Golden State just won the NBA West 104-90 to win their series 4-1 over the Houston Rocks.

So the NBA Finals is officially set.

vs

So the Finals is a matchup between best player in the world and the current MVP. The NBA shocks us again with its competitive balance. No Love and basically no Irving and the Hawks got smoked. The regular season is so worthless in the NBA, especially when 8 of 15 teams make the postseason

I think the thing with the Hawks series- the injuries to Carroll and Korver basically stopped any chance of a real series. And it's not like Cleveland was that much worse than Atlanta regular season- it was only 7 games with Cleveland learning 1st half how to play together.

As far as the west- Warriors were that good. Golden State was 11 games better than Houston. The playoffs basically affirmed everything from the regular season.

(05-28-2015 11:48 AM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  So the Finals is a matchup between best player in the world and the current MVP. The NBA shocks us again with its competitive balance. No Love and basically no Irving and the Hawks got smoked. The regular season is so worthless in the NBA, especially when 8 of 15 teams make the postseason

Eh, the postseason makes it so that the best teams usually make it to the finals. Think about the law of averages. You have to go through 4 seven games series' where each squad will roughly get about 100 possessions per game. It essentially makes minimizes randomness.

In the NFL, it's single elimination, anything can happen. In the MLB you only have 27 outs and can ride a hot pitcher or just be lucky if the other teams bats go cold. In the NHL, you can ride a hot goalie and get a few lucky bounces to beat anyone. In the NBA, you have to be the best team and almost all randomness is mitigated since you'll likely have 2000+ possessions to both score and defend if you make the finals.

Personally, I feel like the MLB season is the most pointless since the teams play 162 games only to be thrust into a 1 game playoff or 3 series' that are increasingly boiling down to luck since most teams have the same access to information and use the same analytics to get there.

(05-28-2015 12:35 PM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 11:48 AM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  So the Finals is a matchup between best player in the world and the current MVP. The NBA shocks us again with its competitive balance. No Love and basically no Irving and the Hawks got smoked. The regular season is so worthless in the NBA, especially when 8 of 15 teams make the postseason

Eh, the postseason makes it so that the best teams usually make it to the finals. Think about the law of averages. You have to go through 4 seven games series' where each squad will roughly get about 100 possessions per game. It essentially makes minimizes randomness.

In the NFL, it's single elimination, anything can happen. In the MLB you only have 27 outs and can ride a hot pitcher or just be lucky if the other teams bats go cold. In the NHL, you can ride a hot goalie and get a few lucky bounces to beat anyone. In the NBA, you have to be the best team and almost all randomness is mitigated since you'll likely have 2000+ possessions to both score and defend if you make the finals.

Personally, I feel like the MLB season is the most pointless since the teams play 162 games only to be thrust into a 1 game playoff or 3 series' that are increasingly boiling down to luck since most teams have the same access to information and use the same analytics to get there.

I like it more nowadays when the better or best teams make the finals of their respective playoffs. One thing that used to make baseball great IMHO, with its long season, was that only the top division winners reached the NLCS and ALCS. Four was enough after 162 games. The problem with expanding playoffs to additional teams is you can always make the argument for the next team down/first team left out.

Will always remember this (swooshie might as well):

The Last Real Pennant Race-1993 Braves and Giants



The Braves caught fire, literally, and caught San Fran for the Pennant:
Mark Lemke (left) and Jeff Blauser as the press box of the Atlanta Fulton County stadium caught fire on July 20, 1993. The Braves' young arms -- from left, Steve Avery, John Smoltz, Pete Smith, Maddux and Glavine -- stayed strong while the Giants hurlers faltered down the stretch.

(05-28-2015 12:05 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think the thing with the Hawks series- the injuries to Carroll and Korver basically stopped any chance of a real series. And it's not like Cleveland was that much worse than Atlanta regular season- it was only 7 games with Cleveland learning 1st half how to play together.

As far as the west- Warriors were that good. Golden State was 11 games better than Houston. The playoffs basically affirmed everything from the regular season.

didn't the Cavs take the first two games (without Love and Irving) before the Carroll and Korver injuries?

My point about the NBA is that it's easy to predict. If you want to know which team is going to the finals in the East, look at the rosters and find the name Lebron James. Hell, I thought what everyone loved about march madness was the randomness and the fact that dozens of teams had a legitimate chance. In MLB, the best player in the world and the best pitcher in the AL have never even been to the postseason. The Cavs and Hawks proved that without a superstar you have basically no chance in the NBA.

(05-28-2015 03:06 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 12:05 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think the thing with the Hawks series- the injuries to Carroll and Korver basically stopped any chance of a real series. And it's not like Cleveland was that much worse than Atlanta regular season- it was only 7 games with Cleveland learning 1st half how to play together.

As far as the west- Warriors were that good. Golden State was 11 games better than Houston. The playoffs basically affirmed everything from the regular season.

didn't the Cavs take the first two games (without Love and Irving) before the Carroll and Korver injuries?

My point about the NBA is that it's easy to predict. If you want to know which team is going to the finals in the East, look at the rosters and find the name Lebron James. Hell, I thought what everyone loved about march madness was the randomness and the fact that dozens of teams had a legitimate chance. In MLB, the best player in the world and the best pitcher in the AL have never even been to the postseason. The Cavs and Hawks proved that without a superstar you have basically no chance in the NBA.

The big one was the Carroll injury- and that took place in game 1(that Irving played in). That totally changed the series. Now don't think it matters- but wouldn't have been a sweep.

(05-28-2015 03:10 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 03:06 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 12:05 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think the thing with the Hawks series- the injuries to Carroll and Korver basically stopped any chance of a real series. And it's not like Cleveland was that much worse than Atlanta regular season- it was only 7 games with Cleveland learning 1st half how to play together.

As far as the west- Warriors were that good. Golden State was 11 games better than Houston. The playoffs basically affirmed everything from the regular season.

didn't the Cavs take the first two games (without Love and Irving) before the Carroll and Korver injuries?

My point about the NBA is that it's easy to predict. If you want to know which team is going to the finals in the East, look at the rosters and find the name Lebron James. Hell, I thought what everyone loved about march madness was the randomness and the fact that dozens of teams had a legitimate chance. In MLB, the best player in the world and the best pitcher in the AL have never even been to the postseason. The Cavs and Hawks proved that without a superstar you have basically no chance in the NBA.

The big one was the Carroll injury- and that took place in game 1(that Irving played in). That totally changed the series. Now don't think it matters- but wouldn't have been a sweep.

guess I just didn't remember. But if you're gonna downplay Irving's injury woes, then you have to do the same for Carroll. Both were severely limited in what they could do. In the end it was Lebron and the planeteers against the Hawks and once again in the NBA the latter proved that going with the "team" approach sans a superstar is dangerous because each piece becomes that much more important. Lebron's presence alone lessened the impact of the Irving and Love injuries, whereas losing Korver and playing with an injured Carroll was a lot for a team without a go to superstar to handle. Also wanna mention that as George Karl said, a lot of those "cute" sets they ran for Korver in the regular season don't really work as well in the postseason.

Another point is the role injuries play in the NBA. It's no one's fault, as this is the way the game is constructed, but man I love how injuries in baseball don't have to be the same kind of detriment. The sole reason the Warriors are going to the finals is their incredible injury luck. The Rockets were missing two key pieces in Motiejunas and Beverley and the Thunder lost basically everyone at one point.

Fact is, while everyone fawned over the Grizz I kept asserting that they were going nowhere. They have some really great players, but they don't have a dominant superstar and they had an absolute anchor on offense (tony allen). A healthy Thunder team would've flattened them

Well, then if the Cavs had lost LeBron, they'd be sunk according to your view. IS that better than spreading the risk? remember, the Hawks had multiple injuries, some from the regular season, that chipped away at their team. They were so far ahead that they still were going to get the first seed, but once the playoffs reset everyone to zero, it became more apparent just how much they had already lost at the start of the playoffs. And for that I'd point to Brooklyn and Washington playoff series being dogfights, unlike most of the regular season games with those teams.


Hawks even handled Cleveland in regular season, but with a different roster makeup, I'd say.

I see your point, but I'm not sure I like putting all my eggs into one basket, as if that basket breaks, all your eggs do too.

(05-28-2015 04:25 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Well, then if the Cavs had lost LeBron, they'd be sunk according to your view. IS that better than spreading the risk? remember, the Hawks had multiple injuries, some from the regular season, that chipped away at their team. They were so far ahead that they still were going to get the first seed, but once the playoffs reset everyone to zero, it became more apparent just how much they had already lost at the start of the playoffs. And for that I'd point to Brooklyn and Washington playoff series being dogfights, unlike most of the regular season games with those teams.


Hawks even handled Cleveland in regular season, but with a different roster makeup, I'd say.

I see your point, but I'm not sure I like putting all my eggs into one basket, as if that basket breaks, all your eggs do too.

well of course no team in the NBA can afford to lose its best player. The theory, is that the loss of a guy like Carroll is worse for the Hawks than losing Irving is for the Cavs. This is because Lebron accounts for so much of the WARP.

I don't get your point regarding the dogfights with Brooklyn and Washington. Can you elaborate?

(05-28-2015 05:20 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 04:25 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Well, then if the Cavs had lost LeBron, they'd be sunk according to your view. IS that better than spreading the risk? remember, the Hawks had multiple injuries, some from the regular season, that chipped away at their team. They were so far ahead that they still were going to get the first seed, but once the playoffs reset everyone to zero, it became more apparent just how much they had already lost at the start of the playoffs. And for that I'd point to Brooklyn and Washington playoff series being dogfights, unlike most of the regular season games with those teams.


Hawks even handled Cleveland in regular season, but with a different roster makeup, I'd say.

I see your point, but I'm not sure I like putting all my eggs into one basket, as if that basket breaks, all your eggs do too.

well of course no team in the NBA can afford to lose its best player. The theory, is that the loss of a guy like Carroll is worse for the Hawks than losing Irving is for the Cavs. This is because Lebron accounts for so much of the WARP.

I don't get your point regarding the dogfights with Brooklyn and Washington. Can you elaborate?

Only my opinion, of course, and I admitted that before this season it had been quite some time since I paid serious attention to the Hawks specifically, and pro hoops in general, so factor that in.

I was trying to account for the fact the Hawks had injuries to some key non-starters during the season, and this affected their depth. When they were going undefeated in January and rolling against most teams in the Reg season, it was not as much of an issue. Brooklyn and Washington were easily handled by the Hawks in most of their Reg Season games. But come short series playoff time, the Hawks' weakness in depth became more exposed, in my opinion.

While Cleveland was handling its playoff opponents better, the Hawks were struggling with theirs. I thought the Hawks would do better against Cleveland than they did since they appeared to match up better, and they won the reg season series, plus the psychological boost from pushing through to the Conf finals for the first time, but I was very wrong. Both teams got rest before the series, Cleveland had a bit more. But Cleveland had the veteran leadership of LeBron, and he was on a mission to up the ante in Cleveland. He will be a challenge for GS to stop in the Finals.

(05-28-2015 07:13 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 05:20 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 04:25 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Well, then if the Cavs had lost LeBron, they'd be sunk according to your view. IS that better than spreading the risk? remember, the Hawks had multiple injuries, some from the regular season, that chipped away at their team. They were so far ahead that they still were going to get the first seed, but once the playoffs reset everyone to zero, it became more apparent just how much they had already lost at the start of the playoffs. And for that I'd point to Brooklyn and Washington playoff series being dogfights, unlike most of the regular season games with those teams.


Hawks even handled Cleveland in regular season, but with a different roster makeup, I'd say.

I see your point, but I'm not sure I like putting all my eggs into one basket, as if that basket breaks, all your eggs do too.

well of course no team in the NBA can afford to lose its best player. The theory, is that the loss of a guy like Carroll is worse for the Hawks than losing Irving is for the Cavs. This is because Lebron accounts for so much of the WARP.

I don't get your point regarding the dogfights with Brooklyn and Washington. Can you elaborate?

Only my opinion, of course, and I admitted that before this season it had been quite some time since I paid serious attention to the Hawks specifically, and pro hoops in general, so factor that in.

I was trying to account for the fact the Hawks had injuries to some key non-starters during the season, and this affected their depth. When they were going undefeated in January and rolling against most teams in the Reg season, it was not as much of an issue. Brooklyn and Washington were easily handled by the Hawks in most of their Reg Season games. But come short series playoff time, the Hawks' weakness in depth became more exposed, in my opinion.

While Cleveland was handling its playoff opponents better, the Hawks were struggling with theirs. I thought the Hawks would do better against Cleveland than they did since they appeared to match up better, and they won the reg season series, plus the psychological boost from pushing through to the Conf finals for the first time, but I was very wrong. Both teams got rest before the series, Cleveland had a bit more. But Cleveland had the veteran leadership of LeBron, and he was on a mission to up the ante in Cleveland. He will be a challenge for GS to stop in the Finals.

other than Thabo, who was missing? It's possible I don't know the Hawks roster as well as I thought, ya know being a western conference fan and all

well, so much for the finals. Irving out for the rest of the series....

I'll say this- if LeBron pulls it off..... it'll go down as one remarkable exclamation point for LeBron's career.

(06-05-2015 10:38 PM)stever20 Wrote:  well, so much for the finals. Irving out for the rest of the series....

I'll say this- if LeBron pulls it off..... it'll go down as one remarkable exclamation point for LeBron's career.

The Warriors just have too much fire power. I would not put losing this finals on LeBron if it comes to that...his team is so thinned out from what it could have been. That said, I think the Cavs can get it to 6.

I wouldn't either. right now, he's playing with house money. if they lose- they have all the injuries, etc. If they win though- its a crowning achievement that tops anything that MJ frankly ever did.

IMO the Cavs would have been far better off had they not traded Andrew Wiggins for Kevin Love. Wiggins finished the season as the rookie of the year, and Love finished the season on the bench with a season ending injury, long before the playoffs rolled around. Wiggins would have given the Cavs more flexibility, and allowed them to better match up with the Warriors.

But hindsight is always 20-20, unless you're blinded by homerism.

(06-06-2015 08:43 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  IMO the Cavs would have been far better off had they not traded Andrew Wiggins for Kevin Love. Wiggins finished the season as the rookie of the year, and Love finished the season on the bench with a season ending injury, long before the playoffs rolled around. Wiggins would have given the Cavs more flexibility, and allowed them to better match up with the Warriors.

But hindsight is always 20-20, unless you're blinded by homerism.

The Love injury happened game 4 of the Celtics 1st round series...

I don't disagree that the Cavs would have been far better not doing the trade. I think the thing is though what is watching this playoff run doing with Love.

(06-06-2015 11:11 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-06-2015 08:43 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  IMO the Cavs would have been far better off had they not traded Andrew Wiggins for Kevin Love. Wiggins finished the season as the rookie of the year, and Love finished the season on the bench with a season ending injury, long before the playoffs rolled around. Wiggins would have given the Cavs more flexibility, and allowed them to better match up with the Warriors.

But hindsight is always 20-20, unless you're blinded by homerism.

The Love injury happened game 4 of the Celtics 1st round series...

I don't disagree that the Cavs would have been far better not doing the trade. I think the thing is though what is watching this playoff run doing with Love.

¿que?

I forgot about Love playing against the Celts. Perhaps that's because I'm a Celtics fan and the Celtics got their butts kicked. I'm trying to forget that series.