# 2007 NBA Finals Spurs vs Cavs



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

This years playoffs has not been as compelling as last years. Its been quite a bore actually minus a handful of games. 

I think they definitly need to stop putting so much emphasis on whos leading the division and give the best 8 teams in each conference regardless of divisions the top 8. 

As for the Spurs and Cavs match up, i could care less. I'll probably root for Spurs, just because they are the better more experienced team. I assure you that the Spurs will put Lebron on his butt. But i don't think it will go longer than 5 games.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

My pick is Spurs in five games.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

I think it's going to be a great series to watch and more competitive than Pistons-Spurs would have been. 

Why? The Cavs are miles better, defensively, than any team the Spurs have faced thus far. People can knock the Cavs' personnel all they want, or accuse LeBron of being a mediocre defender, but it somehow went unnoticed during the regular season and is on full display right now: Cleveland digs in deep in the halfcourt and simply doesn't give up any easy shot attempts. They are performing at a very, very high level right now on that end of the floor.

Also, SA/Popovich is loathe to double-team, and they'll almost certainly have to do that vs. Cleveland. Won't they? 

Granted, the Spurs have all of the intangibles (experience, namely) on their side, plus the home court, but I look for Cleveland to force a seventh game that the Spurs will win.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Very much reminds me of the Bulls vs. the Lakers. Being a not quite 15, I thought the Lakers, who'd won or been in the Finals pretty much every year I could remember, were a pretty impossible looking obstacle. But beat them the Bulls did.

Don't see why it couldn't happen for the Cavs.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

Im suprised at the optimism for the Cavs to keep up with the Spurs. I guess thats what happens when one team has Lebron who has peaked at the right time. I just think of the Spurs as a more focused team over Detriot. Sure Detriot is or WAS a great TEAM, but i think they missed Ben Wallace alot in the conference finals. They didn't get the stops that they needed down the stretch, espically how Lebron was going to the hole at will over and over. If you think about it Detriot is a bunch of soft players that cover each others asses fairly well, and the Spurs act soft but they can get under your skin because they never let up.

I guess we'll find out if Lebron and the Lebronettes can keep up with the Spurs or if indeed Spurs can keep up with Lebron.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

I agree that the series will be closer than most people give it credit for. Particularly, as good a defensive team as San Antonio is, I don't think they have a good matchup for Lebron James. 

Bruce Bowen is a great defender, and he's great at staying in people's faces, but Lebron can pretty much drive right through guys his size, I think. A lot of the time, I think people forget the fact that Lebron is the size of a prototype NBA PF, which is scary. Simply staying in his face isn't good enough, because he can just pretend he's a fullback and carry people while he gets to the rim. Ideally, I think the best matchups against him are the hybrid 3/4 with very good lateral quickness on defense, such as Artest, Kirilenko, and Josh Smith. 

I think San Antonio is going to have form a box around him on defense, and take 4 guys to make a bracket around him whenever he has the ball in his hands. I still think San Antonio wins it, since they've just been executing the hell out of the competition in these playoffs, but I think it will be a competitive 6 or 7 games.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

I predict that Stern will make sure that Lebron gets lots of foul shots, gets to drive to the basket without dribbling and push off without penalty. Of course, he's not that good a foul shooter, so it's not as much an advantage as one might expect.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

Im just annoyed that we'll have to see Drew Goodens ugly mug and disturbing rat tail or whatever for atleast another 4 games.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

rosenthall said:


> I agree that the series will be closer than most people give it credit for. Particularly, as good a defensive team as San Antonio is, I don't think they have a good matchup for Lebron James.
> 
> Bruce Bowen is a great defender, and he's great at staying in people's faces, but Lebron can pretty much drive right through guys his size, I think. A lot of the time, I think people forget the fact that Lebron is the size of a prototype NBA PF, which is scary. Simply staying in his face isn't good enough, because he can just pretend he's a fullback and carry people while he gets to the rim. *Ideally, I think the best matchups against him are the hybrid 3/4 with very good lateral quickness on defense, such as Artest, Kirilenko, and Josh Smith. *
> 
> I think San Antonio is going to have form a box around him on defense, and take 4 guys to make a bracket around him whenever he has the ball in his hands. I still think San Antonio wins it, since they've just been executing the hell out of the competition in these playoffs, but I think it will be a competitive 6 or 7 games.


Lebron puts up really big numbers (more then his standard high numbers) against Artest and Kirilenko. The best way counteract James from a SF is go against him when is he on defense with an aggresive SF like Gerald Wallace and Ruben Patterson who like to post up (surprising with Lebron's strength and bulk). But then again RJ and Prince were in this category of players before this playoffs and Lebron pretty much ownded them on both D and O. From a Bulls perspective, I don't think you can ask more then Deng whose got good size and will always be a threat on offense


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

McBulls said:


> I predict that Stern will make sure that Lebron gets lots of foul shots, gets to drive to the basket without dribbling and push off without penalty. Of course, he's not that good a foul shooter, so it's not as much an advantage as one might expect.


Yeah just like Game 2 against the Pistons


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

I'm torn. I think it would be incredible to witness the birth of a new super-duper star. But if the Cavs win, that pretty much spells doom for the rest of the league. If the Spurs can't beat them, how will anyone else be able to for the next 6 years? 

Anyway, I don't think the Cavs will win. I predict 4-1 Spurs.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

McBulls said:


> I predict that Stern will make sure that Lebron gets lots of foul shots, gets to drive to the basket without dribbling and push off without penalty. Of course, he's not that good a foul shooter, so it's not as much an advantage as one might expect.


Oh.

I responded to you in the other thread under the impression that you were a solid, levelheaded poster who usually contributes good points. Nevermind then. I think I might have had you confused with another Bulls poster.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Spurs in 4. 

Pistons took advantage of the Bulls lack of Size.
Cavs where a big bigger and had the best player on the court and beat the Pistons.
Spurs are bigger and more talented then both the Pistons and Cavs and has arguably the best player in the NBA in Tim Duncan.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Spurs in 6.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

If it wasn't for the long layoff, I'd say Spurs in 4. Heck, I'll say it anyway.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> Very much reminds me of the Bulls vs. the Lakers. Being a not quite 15, I thought the Lakers, who'd won or been in the Finals pretty much every year I could remember, were a pretty impossible looking obstacle. But beat them the Bulls did.
> 
> Don't see why it couldn't happen for the Cavs.


The difference between that Bulls team and this year's Cavs team is like the difference between this year's Cavs and Magic. 

I think the Cavs will get killed.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

Pioneer10 said:


> Lebron puts up really big numbers (more then his standard high numbers) against Artest and Kirilenko. The best way counteract James from a SF is go against him when is he on defense with an aggresive SF like Gerald Wallace and Ruben Patterson who like to post up (surprising with Lebron's strength and bulk). But then again RJ and Prince were in this category of players before this playoffs and Lebron pretty much ownded them on both D and O. From a Bulls perspective, I don't think you can ask more then Deng whose got good size and will always be a threat on offense


Well, you would know better than I would. I never thought of Luol Deng as being a great defensive matchup for Lebron. He's active defensively, but he always seems to have trouble with guys that are his size and are quicker than him. I've always felt more comfortable with Nocioni guarding him, since they're about the same size, and Noc is remarkably physical.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

rosenthall said:


> Well, you would know better than I would. I never thought of Luol Deng as being a great defensive matchup for Lebron. He's active defensively, but he always seems to have trouble with guys that are his size and are quicker than him. I've always felt more comfortable with Nocioni guarding him, since they're about the same size, and Noc is remarkably physical.


Deng has a little bit more length then Nocioni which causes more trouble for Lebron. Nocioni earlier in his career seem to do a better job frankly on Lebron but that has faded (injuries? to Noc) over time IMO. I just don't think he has the physical tools to hamper Lebron as much as Deng. But here's the thing as it's on offense where you really have to go after Lebron. Make him work. Prince used to do a great job on this but he didn't this last series (in large part because of Lebron's improved D) and you can see what happened. Gerald Wallace is the blueprint for a guy to counteract James: Deng isn't as physical as Wallace but he's got the tools. In short, I wouldnt' worry about getting Lebron "stoppers" if I was the Bulls all that much


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

I have watched total of 15 minutes of NBA since Bulls' loss. It probably stays there.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

I'll watch this series. I suspect that will entail me watching 5 more games this season and confetti falling all over Tim Duncan wearing a baseball cap.

The Cavs are going to get absolutely smoked. I still don't understand what happened in the Pistons series, but lightning ain't gonna strike twice.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> The Cavs are going to get absolutely smoked. I still don't understand what happened in the Pistons series, but lightning ain't gonna strike twice.


What happend was Detroit finally played against a team where the average height in the backcourt wasnt under 6 feet! 

But seriously the Pistons really stunk up the place shooting wise.


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

Well, those Spurs aren't half bad.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

Did somebody win already?


----------



## Nu_Omega (Nov 27, 2006)

i'm still wondering how the cavs got to the finals....


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Nu_Omega said:


> i'm still wondering how the cavs got to the finals....


1. Detroit took a vacation early
2. We lost to NJ in the Finale


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Why, why, why does ABC control the schedule? The final should have started a couple of days after the conference finals. And run every other day when they're in the same city. Plus start earlier. 

No wonder the ratings aren't good - they kill the momentum.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Nu_Omega said:


> i'm still wondering how the cavs got to the finals....


Well dint you hear supposedly Jordan is on the Cavs.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

> *Viewer ratings for NBA Finals continue to plummet*
> 
> Game 2 of the NBA finals lost nearly one-third of its television audience from last year.
> 
> ...


http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2007/news/story?id=2902227


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

Big suprise that the ratings are down. I havn't watched one game of this series and probably won't for the final game. I think people are just fed up with Lebron quite frankly. People have just been overstuffed with Lebron in their faces with billboards, commercials and so on, that they just don't care. He is a super talent noone is denying that, but there is a point where consumers just shut off certain things when you get force fed a particular product too often.. and speaking for myself, i've switched off anything to do with Lebron. 

I think they also need to reconfigure the playoff seeding and match ups, and toss out the division leaders benefits which is ridiculous. Best 8 should be in the players from each division and should be ranked accordingly depending on their record. There were alot of good match up series that were played too early in the playoffs and the bad series that were played too late in the playoffs.


----------



## T-Time (Mar 3, 2007)

^^ I think its just to small market teams one being dominant, the other being above average and the above average team is being dominanted by the dominant team . No but seriously, the only thing worth watching if your an "NBA" fan is weather or not Lebron will have another "Jordanesque" performance, otherwise the series will be what it is now which is boredom.

Unfortuanetly for stern and the nba lebron hasn't shown up and its making the tv ratings suffer which ultimately hurts the league.


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

3-0. 
If/when the spurs win how many rings will Duncan and Horry have?

3 and 7??


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Duncan is going for his 4th.


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

Horry is going for his 7th.

"Robert Horry and another clutch-shooting role player, Steve Kerr, alternated NBA Championships for a decade, and combined to win 11 championships over a twelve-year period. Either Kerr or Horry was on the roster of every NBA Championship team from the 1993-1994 season through the 2002-2003 season. Horry's teams were victorious in the NBA Finals in 1994, 1995, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2005. Kerr's teams were winners in the NBA Finals in 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2003. Each won 3 titles playing for Phil Jackson-coached teams and every other championship with a team from Texas, the Spurs or the Rockets."


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)




----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

The window of opportunity for Cleveland is narrow. They had a nice run, but obviously they don't belong on the same court as San Antonio. 

Next year Z and Marshall will be a year older. Rasheed, McDyess, Hunter and Webber will be a year older. Carter and Kidd will be a year older. Shaq and Zo will be a year older. And Gordon, Hinrich, Deng and Thomas will be a year older. 

The window of opportunity for the Bulls is opening.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

McBulls said:


> The window of opportunity for Cleveland is narrow. They had a nice run, but obviously they don't belong on the same court as San Antonio.
> 
> Next year Z and Marshall will be a year older. Rasheed, McDyess, Hunter and Webber will be a year older. Carter and Kidd will be a year older. Shaq and Zo will be a year older. And Gordon, Hinrich, Deng and Thomas will be a year older.
> 
> The window of opportunity for the Bulls is opening.


No doubt about it. In fact, I'd say Cleveland's window is *closed* until they shake up that roster (which they will, but when?).

They had a laughably easy road to the Eastern Conference Finals and, in my opinion, lightning struck in the Pistons series. What we are seeing is no different than Golden State getting remarkably hot at just the right time against Dallas, only to have their asses kicked the next round by Utah.

I said as much on the first page of this thread when I predicted the Spurs would absolutely whip the Cavs. 

I still consider the Cavs the 3rd best team in the East. They could move up if Detroit makes major moves to rebuild on the fly, or they could move down if Orlando has a terrific offseason with free agency.


----------



## Snake (Jun 10, 2007)

McBulls said:


> The window of opportunity for Cleveland is narrow. They had a nice run, but obviously they don't belong on the same court as San Antonio.
> 
> Next year Z and Marshall will be a year older. Rasheed, McDyess, Hunter and Webber will be a year older. Carter and Kidd will be a year older. Shaq and Zo will be a year older. And Gordon, Hinrich, Deng and Thomas will be a year older.
> 
> The window of opportunity for the Bulls is opening.


The Cavs will probably stay at the same level they are at now. Thet've already been stuck on 50 wins for two seasons. The decline of the older guys will be negated by the improvement in Varjao, Pavlovic, Gibson.But I expect the Bulls to pass them next year. Sure Lebron could go nuts in a playoff series against us but last time I checked basketball was played 5 on 5 and our 5 beats theirs.

The team that could be a thorn in the Bulls sides is Toronto. Bosh, Bargnani, Ford, Calderon will all be a year older next year. They're right around the Bulls level now and are ready to take a step forward next year.

There's a couple of teams with talent like Milwaukee, Charlotte, Atlanta. But it reamins to be seen if they can put it together.

So Bulls-Raptors Conference finals next year.:clap: 
Really Bulls and Raptors are the two best teams in the near future with the Cavs a notch below them. Not saying the Cavs couldn't beat those two in a series but on overall quality they're a notch below.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

How come lightening struck for the Cavs and not the Bulls?

There was a thread a couple weeks back where the "rapid decline" of the Cavs older players was talked about and it didn't seem all that warranted to me. I really think you guys are kind of seeing what you want to see. Why is Ilgauskas falling apart but Wallace not? Ilgauskas is a year younger, has been slightly healthier over the past five seasons (he managed to play in 9 more regular season games over the same time than Wallace) and due to missing so much time with the foot problem which seems to be fixed, he's got a lot less mileage on him. Ben's played in 868 career games (regular season and playoffs). Z's played in about 584 depending on if they get swept. Divide that up into 82 game seasons and that's like Ben playing 10 and a half seasons and Z playing just over 7.

So ok, our only quality big man has missed more time in recent years, is older, has had a lot more use, and his game is obviously more dependent on his athleticism than Z, who's always just been a big slow-footed guy who's a very skilled offensive player. Losing his physical prowess ain't gonna hurt him because he's never had much to start with and never relied upon it a huge amount.

The other thing is that the Cavs seem a lot less dependent on Z or Marshall (who himself is not a major contributor anymore... more of a spot up shooter) than we are on Wallace. Obviously the Cavs would be hurt if those two guys dropped off the face of the Earth tomorrow, but how much worse would they be? They'd still have a couple of solid young guys and they'd be a playoff team certainly.

If Wallace were sucked into the Bermuda triangle, where would the Bulls be? Would they even make the playoffs?


----------



## Snake (Jun 10, 2007)

I just realized what bugs me about LeBron James.
310 3-point attempts on 31.9% shooting.
That's horrible. Either take less threes or get better at them.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> How come lightening struck for the Cavs and not the Bulls?


Um, because that is what "lightning struck" means? A chance occurrence that is out of the ordinary for what would normally happen. 

It didn't strike for the Bulls because it didn't. It did strike for the Cavs because it did. 

If you want an objective reason, how about this: The Pistons had to fight through the Bulls and had to play at an extremely high level to prevail. The Cavs, on the other hand, had to play a team that, due to injury, was the equivalent of the Boston Celtics and then the Nets. 

Is that *why* it happened? I dunno. I doubt it. I personally think it was the result of one team having role players step up unusually well at just the right time along with one historic game from an uber-star vs. another team that just flat out had a bad series. It happens almost every year. If they played that series 10 times in a row, Detroit would win 8 of them. 

The fact that they are getting their asses handed to them by San Antonio - a great team but a team that really isn't all *that* much better than the Pistons - suggests the viability of my "fluke" theory.

If Cleveland were legitimately as good as - or "better" than - Detroit, they'd be in this series. I know Detroit would be. 



> There was a thread a couple weeks back where the "rapid decline" of the Cavs older players was talked about and it didn't seem all that warranted to me.


I don't recall that thread and doubt very much that I would have agreed with the "rapidity" of their decline. I just don't think they have all that good a core of players. Thats my knock on them. 

The rest of your post doesn't touch on any of my personal beliefs or analysis, so I'll let others respond to that. 

If LeBron stays in Cleveland, I suspect they'll eventually get a core of players together that will have a long window for making runs at the title. But this core isn't that core.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

You guys talk about how old our team is, but really, how many of those guys are currently significant contributors to our team?

Z, that's about it. Snow has been all but phased out except situationally. Our core group of guys appears to be Lebron (22), Gooden (25), Gibson (21), Sasha (23), Varejao (24), and if Shannon Brown (22) become what we think he can be, he'll be an important contributor as well.

Why talk about the guys who hardly do anything for us anymore and make the claim that we're going downhill because they're old. The issues that we have are 1)Dealing with Hughes and his contract, and 2)Getting more young shooters. The first won't be easy, but we all know that one bad contract doesn't mean your team has no chance to recover (look at you guys with Wallace). 

But look at the best 5-man groups we're fielding in the playoffs and the finals. They're all very young guys.


----------



## Snake (Jun 10, 2007)

Brandname said:


> You guys talk about how old our team is, but really, how many of those guys are currently significant contributors to our team?
> 
> Z, that's about it. Snow has been all but phased out except situationally. Our core group of guys appears to be Lebron (22), Gooden (25), Gibson (21), Sasha (23), Varejao (24), and if Shannon Brown (22) become what we think he can be, he'll be an important contributor as well.
> 
> ...


It's about the upside of those young guys.
Gooden has entered his prime. It's arguable how much improvement LeBron has left, I don't see him getting much better. Pavlovic is gonna be a solid starter. Gibson an above average starter(again arguable as to what his ceiling is, just my opinion), Varejao is what he is he'll just get a little more efficient than he is now.

Combined with Z and other guys decline I guess I see the Cavs getting a little better than they are now.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Snake said:


> It's about the upside of those young guys.
> Gooden has entered his prime. It's arguable how much improvement LeBron has left, I don't see him getting much better. Pavlovic is gonna be a solid starter. Gibson an above average starter(again arguable as to what his ceiling is, just my opinion), Varejao is what he is he'll just get a little more efficient than he is now.
> 
> Combined with Z and other guys decline I guess I see the Cavs getting a little better than they are now.



It seems hasty to me to declare that LeBron has peaked. I think he's learning and will continue to make incremental improvements in his game for the next several seasons, minimally.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Um, because that is what "lightning struck" means? A chance occurrence that is out of the ordinary for what would normally happen.
> 
> It didn't strike for the Bulls because it didn't. It did strike for the Cavs because it did.
> 
> ...


Perhaps, I see some pretty obvious experience and matchup issues that could explain a lot of it too. Just like we did vs. the Pistons at the beginning of that series, the Cavs and especially Lebron developed a serious case of stage fright. I could see us getting our asses kicked like that if we were playing the Spurs now as well, even though we've played them close before. Just from a physical perspective, the Cavs seemed to match up fairly well vs. the Pistons, while we matched up poorly.


----------



## Snake (Jun 10, 2007)

jnrjr79 said:


> It seems hasty to me to declare that LeBron has peaked. I think he's learning and will continue to make incremental improvements in his game for the next several seasons, minimally.


I didn't mean to imply that he had peaked. I do think he'll be somewhat better mostly through smarter play (like the 3 point shooting I mentioned above). I just don't see him making a large improvement over the next copule of years.(He's already really good)


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Perhaps, I see some pretty obvious experience and matchup issues that could explain a lot of it too.


Did those "obvious" experience and matchup issues not exist against Detroit?



> Just like we did vs. the Pistons at the beginning of that series, the Cavs and especially Lebron developed a serious case of stage fright. I could see us getting our asses kicked like that if we were playing the Spurs now as well, even though we've played them close before.


I agree that this is likely part of it. 



> Just from a physical perspective, the Cavs seemed to match up fairly well vs. the Pistons, while we matched up poorly.


Maybe. Though I'm not sure a tiny Boobie Gibson and a hobbled Larry Hughes matches up all that well with Chauncy/Rip - yet the Pistons backcourt struggled nonetheless. 

Bowen, Prince, Bron, Deng - that all pretty much evens out. Really, the only thing Cleveland had going for them that the Bulls didn't was Drew Gooden playing above himself and a healthy Z instead of a hobbled Wallace. But these are all things they have today, too.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Snake said:


> I didn't mean to imply that he had peaked. I do think he'll be somewhat better mostly through smarter play (like the 3 point shooting I mentioned above). I just don't see him making a large improvement over the next copule of years.(He's already really good)


Lebron's statistics might not get any better than they've been the last couple seasons, but he'll probably get better in a lot of ways that don't show up in the stats. To trot out the usual tired comparison, Jordan's best years statistically came in years when the Bulls couldn't beat Boston or Detroit. Added maturity plus a better roster around Lebron could have the same effect in the win column and playoffs. He seems like the kind of guy who will learn, adjust and keep working like MJ did.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Sorry to rehash the Ilgauskas vs Wallace "who's aging worse" debate, but there are several matters that differentiate the two, in my opinon:

1) What's more awkward: A 6'9, 240 lb guy running up and down the court for 30 minutes a game, or a 7'3, 270 lb guy? Sure, Ilgauskas is more skilled by a long shot and doesn't rely on athleticism, but fact of the matter is that you need to get up and down the court to be effective.

2) What component of the game ages better: offense or defense? From my observation, I usually see some pretty decent 38 year old interior defenders (PJ Brown, Antonio Davis, to name a few), whereas I see very few 38 year old scorers. In other words, I think mobility is a more vital to your ability to score. Wallace doesn't do this anyway, whereas Ilgauskas does.

And to top things off, who is more vital to their team's success? Seems to me the Cavs rely far more of Big Z than we do on Wallace. Take Ilgauskas off the Cavs, and that supporting cast is borderline terrible. Take Wallace off the Bulls, and we'll still field a competitive team.

However, other than Ilgauskas, I'm not sure the Cavs as a team are actually "declining rapidly"...it's more that they've pretty much maxed out their potential. Will they build much beyond 50 wins? Veteran experience might get them some extra wins I suppose. Gibson is the only guy who I think has any untapped potential worth noting. Pavlovic and Varejao are good role players, but are similiar to Nocioni in that they there's not much else there. LeBron needs more help, and I don't see them getting it with only late 1st rounders, no cap space, and few tradeable assets.

The Bulls meanwhile have this #9 pick which looks to get a top 5 caliber player, and still have a rather large handful of young tradeable assets (whether Pax does anything is another story). My point is, I find it hard to deny that we're in very good position to surpass the Cavs in the next few years. The trick is, we need to make a strong draft pick this year, and do something smart in terms of trade or re-signing our free agents.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

the spurs are a faster team than detroit.

Big Z doesn't have a slow Chris Webber to match up with.

Billups is a pg that uses his size and strength. 
Hughes' size and athleticism was a good matchup against him.
Hughes/Boobie/Snow cannot keep Parker in front of them without help.

Rasheed was more of a perimeter player, reverting to a 3 point shooter. 
That's easy to defend, no need to double team.
Duncan of course lives in the inside. 
He's constantly doubled, and that leaves teams in a scramble mode. 
He has the patience to pick that scrambling defense apart with passing.
Or he can get the high percentage shot if he's defended straight up.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

that and gooden and varaejo were a bunch of knuckle heads in the clutch.
how many over the back fouls did gooden have? all 6?

and varaejo panicked in the pick and roll with lebron. 
what's he thinking going one on one with duncan with that terrible spin move and brick?
either he lost track of the shot clock or he was thinking that he's totally got this.


----------



## Snake (Jun 10, 2007)

ViciousFlogging said:


> Lebron's statistics might not get any better than they've been the last couple seasons, but he'll probably get better in a lot of ways that don't show up in the stats. To trot out the usual tired comparison, Jordan's best years statistically came in years when the Bulls couldn't beat Boston or Detroit. Added maturity plus a better roster around Lebron could have the same effect in the win column and playoffs. He seems like the kind of guy who will learn, adjust and keep working like MJ did.


That's probably true, only time will tell how far he'll go.



RoRo said:


> that and gooden and varaejo were a bunch of knuckle heads in the clutch.
> how many over the back fouls did gooden have? all 6?
> 
> and varaejo panicked in the pick and roll with lebron.
> *what's he thinking going one on one with duncan with that terrible spin move and brick?*either he lost track of the shot clock or he was thinking that he's totally got this.


Wow my jaw dropped when I saw Varejao take it to the hoop one on one against Tim freaking Duncan of all people. I honestly couldn't believe my eyes.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

yodurk said:


> Sorry to rehash the Ilgauskas vs Wallace "who's aging worse" debate, but there are several matters that differentiate the two, in my opinon:
> 
> 1) What's more awkward: A 6'9, 240 lb guy running up and down the court for 30 minutes a game, or a 7'3, 270 lb guy? Sure, Ilgauskas is more skilled by a long shot and doesn't rely on athleticism, but fact of the matter is that you need to get up and down the court to be effective.


The quintessential model of longevity, Kareem Abdul-Jabber, had a similar body type and skillset to Zydrunas Ilgauskas. He wasn't fast getting up the floor in his old age, but he was still quite effective in the halfcourt.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

I found this Sam Smith article which basically summerizes how I feel about Cleveland making the finals. I don't know about Lebron leaving in 3 years, but some of the claims in this thread about the Cavs being the next great East power were pretty ridiculous.



> *James' gang done
> This season a fluke; don't expect Cavs to return to Finals*
> June 14, 2007
> 
> ...


There's more at the link:
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...,6877016.column?page=2&coll=cs-home-headlines


----------



## T-Time (Mar 3, 2007)

Looks like the spurs are on their way to their 4th title in what 9 years? Pretty good but not good enough to be compared to the Bulls, no way. I know im going to hate listening to ESPN try and compare this spurs team to the old dynasties. In my eyes, the Bulls would have killed the spurs in a series if they were playing each other. Malone is clearly better than Duncan and stockton was way better than tony parker. I'd say we would have probably swept this spurs team.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

T-Time said:


> Looks like the spurs are on their way to their 4th title in what 9 years? Pretty good but not good enough to be compared to the Bulls, no way. I know im going to hate listening to ESPN try and compare this spurs team to the old dynasties. In my eyes, the Bulls would have killed the spurs in a series if they were playing each other. Malone is clearly better than Duncan and stockton was way better than tony parker. I'd say we would have probably swept this spurs team.


I think Duncan is better than Malone, only because Duncan is a great player both Offensively and defensively, where as Malone was a great offensively player and a mediocre defensive player. Duncan doesn't have to nesscairly score to make an impact and gets everyone involved on the team. Tony Parker compared to John Stocken is no comarision yet i don't think, because Tony still has another decade left in him before his career will be over, and after Duncan retires you don't know how he'll turn out. But they are different players, Stockton is the pure point guard whereas Parker is the new aged scoring point guard. 

Im not sure if you could consider the Spurs a dynasty, but i think they would be close, just because how CONSISTENTLY they've been good through the last decade. They have literally always been playing for the championship year after year, and that is very hard to do for such a long period of time. Credit their managment for choosing the right players, from free agencies and draft picks, because that is one heck of a franchise.


----------



## T-Time (Mar 3, 2007)

Im going to go ahead and say, this was the worst NBA finals in history. I don't think anyone watched it. God I'm glad the Spurs are old so we don't have to watch this boring crap anymore. This will be there last championship, I gaurantee.


----------



## Snake (Jun 10, 2007)

T-Time said:


> Im going to go ahead and say, this was the worst NBA finals in history. I don't think anyone watched it. God I'm glad the Spurs are old so we don't have to watch this boring crap anymore. This will be there last championship, I gaurantee.


I think that was more the Cavs fault. The Spurs had some good games this season including the Phoenix series. I don't remember seeing one watchable Cleveland game.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

kulaz3000 said:


> I think Duncan is better than Malone, only because Duncan is a great player both Offensively and defensively, where as Malone was a great offensively player and a mediocre defensive player. Duncan doesn't have to nesscairly score to make an impact and gets everyone involved on the team. Tony Parker compared to John Stocken is no comarision yet i don't think, because Tony still has another decade left in him before his career will be over, and after Duncan retires you don't know how he'll turn out. But they are different players, Stockton is the pure point guard whereas Parker is the new aged scoring point guard.
> 
> Im not sure if you could consider the Spurs a dynasty, but i think they would be close, just because how CONSISTENTLY they've been good through the last decade. They have literally always been playing for the championship year after year, and that is very hard to do for such a long period of time. Credit their managment for choosing the right players, from free agencies and draft picks, because that is one heck of a franchise.


Karl Malone was 1st team all-nba defense three times and 2nd team once.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

DaBullz said:


> Karl Malone was 1st team all-nba defense three times and 2nd team once.


So whats your point? Im sure he'll even admitt that he wasn't a great defensive player. You think Malone was as good defensively compared to Duncan? 

Malones defense was overrated, and he was a poor defender in general. He was a gambler that always swiped at the ball and didn't use his feet. He may not have been the poorest of defenders in history, but some of those first team inductions were bogus.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

kulaz3000 said:


> So whats your point? Im sure he'll even admitt that he wasn't a great defensive player. You think Malone was as good defensively compared to Duncan?
> 
> Malones defense was overrated, and he was a poor defender in general. He was a gambler that always swiped at the ball and didn't use his feet. He may not have been the poorest of defenders in history, but some of those first team inductions were bogus.


My bad. I thought they gave 1st team all-nba defense awards to good defensive players.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

The Cavs shot themselves in the foot so many times in the fourth, it was really hard to watch. Reminded me of the young bulls mistakes we made in the playoffs.

Eva is so annoying.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

DaBullz said:


> My bad. I thought they gave 1st team all-nba defense awards to good defensive players.


Don't worry your forgiven, you make plenty of mistakes.

Sometimes those awards are given to players only because of reputation throughout the years, and favortism over other players that don't have quite the same namesake. There has been plenty of players that have won awards or have been on all defensive teams that havn't nesscarily deserved it. 

A perfect example would be this season, Kobe being on the first time was an absolute horrendous choice and a total lazy pick.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

kulaz3000 said:


> Don't worry your forgiven, you make plenty of mistakes.
> 
> Sometimes those awards are given to players only because of reputation throughout the years, and favortism over other players that don't have quite the same namesake. There has been plenty of players that have won awards or have been on all defensive teams that havn't nesscarily deserved it.
> 
> A perfect example would be this season, Kobe being on the first time was an absolute horrendous choice and a total lazy pick.


My bad. He was given the All-NBA defensive team awards because he had a reputation over the years of being a good defender.


----------



## Snake (Jun 10, 2007)

DaBullz said:


> My bad. I thought they gave 1st team all-nba defense awards to good defensive players.


A common misconception.


----------



## T-Time (Mar 3, 2007)

kulaz3000 said:


> Don't worry your forgiven, you make plenty of mistakes.
> 
> Sometimes those awards are given to players only because of reputation throughout the years, and favortism over other players that don't have quite the same namesake. There has been plenty of players that have won awards or have been on all defensive teams that havn't nesscarily deserved it.
> 
> A perfect example would be this season, Kobe being on the first time was an absolute horrendous choice and a total lazy pick.


So lets compare the two for a moment. For their careers Malone averaged 1.4 steals per game Duncan hasn't touched 1 steal a game yet, in fact he's sitting at 0.8. Not only was Malone more dominant on the offensive end, he was also more intimadating on the defensive end. Aside from Duncan blocking more shots, his defense doesn't compare with Malones in terms of numbers.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

spongyfungy said:


> Eva is so annoying.


At least you won't see her at a game until Fall. 

I wonder what the odds are on the marriage lasting until the next NBA finals?


----------



## ballafromthenorth (May 27, 2003)

narek said:


> At least you won't see her at a game until Fall.
> 
> I wonder what the odds are on the marriage lasting until the next NBA finals?


I don't see why it won't last for a while. Every game it seems the commentators will talk about Desperate Housewives or whatever other project she's working on... great publicity for her career.. as lame as it is.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

T-Time said:


> So lets compare the two for a moment. For their careers Malone averaged 1.4 steals per game Duncan hasn't touched 1 steal a game yet, in fact he's sitting at 0.8. Not only was Malone more dominant on the offensive end, he was also more intimadating on the defensive end. Aside from Duncan blocking more shots, his defense doesn't compare with Malones in terms of numbers.


The problem i have with people like you and Dabullz is that you take statistics into too much consideration along with those other boneheader people that vote for awards. I remember Dabullz trying to debate a point using photos saying that Hinrich had help gaurding Wade because he saw other sneakers in the same area. 

An example why those awards are sometimes faulty because peoples over-use of statistics over actual know-how about the player would be a player such as Larry Hughes when he was still with the Wizards. He wasn't a bad defender, but he wasn't also wasn't the type of great defender people were harping on about. Sure, he had great steals numbers, but those numbers were because of gambled situations on defense. For every steal that he made, meant that for every other time, he let the defender by for an uncontested shot or lay up. There amount of great defenders are of few and beyond in this age, but sometimes the players with the better statistics would get the benefit amd hype over a defender such as Bowen or the likes of Charles Oakley type of defender, because they were great on the ball defenders and man-to-man defenders that didn't nesscarily get the steals or blocks but would deny position and deny them the ball and put them in places wear it wasn't their favorite shots or constantly put them under duress. Opposed to defenders that leave them man and gamble for a weak side block, or expose their teammates by leaving his own man by gambling for a steal. 

So it really depends on your opinion on what a good defender is. My main point was that Malone was an overrated defender not a bad defender, and that Duncan from his rookie season untill now has been a much more consistent defender than Malone was throughout his career.


----------



## Snake (Jun 10, 2007)

narek said:


> At least you won't see her at a game until Fall.
> 
> I wonder what the odds are on the marriage lasting until the next NBA finals?


It's not her fault ABC put her on every time Parker scores a basket. Are they trying to pimp Desperate Housewifes or something?

They must think these games are so boring that they need to use every opportunity to say "Hey that guy's banging that hot chick from that one show. Yeah, that's interesting. You should keep watching so we can talk about that some more instead of the actual basketball"


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

It's an interesting exercise to consider the matchup between the two teams.

Malone would likely be guarded by Bowen. Malone and Stockton ran the pick and roll to perfection and Malone was a deadly outside shooter. Maybe Duncan guards him, but it'd be closer to the 3pt line than the lane for the most part. The Jazz had a giant center named Mark Eaton who won DPOY a couple of times and was otherwise mistakenly given all-nba defense 1st team awards. I think he'd have been guarding Duncan.

Stockton is clearly one of the all-time greats. I think he wins the matchup with Parker. 

Everywhere else throughout the roster, San Antonio wins the matchups. It's likely that San Antonio would win the matchup.

To test my belief, I went to whatifsports.com and ran a simulation of this year's Spurs against the 1994-95 (60-22) Jazz. Spurs as the away team in all the games:

Spurs 101, Jazz 94
Jazz 104, Spurs 86
Spurs 106, Jazz 99
Spurs 115, Jazz 105
Jazz 107, Spurs 89
Spurs 110, Jazz 100

Spurs in 6


----------



## Snake (Jun 10, 2007)

DaBullz said:


> It's an interesting exercise to consider the matchup between the two teams.
> 
> Malone would likely be guarded by Bowen. Malone and Stockton ran the pick and roll to perfection and Malone was a deadly outside shooter. Maybe Duncan guards him, but it'd be closer to the 3pt line than the lane for the most part. The Jazz had a giant center named Mark Eaton who won DPOY a couple of times and was otherwise mistakenly given all-nba defense 1st team awards. I think he'd have been guarding Duncan.
> 
> ...


Those Jazz teams were really good. Unfortunately for them there was a certain team in the east.

I'd have to give a slight edge to the Spurs. Damn, they do play some good D and O.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

Snake said:


> It's not her fault ABC put her on every time Parker scores a basket. Are they trying to pimp Desperate Housewifes or something?
> 
> They must think these games are so boring that they need to use every opportunity to say "Hey that guy's banging that hot chick from that one show. Yeah, that's interesting. You should keep watching so we can talk about that some more instead of the actual basketball"


You can't help that most of the writers and broadcasters are jealous of basketball players having beautiful wives and girlfriends, that they can only fantasies about being with them. I find it quite stupid how so many writers make a big deal out of her, shes not even that great. 

If you want to have a female celebrity to become a basketball fan to boost rating it has to be Megan Fox. The NBA should put her into contract to follow the Bulls and to sit courtside every single home game, because she is one hell of a show for the eyes.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

DaBullz said:


> It's an interesting exercise to consider the matchup between the two teams.
> 
> Malone would likely be guarded by Bowen. Malone and Stockton ran the pick and roll to perfection and Malone was a deadly outside shooter. Maybe Duncan guards him, but it'd be closer to the 3pt line than the lane for the most part. The Jazz had a giant center named Mark Eaton who won DPOY a couple of times and was otherwise mistakenly given all-nba defense 1st team awards. I think he'd have been guarding Duncan.
> 
> ...


I must admitt that the Jazz were a pretty good team, almost like the Spurs in a sense that they were consistently good and stable throughout the years. But the match up concerning Mark Eaton with Duncan you eluded to, shouldn't be included. Only because Mark Eaton was only on the Jazz for the earlier parts of Malone and Stockons career and not in the better stages of their peaks when the Jazz were competiting to win championships. But even if it it were possible to take Mark Eaton in his peak with Malone in his peak to match up with Duncan, i don't think you put a Mark Eaton on Duncan, that would just be murder, the man was a walking stiff that got most of his blocks by tipey-toe-ing. He had no lateral movement what-so-ever and Duncan would have blown by him every single time. 

The Bowen guarding Malone seems a little ludicris also when you can have Duncan gaurding Malone. Malone would have elbowed Bowen in the face and knocked him out for the game if Popavich tried to pull some gimmick like that on him.


----------



## Snake (Jun 10, 2007)

Also there's the question of which era's rules do you use. The Jazz would play a stiff center that clogged the lane on D and just stayed away from the action on O. Now with a zone his defender wouldn't have to stay with him.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

That 1994-95 team had a 38 year old Mark Eaton.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

DaBullz said:


> That 1994-95 team had a 38 year old Mark Eaton.


Which is my point exactly. You can't possibly think a 38 year old player is in their peak can you?


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

kulaz3000 said:


> You can't help that most of the writers and broadcasters are jealous of basketball players having beautiful wives and girlfriends, that they can only fantasies about being with them. I find it quite stupid how so many writers make a big deal out of her, shes not even that great.
> 
> *If you want to have a female celebrity to become a basketball fan to boost rating it has to be Megan Fox. The NBA should put her into contract to follow the Bulls and to sit courtside every single home game, because she is one hell of a show for the eyes.*


You mean this Megan Fox?










:biggrin:


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

Also, congrats to the Spurs on winning the championship this year. That's back-to-back years where I own the jersey of a player who won the NBA Championship (Wade, Barry).

EDIT: Whoops, make that back-to-back-to-back since Barry was on the Spurs in 2005 as well. Let's hope the trend continues next year with one of my many Bulls jerseys (and not one of a former Bull either!)


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

King Joseus said:


> You mean this Megan Fox?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You got it!

You wait untill Transformers comes out. Shes will be the new best thing for boys with crushes.. Heck! Maybe im just hoping that some attractive female will take the limelight away from Paris and Brittney. 

Megan your a stunner.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

Just in case anybody wasn't quite sure which Megan Fox we're talking about, I'll make sure it's clear.



















This one. No more misunderstandings this way.

Congrats again to the Spurs.

:biggrin:


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

KJ, just one more time to clarify...




























THIS Megan Fox? 

Haha..


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/recap;_ylt=Ah0ED7lz22Yz.kzTPgB29ZI5nYcB?gid=2007061405



> But the 31-year-old, whose arrival in 1997 in San Antonio is the launching point for the Spurs' ascension, he got his fourth ring and helped a few of the other Spurs -- Michael Finley, Jacque Vaughn and *Brent Barry* -- win their first.


Seems the AP forgot too.

And definitely _that_ Megan Fox, kulaz...


----------



## Snake (Jun 10, 2007)

King Joseus said:


> You mean this Megan Fox?
> 
> 
> 
> ...











wawawiwa!
I would like to make big sexytime with her.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

T-Time said:


> Looks like the spurs are on their way to their 4th title in what 9 years? Pretty good but not good enough to be compared to the Bulls, no way. I know im going to hate listening to ESPN try and compare this spurs team to the old dynasties. In my eyes, the Bulls would have killed the spurs in a series if they were playing each other. *Malone is clearly better than Duncan* and stockton was way better than tony parker. I'd say we would have probably swept this spurs team.


There are two positions in basketball, in my opinion, where it is obvious who the "greatest of all time" is:

PG: Stockton?/Magic?/Robertson?/Zeke?
*SG: Jordan*
SF: Bird?/Pippen?/Dr. J?/others-I-can't-recall-due-to-brain-cramp?
*PF: Duncan*
C: Russell?/Wilt?/Hakeem?/Curry?/Shaq?

I don't think Malone is even close to as good as Duncan, and Duncan still has a number of championship caliber years left in him. Malone played with Stockton for crying out loud and only made it to the Finals twice (hard to hold losing to Jordan/Pippen against anyone so I'm just focusing on getting through the West). 

Duncan has made it 4 times in a loaded Western Conference and took home the ring every appearance (not to mention 3 Finals MVP awards). And while Malone was a fair defender, Duncan is the best defender to ever play the position. 

But I suppose reasonable minds can differ. I just don't know how you can say Malone is "clearly" better.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

T-Time said:


> Im going to go ahead and say, this was the worst NBA finals in history. I don't think anyone watched it. God I'm glad the Spurs are old so we don't have to watch this boring crap anymore. This will be there last championship, I gaurantee.


I watched 3 of the games, but was bored doing so. Cleveland just isn't that good and they are extremely boring to watch. 

I'm not sure I recall a poorer team playing in the Finals. (That is not to say they are a poor team, I'm speaking relatively.)


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

T-Time said:


> So lets compare the two for a moment. For their careers Malone averaged 1.4 steals per game *Duncan hasn't touched 1 steal a game yet*, in fact he's sitting at 0.8. Not only was Malone more dominant on the offensive end, he was also more intimadating on the defensive end. *Aside from Duncan blocking more shots*, his defense doesn't compare with Malones in terms of numbers.


Are you serious? By "numbers" you mean only steals, correct? 

Tim Duncan has been named to the all-defensive team *10 times* and it will probably be 13 or so by the time he's done.

Tim Duncan has averaged 2.4 blocks per game over his career compared to Malone's paltry *0.7*. Yet Malone was more "intimidating"? Come on. (By way of comparison to Malone, Tyrus Thomas averaged 1.1 blocks per game as a rookie in only 13 minutes per contest - Malone *exceeded 1.1 bpg once *in his entire career, *in 41 minutes per game*.)

Karl Malone averaged a respectable 10.1 boards per game. Duncan 11.9. 

Malone's *career high *in boards per game in a season is 12.0 - which is essentially Duncan's *career **average*. 

What "numbers" are you talking about? 

I'm not trying to bag on Malone's defense. He was a fine defender. But Duncan is *by far* the best defensive power forward of all time. After Bill Russell and Scottie Pippen, he might be the best defensive player at any position of all time. 

This is like comparing Michael Jordan's offense to Michael Redd's. Michael Redd is a very good scoring shooting guard and will have an excellent career on that end of the floor. But any comparison to Jordan offensively would be downright silly.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

I just want to point out that this series changed my mind. I never believed Duncan to be a better power forward than Malone, but to see him completely change a series on the defensive side of the ball is just mind-boggling. He had just as much to do with shutting Lebron down as Bruce Bowen did. He's the quietest dominant player I've ever had the opportunity to see.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Brandname said:


> I just want to point out that this series changed my mind. I never believed Duncan to be a better power forward than Malone, but to see him completely change a series on the defensive side of the ball is just mind-boggling. He had just as much to do with shutting Lebron down as Bruce Bowen did. He's the quietest dominant player I've ever had the opportunity to see.


He's one of the select few players of all time who has a positive impact of some kind on both ends of the court pretty much every minute he's on the floor. 

He's ridiculously good.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> He's one of the select few players of all time who has a positive impact of some kind on both ends of the court pretty much every minute he's on the floor.
> 
> He's ridiculously good.


Yeah, but he doesn't dunk very much, and when he does he has no flair. He almost never beats his chest or stares down an opponent after making a basket. He doesn't dribble behind his back and rarely blocks a shot into the 20th row. The guy is clearly a wussy.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

McBulls said:


> Yeah, but he doesn't dunk very much, and when he does he has no flair. He almost never beats his chest or stares down an opponent after making a basket. He doesn't dribble behind his back and rarely blocks a shot into the 20th row. The guy is clearly a wussy.


True. I'd totally trade his effectiveness for all that cool stuff. :wink:


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

For those who haven't gotten the take home cliche lessons to be learned from this series yet:

Championship teams play great defense. 

Great defense trumps great offense -- even in professional basketball.

Great players don't win championships, great teams do.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

McBulls said:


> For those who haven't gotten the take home cliche lessons to be learned from this series yet:
> 
> Championship teams play great defense.
> 
> ...


+1


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

McBulls said:


> For those who haven't gotten the take home cliche lessons to be learned from this series yet:
> 
> Championship teams play great defense.
> 
> ...


Which explains why cliches are typically meaningless.

Defensive Efficiency:
Spurs 2nd, Cavs 4th

Offensive Efficiency
Spurs 4th, Cavs 19th

Tim Duncan - Best Player in the last decade in the prime of his career
Lebron James - Best Player in the next decade at the beginning of his career


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> Which explains why cliches are typically meaningless.
> 
> Defensive Efficiency:
> Spurs 2nd, Cavs 4th
> ...


+1 

(Now I've got everything covered)


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

+1 to base covering :laugh:


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

Ron Cey said:


> He's one of the select few players of all time who has a positive impact of some kind on both ends of the court pretty much every minute he's on the floor.
> 
> <b>He's ridiculously good.</b>


And also ridiculously boring too.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

lgtwins said:


> And also ridiculously boring too.


Wow. Don't get me started on how strongly I disagree with that. I consider Duncan to be incredibly entertaining to watch. But I'm an old fuddy-duddy in the sense that I think execution is the most exciting thing about basketball. 

I realize this isn't very popular anymore. Its sad.


----------



## Snake (Jun 10, 2007)

MikeDC said:


> Which explains why cliches are typically meaningless.
> 
> Defensive Efficiency:
> *Spurs 2nd*, Cavs 4th
> ...


Wha???? You don't mean to tell me that great teams that win championships are good at both defense *and* offense. Shocking.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

Ron Cey said:


> Wow. Don't get me started on how strongly I disagree with that. I consider Duncan to be incredibly entertaining to watch. But I'm an old fuddy-duddy in the sense that I think execution is the most exciting thing about basketball.
> 
> I realize this isn't very popular anymore. Its sad.


This has been my impression on Duncan from the early on.

He is ridiculously efficient player.
He is ridiculously good on both ends.
He is the player who will be greatly appreciated (rightfully so) if he happens to play for your team.

He is very boring to watch IF he is wearing another uniform.

(Watching Tim Duncan playing is like watching continuous clip of Tiger putting one after another on the green. Sure he made some ridiculous putts BUT I really like to watch his drivers and iron shots too.)


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I think that Duncan's potential boringness as a person and/or player is pretty much irrelevant. Does anyone think Lebron or Kobe (before the rape accusations and Shaq feud) are super charismatic guys? I don't.

But I think you put them in enough commercials for Sprite, McDonalds, and whatever, and you build hype amongst people who rarely even watch basketball so they wouldn't know if Duncan is boring or not. 

And I don't see any reason Duncan couldn't smile and bounce a ball while pitching Big Macs like those guys do. He appears to just choose not to.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

MikeDC said:


> And I don't see any reason Duncan couldn't smile and bounce a ball while pitching Big Macs like those guys do. He appears to just choose not to.



And more power to him, IMO. I've always been struck by the irony of these highly-tuned athletes selling your average Joe atery-clogging nonsense like Big Macs and Coke or whatever.


----------



## Snake (Jun 10, 2007)

jnrjr79 said:


> And more power to him, IMO. I've always been struck by the irony of these highly-tuned athletes selling your average Joe atery-clogging nonsense like Big Macs and Coke or whatever.


+1 I never understood why every athlete is so eager to take every endorsement opportunity to sell something to people who make a fraction of what they do. Duncan got paid something like 15 mil by the Spurs. If he doesn't want to be a salesman for a major corporation he doesn't have to.Although he is in that one adidias commercial.

Maybe I'm the only one baut I always like watching Duncan play. To me that Dwayne Wade foulfest last year was ugly, and yet he's a superstar because of it.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

To make my point more clear (if that is necessary), I didn't mean to say Ducan is boring as a person. Mabye he is. Maybe not.

My comment was that his game is boring. Ridiculously efficient? Yes! But boring to watch? Yes! One of all time top 5 FP? Yes! But boring to watch? Yes!


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> And more power to him, IMO. I've always been struck by the irony of these highly-tuned athletes selling your average Joe atery-clogging nonsense like Big Macs and Coke or whatever.


I've always thought a slam dunk contest dunk winner would be the first guy who can dunk a ball while taking a bite out of a Big Mac. :lol:



lgtwins said:


> To make my point more clear (if that is necessary), I didn't mean to say Ducan is boring as a person. Mabye he is. Maybe not.
> 
> My comment was that his game is boring. Ridiculously efficient? Yes! But boring to watch? Yes! One of all time top 5 FP? Yes! But boring to watch? Yes!


Yeah, but the thing is, there's so many people out there that are educated about basketball by watching commercials. This guy was on the radio yesterday- local sports radio guy here in DC- and I just wanted to strangle him. He goes on this anecdote about how he won't let his kid stay up so late to watch the Finals. And his kid is asking him how Lebron could possibly be loosing.

And the Dad's saying (on the radio) "The real problem is all my kid sees of Lebron is commercials. He doesn't actually see him play".

I'm listening to this guy on the radio and thinking he's missing a very good moment to teach his kid something. Maybe Duncan's boring and Lebron is exciting, but I know that kid, since he hasn't seen it, doesn't have any basis for comparison.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

To follow that up, what would be a better learning experience for a kid. 

1. Get hyped up on Lebron commercials and then watch him and learn that, as of yet, he can't hit a jump shot. The upside is he gets to learn the lesson that advertising isn't truth. The downside is it's not a particularly nice lesson.

2. Get hyped up on Duncan commercials and then watch him and learn how basketball ought to be played. The upside is he gets to see the proper match of hype and reality. The downside is maybe that makes him more prone to believing commercials 

I don't know that there's a right answer, but it makes for interesting thinking.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

MikeDC said:


> I've always thought a slam dunk contest dunk winner would be the first guy who can dunk a ball while taking a bite out of a Big Mac. :lol:


Indeed. Way better than Dee Brown covering up his eyes. Maybe if they wore one of those beverage helmets with a Bud Light on one side and a Sprite on the other they would get the highest score of all time.

Eww, now I'm grossed out at the thought of drinking Bud Light and Sprite simultaneously. What would that be like? Zima? 

*Shudder*


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ick :no:


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

How the heck did this thread go from Megan Fox to Bud Light and Sprite?


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

MikeDC said:


> Which explains why cliches are typically meaningless.
> 
> Defensive Efficiency:
> Spurs 2nd, Cavs 4th
> ...


Points allowed 
Spurs 1st. 
Cavs 5th
(Bulls 6th)
(Detroit 2nd)

Points scored 
Spurs 14th
Cleveland 19th
(Bulls 18th)
(Detroit 21st)

Point differential
Spurs 1st
Cleveland 7th
(Bulls 4th)
(Detroit 6th)

Take home message : Both San Antonio and Cleveland were mediocre scorers, both were superior defensive teams, and both got to the finals primarily as defensive teams. But the Spurs were a lot better.

Of course both teams would have been a lot better if they had Eddy Curry or Zach Randolf chucking the ball and playing matador defense for them.

BTW -- Screw pace and percentages, it's point differential that matters.


----------



## Snake (Jun 10, 2007)

JRose5 said:
 

>


We are all witnesses.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

McBulls said:


> Points allowed
> Spurs 1st.
> Cavs 5th
> (Bulls 6th)
> ...


How did the teams at #4 and #6 in point differential fail to make it to the finals?


----------

