Cleveland Cavaliers vs San Antonio Spurs

[Just John 0]

Dallas has serious problems with run-and-gun teams. Their defense is not as good as people like to say, especially in transition. Phoenix would've definitely beat them in 06 with Amare and Raja. Look how they scored at will down the stretch on them this year, getting in the 120's in their last two meetings. Golden State is like a less disciplined Phoenix team, but still had no problem scoring on the Mavs. If you take Dallas out of the half-court game, they fall apart rather quickly.

[Ripper 0]

I will readily admit that the Mavs are one of the best teams in the league, and if they hadn't drawn the Warriors in the first round, they probably would be at least in the West finals, if not the Finals.

 

I just don't think they are better than the Suns or the Spurs(although they do match up well against the Spurs)

[godthedog 0]

i doubt anyone will agree with me on this, but i think phoenix's biggest problem, apart from the rotation, is relying on nash's playmaking ability too much. he's taken such a position of leadership that nobody else is really confident handling the ball in a half-court situation. barbosa has problems driving to the basket once the defense is set; diaw's assertiveness is inconsistent. so nash is doing about 80 percent of the work on any given play, doing things to his body no one should have to do. i read something by bill russell that passing the ball is everything, and even though the suns have nash, the spurs won because they have 4-5 guys who pass the ball well. the spurs' offense runs through duncan but not even duncan has to do THAT much work, he can put a significant amount of trust in his teammates to create their own shot.

[JohnnyBlaze 0]

That seems like a double edged sword. The genius of the Suns is nash's ability. Essentially you would need another player with a skillset close to nash (at least passing wise) to basically be a facilitator of the offense. Stoudemire is completely uninterested in passing, and marion puts up decent assist numbers but by no means is he an excellent passer. It would be pretty hard to find someone with the passing acumen of nash who wouldn't be a complete liability on offense.

[Brett Favre 0]

Maybe trading Marion for Jason Kidd wouldn't be the worse idea if that's the case.

[Ripper 0]

That seems like a double edged sword. The genius of the Suns is nash's ability. Essentially you would need another player with a skillset close to nash (at least passing wise) to basically be a facilitator of the offense. Stoudemire is completely uninterested in passing, and marion puts up decent assist numbers but by no means is he an excellent passer. It would be pretty hard to find someone with the passing acumen of nash who wouldn't be a complete liability on offense.

 

 

His name is AK-47 and is the best passer in Utah. the guy is a incredible passer, you wouldn't lose much defensively(maybe rebounding).

[Ripper 0]

AND that is why people hate the Spurs. Once a game this fucker flops around and gets someone a flagrant. That was bullshit.

[mike546 0]

I hate the Spurs but he did like grab the back of his neck I guess.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Something tells me this will end up being regarded as one of the worst finals ever.

[Just John 0]

AND that is why people hate the Spurs. Once a game this fucker flops around and gets someone a flagrant. That was bullshit.

 

Oh come on, the Cavs benefitted from the same type of BS call against Detroit in Game 5. It's hardly just a Manu thing.

[Ripper 0]

You mean when Antonios arm wrapped all the way around Anderson's head? I don't think that should have been a flagrant 2, but that was a flagrant. there was nothing flagrant about Goodens foul. It as manu flopping around and running into the goal pad afterwards to pretend that he got murdered.

 

Not that it played any part in the finish of the game, but between him and Anderson flopping around like assholes is pissing me the fuck off.

[death_by_burrito 0]

He hit him on the neck without even going for the ball. What's a flagrant foul considered anyway?

[Ripper 0]

Goddamn this is a popular series, isn't it?

 

And while if you stop the video and see his hand on theback of his neck, he obviously was trying to grab and hold up Ginobli, who, as soon as he was touched, just jumped into the stand like he got pushed.

 

As for the game. Mike Brown just got outcoached(well...duh). First, why is Larry Hughes starting? Second, why did Larry Hughes start the second half. The team played better with Gibson on the floor. Gibson played better defense. Gibson shot better. Play fucking Daniel gibson.

 

And why in the hell were they trying to run screen and rolls? In the first two games against the spurs, it was shown that lebron against Bowen, they couldn't stop him and if they did come to double, he had the speed to run away from it. last night, Brown, by calling those screens, was bringing a extra player over to his star without the other team having to commit to doubling. That was just stupid.

 

So basically, Pavlovic, Gibson should be starting in the back court, Hughes snow to back them up.

[alfdogg 0]

Maybe Boobie's been sagging off in practice

 

amirite

[Guest George's Box]

Haha, 85-76 was the final score? This series blows goats and enjoys it.

[Kurt Angle Mark 0]

NEW YORK (AP) -- Game 1 of the NBA finals drew the lowest rating ever for an opening-game in prime time, dropping 19 percent from last year.

 

The San Antonio Spurs' 85-76 victory over the Cleveland Cavaliers on Thursday night earned a 6.3 rating and 11 share on ABC. The previous low was a 6.4/11 in 2003.

 

Last year's Game 1 between Miami and Dallas earned a 7.8 rating and 14 share.

 

The rating is the percentage watching a telecast among all homes with televisions, and the share is the percentage tuned in to a broadcast among those households with televisions on at the time. A ratings point represents 1,114,000 households.

[Guest Smues]

So it drew the lowest rating in history for a game 1, and was still nearly 6 times higher than the NHL game 3 rating of death? Awesome.

[Precious Roy 0]

If the Cavs win a couple games and/or LeBron has a sick game the ratings will go up. Public opinion is that the Spurs will basically dominate, and the public doesn't care about San Antonio. That, and Thursday at 9:15 pm is a horrible time to start a series. I'll never understand why they don't start the games earlier.

[Guest Vitamin X]

because of the west coast, where it is 6:15.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

basically David Stern better start praying for a game 7, as those tend to draw good ratings. Pistons/Spurs Game 7 drew an 11-something rating, which in the modern post-Kobe/Shaq-Lakers era of ratings is good.

[cabbageboy 0]

Well I guess there goes the theory that LeBron is this huge ratings draw. This isn't shocking though since nobody outside of OH thinks the Cavs have a hope in hell of winning this series. Thus you have one team perceived as having no shot, and the other highly favored team has zero marketability.

 

It is time to simply say the truth: The Spurs are a good team for the top team to go through en route to the Finals. The entire decade of the 1990s for instance...Spurs were a good team but nobody seriously wanted them to make the Finals by any means. Truth be told, the only team in the Western Conference that the general public has been conditioned to accept is the Lakers. Who else has ever been any sort of ratings draw in the West? Maybe Phoenix with Barkley and Co.?

[MrRant 0]

The genius of the NBA. Schedule game 2 opposite the Sopranos on Sunday.

 

Good call guys.

[Kurt Angle Mark 0]

For reference here the NBA Final ratings since 1976

 

1976 CELTICS VS SUNS 11.5

1977 BLAZERS VS SIXERS 12.7

1978 BULLETS VS SONICS 9.9

1979 SONICS VS BULLETS 7.2

1980 LAKERS VS SIXERS 8.0

1981 CELTICS VS ROCKETS 6.7

1982 LAKERS VS SIXERS 13.0

1983 SIXERS VS LAKERS 12.3

1984 CELTICS VS LAKERS 12.3

1985 LAKERS VS CELTICS 13.7

1986 CELTICS VS ROCKETS 14.1

1987 LAKERS VS CELTICS 15.9

1988 LAKERS VS PISTONS 15.4

1989 PISTONS VS LAKERS 15.1

1990 PISTONS VS BLAZERS 12.3

1991 BULLS VS LAKERS 15.8

1992 BULLS VS BLAZERS 14.2

1993 BULLS VS SUNS 17.9

1994 ROCKETS VS KNICKS 12.4

1995 ROCKETS VS MAGIC 13.9

1996 BULLS VS SONICS 16.7

1997 BULLS VS JAZZ 16.8

1998 BULLS VS JAZZ 18.7

1999 SPURS VS KNICKS 11.3

2000 LAKERS VS PACERS 11.6

2001 LAKERS VS SIXERS 12.1

2002 LAKERS VS NETS 10.2

2003 SPURS VS NETS 6.5

2004 PISTONS VS LAKERS 11.5

2005 SPURS VS PISTONS 8.2

2006 HEAT VS MAVERICKS 8.5

[Guest Vitamin X]

Phil Jackson = ratings

[bob_barron 0]

6.5? Ouch.

 

I really was the only person who watched every game

[Slayer 0]

Spurs-Pistons garnered more than Spurs-Nets? How'd that happen

[Guest Vitamin X]

The Pistons are a more interesting team than the Nets, having just come off their big upset the year before.

[Bored 0]

I'd say it's not surprising ratings have been down in the ESABCPN era. Their coverage is awful.

[Guest George's Box]

Spurs-Pistons garnered more than Spurs-Nets? How'd that happen

Just by comparing the crowds at the Palace to the crowds at the Meadowlands, the Pistons have a significantly larger fanbase than the Nets, which translates to higher ratings, plus there may have been a hint of national interest with the Pistons that year after the 2004 upset. (I won't lie, I enjoyed watching the Hollywood All-Star Circus of Discontent get dismantled by a complete team firing on all cylinders, pun intended. That was when the Pistons actually played with some real hunger and appeared to bust their collective ass, compared to this year when they had to be pushed to a sixth game just to put away an inferior Chicago squad. I wonder what changed? Friends, let's investigate, please.)

 

Truth be told, the only team in the Western Conference that the general public has been conditioned to accept is the Lakers. Who else has ever been any sort of ratings draw in the West? Maybe Phoenix with Barkley and Co.?

The Kemp/Payton Supersonics and the Stockton/Malone Jazz, evidently, though you can't gauge how many of those viewers were Supersonics and Jazz fans, and how many were there to watch the Bulls, especially in 1998, when we all knew it was our last chance to witness greatness. Still, I'd say that the Jazz were a decent draw, since I believe they were given a lot of games on NBC and were treated as a genuine contender (they had home court in the '98 Finals) rather than a sacrificial lamb for the other conference. The Eastern Conference's glaring comparative weakness has been a major problem too, not just from a competitive standpoint, but from marketing as well (which is always important in the NBA), because it sure is a drag when the Knicks, Celtics, 76ers, and Bulls, which are big pieces of the business puzzle, are dogshit at worst and paper tigers at best. You agree?

 

The genius of the NBA. Schedule game 2 opposite the Sopranos on Sunday.

 

Good call guys.

Which game show sound effect do you think goes better here: the Press Your Luck Whammy sound or the Price Is Right losing horns?

 

Phil Jackson = ratings

As do the #2 and #3 media markets, but you were being facetious, anyway.

[Slayer 0]

It just seemed to me that, while Spurs-Nets just made everyone go "meh", Spurs-Pistons made nearly everyone angry because 1) it was the exact opposite match that most people wanted to see, which in turn was because 2) people knew that such a matchup would produce hard-to-watch basketball (which it did)