[2016] The Finals

[ockingsfan]

Did it though? The reason the Cavs came back is because they've had most of their success when doing the same thing. Lebron played some center in this series. Trying to stay big against the Warriors and pound them inside with Love in the post is what cost them the first two games. The difference is by going small the Cavs were able to switch all screens and lock the Warriors up defensively. When Love was in, it was like watching the Kings last year, just sagging off the pick and watching the shooter have open looks all night.

That said, the Cavs don't have a Demarcus Cousins in the post. That would obviously in theory be a nightmare matchup for the W's "death squad" lineup. Still, being able to switch screens is vital in an era where very little contact is allowed beyond the 3 point line.

The Cavs came back and won because they stopped trying to match GSW 3 pointers for 3 pointers.

They attacked the rim and kicked out for 3's, when open. Instead of doing what every other team does, trying to out run and gun the Warriors.

The Cavs played physical, smash-mouth basketball and the Warriors coward away.

When you live by the Three, you die by the Three.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

FYI, shout out to @NowImLost, @Glenn, @PurpleHaze and @In the L.A.nd o the Enemy for correctly calling the series.

 

[king07]

They'll be back. Still favorites to get back to the finals next year, just need grab a legit big. Meanwhile the Kings will be lucky to win 35 games again. Haters gonna hate. #reality

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

They'll be back. Still favorites to get back to the finals next year, just need grab a legit big. Meanwhile the Kings will be lucky to win 35 games again. Haters gonna hate. #reality

Uh... who's hating whom in this post?

 

[KingsFanSince85]

You intimated it. You said Lebron was playing at the exact same level as last year, so simply having Kyrie would have produced similar results.

The inaccuracy in those statements is the presumptuous nature of it.

Intimated? No, you inferred it even though I didn't make an absolute statement. If it wasn't clear beforehand, I clarified several times to no avail. Furthermore, it's pretty funny that you label my opinion as "presumptuous" when that's been your M.O. the entire time. Have fun with that going forward. I'll be sure to steer clear.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

To be fair, a rational argument can be made that the series doesn't reach a Game 6 if Green plays in Game 5.

The only reason I brought it up is because the prevailing opinion from the pro-Warriors/anti-Cavs crowd seems to be that the Warriors would have won GM5 had Draymond played. I just don't see how anyone can believe that with any real certainty, especially given the hindsight that the Warriors didn't win GM6 or GM7 (at home) with Green in the lineup and playing extremely well.

It's not as if GM5 was close either. The Cavs won by 15. They won GM6 by 14 when Green came back.

Had Draymond missed GM7, these same people would be saying that the Warriors would have won the game and the series had he played. But he did play GM7 and the Warriors didn't win. So there's no reason to believe it's anywhere close to a given that they would have won GM5 either. We simply will never know. And for that reason, along with what we saw in GM6 and GM7, it shouldn't be used as a hypothetical crutch. That's all I'm saying.

You are correct that someone can make an argument for it, but I don't believe it to be a very good argument given everything I outlined above.

 

[Bricklayer]

 

[KingsFanSince85]

^^ That's freaking AWESOME!

Did you find it or did you create it?

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

That's fantastic.

 

[peacelate]

Intimated? No, you inferred it even though I didn't make an absolute statement. If it wasn't clear beforehand, I clarified several times to no avail. Furthermore, it's pretty funny that you label my opinion as "presumptuous" when that's been your M.O. the entire time. Have fun with that going forward. I'll be sure to steer clear.

To be perfectly clear, I don't care that you opinion is presumptuous per se. I'm baffled as to why you think it's unreasonable for fans to suggest Green would have made a difference in Game 5 because the Cavs would game 6 and 7. Any suggestion that Green's injury affected the outcome is reaching.

Yet, you think it's reasonable to suggest Irving last year would have been a difference. Didn't the Warriors beat the Cavs in 1, 2, and 4 this year with a healthy Irving?

The argument that Green wouldn't have made a difference in game 5 because the Warriors lost game 6 and 7 is a fallacy.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

Yet, you think it's reasonable to suggest Irving last year would have been a difference.

See, I knew I'd have to repeat yet again.

One last time: Irving and Love missing 11 combined games in the Finals last year >>> Green missing 1 game this year

Tell me, what's unreasonable about that "presumption"?

I'm baffled as to why you think it's unreasonable for fans to suggest Green would have made a difference in Game 5 because the Cavs would game 6 and 7. Any suggestion that Green's injury affected the outcome is reaching.

I don't think it's unreasonable. Anything can happen in one game. I just think the argument lost a lot of weight given what happened in GM6 and GM7. Let's put it another way. Given that Cleveland won GM6 facing elimination and GM7 on the road in a winner take ALL with Draymond Green on the floor for both games, I think it's become easier to believe that they may have won GM5 even with Green's participation.

Again, I'm not saying that the outcome of GM5 couldn't have been different. I'm saying that those assuming that it surely would have been had Green played are making a huge leap of faith given what occurred in GM's 6 and 7.

In summary, we don't know that anything would have been different. What we do know is that Green's participation didn't tilt the series in the Warriors favor in any of the remaining elimination games.

Didn't the Warriors beat the Cavs in 1, 2, and 4 this year with a healthy Irving?

Didn't the Cavs beat the Warriors in 3, 5, 6, and 7 and win the series this year with a healthy Irving?

In last year's series, they won 2 games and led 2-1 with Delladova playing heavy minutes. A guy that couldn't get much PT in this series. It's far from a stretch to believe that a healthy Irving -- who averaged over 27 ppg this series -- just might make a pretty big difference over 6 or 7 games. We're not talking about 1 game here. LeBron had very little help during last year's Finals. Imagine Steph and the Warriors without Klay Thompson the entire series. I'm betting you believe he's pretty darned important.

Again, I'm not saying that I know for certain that the Cavs would have won last year. The only thing I am certain of is that their chances would have been much, much better. And what I saw from Kyrie this postseason makes me feel pretty confident that it would have been different despite the fact that we'll never know.

The argument that Green wouldn't have made a difference in game 5 because the Warriors lost game 6 and 7 is a fallacy.

Prove it.

The Warriors lost by 15. While Green surely could have made a "difference", there's no way to know that difference would have resulted in a Warriors win. Maybe they they would have lost by 4 instead of 15 -- just like they did in GM7.

The only fallacy is you mocking the notion that Kevin Love played a part in their victory. Aside from the factual stats I gave you, you also conveniently chose to ignore the defense he played out on the 3pt line when it mattered most late in GM7. He made Curry waste valuable time working for a good look at a couple 3's that ended up being contested and missed.

 

[ockingsfan]

When the game is on the line and the old sphincter gets tight, those 3 pointers that usually goes splash, all of the sudden goes clank!!!

 

[peacelate]

One last time: Irving and Love missing 11 combined games in the Finals last year >>> Green missing 1 game this year

Tell me, what's unreasonable about that "presumption"?

It's presumptuous because even with a healthy Love and Irving, it still took them a game 7 that went down to the wire to win. I'm not trying to take away anything from the Cavs. They earned this year's championship. I think any reasonable person who watched game 7 knows the game could have gone either way. That's why it's rather ridiculous to assume the outcome would have been the same last year. A bounce here or there and the Warriors could have won. Would the same open shots the Warriors missed in game 7 happen last year? It's difficult to project the result of a series that concluded with an extremely close closeout game onto a previous series in a previous year because all variables would have to remain constant.

Didn't the Cavs beat the Warriors in 3, 5, 6, and 7 and win the series this year with a healthy Irving?

In last year's series, they won 2 games and led 2-1 with Delladova playing heavy minutes. A guy that couldn't get much PT in this series. It's far from a stretch to believe that a healthy Irving -- who averaged over 27 ppg this series -- just might make a pretty big difference over 6 or 7 games. We're not talking about 1 game here. LeBron had very little help during last year's Finals. Imagine Steph and the Warriors without Klay Thompson the entire series. I'm betting you believe he's pretty darned important.

Again, I'm not saying that I know for certain that the Cavs would have won last year. The only thing I am certain of is that their chances would have been much, much better. And what I saw from Kyrie this postseason makes me feel pretty confident that it would have been different despite the fact that we'll never know.

Prove it.

The Warriors lost by 15. While Green surely could have made a "difference", there's no way to know that difference would have resulted in a Warriors win. Maybe they they would have lost by 4 instead of 15 -- just like they did in GM]
7.

The argument is a fallacy because the Warriors won Game 1,2, and 4, so they could have also won game 5. So your argument that the outcome in game 5 likely wouldn't have changed based on the results of game 6 and 7 doesn't hold water. Again, Warriors had all the momentum going into game 5.

The only fallacy is you mocking the notion that Kevin Love played a part in their victory. Aside from the factual stats I gave you, you also conveniently chose to ignore the defense he played out on the 3pt line when it mattered most late in GM7. He made Curry waste valuable time working for a good look at a couple 3's that ended up being contested and missed.

I've already said +/- is a flawed stat. Is it factual. Sure. Anybody can make up a flawed, factual stat. Basketball sabremetrics have invented stats: are those all reliable?

 

[KingsFanSince85]

When the game is on the line and the old sphincter gets tight, those 3 pointers that usually goes splash, all of the sudden goes clank!!!

LOL. True.

In fairness to GSW, and their opponents, the Thunder and Cavs played pretty darned good perimeter defense on the whole. They had the length and athleticism to bother those guys and as the series wore on they found it more and more difficult to find open shots. The Cavs perimeter defense in the waning moments of GM7 was absolutely stellar. Klay and Steph were suffocated.

 

[whoopdeedoo]

KingsFanSince85, you have patience of a saint.

 

[SacTownKid]

Except that, when the Cavs play small ball, their matchup advantage still ends up being a post-up player. Their small-ball offense involves the objective of getting the ball to the guy who still ends up being the biggest guy on the court, and letting him make decisions.

The funny thing about the Cavaliers offense is that, as they got deeper in the playoffs, their three-point shooting actually regressed to the mean. Aside from the blowup against the Hawks, their attempts otherwise went down in every round, to the point that they were shooting around the league average number of attempts in the Finals: 29.6 during the regular season, 34.5 in the first round, 38 in the second round, 29.2 in the conference finals, and 24.3 in the Finals, compared to a league average of 24.1.

They ran a lot of pick and roll with James. That was the recipe for success in Miami as well. Their defense is what won them the title, no doubt, and it was their ability to switch because they were small that allowed it to happen. But they still went small for defensive reasons and it worked, that was my point.

 

[SacTownKid]

The Cavs came back and won because they stopped trying to match GSW 3 pointers for 3 pointers.

They attacked the rim and kicked out for 3's, when open. Instead of doing what every other team does, trying to out run and gun the Warriors.

The Cavs played physical, smash-mouth basketball and the Warriors coward away.

When you live by the Three, you die by the Three.

I'm certainly not advocating the all out 3 point barrage, but going small allowed the Cavs to keep Curry and Klay with a hand in their face consistently. The Warriors try and wear you down by running you into pick and roll screens and off ball screens all night. They got that done to them on the other end for once, and the Cavs just switched theirs. The Warriors got their own defensive strategy thrown back at them. Like I said, I think teams looking to win big have to be able to do that somewhat effectively.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

They ran a lot of pick and roll with James. That was the recipe for success in Miami as well. Their defense is what won them the title, no doubt, and it was their ability to switch because they were small that allowed it to happen. But they still went small for defensive reasons and it worked, that was my point.

That's just circumstance. We agree that the Cavaliers won because of defense; it just so happens that the only way that they could defend the Warriors' small ball is with small players. If they'd had the personnel to defend Golden State's small ball with larger players, like Oklahoma City does, like Minnesota appears to be trying to build towards, they would have. And, even then, they still took fewer threes as the stakes got higher in the playoffs, and won playing a lot of what essentially amounted to bully-ball on offense; they just happen to have the one of the very few guys in the modern NBA that you could play at small-ball center, and still play bully-ball with... which was my point.

Yeah, the Cavaliers ran a lot of screen/roll, too, but they were running screen/roll to get layups and dunks, and the other guys were running screen/roll to get twenty-five-foot jumpers, and the percentages finally caught up with them.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

KingsFanSince85, you have patience of a saint.

LOL... not sure that's entirely true but I appreciate the sentiment nonetheless.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

Their defense is what won them the title, no doubt, and it was their ability to switch because they were small that allowed it to happen. But they still went small for defensive reasons and it worked, that was my point.

Do you consider lineups with Tristan Thompson and/or Kevin Love small? Those guys averaged 32 and 26 minutes per game respectively and were often out on the perimeter putting a hand in the shooters face. Thompson was especially impressive. He was one-on-one with Curry numerous times and wasn't a liability.

Richard Jefferson was impressive when they went really small, but didn't play as many minutes as those other guys.

All in all, I thought the Cavs fared well when they stayed big.

 

[ESP47]

A handful of guys not known for their defense stepped up and suppressed two guys in Curry and Thompson who will wind up being the best and one of the best shooters of all time. Curry shot 40%, Klay 43%. Both well under their season averages. The only guy who got his offense off was Draymond but the Warriors are so talented that even if you take away Curry and Klay and force the rest of the guys to beat you...they'll still come within a few points of winning it all. Pretty much every fan knows that you don't go toe to toe with the best shooting tandem ever. Yet for some strange reason, whether it's ego or what, teams continue to try to out Warrior the Warriors. The Thunder knew what to do and came up a little short. The Cavs spent half the series trying to out Warrior them before smartening up and just playing defense and bully ball. The Thunder laid the blueprint for beating them and the Cavs executed it in games 5, 6 and 7. I'm curious to see if things go differently for Steph and Klay next year.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

The Cavs spent half the series trying to out Warrior them before smartening up and just playing defense and bully ball.

I don't necessarily agree with you here. They started out GM1 trying to make the role players beat them (remember, Klay and Steph only combined for 20). And in that game, they did. Offensively, the Cavs didn't go crazy with the 3-ball at all and also kept their bigs on the floor for heavy minutes.

I really don't think Coach Lue altered tactics all that much. They kept Klay and Steph in check as much as they could and role players played well here and there but not well enough to win the series. In fact, I've heard Kerr getting criticized all day today for not making adjustments to what the Cavs were doing.

 

[SCKingsfan]

A handful of guys not known for their defense stepped up and suppressed two guys in Curry and Thompson who will wind up being the best and one of the best shooters of all time. Curry shot 40%, Klay 43%. Both well under their season averages. The only guy who got his offense off was Draymond but the Warriors are so talented that even if you take away Curry and Klay and force the rest of the guys to beat you...they'll still come within a few points of winning it all. Pretty much every fan knows that you don't go toe to toe with the best shooting tandem ever. Yet for some strange reason, whether it's ego or what, teams continue to try to out Warrior the Warriors. The Thunder knew what to do and came up a little short. The Cavs spent half the series trying to out Warrior them before smartening up and just playing defense and bully ball. The Thunder laid the blueprint for beating them and the Cavs executed it in games 5, 6 and 7. I'm curious to see if things go differently for Steph and Klay next year.

Yeah, I wonder too how things will look next year now that there seems a successfully applied blueprint for containing (or least moderating) the GS offense. It's really not a surprise, of course, but it does take a whole lot of effort, and no lack of defensive talent, to do what the Cavs did. So I expect around a 60+ win season for GS, assuming the keep what they have, despite what's been learned in the POs. I admit that I hate to see essentially soft teams (debate if you will) excel as much as they have. Of course, I'm the kind of guy that believes to stop a shooter, you have to constantly bump them around and kindly lay them out a couple of times to keep them off balance and rhythm. It was a think of beauty to watch nearly every shot Curry put in in games 6 or 7 have to be a veritable circus shot (although he typically hits them at a good clip), partly from the hounding d, partly from well orchestrated switches. It's basically the best you can do, because when tensions get high, and fatigue ratchets up, the basket always gets a whole lot smaller, especially from distance. Curry's shots became downright ugly. I'm always happy when the stronger AND smarter teams beats the finesse teams - it's part of the carnality of sports that I've internalized I guess. Let tech nerds be tech nerds, I say, but on the playing field, brawn and smarts together are the kind of genius I can acknowledge and appreciate . I have trouble accepting that 3pt shooting teams can/should be called "dominant" or "the future of the game," and I'm happy that for one year at least, i don't yet have to accept it.

 

[Bricklayer]

^^ That's freaking AWESOME!

Did you find it or did you create it?

Oh, missed this: yeah, been making the rounds. Not mine.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

Oh, missed this: yeah, been making the rounds. Not mine.

Well, thanks for posting it! I honestly could see you coming up with the idea, though.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Bwahaha...the look on Klays face and his body language are hilarious.

 

[VF21]

That is what doomed us during the Adelman years. The guy was an offensive genius, but we never had a solid defense back then. Why have the Spurs been able to be so dang good all these years? Defense. Why do they have multiple championships? Defense. Why have past teams like Dallas (Dirk and Nash) and Phoenix (Nash, Amare, Marion) struggled to win titles? All O, and No D. I am waiting........no, I'm dying to see the day when the Kings become a lock down defensive juggernaut.

Until then....

No offense, but horse crap.

 

[VF21]

Uh... who's hating whom in this post?

Look over his post history. The truth is there.

 

[passionforpurple916]

No offense, but horse crap.

From the 1998-1999 to 2005-2006 seasons (all under Adelman) we only had 2 seasons where we allowed fewer than 100 points per game.
In that same stretch, the San Antonio Spurs had 8 such seasons where they allowed fewer than 100 points per game.
In the years that the Spurs have gone on to win the championship, they have allowed more than 100 points per game only once (which was during their most recent title run).
I'm sorry, but allowing 100+ points per game is not considered a "solid defense"...
And allowing 100+ points per game is not going to get you a lot of championships (just ask the Warriors, who allowed 100+ points per game this season)

 

[SacTownKid]

Do you consider lineups with Tristan Thompson and/or Kevin Love small? Those guys averaged 32 and 26 minutes per game respectively and were often out on the perimeter putting a hand in the shooters face. Thompson was especially impressive. He was one-on-one with Curry numerous times and wasn't a liability.

Richard Jefferson was impressive when they went really small, but didn't play as many minutes as those other guys.

All in all, I thought the Cavs fared well when they stayed big.

Absolutely if it's either/or since they are the only true big, that to me means they are playing small. Love would switch but he would play off pick and roll which is a big no no against a team like Golden State.

In the final game where they locked up the title they had no Love out there and only one big in Thompson.