Looking at the Boston and Magic series I've come to the realization that the phrase "matchup problem" have different meanings.  In this series, Boston causes the Magic "matchup problems" in which they defend Orlando to force them to beat them in ways they're not use to.  The three point line is constantly guarded while they allow Dwight to be the offense for the Magic.   The dribble drive kick out and pushing the tempo is the only way to beat Boston and Orlando has done very little of it.  

Now we look at the Atlanta model (I guess) where the Hawks swept the Celtics using their basic Iso-offense, but the difference is that neither worried about the others three point shooters that much.  Josh Smith and Al Horford are key to that matchup because of their dual post threat plus nobody on that team can guard those two and Joe Johnson and Mike Bibby when they're on.  And I guess the pychological edge that favors Atlanta would help too. 

Since Atlanta is reluctant to cover the shooters and tend to jump shoot their way out of a deficit, they will most likely lose that "matchup problem" 99% of the time.(March game is the exception) Since the Magic are seemingly content with Dwight being their only option when they need a basket, they will lose that series very quickly.  The switching defense may work well enough to beat the Celtics most nights (that and the psychological edge) but it doesn't hold water against the Magic.  Now, those are cases where the "matchup problems" are due to different styles of play.  In the Lakers' series they have had a significant size advantage over their opponents' front line.  The only team to really challenge them were the Thunder but they still had a size disadvantage.  The Suns have "some" size but their style of play worked against them the other night.  Any thoughts?