I’m fairly startled by how many of TV’s talking heads seem to believe the Lakers will roll over the Celtics in the NBA Finals, beginning on Thursday.

I not only don’t agree, I’m not sure the Lakers will make a series of it. I can see the Celts winning in five. Sweeping even.

Not that I want this to happen. I loathe the Celtics as only Lakers fans from the 1960s can loathe them. When all you whippersnappers refer to the series as if its only meaningful antecedents occurred in the 1980s, when Magic, Bird, Kareem, McHale, Worthy and Parish were suiting up …

That’s not the half of it. It’s only a third of it, because the teams have met in the Finals nine times since the Lakers arrived in Los Angeles, and six of the meetings were in the 1960s — with the Celtics winning all of them.

It was so awful to see Jerry and Elgin go down, year after year, to those guys in green that it scarred a whole generation of L.A. sports fans who have come to expect the worst ever since.

So, yeah, I want the Lakers to win.

I just don’t see it happening. For several reasons.

1. 107-94 and 110-91. The scores of the team’s two regular-season meetings. Butt-kickings. Both of them. I saw the latter game in person … the infamous Short Shorts Game of Dec. 30. Sure, the Lakers didn’t have Pau Gasol in either game, but they did have Andrew Bynum for both. And by Dec. 30, Bynum was beginning to become a real player. Five days before, Bynum went for 28 and 12 against the Phoenix Suns. Two days before, he went for 10 and eight against Utah. Then against the Celtics, he scored eight points, had only two rebounds and fouled out in 22 minutes.

Are the Lakers that much better with Gasol and without Bynum? I don’t think so.

2. The Celtics shut down Kobe Bryant. Just throttled him. He scored 50 points, total, in the two games, but on 15-for-46 shooting, including 3-for-13 from three-point range — where Kobe spent far too much of the game, after finding himself unable to get to the rim. The Celtics defended the paint and let Kobe cast off from the perimeter, and it worked well. Frighteningly well, if you’re a Lakers fan.

3. The Celtics defended the Lakers to death. In the first game, they were up 84-62 with 1:07 left in the third quarter and coasted home. In the second, they led 93-68 with 8:56 left, and it was garbage time thereafter. In those two games, the Lakers were 64-for-165 (a wretched 38.8 percent) from the field. It wasn’t just Kobe throwing up bricks. It was everyone. Meanwhile, the Celtics had no such issues with the Lakers defense, shooting a tidy 76-for-157 (48.4 percent) from the field. And the Celtics got to the line far more often (67-50), another indication of who was getting into the paint and who was not.

4. Kendrick Perkins. People talk about Boston’s Big Three, and sometimes about scrawny little waterbug Rajon Rondo, but often overlooked is Boston’s center. Yes, Kendrick Perkins. He destroyed Bynum in their November matchup, scoring 21 points with nine boards. He just averaged 9.3 points and 9.2 rebounds in that six-game sumo-wrestling match against the Pistons. And he’s 6-10 and 280 — representing the sort of interior bulk the Lakers have not seen while rolling over Denver (Marcus Camby), Utah (Mehmet Okur/Carlos Boozer) and San Antonio (Tim Duncan). The Lakers have no one who can hang with Kendrick Perkins. Presumably, Gasol goes against him, and I can see Pau getting shoved off the court a lot, or picking up two fouls in the first five minutes. Then it’s Ronny Turiaf? Or (gulp) D.J. Mbenga?

5. Kevin Garnett vs. Lamar Odom. This is a huge edge for the Celtics. KG’s passion and fury vs. Lamar’s check-in/check-out commitment. This is KG’s best shot at a championship, and he knows it. He will play like a maniac and Lamar will play like Lamar, disappearing for long stretches. Long key stretches. How can people not see this?

6. The Hype Machine. It’s out of control, for the Lakers. It’s a function of Hollywood/L.A., and the stars at courtside, and the glamor that attaches itself to the Lakers. The Celtics’ idea of celebrities courtside are Bill Belichick and Tom Brady while the Lakers are bringing in A List stars. Sadly, Jack Nicholson and Cameron Diaz sightings don’t count for a thing on the scoreboard. And the Lakers’ often too-cool-for-school crowd will do less to get behind their team than will the Boston fanatics.

7. Home advantage. The Celtics have it, remember? The Lakers are unbeaten at home, so they know well the advantage of that extra game on your own court. Forget the fans and take into account the familiarity of your home floor, your own bed, the routine of your home city. There is a reason why NBA home teams win at about a 75 percent clip. … And can we really assume the Lakers will win one more road game in this series than will the Celtics? Can the Lakers split the first two, then come home and sweep the next three? Un-bloody-likely. And even if they split the first two and take two-of-three at Staples … can they go back to Boston and win one of the final two on the Celtics’ floor?

I don’t think so.

I know the Lakers are the hot pick. Kobe is clearly the single biggest star of this series, and the Lakers are flashier and score more points, but …

But … the Celtics over the course of a long, long season have demonstrated they are better than the Lakers. They were 66-16 to the Lakers’ 57- 25. They just beat down the Pistons, probably the second-best team in the league, after beating back LeBron James and the Cavs in the round before.

I believe the Celtics will take to the Lakers’ finesse-style approach far more easily than the Lakers will to the Eastern Conference jostling and rough-housing.

I don’t think it will be close. I fear it will not be. (I predicted in April that this would not be the Lakers’ year, and this is where it comes true. Even if I did give the rest of the Western Conference a bit too much credit.)

I would love to be wrong, but I’ve seen this picture before. Going back to my childhood. The Celtics mean trouble for the Lakers, unless magic (or Magic) is at work. I don’t anticipate seeing any.