Let's Pause for Intermission...But Then Could We Keep Playing, for Crying Out Loud?

The Cavs-Celtics series continued according to script Wednesday night, with Boston holding court at home for a 96-89 win over Cleveland. A promising start for the wine-and-gold went sour after Boston coach Doc Rivers made all the right adjustments at halftime and the Celtics rode a 29-17 third quarter to cement the win.

The Cavs exhibited the same tendency throughout the regular season -- third quarter woes leaving them in a deep hole. All year, media and fans wondered, aloud and in print, what the problem was. Why did the Cavaliers seem to falter at that point in so many games? Why did they lack the intensity and focus to hold leads, or to cut in to opponents' leads, after halftime?

The burden is always on the players to perform. On paper, the Celtics have a deeper, more experienced roster than the Cavaliers, and there's no question that Boston came out with more fire in the third quarter. Doc Rivers didn't go from hack to genius in one year; the fact is, he has more talent to work with this time around.

But you have to ask why this happens so frequently under Mike Brown's watch. You're ahead at halftime, in a pivotal Game 5, needing to win in Boston at some point in order to win the series -- and your team can't get pumped up for the third quarter? How is that possible?

It was bad enough that Cleveland squandered a 15-point advantage with four minutes left in the first half, and ended up leading by only four at the intermission. But it got even worse when Boston came out of the locker room and punched the Cavs squarely in the mouth with two quick baskets, one a three-pointer, to grab a one-point lead at the start of the third. That's a 16-point turnaround in five minutes of playing time.

Bingo. Ballgame. You fumble your way through a 16-point switcheroo in a game like this, you should expect to lose.

But more to the point: What in a professional basketball player's career experience doesn't tell him to apply the knockout blow when a playoff opponent is on the ropes -- on their own floor? And what in a coach's experience doesn't tell him to call a timeout or two, stop the bleeding, and get his team focused when things start to slip away?

After Cleveland surged to that 15-point lead, Brown watched over the next two minutes as Kevin Garnett hit a jumper, the Cavs missed a shot, Rajon Rondo hit a three, Cleveland missed again, got the rebound and turned the ball over, and then Rondo hit another three, cutting the lead to seven. The Cavs committed another turnover and then a shooting foul (which would lead to two more Celtic points) before they were rescued, mercifully, by a TV timeout.

But why the wait? With Boston staggering around the ring just 90 seconds earlier, Brown and the Cavs backed off and let the Celtics clear their heads. Big mistake, and it cost them the game.

More Stockton

Disappointment in TNT's Dick Stockton continues, in this corner. After LeBron James posted his strongest stretch of play this series in the first half Wednesday, the Celtics adjusted and focused on him in the third. No surprise. But Stockton continued his mantra from the other night, droning on and on about LeBron's "struggles" throughout the third quarter. OK, James took three shots and missed -- one being a Garnett block of a layup. Quiet, maybe, but not struggling. It was more a case of Boston designing their defense to stop James, a strategy that paid off. Once James knocked down a few shots down the stretch, Stockton quieted down, much less gleeful about the whole course of events.

I'm still a Stockton admirer, but, as Jerry Seinfeld might say: "What's up with that?"

Hammer time

OK, OK, hard fouls are "a part of the game," whatever that means. Not in the rule book, but I digress.

Twice at the start of the fourth quarter on Wednesday night, Celtics forward P.J. Brown obliterated Cavs' shooters from behind to prevent layup attempts. Not block the shots, mind you -- prevent the attempts. The strategy of fouling in the act of defending to prevent an easy basket is fine. But it still seems that pro basketball has endorsed the mugging over the clean, athletic move.

Defenders get a pass if they're "going for the ball." Fine. If there's a little contact, and a message is sent in the process, OK. But when Garnett, or LeBron, or any defender, goes up to block a shot, how do they do it? With one arm extended, at the height of their jump, almost tipping the shot like on a jump ball.

That's not what Brown did. First on Varajeo, then on Szczerbiak -- both of whom beat him to the hoop with inside position -- Brown came up from behind and swung down hard, with both arms, on the shoulders and head. Going for the ball? I don't think so. He was going for them. Both went sprawling to the hardwood.

Naturally, Stockton purred about both plays being "good, smart fouls" by Brown. Whatever. It's the kind of thing that makes NBA basketball so bizarre. "You just beat me to the hoop? That's what you think. . .take that!"

Then again, why be good, when you can be brutal? Why bother to work for good defensive position when you don't have to?

Mine isn't the popular viewpoint, I know. "Hard fouls" are an accepted part of the game. But, too often, they cross the line and completely negate the effectiveness of good offensive execution. When that happens, they should carry a greater penalty.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.