NBA Playoffs Thread

[ThomasPHoolery]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you guys think Spurs - Jazz will be a good series? The Spurs do everything the Jazz do but much better. I guess the Jazz are a quicker pace team and they will run the Spurs?

Prove me wrong, I'm all ears... but I don't see it.

-Al

[/ QUOTE ]

Al,
I like the Spurs to dominate this series. Since the all star break, the quality of ball they've been playing has been breathtaking, however, some like the Jazz because they do create some match up problems, they continue to defy odds and play over their heads, and, counter-intuitively, the Spurs play slightly worse against slower teams than quicker teams (Utah's no turtle, but they are much slower than Suns or Nuggets).

Parker, historically, has had a good deal of trouble with guards with size instead of speed (Devin Harris in last year's playoffs was a bit of an exception). Parker could have a bit of trouble vs Williams on both ends if Willams proves to have the footspeed to at least not let Parker blow right by him. Additionally, Utah will likely try to utilize Kirilenko on Ginobilli some, which is a perfect type of defender to mitigate Ginobilli (tall rangy, able to block shots at all angles). Duncan will be Duncan, but the Jazz have an ability and a discipline to not completely collapse on penetration and abandon their assignments, which could help.

The Jazz are also really peaking right now. I'll be the first to admit that, judging from the way they closed the season, I thought the Rockets were going to cream them, but the Jazz played a well thought out, effective series. I felt they were underdogs to GS too, but, again, they came up with a good game plan stuck to it, and did a very good job of stealing GS's luck box. As such, I think a lot of people are just not sure exactly how good the Jazz actually are right now.

Finally, and I've posted briefly on this before, teams like the Spurs and Rockets actually prefer to play fast-paced teams because they are very good at dictating pace (The Spurs pace SD stats are pretty sick this year). When teams deviate from their standard pace, either faster or slower, their offensive efficiency almost always changes for the worse. As such, they become a worse team, and with SA operating close to ideal pace, they are able to exploit what amounts to a higher net advantage. With a team like Utah, they're not going to deviate too far from the pace that yields their maximum offensive efficiency output, and are therefore, in theory, slightly better off.

All those factors being in place, I still feel San Antonio is much better than the Jazz and a very solid favorite. This year's incarnation of the Spurs at their peak is one of the best teams in league history.

[Vyse]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Spurs were definitely the better team. The Suns simply stopped executing for a significant period of time after they were down 20 points.

[/ QUOTE ]
WTF? No. Not "definitely" better. The Suns lost a close first game, pounded them the second game, lost a close third game, made a huge road comeback the fourth game, lost a close fifth game with two of the seven in their rotation suspended, and lost tonight.

I have no problem with someone saying the Spurs are better, but it's not by much. And this is me, trying not to be as objective as possible despite the fact that I basically hate the Spurs as a team in a really unhealthy way, and I'm trying to be objective about all of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it's close, but that doesn't mean they're not DEFINITELY a better team. A team can be close to another team yet still be DEFINITELY an inferior team. Jason Bay is
close to Manny Ramirez but is stilL DEFINITELY inferior.

The Spurs proved they have the best execution in the NBA. That simple.

While the Spurs are absolutely better than the Jazz, I think it will be an enjoyable, hard fought series, even if it ends in 5.

[kbfc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, but I just don't see the Suns winning a title with D'Antoni as the coach. His whining and stubbornness permeates through the younger players on the team

[/ QUOTE ]
This is simply and logically wrong. Sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now isn't the time to get into more detail here, but I really like the Suns, and have no problem with my team's big rivals getting better.

I think D'Antoni is a bad coach for Amare. (Probably Barbosa too, but mostly Amare.) Amare has the potential to be a dominant 2-way player - a multiple MVP winner. I don't see that happening while he still plays for D'Antoni.

And btw, regardless of what you think of that, there was "simply" nothing "logically" wrong with my post.

[tdarko]

[ QUOTE ]
If you haven't lost your mind, you are certainly in the ZIP code.

The Suns, after gagging two home games to start the series, gutted out a win, then nearly won another one, then easily won the next one, then made an epic comeback to take a four point lead with ~40 seconds left. Uncontested Jordan layup, Paxson three, KJ block, game over. In the fourth quarter of game six - which I have watched countlessly painful times - the Suns figured out that forcing the ball into the hands of a forward would cost the Bulls ~10 seconds off the shot clock, which invariably led to rushed Bulls shots, including multiple shot clock violations in the final couple of minutes.

If you're clinging to your point because you can't stand to be wrong, that's fine, but the fact is that the Phoenix Suns were clearly better than the Chicago Bulls in the last four games of the 1993 finals (three of them on the road), and were it not for one boneheaded play at the very end would have forced and very possibly won a game seven. To this day it is the highest rated finals in NBA history, sure there was tons of star power but if people thought the result wasn't in doubt they wouldn't have tuned in in droves.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not clinging to anything and I don't want to argue with you b/c I know you are bummed about tonight but dude come on "clearly" is clearly the wrong word to use there. These two teams played basically back and forth basketball after the first two games which is a moot point b/c now you are talking about a close call series or a series in which you gave away but were never actually in. Chicago beat Pho pretty decisively on the road for two games and then went back and forth to win in 6 games.

And in the last game you talk about this dominating 4th quarter that is great man, but dominating one quarter while the other team out plays you for the other 3 doesn't mean much for your team. Sure, they mad a great comeback but didn't win and if they did they still would have had to go back on the road against a team that had already won two titles in the previous two years. You act like this finals slipped out of your grasp or something and it didn't.

I don't see why this series wouldn't be the highest rated ever. The Bulls building their dynasty and going for a three-peat lead by the most watched athlete on the planet at a time when basketball was exploding.

Quick question, did you think Portland ever had a chance against Chicago the year before? B/c that series went somewhat the same way, probably a little closer and a little tougher for Chicago though but I still don't think anyone thought it was slipping away from Portland or anything.

[ThomasPHoolery]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


The 03' Dirk injury broke my heart.


[/ QUOTE ]

People not from Dallas forget about this injury way too much, but Dallas was (statistically) the best team in the NBA that year, and still believe a healthy Dallas beats a healthy SA that year most of the time. I remember watching game 6 w/ my brother and he almost started crying when Kerr came in because he knew it was over. Pain. Just pain.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a huge Mavs fan, and we had a great team that year, but I never felt like we were the better team. We blew a decent division lead that year, and then came close to blowing a 3-0 lead to Portland in the first round. We might not have gotten out of the 2nd round against Sacto had Webber not gone down, and it still took us 7 games. (Probably my favorite series of all time until last year's Mavs-Spurs.)

Against the Spurs, we needed to go 49-50 from the free throw line (not embellished) to win Game 1, had the officiating pendulum swing the other way for Game 2, and were getting drummed in Game 3 well before Dirk went down. Don't know what would have happened if Dirk hadn't gotten injured, but I was never confident. If Dallas had gotten past the Spurs though, beating the Nets would have been doable even w/o Dirk.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bob,
1. There are reams and reams and reams of paper that show the Kings around the turn of the century were a much better team without Webber on the floor. He's a great player, but his offensive efficiency curve wrecked that team.
2. To this day, every time I see Najera, I'm mad at him for missing the first FT of that game to prevent the Mavs from going 50-50 in that game (though, being Mexican, I can't hate him too much). It was very close that year between Dallas and SA, and with home court SA may have been the favorite, but Dallas offense was so good that year (their 110+ offensive efficiency in that era is VERY strong), it's hard to make them that big of dogs, if at all for that series.

[ClassicBob]

[ QUOTE ]
ClassicBob,

To be fair, I didn't know all that detail about the Mavs' suffering. I knew they took the Lakers to seven in the late 80s, but the Lakers were teflon to anyone but the Rockets throughout the entire 80s.

As for '03, that was when I turned 30. Didn't the Spurs bounce the Lakers in the semis? I remember being in Durango, Colorado on my 30th birthday and flat-out heckling at the TV while they bounced the Lakers. Then I was at my friend's house in Durango when the Mavs pounded the Kings at the end of that series. The playoffs from that point forward are fuzzy to me because the Suns sucked at the time and the product in general was so-so. Apparently Dirk suffered some sort of injury which led to the Spurs facing the Nets in the finals, I remember that matchup but am honestly dumb about all of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Spurs knocked out LA this year. They were tied 2-2, Spurs up 20+ in game 5, Lakers come storming back, Horry misses game winning 3 at buzzer, Spurs blow em out in Game 6.

Mavs are tied up 1-1, Dirk goes down with a knee injury in game 3. There was talk that he might make it back for Game 7, but the series never came to that.

[tuq]

[ QUOTE ]
And in the last game you talk about this dominating 4th quarter that is great man, but dominating one quarter while the other team out plays you for the other 3 doesn't mean much for your team. Sure, they mad a great comeback but didn't win and if they did they still would have had to go back on the road against a team that had already won two titles in the previous two years. You act like this finals slipped out of your grasp or something and it didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...game seven would have been another home game for the Suns. 2-3-2, blame Stern for that bit of awesomeness. Games 3-4-5 were in Chicago, where they showed up with two straight titles and a healthy 2-0 series lead - thus incredible momentum - only to lose two of the games and barely win the other one.

[ QUOTE ]
Quick question, did you think Portland ever had a chance against Chicago the year before? B/c that series went somewhat the same way, probably a little closer and a little tougher for Chicago though but I still don't think anyone thought it was slipping away from Portland or anything.

[/ QUOTE ]
My best - and it's very good - response to this is from Danny Ainge, who said after game six in 1993 (paraphrasing) "this is disappointing because I feel we were the better team. Last year I felt Chicago was the better team". He played in both of those finals.

[ClassicBob]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


The 03' Dirk injury broke my heart.


[/ QUOTE ]

People not from Dallas forget about this injury way too much, but Dallas was (statistically) the best team in the NBA that year, and still believe a healthy Dallas beats a healthy SA that year most of the time. I remember watching game 6 w/ my brother and he almost started crying when Kerr came in because he knew it was over. Pain. Just pain.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a huge Mavs fan, and we had a great team that year, but I never felt like we were the better team. We blew a decent division lead that year, and then came close to blowing a 3-0 lead to Portland in the first round. We might not have gotten out of the 2nd round against Sacto had Webber not gone down, and it still took us 7 games. (Probably my favorite series of all time until last year's Mavs-Spurs.)

Against the Spurs, we needed to go 49-50 from the free throw line (not embellished) to win Game 1, had the officiating pendulum swing the other way for Game 2, and were getting drummed in Game 3 well before Dirk went down. Don't know what would have happened if Dirk hadn't gotten injured, but I was never confident. If Dallas had gotten past the Spurs though, beating the Nets would have been doable even w/o Dirk.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bob,
1. There are reams and reams and reams of paper that show the Kings around the turn of the century were a much better team without Webber on the floor. He's a great player, but his offensive efficiency curve wrecked that team.
2. To this day, every time I see Najera, I'm mad at him for missing the first FT of that game to prevent the Mavs from going 50-50 in that game (though, being Mexican, I can't hate him too much). It was very close that year between Dallas and SA, and with home court SA may have been the favorite, but Dallas offense was so good that year (their 110+ offensive efficiency in that era is VERY strong), it's hard to make them that big of dogs, if at all for that series.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. I remember the Kings still being great offensively the next year, but that was when they knew Webber wasn't going to be there. Whatever the reams of paper might have proved, he was still the #1 guy at the time (Peja was definitely peaking at this time, too) and him going down seems tough to adjust to on the fly. But, I haven't read the reams of paper.

2. I certainly thought we had a good chance of winning the series, and on paper, it was pretty even. My gut feeling that we would lose was just that, a gut feeling. It didn't feel like the team was ready. Still, that was definitely my favorite Mavs team of all time. Soooo much fun to watch.

[kidcolin]

[ QUOTE ]
ugh, tdarko, Seattle has been right there as well.

Sometime within the next 2 years a team from Phoenix, Seattle, Portland, or Dallas needs to win something so all of us can STFU.

[/ QUOTE ]

You better get it done, cuz Celtics Dynasty 3.0 is starting in '09.

[kidcolin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, but I just don't see the Suns winning a title with D'Antoni as the coach. His whining and stubbornness permeates through the younger players on the team

[/ QUOTE ]
This is simply and logically wrong. Sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you tuq, but I was laughing so hard when D'[San]Antoni[o] was absolutely FLIPPING OUT near the end of the game when Duncan got locked up for a jump ball. I mean, he was LOSING it. It was so funny. It was the type of performance that draws all the Ron Burgundy comparisons.