I was going to do a review and preview of all the series, but some of the matchups didn't interest me, and I had no desire to write anything. Here's a little something I wrote about the second round match-up between the Cavaliers and the Celtics:
1 Boston Celtics def. 4 Cleveland Cavaliers (4-1)- Every game was won by the home team. Luckily, Boston had home-court advantage, so they move on. For all the talk about how bad Lebron's teammates are, it was they who carried him in this series. The team defense held the Celtics (who averaged 100.5 points during the regular season) to 84 per game for seven games. If Lebron hadn't shot 2-18 (0-6 from 3) and committed 10 turnovers in Game 1, they would have won the series.
Sometimes it seems like Lebron forgets how good he is. He keeps dribbling and dribbling, looking for a driving lane, and then other times, he just knifes through defenders and gets to the hoop at will. He did the same thing in the 2006 WBC against Greece, where he looked clueless until the last few minutes, when he had an epiphany and realized he could get to the rim and finish against anybody.
Is there a worse offensive coach in the NBA than Mike Brown? Consider they have Lebron James, who, while not without his faults, is already one of the most unstoppable offensive players ever. He can drive to the rim, finish, pass, and for the most part, makes good decisions. He shot 48.4% from the field without a trustworthy jumpshot, got to the line, and averaged 30 points and 7.2 assists. While Lebron doesn't have an all-time great supporting cast, he does have teammates with complimentary skills. Zydrunas Ilgauskas can create his own shot in the low post and can make open mid- and long-range jumpshots. And he's an above average passer for a center. Pavlovic is a good spot-up shooter, and part of the reason he makes such poor decisions is because of the Cavs' (non-)system. Daniel Gibson and Delonte West are both good shooters (Gibson being a great one), who aren't pure point guards, but any offense with someone like Lebron (or Kobe or Michael) doesn't need a pure point guard. They need a point guard who can get the ball up the court, distribute the ball, knock down open jump shots, and generally play off of them. Think John Paxson, B.J. Armstrong, Steve Kerr, Derek Fisher. None of these guys are above average NBA point guards, but they each won three championships by compimenting superstars. Are Daniel Gibson and Delonte West any worse than these guys? Also, the Cavs were second in the league in offensive rebounding, due to defenders losing rebounding position to rotate to Lebron, and Anderson Varejao's and Ilguaskas' offensive rebounding process. What kind of offense has Coach Mike been able to mold with these parts? The 19th best in the league. Where would they rank without Lebron, good shooters, and so many offensive rebounds and putbacks? Whenever I watch the Cavs, I find myself wondering how good their offense would be if Phil Jackson was coaching them.
I like Kevin Garnett, but his weaknesses were really on show during this series. That he's better off as a sidekick and that he isn't clutch is already well known, but what jumped out at me was how much energy he spends letting everyone know how much energy he's spending. He yelled, he pounded his chest, he goal tended shots after fouls, but did he or his teammates outwork their Cavalier counterparts?
Friday, May 23, 2008
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
David's Awards: 2008 NBA MVP
The 2008 NBA MVP race is the best in a few years for several reasons:
1. There have been three different players who were on pace to win the MVP for an extended period of time, and one who should have been but wasn't because the winner was decided before the All-Star Break.
2. Each of the top five candidates play different positions and have different games. Chris Paul is a strong, fast, explosive point guard. Kobe Bryant is a scoring specialist who has specialized in winning more than scoring for a change. Lebron James is a 6-8, 250 pound point-power-forward-guard, who could potentially average 35 points a game as easily as 10 assists over a season. Kevin Garnett is an unselfish, versatile power forward who set the unofficial record in intangible differences made on teammates. Dwight Howard is a legitimate center and probably the most powerful player in the NBA.
3. The candidates are really good this year. With all due respect to Steve Nash and Dirk Nowitzki, they didn't so much win the the last three MVPs as the MVPs fell into their laps because no one else won them. The last few years, the question was who's the least undeserving. This year, it's who's the most deserving.
On to my picks. There were five players who distanced themselves from the pack. Here they are in reverse order:
5. Dwight Howard:
The Good: Howard, who's only 22, played all 82 games (for the fourth year in a row), averaging 20.7 points on 59.9% shooting, 14.2 rebounds, and 2.1 blocks. So he scored a decent amount on few shots, rebounded well for his position and protected the rim. He also drew enough attention that his team shot 38.6% from three, 4th best in the NBA.
The Bad: Even though he creates open shots for his teammates just by being on the court, he still isn't a good passer, and needs to do better at making things easier for his teammates in order to be a true MVP. Also, he disappears too often. He's had 10 field goals or fewer in 27 games. Granted, his point guards aren't exactly 50-win-NBA-team-starting-point-guards quality, and they deserve some of the blame for that, but still, MVPs aren't taken out of a game so easily. Lastly, unlike the top four he doesn't pass the litmus test I described in my post about annoying MVP criteria: "Can I picture David Stern saying into a microphone, "Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm proud to present the award for the 2007-2008 National Basketball Association's Most Valuable Player to Dwight Howard of the Orlando Magic."? No. Not this year.
4. Kobe Bryant:
The Good: The 29 year old played 82 games, averaging 28.3 points, 6.3 rebounds, 5.4 assists, 7.6 free throws out of 9 attempts, none of which are all-time impressive, but the Lakers' offense works best when there isn't anyone putting up all-time numbers. His numbers are comparable to Jordan's during the Bulls' threepeats, but not quite as many points, and a lot more missed shots, and worse defense. He is finally trusting his teammates to make plays, and is more willing to do things that help the team win but that won't necessarily bring credit to him, like make passes that lead to assists, outlet passes, make cuts to open spaces and not necessarily to get the ball.
1. There have been three different players who were on pace to win the MVP for an extended period of time, and one who should have been but wasn't because the winner was decided before the All-Star Break.
2. Each of the top five candidates play different positions and have different games. Chris Paul is a strong, fast, explosive point guard. Kobe Bryant is a scoring specialist who has specialized in winning more than scoring for a change. Lebron James is a 6-8, 250 pound point-power-forward-guard, who could potentially average 35 points a game as easily as 10 assists over a season. Kevin Garnett is an unselfish, versatile power forward who set the unofficial record in intangible differences made on teammates. Dwight Howard is a legitimate center and probably the most powerful player in the NBA.
3. The candidates are really good this year. With all due respect to Steve Nash and Dirk Nowitzki, they didn't so much win the the last three MVPs as the MVPs fell into their laps because no one else won them. The last few years, the question was who's the least undeserving. This year, it's who's the most deserving.
On to my picks. There were five players who distanced themselves from the pack. Here they are in reverse order:
5. Dwight Howard:
The Good: Howard, who's only 22, played all 82 games (for the fourth year in a row), averaging 20.7 points on 59.9% shooting, 14.2 rebounds, and 2.1 blocks. So he scored a decent amount on few shots, rebounded well for his position and protected the rim. He also drew enough attention that his team shot 38.6% from three, 4th best in the NBA.
The Bad: Even though he creates open shots for his teammates just by being on the court, he still isn't a good passer, and needs to do better at making things easier for his teammates in order to be a true MVP. Also, he disappears too often. He's had 10 field goals or fewer in 27 games. Granted, his point guards aren't exactly 50-win-NBA-team-starting-point-guards quality, and they deserve some of the blame for that, but still, MVPs aren't taken out of a game so easily. Lastly, unlike the top four he doesn't pass the litmus test I described in my post about annoying MVP criteria: "Can I picture David Stern saying into a microphone, "Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm proud to present the award for the 2007-2008 National Basketball Association's Most Valuable Player to Dwight Howard of the Orlando Magic."? No. Not this year.
4. Kobe Bryant:
The Good: The 29 year old played 82 games, averaging 28.3 points, 6.3 rebounds, 5.4 assists, 7.6 free throws out of 9 attempts, none of which are all-time impressive, but the Lakers' offense works best when there isn't anyone putting up all-time numbers. His numbers are comparable to Jordan's during the Bulls' threepeats, but not quite as many points, and a lot more missed shots, and worse defense. He is finally trusting his teammates to make plays, and is more willing to do things that help the team win but that won't necessarily bring credit to him, like make passes that lead to assists, outlet passes, make cuts to open spaces and not necessarily to get the ball.
The Bad: He still takes too many horrible, sometimes indefensible, shots. Someone with his ability to get to the basket, his ability to shoot, and in an offense like the triangle should shoot 50% from the field easily. Instead, he shot 45.9% (the Lakers as a whole shot 47.6%). He took 20.6 shots per game this year, after shooting 22.8 per game last year, and 27.2 the year before. You'd think if he took 6 fewer shots per game, he'd pass on mostly the bad ones and keep the good ones, but not really. He doesn't really change his proportion of bad shots, and his field goal percentage doesn't change much either.
Is he a better teammate than he's ever been? Sure, but consider what an ass he's been and still is. From the Washington Post April 15th: ""This is a special crew. I have more bullets in the chamber now," Bryant said. "We had Smush Parker, who is not really playing now. We had Kwame Brown, who's in Memphis and not really playing much now. That was my point guard and my center, and in a pretty tough Western Conference, we still managed to win 45 games [in 2005-06] and get in contention. Now I'm fortunate to have weapons that my peers have had the last several years, with [Amare] Stoudemire and [Shawn] Marion, [Tony] Parker and [Manu] Ginóbili. Now I have weapons.""
There is probably a lot about Kobe's psychology that can be concluded from this, but I'd like to focus on one thing: his lack of empathy. Empathy plays a big part in teamwork. I'll help you make a shot because if you make a shot, I feel the same as if I hit the shot myself. I'll set a screen, or run the floor, or make an outlet pass, or shoot, or do whatever helps my teammates, because when they do something good, I feel like I've done something good. Kobe does not feel empathy with his teammates. That's why he specifically called out two of his former teammates and told the world, "they suck. They are the reason we weren't as good the last few years. Kwame and Smush. It's their fault." He's the hero, and they are either impediments to his success, or objects at his disposal. I'm not just deducing this from his above comments. It's evident in how he has played the last 12 years.
While it's true that he's toned down his douchebaggery this year, he's still not as well-liked by his teammates as the top three...
3. Lebron James:
The Good: Lebron, who is 23, played 75 games, during which the Cavaliers went 45-30 (49-33 over 82), and lost all seven without him. He averaged 30 points on 48.4% shooting, 7.9 rebounds, 7.2 assists, 1.8 steals, and 1.1 blocks. His defense has improved a lot over the last few years. He is better at making his teammates better than anyone in the NBA outside of Steve Nash and Chris Paul. He gets to the line a lot. He's one of the top five passers in the NBA, at least.
The Bad: His jump shot is still streaky. He shoots too many threes. He misses too many free throws for a wing player. Although he takes too many bad shots, that can mostly be attributed to his coach, whose offense system has been described as "the random offense" (YAYsports!) or the "Look at Lebron. He's so shiny" offense (Basketbawful). As good a passer as Lebron is, he's not a point guard. If the Cavs are in a play, and he gets the ball, he'll make the right decision every time (i.e. when and where to shoot, or pass, or dribble.) When he has to make a play out of nothing, he doesn't know what to do and instead settles for his terrible jump shot. As Charley Rosen pointed out, "[h]ere's an obscure stat to ponder: In the Cavs' half-court sets, LBJ received 40 passes when he was stationary and only seven passes when he was in motion. Subtracting the shots that he took (1-3), James wound up cashing in four of his dimes after he caught the ball on the move." In other words, if the defense is already out of position and scrambling by the time Lebron gets the ball, he will recognize a weakness and exploit it. He's a genius, remember? If he gets the ball while nine other players stand around, he has a harder time orchestrating a play that will allow him to exploit a weakness. That's where running an offense should come in.
While I think Lebron has played the best basketball for most of the year until Chris Paul went bonkers after the ALL-Star Break, I can't put him ahead of Paul because he still didn't perform as well as he could have. Steve Nash's performances during his MVP seasons were helped by playing in a system that maximized his abilities and impact. He wasn't punished for this. By the opposite token, Lebron's performance this year was hurt by playing in a terrible offense, and he shouldn't be rewarded or given any handicap points for that. This is the third season he's been the consensus preseason MVP pick, both for the media and for me, and for the third season in a row, he's failed to win the MVP. He'll probably be the preseason MVP pick next year, too.
2. Chris Paul:
The Good: Paul, who just turned 23, averaged 21.1 points on .488/.369/.851 shooting, 4.0 rebounds, and 11.6 assists, and 2.7 steals. He became the 8th player to average 20 points and 10 assists for a season, joining Oscar Robertson (62, 64-7) Nate Archibald (73), Isiah Thomas (84-7), Magic Johnson (87, 89, 90), Kevin Johnson (89-91), Tim Hardaway (92, 93) and last and least, Michael Adams (91*). After the All-Star Break, he averaged 21.9/4.1/12.6 on 50.7/41.5/82.3 shooting, and 25 and 11.3 on 51% shooting during his first 10 playoff games.
The Bad: There's not much bad. I will point out that the Hornets had the 5th best offense, while the Deron Williams-led Jazz had the best. Also, although this doesn't really hurt his case for MVP, it's not pointed out often enough that he's kinda dirty. Because he's so fun to watch, people who should know better either overlook or sometimes even praise his shoves, elbows, and other dirty stuff. In college, he punched Julius Hodge in the balls, for God's sake. That's not feisty or tough. That's bullshit. No one should get a free pass to act like Bruce Bowen or Bill Laimbeer. Let's not be hypocritical, okay. Also, I know I'm in the minority here, but I still think Deron Williams is better, but that's perhaps a topic for another day, preferably an offseason day.
1. Kevin Garnett:
The Good: His numbers were deflated by his reduction in playing time. His per-38 minute numbers were 21.8/10.7/4. Not that great, I'll grant you, but his main contribution was in intangibles. Garnett changed the culture of the team. They're the only NBA team that has the intensity and solidarity of a college team. Are they going to win a championship? Probably not, but they won 66 games and had a scoring margin of +10.4. Only the 1962 Celtics, the 1972 Lakers, and the 92, 96, and 97 Bulls had a double-digit average scoring margin. Let that sink in. Of the top 10 All Time Teams named in the NBA's 50th anniversary, seven didn't outscore their opponents by double digits. The 2007-8 Celtics did.
As Bill Simmons put it, "Look at the Celtics last season and look at them this season. Does any of the good stuff happen without Garnett? Any of it?" I say no.
The Bad: He doesn't take over down the stretch. As good as he is, and as efficient as he is, he's not a take charge and lead the team in the clutch kind of leader. Also, he spends twice as much energy as anyone else on the court, but half that energy is spent letting everyone know how much energy he's spending (popping his jersey, talking/yelling to himself/others, goaltending shots after the whistle, etc.)
But none of that is why he isn't winning the award. Before this season, he had one MVP and Kobe Bryant had zero. If Garnett hadn't won an MVP before, and Kobe had, is there any chance Garnett doesn't get it this year? No.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm proud to present the David's Basketball Thoughts Award for the 2007-2008 National Basketball Association's Most Valuable Player to Kevin Garnett of the Boston Celtics. Congratulations.
*The 1990-1 Denver Nuggets made no effort to win baskeball games. They basically let opponents score so they could get the ball back and pad their stats. They gave up 130.8 points per game.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Second Round Midview
Sorry I was too lazy to do a preview.
East:
1 Boston Celtics vs. 4 Cleveland Cavaliers: Here we have the most overachieving team of the regular season against the most underachieving team. The Celtics' biggest strength was how hard they worked. Yeah, they were unselfish on offense and played great defense, but that stems from literally playing with playoff-level intensity all season. The Cavaliers had contract holdouts, Lebron missing seven games (0-7), injuries, and a late-season trade. Now, both teams are at 100% and trying 100%, and there isn't much difference between the two teams.
In Game 1, Lebron shot 2-18 (0-6 from three) and committed 10 turnovers, the Cavs shot 31% and 22% from three (4-18), yet had a lead with 90 seconds left, were tied with 39 seconds left, and Lebron missed a freakin' layup that would have tied the game with nine seconds left. While the Celtics played poorly, the Cavaliers played abominably. I think the Cavaliers have more room for improvement than the Celtics.
Mike Brown is an awful offensive coach, but he is a great defensive coach. The Cavs were fourth in the league last year in defensive efficiency, and were only 12th this year, but the Varejao holdout and then injury hurt them. Since January they've given up 95.2 points per game, which would be fifth in the league. The Cavaliers don't give up easy baskets and they rebound the ball well (#1 in rebounding margin this year). Defense is less flashy and sometimes overlooked, but the Cavs almost won a road playoff game over a 66-win team in which they shot 31%. Good defense is less noticeable than bad defense. When your team is contesting shots, getting stops, and grabbing rebounds, it's easy to take it for granted, but when they're giving up open threes and uncontested layups and dunks and putbacks, you start pulling your hair out. The Cavs usually look bad, but give them credit. They're going to have a chance to win most games.
Prediction: Cavs in six. The Celtics haven't impressed me at all. Even ignoring the seven-game series with the 37-45 Hawks, I think their biggest strength, playoff-intensity, has been factored out because everyone's raised themselves to the Celtics' level. Also, the Cavs really should have won Game 1, and I think they are less likely to play as terribly as the Celtics are.
2 Detroit Pistons vs. 3 Orlando Magic: I don't have any more insight than I did when I wrote my original playoff preview. Well, besides the first three games of the series, but I didn't watch any of them.
Prediction: Pistons in six.
West:
1 Los Angeles Lakers vs. 4 Utah Jazz: In my original preview, I wrote, "[t]his matchup, should it occur, would showcase the fourth and fifth highest scoring teams in the NBA (behind Golden State, Phoenix, and Denver)." Obviously, I would want to watch this one, right? Yes, but I didn't want to hear commentators frothing at the mouth when describing the 2008 MVP. I didn't want to hear the Laker faithful cheering "MVP" whenever Kobe did something good. I originally predicted the Lakers would win in six.
Prediction: Lakers in five, with the Lakers winning either Game 3 or 4, and being blown out in the other one, then finishing up at home.
2 New Orleans Hornets vs. 3 San Antonio Spurs: Chris Paul is really good. 24/5/12 on 50% shooting for the playoffs. The Spurs are really old. While it may seem like the Spurs are good since they just beat the Suns, keep in mind that the Suns are no longer good. I originally picked the Mavericks to win this series, and while I'm tempted to stick by that prediction, I am actually going to change my prediction and go with the Hornets.
Prediction: Hornets in five. While I should be careful not to underestimate the experience and discipline of the Spurs, I should also be careful not to underestimate the unstoppability and genius of Chris Paul. Does anyone have an answer for Chris Paul?
East:
1 Boston Celtics vs. 4 Cleveland Cavaliers: Here we have the most overachieving team of the regular season against the most underachieving team. The Celtics' biggest strength was how hard they worked. Yeah, they were unselfish on offense and played great defense, but that stems from literally playing with playoff-level intensity all season. The Cavaliers had contract holdouts, Lebron missing seven games (0-7), injuries, and a late-season trade. Now, both teams are at 100% and trying 100%, and there isn't much difference between the two teams.
In Game 1, Lebron shot 2-18 (0-6 from three) and committed 10 turnovers, the Cavs shot 31% and 22% from three (4-18), yet had a lead with 90 seconds left, were tied with 39 seconds left, and Lebron missed a freakin' layup that would have tied the game with nine seconds left. While the Celtics played poorly, the Cavaliers played abominably. I think the Cavaliers have more room for improvement than the Celtics.
Mike Brown is an awful offensive coach, but he is a great defensive coach. The Cavs were fourth in the league last year in defensive efficiency, and were only 12th this year, but the Varejao holdout and then injury hurt them. Since January they've given up 95.2 points per game, which would be fifth in the league. The Cavaliers don't give up easy baskets and they rebound the ball well (#1 in rebounding margin this year). Defense is less flashy and sometimes overlooked, but the Cavs almost won a road playoff game over a 66-win team in which they shot 31%. Good defense is less noticeable than bad defense. When your team is contesting shots, getting stops, and grabbing rebounds, it's easy to take it for granted, but when they're giving up open threes and uncontested layups and dunks and putbacks, you start pulling your hair out. The Cavs usually look bad, but give them credit. They're going to have a chance to win most games.
Prediction: Cavs in six. The Celtics haven't impressed me at all. Even ignoring the seven-game series with the 37-45 Hawks, I think their biggest strength, playoff-intensity, has been factored out because everyone's raised themselves to the Celtics' level. Also, the Cavs really should have won Game 1, and I think they are less likely to play as terribly as the Celtics are.
2 Detroit Pistons vs. 3 Orlando Magic: I don't have any more insight than I did when I wrote my original playoff preview. Well, besides the first three games of the series, but I didn't watch any of them.
Prediction: Pistons in six.
West:
1 Los Angeles Lakers vs. 4 Utah Jazz: In my original preview, I wrote, "[t]his matchup, should it occur, would showcase the fourth and fifth highest scoring teams in the NBA (behind Golden State, Phoenix, and Denver)." Obviously, I would want to watch this one, right? Yes, but I didn't want to hear commentators frothing at the mouth when describing the 2008 MVP. I didn't want to hear the Laker faithful cheering "MVP" whenever Kobe did something good. I originally predicted the Lakers would win in six.
Prediction: Lakers in five, with the Lakers winning either Game 3 or 4, and being blown out in the other one, then finishing up at home.
2 New Orleans Hornets vs. 3 San Antonio Spurs: Chris Paul is really good. 24/5/12 on 50% shooting for the playoffs. The Spurs are really old. While it may seem like the Spurs are good since they just beat the Suns, keep in mind that the Suns are no longer good. I originally picked the Mavericks to win this series, and while I'm tempted to stick by that prediction, I am actually going to change my prediction and go with the Hornets.
Prediction: Hornets in five. While I should be careful not to underestimate the experience and discipline of the Spurs, I should also be careful not to underestimate the unstoppability and genius of Chris Paul. Does anyone have an answer for Chris Paul?
Sunday, May 4, 2008
First Round Review
West:
1 Los Angeles Lakers def. 8 Denver Nuggets (4-0): While the Lakers are a very good team, the Nuggets are not. A lot of people are blaming George Karl for the Nuggets' failures. How can a team with two superstars, a good defender/rebounder, and solid role players, not reach the second round? I'll tell you how. Iverson still dribbles too much, doesn't make his teammates better, and misses too many shots. Anthony is a one-dimensional player: a scorer (to his credit, he's an efficient one). He doesn't make his teammates better, which is why you can't build a championship-caliber team around him. Just because a player is popular doesn't mean he is effective at helping his team win games.
4 Utah Jazz def. 5 Houston Rockets (4-2): Did you know that McGrady hasn't won a playoff series in his career? What's that, you say? You've heard that every time his team is mentioned? Oh. Well, I'm just making sure you know.
3 San Antonio Spurs def. 6 Phoenix Suns(*) (4-1): Steve Kerr, February 6, speaking about the Shaq trade: "If it works, I'm a genius. If it doesn't, I'm a moron." With the little space I have here, I'll just call you a moron. Maybe if I'm motivated enough, I'll give you your own post. You certainly deserve it, moron. The Suns can't complain about this one. They stink. They're not good. They had six chances to win Game 1: Unsuccessful stops at the end of regulation, the first overtime and the second overtime; and three offensive possessions after each failed defensive possession.
2 New Orleans Hornets def. 7 Dallas Mavericks (4-1): My prediction for an upset was looking pretty good for the first half of game 1 when Dallas built a 52-40 lead, but then Chris Paul went berserk (24.6/5.6/12 on 50% shooting) and Dallas fell apart. This just in: Chris Paul is really good.
East:
1 Boston Celtics def. 8 Atlanta Hawks (4-3): Seven games? This is way different from last year's Warriors/Mavericks series. The 2007 Mavericks were a 60-win team that stayed healthy and win a disproportionate amount of close games, inflating their record. The 2007 Warriors had a midseason trade that turned them from a 35ish-win team to a 50-win team. So the series was really a 60-win team disguised as a 67-win team playing a 50-win team disguised as a 42-win team. It was still an upset, but in retrospect, it's easy to see why it happened. The 2008 Celtics and Hawks, however, are what their records say they are. Boston really is a 66-win team, and the Hawks really are a 37-win team. Boston better play better in the second round and afterwards.
4 Cleveland Cavaliers def. 5 Washington Wizards (4-2): The Wizards' douchebaggery and the trash talk from both teams overshadowed the fact that the Wizards played good basketball and put up a good fight before Lebron 27-13-13'ed them in Game 6. A lot of people foolishly picked Washington to win this series. I think they knew the top 3 seeds were going to advance, so they talked themselves into an upset. It's like if you're filling out your March Madness bracket, if you have the top 5 seeds in a region advancing, suddenly that 11 over 6 looks pretty appealing. Until 6 wins, because they're a six seed and the opponent is an 11 seed.
3 Orlando Magic def. 6 Toronto Raptors (4-1): Dwight Howard averaged 20.8/16.5/3.7 blocks on 62% shooting. If anything else noteworthy or interesting happened in this series, feel free to let me know.
2 Detroit Pistons def. Philadelphia 76ers (4-2): The Sixers won two of the first three and were up 10 at half time in Game 4, but then the Pistons awoke and outscored the Sixers 255-196 over the next two and a half games (102-78.4 per 48 minutes). There's been talk all year about how all the 2004 draft class who didn't sign extensions in the summer are going to regret it after sucking this year, except Andre Iguodala, who averaged 19.9/5.4/4.8/2.1 steals. Then he went and averaged 13.2/4.8/5 on 33% shooting. Oops.
My best picks: Cavs in six, Magic in five, Jazz in six, Lakers in four.
Worst picks: Spurs in seven (I underestimated Steve Kerr's moronicness), Hornets in six (I underestimated Chris Paul and I'm dumb (not Steve Kerr-dumb)), Celtics in four (I'm going to forgive myself for that one).
* I switched the San Antonio/Phoenix seeds in my preview.
1 Los Angeles Lakers def. 8 Denver Nuggets (4-0): While the Lakers are a very good team, the Nuggets are not. A lot of people are blaming George Karl for the Nuggets' failures. How can a team with two superstars, a good defender/rebounder, and solid role players, not reach the second round? I'll tell you how. Iverson still dribbles too much, doesn't make his teammates better, and misses too many shots. Anthony is a one-dimensional player: a scorer (to his credit, he's an efficient one). He doesn't make his teammates better, which is why you can't build a championship-caliber team around him. Just because a player is popular doesn't mean he is effective at helping his team win games.
4 Utah Jazz def. 5 Houston Rockets (4-2): Did you know that McGrady hasn't won a playoff series in his career? What's that, you say? You've heard that every time his team is mentioned? Oh. Well, I'm just making sure you know.
3 San Antonio Spurs def. 6 Phoenix Suns(*) (4-1): Steve Kerr, February 6, speaking about the Shaq trade: "If it works, I'm a genius. If it doesn't, I'm a moron." With the little space I have here, I'll just call you a moron. Maybe if I'm motivated enough, I'll give you your own post. You certainly deserve it, moron. The Suns can't complain about this one. They stink. They're not good. They had six chances to win Game 1: Unsuccessful stops at the end of regulation, the first overtime and the second overtime; and three offensive possessions after each failed defensive possession.
2 New Orleans Hornets def. 7 Dallas Mavericks (4-1): My prediction for an upset was looking pretty good for the first half of game 1 when Dallas built a 52-40 lead, but then Chris Paul went berserk (24.6/5.6/12 on 50% shooting) and Dallas fell apart. This just in: Chris Paul is really good.
East:
1 Boston Celtics def. 8 Atlanta Hawks (4-3): Seven games? This is way different from last year's Warriors/Mavericks series. The 2007 Mavericks were a 60-win team that stayed healthy and win a disproportionate amount of close games, inflating their record. The 2007 Warriors had a midseason trade that turned them from a 35ish-win team to a 50-win team. So the series was really a 60-win team disguised as a 67-win team playing a 50-win team disguised as a 42-win team. It was still an upset, but in retrospect, it's easy to see why it happened. The 2008 Celtics and Hawks, however, are what their records say they are. Boston really is a 66-win team, and the Hawks really are a 37-win team. Boston better play better in the second round and afterwards.
4 Cleveland Cavaliers def. 5 Washington Wizards (4-2): The Wizards' douchebaggery and the trash talk from both teams overshadowed the fact that the Wizards played good basketball and put up a good fight before Lebron 27-13-13'ed them in Game 6. A lot of people foolishly picked Washington to win this series. I think they knew the top 3 seeds were going to advance, so they talked themselves into an upset. It's like if you're filling out your March Madness bracket, if you have the top 5 seeds in a region advancing, suddenly that 11 over 6 looks pretty appealing. Until 6 wins, because they're a six seed and the opponent is an 11 seed.
3 Orlando Magic def. 6 Toronto Raptors (4-1): Dwight Howard averaged 20.8/16.5/3.7 blocks on 62% shooting. If anything else noteworthy or interesting happened in this series, feel free to let me know.
2 Detroit Pistons def. Philadelphia 76ers (4-2): The Sixers won two of the first three and were up 10 at half time in Game 4, but then the Pistons awoke and outscored the Sixers 255-196 over the next two and a half games (102-78.4 per 48 minutes). There's been talk all year about how all the 2004 draft class who didn't sign extensions in the summer are going to regret it after sucking this year, except Andre Iguodala, who averaged 19.9/5.4/4.8/2.1 steals. Then he went and averaged 13.2/4.8/5 on 33% shooting. Oops.
My best picks: Cavs in six, Magic in five, Jazz in six, Lakers in four.
Worst picks: Spurs in seven (I underestimated Steve Kerr's moronicness), Hornets in six (I underestimated Chris Paul and I'm dumb (not Steve Kerr-dumb)), Celtics in four (I'm going to forgive myself for that one).
* I switched the San Antonio/Phoenix seeds in my preview.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)