emkee
The Truth Is Out There
AI was 6' and 170 lbs soaking wet, LBJ is 6'8 and 270 lbs. I'd say you're right.
NBA Finals Discussion thread
- Thread starter divol
- Start date
AI was 6' and 170 lbs soaking wet, LBJ is 6'8 and 270 lbs. I'd say you're right.
ArizonaKid
Pretty much a regular
So now leBron checked out of last years Finals...He played out of his mind and his teammates disappeared on him.
Since when is 28-8-4 on 57% shooting and 50% from 3 checking out ?
Since when is 28-8-4 on 57% shooting and 50% from 3 checking out ?
emkee
The Truth Is Out There
Can be forgiven for ditching a franchise once but twice is pretty bad. Guess I'm big on loyalty.
Would he have returned to Cleveland had Stern not rigged the draft, unlikely.
emkee
The Truth Is Out There
Sometimes you need to peel the layers off the 'numbers' and look inside the actual game.
nbafan88
Pretty much a regular
You seriously expected Lebron to stay in Miami for the rest of his career? He went to Miami to grow up and mature. Dude didn't go to college. Had he done so for even a year...the negative decisions he made would never had happened. Nobody outside of Miami thinks badly of Lebron for going back home. Everyone makes mistakes. And everyone deseves a second chance.
L
Lareux
Guest
Revisionist history from a non-objective fan.
L
Lareux
Guest
If that's the case, how in the hell can you possibly keep pointing at shooting percentages? If we "look inside the actual game," it's quite clear that what LeBron just did hasn't been matched in the history of the league.
emkee
The Truth Is Out There
When you sit on a stage with fireworks and dancers and say you're gonna bring multiple championships to a city, then that's what you aim to do.
Not bail at the first sign of trouble and run back to a team you ditched because they've amassed a few 1st round picks.
sportjunky
Follower of tha truddhist philosophy
you consider these warriors superior to the prime shaq + kobe dynasty? hmmmmm. im big on modern era superiority but i don't see it. the damage shaq would've done the warriors collective asshole. my goodness.
L
Lareux
Guest
I'd imagine he's basing that on the statistics that Nate Silver's site delved into. This season's Warriors team was in the top 3 in the history of the NBA. Only 2 of Jordan's Bulls teams were rated higher.
L
Lareux
Guest
Well he did bring multiple championships to the city. And they made the Finals in each of his 4 seasons there.
nbafan88
Pretty much a regular
emkee
The Truth Is Out There
L
Lareux
Guest
Sure, but that was clearly just hype (and the whole thing with them being on a stage with fireworks was completely laughable, I agree). He did bring multiple championships to the city and made the Finals in each of his 4 seasons there.
emkee
The Truth Is Out There
Point is when it went stale he bailed rather than ride it out.
emkee
The Truth Is Out There
I was big on the Dubs all postseason, they are a great team and no-one can deny them that but the league is so devoid of decent big men it's not funny.
Shaq in his prime would have a field day in today's league.
L
Lareux
Guest
Sure, but the game has clearly changed. Are we holding it against the Warriors because they didn't have a dominant big man, when the rest of the league is devoid of big men? Who's to say that if big men were still a need in the NBA that the Warriors wouldn't have one?
Lots of guys would have a field day in today's league...that doesn't mean it should be held against any team. Unless, of course, you're not being objective.
Did you even read the article to see what factored into their conclusions?
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-best-nba-teams-of-all-time-according-to-elo/
emkee
The Truth Is Out There
Sure, but the game has clearly changed. Are we holding it against the Warriors because they didn't have a dominant big man, when the rest of the league is devoid of big men? Who's to say that if big men were still a need in the NBA that the Warriors wouldn't have one?
Lots of guys would have a field day in today's league...that doesn't mean it should be held against any team. Unless, of course, you're not being objective.
Did you even read the article to see what factored into their conclusions?
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-best-nba-teams-of-all-time-according-to-elo/
Yes. I use Elo in my numbers when determining plays/ratings etc and no I am definitely not discounting the Dubs, their numbers speak for themselves - they are one of the best teams the league has produced.
I'm merely saying a Shaq in his prime would dominate vs any other big man currently in the league.
L
Lareux
Guest
Yes, I agree. Also in, water is wet.
I'm not even sure why Shaq came into the conversation, especially since you just said you agree that the Dubs are one of the best teams the NBA has ever seen. Hakeem would dominate this league as well...what's the point?
ArizonaKid
Pretty much a regular
I consider them a 2 year dynasty. That 3rd championship was stolen from the Kings.
The season they played the 76er's they were just a lousy defensive team, maybe they coasted all regular season and turned it on for the playoffs.
The team that beat the Pacers was scary good, and was the top defensive team in the league that year. Also the big difference between the 2 seasons was they had Glen Rice that season, and having a shooter of his caliber made them lethal on offense. Also missing was Ron Harper, he was there the 2001 season when they beat the 76er's but barely played while he could still play when they beat the Pacers.
the first Shaq Kobe Title team would easily handle this Warriors team, they following season w/out Harper and Rice ? I think no Rice allows them to sag back on Shaq and make it more difficult for him down low and they got a lot of bodies to throw at Kobe...the Warriors could have made it a series with that squad.
L
Lareux
Guest
Well, since we're stating the obvious....what LeBron James just did in the NBA Finals is unprecedented and goes down as the best individual Finals performance of all time (whether or not his team won the title).
sportjunky
Follower of tha truddhist philosophy
Sure, but the game has clearly changed. Are we holding it against the Warriors because they didn't have a dominant big man, when the rest of the league is devoid of big men? Who's to say that if big men were still a need in the NBA that the Warriors wouldn't have one?
Lots of guys would have a field day in today's league...that doesn't mean it should be held against any team. Unless, of course, you're not being objective.
Did you even read the article to see what factored into their conclusions?
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-best-nba-teams-of-all-time-according-to-elo/
i see the ratings are based on an 82 game season.
2001 was the year dfish came back from an injury and went unconscious from the perimeter - 51.5 % from 3 during the playoffs - and the lakers were 1 game away from being the only team in history to SWEEP through all 4 rounds of the playoffs. damn you iverson.
with all due respect to nate silver these warriors are not superior to that laker team.
L
Lareux
Guest
Fair enough. I was just letting you know what the comment was most likely based on.
:shake:
sportjunky
Follower of tha truddhist philosophy
without a doubt but they turned it fucking on.
sportjunky
Follower of tha truddhist philosophy
well if em is using Elo to cap i should thank you for introducing them to me :cheers3:
L
Lareux
Guest
After further review, and I just edited my post, that 2000-01 Lakers team wasn't even close to the top...they were 20th on the list. The 2008-09 Lakers team was much higher...they were the ones at 5th on the list.
ArizonaKid
Pretty much a regular
Only team from this century that could take out the Lakers best Title team would have been the 2005 Spurs. Had enough size to slow down Shaq w/ Nazr Mohammed and Nestorovic at Center and Timmy at PF, and were lethal from deep, probably hit 40% from 3 all postseason. Spurs had peak Manu and a lightening quick Tony Parker, could throw Bowen on Kobe to at least get in the way, and even had a not so old Glenn Robinson (32) on the bench that they rarely needed for instant offense.
That ELO list says last season's Spurs were the best Spurs team ever...not true. The 2005 team was.
LOL also has the 87 Lakers and the 2002 Spurs tied. Stats, numbers, and algorithm's can only do so much...that Laker's team was superior by far.
That ELO list says last season's Spurs were the best Spurs team ever...not true. The 2005 team was.
LOL also has the 87 Lakers and the 2002 Spurs tied. Stats, numbers, and algorithm's can only do so much...that Laker's team was superior by far.
Last edited:
BetCrimes1984
CTG Big Brother
What I perceived as flawed I thought was clear. Warriors only managed to win in regulation after the series defining lineup adjustment by Kerr for G4 was made. Until that adjustment was made, the Warriors proved themselves incapable of beating Cleveland in regulation, whether they were playing off a win or off a loss in the previous game. What's flawed is to think that adjustment gets made as soon as G2 just because of a narrow loss in G1. Kerr only went to that adjustment after 3 poor performances forced him to, not 1 (keeping in mind Bogut had his best all-round performance of the series in G1). Didn't instigate it for G3 after the first 2 games screamed out at him that the side he was starting just wasn't performing up to previous standards, and he didn't have a 2-0 cushion ("he could afford to lose") to excuse his tardiness. Coming off a loss made no difference to Kerr re his G3 lineup, so why would it suddenly have been different in his mind for his G2 lineup off a G1 loss? (On paper his adjustment wasn't without risk. They were already getting beat badly on the offensive boards, going small ran the risk of their taking a hiding on that front, which would've been fatal for their long term chances had it transpired. Kerr understood that was the risk involved in such a move, and that's why it took his team having their back to the wall - facing a 3rd straight loss - for him to finally see it as a risk worth taking on).
If someone is going to assert the Warriors beat the Cavs in G2 after losing G1, then they need to make the case for Kerr making the adjustment he did for G4 much sooner, because what basis otherwise is there to say the 'non-adjusted Warriors' win a game in regulation after losing G1, when in reality they proved they were incapable of such a feat, off a win or a loss? There is no basis, because they never managed it.
The earliest I can accept Kerr making any starting lineup changes is G3 down 0-2, and then you have to deal with the amount of energy brought to that affair by the Cavs players (given it was Cleveland's first home finals game in approaching a decade). Frankly my failing to bet their ml for that game I consider to be my worst miss of the year to date (will probably remain so come Dec. 31st), because Cleveland was never losing that game. So 0-2 becomes 0-3, Kerr's adjustment being instigated or not (in keeping with this pov: a Cavs team running on fumes was 2 pts up inside the last 7 mins of the 4th quarter in a road G5, and that was playing the 'new look' Warriors lineup. That they collapsed to lose by 13 pts just speaks to their paying the price for being so thin, since that game was otherwise close right up until its last stanza. They showed that even running on fumes they could live with the 'new look' Warriors, so there's little basis in reality to think they couldn't have delivered a similar G3 performance against the 'new look' Warriors as they actually did against the 'old look' lineup).
And with all of that said, G1 was blown by Cleveland in regulation (most immediately with their last possession decision; more widely considered over the last 4 mins). Irving got injured in OT. Had the Cavs won G1 like I suppose, then OT never gets played and Irving is present for at least 1 more game before potentially (given he wasn't fully healthy anyway) playing no more. Everything gets harder for the 'old look' Warriors playing off a G1 loss in regulation, and yet I'm expected to believe they win one of the next 2 games under such harder circumstances where they couldn't manage the same feat under the 'easier' circumstances they actually faced (namely facing a thinner Cavs lineup & having the luxury of being able to play loose off being victorous in G1)? That's a flawed expectation.
-----
...meet...
I don't see the latter assertion brooking any dissension.
Well, since we're stating the obvious....what LeBron James just did in the NBA Finals is unprecedented and goes down as the best individual Finals performance of all time (whether or not his team won the title).
Um, yeah, no.
Great series by him...first time in career he had to truly carry for multiple games in a row and did...it was refreshing...
Many other players had better series overall...
divol
The Spurs can suck my manhood
Nice article about Blatt:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...-blatt-build-off-lessons-from-nba-finals-loss
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...-blatt-build-off-lessons-from-nba-finals-loss
David Blatt deserves another shot.
It's a shame that a coach who endured one of the most complicated, expectation-laden, pressure-ridden seasons in NBA history—one who took a physically broken team to within two wins of a championship—needs such an endorsement.
But the blatant calls for Blatt's job, or at least the whispered questionsabout his fitness to continue filling it, are coming.
They shouldn't be. They just shouldn't.
Not after Blatt stepped into what he thought was a rebuilding situation in Cleveland and saw it instantaneously morph into a championship-or-bust scenario when LeBron James showed up.
Not after he successfully incorporated three new rotation players—J.R. Smith, Timofey Mozgov and Iman Shumpert—into a group that was still searching for chemistry.
David Liam Kyle/Getty Images
Not after he withstood heaps of criticism, the widespread belief that assistant coaches were doing the heavy lifting and very public instances of James undermining his authority.
And not after he lost his second- and third-best players during a bumpy playoff run.
The way Blatt reconfigured his team's identity on the fly speaks to his coaching acumen more than anything else. These Cavaliers were an offensive machine during the late stages of the regular season. They played fast, moved the ball and featured so many viable offensive threats that Kevin Love, one of the league's most skilled scoring talents, struggled to find touches.
Mark Duncan/Associated Press
The plodding, lock-it-down grit that defined the Cavs in the Finals was as different from the team's season-long identity as anyone could have imagined.
Actually, scratch that. Nobody would have ever dreamed of Cleveland pushing a historically good Golden State Warriors team to six games on the strength of disciplined defense and deliberate, minimalist offense.
After the Cavs took an improbable 2-1 advantage against the Dubs, SB Nation's Ricky O'Donnell offered some much-needed perspective:
The Cavaliers wouldn't be in this position without David Blatt. He's coached a masterful series that should silence his many critics.Much was (rightly) made of Steve Kerr's bold decision to swap AndrewBogut out of the starting lineup in Game 4, largely because Finals MVP Andre Iguodala took his place and swung the series. But that was one tweak made by a coach with embarrassingly deep resources at his disposal.
Cleveland is playing at the slowest pace of any playoff team, and it's all by design. Talent wins out in the open floor, and the Warriors have a huge edge in talent with Love and Irving on the sideline. Instead, the Cavaliers have reinvented themselves as a team that grinds out possessions, plays suffocating defense and never wavers from a concrete game plan.
Blatt changed everything about his team's philosophy. In the Finals. Against a 67-win team. And it almost worked.
Imagine what we'd be talking about right now if Shumpert's game-winning attempt in Game 1 hadn't been two inches short. Cleveland was remarkably close to holding a 3-0 lead.
That the Cavaliers couldn't solve the downsized Warriors in Games 4, 5 and 6 was no failure of Blatt's. It was the predictable result of a roster too thin and fatigued to compete.
Tony Dejak/Associated Press
The Cavs have a lot to think about next year. Love can opt out of his contract this summer, and James will want substantially more help on the roster than he had this season. Personnel changes, whether great or small, seem imminent.
Shumpert is a free agent, and Smith will likely opt out of the final year of his deal to test the market as well, per ESPN's Chris Broussard.
Cleveland must also address the identity crisis created by its defensive success in the Finals. The Cavaliers couldn't have defended so effectively with Irving and Love in the rotation, and we know that because they never did with those two playing major roles during the year.
Brian Babineau/Getty Images
At the same time, we know the Cavs offense fell apart without James' key running mates.
Fortunately, Blatt has now shown the world—and more importantly, James and the front office—that he can coach a team built either way. Given a full offseason to prepare, perhaps he can bring out the best in the Cavs on both ends.
Fair or not, Blatt will probably need James' endorsement before his job is truly safe. You'd have to assume James, as cerebral a basketball mind as we've seen, recognizes and appreciates the wholesale trustBlatt placed in him, as well as the obviously brilliant stylistic changes he made when injuries forced his hand.
Ben Margot/Associated Press
Blatt had precious few buttons to push in the Finals, but he pushed the right ones.
When the fog of disappointment lifts in a few weeks, James is going to realize that. Or at least he should.
Recently, NBA teams have shown a startling willingness to toss aside good coaches when they believe there's a better one out there—one who could elevate, say, a playoff team to a title-winner.
Kerr just did it. And during the Warriors' run, the Oklahoma City Thunder, Chicago Bulls and New Orleans Pelicans fired successful coaches in hopes of finding better ones. Trends like that mean Blattmay not be able to relax until he's sitting on the bench for the 2015-16 season opener.
Blatt endured a remarkably difficult year, and if he failed, it was for reasons beyond his control. The greatest living authority on winning in the NBA told him so after Game 6, per Turner Sports' Rachel Nichols:
<iframe id="twitter-widget-1" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered" allowfullscreen="" title="Twitter Tweet" height="775" style="margin: 7px auto; padding: 0px; border-style: none; border-width: initial; outline: 0px; font-size: 16px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 98%; display: block; width: 350px; color: rgb(55, 55, 55); font-family: 'Open Sans', Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 26px; min-width: 220px; position: static; visibility: visible; float: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"></iframe>We don't know if Blatt's a genius or if he has the locker-room-swaying power to lead the Cavs on a multiyear championship run. But we know he did more with this roster than anyone could have reasonably asked.
"This is a process," Blatt said after Game 6, per Jeff Zillgitt of USA Today. "You don't wake up one morning and fall out of bed and expect to win the NBA Championship. You hope that you can, but it doesn't always work that way, and our guys did more than anyone could expect to put themselves and put our organization in this situation."
Hoping for an offseason talent infusion, a more cohesive identity and better fortune, Cleveland can build something great.
Blatt has done enough to be a part of the ongoing construction.
L
Lareux
Guest
Not according to the stats they didn't. He led both teams in points, rebounds, and assists. That hadn't been done before.
L
Lareux
Guest
You found one guy who said that with conviction, great. That's why I said "I don't think," and not that it was certain.
Also most aren't saying their logic may be without flaws that GS would have won either G2 or G3, they're just saying it's possible. You ARE using flawed logic and insisting you're right without even accepting that you aren't. Big difference.
BetCrimes1984
CTG Big Brother
He's someone willing to state it in such plain terms. There's those calls, on this site...
and elsewhere (numerous at blankets) before the finals began of a 4-1 series scoreline, calls that implicitly communicate the fact that the Warriors would. not. lose. their opening 2 home games. It was a common enough perception, owned by far more than just "one guy."
My logic is grounded in the reality that the Bogut-starting Warriors in the '14-15 finals proved to be incapable of beating the LBJ-led Cavs team in regulation (3 games in total = more than enough opportunities to do so for a team that was otherwise capable of winning at a rate of 82.0%, and never failed previously to win at least 1 game in reg. out of any 3 straight played, throughout the enitre season up until that point); and in the reality that Kerr abandoned his loyalty to the starting-5 which got him all the way through the reg. season and the Western Conf. side of the playoffs to the finals, and was willing to face the risks that came with making that series-defining starting lineup change, only when his team was facing a third straight loss (not a second straight, as he did before G3 = one loss wasn't enough to stir him into abandoning his loyalties/see it as worth taking on the risk such a move would entail). Yet this reality-based logic is somehow "flawed"? There's no explaining some pov's.
Someone who wants to counter my pov has to make the case for Kerr's starting lineup changes coming 2 games earlier than they did. That can't be done, since I've already gone over that ground and found it wanting (cue my pov): because Kerr wouldn't have resorted to such a change so soon is what ends up making G1's result so pivotal. By winning it, GS bought themselves the luxury of being able to endure the possibility of losing consecutive games (incl. experiencing the Cavs supreme effort in their own first home game, G3) without those results being fatal to their long term final chances, while it slowly got through to Kerr that the side he was wheeling out just didn't cut the mustard.
They wouldn't have been.
It woulda have been maybe a great Game 2 spot...Cavs woulda not fought as hard in G2 imo.
It was an unreal stat line but he was FORCED to that statline...there was no one else who could do anything.
RetroVK
This claim is disputed
Come on Lar, the guy playing opposite of him won MVP. Stats aside, how could it be considered historically great when that is the case? Also, if you had let any player take that many shots and possess the ball that many times, they would put up huge statlines too. it wasn't a product of him dominating, in the least. In addition, they were first 40 minute stats.... he disappeared down the stretch basically every game. I know some people who won't even tune in to NBA games until halfway through the fourth because it is usually the only time of the game that matters a ton. He went AWOL time and time again ... just as he has in other NBA finals series. I think he played great ... the burden was high given the lack of talent around him .. but let's not get carried away.
nbafan88
Pretty much a regular
That's most people.... and that is because they are ignorant and don't appreciate the sport.
I think you are seriously discounting Lebron's greatness.
KJ
Bump. Set. Shuma!
Disagree. Most people value their time and this series was the perfect example. If you stood around watching LeBron for 3.5 quarters, you're the fool.
RetroVK
This claim is disputed
No need for sleeping pills either, just try watching the first qtr each time andhope the alarm works. Incidentally,while I think gsw was a good team that just played as bad as they could I the finals... I cannot remember a worse played finals when conconsidering BOTH teams
Similar threads
