Result: Magic win, 80-77
Mentally, I had written off the Howard-less Magic in this series. But, as it turns out, the Pacers may not be the best team to exploit Dwight Howard's absence, especially when they settle for jump shots so often (negating his absence in the middle). And strangely enough, Big Baby has turned out to be a tough matchup for Hibbert despite the huge height discrepancy.
Ultimately, the Pacers collectively choked the game away (special points to Granger though), but I still favor them for the series. They still look like the better team.
Observations
-The Pacers did a terrible job defending the pick and roll with Jameer Nelson (w/ an other Magic but especially Big Baby). Nelson had tons of room to run around in the half court as George Hill was crushed by picks over and over again.
-The Magic did a great job keeping the Pacers out of the paint for much of the game
-The Pacers did kick up their defensive intensity in the second half. Thta reminded me of the Pacers that gave the Bulls so much trouble last year.
-Big Baby did a great job denying position against Hibbert. Hibbert has a huge size advantage but can't take advantage of it in the low post if he can't get the ball. Hibbert has almost all of his scoring success on second chance shots.
-Hibbert has great body control on his shot block attempts, although he got some no-call home cooking too.
-David West looked good in the low post and is a tough cover for a seemingly over-matched Ryan Anderson.
-I love watching Hansburough (sp?) play. He just gives it everything he's got and plays with exuberance and confidence.
-Collison flat out looked better than George Hill (the Pacers' staring PG). Indeed, in crunch time, Collison was carried over from the second team to play out the fourth quarter.
-With 1:14 left in the game, and up 2, Granger ganked two FTs. On the next possession, Granger missed a close-range shot that was tough but make-able. Later, down three, Granger travels (TRAVELS!) while covered by Big Baby, effectively ending the game without even getting a shot off.
(in order of importance)
Most Valuable Magic: Nelson, Glen "Big Baby" Davis, Jason Richardson
Most Valuable Pacers: West, Granger (yeah, he ultimately blew it, but he was critical early), Hibbert
Starting Goat(s): Hill (Pacers), Ryan Anderson (Magic)
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
The 2011 Finals: Prediction
I wanted to make my prediction after doing my Finals preview, but tip-off is in one half hour. So, instead, I will make my prediction now with the basic reasons why. The preview will follow, probably posted after tip-off but before I've seen any of the game.
My pick is the Miami Heat, in six games. They will return to Miami for games 6 and 7 up 3-2 with two days rest. Loose and rested, they will take care of business at home.
The Dallas Mavericks could win because of their sophisticated offense that produces good looks for the role players and puts Nowitzki in spots he likes on the floor. And, their man-zone hybrid is well suited for a dribble penetration team like the Heat as long as Chandler anchors at center. Dallas is good enough to be the Heat (they did win both regular season games).
Each side has exploitable matchups, which I will go into further int he next post.
The Miami Heat will win the series because they have 2 of the best 3 players (and closers) on the floor. They have a strong team defense concept as well as some strong individual stoppers (several people to throw at Dirk, including LeBron and Haslem). Their offense still has chemistry issues, but it does create good shots for the Heat stars fairly often. Lastly, the Heat have home court advantage, which is particularly valuable in the Finals because of the 2-3-2 format. Home court advantage is also particularly useful this year because the Mavs' middle three games are played only a day apart (Sun-Tues-Thurs). If the Mavs don't win all three, they have to beat the Heat twice at home. The Heat have been threatened at home this post season, but have not lost a game.
These NBA Finals feel like a game of inches. A few big shots here or there could make the difference in any one game. And any one game could change the complexion of the series. Game 1 is a great opportunity for the Mavericks to steal, because their offense can be difficult to adjust to as it comes at you from so many different angles and utilizes such a variety of weapons. I expect the Mavericks to pick up an early lead and for the Heat to have to work from behind to win the game.
My pick is the Miami Heat, in six games. They will return to Miami for games 6 and 7 up 3-2 with two days rest. Loose and rested, they will take care of business at home.
The Dallas Mavericks could win because of their sophisticated offense that produces good looks for the role players and puts Nowitzki in spots he likes on the floor. And, their man-zone hybrid is well suited for a dribble penetration team like the Heat as long as Chandler anchors at center. Dallas is good enough to be the Heat (they did win both regular season games).
Each side has exploitable matchups, which I will go into further int he next post.
The Miami Heat will win the series because they have 2 of the best 3 players (and closers) on the floor. They have a strong team defense concept as well as some strong individual stoppers (several people to throw at Dirk, including LeBron and Haslem). Their offense still has chemistry issues, but it does create good shots for the Heat stars fairly often. Lastly, the Heat have home court advantage, which is particularly valuable in the Finals because of the 2-3-2 format. Home court advantage is also particularly useful this year because the Mavs' middle three games are played only a day apart (Sun-Tues-Thurs). If the Mavs don't win all three, they have to beat the Heat twice at home. The Heat have been threatened at home this post season, but have not lost a game.
These NBA Finals feel like a game of inches. A few big shots here or there could make the difference in any one game. And any one game could change the complexion of the series. Game 1 is a great opportunity for the Mavericks to steal, because their offense can be difficult to adjust to as it comes at you from so many different angles and utilizes such a variety of weapons. I expect the Mavericks to pick up an early lead and for the Heat to have to work from behind to win the game.
Friday, June 25, 2010
2010 NBA Draft: BOOMS and BUSTS Ground Rules
I'm going to call it. For every player in the first round, I'm going to put myself out there and declare, right now, what the future holds or could likely hold for them. I base my opinion here on their college numbers, scouting info I have read, and interviews I have listened to. I'm going common sense here, rather than some sort of advanced metric or insider information. With this stuff, I think common sense can get you pretty far.
My judgements here are not relative to draft position nor are they particularly specific. I'm not about to say, "John Wall will play in exacty four all-star games and win league MVP twice." Nor am I even saying "John Wall will be a regular in the All-Star Game."
I am not making relative judgements. At a high level, players from the draft will play out their careers and will either be remembered as good players, or crappy players. For example, though limited in ability, Udonis Haslem will be remembered as a good player. Emeka Okafor, despite the tons of money he has been paid, numerous opportunities he has been given and the stats he has accumulated, will be remembered as a scrub. That's what I'm talking about. Scrub, or not a scrub.
I am giving myself a middle ground. There are some players that will be initial considered to be scrubs. They will fail in ther first opportunity. But, for whatever reason, on their second try, or third try, the right situation occurs and/or they figure "it" out. The ship is righted and they lose the scrub label. Recent examples are JJ Reddick and Shannon Brown. Adam Morrison is still a scrub, but he may get one more chance to change that perception.
TERMINOLOGY:
BOOM: A "boom" will quickly begin developing, improving, and generally adjusting to the NBA and the team owners in question will breath a sigh of relief within a few months of the draft.
IMMEDIATE BUST: An "immediate bust" will not succeed with his first team (unless they stubbornly give him shot after shot over several years, which usually doesn't happen - The axe comes after about two years or whenever the rookie contract gives ownership an out). However, this player shows enough that a second team, a team where the player really seems to be a good fit, gives him a shot. It works, and the player turns it around and builds a career. Sometimes this can take a third or fourth team.
*FOREVER BUST: A "forever bust" is a player that doesn't belong in the NBA. Either not enough of a combination of talent and natural ability and/or lacking the mentality to be productive with the assets they have. This player fails with the first team. He may get additional chances but will fail in them too. There is usually a mental component to forever busts, because few true scrubs are drafted high, especiaslly in 2010.
* I love this term :)
My judgements here are not relative to draft position nor are they particularly specific. I'm not about to say, "John Wall will play in exacty four all-star games and win league MVP twice." Nor am I even saying "John Wall will be a regular in the All-Star Game."
I am not making relative judgements. At a high level, players from the draft will play out their careers and will either be remembered as good players, or crappy players. For example, though limited in ability, Udonis Haslem will be remembered as a good player. Emeka Okafor, despite the tons of money he has been paid, numerous opportunities he has been given and the stats he has accumulated, will be remembered as a scrub. That's what I'm talking about. Scrub, or not a scrub.
I am giving myself a middle ground. There are some players that will be initial considered to be scrubs. They will fail in ther first opportunity. But, for whatever reason, on their second try, or third try, the right situation occurs and/or they figure "it" out. The ship is righted and they lose the scrub label. Recent examples are JJ Reddick and Shannon Brown. Adam Morrison is still a scrub, but he may get one more chance to change that perception.
TERMINOLOGY:
BOOM: A "boom" will quickly begin developing, improving, and generally adjusting to the NBA and the team owners in question will breath a sigh of relief within a few months of the draft.
IMMEDIATE BUST: An "immediate bust" will not succeed with his first team (unless they stubbornly give him shot after shot over several years, which usually doesn't happen - The axe comes after about two years or whenever the rookie contract gives ownership an out). However, this player shows enough that a second team, a team where the player really seems to be a good fit, gives him a shot. It works, and the player turns it around and builds a career. Sometimes this can take a third or fourth team.
*FOREVER BUST: A "forever bust" is a player that doesn't belong in the NBA. Either not enough of a combination of talent and natural ability and/or lacking the mentality to be productive with the assets they have. This player fails with the first team. He may get additional chances but will fail in them too. There is usually a mental component to forever busts, because few true scrubs are drafted high, especiaslly in 2010.
* I love this term :)
2010 NBA Playoffs: Jazz/Lakers Game 1 (Lakers win)
- Kobe and Gasol both give B+ games
- Lakers second team blows lead
- Boozer is a solid second banana, but is it "contract year thunder"?
- Kobe's 4th quarter is a classic
- Terrible ref-ing; Not just pro-Lakers as Gasol got absolutely mugged by Boozer late in the fourth
2010 Playoffs: Day 5 Thoughts
Bobcats @ Magic, Game 2:
- Didn't watch. Call me when the Bobcats win a game.
- Watched the first quarter and then TiVo hopped through much of the rest.
- Dallas looked rusty, like you would expect them to look at the beginning of a game 1.
- Tim Duncan and RJ led an early attack that scored points and got several Mavs in foul trouble.
- It was nice to see RJ play well. His game 1 showing was just sad. In game 2, he got it going early, found his shot, hustled and played with a lot of energy.
- Shawn Marion has looked out of shape all year. For a guy whose game relied greatly on athleticism, he isn't doing himself any favors putting on the extra weight. He used to be a beast on the boards, swiftly moving up and down the court, getting easy baskets and blocking shots. He's a shadow of that former self and I don't think he'll be in the league much longer.
- Nowitzki's shot wasn't falling but he kept on shooting, as he should. Nowitzki has a clear matchup advantage against McDyess, who covers him much of the game. McDyess is old and slow. Even with his limited mobility and athleticism, Dirk should be able to shoot over and go around McDyess. Instead, we get performances like this, where Nowitzki struggles against an inferior defender.
2010 Playoffs: Day 4 Thoughts
Thunder @ Lakers, Game 2:
Bucks @ Hawks, Game 2
Heat @ Celtics, Game 2
Trailblazers @ Suns, Game 2
- Watched most of the second half.
- Green and Harden were non-factors (or a negative factor in the case of Green, who shot 2-11 from the field). To be fair to Harden, he was on the floor for less than 10 minutes.
- This was a close game decided by a better crunch-time play by the Lakers, except for the final moments, when the Lakers nearly gave it away.
- The gunner is back! Kobe had a big game, shooting without the hesitation I saw in Game 1. He wasn't shooting well, but he got to the line and made up for it there.
- Durant and Westbrook were the only Thunder playing well. They will have to continue to do so if they want to make it a series.
Bucks @ Hawks, Game 2
Heat @ Celtics, Game 2
Trailblazers @ Suns, Game 2
Thursday, June 3, 2010
2010 NBA Playoffs: Celtics versus Lakers Brief Preview
Upset Odds (i.e. Celtics Win): 1:2 (I've been going these wrong the entire post-season - in reverse I think - oops)
Quietly, this is not a good match-up for the Celtics overall. In '08, missing their starting center, the Lakers competed in every game except one, losing considerable early leads in two of their loses (nobody will forget the 24 point lead in game 4) and winning two other games outright. Now, the Lakers have Bynum, who has value even if injured.
I may do a whole post about it but I will say it here, now: The 2010 Celtics are not better than the 2008 Celtics. They are worse. Their defense remains elite, but not dominant. The offensive may be slightly better, but insufficiently better to make up for loss of defensive ability. Meanwhile, the 2010 Lakers are clearly better than than the 2008 Lakers. The defense is better, and although the raw numbers don't show it, the offense runs better than it did two years ago. By that I mean the Lakers each better understand their roles and the offensive execution has improved.
Why do I give the Celtics decent odds despite being over-matched? For one, Celtics and Lakers intangibles. The Celtics are physical and psychological bullies. The talk shit, yell, bump, foul, scream, talk more shit. It's hard to ignore. It's worked before (on the 2008 Lakers, the 2010 Cavs, the 2010 Magic...), and it could work again. A Laker negative intanglible is their propensity for giving up big leads. Forget 2008, they did it at home against the Suns in game 5 then again in game 6 against the Suns. These were big almost 20 point leads, present well into the second half. The Celtics are unlikely to let them off the hook like the Suns did. Rondo could also single-handidly keep the Celtics in games when the rest of their offense stumbles. And at this level, with teams and players of this caliber, close games at the end could go either way.
Prediction: Lakers in 6
Let me be more specific. If the Lakers win game 1, I think Lakers in 6. However, if the Lakers lose game 1, it will be a much harder. Still, they will preservere and win in 7.
Quietly, this is not a good match-up for the Celtics overall. In '08, missing their starting center, the Lakers competed in every game except one, losing considerable early leads in two of their loses (nobody will forget the 24 point lead in game 4) and winning two other games outright. Now, the Lakers have Bynum, who has value even if injured.
I may do a whole post about it but I will say it here, now: The 2010 Celtics are not better than the 2008 Celtics. They are worse. Their defense remains elite, but not dominant. The offensive may be slightly better, but insufficiently better to make up for loss of defensive ability. Meanwhile, the 2010 Lakers are clearly better than than the 2008 Lakers. The defense is better, and although the raw numbers don't show it, the offense runs better than it did two years ago. By that I mean the Lakers each better understand their roles and the offensive execution has improved.
Why do I give the Celtics decent odds despite being over-matched? For one, Celtics and Lakers intangibles. The Celtics are physical and psychological bullies. The talk shit, yell, bump, foul, scream, talk more shit. It's hard to ignore. It's worked before (on the 2008 Lakers, the 2010 Cavs, the 2010 Magic...), and it could work again. A Laker negative intanglible is their propensity for giving up big leads. Forget 2008, they did it at home against the Suns in game 5 then again in game 6 against the Suns. These were big almost 20 point leads, present well into the second half. The Celtics are unlikely to let them off the hook like the Suns did. Rondo could also single-handidly keep the Celtics in games when the rest of their offense stumbles. And at this level, with teams and players of this caliber, close games at the end could go either way.
Prediction: Lakers in 6
Let me be more specific. If the Lakers win game 1, I think Lakers in 6. However, if the Lakers lose game 1, it will be a much harder. Still, they will preservere and win in 7.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)