Game 3 decides the NBA title.
OK, that's a little dramatic. The Mavericks can win Game 3 and still lose the series in any number of ways. Technically, the Mavericks would still have a chance to be the first team in NBA history to come back from down 0-3 if the Celtics won Game 3, but it certainly feels like this is the series.
If Boston wins, well, teams up 3-0 are 128-0 in NBA history, including 12-0 in the Finals. Seven of those 12 series have ended in a sweep. When a team is down 0-3, the will to fight dissipates. You might force a Game 5 — like the Wolves did against Dallas — but eventually, in five or six, it's over.
If Dallas wins, it'll likely mean that the Kristaps Porzingis' leg injury has shifted the Finals, and we'll suddenly be in an entirely different series than the one we left Boston with.
Even if Dallas only gets the win due to hot shooting, excessively cold shooting from Boston (for the second straight game, mind you) or a wild ending sequence, it doesn't really matter. As long as the Mavericks can stop the Celtics from getting to three games, they're live to win the title.
This is the kitchen sink game for Dallas, down 0-2 with the season on the line. There's no more waiting. Jason Kidd has to throw every adjustment at the Celtics and hope his guys can hit some shots, especially Kyrie Irving.
This is the backs-against-the-wall moment for Boston, as well, especially with the Porzingis injury. All season long, everyone has waited for the Celtics to falter when adversity really hit. They didn't face it in any series in the East playoffs — even without Porzingis — because the opponent always had worse luck.
Something has to give.
Here are my betting and basketball thoughts on Game 3.
The Porzingis Shadow
Porzingis was diagnosed with a complicated leg injury. Twitter doctor analysis ranged from "he can't play another minute this series" to "he's probably fine."
This was the best analysis I've seen on the injury, courtesy of the Boston Globe:
Dr. Daniel Kharrazi, an orthopedic surgeon at Cedars-Sinai and former #Lakers consultant, told @BostonGlobe he's seen a injury like Porzingis' once in 25 years. He was optimistic about Porzingis' ability to play:
"A lot of times the ankle and the tendon can be taped to allow…— gary washburn (@GwashburnGlobe) June 11, 2024
There was nothing but confusion at Finals media availability after the injury was announced on Tuesday. Porzingis vowed to play, unless the training staff wouldn't let him.
Joe Mazzulla, who had said Porzingis was fine after Game 2, said it was a "serious injury" while his official designation was "day-to-day."
There were mixed interpretations from longtime veteran media members. It was suggested that the injury was much worse and the Celtics were trying to cover it out of a sense of gamesmanship.
There were suggestions that Porzingis, who didn't walk with a limp or discomfort at his media availability (which players rarely attend if they have a serious injury that needs constant treatment), might actually be fine and most of this was gamesmanship was a two-can-play-that-game approach from the Celtics after all the talk about Luka Doncic's injury before he dropped a 30-point triple-double.
This is all to say that no one's going to know what's real until Game 3 tips. If Porzingis is listed as available, the question will be about what version of him the Celtics get.
Al Horford said the Celtics would take "whatever (Porzingis) can give" them." Will he be too slow to contain on the perimeter, as he was against Doncic and Irving in the late stages of Game 2? Will he be effective at all?
What if he's fine?
The reality is that anyone trying to project what the Porzingis injury means is doing so on incomplete information about a nebulous injury to this specific player, and the conclusions will largely be built on confirmation bias.
If you were looking for a way to fade Boston, then the moment has come. If you believe Boston is the better team, then there's no way Porzingis' injury can derail it.
That's what makes betting into this game difficult. Porzingis has been important enough in this series that if he's out, there's reason to believe that could decide the winner and hand Dallas its second franchise title.
Also, what if the other Celtics just play better in Game 3? What if Porzingis is out, or struggles, but Jayson Tatum hits, you know, any shot, Jaylen Brown has another good game and the Celtics have a great night from 3?
These are all concerns going into any game, but denying Dallas' chances based on the overwhelming evidence that Porzingis' minutes were key in Games 1 and 2 would be foolish.
At the same time, assuming we know what we're going to get from Porzingis, or not get, is folly. It's best to try and keep your options and mind open.
Total Reversal
The over is in a buy-low spot. I liked the over in Game 1, but that lost behind a glacial pace from both teams. Game 2 saw the under hit because the pace was faster (but still slow overall), and both teams shot a nightmarish percentage from behind the 3-point line.
I'm less interested in the 3-point variance for Game 3 and predicting anyone to be "due" as I am interested in the pace.
Talking to the Mavericks, there's a confidence that they can play fast or slow if the game needs it, but Dante Exum, in particular, noted that playing with more pace helps them get Boston into crossmatches forced by transition and out of its usual defensive coverages.
Boston has a good chance of forcing more transition buckets as well; its points off turnovers rate is higher on the road. And while its own turnovers are actually lower, it does allow more fast break points per game on the road.
I'm expecting Dallas to make adjustments to the rotation, with Exum playing more of a role, as he's a more willing shooter and scorer than Derrick Jones Jr.
All of these factors — combined with the loss of Porzingis' defensive impact — lead me to the over as a best bet for Game 3.
A Numbers Game
My main conceit on this game stays the same: The number is wrong.
The line was Celtics -2.5 in March when these two teams met, after the Mavericks' trades that spurred them to the Finals. Both teams were healthy, and the Celtics stomped them in that game.
Now, three months later, before the Porzingis injury was announced, the line moved four points from that March number at open. It then took steam — both before and after the KP injury news — to Mavs -2.5 and is now a full five points removed from that March line.
How about the fact that Boston was -1.5 in Denver? Denver lost to the Wolves with an injured Jamal Murray, and Dallas trounced the Wolves fair and square. But it's hard to argue that Dallas should be power rated over Denver, even with some sort of adjustment for playoff basketball.
It's totally fine if you think the Mavericks bounce back, that you want to track the history, which says teams down 0-2 win this game. But you have to do so with the understanding that there's no reasonable way to argue this should be the price you're betting into.
Betting a bad price isn't a sin if it's the only game available in the only market you have.
Even if you assume bookmakers thought Porzingis would be out — which he still, as of this writing, is day-to-day — when they published the Mavs -1.5 line, that would have to mean that Porzingis is worth four points to the spread, which would be ridiculous.
I have a fully healthy Boston projected as a four-point favorite on the road in Dallas. I would give Porzingis two points of impact on the spread (given how good Horford has been as a reserve), making this Boston -2 versus a line of Dallas -2.5.
I'll wait to see if Porzingis is ruled in or out and will bet Boston. It's not that I have a strong conviction on Boston winning this game, though I think it's live regardless of Porzingis' status.
It's that I can't agree with the line, and if I feel the price is wrong and I'm not compelled to bet the other side, I should bet the direction I feel the line is wrong.
That said, Mavericks 1H ML and spread has all sorts of trends.
Tactical Questions
Will Dallas rebalance its defense? The Mavs have continued to send waves of defenders at Tatum, and the result has been that Tatum has shot 30% from the field and Boston has won his minutes by 13.5 points per 100 possessions.
The offense has been worse with Tatum on the floor, but that's with Boston's shooting issues.
Derrick Jones Jr. said they're not especially loading up on Tatum, that they want to do that whenever anyone drives with the ball to the basket. But it's clear Dallas' strategy has been to make Tatum the head of the snake.
It's worked, but it hasn't gotten the results the Mavs need. Can Dallas win this game if it shuts down Tatum but allows volume 3s? If it shifts its coverage, I'll be looking for live prop unders on Boston's kick-out shooters, especially Jrue Holiday's points.
If Porzingis is unable to go or has to be pulled immediately, does Boston look to Luke Kornet off the bench or does it play Tatum at center whenever Horford needs a rest? Tatum has already cross-matched with Dereck Lively II and Daniel Gafford and done well; Boston isn't getting crushed on the glass or on the interior.
Can it get away with just not playing a center? Can Payton Pritchard of Sam Hauser remain viable if Porzingis' rim protection isn't available?
Can Horford play enough minutes and hit enough shots while being targeted defensively?
Does Dallas change its rotation? I mentioned this above, but I'm expecting more minutes for Exum. The Celtics are daring Jones to create offense through shooting or driving, and he's been uncertain. It's hard to argue he's having a meaningful effect defensively, either.
Josh Green has looked scared to shoot. Maxi Kleber presents a great opportunity to counter Boston with some five-out offense of their own, but he looks like the shoulder injury he's recovering from has completely destroyed both his shot mechanics and confidence.
It seems likely we'll see some different lineups and allotments as Dallas tries to avoid the dreaded 0-3 hole.
One Simple Summation
Porzingis matters. Doncic's health matters. Shooting variance matters. Momentum matters. Home court matters.
But if there's one central theme that all the smart analysis will lead you to, it's this: The Celtics are able to create good quality shots against Dallas and Dallas is not able to create them against the Celtics.
That can happen in Game 3 and the Mavericks can win if shot variance goes their way, like it did against the Thunder.
But the overall process for Boston is considerably, demonstrably and meaningfully better than it is for Dallas.
If that doesn't change, Dallas' chances of getting out of this series rely on good fortune, and that's a scary way to try and win a title down 0-2.
