Cleveland Cavaliers vs San Antonio Spurs

[Guest George's Box]

Yeah, but you're still capturing the sports-hungry Detroit metro, which is like #6 or #7 in the country, so that accounts for something.

[Mr. S£im Citrus 0]

Man, San Antonio is beating Cleveland down like they ain't shit...

[randomguy 0]

Well at least they cracked 30 in the half.

 

Edit: Is it my imagination or are they playing Deam Theater's "Metropolis Part 1" in the arena?

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

I was gonna get ready and say "GREATEST COMEBACK EVER!" as the cavs had cut a 28 point lead down to 8 with 3 to go but its back to 12..

[Ripper 0]

Okay, second game in a row. Cavs empty the bench with a minute left and a 11 points lead. One 3 and you are down 8 and its 58 seconds left.

 

Game one, it was a 10 point game with like 1:15 to go and he pulled the starters. What the fuck is Mike Brown doing? Why is Damon Jones in the game and Pavlovic sitting on the bench. What reason is there for Donyell Marshall to continuously be in the game a crunch time. Has he done, I don't know...ANYTHING in the playoffs at all?

 

Why are Eric Snow and Daniel Gibson having to play behind Larry Hughes?

[cabbageboy 0]

I might be ready to declare this series over already but last year Dallas embarrassed Miami in the first two games but when it shifted to Miami things got totally different. That said, I can't see the Spurs choking like the Mavs. Hell, thus far the Nuggets offered more resistance than the Cavs.

[The Niggardly King 0]

Mike Brown is the perfect example of excellent assistant coach, bad head coach.

[Gert T 0]

Halfway through that 12-0 run when LeBron went out with the 2nd foul. Mike Brown had to get LeBron back in. HAD to. Nobody could run the offense, or create and this is why the Cavs have no shot. This is just like the Jazz series with the combacks in the 4th quarter. I really don't think the Cavs win a game.

[MFer 0]

This happens in the NBA in general, regular season or playoffs. Teams get down by 15, 20, 25 points and then they eventually cut the lead in half or more but most of the time they can't come all the way back. LeBron had a typical LeBron game, which isn't good enough against a team like San Antonio. Gibson was OK (clearly he needs more minutes than Hughes who gives them nothing), a couple other guys hit some shots, but no one could stop the big 3. It does look like Parker is the front-runner for MVP at this point. This series should end in Cleveland.

[Ripper 0]

This happens in the NBA in general, regular season or playoffs. Teams get down by 15, 20, 25 points and then they eventually cut the lead in half or more but most of the time they can't come all the way back. LeBron had a typical LeBron game, which isn't good enough against a team like San Antonio. Gibson was OK (clearly he needs more minutes than Hughes who gives them nothing), a couple other guys hit some shots, but no one could stop the big 3. It does look like Parker is the front-runner for MVP at this point. This series should end in Cleveland.

 

 

This would be one of those examples, except in both games, when Mike Brown sits certain players (Big Z, Hughes) and goes smaller, they make huge runs. When he leaves them in, they get shut down. Common sense would say play the guys that have brought you back 2 straight games. Instead, expect to see Hughes get another 20+ minutes next game.

[Black Lushus 0]

yet you constantly see that same coaching all the time, every season.

 

I don't get it.

 

old school example: John Starks goes 3 for Infinite in Game 7 of the NBA Finals, yet is still allowed to be a part of the offense, from a shooting perspective. Either bench him or get your scoring through other methods.

 

I guess it's easy for us to say these things from the couch, but COME ON!

[Ripper 0]

I don't blame coaches for maybe calls. They are in the position to make those. But common sense things, like Lebron getting off when you don't bring a pick and roll over but in the clutch decide to bring a screener (thus allowing the easy double team). Its common sense. If one thing consistantly works and another consistantly doesn't work, do the thing that works.

 

Larry Hughes starts, the team gets in a big hole, they bring in Daniel Gibson and Anderson Varajo and they work themselves out of said big hole. Its A + B = C here.

[MillenniumMan831 0]

The really frusturating thing to me is how Marshall gets all those minutes. He contributes NOTHING at all. I have more faith in myself to hit a 3 than I have faith in him to.

[Brett Favre 0]

Word. Just run with Varejao, Gooden, LeBron, Gibson, and Pavlovic.

[Just John 0]

I have to agree that Mike Brown is being out-classed in every way as a coach. Most people caught on to him making some odd moves in the Detroit series too, but the Spurs don't appear to be interested in helping the Cavs win. Lebron should have stayed in after he picked up his second (or at least come back win when they got down by 8 or 10). He sat almost the entire first, and he came back down 15 or so and settled for jumpers that were way off. I have no idea why Hughes, Marshall, or Jones are getting playing time. I guess I could see Brown wanting to reward Hughes for toughing out an injury, but Parker's making him look like an idiot out there. Also, why did they go away from the Lebron/Parker defensive matchup? That was effective in Game 1, but they started with Hughes on him again, and again, the Spurs abused him and jumped out to big lead.

 

It's a sad reflection on the Eastern Conference that this Cavs team is representing them in the Finals.

[godthedog 0]

so at this point in time, who could realistically outcoach popovich? does he make any exploitable mistakes?

[jwpeer 0]

Why is it that everyone BUT Mike Brown knows that his best lineup is Lebron, Varejao, Pavlovic, Gooden, and Gibson?

 

Is it really possible for him to not realize that?

[Ripper 0]

so at this point in time, who could realistically outcoach popovich? does he make any exploitable mistakes?

 

 

Its not really about having to outcoach him. Its about punching and counter punching. Right now, Pop hasnt had to do a fucking thing about the best lineup that Clevland has because Mike Brown is only playing them 5 minutes together a game. If Cleveland plays them and wins, Pop will counter punch and adjust which Mike would have to adjust to. But seeing as it takes him 5 games to say "Wait a minute....maybe I should adjust something", the series would be over by then.

[cabbageboy 0]

On the topic of the Cavs being a lame Eastern Conf. team I think the East being so weak will hamper the Spurs from being considered an all time team. Let's face it, the Spurs have won titles by playing an 8 seed Knicks (in a lockout year no less), the friggin New Jersey Nets who were 49-33, and now this 50-32 Cavs team that is hopelessly overmatched. The only sorta competent team San Antonio has played was Detroit, but even in 2005 I'd have been more intrigued by a Heat/Spurs series.

 

I've heard the occasional slight taken at the Bulls for "not beating anybody good" during their 6 title runs. As in not the Bird Celtics or Magic/Kareem Lakers. But really, the Bulls did beat an excellent Suns team in 1993 (62-20), the Sonics and Jazz in 1996 and 97 were both 64-18, etc.

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

I don't think it matters. It's not their fault that the east was down and they got some crappy teams in their finals appearances. The Lakers got complete jobbers from 2000-2002 and no one holds that against them. The goal is to be the best team in the league and they've accomplished that on multiple occassions. I think it does a disservice to the teams to arbitrarily decide the quality of play in the league from year to year.

[Guest George's Box]

I don't think it should be held against them, but it will be. The fact that nobody watched them win will sting, too.

[Ripper 0]

On the topic of the Cavs being a lame Eastern Conf. team I think the East being so weak will hamper the Spurs from being considered an all time team. Let's face it, the Spurs have won titles by playing an 8 seed Knicks (in a lockout year no less), the friggin New Jersey Nets who were 49-33, and now this 50-32 Cavs team that is hopelessly overmatched. The only sorta competent team San Antonio has played was Detroit, but even in 2005 I'd have been more intrigued by a Heat/Spurs series.

 

I've heard the occasional slight taken at the Bulls for "not beating anybody good" during their 6 title runs. As in not the Bird Celtics or Magic/Kareem Lakers. But really, the Bulls did beat an excellent Suns team in 1993 (62-20), the Sonics and Jazz in 1996 and 97 were both 64-18, etc.

 

 

The first three titles were against damn good teams (although they played a injury ravaged Laker team for the first one). Those last three, the league was so incredibly week that you could have the bulls win 70 games and a team in the West win 64 games in the same year. The league was so remarkably pathetic at that time.

 

But I still say that if the Bulls had come back, they might not have beaten that San Antonio team.

[Guest George's Box]

I'd give props to both Jazz teams. The Supersonics may have been okay, but nobody was beating the Bulls that magical year.

[Just John 0]

The Spurs haven't beaten many great teams from the East (though that 05 Pistons team was basically the same one that won a title in 04), but they've had to go through the stacked west every year. If anything, any East team that's won this decade has credibility issues since their conference sucked, and the team they beat already had to fight hard against 2-3 other quality teams.

 

Seriously, how can anyone say the Spurs can't be considered all-time quality champs when everyone talks about how great the West is every year? Let's face it, this is a salary cap era, and there will never be a team like the 86 Celtics in this day and age. Just give the Spurs their damn props already.

[MrRant 0]

I'd give props to both Jazz teams. The Supersonics may have been okay, but nobody was beating the Bulls that magical year.

 

The Sonics of that time had a great team with Kemp and Payton leading it. Those were the days I watched easily 60-70 games a year. Now? Maybe 10 since they have done such a good job with the past two owners of trying to kill any interest in Sonic basketball in Seattle. If they move, then I have to adopt another team as I sure as hell will not root for the Blazers.

[Ripper 0]

Larry Hughes will probably miss the game tonight. When asked about this, Mike Brown said "The team has a good rhythm when Larry starts." and said it would be tough if he didn't play.

 

Okay....has he been watching the fucking series?

[Kurt Angle Mark 0]

Here is Johm Hollinger's idea to improve the NBA playoffs. I think it's a great idea, I came up with this myself a few years back as well.

 

You cross match the West and East in the first round. Example: West #1 plays East #8, East #1 plays West #8, and so forth

 

SAN ANTONIO -- For those of you who don't think the NBA's playoff system needs tweaking, let Game 2 be your wake-up call. The NBA's playoff system needs tweaking.

 

Thanks to the incomprehensible mediocrity of the Eastern Conference, the NBA's marquee event is becoming a joke. The Spurs are so obviously better than the Cavaliers that, LeBron factor or not, this is sure to end up as a total ratings disaster for the league. Forget Tony Parker versus Tony Soprano; how about Tony Parker versus Eva Longoria? One wonders whether ABC would have been better off airing a rerun of "Desperate Housewives" rather than Sunday night's one-sided affair.

 

King James' Cavs are proving that there's a huge gap in talent between the East and West.

 

So while the Cavs spent the aftermath of Game 2 talking about improving their effort and their execution, we all know there's only thing that could give them a real chance: switching opponents and playing somebody from the East.

 

Not that they'll admit it publicly.

 

"It's just an upgrade from series to series," LeBron James said when I asked him about going from Detroit to San Antonio. "From the first round to the second round, conference finals, and then to the Finals, it's an upgrade. It doesn't matter who it is, the intensity level automatically picks up."

 

Well, that's half true. For the Cavs, it's definitely an upgrade. For the Spurs ... not so much. This is going to upset some Cavs fans, but Cleveland is the weakest team San Antonio has faced in this postseason.

 

 

Phoenix, obviously, was superior to Cleveland -- no sane person would dispute this. Additionally, I would submit that Utah and Denver were substantially better, too -- once you adjust for the increased difficulty of the Western Conference and the fact that both were peaking before they ran into the Spurs.

 

Take it from somebody who was there -- San Antonio's first-round series against Denver was way more intense and competitive than these past two exhibitions. I also would argue the Spurs were far more concerned about the outcome during that matchup than they are in this series, where overconfidence seems to be their biggest enemy.

 

That's just wrong, on so many levels. This is the freaking Finals, for crying out loud. You know -- Bird versus Magic, Air Jordan versus The Mailman, that type of thing. We should be seeing the cream versus the cream, not the Cavs getting creamed.

 

I'd like to think this is just a one-year problem, but it was the same deal in the early part of the decade, and the current malaise could go on much longer. With next year's two marquee rookies headed West, and the Eastern Conference mired in gross managerial incompetence, we're one LeBron injury from seeing somebody such as Toronto or Washington representing the East as a "finalist" next year. That should be fun ... for about four games or so.

 

A great many proposals have been floated for how to fix this problem. One is reseeding the playoffs after each round, but that idea comes up short in two ways. First, it's very problematic for scheduling and TV purposes, in part because a round couldn't begin and matchups couldn't be set until every series in the previous round was done. Second, it wouldn't solve the East-West problem we're addressing here.

 

Another common idea is to seed all the teams in a single bracket by winning percentage, from No. 1 to No. 16. This, too, has a drawback, though -- it makes the distinction between East and West, or division winner and runner-up, completely meaningless. We'd still like for some of those late-season in-conference battles to have more at stake; besides, the NBA is big on giving all those division winners a little flag to hang from the rafters.

 

There's a way around this, however, that still enables us to avoid watching an East-West rout in the Finals. (By the way, for those of you who wish to bring up recent East success: The West has won six of the past eight Finals and will make it seven of nine this year. Few of these series were close.)

 

I stumbled upon this idea the other day when I was talking to another writer and he joked, "They should play West versus East in the first round, not the last."

 

The more I think about it, this is no joke: They really should play West versus East earlier in the playoffs. It's a great way to reward the West powers while avoiding the train wreck Finals scenario created by the East's awfulness -- a scenario the league has found itself in in 1999, 2001 and 2002 and again this year.

 

Here's the nitty-gritty.

 

The regular season would play out just as it does now. Then the league would seed the teams 1 to 8 in each conference, just as it does now.

 

Then it changes -- the two conferences would cross-match in the playoffs, so every series is set up to be East versus West. Of course, in those cases when the lower-seeded West team is able to eliminate the higher-seeded East team, then we would have West versus West, which means this system would be working exactly as intended: We would have the stronger teams meeting in the later rounds, regardless of conference.

 

This year, for instance, No. 1 Detroit from the East would have faced No. 8 Golden State from the West, and No. 1 Dallas from the West would have faced No. 8 Orlando from the East.

 

Although we would have lost the scintillating Warriors-Mavs series, the big picture would have been enhanced greatly under this plan. You can quickly see how much better the next three rounds might have been.

 

Instead of the league's losing its MVP in the first round, Dallas would have had a virtual bye. And Detroit would have been the team facing the stern challenge of beating a torrid Golden State team that was perhaps the most atypical No. 8 seed the league has seen.

 

And the situation only improves from there, culminating in an NBA Finals with Phoenix facing Dallas or San Antonio.

 

BRACKET FOR MY PROPOSAL

 

"East" Half

(1E) Detroit vs. (8W) Golden State

(4W) Utah vs. (5E) Chicago

(2W) Phoenix vs. (7E) Washington

(3E) Toronto vs. (6W) Denver

 

"West" Half

(1W) Dallas vs. (8E) Orlando

(4E) Miami vs. (5W) Houston

(2E) Cleveland vs. (7W) L.A. Lakers

(3W) San Antonio vs. (6E) New Jersey

 

As you can see, Phoenix versus San Antonio -- "the real Finals" -- wouldn't be possible until the final round, rather than in Round 2. And in the second round, we'd get the current doozy between Cleveland and San Antonio, which is entirely appropriate.

 

Also, if Cleveland did make it to the league's final four, it at least would have had to beat a team with a winning record, which was not true this year. Don't you think the league would have preferred that to what actually happened?

 

Instead of a neutered East, each side of the bracket has some real teams in it. Utah versus Chicago as a first-round series would have been outstanding, as would the LeBron versus Kobe matchup when the Cavs played the Lakers. And the Nuggets, instead of getting ambushed by a first-round pairing against eventual champion San Antonio (just pretend it's next week already), would have had a much more friendly pairing against injury-wracked Toronto (a matchup that instead benefited a 41-win New Jersey team).

 

Are there snags here? Absolutely. For starters, every series would have to go to the dreaded 2-3-2 format because of the potential for crazy travel situations (Seattle versus Miami, anyone? How about Portland-Toronto?). Nobody really likes the 2-3-2 -- well, nobody except the road-weary media -- because underdogs have almost no chance of clinching the series at home, which is always way more entertaining than seeing them take it on the road.

 

Additionally, there's the elephant in the room: television. It's tough for the league to count on an early game and a late game to program doubleheaders around when theoretically there could be several West Coast teams hosting playoff games at the same time.

 

However, this is really a problem only in the second round. In Round 1, the NBA could set up its TV schedule exactly the way it does now (although it might have to guarantee home court to the top four seeds from each conference to make it work). And in the conference finals, there would be only one game a night anyway, so it shouldn't throw anything off-kilter by that point.

 

Round 2 would be the biggest potential problem. In theory, there is the potential for, say, Portland, Seattle, Golden State and Phoenix to be hosting playoff games in Round 2 at the same point in the schedule. That might necessitate some funky scheduling -- a 5 p.m. local start for the early game or, alternatively, an 11:30 p.m. start on the East Coast for the late game. But that's an unlikely traffic jam, and one that potentially can be scheduled around via weekend day games and creative use of off days.

 

Besides, let's keep the big picture in mind. The reward for the chance of a somewhat convoluted schedule in the second round is that we don't have to suffer through a Finals like this one or like the Lakers-Nets massacre in 2002, when the East sent a team to the big showcase that clearly had no business being there and devalued the whole event. Seems to me the benefits more than outweigh the costs, and right now there probably are a few folks at ABC who agree with me.

 

As I said, Game 2 was the wake-up call. Let's hope the league picks up the phone.

[Brett Favre 0]

It would bring for some exciting new matchups. But then it would take away from the East vs. West thing, sorta like the way interleague does to the World Series, if that makes sense.

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

It's an okay idea, but I'm all for keeping the things the way they are. The East will eventually get things turned around and we'll forget about this being a problem. The funniest thing about that article is that I think the west would have won all 8 of those first round matchups. Talk about a way to destroy the credibility of a conference even more than they are now.

[Black Lushus 0]

will someone please tell Drew Gooden he looks very Corky-ish with that patch of hair on the back of his otherwise bald head?