OT: NBA SemiFinals

[James]

didn't really care to generate a new thread. but tom Thibs thibodeau , a new britain high alum, has been fired this afternoon at a meeting with management by gar forman and the chicago bulls. forman's offical statement was a bit uncouth as he insinuates thibs was not trustworthy and whole bunch of other crap. Where does he land next? the magic would have to be half tarded to chase scott skiles ( a below average nba coach) over him.

 

[tzznandrew]

The problem with Thibs is that he's going to wear your best players down. His defense is fantastic, his offense is mediocre, and you'll get a bunch of regular season wins before your players crash in the playoffs.

I'd be leery of hiring him without getting some sort of minute-reduction assurances.

 

[jfuchs91]

1) He's not the best player ever, at least not yet.
2) Is your house also bet on Cleveland in 5, specifically? What do I have to do to get in on that bet, because you have him beating Golden State on the road twice in three games...when they've only lost at home three times all year.

I get people who think since LeBron is the best player he should win this series, but, as I've pointed out, this reminds me of last year. He's taken a fundamentally flawed team to the Finals, but that team hasn't looked as flawed as they are because the East is garbage. This Cavs team is probably equivalent to last year's Heat, but the Warriors are better than last year's Spurs.

The Warriors had a historic regular season and have backed it up in the playoffs, no doubt. But the Spurs caught fire in the Finals last year. No team was beating them with the way they were shooting and defending. If the Warriors shoot like the Spurs did in the last Finals, this will be a quick series.

Golden State has the superior team to Cleveland, but they're not unbeatable by any stretch. If Kyrie can heal up in the next week, it's going to be a very interesting series. The Warriors struggle to score in the paint at times, and if their shots aren't consistently falling, they could struggle.

What the Warriors do have going for them is multiple guys to throw at LeBron. The problem being that no one player can guard LeBron, and the difference between this Cavs team and his teams in Miami is that LeBron has more space to work with this year, and Tristian Thompson has been an animal on the offensive boards. Also, the Cavs have ramped up their defense in the playoffs and have the athletic wing players that could cause some trouble for Golden State's shooters.

As a basketball fan, this was the series I wanted to see. The Warriors are as deep a team as I can remember, and probably the best shooting team of all-time. But LeBron could very well end up being the best player ever, and even if the pieces around him aren't the most talented, they complement his skills very well.

I'm inclined to say Golden State should win this series, but it's tough to bet against the team with the best player. I just hope the series goes at least 6 games either way, as it'll be a long summer without any more basketball.

 

[superjohn]

To all the people wishing Love was healthy for the series, I think it was a blessing in disguise for the Cavs that he went down. The Cavs discovered what a beast Thompson is and he just fits what they do a lot better than Love. People can talk all they want about Love spacing the floor but their spacing looks even better with him out. The defense improved dramatically, they can go really big with Thompson and Mosgov and their spacing has been great with knock down shooters on the wing. Another thing, people saying Cavs didn't have to play anyone because the East is so weak, it's true but the Warriors also lucked out not having to play the Spurs and Clippers.

 

[tzznandrew]

The Warriors had a historic regular season and have backed it up in the playoffs, no doubt. But the Spurs caught fire in the Finals last year. No team was beating them with the way they were shooting and defending. If the Warriors shoot like the Spurs did in the last Finals, this will be a quick series.

Golden State has the superior team to Cleveland, but they're not unbeatable by any stretch. If Kyrie can heal up in the next week, it's going to be a very interesting series. The Warriors struggle to score in the paint at times, and if their shots aren't consistently falling, they could struggle.

What the Warriors do have going for them is multiple guys to throw at LeBron. The problem being that no one player can guard LeBron, and the difference between this Cavs team and his teams in Miami is that LeBron has more space to work with this year, and Tristian Thompson has been an animal on the offensive boards. Also, the Cavs have ramped up their defense in the playoffs and have the athletic wing players that could cause some trouble for Golden State's shooters.

As a basketball fan, this was the series I wanted to see. The Warriors are as deep a team as I can remember, and probably the best shooting team of all-time. But LeBron could very well end up being the best player ever, and even if the pieces around him aren't the most talented, they complement his skills very well.

I'm inclined to say Golden State should win this series, but it's tough to bet against the team with the best player. I just hope the series goes at least 6 games either way, as it'll be a long summer without any more basketball.

This will be long. Warning.

I agree with much of this, although I think we can quibble about the Spurs. They were playing incredibly well, but I think part of that was the Heat weren't as good as people thought. That's my fear for this series.

And a point of disagreement here: LeBron has been the best player in the series in 5 NBA Finals so far, and lost 3 of them. This Cavs team is not better than the 2011-13 Heat. They're probably better than last year's Heat team--and next year they'll probably be on par with or better than the 2012 Heat.

I generally don't think the "best player in the series will win" argument holds up in the Finals, post-MJ (I'd go further back, but why?)

1999: Duncan was the best player, but the Spurs were way better than the 8-seed Knicks (37 vs. 27 wins)
2000: Shaq was the best player, but the Lakers were better than the Pacers all season (67 wins vs. 56)
2001: Shaq; Lakers > Sixers (same record [56 wins each], but Lakers went 15-1 in the playoffs)
2002: Shaq; Lakers > Nets (58 vs. 52)
2003: Duncan; Spurs >> Nets (60 vs. 49)
2004: Shaq or Kobe; the two teams were roughly equal (56 v. 54 wins), but the Pistons were the better team by the end of the year, and won despite the Lakers having the two best players on the floor
2005: Duncan; Spurs were the better team in the regular season (59 vs. 54), but the two teams were equal, so I'd say this is the first series where the best player definitively made the difference rather than the team merely being better (despite the best moment coming from Horry)
2006: Wade; Dallas was the better team (60 vs. 52), and this is another example of the best player willing a team to a title...although there were some shenanigans with a game-fixing ref...
2007: LeBron; Spurs were way better (58 vs. 50) and swept them. There were some close games in Cleveland, but the Cavs couldn't even muster a win.
2008: Kobe; Celtics and Lakers were near equals (66 wins for the Celtics, 58 for Lakers...who were much better after the mid-season trade), but the C's won. Again, team over player.
2009: Kobe; Lakers were a 65 win team, Magic 59. I think the Lakers were the better team, but maybe this is like the 2005 series.
2010: Kobe; Lakers were better (57 vs. 50), and had the best player, yet needed an injury to survive.
2011: LeBron; Mavs won...teams were roughly equal (58 wins Heat, 57 Mavs), but the better team won.
2012: LeBron; teams had similar records, so I'd guess this goes with best player makes the difference
2013: LeBron; Heat were a 66-win team, Spurs 58-win, but these teams were equals by the Finals. But by the grace of Ray, this would have gone in the other column.
2014: LeBron; Spurs were almost 10-wins better. Better team wins.

All this to say, I think the "best player makes the difference" is largely bunk. The better player's team won 11 of those 16 series, but in 6, maybe 7 of those series, the best player was on the best team. If you eliminate those, and just look at toss-ups (2004, 2005, 2008, 2011, 2012, 2013), the team with the best player went 3-3. If you add 2006, 2009, 2010, and 2014, that becomes 6-4. You can add in 2001, since the Lakers and Sixers had the same record, but no one thought the series would be close.

Feels like statistical noise.

Meanwhile, teams with the best player, and more than 5 wins fewer than the opposing team, went 1-3.

 

[tzznandrew]

To all the people wishing Love was healthy for the series, I think it was a blessing in disguise for the Cavs that he went down. The Cavs discovered what a beast Thompson is and he just fits what they do a lot better than Love. People can talk all they want about Love spacing the floor but their spacing looks even better with him out. The defense improved dramatically, they can go really big with Thompson and Mosgov and their spacing has been great with knock down shooters on the wing. Another thing, people saying Cavs didn't have to play anyone because the East is so weak, it's true but the Warriors also lucked out not having to play the Spurs and Clippers.

We'll see. The Rockets and Grizzlies are better than anyone the Cavs played, and the Pelicans were better than the Celtics and injured Bulls. Maybe even better than the injured Hawks...who got there by struggling against the injured Wizards.

As for Love: I think the Cavs look better now because they aren't playing teams (I'll stop, broken record, I know), but we'll see.

But remember, the Cavs haven't played a healthy team with a star offensive player (Rose isn't Rose), whereas the Warriors have played against Harden and Davis.

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

It feels strange to be rooting for Lebron, but I'd definitely like to see Cleveland pull this off. Would be an incredible achievement with this cast of characters. Imagine Shumpert and JR Smith on the trash heap in NY six months ago and now playing for a ring. I get that the MVP award is never about who is literally the most "valuable" player but is there any question who the most valuable player in basketball is?

 

[superjohn]

It feels strange to be rooting for Lebron, but I'd definitely like to see Cleveland pull this off. Would be an incredible achievement with this cast of characters. Imagine Shumpert and JR Smith on the trash heap in NY six months ago and now playing for a ring. I get that the MVP award is never about who is literally the most "valuable" player but is there any question who the most valuable player in basketball is?

He's the best and most valuable player in the world but if they win it Phil Jackson better get another ring, everyone knew JR and Shumpert are players and Phil gave them up for a bag of chips, I never knew Mozgov was this good though.

 

[jfuchs91]

This will be long. Warning.

I agree with much of this, although I think we can quibble about the Spurs. They were playing incredibly well, but I think part of that was the Heat weren't as good as people thought. That's my fear for this series.

And a point of disagreement here: LeBron has been the best player in the series in 5 NBA Finals so far, and lost 3 of them. This Cavs team is not better than the 2011-13 Heat. They're probably better than last year's Heat team--and next year they'll probably be on par with or better than the 2012 Heat.

I generally don't think the "best player in the series will win" argument holds up in the Finals, post-MJ (I'd go further back, but why?)

1999: Duncan was the best player, but the Spurs were way better than the 8-seed Knicks (37 vs. 27 wins)
2000: Shaq was the best player, but the Lakers were better than the Pacers all season (67 wins vs. 56)
2001: Shaq; Lakers > Sixers (same record [56 wins each], but Lakers went 15-1 in the playoffs)
2002: Shaq; Lakers > Nets (58 vs. 52)
2003: Duncan; Spurs >> Nets (60 vs. 49)
2004: Shaq or Kobe; the two teams were roughly equal (56 v. 54 wins), but the Pistons were the better team by the end of the year, and won despite the Lakers having the two best players on the floor
2005: Duncan; Spurs were the better team in the regular season (59 vs. 54), but the two teams were equal, so I'd say this is the first series where the best player definitively made the difference rather than the team merely being better (despite the best moment coming from Horry)
2006: Wade; Dallas was the better team (60 vs. 52), and this is another example of the best player willing a team to a title...although there were some shenanigans with a game-fixing ref...
2007: LeBron; Spurs were way better (58 vs. 50) and swept them. There were some close games in Cleveland, but the Cavs couldn't even muster a win.
2008: Kobe; Celtics and Lakers were near equals (66 wins for the Celtics, 58 for Lakers...who were much better after the mid-season trade), but the C's won. Again, team over player.
2009: Kobe; Lakers were a 65 win team, Magic 59. I think the Lakers were the better team, but maybe this is like the 2005 series.
2010: Kobe; Lakers were better (57 vs. 50), and had the best player, yet needed an injury to survive.
2011: LeBron; Mavs won...teams were roughly equal (58 wins Heat, 57 Mavs), but the better team won.
2012: LeBron; teams had similar records, so I'd guess this goes with best player makes the difference
2013: LeBron; Heat were a 66-win team, Spurs 58-win, but these teams were equals by the Finals. But by the grace of Ray, this would have gone in the other column.
2014: LeBron; Spurs were almost 10-wins better. Better team wins.

All this to say, I think the "best player makes the difference" is largely bunk. The better player's team won 11 of those 16 series, but in 6, maybe 7 of those series, the best player was on the best team. If you eliminate those, and just look at toss-ups (2004, 2005, 2008, 2011, 2012, 2013), the team with the best player went 3-3. If you add 2006, 2009, 2010, and 2014, that becomes 6-4. You can add in 2001, since the Lakers and Sixers had the same record, but no one thought the series would be close.

Feels like statistical noise.

Meanwhile, teams with the best player, and more than 5 wins fewer than the opposing team, went 1-3.

Basketball is a team sport. Of course the better team will win more often than not.

The point is that transcendent players like LeBron impact the game in such a way that opposing teams are forced to alter their game-plans and become less effective than they usually are. The Warriors are billed as a jump-shooting team, but they're more than that; they also had the best defensive efficiency in the league during the regular season by a fairly wide margin. However, one of their few losses came against the Cavs when LeBron dominated and the Warriors had no answer (he did not play in their matchup in Oakland).

Additionally, the Finals are a new stage. No one on the Warriors has been there before, whereas the Spurs and even the Mavericks had extensive postseason experience to draw upon. Now granted, most of the Cavs players and coaches haven't been there before either, but they'll be led by a player who has played in the Finals in half of his 12 NBA seasons. Don't overlook the impact of experience, just look at our Huskies. In fact, I bet if you went back and looked at the teams that won the NBA Finals, you'll see that nearly all were experienced squads.

Lastly, who each of these teams beat to get here really doesn't tell us much about how this specific series will go. Did the Warriors have a tougher road to get to the Finals? Of course they did. But that's thrown at the window now. It's Warriors-Cavaliers, first to four wins. The Warriors have been the NBA's best team all season, and the Cavs are playing their best basketball of the year at the right time. It should be a great series.

 

[MilliniumPrince]

didn't really care to generate a new thread. but tom Thibs thibodeau , a new britain high alum, has been fired this afternoon at a meeting with management by gar forman and the chicago bulls. forman's offical statement was a bit uncouth as he insinuates thibs was not trustworthy and whole bunch of other crap. Where does he land next? the magic would have to be half tarded to chase scott skiles ( a below average nba coach) over him.

Strange as it sounds, he has a big fan in Cleveland...goes by the name Lebron something.. If they lose to Golden State (and they should, but I hope they win) I could see him with the Cavs next year. He could bring a new level of defense to that team and Lebron runs the offense already, so no need for an offensive mastermind as an assistant.

 

[johnhuskies95]

He's the best and most valuable player in the world but if they win it Phil Jackson better get another ring, everyone knew JR and Shumpert are players and Phil gave them up for a bag of chips, I never knew Mozgov was this good though.

Let's see who the Knicks get in the offseason before we grade that trade. Phil had a decade of evidence to suggest that JR was a mixed bag as a player, a good two week stretch doesn't change that. With that said, the Cleveland role players have been the key to their playoffs.

 

[TasteofUConn]

It feels strange to be rooting for Lebron, but I'd definitely like to see Cleveland pull this off.

Yep. I was a big LeBron hater right around the time of the decision thing. Something happened after that, though. I think his on-court personality is much like his off-court personality. He really cares about people, wants others to do well, and views it all as some sort of team venture. Seems very weird to root for him, but I will. If the GSWs win, that's cool too - seem like a really cool team.

 

[UConn990411]

Yep. I was a big LeBron hater right around the time of the decision thing. Something happened after that, though. I think his on-court personality is much like his off-court personality. He really cares about people, wants others to do well, and views it all as some sort of team venture. Seems very weird to root for him, but I will. If the GSWs win, that's cool too - seem like a really cool team.

Eh, I don't hate LeBron at all, but he's one of the lamest superstars I can remember.

He makes it hard to like him every time he opens his mouth. I just had to laugh when he said he wasn't wearing his headband so that he could look like the rest of his teammates. (The exaggerating his injuries thing has gotten old, too.)

I love watching LeBron and I'm glad we got to see him put everything together, but I think you've fallen for his act.

 

[Kitaman]

Eh, I don't hate LeBron at all, but he's one of the lamest superstars I can remember.

He makes it hard to like him every time he opens his mouth. I just had to laugh when he said he wasn't wearing his headband so that he could look like the rest of his teammates. (The exaggerating his injuries thing has gotten old, too.)

I love watching LeBron and I'm glad we got to see him put everything together, but I think you've fallen for his act.

Lebron didn't have a mentor, and was never able to really assimilate to adulthood. He was the Michael Jackson of sports, meaning that he skipped (i.e. lost) his teenage years.

Act or not he has handle his transition remarkably well in comparison to other child actors/sport stars. In fact I haven't seen or heard him repeat the same mistake twice. He hasn't marred his name or any team he played for. Sure his huge announcement Miami fiasco was embarrassing but that to me was immaturity.

I have no problem with him representing the NBA he deserves it.

I don't know him but he seems like a good person and a great teammate.

He to me is not one of the lamest superstars, there are far too many others ahead of him and many more before him. There is humility in that man, that much is obvious, headband or not.

 

[donyell34]

LeBron isn't perfect but is very respected on and off the court by most people. Great representative for the NBA.

 

[Scoe]

His passive-aggression and his superficial public persona are particularly grating for some, including me. I don't think 990411 was saying anything about LeBron in the court.

He is clearly the best we've seen since Jordan, and, unlike Jordan, seems to want to love his teammates. He's also super unselfish. Those Miami teams were a joy to watch, and most of the credit should properly go to LBJ for those three four yrs.

But it seems that his passive-aggression behind-the-scenes and pseudo-politician act to the press rubs some the wrong way. He's by no means the most annoying or lamest superstar ever (or even amongst current superstars), but he is also not very interesting and frequently acts in ways that a more self-aware/interesting person wouldn't.

Lebron can't please everybody he's been a celebrity since the age of 13, how many people can handle that kind of pressure. The worst thing Lebron has ever done is "the decision" he was 25 at the time and lived in the state of Ohio his whole life, and then he came back after learning how to win a title. Anything Lebron says on social media or an off hand comment will be breaking front page news on ESPN lol.

 

[D-NICE]

Even though the conference finals were short, one sided series, this week off between series, has been brutal for us NBA fans. My prediction Cavs in 6.

 

[Scoe]

Even though the conference finals were short, one sided series, this week off between series, has been brutal for us NBA fans. My prediction Cavs in 6.

Think of how long the summer will be with no sports other then baseball (ugh). I want the best finals possible, with both teams being as healthy as possible. I was gonna say Cleveland in 7 then I realized the format has change from 2-3-3, to 2-2-1-1, im leaning toward Cavs in 6 seeing that the clinching game would be in Cleveland. I think the long layoff really benefits Cleveland more so then GS.

 

[Scoe]

Not sure why I'm quoted here, nothing here has much to do with what I said.

Not sure why I'm being accused of quoting you when I wasn't quoting you.

 

[Scoe]

Just seemed like you were quoting me since you you know you quoted me I think that's where the accusation came from

You think you quoted me but I didn't. Your getting a little defensive there, maybe I should have just said what I said on this thread without posting a reply, you just took it the wrong way.