OT: NBA SemiFinals

[TasteofUConn]

Cleveland just thumped a team twice that had previously been 35-6 in their gym. I'm done taking them lightly.

Yes, and Atlanta was ranked #1 against elite teams a little while back http://hoopshabit.com/2015/03/04/atlanta-hawks-stack-leagues-elite/

 

[TasteofUConn]

Well, they did it to a team missing a key player from their second unit (Sefolosha) and with a key injury in their first (Carroll). The Hawks don't have a superstar, and so their team is all about balance...balance which they've lost. They've got no one healthy to defend LeBron, their second unit can't make much headway, and the Cavs' defense can key in the few healthy cogs. Now, the Cavs are missing Love and Irving is hurt, so the wins are impressive in their own way, but they're beating JV teams.

Last night the Cavs were missing Love - a starter and a three time all star, and Irving - a starter and a three time all star and one of the best point guards in the NBA. Further, Shumpert is playing with a sore groin, and LeBron has rolled his ankle twice.
The Hawks were missing a backup player in Sefolosha whose only accolade was a 2nd team defensive player in 2010, and who averaged 5 pts and 4 boards a game, and Carroll was banged up, but played 33 minutes and got his @ss handed to him in Game 1 anyway, so no reason to believe the result would have been different this time if not for the sore knee.
And the Cavs handled them on their home court and looked like they were toying with them late.

And based on those facts you conclude that it's not about the Cavs being impressive but rather the Hawks are a "JV" team? Wow. That is epic level reaching.

 

[traitor71]

I think it's been a few months since the Hawks were really good. To me, they are the perfect example of a team that peaked too soon.

 

[tzznandrew]

Last night the Cavs were missing Love - a starter and a three time all star, and Irving - a starter and a three time all star and one of the best point guards in the NBA. Further, Shumpert is playing with a sore groin, and LeBron has rolled his ankle twice.
The Hawks were missing a backup player in Sefolosha whose only accolade was a 2nd team defensive player in 2010, and who averaged 5 pts and 4 boards a game, and Carroll was banged up, but played 33 minutes and got his @ss handed to him in Game 1 anyway, so no reason to believe the result would have been different this time if not for the sore knee.
And the Cavs handled them on their home court and looked like they were toying with them late.

And based on those facts you conclude that it's not about the Cavs being impressive but rather the Hawks are a "JV" team? Wow. That is epic level reaching.

Wow. Did you not even read my whole post? I talked about the players the Cavs were missing, and I think they are impressive in continuing to win...but sure, I absolutely think--with their injuries--they would have been out in the first round (depending on the draw) of the Western Conference. The East is horrible.

And anyone who thought the Hawks were going to win the title--or could really win a series against the West's powers (Golden State, Memphis, San Antonio, LA Clippers, Houston)--was deluding themselves. They went 33-2 from late November to the end of January, and were 27-20 outside of that streak--solid, but on pace for 47 wins rather than the 60 they got. Considering that, even with the easiest path to the ECF, they still dropped two games to the horrible Nets and the Wizards (with an injured Wall!), that should give you a sense of their true identity.

Once the Cavs got Smith, Shumpert, and Mozgov, they were the best team in the East. They went 34-12...a 61 win pace.

But they weren't historically good where they should be able to have an injury hobble their second best player, and wholly eliminate their 3rd, and still be able to, as you put it, "toy" with the "1-seed" of their conference on the road. The fact that they are smoking the Hawks with all those injuries rather proves my point than contradicts it.

 

[TasteofUConn]

The fact that they are smoking the Hawks with all those injuries rather proves my point than contradicts it.

Tonight's game is going to be interesting. If the GSWs win, I'll start believing. Cavs have the potential to sweep. If the Rockets/GSW go 6 or 7, it improves the Cavs chances in the finals.

To be clear - If the Cavs beat the GSWs in the finals, then you'd agree that the dominance of the West was overrated? Or no?

 

[tzznandrew]

Tonight's game is going to be interesting. If the GSWs win, I'll start believing. Cavs have the potential to sweep. If the Rockets/GSW go 6 or 7, it improves the Cavs chances in the finals.

To be clear - If the Cavs beat the GSWs in the finals, then you'd agree that the dominance of the West was overrated? Or no?

No. That's one datapoint only accounting for one 7-game series.

I'd believe in the dominance of LeBron James.

Look at the two other data-points:

• The East went 187-263 (0.415) vs. the West...all this despite injuries to Durant in the West.
• When the East's 7th and 8th best teams didn't even finish .500...and the 6th best team was only .500. Conversely, the West's 1-7 all have 50 wins...so they were equivalent to the East's 3-seed.

The West is undebatably better; that doesn't mean a team from the East can't beat a team from the West. But if an injured Cavs' team wins the title, that speaks more to LeBron's greatness than to strength of the East, which, again, to be clear, is a joke. The East's 1-seed couldn't even win 1 home game against a Cavs team, despite a hobbled Irving and an absent Love.

 

[Dogdeacon]

Tonight's game is going to be interesting. If the GSWs win, I'll start believing. Cavs have the potential to sweep. If the Rockets/GSW go 6 or 7, it improves the Cavs chances in the finals.

To be clear - If the Cavs beat the GSWs in the finals, then you'd agree that the dominance of the West was overrated? Or no?

I think Houston wins tonight and that takes nothing away from how good the Warriors are or how good the west is vs the east. Houston is good by virtue of their regular season record and beating the Clips who beat the Spurs. Harden gets a favorable whistle tonight so unless both Curry & Clay are liquid hot the Rockets win.

Agree 1,000% that if Cavs upset either West team it means both LeBron even greater than we think AND what we think we know about West superiority is suspect.

 

[TasteofUConn]

The West is undebatably better;

What's the point of being better if you don't win? If the GSWs lose to the Cavs in the finals, then you'd have to agree with the following:

The East had the best team.
The West had better teams, in the aggregate, than the East.

No?

 

[TasteofUConn]

Agree 1,000% that if Cavs upset either West team it means both LeBron even greater than we think AND what we think we know about West superiority is suspect.

Right on. Course, I expect the GSW short shorts, who are already, it seems, placing them in the pantheon of great NBA teams, would find excuses as to why neither was true.

 

[tzznandrew]

What's the point of being better if you don't win? If the GSWs lose to the Cavs in the finals, then you'd have to agree with the following:

The East had the best team.
The West had better teams, in the aggregate, than the East.

No?

What's the point of being better if you don't win? The West isn't playing the East for the title; a Western team (probably the Warriors) will play the Cavs. Being the best conference doesn't bring bragging rights. But it is a fact that the West if far superior to the East, and that won't change with the outcome of the Finals.

As to your conclusions, of course you'd say that. Especially if the Cavs win without Irving and a gimpy Love. And, sadly, it's possible that the Cavs had the best team already, and the injuries have likely ruined that. With Love and and a healthy Irving, I may have picked the Cavs over the Warriors. Even given that, I'd bet LeBron gets a win or two in the Finals.

 

[tzznandrew]

Right on. Course, I expect the GSW short shorts, who are already, it seems, placing them in the pantheon of great NBA teams, would find excuses as to why neither was true.

Who is placing them in the pantheon of great teams? They haven't won a title yet! And even if they do, the greatest teams sustain it. What makes the 72-10 Bulls particularly amazing is what they did with Jordan before, and then after. Hell, that team won 72 games, and then came back and won 69! And the 92 Bulls team won 67.

The team most people consider next best is the 86 Celtics, who were in the midst of 4 straight Finals, and had a decade of sustained success.

The Warriors aren't close to the pantheon yet. If they win a title, and then have more titles or appearances, then they can enter the pantheon.

 

[Dogdeacon]

What's the point of being better if you don't win? The West isn't playing the East for the title; a Western team (probably the Warriors) will play the Cavs. Being the best conference doesn't bring bragging rights. But it is a fact that the West if far superior to the East, and that won't change with the outcome of the Finals.

As to your conclusions, of course you'd say that. Especially if the Cavs win without Irving and a gimpy Love. And, sadly, it's possible that the Cavs had the best team already, and the injuries have likely ruined that. With Love and and a healthy Irving, I may have picked the Cavs over the Warriors. Even given that, I'd bet LeBron gets a win or two in the Finals.

I do think there is truth to the best conference creating the best team. Not the only proof but the ultimate goal and thus measure is always winning the championship. It's akin to UConn winning in 99. Part of what made the team great was being forged in a very competitive BEast (R.I.P.) conference. That made us justifiably confident that they would beat a Dook team with more future pros.

 

[tzznandrew]

I do think there is truth to the best conference creating the best team. Not the only proof but the ultimate goal and thus measure is always winning the championship. It's akin to UConn winning in 99. Part of what made the team great was being forged in a very competitive BEast (R.I.P.) conference. That made us justifiably confident that they would beat a Dook team with more future pros.

It can contribute, for sure. And a weak conference can help because you have greater odds of making the Finals.

But I certainly don't think the Cavs beating whoever comes out of the West has any bearing on which conference was better. Nor would the Warriors beating the Cavs. The West is better, period. I think the Warriors, healthy and spry, will are better than the Cavs, injured and slowed. But we'll see. I've been wrong many, many times.

 

[Dogdeacon]

It can contribute, for sure. And a weak conference can help because you have greater odds of making the Finals.

But I certainly don't think the Cavs beating whoever comes out of the West has any bearing on which conference was better. Nor would the Warriors beating the Cavs. The West is better, period. I think the Warriors, healthy and spry, will are better than the Cavs, injured and slowed. But we'll see. I've been wrong many, many times.

You are right of course. No sane person would argue the east was better than the West this NBA season. But the Cavs winning the championship would enable the strong counterpoint; 'so what, the East won'.

Of course a team from an inferior conference can have a good chance of advancing and winning, illustrated by LeBron staying in east and Cavs still having 2nd best odds to be champs after GSW.

 

[Scoe]

I say the Cavs will most likely win it next year, they were/are very unlikely to win it in Lebron's first year in Cleveland with a rookie coach, much like Lebron's first year in Miami, the difference this year is if the Cavs do go down it won't be because Lebron goes into a shell like he did in the 2011 finals. Next year all those players will have a year of playoff experience with Lebron under their belt with a healthy Kevin Love(assuming he returns) everything is all a preview for next year. GSW have the best team this year but I give Cleveland an outside shot because of Lebron.

 

[TasteofUConn]

But it is a fact that the West if far superior to the East,

If the West does not win the Finals, then it is arguable that they are not superior - they are just better on average. Would you rather be better on average (Syracuse), or better when it matters (UConn)?

 

[TasteofUConn]

But I certainly don't think the Cavs beating whoever comes out of the West has any bearing on which conference was better.

Of course you don't - it cuts strongly against your point.
What do you mean by better?
You seem to be adopting the Syracuse definition of better. I'm going to go with the UConn version.
If you look at total wins, NCAA tournis, recruit #s, and so on - the aggregate - Syracuse is "better."
If you look at who won when it mattered, UConn is "better."
But the word "better" is not the right word, really.
Because if you don't win it all, how can you be better? You were better except when it mattered?
By your definition, if the East had the top 2 teams, and then the West filled in spots 3 through 15, you'd use your Syracuse definition and claim the West was "better." When would that logic fail? Top 3 and 4 through 16? Top 4 and 5 through 16?
Better is the wrong word.
Try, "had more good teams."
Or maybe, "the average West team was better than the average East team."
But applying your Syracuse philosophy really misses the point of the word "better." To lose, but still claim you are better? Well, that's just not the UConn way.

 

[tzznandrew]

If the West does not win the Finals, then it is arguable that they are not superior - they are just better on average. Would you rather be better on average (Syracuse), or better when it matters (UConn)?

That comparison literally makes no sense. Not only are we talking about collections of teams, not individuals, but we're talking about a single year and you're talking about history. Not relevant. Talk about the B1G vs. the ACC or OBE. But even that doesn't work because the West has won 11 of the last 16 Finals. It was the better conference all those years, regardless of who won the Finals. Look, you're conflating the results of individual teams with the results of conferences.

I'm not sure why this is a debate; the West is demonstrably superior. It is a fact, and one series doesn't change that. If Gonzaga won the NCAA, would you say that the WCC was the best conference? No. Because conferences don't play games, teams do. The same goes for the Finals. It's only bearing is on who is the better team: Cavs or Rockets/Warriors. The results say nothing about which conference was better.

By comparison, in the 1980s, the East was way better than the West, but some years the Lakers were better than the Sixers/Celtics/Pistons. The East was still better, but the best team was in the West.

 

[tzznandrew]

Of course you don't - it cuts strongly against your point.
What do you mean by better?
You seem to be adopting the Syracuse definition of better. I'm going to go with the UConn version.
If you look at total wins, NCAA tournis, recruit #s, and so on - the aggregate - Syracuse is "better."
If you look at who won when it mattered, UConn is "better."
But the word "better" is not the right word, really.
Because if you don't win it all, how can you be better? You were better except when it mattered?
By your definition, if the East had the top 2 teams, and then the West filled in spots 3 through 15, you'd use your Syracuse definition and claim the West was "better." When would that logic fail? Top 3 and 4 through 16? Top 4 and 5 through 16?
Better is the wrong word.
Try, "had more good teams."
Or maybe, "the average West team was better than the average East team."
But applying your Syracuse philosophy really misses the point of the word "better." To lose, but still claim you are better? Well, that's just not the UConn way.

????

Your post makes no sense. It has nothing to do with Syracuse-UConn; one year isn't history; conferences aren't teams. Your analogy is fundamentally flawed, especially because it looks across multiple years.

Even if I accepted your analogy, which means I look back at the past, the West has consistently dominated the East in the Finals: they are 11-5 in the Finals since Jordan retired.

My point is that trophies don't go to conferences, they go to teams: the West is the better conference; in 5 years people will only remember who the better team was. If it is the Cavs, so be it.

 

[Matrim55]

Over a small sample size (ie 5 games), there's a chance he might not. Great players are great for a reason. And even if he does cool off, he can get into the paint virtually at will and create cheap points via FTs and set-ups for dunks/layups for his teammates.

Harden's great, but this is unsustainable:

 

[Matrim55]

Agree 1,000% that if Cavs upset either West team it means both LeBron even greater than we think AND what we think we know about West superiority is suspect.

FWIW, I already think LeBron is the 3rd-best player ever. If the Cavs win this year, I'll bump him up to No. 2, and with a serious argument for No. 1 should they repeat in 2016.

 

[champs99and04]

Well, they did it to a team missing a key player from their second unit (Sefolosha) and with a key injury in their first (Carroll). The Hawks don't have a superstar, and so their team is all about balance...balance which they've lost. They've got no one healthy to defend LeBron, their second unit can't make much headway, and the Cavs' defense can key in the few healthy cogs. Now, the Cavs are missing Love and Irving is hurt, so the wins are impressive in their own way, but they're beating JV teams.

This feels like last year all over again. LeBron's team fights its way through a terrible conference, and people think the Spurs-Heat is a toss-up...instead, Spurs murdered them. With a gimpy Irving and without Love, this Cavs team gets beat by either Houston or Golden State. Golden State, in particular, will rip them a new one if they meet and Irving is still hurt: Draymond Green can at least bother LeBron, there's no one to hide Irving on, and who do you put LeBron on?

I'm very impressed with LeBron willing this team to the finals. Five Finals in a row is impressive, even out of the East. But it will likely hurt his legacy (in the weird ways in which people talk about this) because he's going to be 2-4 in the Finals after this year.

I can definitely see some parallels between a potential Cavs-Warriors match-up this season - in which you're pairing a historically dominant team from a historically dominant conference with an injury-riddled team in a mostly hapless, injury-riddled conference - but I think you might be under-selling the Hawks a bit. Yeah, their win totals were front-loaded, but they still won 60 games, and it's always a little bit dangerous to highlight one part of the schedule and assign more meaning to it than others; much of this stuff is simply random, and the rate at which the Hawks were winning at the beginning of the season was unsustainable.

Even with the injuries, Atlanta's dynamite starting five - which sent four players to the all-star game and included another potential rising star on the wing - was intact. Yes, Carroll went down in game one, but the Cavs were in control of the game at that point, and he still played in game two, albeit at less than 100%.

As you stated yourself, the Cavs finished the season 34-12 with Smith, Shumpert, and a re-energized LeBron. I think many of us - myself included - under-estimated just how transformative that trade was. In Shumpert and Smith, James is now flanked by a pair of mobile, two-way wings of the like he has never played with in his career. Thompson and Mozgov have been lunch pail guys on the inside, and against a team like Golden State, Cleveland will undoubtedly have the luxury of playing James the bulk of his minutes at the four without forcing him to guard a low-post grunt on the other end.

By no stretch am I saying a potential Warriors-Cavs final is a draw. Hell, I picked the Cavs to lose to Chicago (and they may have had Gasol not gone down). Cleveland just doesn't have the look right now of a team that's going to play the Washington Generals role to anybody.

 

[superjohn]

Cavs are playing lights out but Atlanta looks very ordinary in the playoffs, Korver after a great shooting season has reverted back to the playoff Korver we have seen for so many years, he can't get a shot off and is liability outside of his shooting. Teague is a very good point guard and Horford and Millsap are very good players but the team has no star power and a very lackluster bench. The Hawks simply aren't built for the playoffs.

 

[Kitaman]

Harden's great, but this is unsustainable:

When the hell did they start tracking that stat?

I wouldn't mind that job!

 

[TasteofUConn]

My point is . . . so be it.

I'd expect this argument from a Syracuse fan like you.