-Despite having the two signatures franchises meet again, the Finals were hardly classic.  While both teams were very good defensively and were leaving everything on the floor, there were few compelling moments and the most memorable moments, namely the end of Game 7, were not played at the highest offensive level either.  While I enjoyed the series, there did seem to a bit of hypocrisy in hyping this as a great series.   In my mind, this series actually mirrored many of the plodding but competitive hard fought series of the 1990s, particularly the 1993-94 Finals between the Knicks and Rockets, which has been unfairly maligned as an ugly series by many.-Both the Lakers and the Celts also were unique in that they did not rate out great during the regular season.  In fact, Boston had only a 3.37 SRS, while the Lakers were a bit better at 4.78.  Between injuries and recovery, we could make post hoc rationalizations as to how the Celts and Lakers were better than they looked but the fact was Boston’s playoff run was almost unprecedented.  Very few teams with such a low SRS rating ever came so close to winning a title, no matter why they struggled in the regular season.  In case you’re wondering here’s is the year-by-year SRS ratings of the NBA Finalist since the Magic/Bird Era:

1979-80: 76ers (4.04) v. Lakers (5.43), Total SRS 9.47

1980-81: Celtics (6.05) v. Rockets (-0.20), Total SRS 5.85

1981-82: 76ers (5.74) v. Lakers (4.37), Total SRS 10.11

1982-83: 76ers (7.53) v. Lakers (5.06), Total SRS 12.59

1983-84: Celtics (6.42) v. Lakers (3.32), Total SRS 9.74

1984-85: Celtics (6.47) v. Lakers (6.48), Total SRS 12.95

1985-86: Celtics (9.06) v. Rockets (2.11), Total SRS 11.17

1986-87: Celtics (6.58) v. Lakers (8.32), Total SRS 14.90

1987-88: Pistons (5.46) v. Lakers (4.81), Total SRS 10.27

1988-89: Pistons (6.24) v. Lakers (6.38), Total SRS 12.62

1989-90: Pistons (5.41) v. Blazers (6.48), Total SRS 11.89

1990-91: Bulls (8.57) v. Lakers (6.73), Total SRS 15.30

1991-92: Bulls (10.07) v. Blazers (6.94), Total SRS 17.01

1992-93: Bulls (6.19) v. Suns (6.27), Total SRS 12.46

1993-94: Knicks (6.48) v. Rockets (4.19), Total SRS 10.67

1994-95: Magic (6.44) v. Rockets (2.32), Total SRS 8.76

1995-96: Bulls (11.80) v. Sonics (7.39), Total SRS 17.39

1996-97: Bulls (10.70) v. Jazz (7.97), Total SRS 18.67

1997-98: Bulls (7.24) v. Jazz (5.73), Total SRS 12.97

1998-99: Knicks (1.45) v. Spurs (7.12), Total SRS 8.57

1999-00: Pacers (4.16) v. Lakers (8.41), Total SRS 12.57

2000-01: 76ers (3.63) v. Lakers (3.74), Total SRS 7.37

2001-02: Nets (3.67) v. Lakers (7.15), Total SRS 10.82

2002-03: Nets (4.42) v. Spurs (5.65), Total SRS 10.07

2003-04: Pistons (5.04) v. Lakers (4.35), Total SRS 9.39

2004-05: Pistons (3.31) v. Spurs (7.84), Total SRS 11.15

2005-06: Heat (3.59) v. Mavericks (5.96), Total SRS 9.95

2006-07: Cavs (3.33) v. Spurs (8.35), Total SRS 11.68

2007-08: Celtics (9.31) v. Lakers (7.34), Total SRS 16.65

2008-09: Magic (6.49) v. Lakers (7.11), Total SRS 13.60

2009-10: Celtics (3.37) v. Lakers (4.78), Total SRS 8.15

SRS is definitely not the be all in determining how strong  the teams are in the Finals.  There are plenty of factors that it doesn’t capture, such as a late trade, recovery from injuries, or the number of really bad teams that might make a good team look better or worse than it might otherwise be.  Still, this year’s Lakers/Celts rate quite low on the SRS scale, with only the aggregate SRS of the teams in 1980-81 and 2000-01 rating lower.  The 1980-81 Finals is dragged down by the Rockets improbable run in a shorter playoff format (the only finalist with a negative SRS during this span), while the 2000-01 Lakers were one of the few “turn it on” teams that went from decent to juggernaut quickly.

The chart brings out another interesting but unrelated point that 1990s had some seriously good teams.  While we all wax poetic about the great Bird/Magic rivalry, Michael Jordan’s Bulls didn’t exactly have it easy.  The Blazers, Sonics, and Jazz of the 1990s were all on par with some of the 1980s icons (though not as good as the those 1980s teams were at their peaks).

-What about the legacy issue?  The popular notion coming out of this post-season is that Kobe Bryant has cemented himself as one of the greats, and potentially better than Michael Jordan and Magic Johnson.  On the Kobe/MJ front, I don’t buy that Bryant is near Jordan’s neighborhood.  Both the eye test and the stats and dovetail quite nicely here since both paint a picture of Jordan as a clearly better player.   In terms of pure perception, Jordan had many more memorable playoff games/moments and rarely looked as mortal as Bryant did against the Celtics in the Finals in 2008 and again in the 2010.  This perception may be formed only on anecdotal evidence but is surprisingly well backed up by the stats.  Kobe has been a great player but MJ’s career PER (which includes the Washington years) is basically the same as Kobe’s PER from his absolute peak season.  Even if you want to discount Jordan’s huge stat years before the Bulls won titles, the 1990-1997 version of MJ still ranks out at least as well as Kobe’s peak.

As for the Magic v. Kobe debate, the two players are near a dead heat in terms of stats and career accomplishments.  Bryant has the added benefit that he’ll likely have a much longer career (Johnson ostensibly was forced into retirement in 1991 at the same age that Kobe is now).  Putting aside career value, if I had to choose between building a team with an 18-year old Kobe or an 18-year old Magic for the next dozen years, Johnson is my slight favorite.  Obviously, Magic could never score or defend as well as Kobe but Johnson did so much on the court as a passer and rebounder, while also scoring quite well, that he is an easier building block to start with and one of the most unique players ever to play the game.

None of this is meant to disparage Kobe the player.  Bryant has emerged as clearly the second best two-guard since the Jerry West/Oscar Robertson times (we are agnostic about how strong West and Robertson would’ve been against modern competition).  In addition, the notion that Kobe needed to win these last two titles to validate his career or to prove how good he is also made little sense.  These last two titles are not a tribute to Kobe Bryant having an epiphany about how to play the perfect unselfish team game.  Rather, these titles are a tribute to the Lakers ability to surround Bryant with the talent and coach he needed to succeed.  Phil Jackson was a help but the fact that the Lakers were able to take Pau Gasol for virtually nothing, has changed Kobe’s reputation forever, just like the trade to the Celtics changed Kevin Garnett in 2007-08.

The takeaway lesson from this title is that while winning matters, so does context.  Few players, even the greatest of the great, can win without decent surrounding players.  If we are really trying to place the great players in historical context, we have to be realistic about the context in which the players actually played in.

As for Boston and Los Angeles, this is the storied rivalry in NBA history.  In fact, this will be the twelfth time the two franchises will meet in the NBA Finals.  For those readers who are not NBA history buffs, you might not know about how the Bill Russell Celts smoked the Lakers seven times from 1958-59 to 1968-69.  In the 1980s, the Magic Johnson Lakers took two of three Finals from the Larry Bird Celtics.  Most recently, in 2007-08, the historically tough Boston defense took out Kobe’s Lakers in six games.  In case you’re wondering, here are the most frequent NBA Finals match ups in NBA history:

1.    Lakers/Celtics, 11 times (Celtics lead series 9-2)

2.    Lakers/76ers, 4 times (Lakers lead series 3-1)

Celtics/Hawks, 4 times (Celtics lead series 3-1)

4.    Knicks/Lakers, 3 times (Knicks lead series 2-1)

Pistons/Lakers, 3 times (Pistons lead series 2-1)

6.    Celtics/Rockets, 2 times (Celtics lead series 2-0)

Bulls/Jazz, 2 times (Bulls lead series 2-0)

Bullets/Sonics (series tied 1-1)

Some observations about the above list:

-Lakers-Celtics is recurring theme in NBA history and this is the third incarnation of the rivalry.  Of the other repeat Finals match ups, most usually happened between roughly the same teams in back-to-back times or another short time span of a few years, where the core players on each team had not changed.  The only two exceptions: (1) the Lakers and Philly met three times in four years in the early 1980s and then had a quickie rematch where the Allen Iverson group was beaten around by Shaq and Kobe in 2001 and (2) the Bad Boy Isiah Thomas Pistons split back-to-back Finals with the Magic Lakers in the 1988 and 1989.  In 2004, the balanced Larry Brown Pistons with Chauncey Billups and the Wallaces surprisingly dispatched the Shaq/Kobe Lakers.  (Arguably, the Celtics/Rockets re-match falls into this group as well.  The teams met twice in five years.  Boston was basically the same team but the Rockets had swapped out star Moses Malone, their star in 1981, for Ralph Sampson and Hakeem Olajuwon).

-Two match ups of this group are not likely to meet again.  Bullets/Sonics can’t happen, as the franchises have changed names (and locations) since they met in the late 1970s.  Still, it isn’t impossible to have Wizards/Thunder version of the match up one day.  Celtics/Hawks can’t happen because the franchises are now in the same conference.  In fact, this was the first great rivalry of the Shot Clock Era.  The teams met four times in five years, with Bob Pettit and Bill Russell slugging it out.  Back then, the Hawks were in St. Louis (and in the Western Conference).  They first met Boston in the 1956-57 Finals, Russell’s rookie year, and Boston won a tough seven-game series.  The Hawks won their second match up, thanks to Pettit’s heroic game Game 6, where he scored 50 points to knock of Boston in 1958 (Russell was out for most of the game with an injury).  They met again in 1960 and 1961, but Boston had little trouble knocking them off each time.

The most famous moment of this rivalry was not Pettit’s 50-points or Russell launching the Celtic dynasty in 1957.  Nope, it was the rivalry between Red Auerbach and Hawks owner Ben Kerner.  We go back to Terry Pluto’s “Tall Tales” for the story before Game 3 of the 1957 NBA Finals, when Auerbach accused Kerner of screwing with the height of the baskets.  In the ensuing argument, Auerbach punched out Kerner.  Bob Cousy told Pluto:  “Auerbach blames me for what happened, but I believe the whole setting was a factor…The fans [in St. Louis' Kiel Auditorium] were right on top of you, and the St. Louis fans could be very vulgar, and especially vicious to black players.  As we were warming up, I sensed that there was something wrong with the basket.  I said, ‘Arnold. that basket’s not 10 feet.’…Kerner took Arnold’s questioning the basket as a personal affront.  He was screaming at Arnold, questioning his integrity.  Arnold had his back turned to Kerner.  As Kerner came closer, Arnold just turned around and leveled him.  He really cold-cocked Kerner, put him right down at midcourt with a sold-out crowd waiting for the game to begin.”

According to Auerbach “that was no big deal.  Not worth talking about.”  Kerner also pooh-poohed the incident:  “We all had our fights back then, and not just the player.  I love Red….He may have punched me, but I had a night for him in St. Louis the year he quit coaching.”  Perhaps, but I am just trying to wrap my mind around any modern equivalent to this story.  Could you see Doc Rivers punching at Jerry Buss at center court in Los Angeles?  What exactly David Stern do in response?  Well, we know what Stern would probably do.  By comparison, Auerbach was supposedly fined $300 and St. Louis ended up winning the game 100-98, if not the series.

2.    Lakers-Celtics, Now: Returning to the present time, predicting Lakers/Celtics is a tough call.  These are very similar teams by the numbers:

What we have are two slow-paced, defensive-first squads.  The Celtics had more problems scoring and were slower but it’s not hard to see that the Boston team of the playoffs could be a bit better than the one from the regular season.  In terms of individual match ups, there are a couple of doozies:

-Point Guard, Rajon Rondo v. Derek Fisher: Fisher had some nice moments in Games 5 and 6 against Phoenix but he couldn’t really guard Steve Nash, Deron Williams, or Russell Westbrook and he probably will have similar problems with Rajon Rondo.  Indeed, Rondo memorably tore Fisher apart in the clinching Game 6 in the 2008 Finals and Rondo has improved greatly since then, while Fisher continues to gamely hang around as a heady vet.  Expect Phil Jackson to use Shannon Brown a little more this series (he used some very unorthodox defensive match ups on Steve Nash last round too, including Pau Gasol for a couple of trips).

-Shooting Guard, Ray Allen v. Kobe Bryant: Allen and Bryant have had a fun and chippy rivalry going back to Allen’s Sonics days.  At this point, Allen is still a nice player but Kobe is just way too much for him.  No one expects Allen to win this match up or even play Kobe to a draw but Allen will have to be enough of a scoring threat to make Bryant work.  So far, Allen has been feast-or-famine in the playoffs.  In 12 games against the Cavs and Magic, Allen broke 20 points five times but had less than ten points four times.

-Small Forward, Paul Pierce v. Ron Artest: Another weird match up.  Artest is a nut and has some shot selection issues but he has the physical size/speed combo that should match up well with Pierce.  Boston’s great defense, however, will exacerbate Artest’s offensive problems (namely forcing him into taking three-pointers, which is not his strength).  Pierce is clearly the better player, but Artest is more likely to give him problems than Allen is for Kobe.

-Power Forward/Center: Kevin Garnett, Kendrick Perkins, Glenn Davis, and Rasheed Wallace v. Pau Gasol, Lamar Odom, and Andrew Bynum: The take in 2008 was that the physical Celtic front court dominated this series.  Bynum missed that series with a knee injury and his presence could make a big difference in that department (though it’s been reported that he’s having knee issues now too).  The notion that Gasol or Odom are soft also is without merit.  They aren’t as physically strong as Perkins or Davis, or as manically driven as KG (no one really is) but Gasol and Odom are plenty gritty and now they should have Bynum to bang with Perkins/Davis.  Moreover, the big difference now is that Ron Artest has replaced Vladimir Radmanovic (who had big minutes at small forward for the Lakers in the 2008 Finals).  The swap of Artest for Vlad is as big a “toughness” swap as can be made and allows the Odom and Gasol to stay off of the center position.  Putting aside questions of toughness, the other big difference with 2008 is Garnett.  He is not the same player he was in 2008 (due to age/wear-and-tear).  He put aside a sluggish (for him) regular season, to play very well against Miami and Cleveland but looked worse again against the Magic.  The hope is that Dwight Howard was the source of any struggles and not overall regression by KG to regular season numbers.

Prediction: This is a very fun series, with tons of history, characters, and match ups.  Kobe Bryant has been unbelievable almost any time the Lakers have needed him to be and that fact, combined with the Lakers’ improved front court, will bring Bryant his second Shaqless title.  Lakers win 4-3.

3.    Whither Thou, Game 7?: As we mentioned above, this playoffs has been notable for its absence of Game 7s.  There has been only one Game 7 this entire playoffs (Milwaukee-Atlanta) and none since the first round.  I couldn’t really remember the last time there were no Game 7s after round one.  The answer: not that long ago, 2006-07.  In fact, the NBA hasn’t had a Game 7 in the Conference Finals or NBA Finals since 2004-05.  How rare is this lack of Game 7s?  The final three rounds of the playoffs is made up of seven separate series and getting a seven game series even once is far from a given.  Here’s a breakdown of distribution of seven-game series per playoffs over the last 30 years (we will only count playoff series played after the first round, as there were no seven-game series in the first round until 2002):

-0 seven-game series: 6 times

-1 seven-game series: 7 times

-2 seven-game series: 12 times

-3 seven-game series: 2 times

-4 seven-game series: 2 times

-5 seven game series: 1 time

The year of the seven-game series was 1993-94, thanks to the Knicks, who went seven games against the Bulls, Pacers, and Rockets in consecutive series.   As for this year, the lack of seven-game series is not that atypical.  The most likely outcome per playoffs, is two Game 7s but it’s just a likely that we get none or only one Game 7.  Boston and Los Angeles hopefully will break the ice on this one in about two weeks.

Did the Cavs/LeBron Choke?

I don’t know if choke is the right word.  Clearly, the Cavs seemed to be the better team by all accounts going into the series.  There really is no one who could’ve predicted that the Celts would have Rajon Rondo morph into a transcendent guard  AND that the old guys would start playing like it was 2007-08 again (Kevin Garnett finally stopped limping while playing!).  Even so, it’s hard to explain away the Cavs getting blown away in Game 5 at home and this did not reflect well on the Cavs as a whole or on LeBron individually.  I know LeBron played very poorly in that game but the way the Celts were shooting (and the way Cleveland was defending) made a victory impossible unless James planned on scoring 55 points.

There are some legit criticisms of the Cavs handling of the roster:

-Mike Brown played Shaquille O’Neal and Antawn Jamison together a lot.  Shaq looked pretty solid stat-wise but has some defensive problems, particularly when paired with Jamison.  Kevin Garnett and Glen Davis scored quite easily, making Boston very tough.  In fact, Dave D’Alesssandro wrote an interesting article where he put forth that Brown did not have the stones to bench Shaq, who couldn’t guard smaller players and got in LeBron’s and Jamison’s way offensively.  I don’t know if O’Neal was a problem offensively (his numbers were actually pretty solid).  No, the problem was doubling down with Shaq and Jamison defensively.

-Rondo torched the Cavs and there was some murmurs that the Cavs should’ve pulled Maurice Williams for a defensive specialist.  Williams was thoroughly outplayed but the Cavs didn’t have a roster match for Rondo if he was going to play like Chris Paul.  I don’t see how pulling Williams for Jamario Moon or Delonte West would’ve helped that situation.

-I don’t think that J.J. Hickson is a future star but he brings some skills to the table that other Cavs big men do not (speed, athleticism, and explosiveness).  In fact, Hickson was pretty solid the first three games but was absolutely buried thereafter.  He had 29 points in 47 minutes over the first three games and was limited to a total of nine minutes the final three games.  Given how stagnant the Cavs looked offensively and defensively, this was the time to throw-in an active player and see if it changed momentum.  I’m not saying this cost the Cavs the series but the Brown went down without shooting all his bullets and these bullets were pretty effective early on.

Should Mike Brown be fired?

The real answer to this question is whether LeBron James wants Brown fired.  You could make arguments either way on the point.  Yes, Brown teams generally play hard and well but they have some match up issues in the last two playoffs, that potentially cost Cleveland at least one title.  If James is willing to come back, he should be accommodated one way or another.

Should the Cavs really be cow towing to LeBron?

That is an emphatic yes.  I know there are those that bristle at kissing a star’s ass too much.  Yes, it seems annoying that the great players try to wield power and undermine their coaches but pretty much every great player has done this over the past 40 years in the NBA.  We all remember that Magic Johnson famously got Paul Westhead fired (and less famously helped move Pat Riley out of town in 1990).  Michael Jordan and Larry Bird were consulted on coach changes.  The Orlando Magic supposedly refused to fire Brian Hill despite free agent Shaq’s demand in 1996.  Shaq bolted town (he probably would’ve even if Hill was fired) and Penny Hardaway led a coup against Hill the next year anyway.

In short, it’s naive to think that players and all people don’t use their maximum bargaining power to their advantage.  It would be nice if stars were down to Earth and considered themselves only cogs in the machine but this is not reality now and really never has been.  Without LeBron the Cavs are in a bad place.  They should make him as happy as possible.  Granted, there is a limit to star demands.  Demands can become offensive and excessive but engineering a coaching change is nowhere near such a line.

Where is LeBron going?

I have no clue but Chicago makes the most sense to me unless some team can convince another superstar to sign with LeBron as a package deal.  An interesting note, most of the teams that are reportedly in the run for LeBron (Nets, Bulls, Cavs, Clippers) do not have coaches yet.  This is sort of a tacit acknowledgement that most teams will let James pick his next coach if it means that LeBron will sign on the dotted line.

How about them Celtics?

All the LeBron hoopla, however, misses the larger point–the Celts have become a great team again.  I have no idea how this happened and you’d be lying if you said you expected this if you watched Boston play after January 2010.  They struggled for most of the second half and looked old and stale.  Hell, Doc Rivers was noncommittal about returning next year before the playoffs.  And now the Celts have played great, dominating Miami and Cleveland, and now the Magic too.   As noted, Rondo has looked excellent and now can score too (scoring almost five more ppg in the playoffs).  Give the Celts a lot of credit for beating LeBron.  It’s improbable but Boston is back in the title picture again, and giving hope for all those older teams who believe they can jam open the window of opportunity for a title.

-Celtics/Cavaliers:    A nice and shocking Game 2 win for Boston in Cleveland.  Could this augur an upset of a seven-game series?  Seems quite unlikely.  Yes, the Cavs could have issues with Rajon Rondo but he torched them just as much (if not more) in Game 1 and the Cavs still killed Boston.  The big difference in Game 2 was Rasheed Wallace.  The chances that he shoots 7-8 in another game seems highly unlikely.  The argument could be made that the Celts just need to hold home court to win the series, so another Rasheed burst isn’t needed.  But the Celts are a pretty mediocre home team (24-17) and were actually better on the road this year (26-15) and definitely need something out of the ordinary to hold serve. 

I see this situation very similar to the Nets/Heat match up in round two back in 2005-06.  The Heat (with Dwyane Wade and a still dangerous Shaquille O’Neal)were the favorites in that series but the Nets were given a puncher’s chance with Jason Kidd, Vince Carter, and Richard Jefferson all playing very well.  The Nets stole Game 1 in Miami by 12 and then proceeded to get walloped the next four games.  The Celts now are probably better than the 2005-06 Nets (though not by much) but the Cavs are better than the old Heat were (though they did go on to win a title that season).  It was a nice effort but I just don’t see Boston winning more than one more game this series.-Hawks/Magic:    While three of the four second rounders have the higher seed ahead 2-0, no series feels more over than this one.  Game 2 was a slightly closer but the Hawks’ strength, the athletic front court, has been negated by Dwight Howard’s presence.  Can the Hawks even this series up in Atlanta?  Atlanta has been surprisingly tough at home (34-7), and only Cleveland has been better at home in the regular season.  Of course, Atlanta has already punted a home game in the playoffs, so losing to a great road team is hardly farfetched.  Expect the Hawks to split their home games before being mercifully smothered in Orlando for Game 5. 

-Jazz/Lakers:    Utah has played tough but the Lakers’ front court has controlled the boards and made it tough for the Jazz to get easy shots.  The Odom/Gasol/Bynum front court has created blocked shots, rebounds, and free throws for L.A..  Check the differences between the teams in those categories so far: 

Team            FTM/FTA     Rebounds    Blocks   

Utah                37/49                78                6

Los Angeles   47/63                101            20 

The Jazz are too small and defensively weak up front that they have resorted to playing Kyrylo Fesenko at center.  Fesenko has disgusting numbers in his 15 mpg so far but a front court of Paul Millsap and Carlos Boozer can score but can’t stop anyone.  Objectively, we understand why Jerry Sloan has needed to play Fesenko.  The raw playoff stats do make you shrug (17.4 mpg, 3.4 ppg, .419 FG%, 2.9 rpg, 1.1 apg, 0.6 PER).  It’s fun when stats and intuition collide but it’s clear that Fesenko has provided more value than his stats imply (though he hasn’t exactly been a star) and that he has some utility until Andrei Kirilenko comes back. 

-Spurs/Suns:    The most talked about series so far.  The story line has focused more on the notion that the Suns are haunted by prior losses to the San Antonio and that they have a shot to exorcise those ghosts.  I know the Suns have had some tough losses over the years but I do question the historical accuracy that the Suns are particularly snake bit franchise.  Yes, they haven’t won a title and they have had some brutally tough losses (to the Rockets in 1993-94 and 1994-95 and to the Spurs in 2006-07).  

But tons of franchises have no titles.  As for their distant past, I don’t consider the loss to the Celts in the 1975-76 Finals or the loss to the Bulls in 1992-93 to be gut wrenching losses either.  The Suns were a .500 team in 1975-76 and made a nice run but lost to a better team.  In 1992-93, the MJ Bulls were the better team.  In more current times, with the exception of the 2006-07 playoffs when Phoenix lost to the Spurs in part due to the unfair suspensions of Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw (both reacting to Robert Horry’s take down of Steve Nash), the Suns haven’t lost to a worst team in the playoffs.  Take a look at the Suns’ playoff results in the Nash Years: 

-2004-05:  Lost to Spurs in Conference Finals, 4-1.  The Suns won a few more regular season games but the Spurs had the better SRS rating and handled them pretty easily in the series.

-2005-06:  Lost to Mavericks in Conference Finals, 4-2.  Stoudemire’s knee injury did screw up the Suns shot but without him, they were not as good as Dallas.

-2006-07:  Lost to Spurs in Second Round, 4-2.  The Suns have a beef on this loss.  The Spurs were ranked as the better team but Horry’s antics put the Suns in a really bad position, when they had a good shot of winning the series.

-2007-08:  Lost to Spurs in First Round, 4-1.  In this series, Tim Duncan did hit a crazy three to win Game 1 but the Suns were not a great team that year and were going nowhere regardless of whether they won that game.

-2008-09:  Suns missed playoffs. 

So the Suns have had bad luck twice over he last five years between the Stoudemire knee injury and the Stoudemire suspension.  Still, the bad luck here is not quite epidemic.  There are plenty of franchises that would trade for the wins and playoff results of the Suns for the last five years, as well as the past 40.

-Cavs/Bulls:  This series is basically over after LeBeron James tossed around the Bulls to take a 3-1 lead.  Even still, from the Bulls’ perspective, the series hasn’t been too bad.  Sure they have no shot of winning but they have played respectably for the most part and have gotten the one token win to build on for next year.  It appears that Vinny Del Negro is going to be fired because of internal issues (questions on his play calling and, more importantly, clashes with John Paxson).  It’s hard to make judgments on internal issues we are not privy to but based purely on his record on the court, he has been a solid enough coach. 

-Magic/Bobcats:  Like the Bulls, the Bobcats have been relatively competitive in their series against the heavily favored opponents.  Unlike the Bulls, they haven’t gotten a win yet.  Charlotte has been so good at home, they should be able to at least avoid the sweep.  The only reason this might not happen is because of the Bobcats’ main weakness (scoring) coincides nicely (or not so nicely depending upon your rooting interest) with Orlando’s strength (tough defense).  In the three games so far this series, Charlotte has an anemic 84 ppg and has not broken 90 points in a game yet (notably, Boris Diaw is averaging 40 mpg and has only 5.7 ppg). 

-Celtics/Heat:  The Celts get a lot of credit for absolutely suffocating the non-D-Wade options in Miami.  While Wade is averaging over 30 ppg,  the rest of the crew has been awful on offense.  Couple that with Boston’s nice hot streak in Game 2 and Boston is looking like it will get to Round 2 with surprising ease.  The Heat rebounded to win Game 4 behind Wade’s 46 but the is still quite an uphill battle.  It’s also nice to see Ray Allen turn up his play to pre-2009-10 levels for this series (he shot 68% the first three games of the series).  Obviously, he cannot keep this pace up for long but Allen and Glen Davis have made a potentially tough series much easier than expected.  I now expect Boston to win this series in five. 

-Hawks/Bucks:  The Bucks shocked me with a blowout win in Game 3, after being handled so easily by Atlanta the first two games of the series.  Without Bogut, the guards have shot a lot more than usual and are looking good doing it.  John Salmons and Brandon Jennings are basically sharing the shots (103 between them in three games).  In addition, Jerry Stackhouse has looked pretty solid.  He still can’t shoot (38%) but is getting to the line and avoiding turnovers.  The Bucks would love to get this series to 2-2 but I can’t see Jennings continuing to shoot so well (43%) on such a high volume, particularly when he has taken 17 shots from the field but gotten to the line only twice per game.  

-Lakers/Thunder:  This has been the most fun series of the first round.  OKC played the Lakers pretty tough in Los Angeles, though I never believed they were actually going to beat the Lakers in either game.  In OKC, however, the Thunder have looked like the better team and pretty easily taken the series to 2-2.   The Lakers have done a good job on Kevin Durant but Russell Westbrook is absolutely destroying them (21.8 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 5.3 apg).  It doesn’t help that Westbrook has torched them while the Laker point guards have been puke bad.  Derek Fisher and Jordan Farmar have been awful offensively, forcing Phil Jackson to rely on Shannon Brown, whose minutes should expand the rest of the series.

On top of that, Ron Artest’s tough defense on Kevin Durant has taken its toll on Artest offensively.  In 38 mpg, Artest is shooting 30% (12-40 from the field).  It hasn’t helped that Artest hasn’t been shy from three, where he is 3-23 (13%).  Yes, Artest needs to be on the floor but he must be told that he can’t shoot threes if he’s going to clank everything.  The Lakers should win this series, particularly since Pau Gasol and Andrew Bynum have been so tough on the Thunder (Kobe Bryant has actually been pretty mediocre by his own standards), but winning a game in Oklahoma seems unlikely.  This should be a seven game war. 

Assuming they end beating the Thunder, is the fact that the Lakers are in for a war against an eight seed a bad indicator for their success in the playoffs?  We all know of the few times the eight seed has knocked off a one seed but what about times the one seed struggled but survived?  I thought we could take a quick look at all the eight seeds that forced deciding games (or at least took the one seed to six games) and how this turned out for the one seed (note that the first round was best-of-five until 2002-03, when it went to best-of-seven): 

-2007-08:  The Celtics were taken seven games by an athletic young Hawks team, mainly because Boston could not win in Atlanta.  Of course, Atlanta had no shot of winning any games in Boston either.  This didn’t hurt Boston too much, as they went on to win the title.

-2005-06:  The Spurs were taken six games by a declining but still dangerous Sacramento team (Bonzi Wells, Mike Bibby, and Ron Artest were the core).  The Spurs ended up losing to the Mavs in the next round in a brutal but memorable seven-game series.  But the Dallas-San Antonio series was just a tough classic and the Spurs’ quasi-struggles with Sacramento had no bearing on the loss.

-2002-03:  The Pistons famously hang on to beat the Magic 4-3, despite falling behind 3-1 in the series.  The Pistons impressively won the final three games by an average margin of 20 ppg.  Detroit made it to the conference finals, where they were swept by the Nets.  In the west, the Suns also took the Spurs to six games, even winning one game on a banked three-pointer by Stephon Marbury.  The Spurs went on to beat the Nets for the title.

-2001-02:  The Nets struggled against a young, talented Pacers team in round one, barely winning the deciding Game 5 in double overtime.  The Nets then went on to the NBA Finals, before getting swept by the Lakers.

-1999-00:  The Pacers were taken five games by the Bucks (Ray Allen, Sam Cassell, and Glenn Robinson) and Indiana barely beat Milwaukee in the deciding game.  Indiana later made it to the NBA Finals where they lost to the Lakers, 4-2.

-1997-98:  Utah had to contend with an aging and injury plagued but talented Rockets team (Charles Barkley, Clyde Drexler, and Hakeem Olajuwon).  Houston went up 2-1 and were in the process of scaring Utah greatly when Barkley was knocked out for the series.  Utah took the next two games and made it all the way to the NBA Finals before losing to the Bulls on Michael Jordan’s famous shot over Bryon Russell.

-1993-94:  The Hawks were a surprise number one seed in Lenny Wilkens’ first year as coach.  They met a young Miami Heat with some talent (Steve Smith, Glen Rice, Rony Seikaly) and fell behind 2-1.  The Hawks rallied to win the series before losing to the Pacers in the next round.

-1992-93:  In Barkley’s first year in Phoenix, they had a dynamic running team that took the NBA to storm but they shockingly fell behind a mediocre Lakers team (Sedale Threatt and aging James Worthy and Byron Scott) 2-0.  Paul Westphal calmly guaranteed that they would win the next three games and he proved to be correct.  The Suns then won the next two rounds before losing to the Bulls in the Finals.

-1990-91:  The Blazers had the best record in the NBA but met a young talented Sonics team with Gary Payton and Shawn Kemp.  Seattle was able to take Portland to a Game 5 before losing.  Portland lost in the Western Conference Finals to the Lakers in what was considered an upset.

The above list should be comforting for Lakers fans.  Most of the one seeds that had struggles in round one still had major runs.  Of the ten  teams listed above six made it to the NBA Finals.  The one problem is that only two (Boston and San Antonio) actually won a title.  I would venture that there is little correlation between a round one struggle and overall team weakness, as the 1993-94 Hawks were the only team that didn’t seem like a true contender coming into the playoffs. 

-Mavs/Spurs:  The general feeling of most stat-based analysts was that the Spurs were favorites in this series (based mainly on point differential).   The Spurs have played like the better team behind their traditional stars.  The key victory came in Game 2, when Manu Ginobili and Tim Duncan took turns torching the Mavs in the second half.  The Mavs adjusted for Game 4 and did a good job of shutting down TD and Manu, only to let George Hill kill them with open shots.  The Mavs have also gotten little from Caron Butler and Shawn Marion most of the series and playing the two together has allowed the Spurs to hurt them with smaller athletes.  For the Mavs to have any shot going forward, they may have to go smaller at the small forward to make sure the Ginobili and Hill are kept in check. 

-Suns/Blazers:  A very weird series, with each team splitting games in the other’s home court.  Moreover, the Blazers have rushed Brandon Roy back into action in hopes of stealing a winnable series.  The Blazers indicate that there isn’t much risk to Roy’s quick return from surgery but I see much more risk than reward here.  We don’t know Roy’s medicals but I can’t recall a player ever coming back so fast from a knee scope, even if it was minor.  In addition, Portland is not winning a title even if they upset the Suns and are heavily invested in Roy going forward.  Portland does have a shot of winning this series but Phoenix has already taken back home court and the odds of Portland winning are not great in any event.  Between all the hullabaloo surrounding the front office controveries recently and the decision to bring back Roy, I have some questions as to whether Portland is making rational decisions. 

-Nuggets/Jazz:  Utah losses Andrei Kirilenko and now Mehmet Okur and is still looking quite good.  The Utah front court is so deep offensively that the Jazz barely feel the injuries so far.  Meanwhile, the Nuggets defense has been quite weak.  Deron Williams and Carlos Boozer are torching Denver.  It’s also apparent that Kenyon Martin is not quite right and his inability to slow down Boozer or Paul Millsap has been evident (In terms of +/-, Boozer was  +11 and Millsap was +15 while Martin was a team worst -22 last night).  For Denver, Carmelo Anthony looks like the best player in the series but it hasn’t been enough because Utah is running them off the court.   The series is not over and Denver will probably get the series back to Utah for a Game 6 but unless they can keep Boozer and Williams from shooting so much and so efficiently, Denver will end the season with a bitter taste in its mouth.

-The spread between the Lakers as the one seed and Oklahoma City at the eight seed is only seven games.  This is quite rare.  We went back to look at the typical spread in wins between one and eight in each conference since the expanded playoff format came into effect in 1983-84.  Here are the year-by-year spreads by conference:

*1998-99 was a lockout shortened season and the results were prorated to an ordinary 82-game season. 

So, the 2009-10 spread is quite rare.  In fact, the top seed is usually 20 games better than the bottom playoff seed each year.  This is only the second time the seeds have been so close (though it is actually the second time in three years).  Before that, only 2000-01 West had such a narrow spread when the best team, the defending champ Lakers, coasted through the regular season and the T-Wolves had a nice showing in the eight slot.  In any event, we can expect some serious battles going forward in April. 

-The Thunder might be the best eight seed of All-Time.  Only five eight seeds have ever won more the 44 games and they all have come in the last decade.  Here’s the group, and how they did in the playoffs: 

-2000-01 Timberwolves, 47-35, SRS Rating 1.81:  Lost to the Spurs in the first round 3-1.

-2004-05 Grizzlies, 45-37, SRS Rating 2.63:  Smoked 4-0 by the Suns in the first round.

-2007-08 Nuggets, 50-32, SRS Rating 3.74:  Smoked by the Lakers 4-0 in the first round.

-2008-09 Jazz, 48-34, SRS Rating 2.31:  Lost to the Lakers 4-1 in the first round.

-2009-10 Thunder, 50-32, SRS Rating 3.55: We shall see… 

-Not to harp on the parity out West but most rating systems we’ve seen from ESPN, Basketball Prospectus, and other sites, have not jibed with the teams’ actual won-loss records.  For example, SRS has the Jazz as the best team in the conference, followed by the Spurs.  The Mavs, despite being a two-seed, are considered the worst Western playoff team by this ranking.  For fun, here are the rankings per Basketball-Reference.com:

Obviously, formulas have some weaknesses.  They don’t take into account match ups, injuries, and recent line up changes but they do make clear that we cannot call the teams with the best records prohibitive favorites by any means.  Now let’s get to the match ups… 

1.    Lakers v. Thunder:    This is a very dangerous test for a Lakers team that has cooled off significantly in the second half.  Some have blamed the Lakers defense for the second half malaise but it seems that the problem really is offense.  The Lakers are still solid defensively (4th overall) but have sunk to 11th in offensive efficiency from 3rd in 2008-09.  More scary is that Kobe Bryant has declined a bit.  His PER is down to a mortal 21.9 (from the 24 range the past two years) and this is the first time he didn’t lead the Lakers in PER since the Shaq years (it’s Kobe’s worst ranking since 2000-01). 

The Thunder will be a tough team and it’s an open question if anyone on L.A. can stay with Kevin Durant.  Still, there are a few things here in the Lakers’ favor: The Lakers have been peppered with very good teams in the first round the last few years.  In fact, the three best eight seeds ever have all faced this Laker team.  The Lakers handled a 50-win team Denver easily in 2007-08 and the Jazz almost as easily last year.  Yes, the Lakers aren’t quite as good now as they were the past two years but this raises another interesting point:  Phil Jackson teams almost never lose to a worse team.  The last time I can think of a Phil Jackson team being upset was back in 2003-04 against the Pistons in the Finals and that Detroit team was excellent, not some anomaly.  Finally, the Lakers took the season pretty easily from OKC (3-1) with the lone loss in March, after the Lakers were already coasting.  In the end, OKC isn’t that much worse than the Lakers but I just can’t see the Thunder beating the deep Lakers.  Between Kobe and Pau Gasol, the Lakers will move on, even if KD will give the some headaches to the Lakers.  Prediction:  Lakers win 4-1. 

When they last met:  You have to go back to 1997-98 to find the Shaq Lakers taking on the last George Karl Sonics team in the second round.  O’Neal had a field day against Vin Baker, Sam Perkins, and Kim McIlvaine and knocked Seattle off 4-1.  Incidentally, a second-year guard named Kobe Bryant played only 14 minutes in the series. 

2.    Mavericks v. Spurs:  The Mavs have taken something of a beating from the stat community because of their pedestrian point-differential that projects them to have a 49-33 record.  The Spurs have the opposite issue, a great projected won-loss (55 wins) but only 50 wins on the book.  Dallas did have a nice showing against the Spurs (winning three out of four) but the Spurs are a different team in the second half.  They’ve played mostly great when healthy, particularly Manu Ginobili.  Assuming a modicum of health, the Spurs have a point guard that’s a bit too quick for Jason Kidd or Jason Terry and no answer for Manu either.  On the other end, the Spurs have struggled with holding down Dirk Nowitzki too but I think the Manu/Tim Duncan combo is probably too much for the Mavs.  Prediction: Spurs win 4-2. 

When they last met:  I’m sure we all remember that the Mavs beat the Spurs up quite well last year, 4-1.   Dallas fans can also point out that they also beat the Spurs back in 2005-06 in one of the great forgotten series, where the Mavs won in Game 7 in San Antonio, thanks to Dirk’s dunk and Manu’s brain fart/slap foul that allowed Nowitzki to get a three-point play.  Dallas and San Antonio have met only two other times in the Duncan/Dirk Era, both won by the Spurs (2000-01 and 2002-03). 

3.    Suns v. Trail Blazers:    This had all the hallmarks of a great series.  The Blazers are an efficient but slow offensive team (30th in pace factor!) and the Suns can burn (best offensive team in the NBA and fourth fastest team).  What happens when the tortoise meets about with the rabbit?  In this case, Portland had been fairly successful slowing down the pace against the Suns, holding Nash & Stoudemire to around 100 ppg and beating Phoenix two out of three.  The serious problem here is that Brandon Roy just hurt his knee and is out.  Under ordinary circumstances, I think Portland has at least a 50% shot of winning this series but without Roy, it’s unlikely that they can score enough points to slow down the Suns.  Prediction:  Suns win 4-1. 

When they last met:  It’s been quite a while.  The last meeting of these franchises in the playoffs occurred in 1998-99.  The Blazers were entering a mini-renaissance behind Rasheed Wallace and swept out the Jason Kidd/Tom Gugliotta Suns in the first round.  

4.    Nuggets v. Jazz:    Both Denver and Utah also have injury issues.  Kenyon Martin has struggled with patella issues and Andrei Kirilenko is reportedly out for at least some of this series with a calf issue (Carlos Boozer is also questionable).  There are tons of fun match ups potentially here too, particularly Deron Williams v. Chauncey Billups at the point.  The problem is that there is too much uncertainty to have a clear idea of what the series will look like.  Still, we do know that the Nuggets have home court, a healthier team, and have handled Utah pretty well this year (3-1).   Utah has been much better in the second half of the season and won the only match up between the teams in that time (though Billups didn’t play).  While I believe Utah to be the qualitatively better team in the abstract, too many factors favor Denver right now.  Prediction:  Denver wins 4-2. 

Second Round

-Lakers beat Nuggets, 4-3

-Suns beat Spurs, 4-3 

Western Conference Finals

-Lakers beat Suns, 4-1 

NBA Finals

-Cavaliers beat Lakers, 4-1

1.    Cavaliers v. Bulls:   The interesting story coming into the series is the state of the Bulls.  Yes, it’s nice that they were able to rally to a playoff spot (thanks to Chris Bosh’s broken face).  But there is still an overall sense of chaos with the Bulls.  After all of Chicago’s changes the last few years, they are essentially the team they were before.  They dumped defensive whiz Scott Skiles in hopes of having a more balanced team.  They let Ben Gordon go and replaced him with Jannero Pargo.  The end result?  A 41-41 record and a team with a bad offensive efficiency (27th in the NBA) and a solid defense (11th).  Then you throw in the Vinny Del Negro-John Paxson rumored altercation and you wonder why Paxson hired Del Negro to begin with, considering that there have been apparently internal murmurs questioning Del Negro’s coaching ability since day one.    

Of course, none of this matters for the purposes of assessing this series.  The Cavs are better at nearly every facet of the game.  The Bulls can point to the fact that they are 2-2 against the Cavs but one of the wins happened last week without LeBron playing and the first win was a one point game.  I expect the Cavs to have a field day here.  Prediction:  Cleveland win 4-0. 

When they last met:  We all remember the old Michael Jordan Bulls breaking the hearts of Cleveland’s promising teams in the late 1980s and early 1990s (cue MJ’s shot over Ehlo in your mind).  In fact, Jordan’s crew beat the Cavs four times in six years from 1987-88 to 1992-93, all of which had memorable moments and were highly anticipated series between two potential title contenders.  The last meeting, in 1993-94, was much less anticipated.  At that time, Jordan was retired, Brad Daugherty and Larry Nance had already played their final games, Lenny Wilkens was gone to Atlanta, and Mark Price was also close to finished.  This was the Cavs’ first season as the non-descript, slowdown Mike Fratello version.  Cleveland was solid (47-35) but without Daugherty, Nance, and an injured Hot Rod Williams, they didn’t have the horses to compete with the Bulls, who had Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant in their primes. The Cavs played hard but had a washed up Rod Higgins and a fringe big guy Tim Kempton playing major minutes.  The end result was a Bulls sweep and Pippen dominating the series. 

2.    Magic v. Bobcats:    Did you know that the Bobcats ended up having the best defensive efficiency in the NBA?  I sure didn’t.  I knew they were a tough defensive team that played an ugly offense at a slow pace that Larry Brown always finds to be the “right way.”  Just as impressive is that Charlotte manages to limit points without giving fouls or foul shots (they had 470 more free throws than their opponents and over 200 fewer personal fouls).  Another interesting fact about the Bobcats is that they continue to improve their win total each year since their inception in 2004-05, albeit at a slow pace.  This will make an interesting match up with the Magic, who draw a ton of fouls and free throws.  Had Charlotte been able to move up to draw Boston, they might’ve had a shot at an upset but Orlando is just too good for that to happen.  The Bobcats are a bad road team (13-28) but a good home team for such a low seed (31-10 in Charlotte) and this combination means that Charlotte’s main goal is to get its first playoff win, and that’s about it.  Prediction:  Orlando wins 4-1. 

When they last met:  Since this is the Bobcats’ first time in the playoffs, it’s safe to say there is no playoff history here.  The old Charlotte Hornets did meet the Orlando Magic in the first round of the 2001-02 playoffs in the 4-5 match up.  It was a battle of well-rounded Charlotte team (a young Baron Davis, David Wesley, Jamal Mashburn, P.J. Brown, Elden Campbell, and Jamaal Magloire) against the one-man band of Tracy McGrady in his prime.  Charlotte won the first game by one and the teams split the next two games (both of which went to overtime) before the Hornets trounced Orlando by 17 in Game 4 to clinch. 

3.    Hawks v. Bucks:    This could’ve been fun.  Atlanta is the second best offense in the NBA and is going up against the second best defense.  At full strength, the Hawks would probably have won a tough series that would be decided by Atlanta’s home court advantage.  Without Andrew Bogut, this series will be a bit of an afterthought.  Bogut, the Bucks’ best player on offense and defense, is replaced by 37-year old Kurt Thomas and Dan Gadzuric against Josh Smith and Al Horford.  That’s not good for Milwaukee.  The Bucks will compete hard but the talent just isn’t there.  Prediction:  Atlanta wins 4-1. 

When they last met:  You have to go back all the way to 1988-89 to find the last playoff match up between these franchises.  Back in 1988-89, the teams met in the 4-5 match up.  At the time, the Bucks were a declining power.  Don Nelson had already left town and Sidney Moncrief was a shell of his former self.  Still, they had Jay Humphries, Jack Sikma, and Terry Cummings and won 49 games.  The Hawks were a 52-win team and considered a rising power behind Dominique Wilkins (they had taken the Larry Bird Celts to seven games the previous season).  Atlanta also had acquired Moses Malone and Reggie Theus to help put them over the top.  Well, it didn’t work.  The Bucks won the series 3-2, snatching two victories in Atlanta including the deciding game.  The Hawks, who were considered potential heirs to the Celtics, were not contenders again for another half a decade. 

4.    Celtics v. Heat:    This is, by far, the most interesting match up of the first round in the East.  Boston has limped badly through the second half.  It’s clear that title contention is over for now.  Still, Boston is a formidable defensive team and have the pieces to be dangerous in spurts.  Miami, is a much younger team but its numbers are very similar to Boston’s overall: 

Team               Off. Eff.    Def. Eff.       Pace Factor

Boston         107.7 (15th)    103.8 (5th)   91.6 (22nd)              

Miami          106.6 (19th)    1041. (6th)   89.6 (28th) 

How the teams amassed these numbers if very different.  Miami is Dwyane Wade or bust offensively, while Boston has a more balanced attack. Despite this balance, the Celts’ weak finish is quite disturbing (30-28 finish after a 20-4 start), given the collective age of their key players.  The series is essentially a toss up but the Heat front court is active enough to annoy Kevin Garnett and Paul Pierce, while I doubt that Ray Allen can stay with Wade.  Prediction:  Miami wins 4-2.

 When they last met:  The Celts and Heat have never met in the playoffs before.

 Round 2 Predictions

 -Cavaliers over Heat, 4-1

-Magic over Hawks, 4-3

 Conference Finals

 -Cavaliers over Magic, 4-3

-While the decision to foul or defend the three is one coaches have struggled with, it’s pretty clear that either option is better than just standing there and letting the defender shoot an open three.  Derek Fisher had several seconds to square up and hit that three over Jameer Nelson as he inexplicably worried about the drive, with his team up three with a few seconds left.  Had Nelson been thinking a little more clearly, he would’ve gotten up in Fisher’s face and only fouled if Fisher had a clear look.  I did not like the idea of reflexively fouling as the Lakers came up the court just because the the Magic were shooting so poorly from the line but, as noted, a foul would’ve made more sense than their actual defense. 

-This leads to another huge question…why was Nelson in the game for so long any way?  Nelson had some decently effective moments but had absolutely no inclination to shoot and dubious conditioning after a long injury lay off.  Nelson’s failure to guard Fisher on the game tying three wasn’t his only lapse.  Earlier in the quarter, Kobe Bryant had a wide open three where Mickael Pietrus seemingly left Bryant all alone for no apparent reason.  It seems that Nelson was meant to switch on the play but was way behind.  Stan Van Gundy had gotten some decent play out of Nelson, who did create some shots on penetration.  As Nelson tired and it was clear he would not shoot, the time had come to try Rafer Alston or Courtney Lee. 

-The Lakers were quite tough.  After years of Phil Jackson complaining about Pat Riley’s Knicks and Chuck Daly’s Pistons, it was somewhat ironic to watch the Lakers slam any Orlando player to come near the lane in the last five minutes.  Pau Gasol, Kobe Bryant, and Derek Fisher all artistically hit the Magic drivers without quite going over the line.  Of course, if the Magic had made a few free throws this strategy wouldn’t have worked.

-The two biggest shots no one will remember from this game came before Fisher’s big three.  Kobe hit a three from way outside with Pietrus draped all over him and then Trevor Ariza hit a big three from the top of the key on a play where he did not really have his feet set.  The fact that the Lakers were able to cobble just enough threes to keep up with Orlando was amazing considering how little offense they had going to the basket (no free throws in the fourth quarter and most of overtime).

-It’s hard to say whether had Dwight Howard had a great bad game or a bad great game.  Howard was dominant defensively and snuffed nine shots, which effectively turned the Lakers into a three-point shooting or bust team and 21 rebounds.  On offense, Howard was bad from the line (6-14) and couldn’t score on any shot that wasn’t a dunk (5-12 from the field).  To make matters worse, Howard would absolutely panic when he was double teamed, leading to some really awkward shots and seven turnovers.  (I’m sure Cavs fans are wondering why Howard couldn’t shoot from the line like this in the Eastern Conference Finals).  Obviously, Howard is still a star but he’ll be of limited effectiveness if he can’t score with his back to the basket.  Shaquille O’Neal had similar problems when he was younger but he did learn how to score a bit without just drop-stepping and dunking (though that will always be his signature move).  Just for kicks, here’s how Howard compares with Shaq from 1994-95 when O’Neal led another young Magic team to the Finals:

While Howard has some amazing strengths in rebounding and shot blocking that surpass even Shaq, he just couldn’t score like even the young O’Neal.  Shaq was also much better about avoiding turnover, which was probably aided by his size.  As strong as Howard is, at 6′11, he’s just not quite big enough to preclude the guards from doubling down on him in the post.  

-Speaking of comparisons, how does Kobe compare with his idol Michael Jordan at the same age?  Jordan turned 30 in the middle of 1992-93 (Jordan spent the rest of age-30 retired and playing minor league baseball).  Let’s take a look at MJ’s 1992-93 versus the current Kobe:

Jordan got many more shots than Kobe but still was a superior player on pretty much every level.  Jordan was leading the league in steals and points at the same age.  Kobe’s numbers have been declining pretty steadily since 2005-06, particularly from the free throw line.  The point, however, isn’t to take potshots at a great player like Kobe but to note that Jordan was in a different stratosphere as a player.  

-Fisher also gets another big shot on his resume to compare with his ridiculous shot with 0.3 seconds to beat the Spurs in 2003-04.  Between the several NBA titles and his timely shooting in several NBA Finals, Fisher is sure to earn a rep similar to Robert Horry, clutch shooter.  The stat community tend to roll its eyes and such exalted status.  Horry and Fisher are pretty average NBA players but it’s hard to begrudge them credit for making huge shots in huge moments.  But balancing the reality that they weren’t great with their notable clutch moments, that deserve recognition, is something NBA historian-types will no doubt struggle with.

-How hard is it to get an NBA Finals series to 2-2?  Only twice this decade has an NBA Finals been tied at 2-2 going into Game 5.  Just in case you’re curious, here’s a list of the NBA Finals that were tied 2-2 from the last three decades: 

2000s

-2005-06 (Heat v. Mavs)

-2004-05 (Spurs v. Pistons)

-2002-03 (Spurs v. Nets) 

1990s

-1996-97 (Bulls v. Jazz)

-1993-94 (Rockets v. Knicks)

-1991-92 (Bulls v. Blazers) 

1980s

-1987-88 (Lakers v. Pistons)

-1984-85 (Lakers v. Celtics)

-1983-84 (Celtics v. Lakers)

-1980-81 (Celtics v. Rockets) 

-What will happen in Game 5?  The Lakers have done their job by getting the one win they needed in Orlando.  The Magic might be demoralized from the loss but they are tough and winning two on the road is tough. I think we’ll see a Game 6 in this series and, hopefully, a little more excitement.

But what about Orlando losing by 25 points?  Is this an unprecedented Finals-opening dud?  Has any team ever started out so poorly in the Finals?  We went through the records of NBA Finals Game 1s and found only five other 20-point blow outs.  Here’s the list: 

-1960-61:    Boston behind the Bill Russell/Bob Cousy core beat Bob Pettit’s St. Louis Hawks 129-95 in Game 1 and went on to win the series comfortably (4-1) and winning those four games by at least eight points each time.

-1964-65:    Boston again won a blow out Game 1 with Russell (though Cousy had retired by this point).  This time they took out the Lakers (behind Jerry West and Elgin Baylor) 142-110 and won the series comfortably (4-1).

-1971-72:    The famed Red Holzman Knicks took on the equally legendary Lakers of West, Baylor, and Wilt Chamberlain.  The Lakers had won 69 games and set all sorts of records but the Knicks blew them out 114-92 in Los Angeles to take Game 1.  The Lakers then promptly won the next four games to take the series 4-1.

-1984-85:    The most famous rout in Game 1 history.  The Larry Bird Celtics and Magic Johnson Lakers met again.  The Celts won a tough series in 1983-84 and the re-match was much anticipated. The Celts then destroyed L.A. 148-114 in Game 1 and there were loud murmurs about L.A. being soft and about Kareem Abdul-Jabbar being finished.  Neither were close to true and the Lakers won Game 2 in Boston and took the series 4-2 with Kareem getting the Finals MVP.

-1991-92:    This was another well-anticipated match up between Michael Jordan and the Bulls and Clyde Drexler and the Blazers.  In Game 1, Jordan got incredibly hot, hitting six threes and scoring 39 points in 34 minutes in a 122-89 rout.  It’s forgotten but the Blazers held pretty tough, winning Game 2 in Chicago and losing 4-2 (and could’ve forced a Game 7 if they hadn’t blown an 18-point lead to the Chicago’s reserves).

The upshot of this review is that while getting beaten badly is not a good thing, it doesn’t mean you’re totally finished.  Two of the teams above went on to win the Finals and Portland kept its series respectable.

In retrospect, we can note that the Magic had played Cleveland well in the regular season and that the Cavs big men were too slow (Ilgauskas), too weak (Varejeao), or too short and offensively challenged (Wallace) to guard Dwight Howard.  The fact is, however, the Magic played a great series and could have easily swept the Cavs but for one incredible LeBron James shot.  On the other side, the Cavs were very close to taking this thing to a Game 7. 

Is this loss an epic failure for the Cavs?  Well, it certainly registers as a disappointment for a 66-win team, as most teams at that level of dominance win it all.  Cleveland also has a Simple Rating Score (”SRS”) of 8.68, easily the best in the NBA (you can see SRS explained over at Basketball-Reference.com).  Another factor that makes this loss more disappointment is that it “felt” like this was James’ time.  The Cavs success and James’ star power harkened to Michael Jordan’s cakewalk coronation in 1990-91.  Still, feelings and intuition don’t guarantee I thought we’d go through the history and see similarly high rated team and how they turned out.  We’ll take all teams with SRS over 8.00 in NBA history  and see how they did in the playoffs: 

-2007-08 Celtics (66-16, 9.31 SRS): won title

-2006-07 Spurs (58-24, 8.35 SRS): won title

-1999-00 Lakers (67-15, 8.41 SRS): won title

-1996-97 Bulls (69-13, 10.70 SRS): won title

-1995-96 Bulls (72-10, 11.80 SRS): won title

-1993-94 Sonics (63-19, 8.68 SRS): lost to Denver in first round

-1991-92 Bulls (67-15, 10.07 SRS): won title

-1990-91 Bulls (61-21, 8.57 SRS): won title

-1990-91 Blazers (63-19, 8.47 SRS): lost to Lakers in Conference Finals

-1986-87 Lakers (65-17, 8.32 SRS): won title

-1985-86 Celtics (67-15, 9.06 SRS): won title

-1985-86 Bucks (57-25, 8.69 SRS): lost to Celtics in Conference Finals

-1972-73 Lakers (60-22, 8.18 SRS): lost to Knicks in NBA Finals

-1971-72 Lakers (69-13, 11.65 SRS): won title

-1971-72 Bucks (63-19, 10.70 SRS): lost to Lakers in Conference Finals

-1970-71 Bucks (66-16, 11.91 SRS): won title

-1969-70 Knicks (60-22, 8.42 SRS): won title

-1966-67 76ers (68-13, 8.50 SRS): won title

-1961-62 Celtics (60-20, 8.25 SRS): won title 

As you can see, breaking an 8.00 in SRS is a pretty special accomplishment and it usually means title.  Before Cleveland this year, of the 19 teams to break 8.00, only five haven’t won a title.  Of that group, three of the teams didn’t actually have the best SRS in their league anyway.  Can Cleveland take some solace from those that also lost without winning a title?  Well, the 1993-94 Sonics famously were upset by the Dikembe Mutombo Nuggets. After that loss to the Nuggets, another great Sonics team lost in the first round to the Lakers in 1994-95 and there was an outcry to trade their best player (Shawn Kemp) for Scottie Pippen.  The deal fell through and it worked out pretty well for Seattle.   They remained a really good team for another four years and made an NBA Finals (1995-96) but never won a title.  So, they turned out fine and probably would’ve won a title in a world without Jordan.

The 1990-91 Blazers didn’t have the best SRS but, at the time, it wasn’t clear that the Jordan Bulls (who were also emerging) were the emerging dynasty of the 1990s and we were set for an epic showdown.  Problem was that Blazers couldn’t get past the old Magic Johnson Lakers in the Conference Finals.  The Lakers were not quite on the Blazers’ level talent-wise.  The Lakers, however, won in a similar manner to the Magic this year, by stealing Game 1 in Portland (Magic had 15 pts, 21 asts, and Worthy had 28 pts).  I’m not sure if this is an indicator for this year’s Finals but the Lakers upset didn’t transfer to the next round and they were smoked by the Bulls 4-1.  The Blazers did go on to make the NBA Finals in 1991-92 and lost to the Bulls 4-2 before falling apart as a title contender.  If there is a lesson for the Cavs, it’s not to despair.  They were very close to a title and, by all rights (and indicators), were on the way.  I suspect if everyone is healthy, 2009-10 could be that title season. 

Finally, it should be noted that the 2006-07 Mavericks who were upset in the first round by the Warriors didn’t have an astoundingly high SRS, despite their 67-15 record.  The team with the best SRS was the title winning Spurs.  Obviously, the Mavs loss was a much more bitter pill than the Cavs loss this year but Dallas was not actually the best team in the NBA that season. 

2.    Forget LeBron, What’s Next?:    By the way, there is life after LeBron.  In this case, it’s an interesting Finals between the Magic and the Lakers.  Without even looking at the numbers, it does seem that the Lakers are the favorites.  The Lakers’ vulnerabilities, scoring point guards and bruising big men, aren’t the Magic strengths.  Moreover, Lamar Odom is a perfect size match up for the more perimeter-oriented Rashard Lewis and there is little to guard Kobe Bryant with (Courtney Lee and Hedo Turkoglu).   The big factors that favor Orlando are Dwight Howard and Dwight Howard.  Pau Gasol and Odom are too weak to hold down Howard, which makes Andrew Bynum a huge factor.  Bynum has the strength but not the quickness.  He struggled with foul trouble and effectiveness in the quick pace of the Nuggets series but he might have a chance to make an impact against the slower Magic.  The Magic even won both regular season match ups with L.A. but they had Jameer Nelson in both games (he average 27.5 ppg in the two wins) and I am skeptical that Rafer Alston can do what Nelson did.

Now there are some rumors that Nelson may try to come back for the Finals and, if he were healthy, he’d make a huge difference but what are the chances that he’ll be healthy and ready after sitting out half the season?  In the end, I think the Lakers have too much talent and better match ups to lose this series.  The Magic has surprised me several times and I do believe they could win this series but I doubt it’ll happen.  Prediction: Lakers win 4-2.