Cleveland Cavaliers vs San Antonio Spurs

[Guest Smues]

I think he means that the Cavs showing in the finals was the worst of any team ever.

[Just John 0]

This is a good summer for Tony Parker. I'm happy for him. Also congrats to Horry on #7.

 

Basically, the Spurs were just way better than the Cavs (and everyone else this year). The Spurs must be a horribly frustrating team to play against because they adapt to whatever your style is, then play it better than you. The Cavs getting the dagger in the form of offensive rebounds in the last 3 minutes must have been extremely disheartening. But, hey, Shaq got swept in his first Finals too, so don't worry about Lebron.

 

As far as Roy's question goes, I simply think the Cavs this year are one of the worst teams to make the Finals. 5 or 6 different west teams would've beaten them in a series, and they happened to get the best one.

[cabbageboy 0]

The Spurs weren't way better than the Suns. They were just given that series due to a lame rule. Anyway, the Cavs certainly go up there with the worst teams to ever make the Finals, mainly because they did little of note to get this far to begin with. Beating the Wizards without Arenas and Butler? A .500 Nets team? I guess they did get by the Pistons but that's about it. I'm torn as to whether the Cavs are worse than the 2002 Nets that got swept by the Lakers, but at least New Jersey made it back the following year. The worst Finals team is still probably the 1981 Rockets (40-42...losing record and made the Finals) but they at least took the Celtics to a 6 game series.

 

The NBA is in serious trouble right now. It's got to be the only pro sport that isn't as popular as its college counterpart.

[Broward83 0]

I want my cookie for calling the sweep.

[MFer 0]

I can't stand the Spurs. The only team that I dislike more happens to be the Cavs. However, I do have much respect for them, especially this year (Suns controversy notwithstanding). While flashier teams like the Mavs and Suns got all the hype in dominating the regular season, the Spurs just went about their business and got the job done. I do still hate Bowen and Ginobli though.

[randomguy 0]

Remember when everyone was saying that the NBA was taking over and was far and away the most popular sport? That David Stern was a genius?

 

David Stern was on Dan Patrick and Bill Simmons recently, the podcasts are on ESPN. It was pretty funny, both Dan and Bill brought up some stupid suggestions that didn't make any sense and Stern pointed that out to them. "Oh...I guess I hadn't thought of that!" So I guess, as bad a job as Stern is doing, some of his critics are that much dumber.

 

What explains the East and West disparity? It just keeps going and going. And it isn't like there is a single really good Western team dominating, the best of the East is an average Western team.

[Mr. S£im Citrus 0]

[Fökai 0]

Fuck, the Cavaliers just flat out looked like a high school team in the last four minutes of that game, with a coach to match. Out-rebounded, out-hustled on loose balls, just everything.

 

WHY is Donyell Marshall out there in a clutch situation? Gooden and Snow came in with a minute to play, with a look on their face that said "thanks fucker, way to give us a minute to gel with Lebron and try to make a run". I can't blame Mike Brown for what he was to work with, but really, even if you don't have a roster that can keep up with the Spurs, you have a responsibility to put your best team on the court. A frontcourt of Varejao and Marshall deserves to be ridiculed.

[The Niggardly King 0]

Marshall needs to be drug out behind the barn and be shot... put him out of his misery.

[Black Lushus 0]

okay, now let's never speak of this finals series again...ever...

[Matt Young 0]

This was the first Finals I have not watched (save for the short times I was on the treadmill at the gym) since I started watching circa 1992-1993 and I do not regret my decision at all.

[Ripper 0]

The Spurs weren't way better than the Suns. They were just given that series due to a lame rule. Anyway, the Cavs certainly go up there with the worst teams to ever make the Finals, mainly because they did little of note to get this far to begin with. Beating the Wizards without Arenas and Butler? A .500 Nets team? I guess they did get by the Pistons but that's about it. I'm torn as to whether the Cavs are worse than the 2002 Nets that got swept by the Lakers, but at least New Jersey made it back the following year. The worst Finals team is still probably the 1981 Rockets (40-42...losing record and made the Finals) but they at least took the Celtics to a 6 game series.

 

The NBA is in serious trouble right now. It's got to be the only pro sport that isn't as popular as its college counterpart.

 

 

Don't let people paying attention to the sport for one month fool you. The NBA is still more popular. Just two unpopular teams made the finals. two defensive teams that don't shoot particularly well.

 

The worse thing to happen for the NBA was Durant and Oden going out west too.

 

Also, if they would force some east teams to change coaches, they also would be more exciting and better. Off the top of my head I can think of 6 teams (Detroit, Orlando, Chicago, Boston, Philly, Altanta) that are built to run and exciting brand of running/scoring basketball and all of their coaches insist on a half court set and get nothing done which leads to boring basketball.

 

The East has the talent, they don't have the proper thinking.

 

Plus, seriously, the East won the Championship last year. And 2 years before that. The west is just dominating the regular season and this year was pretty ugly.

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

The west superiority thing is a little overblown. The best teams in the league the past three of four years have been Detroit, Dallas, San Antonio and Phoenix. It just happens to be that three of those teams are out west. There may be a bit more depth in the west, but it's not as outrageous as people make it out to be. Denver, LAL, Houston, GS, NO... these teams are not contenders.

 

The east's funk is just a by-product of the NBA mediocrity that has been caused by the salary cap. It makes it really easy to keep a good team together and extremely hard to build one up from scratch unless you somehow get a prized draft pick or tank two or three years to get loads of cap room. There is a ton of incentive to be just good enough to make the playoffs, but not a lot to try and get better than that. There are 20+ mediocre teams right now, no matter how you slice it between leagues.

[Hasbeen1 0]

The Spurs weren't way better than the Suns. They were just given that series due to a lame rule. Anyway, the Cavs certainly go up there with the worst teams to ever make the Finals, mainly because they did little of note to get this far to begin with. Beating the Wizards without Arenas and Butler? A .500 Nets team? I guess they did get by the Pistons but that's about it. I'm torn as to whether the Cavs are worse than the 2002 Nets that got swept by the Lakers, but at least New Jersey made it back the following year. The worst Finals team is still probably the 1981 Rockets (40-42...losing record and made the Finals) but they at least took the Celtics to a 6 game series.

 

The NBA is in serious trouble right now. It's got to be the only pro sport that isn't as popular as its college counterpart.

 

 

Don't let people paying attention to the sport for one month fool you. The NBA is still more popular. Just two unpopular teams made the finals. two defensive teams that don't shoot particularly well.

 

The worse thing to happen for the NBA was Durant and Oden going out west too.

 

Also, if they would force some east teams to change coaches, they also would be more exciting and better. Off the top of my head I can think of 6 teams (Detroit, Orlando, Chicago, Boston, Philly, Altanta) that are built to run and exciting brand of running/scoring basketball and all of their coaches insist on a half court set and get nothing done which leads to boring basketball.

 

The East has the talent, they don't have the proper thinking.

 

Plus, seriously, the East won the Championship last year. And 2 years before that. The west is just dominating the regular season and this year was pretty ugly.

 

 

If Stern had any guts he'd have a rule forciing players to wait until they're three years out of high school to be drafted. One is much better than straight out of high school, but the NFL has a three year rule. Imagine how much better the ratings would be if the average fan actually knew who the players were, other than the top few stars. Players like Jordan. Bird, Magic, Shaquille, were known before they ever got into the pros. Lebron James would be an ever bigger name, and a more polished player, if he'd gone to Ohio State, North Carolina, for three years and entered the league this season. As for the finals this year, I tried to watch two different games, fell asleep both times after probably 15 minutes.

[Ripper 0]

The one year rule is ridiculous. Forcing these kids to play in a high risk game for 3 years for free while the schools make millions of dollars off of them is just plain wrong.

 

And once again, this more polished player crap. College basketball is a completely different game than the NBA. You can play 8 years in college if you want to, if your skills are not taylored for the NBA game you are going to be a fucking bust.

 

It is no coincidence that most of the best players in the league played little to no college basketball. And the ones that are good now (like Nash) played nothing like he does now in college. It took him years to relearn the game and learn new skills to become a productive player.

 

Lebron James would not have been a bigger name. Rashard Lewis would have been a bigger name. Kwame Brown would have been a bigger name(and bigger bust). College basketball should be nothing more than a showcase for players who teams are iffy about. If a guy has the skill to make the league directly out of highschool, then he should be able to do so.

 

You simply aren't going to find a kid out of highschool with the body to take on the rigors of a NFL schedule. The NBA is different.

 

And as for the whole leastern conference: Miami and Detroit can compete with anyone out west and there is a major falloff after that in the East. Dallas, San Antonio and Phoenix are the cream of the crop in the West and there is a major fall off after that. So basically there are 5 really good teams in the league and the rest is pretty meh. The "GREAT WESTERN CONFERENCE" thing is really overblown.

[theintensifier 0]

Not much of a surprise that LeBron got blown out. I say LeBron, because, in all reality, it was LeBron vs. Spurs.

 

I really wish someone other than the Spurs won. Now, every sports analyst is calling them the Bulls of the 90's. I fucking hate that shit. Nothing will ever be as good as the Bulls in the 90's, which is in second place to the 50's/60's Celtics. The Bulls = ratings, Spurs = changing the channel.

 

Basketball has changed dramatically since Jordan's day. The players don't seem to be overly motivated anymore, and only seem to bust ass to get their $$$$$$. Look at the Pistons this year in the Eastern Conference Finals. They gave up entirely. A team known for their defense allowed LeBron to enter the lane uncontested. They've lost their fire since losing their workhorse, and coach.

 

Back in the day it was actually enjyoable to watch basketball because of the amount of talent on the floor and the amount of energy and actual talent they brought to the table. Today is a different story all together.

 

I agree that players shouldn't be drafted out of high school. How many of them have actually become something extraordinary? KG, Kobe, LeBron? And don't think they don't get something of monteary value in college.

 

[theintensifier 0]

And, the West Coast is vastly superior to the East Coast.

[Guest Vitamin X]

And, the West Coast is vastly superior to the East Coast.

 

Well yeah, that goes without saying.

[Brett Favre 0]

And, the West Coast is vastly superior to the East Coast.

 

Well yeah, that goes without saying.

 

West Coast: NWA

East Coast: Wu-Tang Clan

 

East Coast wins.

[theintensifier 0]

The East was once the dominant league, but not since the turn of the milinieum.

 

50's = East

60's = East

70's = East

80's = Tied

90's = East (All because of the Bulls)

00's = West (Due to Spurs winning 3 championships in five years)

 

This year alone the West had:

 

*6 of the top 10 scorers* Including the top three.

*Deadlocked for rebounding* They have the rebounding champion, and runner up.

*6 of the top 10 assist leaders* Including the top two.

*7 of the top 10 steal leaders* Including the top three.

*Deadlocked for blocks* They have the shot blocking champion.

*The West had two teams with 60+ win records, and one with high 50's. The East only had one in the 50's, and it was the low 50's*

The West had the MVP, Defensive MVP, Rookie of the Year, Sixth Man, Most Improved, and ALL five members of the NBA All First Team are West players.

 

So, yeah. West is VASTLY superior to the East right now.

 

 

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

*The West had two teams with 60+ win records, and one with high 50's. The East only had one in the 50's, and it was the low 50's*

 

Actually the East had two 50+ win clubs, but point stands, I guess.

[theintensifier 0]

They had one 50+ team actually. That team being Detroit with 53. Clevland had only 50, that's not considered 50+, is it?

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

If I was to argue semantics, 50+ can be construed to some people as 50 or more, others as more than 50.

[theintensifier 0]

Another thing to consider the West's dominance this decade is:

 

Only one East player has been the MVP of the league, which was Iverson in 00-01. You had Shaq, Iverson, Duncan x2, Garnett, Nash x2, and Nowitzki this year.

 

Since 1990, the West has dominated this award.

 

2006-07 - Dirk Nowitzki, Dallas 13

2005-06 - Steve Nash, Phoenix 12

2004-05 - Steve Nash, Phoenix 11

2003-04 - Kevin Garnett, Minnesota 10

2002-03 - Tim Duncan, San Antonio 9

2001-02 - Tim Duncan, San Antonio 8

2000-01 - Allen Iverson, Philadelphia 5

1999-00 - Shaquille O'Neal, Los Angeles Lakers 7

1998-99 - Karl Malone, Utah 6

1997-98 - Michael Jordan, Chicago 4

1996-97 - Karl Malone, Utah 5

1995-96 - Michael Jordan, Chicago 3

1994-95 - David Robinson, San Antonio 4

1993-94 - Hakeem Olajuwon, Houston 3

1992-93 - Charles Barkley, Phoenix 2

1991-92 - Michael Jordan, Chicago 2

1990-91 - Michael Jordan, Chicago 1

1989-90 - Magic Johnson, Los Angeles Lakers 1

 

If it wasn't for Jordan, it'd be a near sweep.

 

I'll give the East some credit though, they've dominated the Def. Player of the Year. With guys like Wallace, Artest, Mutombo, and Mourning running around, it's obvious why they won it so many years.

[Ripper 0]

I agree that players shouldn't be drafted out of high school. How many of them have actually become something extraordinary? KG, Kobe, LeBron? And don't think they don't get something of monteary value in college.

 

Jermaine O'Neil, Amare, Z-Bo, Shawn Livingston when he knee is in one piece, Josh Smith, Rashard Lewis, Tracy McGrady, Dwight Howard, Eddy Curry, Tyson Chandler, Monta Ellis, Al Jefferson, Al Harrington, Stephen Jackson all came right from Highschool and made various impacts (from being right up there with the best in the league, to being damn good, near allstar caliber players)

 

Guys like Travis Outlaw, Jackie Butler, Deshawn Stevenson, Gerald Green, Martell Webster, JR Smith, Kedrick Perkins, Diop all have made their marks in the league or have shown that they aren't going anywhere.

 

The short list of High schoolers who could be declared bust are Korleone Young, Jonathan Bender(although, had he gone to college, he would have had the smae knee problems and never would have made a dime in the NBA. Can't see how you can say it would have ben better for him not to declare), Leon Smith(good player...just a psycho), Darius Miles...KINDA. He did have some very productive years, but his career is basically over now... Ousmane Cisse(who no one thought should have dclaired anyway), Nubi Ebi(who looks damn good in the NBDL), James Lang, and MAYBE Robert Swift(who just got injured, but was showing signs).

 

Thats MAYBE 7, but I wouldn't really count Swift and Miles.

 

[Just John 0]

Where would you put Kwame Brown?

[Ripper 0]

If he weren't a number one overall pick I would say he is servicable, goddamn. He is quite bust-esque. But if he had gone to college he would have Kandi maned those kids and still would have been a lottery pick bust. But I put him somewhere in between bust and those second tier guys I listed.

[Slayer 0]

Korleone Young

Oh man, I remember watching him play around here... though the only thing I actually remember about him was that his head was the size of a walnut compared with the rest of his body

[cabbageboy 0]

First off, Ripper I basically have to disagree that the NBA is more popular than College hoops. Is the postseason as exciting? No. Are the games more exciting? Not really. The NBA used to at least have a clearly higher level of play, but when you see these crappy 75-72 games in the Finals they can't even say that with a straight face anymore. One look at the Final 4 ratings (and the tourney in general) compared to the NBA ratings will show quite clearly that around the country people care more about college hoops. These are two totally different fanbases though, believe me. Those who are college fans REALLY are obsessed with it and are consistent about that. And frankly, a lot of college hoops fans wipe their ass with the NBA and have little use for it. That isn't me quite yet, but a few more years of BS like that Suns/Spurs series and tedious Finals and I might feel that way.

 

The NBA more than any league is predicated on having exciting teams and stars. When that isn't the case (like right now) people in middle American cities and towns that don't have a team tune out in droves. Frankly it just lasts way too damn long, which is baffling considering that even with Best of 7 formats I'm not 100% sure the best team is actually winning the title.

 

In all honesty I don't rate the 1960s Celtics as highly as some people. They dominated what was an 8-9 team league. It's not like they were the Yankees or anything, who dominated a league with twice the teams.

 

Wanna hear how terrifying the Eastern Conf. has become? Look at the playoff teams from 10 years ago: Chicago (69-13), Miami (61-21), New York (57-25), Atlanta (56-26), Detroit (54-28), Charlotte (54-28), Orlando (45-37), and Washington (44-38). I mean WOW. The East had SIX teams with 50+ wins. Hell the Hornets would be the #1 seed in the East today with that record. The Bulls beat the piss out of quality teams with 56 wins (Hawks) and 61 wins (Heat) and treated them like jobbers.

 

Compare it to now and the Pistons didn't actually have as good of a record as they did in 1997. Yet now they were a 1 seed and considered a threat. Back then they were a JTTS that lost the first round to the Hawks. The East is dire right now and it's very tough for the conf. to be decent if the Knicks, Celtics, and Sixers all suck. I don't recall that ever happening for an extended amount of time. In essence the East has traditional powers that suck, an inconsistent top group of dubious drawing power (Miami, Cleveland), and a consistent Detroit team that captivates no one.

 

The Western Conference has issues that are more curious. The Lakers have dominated the West ever since moving to L.A. to the point where no one else has ever had to be a major draw. Some teams were a big ratings success due to playing the Bulls (Phoenix, Utah), but I don't know if those teams themselves were a major draw. That said, I'm not shocked that the 1993 Finals was one of the most watched ever. It's really the Finals that captivated me and made me a fan of the NBA.

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

First off, Ripper I basically have to disagree that the NBA is more popular than College hoops. Is the postseason as exciting? No. Are the games more exciting? Not really. The NBA used to at least have a clearly higher level of play, but when you see these crappy 75-72 games in the Finals they can't even say that with a straight face anymore. One look at the Final 4 ratings (and the tourney in general) compared to the NBA ratings will show quite clearly that around the country people care more about college hoops. These are two totally different fanbases though, believe me. Those who are college fans REALLY are obsessed with it and are consistent about that. And frankly, a lot of college hoops fans wipe their ass with the NBA and have little use for it. That isn't me quite yet, but a few more years of BS like that Suns/Spurs series and tedious Finals and I might feel that way.

 

The NBA and college hoops are two different games with vastly different audiences. College hoops has the best postseason of any sport and that draws a ton of casual interest. The regular season, however, doesn't mean much to anyone outside of local fanbases. College will always have its supporters because of the nature of amateur athletics, but it's not even comparable to the NBA from a quality or importance standpoint.

 

The NBA more than any league is predicted on having exciting teams and stars. When that isn't the case (like right now) people in middle American cities and towns that don't have a team tune out in droves. Frankly it just lasts way too damn long, which is baffling considering that even with Best of 7 formats I'm not 100% sure the best team is actually winning the title.

 

The league tried for too long to build the league on the backs of stars and it bombed once the Magic, MJ, Bird, Barkley crowd retired. It has totally backfired on the league because fans are conditioned to worship stars instead of teams and the game itself.

 

The playoffs are too long, I agree. But the best of 7 format is probably the only postseason system where you can truly say the best team always wins. How often has the best team in the league not won out? Miami last year? Maybe LAL in 2002, but even then they turned it on when it counted.

 

Wanna hear how terrifying the Eastern Conf. has become? Look at the playoff teams from 10 years ago: Chicago (69-13), Miami (61-21), New York (57-25), Atlanta (56-26), Detroit (54-28), Charlotte (54-28), Orlando (45-37), and Washington (44-38). I mean WOW. The East had SIX teams with 50+ wins. Hell the Hornets would be the #1 seed in the East today with that record. The Bulls beat the piss out of quality teams with 56 wins (Hawks) and 61 wins (Heat) and treated them like jobbers.

 

Compare it to now and the Pistons didn't actually have as good of a record as they did in 1997. Yet now they were a 1 seed and considered a threat. Back then they were a JTTS that lost the first round to the Hawks. The East is dire right now and it's very tough for the conf. to be decent if the Knicks, Celtics, and Sixers all suck. I don't recall that ever happening for an extended amount of time. In essence the East has traditional powers that suck, an inconsistent top group of dubious drawing power (Miami, Cleveland), and a consistent Detroit team that captivates no one.

 

Merely having a bunch of teams win 50 games doesn't signify a higher level of quality. It just shows the disparity between good and bad teams. Not that the East was anything special this year, but Atlanta, Detroit, Charlotte, Orlando and Washington were all jobberific in their own right. The Bulls teams were great in the late 90s but they were feasting on a really weak league.