OT: NBA Finals

[deedougie]

Even as a Warriors fan, bummed to here about Kyrie. He played amazing last night and it was a great game. Still want the Warriors to win, but wish Cleveland had their full squad out there to compete with.

 

[TasteofUConn]

Facepalm, we went over this. Warriors didn't play well, Lebron had his best ever finals game and Kyrie was great.

We have gone over this. The Warriors played exactly like they played in February, with the exception of Barnes and the other guy shooting over their %. You now are ignoring 2 data points, and pulling an Izzo, and instead of acknowledging that the Cavs matched up really well with the GSW and put it to them on their home court, you're whining that "we didn't play well."
You're a fan boy. I'm an admirer of the game. If by "wore them out," you meant, "gave them two shots to win it," then, AGAIN, Heck yeah!!!

 

[tzznandrew]

I'm convinced the Cavs are better with Tristan instead of Love, Cavs know this and so does Love, he'll be gone this summer.

This is just crazy to me, and while I think there are some stats that might back up your point--by that I mean that they have played better statistically--I think that is mere noise generated by weak/injured opponents and the novelty of the Mozgov/Thompson pairing.

Playing Mozgov and Thompson was surprising to some teams, and brutalized teams on the glass but it provides no spacing. Over the course of a season, it would be figured out. Especially given how little offense Thompson provides. Love provides almost as strong rebounding and an offensive force that stretches the defenses and opens the lanes for Irving and LeBron. Although Love is a downgrade on defense, to be sure, but playing him alongside Mozgov or Thompson provides the necessary rim protection to mitigate that.

So far as I can tell, the Cavs were much better with Love in the lineup, and will be, too, if he sticks around next year and is healthy.

 

[tzznandrew]

We have gone over this. The Warriors played exactly like they played in February, with the exception of Barnes and the other guy shooting over their %. You now are ignoring 2 data points, and pulling an Izzo, and instead of acknowledging that the Cavs matched up really well with the GSW and put it to them on their home court, you're whining that "we didn't play well."

You are overestimating the worth of 2 data points over the other 95 other data points. Sadly, we won't ever really know what would have happened. But give me 95 data points over 2 to draw conclusions from every day.

 

[superjohn]

This is just crazy to me, and while I think there are some stats that might back up your point--by that I mean that they have played better statistically--I think that is mere noise generated by weak/injured opponents and the novelty of the Mozgov/Thompson pairing.

Playing Mozgov and Thompson was surprising to some teams, and brutalized teams on the glass but it provides no spacing. Over the course of a season, it would be figured out. Especially given how little offense Thompson provides. Love provides almost as strong rebounding and an offensive force that stretches the defenses and opens the lanes for Irving and LeBron. Although Love is a downgrade on defense, to be sure, but playing him alongside Mozgov or Thompson provides the necessary rim protection to mitigate that.

So far as I can tell, the Cavs were much better with Love in the lineup, and will be, too, if he sticks around next year and is healthy.

I agree with you that Love helps with spacing and his offensive abilities but Thompson has transformed the Cavs in the playoffs. He brings very little on offense but he's been the best offensive rebounder in entire playoffs and has helped their defense tremendously. What the Cavs sacrifice with losing Love's offense they more than make up for with Thompson's offensive rebounding and defense, Love is terrible on D. I don't see any way Love is in Cleveland next season.

 

[TasteofUConn]

You are overestimating the worth of 2 data points over the other 95 other data points. Sadly, we won't ever really know what would have happened. But give me 95 data points over 2 to draw conclusions from every day.

I completely understand what you are saying. The GSWs averaged this/this and this, and had this record and that.
But as 2014 taught the world, winning is about matchups. The healthy Cavs match up great with the GSWs, and you can throw out all of the numbers. Irving is THE one guy in the league who can slow down Curry. He's about as quick, but he's bigger. Nobody on the GSWs can give LeBron much problem on D. Point is, the other 95 data points are different data. It's completely irrelevant how the GSWs did against the Knicks. All that matters is how they did against the Cavs. Now, of course, it doesn't matter at all.

 

[champs99and04]

This is just crazy to me, and while I think there are some stats that might back up your point--by that I mean that they have played better statistically--I think that is mere noise generated by weak/injured opponents and the novelty of the Mozgov/Thompson pairing.

Playing Mozgov and Thompson was surprising to some teams, and brutalized teams on the glass but it provides no spacing. Over the course of a season, it would be figured out. Especially given how little offense Thompson provides. Love provides almost as strong rebounding and an offensive force that stretches the defenses and opens the lanes for Irving and LeBron. Although Love is a downgrade on defense, to be sure, but playing him alongside Mozgov or Thompson provides the necessary rim protection to mitigate that.

So far as I can tell, the Cavs were much better with Love in the lineup, and will be, too, if he sticks around next year and is healthy.

It's sort of ironic that the injury to Love - undoubtedly one of the best offensive rebounders in the game - forced the Cavs into discovering their new identity as offensive rebounding battering rams.

I'm entirely sure that if the Cavaliers had not relegated Love to the perimeter so much - and I don't necessarily blame them for doing so, as a four who can shoot that way is a weapon - he could put up the same sort of rebounding numbers Thompson is posting now. Look no further than how Chris Bosh's rebounding numbers tailed off when he played with LeBron.

Thompson is a good player, and he can do things defensively that Love cannot. But I'm sort of baffled that Love's body of work as an elite NBA player has been so quickly dismissed, particularly when there is no compelling evidence (that I'm aware of) that the Cavaliers have ascended a level without him (they essentially swept Boston with him, and the Bulls pretty much played them even until game six).

Power forwards who can rebound at a league-best level, function as a legitimate marksmen from deep (38% last season in Minnesota on a very high volume of threes), and initiate the offense with superb passing skills both from the block and the high post, are rare.

The idea of him not being a winning player is somewhat reconcilable, considering he had never appeared in the playoffs prior to this season, but it still doesn't hold up to further research. The Wolves team that won sixteen games last season won 40 (while posting a +2.7 point differential) the year prior in a loaded west under Love's guide. In 2013, when Love missed most of the year to injury, the Wolves won just 31 games.

A lot of Love's weaknesses as a player were fair to consider last season, when people were wondering whether he was a top five player, but in regards to whether he is a max player or whether the Cavs are better off with him in the lineup...I don't think it's close.

 

[UConn990411]

I completely understand what you are saying. The GSWs averaged this/this and this, and had this record and that.
But as 2014 taught the world, winning is about matchups. The healthy Cavs match up great with the GSWs, and you can throw out all of the numbers. Irving is THE one guy in the league who can slow down Curry. He's about as quick, but he's bigger. Nobody on the GSWs can give LeBron much problem on D. Point is, the other 95 data points are different data. It's completely irrelevant how the GSWs did against the Knicks. All that matters is how they did against the Cavs. Now, of course, it doesn't matter at all.

In what world is Irving the one guy in the league who can slow Curry?

You're not doing a very good job proving your objectivity.

 

[TasteofUConn]

In what world is Irving the one guy in the league who can slow Curry? You're not doing a very good job proving your objectivity.

Well, there may be others - I don't watch enough to know. But of the 15 or so guys I watched try to guard Curry, Irving did the best job of slowing him down.
I figure I'm not perfectly objective. I'm not a Cavs fan, per se, but I am a fan of watching history being made, which is why I follow LeBron. I am also intrigued by Curry, however, because he's unique in several ways, and has more potential than any guy to come into the league since LeBron.
But I reckon I'm more objective than the GSW fanboy making the following strained rationalizations:

GSW are a historically great team (they had a historically great record, but they were never tested).
GSW had an "off" shooting night against Cleveland, rather than Cleveland played very good D (this is the Izzo rationalization).
LeBron had a one-off crazy great night and they couldn't get it done (notwithstanding that LeBron shooting 50% when being guarded one-on-one is not "crazy" at all, and is perfectly expected, and maybe even a bad night for him).
Losing Love resulted in the Cavs being improved because TT is better at this and that (see post above).
What's next? Dellavedova replacing Kyrie a boon because the srappiness factor goes up for the Cavs?

In the end, this will be remembered as the "Year of the Injury" in which an excellent GSW team suffered no significant injuries down the stretch and had the windfall of every team they played being depleted/made anemic by injuries, and specifically in the finals when the Cavs lost two all stars and potential hall of famers.

 

[UConn990411]

Well, there may be others - I don't watch enough to know. But of the 15 or so guys I watched try to guard Curry, Irving did the best job of slowing him down.
I figure I'm not perfectly objective. I'm not a Cavs fan, per se, but I am a fan of watching history being made, which is why I follow LeBron. I am also intrigued by Curry, however, because he's unique in several ways, and has more potential than any guy to come into the league since LeBron.
But I reckon I'm more objective than the GSW fanboy making the following strained rationalizations:

GSW are a historically great team (they had a historically great record, but they were never tested).
GSW had an "off" shooting night against Cleveland, rather than Cleveland played very good D (this is the Izzo rationalization).
LeBron had a one-off crazy great night and they couldn't get it done (notwithstanding that LeBron shooting 50% when being guarded one-on-one is not "crazy" at all, and is perfectly expected, and maybe even a bad night for him).
Losing Love resulted in the Cavs being improved because TT is better at this and that (see post above).
What's next? Dellavedova replacing Kyrie a boon because the srappiness factor goes up for the Cavs?

In the end, this will be remembered as the "Year of the Injury" in which an excellent GSW team suffered no significant injuries down the stretch and had the windfall of every team they played being depleted/made anemic by injuries, and specifically in the finals when the Cavs lost two all stars and potential hall of famers.

Yeah, this is laughably off base.

You're using a 48-minute sample size to declare that Kyrie is the best in the NBA at defending Curry, but you scoff at people using 100+ games to declare the GSW a historically great team? Okay then.

And if they win, the injuries won't be the first thing people remember a decade from now. That'd be Curry's legendary postseason performances.

(By the way, I don't consider GSW an all-timer, but they're certainly worthy of being in the discussion. And it's not just because of their record; their scoring differential is one of the best ever, and they achieved that in a very good and deep Western Conference.)

 

[tzznandrew]

GSW are a historically great team (they had a historically great record, but they were never tested).

They were in one of the strongest and deepest Western Conferences of all time. And they won 81% of their games.

They were absolutely tested by good teams and good players, throughout the year and in the playoffs.

 

[TasteofUConn]

And if they win, the injuries won't be the first thing people remember a decade from now. That'd be Curry's legendary postseason performances.

Nah. Not legendary. And everybody who is a basketball fan will remember the Cavs losing not 1, but 2 allstars. It's just one of those things. We'll never know how good the GSWs were, because they were never tested. Stars really aligned for them.

 

[TasteofUConn]

They were in one of the strongest and deepest Western Conferences of all time.

Why do you say that? What evidence do you have?

 

[johnhuskies95]

I mean I thought the Cavs outplayed the Warriors but there was nothing in game 1 that made me think the Cavs couldn't repeat that again several times in the series. It's all likely moot without Irving now, but the Cavs were 33-9 in their last 42 games of the season, and one of those losses was to the Celtics when they rested everybody.

I really don't think there's a huge difference between them and the Warriors at full strength.

 

[tzznandrew]

Why do you say that? What evidence do you have?

The Wests record against the East for one; the fact that the sixth seed was the defending champions who still had a great season.

I could go on beyond these two paltry bits of evidence, but does it matter? You've made your mind up already.

 

[superjohn]

Well, there may be others - I don't watch enough to know. But of the 15 or so guys I watched try to guard Curry, Irving did the best job of slowing him down.
I figure I'm not perfectly objective. I'm not a Cavs fan, per se, but I am a fan of watching history being made, which is why I follow LeBron. I am also intrigued by Curry, however, because he's unique in several ways, and has more potential than any guy to come into the league since LeBron.
But I reckon I'm more objective than the GSW fanboy making the following strained rationalizations:

GSW are a historically great team (they had a historically great record, but they were never tested).
GSW had an "off" shooting night against Cleveland, rather than Cleveland played very good D (this is the Izzo rationalization).
LeBron had a one-off crazy great night and they couldn't get it done (notwithstanding that LeBron shooting 50% when being guarded one-on-one is not "crazy" at all, and is perfectly expected, and maybe even a bad night for him).
Losing Love resulted in the Cavs being improved because TT is better at this and that (see post above).
What's next? Dellavedova replacing Kyrie a boon because the srappiness factor goes up for the Cavs?

In the end, this will be remembered as the "Year of the Injury" in which an excellent GSW team suffered no significant injuries down the stretch and had the windfall of every team they played being depleted/made anemic by injuries, and specifically in the finals when the Cavs lost two all stars and potential hall of famers.

Not sure why I'm partaking in this again but here goes. I'm not a Warriors fan but am rooting for them in this series, I picked Cleveland to win the series. After game 1 even without the Kyrie injury I was seriously doubting the Cavs chances. They got a finals career high from Lebron and a great performance from Kyrie and it wasn't enough, some games have the feel of a must win and this was one of them for the Cavs. Your post is already embarrassing enough on it's own merits so I won't tear it apart point by point. No sense trying to have a rational basketball discussion with someone who thought Lebron had a bad night for himself in game 1.

 

[donyell34]

W/O Kyrie it's probably over. Losing Love hurt but Cavs seemed to recover from that but losing Kyrie is to much. Too bad could have been a real good series. Hope I'm wrong.

 

[Kitaman]

W/O Kyrie it's probably over. Losing Love hurt but Cavs seemed to recover from that but losing Kyrie is to much. Too bad could have been a real good series. Hope I'm wrong.

I was thinking this also, but Lebron is a game/series changer. If he 'single-handedly' brings home the Championship, well Jordan would then have some serious competition for that top spot. I'm no Lebron fan but I am an admirer of his body of work and of course his dominant play.

This is the only reason I will continue to watch, because the question now is "can Lebron really do it?"

 

[TasteofUConn]

After game 1 even without the Kyrie injury I was seriously doubting the Cavs chances.

This is irrational. The Cavs had 2 shots to win the game 1 opener. Strong evidence that the Cavs were prepared and ready to run with the Ws.

They got a finals career high from Lebron

Your dog usually eats 1 can of Alpo a night. On Wednesday, you open and give him 4 cans. He eats them all. You then run around your neighborhood in your robe at midnight yelling to the neighbors, "my dog set an Alpo eating record tonight." Do you not understand the logical disconnect? IF the W's single team LeBron THEN LeBron is going to get 40, if he wants. EVERY TIME. It's really quite easy.

a great performance from Kyrie

Irving had 23 points, 6 assists, and 7 boards and was 2 for 8 (25%) from 3. His 14/15 averages were 22/5/3 and 42% from 3.
So he had 1 more point, 1 more assist, 4 more boards, and shot well below his average from 3. So, really, a bit above his averages, but by no means "great" for him.
But this is part of your fiction. This is part of the illogical contortions that you are doing to try to explain, IZZO like, why "They played their best ever, and we had an off day." Nonsense. LeBron played as expected. Irving played as expected. The fact is, the Cavs' bench played below their norm. I think that's probably because the W's have great D, but I could pull a SuperIzzoJohn and claim that, "JR et alia just had an off night."
I'll throw this in as well. As great as a scorer as Curry is, he's small and overmatched on defense. Irving was killing him on O and would have have continued to kill him on O. Irving would have had a "great" series, no doubt.

and it wasn't enough,

It was plenty. They had two shots to win the game. I'm pretty sure that the Cavs would take that EVERY TIME when they were playing in GSW. Give the Cavs 4 games in GS where they are taking the last shot to win, and going to OT if they lose, and that's a job very well done.

No sense trying to have a rational basketball discussion with someone who thought Lebron had a bad night for himself in game 1.

So why do you keep responding? You will never reach your destination if you stop and throw stones at every dog that barks. WC.
Of course, I never said LeBron had a bad night. I said that, if you don't double him, he's going to get 40 every night, if he cares to. Not great, not bad - EXPECTED, and not an aberration.

 

[johnhuskies95]

Through 6 quarters the Cavs have looked like the better team, with or without Irving. Now, I can definitely see the Warriors blowing this one open in the second half, but it's a good sign for Cleveland that they're leading without JR hitting a single three, granted James Jones provided for offense than they were probably expecting.

 

[Scoe]

I hope Cleveland can at least make this a series, still a quarter and change to go and just like that Thompson nails the 3 to cut it in half.

 

[tzznandrew]

The Cavs are mucking it up with physical defense and pounding the boards. They've got the Warriors out of sync, more than I thought they could. But Memphis did this, too, and the Warriors figured them out.

Also, the Cavs offense has been terrible too--and I suspect that offense (sans Irving and Love) is closer to their true offense than this Warriors offense is.

 

[superjohn]

Cavs are playing good D and Warriors are way out of synch. They are just running plays to get Klay looks, not really sure you can call it an offense. It pains me every time I see Mosgov and realize the Knicks gave him up for a bag of chips.

 

[Scoe]

This is what Cleveland has to do they need to ugly it up, play a Cincy style of play. Now the Cavs gotta play Miller, might wanna consider playing Marion some minutes, he might be washed up but they really don't have much of a choice you gotta roll the dice.

 

[johnhuskies95]

The Cavs are mucking it up with physical defense and pounding the boards. They've got the Warriors out of sync, more than I thought they could. But Memphis did this, too, and the Warriors figured them out.

Also, the Cavs offense has been terrible too--and I suspect that offense (sans Irving and Love) is closer to their true offense than this Warriors offense is.

I think you're underselling the Cavs defense a bit. Their rotations have been great and they're funneling everything to the middle of the floor. And they've done a great job on Curry. Thompson has been great, but I think Blatt will live with that.