Showing posts with label NBA Finals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NBA Finals. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Chuck and Kenny Preview the Celtics-Cavs Series
I thought this was a great video to watch for a few reasons: Both Chuck and Kenny both bring up great reasons for their perspective on the series, it's an even argument, and it poses a lot of great questions about both teams coming into the series.
Chuck brings up a great point about the Celtics being able to defend the Cavs. The addition of Antawn Jamison gave Cleveland the one-up for multiple reasons; which is, a lot of their three-point shooters LBJ was kicking the ball out to before weren't and still aren't the best at penetrating the ball. However Jamison can fake a shot and drive by his defender, take a few dribbles in the situation when a help side defender is flying at him to block the shot and either take an elbow jumper or find a backdoor cutter camped on the baseline. He can also give the shot up and take his defender from the three-point line down to the post and throw a couple post moves in his face. This, along, with the tasks of being able to transition from Shaq-basketball and young Cavaliers-basketball and defending LeBron are Barkley's main points as to why Cleveland can trump Boston. His thoughts are, Pierce is going to get into foul trouble trying to guard LeBron single-handedly, hindering his offensive effectiveness (you can't score if you're not on the floor); on the other hand, if Garnett or Ray Allen or even Rondo tries to help out, those three-point specialists like Mo Williams or Anthony Parker, and weapons like Antawn Jamison could really hurt the Celts.
But since we're talking about depth, we come back to the Celtics' view of things. This year, Boston has Marquis Daniels and the best Tony Allen we've seen EVER (especially mentally), whereas the only answers they had aside from Pierce to guarding James in the semis two years ago was James Posey. That's TWO guys they can throw at LeBron not only defensively, but offensively as well. They might not be quite on '08 Posey's level, but in this case the only thing you need is a couple of capable basketball players who have the tools to stay with James while Pierce takes a breather or sits down with fouls. Additionally, shutting down crucial, hand-picked players is what this Celtics defense does best. They did it in '08 with Kobe. And they did it in the first round with Dwyane Wade. And here's why I believe they can do it even with a motivated LeBron James.
Dwyane Wade's mentality, throughout the series, left '08 Kobe's demeanor on an entirely different planet. Kobe is a guy that when you know he wants something, he's going to put everything out on the floor and destiny will take care of the rest. He has that on his side. But in the Finals, despite all the hoopla about Bryant being thirsty for blood and ready to finally win a championship without Shaq... Bryant was missing what he categorized as "bunnies." Two years later, a younger, better (don't get me wrong... I still think a juiced Bryant without the injuries is the second best player in the league, but he didn't seem to me that he was as potent as he could've been emotionally), driven Wade is knocking down deep, ridiculous threes with defenders in his face.
But it was the Boston Celtics' wisdom and acceptance that they couldn't waste their time trying to hold Wade to low-scoring nights and poor shooting percentages and let guys like Michael Beasley, Quentin Richardson, Jermaine O'Neal, and Mario Chalmers do a lot of the lifting. So what they did is what the Celts do best: They adjusted. They let Wade get his and for the majority of the series, but held players like Beasley, O'Neal, and Udonis Haslem to relatively quiet series'. Sure, in the clinching game Mario Chalmers chalked up 20. Dorell Wright chipped in in game 3, and Quentin Richardson had a good game in the one Heat victory. But it wasn't easy for the Miami Heat. Basketball is a game of breaks, and sooner or later, other Heat players were going to start contributing. Shooting streaks happen, and they happened in this series. But the Boston Celtics still won that series, and defensive tactics had a lot to do with it. So will LeBron go off on the Celtics? He might. If he doesn't, will his teammates light up Boston? It could happen. But the Boston Celtics will find a way to adapt to either road the series trails off to and play well.
Kenny also mentions Rasheed Wallace when Charles remarked that the Cavs can now handle defensive monsters and competent offensive players like Kendrick Perkins because of Shaq. Chuck counters with J.J. Hickson, whom he says can chase Rasheed around implies that he'll wear him out. I have different thoughts. We didn't really need Rasheed in the Miami series. We never did. When in that series did we need anybody but an intense Garnett and a rebounding Perkins against a big man crew of Jermaine O'Neal, Jamal Magloire, and Joel Anthony? In this series however, whether its by way of his own alertness or a teammates' mentioning, I believe Rasheed Wallace senses the need for his own effectiveness.
What, in my opinion, put Kenny's argument over the top? He never picked a winner, which was smart. In this series, despite what most think, there is no clear-cut edge. One-on-one, yes. But both teams have the luxury of turning to multiple options if one doesn't go well. Exactly what options will both teams utilize?
I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Heating Up: Which Miami Team Will Boston See?
For a team that only finished three games behind the Boston Celtics, the Miami Heat seem to be the clear underdogs here regardless. Maybe those opinions will pan out to be true after the first game or two of the Celts-Heat series in the first round. Maybe they won't.
But one thing is for sure: When adversity isn't placed directly in front of the Boston Celtics, they tend to disappoint. In a way, adversity must be on the Celtics' side to win.
However, it's not just about which Boston Celtics we'll see; the series is equally as dependent on what face of the Miami Heat we'll see. Will Boston find themselves against the defensively-concentrated, more team-oriented Miami Heat team, which Dwyane Wade thrives in even though the game has less possessions and his teammates are more involved; or will the Celtics be challenged with merely Dwyane Wade and Miami's "Let's funnel the ball to Wade, let him barrel towards the bucket and draw fouls, and once Boston collapses on him after a few trips, have him dump it off to the open big man or a good look behind the arc" tactics?
Which one is more difficult to handle, is the question. Let's look at a few numbers/facts.
Wade's Heat have demolished the league in their last two months taking 12 out of their final 13 and finishing the season on a defensive tear. They also lost just three game in the month of March. The Heat have held opponents to 88.7 ppg in their last 13 games and they look to be that team who replaced the Bucks as the very good but not great squad after Andrew Bogut's injury. Michael Beasley finished the season with a 25 point game and many people are expecting him to do more of the same against an older, less mobile Boston front line. Look to see the Celtics mixing things up down low if Beasley frightens them in the first few games.
But that all boils down to how Wade's teammates play. If Haslem is chipping in, Beasley is giving Boston fits, and Q, Daequan Cook, and Chalmers are all hitting their threes, then Boston is in for a tough fight. Sure, Garnett could come out more fired up than we've seen him all season, suffocating Beasley and anchoring Boston's interior D. But that doesn't alter nor fortify his defensive abilities at this age, and Beasley could still beat him if the Heat decide to open up a more athletic style of basketball.
Big Baby couldn't cover him, because although he has more talent than most recognize in the fast break game, Beasley could torch him on the wing. It's not about Davis' quickness, which surprisingly could match Davis if he was playing smart and true to Beasley. It's the fact that Beasley needs but a quarter of a step to utilize his seven-foot-plus wing span and 35 inch max vertical jump (Draft Express). To put this in more picturesque terms, Beasley's draft day vertical leap is only seven and a half inches off Nate Robinson's and he obviously has a greater wing span. And despite originally being listed at 6'10", Beasley is still 6'8" win basketball shoes on, one inch shorter than Glen Davis. But, as put by NBADraft.net put it, Davis doesn't get great lift when he jumps and has a medium wing span. So Davis is a no go.
Shelden Williams is NOT going to see time in the playoffs, Rasheed doesn't have near the mobility to slow him down, and we can't pull Perk off the block even if Miami's best post-up options are Jermaine O'Neal, Joel Anthony, Magloire, and Yakhouba Diawara. So it goes without saying that Beasley could give us more trouble than even a double-covered Wade, who is as good as finding teammates and giving them good looks than anyone in the league. Why do you think a lazy Jermaine O'Neal came close to cracking 14 a game this season, or Quentin Richardson is averaging 10.1 in the last 10 games?
On the other hand, that was the Quentin Richardson that was receiving the ball from a Dwyane Wade that sparked a dominant defensive stretch and a couple of win streaks to close out the season. What does Miami look like when Wade is monopolizing Miami possessions? For lack of a better answer, the Heat simply look beatable. The decision by Spoelstra is influenced by how well Miami as a whole is playing. If they are playing poorly, most of the offensive play sequences are centered around Wade until the defensive adapts and teammates are accumulating multiple open looks each time down the floor. The evidence? Miami has attempted just 12.4 3-pointers per game for the last 13 games (12 of them wins are arguably the Heat at their hottest in terms of the Heat as a unit) as opposed to the season average of 17.4 3-pointers. What does this mean? The Heat have more opportunities to take it down low and get easier points, which is obviously when any team is at their best, even the more potent of shooting squads, as opposed to when it's just Wade either driving and drawing fouls or driving and kicking it out for threes.
So what team do I think we'll see? I think we're going to see the Miami Heat team we've seen for the past two months. And honestly, I'm going to say that if they beat us, I will not be shocked. I don't think they will. I think we can put them away. But I'm not going to call it an upset if the Miami Heat beat us playing their best.
In the end though, it's Boston in six or less. I think we can handle Miami's style of team play if we stick to it and play every possession for 48 minutes hard. If we do, Miami might even change their game style and try to throw a Wade 45-pointer at us. Not that we couldn't handle it.
Go Celtics!
Monday, March 29, 2010
The NBA's "other" contenders: Dallas.
As was the case last year, the Los Angeles Lakers and the Cleveland Cavaliers are the favorites to make it to the NBA Finals from their respective conferences. But I've never believed that any one or two teams are untouchable when compared to the other teams. In retrospect, there are exceptions, such as the Boston Celtics of the Red Auerbach era or the Chicago Bulls of the 90's. But the way people are talking, it's a foregone conclusion that the Cavs and Lakers will play each other in June for the championship. I beg to differ; there are several teams in each conference who will also contend for the championship.
The Dallas Mavericks
Why they can win: The Dallas Mavericks have always been able to score, whether it was was the 03-04 team with Steve Nash, Michael Finley, Dirk Nowitzki, Antoine Walker, and Antawn Jamison, or the 05-06 team that made it to the NBA Finals with Nowitzki, Jason Terry, Devin Harris, Jerry Stackhouse, Keith Van Horn, Josh Howard, and Marquis Daniels. Those teams could score in a variety of ways, whether it was from the perimeter, driving to the lane, or posting up. This year's version of the Dallas Mavericks is no different and is, in my opinion, even more potent on the offensive end. Dirk Nowitzki is still the focal point of the offense, but his supporting cast has changed dramatically; only two players not named Dirk Nowitzki remain on the team since their 2006 Finals run- Jason Terry and Erick Dampier, the "second best center in the NBA," as he so brazenly proclaimed himself at the time.
Jason Kidd now starts at point guard after being traded from the New Jersey Nets for Devin Harris two seasons ago. At the time, that trade was seen as a mistake for Dallas, but considering that the Mavericks are now contending for a championship while the Nets are contending for the worst win-loss record in NBA history, that no longer seems to be the case. With the assembled team, Kidd is a much better fit at point guard than Harris would have been because of his passing (2nd all-time in assists with 10,854) and experience (16 seasons in the league with two NBA Finals appearances). He knows when and where to get his teammates the ball and he does it extremely well. In the off-season, Shawn Marion joined the team after a trade and added his versatility to the mix: he's bigger than most other small forwards, can shoot from the perimeter, and gives Kidd an excellent target on the fast break. Backing up Kidd is Jason Terry, one of the league's best sixth men, averaging 16.8 points. He missed five straight games at the beginning of the month due to a facial injury, but that didn't stop the Mavericks from a 13 game winning streak; rookie Rodrigue Beaubois filled in admirably by scoring 17 ppg during those games. And don't forget Juan Jose Barea who, despite his small stature (6' 0"), gives Dallas quality minutes when he comes in. I've seen Dallas close out games with him at the point with Terry and Kidd on the wings. Then there's the perennially great Dirk Nowitzki at the center of things, putting up 24.5 ppg and scoring from all over the court, taking advantage of all defenders, big or small.
What I outlined above reads like an all-star team, but it got even better for Dallas at the trade deadline. They traded Josh Howard (an all-star in his own right but had fallen out of favor with the team), Drew Gooden (a good post scorer and rebounder for the Mavericks during his half-season there), James Singleton, and Quinton Ross to the Washington Wizards for Caron Butler, Brendan Haywood, and DeShawn Stevenson. While Howard and Butler shared similar scoring averages at the time (Howard has since gone down for the year with an ACL injury), Butler fits in better with this team. Not only does he bring the same scoring, but he is also a more willing teammate than Howard. Further, Butler gives the Mavericks three players teams have to worry about in clutch situations, along with Dirk Nowitzki and Jason Terry. Also, Dallas really had no interior scoring before this trade, something that Haywood is able to give them by scoring a solid 10 ppg. Stevenson gives the team another three-point shooter, which there's nothing wrong with.
Another reason Dallas can win this year is their improvement on the defensive end. While they still won't lock a team down the way a team like the San Antonio Spurs were capable of doing in their championship seasons, this year's Dallas team does have more defenders. Jason Kidd is fourth all-time in steals with 2,327 and he has the size (6' 4") to cause trouble for smaller point guards. Caron Butler can guard all three perimeter positions while Shawn Marion can guard forwards of all sizes. DeShawn Stevenson is also a handful for any perimeter player. In the paint, Erick Dampier has the size to defend centers, but he won't block many shots, which is why the addition of Brendan Haywood was such a big deal. He gives them a much needed presence inside, he also averages 10 rebounds per game, and he's more mobile and active than the clunky Dampier.
Tasked with running all of this is Rick Carlisle, who is in his second year with the team. Unlike Don Nelson, who coached the Mavericks from 1997-2004, Carlisle has a more defensive minded approach. In the 02-03 season, Carlisle's Indiana Pacers allowed only 95 points per game, which was good enough for third in the league behind the Detroit Pistons and San Antonio Spurs. That team also won 61 games.
Why they can't win: As prolific as they are on offense and though they continue to get better defensively, I see one glaring weakness for the Dallas Mavericks. Above, I established that Brendan Haywood is a double-double guy and that Erick Dampier is a good defender in the paint. But after those two, who else is there? Dirk Nowiztki is 7 ft. tall and can play center, but he's not a very capable defender. Eduardo Najera is a pretty good player, but he's an undersized 6'8" when he's played at the center position. Similarly, Shawn Marion has the size to defend power fowards, but not centers. Against a team like the Los Angeles Lakers, Denver Nuggets, or Utah Jazz, it will be difficult for Dallas to do a whole lot defensively if Haywood ends up in quick foul trouble. I don't think anyone likes the idea of Dampier matched up against any of those guys. But suppose he gets in foul trouble as well? Dallas has no one else capable of effectively dealing with the likes of Pau Gasol, Andrew Bynum (if he's healthy for once in his life), Carlos Boozer, or Nene if Haywood and Dampier fall into foul trouble. This lack of depth at center could doom Dallas in the playoffs.
The Dallas Mavericks
Why they can win: The Dallas Mavericks have always been able to score, whether it was was the 03-04 team with Steve Nash, Michael Finley, Dirk Nowitzki, Antoine Walker, and Antawn Jamison, or the 05-06 team that made it to the NBA Finals with Nowitzki, Jason Terry, Devin Harris, Jerry Stackhouse, Keith Van Horn, Josh Howard, and Marquis Daniels. Those teams could score in a variety of ways, whether it was from the perimeter, driving to the lane, or posting up. This year's version of the Dallas Mavericks is no different and is, in my opinion, even more potent on the offensive end. Dirk Nowitzki is still the focal point of the offense, but his supporting cast has changed dramatically; only two players not named Dirk Nowitzki remain on the team since their 2006 Finals run- Jason Terry and Erick Dampier, the "second best center in the NBA," as he so brazenly proclaimed himself at the time.
Jason Kidd now starts at point guard after being traded from the New Jersey Nets for Devin Harris two seasons ago. At the time, that trade was seen as a mistake for Dallas, but considering that the Mavericks are now contending for a championship while the Nets are contending for the worst win-loss record in NBA history, that no longer seems to be the case. With the assembled team, Kidd is a much better fit at point guard than Harris would have been because of his passing (2nd all-time in assists with 10,854) and experience (16 seasons in the league with two NBA Finals appearances). He knows when and where to get his teammates the ball and he does it extremely well. In the off-season, Shawn Marion joined the team after a trade and added his versatility to the mix: he's bigger than most other small forwards, can shoot from the perimeter, and gives Kidd an excellent target on the fast break. Backing up Kidd is Jason Terry, one of the league's best sixth men, averaging 16.8 points. He missed five straight games at the beginning of the month due to a facial injury, but that didn't stop the Mavericks from a 13 game winning streak; rookie Rodrigue Beaubois filled in admirably by scoring 17 ppg during those games. And don't forget Juan Jose Barea who, despite his small stature (6' 0"), gives Dallas quality minutes when he comes in. I've seen Dallas close out games with him at the point with Terry and Kidd on the wings. Then there's the perennially great Dirk Nowitzki at the center of things, putting up 24.5 ppg and scoring from all over the court, taking advantage of all defenders, big or small.
What I outlined above reads like an all-star team, but it got even better for Dallas at the trade deadline. They traded Josh Howard (an all-star in his own right but had fallen out of favor with the team), Drew Gooden (a good post scorer and rebounder for the Mavericks during his half-season there), James Singleton, and Quinton Ross to the Washington Wizards for Caron Butler, Brendan Haywood, and DeShawn Stevenson. While Howard and Butler shared similar scoring averages at the time (Howard has since gone down for the year with an ACL injury), Butler fits in better with this team. Not only does he bring the same scoring, but he is also a more willing teammate than Howard. Further, Butler gives the Mavericks three players teams have to worry about in clutch situations, along with Dirk Nowitzki and Jason Terry. Also, Dallas really had no interior scoring before this trade, something that Haywood is able to give them by scoring a solid 10 ppg. Stevenson gives the team another three-point shooter, which there's nothing wrong with.
Another reason Dallas can win this year is their improvement on the defensive end. While they still won't lock a team down the way a team like the San Antonio Spurs were capable of doing in their championship seasons, this year's Dallas team does have more defenders. Jason Kidd is fourth all-time in steals with 2,327 and he has the size (6' 4") to cause trouble for smaller point guards. Caron Butler can guard all three perimeter positions while Shawn Marion can guard forwards of all sizes. DeShawn Stevenson is also a handful for any perimeter player. In the paint, Erick Dampier has the size to defend centers, but he won't block many shots, which is why the addition of Brendan Haywood was such a big deal. He gives them a much needed presence inside, he also averages 10 rebounds per game, and he's more mobile and active than the clunky Dampier.
Tasked with running all of this is Rick Carlisle, who is in his second year with the team. Unlike Don Nelson, who coached the Mavericks from 1997-2004, Carlisle has a more defensive minded approach. In the 02-03 season, Carlisle's Indiana Pacers allowed only 95 points per game, which was good enough for third in the league behind the Detroit Pistons and San Antonio Spurs. That team also won 61 games.
Why they can't win: As prolific as they are on offense and though they continue to get better defensively, I see one glaring weakness for the Dallas Mavericks. Above, I established that Brendan Haywood is a double-double guy and that Erick Dampier is a good defender in the paint. But after those two, who else is there? Dirk Nowiztki is 7 ft. tall and can play center, but he's not a very capable defender. Eduardo Najera is a pretty good player, but he's an undersized 6'8" when he's played at the center position. Similarly, Shawn Marion has the size to defend power fowards, but not centers. Against a team like the Los Angeles Lakers, Denver Nuggets, or Utah Jazz, it will be difficult for Dallas to do a whole lot defensively if Haywood ends up in quick foul trouble. I don't think anyone likes the idea of Dampier matched up against any of those guys. But suppose he gets in foul trouble as well? Dallas has no one else capable of effectively dealing with the likes of Pau Gasol, Andrew Bynum (if he's healthy for once in his life), Carlos Boozer, or Nene if Haywood and Dampier fall into foul trouble. This lack of depth at center could doom Dallas in the playoffs.
Monday, March 22, 2010
The Edge: March Madness Brings the Best Out of Athletes
There's a fun and competitive debate going on between SB Nation's Andrew Sharp and Hardwood Paroxysm's Matt Moore concerning how most NBA fans might not pay March Madness full respect, and even reasons why that time of college basketball might edge out the best NBA basketball. I thought I would give my own two cents... or three.
For a long time now, people have been debating which is the greatest fluke between the two leagues of the NCAA and the NBA: a horrific march to the Madness where the NCAA teams that eventually head to the tournament terminate boring, just-plain-bad teams, or the overwhelming egos of basketball; leading to ridiculous propositions like Paul Pierce blatantly and confidently remarking that he's the best player after his championship season or Mark Cuban losing his cool in front of Kenyon Martin's mom.
At the same time, there are discussions about what's more exciting at their respective vintage moments: an NCAA tournament where anything can happen at literally any time (HP's Moore: "Comebacks in the NBA inside a minute? Really f’ing hard. Why? Guys know how to get the ball inbounds, and can get it to guys who can hit free throws."), or two QUALITY teams (which is Moore's argument for the NBA) emaciated for an NBA ring, going back and forth the entire game, and in the end delivering a thrilling performance?
Those debates can NEVER, EVER be settled. They just can't. You develop an infatuation for one league and can't ever seem to honestly find flaws in it when you're defending your preferred league against another league or sport. Sure, there's lots of situations where you mature and your opinions begin to vary, and you might even switch over to the other league. But you mature. You change. With exception to technical tweaks, the game of professional basketball has maintained the same general look since it's inception. There was the white, slow era of the '40s, '50s, and part of the '60s, and there was the physical, bangin'/bruisin' era of the '70s and '80s. Even today, the league has become more athletic. But it's still a different species of basketball than the NCAA, and it always has.
Nonetheless, there are debates that, in my mind, that can be settled.
1) The NBA is flat-out a better brand of basketball, from a quality standpoint. It cannot be refuted or argued. It is professional basketball, and college basketball is a step below. That doesn't mean there aren't players in the NCAA that couldn't play (and be distinguished) in the NBA, but that's only the cream of the crop. That's an extremely small slice of players when in correspondence with the entire NCAA.
2) March Madness is a bigger event than the NBA playoffs. It doesn't mean that I personally enjoy it more, it means that from a general fan's perspective, I'm tuning into March Madness over an NBA playoff game (if the two schedules ever crossed paths). The NBA, on the other hand, comes from a much larger audience scale throughout the entire shebang, including preseason, regular season, playoffs, and offseason. But March Madness seems to surround people as a magical, Cinderella Story tournament, which is what people want to watch. Perhaps the only playoff series' that have caught the eye of the general fan over the past five years:
1.Golden State V. Dallas, 2007 playoffs
2. The entire Boston Celtics campaign, 2008
3. Los Angeles Lakers V. Houston, 2009, and Los Angeles V. Orlando Finals
4. Boston V. Chicago, 2009
5. Cleveland V. Detroit, 2007
6. Miami Heat V. Dallas Mavericks, 2006
The NBA playoffs are great, and sure, that's only a five year span (and this is also considering that it would have to at least draw some attention from most of the non-basketball diehards), but if you count the number of mesmerizing March Madness games that captivated the nation over the last five years... you're going to end up using more than just your fingers.
So what keeps March Madness so exciting? Hell, what keeps March madness even alive? If the NBA is better basketball mechanically, and there isn't a clear edge (that we've mentioned yet), NCAA fans are basically telling themselves I'd rather watch a poorer standard of basketball. And that's fine... except that the ratings of the NCAA should come close to touching the NBA.
Most NBA and NCAA fans have heard that a lot general basketball fans can't deal with the arrogance of professional basketball. They'd rather watch more humble, more committed athletes. And that's cool that a lot of America chooses to believe it and have that as their logic as to why they have the NBA over the NCAA. But it's downright false in every aspect. There is no way for most of the superstars in the NBA to succeed without comforting themselves after beatings from the fans and opponents every single day for 10-15 years. They have to be overly-proud. It's basketball. Players develop that toughness on the way to their objective. That's not any player either. That's a great player. That's an NBA-ready player.
And putting arrogance aside, you cannot tell me that NBA athletes choose to relax when they hit the premier stage of basketball. The ones that we enjoy watching, the ones that thrive in this league put the same amount of work in if not more basketball-wise. It is their life. If you're playing in the Association, unless you're name is Rasheed Wallace, you're routinely in the gym for hours and shooting thousands of shots per day.
Watch Paul Pierce receive his ring after winning the 2008 championship, and you see he's WEEPING. He's overcome. How is that different from a college athlete being overcome? What separates LeBron's incredible and passionate 48-point massacre of the Detroit Pistons, which was derived from his sheer competitive edge and ravenous attitude towards winning, from Northern Iowa's recent defeat of Kansas? Both circumstances are, essentially, David versus Goliath. It was literally LeBron against a highly-regarded, heavily-favored Detroit Pistons team, and it was the number 9., unheard of Northern Iowa against the no.1 ranked Kansas. What puts distance between the constantly-discussed team chemistry of college athletes, how it shows on the court, and how it makes them better, and Leon Powe's inspiring 21-point performance during game 2 of the 2008 Finals? There isn't separation, there isn't distance, there isn't a difference.
Except that college athletes consistently show a spark when the competition narrows down to March Madness. Losing, or not leaving it all on the court, just simply isn't an option. You do not think twice about letting your team down. It is indubitable shame for all the NCAA athletes participating in the Madness to not play their best in that tournament. It just doesn't happen. March Madness brings the best out of athletes. Every. Single. Time. March Madness is magical.
And according to the nation, that's fact.
For a long time now, people have been debating which is the greatest fluke between the two leagues of the NCAA and the NBA: a horrific march to the Madness where the NCAA teams that eventually head to the tournament terminate boring, just-plain-bad teams, or the overwhelming egos of basketball; leading to ridiculous propositions like Paul Pierce blatantly and confidently remarking that he's the best player after his championship season or Mark Cuban losing his cool in front of Kenyon Martin's mom.
At the same time, there are discussions about what's more exciting at their respective vintage moments: an NCAA tournament where anything can happen at literally any time (HP's Moore: "Comebacks in the NBA inside a minute? Really f’ing hard. Why? Guys know how to get the ball inbounds, and can get it to guys who can hit free throws."), or two QUALITY teams (which is Moore's argument for the NBA) emaciated for an NBA ring, going back and forth the entire game, and in the end delivering a thrilling performance?
Those debates can NEVER, EVER be settled. They just can't. You develop an infatuation for one league and can't ever seem to honestly find flaws in it when you're defending your preferred league against another league or sport. Sure, there's lots of situations where you mature and your opinions begin to vary, and you might even switch over to the other league. But you mature. You change. With exception to technical tweaks, the game of professional basketball has maintained the same general look since it's inception. There was the white, slow era of the '40s, '50s, and part of the '60s, and there was the physical, bangin'/bruisin' era of the '70s and '80s. Even today, the league has become more athletic. But it's still a different species of basketball than the NCAA, and it always has.
Nonetheless, there are debates that, in my mind, that can be settled.
1) The NBA is flat-out a better brand of basketball, from a quality standpoint. It cannot be refuted or argued. It is professional basketball, and college basketball is a step below. That doesn't mean there aren't players in the NCAA that couldn't play (and be distinguished) in the NBA, but that's only the cream of the crop. That's an extremely small slice of players when in correspondence with the entire NCAA.
2) March Madness is a bigger event than the NBA playoffs. It doesn't mean that I personally enjoy it more, it means that from a general fan's perspective, I'm tuning into March Madness over an NBA playoff game (if the two schedules ever crossed paths). The NBA, on the other hand, comes from a much larger audience scale throughout the entire shebang, including preseason, regular season, playoffs, and offseason. But March Madness seems to surround people as a magical, Cinderella Story tournament, which is what people want to watch. Perhaps the only playoff series' that have caught the eye of the general fan over the past five years:
1.Golden State V. Dallas, 2007 playoffs
2. The entire Boston Celtics campaign, 2008
3. Los Angeles Lakers V. Houston, 2009, and Los Angeles V. Orlando Finals
4. Boston V. Chicago, 2009
5. Cleveland V. Detroit, 2007
6. Miami Heat V. Dallas Mavericks, 2006
The NBA playoffs are great, and sure, that's only a five year span (and this is also considering that it would have to at least draw some attention from most of the non-basketball diehards), but if you count the number of mesmerizing March Madness games that captivated the nation over the last five years... you're going to end up using more than just your fingers.
So what keeps March Madness so exciting? Hell, what keeps March madness even alive? If the NBA is better basketball mechanically, and there isn't a clear edge (that we've mentioned yet), NCAA fans are basically telling themselves I'd rather watch a poorer standard of basketball. And that's fine... except that the ratings of the NCAA should come close to touching the NBA.
Most NBA and NCAA fans have heard that a lot general basketball fans can't deal with the arrogance of professional basketball. They'd rather watch more humble, more committed athletes. And that's cool that a lot of America chooses to believe it and have that as their logic as to why they have the NBA over the NCAA. But it's downright false in every aspect. There is no way for most of the superstars in the NBA to succeed without comforting themselves after beatings from the fans and opponents every single day for 10-15 years. They have to be overly-proud. It's basketball. Players develop that toughness on the way to their objective. That's not any player either. That's a great player. That's an NBA-ready player.
And putting arrogance aside, you cannot tell me that NBA athletes choose to relax when they hit the premier stage of basketball. The ones that we enjoy watching, the ones that thrive in this league put the same amount of work in if not more basketball-wise. It is their life. If you're playing in the Association, unless you're name is Rasheed Wallace, you're routinely in the gym for hours and shooting thousands of shots per day.
Watch Paul Pierce receive his ring after winning the 2008 championship, and you see he's WEEPING. He's overcome. How is that different from a college athlete being overcome? What separates LeBron's incredible and passionate 48-point massacre of the Detroit Pistons, which was derived from his sheer competitive edge and ravenous attitude towards winning, from Northern Iowa's recent defeat of Kansas? Both circumstances are, essentially, David versus Goliath. It was literally LeBron against a highly-regarded, heavily-favored Detroit Pistons team, and it was the number 9., unheard of Northern Iowa against the no.1 ranked Kansas. What puts distance between the constantly-discussed team chemistry of college athletes, how it shows on the court, and how it makes them better, and Leon Powe's inspiring 21-point performance during game 2 of the 2008 Finals? There isn't separation, there isn't distance, there isn't a difference.
Except that college athletes consistently show a spark when the competition narrows down to March Madness. Losing, or not leaving it all on the court, just simply isn't an option. You do not think twice about letting your team down. It is indubitable shame for all the NCAA athletes participating in the Madness to not play their best in that tournament. It just doesn't happen. March Madness brings the best out of athletes. Every. Single. Time. March Madness is magical.
And according to the nation, that's fact.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Slithering in Darkness: Where the Celtics Are Disgracefully Saying Hello to Goodbye
A slightly different take of this fantastic article written by KneeJerkNBA.
As the Boston Celtics fell to the Memphis Grizzles Wednesday night, the depression that hung in the air was something that words couldn't quite describe. Yes, you could mention that the Boston Celtics were disgustingly outrebounded by 19 boards. You could point out that Memphis shot 55% from the field and 56%+ from behind the arc. But there is no way to nail the "The Celtics just didn't have it... again" aspect. There is no impact that rests in those words, or, at least not nearly an impact that measures up to the real thing.
A few years ago, we witnessed that team in the league, a team that emotionally connected with their fans as electricity in the relationship between the two sparked a run that led to a much-longed-for NBA championship. We not only had the pieces on paper, but we had the chemistry. We had the leadership. We had players that knew the right time to dish out an extra pass (the famous split-second swing for a three or open look that was stamped rightfully by the Celts' that season). We also had players that recognized that must-win games sometimes hung on the decision made by players to hoard the ball selfishly for themselves and get the job done (the 41-point Pierce V. the 45-point LeBron game).
But the attitude never changed, no matter what the game style of that night was. I was there at game 7 of the '07-08 Eastern Conference semis, and I can tell you one thing: Paul Pierce was there to score, to dominate, to bloody the Cavs in every way he was capable of doing from the start. But despite his demeanor that in times made him look self-centered with the ball, his teammates were with him from the getgo. And not only was that support playing out just because that player happened to be Paul Pierce, but because it was one of their teammates. Paul Pierce was a Celtic, and so were the rest of those who emerged victorious last night. And that never changed whether it ended up being an evenly spread boxscore or a Paul Pierce/insert any other Celtic here-takeover.
Fast forward to last year. We had a few different players, but the destination, the drive, and the purpose was still there. We scorched the league from the start, racing out to an incredible 27-2 start. That clear sovereignty continued until our precious Kevin Garnett went down immediately after the All-Star break (by the way; although this is obviously easy to say in my position, I can't help but point out that it's ridiculous for Boston to allow the NBA to use our players elected to play in the All-Star game in any way they please with no restrictions. If I'm the Cs, I'm giving the coaches that are handed the reigns of the team limits concerning how much they can toy with our guys on the court during a game that's completely meaningless to every contender in the Association).
But regardless of the hammering injury, we played with a chip on our shoulder, and as always, fighting and eventually prevailing in what is now considered one of the most thrilling playoff series' of all-time (the Boston Chicago series, which involved numerous memorable OTs). We also almost slipped past the eventual Eastern Conference champs, armed with a 3-2 lead after five games but sadly falling in the last two. And this is all without Kevin Garnett.
At last, we arrive to 2009-10. With an improved Rondo and Perkins, a healthy Garnett, and at least a little bit more rested Ray Allen and Paul Pierce, we're a better team automatically than the squad last year that advanced to the second round of the playoffs and seemed to be well on their way to the EC Finals before a heartbreaking final two games. However, that's not all. We added a woefully underrated Marquis Daniels (who has been compared to the likes of Josh Howard and also plays a game style similar to that of Stephen Jackson), a dominant post player (who can cause trouble, but should have been set straight by our vets from the beginning nonetheless) in Rasheed Wallace, and another backup big man in Shelden Williams.
Three quarters of the way through the season, we've now also added Nate Robinson and Michael Finley. Where do we stand? Well let's just say that the team we're looking at on paper doesn't resemble the team we see on the court, nor does our record hint at us having such a great team (stats-/skills-wise at least).
The differences between this team and the past two of the Big Three era? Well, there's many. For one, Boston is a much less docile group than the crews the Celts had on their side in the past. Docile in the sense of all of the players having one goal, whether it's a wild goal or a conservative objective. We were all on the same page, which made it easier to strike points and basically just coach. This team? We're all over the place, I guess, is the best way to put it.
Two years ago and even last year, I remember a team that was fired up for even the most piddling of games. Now? Maybe we just don't have the energy for that anymore, whether we'd like to our not. Maybe we're resting for strategical reasons. But while that theory is understandable in these circumstances, it's been proven to be foolproof when you, well, don't win the ones that you save energy for in the first place.
And the conclusion is evident now: Even if we do manage to find that passion, that fire, it is, in many senses, much too late. Sure, we've saved energy all year long. But to become formidable once again, to gain position against other teams or at least be at the same level they are, we're going to have to rampage the league on a ferocious tear in these next few months. And at the level of stamina this team has shown it has, I'm not sure we can do that and still get up for the playoffs. Or at least, stay up for the duration of the playoffs, which we would need to do if we wanted to attain another ring. December is long gone. Sitting tight waiting for a run in January isn't possible now. Even February has evaded us. We're in March, nervously sweating it out until April.
Hey, miracles can happen. We don't know what's being said in the locker room. We have no clue what's going on in the closed, whispered huddles during practice. But from what I've been seeing lately, I just don't see it happening. It's too bad, going through so much for so little (maybe I'm under-appreciating the glory of one mere ring, but I was hoping to at least be in contention for two). It's even more disappointing that the Celtics essentially just let this happen. They let it slip away. They watched a likely banner slowly (don't think this happened in a flash; we had all the time in the world to turn it around and we couldn't get it done) drive by them, and sooner or later, a Cinderella Story as well (if the C's can't beat out the Hawks for the third seed, then this season, this goal, really ought to be packed away).
Of course, we can't doubt the potentials of a sensational offseason, as this would be the perfect time to do it (although we always have to keep money in mind). Danny might sense that the team as a whole (which includes the ENTIRE organization) didn't feel that the fans got their full due after 16 years of atrocious misfortune after Bird hung up the laces. But these are all possibilities that are battling the odds. And since we've seen that we can't complete the likelihoods that were graciously given to us at the beginning of this season (a refueled, recharged, revamped team that could easily have been included in the top five, maybe even top three teams in the league right now, and close to the end chunk of the season where contenders rest and teams battling for position continue to fight tirelessly), what leads us to believe that we have the proof to doubt the odds?
For one, there's hope. Basketball is a game of breaks. Sometimes, there's opportunities you ride out for much too long than destiny should have allowed you too. And in others (particularly this one), you fall way short of expectations and in all honesty, are stripped of what should have been.
So yeah, there will always be that next year, those next few years, those next 10 years. But the only thing at this point that I can say with all the certainty in my mind, with no counter-arguments available to mention is: Ubuntu might want to get a head start on getting comfort with the dark, dingy cellars of the NBA.
By replacing gritty defensive guys like Posey, Brown and Powe with shooters like Lil' Nate and Mike Finley, Ainge further eroded the team's identity. 'Get stops' isn't an option anymore. This team isn't physically able to 'get stops.' And nobody's intimidated by them anymore, either.Those were the words written by my fellow writer here on Celtics 17, KneeJerkNBA. And while harsh words they may be, Celtics nor any NBA fan can deny the truthfulness that lies beneath them.
As the Boston Celtics fell to the Memphis Grizzles Wednesday night, the depression that hung in the air was something that words couldn't quite describe. Yes, you could mention that the Boston Celtics were disgustingly outrebounded by 19 boards. You could point out that Memphis shot 55% from the field and 56%+ from behind the arc. But there is no way to nail the "The Celtics just didn't have it... again" aspect. There is no impact that rests in those words, or, at least not nearly an impact that measures up to the real thing.
A few years ago, we witnessed that team in the league, a team that emotionally connected with their fans as electricity in the relationship between the two sparked a run that led to a much-longed-for NBA championship. We not only had the pieces on paper, but we had the chemistry. We had the leadership. We had players that knew the right time to dish out an extra pass (the famous split-second swing for a three or open look that was stamped rightfully by the Celts' that season). We also had players that recognized that must-win games sometimes hung on the decision made by players to hoard the ball selfishly for themselves and get the job done (the 41-point Pierce V. the 45-point LeBron game).
But the attitude never changed, no matter what the game style of that night was. I was there at game 7 of the '07-08 Eastern Conference semis, and I can tell you one thing: Paul Pierce was there to score, to dominate, to bloody the Cavs in every way he was capable of doing from the start. But despite his demeanor that in times made him look self-centered with the ball, his teammates were with him from the getgo. And not only was that support playing out just because that player happened to be Paul Pierce, but because it was one of their teammates. Paul Pierce was a Celtic, and so were the rest of those who emerged victorious last night. And that never changed whether it ended up being an evenly spread boxscore or a Paul Pierce/insert any other Celtic here-takeover.
Fast forward to last year. We had a few different players, but the destination, the drive, and the purpose was still there. We scorched the league from the start, racing out to an incredible 27-2 start. That clear sovereignty continued until our precious Kevin Garnett went down immediately after the All-Star break (by the way; although this is obviously easy to say in my position, I can't help but point out that it's ridiculous for Boston to allow the NBA to use our players elected to play in the All-Star game in any way they please with no restrictions. If I'm the Cs, I'm giving the coaches that are handed the reigns of the team limits concerning how much they can toy with our guys on the court during a game that's completely meaningless to every contender in the Association).
But regardless of the hammering injury, we played with a chip on our shoulder, and as always, fighting and eventually prevailing in what is now considered one of the most thrilling playoff series' of all-time (the Boston Chicago series, which involved numerous memorable OTs). We also almost slipped past the eventual Eastern Conference champs, armed with a 3-2 lead after five games but sadly falling in the last two. And this is all without Kevin Garnett.
At last, we arrive to 2009-10. With an improved Rondo and Perkins, a healthy Garnett, and at least a little bit more rested Ray Allen and Paul Pierce, we're a better team automatically than the squad last year that advanced to the second round of the playoffs and seemed to be well on their way to the EC Finals before a heartbreaking final two games. However, that's not all. We added a woefully underrated Marquis Daniels (who has been compared to the likes of Josh Howard and also plays a game style similar to that of Stephen Jackson), a dominant post player (who can cause trouble, but should have been set straight by our vets from the beginning nonetheless) in Rasheed Wallace, and another backup big man in Shelden Williams.
Three quarters of the way through the season, we've now also added Nate Robinson and Michael Finley. Where do we stand? Well let's just say that the team we're looking at on paper doesn't resemble the team we see on the court, nor does our record hint at us having such a great team (stats-/skills-wise at least).
The differences between this team and the past two of the Big Three era? Well, there's many. For one, Boston is a much less docile group than the crews the Celts had on their side in the past. Docile in the sense of all of the players having one goal, whether it's a wild goal or a conservative objective. We were all on the same page, which made it easier to strike points and basically just coach. This team? We're all over the place, I guess, is the best way to put it.
Two years ago and even last year, I remember a team that was fired up for even the most piddling of games. Now? Maybe we just don't have the energy for that anymore, whether we'd like to our not. Maybe we're resting for strategical reasons. But while that theory is understandable in these circumstances, it's been proven to be foolproof when you, well, don't win the ones that you save energy for in the first place.
And the conclusion is evident now: Even if we do manage to find that passion, that fire, it is, in many senses, much too late. Sure, we've saved energy all year long. But to become formidable once again, to gain position against other teams or at least be at the same level they are, we're going to have to rampage the league on a ferocious tear in these next few months. And at the level of stamina this team has shown it has, I'm not sure we can do that and still get up for the playoffs. Or at least, stay up for the duration of the playoffs, which we would need to do if we wanted to attain another ring. December is long gone. Sitting tight waiting for a run in January isn't possible now. Even February has evaded us. We're in March, nervously sweating it out until April.
Hey, miracles can happen. We don't know what's being said in the locker room. We have no clue what's going on in the closed, whispered huddles during practice. But from what I've been seeing lately, I just don't see it happening. It's too bad, going through so much for so little (maybe I'm under-appreciating the glory of one mere ring, but I was hoping to at least be in contention for two). It's even more disappointing that the Celtics essentially just let this happen. They let it slip away. They watched a likely banner slowly (don't think this happened in a flash; we had all the time in the world to turn it around and we couldn't get it done) drive by them, and sooner or later, a Cinderella Story as well (if the C's can't beat out the Hawks for the third seed, then this season, this goal, really ought to be packed away).
Of course, we can't doubt the potentials of a sensational offseason, as this would be the perfect time to do it (although we always have to keep money in mind). Danny might sense that the team as a whole (which includes the ENTIRE organization) didn't feel that the fans got their full due after 16 years of atrocious misfortune after Bird hung up the laces. But these are all possibilities that are battling the odds. And since we've seen that we can't complete the likelihoods that were graciously given to us at the beginning of this season (a refueled, recharged, revamped team that could easily have been included in the top five, maybe even top three teams in the league right now, and close to the end chunk of the season where contenders rest and teams battling for position continue to fight tirelessly), what leads us to believe that we have the proof to doubt the odds?
For one, there's hope. Basketball is a game of breaks. Sometimes, there's opportunities you ride out for much too long than destiny should have allowed you too. And in others (particularly this one), you fall way short of expectations and in all honesty, are stripped of what should have been.
So yeah, there will always be that next year, those next few years, those next 10 years. But the only thing at this point that I can say with all the certainty in my mind, with no counter-arguments available to mention is: Ubuntu might want to get a head start on getting comfort with the dark, dingy cellars of the NBA.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)