But the Celtics willingly and methodically disposed of the roster that was placed in front of them, roaring to a 29-point first-half lead before cruising to a 126-105 win, their fourth in a row.

“I thought we were the harder-playing team right from the jump,” Sam Hauser said. “Obviously we got off to a great start and maintained that.”

Jaylen Brown had 30 points, 8 rebounds, and 8 assists to lead the Celtics, who buried Los Angeles with another flammable shooting night. Boston made 46 of 84 shots overall, and 24 of 45 3-pointers (53.3 percent).

The Celtics failed to reach the 40-percent mark from the 3-point line in their first 12 games of the season, and their 5-7 record was a direct result of that. During that grisly shooting stretch, coach Joe Mazzulla insisted that the poor numbers were more due to shooting misfortune than shoddy execution.

On Friday, he acknowledged that the shooting luck might have tilted in the opposite direction. He was still pleased with the overall approach.

“I thought we had great execution,” he said. “I liked the shots we got.”

The Celtics are averaging 121.9 points per 100 possessions, tied for the second-best offensive rating in the NBA. Following all of the notable departures this summer as well as Jayson Tatum’s absence because of his Achilles injury, this level of production would have seemed unfathomable at the start of the year.

Despite these gaudy numbers, guard Payton Pritchard does not think the offense has reached its peak. He said it’ll “be exciting” to continue the ascension.

“If everybody’s just focused on, ‘How can I just get a little bit better each day, each game, no matter win or loss?,’ ” Pritchard said, “then eventually we’ll become the team we want to become.”

Jordan Walsh followed his strong game Thursday against the Wizards by making 6 of 7 shots and scoring 17 points Friday. He is 18 for 19 from the field over the last three games, and his rise since joining the starting lineup has been Boston’s most encouraging development.

Austin Reaves had 36 points to lead Los Angeles, but the Celtics mostly bottled him up during the first half, when he was just 2 for 7 from the field and his team stumbled into a deep hole.

Surprisingly, some of the night’s loudest cheers were reserved for James’s son, Bronny, the second-year guard. Following scattered “we want Bronny” chants during the second half, he checked in to some applause midway through the fourth. The crowd erupted when Bronny had a one-handed dunk and a 3-pointer, although the lopsided score probably factored into the warm reaction.

Celtics guard Derrick White started 3 for 4 from the 3-point line, and his pull-up from the top of the key with 6:18 left gave Boston a 19-7 lead. Its advantage remained in double digits the final 39 and a half minutes.

Brown was a distributor for most of the opening quarter. He passed up a few challenging shots to find teammates closer to the rim, but he scored 7 points in the final three minutes — all inside the arc — helping the Celtics extend their lead to 39-17.

The shooting cooled slightly in the second quarter, but the big lead left room for that. A 3-pointer by Hauser with 10:06 left stretched the advantage to 49-21 and provided another example of Boston’s balance. Nearly midway through the quarter, no Celtic had attempted more than five shots.

Boston’s defense let up in the third quarter — five turnovers added extra stress — and Reaves found a second wind following his slow start.

He poured in 16 points in the period, and the Lakers shot 63.2 percent from the field, helping them pull within 97-82 after three quarters. But the Celtics started the fourth with a 9-0 run.

“These last two games, we kind of just put our foot on the gas and took care of business,” Pritchard said.

Adam Himmelsbach can be reached at adam.himmelsbach@globe.com. Follow him @adamhimmelsbach.

The group stage games in Foxborough will feature Group C (June 13 and 19), Group I (June 16 and 26) and Group L (June 23). The winner of Group E will play its Round of 32 elimination stage game at Foxborough on June 29 against the third-place finisher in group A, B, C, D, or F.

Group C, which has two games at Gillette, is headlined by Brazil and also includes Morocco, Scotland, and Haiti.

Group I will also stage two games at Gillette, with 2018 champion France joined by Senegal, Norway, and one team yet to be determined by a qualifying playoff (either Iraq, Bolivia, or Suriname).

The other group-stage match in Foxborough will involved Group L, which features England, Croatia, Ghana, and Panama.

While the groups for the Gillette Stadium games are set, the specific matchups won’t be released until Saturday.

The only matchups set are the opening games among the groups including the host nations: Mexico in Group A, Canada in Group B, and the United States in Group D.

Mexico will host South Africa at Mexico City’s Estadio Azteca on June 11. Canada will play Toronto’s BMO Field on the June 12 against one of the remaining qualifiers from the European playoffs, which could be either Northern Ireland, Italy, Wales, or Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The United States will kick off Group D on June 12 against Paraguay at SoFi Stadium in Los Angeles.

Of the 48 spots, 42 nations have punched their tickets leaving six spots up for grabs. Twenty-two countries have paths to qualify, with competitions to determine the spots set for March.

The tournament, which will be co-hosted by the United States, Canada, and Mexico, kicks off June 11.

Gillette Stadium, which FIFA will call “Boston Stadium” for the World Cup, will host seven matches. Five will be group stage games, taking place from June 13-26. Foxborough will then host two knockout stage games: A Round of 32 match on June 29 and a quarterfinal on July 9.

Here are all the groups for the 2026 FIFA World Cup:

Group A: Mexico, South Korea, South Africa, Winner of Playoff D (Denmark, North Macedonia, Ireland, or Czechia)

Group B: Canada, Switzerland, Qatar, Winner of Playoff A (Northern Ireland, Italy, Wales, or Bosnia and Herzegovina)

Group C: Brazil, Morocco, Scotland, Haiti

Group D: United States, Australia, Paraguay, Winner of Playoff C (Turkiye, Romania, Slovakia, or Kosovo)

Group E: Germany, Ecuador, Ivory Coast, Curacao

Group F: Netherlands, Japan, Tunisia, Winner of Playoff B (Ukraine, Sweden, Poland, or Albania)

Group G: Belgium, Iran, Egypt, New Zealand

Group H: Spain, Uruguay, Saudi Arabia, Cabo Verde

Group I: France, Senegal, Norway, Winner of Playoff 2 (Iraq, Bolivia, or Suriname)

Group J: Argentina, Austria, Algeria, Jordan

Group K: Portugal, Colombia, Uzbekistan, Winner of Playoff 1 (Congo DR, Jamaica, or New Caledonia)

Group L: England, Croatia, Panama, Ghana

Emma Healy can be reached at emma.healy@globe.com or on X @ByEmmaHealy. Hayden Bird can be reached at hayden.bird@globe.com. Amin Touri can be reached at amin.touri@globe.com.

Commuting in Boston can be a nightmare. Sometimes you find yourself stuck in hours-long traffic wishing you’d taken the T. Other times you’re waiting for an elusive train that never shows up, wondering why you even gave the T a chance.

But here’s the thing: It doesn’t have to be this bad. Just take a look at New York’s promising attempt to fix its own traffic woes. In January, New York City launched its congestion pricing program, which charges drivers a steep toll to enter Manhattan’s busiest streets. It’s $9 during peak hours, which are 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. on weekdays and 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. on the weekends, and $2.25 during off-peak hours.

The program is the first of its kind in the United States, though there are versions of it in cities like Stockholm, London, and Singapore. And it has two primary objectives: First, the cost is meant to discourage people from commuting by car. Second, the revenue it raises is meant to fund public transit improvements that would make the region less car-dependent in the long run.

So far, the program has been largely successful. It has reduced the number of cars on the roads, improved commute times, and even contributed to a drop in traffic-related deaths. The streets in the congestion zone are also receiving fewer traffic noise complaints.

Some lawmakers across the country are taking notice. Here in Massachusetts, Democratic state Senator Brendan Crighton from Lynn, who serves as cochair of the Legislature’s transportation committee, says that schemes like congestion pricing should remain on the table when it comes to addressing the MBTA’s long-term fiscal concerns. (Evidently, the millionaires’ tax that voters passed in 2022 is not enough.)

As lawmakers consider whether this is a good idea for Boston, here are three takeaways from New York’s nearly year-long experiment:

1) There’s still a lot of traffic, but it’s getting better

There’s no way around it: New York will always have traffic jams. The city is home to more than 8 million residents, and the metropolitan area has a population of some 20 million. But since the city launched congestion pricing, the number of cars on the road has dropped.

This past summer, 67,000 fewer cars were entering Lower Manhattan every day compared with historical averages, according to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Other analyses earlier this year also showed a reduction in traffic, with average car speeds increasing by as much as 20 percent during rush hour within the congestion relief zone.

As a result, public transit has also improved. Buses have become more efficient, reliably moving faster. The average bus speed increase doesn’t seem too impressive — about 3.5 percent — but some buses are moving nearly 30 percent faster, and virtually all bus routes that interact with the congestion zone have seen an improvement in speed.

2) Congestion pricing is a great source of revenue

New York officials say that the new toll is on track to raise the projected $500 million in its first year — money that in the long run will go toward a multibillion-dollar plan to improve subways, buses, and commuter rail lines and make those modes of transportation more appealing.

Even though there is something to be said about how deeply driving is embedded in American culture, at the end of the day commuters are rational consumers. And if getting from point A to point B is both faster and cheaper on public transit, then a lot of people will go for that option, even if they would otherwise prefer driving.

3) At first, people hate it. Then they learn to love it.

New York’s plan ran into roadblocks before it officially launched. Just before it was meant to go into effect in June 2024, Governor Kathy Hochul postponed its launch indefinitely. Seven months later, she launched the program, but with a lower toll — $9 instead of the originally planned $15.

Part of the reason for that back and forth was public opposition to congestion pricing. In December 2024, for example, less than a third of New York City voters supported it. But just as was the case with other cities around the world that have tried congestion pricing, the program got more popular after residents got a taste of its benefits. According to a YouGov poll in August, public support and opposition for congestion pricing have almost entirely flipped, with 59 percent of New York City voters supporting keeping the toll in place.

Now, just because something works in New York doesn’t necessarily mean it will work in Boston or elsewhere. New York is America’s largest city — more than 10 times the size of Boston — and its subway system is by far the most expansive in the country. Implementing a costly toll to enter downtown Boston might not be as successful in pushing drivers to use other modes of transportation, because their options are ultimately more limited than the ones available to commuters in and around New York City. (More than that, the Trump administration has openly opposed New York’s congestion pricing and has attempted but so far failed to block it in court, and other cities could face similar scrutiny from the federal government.)

But that doesn’t mean that congestion pricing is not worth trying, even if it takes years to get it done. After all, if Boston wants fewer cars on the road, the first step is to improve public transit. And what’s a better way to do that in the long run than to create a steady daily revenue stream from commuters, whether they’re riding the T or driving their cars? It might be a political risk at first, but the potential reward is too appealing to ignore.

Abdallah Fayyad can be reached at abdallah.fayyad@globe.com. Follow him @abdallah_fayyad.