I guess it was a good effort by the Cs to come back and make it interesting towards the end of the game, but that's only what I've heard--I was so mad with how they started the game that I didn't watch any of the second half.
5-of-19 shooting from Pierce, including 0 for 6 on threes. KG made 8 of his final 13 attempts, but that was after missing on his first 6 tries. The Cs reached 20 points in a quarter only once, and finished the game with 39% shooting. If the Cs had played even somewhat ok, they would've won this game, because despite the Hawks' hot start, Atlanta ended up shooting only 40.8%, with Joe Johnson shooting a woeful 3 for 15, including 0 for 9 on threes--and can we really expect him to keep shooting that badly?
This is one of Boston's primary problems: They nearly always make things more difficult for themselves than they need to be. When the Cs need only, say, 84 points to win, they can't get past the 70s, but when they score 100, they give up 100. When the opponent gives Boston chance after chance to win, the Cs either say "No, thanks" or else come alive just in the nick of time to scrape out the win. Now, a win's a win, sure, but if you take care of business earlier, you can give your starters more rest.
The opening sequence of this game had me thinking it was going to be a long night for Boston fans: Cs win the tip, but then Pierce misses a wide-open three-pointer, and a Hawks player grabs the rebound and throws it the length of the court for an easy layup, despite the fact that it wasn't a long rebound off Pierce's miss, so there was absolutely no reason for Boston to not be back on D.
Obviously, I hope they turn it around for Game 2, but Rondo's probably not going to be there, so that hurts. Atlanta's not a chump team, clearly, but I think Boston is easily the better team--yet the Cs just seem to hate stepping on people's throats when they have the chance, and if they go down 0-2 ... yikes.