As long as the NBA came up . . .

[R_of_G]

I do appreciate it Strum.

As a Knicks fan, it's very telling. Back in the 90's when the Knicks were a strong playoff team it was because they played a dominating defensive game. It's one of the reasons I'm not too fond of D'Antoni as the coach. His style leans much more towards trying to win by putting up as many points as possible. Even if it were successful in the regular season, that's not a sound strategy for the playoffs.

On the subject of defense, the 2008/2009 NBA All-Defensive Team was announced today...

First team:

C - Dwight Howard (Orl)
F - LeBron James (Cle)
F - Kevin Garnett (Bos)
G - Kobe Bryant (LAL)
G - Chris Paul (NO)

Second team:

C - Tim Duncan (SA)
F - Shane Battier (Hou)
F - Ron Artest (Hou)
G - Rajon Rondo (Bos)
G - Dwyane Wade (Mia)

 

[just strum]

Last night I fell asleep with less than 30 seconds to play in the LA/Denver game.

Tonight I turned off the TV is anger with one second to play.

And it gets worse - I've lost track of how Boston is doing in their series oke:

 

[just strum]

Ohhh, the pain.

Cavs wanted sign: Wanted, big man to clog up the lane and have quick feet.

 

[piebaldpython]

Ohhh, the pain.
Cavs wanted sign: Wanted, big man to clog up the lane and have quick feet.

Yeah, they need that BIG guy.........but........uh.......do you think they'll be able to re-sign LeBron???? Isn't he a free agent now? I think they said something about that during the game.

TV execs must be fuming that the Cavs lost as they just lost half of their marquee' match-up with Kobe.

On a side note.....way back in the day (1982-1984) I used to work with Kobe's grandmom (maternal). A tall, supremely graceful, elegant lady who could make a housedress look fashionable. My guess is that he got "silky smooth" from his grandmom.

 

[R_of_G]

Cavs wanted sign: Wanted, big man to clog up the lane and have quick feet.

They should be looking for a big that can shoot the ball. That seemed to be their biggest match-up problem with Orlando. Varejao and Wallace can play defense under the glass (most of the time) but matched up against Turkoglu and Lewis who are both 6'10" and can both shoot the lights out from the outside, they had no chance.

Ilgauskas is also a liability. I can't figure out what it is that he's supposed to be good at. Guarding Dwight Howard sure wasn't it. Now, I know Howard is a beast and everybody has a tough time guarding him, but me made Zydrunas look like a little kid trying to stop a city bus.

The other thing the Cavs need to win a championship is players not named LeBron James to step up and dominate the game. Did you notice that in Orlando's four wins a different player was their high scorer and focus each time? The Cavs give LeBron a little support here and there, but when the Cavs win, it's always because LeBron dominated. If a team can keep him in check, they can beat the Cavs.

I actually felt really bad for LeBron last night. He played his butt off throughout the series but he can't do it by himself for a seven game series. Even 24 year old superhumans like LeBron get tired after awhile. Some in the sports media may criticize him for not getting his team to the finals. I don't know what more he could have done. I blame a lot of it on Mike Brown. He couldn't make the adjustments Van Gundy was making and he never could figure out how to give LeBron a few minutes off here and there. For a "Coach of the Year," he seemed a little short in the strategic planning department.

Orlando/LA should be a very interesting match-up. I think they're the two deepest benches in the NBA. Kobe will dominate a game or two but watch for Ariza and Odom to have their big games as well. I am also very curious as to how Gasol and Bynum will handle Dwight Howard. Gasol is not exactly a tough guy on defense. Howard may eat him for lunch. At the moment, I'm picking Lakers in 6, but I'm rooting for the Magic as I live 70 miles from Orlando.

 

[just strum]

Yeah, they need that BIG guy.........but........uh.......do you think they'll be able to re-sign LeBron???? Isn't he a free agent now? I think they said something about that during the game.

His contract is up in 2010. The Cavs can offer more than any other team, but cannot offer the big market that would increase his endorsement money. Seeing that endorsements aren't really an issue, I don't see that the reason for leaving.

Lebron wants a ring, he wants to win. If the Cavs add more talent, he stays. He has noted that he might sign early and put the interruption behind. It's tough to call. I think there is a part of Lebron that likes the idea of being the hometown guy that brings a championship to his town. He is a very unique individual.

I found out the other day that one of the guys that works in our engineering department was on the high school basketball team with him. Plus we have a guy that is Lebrons second cousin working in shipping.

Take nothing away from Orlando, they played a hell of a series and are a very difficult match-up. I do think the Cavs were out coached and it was real evident in the third quarter. I call the third quarter "the coaches quarter" because it's all about halftime adjustments and the Cavs didn't make them.

 

[R_of_G]

Lebron wants a ring, he wants to win. If the Cavs add more talent, he stays. He has noted that he might sign early and put the interruption behind. It's tough to call.

It's part of why I felt for LeBron last night. You could see it in his face that he knew that the season was over and the questions were going to be coming again. Last night I realized that question is seeming to really weigh on LeBron. Having an MVP season and cruising through the first two rounds only to get out-played by a deeper team and missing the Finals has to make LeBron wonder how close the Cavs really are to being a championship team. Taking nothing away from their season, they distinction I am making is that they are a dominant team in the East, not the dominant team in the East. Orlando showed how deep they are (minus Jameer Nelson even) and the Celtics played tough for a team without Garnett. None of the three can just runaway with the East the way the Lakers clearly dominate the West. The championship teams are not the "best" teams, rather they are the team that plays the best basketball in the playoffs.

I do think the Cavs were out coached and it was real evident in the third quarter. I call the third quarter "the coaches quarter" because it's all about halftime adjustments and the Cavs didn't make them.

Agreed. The third quarter is the time to make your move. By then you should know what the other team can do that night. If you're behind by 21 at the half like the Cavs were, the time to put it in overdrive is the third, not the fourth when you're still down by double digits and have to start fouling to stop the clock.

 

[just strum]

R_of_G, if you had watched almost every Cavs game this season, you would scratch your head about the third quarter. This season they were very dominant in the third, it was like a trademark for them. This performance in the Orlando series was more reminiscent of the previous season when they tended to play the first half and then try to coast (a perfect example in game 1).

I can remember games this season when they were down by a few and then came out in the third to put the game away. They were so dominant that Lebron sat for many 4th quarters, which makes his scoring performance this year even that much more amazing.

Lebron left the game and the arena without saying a word. He never went over to congratulate the other team which is very uncharacteristic of Lebron.

His history has been to come back even better than he was the previous season. He works on his weaknesses through the off-season and improves his overall game. If that holds true again, that is the silver lining in all of this. Although I'm sure he is not thinking about that right now.

He lives about 10 - 15 miles from me, maybe I will go talk to him and while I'm there I'll play some one on one and take him to the hole.

 

[marnold]

Take nothing away from Orlando, they played a hell of a series and are a very difficult match-up. I do think the Cavs were out coached and it was real evident in the third quarter. I call the third quarter "the coaches quarter" because it's all about halftime adjustments and the Cavs didn't make them.

And if your team gets out-coached by Stan Van Gundy . . . ummm . . . ouch.

Having said that, I think Van Gundy has learned quite a bit this playoff series. He finally realized that letting Dwight Howard be Dwight Howard might be the best recipe for success.

I feel bad for the Cavs, even as a Pistons fan. As a Red Wings fan, I remember the early 90s where it seemed like we'd have great teams but then be heartbroken in the playoffs. That's why I'm quick to forgive a little sleep-walking during the regular season, since the real season doesn't start until the playoffs.

 

[R_of_G]

His history has been to come back even better than he was the previous season. He works on his weaknesses through the off-season and improves his overall game. If that holds true again, that is the silver lining in all of this. Although I'm sure he is not thinking about that right now.

That's true and I'm sure he will be back better than ever next season. The question is, will it be enough to win a championship?

The one weakness he can't woodshed in the off-season is not having a deep bench of teammates who can score. I suppose he can tell the GM "get my teammates, or watch me play somewhere else next season" but he doesn't seem the type (like Kobe was).

Ilgauskas' option for next season is $11 million. That would be money better spent on another forward who can shoot the ball so LeBron doesn't have to take every shot.

 

[sunvalleylaw]

I am sorry the Cavs are not still in it. It would be fun to see Lebron supported properly with some stronger team members.

For me, today marks an anniversary of a very good memory, and one that points out what my area lost: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nba/2009284407_sonic01.html

and

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/stevekelley/2009281429_kelley31.html

It may seem that all I contribute to this thread I started is reminiscences of a gone by team, but read the articles (they are both short) and esp. the second where the columnist describes the style of play and the type of players Lenny Wilkens used in that victory. It was before the big superstar. Magic, Bird, Jordan had not arrived yet. Seattle was still a somewhat working class town, and microsoft had not "made it" yet, if it even yet existed.

I still love watching a good basketball game, and I hope we get more play that is more team oriented, where each player has a role that he plays well, and even if there is a star, it is not ALL about that star.

 

[R_of_G]

It would be fun to see Lebron supported properly with some stronger team members.

It's why nobody should count out the Nets from the LeBron sweepstakes next summer. The Cavs can offer him more money. The Knicks can offer him MSG as a home venue. The Nets can offer him a foundation for a good team that he can join instead of guys brought in to supposedly support him. Plus he'd get to play in Brooklyn, my ancestral homeland.

 

[just strum]

It's why nobody should count out the Nets from the LeBron sweepstakes next summer. The Cavs can offer him more money. The Knicks can offer him MSG as a home venue. The Nets can offer him a foundation for a good team that he can join instead of guys brought in to supposedly support him. Plus he'd get to play in Brooklyn, my ancestral homeland.

Oh you silly silly man.

 

[R_of_G]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/stevekelley/2009281429_kelley31.html

It may seem that all I contribute to this thread I started is reminiscences of a gone by team, but read the articles (they are both short) and esp. the second where the columnist describes the style of play and the type of players Lenny Wilkens used in that victory. It was before the big superstar. Magic, Bird, Jordan had not arrived yet. Seattle was still a somewhat working class town, and microsoft had not "made it" yet, if it even yet existed.

I still love watching a good basketball game, and I hope we get more play that is more team oriented, where each player has a role that he plays well, and even if there is a star, it is not ALL about that star.

Definitely a different era now, though if you look at the teams that win championships, it's rarely (if ever) a single superstar that single-handedly delivers their team to a title. That's basically my point about the Cavs. They shouldn't expect LeBron to do it all. Even in the 80's/90's era referenced by the writer of that article, teams still had to be teams to win. Magic had Kareem and Worthy and several other key teammates. Bird had McHale and Robert Parish and Danny Ainge and Dennis Johnson. The Detroit teams that dominated the 1988-90 seasons were deep teams. Even the man most able to dominate a game all by himself, Michael Jordan still had a strong supporting cast (Pippen, Horace Grant, et al) to provide assistance in his title runs. I can also think of a few teams who have/had superstar players who never won a championship at all (the Stockton/Malone Utah Jazz come to mind immediately.)

Deep teams with good coaching win championships.

What I wonder is how much the game really is dominated by superstars today or how much it just feels that way because of the massive increase in media attention in our 24 hour/day news world. It's easier for the media to sell sports to the casual observer when they can just portray the game as being dominated by big name players, but is that really the game that's being played?

I do think in the era of massive salaries for athletes we are probably beyond ever seeing a team I would describe as "workmanlike" but I do think it's possible for a team without a mega-superstar to compete like the Sonics did in the 70's.

 

[piebaldpython]

I do think in the era of massive salaries for athletes we are probably beyond ever seeing a team I would describe as "workmanlike" but I do think it's possible for a team without a mega-superstar to compete like the Sonics did in the 70's.

Interesting point......just me musing here....about "workmanlike".....hmmmm....I think any time that wins a title has a decent amount of "workmanlike" or "utility type" players on it. Take the aforementioned Bulls. For as much of a social misfit narcissist that Dennis Rodman was; he did TWO thing amazingly well. He rebounded like a madman and played fabulous D. He didn't score much but that wasn't his JOB and he knew it.

Second point.......no matter how "workmanlike" a team is...given the nature of the game where just about everybody can touch the ball, you still have to have a "gunslinger". A guy who WANTS the ball in CRUNCH time and a guy who the other team HAS to respect.

 

[just strum]

The Bad Boys were one of the last "no star" teams. I guess I am being hard on Isiah since I never considered him a star. The players knew their roles, played within those roles and were a "team".

 

[sunvalleylaw]

Definitely a different era now, though if you look at the teams that win championships, it's rarely (if ever) a single superstar that single-handedly delivers their team to a title. That's basically my point about the Cavs. They shouldn't expect LeBron to do it all. Even in the 80's/90's era referenced by the writer of that article, teams still had to be teams to win. Magic had Kareem and Worthy and several other key teammates. Bird had McHale and Robert Parish and Danny Ainge and Dennis Johnson. The Detroit teams that dominated the 1988-90 seasons were deep teams. Even the man most able to dominate a game all by himself, Michael Jordan still had a strong supporting cast (Pippen, Horace Grant, et al) to provide assistance in his title runs. I can also think of a few teams who have/had superstar players who never won a championship at all (the Stockton/Malone Utah Jazz come to mind immediately.)

Deep teams with good coaching win championships.

What I wonder is how much the game really is dominated by superstars today or how much it just feels that way because of the massive increase in media attention in our 24 hour/day news world. It's easier for the media to sell sports to the casual observer when they can just portray the game as being dominated by big name players, but is that really the game that's being played?

I do think in the era of massive salaries for athletes we are probably beyond ever seeing a team I would describe as "workmanlike" but I do think it's possible for a team without a mega-superstar to compete like the Sonics did in the 70's.

. . . Take the aforementioned Bulls. For as much of a social misfit narcissist that Dennis Rodman was; he did TWO thing amazingly well. He rebounded like a madman and played fabulous D. He didn't score much but that wasn't his JOB and he knew it.

Second point.......no matter how "workmanlike" a team is...given the nature of the game where just about everybody can touch the ball, you still have to have a "gunslinger". A guy who WANTS the ball in CRUNCH time and a guy who the other team HAS to respect.

Good points you two. I loved watching Parish and Ainge. Good point about the "Gunslinger' go to guy. But I think that the '79 Supersonic team did not have a real gunslinger per se. I guess the closest would be DJ. I think he hit some critical outside shots and engineered some key offensive plays. But Gus William's fast break play may have been quite important too. In fact, R_of_G just pointed out DJ was a supporting player on the Celtics after Seattle.

I agree about Rodman. I did not like his attitude he displayed, but I respected his play. OTOH, certain players that were somewhat workerlike (Stockton) in appearance and defensive play, could be prima donna in their attitudes on the court. I think that as the rules were relaxed and bent for big stars so their play would not be interrupted (Shaq/Jordan rule on travelling) and big stars expected big calls (Stockton/Malone again, always thinking the call should go their way and whining when it didn't) What appears to me to be a "star effect" on rules enforcement bugs me. But that may have started back with Kareem or before.

Good point about the media too. Back in '79, the NBA was not nearly as well covered as it is now. That point is made in one of the articles I linked. I suppose the stardom factor/media coverage go hand in hand. Kind of like the Kennedys (not to talk politics, just media). The Camelot aspect of the Kennedys is discussed almost more than the policy decisions made.

 

[R_of_G]

I think that as the rules were relaxed and bent for big stars so their play would not be interrupted (Shaq/Jordan rule on travelling) and big stars expected big calls (Stockton/Malone again, always thinking the call should go their way and whining when it didn't) What appears to me to be a "star effect" on rules enforcement bugs me. But that may have started back with Kareem or before.

The change is palpable for sure. The game is much different in that respect. It's been long enough now that I don't really mind the lack of traveling calls any more, though I still laugh when I see guys take 4 or 5 steps (like every move Barkley ever made). It's the stupid foul calls for playing solid defense that I can't tolerate. If you look cross-eyed at Kobe, they call a foul.

I know Marnold and I have discussed this in the hockey threads... in a general sense it seems like the people who run our professional sports leagues equate high scoring with fan interest so they've modified the rules as much as possible to promote more scoring.

It is brutally evident in the NFL where it is becoming more and more difficult to play defense at all without drawing flags. People made a big deal of the season Randy Moss had a couple of years ago. Not to take anything away from the guy because he is immensely talented, but he would not have been able to put up those numbers in the 80's when guys could play defense against him without penalties.

The NHL has changed so much I hardly recognize the game being played as hockey any more. The NBA is much the same.

High scoring may bring in the casual fan who doesn't understand the sport but knows to cheer when someone scores. For those of us who like the game played its hardest on both offense and defense, the rule changes can be a nuisance.

 

[just strum]

For those of us who like the game played its hardest on both offense and defense, the rule changes can be a nuisance.

If you were running for Commissioner, you know you have my vote.

 

[R_of_G]

I'd start by fining teams that consistently give up more than 100 points per game. :whatever:

 

[just strum]

I'd start by fining teams that consistently give up more than 100 points per game. :whatever:

And to think you are referring to football (read Browns)

As for basketball, the Cavs played 96 games this season and gave up 100 points or more 20 times; 10 of those 20 were for lose (unfortunately 3 of those losses were to Orlando in the playoffs). Their final record was 96 - 20.

 

[R_of_G]

As for basketball, the Cavs played 96 games this season and gave up 100 points or more 20 times; 10 of those 20 were for lose (unfortunately 3 of those losses were to Orlando in the playoffs). Their final record was 96 - 20.

That says it all doesn't it?

It reminds me of the mid-90's Pat Riley Knicks. If the Knicks scored 90, the game was pretty much over because they weren't giving up that many.

You'd think the chants of "De-fense! De-fense!" would clue the league into the fact that it's what people want. We ask for it by name. When's the last time you heard 20,000 strong chanting "O-fense! O-fense!"?:whatever:

 

[just strum]

You'd think the chants of "De-fense! De-fense!" would clue the league into the fact that it's what people want. We ask for it by name.

I never thought of that - good point.

 

[R_of_G]

I never thought of that - good point.

It occurred to me while I was writing that post.

 

[sunvalleylaw]

Ok, I am officially in as rooting for the Lakers in the finals. I watched a good chunk of tonight's game, and I liked the Laker's style better. Granted, I have not watched any ball during the season, but I did not like the razzle/dazzle stuff Orlando was doing, and preferred the more straight up and to the point play both on defense and on offense displayed by the Lakers. At least that is my opinion tonight.

 

[R_of_G]

I'm indifferent about the Lakers. I don't love them, I don't hate them, but I am very happy for Phil Jackson. Him I have always liked. Ten championships as a coach is quite an accomplishment. :bravo:

 

[sunvalleylaw]

Well, I liked this final game. The Magic kept in it, and did not give up. They were just less experienced it seemed, and got taken out of their game. Also, LA was just too deep. If they were double teaming Kobe, Odom started dumping in 3's, and Gasol was amazing. At least it was a good game.

And from what I know about it, Jackson's coaching was amazing. Good, smart ball. :AOK:

 

[R_of_G]

No doubt about it, the Lakers have the deepest bench in the NBA. When you can have a guy like Odom coming off the bench, you know you're good. I'm happy for him. I've always liked Odom.

Also, as much as Kobe isn't my favorite human being, I am happy for him. The media was talking a lot about how he needed to win to show he could win without Shaq. Firstly, Shaq did not win those titles alone. Kobe had a lot to do with it. Secondly, Shaq's title in Miami was 90% Dwyane Wade's doing. Now Kobe has a fourth. Love him or hate him, he's the best all around player in the game.

 

[sunvalleylaw]

I kinda forgot what the hubbub was about Kobe's personal life. I was thinking it was not so great. I am not a huge fan, and don't spend much time thinking about it. Also, that Laker depth was frustrating as a Supersonics fan growing up. I was not a huge Magic fan, nor a Kobe/Shaq fan. But when I watched Kobe this series, he seemed to be professional and have a decent demeanor on the court. He seemed to deliver positive leadership to his team, and I like that.

 

[R_of_G]

i agree steve. i have nothing but respect for kobe the ball player.