Category: NBA Finals (Page 26 of 58)

The NBA Finals, by the numbers

As I sit here waiting for the (inevitable?) Cavs/Lakers Finals, I started to wonder — how does playoff seeding relate to Finals appearances?

The salary cap was (sort of) implemented during the 1984-85 season to level the playing field, so that’s where we’ll start. Since the ’85 Finals, #1-seeds have accounted for 58% (28 of 48) of the Finals participants. But that trend has changed over the last five years, where #1-seeds only accounted for 20% (2/10) of Finals participants. (This means that from ’85 to ’03, #1-seeds made up 66% of Finals participants.)

Over the last 24 years, teams seeded #4 or higher made the Finals just three times: the ’95 #6-seeded Rockets, the ’99 #8-seeded Knicks and the ’06 #4-seeded Mavs. Only the Rockets managed to win the NBA Championship, so that means that 23 of 24 title winners were seeded #3 or better at the beginning of the playoffs. In fact #3-seeds have won just three titles over the last 24 years (’02, ’04 and ’07), so 83% of title winners start the playoffs as #1- or #2-seeds.

Since 2001, we’ve had the vaunted #1/#1 matchup just once — last season’s Boston/L.A. matchup. From ’85 to ’00, that matchup occurred eight times, or 50% of the time.

What does this all mean? Who knows. Even though the salary cap age has brought more parity to the playoffs, it seems to have only spread the wealth down from the top three or four teams to the top five or six teams. Teams not seeded in the top three are longshots to make the Finals. This is due to the seven-game format of each series. It’s completely feasible that a #4-#8 seed to take a game or two from a top seed, but far less feasible that they can win four out of seven.

These playoffs would have been more interesting had Manu Ginobili, Kevin Garnett and Jameer Nelson stayed healthy. Still, we’re talking about teams that are seeded #3 or higher, so it wouldn’t have changed the fact that really only the top six teams in any given year have a legit shot at the Finals.

After all of that, I think we’re still destined for a Cavs/Lakers matchup in the Finals.

Point guards star in Monday night action

Having dropped Game 1 at home, both the Celtics and the Spurs were in “must-win” mode on Monday night.

The Celtics/Bulls series is shaping up to be a great one. After a 29-point, nine-rebound, seven-assist effort in Game 1, Rajon Rondo turned in a stellar 19-point, 16-assist, 12-rebound triple-double in Game 2, which the C’s won, 118-115. He also had five steals and turned the ball over just twice. If this kid can get a consistent jump shot, he’s going to be a nightmare. Hell, he’s already a nightmare.

Derrick Rose was the best player on the floor in Game 1, but he came back to Earth in Game 2. Ten points, seven assists and six rebounds is a solid line, but Ben Gordon (42 points) was the star for Chicago in Game 2. What’s amazing about Gordon is how thin his line is. He had one rebound and one steal, but failed to register an assist, a block or even a single turnover. Gordon is a scorer and that’s it, but the name of the game is basketball and he can really light it up.

Ray Allen came up huge in the second half with 28 points over the final two periods, including the game-winner with just 0:02 to play. He scored just six points over the previous four quarters. Wow.

Moving on to the San Antonio/Dallas series, without Manu Ginobili, the Spurs are lacking a third scorer, but Tony Parker was able to carry his team on his shoulders with a 38-point, eight-assist effort en route to a 105-84 win. Jason Kidd can’t keep Parker in front of him, which is why I thought the Spurs would win this series, but J.J. Barea came off the bench in Game 1 and did a decent job containing Parker. Game 2? Not so much.

The Mavericks have home court advantage now and they’ve been great (32-9) at the American Airlines Center this season. The Spurs have the 5th-most road wins in the league, so they’re more than capable of stealing a game in Dallas.

NBA Playoff Power Rankings

Every Monday, I’ll update these rankings based on the previous week’s events. One game has been played in each of the eight playoff series and we already know a lot more than we did before the weekend.

IN A BAD WAY

16. Pistons
15. Jazz
14. Hornets

These are three teams that have struggled this season against larger expectations and were hoping for a fresh start in the Playoffs, but lost by an average of 20 points. The Jazz seem most capable of putting up a fight, but they’re facing arguably the best team in the league with a superstar that is on a championship mission. Likewise, without Chauncey Billups, the Pistons are in no position to slow the Cavs down. The Hornets are the most perplexing team of this trio — they have arguably the best point guard in the league (Chris Paul) and a great power foward (David West), but they aren’t getting any help. (Of course, it doesn’t really help that West went 4 of 16 from the field in Game 1.) Paul and West have to play brilliantly if the Hornets are to upend the Nuggets.

Continue reading »

Chicago’s youngsters star in upset

Bulls GM John Paxson has taken a lot of grief for his decision to the draft rights of LaMarcus Aldridge for Tyrus Thomas back in 2006. But as Thomas was knocking down jumper after jumper in the fourth quarter of Game 1 at the Garden, that trade doesn’t look quite as bad anymore. Sure, Aldridge still projects to have the better career, but Thomas has made big strides in his third season, and he’s still just 22 years old. He finished with 16 points (on 8 of 12 shooting), six rebounds and three blocks.

But I’m burying the lead. Derrick Rose was the reason the Bulls were able to pull the upset. He posted 36 points (tying Kareem Abdul-Jabbar for most points by a rookie in his playoff debut) and 11 assists. He shot 12 of 19 from the field and made all 12 of his free throws. It was truly one of the best playoff debuts by a rookie in the history of the league, especially considering that he was going up one of the better defensive point guards in Rajon Rondo.

Joakim Noah rounded out the “young core” trio with 12 points, 17 rebounds and three blocks. Ben Gordon chipped in with 20 points and had a great fourth quarter.

The Celtics are in a bad way down 0-1 and without Kevin Garnett for the foreseeable future. Rondo played well (29 points, nine boards, seven dimes, one turnover), and Paul Pierce scored an inefficient 23 points (on 8 of 21 shooting), but Ray Allen’s 1 for 12 shooting killed Boston.

Simmons connects Garnett news with suspect reporting

One point that Bill Simmons made in his “woe is me” column about how the Celtics will be without KG in the playoffs was how the truth about Garnett’s injury didn’t come out until the franchise let it out.

There’s a hidden sub-story lurking here: It involves the fall of newspapers, lack of access and the future of reporting, not just with sports but with everything. I grew up reading Bob Ryan, who covered the Celtics for the Boston Globe and remains the best basketball writer alive to this day. Back in the 1970s and early ’80s, he was overqualified to cover the team. In 1980, he would have sniffed out the B.S. signs of this KG story, kept pursuing it, kept writing about it, kept working connections and eventually broken it. True, today’s reporters don’t get the same access Ryan had, but let’s face it: If 1980 Bob Ryan was covering the Celtics right now, ESPN or someone else would lure him away. And that goes for the editors, too. The last two sports editors during the glory years of the Globe’s sports section were Vince Doria and Don Skwar … both of whom currently work for ESPN.

For the past few years, as newspapers got slowly crushed by myriad factors, a phalanx of top writers and editors fled for the greener pastures of the Internet. The quality of nearly every paper suffered, as did morale. Just two weeks ago, reports surfaced that the New York Times Company (which owns the Globe) was demanding $20 million in union concessions or it’d shut down the Globe completely. I grew up dreaming of writing a sports column for the Globe; now the paper might be gone before I turn 40. It’s inconceivable. But this Garnett story, and how it was (and wasn’t) covered, reminds me of “The Wire,” which laid out a blueprint in Season 5 for the death of newspapers without us fully realizing it. The season revolved around the Baltimore Sun and its inability (because of budget cuts and an inexperienced staff) to cover the city’s decaying infrastructure. The lesson was inherent: We need to start caring about the decline of newspapers, because, really, all hell is going to break loose if we don’t have reporters breaking stories, sniffing out corruption, seeing through smoke and mirrors and everything else. That was how Season 5 played out, and that’s why “Wire” creator David Simon is a genius. He saw everything coming before anyone else did.

Ultimately, Garnett’s injury doesn’t REALLY matter. It’s just sports. But I find it a little chilling that the best player on the defending NBA champion could be sidelined for two solid months, with something obviously wrong, and nobody came close to unraveling the real story. We still don’t know what’s wrong with his knee. We just know it’s screwed up. And, yeah, you could say that Garnett has always been guarded — with just a few people in his circle of trust — and yeah, you could say that only a few members of the Celtics organization know the truth (maybe coach Doc Rivers, GM Danny Ainge, majority owner Wyc Grousbeck, the trainers and that’s it). But this was a massive local sports story. Its coverage is not a good sign for the future of sports journalism or newspapers in general.

It’s a good point, and one that has been made before (without the references to “The Wire” — Bill’s specialty). With the death of the newspaper, there won’t be 5-10 hungry reporters sitting in a press room at the Boston Herald waiting to dig into a story. Most reporting is done from a distance these days, and even those with “access,” don’t have that much access. What’s lost here is that franchises are more guarded about information than they’ve ever been, because they’ve been burned by the Bob Ryans of the world before. Ryan was/is just doing his job, and doing it well, but there is little to no incentive for teams to be up front about injury information. For this, we have Bill Belicheat to thank.

« Older posts Newer posts »