|
if the Cavs make it past Boston they'll get steamrolled in the Finals. Boston is a dirty team and this series ain't over; there is no guarantee the Cavs enter the finals in good health.
On May 24 2017 05:10 andrewlt wrote: I feel that the Warriors lost last year because the team just went cold in the playoffs. Curry was banged up and nobody else really stepped up on a consistent basis on offense. They pretty much gutted out the Thunder series on the strength of their defense, which is still underappreciated in certain quarters. Even the Rockets and Blazers series were largely won on defense. The offense was frequently absent.
The Warriors put too much energy into breaking the Bulls regular season record so they entered the playoffs at less than 100% health.
On May 24 2017 00:23 andrewlt wrote: ESPN showed where their priorities are by laying off a lot of analysts and regional specialists while keeping all their personalities. Even the serious journalists at the top got their responsibilities lessened. true, to add to your point ESPN laid off several good hockey people but left some broad who can't skate covering the eastern/atlantic NHL teams. she talks about the puck like its a tennis ball rolling on asphalt. 5 years ago she was pretty hot though.
ESPN still has a really good web site for following the standings , nightly scores, summaries etc.
On May 24 2017 02:59 JimmiC wrote: I still stand behind my earlier comment that they should have just has GSW play Cavs for the championship and do a regular playoff for third. It would have been way more exciting. LOL they created a format like this for some Women's hockey tournaments because Canada and the USA always meet in the finals. Its made these tourneys 1000X better. Problem with this format for the NBA is the Cavs are 1 LBJ injury away from being right on par with the rest of the Eastern Conference.
|
A playoff for 3rd place would have been no more exciting...depending on when in this hypothetical playoff Kawhi gets injured.
|
|
On May 24 2017 06:18 Jerubaal wrote: A playoff for 3rd place would have been no more exciting...depending on when in this hypothetical playoff Kawhi gets injured. Nah it would be great to see 2 actually good coaches battling with backups.
|
I give Spurs the edge over Celtics. Not their fault Cavs lost focus and GSW didn't. Well, GSW did a little with the turnovers but the Cavs just totally turned the switch off.
|
But maybe it could have been the trailblazers or the pacers raptors or the clips. I'm not saying just play the 2 teams that the GSW and Cavs beat last. Since they just rolled over everyone we really don't know who would come 3rd.
Also I'm not seriously suggesting this because it is so rare where two teams are heads and tails above everyone else.
|
Well, we really don't know if the Cavs are that far ahead of a healthy Spurs team, or even a non-PTSDing Harden Rockets.
|
On May 24 2017 07:59 JimmiC wrote: the GSW and Cavs beat last. Since they just rolled over everyone we really don't know who would come 3rd.
Cleveland did not roll over Indiana. It remains to be seen if they'll roll over Boston.
|
On May 24 2017 08:34 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 07:59 JimmiC wrote: the GSW and Cavs beat last. Since they just rolled over everyone we really don't know who would come 3rd.
Cleveland did not roll over Indiana. It remains to be seen if they'll roll over Boston.
im sure donald trump can also become a great president as well.
i dont think there's ANY (i even bolded, italicized, underlined for emphasis, i would've used size 90 font if i could) chance that cleveland doesnt win the series, barring an injury to lebron.
|
On May 24 2017 08:25 cLutZ wrote: Well, we really don't know if the Cavs are that far ahead of a healthy Spurs team, or even a non-PTSDing Harden Rockets. Cavs and Spurs are probably on about the same level. The Spurs have the personnel to defend against the Cavs. I doubt that the Rockets do.
|
On May 24 2017 07:35 andrewlt wrote: I give Spurs the edge over Celtics. Not their fault Cavs lost focus and GSW didn't. Well, GSW did a little with the turnovers but the Cavs just totally turned the switch off. Healthy Spurs are better than the celtics, but the team that lost to the warriors obviously isn't. Spurs Warriors would've probably gone 6 or even 7 games without Zaza taking out kawhi to save game 1. There's a decent chance the Spurs would've won at least 1 game at home so it would've probably been 2:2 going back to GS. Healthy spurs can take multiple games off either team, and with Kawhi on Lebron, would've had a great shot vs the cavs.
|
On May 24 2017 09:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 08:25 cLutZ wrote: Well, we really don't know if the Cavs are that far ahead of a healthy Spurs team, or even a non-PTSDing Harden Rockets. Cavs and Spurs are probably on about the same level. The Spurs have the personnel to defend against the Cavs. I doubt that the Rockets do. Agree. But I think the Rockets would make a series against the Cavs look absolutely insane as they both just decide to turn it into the All-Star game on the defensive end for the first 3 quarters of each game.
|
On May 24 2017 09:09 zev318 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 08:34 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On May 24 2017 07:59 JimmiC wrote: the GSW and Cavs beat last. Since they just rolled over everyone we really don't know who would come 3rd.
Cleveland did not roll over Indiana. It remains to be seen if they'll roll over Boston. im sure donald trump can also become a great president as well. i dont think there's ANY (i even bolded, italicized, underlined for emphasis, i would've used size 90 font if i could) chance that cleveland doesnt win the series, barring an injury to lebron. my first sentence should make it clear i'm not discussing the win/loss status of the Boston/Cleveland series. you can defeat a team without rolling over them.
|
No one can split hairs like JimmyJ, what better way to get into a pointless argument. Most humans consider a 4-0 sweep rolling over, or a clear victory or whatever you want to say. Yes some of the games were close. Cavs still won 4-0. What happened to paying attention to outcomes?
Are you saying you think the pacers would win my tourney then? What is the point of your statement, just to be argumentative?
|
again, it possible to defeat an opponent without rolling over them.
On May 24 2017 10:25 JimmiC wrote: No one can split hairs like JimmyJ, what better way to get into a pointless argument. Most humans consider a 4-0 sweep rolling over, or a clear victory or whatever you want to say. Yes some of the games were close. Cavs still won 4-0. What happened to paying attention to outcomes? Are you saying you think the pacers would win my tourney then? What is the point of your statement, just to be argumentative? there is nothing to argue.. it is a more precise look thereby leading to more precise analysis. you can label anything splitting hairs as long as you don't watch the games and quickly scan boxscores.
Cleveland played 4 close games against Indiana. GSW defeated its teams much more soundly than Cleveland by much wider margins with much less meaningful 4th quarter play because GSW was cruising with giant leads.
On May 24 2017 10:25 JimmiC wrote: Yes some of the games were close
very, very close. Point differential is a key indicator in the quality of a team's play. There exists a difference between a 60+ point 4-game sweep and a 15-point 4-game sweep where every game was in question with less than 90 seconds left.
The troubles Cleveland had against Indiana essentially got ignored by casual observers and highlight watchers because Cleveland won. People watching those Indiana games closely should not be too surprised by the current Cavs/Celtics series. Boston is better than Indiana.
To continue any kind of productive discussion a definition of "roll over" should be made. Otherwise its just sloppy, imprecise, finger-pointing and hand-waving.
|
Lebron just missed a go-ahead dunk because he was trying to style. They will still win probably because the Celts forgot how to rebound.
Also, every Cavs player over 6'6'' should have already fouled out.
|
Celtics are missing Amir. if he is hurt and can't play the rest of the series he is a bigger loss than Thomas.
|
Cavs in the 2nd half making a strong case for the Kobe theory of, "Its better to have a great player take a terrible shot than to have a shitty player take a wide open shot."
|
On May 24 2017 10:51 JimmyJRaynor wrote:again, it possible to defeat an opponent without rolling over them. Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 10:25 JimmiC wrote: No one can split hairs like JimmyJ, what better way to get into a pointless argument. Most humans consider a 4-0 sweep rolling over, or a clear victory or whatever you want to say. Yes some of the games were close. Cavs still won 4-0. What happened to paying attention to outcomes? Are you saying you think the pacers would win my tourney then? What is the point of your statement, just to be argumentative? there is nothing to argue.. it is a more precise look thereby leading to more precise analysis. you can label anything splitting hairs as long as you don't watch the games and quickly scan boxscores. Cleveland played 4 close games against Indiana. GSW defeated its teams much more soundly than Cleveland by much wider margins with much less meaningful 4th quarter play because GSW was cruising with giant leads. very, very close. Point differential is a key indicator in the quality of a team's play. There exists a difference between a 60+ point 4-game sweep and a 15-point 4-game sweep where every game was in question with less than 90 seconds left. The troubles Cleveland had against Indiana essentially got ignored by casual observers and highlight watchers because Cleveland won. People watching those Indiana games closely should not be too surprised by the current Cavs/Celtics series. Boston is better than Indiana. To continue any kind of productive discussion a definition of "roll over" should be made. Otherwise its just sloppy, imprecise, finger-pointing and hand-waving. Yes there is. Go back read my post. Now see how in depth of thought I put into it. It was simply silly idea because of how strong Cavs and GSW. Try to understand context.
It also was part of the point. Teams going out in first could maybe be 3rd place overall but they met the super teams early. You are basically arguing my point but your too dense, and wanting to prove me wrong to think about it
|
Can you guys create your own NBA thread? It's getting really old.
|
|
|
|