A dominating victory proves the Hawks do care

The home side led by 13 points after one quarter, by 19 minutes into the second period, by 25 six minutes before halftime, by 24 at the break. The Hawks scored 27 points in each of the first two quarters; the Pacers scored 30 in the half. The Hawks had more points in two quarters than the Pacers did in three.

And by then we had our answer. Would a roster built on the cheap to be torn down this summer care enough to extend a transitional season beyond four games in Round 1? It did. We could call the roll of Hawks who played well in the first half Saturday night, but let’s leave it at this: Every single Hawk outdid every single Pacer. Ergo, domination.

One Hawk, however, was first among equals in excellence. The fierce sub Ivan Johnson worked 18 first-half minutes, scoring five points and taking seven rebounds, and by himself Johnson all but righted the wrongs of Games 1 and 2.

The hidden nugget, at least for the Hawks, in those two losses was that they averaged 94 points. Indiana prides itself on its defense, which yielded 90.7 points over 82 regular-season games, second-lowest in the 30-team NBA. And scoring invariably goes down in postseason. Hmmm.

In two double-digit losses, the Hawks had made nearly half their shots (49.7 percent, to be exact), and this suggested that the team leading 2-0 hadn’t figured out how to guard its opponent. That team, which has seen its lead halved, still hasn’t, and you’re starting to wonder if it can.

Of the reason for the 2-0 deficit, Josh Smith said: “It’s been the defense and the rebounding.” He told no lies. The Hawks had been unable to defend without fouling or to seize the ball when somebody missed — they were outrebounded 95-73 over two games — and toward that end Larry Drew made a lineup change. Johan Petro, who was a third-stringer until Zaza Pachulia was lost to injury, started at center, moving Al Horford to power forward and Smith to the perimeter.

It would be wrong to suggest that Petro changed the series — he played only six first-half minutes, scoring two points and taking three rebounds — but the Hawks somehow got quicker by going bigger. (That sounds counterintuitive, but these are the Hawks.) They were able to score off post-ups and dribble-drives. They scored with such ease they barely needed to hoist their staple 3-pointers.

The Hawks broke 90 points again in Game 3, and that was with a coasting 15-point fourth quarter. (Final score: Hawks 90, Pacers 69.) Horford scored 26 points and took 16 rebounds. Smith scored 14 points and limited Paul George to four baskets. Skill-wise, those two Hawks remain the best players in this series.

Said Drew: “This team has done something all year long, and that’s respond.”

We’ll know after Monday’s Game 4 if this was just one of those Game 3’s in which the home side wins once for pride and then calls it a season, but the magnitude of this whipping didn’t suggest as much. Even without Louis Williams and Pachulia, the Hawks have more ways to score than Indiana, and if they defend and rebound … well, who knows?

We’ve seen the Hawks cut against the grain so often this time of year — winning when they should lose, losing when they should win – that nothing should surprise us, but this performance kind of did. They played hard and well when they might have punted, and they gave themselves a chance to make this a series.

This was a night when we half-expected to leave having buried the Hawks — two bad losses in Indy; a smallish crowd expected; no discernible buzz in this town, which is seldom buzzed about this team anyway — but instead we walk away praising these guys. They didn’t roll over. In the best possible way at the best possible time, they just rolled.