2018 NBA Finals

[OurF'ingCity]

Not these finals! This is a problem for the NBA that the other leagues do not share - getting the same teams/matchups over and over in the finals - I guess since there is only 5 guys on the court it is easier to build a dominant team in the NBA (if you can find 5 great/very good players) than any of the other major sports....

Not a good way to build broad viewership outside of the very small handful of competitive cities/teams.

The "problem" with the NBA (to the extent it is a problem) is that it is the only major sports league to combine (a) maximum salaries with (b) a soft salary cap that allows teams to exceed the cap to sign their own players. Removing either of those rules would drastically reduce the chances of a Warriors-like super-team, but it doesn't seem like that is going to happen any time soon and I don't get the sense that the NBA feels that the Warriors and Cavs meeting yet again in the Finals is a problem that needs addressing.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

The current system benefits everyone but the elite players, although in recent years that has been changing with some teams going for the 3-4 max contracts and filling the rest of the roster with rookie contracts and vet min guys. If that trend continues and gets worse, I could see the max contract going away. It's not very likely, though. George Hill is still rich.

 

[snowmanny]

Cavs-Warriors III wasn't that great. I expect IV to be worse.
So glad it's the last in the series.

 

[Carmine Hose]

The only way I can see Cleveland winning a game, and it would have to be a home game, is if GS just flat out shoots like Houston and Boston did in Game 7. That invites the 3 extra LeBron teammates in gray shirts to pick their spots.

Cleveland doesn't play great defense and gives up a ton of open looks. I don't see any of their bombers having a night like Rozier, Brown or Smart just did on wide open shots.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

LeBron James is the best player on earth so there's always the possibility he just plays out of his mind and wins a game or two on his own.

 

[lars10]

LeBron James is the best player on earth so there's always the possibility he just plays out of his mind and wins a game or two on his own.

Even going absolutely insane he scores...70 points? I think the Warriors are going to score 110-120 on this Cavs defense. They left Rozier and Smart wide open.. Tatum and Brown too really.. if Boston had passed more they could've had a wide open three point attempt on every trip down the floor... GS has the shooters to make them pay. I'm not a GS fan, but I won't mind seeing LeBron go 3-6 in the finals. I don't think the Cavs have the offense or defense to win. Who guards Durant? and Curry? How the heck did the Celtics lose to this team?

 

[johnmd20]

The Warriors are favored by 12 points in Game 1, the biggest point spread(tied with 2001) in 27 years.

If Cleveland wins two, it will be an achievement and a surprise.

 

[Sam Ray Not]

Given the short 48-hour turnaround after a long flight, the iffiness of Andre's knee and Draymond's ankle, the "feeling-out process," and the potential for emotional letdown after a grueling game 6-7 v. Houston, I'd take Cleveland and those points. (Cleveland had a grueling series too, and has the Love question mark, but I think question marks tend to favor the underdog).

If Cleveland's gonna steal one in Oakland and make it a series, I feel like Game 1 is their best chance.

 

[BigSoxFan]

Given the short 48-hour turnaround after a long flight, the iffiness of Andre's knee and Draymond's ankle, the "feeling-out process," and the potential for emotional letdown after a grueling game 6-7 v. Houston, I'd take Cleveland and those points. (Cleveland had a grueling series too, and has the Love question mark, but I think question marks tend to favor the underdog).

If Cleveland's gonna steal one in Oakland and make it a series, I feel like Game 1 is their best chance.

Unfortunately for Cleveland, Game 1 is LeBron’s “feel out” game...

It’s a lot of points to give so I’d be a little nervous of a back door cover by Cleveland.

 

[Jimbodandy]

I'm looking forward to round four. I don't see a way that Cleveland can win, short of GSW's team plane crashing. But Lebron is the best player on earth and has been playing that way, so I can see them taking a game and maybe two. The 86 Celtics were one of the best teams ever, and they dropped two games to a fairly shitty Houston team (outside of Olajuwon, it was a bunch of meh). I could see some ball luck and Lebron donning a cape and taking 1-2 games. Keep an eye on which game Scott Foster gets.

GSW is a pleasure to watch. I'd watch them beat up on the Washington Generals for a few games. And Lebron is the best.

 

[Sox and Rocks]

There's hope for Cleveland after all:

https://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/05/28/the-freaky-streak-tying-the-postseason-fates-of-alabama-football-and-lebron-james-is-still-alive/

 

[SemperFidelisSox]

Who guards Durant? and Curry? How the heck did the Celtics lose to this team?

Green and Lebron guard KD, which is an upgrade from Richard Jefferson last year.

 

[the moops]

I am very curious how many of the "am not going to watch" crowd would tune in should CLE win game one.

 

[Manzivino]

I am very curious how many of the "am not going to watch" crowd would tune in should CLE win game one.

Won't speak for anyone else, but personally this series could go 7 with every game coming down to the final possession and I will still watch 0 minutes of it.

 

[lars10]

I am very curious how many of the "am not going to watch" crowd would tune in should CLE win game one.

That would make me even less interested.. I want a sweep! (F'in Celt killers! sort of kidding) If they win game one in GS I feel like something would have to have gone terribly wrong.

 

[luckiestman]

I’m going to watch. Not appointment viewing, but if I’m home I’ll put it on. LBJ won’t be around forever.

 

[Devizier]

I’m going to watch. Not appointment viewing, but if I’m home I’ll put it on. LBJ won’t be around forever.

Same

 

[the moops]

Won't speak for anyone else, but personally this series could go 7 with every game coming down to the final possession and I will still watch 0 minutes of it.

Seems odd. Perhaps you aren't a basketball fan?

 

[Kliq]

I'm looking forward to round four. I don't see a way that Cleveland can win, short of GSW's team plane crashing. But Lebron is the best player on earth and has been playing that way, so I can see them taking a game and maybe two. The 86 Celtics were one of the best teams ever, and they dropped two games to a fairly shitty Houston team (outside of Olajuwon, it was a bunch of meh). I could see some ball luck and Lebron donning a cape and taking 1-2 games. Keep an eye on which game Scott Foster gets.

GSW is a pleasure to watch. I'd watch them beat up on the Washington Generals for a few games. And Lebron is the best.

Point of order; that Rockets team was far from shitty. In addition to Hakeem; they had Ralph Sampson, who had beaten the Lakers on a remarkable turnaround and up until that point was having one of the most promising starts to a basketball career in history; a cant miss talent that was derailed by injuries. They also had John Lucas, whose promising career was ruined by drug problems. They cleaned out the Lakers who would win the next two championships as Houston was torn apart.

 

[ishmael]

The Warriors are favored by 12 points in Game 1, the biggest point spread(tied with 2001) in 27 years.

If Cleveland wins two, it will be an achievement and a surprise.

Ty Lue remembers that game:

 

[Manzivino]

Seems odd. Perhaps you aren't a basketball fan?

Love the game, hate the league. I’m much more a Celtics fan than a fan of the NBA in general, the impact of the officials keeps me from watching games I don’t have a rooting interest in. Combine that with the nauseating way that LeBron is covered and I don’t have any interest in watching him play when the Celtics aren’t involved. I acknowledge he’s the greatest player of his generation, I just don’t enjoy watching him at all.

Edit: Just to be clear, I’m not trying to say “Why would anyone watch this series?”; just responding to the point that people who say they’re not going to watch may just have no interest in watching.

 

[the moops]

Gotcha. That's a fair take (I suppose )

 

[Jimbodandy]

Point of order; that Rockets team was far from shitty. In addition to Hakeem; they had Ralph Sampson, who had beaten the Lakers on a remarkable turnaround and up until that point was having one of the most promising starts to a basketball career in history; a cant miss talent that was derailed by injuries. They also had John Lucas, whose promising career was ruined by drug problems. They cleaned out the Lakers who would win the next two championships as Houston was torn apart.

Don't get me wrong--Hakeem was awesome, an all-time great. But Sampson was a soft Chris Bosh, and nobody else on that team was better than an average role player. You're romanticizing them. I love that they hurt the Lakers, although I would have preferred to hand Kareem, Magic, et al. their heads to them instead. The Celtics took Houston lightly, and it didn't really matter. It just dragged the series out to six games.

Same could happen here too.

 

[Sam Ray Not]

Point of order; that Rockets team was far from shitty.

They had a regular season point differential of +2.6 (#6 in the league), which is pretty shitty by the standards of NBA finalists. (H)Akeem was a 23 y.o. baby; Sampson was soft and kinda sucked; and their next best players were Rodney McCray, Lewis Lloyd and Robert Reid. And Lucas, their starting PG, missed the entire playoffs.

The Celtics that year were probably a top 10 all-time team: Bird, McHale, Bird, Ainge and DJ all smack in their primes, plus a resurgent 33 y.o. Bill Walton. 67-15 with a PD +9.2 in the regular season, 11-1 in the playoffs going into the finals.

The Rockets stealing two wins was definitely an accomplishment.

 

[Kliq]

They had a regular season point differential of +2.6 (#6 in the league), which is pretty shitty by the standards of NBA finalists. (H)Akeem was a 23 y.o. baby; Sampson was soft and kinda sucked; and their next best players were Rodney McCray, Lewis Lloyd and Robert Reid. And Lucas, their starting PG, missed the entire playoffs.

The Celtics that year were probably a top 10 all-time team: Bird, McHale, Bird, Ainge and DJ all smack in their primes, plus a resurgent 33 y.o. Bill Walton. 67-15 with a PD +9.2 in the regular season, 11-1 in the playoffs going into the finals.

The Rockets stealing two wins was definitely an accomplishment.

I'll give you Lucas didn't play in those playoffs but Sampson, who averaged 20 and 11 on 52 percent shooting in the playoffs far from sucked.

JaVale McGee; he sucks.

 

[Sam Ray Not]

I'll give you Lucas didn't play in those playoffs but Sampson, who averaged 20 and 11 on 52 percent shooting in the playoffs far from sucked.

Did you watch Sampson? As Jimbo notes, he was Charmin soft, got pushed all over the place, was woefully inefficient for a guy his size (.516 true shooting in the regular season, .487 in that finals) and an absolute turnover machine (3.6 per 36 minutes that season).

At age 25, he was off "one of the most promising starts to a basketball career in history" in the roughly same way 32 y.o. John Lucas was "promising" and a key part of that team despite not playing. Lolz.

"Sucked" is relative, but Sampson being their #2 guy is not really a compelling case that that team was not shitty by the standards of NBA finalists.

 

[jmcc5400]

"Ralph Sampson is really mean" made me wonder if Kurtis Blow had ever watched basketball.

 

[Devizier]

"Ralph Sampson is really mean" made me wonder if Kurtis Blow had ever watched basketball.

Love that you dug through the crates for that reference

 

[mauf]

How many 3-time consensus All-Americans have there been? Kareem, Walton, Sampson ... is that it?

Sampson wasn’t a great pro, and advanced stats don’t like his game, but he was a steady double-double guy and a proficient defender his first three years in the league (through 1985-86) before injuries took their toll. He’s only remembered as a bust because expectations were so high.

 

[lexrageorge]

That 1986 Rockets team was more of a nightmare matchup for the Lakers than anything else. Hakeem has his way with the 38 year old Kareem, and even Ralph Sampson outrebounded everyone on the Lakers that series. Also, LA wasn't the best defensive team that year. They signed Maurice Lucas to become tougher, and he was basically finished. AC Green was a rookie and saw only limited action that season. Mychael Thompson wouldn't arrive until the following season. The Celtics had their way with LA in their 2 regular season matchups, with the Celtics winning in the Forum despite the absence of McHale. There was no way LA would have won more than 2 games against the bigger Celtics that season.

Of the Rockets 4 wins against the Lakers, only one was close, and that was the Sampson miracle shot, which simply prevented the game from going into OT.

As for the Celtics/Rockets in the Finals that year: that was the 2nd season of the annoying 2-3-2 format, which, more than anything, was the reason that the series had a Game 6. Also, Scott Wedman, hampered throughout the playoffs with a sore heel, went out for good early in Game 1, which took away some valuable outside shooting from the bench (and really their only bench scoring aside from Walton). It would turn out that Wedman would never recover from the off-season surgery to remove bone spurs from his heel, as he would appear in only 6 more games for the Celtics.

Sampson had a really good Game 3 (24 points, 22 rebounds), while Bird had an off shooting night, and the Rockets won by 2. Ralphie also played well in Game 4 (a 2 point Rockets loss). Game 5 was the infamous Sichting/Sampson brawl. Interestingly, that fight seemed to ignite Houston and their home fans, as Hakeem went off 32 points and 14 rebounds, while the Celtics starters looked tired, with Bird, McHale, and DJ all having averaged more than 40 minutes per game that series. If that game had been in Boston, it's doubtful the Game 6 Boston blowout win ever would have been necessary.

 

[snowmanny]

How many 3-time consensus All-Americans have there been? Kareem, Walton, Sampson ... is that it?

.

On a quick check it looks like Ewing and Maravich are on that list. I thought Duncan but no.

 

[Bunt Single]

The Celtics that year were probably a top 10 all-time team: Bird, McHale, Bird, Ainge and DJ all smack in their primes, plus a resurgent 33 y.o. Bill Walton. 67-15 with a PD +9.2 in the regular season, 11-1 in the playoffs going into the finals.

You meant Bird, McHale, Chief, Ainge and DJ, of course. A minor point, but I hate to see Parish left off the list.

 

[BaseballJones]

Did you watch Sampson? As Jimbo notes, he was Charmin soft, got pushed all over the place, was woefully inefficient for a guy his size (.516 true shooting in the regular season, .487 in that finals) and an absolute turnover machine (3.6 per 36 minutes that season).

At age 25, he was off "one of the most promising starts to a basketball career in history" in the roughly same way 32 y.o. John Lucas was "promising" and a key part of that team despite not playing. Lolz.

"Sucked" is relative, but Sampson being their #2 guy is not really a compelling case that that team was not shitty by the standards of NBA finalists.

Sampson came to the NBA in an era where the vast, vast majority of players played an entire college career. Today, the best players MAYBE play two seasons, and most just one, in college, before turning pro. So we have to evaluate Sampson's NBA career in that light, not in modern light.

His first two seasons, he put up these numbers:

1983-84: 21.0 points, 11.1 rebounds, 2.4 blocks, .523 fg%
1984-85: 22.1 points, 10.4 rebounds, 2.0 blocks, .502 fg%

Yes he was supposed to be a legendary player, and those numbers aren't "legendary". But that's a pretty damned good start to a pro career.

For comparison's sake, here are a few other centers and their first two seasons....

Ewing:
1985-86: 20.0 points, 9.0 rebounds, 2.1 blocks, .474 fg%
1986-87: 21.5 points, 8.8 rebounds, 2.3 blocks, .503 fg%

Olajuwon:
1984-85: 20.6 points, 11.9 rebounds, 2.7 blocks, .538 fg%
1985-86: 23.5 points, 11.5 rebounds, 3.4 blocks, .526 fg%

Robinson:
1989-90: 24.3 points, 12.0 rebounds, 3.9 blocks, .531 fg%
1990-91: 25.6 points, 13.0 rebounds, 3.9 blocks, .552 fg%

Shaq:
1992-93: 23.4 points, 13.9 rebounds, 3.5 blocks, .562 fg%
1993-94: 29.3 points, 13.2 rebounds, 2.9 blocks, .599 fg%

Daugherty:
1986-87: 15.7 points, 8.1 rebounds, 0.8 blocks, .538 fg%
1987-88: 18.7 points, 8.4 rebounds, 0.7 blocks, .510 fg%

Mourning:
1992-93: 21.0 points, 10.3 rebounds, 3.5 blocks, .511 fg%
1993-94: 21.5 points, 10.2 rebounds, 3.1 blocks, .505 fg%

Mutombo:
1991-92: 16.6 points, 12.3 rebounds, 3.0 blocks, .493 fg%
1992-93: 13.8 points, 13.0 rebounds, 3.5 blocks, .510 fg%

Duncan:
1997-98: 21.1 points, 11.9 rebounds, 2.5 blocks, .549 fg%
1998-99: 21.7 points, 11.4 rebounds, 2.5 blocks, .495 fg%

Sampson's numbers were really good his first two years, pretty much in the same breath as most of these other guys who all went on to have really really good NBA careers. Some guys on this list are among the best players of all time.

I forgot how sick Robinson and Shaq's numbers were, right out of the gate.

 

[Kliq]

SRN’s just mad because GS traded Joe Barry Carroll and Warriors legend Sleepy Floyd for Sampson and Sampson was a bust in GS.

 

[dhellers]

Did you watch Sampson? As Jimbo notes, he was Charmin soft, got pushed all over the place, was woefully inefficient for a guy his size (.516 true shooting in the regular season, .487 in that finals) and an absolute turnover machine (3.6 per 36 minutes that season).

At age 25, he was off "one of the most promising starts to a basketball career in history" in the roughly same way 32 y.o. John Lucas was "promising" and a key part of that team despite not playing. Lolz.

"Sucked" is relative, but Sampson being their #2 guy is not really a compelling case that that team was not shitty by the standards of NBA finalists.

I don't know much about Sampson but I think he couldn't trust his body. I remember a game in the 80s at the garden where Sampson make McHale (6'10 hall of fame defender) look small slow & hopeless. OMG! And then in the third quarter he hits the ground hard, and is immoblized. Taken off on a stretcher to the hospital. He recovers that night, but.... wouldn't that mess you up? Play a great game against a top notch opponent, and who knows if a random fall means you never walk again?

 

[Sam Ray Not]

You meant Bird, McHale, Chief, Ainge and DJ, of course. A minor point, but I hate to see Parish left off the list.

Argh! And the Chief was low-key my fave as a kid, too. I recognized that his game was less polished and efficient than McHale's, but I loved his stoic demeanor, cool face, and his pot-smoking, horror-movie-watching ways...

 

[Sam Ray Not]

SRN’s just mad because GS traded Joe Barry Carroll and Warriors legend Sleepy Floyd for Sampson and Sampson was a bust in GS.

Hah, true: his sorry performance in Oakland definitely affects my overall rating of him. But I also remember watching that '86 series (and some other Rockets playoff games that year) and thinking he was Charmin soft and pretty easily exploitable on both ends of the floor, unlike the younger but quicker, stronger and far tougher Akeem.

20-10 / 50% fg don't really impress me in a big man, absent other statistical context. Al Jefferson and David Lee put up those numbers; Bill Russell and Ben Wallace did not. Then, as now, great big men inflict the majority of their impact on the defensive end; and the one of the worst qualities a big man can have is Sampsonian squishiness.

Anyway the point of this convo was Jimbo's claim that that Rockets team was "fairly shitty" (by Finalist standards); and that there was a massive chasm between the 1986 Celtics and that fairly shitty team that belied the 6-game result. The anecdotal and statistical evidence pretty clearly support that claim.

 

[lexrageorge]

IIRC, Red did try to get Sampson to come out early and declare for the draft the year the Celts had the #1 overall pick. He was one of the most highly touted freshman at the time, and people were already talking about him becoming an all time great. Sampson declined, and so Red picked up the phone and called Golden State...

 

[SemperFidelisSox]

Given the short 48-hour turnaround after a long flight, the iffiness of Andre's knee and Draymond's ankle, the "feeling-out process," and the potential for emotional letdown after a grueling game 6-7 v. Houston, I'd take Cleveland and those points. (Cleveland had a grueling series too, and has the Love question mark, but I think question marks tend to favor the underdog).

If Cleveland's gonna steal one in Oakland and make it a series, I feel like Game 1 is their best chance.

It really wouldn’t surprise me if this series is 2-2 at one point, and we’re sitting here talking about a pivotal Game 5.

 

[bankshot1]

"The Celtics that year were probably a top 10 all-time team"

That's pretty funny.

A droll troll.

 

[Sam Ray Not]

"The Celtics that year were probably a top 10 all-time team"
That's pretty funny. A droll troll.

Hey! I loved that team — was just trying to avoid hyperbole.

I'm way down on 538's ELO system since it gave less than 1% chance of a Cavs-Warrior finals to start the playoffs, but since I'm too lazy to think of / search for another ranking system...

(By Peak ELO)
1. Bulls 1995-96
2. Warriors 2016-17
3. Warriors 2015-16 (disqualified for choking)
4. Warriors 2014-15
5. Celtics 1985-86
6. Bulls 1996-97
7. Spurs 2015-16 (disqualified for losing to OKC, who lost to GS, who lost to CLE)
8. Lakers 2008-09
9. Bulls 1997-98
10. Pistons 1988-89

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/last-years-warriors-werent-the-best-ever-but-this-years-might-be/

Boot out the choking 2016 Warriors and the Baby 2015 Warriors, and they're in the Holy Trinity with the '96 Bulls and '17 Warriors.

 

[bankshot1]

SRN

I think comparing teams across eras and decades is a fool's errand at best, but your statement the '86 Celt's were probably a top 10 team, was at best excessively conservative. You might have been on far firmer ground saying top-5, for a team many observers think share the top spot with the Lakers of either '84-'85, or '86-'87.

 

[Sam Ray Not]

I think comparing teams across eras and decades is a fool's errand at best, but your statement the '86 Celts were probably a top 10 team, was at best excessively conservative.

Yeah, I got that — they pass both the conventional wisdom test and the 538 test as Top 5 all-time team. Still, it's not wrong to allow a measure of doubt, since as you say, "comparing teams across eras and decades is a fool's errand." It's like saying "LeBron is a top 10 all-time player" or "Curry is a top 10 all-time shooter" — understated if just to give respect and benefit of the doubt to other eras that we may not have observed as closely.

Fwiw, I think including Lakers '84-'85 and '86-'87 in a pantheon that excludes the '95-97 Bulls and '15-17 Warriors (if that's what you're doing) sounds a bit '80s-centric and runs somewhat counter to the numbers and conventional wisdom. But as you say, fool's errand...

 

[bankshot1]

I think the competition in the 80s, was far superior to what we (I) saw the Bulls experience in the 90s. The Bulls biggest rivals were the Pacers, Knicks and several non-descript western teams. The Bulls beat mediocre teams.

And the game today is far different than the game played 30 years ago. So comps are hard and meaningless.
But I do notice a strong recency bias in the ELO #s which make me wonder about the reliability of the comparisons.

And fwiw (not much) the best team I saw play pre '86 Celtics were the '66-'67 76ers.

 

[ifmanis5]

Dubs in 5 and bad ratings. America is sick of this matchup.

 

[lars10]

It really wouldn’t surprise me if this series is 2-2 at one point, and we’re sitting here talking about a pivotal Game 5.

What would happen for this to occur? Cleveland doesn’t guard the three point line well or at all.. and they’re also not particularly good at defending the drive either. And there shooters aren’t as good as they need to be to keep up with GS. I also don’t anticipate that GS will have the huge shooting percentage disparity between home and away. I’d be very surprised if Cleveland won one without James shooting 30 free throws or something.

What scenario do you see where they play GS equal over four games?

 

[cheech13]

Dubs in 5 and bad ratings. America is sick of this matchup.

They've averaged over 20 million viewers for each of the last three Finals, something that hadn't happened since Michael Jordan won his last title in 1998. It'll draw well again. How well will depend on whether or not the series is competitive.

 

[ifmanis5]

They've averaged over 20 million viewers for each of the last three Finals, something that hadn't happened since Michael Jordan won his last title in 1998. It'll draw well again. How well will depend on whether or not the series is competitive.

Sure, if the games are close the ratings will be great. I'm predicting they won't be close.

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

I can't believe tonight's game will be within 20

 

[Jed Zeppelin]

I believe the only chance doesn’t even have to do with Cleveland getting crazy hot, but rather GS inexplicably letting Durant take bad contested shots all night.