Text Size

Cleveland Cavaliers & The NBA

Cavaliers are lucky to be here....

Talk Cavs hoops and other items from the NBA here.

Moderators: peeker643, swerb, pup, papacass

Cavaliers are lucky to be here....

Unread postby consigliere » Sat Jun 09, 2007 1:10 pm

Ouch.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/st ... ortCat=nba

Cavaliers are lucky to be here
By Bomani Jones
Page 2

Updated: June 7, 2007, 2:19 PM ET

Watching the city of Cleveland celebrate the Cavaliers' Eastern Conference championship was beautiful. An entire city seemed to exorcise the lion's share of its demons on a glorious Saturday night.

Well, that's part of it. The other part had to come from the fact that no sane person could have expected that outfit, with LeBron or Superman or anyone else leading the way, to make the NBA Finals. Winning feels great, but it feels better when you don't know how the hell it happened.

The Cavs aren't bad, but it's hard to say they're good. They will serve as little more than fodder for the Spurs as San Antonio seeks its fourth title in nine years and accompanying dynasty status.

Which begs this question: Are the Cavaliers the worst NBA Finals participant in league history?

Sounds like hyperbole, but it's a legitimate question. Consider the following:

Cleveland's playoff matchups were laughably easy

Winning three consecutive series is never easy, but few draws have been as favorable as Cleveland's. Both of the Cavs' first two postseason opponents, Washington and New Jersey, finished the regular season at .500. That squad of Wizards, short Gilbert Arenas and Caron Butler (both injured), could barely make balloon animals, let alone work magic. The Nets had little more than their big three, one of whom showed up only sporadically. Cleveland didn't truly dominate either series. Even the sweep of the Wizards was uninspiring. Plus, the Cavs didn't begin to shine until Game 5 against the splintered Pistons, who didn't play a single good game in the Eastern Conference finals.

Those wins didn't really prove much.

But you can't fault the Cavs for that. They did have the second-best record in the East, winning 50 games.

But lemme say that one more time.

The Cavs won 50 games … in the East

Not exactly the most impressive feat.

It's almost impossible to quantify a conference's strength in a given year. Who's to say whether low win totals at the top were the result of equally distributed strength or epidemic weakness?

That said, it doesn't take a slide rule to know the East was good and terrible. Only the East in '03, when Detroit led the conference with 50 wins and the champion Nets won 49, could approach the widespread mediocrity in this year's East.

Seriously, was there a single team in the East that would be favored in a seven-game series against any of the top six teams in the West?

So don't let Cleveland's win total, which matches up favorably with some past champions, fool you.

Compare the Cavs to the team with the worst record for an NBA finalist, the '81 Rockets. Houston made the Finals after finishing 40-42 in the regular season, and it's easy to see wins don't indicate as much as we'd like to think.

One look at the Rockets roster -- featuring Hall of Famers Moses Malone and Calvin Murphy, plus Robert Reid and Rudy Tomjanovich -- and you wonder how Houston won only 40 games. A gander at Cleveland's makes you wonder how they got to the Finals.

Even some of the worst teams in Finals history would enjoy tremendous mismatches against the Cavs:

• 1975-76 Phoenix Suns: Paul Westphal, Alvan Adams, and five other players in double figures.
• 1970-71 Baltimore Bullets: featured Earl Monroe, Jack Marin, Gus Johnson, and Wes Unseld.
• 1977-78 Washington Bullets: Two top 50 players (Unseld and Elvin Hayes).
• 1969-70 Los Angeles Lakers: Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, and Wilt Chamberlain.

Best of luck to the Cavs trying to match up with any of those teams.

Cleveland has only two guys who have made All-Star teams. One is LeBron, and …

… the other is Zydrunas Ilgauskas

And that's it.

Ilgauskas was an All-Star in '03 and '05, but his solid yet unspectacular play showed that his place on those squads was a result of default, not domination. Someone had to be the backup center for the center-starved East.

But how 'bout this -- it's unlikely that any member of the Cavs other than LeBron will make another All-Star Game.

The Cavs roster isn't stocked with so-so players with bright futures. A lot of these cats are as good as they'll ever be. Larry Hughes, Ilgauskas, Eric Snow, Donyell Marshall and Damon Jones won't be making leaps. Drew Gooden's scoring is down 3.3 points per game from his career high in 2004-05. And let's not get too carried away about Daniel Gibson yet.

Since the NBA-ABA merger, only four teams have made the Finals without three players who had been or would become All-Stars -- the '86, '94 and '95 Rockets and '02 Nets. But those teams had a combination of promising talent and/or tested vets. Outside of Bron, Gibson and Eric Snow, Cleveland has neither.

The Mike Brown factor

Remember when Brown made that great adjustment …

And when he made that great call to get LeBron …

Nope, no such thing has happened.

Brown isn't a terrible coach. The Cavs' defense is too good for anyone to really say that. But when they have the ball? Oy.

In two years, Brown still hasn't shown any imagination in how to get LeBron the ball in the half-court set. He's got the best transition player in the game, but the slow-down offense is his method of choice. Combine that with his suspect timeout management, and it's safe to say Brown is not a good coach.

That's crucial because some could argue that the '01 Sixers had talent comparable to these Cavs. The Sixers, however, didn't just get a career year out of MVP Allen Iverson. They got a year for the ages from Larry Brown, who may have done the best coaching job in league history by getting that team to the Finals.

Mike Brown could make no such claim.

Perhaps all of this does little more than provide further proof of the brilliance of James. Maybe there is no greater testament to his greatness than getting this team to the pinnacle of the sport.

At the same time, the Cavs' success says as much about the East as it does about LeBron. And before the series can go back to San Antonio, we'll see just how weak the East was this season.
Indians Prospect Insider: http://www.indiansprospectinsider.com/
Image
User avatar
consigliere
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 12:22 am
Location: Painesville Twp, OH
Favorite Player: Jeff Stevens
Least Favorite Player: Carl Willis

Unread postby dpdad » Sat Jun 09, 2007 10:51 pm

Image

What I thought of while reading that article. The Cavaliers are Rodney to the national media. How I would love to make them eat those words.
dpdad
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 7:42 am
Location: Independence, Ohio

Unread postby jb » Sun Jun 10, 2007 10:21 am

The guy raises some interetsing points that are hard to refute, esp about Brown, until he goes here:

Even some of the worst teams in Finals history would enjoy tremendous mismatches against the Cavs:

• 1975-76 Phoenix Suns: Paul Westphal, Alvan Adams, and five other players in double figures.
• 1970-71 Baltimore Bullets: featured Earl Monroe, Jack Marin, Gus Johnson, and Wes Unseld.
• 1977-78 Washington Bullets: Two top 50 players (Unseld and Elvin Hayes).
• 1969-70 Los Angeles Lakers: Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, and Wilt Chamberlain.


The 77 - 78 Bullets and 69 - 70 Lakers as contenders for worst Finals' participnats in history?

What an absolute dumbfuck.
jb
 
Posts: 17730
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:08 pm
Location: Defend Youngstown
Favorite Player: Daddy Rich / Carwa$h
Least Favorite Player: Hines Ward

Unread postby hermanfontenot » Sun Jun 10, 2007 12:17 pm

JB wrote:The guy raises some interetsing points that are hard to refute, esp about Brown, until he goes here:

Even some of the worst teams in Finals history would enjoy tremendous mismatches against the Cavs:

• 1975-76 Phoenix Suns: Paul Westphal, Alvan Adams, and five other players in double figures.
• 1970-71 Baltimore Bullets: featured Earl Monroe, Jack Marin, Gus Johnson, and Wes Unseld.
• 1977-78 Washington Bullets: Two top 50 players (Unseld and Elvin Hayes).
• 1969-70 Los Angeles Lakers: Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, and Wilt Chamberlain.


The 77 - 78 Bullets and 69 - 70 Lakers as contenders for worst Finals' participnats in history?

What an absolute dumbfuck.


He's going by record, which is a lazy way to judge the quality of Finals participants. Those two teams had good reasons for having the records they did. '78 Washington was in its first year under a new coach and made some major personnel changes, esp. adding Bob Dandridge... IIRC Phil Chenier was hurt most of that season too.

The 1969-70 Lakers (46-36) were without Wilt until the last couple of games of the season. Pretty good reason for the drop-off in record.

Just to show how important records are in these cases: the 2001 76ers, who should be on the short list for worst Finals participant, and the 2001 Lakers, who should be on the short list for best Finals participant, had the same record (56-26).
User avatar
hermanfontenot
History Buff
 
Posts: 4117
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:52 am
Location: NE Ohio
Favorite Player: Big Z
Least Favorite Player: Jose Mesa

Unread postby Get_Wedge_Out_NOW! » Sun Jun 10, 2007 9:05 pm

well lets try to be the worst team to ever win a championship


"their matcups were easy"


ouch to us?? ouch to DETROIT! LMFAO
Get_Wedge_Out_NOW!
Angry and Irrational
 
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 5:00 pm
Location: none


Return to Cleveland Cavaliers & The NBA

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], gbot and 3 guests

Who is online

In total there are 5 users online :: 2 registered, 0 hidden and 3 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 181 on Sat Feb 16, 2013 4:50 pm

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], gbot and 3 guests