Around the Pound (5/24): Jim Brown on LeBron, RB Chris Jennings, and an End to LOST
by Chris Pokorny on May 24, 2010 10:24 AM EDT
in General News
Email
PrintIn today's edition of Around the Pound, we take a look at who is speaking out about Cleveland Cavaliers star LeBron James, an update on RB Chris Jennings' run-in with the law, the series finale of LOST last night, and more.
Even Jim Brown is Talking About LeBron James
With Cleveland Cavaliers superstar and two-time league MVP LeBron James getting ready to hit free agency, everyone seems to feel the need to share their opinion on where "King James" should -- or shouldn't -- land this summer. Among the people who have weighed in already is President Barack Obama, who is pulling for James to go to the Chicago Bulls.
Even though he's the president, I see no reason why the local news stations in Cleveland have to dedicate half of their sports coverage to his opinion...which brings us to another person who decided to share his thoughts on James: former Browns running back Jim Brown. This story is already several days old, but here is Brown's quote about LeBron:
"I think he's gonna leave, and I think that the treatment that he's getting right now is going to be the motivating factor," Brown said to Baltimore radio station WVIE AM/1370. "You know, it's so unfortunate that a man that's got so much would feel so bad right now because of what he couldn't do. I think he's being treated unfairly. I think the expectations were too high, and I don't think he's gonna stay in Cleveland because of it.
Brown is off his rocker. How can Brown insinuate that the Cleveland fans have treated him unfairly, when everyone else around the country has probably trashed James to a much further extent? Shortly after the season is over, all fans can talk about is how they want LeBron to remain in Cleveland. There's even a banner in Downtown Cleveland in support of LeBron!
As for Brown speaking out, perhaps he should stick to being a suite-room supporter of the Browns rather than pissing off Cleveland fans.
Jennings Won't be Charged
Browns RB Chris Jennings won't be charged with a crime after being accused of assaulting a doorman last month. Jennings apparently reached an agreement with the victim. With that said, Jennings' chances of making the roster still seem pretty slim. He was OK last season at times, but often took unnecessary risks (remember the play where he ran all the way to the other side of the field that should've netted a huge loss?), and the team has added two new backs in Montario Hardesty and Peyton Hillis.
Pluto: Talkin' About the Receivers
Terry Pluto's weekly column yesterday focused on the wide receiver situation for the Cleveland Browns. Here's a taste of what he had to say:
Chansi Stuckey and Jake Allen also had some nice moments catching the ball this week. Not sure if the receivers looked better because of the improved quarterback play along with being in the offense for a while -- or simply that they were so bad last season.
Off-Beat Notes - The End of LOST
- If you didn't watch LOST, spoiler alert below: don't read any further!
- Sadly, all good things have to come to an end. The LOST series finale was last night, and I treated the event like a Super Bowl watch party, complete with an order of pizza and various snacks that would serve as nervous binge-eating throughout the broadcast.
- How was 'The End' of LOST? I liked it. It was surprising. It had drama. It had emotional moments. It did not have every single answer. That last one is what I think is going to frustrate some viewers, but not me. Sure, I'm still dying to know who was in the other outrigger in Season 5, but the producers needed a solid way to wrap up the show, and they did. Jack died right then and there on the island, but everyone else pretty much made it out alive and lived their lives happily ever after offscreen.
- The caveat to 'Happily Ever After' is that we got to see what happened after everyone's eventual offscreen passing -- they re-united in an intermediate world where time is not relative. I won't get too much further into the religious aspects of the show's ending, but rather the fact that the show ended with allowing the fans of the show to have one final goodbye -- a way to 'let go' -- of one of the greatest shows on television ever (IMO).
- Unfortunately for WEWS/ABC viewers in Northeastern Ohio, the reception for the station was horrible for the entire broadcast. The problems started about ten minutes before the show started and continued late into the following morning for WEWS. The result was the screen blacking out (loss of signal) every couple of seconds, and often not being able to hear what the characters were saying. As much as I liked the finale, I had a pit of rage in my stomach throughout the show because I couldn't fully absorb everything when the reception was atrocious. The episode re-airs this Saturday, but it's too little, too late for WEWS.
- Another show, and arguably my second most favorite show, ends tonight. It's not Law & Order, but rather '24.' We'll still get a '24' movie, but as far as television goes, this is it for Jack Bauer. After losing two of my favorite television shows in two days, I'm going to have a little emptiness inside my stomach for a few days. I guess Glee and The Office suddenly shift up to my top two spots. I like comedy shows, but I'm certainly going to miss the science fiction/action shows holding those spots.
530 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I am thrilled Lost is over.
There… I said it.
You are reading my signature.
by rolub on May 24, 2010 10:29 AM EDT reply actions 3 recs
Right…so you don’t have to hear me rant about it anymore :-(
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
by Chris Pokorny on May 24, 2010 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Rec.
"Spartans never die Jorge. They're just missing in action."
by SpecialBrownie on May 24, 2010 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Your face.
"Spartans never die Jorge. They're just missing in action."
by SpecialBrownie on May 24, 2010 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions
That Parenthood show on NBC isn’t bad. The season ends Tuesday, but I’d imagine, given the lack of anything else on NBCs schedule, that they’ll be rerunning the entire season this summer.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
I was so damn mad about the reception… I had my family over so we could all watch it on the big screen and you couldn’t even hear some of the dialogue. Screw your face, WEWS.
Actively seeking inspiration for a new handle
It figures that Cleveland (and Northeastern Ohio) is the only city that experienced problems…our rotten luck, eh? What sort of pissed me off even more though is that WEWS keeps promoting the fact that they will now “re-air the episode in its entirety” next Saturday, as if they are taking extra steps to appease the local viewers. In truth, ABC was going to re-air the finale on that day anyway, regardless.
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
by Chris Pokorny on May 24, 2010 11:37 AM EDT up reply actions
Related to my off-beat notes above, the other show I’d consider moving into my top two would be Fringe. However, I’ve still got about 5 episodes to catch up on (I fell behind near mid-season).
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
that seems like a very interesting show. it is on my series-to-watch list…with lost (sorry…never started watching it and I knew if I started at the wrong time i would be confused…).
I personally think breaking bad is a show to get into (and the next new episode isn’t till june 6th) but it looks like there will only be 2 more episodes before another break…so it won’t have a long summer.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
DUDE, things got a little crazy. You won’t be disappointed with the last 4 episodes. And a major question (I’ve had) was answered in the finale. Can’t wait for the new one’s in the Fall.
Who will be my role model, now that my role model is gone?
by Brownie's Year on May 25, 2010 8:45 PM EDT up reply actions
I think Cleveland fans’ reaction to that Cleveland-Boston series is actually muted because of the prospect that LeBron might leave — the mere thought of James leaving is about the only thing more sickening than that the loss. That series was so miserable and disgusting, including LeBron’s deer-in-the-headlights play at many crucial times, that the whole Cavaliers teams deserves a thorough undressing from fans and media alike. Instead, the fans’ reaction seems to be more on the side of disappointment and worrying about free agency — a relatively modest reaction to the failure of a team that should have brought home a championship.
by Western Reserve on May 24, 2010 12:53 PM EDT reply actions
Sorry, but I thought the booing of James was ridiculous.
He had and has had zero help, and had to carry the team. I don’t know what it would be like in other cities, but in LA, we never blamed Kobe when it was just him for a few years — we knew he needed help. No NBA team can win with just one star — that LeBron has gotten so far is a testament to him. The Cavs organization has paid a lot of money for very little when it comes to supporting cast.
by TheDriveStillHurts on May 24, 2010 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions
this comment hasn’t been true for two years. there are three former all-stars on our roster not including james, and before you say that was years ago, mo and shaq went last year.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 24, 2010 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions
point being, he had plenty of help. his supporting cast played about as well as could be reasonably expected, considering that lebron couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn the last two games and drove to the basket less often than my grandmother would have.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 24, 2010 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Have you ever watched the Lakers play, in the 80’s? the 90’s? or now? There were times Magic & Kareem sucked, but there were others to step up big-time — that did not happen with the Cavs because there was no one to do it. Same can be said with Shaq/Kobe and, now Kobe/Pau. the Cavs only have one guy on those guys’ levels, and then the supporting cast is nowhere near what the Lakers had in those years. You need that — at least two stars and a solid supporting cast that can step up — to win. Never has existed with the Cavs. They just have not brought in the right guys.
by TheDriveStillHurts on May 24, 2010 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions
For the late 80’s, by the way, it was Magic/Worthy. Kareem then was Shaq today — still a good guy to have but nowhere near who he used to be. Again, though, the Cavs have only one guy on the level of a Magic or Worthy (or any of the other guys I listed).
by TheDriveStillHurts on May 24, 2010 1:43 PM EDT up reply actions
We don’t need another all star, we need another potential HoFer.
Boston potentially has 4, all playing at that level right now.
Jordan had Pippen. Kobe has Pau and probably the most talented roster in the league.
Booing LeBron was inappropriate. Booing the Cavs’ effort wasn’t. The Celtics have been playing the best defense they’ve ever played and LeBron couldn’t get to the h
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Boston has 4? Hopefully the 4th isn’t rondo. I know he is playing out of his mind, but I would not call him a potential hall of famer, more than i would Jameer Nelson. I think its a bit early to give that label to him.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
True. Although another championship this year and five or six more years playing the way he is, and he will have made a decent case.
by Western Reserve on May 25, 2010 9:15 AM EDT up reply actions
that is very true and if he has 5 or so seasons the way he is playing in the playoffs, definitely…I just thought its a little early to call a 4th year player who was a bit of a late bloomer a potential HOFer already.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Rondo is a nice player but he’s not a potential Hall of Famer.
by Buckeye Brad on May 25, 2010 10:28 AM EDT up reply actions
For the season he averaged 13.7 points, 9.8 assists, 4.4 rebounds and he’s a terrible 3-point and free throw shooter. He lit up the Cavs because he had Mo Williams guarding him, but his numbers against Orlando and Miami are more in line with his season averages. I think too many people are overvaluing because of his performance against the Cavs. Sure, if he plays like that for 5-8 years then he might have a case, but he’s never shown that he’s that kind of player for a full season. He just had a few good games because of a favorable matchup.
Now, I suppose that he could keep getting better and stay at a higher level for a long stretch and then he certainly may have a case, but not if he stays at the level he is now. He has to show this “higher level” for more than a few games.
by Buckeye Brad on May 25, 2010 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions
Good points. It’s his play in the playoffs that could distinguish him — eventually — assuming he can even keep it up. We’ll see if Boston is able to reload with the Big Three’s expiring contracts coming up in consecutive years.
by Western Reserve on May 25, 2010 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions
He has to stay at this “higher level” for a sustained period of time, or play like this in the playoffs for several seasons, for sure.
But if you look at his progression since he has been in the league he has been getting better and better. He has elite PG physical skills. He is slowly taking the reins of the team with 3 other potential HoFers on board.
That’s why I said “potential”; he has shown how good he can be, but has not consistently been that good.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Well, as I said above, the “higher level” he’s played at in the playoffs was only in the Cleveland series, not against Orlando and Miami. His numbers in those two series are pretty much the same as his numbers in the regular season. So his “higher level” may really have been taking advantage of a favorable matchup against the Cavs and Mo Williams.
He’s a very good player, no doubt, and he’s improved since he’s been in the league like many other players, but he would have to keep improving at stay there for many years to even be considered at a HOF level and I’m not sure how likely that is. He’s still a terrible shooter, and unless that improves that he won’t score enough to be at that level for a sustained period of time. He can’t score 20 points a game just on fast breaks and driving to the basket all season long.
by Buckeye Brad on May 25, 2010 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions
How does categorizing them as “4 stars” and “4 potential HoFers was hyperbole by my point still stands” work for you?
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
That’s fine. I wasn’t trying to jump on you or anything, I just thought it was an interesting question so I looked up his numbers to see if he really was that good, and other people jumped in so it became a discussion.
by Buckeye Brad on May 25, 2010 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s totally fine. I was admittedly exaggerating, but trying to make the point that Boston is a very good team. I honestly have no idea on the specific numbers it would take to get someone in the HoF.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Former being the operative word. I love Shaq, but his best days are way, way, way behind him. And Jamison is not exactly young either. The supporting cast played nowhere near the way Kobe’s does, or the Celtics do, or even Dwight Howard’s last year.
by TheDriveStillHurts on May 24, 2010 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions
mo and shaq were all-stars last year. sure shaq’s best days are behind him but he would still start at center for at least half the teams in the league. Mo is a good secondary scorer. Varejao was 2nd team all-defense. Jamison didn’t have a great playoff, I’ll give you that. you are massively underrating the cavs role players. sure, they need to get better, but losing this series falls on lebron james. if he puts up normal lebron numbers those games are at least close.
you don’t win 60 games 2 years in a row without a supporting cast.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 24, 2010 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions
he would still start at center for at least half the teams in the league
You need a lot better than that.
by TheDriveStillHurts on May 24, 2010 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions
but shaq is just a role player on this team, just a quality starter, not the number two or even number three guy (well, he shouldn’t be the second or third option, thats why mike brown is getting fired).
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 24, 2010 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions
More to the point: Shaq (today) & Mo are not in any way comparable to the number 2 and 3 options of any NBA championship team I can think of going back to the 80’s.
by TheDriveStillHurts on May 24, 2010 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions
detroit pistons 2004
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 24, 2010 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Are you kidding? That team was stacked compared to the Cavs.
by TheDriveStillHurts on May 24, 2010 1:49 PM EDT up reply actions
no it wasn’t.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 24, 2010 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Maybe if you only consider half the game. Defensively that team was incredibly better than the Cavs.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
thats true, that team had one of the best defenses ever. i think they allowed like 84 points a game.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 24, 2010 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions
you’re also leaving out Jamison
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 24, 2010 1:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Indeed I am. There’s a reason for that. He ain’t there either.
by TheDriveStillHurts on May 24, 2010 1:49 PM EDT up reply actions
he didn’t show up in the boston series, but you can’t judge a guy on his stats from one playoff series.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 24, 2010 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Are you seriously trying to compare Jamison to any of the second or third guys I am naming?
by TheDriveStillHurts on May 24, 2010 1:58 PM EDT up reply actions
no, Jamison is not his old self anymore. but he’s still a way above average starter. my point isn’t that they have another superstar. my point is only that their supporting cast isn’t lacking. they have a more than serviceable player in every role.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 24, 2010 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions
Their supporting cast is not lacking I agree — but it is not the supporting cast of a championship team. And even then, you still need a second star. Lebron has neither, and it’s amazing the Cavs have done that well with him.
by TheDriveStillHurts on May 24, 2010 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions
you don’t need a second star. who was detroit’s second star? hell, they barely had one guy i would have called a superstar.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 24, 2010 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Rasheed Wallace was unbelievable in the finals and so was Chauncy. That team was stacked — agree there was no super, super-star. It was a team that got out of a very weak conference and matched up great with a Lakers team that was falling apart.
Now put aside Detroit (I think they were clearly more stacked than today’s Cavs, but let’s just agree to disagree), and now tell me: going back to 1985 (as far back as I can go), tell me one team that did not have, at least, two huge options. There isn’t one.
by TheDriveStillHurts on May 24, 2010 2:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Rasheed Wallace was unbelievable in the finals and so was Chauncy.
I think this might be the disconnect. I’m not talking about a series, I’m talking about a season. guys have a good or bad series sometimes. if the cavs players had all had an average series, they would have been fine. the role players were in place. just because he sucked for five games doesn’t mean Jamison sucks, or shaq sucks, or anyone sucks. the supporting cast is good. most players laid an egg in that series though, most notably lebron. he played terribly. maybe he had an excuse with his injury and maybe not. he still played terribly and thus deserves as much blame as his support.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 24, 2010 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions
My comment should have been more clear: Rasheed (in 2004) was a phenomenally better player than Mo, Shaq or Jamison.
Actually, I think the disconnect here is this:
just because he sucked for five games doesn’t mean Jamison sucks, or shaq sucks, or anyone sucks
I have never said any of these guys “suck” because none of them do. I am saying that they are not a championship-level supporting cast, and far, far from a number 2 on a championship team.
And, again, aside from Detroit in 2004, you can’t come up with a team that is as star-less as the Cavs have been. One super-star is not going to cut it. Michael Jordan, Hakeem, Duncan, Kobe Bryant, Magic Johnson, Shaq, — none of them could do it without other hall of famers around them. LeBron is a great player that deserves to be up there with the guys I just mentioned, but he is not that much better than them that he can do what they never could. The Cavs organization, for whatever reason, has been unable to find a second option, and the supporting cast is just not up to par with other championship teams in recent memory.
by TheDriveStillHurts on May 24, 2010 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions
I think the terrible officiating needs to be brought up in this conversation as well, game 5 sticks out in my mind specifically.
For the love of Joe Thomas.....
by North Coast Flea on May 24, 2010 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions
its hard to judge a player by how he matches up against KG right now. right now, KG might be playing the best defense of his CAREER.
Rashard Lewis is a comparable player in a way to Jamison (similar size, similar game, similar production this year, though Jamison was a bit better).
Rashard lewis has a total of 28 points in the 4 games in this series…or 7 points a game. Lewis had a good game so now he is shooting 34% from the field and 18% from 3 instead of 25% and 7% which he was averaging coming into the game. Lewis didn’t have any turnovers tonight (but in the first 3 games was averaging .4 more than his season average) but was still in foul trouble and is committing 3.5 fouls a game in this series.
Point is, lets not judge everyone by how they get dominated by KG this playoffs…it just wouldn’t be fair to them.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Rashard Lewis is a comparable player in a way to Jamison
No.
by Bernie19Kosar on May 25, 2010 1:25 AM EDT up reply actions
both are inside/outside guys…though rashard is more outside.
either way, both got shut down by KG who has playing out of his mind on D (which is really the point)
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
You don’t even know what you’re talking about.
"Spartans never die Jorge. They're just missing in action."
by SpecialBrownie on May 25, 2010 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions
what do you mean? they are both forwards who have the ability to post up or shoot 3s…Though Rashard is much more comfortable on the perimeter.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
1. What I said is completely relevant.
2. It’s the default sentence toward a bross09 comment.
"Spartans never die Jorge. They're just missing in action."
by SpecialBrownie on May 25, 2010 6:48 PM EDT up reply actions
ok…
2. It’s the default sentence toward a bross09 comment.
so even when I know what I am talking about, I don’t know what I am talking about?
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
so even when I know what I am talking about, I don’t know what I am talking about?
You never know what you’re talking about man.
"Spartans never die Jorge. They're just missing in action."
by SpecialBrownie on May 25, 2010 10:10 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
sure…just like you always know what you’re talking about.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
He’s pushing your buttons dude.
For the love of Joe Thomas.....
by North Coast Flea on May 29, 2010 12:55 AM EDT up reply actions
like I didn’t know that…I could care less…I was just pushing his buttons back.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Quit trying to have the last word.
"Spartans never die Jorge. They're just missing in action."
by SpecialBrownie on May 30, 2010 1:36 AM EDT up reply actions
I wasn’t trying to have the last word any more than you were by saying this
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
but you just said this or wait that, no you just said this by saying saying this
this
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
both are inside/outside guys…though rashard is more outside.
To me this is why their games are different and they aren’t comparable players. Lewis is much more outside.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
Who is the option when Lebron ain’t on? And then, you need to think about the fact that the teams I am naming had more than just one option — if Pau & Kobe aren’t playing well, you have Lamar Odom who is better than anyone you have named on the Cavs.
by TheDriveStillHurts on May 24, 2010 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Mo is an all star because he plays with Lebron James. His actual talent level is that of a secondary role player.
Pau gasol went to one all-star game from 2001-2008. before playing with Kobe, Gasol wasn’t as good as Jamison, and Jamison was playing with two other stars who needed the ball. he wasn’t the #1 option.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 24, 2010 1:58 PM EDT up reply actions
before playing with Kobe, Gasol wasn’t as good as Jamison
Credibility has just been shot with that quote. Gasol is today one of the best power-forwards/centers in the league. He didn’t just turn into that overnight. Kwame Brown played with Kobe too for several years and got worse.
by TheDriveStillHurts on May 24, 2010 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions
And Jamison was a all-star twice!! And he played in the weaker conference when he made those teams.
by TheDriveStillHurts on May 24, 2010 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions
right now Gasol is better. but if you would have asked me in 2007 who i wanted on my team (age notwithstanding) I would have said Jamison.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 24, 2010 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions
You are out of your mind here. Like Bross-out-of-your-mind.
The NBA All-Star rosters are selected by the fans. Fans are biased due to the nature of being a fan and many of them aren’t the most informed voters either.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
in any league, regardless of how much the fans, players, coaches, or media matter in the voting, all-star accolades are not a reasonable metric for whether or not a player is good.
It may help you weed out the field, but using it as the argument is, as you put it, Bross-out-of-your-mind.
You are reading my signature.
Yup. Travis Hafner was one of the 2 or 3 best hitters on the planet from 2004-2006 and he never made an All-Star team.
by Buckeye Brad on May 24, 2010 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Travis who? Oh yeah, I remember when he was actually a quality baseball player. I know he’s had a few injuries, but it’s just a shame.
by Western Reserve on May 24, 2010 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions
“The-Artist-Formerly-Known-as-Pronk”
by Chief WaDrew on May 24, 2010 6:33 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
The guy who had statistically the best offensive season in baseball in 2006, and then legitimately dissappeared, probably due to steroid use.
"Smokescreen."
There is a scary correlation that can be drawn between Ortiz and Hafner.
by Chief WaDrew on May 25, 2010 9:32 AM EDT up reply actions
the correlation being that as soon as they stopped juicing they sucked.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 25, 2010 9:40 AM EDT up reply actions
well, to tell the truth, I don’t know about hafner, but Ortiz seems pretty clear cut.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 25, 2010 9:40 AM EDT up reply actions
I don’t know that it’s clear cut at all with Ortiz. He seems to have peaked where you expect a guy to peak (right around 30).
Either way, when Ortiz is on his game (as he has been this entire month, and as he was after the AS break last year, he’s as dangerous a hitter as there is against right handed pitching.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on May 25, 2010 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions
except he was mentioned in the mitchell report as having taken steroids.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 25, 2010 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Well then it is pretty clear cut.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
apparently he failed a PED test in 2003, but denies it was steroids, which i don’t believe.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 25, 2010 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions
but in the NBA its still much harder to make the team than in other leagues, because they don’t bring along a million reserves. with some exceptions, the NBA gets it right more often than not. My only point with that statement was that you can’t knock mo williams by saying he’s not the same without lebron without mentioning the same thing about playing with kobe, and with a coach that knows offense.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 24, 2010 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions
they don’t bring along a million reserves because:
1.) the overall player pool is much smaller to begin with. NBA has 30 teams times 15 players on the active roster = 450 players. NFL = 54 × 32 = 1,728, and MLB = 30 × 25 = 750.
2.) out of these 3 major sports, the “positions” in an NBA All-Star game are more interchangeable than the other two. You can’t have just 6 NFL Pro Bowl reserves to cover QB, RB, WR, TE, OL, DL, LB, S, K, P. You can’t have a CF play 3B, or SS play C in the MLB All-Star game. in the NBA All-Star game, you could get away with just having any 5 guys of varying height run up and down the court. There’s not much (some, but not much) difference between the G, F, and C positions in today’s NBA game where it a 4 can’t play the 5, or a 3 can’t play the 1.
You are reading my signature.
Allen Iverson this year?
Pau has been an All-Star caliber PF for a very long time, including prior to when he played for the Lakers. No one was watching the Grizzlies, no one voted for him.
He is better as a #2 option, but I would trade any two Cavs players not named LeBron for him.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Right. Mo Williams is not an All-Star caliber player. As you said, he’s a good role player who can certainly be a starting PG on a championship team if he has enough talent around him, but he’s not a #2 guy on a championship team.
by Buckeye Brad on May 24, 2010 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, he backed his way into a single All-Star game. And in the playoffs, Mo disappears. Completely outclassed by the bigger Ray Allen. Then again, maybe Brown should have switched him out.
by Western Reserve on May 24, 2010 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Mo showed up for about 15 minuted during the playoffs.
He was also way out of place in Mike Brown’s philosophy. He couldn’t guard any of the PGs we were going to see until maybe the Lakers. He could have scored on Ray Allen, Rose, and Nelson.
Those 15 minutes where he looked good in the playoffs were sparked by his offense.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Oh yeah, completely overmatched. No chance against either Rondo or Allen. Mo should have been coming off the bench.
by Western Reserve on May 24, 2010 7:40 PM EDT up reply actions
His actual talent level is that of a secondary role player.
That’s not true.
"At least they got a couple of games" -eltharion_doa
well, this is a murky area anyway, but FWIW I think he’s better than that. but without lebron he doesn’t make any all-star games.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 24, 2010 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions
I think he’s a decent player. He’s terrible defensively and it shows even more in the playoffs when he is facing better players. The fact that he can’t always guard the other teams pt guard (Rondo) is a horrible disadvantage for the Cavs when they are using someone like Anthony Parker instead. I like both him and West, but their size really limits them when the Cavs are going up against bigger teams. That sort of thing can fly in the regular season, but when matchups become crucial in the playoffs, the Cavs have some serious matchup problems. The same defensive issue came up against Orlando last year. West is a good defender, but is too small to really guard someone like Rashard Lewis or Turkoglu.
Again, when considering half the game, yes. Mo can’t hope to guard Rose, Rondo, Nelson, Nash, Deron…
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Wall
Scientific research has proven that you lose exactly 5.37 billion brain cells every time you listen to Todd McShay.
by TheRealSlimShady on May 24, 2010 8:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Blade
For the love of Joe Thomas.....
by North Coast Flea on May 24, 2010 9:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Paid
For the love of Joe Thomas.....
by North Coast Flea on May 25, 2010 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions
Spade?
"Spartans never die Jorge. They're just missing in action."
by SpecialBrownie on May 25, 2010 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions
played
Scientific research has proven that you lose exactly 5.37 billion brain cells every time you listen to Todd McShay.
by TheRealSlimShady on May 25, 2010 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Renegade
For the love of Joe Thomas.....
by North Coast Flea on May 29, 2010 12:56 AM EDT up reply actions
What i said actually made sense though. I don’t think Mo can hope to guard wall.
Scientific research has proven that you lose exactly 5.37 billion brain cells every time you listen to Todd McShay.
by TheRealSlimShady on May 25, 2010 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions
can’t hope to guard Rose, Rondo, Nelson, Nash, Deron…
Duh. You just named the leagues best super star point guards.
"At least they got a couple of games" -eltharion_doa
…who Mo could reasonably expect to be guarding in the 2nd+ round of the playoffs.
Point being, he can’t be counted on to defend 1s in the playoffs. He also hasn’t consistently won his matchup on the other end of the floor against these kinds of guys either. Therefore, Mo is not a 2nd superstar.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
my point was never meant to be a second superstar. my point this entire time has been that you don’t need a second superstar. if your role players are good enough, and you have the best player on the planet, a second star isn’t necessary. it helps, but it isn’t a prerequisite.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 25, 2010 9:14 AM EDT up reply actions
Wrong. Again, name a team besides Detroit in 2004. One. Team. You have not been able to do it. You are just wrong. You keep ignoring my question.
Jordan had Pippen (and then had solid, solid role-players like Rodman, Grant, etc.). Jordan was not able to get out of the East until Pippen bloomed. Maybe you think LeBron is better than Jordan, but do you really think he is that much better that he can do what Jordan never did?
Now, look at today’s Lakers. Their number 3 option (who is their 6th man) is better than anyone on the Cavs no question. None at all. Jamison for Lamar Odom straight up? The Cavs would take that in a minute. Mo for Odom? The NBA wouldn’t allow that trade because it’d be so lopsided. Same thing can be said for the Celtics. Rondo for anyone other than James? Hell, yeah.
by TheDriveStillHurts on May 25, 2010 12:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Okay, so the Lakers have some players we’d trade straight up for; we all know that. But we were playing an aging Celtics teams, and we didn’t give ourselves a chance because we played scared and like crap. So we lost.
by Western Reserve on May 25, 2010 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions
We played scared and like crap, but they also played defense that made us look like crap.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Not trying to take anything away from Boston, but the flip side of that coin is our lazy play and terrible offensive strategy made it much easier for them.
by Western Reserve on May 25, 2010 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions
how about the spurs? they have one superstar. I’ll give you the supporting cast is better than the cavs, but tony parker and manu ginobili are not the same players without Timmy. They won a few championships with one superstar.
to address what rufio will say, yes they play better D than the cavs if you look at it one-on-one. but the cavs D is not a huge problem. much more important is that they don’t have a player who can consistently create his own shot. Mo can, but not every night. Antawn can, but not every night (and particularly not the way mike brown would like). We don’t need another superstar (it would be great though). we need another guy who can create when lebron has a bad night.
Maybe I haven’t been making myself clear. Its not that the cavs have a great supporting cast, but they’re adequate. Lebron gets better help than you are giving him credit for.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 25, 2010 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions
2003 Tony Parker=2009/2010 Mo Williams
Perimeter PG. decent passer, average defender. I will say that parker didn’t get ripped apart like Mo did, but maybe that was poppovich hiding him better.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Parker is a much better defender than Mo and he can score against better defenders than Mo can.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
2003 Tony Parker=2009/2010 Mo Williams
Wow.
by TheDriveStillHurts on May 25, 2010 5:17 PM EDT up reply actions
The only time Mo Williams compares to Tony Parker is when he is asleep and dreaming.
Tony Parker = Perimeter PG?
I seem to remember Parker spending alot of time going to the basket.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
if you notice, I am comparing a 27 year old Mo williams with 7 years of NBA experience to a 20 year old tony parker with 2 years.
Now, 2010 Mo Williams is not in the same league as Tony Parker (when healthy). I am purely looking at what Tony Parker in 2003 when the Spurs won it and mainly just pointing out he didn’t give any more to the team than Mo does to us.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
We need another guy that can win his matchup (i.e. score more against the opposition’s defense than they get scored on by the opposition if playing one-on-one) against every team except maybe one or two teams in the league—and to be able to play those one/two teams to a draw.
I would consider anyone who could do that a second star. If this is what you mean by someone who can consistently create his own shot, then I agree completely. But it isn’t just about scoring, it is about scoring more than the opponent. If that would mean a guy like Rondo who can probably only muster 15 against some of the better PGs in the league, but who can lock them all down, that’s fine.
LeBron has some pieces that would work just fine on a championship caliber team. The problem is that we would need to get rid of some of the lesser talent and replace them with “second star” level guys. This would mean something like trading Anthony Parker for Brandon Roy.
When Mo and Tawn become the 3rd/4th best players on the team as opposed to 2nd/3rd, its a whole new ballgame.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Also, I feel that in their primes, one of Parker/Ginobli were going to be able to win that matchup. They both kinda split what I would call that “second star” role.
If Mo and Tawn could do that, that’d be great. But there are some teams against which I feel that neither Mo nor Tawn would be able to win their matchup.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Yup, Parker/Ginobli did play that role. Also, the first two championships of the Spurs (’99 & ’03), they still had David Robinson. In 2003, he was well over his prime, but he still demanded attention.
by TheDriveStillHurts on May 25, 2010 5:19 PM EDT up reply actions
The only thing I’d interject her is that, obviously, you aren’t going to have great match-ups against every team you play. For example, Jamison is a very good player, but he was getting killed by KG. You just can’t keep him there and hope it gets better — a move needed to be made. That particular mismatch didn’t necessarily mean we didn’t have the personnel or the match-ups somewhere else on our whole roster.
by Western Reserve on May 25, 2010 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree that Jamison should not have played against KG. I would have put Andy there, hoping to get a few easy buckets/ORebs and to defend KG much better and bascially force Pierce to try to score on LeBron.
The thing is that with a #2 star, or a pair of guys working as the #2 (read: the piece/s the Cavs still need to get), you should always at least play the matchup to a draw.
For instance, I think Pau can guard KG enough and score on KG enough to make that matchup somewhat even. Considering KG is probably the best player on the Celtics, I see that as advantage: Lakers because the Lakers’#1 player is winning his matchup in that series.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Normally I would agree with that, but KG is playing some good basketball right now.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 26, 2010 9:17 AM EDT up reply actions
I wouldn’t disagree with anything you’ve said here. and yes, I think we need to have another guy who can win his matchup, that’s what I was referring to. I just don’t think that necessitates a future hall of famer. For instance, there was a stretch of a couple years when Zydrunas fit that discription, but nobody would call him a star.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 26, 2010 9:16 AM EDT up reply actions
There have been more than one team to win on that formula.
the ’77 trailblazers who had a bunch of role players around bill walton.
the 2003 spurs who had Duncan, good D, and mostly just good role players afterward.
the ’94 rockets had Hakeem and a bunch of role players.
The pistons of the early 90s had a star in Thomas, and a borderline star in Dumars, but played good team basketball and Defense.
’79 supersonics…no real superstar or star really. just a lot of very good ballplayers who played good D.
teams can survive without a superstar…teams that have a superstar do not inherently need another secondary star to win, though it definitely doesn’t hurt.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Ignoring defense in categorization of “star”.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Calling Joe Dumars a “borderline star” ruins your credibility. He was arguably better than Isiah. The guy is in the Hall of Fame, and very clearly deserves to be there.
by TheDriveStillHurts on May 25, 2010 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Also, Bross, I limited this to back to 85 because that is far back as I remember watching basketball. I know you didn’t watch any of these teams, with the possible exception of the 03 Spurs. I have no idea about the 77 Blazers or the 79 Sonics. The 94 Rockets might be an example, but I remember them having more than Hakeem, but looking at their roster, it does seem like they just had a bunch of very good role-players. 94 was a weird year — I graduated high school and MJ was out of the league.
by TheDriveStillHurts on May 25, 2010 5:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Mo is not a 2nd superstar.
I agree. Of course he’s not a superstar. No one said he was, I’d really hope no expects him to be. Our only superstar on the Cavs is LeBron. Mo is more of a 1st tier role play (fringe all-star), in my opinion. Definitely deserves to start.
I completely disagree and he’s a secondary role player. He’s far to good to be that far back in the line-up. Who we going to start in place of him? Delonte West (sacrafice offense for defense)? Boobie Gibson…? Yeah, that right there solves this for me. We must keep Mo, LeBron or no LeBron.
Lastly, no he can’t shutdown superstar point guards, but that is exactly why they are superstars, because almost no one can shut them down. Mo isn’t one of the about 5 guys total in the entire league that can stop those guys.
"At least they got a couple of games" -eltharion_doa
What do the players behind Mo have to do with whether or not Mo is a secondary role player or not? Lack of better options does not make a player better. I really think if we are factoring in defense here, there is no way we can put Mo as anything more than a secondary role player.
True, lack of better options does not make a player better.
But you have to look at your other options if you don’t think Mo is good enough.
"At least they got a couple of games" -eltharion_doa
I would look at other options around the league.
It isn’t that Mo can’t start on a championship caliber team. It is that Mo is not the #2 guy on that team.
Like I said above, if we had a guy like Brandon Roy in place of Parker or Stoudemire in place of Z, or someone who was between the skill levels of Bron and Mo, it would be fine. It is just that getting that guy via trade is quite hard to do and that getting him also makes a huge impact.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
LeBron, Brandon Roy, Jamison, and Mo would quite possibly be one of the greatest team of the modern era.
However the Cavs will NEVER get Brandon Roy. Ever.
"At least they got a couple of games" -eltharion_doa
LeBron, Brandon Roy, Jamison, and Mo would quite possibly be one of the greatest team of the modern era.
Please. They would be a solid championship contender; we don’t know how they’d gel and to say that they would be “one of the greatest teams in modern history” is silly. There have been bigger star pairings before (that did and did not work). And Jamison and Mo are not really relevant as there are a ton of people you could plug in in their place.
by TheDriveStillHurts on May 25, 2010 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions
I never thought Kobe could get Pau or Pierce could get KG and Allen and Rondo.
We need something this ridiculous.
This summer there are guys available, but I don’t know about salary cap implications. I do know there is always room for lopsided trades in the NBA.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I’m not sure where we sit cap-wise after the jamison trade, but at one point we had enough to offer a max contract and resign lebron. in the NBA, you can go as far over the cap as you want if you’re resigning a player. this means we would have to sign the other guy first, then lebron.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 26, 2010 9:20 AM EDT up reply actions
No, it doesn’t work that way. The Cavs have a “cap hold” on LeBron, so to sign another free agent they would have to renounce their rights to him first which means they couldn’t resign him. They did this so teams couldn’t circumvent the cap by the method you’re describing above.
by Buckeye Brad on May 26, 2010 10:42 AM EDT up reply actions
yes. we can offer lebron a max contract, but if we offer large contracts to someone else, we waive those rights. that is the bind that the Knicks are going to be in with Daivd Lee.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I know we can offer LeBron a max contract; I never said otherwise.
by Buckeye Brad on May 26, 2010 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions
One of the greatest teams of the modern era?
I think you are greatly exaggerating the talents of Jamison and Mo Williams.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
I think you are greatly exaggerating the talents of LeBron and B. Roy.
And Jamison and Mo. None of which are bad basketball players.
"At least they got a couple of games" -eltharion_doa
Should be underexaggerating.
(SBNation badly needs an edit / delete button.)
"At least they got a couple of games" -eltharion_doa
I’m not saying they are bad basketball players, but that’s not a modern era great team there.
Especially if you’re including Mo Williams.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
agreed…Get a halfway decent center in there, and that lineup is golden. you don’t even need Mo to truly execute the offense, but could just spot up for 3s and occasionally pass. who needs a passing point guard when you have lebron AND Roy? maybe 2 of the best passers for their position.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I agree IF you think Mo isn’t good. Personally, I think Mo is good enough.
I would much rather improve our front court, which I see as quite a bigger need.
"At least they got a couple of games" -eltharion_doa
From what I’ve found Shaq made $21 mil this year and Bosh made $15. Shaq split time with Varejao and Hickson.
Could you possibly let Shaq go, freeing Hickson and Varejao to get more time and go after Bosh?
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
Top 10 contracts.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
Jermaine O’Neal is the 3rd highest paid player in the NBA?
Interesting that the 1996 draft’s two high school players are number 2 and 3 highest paid in the league.
by TheDriveStillHurts on May 25, 2010 10:30 PM EDT up reply actions
The Cavs are over the salary cap. They don’t have any money to sign a free agent — other than the mid-level exception — unless it’s resigning one of their own. The only way they could get Bosh is through a sign-and-trade.
by Buckeye Brad on May 25, 2010 10:44 PM EDT up reply actions
I know this is wishful thinking, (I’ve wanted Bosh for many years now) but perhaps if Toronto is convinced they have no shot at keeping him, they’d be interested in cash incentives.
"At least they got a couple of games" -eltharion_doa
If Bosh really wanted to play with LeBron, would a package of Jamison and Hickson get it done?
by Bernie19Kosar on May 25, 2010 10:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Jamison, Hickson, West, Gibson, and cash ($) are all possibilities I think. (Depending on their contracts as well.)
But I think it’s less about the actual players and more about them getting something (anything) rather than nothing via free agency.
"At least they got a couple of games" -eltharion_doa
Would gaining Bosh make up for losing Jamison, West and Hickson? Especially with an old Shaq and Z. If Shaq doesn’t come back you’re left with Jamario Moon on the bench with Varejao moving to the starting line up.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
Shaq isn’t coming back. Losing West would hurt (but he might not need to be included), but the Cavs could find sign players using their mid-level exception to fill out the bench (like they did with Moon last year). Danny Green could get some playing time and he should be better next year. Z could be brought back as a backup.
by Buckeye Brad on May 25, 2010 11:10 PM EDT up reply actions
I wish i knew more about contracts so i knew who you could target at the mid-level.
It just seems that with losing 4 players and forcing Varejao into the starting line up you’re weakening the team even with adding Bosh.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
But you’re losing players that are easily replacable. And the Cavs have players on their bench who can play more and be a bigger part of the rotation, like Danny Green and Jawad Williams. Moon and Parker were both signed using the mid-level exception last year, I think, so we could pick up two guys like that again this year to fill out our bench. And we may be able to buy a first round pick from a team looking to save money (we traded ours to Washington).
by Buckeye Brad on May 25, 2010 11:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Those players maybe easily replaceable, but are they easily replaceable given your roster construction and cap situation?
Moon and Parker are mid-level guys,as is West, Williams and Jamison are not. Also from what i’ve read you can only sign one mid level player a year or split that money between multiple players.
I think this year the exception was just under 6 million. Can you get enough help with that much money?
You would be replacing those three with lesser players while at the same time removing two players from your bench (west and Varejao to the starting lineup) while also losing a center and hoping that Williams and Green can be productive while at the same time hoping you can hit on some mid-level guys.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
Yes, we can get enough help with that money if we had LeBron and Bosh. The Cavs have plenty of valuable role players who can fill in those roles, as I listed above. They need another star player and it’s worth giving up 3 or 4 players to get him.
by Buckeye Brad on May 25, 2010 11:35 PM EDT up reply actions
I do think if you get Bosh it will improve the team, but I still think they need a competent point guard.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
No, point guard isn’t the Cavs problem (at least not offensively). LeBron handles the ball so much that they don’t need a pass-first PG, they need a good shooter like Mo. The Cavs can certainly win with Mo at PG if they have the right other pieces.
by Buckeye Brad on May 25, 2010 11:47 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m thinking more along the lines of a point guard who can score and create off the dribble. It just seems like Mo is out there because he can shoot and doesn’t really bring much else to the table.
I think if you have a guy that is capable of handling the ball and is a threat to do more than just spot up in shoot (and here i might be underestimating Williams’s abilities) that it opens your offense up and frees Lebron to do more work.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
I would love to have Chris Paul, but I don’t think a top flight PG is out there.
by Bernie19Kosar on May 26, 2010 12:30 AM EDT up reply actions
I, personally, think you are underestimating Mo off the dribble. he needs to do it more often, but he can do it.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 26, 2010 9:26 AM EDT up reply actions
I think the biggest question (besides Lebron coming back of course) is the philosophy of your next coach.
Depending on their philosophy you might be able to better use your players or available money to add players.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
in the NBA, one player makes such a drastic difference that whoever got the best player in a trade “won” the trade.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 26, 2010 9:24 AM EDT up reply actions
Would gaining Bosh make up for losing Jamison, West and Hickson?
Yes.
by TheDriveStillHurts on May 25, 2010 11:10 PM EDT up reply actions
and losing Shaq and z?
You would have
Lebron
Williams
Bosh
Parker
Varejao
then who on the bench?
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
If the Cavs could pull something like that off that would be incredible. I don’t know if the Raptors could get a better package from someone else who wants Bosh, but I would love it if the Cavs could make something like that work. Getting Hickson and a couple draft picks (and maybe Danny Green) would be better than losing Bosh for nothing.
by Buckeye Brad on May 25, 2010 10:56 PM EDT up reply actions
But isn’t Shaq’s contract gone. And they can pay a luxury tax to go over; can’t they?
by TheDriveStillHurts on May 25, 2010 10:50 PM EDT up reply actions
You can only go over the cap to sign your own free agents.
by Buckeye Brad on May 25, 2010 10:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Cool, thanks, i was wondering that.
So would the only realistic changes be bringing in the new coach and replacing Shaq with a mid-level player?
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
I think the Cavs will make some other moves.
Someone is going to want to dump some salary.
by Bernie19Kosar on May 25, 2010 10:57 PM EDT up reply actions
someone like Toronto, Milwaukee (Michael Redd), or even Atlanta (Joe Johnson / Josh Smith) may not be confident they can bring their players back and might swing a trade.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 26, 2010 9:34 AM EDT up reply actions
Trades. Gilbert is willing to take on salaries.
by Buckeye Brad on May 25, 2010 10:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Speaking of that, the Sixers may be looking to trade Andre Iguodala since they have the 2nd pick and are probably taking Evan Turner. He’s got a big contract and has underperformed this year, but I’d love to get my hands on him in a trade. From what I’ve heard, he’s a very good defender on the perimeter and he can create his own shot (which few players on the Cavs besides LBJ can do).
by Buckeye Brad on May 25, 2010 11:19 PM EDT up reply actions
I would love that. I really liked the possibility of this when the idea was thrown around earlier in the season. However, a some of his strengths (versatility, passing and rebounding, slashing) felt too similar to lebron. but looking back, that sounds stupid. I would love it to have him and lebron on the wings.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I think Iguodala would be awesome fit, would probably even let me get over my PG hang up.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
I can’t help thinking that Iggy would be Larry Hughes 2.0
by Bernie19Kosar on May 26, 2010 12:31 AM EDT up reply actions
yeah. I get that feeling. I think however, iggy is better than Hughes ever was. Iggy has a more consistent shot and is a better ballhandler…plus there is no injury history and its highly unlikely his will and desire to take it to the rim will implode like Hughes’ did.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Do we still have cap holds if we outright release a player? Say, like Shaq, Wally, and Telfair?
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Telfair’s contract is guarnteed for next year, I’m pretty sure, so I don’t think that will work. And even with losing Shaq’s salary we’re still over the cap.
by Buckeye Brad on May 25, 2010 11:18 PM EDT up reply actions
This is in response to a lot of comments above, but I found a breakdown of the Cavs’ contract situation for the next few years. The Cavs already have over $66 million committed to next season (assuming LeBron picks up his player option, which is unlikely). When LeBron opts out, the Cavs will have a “cap hold” on his contract unless they renounce their rights (which they won’t do) so they can’t sign Bosh first (since they’d be under the cap) then sign LeBron to go over the cap.
I’m not sure what the salary cap will be for next year but the Cavs are already over it.
by Buckeye Brad on May 25, 2010 11:30 PM EDT up reply actions
So how do we pull off some crazy NBA trade/cap stuff that shouldn’t be legal but is?
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
You can always trade players as long as their salaries match, so the Cavs trade guys with expiring contracts (like Z) for guys with longer contracts (like Jamison). That’s how they got so far over the cap. And you can always go over the cap to resign your own players.
by Buckeye Brad on May 25, 2010 11:49 PM EDT up reply actions
So we could sign Wally to a non-guaranteed contract or something with a small amount guaranteed and then trade him for something in a salary dump for the other team?
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I have no idea about the Wally situation since he hasn’t played in a year and might not be physically cleared to play for anybody.
by Buckeye Brad on May 26, 2010 12:29 AM EDT up reply actions
I think there is something out there like that.
I think it was the Mavs who used Keith Van Horn in that way a couple years back.
by Bernie19Kosar on May 26, 2010 12:32 AM EDT up reply actions
can’t we sign lebron to the mid level exception?
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Yeah, if he would take that salary. But he won’t.
by Buckeye Brad on May 25, 2010 11:44 PM EDT up reply actions
even with shaq’s 20 million coming off the books they’re over?
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 26, 2010 9:22 AM EDT up reply actions
go ahead and ignore this
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 26, 2010 9:36 AM EDT up reply actions
Mo should be your 6th man.
The Cavs need a real point guard so that Lebron doesn’t have to create offense all the time.
Everyone knows he can pretty much do whatever he wants but when you have someone who can legitimately create for themselves and others it allows Lebron to do his thing without having to take on the entire defense.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
the thing is lebron is at his best when he’s creating. you don’t want to turn him into a one-dimensional scorer when he’s probably the best passer on the team, no matter who you bring in to play point.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 26, 2010 9:37 AM EDT up reply actions
I don’t want to take away Lebron’s ability to create, I just think it could help to have a second guy so that it’s not always on Lebron to do so. I think it could benefit Lebron if there is another guy who can create his own shot and a shot for others on the court.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
I don’t disagree with that, I just think that can come from a position other than PG.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 26, 2010 1:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Additionally, I agree that no one can shut these guys down, that is not the point. Other teams have point guards that they can at least allow to guard these guys. Mo goes nowhere near them because it will be an obliteration.
Yes, it is the relative difference between defenders and on the other side of the court that matter:
If Mo can only hold Rondo to 7/10 shooting, can Defender X hold him to 6/10 or 5/10?
And if Mo can only hold Rondo to 7/10, can Mo go 8/10 against Rondo? Does Defender X go 2/10 against Rondo?
The offense will always score in the NBA, that’s just the nature of basketball.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
With Rondo, it’s not even just about his shooting and defense when you have pierce and allen on the perimeter. Can Mo keep Rondo out of the lane forcing the rest of the team help freeing up other weapons?
To me this is what makes Parker and Rondo good. They don’t have the shooting ability of Nash, but they can get to almost any spot on the court whenever they want which forces the defense to adjust.
When paired with the right players around them it takes their effectiveness off the chart.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
Mo is bad. Please get rid of Mo williams. Dude simply can’t be on the court against good teams.
"Smokescreen."
He’s not bad. Now you’re exaggerating. He can certainly be a useful player, he’s just got to make his open shots.
by Buckeye Brad on May 25, 2010 7:42 AM EDT up reply actions
I’d agree the boo birds were a bit unsettling, though they were deserved. Point stands that the criticism has still been muted.
I’d also concede as much that the talent around LeBron has been less than primetime. I was never as high on the Shaq acquisition as some folks — he certainly is a fan favorite, despite pretty much being a 20 minute/game guy. He was brought in as the Howard killer, only we never made it to Orlando because we forgot — in a short-term memory/cognitive dissonance type of way — about the Celtics. Mo is a one-trick pony — the spot up jumper when and only when LeBron distributes. He rarely makes his own shot is only an average point guard. I think Jamison is a quality player. His numbers were good for us and that was on his shots going down compared to his Washington days.
The criticism of the team though is still justified because they played with little to no urgency, without passion. They seemed disinterested and lazy. Shell shocked. Mike Brown’s coaching was atrocious; but LeBron James was inexplicably distant, and it reflected in all of his teammates.
by Western Reserve on May 24, 2010 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions
The Cavs didn’t really forget about the Celtics — the Celtics are a very good team that is playing out of their minds right now. They pulled what the Shaq/Kobe Lakers used to do — slept through the regular season and then turned it on when it counted. I have serious doubts the Lakers can beat the Celtics.
by TheDriveStillHurts on May 24, 2010 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions
I think the expectation was that Orlando was the team for Cleveland to beat in the East. Granted, you’re right, Boston is playing out of their minds right now, but I still attribute the Cavs’ loss to the themselves, not sudden superhuman strength by the aging Big Three and Co. (even with Rondo being a much more highly developed and, frankly, the single best player on the Celtics today).
by Western Reserve on May 24, 2010 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions
right. I’m not saying cleveland’s team can’t get better, but they had plenty enough talent to beat boston. they just didn’t play up to it, with the most obvious and egregious culprit being lebron james.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 24, 2010 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions
the most obvious and egregious culprit being lebron james
You can only blame him because there was no one else to pick up the slack. Again, Kobe has had his off-series (trust me) but the Lakers were able to keep going because of other guys. You just don’t have that on the Cavs.
by TheDriveStillHurts on May 24, 2010 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions
As much as it saddens me to say it, LeBron James’s play was uncharacteristically bad in the games that the Cavs lost. Even in the elimination game, that was about the quietest triple-double you are ever going to see. The numbers might look alright, but there was absolutely no zeal. It’s a fair enough point that the rest of the team played poorly, too, but the Cavs’ identity is built on LeBron, and his play at times was uninspired and inexplicably awful.
by Western Reserve on May 24, 2010 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions
He had one bad game.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I’m not trying to throw LeBron James under the bus by any stretch of the imagination, but with a superstar of LeBron’s caliber, I disagree. Maybe LeBron’s right, he spoils us, we take his great play for granted, but it was evident that for multiple games during that series, LeBron did not bring his top game. I’m not accusing him of quitting. And I know we can check the box and say, oh, that 15 point, 3-14 shooting night is the only anomaly. But, really, we all know better than that.
by Western Reserve on May 24, 2010 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions
This is like blaming Tim Couch for sucking when he is getting eaten alive before he hits the last step in his drop.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I’m not “blaming” LeBron James. I just don’t think he’s immune from any and all criticism. He was like I’ve never seen him before; he didn’t have that edge — and neither did any of his teammates.
by Western Reserve on May 24, 2010 7:46 PM EDT up reply actions
right, I’m not saying lebron is solely responsible. but lebron had just as bad a series as everyone else, and he deserves the criticism.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 24, 2010 10:20 PM EDT up reply actions
He did a very good job against Pierce, and aside from the one game he won his matchup—making Pierce look bad and doing relatively well against a defensive juggernaut focused entirely on him.
He had Rondo looking for the chase-down every time he drove or was on a fast break.
He had one horrible offensive game. He did not have 6 straight superhuman performances like we have come to expect. He did not deserve to be individually booed either.
I expect the superstar to come out and take the blame for the losses. I think booing him is a little out of line.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I still don’t remember anyone specifically booing lebron. from what i remember, people were just booing in general, and rightly so. also, as i posted below, if your shooting percentage sucks and you’re turning the ball over, it doesn’t matter how many points you score or assists you have. lebron was comparable to baron davis in this series. of all people i would think you would understand that his efficiency is just as important as the totals.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 25, 2010 9:16 AM EDT up reply actions
The efficiency is absolutely important. I was wondering about his efficiency beyond shooting%, like TS% maybe, taking FTs into account and the like, or maybe his PER.
I don’t know specifically how Basketball sabermetrics work, but I do know that if LeBron drives, misses, but is fouled by KG and makes both his FTs, that’s probably even better than scoring, despite it going as 0/1 in the stat book.
And regardless of what Hollingeresque stats say, I watched the Celtics focus a tremendous amount of defensive resources on LeBron, something that wouldn’t have been said about Davis.
Now to ask questions and annoyingly answer them myself…Did he overcome all of that to play like the superhuman we expect, willing his team to victory? No. Is it reasonable to hope for that from him? Yes. Is it reasonable to expect that from him? No.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Was it reasonable to expect that the team with the best regular season record, a team with “chemistry,” that went out a picked up a stud before the trade deadline and has the best player in the world to win that series?
Yes. It sure was.
by Western Reserve on May 25, 2010 5:28 PM EDT up reply actions
“Chemistry”?
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
you gotta be able to play together.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 26, 2010 9:39 AM EDT up reply actions
I’m mocking it a bit here as it was supposedly one of the team’s great attributes. It especially reared its ugly head when we were thinking about making a move for Jamison (a no brainer) as some folks worried about “team chemistry” upon introducing a new player, regardless of skill.
by Western Reserve on May 26, 2010 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions
a drive and a foul would not go in as 0/1. if you’re fouled the field goal doesn’t count, unless you make it. so when lebron shoots 4-13 or whatever, fouls have nothing to do with it.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 26, 2010 9:41 AM EDT up reply actions
by average standards. by lebron standards he had maybe 2 good ones.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 24, 2010 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Exactly. 26.8 PPG, 9.3 RPG, 7.2 APG against Boston. That includes what he called one of the worst games of his career.
by Bernie19Kosar on May 24, 2010 5:24 PM EDT up reply actions
those averages look great. but its his efficiency that was the problem. his assist/turnover ration is decent at best, and a downright problem for three of the games. he only shot above 50% once. in fact, he shot 8-21, 3-14, and 7-18 in the final 3 games. he shot 50% in the regular season. He shot 33% from 3-point range during the regular season, which is pretty good. against boston, he had three good games of 2-3, 2-4, and 3-6. he also had three games where he was 0-4, 0-5, and another 0-4. two of those three were in the last three games, when he wasn’t hitting twos either. Those are all bad games for lebron.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 24, 2010 10:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Is that normal shooting % or does that take into account FTs? Because getting to the line is a pretty big part of his game.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
he shot about 74% from the line against boston, and 73% for the playoffs, which is 3.5% below his average, which isn’t very good to begin with. thats a pretty decent drop, especially considering in the playoffs free throws become more important.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 25, 2010 9:20 AM EDT up reply actions
still, my point is he had terrible efficiency in the playoffs. its like saying “Jamal Lewis is good because he rushed for 1000 yards.” sure he did, but he averaged 3.6 a carry.
lebron had games of 38%, 21%, and 39% in the deciding 3 games. he was also 0-4 and 0-5 from downtown in two of those games. think about this, in a game where lebron took 14 total shots, 4 were threes. lebron james needs to go to the hole more often than that. even one of lebron’s two good games (game 3) was a mirage. Most of those shots were jumpers. Don’t try and tell me game 2 was a good game either. under 50% shooting, 66% from the line, 0-4 from range, and a 4/5 assist to turnover ratio. that is not a good game.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 25, 2010 9:39 AM EDT up reply actions
No, I am talking about adding his FTs in to his shooting %. Poor at shooting them or not, a substantial amount of LeBron’s points come from the line.
I think I explained what I meant in a comment above.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
its funny that those are an “off” night for him. Those are CRAZY numbers. The man is the king on that court.
A lot of people are afraid of heights. Not me, I'm afraid of widths --- Steven Wright
as i posted above, baron davis could do that (minus the rebounds) with the same efficiency.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 25, 2010 9:20 AM EDT up reply actions
Beside being an absurd and unsupported statement — tell me when Baron Davis had a series of games in the playoffs that good (you can’t because Davis never makes the playoffs) — what is even funnier about this is the “minus the rebounds” part. You don’t appear to know much about basketball . . .
by TheDriveStillHurts on May 25, 2010 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions
what is even funnier about this is the "minus the rebounds" part. You don’t appear to know much about basketball . . .
says the person who forgot when the warriors, led by BARON DAVIS beat the Mavs as an 8 seed in the 2007 playoffs. coincidentally, Davis was far more efficient than james and put up totals almost as high.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 25, 2010 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions
You should look up the definition of hyperbole. Davis “never makes the playoffs” was a hyperbolic statement. Yes, he made the playoffs a few times in his career, but not often and I think that Warriors team was the only time he made it to the 2nd round even.
by TheDriveStillHurts on May 25, 2010 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions
now you are pulling stuff out of your ass worse than I sometimes do.
-Baron Davis has been to the playoffs 6 times.
-Before he was with the warriors, he made it to the conference semis twice.
-Baron Davis DID have a series where he was as good as lebron was this year in the playoffs.
-With the warriors in 2007, he shot over 50% from the field, over 37% from beyond the arc. He had a Player Efficiency Rating of about 27 compared to lebrons 28.6
-If you go to the exact series that Davis was playing in and compare his nba.com efficiency rating to lebrons per minute, they are similar.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
-Baron Davis DID have a series where he was as good as lebron was this year in the playoffs.
This statement does not take into account the defensive talent or the defensive strategy of the other team.
You yourself have said the Celts are playing some all-time-level defense. Did Baron play against the Celts or someone as good/better/worse when he had a series in which the raw numbers say he was as good as LeBron?
Was the other team concerned with stopping Baron, or were they letting him go 1-on-1 and living/dying with whatever Baron did? The Celtics were certainly out to take the ball out of LeBron’s hands and live/die with the supporting cast of the Cavs.
I am not sure if I have issues with your larger point, but this support bullet is particularly shaky.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Going to the conference semis 3 times over an 11 year career is not a lot of playoff experience (with two of those semis in a very, very weak Eastern Conference in the early 2000’s). Missing the playoffs half your career, and never getting to a conference finals, let alone an NBA finals, is very, very little playoff experience in my humble opinion.
by TheDriveStillHurts on May 25, 2010 6:01 PM EDT up reply actions
46 games is plenty of playoff experience. you also can’t fault a guy for not making the playoffs when the team around him was terrible.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 26, 2010 9:43 AM EDT up reply actions
Not blaming him. Just stating a fact. And I guess I have different ideas of what playoff experience in the NBA is than you.
by TheDriveStillHurts on May 26, 2010 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions
what? baron davis? he never played in th eastern conference. is it his fault that the GM of the warriors doesn’t know what he is doing? is it his fault that he is now on a crappy tea where he expectedthem to resign elton brand?
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Bross — I know you just started watching sports a year or two ago, but Baron Davis spent the first half of his career in the Eastern Conference for a team called the Charlotte Hornets.
You don’t know what you are talking about.
by TheDriveStillHurts on May 26, 2010 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions
I know you just started watching sports a year or two ago,
I love how everone knows me so well…I started watching sports a year or two ago? I have been watching sports since I was 4. thats when i went to my first browns game.
I have been watcing basketball since about 2000…even before lebron. I just forgot the New Orleans hornets used to be in charlotte…my bad man, and I didn’t know I was talking about there.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I started watching sports a year or two ago? I have been watching sports since I was 4.
You’re only six? I had always assumed you were eight or nine. Maybe ten.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on May 26, 2010 6:32 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Wow Bross, you made me feel old by saying: “I just forgot the New Orleans hornets used to be in charlotte…”. Ever heard of Muggsy Bogues, Alonzo Mourning, or Larry Johnson?
For the love of Joe Thomas.....
by North Coast Flea on May 29, 2010 1:32 AM EDT up reply actions
So did I, plus the gel ones that exploded and leaked out the back.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
Same here.
Ugliest shoes I ever owned though were the Jason Kidds.
by Bernie19Kosar on May 30, 2010 2:24 AM EDT up reply actions
WOW, Muggsy, ZO, and GrandmaMa… brings me back.
Who will be my role model, now that my role model is gone?
by Brownie's Year on May 30, 2010 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions
You are constantly ignoring half of the game. Coincidentally, that half if the half around which Boston is built to win now and Detroit was built to win in the early 00s.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I haven’t been ignoring defense. i even mentioned that we had a role player make the 2nd all-defensive team. Cleveland is built around defense, which is why it should be easier for us to win without a second superstar. our discussion has been centered around the cavs lack of a number two option to pick up the slack when lebron has a bad night.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 24, 2010 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions
my point being, neither one of us were discussing defense, so why single me out as ignoring it?
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 24, 2010 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions
You ignored the Celtics’ defensive job on LeBron/their version of talent. The Celtics are built on being able to win their individual defensive matchups, which they easily can vs every member of the Cavs with the exception of LeBron. Knowing that, they were able to focus all 5 guys on stopping LeBron. When LeBron made the right basketball move (which was passing) we were screwed.
When considering defense—or at least matchups—the Celtics out-talent the Cavs by a landslide. Rondo locked down whichever of our guards he wanted. No one on the team could score on KG or Perkins. No one on the Cavs could defend KG, and as a team we couldn’t defend Allen and Rondo at the same time.
The Pistons had 4 players that could/should have been first team all-D. Yet, you see them as “not superstars” because as a group they weren’t flashy offensively. All of them except maybe Sheed were defensive superstars.
Lastly, when considering Mo and Jamison as supporting cast material, you ignored their inability to guard playoff-caliber players at their positions.
The Cavs are only half built around defense. Mike Brown was a defensive-minded coach, but there were maybe 2 players who could play the kind of D he wanted to play. The roster construction seemed to favor shooting over defense.
A second fiddle to LeBron would surely have to be able to defend, much like Pau in LA, or whichever of the Celtics guys you want to call #2. If we had another Cavs player average 25 in the Celtics series, it wouldn’t have mattered if they couldn’t have guarded anyone. The discussion has centered on the talent/lack thereof around LeBron, and any discussion of talent has to include a discussion of defense.
That is why I am singling you out for ignoring defense.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Many of these points are fair. But there’s still no excuse for the lackadaisical, uninspired basketball the Cavs were playing. There’s no reason the offense should have been run through Shaq to start games. We shouldn’t have been so offensively inept as to run our Mike Brown playoff offense that entails LeBron vs. five. We should have made personnel changes to mitigate the mismatches.
Mark Jackson, I think, said at one point during the series, if the Cavs are going to be doing their dancing and clowning all season long, they have to continue it into the playoffs; that’s who they are, that’s part of their identity. Instead, we got a Cavs team that experienced a bit of adversity and totally clammed up and froze. They were virtually unrecognizable. I’m not buying that it was self-evident that the Celtics were just better. I didn’t think that before the series with Boston started, and I don’t believe that now. They are good, don’t get me wrong, but we got totally out worked and out classed.
by Western Reserve on May 24, 2010 8:03 PM EDT up reply actions
When i watch the Cavs play (haven’t watched them as much as most here), i always think of Lebron’s high school team (obviously better talent). I always get the vibe that they come across as Lebron and a bunch of guys happy to be playing with him.
Throughout the Boston series I never got the impression that they truly felt like they were championship caliber players. They just didn’t seem to have that confidence that championship teams seem to have.
The only time they even approach this is their clowning around in the regular season, which was probably masking their lack of championship material.
Not sure if that made any sense.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
I entirely agree with what Jackson said and have been saying it myself for at least one year. I bet I have logged at least one comment at FTS saying so. Be you. If you are serious and try to lighten up for the playoffs, you won’t do as well as you could. If you are loose and fun, don’t tighten up or you’ll get similar results.
Don’t get me wrong—Mike Brown was a big problem in my eyes. It isn’t that he is a bad coach per se, he just didn’t properly use what he had, he never was good offensively, and he was pretty bad at making real-time adjustments. Brown can really only coach one way, and his philosophy didn’t match up with his roster. I actually would have loved to see the LeBron-on-5 offense in this series, but we kept doing stupid things like trying to make Shaq look like he was 29 again.
But that is kind of my point: Shaq and the rest of the Cavs are not really all that good. I like Varejao, West when he is emotionally there, Hickson as a developing guy, and a few of the other guys as role players. But it is still the same story: LeBron and a bunch of guys who just aren’t great.
The Celtics were clearly better, especially if you take into account their relative defensive strengths: Jamison can’t guard KG, KG scored at will on Jamison. Shaq could probably play Perkins to a draw. Mo couldn’t hope to stay with Allen or Rondo, and he could only score on them for one 15 minute stretch. Parker did an OK defensive job on whoever he was on, but really couldn’t score at all, so he doesn’t win his matchup either. This sort of thing continues down the roster with the glaring exception of James, who made Pierce look like Maurice Evans.
I thought we were better before the series started, but I didn’t realize how much the Celtics had been sandbagging/injured. They are playing better now than any time since they got KG/Allen.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I think what you are missing in the defensive discussion is team defense. the cavs play a system that isn’t necessarily geared towards individual match-ups. The team as a whole failed defensively, you can only place so much blame on a player for the poor defense.
but i agree mo williams couldn’t hope to guard rondo or allen.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 25, 2010 9:23 AM EDT up reply actions
the cavs play a system that isn’t necessarily geared towards individual match-ups.
Because it can’t be—and really neither can any team in the NBA’s be. Boston plays team D too, and each of them being better individual defenders (Pierce aside) it would seem that they would have more potential for playing better team D, no? They certainly did a good job at taking away the Cavs’ #1 option.
I think this is magnified when you can force the ball out of LeBron’s hands by playing 5-on-1, and then know you can guard the other guys essentially 1-on-1 and have done a good job defensively. (i.e. magnified by the lack of offensive matchup-winners on the Cavs).
My point about Mo there was that if he can’t hope to stay with Rondo or Allen but we can focus more team D resources on helping him, it might be advantageous to still have him on the court if he could win his matchup on the other end of the court.
If Mo can put more stress on Boston’s D to help than he puts on our D by needing help, that’s advantageous for us.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
again, all fair points. but i was not the only one ignoring defense. It’s unfair of you to call me out specifically for something TDSH was doing as well. he claimed the lakers supporting cast was better than the cavs. while that is certainly true offensively, last I checked the cavs played better team defense. and the numbers back me up.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 24, 2010 10:23 PM EDT up reply actions
I think Bynum and Shaq play each other to a draw in that series.
I think Pau scores on Jamison with the same ease that KG did, while Jamison does better than he did against KG but not good enough to outplay Pau.
I think Kobe dominates his matchup and LeBron his. I think neither Parker nor Artest can score very much against Kobe/Bron, but I do think Artest guards Bron better than Parker guards Kobe.
I think Mo scores on Fisher/Farmar/Brown, but I also think all 3 can score on Mo.
The Lakers win more with O than with D, but you still win games by scoring more than your opponent: outscoring someone implies at least holding their scoring under your own. Looking at the way they match up, I’d still say the Lakers’ supporting cast is better than the Cavs’, taking defense into account. I don’t see how I should call someone out for leaving defense out of the equation when I agree with their answer and they don’t show their work.
On the other hand, I disagreed with your conclusions about the Pistons, about our overall talent level vs. the Celtics, and about your consideration of Mo, Shaq, and Antawn as “second stars” or “All-Stars” or championship-caliber 2nd options/supporting cast specifically because of a lack of consideration of defense.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
you’re forgetting bench players in your matchups. Odom is the best bench player in the series, but thats all they have off the bench. Andy, JJ, and Delonte are all players that could start for other teams coming off our bench. Cleveland was widely regarded as having a superior bench to almost any team they played, especially the lakers.
I still don’t see how you can call me out for not mentioning defense. its like if two people were debating whether brady quinn or derek anderson was more accurate, and you come along and call someone out for not mentioning that derek anderson isn’t mobile. It’s not what we were talking about.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 25, 2010 9:27 AM EDT up reply actions
Odom is the best bench player in the series
And Odom is better than anyone on the Cavs not named LeBron. So what’s your point?
by TheDriveStillHurts on May 25, 2010 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions
my point is 3 people don’t win a series. 8-9 guys play every night. it doesn’t matter if your top three are the best if your next 5 are outclassed consistently.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 25, 2010 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions
I disagree. The extent to which your top-3 are better and the extent to which the next 5 are outclassed matter in a huge way.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
i think the difference in the top three is close enough and the difference in the next 5 is large enough that the series is at least close.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 26, 2010 9:44 AM EDT up reply actions
Odom is the most up and down player in the NBA.
by Bernie19Kosar on May 25, 2010 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, I don’t know about “the most”, but he is definitely up and down. Too much candy before the game, apparently. And he just does not have the drive that the great ones have — if he did, he’d be right up there with them given his natural talent (of course, that statement is worthless; if the queen had balls, she’d be the king).
by TheDriveStillHurts on May 25, 2010 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions
I meant to add that this does not detract from my larger point. Odom — up and down he is — is still better than anyone on the Cavs (excepting the obvious).
by TheDriveStillHurts on May 25, 2010 5:38 PM EDT up reply actions
I would take Jamison over Odom every day of the week.
by Bernie19Kosar on May 25, 2010 6:08 PM EDT up reply actions
I am pretty sure most NBA GM’s would disagree, but that does not mean they (or I) are right.
by TheDriveStillHurts on May 25, 2010 6:26 PM EDT up reply actions
And you’d probably be watching the playoffs at home right now.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
What makes Odom so much better than Jamison?
by Bernie19Kosar on May 25, 2010 10:52 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m not saying Odom is so much better than Jamison. You said you would take Jamison over Odom everyday of the week.
I don’t think Jamison is that great of a player that I would take him over Odom 7 out of 7 times.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
I think Jamison is much more versatile than Odom.
by Bernie19Kosar on May 25, 2010 11:43 PM EDT up reply actions
My brother and I believe it depends on the amount of weed that he consumes before the game.
by Bernie19Kosar on May 25, 2010 6:08 PM EDT up reply actions
I am pretty sure it’s the candy, and the coffee also. Not a joke, by the way. Guy is weird. I don’t think he smokes pot.
by TheDriveStillHurts on May 25, 2010 6:25 PM EDT up reply actions
He was suspended in 2001, for weed.
I’m not coming down on you, I just like to laugh at Lamar Odom.
by Bernie19Kosar on May 25, 2010 6:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Yikes — guess I was wrong about that one. Still think it’s the candy and coffee.
by TheDriveStillHurts on May 25, 2010 6:53 PM EDT up reply actions
but its not like Marijuana is a PED
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLTYwDTxxCw
I gotta give him props for finding the court if he is coming to games stoned.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I wish i could find a link to the video they showed about the Lakers season this year. They had a quote from Odom saying he needs kobe to tell him he can do it or something like that.
Lack of motivation = pot head.
Marrying a kardsahainawhatever = crack head.
Reggie and Ray J should have taught him you don’t have to buy the cow when you get the milk for free.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
1. Playoff rotations are probably 8-9 guys. The Lakers can bring Farmar and Brown off the bench, who can match up favorably with West. Odom matches up favorably with Varejao sometimes, and even with Varejao when he has a down night. But it really doesn’t matter because any time the Lakers would have felt thretened, they could have just went to their starters and been better. Even if we play Delonte 30 mins/night and he outplays Farmar, they can go to Kobe for half of those minutes and win the matchup.
Also, I think talking about the Lakers specifically is a little useless because I think they get sent home in 5 by the Celts.
2. I don’t understand how this is at all analogous to your DA/BQ situation. The larger issue at hand is the relative strengths of the supporting casts of the Cavs now vs. the other good teams right now and former champions, is it not?
Defense must factor in to any discussion about the relative strengths of rosters/players.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Also, I think talking about the Lakers specifically is a little useless because I think they get sent home in 5 by the Celts.
The reason I used the Lakers are two-fold: 1) I am a fan and am obviously most familiar with their team, but more importantly (I think) is (2) the Lakers organization seems to have a recipe for how to build a contender — they’ve been consistently doing it since I can remember. They are not afraid to get rid of guys that are really, really good (eg Eddie Jones, Nick Van Exel, even Shaq), if they feel that they are not the right fit.
And about the Celtics beating the Lakers in 5, I see the logic, but my heart says otherwise. We’ll see — it will be humiliating if that happens though.
by TheDriveStillHurts on May 25, 2010 5:41 PM EDT up reply actions
I think for the Celtics to win in 5 Rondo is going to have to play out of his mind. That’s where I see the big advantage for the Celtics being except for the fact that Rondo is going to be going into the lane at Bynum and Gasol.
Pierce, Allen and Kobe and Artest (defense), Odom (offense), I think can go either way.
I think KG and Gasol will go back and forth as well.
I’m thinking whoever guards Bynum out of the Celtics big men should do a winning job because they aren’t soft.
Actually now that I think about it, I’d probably put Perkins and Davis having a good rebounding and offensive series up with Rondo as having a big impact on the series.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
Rondo played great against the Lakers in the 08 finals. But this may be premature talk — no guarantee that the Lakers get past the Suns (especially with what is going on right now).
by TheDriveStillHurts on May 25, 2010 11:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Boston will force Kobe to give up the ball or shoot ridiculous fadeaways with two defenders on him.
He will sink these in one game, and LA will win.
No one else on LA will be able to score.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Not even Gasol? I think when it gets to the Finals (if it gets to the Finals) that Kobe and Gasol will be able to play together to create some trouble for the Celtics. Regardless of what anyone says about Kobe i think is goal has always been to win championships (because he knows that’s the only way he can compare to Jordan, but that’s besides the point) and that he will do whatever he must to attain that goal.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
I was joking. They’ll be able to score. I just think they will look a lot worse offensively against the Celtics, and they won’t be able to score enough.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Ahh, i’m a bit bross right now.
I keed, sorry bross, you can take some free swings at me.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
The larger issue at hand is the relative strengths of the supporting casts of the Cavs now vs. the other good teams right now and former champions, is it not?
that may be the larger issue, but it isn’t what this discussion started out as. this started out as me saying a second super-star wasn’t a necessity to win a championship.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 26, 2010 9:47 AM EDT up reply actions
He didn’t forget bench players. Brown and Farmar come off the bench.
Cavs = Varejao, West, Hickson
Lakers = Odom, Farmar, Brown
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
this is why I’m confused on you singling me out for not mentioning defense. The cavs defense has typically been very good, even with players you would expect to lose an individual matchup, because they play good team defense. just like in football, a well organized team overcomes physical limitations. because of this, when TDSH said,
He had and has had zero help, and had to carry the teamI assumed we were discussing offense, because defense was only a problem against one team for about 5 games.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 25, 2010 10:01 AM EDT up reply actions
defense was only a problem against one team for about 5 games
Ugh. What 5 games were those? And when were those? You can’t win a championships if you “only have a problem” with defense against the team you play in the 2nd round of the playoffs for FIVE games.
by TheDriveStillHurts on May 25, 2010 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions
listen to yourself. you’re saying we should ignore years of great defense because of 5 games.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 25, 2010 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions
No, we should ignore years of good defense against inferior teams because of a pattern of defensive ineptitude against the quality teams in the league.
If the Cavs want to win championships, they don’t need to compete with the Nets or the Pacers, they need to compare favorably against the top teams in the league. And they don’t.
Don’t lump me in with someone else’s argument about LeBron having “no” help. As I have said, there are pieces there who could play on a championship team.
He needs another guy who is better than everyone else on the Cavs and can win his matchup against every team. Or two guys who can combine to fulfill that role.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Don’t lump me in with someone else’s argument about LeBron having "no" help
let me explain why I’m doing this. TDSH said lebron had “zero” help. I said he had a good amount of help, even enough to win a championship if they caught some breaks. you jumped in and said i was wrong. I never said they couldn’t use more help, I said it was ridiculous to claim that lebron has zero help. you disagreed with me.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 26, 2010 9:53 AM EDT up reply actions
Mike Brown forgot about the Celtics.
Our lineups in that series were idiotic.
Shaq was brought in to guard Howard and maybe Bynum. He shouldn’t have been playing more than 5 minutes/game before then.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Agree with this. I liked the Shaq trade because it was a matchup move for Orlando and LA. He was not used correctly, but the injury at the end of the season kind of messed things up.
Shaq had no business being on the floor against Boston. I just wish someone would have told the coach.
by Bernie19Kosar on May 24, 2010 5:25 PM EDT up reply actions
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Paul Pierce was non-existent for most of the series with the cavs.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 25, 2010 9:28 AM EDT up reply actions
That’s because he was being guarded by LeBron.
by Buckeye Brad on May 25, 2010 10:29 AM EDT up reply actions
but “the Paul Pierce of old” destroyed lebron’s defense two years ago in game seven.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 26, 2010 9:54 AM EDT up reply actions
point being, Pierce isn’t playing at his old level.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 26, 2010 9:54 AM EDT up reply actions
But LeBron’s defense is much, much better than it was two years ago. There’s a reason he was First Team All-Defense this year.
by Buckeye Brad on May 26, 2010 10:44 AM EDT up reply actions
fair enough.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 26, 2010 10:51 AM EDT up reply actions
You’re shocked by the Celtics play? Did you look at their line-up? I agree they are playing better than they have since their series against the Lakers in 2008, but it is not “shocking” to see a team with that kind of talent make this kind of run. I think a lot of you are new to basketball — the regular season is overrated. The Lakers pulled the same thing for their second and third championship in the Shaq/Kobe years. The Rockets in their second championship in the 90’s did it. Even the Bulls in the late 90’s would sleep through some of the regular season (in their 3rd championship season for example). There is nothing shocking about the Celtics going to the NBA finals this year. Nothing.
by TheDriveStillHurts on May 25, 2010 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t know if “shocking” is the right word, but it’s definitely surprsing. The regular season is not overrated. In the NBA, the best teams from the regular season advance in the playoffs more regularly than in any other league. We’ve had a long discussion about this already on this site. It’s very rare that a team can play halfway through the regular season then all of sudden “turn it on” in the playoffs. For the Celtics, I think it was more of a case of them all being healthy for the first time in months rather than them playing harder or trying more.
John Hollinger has a great article (Insider required) analyzing whether an NBA team can suddenly play much better in the playoffs, and the short answer is that it’s very rare. Here’s the operative stat — in the past 50 years, only SIX teams who placed 4th or worse in their conference made the NBA Finals, and only two of them won the title. Six in 50 years (in the article he breaks down each team and why it happened). So the fact is that what the Celtics are doing is in fact very unusual and the vast majority of the time the better regular season team will win in the NBA playoffs.
Unfortunately for the Cavs, they ran in to a bad matchup with the Magic last year and a hot Celtics team this year that was playing much better than their record. I firmly believe that if the Cavs played the Celtics last year instead of the Magic in the Eastern Finals they would have won rather easily, and if the Cavs played the Magic this year instead of the Celtics they would have faired much better. They were built this year to beat the Magic, not Boston, and that hurt them against the Celtics because Brown didn’t adjust.
But, what the Celtics are doing is very rare and shouldn’t be expected to happen often.
by Buckeye Brad on May 25, 2010 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions
this is how i feel about the way boston is playing. they’re playing like the big 3 are all about 5 years younger. its not too surprising, but it certainly shouldn’t have been anticipated. as has been discussed before, I think if mike brown goes small and tries to run them out of the building the cavs fair much better. of course, that doesn’t help the fact that pretty much everyone, including lebron, played some pretty terrible games.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 25, 2010 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions
A lineup with LeBron, Andy, Mo, Jamario/Delonte/Parker, and Jamison/Hickson would have been very effective, IMO.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Mike Brown had ZERO idea how to attack the Celts.
Everytime he went small, the Cavs made a run. So instead of sticking with a lineup like yours, he used Shaq and Z?
Game 3 (Cavs blowout win): Andy and JJ combined for almost 33 minutes. Shaq and Z combined for 22 minutes, Z getting 0.
In game 3 the Cavs ran like crazy and just outran the Celts. Perkins was totally erased (5 points, 2 rebounds) because he was getting GASHED by the faster Cavs. Doc had to sit him because he couldn’t keep up. He had to go to Fat Baby Davis.
So instead of keeping this attack up, Brown decides to slow things down and play Shaq and Z (they combined for 40 minutes in game 5) instead of going with Andy, Jamison, LeBron, Parker and Mo.
I don’t like saying “the coach is an idiot” type stuff, but sometimes the shoe fits. We lost because Doc Rivers exploited matchups. The Cavs had the most talented roster in the league. They should have crushed the Celts, but with a coach who has no idea how to handle a playoff rotation, we were doomed.
by Bernie19Kosar on May 25, 2010 6:34 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t disagree. Mike Brown only wanted to/knows how to/believes in slow, defensive-minded basketball. We were not going to out-defend the Celtics and probably were better off attacking them before their D was set.
I do disagree that the Cavs have the most talented roster in the league, unless you are counting LeBron’s talents as so much better than everyone else’s that they make up for the lack of a 2nd man (which might be accurate).
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
We had size up front. We had secondary scorers (Jamison was very underutilized). We had the NBA’s best defender (LeBron). This team was freaking stacked.
The only weakness of this team was good PGs killed us. Even a PG playing out of his mind should not have beaten this team unless the Cavs shot themselves in the foot.
by Bernie19Kosar on May 25, 2010 9:43 PM EDT up reply actions
If you were the Celtics, Lakers, Magic, or the Suns who besides Lebron would you take off of the Cavs team if you had to give up someone on your roster at that same position.
Maybe Varejao for Davis, West for Allen if you’re the Celtics
Mo if you’re the Lakers, I guess you could do Jamison for Artest, though they’re playing different positions.
West for Reddick, Jamison over Barnes, again different postions, Varejao for bench scraps.
Shaq for Lopez? Squeeze Jamison for Hill (positions) Dudley, Frye Barbosa for West and Varejao?
I think Lebron makes the Cavs roster look a lot better than it really is.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
There isn’t a better bench big man on those teams better than Andy.
by Bernie19Kosar on May 25, 2010 10:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Andy is very, very underrated. He’s one of the best defensive players in the NBA, and his offense has improved over the past few years (although he really benefits from playing with LeBron and getting easy shots, but he knows when to be in the right place).
by Buckeye Brad on May 25, 2010 10:57 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s why I put him in there for all the teams except the Lakers.
I don’t know if I would lose Odom for Varejao though. Odom fits what the Lakers are trying to do. If anything I would consider those two a wash.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
I agree with this, but he’s a BENCH BIG MAN. Not an all star, a second star, a potential HoFer, and despite the fact that he can defend very well, he can’t score so it makes it hard for him to outplay the other PF.
I would take whoever you think is 2nd best among KG, Pierce, Allen, and Rondo over anyone on the Cavs besides LeBron. I will take Pau over anyone on the Cavs besides LeBron.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Andy could easily be a starter for many teams, and he’s started many games for the Cavs. He’s certainly not a star player but he’s very valuable. I don’t think Bernie was saying that he’s an All-Star player or that he’s at Gasol’s level.
by Buckeye Brad on May 25, 2010 11:33 PM EDT up reply actions
The Cavs had the most talented roster in the league.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Uhhh . . how does that mean Andy is better than Gasol? I’m not agreeing with him, but he’s comparing the entire team not two players.
by Buckeye Brad on May 25, 2010 11:45 PM EDT up reply actions
Villeslgr’s point was that we don’t have many players that other teams would trade for their players straight up, and that many of the guys other teams would take are bench guys/4th/5th guys on the team.
Bernie counters by saying Andy is better than Odom.
How does that give us the most talented roster in the league?
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
The Cavs are a unique team because of the talents of LeBron. They have one great player surrounded by a lot of very good players who can do certain things well, but they don’t have a great 2nd player (as we’ve discussed). So other teams may have better 2nd and 3rd players than the Cavs, but that doesn’t mean their whole roster is better. The Cavs’ strength is their very good depth and they can play many different lineups depending on the matchup. Unfortunately, Brown didn’t use that in the playoffs.
He’s saying that from top to bottom the Cavs are better than any other team, not just the top 4 or top 5. That’s how it can happen.
by Buckeye Brad on May 25, 2010 11:57 PM EDT up reply actions
I think the problem was that what rufio quoted is what Bernie posted first and what i replied to.
He then responded with the Andy comment. I’m not really sure what that was meant to convey because i had already mentioned varejao in my assessment.
It just seems weird bringing up the best bench big man when other team having better starting, playing big men.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
Andy comes off the bench because the Cavs want it that way, not because he’s not one of their top 5 players. Just like when Ginobli was coming off the bench for the Spurs or Jamal Crawford coming off the bench for the Hawks. It’s about the minutes they play, not who starts.
That’s my only point — just because he comes off the bench doesn’t mean he’s not a starting-caliber player.
by Buckeye Brad on May 25, 2010 11:53 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s fair and also goes for football, but I still would take Pau over Andy and whoever #2 is on the Celtics over Andy.
I don’t think he is better than other championship caliber teams’ best big men, so I don’t see how he can count toward proving our roster is better top to bottom.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I am comparing starters to starters, bench to bench. Hence me saying Andy is better than any bench big man left.
I would take West over Farmar.
I would take Mo over Fisher.
I would take Jamison over Artest.
I would take Shaq over Bynum (I think Bynum is an injury prone, over rated chump.)
I would take Jamison over Lewis.
I would take Andy over Gortat.
I would take West over Jason Williams (who is an a*shole as well.)
I would take Jamison over Hill.
I would take Shaq over Lopez.
I would take Andy over anyone.
I would take West over Barbosa.
I would take Andy over Baby Davis and Rasheed.
I would take West and Moon over Tony Allen.
by Bernie19Kosar on May 26, 2010 12:00 AM EDT up reply actions
Maybe Varejao for Davis, West for Allen if you’re the Celtics
Mo if you’re the Lakers, I guess you could do Jamison for Artest, though they’re playing different positions.
West for Reddick, Jamison over Barnes, again different postions, Varejao for bench scraps.
Shaq for Lopez? Squeeze Jamison for Hill (positions) Dudley, Frye Barbosa for West and Varejao
You just said what I said.
For the Celtics you’re left with
Rondo
Garnett
Pierce
Allen
Perkins
against
Shaq
Jamison
Mo
Lebron
Parker
Take Lebron and whoever you consider the best Celtic player off the teams and i’d take the Celtics starting 4 easily.
Lakers
Kobe
Gasol
Bynum
Artest
Fisher
Parker
Lebron
Shaq
Williams
Jamison
Again remove Kobe and Shaq.
This is getting to long, but basically my point like i said above is that Lebron makes the Cavs look alot better than they are. Not that the Cavs are not good.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
I stand by it.
It doesn’t mean that Andy is as good as Pau.
It means that 1-15 the Cavs were better than every other team. The had the tools to give any team they came across match up issues.
We had size. We had length. We had outside shooting. That too me is better than every other team in the NBA.
Too bad we had a boob for a coach who couldn’t figure that out.
by Bernie19Kosar on May 25, 2010 11:47 PM EDT up reply actions
We had a better #1 player than every other team. We didn’t have a better #2 player than any playoff team left. Or #3. Maybe 4 and on.
Mike Brown played stupid lineups, sure. But if he had played good lineups we would have been in better shape because LeBron is a superhuman alien un-Joe-Thomas-pancakeable freak, and not because of #2-5.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
When you have the worlds greatest player, you don’t need to have the second, third or even fourth best player.
That is how good LeBron is.
This series loss is on Mike Brown. Not the roster.
by Bernie19Kosar on May 26, 2010 12:02 AM EDT up reply actions
When you have the worlds greatest player, you don’t need to have the second, third or even fourth best player.
You do if you want to possess the better overall roster, which you claimed we did.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Not really. What if, in a series, the Cavs had the best player, another team had the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th best player, but the Cavs had the 5th through 9th best players? Then the players were mostly even after that. Wouldn’t the Cavs have the better overall roster?
Not saying this is true for any particular situation, just showing how it’s possible.
by Buckeye Brad on May 26, 2010 12:31 AM EDT up reply actions
Not in my mind, they wouldn’t. You would have to have a dominant 4 and 5, and I think the level of parity in the NBA after the 1s ans 2s is such that if you are that good a 4 or 5, you are really a 2 or 3 so you can’t be that good a 4 or 5.
I mis-typed anyway, he said “top to bottom”, which I take to mean we would possess the superior player at every slot 1-15.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I mis-typed anyway, he said "top to bottom", which I take to mean we would possess the superior player at every slot 1-15.
I don’t think that’s what he means at all. I’m pretty sure that he means that the sum of our team, 1-15, is better than the sum of their team, not that every player we have is superior to every player they have. I don’t think anyone would think that about the Cavs.
by Buckeye Brad on May 26, 2010 12:39 AM EDT up reply actions
The that’s fine and debatable. To say we were better at every slot is incredibly ridiculous.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Which is why I’m pretty sure that’s not what he meant.
by Buckeye Brad on May 26, 2010 12:49 AM EDT up reply actions
Then he should say what he means.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I think he did; you just interpreted it differently than he meant. That happens sometimes, and it’s nothing to get all upset about.
by Buckeye Brad on May 26, 2010 1:04 AM EDT up reply actions
The only reason I am upset is because you are not listening to anything I am saying.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I’m sorry you feel that way, but I am. I’m just confused by what exactly your point is below.
by Buckeye Brad on May 26, 2010 1:20 AM EDT up reply actions
Here:
If you look at the roster, top to bottom, the Cavs had the best roster in the league.
I am talking about the total sum of a roster. Not 1 vs. 1, 2 vs. 2, etc. That would be an All-Star team.
by Bernie19Kosar on May 26, 2010 1:25 AM EDT up reply actions
he did.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 26, 2010 10:00 AM EDT up reply actions
And it certainly is possible. If a team only has 3 great players and a bunch of scrubs, then a team of LeBron and 5 or 6 very good players could be better than that team, even though the first team has the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th best players in the matchup. Which is what I’m saying.
by Buckeye Brad on May 26, 2010 12:42 AM EDT up reply actions
I advocated for:
Lebron-Rondo; West-Allen; Jamison-Pierce; Andy-KG; Shaq/Hickson/Z-Perkins.
Wouldn’t have made up for our lack of energy or interest though, of course.
by Western Reserve on May 26, 2010 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions
The regular season matters, but I don’t think it matters as much as guys like Hollinger or yourself would believe. For one, I think saying that “In the NBA, the best teams from the regular season advance in the playoffs more regularly than in any other league.” is not saying a whole lot.
The top 4 seeds in the East advanced, which I think is to be expected from both watching the games and from the numbers/correlations. But the 3 seed is dominating the East. I definitely see a stronger correlation between the NBA and the NFL, for instance, but I don’t think that should be reason for the 1 seed to always be expected to make it out. I thought it was pretty clear that it was going to be the Cavs, Magic, and Celtics in the east and it essentially played out that way.
I also think it was pretty clear just watching the Celtics this year that a few of them were sandbagging and a few of them weren’t healthy. I seem to remember LeBron and the Cavs publicly stating that they knew the Celtics would be good in the playoffs too.
I think not shocked but a little surprised is reasonable.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
For one, I think saying that "In the NBA, the best teams from the regular season advance in the playoffs more regularly than in any other league." is not saying a whole lot.
I’m not really sure what you mean, but the stats back up that argument (and so does pretty much every analyst I’ve read or heard). When we had the “baseball playoffs are mostly luck” discussion earlier, I posted number comparing the regular season ranks of teams who made the NBA Finals and the World Series, and it wasn’t even close — the NBA Final participates were almost always among the top 2 teams in the conference (and that’s even with an extra round of playoffs to go through). The WS often has a lower-seeded team (either the WC or the lowest division winner). The NHL playoffs is also very much about luck (and getting a “hot goalie”) — just look at the East this year which had the 7 v. 8 seed. And the NFL is also prone to upsets because of the single game elimination.
You don’t have to take my word for it, just look at the data Hollinger provides above. 6 times in 50 years a team outside the top 3 of the conference made the Finals. So, yes, it is very surprising when a team outside the top 3 makes it.
However, what this Celtics team is doing isn’t that shocking because they did win the title two years ago and they still have the core of that team there now. But they looked pretty mediocre over the last half of the season so there really wasn’t any way to expect this from them. I know most Boston fans and columnists that I read and heard weren’t expecting this.
by Buckeye Brad on May 25, 2010 5:56 PM EDT up reply actions
I believe like you that the Magic simply caught fire last year and beat us; luck did come in to play in that series. Despite what any regular season record may say, the Cavs and the Magic were on the same tier.
Maybe something strange happens during the regular season and the Bucks or Hawks approach the Cavs/Celtics/Magic regular season record. In my eyes, the Bucks and Hawks just aren’t on the same level as the Cavs or Magic, so even if the Bucks caught fire, they wouldn’t stand a chance in the series.
The regular season may correlate to the playoffs way more than in baseball, and the numbers you quote above seem to show that quite clearly. But this doesn’t mean that the best NBA teams always have the best regular season records, this means that the best NBA teams usually have one of the top 3 records in their conference.
I believe that the causality in determining regular season wins is different than the causality in determining playoff wins, and therefore while the two sets of wins may correlate—and may do so strongly—that there are reasons to believe in specific situations that the team with less regular season wins will win a playoff series or at least has a significant chance of doing so.
I also believe that luck comes in to play more in the playoff series as the two teams approach equally talented. Since equally talented ≠ same regular season win total, I see it as a fallacy to believe in a strict correlation of regular season wins → % chance of winning (i.e. +10 in the regular season = +10% chance of winning).
times in 50 years a team outside the top 3 of the conference made the Finals.
Exactly, outside of the top 3. It is not surprising when the 2nd best regular season team makes it. It is surprising when a terrible team makes it, and the terrible team usually has a much worse regular season record than the good teams.
So, yes, it is very surprising when a team outside the top 3 makes it.
First of all, 4 teams could hypothetically tie in the regular season and the team who lost all the tiebreakers making it would not be a surprise, so no.
But also, not this Celtics team, not for me anyway. The warning signs were there that said the Hawks would bomb. I thought it was clear that Boston was saving their best for the playoffs, the question was how much they were saving. The biggest question was probably KG. I thought it was pretty easy to see Boston dominating like they are if he was just finally getting healthy. I was a little surprised to see just how much they were saving and how healthy KG is, but not “very surprised” or “shocked”.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Exactly, outside of the top 3. It is not surprising when the 2nd best regular season team makes it. It is surprising when a terrible team makes it, and the terrible team usually has a much worse regular season record than the good teams.
I don’t understand what you’re saying. Nobody said it was a surprise when the team with the 2nd best regular season record makes it. Often times the top 2 teams are only seperated by a few games, and that is really insignificant. The 1st place team isn’t always better than the 2nd place team, but the 1st place team is almost always better than the 4th place team and that’s the point. The 4th place team beating the 1st and 2nd place team in one playoffs is very rare, which is what I’ve said all along. And I really don’t know what that last sentence means — that seems to be agreeing with everything that I’ve said.
First of all, 4 teams could hypothetically tie in the regular season and the team who lost all the tiebreakers making it would not be a surprise, so no.
Huh? It’s not surprising when the 4ht place team makes the Finals? It should be, because it rarely happens. And I have no idea what your hypothetical situation is supposed to prove and why it means my statement isn’t right. Hypothetically, all 8 teams in the playoffs could have the same record — what’s your point?
by Buckeye Brad on May 25, 2010 10:52 PM EDT up reply actions
The 4th best team, in this case, is not a terrible team. They happen to belong in the top tier in the East, DESPITE WHAT THE REGULAR SEASON RECORD SHOWS. If you would have told me the Hawks would beat Boston, Orlando, or Cleveland in the playoffs, I would have laughed at you.
the 1st place team is almost always better than the 4th place team
Key word: almost.
In this case, it was quite clear to me that the Hawks were not the 3rd best team in the East and that Boston, Cleveland, and Orlando were the class of the East. There were logical reasons to believe the Hawks were pretenders and the Celts were contenders.
________
Hypothetical situation:
Cavs, Celtics, Magic, Hawks all go 55-27. All teams are 6-6 against the other 3 teams.
Due to tiebreakers, the playoff seeding goes
1. Hawks
2. Celtics
3. Magic
4. Cavs
The Cavs—as the 4 seed—upset the Hawks and the Magic in the playoffs, en route to the finals.
This is a situation in which the 4 seed makes the finals, yet should not be considered a surprise AT ALL. in fact, none of those 4 teams winning the East should surprise anyone.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I don’t understand what you’re arguing here. Nobody said the Celtics were a terrible team. Almost everybody thought they belonged in the top tier of the East (but certainly behind Orlando and Cleveland). You’re arguing that the Celtics were better than the Hawks — what does that have to do with anything? Who said they weren’t? They were seperated by 3 games in the regular season, which is almost nothing.
You seem to be implying that I mean the 1st team is always better than the 2nd, and the 2nd is always better than the 3rd, and the 3rd is always better than the 4th, etc. But I never said anything like that. I don’t understand what you’re arguing about.
And I don’t see how your hypothetical situation has to do with anything — if 4 teams have the same record then they’re probably about the same level of team. Of course it shouldn’t be a surprise if any of them reached the Finals. But that didn’t happen this year — the Celtics were 11 games behind the Cavs and 9 games behind the Magic in the regular season, so your hypothetical situation isn’t relevant at all.
by Buckeye Brad on May 25, 2010 11:42 PM EDT up reply actions
I think what Rufio is saying is that those top 4 teams in the NBA are so much better than the other 4 seeds (not sure if this is true or the degree if so) that regardless of what they did in the regular season they are just that much better than the lower 4 seeds that they win their series.
The regular season matters, but it’s relevance is less because of the separation between the top 4 and the bottom 4.
Not sure if that’s a correct interpretation.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
The point is that teams with the same or similar records are necessarily seeded by whole numbers.
If two teams are lights out, 65+ win teams and the rest of the conference is floating around .500, it would be reasonable to expect those two teams to succeed in the playoffs—if regular season wins = %chance for reaching the NBA finals (which I am not conceding as true but we can assume for this argument).
In a situation where the top 4 teams are separated by just a few wins (or in this case, 0 wins), any of them beating another shouldn’t be surprising.
Even if regular season W-L matters, a small amount of games shouldn’t matter. What is one regular season game in the NBA? How many games were the stars injured/resting? Were any mid-season trades made that made an impact on W-L records for some teams but not others? Did someone have a really oddly good or bad shooting night?
If 4 losses separate the 1-4 seeds, should we really be surprised if the 4 beats the 1?
I don’t think so, therefore seeds in and of themselves do not matter to me.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
In a situation where the top 4 teams are separated by just a few wins (or in this case, 0 wins), any of them beating another shouldn’t be surprising.
Nobody is saying this! Obviously if the 1 seed has 65 wins and the 4 seed has 50 wins then you expect the 1 seed to win almost all the time, but if the 1 seed has 58 wins and the 4 seed has 54 wins then there probably isn’t much difference between them. You’re taking all this way, way too literally. Of course those are two different situations and should be looked at differently, and I never said otherwise.
And of course this like injuries, trades, etc. can affect how a team’s playing. Again, I thought that was obvious and didn’t need to be said. You’re arguing against nobody here.
You’re treating all this as if it’s absolutes, and it’s not. I wrote more below, so I’m not doing to repeat myself here, but when the facts show that a 4th seed or lower has only made the Finals SIX times in 50 years then, yes, it’s a very unusual situation and shouldn’t be expected to happen often. That’s all Hollinger is saying. Facts don’t lie. I don’t really understand what you’re arguing against here.
by Buckeye Brad on May 26, 2010 12:27 AM EDT up reply actions
So, yes, it is very surprising when a team outside the top 3 makes it.
The fact that is doesn’t happen often doesn’t necessarily make it surprising when it does.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
It should be surprising that the Celtics are playing that well, because they didn’t show it for most of the regular season. But it isn’t greatly surprising.
And, yes, if something happens only 6% of the time then it should be surprising when it happens. And it shouldn’t be expected to happen very often in the future.
by Buckeye Brad on May 26, 2010 12:45 AM EDT up reply actions
False.
I have seen a solar eclipse.
Solar eclipses have occurred in my location on <1% of the days I have been alive.
Yet, the eclipse wasn’t surprising. We had learned about it in school, we had taken a field trip to the museum to learn about it, we were completely prepared, waiting with our special glasses and our pinhole camera obscuras.
It was certainly rare, but not at all surprising.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Oh come on . . . you know that’s not even close to the same thing. Why are you doing this? What exactly are you trying to prove?
My birthday happens only 0.27% of the days of the year, but every August 16th my birthday happens so it’s never suprising when it occurs, either.
Obviously these are both different situations than what we’re talking about above. You and I both know that.
by Buckeye Brad on May 26, 2010 1:02 AM EDT up reply actions
Its exactly the same thing! I am trying to prove that the statement that you made is incorrect. Rare ≠ surprising would have been a meaningful part of what I have been saying if you would have been willing to listen.
So instead of admitting you were incorrect in what you said—or in a best case, you didn’t say what you meant, you come after me like I am some drive-by cleveland.com poster.
These may have been different points than what you were talking about above, but not what I was talking about. Boston winning (and Atlanta losing in embarrasing fashion) was not very surprising to me because they were a more talented team than their regular season record would otherwise indicate (and vice versa). It was rare that they did upset the 1 and the 2 as the 4 seed. Not surprising. Rare.
In the same exact way that your birthday and the solar eclipse were not at all surprising, but rare.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
No, that’s not even close to the same thing. Solar eclipses and birthdays are PLANNED events. How is that anything like the outcome of a playoff series, which cannot be determined ahead of time?
Maybe Boston winning and Atlanta losing weren’t surprising to you, but they weren’t planned events and they weren’t guarenteed to happen. Cleveland could have beaten Boston and Atlanta could have beaten Orlando. My birthday couldn’t have fallen on any other day. Your analogy doesn’t fit this situation at all.
by Buckeye Brad on May 26, 2010 1:19 AM EDT up reply actions
The “planned” event—let’s take the example of predicting tomorrow’s temperature as a record high—is something that is believed will happen due to a number of factors.
No one knows the record high will happen for sure, but we have ways of predicting with a degree of certainty that it will happen.
Due to meteorologists relative accuracy, no one should be surprised if one does occur when predicted. There are meteorological reasons as well as common sense reasons to believe that the record high might happen.
There were similar factors that should have led fans, and analysts, etc. to believe that the Boston Celtics were talented enough to make it to the finals—regardless of and perhaps despite any regular season record.
The analogy is simply used to show the distinction between rare and surprising, it doesn’t really need to fit onto this discussion specifically. The distinction between rare and surprising does, and it does.
Rare means something doesn’t happen often. Surprising means something does not occur as expected. These are clearly not the same thing. Rare things may be surprising, and surprising things may be rare, but neither are the other necessarily.
The fact that the Celtics (maybe will) make the finals as a 4 seed is rare. That does not make it surprising: we have reason to believe any team of that talent level has a reasonable chance to make the finals.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
The "planned" event—let’s take the example of predicting tomorrow’s temperature as a record high—is something that is believed will happen due to a number of factors.
But that’s not the example you used. You used the example of a solar eclipse and I used the example of my birthday (which you used again), and those are both planned events where you know on which day it’s going to occur. That’s not at all like predicting the winner of a playoff series or predicting the next day’s temperature.
If you would have used this example from the begininng then that would have been different, but you didn’t. You used an example that wasn’t at all analogous to the situation we were talking about, then got mad at me because I pointed it out.
Yes, the Celtics had the talent to make the Finals, but it’s still surprising that they actually made it (assuming they do).
by Buckeye Brad on May 26, 2010 1:45 AM EDT up reply actions
The example only exists to support the distinction between rare and surprising. We actually don’t know for sure that the eclipse or your birthday will definitely occur, if you want to be that way. Something with a very very very small % chance of happening, for which no reasonable expectation of happening exists (say, an asteroid completely destroying the earth) could cause either to not happen. In fact, I would say that such an event would be surprising and rare.
The Celtics making the finals was not surprising due to it being rare. I, for one, thought it could reasonably happen.
And
So, yes, it is very surprising when a team outside the top 3 makes it.
is false.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Maybe you and I just using different definitions of the word surprising.
A lot of things can reasonably happen, but still be surprising when they do happen. So, no, that doesn’t make it false. Here’s an example:
Let’s say that I was playing poker and had a 2, 3, 4, 5 in my hand and on my fifth card I got an Ace to complete my straight. It’s surprising I would get that Ace, because there are only 4 in the deck and 48 total cards out there so the chance of getting an Ace is small. Now it’s not greatly surprising because getting an Ace could reasonably happen (to use your words), but it’s still surprising because it wasn’t likely to happen.
There are a lot of things in life that can reasonably happen but are still surprising when they actually do happen. So, as I said, maybe you and I are using different definitions of the words surprising.
by Buckeye Brad on May 26, 2010 7:36 AM EDT up reply actions
So, how about this: I’m not surprised because rarely does Cleveland win anything.
I see rufio’s point: the Boston Celtics are a damn good team, despite their four seed. I took a similar modest approach to the playoffs, vowing to take nothing for granted until we were hoisting the trophy. Unfortunately, we didn’t make it that far.
I also think Brad’s point though is quite fair and perhaps even feel closer to it, in that I thought Cleveland was the better team — and should have won. I was shocked, surprised and downright horrified not only by the loss but how timid, scared and terribly we played. Perhaps I was naive for thinking we were the better team, and maybe if we lost it in seven games it would have been just as heartbreaking, but I certainly wouldn’t feel as cheated and angry about that loss as I do about this one.
by Western Reserve on May 26, 2010 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions
Getting the ace to complete the straight is still somewhat surprising, and much more surprising than Boston winning.
I saw the % chances of winning the east as 33.3% Orlando, 33.3% Cleveland, 33/3% Boston.
If one were to have agreed with me on those odds, we are talking about a 33.3% chance—a healthy chance, not the 8.3% chance of getting that ace.
From where I am sitting, that’s much less surprising. You would have had to stacked the deck with 16 aces, 16 2s, and 16 3s to give yourself the same expectation of getting an ace. And then it would have been not really surprising if you got an ace, a 2 or a 3.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Now you’re getting in to “levels” of surprising, which is taking this much too far. Why are you getting so upset about this? I said it wasn’t extremely surprising, but it’s still surprising. I’m sure most Celtics fans would agree with me based on the way they were playing for the last 3 months of the season. Is it really necessary to argue about the “level” of surprising?
by Buckeye Brad on May 26, 2010 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions
so are you admitting a solar eclipse was a bad example? because there is zero uncertainty in that, unlike a basketball game.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 26, 2010 10:05 AM EDT up reply actions
There is uncertainty. A very very low degree of uncertainty.
It was a phenomenal example for showing the difference between rarity and surprise, which is all it was intended to do. I was not writing Animal Farm for the Eastern Conference Playoffs.
I can see you are out to try to pick on me as though you think you are getting me back or something on this thread, but I really didn’t mean anything personal about pointing out the lack of attention to defense above. I did feel you were doing it in your evaluation of players. I am sorry if you took it that way, but I felt it was relevant to the general topic and you were throwing out a lot of statements about teams like the 04 Pistons, and their defense has to be acknowledged.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I was not writing Animal Farm for the Eastern Conference Playoffs.
I’ve only skimmed this thread, but this was hilarious.
That's just noise.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on May 26, 2010 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions
rufio, I know there is a difference between something being rare and something being surprising. I could list hundreds of examples of things that are rare but not surprising, and none of them would be anything similar to the situation we’re discussing.
Again, solar eclipses and birthdays are rare events which aren’t surprising because they are predictible — you know when they’re going to happen. The outcome of a playoff series isn’t predictible because you don’t know why is going to win ahead of time. That’s what NTN said about uncertainty. (And, maybe solar eclipses are slightly uncertain but that is beside the point because you discussed the eclipse as if it was predictible because you said you planned for it.) How can you not see the difference?
Maybe NTN said the analogy is wrong because it’s actually a bad analogy, not because he’s “out to pick on you”. Please think about that for a minute.
by Buckeye Brad on May 26, 2010 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Like I said, not Animal Farm. The eclipse was not intended to be a metaphor for the entire series. It was intended to make the distinction between rare and surprising, which you now acknowledge.
I have been angry about twice in this thread, both times due to you treating me like I am a drive-by cleveland.comer with no point to make. Several times you have conceded the point I was trying to make (i.e. there is, in fact a distinction between rare and surprising, it shouldn’t always be surprising that a 4 seed makes the finals without exception, winning games in the regular season does not cause winning playoff series) but pick on little things that don’t really matter to the larger point that I am trying to make and still make sense as far as I need them to.
I don’t care about the predictability of solar eclipses any further than we have reason to expect them when they happen and they are rare occurrences.
I think there is a big difference between being surprised by something that happens with a 33.3% chance of happening and is as likely as the other two outcomes, and being surprised by something that has an 8.3% chance. If the Bobcats would have come out of the East, that would have been surprising. If the Celtics would, not really. You can choose to be surprised by the Celtics because they were a 4 seed, but I was not fooled by their regular season record.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
When you make an analogy that doesn’t fit to try to prove your point then I’m going to point out why it didn’t fit. But you continued to insist that it was the same thing even when I tried to explain why it wasn’t. I don’t know why you now say that doesn’t matter because you seemed to put a lot of effort in to defending it before. And I know you’re smarter than that, so I didn’t understand why you couldn’t see that.
I’m sorry that you thought I was treating you like a cle.com poster, that certainly wasn’t my intention. I hope we can forget about this and move on.
by Buckeye Brad on May 26, 2010 9:03 PM EDT up reply actions
the uncertainty involved in a solar eclipse is about the same uncertainty involved in whether or not the sum will rise.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 26, 2010 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions
seriously, we can predict eclipses down to the minute, years in advance.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 26, 2010 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions
let me amend that, down to hundredths of a second
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 26, 2010 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions
the 1st place team is almost always better than the 4th place teamKey word: almost.
In this case, it was quite clear to me that the Hawks were not the 3rd best team in the East and that Boston, Cleveland, and Orlando were the class of the East.
I made a statement comparing the 1st team to the 4th team and you responded by comparing the 3rd team to the 4th team, so how is that relevant to my point? This is what I’m not understanding.
by Buckeye Brad on May 25, 2010 11:43 PM EDT up reply actions
I made a statement comparing the 1st team to the 4th team and you responded by comparing the 3rd team to the 4th team, so how is that relevant to my point? This is what I’m not understanding.
I have said and maintain that the Celtics are on the level of the Cavs and Magic despite being a 4 seed. Therefore, the fact they beat the Cavs and will soon beat the Magic does not at all surprise me. That was me comparing the 4 seed to both the 1 and the 2.
The Hawks enter the discussion simply because they work the opposite way: despite being seeded ahead of the Celtics, I would have been HIGHLY surprised if they did anything in the playoffs. They were overrated by the regular season in the same way the Celtics were underrated.
The fact that a team has the 4th seed and gets to the finals in and of itself should not be surprising. Each individual situation and team should be considered.
Let’s say LeBron tears an ACL right now. next season, the Cavs manage to play their way to the 4th seed with Orlando, Atlanta, and Boston in front of them. LeBron comes back for the last week of the regular season, in which the Cavs roll Orlando and Boston, who both play their starters the full game. The Cavs, as the 4 seed, make the NBA finals. The fact that they do so would not surprise me; their improvement in play would be fully explained by the fact they got the best player on the planet back.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Well, obviously if injuries are a factor then the seedings can be misleading. I didn’t think that needed to be said.
And of course every situation is different, and individual situations should be considered. Again, that’s should be obvious. I’m just talking in generalities, and generally the team with the better regular season record wins in the NBA playoffs more often than in any other sport. That fact is indisputible. But of course that doesn’t mean it always happens. I was never talking in absolutes, so I don’t know why you’re going off with all these hypotheticals that aren’t really relevant.
Did you read Hollinger’s article? His whole point was that you shouldn’t expect a team to play mediocre for half of the season then just “turn it on” in the playoffs like the Celtics did this year. He’s not saying that it can NEVER happen, just that it’s very unusual. And, yes, this Celtics team with its experience and the fact that they were all healthy is a good example of a team that can make the Finals as a 4 seed. But it should be surprising that it happened — and it is — and we shouldn’t expect it to happen often. That’s all he’s saying.
by Buckeye Brad on May 26, 2010 12:21 AM EDT up reply actions
But of course that doesn’t mean it always happens.
It also doesn’t mean that there is a causal link, which is what I initially argued above, before you made a huge fuss about my hypothetical situation which was just proving one little part of what you said incorrect.
I read Hollinger’s article before you posted it here.
The causal link is that good teams with good players win. The fact that such teams usually win a lot of regular season games and also usually win playoff series is a coincidence. Therefore, winning in the regular season does not matter, having a good team matters.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Your hypothetical situation didn’t prove anything incorrect. Of course, if all 4 top seeds have the same record then none of them should be expected to win over any other. That’s really taking this whole argument to an extreme just to “prove” your point. As I said, I thought we were both smart enough to know that something like that would be an extremely unusual circumstance which doesn’t fit this discussion.
The fact that such teams usually win a lot of regular season games and also usually win playoff series is a coincidence.
Uhhh . . .what?!?! I don’t even know where to go with this statement.
Listen, I’m not really sure what the point of all this is so I’m just going to stop right now. The facts are indisuptible. Regular season records matter, along with point differential and other important stats, because they show how good a team is, and that usually translates in the playoffs in the NBA — much more so than in any other league. But, of course, it doesn’t always happen that way, and that’s what makes sports so fun.
by Buckeye Brad on May 26, 2010 12:59 AM EDT up reply actions
The facts are indisputable, your interpretation of them is not.
You listen, buddy, winning games in the regular season has no direct bearing on the outcome of a playoff series outside of home court advantage and confidence. The better team wins that series most of the time.
Being the better team is the causal mechanism behind both the reguar season and the playoffs. The fact that the team with the better regular season record often wins in the playoffs is merely a correlation due to both things being caused by the same thing.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Now you’re saying the same thing that I’m saying. What exactly are you disagreeing with me about?
Yes, the team that wins more in the regular season usually wins in the playoffs because that’s the better team. How is that different than what I’ve said above?
by Buckeye Brad on May 26, 2010 1:15 AM EDT up reply actions
The regular season is not overrated.
This is what I disagree with.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
But you said yourself that the better team usually wins in the regular season as well as the playoffs, so how is the regular season overrated?
by Buckeye Brad on May 26, 2010 1:31 AM EDT up reply actions
Because it isn’t the regular season that matters, it’s the strength of the team.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
But the regular season shows the strength of the team (for the most part).
by Buckeye Brad on May 26, 2010 1:46 AM EDT up reply actions
But it doesn’t matter.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
If you mean it doesn’t matter because both teams have a chance to win any given playoffs series then, yes, it doesn’t matter. But it does tell you which team is more likely to win the series.
by Buckeye Brad on May 26, 2010 7:42 AM EDT up reply actions
It doesn’t always. The strength of the team always does.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
How do you determine “strength of the team”? Seems arbitrary.
Also, I feel this line of reasoning simply leads to the conclusion that the Boston Celtics were always better, i.e. greater “strength of the team,” and thus won; though, of course, that’s easy to say now with the benefit of hindsight.
by Western Reserve on May 26, 2010 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions
It is quite subjective. I thought it was clear that Boston was among the best teams in the East, maybe that was just me.
This line of reasoning leads to the conclusion that regular season records have no causal effect on the outcome of playoff series.
Boston wasn’t always better, they simply were in the same class of the Magic and Cavs while the regular season records would indicate otherwise. They had a good chance to come out of the East. Them winning the East was one of three reasonably expect-able outcomes before the playoffs began.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
We all knew Boston had a chance, but if you watched them play for the last third of the season or so, you saw a team that looked to be on its way towards being irrelevant. The fact that they not only beat the cavs, but did so soundly, was surprising to anyone who has been following basketball closely.
no one is claiming causal effect. All anyone ever meant to say is that in basketball, more so than most other sports, regular season record is a great indicator of playoff success.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 26, 2010 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions
you saw a team that looked to be on its way towards being irrelevant.
Or a team that had nothing to play for in the regular season, has several key veterans who let their focus drop when it doesn’t matter, who were incredibly talented, and who were NBA champions the last time they were together and healthy as a team.
in basketball, more so than most other sports, regular season record is a great indicator of playoff success.
It is more rare for Bball teams with lower seeds make it to the finals; this is a fact and it is indisputable.
That does not make it less likely in every situation (simply more rare) so a blanket statement such as this is false. There are situations in which we could reasonably believe the 4 seed would be more likely to make it.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
this is all great with hindsight, but nobody outside of new england thought the celtics had this kind of basketball left in them. even earlier in the year, when they were playing well, they weren’t playing this well.
It’s easy to look back and see why we should have seen this coming. but almost nobody did. therefore, when it happened, it was surprising.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 27, 2010 9:19 AM EDT up reply actions
Oh, I agree with you the Celtics were a very formidable team. I wasn’t looking to take any opponent in the playoffs for granted. But my own personal prejudices prevent me from implicating anyone other than the Cavs for the Cavs’ loss in that series considering that LeBron was unrecognizable, the poor coaching, the general lack of urgency and lackadaisical play, and especially, at times, the perceived lack of effort. Perhaps I’m a poor sport, but I’m not tipping my cap to Boston. If we lost with a bit more dignity, perhaps. But not like that. That’s just the way I will always interpret that series.
by Western Reserve on May 26, 2010 6:50 PM EDT up reply actions
OK, so how do you determine the strength of the team?
by Buckeye Brad on May 26, 2010 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions
this is a semantics argument.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 26, 2010 10:08 AM EDT up reply actions
right. I would argue Mo can create for himself when he needs to, but its really a moot point. Lebron James did not play the way he should have, and for that he deserves a hefty portion of the blame. more than anyone, he played down from where he should have been.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 24, 2010 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m pretty sure they weren’t booing Lebron. It was the entire team. We know one guy can’t win a championship. If this could happen, Lebron would have atleast 3 by now.
by The naome40 on May 24, 2010 8:24 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I watched the Lost finale last night, and as someone that doesn’t really watch the show, it wasn’t the fact that i didn’t know what was going on from time the time that made it a bad experience for me, or even the spotty reception. The dialogue on that show is awful. downright awful. there are FPS games out there with better dialogue.
Other than that, I was entertained, and it seems like a good ending to an extremely popular show. my only other gripe is that 40 minutes into the show there had already been 5 commercial breaks. talk about breaking the immersion.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
Yeah, we saw why ABC expanded the show from 2 hours to 2.5 hours — they wanted to squeeze as many commercials as possible in. There was an article online somewhere where the writer compared the number of commercials in the finale to those in a typical one-hour span.
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
by Chris Pokorny on May 24, 2010 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions
I thought the Lost finale was satisfying, but I was not one of those hoping for a resolution to every mystery. There were parts I disliked, and there were a few things that I do think they should have answered that would have helped the show make more sense. Taking a step back and looking at the entertainment value and intrigue that the series provided for me, is a TV experience I had never had before. Well done to them.
I’m glad LOST ended, it had sort of lost its intrigue and seemed unfocused the last couple of seasons. Fringe is probably the best series left on the air, and Chuck is silly and entertaining, I think they’ll be back for a couple of more seasons, but I am bummed they couldn’t revive Heroes.
by HenryDawg on May 24, 2010 3:18 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
I have never watched Lost before.
I am not proud to say this, but does anyone else watch the challenges on MTV? It is like video crack. I can’t stop.
Never watched either.
"Spartans never die Jorge. They're just missing in action."
by SpecialBrownie on May 24, 2010 8:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Brown is off his rocker. How can Brown insinuate that the Cleveland fans have treated him unfairly, when everyone else around the country has probably trashed James to a much further extent? Shortly after the season is over, all fans can talk about is how they want LeBron to remain in Cleveland. There’s even a banner in Downtown Cleveland in support of LeBron!
This.
I guess Glee and The Office suddenly shift up to my top two spots.
I went to Target today and I got The Office seasons 3 & 4 for just $40! Idk why but they had them for 20 bucks each. And I had gift cards from my birthday, so I only had to pay $2.
I know just tell me now and I can cry for one reason or the other and be done with it.
I can’t even turn on ESPN anymore.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I can’t even turn on ESPN anymore.
This. This. This.
"Spartans never die Jorge. They're just missing in action."
by SpecialBrownie on May 25, 2010 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions
I can’t even turn on ESPN anymore.
Try wearing some sexy lingerie.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on May 25, 2010 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
A lazy toss right over home plate, and golanbatrac connects!
That's just noise.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on May 25, 2010 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions
The easy and obvious jokes are often the best.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
’Twas a thing of beauty, sir.
That's just noise.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on May 25, 2010 6:43 PM EDT up reply actions
My local Rock station has a “Fail of the Day”. Last night they gave it to Cleveland and their LOST screw up. I would hate to be in that situation. I feel for you guys.
Is anyone else already tunning out LeBron talk? It’s the same garbage over and over.
Who will be my role model, now that my role model is gone?
Stuart Scott: Welcome back to Sportscenter. What role does the LOST blackout in Cleveland mean to the Cavs chances of keeping LeBron? Can he really trust the television stations in Cleveland to not screw up their programming?
Micheal Wilbon: He should go to my hometown, Chicago.
Stuart Scott: Booya!
Magic Johnson: (holding his creepy smile) I think the best place for LeBron is in Los Angeles baby! Sun, girls, and movie theaters!
Stuart Scott: Hot as the flip side of yo Mama’s flapjacks!
Jon Barry: I think it is a huge deal. This shows that Cleveland is not equipped to handle the mega watt star that is LeBron. I mean really, what’s next? A screwed up episode of Army Wives?! LeBron needs to be in a big market city. The LOST screw up should be the nail in the coffin for Cleveland.
Stuart Scott: Bippity Boppity! When we come back from break, we will discuss what role the Josh Beckett injury will play in the Summer of LeBron!
by Bernie19Kosar on May 25, 2010 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Work in a Chris Jennings fistfight, some forgettable comments about our receivers, and Jim Brown shooting off his mouth, and you’ll have a clean sweep!
That's just noise.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on May 25, 2010 5:19 PM EDT up reply actions
- palms on ears
LA LA LA LA L AL ALALA LLA ALA
Who will be my role model, now that my role model is gone?
by Brownie's Year on May 25, 2010 8:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Boredom settles in the boring minds.
by mooncamping on May 25, 2010 12:22 PM EDT reply actions 3 recs
Soccer is a necessity, it´s the most popular sport in the world with a rabid fan base. I like the European Cup and the World Cup, Champions League is also exciting. It´s good to support a first league team, because as in football, a lot of people and citizens convene there, there´s a lot of other things to discuss and decide upon communally, while you´re having fun.
I played baseball as a kid. It´s a sport that can be quite frustrating if you suck at it but extremely gratifying if you achieve a standard of excellence and then win. I´m still proud of my broken in baseball glove. The culture and ambience at ball games is fun too. And I dig the great American past time and the boy scout letter man all american clean cut image and surround abound.
Basketball. I used to shoot for hours, that aspect has a meditative quality for me. In contrast to football I like the smoothness and “touch” qualities. It´s fun to watch on TV too, even if a bit bonkers. As a player I had problems getting the proverbial “lid off the basket”, things I could do in practice were hard to accomplish during the game. So I also ended my playing time on dissatisfied terms.
I was a great football player though, that kind of makes up for it.
by mooncamping on May 26, 2010 6:40 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
since our discussion above has become hard to follow, i’m going to try to reset it here.
these were the things i was initially responding to:
He had and has had zero help, and had to carry the team.I think anyone would be hard pressed to argue that this statement isn’t ridiculous. Dwayne wade has “zero” help. Lebron’s roster is full of quality starters.
No NBA team can win with just one star
I don’t think this is true. I think its doable with the right support.
I never said that the cavs roster was perfect. They had a realistic chance at winning it all with their current roster, but they can get better.
Unlike some other people, I absolutely think Lebron James had a bad series, and deserves a good deal of blame (not nearly all!) for the losses. The “Lebron had one bad game” argument is ridiculous. I’ll use some more advanced stats this time.
In the last 3 games he had TS% of 48.2, 38.9, and 51.4. thats terrible for a player like lebron.
he had eFG% of 38.9, 21.4(!), and 42.9. these numbers are also bad, especially for lebron.
his Ortgs (pts per 100 possessions) were 83, 86, and 92.
his Drtgs (pts allowed per 100) were 99, 132, and 92. this means at best, he was playing even.
His usg% (percentage of plays used) were 31, 25, and 35. this means not only was he incredibly inefficient, he was also using a ton of plays.
His rebounding numbers are great, that was not an issue.
His A/T ratio is up and down as well. of those last 3 games, he had A/T ratios of 8/7, 7/3, and 10/9. interestingly, on a historically bad shooting night, he was able to have a pretty good A/T ratio.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
Lebron’s roster is full of quality starters.
I don’t think this is true. I think its doable with the right support.
Define “star” and “starter”. This is why things become semantics arguments: you can’t know what the hell the other person is saying when terms like this are used, and people throw things out there like “quality starter” they might not be saying what they mean to say.
For example, I think you might not mean “roster is full of quality starters” because “starter” doesn’t really matter, and we don’t need “quality”, we need championship. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but I would say the roster is full of players who can play and make a positive impact in the playoffs all the way through the NBA finals (though I wouldn’t say it is exactly full of players who can do that).
Mo maybe in the right system is one of them, Jamison might have enough left in the tank to be one, Andy is a great defensive big man, JJ can probably play at that level, as can Delonte when he is healthy. Shaq is done. Z is done. Parker is approaching done. I don’t think Jamario is at that level. Gibson…maybe.
I think the guy the Cavs need, (and this is what I have been trying to define as “2nd star”) is a guy who can outscore (read: win his matchup taking both ends of the floor into account) the opposing team’s player at his position against every team in the NBA with a few exceptions. Those exceptions are when he plays the same position as the other team’s best player. He must be able to lose those matchups by less than LeBron can win his. Brandon Roy was the example I thought of earlier; he could probably win his matchup against the Celtics, Magic, Suns, and play Kobe to enough of a draw that LeBron abusing Artest would more than make up the difference. I think Bosh could work as well.
This role could be filled by two players (although I don’t like it that way as much), like Manu and Parker. If you have a team that matches up well with one, the other will outplay you. I don’t think we have that on the roster either. I saw Mo and Tawn both get outplayed in the Celtics series and probably against the Bulls too.
It isn’t that we need to get rid of every single player on the Cavs, it is that we need 1-2 very good players whose talent is between LeBron’s and the rest of the team’s as it stands now. This will push the rest of the team into the lesser roles where they belong, and take the pressure off of LeBron to make everyone else look good, while giving us some hope when LeBron has that occasional poor shooting night.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I think every starter on the cavs starts for over 50% of NBA teams, probably better than that. The difference between a quality player and a star should be obvious. Dirk Nowitski is a star. Chris Bosh is a star. Carmelo Anthony is a star. Mo Williams is a good, above average point guard.
In the end you are still twisting my argument. I’m not talking one bit about what the cavs need, I’m talking about what they have. they have better help than they were given credit for.
I think the guy the Cavs need, (and this is what I have been trying to define as "2nd star") is a guy who can outscore (read: win his matchup taking both ends of the floor into account) the opposing team’s player at his position against every team in the NBA with a few exceptions.
I think you are not using a good definition of star. a star is someone who can carry a team. By your definition, Z was a Star for the first half of this decade. I certainly think he was an above average center, but Z was never a star.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 26, 2010 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions
I am not trying to twist your argument, I am trying to give them credit for having good, above average players while stating that they need more than this. Specifically 1-2 “very good” or “great” players more.
If “2nd star” (note: different than “star”, which you conflate with the term I am trying to coin “Z was never a star”…) is not a good term, fine. That kind of guy is just the kind of guy I think we need. I also question Z’s ability to defend during the early 00s, but that’s another argument altogether.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
i’m confused, are you using “2nd star” as a second tier star? because i’m pretty sure everybody else was using the term “star” to refer to a player who would be another star.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 27, 2010 9:21 AM EDT up reply actions
Yes, that is how I was trying to define the term. Admittedly, the name of the term itself may not be very good. I was just searching for something that described the concept of the guy(s) I think we need.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
ok, then this is where a lot of the disagreement comes from. I was saying it was unnecessary to add a superstar / potential HOFer. I agree the team needs someone to take pressure off of lebron, and agree that they need a talent level above that of Mo Williams, though, to your other point, I think a Mo williams type offensive player who played good D would be enough.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 28, 2010 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions
Yes, Mo + able to somewhat guard Derrick Rose, Rondo, Nash, etc. would definitely work for me. Especially if Mo was, say, integrated into the offense and we actually ran plays for him?
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
here’s to hoping for a coach who can run an NBA offense!
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 31, 2010 11:52 PM EDT up reply actions
I think every starter on the cavs starts for over 50% of NBA teams, probably better than that. The difference between a quality player and a star should be obvious
You always over-use that argument, even with the Browns. Just because a player may start on a number of teams doesn’t make them a world class player. On the flip side, there are players who are on the bench on some teams who would start on the Cavs. The NBA player base probably consist of 15% superstars, 30% solid playmakers, and 55% position players whose level of play depends on the team and coaching. So for the most part, EVERY team has starters who would start on 50% of every other team.
But what you need to be comparing is how many of our starters would start on the teams we can’t beat. None of the Cavs starters would start on the Celtics. But if you turn it around, Rondo would start over Mo and Peirce, Allen and Garnett would obviously start over Jameson/Parker. Perkins put up the same numbers as Shaq so it’s up in the air.
Mo probably would replace Fisher on the lakers yes, but Bynum > shaq, Gasol > Jamison, and Artest > Parker. The only player who would definitely start on the Magic is Jamison replacing Matt Barnes, but Lewis, Vince and even Peitrus would probably start on the Cavs.
So yes our starters would start on the NJ Nets, Pistons or the Warriors, but our lineup isn’t that great looking against the teams we can’t beat is it?
by The Licensed Pessimist on May 26, 2010 7:46 PM EDT up reply actions
This is what i was trying to get at up above. You did a much better job than I did.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
you are misunderstanding my argument. my argument has only been that he has better help than people are giving them credit for. they are filled with solid players, including bench, which you are ignoring. again, my argument was that he has more than “zero help.” this is not lebron and a bunch of scrubs like earlier teams were. this is lebron and a lot of solid players.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 27, 2010 9:24 AM EDT up reply actions
I thought most everyone had been conceding that “zero help” was hyperbole.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I know this is going to sound lame, but I think I was misinterpreting the level of hyperbole. of course he has more than “zero” help. I took it to mean that without lebron the cavs turn into the nets.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 28, 2010 11:54 AM EDT up reply actions
also, are you finally ready to admit that lebron had a bad series? You claimed earlier that he had one bad game, do you have enough proof now that it was more than that?
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 26, 2010 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions
I do thank you for the advanced stats. I thought I had said earlier that LeBron had not lived up to the superhuman games we have come to expect from him with the exception of the one game. He also had probably the worst game of his career. I still think blaming him is not the right thing to do.
I do tend to give more credit than you to the Celtics’ D and the attempted pace/tone of the series for making LeBron play poorly. I also put blame to the supporing cast, who could not make plays for the majority of the series when LeBron made the “right basketball play”. You can blame Brown for not putting the linups around Bron to make this not the case.
So LeBron was left with taking crappy outside jumpers, or passing and watching his teammates do worse, due to a lack of talent or lack of talent/chemistry/matchup problems on the floor.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
look at those stats again. that is much worse than not living up to super human games. that is terrible, especially from a guy who is supposed to be your best player.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 27, 2010 9:26 AM EDT up reply actions
You don’t seem to understand hyperbole. Yes LeBron had more than “zero help.” He had 11 other guys on the team. However, he did not have close to the kind of help that wins championships. I stand by that to my grave. LeBron alone ain’t going to cut it, and when your second option is Mo, you are nowhere close. Again, all the great teams had generally two HOFers, and a ton of great roleplayers. This team does not have that. They can win 60 games a season from here to eternity with this team, and the Bostons and LA’s are going to stomp them unless they get LeBron some real help — and an aging Shaq and Antawn Jamison ain’t going to cut it. LeBron needs his Pippen, his Pau, his Kobe, his Worthy, his big 3, etc. And I hate to break it to you guys but LeBron is not super-human — he ain’t better than Jordan and he ain’t going to be able to do what Jordan could never do: win without a solid, solid, solid second option. Until he shows otherwise, you ain’t going to convince me.*
*And until he wins, he ain’t the best player in the NBA — that still belongs to Kobe. Scoreboard — when it counts, Kobe is the guy you want not LeBron; proof is in his winning.
by TheDriveStillHurts on May 26, 2010 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions
And the point was that I found the booing of LeBron ridiculous in light of the lack of help.
by TheDriveStillHurts on May 26, 2010 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions
The boo birds came out not solely directed at LeBron; they came out because of a perceived lack of effort.
by Western Reserve on May 26, 2010 6:37 PM EDT up reply actions
yes. people that were at the game that I know booed, booed the whole team…many specifically booed Mo williams in fact because of how he kept getting torched.
those boos were not directed at lebron more than any other player, but the national media spins it otherwise and it looks like we don’t deserve to keep lebron.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
nobody was booing lebron specifically, please quit repeating this.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 27, 2010 9:26 AM EDT up reply actions
you make liberal use of hyperbole.
he did not have close to the kind of help that wins championshipsthey’re close.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 27, 2010 9:27 AM EDT up reply actions
Exactly right. You don’t win 62 games without being a great team. To say they’re not even close to being able to win a championship is hyperbole.
by Buckeye Brad on May 27, 2010 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions
This, the team as a whole simply had a bad series and Lebron had an injury on top of that. It sucks, but that’s the truth. The team is very capable of winning a championship.
A lot of people are afraid of heights. Not me, I'm afraid of widths --- Steven Wright
I think the team in theory is capable of winning a ring. But realistically, the team isn’t capable because the team doesn’t measure up to the other 3 championship caliber teams in the NBA
by The Licensed Pessimist on May 27, 2010 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions
If LA is on their game, not many can compete with them. I wouldn’t be surprised to see them blow the Suns out in the next game.
A lot of people are afraid of heights. Not me, I'm afraid of widths --- Steven Wright
I think th lakers run into problems with boston, unless age magically catches up with them.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 27, 2010 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions
that could be happening right now. the Cs are not playing good basketball the last 2 games, especially on the offensive end. their shooting has been terrible (like 42%) especially for a good shooting team, KG is struggling, they are committing a lot of fouls, and not rebounding particularly well. Even in their last 2 losses, only pierce and maybe rondo have given consistent, solid play on offense
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Bross this isn’t a direct reply to you, but I know somewhere in this thread we were talking about Boston’s regular season.
Rivers’ plan leads Celtics to Final destination
To me that’s some coaching.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
Game. Blouses.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
You guys want some pancakes?
For the love of Joe Thomas.....
by North Coast Flea on May 30, 2010 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Boston’s worst case scenario is Phoenix.
The Suns will do what the Cavs should have, run the Celts out of the gym.
by Bernie19Kosar on May 28, 2010 3:13 AM EDT up reply actions
thats true. playing phoenix would really show their age. they’re built for traditional, slow, half-court playoff basketball. The series would come down to who could dictate tempo.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 28, 2010 11:59 AM EDT up reply actions
I really think they only need one deal.
Granted, it has to be a major deal. So I guess it’s how you define “close”. If close means we have a bunch of players but lack one really good player, then sure, we’re close. I think we are one Pau or KG away.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I’m thinking a sign-and-trade for one of the other big free agents (with Bosh and Johnson being my favorites) would be outstanding, I just don’t know if they would be able to pull it off.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 28, 2010 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions
Bosh is only good when the people around him suck. For example the Raptors. He’ll be average with us.
"Spartans never die Jorge. They're just missing in action."
by SpecialBrownie on May 28, 2010 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think that’s true at all. I think he’s exactly what the Cavs need.
by Buckeye Brad on May 28, 2010 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions
What the heck does that mean? Last I checked Bosh only played with the Raptors. Do you know something we don’t?
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
Considering Bosh played well as a starter for the USA in the Olympics, I don’t see how anyone can say he only performs around poor players.
by Bernie19Kosar on May 29, 2010 8:59 PM EDT up reply actions
If he can at least hold KG and Pau in check and then also score like a bigger Jamison, I am totally in for Bosh.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I just feel like out of all those young guys he’s the one most likely to be ok with being the “sidekick” on a team rather than the guy who carries the biggest load. don’t ask why, just my gut.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on May 31, 2010 11:54 PM EDT up reply actions
I feel like Stoudamire might be OK with that too.
Under NBA rules could we re-sign Wally to a contract equal to Amare’s with only like 200k guaranteed, then trade Wally and like $14million to the Suns for Amare?
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I’m not an expert on the NBA cap rules, but I feel like I remember shifty stuff like this going on before.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jun 3, 2010 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Non-stop coverage of the team with the best fans in the NFL, the Cleveland Browns.
Related FanPosts on Dawgs By Nature
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Follow DBN on Twitter
Browns Links
Local Media Sources
Official Browns Site
Orange and Brown Report
Cleveland Plain Dealer
Akron Beacon Journal
Browns Communities/Blogs
The Watercooler
Waiting for Next Year
Dawg Scooper
Dawg Talkers
Dawg Bones
The Browns Board
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
