User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 1.1287 seconds
54 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Even better if they had Billups and Melo. Think Dumars loses any sleep watching the 2008 Nuggets and thinking that could be the 2008 Pistons?
Two other points: speaking of Shaq and Cuban, supposedly Shaq wants to orchstrate a trade to Dallas.
Good luck. Phoenix would jump on that, but does Dallas want to take on the money and the headache?
Disagree. They're not even. Wade was much better this year. Kobe was a lot closer to Roy than Wade this season.
Dumars is a very bright man, but that was an all-time error. Or how about a Billups/Wade backcourt?
Melo's in that second tier of players. Dirk, Melo, Roy. He'll bust out and have one or two amazing seasons. He was pretty bad this year in terms of his shooting, things just weren't falling. If he goes out and leads the Nugs to a top 2 or 3 seed in the West and looks great doing it, then he has a shot at MVP. Lebron will keep winning if he's so far above everyone else, but if he slides back and isn't nearly as dominant, the writers will give it to someone less deserving out of boredom. Like you said.
As for Wade v. Bryant, it may very well come down to evaluating their respective defensive play, and I don't think there's a very good way to do that except for watching a lot of games with each player. (Wade's got better block and steal numbers, but those can be misleading.) I can't say I've seen enough of either to have a well educated opinion of that.
As for their numbers, Wade's superior assist numbers jump out at me. I've seen Kobe make some great passes, and my own sense is that Wade stays within the flow of team offense better than Kobe sometimes does (emphasis on "sometimes"), hence those better numbers. But I'd be curious to hear what more informed observers think about that.
Report; May 12, 2009- Mark Cuban found with own testicles stapled to his forehead. Kenyon Martin found telling Office Space jokes.
Given he's insisted numerous times that the Iverson trade wasn't about this year, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt to see how he uses the cap space.
When's Darko hitting the free-agent market? ;)
But they run different offenses. Kobe's in the triangle for most of his career, and the triangle doesn't allow for the 2 to have great assist numbers. The 2 in that offense drives or shoots, he's not setting up plays. Kobe's assist total is not that much different than Jordan's. Wade handles the ball a lot more in his offense.
I was talking about not drafting Anthony or Wade, not about trading Billups for Iverson. Even with Billups, the Pistons were not going to take a healthy Celtics team (KG was there at the time of the deal) or the Cavs. If I know this, so does Dumars.
I think the Pistons will try to sign Carlos Boozer.
A lot of that has to do with utilization and system. Wade dominates the ball in Miami sets. His passes lead directly to shots by other players, simply because no one else can get a shot. Wade has never struck me as a markedly superior passer. He will always pick up more assists due to the Triangle offense.
Anyone saying that Wade "stays within the flow" is buying into hype. Wade dominated the ball for Miami this year to a historic extent. Not that it wasn't a good decision, but Wade will frequently have 3 possessions in a row where he drives, pulls up and fades away.
Also: Kobe this last year shouldn't be compared to Wade or LeBron.
Tiers of NBA Stars:
1. LeBron
(Big Gap)
2. Wade, Chris Paul, Dwight Howard
3. Kobe, Dirk, Melo, Roy, Duncan (Maybe Parker belongs here instead of Duncan)
4. Other guys
Ahhhhh gotcha -- yeah, that's ... um ... yeah.
Whoopie. That doesn't get them any closer to a title than they are now. Boozer's nice, but you aren't building a title team around him. They need to use that cap space in trades, not to sign a guy like Boozer.
The error wasn't trading Iverson. Because even with Billups, that team isn't better than Cleveland, and it may not be better than Boston or Orlando.
It seemed to me the plan was Stuckey/Bosh +++.
I think the fatal flaw, if there was one of the Iverson trade, was the evaluation of Stuckey.
Is a nucleus of Stuckey and Bosh good enough to build around?
Dumars doesn't think that way, IMO. He was on the Bad Boys and the built the Prince/Sheed/Ben/Rip/Billups group. I think his deal is get five guys with interlocking skills and all-star or near all-star ability who defend, and add a bench--unless you can get LeBron. And I don't see LeBron in Motown.
That rough set of tiers in #510 more or less matches my own sense of how these guys all stack up right now.
Also, Paul Gasol is really good. The fact that some NBA observers don't recognize how good he has been this year probably has something to do with those same observers equating Kobe with Wade -- and even LeBron -- this year.
If Wade and LeBron stay put (which I think both are very, very likely), that makes Bosh the most attractive FA that season. I believe the Bulls are interested in Bosh (they'll try to trade for him this offseason if Toronto makes him available) and they'll also have space to sign a max contract next season (Detroit depends on what they sign this offseason, when they're one of a couple of teams with space). There were rumors at the end of the season that Bosh's preferred destination was going to be Chicago. He'll be a lot closer to winning in Chicago than Detroit (Bosh/Rose/Deng vs. Bosh/Stuckey/???). I'd like to think Dumars is smart enough to not be counting on signing a big guy exclusively to get them back on top (that can be part of the plan, but there has to be fallback options cause I don't think Detroit is going to top many players' list anytime soon).
Moses, I respect the hell out of your basketball knowledge. Why in the world do people like Luol Deng so much? He reminds me of a poor man's Shawn Marion (in that he's always hurt). I don't watch the East a lot, so tell me what I'm missing.
I'd rather have Prince than Deng.
Instead, in four of the five games in that series, outside of Bryant and O'Neal, no other Laker scored in double digits. Gary Payton averaged all of 4.2 points in the five games and was completely embarrassed by Billups. Malone got just 5 per and could barely walk, much less chase Rasheed Wallace around. Bryant wasn't getting the ball to Shaq, but nobody else was, either, because the Pistons did a great job shutting down the passing lanes.
That the Lakers were able to get to the finals that year is a testament to how great the Shaq + Kobe combo was, and if Sam Cassell had had two legs that postseason, maybe the Lakers don't get there at all.
It'd have to be Thomas, #1, Hinrich, and someone else. I think Game 7 against the Celtics showed Ty Thomas is gone.
Cassell's injury, plus Fisher's miracle against the Spurs, and the Lakers were still very fortunate to make the finals. The team had not added a good young player since Fisher and Kobe in 1996 and it showed.
I'd rather have Prince than Deng.
Right now I'd take Prince too, but Deng is still full of potential and there's no guarantee Prince isn't moved (who knows, Dumars might offer him to Toronto for Bosh). What everyone sees in Deng is what he did in 2006-2007 as a 21 year old: 18.8pts, 7.1reb, 2.5ast on 51.7% shooting with plus defense and great size for a 3. Also, in the playoffs that year (sweeping the defending Heat and losing in 6 to Detroit), he upped those numbers to 22.2pts and 8.7reb on 52.4% shooting. He played all 82 games that season. He has been plagued with injuries, but not the recurring type (stress fracture in his leg this season, torn ligament in his wrist, post-concussion syndrome) so I tend to think he's more unlucky than injury prone. He's still just turned 24 last month and he is a hard worker. He doesn't get into any off-court trouble. But like Marion, he's not going to be a #1 player on a good team. He's a perfect fit with Rose, IMO. He looked shaky early, but then again, everyone on the Bulls did, what with a rookie head coach and a rookie PG. In the month before he got hurt this season, he was starting to look like his old self (January: 17.5pts, 8.5reb, 2.4ast on 50% shooting; then he got hurt and struggled through February and got shut down). He'd be an even better 3rd guy behind Rose and Bosh.
What would bring Bosh to Chicago? Gordon seems like the type of player who would fit there, but I don't know if Toronto would want to take on the salary he would get as part of a sign-and-trade. Would Toronto be interested in Ty Thomas, Brad Miller's expiring contract, and a number one pick? That seems a little thin, unless they actually want Miller. Does that leave Chicago with a lineup of Rose-Salmons-Deng-Bosh-Noah with Hinrich and whichever big will take their midlevel exception. If Rose progresses, that's a helluva squad with some funky matchup problems for other teams.
Toronto isn't going to get fair value for him this season, so it depends on what they want. Like you said, the package starts with Tyrus and the Bulls #1 (they actually have 2 this season, I'm sure both would be in play). If they want expiring deals, the Bulls have plenty of those (Miller, Tim Thomas, J. James - his deal is extra valuable for cash strapped teams because it's fully insured and he's not going to play at all). I'm sure the Bulls could be talked into trading Deng, and they'd move Hinrich also. I think it's more likely that the Bulls wait and try to sign him (I think I'd be surprised if the Raps trade Bosh). LIke you said, that's a very intriguing lineup and would have potential to be contenders for a number of years (Bosh is also still just 25).
I think Game 7 against the Celtics showed Ty Thomas is gone.
Unfortunately, I agree. Vinny doesn't like him. He focusing too much on the negatives and doesn't just accept what Thomas brings to the table. Then again, that's 3 straight coaches that have felt that way. So that's also Tyrus's fault.
You're making me angry. You won't like me when I'm angry.
Laugh all you want, but no, I don't think we can. I think we're seeing the best of Aldridge. I can't but help think there's more to Tyrus. He has some incredible moments, and I just feel he's going to put it all together someday. It'll take a patient coach and the right situation (that's probably not in Chicago), but Tyrus can have the defensive impact of a guy like Chandler (from last season, not the hurt version this year) but much more offense (his jump shot has steadily improved each year). Again, I'm going to focus on how young he is and how little basketball he's played in his life. If he never does put it all together, he's going to be one of the bigger what-ifs that I've ever seen play.
Well, Thomas takes more from the table than he brings. He's a good shot blocker and rebounder, but his big problem is he's a dumbass. He has no feel for offense or defense (he's not a great defender, just a good weak side shot blocker), he has an over inflated view of his offensive game, and his little temper tantrums and acting out get old. Like you said, three coaches have felt this way about him, so if it's a personal bias than Paxson is deliberately hiring coaches to hate him.
Good riddance. I never wanted him, and hopefully they'll get something of value for him.
Sometimes, yes. But most times, no.
his little temper tantrums and acting out get old
Not true, and he didn't have those problems this season.
he's a dumbass
Yes, he is. I just didn't see Vinny try hard this season to put Tyrus in good situations. Instead of working with him during games, he kept up the Skiles position of punishing him with bench time for mistakes, more often than not to the detriment of the team (see game 5 of the C's series after Tyrus was benched for letting Davis beat him down the court). At the same time, he rarely rewarded him with more time when he was playing well. Once the roster was thinned out, Vinny didn't have much of a choice but to play Tyrus. Then the playoffs come around, and Vinny went away from a lineup that was working to go super small and then acted surprised when the Bulls struggled on defense, screening, and rebounding.
He has no feel for offense or defense (he's not a great defender, just a good weak side shot blocker)
Disagree, and strongly with the parathesis. He's not the strongest guy, so it's hard for him to match up with stronger post guys. I think the strength is coming (he's already much stronger than when he got here). And he's a good team defender. Yes, he spaces some times, but more often than not he's covering for someone (Rose or Gordon) who blew their assignment.
he has an over inflated view of his offensive game
I don't hold that against him. His confidence, and quite frankly his stupidity, helps him at times. Vinny didn't try to reign anyone in from shooting this season. Everyone had the green light on just about every shot. Put him with someone that keeps him in line and his shooting percentage will skyrocket (there was already a big increase from the first half to the second half this season).
It's interesting that you bring that up, because I was just about to say that he would fit really well in OKC as their top big off the bench. They would still need a long, rebounding C to help them against the bigger west teams, but I think they're the perfect team to take an an athletic energy guy with a lot of defensive upside who can contribute without needing a ton of shots. I also think Scotty Brooks has demonstrated some evidence of being the type of patient coach you mentioned.
Thomas and college teammate Big Baby have had nearly opposite pro careers so far:
Thomas: huge upside, drafted early onto a so-so team, played quite a few minutes right away, didn't develop an offensive game (yet), angered his fans by tantalizing them but lacking the mental toughness to put his game together.
Big Baby: second rounder despite a better college resume, drafted by a great team and tutored by star players, spent a ton of time on the bench where he started to develop an offensive game (in practice, where he adopted Pierce's pump fake move and worked his way into the pick-and-pop offense), shocked his fans by suddenly and unexpectedly being better than anyone expected.
I left out the part where Big Baby was terrible early this year, but it's a pretty neat little narrative.
I remain very high on Bynum, although he's been a mess in the playoffs.
Not sure how that would have worked with Hamilton already on the team. Melo made more sense, putting Prince as the stopper off the bench. The Darko pick still hurts.
Nonetheless, I still like Dumars as a GM.
Or Bosh could have played 4/5. They still could have traded for Sheed and just used Bosh off the bench that season.
The main point was that the Shaq/Kobe Laker team was at the end of its road.
From 98-08, San Antonio never picked higher than 24, and they still got Ginobili, Parker, Beno Udrih, Luis Scola, John Salmons, Leandro Barbosa, and George Hill (who has promise). We'll see if they ever get to use Tiago Splittler, but he also has potential.
And there are other ways to acquire good talent. Dallas has been abysmal in the draft. Since they selected Kidd in 1994, Josh Howard is the only player they've drafted who has been good. The next best is a tossup between Gordon Giricek, Courtney Alexander, or Etan Thomas. They've won 50+ for 9 straight years anyway.
(The Spurs get extra credit because they were willing to take a shot on international players nobody else was willing to chance. Parker was the 28th pick in '01, Ginobili was the 57th pick of '99, Scola, Udrih, Barbosa. They've had 11 international picks in the last 10 drafts; nobody else is close.)
They did do a draft day trade for Dirk. Yes, technically they didn't take Dirk, but they essentially took Dirk.
That was a terrible draft. Two teams had great nights: Portland and Boston (and the former with the latter's help, as it happens). Everyone else? Not so much.
Also, "he needs to go" seems like a bad place to start when considering personnel moves -- unless you think he's having an actively bad influence on the rest of the team. Otherwise, "he could be traded for someone who could help us more" seems like the more productive attitude.
While I think your summary is accurate, I don't agree with your sell low mentality. If you expect a player to provide 5 wins and he provides 3, do you trade him for a guy who is worth 2 just because he annoys you? Having experienced "Sam Cassell and a #1 for Marko Jaric," let me tell you: no, you don't.
I can't accept this logic because it reminds me that Kevin McHale traded Ray Allen, Brandon Roy, and O.J. Mayo in draft day trades, and that's just too much for my brain to process. Can you imagine how good KG and Allen could be together? I bet they could win a title together...
Actually, I do think he's a bad influence. He's had problems in the past with players, coaches, and assistant coaches. He pouts on the court, he throws temper tantrums, and he spaces out.
He's also marketable, because people see all the athletic talent and think they can teach him basketball while he's playing against the best in the world. Good luck.
You and me both.
The announcement of that trade is like the JFK assassination- I still remember exactly where I was when I heard it. I also remember that the Lakers had rolled the Clippers right before the trade and the rumors were out there- I can still hear the whole crowd chanting Ed-die in fear that he would be traded. Other than Magic's announcement, and a few selected games of course, that trade was the low point of my Laker fandom.
Now if you want to get into rumors about a guy being traded because he didn't get along with the team's top talent, that trade is where you want to start.
We've been through this one enough, we both see it differently and we're never going to agree. Just know somewhere down the line when Thomas has a great year in some other city, you're going to hear me say "I told you so."
Actually, I do think he's a bad influence. He's had problems in the past with players, coaches, and assistant coaches. He pouts on the court, he throws temper tantrums, and he spaces out.
And here's where you go off the rails and don't know what you're talking about. Let's see some stories or links to back this up. The only documented problems he had was the dunk contest controversy ("I'm doing it for the money") and the one time he tried to pull a power play by skipping practice (and everything about last season was a mess and it starts with Skiles quitting on the team and the veterans like Wallace acting like he's the ####### coach). And I flat out disagree that he pouts or throws tantrums on the courts. Not a single incident this season, and I'm going to pull out the "I've seen him a lot more than you card" right now until you can back some of this up. Spacing out and not being smart doesn't make him a bad influence. Who the hell is he even influencing?
Now this isn't right. Game 3 of the playoffs, he got into a little tiff with Kendrick Perkins, threw a temper tantrum, and got a T. And the guy pouts every time he's taken out of the game. Every time they showed him on tv in the 4th of Game 7 he was pouting.
Who's he influencing? We don't know. Who do we not want him influencing? Derrick Rose.
I'm not as high on the Bulls as a lot of people, but you do quickly notice that most of the good teams don't have idiots on them.
This is all rumor and I have no links at all but there were always whispers that when Shaq got to LA- Van Exel, Eddie and Elden were their own "crew" and none of them had any real love for Shaq.
Van Exel ended up getting traded for peanuts, though his feud with Del Harris was the alleged cause for that. Further, after the EJ trade, I do specifically recall that Shaq was running around referring to himself as "The GM." Of course, this means it was all Shaq's fault.<Selena>
In any case, EJ ended up playing with Shaq in Miami so the whole thing seems unlikely; but the trade of Eddie was so bad for a Jerry West trade that I think I was always drawn to the Shaq-feud idea as a desperate attempt to figure out what the **** the Lakers were thinking.
I would like to see Thomas work a bit harder on the boards. I also suspect that he will fit in better with another team; Noah already does a better job of filling the low scoring inside player role than Thomas does. At this point, Noah provides less offense (but is a more selective), but adds a lot more on the boards than Thomas does. And losing Thomas' offense is not going to hurt the Bulls.
Also, after watching Derrick Rose play recently, he is a hell of a talent, plays really hard, and has a lot of poise -- but hopefully his defense is going to improve. The Bulls can improve a lot on defense if Rose can get beat less off the dribble.
I don't really disagree with you too much, I guess. My original post was basically suggesting that Kobe is on a slightly lower level of basketball Olympus than Jordan or Magic, which you seem to agree with. The public perception seems to be that Kobe and LeBron are some sort of equals, with Wade as a pretender to the throne, whereas I see it as more of an A-Rod (LeBron), Nomar (Wade) and Jeter (Kobe) thing.
However, I really don't buy the idea that Kobe shouldn't be held accountable for the Lakers' loss in 2004, or that the team wasn't good enough. You, me and Hollinger might have thought the Pistons were better, but the Lakers beat the defending champion Spurs, who went on to beat those same Pistons a year later. Same with last year, maybe the Celtics should have been favored, but it was certainly a winnable series.
Clearly Wade carried the Heat, but that finals is Exhibit A in the case of Wade vs. Kobe.
Sigh. The Shaq-Kobe era had a lot of winning, but the internal dynamics of the team often made them less than fun.
Yes he is. He is 6-9 and 215 lbs. Of course Rodman was 6-7 and 210 lbs, and KG, while taller (6-11) is only listed at 220 lbs. Now, of course these guys are cherry-picked; Rodman was a historically great rebounder. But Thomas has fantastic leaping ability and is an all around tremendous athlete. I think that he could be made into a fantastic rebounder if he focused more on it. He is probably never going to be a great scorer; he just has too much development needed to do it. But he has the tools to be a great rebounder.
I watched all of those games, but my memory fails me a bit. Looking at the stats, Kobe sure shot like crap in that series. I recall that he ended up taking a huge number of shots, because other than Shaq, no one else could get open.
If I recall correctly, the really critical thing that the Pistons did was they did not try to front Shaq, and did not double team him. So they took away most of the lobs for easy dunks (I never understood why teams tried to front Shaq), and they didn't collapse and allow him to find open 3-point shooters (Shaq is an excellent passer). Shaq shot really well in that series; he could easily get off 8-10 foot shots over the shorter Ben Wallace. But Wallace didn't let him get to the basket, the rest of the Pistons stayed with their man, and there were no easy 3's.
FTFY.
You don't think that Kobe chucking up every shot imaginable has an impact on his teammates' scoring?
Did you miss the part that this was the same Lakers team that beat the defending and future champion Spurs?
Incidentally, Larry Brown was one of the few coaches who didn't openly employ a Hack-a-Shaq strategy.
Many of those other guys (like Rush and Fisher) basically existed to knock down the open threes that Shaq and Kobe were creating. Except that the Pistons defended well enough that those guys weren't getting open threes. Again, this is my memory here, but Kobe ended up settling for a lot of bad shots. (His biggest weakness as a player is shot selection, I think. He is such a great shooter, that he can make a lot of bad shots, but it can cause his teams trouble.)
Thomas' athleticism is unquestionable, but Darius Miles was a freak once, too.
My memory of that series was listening to everybody criticize Bryant for keeping the ball, but none of the other four Lakers could be bothered to help out by, you know, moving from their spot on the floor. The bench guys were so worthless that Bryant, as disruptive as he was, ended up playing nearly every minute of every game.
Yeah, I think this suggests that Kobe A. doesn't necessarily make his teammates better and B. is eminently capable of having an awful series against a team that can defend him straight up.
If you want to criticize Bryant for anything, that's it.
Yeah, I think this suggests that Kobe A. doesn't necessarily make his teammates better and B. is eminently capable of having an awful series against a team that can defend him straight up.
As to making his teammates better, let me know the next time Pau Gasol, who is a pretty good big man, draws a double-team. It'll be his first as a Laker. Do you think that has any value?
Yes, I don't fault Kobe for losing that series. Kobe had a bad series in part because the Pistons did a good job of defending him. The Pistons were the better team. It isn't like the series was close. 5 very good players who play defense > 2 great players (both with some holes in their game that could at times be exploited) + guys who are way past their prime (Payton and Malone) or were never that good to begin with (everyone else). The Pistons, in that year, were just so much better.
This post gave me an idea for a handle: "Stephen A. Smith, or B. Jackass"
I Hope I'm wrong.
Neither Denver nor Cleveland is quite as good as they look right now. The Pistons were a lottery team and the Hawks were banged up. NO was a mess, Chandler was banged up, and Dallas is no matchup for Denver. That said, Denver will be even money against LA.
Houston is now 4-0 against the Lakers without Yao after Sunday.
And say what you want about Dirk, but he don't roll over for nobody. Huge, huge effort.
I doubt those wins from '05 - '07 matter very much.
Cleveland has played pretty weak teams to date, and the Magic/Celtics will be tougher. But Cleveland can really lock down on defense, and of course has the best player. I don't know what weakness they have that can be exploited enough to beat them in a 7 game series. LeBron creates open shots for their shooters. So if a team can figure out how to stop (or reduce greatly) that, and it doesn't involve LeBron scoring 45 points or so, then they might be beat. But that sounds really hard.
Cleveland can always win games with their defense, when the offense isn't clicking. They also are a solid rebounding team.
To beat them, a team will have to get very hot and shoot the lights out.
Agreed. I've always been a fan of players with unique styles to their game, and Dirk really is one-of-a-kind.
Cleveland should obviously be favored, but I agree that the fact that they crushed Detroit and a banged-up Atlanta team should not have people planning parades. LeBron is the best player since Jordan, that is clear, but as Sam notes, the team does not have a second high-level all-star. Mo Williams and Z are both good ballplayers--but not on Pippen's level. I think Denver is capable of challenging the Cavs, as are the Lakers* and maybe Orlando. Boston has impressed me again with their mental approach--they are a mentally tough group, unlike my Lakers, as we saw last summer and are seeing again--but cannot beat Cleveland without KG and Powe.
Recall last year that the Lakers went 12-3 in the WC Playoffs while the Celtics went 12-8 in the East, which caused about 75% of the MSM to pick the Lakers in the Finals.
*With Odom hurting and Bynum lost in space and in Phil's doghouse, this is problematic. If the Lakers do get to the Finals against the Cavs, though, I think they will play better than people might think based on how things look now, since they will be underdogs and give the Cavs some matchup problems.
Also, does anyone know how I can get ahold of Mark Cuban's mom? I want to tell her I think her son is a punk.
It's really a shame that those two guys are out. A healthy Celtics team blows the Magic out in 5, setting up a CLASSIC conference finals. The defending champion Celtics vs. Lebron on a mission? I'll take two, please.
At this point, as a Celtics fan, I'd be thrilled with surviving Orlando in 7 (which I think they'll do) and taking one game from Cleveland. Cleveland isn't as good as they've looked, but with homecourt I think I'd have a hard time picking even a healthy Celtics team to beat them.
There's an air of inevitability with Lebron this year, and an 8-0, 33/10/7 while not even hitting fifth gear yet start has done nothing to persurade me otherwise.
I think he's at the point in his career, where when he wants to win, nothing can stop him. He's so far better than anyone else, it's really not funny.
Howard and Orlando aren't even in the same league as Lebron and Cleveland. If Orlando does end up beating Boston, I think Cleveland will sweep and win by double digits every game.
I know Orlando gave them some trouble in the regular season (though one of Orlando's wins came when Wallace was out, and he could have helped inside), and so did LA. But Jameer is gone and Bynum is struggling and in the playoffs LeBron can play 48 minutes every night if necessary. The Cavs also added Joe Smith, who's not an All-Star or anything, but who beefs up that frontcourt with Z, Wallace, and Varejao.
And I was pretty convinced that the Celtics would win. Of course, I always will pick the better defensive team in a 7 game series, so my picks are basically automatic.
And I think of the remaining teams, Orlando is the one I like best to challenge Cleveland. They play great defense (statistically, they seem to be about even with the Cavs, although my eyes tell me that the Cavs are probably better), and have enough shooters who can get hot. I know a lot of people don't approve of Van Gundy's style of play, but it is effective, particularly on the defensive end. Houston might have the right guys to slow LeBron down. LA is very good offensively, and defends well, but I think they will have bad matchup problems guarding the Cavs.
I mean, anyone can win, and I don't think that the Cavs are a historically great team or anything. But right now, they are playing consistently solid defense and effective (if somewhat boring) offense.
I disagree with this. Kyle Wright wrote a book ranking every NBA team from top to bottom, and according to HoopsAnalyst's running of it's numbers on this years teams, the Cavs are the 10th best team of all-time. Take that, and then keep in mind that they were 4-7 in the first eleven games, which I'd chalk up to adjustments with Mo Williams and the other new pieces. This is a historically great team.
If this is true, and I'm not sure whether I agree with it, it really speaks to Lebron's greatness. The Cavs have a nice supporting cast, but I don't think of them (aside from Lebron) as historically great in any way.
Put it this way - if the Cavs don't have Lebron, how many games do they win this year? 40?
Illguaskas and Mo Williams are both very effective players, probably somewhat close to equaling Pippen and Horace Grant to the early 90's Bulls in total value. But yes, of course LeBron is worth an insane amount of wins all by himself.
Has there ever been an athlete who has lived up to the hype as well as LeBron, assuming he wins this first title? Tiger Woods maybe, but in the major sports? Duncan? Crosby (I don't follow the NHL)?
From Kyle Wright's website.
I guess that I am skeptical of these rankings. I would need to know a bit more about the formula, and would like a bit more evidence. I probably won't read the book though, so I guess I don't really have much of substance to offer here. (Also, the difference between 48% and 56% prediction success here is not that impressive; it means he only gets things right an extra 8% of the time over just picking the team with the best record. What is modeling error here?)
Let's give the Cavs a chance to win a few more playoff games before we declare them one of the greatest teams of all time.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-plaschke-lakers11-2009may11,0,533585.column
Like Aldridge said when he was interviewing Pierce after the game, the Celtics were running on fumes, but that made it even more impressive. And 21-21 from the line---how often do you see that in a game like this?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main