Lakers fans are keyed up about the NBA playoffs. Giddy. It’s understandable. For the first time since 2004 (the Shaq-Mailman-Glove-Kobe team) the Lakers have a real chance of surviving a round or two.

But a championship?

Don’t count on it. Even if this or that analyst has decided, since the Pau Gasol trade, that they are the team to beat. “One through 12, they are the deepest team in basketball,” said ESPN’s Mark Jackson. “Certainly capable of winning it all, especially when you have the best player in the world.”

Yeah, they “could” win it. But that’s not the way to bet. Here’s why.

1. Derek Fisher. Yeah, I like the little old guy, too, but he has been getting torched by the top point guards, and the Lakers could see a batch of them, after this round. Such as Deron Williams of Utah and Chris Paul of New Orleans. D-Fish just isn’t capable of keeping up with the fast young guys.

2. The strength of the West. The eight teams in the playoffs won between 50 games (Denver) and 57 (the Lakers). That’s a very tight spread. What it means is … the idea that there is such a thing as an “upset” when any of those eight are paired is … well, daft. And the odds are not good that the Lakers will flip a coin three times and win all three tosses — just talking basic “probability” here. Figure them as only slightly better than 1-in-8 choices to come out of the West. Everyone else is that good.

3. Home court. Yes, this should work in the Lakers’ favor, as the top seed in the West, but they lost as many home games this season (11) as any team in the West playoffs — and seven more than Utah (37-4 at home), four more than San Antonio and Dallas (each 34-7 at home) and three more than Denver (33-8). The idea that the Laker’ have a significant advantage because they get four of each potential seven games at home … just doesn’t really hold up.

4. The Boston Celtics. Even if the Lakers survive the West, and what figures to be about six weeks and maybe 20 games of energy-draining, soul-sucking competition, I can’t envision them defeating the Celtics in the Finals. Just not going to happen.

These teams met twice in the regular season, and the Celtics trashed the Lakers. Toyed with them. Embarrassed them. Final scores were 107-94 (in Boston, the day after Thanksgiving) and 110-91 (in the infamous short-shorts game at Staples), but neither game was that close. Yes, the Lakers added Gasol after the second of those games (back on Dec. 30) but they also lost Andrew Bynum. They are better with Gasol than they were with Bynum, but enough to make up for the yawning chasm in competence?

Uh, no.

Kobe Bryant was smothered by the Celtics. He made only 15 of 46 field-goal attempts against Boston, scoring 50 points in two games. And he was sharp compared to the rest of the Lakers.

The Lakers led exactly once in those two games — 2-0, at Staples. That’s it. The Celtics dominated the rest of the time.

The 2007-08 Lakers made great strides. Talking Kobe down off the “trade me!” ledge was a huge accomplishment. The Gasol trade improved them enormously. The breakthrough season Bynum was having before he thrashed his knee … very encouraging.

This franchise is back. It will compete for titles for at least the next 2-3 seasons.

But win this one?

Sorry.

I’m afraid these five days of giddy buildup, between the Lakers finishing No. 1 in the conference and the start of the playoffs … that may be as good as it gets for the Lakers this time around.