« New Diavlog | Main | Political Liberalism: Political not Metaphysical » The King Is Dead13 Jun 2007 08:52 am
Well, nearly so at any rate. It was a very close game, but at 3-0 it's certainly not a close series. As a result, the ongoing ratings catastrophe is sure to get worse. At this point, you'd be hard-pressed to argue that game four amounts to must-see TV. I'll watch since unless something dramatic changes I've got nothing better to do, but it's not exactly gripping drama at this point. Comments (56)
That must be because you hate basketball, Kurzleg. And how embarrassing is it that Bowen fouled intentionally but it wasn't called? Yeesh. 
I'm a Pistons fan, but must admit that they deserved to lose the Cleveland series. Nevertheless, I'm curious what ya'll think: Wouldn't the Pistons have made this a much closer series, similar to the Spurs/Pistons series of two years ago? And while we're on the subject of Things-That-Can-Never-Be: What would have been the outcome of Suns/Cavs or Suns/Pistons?
I don't know what was worse last night: the officiating or Cleveland's jump shots.
Clearly, the officiating isn't the reason these Finals suck so horribly. But that exchange last night is just another in a long string of terrible moments in NBA officiating. It's become a genuine impediment to my enjoying the game (not that this year's playoffs need the help.) But David Stern is so committed to denying that there is a problem that I can't see it getting solved. Particularly when there are writers like Marc Stein who are dedicated to carrying water for the league by ridiculing anyone who criticizes the officiating.
Nevertheless, I'm curious what ya'll think: Wouldn't the Pistons have made this a much closer series, similar to the Spurs/Pistons series of two years ago? Well sure they would, if you had the "real" Pistons team that has disappeared after Game 2 of Round 2 each of the last two years. But assuming a team that plays better than the actual Pistons is pretty much begging the question. Also, as a Pistons fan, you can be forgiven for misspelling "y'all." But think about what letters the apostrophe replaces, and you'll never do that again!
Hate basketball? Maybe, but I doubt it. The Pistons might put up more of a fight, but I suspect Flip Saunders' offensive schemes are easier to guard. Man, that guy loves isolation plays.
To quote Tony Soprano, I’m getting a little 'miffled' at the incessant focus on NBA television ratings. It seems like any time someone talks about the NBA finals, one of the first things they talks about is the ratings. None of us are television executives, so as long ratings don’t fall so low that games actually stop being televised, why should any of us care? Ultimately the quality of the thing matters more than the popularity. It’s no different than the previous discussion over indie rock.
Marty, you've got to realize that these Pistons are not the same team as the 2005 Pistons, even if they have 4 starters in common. The Flip Saunders version are much, much worse. (I think that's a difficult realization to make, given that the teams look similar, but after viewing them on the court the last 2 playoffs, I think that conclusion is the only appropriate one.) So, no. They deserved to lose because they are a worse team than the Cavs, and would lose to the Spurs even worse than the Cavs are. And the less said about last night's game, the better, except that all the comparisons to MJ that were made after the 48 point game are looking increasingly ridiculous, eh?
I thought the Pistons would beat the Spurs, because of their length, Sheed, and Chauncy's size. And I thought the Suns would win if they got to the Finals by just running the Eastern team off the floor. But I also thought that the Spurs would have more trouble with the Jazz. I don't know what was worse last night: the officiating or Cleveland's jump shots. No kidding. There's some part of me that was rooting against the Cavs on just that ground. writers like Marc Stein who are dedicated to carrying water for the league They have a pretty uneven mix of talent at ESPN. Anthony and Hollinger are the only ones I trust very much. Also, and not really related, JVG is a fantastic color man, and I wish he would just snap and kill Mark Jackson on air. If he did that, I think I would have his baby.
I was impressed with LeBron James' response to the attempted foul by Bowen on the last shot. Incidental contact, he said, that did not effect his shot. Very true. And very classy of him to acknowledge this.
I have not been a fan of the NBA for years. Various reasons. But as a sports fan I have no problem, generally, tuning into the Finals. And being from Cleveland, I am slightly, very slightly more interested in this Finals. But I wonder if the 9 p.m. start times have anything to do with lower ratings. For me, being on the East Coast and knowing I will not be awake at the end of these games, or if I am I know I will be really tired at work the next day, I don't really tune them in.
"And the less said about last night's game, the better, except that all the comparisons to MJ that were made after the 48 point game are looking increasingly ridiculous, eh?" I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. How old was Jordan when he first led Chicago to the NBA Finals and who were his teammates?
This Detroiter humbly apologizes for the inadvertently misplaced apostrophe -- and even more so for thinking to "scribble" "y'all" in the first place. Are the Pistons worse than two years ago mostly because of Flip? (The absence of Ben W. in the middle surely made some difference, especially with LeBron.) There were some games this year -- against the Western Conference powers in the regular season; the first two games of the Chicago series -- where the Pistons looked like the team of old. And it's not as if Chauncey and Rip and Tay simply forgot how to play the game they played two (and three) years ago -- and earlier this year. I have the sense that the Spurs series would have gone six or seven with the Pistons -- but maybe that's wishful thinking.
Marty - Is it your sense that the Pistons had more player and ball movement under Brown? When Saunders coached the Timberwolves the offense was built more around isolation plays, which made them absurdly easy to defend. My sense is that Saunders has done the same thing to the Pistons. This Pistons team sure seems like a more stationary offensive team than the Brown teams were.
Ugh. Nothing could be worse than Cleveland's jump shooting, now three games in a row. Good lord, how can you be a 'professional' basketball player, let alone a team of them, and miss so many open jump shots? It's mind boggling. Similar in my mind to baseball players that aren't particularly good fielders. With the small number of players actual playing professional baseball versus the pool of applicants it should be possible to field teams with players that can field. Cleveland's problem is less systemic, and seems more a consequence of joking than just sucking.
Choking.
I've been uninterested in watching these playoffs since the league handed the Spurs victory over the Suns.
marty, unlike al, i agree with you that detroit would have been a much tougher matchup for san antonio, but for whatever reason, they obviously don't match up well with cleveland (well, not for whatever reason: for two years running, they haven't been able to defend lebron). i do not think that ben wallace would have made the slightest difference against cleveland, though: he's a declining force. as for reffing, yes, kids, nba reffing sucks and has for a very long time. it is by far the worst of the big 3 sports. anyone who devotes themselves to basketball needs to come to terms with the fact that there's no sign it's going to get better....
Baseball umpiring improved when the league made it a priority. The same thing will be true with the NBA, though basketball does involve many more close calls than baseball, I think. Detroit would have done better since they could hardly have done worse. Rasheed has always defended Duncan well, and big points have always given Parker trouble. But this is not the same Parker as a few years ago who would back down from the moment deep in series. Spurs would have still won. I think the top six seeds in the West would have rolled against anyone from the East. I confess I am getting more and more intrigued as I think about Hollinger's idea of playing east versus west at the very beginning of the playoffs. With Oden and Durant heading to the west, it appears the discrepany between conferences is only getting worse in the short-term. It wasn't so long ago the play-offs were the thing happening in sports. We were captivated by Dallas-Golden State and at least intrigued by 3-4 other series in the first round. The second round was short-circuited by the suspensions, and then the later rounds were ruined by teams who overachieved but ended up being overmatched.
squeak, squeak... squeak, squeak... Glad to hear I haven't missed much. Curtis: The NBA does put a lot of effort into training and grading its officials, but since you can call a foul on virtually every play (if you go strictly by the book), it always seems subjective when the officials decide to call them.
I had looked forward to this series to take the bad taste of the San Antonio/Phoenix debacle out of my mouth; just goes to show what I know. As for what could help NBA officating I don't have a clue. My viewing pleasure this evening will likely be "Black Hawk Down" with the director's commentary on, or I'll finish up "House of Rain" by Craig Childs.
There's no East Coast team that would have more than a 20% chance against the Spurs.
Matt called it correctly when he said in advance this would be one of the biggest finals blowouts ever.
[i]I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. How old was Jordan when he first led Chicago to the NBA Finals and who were his teammates?[/i] At James' age (22), Jordan was sitting out most of the '85-'86 season with an injury. He returned the next season to put up 37ppg...and lead the Bulls to a 40-42 record. They squeaked into the playoffs and got swept by the Celtics in 3 games. We're not allowed to discuss this because revisionist history says all of Jordan's Bulls teams went 82-0 and swept every opponent on the way to a championship (cryptic statements of MJ having to get "through Detroit" to win a title still exist, like heretical bits of scripture uncovered in a clay pot in a field in the Middle East but denied by the Catholic church...), but the fact is that MJ carried the "can't win it all" stigma for years. For the record, I think Jordan was the greatest player ever and I doubt James will top his career even though his physical gifts are comparable. But it drives me nuts when people think the book is closed after he led a no-talent team to the FINALS AT AGE 22.
"I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. How old was Jordan when he first led Chicago to the NBA Finals and who were his teammates?" 27, and he had Scottie Pippen, John Paxson, Horace Grant and Bill Cartwright on the floor with him. At James' age (22), Jordan was sitting out most of the '85-'86 season with an injury. He returned the next season to put up 37ppg...and lead the Bulls to a 40-42 record. They squeaked into the playoffs and got swept by the Celtics in 3 games. We're not allowed to discuss this because revisionist history says all of Jordan's Bulls teams went 82-0 and swept every opponent on the way to a championship (cryptic statements of MJ having to get "through Detroit" to win a title still exist, like heretical bits of scripture uncovered in a clay pot in a field in the Middle East but denied by the Catholic church...), but the fact is that MJ carried the "can't win it all" stigma for years. For the record, I think Jordan was the greatest player ever and I doubt James will top his career even though his physical gifts are comparable. But it drives me nuts when people think the book is closed after he led a no-talent team to the FINALS AT AGE 22.
But it drives me nuts when people think the book is closed after he led a no-talent team to the FINALS AT AGE 22. I'd like to know who exactly was suggesting the book is closed. You're taking people's opinions out of context. After his 48 point game in the last series, people were engaging in ridiculous hyperbole and hype regarding Lebron. What you're reacting to is itself a reaction. I don't think people would be spending so much time in critiquing Lebron now if the praise wasn't so over the top before.
But it drives me nuts when people think the book is closed after he led a no-talent team to the FINALS AT AGE 22. I tend to think people want to close the book in the other direction; after his big game 5 against Detroit, the entire sports media proclaimed that it's a done deal, LeBron has officially arrived as the next Jordan, it's going to be one stunning performance after another from here on out, yadda yadda. Silly stuff. Any comparison between Jordan and LeBron has to consider, among other things, the fact that the East was so much tougher in Jordan's day. And when you look at who Jordan beat in the finals, you're pretty much awestruck at the listing of all-stars who never even managed to take the Bulls to a Game 7. They never got a bye, the way the Spurs are getting this year. But yeah, any way you slice it it's still impressive for LeBron to be leading a team to the Finals at age 22. But anyone who claims to know with certainty that this is simply the first entry on a world-shattering resume is kidding themselves. The best you can say at this point is maybe.
"27, and he had Scottie Pippen, John Paxson, Horace Grant and Bill Cartwright on the floor with him." And don't forget, MJ also had Phil Jackson as a coach. Just a bit brighter bulb than the man leading the Cavs.
"Also, and not really related, JVG is a fantastic color man, and I wish he would just snap and kill Mark Jackson on air." Amen. There was one play earlier in the playoffs where Deron Williams or somebody was pushing the ball up the floor with around five minutes left and a modest lead over the Warriors. Realizing that the defense was back, he wisely waited for his team to get back so they could run their offense. Former point guard Marc Jackson goes, and I'm paraphrasing everything here, "Williams does exactly the right thing. He knows to run out some clock in this situation." Van Gundy replies, "I'm not sure that's what you do with five minutes left. It's too early to start eating clock." No response from Marc Jackson. Utah runs their offense and comes away with a bucket. As they head to commercial, Marc Jackson declares, "That is a direct result of Williams knowing to slow down the ball, not because he wants to use some clock, but because it's the right play to make." Is the only requirement for commentating in the NBA playing experience, complete sentences, and a "broadcast voice"? Jackson has absolutely no idea what he's talking about.
It's embarrassing that ABC is using Mark Jackson instead of Hubie. JVG is actually pretty entertaining, but Jackson is a disaster. Also, the cadence of his voice seems to be permanently stuck in a minor key (I'm not sure how else to describe it), and it's rather depressing.
"I was impressed with LeBron James' response to the attempted foul by Bowen on the last shot. Incidental contact, he said, that did not effect his shot. Very true. And very classy of him to acknowledge this." It's impressive to be wrong so many times in so short a statement. LBJ howled that he had been fouled. He was fouled. It did affect the shot. And the press conference performance may have been smart, but I wouldn't say it was particularly classy or not. ----- And may I say that those of you who don't like Mark Jackson have something wrong with you. Mike Breen, on the other hand, I'd pay to watch publicly crucified.
Got to love that the first comment on this post was from a guy claiming not to care about the NBA. Suck it. I'm getting a little tired of the debate over whether James is overhyped. Meta-discussions are not generally interesting, and neither is this one. Everybody has their own perspective and of course part of that will be some overblown rhetoric by some people that don't even actually believe it. They're sportswriters/commentators; that's what they do. But the guy took a no talent team with an even worse coach to the finals at the age 22. Pretty damn impressive. Certainly he is laying the groundwork for an all-time top NBA career. What I am very interested in is: why is the reffing so bad in the NBA? Now, it is definitely much harder in the NBA than in MLB. But is it any harder in the NBA than the NFL? In the NFL you have extremely fast action with really tough judgement calls and you are further from the action, on average, but you are allowed a few more seconds to make a call before people start complaining about a late call. The NFL also seems to have worked really hard to make their rule set easier to apply; sometimes even in defiance of what people regard as the spirit of the game. Can the NBA move in this direction? Or is their NBA review and grading program just a huge sham? Stern claims the league takes quality reffing seriously, but the huge penalties levied against individuals making frequently fair criticisms do give one reason to wonder.
"(The Pistons) deserved to lose because they are a worse team than the Cavs, and would lose to the Spurs even worse than the Cavs are." You really can't say in the NBA that team A beat team B and team C beat team A, so team C definitely would have beaten team B. The playoff are all about matchups. For an illustration of what I'm talking about, see how Golden State could beat Dallas, but... Detroit would've given San Antonio some problems, and could have won the series. The last two series don't tell us anything otherwise.
I was wondering when Petey would arrive. "Detroit would've given San Antonio some problems, and could have won the series. The last two series don't tell us anything otherwise." You have a way of making statements like this. It's as though its designed to piss people off who disagree without committing you to a position as extreme as an initial reading might suggest. Now there is some non-zero probability that Detroit could beat SA in a 7 games series. The interesting question would be: is that a better probability than the Cavs, coming in? And what do you mean the last two series don't tell us anything? Do you mean that as a result of recent events we can't be 100 percent certain that the Pistons would lose to SA? Or are you claiming that the last two series don't provide us substantial new evidence that SA would beat the Pistons pretty handily? B/c I think the former is obviously true but the latter is pretty unlikely.
27, and he had Scottie Pippen, John Paxson, Horace Grant and Bill Cartwright on the floor with him. I'm pretty sure Jordan was 28. And when he was 22, he was just finishing his rookie year. GOAT conversations are always a bit silly; there's just no way to tell. But, no, no one can predict whether James will be greater than Jordan or not. He appears to have the physical tools to do so. But, like Jordan, he'll need some luck. And may I say that those of you who don't like Mark Jackson have something wrong with you. I'm going to be charitable and assume you have a drinking problem.
B/c I think the former is obviously true but the latter is pretty unlikely. If Petey's saying the latter, I think he's right. Detroit's hard--apparently the on/off switch does exist, because they keep switching it off. The Pistons should have beaten the Cavs, and I'd have favored them over the Spurs. But they didn't beat the Cavs and, as someone or other pointed out, they were basically outplayed for six games. That, I don't get at all. So who knows who would have shown up agains the Spurs.
"It's as though its designed to piss people off who disagree without committing you to a position as extreme as an initial reading might suggest." I've got no responsibility for folks who have difficulties with reading comprehension. "Now there is some non-zero probability that Detroit could beat SA in a 7 games series. The interesting question would be: is that a better probability than the Cavs, coming in?" Yes. Without the slightest question. "are you claiming that the last two series don't provide us substantial new evidence that SA would beat the Pistons pretty handily" Yes. The NBA playoffs are about matchups. Golden State's defeat of Dallas doesn't tell us anything about how Dallas would've performed against San Antonio. The fact that Detroit couldn't find a way to matchup and successfully defend LBJ late in games doesn't have anything to do with how they would would matchup against Timmy.
"And may I say that those of you who don't like Mark Jackson have something wrong with you. --- I'm going to be charitable and assume you have a drinking problem." I've got league pass, and I watched quite a few Nets games over more compelling games this year just because I found the Marv Albert / Mark Jackson team so wonderful. Best announcing team in the history of the association.
"are you claiming that the last two series don't provide us substantial new evidence that SA would beat the Pistons pretty handily" I will say there was one interesting piece of evidence in the Detroit/Cleveland series: Cleveland was able to fuck with the Detroit offense by running bigs at Chauncey on the perimeter. Since San Antonio would have done the precise same thing, that was a new warning sign for Detroit. But that aside, I think it's rather obvious that Detroit has better matchups against San Antonio than Cleveland does.
It seems like the East was 2-2 when the Spurs defeated the Jazz. (Maybe it was 2-2 when the Spurs won game 4 and it was clear they would advance.) At the time, my estimate was Cavs would have a 20% chance against the Spurs and that Detroit would have about a 40% chance, this despite the fact that Detroit lost to the Spurs both times while Cleveland beat the Spurs both times in the regular season. I don't think a team with an on/off switch could beat the Spurs in a seven game series. The Spurs, for all their faults, are relentless. Detroit presented match-up problems whereas Cleveland is exactly the kind of team that the Spurs demolish. That being said, as poorly as the coaching staff of the Pistons performed in the playoffs, I think the 40% was way too generous. By the same criterion, the 20% was too generous, too.
"That being said, as poorly as the coaching staff of the Pistons performed in the playoffs, I think the 40% was way too generous." That really is a crucial point. I thought Denver had the personnel to give the Spurs a difficult series, and George Karl's mistakes eliminated any chance for them to leverage their personnel. And likewise, the Pistons wouldn't have had much chance against the Spurs if Flip had continued to be the Flip we've all grown to know and hate. Just to repeat one more time: 3 times in the last 4 years, Flip has had the #1 conference seed, and he has zero conference titles to show for 3 home court advantages. That's perversely impressive. --- "By the same criterion, the 20% was too generous, too." Meh. At the end of every series, 5% odds seem too generous on the losing team.
Speaking of Mike Breen, why can't he pronounce "Oberto" correctly? It drives me freaking crazy.
And while the officiating in this series hasn't bothered me, if they give MVP to Parker over Duncan, something is really wrong with the association.
Don't you mean "Parker or Duncan over Bowen"?
[A]ny way you slice it it's still impressive for LeBron to be leading a team to the Finals at age 22. But anyone who claims to know with certainty that this is simply the first entry on a world-shattering resume is kidding themselves. The best you can say at this point is maybe. If you had put down a bet in the spring of 1985 that Dan Marino would never play in another Super Bowl, you would have received some very attractive odds, and eventually collected a great deal of money. You just never know.
"Don't you mean "Parker or Duncan over Bowen"? If I had a ballot, I'd continue to vote for Bowen at this point. Game 3 made it even more clear-cut, IMHO. But I've always been aware that that wasn't going to be the actual outcome of the vote. The voters vote on stats, and Bowen's contributions don't show up in stats. Back in the realm of electoral possibility, Duncan is the correct choice over Parker based on stats, even though the polls are swinging the other way.
If Parker outscores Duncan in Game 4, he will get the MVP nod without question. If not, it will be a toss up.
Parker and Ginobili are always great at home and lousy on the road. You see it again and again.
"If Parker outscores Duncan in Game 4, he will get the MVP nod without question." I suspect you are correct about this, but it strikes me as utterly insane. Who in their right mind would rather have Parker's 24ppg / 4apg / 3to rather than Duncan's 20ppg / 10rpg / 5bpg / 4apg? I don't think this comparison is even vaguely close. The sportswriters are watching an Eva Longoria promo, not the actuals hoops games.
mpowell, i actually wanted to return to the reffing question. i actually don't think the reffing in the nfl is much better than in the nba (mlb is way better than both); the big problem in the nfl is what doesn't get called in terms of interior line play and what a huge difference it can make. in my estimation, the big problem with nba reffing is the inconsistency, which i do not think has much to do with the speed of the game but instead has a great deal with some role confusion over what the ref's job is. if the job of the ref is to call every foul that occurs, then we could see reffing improve. but i certainly don't think that's how refs see the game: i think they see their job as keeping the game under control and allowing what they think of as its "natural" flow to proceed. and once you start thinking that way, you can justify anything from never calling a travel on michael jordan to calling things much tougher on rookies....
in my estimation, the big problem with nba reffing is the inconsistency, which i do not think has much to do with the speed of the game but instead has a great deal with some role confusion over what the ref's job is. King Kaufman of Salon has said (and I agree) that the rules for officiating an NBA game are written so bizzarely that it makes it much more difficult for the officials to call the game. Or, now that I think of it, maybe the rules are so idiosyncratic the officials are calling the games correctly, but the guidelines are so out of what seems natural and obvious to fans that it's bad officiating anyone. (I'll understand if people find that paragraph difficult to parse. I do, and I wrote it.) My personal biggest beef is the seeming inconsistency in the way that individual players are officiated. I really do believe that the refs get stars in their eyes sometimes... I think the danger becomes thinking "Tim Duncan took the ball to the basket and didn't score? Must've been a foul, I better blow the whistle."
Also, and not really related, JVG is a fantastic color man, and I wish he would just snap and kill Mark Jackson on air. If he did that, I think I would have his baby. You're better than that, SCMT (/markjackson) I think Bruce Bowen winning the mvp would be the perfect coda to this disgrace of a playoffs. Palaver that, David Stern. Lebron should have freightrained him once, early in Game 1. I don't know if that would have helped, but it would certainly make me feel better. Changing topics, what say we about Matrix for Delonte West, Theo Ratliff's Contract and the right to draft Corey Brewer? On paper, it looks good, but one big thing that allows the Suns to do what they do is Marion's rebounding and shot blocking. Offensively, there might be a wash, but will Corey Brewer ever average even 5 boards per in his NBA career, much less double digits?
freddie, we're trying to say some similar things here. btw, when i was a young fan, a long, long time ago, i learned the 3 rules of reffing (per your closing comment): when in doubt the call goes to: the higher paid player; the home team player; or the player on the team mounting a desperately energetic comeback. not, of course, true, all the time, but certainly true enough, especially for the stars, who most assuredly do get the close calls much more often than not. (it is said that when ted williams took a borderline pitch, the umps tended to call it a ball out of respect for ted, but that was one of the most disciplined hitters who ever lived with some of the greatest eyesight of any major league ballplayer, so you can see why in that particular case it might have been true.)
Pooh: That sounds awful to me, at least from the Suns POV. Brewer is going to be a good player, and he'd be good in the Suns' system, but he wouldn't come close to replacing the things Marion does. I guess Delonte West would fill a need as a backup PG. But would that even be a good idea for the Suns, money-wise? Isn't Ratliff's contract completely awful?
Howard, I hear you on the interior line situation. But at least there are no obvious biases there. There was the huge questionable holding call in the Seattle-Pittsburgh Superbowl (I thought the DE was offsides on the play anyhow), but it does not seem to affect outcomes of games as much as the reffing in the NBA does. What I don't understand is why the NBA makes rules that are so hard to apply and, secondly, how refs keep their jobs when they do such an obviously bad job in certain types of circumstances. That's why I don't buy the NBA line that they strictly review ref performance. SCMT, Petey,
Comments closed June 27, 2007. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2007 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
For me, the lack of appeal isn't limited to these finals or playoffs. I haven't found the NBA game interesting in probably 10 years. I can't put my finger on the reason, but the game itself just isn't much fun to watch, at least for me. By contrast, college basketball does hold my attention.
Posted by Kurzleg | June 13, 2007 9:11 AM