled to put the ball in the hoop this series, they have lost both games by a combined four points. They have kept their hands on the rope, and may very well have pulled out a victory or two had Bridges not been there to step on some knuckles at exactly the right time.
