Month: June 2007 (Page 10 of 14)

Well, for all intents and purposes, the Finals are over. The Spurs got just 34 total points from Tim Duncan, Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili, and they still won. That’s a telling statistic.

Game 3 was pretty brutal to watch, but at least it was close. The combined 147 points just missed the Finals low of 145 points that Syracuse and Ft. Wayne – yes, Syracuse and Ft. Wayne – put up way back in 1955.

Both teams shot poorly from the field, but the Cavs’ 3-19 showing from long range really stands out. Everyone (including this writer) called for Daniel Gibson to get the start, and he faltered, scoring just two points on 1-10 shooting. He is a rookie, after all.

Still, the Cavs had a shot to win the game, but some very poor execution down the stretch was their undoing. Cleveland got the ball, down by two with 26 seconds left, but elected to not call a timeout. I normally like it when teams push it up court in that situation, but only if they know how to get a good shot. After LeBron was turned away in the lane, he flipped the ball to Anderson Varejao, who decided to try to take Tim Duncan, a 10-time All-Defensive selection, on the dribble. Needless to say, he didn’t score. With 15 seconds left on the shot clock, he had plenty of time to get the ball back to LeBron.

According to Mike Breen, Mike Brown was trying to get a timeout, but he was (apparently) unable to get the attention of any of the Cavs on the floor or the officials, even though he had a full 10 seconds to do so. (He can call a timeout himself.) Any way you slice it, the failure to get a good shot on that possession is his fault. It’s clear that his team didn’t know what to do in that situation. Do they call a timeout and draw up a play? Or do they push it up court and run a clear out (or pick and roll) for LeBron? These are things that should be addressed in practice.

Are the Cavs really talking about extending his contract?

The first two games of the NBA Finals were eerily similar. Spurs dominate the game for three quarters and build a 20-point lead, then get distracted in the fourth while the Cavs play scramble ball to get the lead under 10. The run gets the attention of the Spurs, who manage to put the game away in the final minutes.

Those late game runs were good for the Cavs from a confidence standpoint, but they were equally valuable to Gregg Popovich and his staff to use as a motivational tool for Game 3. Obviously, the Cavs have to win Tuesday night if they hope to make this some sort of a series.

I figured that the Spurs would win the first two games and steal a game in Cleveland, finally winning the series in Game 6 back in San Antonio. But the way that the Cavs have played for long stretches in the first two games really makes me wonder if they have the maturity to win two out of three at home. I’m starting to think that the series will end in Cleveland.

Of course, the Cavs are young and should play a lot better in front of their home crowd. Mike Brown would be wise to find more minutes for Daniel Gibson, who is outplaying Larry Hughes at the point. Gibson did play 32 minutes in Game 2, but it just didn’t seem like enough.

But that’s not the problem. The Cavs simply don’t have an answer for Tony Parker, Tim Duncan or Manu Ginobili. The three shot a combined 54-99 (55%) in the first two games. Meanwhile, the Spurs have limited LeBron James to just 13-37 (35%). Add it all up and you’ve got two San Antonio wins.

Unless Brown has an epiphany and suddenly figures out how to stop the Spurs’ stars while at the same time finding a way to get own star off to a good start, I don’t see how the Cavs can win this series. To have a realistic shot, they need to win three straight at home, and beating a great team like the Spurs three straight times is a very difficult task, no matter where you play.

LeBron’s performance in Game 5 of the Detroit series sure seems like it was a long time ago, doesn’t it?