PDA

View Full Version : How Much of Shot Does The Cav Have At Winning It All?



RocketLoc80
10-03-2015, 12:30 AM
If they run into OKC or the Spurs in the finals? Do they have a chance against these two or virtually no shot?

JAZZNC
10-03-2015, 12:40 AM
Well since they will come out of the East I would guess it's 50/50.

alexander_37
10-03-2015, 12:47 AM
That thread title is cringe worthy...

Allphakenny1
10-03-2015, 12:53 AM
Pretty stupid thread as you only named two teams out west like they are the only two who have a shot. Multiple other teams like the Clippers, Rockets, and defending champion Warriors could easily make it to the finals. Also, you make it sound like the Cavs would be huge underdogs against those two western teams you named. They have such an easy road to the finals that they should be well rested for the finals and any Lebron team could beat any western conference team and no one should be surprised.

SoxPatsCeltsBs
10-03-2015, 04:25 AM
That thread title is cringe worthy...

Bingo

Raps18-19 Champ
10-03-2015, 07:57 AM
They had a decent chance last year without their 2nd and 3rd best player. I'm sure if everyone is healthy, they'll have a great shot again.

KnickNyKnick
10-03-2015, 08:39 AM
they pretty much have a chance every year as long as Lebron is Lebron

JasonJohnHorn
10-03-2015, 11:10 AM
The made it to game six of the NBA finals without Love, Irving and Anderson. Put a healthy roster on the floor and they sweep that series.

My answer: if healthy, they have a better chance than any team in the league.

MILLERHIGHLIFE
10-03-2015, 01:17 PM
To be taken seriously they need to be healthy first. Other wise they will just use the injury excuse. Irving and Love and AV need to be healthy. I just read a article a few days back saying Shumpert is injured yet again. If LeBron has to shoulder the load he will start pointing fingers soon enough. He pulled that card in Miami.

Arch Stanton
10-03-2015, 01:46 PM
50/50 sounds about right.

Hawkeye15
10-03-2015, 01:46 PM
If they have some health luck, they have a great shot.

Gander13SM
10-03-2015, 05:01 PM
They'll breeze through the East. It's such a weak conference they really have an easy time of it. It depends who comes out West. If it's Warriors or Spurs I don't think they'll win to be completely honest. Anyone else and they probably will.

Cracka2HI!
10-03-2015, 07:27 PM
The CavS Have Better Shot Then Thread Starter Do Of Making A Proper Sentence.

FlashBolt
10-04-2015, 01:00 AM
They'll breeze through the East. It's such a weak conference they really have an easy time of it. It depends who comes out West. If it's Warriors or Spurs I don't think they'll win to be completely honest. Anyone else and they probably will.

Lol, what? Spurs, maybe.. but Warriors? I'm pretty sure Cavs gave them a fight last season with practically, one man.

tredigs
10-04-2015, 01:44 AM
Lol, what? Spurs, maybe.. but Warriors? I'm pretty sure Cavs gave them a fight last season with practically, one man.

Lol "pretty good fight" until they lost the last 3 by an average of 15.

@OP, they play in the East which makes their odds of reaching the Finals without being beaten down in playoff series significantly higher than any West team, and as a result have the best chance to win it all in a vacuum. That said, wtf knows, we have to see how the season unfolds.

SteBO
10-04-2015, 09:45 AM
50/50....only by virtue that the east isn't great.

Gander13SM
10-04-2015, 10:17 AM
Lol, what? Spurs, maybe.. but Warriors? I'm pretty sure Cavs gave them a fight last season with practically, one man.

Practically one man? People in Cleveland were wanting Delly for president because of his defense. They gave them a fight? Sure. If you consider losing 3 in a row with an average MOV of 15 a good fight. They were torn apart imo.

And their defense kept them in it. Love is a MASSIVE liability defensively and Kyrie isn't close to Delly defensively. Warriors will average 110+ against that lineup. Only hope Cavs have is to keep up offensively but they won't because the Warriors defense is so outlandishly good.

Sorry but the Cavs don't match up well with the Warriors at all. Or the Spurs for that matter.

I think they can beat anyone else out West simply because they match up well against them.

Just my opinion. We don't have to agree.

FlashBolt
10-04-2015, 01:55 PM
Practically one man? People in Cleveland were wanting Delly for president because of his defense. They gave them a fight? Sure. If you consider losing 3 in a row with an average MOV of 15 a good fight. They were torn apart imo.

And their defense kept them in it. Love is a MASSIVE liability defensively and Kyrie isn't close to Delly defensively. Warriors will average 110+ against that lineup. Only hope Cavs have is to keep up offensively but they won't because the Warriors defense is so outlandishly good.

Sorry but the Cavs don't match up well with the Warriors at all. Or the Spurs for that matter.

I think they can beat anyone else out West simply because they match up well against them.

Just my opinion. We don't have to agree.

So you're just going to pretend that the Warriors beat a 100% team? Kevin Love/Kyrie are both top 20-25 players. To basically imply that they wouldn't have done anything just right after the Cavs went 2-1 against them basically says that you don't value these guys at all. And Delly is a role player who was placed onto a position in which he wasn't supposed to be in due to Irving's injury. They lost 3 in a row because of fatigue. Everyone saw that. They were completely undermannded the entire series.

Love is a massive liability defensively but he's also an attribute offensively -- something Thompson wasn't. He can't space the floor and besides his rebounding, Thompson provided nothing. What Cavs lacked were scoring options. They had Delly pulling up from three at one point. That tells me that they really needed something and someone to get points on the board because they were not going to stop GSW just by defending hard.

You make ZERO sense. Cavs don't match up well with GSW but you can't seem to understand that GSW had a tough time getting through the DEPLETED Cavs. Spurs, yes -- because they know how to really neutralize LeBron. GSW doesn't. They just beat a team that was without two of their three best players while they had a loaded team of DPOY candidates (Thompson, Bogut, Green), and Iggy is a All-NBA quality defender.

We don't have to agree but that's just absurd to say Cavs wouldn't have a chance when they had more than a chance going up 2-1 against the Warriors with two top players being inactive.

Gander13SM
10-04-2015, 02:36 PM
So you're just going to pretend that the Warriors beat a 100% team? Kevin Love/Kyrie are both top 20-25 players. To basically imply that they wouldn't have done anything just right after the Cavs went 2-1 against them basically says that you don't value these guys at all. And Delly is a role player who was placed onto a position in which he wasn't supposed to be in due to Irving's injury. They lost 3 in a row because of fatigue. Everyone saw that. They were completely undermannded the entire series.

Love is a massive liability defensively but he's also an attribute offensively -- something Thompson wasn't. He can't space the floor and besides his rebounding, Thompson provided nothing. What Cavs lacked were scoring options. They had Delly pulling up from three at one point. That tells me that they really needed something and someone to get points on the board because they were not going to stop GSW just by defending hard.

You make ZERO sense. Cavs don't match up well with GSW but you can't seem to understand that GSW had a tough time getting through the DEPLETED Cavs. Spurs, yes -- because they know how to really neutralize LeBron. GSW doesn't. They just beat a team that was without two of their three best players while they had a loaded team of DPOY candidates (Thompson, Bogut, Green), and Iggy is a All-NBA quality defender.

We don't have to agree but that's just absurd to say Cavs wouldn't have a chance when they had more than a chance going up 2-1 against the Warriors with two top players being inactive.

1. Where did I say they don't have a chance? Quote me precisely where I said that or retract the statement and apologise for putting words in my mouth.

2. And how did the Warriors have a tough time? They thrashed them in three consecutive games. Irving can't guard Steph like Delly can. Steph will light him up. Love can't guard anyone like anyone else can. Literally. My grandmother would be an upgrade defensively. Yes the offense will be better and Love can spread the floor but AGAIN, IN MY OPINION the cavs only managed to stay alive as long as they did because of defense. WIth Love and Kyrie on the floor the scoring goes up and the defense goes dwn drastically. Their added boost in offense isn't as big as it could be because the Warriors are quite literally a top 3 defensive team in the league.

They don't match up well at all. Do they have a chance? Of course. They have the best player on their team since MJ retired. That doesn't mean they're the favourites though. Warriors and Spurs are definitely favourites over Cleveland. I'm not sure you can say that for any other teams.

And the Warriors did a better job on LeBron than Spurs did just FYI. Iguodala was better on him than Kawhi and every advanced metric supports this.

Oh and they literally had no chance last year when unhealthy. None whatsoever. So I don't know where you're getting that from. As soon as Irving went down the finals were all but over. You seem to think that series was close for some reason and I'm not sure why. Golden State ate Cleveland alive. Aside from when San Antonio embarrassed LeBron the previous season, this was the most lopsided finals in a while.

FlashBolt
10-04-2015, 03:13 PM
1. Where did I say they don't have a chance? Quote me precisely where I said that or retract the statement and apologise for putting words in my mouth.

2. And how did the Warriors have a tough time? They thrashed them in three consecutive games. Irving can't guard Steph like Delly can. Steph will light him up. Love can't guard anyone like anyone else can. Literally. My grandmother would be an upgrade defensively. Yes the offense will be better and Love can spread the floor but AGAIN, IN MY OPINION the cavs only managed to stay alive as long as they did because of defense. WIth Love and Kyrie on the floor the scoring goes up and the defense goes dwn drastically. Their added boost in offense isn't as big as it could be because the Warriors are quite literally a top 3 defensive team in the league.

They don't match up well at all. Do they have a chance? Of course. They have the best player on their team since MJ retired. That doesn't mean they're the favourites though. Warriors and Spurs are definitely favourites over Cleveland. I'm not sure you can say that for any other teams.

And the Warriors did a better job on LeBron than Spurs did just FYI. Iguodala was better on him than Kawhi and every advanced metric supports this.

Oh and they literally had no chance last year when unhealthy. None whatsoever. So I don't know where you're getting that from. As soon as Irving went down the finals were all but over. You seem to think that series was close for some reason and I'm not sure why. Golden State ate Cleveland alive. Aside from when San Antonio embarrassed LeBron the previous season, this was the most lopsided finals in a while.

Apologize? Haha, you're playing with inferiority complex here. You basically said Warriors will beat them because Cavs don't match up well. That doesn't give Cavs much of a chance, does it? And you didn't even explain how they don't match up. Really? Where don't they match up?

Warriors did have a tough time but like I said, fatigue caught up with the Cavs. There was a clear difference in their energy level heading into those games. Irving can't guard Steph like Delly can? BUT, Steph can't guard Irving whereas Delly, you don't really have to defend him. Steph will light Irving up? When and where did he do that at because I'm pretty sure Irving was doing well on one knee in game 1.

Love can't guard anyone... PLEASE, Draymond isn't a scorer. It's not like he's guarding Anthony Davis for crying out loud. And it's funny you mention defense but somehow think Tristan is miles above Love at it. Tristan is an above average defender and a horrible offensive option. Love is a below average defender and an excellent offensive option. There is more benefit than cost there. But either way, Cavs were fatigued at that point. LeBron didn't play up-to-par because he was busy pulling in 46 minute games.

Warriors didn't do a better job. Do you even have to guard Delly/J.R./Tristan? Spurs had to guard much better offensive players coupled with LeBron. And note, I said SPURS did a better job -- not Kawhi.

You're too funny. I would bet you're a Warriors fan here. Cavs weren't even close to being 100% with Irving/Varejao/Love out but you claim GSW would beat the Cavs this season because they don't match up well. I'm not sure what to say to that. Besides two games, what were the lopsided ones you were talking about? 2/6 games were lopsided=series was lopsided? Interesting.

Gander13SM
10-04-2015, 03:31 PM
Sigh. It's clear to me you have a lot of bias either for Cleveland or against Warriors. And you refuse to apologise for putting words in my mouth, which is just plain rude.

There's no point in discussing this further.

And where did I say I'm a Warriors fan? You don't have to be a Warriors fan to see that the Cavs defense kept them alive, with Irving and Love in that defense falls apart. You don't have to be a Warriors fan to see all the mismatching and the Warriors defensive ability. And you certainly don't need to be a Warriors fan to see that Cleveland would not be the favourites in that series. Nor would they with the Spurs. The fact that you think I have to be a Warriors fan to believe this astounds me. I'm a die hard basketball geek. And I can see it just from watching the two teams play. Warriors and Spurs are superior teams.

Everyone else? Most likely. But IMO not Spurs or Warriors. I can see them absolutely destroying OKC (though I doubt they even make the finals) and they would definitely be favourites against Houston or LAC. Memphis too. But I just don't see them as favourites against Warriors or Spurs.

Do they have a chance? Yes. I never said otherwise. I just think beating Warriors or Spurs once is difficult. Four times? That's a tall order for any squad.

Tony_Starks
10-04-2015, 05:13 PM
The Cavs are the favorite if healthy so they have a pretty awesome shot....

cahawk
10-05-2015, 02:52 AM
Healthy Cavs can win it all. Warriors are a great team but they played a shell of a Cavs team.

MILLERHIGHLIFE
10-05-2015, 10:04 AM
Staying healthy is a huge problem for the Cavs. Also their roster is the same as before other then Mo Williams added. But he isn't getting any younger either. Seems like Irving and AV are injured every season. Love even got injured last season. Now Shumpert is injured now before the season starts. I think Cavs need a trade. Thing is most of their roster got new contracts so they cant be traded for a few months. Also with the big contracts tossed around Cavs are stuck looking the same for a while. Also LeBron isn't getting any younger.

Arch Stanton
10-05-2015, 10:47 AM
Staying healthy is a huge problem for the Cavs. Also their roster is the same as before other then Mo Williams added. But he isn't getting any younger either. Seems like Irving and AV are injured every season. Love even got injured last season. Now Shumpert is injured now before the season starts. I think Cavs need a trade. Thing is most of their roster got new contracts so they cant be traded for a few months. Also with the big contracts tossed around Cavs are stuck looking the same for a while. Also LeBron isn't getting any younger.

They also got Richard Jefferson and Sasha Kaun. They have more depth than last year, which should allow more rest for Irving, LeBron and Love.

Chapin78
10-05-2015, 11:05 AM
According to Tristan Thompson they will need his 8/8 off the bench to win it all and the Cavs can have all of that for a fee of a Max Deal. TT needs to try FA and understand no one is going to pay him that. The Cavs if healthy or not should be the favorite in the East. What else would ESPN talk about???

Burkey3472
10-05-2015, 12:21 PM
If they are healthy they will have a shot vs anyone.

MILLERHIGHLIFE
10-05-2015, 01:36 PM
They also got Richard Jefferson and Sasha Kaun. They have more depth than last year, which should allow more rest for Irving, LeBron and Love.

RJ was on his last legs when Bucks had him. He been nothing specially for every team since. Believe a few first round picks were used to dump RJ to Jazz that one season. Think after Bucks he's been with Spurs and Warriors and Jazz and Mavs. He should of retired 5 years ago already.

Arch Stanton
10-05-2015, 02:44 PM
RJ was on his last legs when Bucks had him. He been nothing specially for every team since. Believe a few first round picks were used to dump RJ to Jazz that one season. Think after Bucks he's been with Spurs and Warriors and Jazz and Mavs. He should of retired 5 years ago already.

He shot 43% from 3-point last year. If he can shoot he can certainly spell LeBron for 10-15 minutes a night, which is something Marion couldn't do last year.

FlashBolt
10-05-2015, 04:04 PM
Cavs are the favorites to win it next season... what is this guy talking about!?!??!?! And if you can't see that a fully loaded Cavs is completely different from one in which two of their top players were INACTIVE, I don't know what to tell you. That's the equivalent of GSW losing Thompson/Draymond. You think they escape with that? Sorry, they don't! Of course GSW matched up well against Cavs last season -- Cavs were outnumbered from every position except SF. I have zero idea where these mismatches come from because it's simply not true. Fact is, everyone saw how depleted the Cavs were. Everyone bottom up looked tired and fatigued. Cavs ran on LeBron and it just got to a point where he ran out of gas. Can you honestly get it out of your head that the Warriors ran through the Cavs? They didn't.. and you can't prove it.

seikou8
10-06-2015, 03:51 AM
i haven't been here in couple of months but i see nothing has changed but to answer the question it all depends on health and who they face coming out the west because they're winning the east unless something dramatic happens

Jayb587
10-06-2015, 04:44 AM
im curious to kyries health. the more minutes LeBron has to play in the regular season the lower the chances. GSW or SPURS over cavs easily, there is no way kerr or pop is losing to a LeBron coached team haha. anyone else is 50/50. cavs really don't have a clear advantage over any of the top 5 west seeds.

Jayb587
10-06-2015, 04:56 AM
Cavs are the favorites to win it next season... what is this guy talking about!?!??!?! And if you can't see that a fully loaded Cavs is completely different from one in which two of their top players were INACTIVE, I don't know what to tell you. That's the equivalent of GSW losing Thompson/Draymond. You think they escape with that? Sorry, they don't! Of course GSW matched up well against Cavs last season -- Cavs were outnumbered from every position except SF. I have zero idea where these mismatches come from because it's simply not true. Fact is, everyone saw how depleted the Cavs were. Everyone bottom up looked tired and fatigued. Cavs ran on LeBron and it just got to a point where he ran out of gas. Can you honestly get it out of your head that the Warriors ran through the Cavs? They didn't.. and you can't prove it.

lol. the warriors are were so young, they were nervous and weren't playing their game for the first couple of games. Once they hit their stride and some coaching adjustments they handled the cavs pretty easily. as long as LeBron doesn't have a coach he's not winning this year either.

I wish KD would hurry up and go to Washington so LeBron can actually play someone good in the east.

likemystylez
10-06-2015, 12:56 PM
Practically one man? People in Cleveland were wanting Delly for president because of his defense. They gave them a fight? Sure. If you consider losing 3 in a row with an average MOV of 15 a good fight. They were torn apart imo.

And their defense kept them in it. Love is a MASSIVE liability defensively and Kyrie isn't close to Delly defensively. Warriors will average 110+ against that lineup. Only hope Cavs have is to keep up offensively but they won't because the Warriors defense is so outlandishly good.

Sorry but the Cavs don't match up well with the Warriors at all. Or the Spurs for that matter.

I think they can beat anyone else out West simply because they match up well against them.

Just my opinion. We don't have to agree.

THIS!

Warriors two best players had a sub par series, and they still were so much better up and down the roster that they destroyed the cavs once they figured things out and calmed down in the series.

BTW- Warriors top 3 players should all be improving still. They were the most dominant team in the league last year and they were still learning a new system all year.

Vee-Rex
10-06-2015, 03:54 PM
People still arguing that the Cavs + Irving/Love are a worse overall team, or would do worse overall against the Warriors?

Only on this site, man.

Yanks All Day
10-06-2015, 04:51 PM
im curious to kyries health. the more minutes LeBron has to play in the regular season the lower the chances. GSW or SPURS over cavs easily, there is no way kerr or pop is losing to a LeBron coached team haha. anyone else is 50/50. cavs really don't have a clear advantage over any of the top 5 west seeds.

Pop lost to a LeBron-coached team in 2013. Kerr was a healthy Kyrie or Love away from losing to one in 2015.

If healthy, Cleveland has as good a shot as anyone in the NBA to win it all. Their biggest weakness was guard depth and consistent scoring. Dellavedova doesn't cut it consistently. They addressed that with Mo Williams. There are no real holes on Cleveland outside of health issues. They're going to coast through the East, and if they're healthy, they can beat anyone from the West in a 7 game series.

I'd think Cleveland, San Antonio, Golden State, and the Clippers have the best shot going into the season. But it's only October. The Finals are in June. A lot is going to happen between now and then.

likemystylez
10-06-2015, 06:43 PM
Pop lost to a LeBron-coached team in 2013. Kerr was a healthy Kyrie or Love away from losing to one in 2015.

If healthy, Cleveland has as good a shot as anyone in the NBA to win it all. Their biggest weakness was guard depth and consistent scoring. Dellavedova doesn't cut it consistently. They addressed that with Mo Williams. There are no real holes on Cleveland outside of health issues. They're going to coast through the East, and if they're healthy, they can beat anyone from the West in a 7 game series.

I'd think Cleveland, San Antonio, Golden State, and the Clippers have the best shot going into the season. But it's only October. The Finals are in June. A lot is going to happen between now and then.

LOL Irving wouldn't have helped them win. simple math buddy they were 0-1 with irving against warriors in the finals. They lost 100% of the times they played. If irving kept playing- the info we have suggests theyd be 0-4.... nothing suggests it would mean the cavs win.

LOl if love were on the floor- warriors would score a lot easier inside.

likemystylez
10-06-2015, 06:45 PM
People still arguing that the Cavs + Irving/Love are a worse overall team, or would do worse overall against the Warriors?

Only on this site, man.

well not just on this site- also in the real world. cavs with irving 0-1 0%, without irving 2-3 40%. They have a 40% higher chance of winning without irving. (Based on the info we actually have and not speculating)


That's what actually happened- but you keep playing 2k bud, and lets use that to determine the outcome. Keep it on rookie setting champ!

BigBuckley
10-06-2015, 07:34 PM
The Cavs have a great shot at winning it all in the east, then getting taken out again in the Finals. Too many injury prone players, and Lebron is getting older.

mrblisterdundee
10-07-2015, 01:35 AM
If Kyrie and Love are healthy, they're the best in the east, no question. And LeBron still has some Godzilla mode in him.

nastynice
10-07-2015, 06:08 AM
Healthy Cavs can win it all. Warriors are a great team but they played a shell of a Cavs team.

true, but in all honesty if the cavs step into that series 100% I actually think they lose in less than 6. Tristan Thompson at PF was clearly in the Cavs favor. I'm pretty confident in saying Green would have absolutely raped Love down low. Thompson had a HUGE impact in the paint.

Irving is a stud without a doubt, but again, Delly played better d than Irving. Of course he clearly played worse on offense also tho.

People want to take all these good performances by the cavs players who had to step up and just "add" on production from Irving and Love, but it don't work like that. Only 5 players can be on the court at a time.

Cavs are a good team, but no one was beating the warriors last year. It was our year :smoking: Lebron coulda recruited Harden to play with them for the playoffs, they still wouldn't have won! lol

nastynice
10-07-2015, 06:14 AM
People still arguing that the Cavs + Irving/Love are a worse overall team, or would do worse overall against the Warriors?

Only on this site, man.

so you think that the cavs woulda been better off having Love on Green instead of Thompson? You think Irving could guard Curry as effectively as Delly did? I'm not saying that necessarily makes the Cavs better off without Irving and Love, but I'm just pointing out some MAJOR advantages the Cavs gained by not having those two. Advantages that clearly won them games in that series. I can understand both sides of the argument, I won't hate on anyone thinking its one way or the other, but if someone's gonna act like its some kind of given that the cavs woulda went more than 6 had Irving and Love been in then I gotta question that person's understanding of basketball game planning and execution.

Vee-Rex
10-07-2015, 10:23 AM
well not just on this site- also in the real world. cavs with irving 0-1 0%, without irving 2-3 40%. They have a 40% higher chance of winning without irving. (Based on the info we actually have and not speculating)


That's what actually happened- but you keep playing 2k bud, and lets use that to determine the outcome. Keep it on rookie setting champ!

Eh, it's pretty much just this site. Other sites (especially the bigger R3ALGM) have more realistic posters.

I'm not sure what horse you have in this race but I think it's astounding that you're suggesting the Cavs were better off without a healthy Love/Irving.

Vee-Rex
10-07-2015, 10:35 AM
so you think that the cavs woulda been better off having Love on Green instead of Thompson? You think Irving could guard Curry as effectively as Delly did? I'm not saying that necessarily makes the Cavs better off without Irving and Love, but I'm just pointing out some MAJOR advantages the Cavs gained by not having those two. Advantages that clearly won them games in that series. I can understand both sides of the argument, I won't hate on anyone thinking its one way or the other, but if someone's gonna act like its some kind of given that the cavs woulda went more than 6 had Irving and Love been in then I gotta question that person's understanding of basketball game planning and execution.

I'm only responding to you on this (I'm tired of this discussion) because I respect you as a poster. You're one of the most reasonable guys around.

1. No, I don't think Irving would have guarded Curry better than Delly. But I think he did well game 1 even though he was hobbled. If he was fully healthy, I don't think he'd be much worse than Delly. At the same time, his offensive output would be MUCH MUCH better than Delly's.

2. Same with Tristan and Love. Love's defense is bad, but his offense ability outweighs it. Otherwise, he wouldn't be an all-star talent. Love generally plays well with Mozgov protecting the paint because his defense isn't as easily taken advantage of. Also, we ran a LOT of Love AND Thompson playing together so having Love healthy wouldn't necessarily take away from Tristan's minutes.

So, our offense would be better but our defense worse. If that was it, maybe we'd have been worse off. Injuries have a dominoe effect though -

3. Without Irving and Love, our offense sucked. This put WAY more strain on LeBron. If Love/Irving were healthy, we'd have seen a better LeBron in the finals. Come on, we all watched the games... it was strictly LeBron iso. Not only was LeBron running on fumes, but our overall lack of depth (because of Love/Irving being out) had Delly and Thompson running on fumes. By games 4-6, these dudes weren't playing as well.

At full health, our guys would've been fresh. We could've still rotated Delly on Curry for 20 minutes a game. We could've still gave Thompson 32 minutes a game defending Green. LeBron would've been more efficient and not as tired (though Iggy did a tremendous job, not taking away credit from him). And the offensive output from Love/Irving would've made our offense dangerous.

^^ All of that would've outweighed the decrease in defense.

WOULD WE HAVE BEAT THE WARRIORS? I'm not saying we would have. I'm not griping or salty about it. I'm ready for the next season. We could've still lost to the Dubs in 6 games, maybe in 7. But I think we would have been better throughout the whole series and would have had a better chance to win if we were fully healthy. The numbers (statistics in terms of net defensive + offensive ratings) and common sense suggest we would have been better.

likemystylez
10-07-2015, 10:47 AM
Eh, it's pretty much just this site. Other sites (especially the bigger R3ALGM) have more realistic posters.

I'm not sure what horse you have in this race but I think it's astounding that you're suggesting the Cavs were better off without a healthy Love/Irving.

its not about what my opinion is- I was stating what actually happened. With irving, they really did have a lower winning percentage than without him.

Thats the only actual data we have. Everything else is speculation. Its possible that the speculation may be more likely to be accurate, but its still not a reflection of what actually happened.

More to the point though- People who say cavs woulda won it if they had kyrie/Love, and are using that as an excuse.... The cavs chose to build their contender around star players who have a history of being injury prone atleast over the last 2-3 years. Kevin Love sitting out extensive time- Thats the guy y'all traded for. Irving missing extensive time and not being reliable- The guy averaged 55 games played a year through out his career headed into last season. (Granted one of those seasons was the lock out shortened 66 game season), but he didnt do much to help his case the following year. I think he sat out all but like 10 games during his only year in college as well. Also if the reports are accurate- Kyrie probably wont play more than 50 games this year. And thats kind of an optimistic guess.

Vee-Rex
10-07-2015, 10:54 AM
its not about what my opinion is- I was stating what actually happened. With irving, they really did have a lower winning percentage than without him.

Thats the only actual data we have. Everything else is speculation. Its possible that the speculation may be more likely to be accurate, but its still not a reflection of what actually happened.

More to the point though- People who say cavs woulda won it if they had kyrie/Love, and are using that as an excuse.... The cavs chose to build their contender around star players who have a history of being injury prone atleast over the last 2-3 years. Kevin Love sitting out extensive time- Thats the guy y'all traded for. Irving missing extensive time and not being reliable- The guy averaged 55 games played a year through out his career headed into last season. (Granted one of those seasons was the lock out shortened 66 game season), but he didnt do much to help his case the following year. I think he sat out all but like 10 games during his only year in college as well. Also if the reports are accurate- Kyrie probably wont play more than 50 games this year. And thats kind of an optimistic guess.

If your stance is against people saying the Cavs would've won, then I feel you. It's why I haven't said we would've won because the Dubs are an incredible team. All I can say is (having watched the Cavs all year) is that we're a better team against any opponent when fully healthy. We still could've lost for sure.

I can't say we're the favorites this year either. Maybe coming out of the East, yeah. But Shumpert, Varejao, Irving, and Love are all known to get injured. Irving ALMOST made it through the whole year, and Love got injured on a stupid/freak play, so I'm hoping they can be healthy this year with lower minutes as Blatt is suggesting he's gonna do.

Edit: Using a one game sample of the Cavs losing with just Irving isn't a great way to back your argument though, man.

nastynice
10-07-2015, 11:28 AM
I'm only responding to you on this (I'm tired of this discussion) because I respect you as a poster. You're one of the most reasonable guys around.

1. No, I don't think Irving would have guarded Curry better than Delly. But I think he did well game 1 even though he was hobbled. If he was fully healthy, I don't think he'd be much worse than Delly. At the same time, his offensive output would be MUCH MUCH better than Delly's.

2. Same with Tristan and Love. Love's defense is bad, but his offense ability outweighs it. Otherwise, he wouldn't be an all-star talent. Love generally plays well with Mozgov protecting the paint because his defense isn't as easily taken advantage of. Also, we ran a LOT of Love AND Thompson playing together so having Love healthy wouldn't necessarily take away from Tristan's minutes.

So, our offense would be better but our defense worse. If that was it, maybe we'd have been worse off. Injuries have a dominoe effect though -

3. Without Irving and Love, our offense sucked. This put WAY more strain on LeBron. If Love/Irving were healthy, we'd have seen a better LeBron in the finals. Come on, we all watched the games... it was strictly LeBron iso. Not only was LeBron running on fumes, but our overall lack of depth (because of Love/Irving being out) had Delly and Thompson running on fumes. By games 4-6, these dudes weren't playing as well.

At full health, our guys would've been fresh. We could've still rotated Delly on Curry for 20 minutes a game. We could've still gave Thompson 32 minutes a game defending Green. LeBron would've been more efficient and not as tired (though Iggy did a tremendous job, not taking away credit from him). And the offensive output from Love/Irving would've made our offense dangerous.

^^ All of that would've outweighed the decrease in defense.

WOULD WE HAVE BEAT THE WARRIORS? I'm not saying we would have. I'm not griping or salty about it. I'm ready for the next season. We could've still lost to the Dubs in 6 games, maybe in 7. But I think we would have been better throughout the whole series and would have had a better chance to win if we were fully healthy. The numbers (statistics in terms of net defensive + offensive ratings) and common sense suggest we would have been better.

The respect is mutual brotha! :cheers:

1. I agree that the gap between irving/delly offense is prob bigger than the gap between their defense. Cavs are without a doubt a better team with Irving. But in these playoffs you gotta take matchup into account. I would even go as far as to say the biggest reason cleveland won game 2 is because of delly. Yes, lebron put the most work in, no questioning that, but we knew that was gonna happen. We planned for that, we strategized for that. What delly did in that game, it completely threw us off. We got stagnant as hell on offense, players didn't know how to respond, the coach didn't know how to respond. I think its a pretty legit statement to say delly was the biggest factor in the outcome of that game. No doubt that overall in the series, irving woulda helped the cavs, I just don't think its by as big a degree as some people are making it sound. He also woulda been a bit more gassed chasing curry around everytime he crosses half court.

2. I just honestly think the Cavs are better off in almost every aspect of the game with thompson on the floor instead of love. At least when matched up with the warriors. We woulda had so many more offensive boards and you guys so many less. I think the work Thompson did on the glass was pretty major factor throughout the entire series. Sure Love would bring some things like spacing and the possibility of working some offensive game, but I think what thompson brings FAR outweighs what love brings. Especially against us with a player like Green.

3. Yea, fatigue def took a toll, but at the same time, there were players on the bench that the coach didn't use. That's a bad move on his part. If irving was healthy I highly doubt he'd put delly on curry for 20 min a game. He woulda ran irving into the ground the way he did delly, that's my guess. Its easy to look back and see how great delly did defending, but at that time we didn't know that, and I highly doubt the coach woulda figured that out on his own with no reference. Thompson he probably woulda gave good minutes tho, he already started establishing himself as a force down low.

But I'm just rebutting. Outside of your feelings on Love (which I STRONGLY disagree with), I do agree with what you're saying and the points you're making. Just disagree with exactly how big an impact those things woulda made.

I think going through what they did last year will make them better for this year. They really got to see what they have in thompson and delly. They also picked up mozgov but will have varajao too. I think a lot of those bumps they hit are actually huge positives for moving forward.

nastynice
10-07-2015, 11:32 AM
If your stance is against people saying the Cavs would've won, then I feel you.

Just to clarify my stance, I think its perfectly legit to say cavs woulda won. But to act like its just a given, or obvious, or someone's crazy for thinking otherwise, na I ain't on board with that, I think that's just lazy thinking to be like well we played good, if we had a better player we woulda played better. Doesn't always work like that, especially when the guys who stepped in had stretches of great performance in that series.

Imagine if Klay went down so we had to lean on livingston much more. Hell, that woulda actually probably helped us in this series. Klay played kinda crappy in the finals. Yes, we're a better team overall with klay than without him, but doesn't necessarily mean if he goes down we woulda beat any team we took to 6 without him.

Tony_Starks
10-07-2015, 12:02 PM
If your stance is against people saying the Cavs would've won, then I feel you.

Just to clarify my stance, I think its perfectly legit to say cavs woulda won. But to act like its just a given, or obvious, or someone's crazy for thinking otherwise, na I ain't on board with that, I think that's just lazy thinking to be like well we played good, if we had a better player we woulda played better. Doesn't always work like that, especially when the guys who stepped in had stretches of great performance in that series.

Imagine if Klay went down so we had to lean on livingston much more. Hell, that woulda actually probably helped us in this series. Klay played kinda crappy in the finals. Yes, we're a better team overall with klay than without him, but doesn't necessarily mean if he goes down we woulda beat any team we took to 6 without him.

Very lazy. You can't just pencil in the starters points and automatically say they would've won. Would Kyrie have hassled Steph they way Delly did the first few games and throw him off? Nope. Steph could've very well caught fire early in the series. What in the world would K Love had done defensively when they went small ball with Draymond and Lee? He would've been lunch meat out there.

As much as they missed Kyrie being able to create for himself and Love spacing the floor they still were able to play with the best defensive lineup they had the whole series. That in itself made it a series.

With Kyie and Love they take the pressure off Bron Bron offensively but for what they give up on D I say Golden State still handles them pretty comfortably.

Chronz
10-07-2015, 12:28 PM
Cleveland needs to stay healthy that's for sure. Can't play the likes of Delly to the point of exhaustion and Bron clearly ran out of gas from the immense load he carried.

tredigs
10-07-2015, 12:47 PM
Did Bron run out of gas? I feel like he was going stronger than I saw him at any point during the season, and that was probably in large part to having the longest amount of rest in NBA history between a ECF and a Finals. It was almost as long as his mid-season vacation in Miami. His shot was off, sure. But how was that any different than the 2 months leading up to the series?

likemystylez
10-07-2015, 12:51 PM
Cleveland needs to stay healthy that's for sure. Can't play the likes of Delly to the point of exhaustion and Bron clearly ran out of gas from the immense load he carried.

LOL stay healthy? well there goes that ship. They are already talking about missing shumpert, and irving for extensive time and were a week into training camp

Arch Stanton
10-07-2015, 01:00 PM
PG defense has the least amount of impact on team defense, so maybe Delly is a better defender, but Irving is a much better player and improved defender, so the idea that GS would have had an easier time with Irving at PG is just silly.

Tony_Starks
10-07-2015, 01:07 PM
Did Bron run out of gas? I feel like he was going stronger than I saw him at any point during the season, and that was probably in large part to having the longest amount of rest in NBA history between a ECF and a Finals. It was almost as long as his mid-season vacation in Miami. His shot was off, sure. But how was that any different than the 2 months leading up to the series?


I think Blatt really mismanaged his playing time but I can't blame his shot not falling on that. The dare him to shoot long J's strategy has consistently worked against him, rested or not. His long ball has always been suspect under pressure.

Vee-Rex
10-07-2015, 01:39 PM
Did Bron run out of gas? I feel like he was going stronger than I saw him at any point during the season, and that was probably in large part to having the longest amount of rest in NBA history between a ECF and a Finals. It was almost as long as his mid-season vacation in Miami. His shot was off, sure. But how was that any different than the 2 months leading up to the series?

I don't think he was gassed heading into the finals, but he was really tired during the series. He averaged 46 minutes a game in the finals with a 39.3% USG (most in NBA history IIRC). That's INSANE. The dude was fatigued and it really showed.

FlashBolt
10-07-2015, 05:07 PM
A human is a human. You can't possibly play someone 46 minutes per game for the series with such a high USG% rate and then expect them not to be drained physically. There was a clear difference in the level of energy in that series. I don't think he was tired heading to the Finals anyhow. Atlanta was pretty much a done deal and besides the Chicago series, there wasn't really a point in time where he really had to exert much into it. Plus, game 4, he hits his head on the camera and was bleeding. Pretty sure that had to affect him somehow.

FlashBolt
10-07-2015, 05:13 PM
People honestly think Tristan+Delly are better than Love+Irving.. That's essentially what this is about. If you truly believe that, go and find a team willing to pay BOTH players the max and not think about it.. because Love+Irving can do just that. And people need to stop confusing pesky defense with elite defense and the entire argument that Tristan is a great defender is a joke. He's above average at so. The only great thing about TT is his O-REB and the ability to stay healthy. Other than that, this guy doesn't offer much.

Vee-Rex
10-07-2015, 05:25 PM
People honestly think Tristan+Delly are better than Love+Irving.. That's essentially what this is about. If you truly believe that, go and find a team willing to pay BOTH players the max and not think about it.. because Love+Irving can do just that. And people need to stop confusing pesky defense with elite defense and the entire argument that Tristan is a great defender is a joke. He's above average at so. The only great thing about TT is his O-REB and the ability to stay healthy. Other than that, this guy doesn't offer much.

lol this x 50

Saddletramp
10-07-2015, 06:14 PM
People honestly think Tristan+Delly are better than Love+Irving.. That's essentially what this is about. If you truly believe that, go and find a team willing to pay BOTH players the max and not think about it.. because Love+Irving can do just that. And people need to stop confusing pesky defense with elite defense and the entire argument that Tristan is a great defender is a joke. He's above average at so. The only great thing about TT is his O-REB and the ability to stay healthy. Other than that, this guy doesn't offer much.

This, also Delly was on IVs toward the end. He was gassed out of his mind.

I don't know who'd have won if those guys were healthy (depending on what Kerr would have thrown at the Cavs) but people are dumber than a box of rocks if they think the Cavs were better off without Irving and Love playing.

Saddletramp
10-07-2015, 06:20 PM
well not just on this site- also in the real world. cavs with irving 0-1 0%, without irving 2-3 40%. They have a 40% higher chance of winning without irving. (Based on the info we actually have and not speculating)


That's what actually happened- but you keep playing 2k bud, and lets use that to determine the outcome. Keep it on rookie setting champ!

Assuming by using a one game standard, that game went into overtime and Irving got hurt during the overtime. So if Irving was to play in all games, 100% would've went to overtime. And since we don't know if the Cavs would've won or not (since Irving got hurt before the overtime period was over), it's safe to assume that all games would have been a coin flip and either team could have won.



See how stupid using one game as a sample size is? You've been on a roll lately.


And Irving was hobbled during the game and couldn't even finish it.

nastynice
10-07-2015, 06:35 PM
People honestly think Tristan+Delly are better than Love+Irving

haha, no. Maybe in ur mind this is what's happening, but no, this is not what people are saying when they say they think dubs woulda won in the same amount or even less games had those two been on the court. I have yet to see ONE single poster try to argue that tristan and delly are better overall players than love and irving.

nastynice
10-07-2015, 06:42 PM
The only great thing about TT is his O-REB and the ability to stay healthy. Other than that, this guy doesn't offer much.

Well I guess this is kinda a continuation from my last post, but on a squad with Lebron and Irving, a player (TT) who can dominate the boards means something. It means A LOT actually. Whereas a player (Love) who can have an offense run through him means nothing (at least in the cavs current system. I don't understand why he's not a bench player who can run a dominant second unit. Blatts an idiot). Its like if you already have Duncan and D Rob, adding Ewing ain't gonna do **** for you, but adding Starks will, see what I'm saying?

Vee-Rex
10-07-2015, 07:41 PM
Well I guess this is kinda a continuation from my last post, but on a squad with Lebron and Irving, a player (TT) who can dominate the boards means something. It means A LOT actually. Whereas a player (Love) who can have an offense run through him means nothing (at least in the cavs current system. I don't understand why he's not a bench player who can run a dominant second unit. Blatts an idiot). Its like if you already have Duncan and D Rob, adding Ewing ain't gonna do **** for you, but adding Starks will, see what I'm saying?

Here's the flaw with that. You are assuming that plugging Love into a lineup would reduce Tristan's playtime or effectiveness. I'm saying it adds an entire dimension.

All the time LBJ played at the 4? Reduced. All the time JR Smith had to be a 2nd option? Reduced. We ran a lot of lineups that looked like this:

Delly
Smith
Shumpert
LBJ
Thompson

Or:

Delly
Shumpert
LBJ
James Jones
Thompson

Kevin Love playing is not gonna sap all the minutes away from Thompson. With adjustments it would've come away from JR and James Jones.

I mean come on, James Jones can't defend better than Love or pass or rebound or ANYTHING. He averaged close to 30 minutes a game in the finals.

You can't sit here and act like Love would've drained minutes from Thompson and so we would've been worse defensively when we were already giving JJ 30 minutes because we we're depleted. Adding Love and Irving:

Adds depth
Adds all star scoring x2
Makes LBJ play better
Makes JR play better
Keeps people more fresh

I challenge anyone to suggest 30 minute James Jones is a better fit than Love.

Vee-Rex
10-07-2015, 07:53 PM
You guys are seriously devaluing what depth means.

You guys are also looking at TT being a PF and Love being a PF and using kindergarten logic in thinking one playing is gonna kill the minutes for the other. Once GS went small (and took away the TT + Moz combo) Kevin Love's value skyrocketed.

Vee-Rex
10-07-2015, 07:59 PM
AGAIN (for the trolls), I'm not stating a healthy Cavs would've been champs. I'm saying we're better when healthy against everyone and far more flexible than when we're hurt.

SteBO
10-07-2015, 08:18 PM
The straw-man arguments in here are amazing...as if anyone was actually suggesting Dellevadova/Tristan are better players than Irving/Love. There's no denying that they're a pretty good deal better defensively though and it's their defense that was the biggest contributor outside of LeBron that netted them two wins in the first place.

Vee-Rex
10-07-2015, 09:38 PM
The straw-man arguments in here are amazing...as if anyone was actually suggesting Dellevadova/Tristan are better players than Irving/Love. There's no denying that they're a pretty good deal better defensively though and it's their defense that was the biggest contributor outside of LeBron that netted them two wins in the first place.

Delly
Shumpert
Bron
Jones
Thompson

Delly
Shumpert
Bron
Lovr
Thompson

Which is better? Number 2. So why is ANYONE arguing that adding Love would make us worse against the Dubs???

Vee-Rex
10-07-2015, 09:41 PM
If we gave all James Jones minutes to Love how would the Cave be a worse team? I'm only pushing this because I want someone to answer my question.

RLundi
10-07-2015, 09:48 PM
Geez, that thread title.

tredigs
10-07-2015, 10:02 PM
Geez, that thread title.

Honestly. Sad that we're having a semi-legitimate discussion in a thread started by a drunk 3rd grader.

Saddletramp
10-07-2015, 10:10 PM
He posts these dumb threads where he mangles words together and people take them as legit discussions. Speaking of which, where's whatshisname?

likemystylez
10-07-2015, 11:09 PM
Assuming by using a one game standard, that game went into overtime and Irving got hurt during the overtime. So if Irving was to play in all games, 100% would've went to overtime. And since we don't know if the Cavs would've won or not (since Irving got hurt before the overtime period was over), it's safe to assume that all games would have been a coin flip and either team could have won.



See how stupid using one game as a sample size is? You've been on a roll lately.


And Irving was hobbled during the game and couldn't even finish it.

Irving has been hobbled more than half the time since he was like 17. Heck hes currently hobbled and he isnt even playing.... its not really an excuse, its who irving is. Is it realistic to bank on him not being hobbled when the team needs him?

BTW boguts been less than 100% since like 2011... not an excuse. winners find ways to win games and dont look for injury excuses every time you turn around

Saddletramp
10-07-2015, 11:42 PM
Irving has been hobbled more than half the time since he was like 17. Heck hes currently hobbled and he isnt even playing.... its not really an excuse, its who irving is. Is it realistic to bank on him not being hobbled when the team needs him?

BTW boguts been less than 100% since like 2011... not an excuse. winners find ways to win games and dont look for injury excuses every time you turn around

What does this have to do with your "one game measures all" analysis?

And Bogut? Okay, dude. Man, some of

FlashBolt
10-08-2015, 12:30 AM
haha, no. Maybe in ur mind this is what's happening, but no, this is not what people are saying when they say they think dubs woulda won in the same amount or even less games had those two been on the court. I have yet to see ONE single poster try to argue that tristan and delly are better overall players than love and irving.

No, actually there have been people on this forum that said that Cleveland would have no chance if it wasn't for Delly/Tristan's defense. That is what they are saying. I'm not going to relay to you what others have said. If you're going to make a post, you should know what's being said before accusing me of it being a singular thought. Unfortunately, you actually even stated it: They said Delly/Tristan are better players than Kyrie/Love because they insinuated that GSW would have won the same amount or less. How do you take it any other way?


Well I guess this is kinda a continuation from my last post, but on a squad with Lebron and Irving, a player (TT) who can dominate the boards means something. It means A LOT actually. Whereas a player (Love) who can have an offense run through him means nothing (at least in the cavs current system. I don't understand why he's not a bench player who can run a dominant second unit. Blatts an idiot). Its like if you already have Duncan and D Rob, adding Ewing ain't gonna do **** for you, but adding Starks will, see what I'm saying?

You failed to make a legitimate argument. Why? Because you add two players who are of the same position then expect them to work. My position is that Love/Irving on the court is more dangerous than Thompson/Delly. Those two healthy would have been offensive load that would far outweigh the defensive overlap contributed from Delly/Thompson -- EVEN THOUGH Thompson isn't a great defender and Delly is just a pesky one at best. BTW, you do realize Kevin Love is a great rebounder as well, right? He's also someone who actually requires you to guard him. Watch Tristan Thompson, this guy can't score unless it's a lob. On the offensive end, that's a huge liability. So it's either this: Would you rather have Kyrie+Love or Thompson+Delly. I think that's a no-brainer.

likemystylez
10-08-2015, 12:33 AM
What does this have to do with your "one game measures all" analysis?

And Bogut? Okay, dude. Man, some of

OK, your kind of getting annoying. I brought up the one game cuz that was the only actual data we had between the two teams int he finals with kyrie out there.

People who said the cavs woulda destroyed the warriors with a healthy kyrie... as if its a fact. Well the ONLY actual data we have to gage that did not suggest that to be true.

But if you want to use more than 1 game to prove the warriors were the better team. Look at all last season.

1) Warriors had a better record
2) Warriors were more efficient offensively
3) Warriors were more efficient defensively
4) Warriors were a lot more consistent when it came to playing at a high level
5) Warriors had the best margins of any team in like 8 yrs (even though they sat their starters in 4th quarters half the time)

Warriors did all this in a far tougher conference than the cavs were playing in

Oh yeah, and this was with a healthy K love and Kyrie

FlashBolt
10-08-2015, 12:34 AM
The straw-man arguments in here are amazing...as if anyone was actually suggesting Dellevadova/Tristan are better players than Irving/Love. There's no denying that they're a pretty good deal better defensively though and it's their defense that was the biggest contributor outside of LeBron that netted them two wins in the first place.

So you didn't see anything wrong with Delly pulling up for three or how they were forced to keep J.R. Smith in the game even though he couldn't score a point? And do you honestly think Blatt would keep Delly in a game for 40+ minutes? Stop acting as if Delly is an elite defender... you can't even defend the things Curry does out on the court. And Tristan isn't an elite defender at all. Moz is a much better defender.

krazylegz
10-08-2015, 12:41 AM
judging by the thread title...your not a big fan of the letter S

Saddletramp
10-08-2015, 12:51 AM
OK, your kind of getting annoying. I brought up the one game cuz that was the only actual data we had between the two teams int he finals with kyrie out there.

People who said the cavs woulda destroyed the warriors with a healthy kyrie... as if its a fact. Well the ONLY actual data we have to gage that did not suggest that to be true.

But if you want to use more than 1 game to prove the warriors were the better team. Look at all last season.

1) Warriors had a better record
2) Warriors were more efficient offensively
3) Warriors were more efficient defensively
4) Warriors were a lot more consistent when it came to playing at a high level
5) Warriors had the best margins of any team in like 8 yrs (even though they sat their starters in 4th quarters half the time)

Warriors did all this in a far tougher conference than the cavs were playing in

Oh yeah, and this was with a healthy K love and Kyrie

You do know that all the regular season stuff doesn't mean jack in a 7 game series, right? Anything can happen. And if the Cavs minus Irving/Love won two out of six, then that throws those numbers out. Judging by those stats, the Warriors shouldn't have lost a game.

Also, that was the first year most of those guys were on the team. Oh, and the Warriors were healthy pretty much al year save for Lee, but that opened up time for Green and how'd that work out?

And who's saying things like with Irving it's a fact the Cavs win?

So wait a sec.......you're basically telling me injuries don't matter and "winners find ways to win games". That Warriors core never made it out of the second round before this past year but they won in 2015-16. Shouldn't they have won last year? Or was Mark Jackson just that bad and/or Kerr that good? Bogut was hurt last year but that shouldn't matter because, you know, "winners find ways to win games".

Do you honestly think if the Cavs were 100% healthy and the Warriors were missing Curry and Green with Klay going out in the middle of the series that the Warriors would still win because "winners find ways to win games"?


Like I said earlier, you've been killing it lately.

nastynice
10-08-2015, 05:20 AM
Here's the flaw with that. You are assuming that plugging Love into a lineup would reduce Tristan's playtime or effectiveness. I'm saying it adds an entire dimension.

All the time LBJ played at the 4? Reduced. All the time JR Smith had to be a 2nd option? Reduced. We ran a lot of lineups that looked like this:

Delly
Smith
Shumpert
LBJ
Thompson

Or:

Delly
Shumpert
LBJ
James Jones
Thompson

Kevin Love playing is not gonna sap all the minutes away from Thompson. With adjustments it would've come away from JR and James Jones.

I mean come on, James Jones can't defend better than Love or pass or rebound or ANYTHING. He averaged close to 30 minutes a game in the finals.

You can't sit here and act like Love would've drained minutes from Thompson and so we would've been worse defensively when we were already giving JJ 30 minutes because we we're depleted. Adding Love and Irving:

Adds depth
Adds all star scoring x2
Makes LBJ play better
Makes JR play better
Keeps people more fresh

I challenge anyone to suggest 30 minute James Jones is a better fit than Love.

well you obviously know the cavs much better than me, but I gotta assume that neither Thompson nor Love is able to play the 3 without being a SERIOUS liability in one way or another. So what that leaves us with is them being at C and PF, and I like both these players but I'm sorry, if your two bigs are Love and Thompson, I'm pretty confident GS would absolutely *** rape them down low. Even with the small ball line up, they'd be completely scattered. I don't know, I haven't seen it for myself, but I can't see those two being the bigs and it not being a complete disaster for cleveland.

Generally speaking, would overall team fatigue have gone down? No doubt about it, I'm not (nor do I think anyone is) going to argue against that.

I'm not really following the James Jones thing, he plays the 4? I thought this dude just a completely diff position altogether?

nastynice
10-08-2015, 05:48 AM
No, actually there have been people on this forum that said that Cleveland would have no chance if it wasn't for Delly/Tristan's defense. That is what they are saying. I'm not going to relay to you what others have said. If you're going to make a post, you should know what's being said before accusing me of it being a singular thought. Unfortunately, you actually even stated it: They said Delly/Tristan are better players than Kyrie/Love because they insinuated that GSW would have won the same amount or less. How do you take it any other way?

Saying GS could have very well won in less games is a comment about the matchup, how do you not get that? How could you regularly post on a nba forum and not get that? it doesn't make any sense.

Think about it, how many times at the beginning of the playoffs will people say TEAM A will probably beat TEAM B, TEAM B will probably beat TEAM C, and TEAM C will probably beat TEAM A. They're not saying TEAM A is better than TEAM B, is better than TEAM C, but somehow TEAM C is better than TEAM A. That wouldn't make any sense. What makes people say things like this is because they look at the matchup and comment on it regarding that. Now you understand what I mean by it being a comment about the matchup.

Some years back my boy put major money on the 8 seed dubs to beat the 66 win 1 seed mavs, and what was his basis? Matchup. Nothing else to it. Its not that complicated. Ask any of the other 6 playoff teams in the west wether they want to play the dubs or the mavs that year, they'll ALL rather play the dubs. Mavs were the better team, plain and simple, but they didn't MATCHUP well vs the dubs.

For example, Delly did superb job defending steph in games 2 and 3. Games that they won. Now let's take away that defense, replace it with Irvings defense (which is still pretty good btw) and add onto it Irvings offense (which is clearly in another stratosphere than Delly). Well, I can reasonably (not guaranteed) assume that Curry woulda/coulda hit his stride in both those games with Irving on him. Now what we're basically left with is what scenario would I rather be in, Curry cold while Cavs are missing Irving's offense, or Curry hot and Irving hot. 10 out of 10 times I'll take a hot Curry vs a hot Irving, easily, 10 out of 10 times as a dubs fan that's what I'd rather see, because that's how our team is built to play and win.


You failed to make a legitimate argument. Why? Because you add two players who are of the same position then expect them to work. My position is that Love/Irving on the court is more dangerous than Thompson/Delly. Those two healthy would have been offensive load that would far outweigh the defensive overlap contributed from Delly/Thompson -- EVEN THOUGH Thompson isn't a great defender and Delly is just a pesky one at best. BTW, you do realize Kevin Love is a great rebounder as well, right? He's also someone who actually requires you to guard him. Watch Tristan Thompson, this guy can't score unless it's a lob. On the offensive end, that's a huge liability. So it's either this: Would you rather have Kyrie+Love or Thompson+Delly. I think that's a no-brainer.

I don't know, my argument seems pretty straight forward and sound to me. This boy K Love is an absolute beast on the offensive side of the floor, we saw that in minny. Why does he suck *** all of a sudden in cleveland? Because his team is not asking him to do the things he does best, they're asking him to do things he struggles at. With TT, his team is asking him to do the things he does best. Its pretty easy to see, we saw the same thing happen with Bosh. I called it before the season started, Bosh is gonna go back to being a force, Love is gonna take the Bosh role and struggle and become the "excuse" as to why cleveland struggles. Its EXACTLY what happened.

I can't really say much about Love's rebounding, haven't seen him all that much, but as a dubs fan having Green bang with Love down low is something I would absolutely love to see. You see what Dray Day does, you saw him grab boards he had no business grabbing over and over vs the grizz, there's nothing I've seen out of Love to tell me the same thing wouldn't have happened. Watching TT play in the playoffs, I knew this was the last player I wanna see bang with Green down low, because he plays the exact same way. He absolutely zones in on the glass and plays way bigger than he is, grabs rebounds he has no business grabbing over and over.

I'd rather have Kyrie and Love, no doubt about it. tbh, I'd actually rather have Kyrie and TT, I legit just think TT is a better player in the cavs system than Love, straight up. If the cavs were in a situation where they could only keep one and have to let the other go, they would be stupid as **** to keep love and let TT go. BUT, you give me game 2 Delly, where he overperformed and played imo the biggest x factor in deciding their victory, no bs, I'll take that Delly over Irving. No way as a dubs fan do I want a cold Curry with no Irving over a hot Curry with a hot Irving. Gimme my sniper, I'm a take him every time.

SteBO
10-08-2015, 07:54 AM
So you didn't see anything wrong with Delly pulling up for three or how they were forced to keep J.R. Smith in the game even though he couldn't score a point? And do you honestly think Blatt would keep Delly in a game for 40+ minutes? Stop acting as if Delly is an elite defender... you can't even defend the things Curry does out on the court. And Tristan isn't an elite defender at all. Moz is a much better defender.
I'm not trying to persuade you or vee-rex that Dellevadova and Tristan are elite defenders...but they're a good deal better defensively than Irving/Love. It isn't even debatable really...so unless people are insistent that Irving/Love would've significantly improved their chances (offensively better off clearly) against Golden State I'm not seeing where the debate is. To beat the Warriors or any elite team out west, you'd better have it down defensively. Irving doesn't help that, and Love definitely doesn't cut it either, otherwise he wouldn't have been sat in so many 4th quarters last season. Again, Cavs took the 2-1 lead because their defense was so great. Simple.

likemystylez
10-08-2015, 09:40 AM
You do know that all the regular season stuff doesn't mean jack in a 7 game series, right? Anything can happen. And if the Cavs minus Irving/Love won two out of six, then that throws those numbers out. Judging by those stats, the Warriors shouldn't have lost a game.

Also, that was the first year most of those guys were on the team. Oh, and the Warriors were healthy pretty much al year save for Lee, but that opened up time for Green and how'd that work out?

And who's saying things like with Irving it's a fact the Cavs win?

So wait a sec.......you're basically telling me injuries don't matter and "winners find ways to win games". That Warriors core never made it out of the second round before this past year but they won in 2015-16. Shouldn't they have won last year? Or was Mark Jackson just that bad and/or Kerr that good? Bogut was hurt last year but that shouldn't matter because, you know, "winners find ways to win games".

Do you honestly think if the Cavs were 100% healthy and the Warriors were missing Curry and Green with Klay going out in the middle of the series that the Warriors would still win because "winners find ways to win games"?


Like I said earlier, you've been killing it lately.

Warriors main reason for underachieving was mark jackson. He ran isolation basketball with one of the most talented passing starting line ups in recent memory. Their talent base is basically the same the year after jackson left.

It isnt that kerr is that great- he just had common sense and wanted to play to the players strengths. Its not like they brought in a lebron james or something to turn things around. 16 extra wins in this western conference didnt come from adding barbosa and brandon rush.

Despite what jacksons best buddies at espn say about his amazing coaching job, the FACT is he hasnt even been given an interview with any other team since leaving the warriors. (LOL and there are teams hiring coaches out of college with nothing related to the nba on their resume). That should show how horrible jackson was as a coach.

wasnt about bogut being injured last year in the playoffs- heck they didnt even play him this yr the last 3 games of the finals. Aside from that Bogut is the player the warriors traded for. LOL I think he was literally injured when they traded for him... so him being injured when they need him is something they should be prepared for.

Vee-Rex
10-08-2015, 10:18 AM
well you obviously know the cavs much better than me, but I gotta assume that neither Thompson nor Love is able to play the 3 without being a SERIOUS liability in one way or another. So what that leaves us with is them being at C and PF, and I like both these players but I'm sorry, if your two bigs are Love and Thompson, I'm pretty confident GS would absolutely *** rape them down low. Even with the small ball line up, they'd be completely scattered. I don't know, I haven't seen it for myself, but I can't see those two being the bigs and it not being a complete disaster for cleveland.

Generally speaking, would overall team fatigue have gone down? No doubt about it, I'm not (nor do I think anyone is) going to argue against that.

I'm not really following the James Jones thing, he plays the 4? I thought this dude just a completely diff position altogether?

Yes, James Jones plays the 4 in our system. Either him or LeBron (and LBJ played the 3 in the finals).

We also gave extended minutes to Mike Miller during a couple of the games. There's no way you guys would *** rape Love anymore than you would Miller/Jones. Love is also an ELITE rebounder.

You're stating how you see disaster with Love/Thompson playing together but ignoring the fact that we had Miller/Jones + Thompson in our small ball lineup in the finals.

So with ^^^^^ this being the case, how would adding Love suddenly make us much worse, given that he's:

an elite rebounder
an incredible passer
creates his own offense
spreads the floor

The only horse I have left in this race is getting people to understand that adding Love and Irving WON'T make our team worse.

Chronz
10-08-2015, 12:12 PM
LOL stay healthy? well there goes that ship. They are already talking about missing shumpert, and irving for extensive time and were a week into training camp

How so? Playoffs are a ways away

tredigs
10-08-2015, 12:17 PM
How so? Playoffs are a ways away

He's alluding to the fact that a chunk of their core players have massive injury history (Varajao/Love/Irving etc). The #1 ability is availability.

Chronz
10-08-2015, 12:18 PM
Did Bron run out of gas? I feel like he was going stronger than I saw him at any point during the season, and that was probably in large part to having the longest amount of rest in NBA history between a ECF and a Finals. It was almost as long as his mid-season vacation in Miami. His shot was off, sure. But how was that any different than the 2 months leading up to the series?
His shot was better than the stretch you allude to but His post game evaporated after a few games. You Can't reasonably expect such a Herculean effort to last as long as it did. There was a clear difference towards the end of the series imo. That vacation doesn't erase the massive mileage in a series months away from occurring. He's also made the finals annually, you have to conserve Bron at this point.

likemystylez
10-08-2015, 12:22 PM
How so? Playoffs are a ways away

Well as of right now they haven't played a game in months and have had a ton of time to get rested and they still aren't available. Can you count on everyone to be out there for the playoffs.

I must have misunderstood the point I was responding too. Someone said that the cavs need to stay healthy. I thought they meant through out the season- but if season health means nothing and just during the playoffs is what matters... maybe its different. None the less though, were still talking about players who are injured often reg season and playoffs.

Chronz
10-08-2015, 12:22 PM
This, also Delly was on IVs toward the end. He was gassed out of his mind.

I don't know who'd have won if those guys were healthy (depending on what Kerr would have thrown at the Cavs) but people are dumber than a box of rocks if they think the Cavs were better off without Irving and Love playing.
So much this. I can see the criticism. Was Delly tired? Dude barely played all year. Yes. Dude was exhausted

Chronz
10-08-2015, 12:25 PM
Well as of right now they haven't played a game in months and have had a ton of time to get rested and they still aren't available. Can you count on everyone to be out there for the playoffs.

I must have misunderstood the point I was responding too. Someone said that the cavs need to stay healthy. I thought they meant through out the season- but if season health means nothing and just during the playoffs is what matters... maybe its different. None the less though, were still talking about players who are injured often reg season and playoffs.
It's always about timing. Don't know wat you Mean about being injured for the playoffs when some of these guys have only been in 1 stretch run. Kyrie nearly made it, love suffered a rare injury.

Chronz
10-08-2015, 12:26 PM
He's alluding to the fact that a chunk of their core players have massive injury history (Varajao/Love/Irving etc). The #1 ability is availability.
So did Steph at 1 point. Doesn't change what i said and definitely wasn't wat he elaborated on.

tredigs
10-08-2015, 12:27 PM
His shot was better than the stretch you allude to but His post game evaporated after a few games. You Can't reasonably expect such a Herculean effort to last as long as it did. There was a clear difference towards the end of the series imo. That vacation doesn't erase the massive mileage in a series months away from occurring. He's also made the finals annually, you have to conserve Bron at this point.

I didn't see any difference between game 2 where he shot like 29% from the field on massive volume and game 6 to be honest. I'm with you on the the accumulation of deep runs, but between him playing the least minutes of his career in the reg season + his vacation + literally the most rest ever before a Finals series, we saw him in a form that he had not yet been in at any point prior during the season. Didn't change the fact that he still couldn't shoot and wasn't really doing anything defensively, but he had Goku level energy.


So did Steph at 1 point. Doesn't change what i said and definitely wasn't wat he elaborated on.

Steph worked to get way beyond those early ankle issues, though. That was almost half a decade ago. Not too relevant as it pertains to the likelihood of injury entering the playoffs this season. Maybe I was wrong to suggest that's what he was getting at, but it's definitely a key issue for them to a degree more so than most teams will likely have to face. Varajao/Love/Irving are chronically injury prone.

Chronz
10-08-2015, 12:33 PM
You guys are seriously devaluing what depth means.

You guys are also looking at TT being a PF and Love being a PF and using kindergarten logic in thinking one playing is gonna kill the minutes for the other. Once GS went small (and took away the TT + Moz combo) Kevin Love's value skyrocketed.
Bingo. Playoffs are about adjustments and the Cavs we're 1 trick pony. Those guys were inept offensively.

likemystylez
10-08-2015, 12:41 PM
It's always about timing. Don't know wat you Mean about being injured for the playoffs when some of these guys have only been in 1 stretch run. Kyrie nearly made it, love suffered a rare injury.

Of course timing is important, but if a guy is repeatedly finding ways to sit out and getting injured, then he gets injured during an important stretch of games or a play off run. Its not really accurate to just call it horrible luck. That's kinda what the guy is, and the team should be prepared to manage that situation OR DONT BUILD A TEAM USING THOSE GUYS AS YOUR CORNERSTONES.

nastynice
10-09-2015, 06:30 AM
Yes, James Jones plays the 4 in our system. Either him or LeBron (and LBJ played the 3 in the finals).

We also gave extended minutes to Mike Miller during a couple of the games. There's no way you guys would *** rape Love anymore than you would Miller/Jones. Love is also an ELITE rebounder.

You're stating how you see disaster with Love/Thompson playing together but ignoring the fact that we had Miller/Jones + Thompson in our small ball lineup in the finals.

So with ^^^^^ this being the case, how would adding Love suddenly make us much worse, given that he's:

an elite rebounder
an incredible passer
creates his own offense
spreads the floor

The only horse I have left in this race is getting people to understand that adding Love and Irving WON'T make our team worse.

yea ok, well I'm definitely not gonna say that having james jones is better for cleveland than having love.

Well as far as love getting *** raped, I guess it kinda depends on what the situation is, what the lineups are. We saw a lot of Mozgov + TT this finals, and imo, that made cleveland a significantly better team in the paint. If you're gonna go from Mozgov + TT to Mozgov + Love, then yes, I think we are getting into an *** raping (lol) situation here.

If we're going to change Miller or Jones with Love for the small ball lineup, sure I guess he won't be a huge drop off I really don't know, but I do think with our small ball we pretty easily can pull him away from the basket and make him a nothing on the defensive boards. While cleveland themselves willingly make him a nothing on the offensive boards, so I don't see his rebounding playing a factor in multiple situations (is he really elite on the boards?? I'm not saying ur wrong, just I never saw anything to suggest that). I don't know, its all speculation

Also as far as Love spreading the floor, don't Jones and Miller shoot on par with Love? Compared to TT he can def spread the floor tho, no argument there.

As far as him creating his own offense, very true. Matter of fact, while I thought the cavs were a straight up better team without Love (cuz now TT starts and makes them a better team, this isn't really taking depth into account), the Love injury hurt them once the Kyrie injury happened. I was looking at cleveland and I was like oh ****, this team is better with love in street clothes, but when Kyrie messed himself up, then I knew not having love was gonna hurt them. Blatts an idiot tho, he probably woulda just still kept going thru lebron until he had a seizure or something. Mozgov was creating his own offense too, yet Blatt for some reason decided to abandon it.

Cavs are better with Kyrie and Love vs Delly and TT. Straight up better team. If dubs and cavs start a series tomorrow, of course Cavs would want those guys healthy. But what I'm getting at regarding how the finals played out is those worse players, Delly straight up won you guys game 2. He also made HUGE shots at the end of game 3 which played a major role in the win. TT was killing it all series and was a huge factor in all the wins AND losses. So its not like these guys were in there and became a liability yet cleveland still found a way to win. Its that these guys went in there and were both MAJOR reasons for why cleveland won to games. So you can't just throw Irving into the mix and be like well if they won 2 games without him then they shoulda definitely won more than 2 with him, since he's better than delly. Because delly and TT in games 2 and 3 was playing major ball and one of the, if not the, biggest reason cleveland won those games.

Now as far as delly in game 6, fine, the guy was basically toast by that point and he was just ineffective all around. If delly played like that ALL series, yet cleveland won 2 games, then I could see why people would be like oh well if irving was in then cavs woulda def either went 7 or won. But that's not the case, you can't take the guy who won you a game, and played a major part in the other, out of the equation yet act as those two wins still stand on their own. If Irving played game 2, cleveland could have very easily ended up losing that game, and if I were to bet one way or the other I'd put my money on GS, because like I said earlier, gimme a hot Curry vs a hot Irving all day every day.

Vee-Rex
10-09-2015, 01:21 PM
yea ok, well I'm definitely not gonna say that having james jones is better for cleveland than having love.

Well as far as love getting *** raped, I guess it kinda depends on what the situation is, what the lineups are. We saw a lot of Mozgov + TT this finals, and imo, that made cleveland a significantly better team in the paint. If you're gonna go from Mozgov + TT to Mozgov + Love, then yes, I think we are getting into an *** raping (lol) situation here.

If we're going to change Miller or Jones with Love for the small ball lineup, sure I guess he won't be a huge drop off I really don't know, but I do think with our small ball we pretty easily can pull him away from the basket and make him a nothing on the defensive boards. While cleveland themselves willingly make him a nothing on the offensive boards, so I don't see his rebounding playing a factor in multiple situations (is he really elite on the boards?? I'm not saying ur wrong, just I never saw anything to suggest that). I don't know, its all speculation

Also as far as Love spreading the floor, don't Jones and Miller shoot on par with Love? Compared to TT he can def spread the floor tho, no argument there.

As far as him creating his own offense, very true. Matter of fact, while I thought the cavs were a straight up better team without Love (cuz now TT starts and makes them a better team, this isn't really taking depth into account), the Love injury hurt them once the Kyrie injury happened. I was looking at cleveland and I was like oh ****, this team is better with love in street clothes, but when Kyrie messed himself up, then I knew not having love was gonna hurt them. Blatts an idiot tho, he probably woulda just still kept going thru lebron until he had a seizure or something. Mozgov was creating his own offense too, yet Blatt for some reason decided to abandon it.

Cavs are better with Kyrie and Love vs Delly and TT. Straight up better team. If dubs and cavs start a series tomorrow, of course Cavs would want those guys healthy. But what I'm getting at regarding how the finals played out is those worse players, Delly straight up won you guys game 2. He also made HUGE shots at the end of game 3 which played a major role in the win. TT was killing it all series and was a huge factor in all the wins AND losses. So its not like these guys were in there and became a liability yet cleveland still found a way to win. Its that these guys went in there and were both MAJOR reasons for why cleveland won to games. So you can't just throw Irving into the mix and be like well if they won 2 games without him then they shoulda definitely won more than 2 with him, since he's better than delly. Because delly and TT in games 2 and 3 was playing major ball and one of the, if not the, biggest reason cleveland won those games.

Now as far as delly in game 6, fine, the guy was basically toast by that point and he was just ineffective all around. If delly played like that ALL series, yet cleveland won 2 games, then I could see why people would be like oh well if irving was in then cavs woulda def either went 7 or won. But that's not the case, you can't take the guy who won you a game, and played a major part in the other, out of the equation yet act as those two wins still stand on their own. If Irving played game 2, cleveland could have very easily ended up losing that game, and if I were to bet one way or the other I'd put my money on GS, because like I said earlier, gimme a hot Curry vs a hot Irving all day every day.

Is Love an elite rebounder? Lol the dude averages 13 rebounds a game for his career. Love is 10x better of a rebounder than James Jones. At this point, I'm thinking you don't know much about him and you're just judging him entirely off his year with the Cavs, a year where he was a first time ever 3rd option (and there were chemistry issues). Add in a rookie coach and the Cavs struggles to implement him were natural.

I'm not devaluing what Delly and TT did for us. But you gotta admit, those 2 wins against GS were on heart alone. That's not winning basketball. That's desperation basketball, and while I'm proud of them going all out, there's no way with just those two (minus Love + Irving) that we could ever beat GS in a 7 game series. Just not happening. If anything, I think if we played the Dubs RIGHT NOW minus Irving + Love they'd smack us no matter how hard Delly + TT played. Those dudes played great for us but it also came as a surprise to GS and I don't think they were prepared for it. That's why we won 2 games.

If we add Irving + Love, we could still give valuable minutes to both TT and Delly (even if it's a little less, it's still valuable) while retaining an explosive offensive punch that we lacked in the finals, WHILE allowing LeBron to be more effective and not running on fumes at the end of the series, WHILE allowing JR to be comfortable as a 4th/5th option instead of a 2nd.

A hot Irving will bust double nickels on you and you can't do anything about it, just as a hot Curry would. Curry is just more consistent on a game to game basis, but believe me your team is better off facing Delly than risking facing a hot Irving.

I do agree with you that Blatt was an idiot with the minute management in the finals. There's a couple other things I criticize him about but oh well, he got our depleted team to do better than most would have imagined.

Edit: 12 rebounds for his career. Per 36 minutes it's 13. My bad.

IKnowHoops
10-10-2015, 12:26 AM
well not just on this site- also in the real world. cavs with irving 0-1 0%, without irving 2-3 40%. They have a 40% higher chance of winning without irving. (Based on the info we actually have and not speculating)


That's what actually happened- but you keep playing 2k bud, and lets use that to determine the outcome. Keep it on rookie setting champ!

The thing your failing to realize is that the Cavs lost to GS because they ran out of gas with short roster they had after Love and Kyrie went down. The biggest thing they loose from loosing Kyrie and Love is depth. Those two players would of spared so much energy for the team overall. I think the Cavs(Lebron) was able to simply will the team to victories, and was going to continue to do so as long as he had the energy. He was playing 48 plus minutes a game for 4 games in a row and then he died. And so did every player on the Cavs. They burnt out and lost due to lack of depth caused by the injuries. Without those injuries Cavs will have the energy to just overpower GS like they did in there early victories when both teams were fully energized.

IKnowHoops
10-10-2015, 12:42 AM
I'm not trying to persuade you or vee-rex that Dellevadova and Tristan are elite defenders...but they're a good deal better defensively than Irving/Love. It isn't even debatable really...so unless people are insistent that Irving/Love would've significantly improved their chances (offensively better off clearly) against Golden State I'm not seeing where the debate is. To beat the Warriors or any elite team out west, you'd better have it down defensively. Irving doesn't help that, and Love definitely doesn't cut it either, otherwise he wouldn't have been sat in so many 4th quarters last season. Again, Cavs took the 2-1 lead because their defense was so great. Simple.

IMO, the Cavs lost only because they ran out of energy. With Kyrie and Love, they are able to go strong for a 7 game series, and I think they would of won.

LegendX
10-10-2015, 01:07 AM
Pop lost to a LeBron-coached team in 2013. Kerr was a healthy Kyrie or Love away from losing to one in 2015.

No.

nastynice
10-10-2015, 01:53 AM
Is Love an elite rebounder? Lol the dude averages 13 rebounds a game for his career. Love is 10x better of a rebounder than James Jones. At this point, I'm thinking you don't know much about him and you're just judging him entirely off his year with the Cavs, a year where he was a first time ever 3rd option (and there were chemistry issues). Add in a rookie coach and the Cavs struggles to implement him were natural.

I'm not devaluing what Delly and TT did for us. But you gotta admit, those 2 wins against GS were on heart alone. That's not winning basketball. That's desperation basketball, and while I'm proud of them going all out, there's no way with just those two (minus Love + Irving) that we could ever beat GS in a 7 game series. Just not happening. If anything, I think if we played the Dubs RIGHT NOW minus Irving + Love they'd smack us no matter how hard Delly + TT played. Those dudes played great for us but it also came as a surprise to GS and I don't think they were prepared for it. That's why we won 2 games.

If we add Irving + Love, we could still give valuable minutes to both TT and Delly (even if it's a little less, it's still valuable) while retaining an explosive offensive punch that we lacked in the finals, WHILE allowing LeBron to be more effective and not running on fumes at the end of the series, WHILE allowing JR to be comfortable as a 4th/5th option instead of a 2nd.

A hot Irving will bust double nickels on you and you can't do anything about it, just as a hot Curry would. Curry is just more consistent on a game to game basis, but believe me your team is better off facing Delly than risking facing a hot Irving.

I do agree with you that Blatt was an idiot with the minute management in the finals. There's a couple other things I criticize him about but oh well, he got our depleted team to do better than most would have imagined.

Edit: 12 rebounds for his career. Per 36 minutes it's 13. My bad.

13 boards a game is pretty damn good, no doubt, I usually base my opinion off of what I see them doing (for example I have no clue how many boards/game TT gets, but he is a GREAT rebounder, because he consistently gets rebounds that he has no business getting. He literally steals rebounds from other players in position, which I value much more than simply having a ball bounce your way), but still that's a hard stat to argue against. Tho to my understanding Love was always parked out in 3 point territory, so I'm not sure how effective he is when on the floor with the cavs.

I agree that Delly and TT would still get minutes, and the overall fatigue of the team would benefit regardless, but I'm just not sure how many. We got to see a very effective Delly, so its easy to look at the series and be like well we could have gave him lots of minutes to help shut down curry. But in reality, no one knew he would/could do that, if I were to guess my guess would be Blatt would run Irving into the ground, Delly would still get minutes, but very little. TT would also get minutes, prob more than Delly cuz he was slowly proving himself in the previous rounds, so I'm sure the cavs woulda known they do have something in him and tried to use it. But STILL, having Love on the court would gash into TT's minutes. By how much? I have no clue, I can't really say.

When you ask me if I'd rather face delly or irving, depends which delly ur talking about. Game 2 and 3 delly, yea, easy call, I'd rather see irving all day and its really not close. Game 5 and 6 delly, ok, yea, wouldn't mind seeing that guy on the court.

The bolded paragraph really beautifully sums up the whole idea I was trying to get across to begin with. Saying dubs COULD have beat cavs in less than 6 if irving and love were healthy is a legitimate statement, because of what you're saying right there. The two back ups were the REASON they won 2 games. Now you take those backups out and insert the starters, maybe they woulda won, maybe they woulda lost. Tough call, because while you're inserting two better players (irving and love are clearly better overall players, that's really not up for debate), those two better players replaced the two players that kinda won them those games.

Vee-Rex
10-10-2015, 10:12 AM
13 boards a game is pretty damn good, no doubt, I usually base my opinion off of what I see them doing (for example I have no clue how many boards/game TT gets, but he is a GREAT rebounder, because he consistently gets rebounds that he has no business getting. He literally steals rebounds from other players in position, which I value much more than simply having a ball bounce your way), but still that's a hard stat to argue against. Tho to my understanding Love was always parked out in 3 point territory, so I'm not sure how effective he is when on the floor with the cavs.

I agree that Delly and TT would still get minutes, and the overall fatigue of the team would benefit regardless, but I'm just not sure how many. We got to see a very effective Delly, so its easy to look at the series and be like well we could have gave him lots of minutes to help shut down curry. But in reality, no one knew he would/could do that, if I were to guess my guess would be Blatt would run Irving into the ground, Delly would still get minutes, but very little. TT would also get minutes, prob more than Delly cuz he was slowly proving himself in the previous rounds, so I'm sure the cavs woulda known they do have something in him and tried to use it. But STILL, having Love on the court would gash into TT's minutes. By how much? I have no clue, I can't really say.

When you ask me if I'd rather face delly or irving, depends which delly ur talking about. Game 2 and 3 delly, yea, easy call, I'd rather see irving all day and its really not close. Game 5 and 6 delly, ok, yea, wouldn't mind seeing that guy on the court.

The bolded paragraph really beautifully sums up the whole idea I was trying to get across to begin with. Saying dubs COULD have beat cavs in less than 6 if irving and love were healthy is a legitimate statement, because of what you're saying right there. The two back ups were the REASON they won 2 games. Now you take those backups out and insert the starters, maybe they woulda won, maybe they woulda lost. Tough call, because while you're inserting two better players (irving and love are clearly better overall players, that's really not up for debate), those two better players replaced the two players that kinda won them those games.

I gotcha. Everything is a hypothetical at this point. I do think Blatt had a terrific game plan in defending Klay and Curry until Kerr went small and forced Mozzy to defend the pick n roll (he got killed).

I believe we'd be better with our 2 all stars but if Blatt doesn't game plan well we could've still lost in 5 or 6. I disagree but its not impossible I suppose.

SteBO
10-10-2015, 02:47 PM
IMO, the Cavs lost only because they ran out of energy. With Kyrie and Love, they are able to go strong for a 7 game series, and I think they would of won.
C'mon man, they swept two playoff series' and went six games against the Bulls. They had a helluva easier time than Golden State did entering the Finals, that's for sure, and yet you're pinning their loss on fatigue? Kerr took Bogut out of the picture, inserted Iggy and the Cavs had no answer for it, period. Irving/Love being available wasn't gonna offset that and again, that only helps them offensively.....and that's the problem I keep seeing with people trying to elevate these two. Defense is the only thing that's going to take the Warriors down. Those two certainly weren't going to aid them in that department, or at least that's what most people deduce based on their career paths thus far.

kdspurman
10-10-2015, 03:06 PM
C'mon man, they swept two playoff series' and went six games against the Bulls. They had a helluva easier time than Golden State did entering the Finals, that's for sure, and yet you're pinning their loss on fatigue? Kerr took Bogut out of the picture, inserted Iggy and the Cavs had no answer for it, period. Irving/Love being available wasn't gonna offset that and again, that only helps them offensively.....and that's the problem I keep seeing with people trying to elevate these two. Defense is the only thing that's going to take the Warriors down. Those two certainly weren't going to aid them in that department, or at least that's what most people deduce based on their career paths thus far.

I think having a capable offense and making the Warriors defense work a bit would certainly have an impact as well. I mean let's face it, the Cavs offense was pretty predictable, and thus they were easier to defend. Adding Irving/Love puts some pressure on the Warriors defense and possibly foul trouble for some key guys. i get there will be a drop off with the defensive schemes and the way they played on that end, but I think at the end of the day, on the biggest stage, you went your best players out there.

SteBO
10-10-2015, 03:46 PM
Well LeBron WAS the offense lol so yes, having them out there makes an offensive difference. But against GS, I don't think it makes as big an impact considering they were the best defensive team in the league from start to finish. This is all hypothetical anyway, but it's never as simple as "x happens, so y is less likely to happen" especially when we're the best teams in their respective conferences.

IKnowHoops
10-10-2015, 08:23 PM
C'mon man, they swept two playoff series' and went six games against the Bulls. They had a helluva easier time than Golden State did entering the Finals, that's for sure, and yet you're pinning their loss on fatigue? Kerr took Bogut out of the picture, inserted Iggy and the Cavs had no answer for it, period. Irving/Love being available wasn't gonna offset that and again, that only helps them offensively.....and that's the problem I keep seeing with people trying to elevate these two. Defense is the only thing that's going to take the Warriors down. Those two certainly weren't going to aid them in that department, or at least that's what most people deduce based on their career paths thus far.

Uh yeah I'm playing the fatigue card, and quite easily I may add. Lebron was playing almost 50 minutes a game during those first 4 when I think 3 of them went into OT. Any player that averages 50 minutes a game for the first four is going to burn out. The whole team was tired. Had nothing to do with any of the previous series. Delly had to get an IV and was playing 40 plus minutes a game. I hope your not seriously thinking that those guys having 100% energy vs needing an IV makes no difference in how they are able to perform.

SteBO
10-10-2015, 08:36 PM
Never said there wasn't a difference nor did I say they weren't fatigued. They were dealt a hand and ultimately overachieved in my book considering what they were up against. Defense won them two games against the most dominant team start to finish. You can play the fatigue card as much as you wish as your reasoning for why CLE lost, it's your opinion and it's not like there isn't an element of truth there. Just know that GS was flat out the better team, regardless of whether or not the opposition was healthy. There's a 90+ game sample size there to prove it....

MILLERHIGHLIFE
10-10-2015, 08:36 PM
C'mon man, they swept two playoff series' and went six games against the Bulls. They had a helluva easier time than Golden State did entering the Finals, that's for sure, and yet you're pinning their loss on fatigue? Kerr took Bogut out of the picture, inserted Iggy and the Cavs had no answer for it, period. Irving/Love being available wasn't gonna offset that and again, that only helps them offensively.....and that's the problem I keep seeing with people trying to elevate these two. Defense is the only thing that's going to take the Warriors down. Those two certainly weren't going to aid them in that department, or at least that's what most people deduce based on their career paths thus far.

Remember Bulls had to play 6 game series versus Bucks as well. Bucks lost but wore them down. Bulls players played heavy minutes and it showed.

kdspurman
10-10-2015, 08:49 PM
Well LeBron WAS the offense lol so yes, having them out there makes an offensive difference. But against GS, I don't think it makes as big an impact considering they were the best defensive team in the league from start to finish. This is all hypothetical anyway, but it's never as simple as "x happens, so y is less likely to happen" especially when we're the best teams in their respective conferences.

They were great defensively, but it doesn't help them to make their lives easier. Like I said maybe foul trouble of something for GS. Who knows, like you said it's all hypothetical lol, but can be fun to debate

SteBO
10-10-2015, 09:05 PM
Remember Bulls had to play 6 game series versus Bucks as well. Bucks lost but wore them down. Bulls players played heavy minutes and it showed.
True. Granted they were buzzer-beater away from sweeping and had an 11-point lead at home up 2-1 against the Cavs, but no matter. Look, not trying to say that fatigue doesn't play a factor . It does, but that also applies to damn near EVERY elite team that make playoff runs. I'm simply against people holding it up as an excuse as to why team x loses. I was actually amazed CLE won two games....because injuries are a completely different story. I may not be completely sold on Irving/Love as enough of a difference maker to take down a team as dominant as GS was, but I also won't act like they aren't important pieces. I apologize if that's how I sound.

Chronz
10-10-2015, 11:55 PM
I didn't see any difference between game 2 where he shot like 29% from the field on massive volume and game 6 to be honest.
Thats a massive improvement on how wayward his jumper was for that month or so stretch. Maybe the media made a bigger deal about it than it should have been but the dude was shooting 17% from 3 before the Finals and then back to numbers more in line with his career average against the Dubs. His jumper was inconsistent but is the willingness to shoot in the finals a definite negative change? Good or bad, I feel like his options were limited on such an offensively anemic squad, particularly once they went small. The Heat won their titles partially on the ability to go small with some Bron ball at the 4 whenever teams dared them. Without Love, they couldn't regain a similar setup. Bron had such little help that Kyrie Irving handed him the 3rd most assisted buckets in the series.


I'm with you on the the accumulation of deep runs, but between him playing the least minutes of his career in the reg season + his vacation + literally the most rest ever before a Finals series, we saw him in a form that he had not yet been in at any point prior during the season. Didn't change the fact that he still couldn't shoot and wasn't really doing anything defensively, but he had Goku level energy.

Total agreement, but that rest doesn't exactly go away if his team is healthy, in fact, I would argue having a healthier, more conducive team (chemistry/consistency wise) would have allowed him even more rest. My entire point is that you cant run Bron ragged anymore, he can play heavy minutes, he just cant do that and everything else. He needs more support than a guy who had to go to the ER after the game.

The MPG down the stretch isn't much of an advantage in a league where all coaches play their best players less and less. Hell, didn't Curry just win an MVP while playing the least amount of MPG ever? If not I bet hes close, maybe Nash territory.
Bron had more of a bounce in his step, I wont disagree with that but my point was that it was unsustainable given the limitations of the squad. And I agree, its the best hes looked, he earned that when his team stomped through the Hawks, but there are always tradeoffs whenever teams have that sort of layoff.


Steph worked to get way beyond those early ankle issues, though.
Im assuming you dont find Love's injury this year to be of the freakish variety? The kind Im sure you're not much likely to see again. Not much he can do about that man. Both guys nearly made it through a full season so you could argue there is already signs of improvement. I just think **** happens personally, unless its a recurring injury due to athletic strain (ala D-Rose/young Curry).


That was almost half a decade ago. Not too relevant as it pertains to the likelihood of injury entering the playoffs this season. Maybe I was wrong to suggest that's what he was getting at, but it's definitely a key issue for them to a degree more so than most teams will likely have to face. Varajao/Love/Irving are chronically injury prone.
Whether thats true or not, it doesn't take away from my point and the point hes fighting against. These Cavs are without a doubt far better equipped to take on the Dubs if they have their full compliment of players. The cast that absolutely dominated the league when in final form (DBZ reference back at you). I see alot of straws about the Cavs winning for sure but thats not what either of us (Vee-Rex and I) have argued.

Chronz
10-10-2015, 11:59 PM
Of course timing is important, but if a guy is repeatedly finding ways to sit out and getting injured, then he gets injured during an important stretch of games or a play off run. Its not really accurate to just call it horrible luck. That's kinda what the guy is, and the team should be prepared to manage that situation OR DONT BUILD A TEAM USING THOSE GUYS AS YOUR CORNERSTONES.
I dont see why not. Thats the kind of thinking that led to the Bucks passing on Stephen Curry and opting to trade for Monta Ellis. WHy be so short sighted when the gamble is worth the investment? I dont think anyone can project health, it actually involves quite abit of luck but we are arguing semantics at that point.

Players can work harder and still suffer more setbacks, you could be right and these guys never stay healthy tho both showed an ability to pace themselves better this year. Either way, my point is they need health and I never said it was based purely on badluck either. But there was a fair bit of that, given how far they got and how everyone the Dubs faced was injured.

Chronz
10-11-2015, 12:07 AM
As for him not doing anything defensively, it was his playing style that somewhat slowed GS attack in transition, that has to count for something.

IKnowHoops
10-12-2015, 11:33 PM
Never said there wasn't a difference nor did I say they weren't fatigued. They were dealt a hand and ultimately overachieved in my book considering what they were up against. Defense won them two games against the most dominant team start to finish. You can play the fatigue card as much as you wish as your reasoning for why CLE lost, it's your opinion and it's not like there isn't an element of truth there. Just know that GS was flat out the better team, regardless of whether or not the opposition was healthy. There's a 90+ game sample size there to prove it....

But if you go by the sample size of after the all star break, the Cavs were the better team. And that is a more accurate sample size because during the first half of the season Bron missed two weeks, Shump wasn't really there, and the team as a whole was figuring things out. In the second half of the season, Cavs had a better record, and a better record against the west than GS did. So...

Jayb587
10-13-2015, 12:12 AM
I just want to fast forward to June and watch the cavs lose again in the finals. I love coming here to read all the LeBron excuses LOL.

nastynice
10-13-2015, 03:21 AM
Whether thats true or not, it doesn't take away from my point and the point hes fighting against. These Cavs are without a doubt far better equipped to take on the Dubs if they have their full compliment of players. The cast that absolutely dominated the league when in final form (DBZ reference back at you). I see alot of straws about the Cavs winning for sure but thats not what either of us (Vee-Rex and I) have argued.

100% agree that cavs are clearly a better overall team with love and Kyrie. Point I'm making tho is that you can't just take away fantastic performances by the backups and say that automatically means they woulda won more games with the starters. It's like if the best pitcher in the league gets injured and the backup is avg but throws a no hitter and they win 1-0, you can't just say that if the starting pitcher was in they woulda def won just cuz he's an overall better player.

Sloppy analogy, but just doing it to illustrate my stance

nastynice
10-13-2015, 03:23 AM
But if you go by the sample size of after the all star break, the Cavs were the better team. And that is a more accurate sample size because during the first half of the season Bron missed two weeks, Shump wasn't really there, and the team as a whole was figuring things out. In the second half of the season, Cavs had a better record, and a better record against the west than GS did. So...

Yea, cavs were def legit. The Hawks were a pretty damn good team and cavs swept them. People are just saying that means Hawks were pretenders, I think it just shows how nasty the cavs were playing

I was excited as hell for that matchup, was sad to see Kyrie go down

SteBO
10-13-2015, 07:54 AM
Yeah the Cavs were really good after the All-Star break....but that still doesn't take away how dominant Golden State was from start to finish and in a much tougher conference to boot.

tredigs
10-13-2015, 11:34 AM
Yea, cavs were def legit. The Hawks were a pretty damn good team and cavs swept them. People are just saying that means Hawks were pretenders, I think it just shows how nasty the cavs were playing

I was excited as hell for that matchup, was sad to see Kyrie go down
No, the Hawks were playing nothing close to the ball they did earlier on. For one, they had a severely banged up Korver and Sefalosha was out due to a NYC cop beating, so their wing game was in disarray. That team looked nothing like their former selves in the post-season, the Cavs playing better ball or not. They had a cake walk ECF with massive rest to boot.

Vee-Rex
10-13-2015, 11:58 AM
No, the Hawks were playing nothing close to the ball they did earlier on. For one, they had a severely banged up Korver and Sefalosha was out due to a NYC cop beating, so their wing game was in disarray. That team looked nothing like their former selves in the post-season, the Cavs playing better ball or not. They had a cake walk ECF with massive rest to boot.

I strongly disagree with the point you're trying to make

I said it ALL YEAR (and was ridiculed on here for it) that the Hawks were extremely overrated. I laid out examples of why their style of ball was gonna get exposed during the playoffs, and it did. They were minutes away from going 7 games against Brooklyn and looked completely outmatched and helpless against the Wizards until Wall got injured.

During the regular season teams aren't game-planning and have trouble defending Atlanta's offense. The playoffs are another story, and the lack of a superstar means Atlanta can't score TOUGH buckets, and the ability to make TOUGH buckets are what separates a championship team from just a good team.

No go-to superstar that can make tough shots means no points on a possession where the defense is stuck on the offense like glue, and in the playoffs the intensity of the defense triples.

The Hawks didn't get dominated and swept because of Sefalosha being gone and Korver being hobbled.

tredigs
10-13-2015, 12:13 PM
^Your early season projection really doesn't change the fact that the Hawks were statistically and eye-test wise playing absolutely nothing close to their early season ball, nor does it change the fact that missing their two best wing players (including their best player to put on Bron + the games best spot-up shooter) severely hurt any chance they'd have had in that series. They were a shell of themselves, and presented absolutely no contest to the Cavs or any of the top 6 Western Conference teams at that point. People talk about the Warriors having an easy run, but the Cavs walk to the Finals - including a pathetic regular season schedule (which will be no different this year with the projected easiest schedule in the NBA) - was a joke.

Vee-Rex
10-13-2015, 01:27 PM
^Your early season projection really doesn't change the fact that the Hawks were statistically and eye-test wise playing absolutely nothing close to their early season ball, nor does it change the fact that missing their two best wing players (including their best player to put on Bron + the games best spot-up shooter) severely hurt any chance they'd have had in that series. They were a shell of themselves, and presented absolutely no contest to the Cavs or any of the top 6 Western Conference teams at that point. People talk about the Warriors having an easy run, but the Cavs walk to the Finals - including a pathetic regular season schedule (which will be no different this year with the projected easiest schedule in the NBA) - was a joke.

LOL what early season ball? Are you talking about ONE MONTH? Their 19 game winning streak was a small portion of their season. You're severely overrating them because you're basing everything off of a single month.

Of course they played nothing close to it afterwards and especially during the playoffs when defenses ramp up. It wasn't an early season projection from me - it was me recognizing that the Hawks overachieved big time during that stretch.

Bron destroys Sefalosha every time they match up. If Korver being hobbled is the reason they nearly got downed by Brooklyn, and most likely would've lost to Washington if Wall (Wizards best player) didn't get hurt, then they're nowhere near as good of a team as you're trying to make them out to be.

At this point anyone trying to claim Atlanta is something they aren't are most likely just trying to discredit the Cavs IMO.

Chronz
10-13-2015, 01:58 PM
100% agree that cavs are clearly a better overall team with love and Kyrie. Point I'm making tho is that you can't just take away fantastic performances by the backups and say that automatically means they woulda won more games with the starters. It's like if the best pitcher in the league gets injured and the backup is avg but throws a no hitter and they win 1-0, you can't just say that if the starting pitcher was in they woulda def won just cuz he's an overall better player.

Sloppy analogy, but just doing it to illustrate my stance
In basketball, every win requires great effort from multiple guys. What we know is the team is more likely to get those performances when they have more of those options. We also saw the ridiculously poor performance from those inferior talents especially once the dubs digged into their treasure chest. Cavs were a 1 trick pony running guys into the ER

SteBO
10-13-2015, 06:00 PM
@Vee-Rex So now Atlanta winning 60+ games means nothing? What's even funnier is that your thinking is coming from other posters' who hold up half a season as representative of what could've been. Top it off with failure of acknowledging of GSW being dominant in a significantly tougher conference, good health playing a factor. You can't ignore the fact that Atlanta was just as broken as it got......I could just as easily say that if healthy ATL could've beaten the a healthy Cavs team using your logic. Health or lack there of isn't just a convenient excuse you can apply to one situation and not the other

tredigs
10-13-2015, 06:10 PM
LOL what early season ball? Are you talking about ONE MONTH? Their 19 game winning streak was a small portion of their season. You're severely overrating them because you're basing everything off of a single month.

Of course they played nothing close to it afterwards and especially during the playoffs when defenses ramp up. It wasn't an early season projection from me - it was me recognizing that the Hawks overachieved big time during that stretch.

Bron destroys Sefalosha every time they match up. If Korver being hobbled is the reason they nearly got downed by Brooklyn, and most likely would've lost to Washington if Wall (Wizards best player) didn't get hurt, then they're nowhere near as good of a team as you're trying to make them out to be.

At this point anyone trying to claim Atlanta is something they aren't are most likely just trying to discredit the Cavs IMO.

No, I'm talking about the 3 month early season stretch where they went 33-2. That's nearly half a season of basketball with 2 losses, and they looked incredible at that point. In their last month of action they went 7-8 and were simply not the same team as they were to begin. Losing Sefalosha + Korver only served to further diminish what they were to begin the year. If it was the Rockets and not the Cavs that they faced in the ECF, I am VERY confident they would have still been absolutely smashed. Likewise with the Spurs, who were out in the 1st round out West.

My comments are to put in perspective how ridiculously easy of a run the Cavs had, which very few seem to acknowledge while commenting on the Dubs path. Not to mention a regular season with no stress of ever worrying about having to make the post-season and a more rested Bron than ever entering the post-season.

Gander13SM
10-13-2015, 06:35 PM
I have no horse in this race. But I've found it strange people arguing the Warriors had it easy.

Yes, they had a bit of luck. Just like when Jordan won his first ring against a broken down Lakers squad (and after the Bulls coaching staff literally stole a copy of the Lakers playbook for the finals). Or Houston sneaking in a ring while Jordan was having a very early mid life crisis.

Luck is needed to win it all. Every champion had a little luck. Let's be honest, Jrue Holiday isn't going to swing an entire series. Mike Conley only missed one game. Houston were missing Beverley (not exactly a game changer imo) and Cleveland were down two stars... with a prolonged injury history (why was anyone surprised they got injured?)

Meanwhile the Cavs are in the weakest conference in NBA history. If the Cavs win it next year, everyone will say they were lucky to be in the East.

Maybe the Cavs would have won last year if they were fully healthy. And maybe the Spurs would have if they never ran into the Clippers. Or maybe Chicago would have won if Rose had never been injured. Ifs and buts. None of it matters. The history books will only say one thing. 2015 NBA Champion; Golden State Warriors

You play who's in front of you. That's all you can do. Winning is winning.

Vee-Rex
10-13-2015, 07:01 PM
No, I'm talking about the 3 month early season stretch where they went 33-2. That's nearly half a season of basketball with 2 losses, and they looked incredible at that point. In their last month of action they went 7-8 and were simply not the same team as they were to begin. Losing Sefalosha + Korver only served to further diminish what they were to begin the year. If it was the Rockets and not the Cavs that they faced in the ECF, I am VERY confident they would have still been absolutely smashed. Likewise with the Spurs, who were out in the 1st round out West.

My comments are to put in perspective how ridiculously easy of a run the Cavs had, which very few seem to acknowledge while commenting on the Dubs path. Not to mention a regular season with no stress of ever worrying about having to make the post-season and a more rested Bron than ever entering the post-season.

That involved the 19 game winning streak. Adding in some games before and after just to try to illustrate a point doesn't mean anything.

The 2008 Houston Rockets went on a 22-game winning streak. They went 31-3 in a 3 month stretch. That's nearly half a season with only 3 losses.

Winning stretch of games is absolutely meaningless. It happens quite a bit. Consistency is what determines success.

I took you to be a fairly level-headed poster but if you're gonna sit here and argue that the Hawks didn't overachieve and that missing Sefalosha and having Korver hobbled is why they got swept, I'm not sure what to say. You're the only one arguing that point.

Also, everyone and their grandma know that the Cavs had a watered down schedule. It's not their fault. At least they played 2 of the 3 best teams in the East (Hawks/Bulls) and won despite being depleted. The Warriors dodged the Clippers/Spurs and even OKC, who many regard to be an elite team if fully healthy, THEN they played a depleted Cavs team in the finals.

I don't have a problem with that since I've always been one of the top endorsers of how incredible the Dubs are, but I think people bring up how it was watered down for them because others like to claim the 2014-15 Dubs are possibly the best team ever. No one has ever said that about the Cavs.

Just as you believe the Rox would've destroyed the Cavs, I believe the Cavs would have thumped the Dubs if fully healthy in a 6 game series. We're all entitled to our opinions.

tredigs
10-13-2015, 07:06 PM
You seem to not only not understand what I am saying, but you've begun to extrapolate this self-constructed false premise into a new narrative that you're putting on me.

I'll make it simple, here is my underlying point: The 2014/15 Cleveland Cavaliers were very clearly the best Eastern Conference team, and they also had a very easy path to the Finals. I don't expect those prevailing themes to be any different this coming season.

Gander13SM
10-13-2015, 07:21 PM
The Warriors dodged the Clippers/Spurs and even OKC, who many regard to be an elite team if fully healthy, THEN they played a depleted Cavs team in the finals.


The problem is, the Warriors didn't dodge anyone. Clippers couldn't take care of their business, they threw away a 3-1 advantage against Houston who the Dubs eventually defeated. To dodge something means to deliberately avoid someone or something. The Dubs didn't try and avoid anyone, they played who was in front of them. It's not their fault the Clippers choked.

And they would have destroyed OKC if they went into the playoffs as they were at the time. Full health? Why argue something that wasn't going to happen? I don't understand why people feel the need to argue hypothetical situations of how an event could be completely different if such and such. It's all fun and games but guess what? Such and such didn't happen. Deal with the facts and move on.

People are really reaching here. Why would you even talk about what the Cavs could do when healthy? Irving has missed more games in his first four years than Rose did in his first four and Love has been riddle with injuries his entire career. They will never be healthy for an entire post season.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion but everyone has an opinion, only a few have rings. At the end of the day the Warriors won.

More than likely the Cavs get their ring this year and you can rest easy.

Vee-Rex
10-13-2015, 07:44 PM
The problem is, the Warriors didn't dodge anyone. Clippers couldn't take care of their business, they threw away a 3-1 advantage against Houston who the Dubs eventually defeated. To dodge something means to deliberately avoid someone or something. The Dubs didn't try and avoid anyone, they played who was in front of them. It's not their fault the Clippers choked.

And they would have destroyed OKC if they went into the playoffs as they were at the time. Full health? Why argue something that wasn't going to happen? I don't understand why people feel the need to argue hypothetical situations of how an event could be completely different if such and such. It's all fun and games but guess what? Such and such didn't happen. Deal with the facts and move on.

People are really reaching here. Why would you even talk about what the Cavs could do when healthy? Irving has missed more games in his first four years than Rose did in his first four and Love has been riddle with injuries his entire career. They will never be healthy for an entire post season.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion but everyone has an opinion, only a few have rings. At the end of the day the Warriors won.

More than likely the Cavs get their ring this year and you can rest easy.

Dodge is just a term dude, you're reading way too much into it. They were lucky to avoid those teams. You did not see the Dubs defeat the best of the West and no matter how you want to sugarcoat it by saying LAC blew it and the Spurs couldn't crack it, the fact of the matter is that pretty much every sane fan universally agrees that the Dubs didn't beat the best of the West (although they most certainly could have, and if I was betting I'd bet on them over anyone else).

I only mentioned that because tredigs keeps bringing up ease of schedule/runs. Up until this point I never mentioned it. I do think the Dubs get called out on that BECAUSE people were practically running around screaming how the Dubs were the best team EVER. There was more than one thread about it I believe. THAT is why people bring up their run being watered down IMO.

You don't need to assure me of anything. The only reason why I reluctantly jumped in this thread is because of people implying that the Cavs would've been worse if fully healthy. I argued against it and have not found a valid reply except "it's all hypotheticals... who knows what would have happened".

I crowned the Dubs the night they won game 6. Truly incredible team and I can't criticize them for their run. Who they face isn't their fault at all.

tredigs
10-13-2015, 07:47 PM
Vee-Rex we're both just being slightly defensive over arguments that others are mounting against our teams. Honestly I think we're in 95% agreeance here and I can live with that.

Vee-Rex
10-13-2015, 07:49 PM
You seem to not only not understand what I am saying, but you've begun to extrapolate this self-constructed false premise into a new narrative that you're putting on me.

I'll make it simple, here is my underlying point: The 2014/15 Cleveland Cavaliers were very clearly the best Eastern Conference team, and they also had a very easy path to the Finals. I don't expect those prevailing themes to be any different this coming season.

Eh, that goes without saying.

I do believe the Atlanta Hawks were/are overrated and fully healthy or not would've lost to the Cavs (ESPECIALLY if we were fully healthy). They had no one near Iggy's ability to guard LeBron and their offensive scheme (despite a hobbled Korver) got shut down well.

I suggest you look at some film to see the way Blatt handled their offense (and defense). If I wasn't on my mobile phone I'd post something. He really outcoached Bud and exposed them.

Vee-Rex
10-13-2015, 07:51 PM
Vee-Rex we're both just being slightly defensive over arguments that others are mounting against our teams. Honestly I think we're in 95% agreeance here and I can live with that.

I'm definitely defensive like crazy, heh. I apologize for my tone. Gotta work on that.

tredigs
10-13-2015, 08:06 PM
I'm definitely defensive like crazy, heh. I apologize for my tone. Gotta work on that.

Well, your disposition on here is better than mine most of the time I think. I respect your posts quite a bit and since we mostly agree here, we can move on to the next one --->

Gander13SM
10-13-2015, 08:43 PM
Dodge is just a term dude, you're reading way too much into it. They were lucky to avoid those teams. You did not see the Dubs defeat the best of the West and no matter how you want to sugarcoat it by saying LAC blew it and the Spurs couldn't crack it, the fact of the matter is that pretty much every sane fan universally agrees that the Dubs didn't beat the best of the West (although they most certainly could have, and if I was betting I'd bet on them over anyone else).

I only mentioned that because tredigs keeps bringing up ease of schedule/runs. Up until this point I never mentioned it. I do think the Dubs get called out on that BECAUSE people were practically running around screaming how the Dubs were the best team EVER. There was more than one thread about it I believe. THAT is why people bring up their run being watered down IMO.


1. I'm not suger coating it. I'm stating facts, exactly what happened. Clippers couldn't take care of their business and neither could Spurs. How could this possibly reflect badly on Warriors? That makes no sense. They can only play who is in front of them? Luck? Absolutely. Name one team that won a championship without a bit of luck.

2. Watered down? Jrue Holiday and Patrick Beverley are game changers now? They could swing an entire series? Absolutely not. Cavs missing Kyrie and Loven is significant, the western teams that were banged up were missing high caliber role players, nothing more. Marginally above average for the position. Exception being Conley who only missed one game.

3. You could injure the second best player on every Western conference playoff team, and that post season would still be tougher than a completely healthy eastern conference.

4. Everyone was talking about how Cleveland would dominate coming into the season, with the addition of Love and return of LeBron, people were losing their minds. Not ONE person had the Warriors making the conference finals let alone winning the championship or having one of the greatest regular seasons of the last 30 years. Hype was there for Cavs at the start more than it was for Warriors. Not even close.

5. I think the cavs would suffer TREMENDOUSLY on defense if Irving and especially Love had been starting, I don't think they can outscore the Warriors (given Warriors great defense and great offense to match). So I can see why people might think the Cavs would have been worse if healthy. I don't agree with it necessarily but I can see the logic. It's pretty basic.

tredigs
10-13-2015, 10:39 PM
Gander's a sound poster.

Bartlee23
10-13-2015, 10:46 PM
I have no horse in this race. But I've found it strange people arguing the Warriors had it easy.

Yes, they had a bit of luck. Just like when Jordan won his first ring against a broken down Lakers squad (and after the Bulls coaching staff literally stole a copy of the Lakers playbook for the finals). Or Houston sneaking in a ring while Jordan was having a very early mid life crisis.

Luck is needed to win it all. Every champion had a little luck. Let's be honest, Jrue Holiday isn't going to swing an entire series. Mike Conley only missed one game. Houston were missing Beverley (not exactly a game changer imo) and Cleveland were down two stars... with a prolonged injury history (why was anyone surprised they got injured?)

Meanwhile the Cavs are in the weakest conference in NBA history. If the Cavs win it next year, everyone will say they were lucky to be in the East.

Maybe the Cavs would have won last year if they were fully healthy. And maybe the Spurs would have if they never ran into the Clippers. Or maybe Chicago would have won if Rose had never been injured. Ifs and buts. None of it matters. The history books will only say one thing. 2015 NBA Champion; Golden State Warriors

You play who's in front of you. That's all you can do. Winning is winning.

Let's not forget vs Chicago Lebald's three should not of counted at the buzzer since his coach called a timeout when they didn't have one which would have swung the series in Chicago's favor. Talk about luck.

FlashBolt
10-14-2015, 01:50 AM
Let's not forget vs Chicago Lebald's three should not of counted at the buzzer since his coach called a timeout when they didn't have one which would have swung the series in Chicago's favor. Talk about luck.

What the hell? Refs miss plays and calls all the time. The chances of a coach calling a T/O when they have none are rare to the refs to the point where they didn't even think it was possible to look for. Especially when there is a really close game, refs are going to focus on the guy with the ball 99% of the time. Luck? Haha, that's just a pathetic excuse. Chicago also fouled LeBron on the shot before his gamewinner and refs didn't call it. Can't have it both ways, pal.

Bartlee23
10-14-2015, 08:28 AM
What the hell? Refs miss plays and calls all the time. The chances of a coach calling a T/O when they have none are rare to the refs to the point where they didn't even think it was possible to look for. Especially when there is a really close game, refs are going to focus on the guy with the ball 99% of the time. Luck? Haha, that's just a pathetic excuse. Chicago also fouled LeBron on the shot before his gamewinner and refs didn't call it. Can't have it both ways, pal.

Where did I say refs don't miss calls/plays ????? Fact is he called a timeout and should of been given a tech. The guy was on the court yelling for a timeout. Besides even if Chicago was called for a "foul" which was pretty minor compared to some of the times he gets hacked, what are the chances LeChoke would have made both free throws ???? Probably not very good "pal."

Vee-Rex
10-14-2015, 11:15 AM
Where did I say refs don't miss calls/plays ????? Fact is he called a timeout and should of been given a tech. The guy was on the court yelling for a timeout. Besides even if Chicago was called for a "foul" which was pretty minor compared to some of the times he gets hacked, what are the chances LeChoke would have made both free throws ???? Probably not very good "pal."

LeChoke? Lol you must hate the guy. It was a tie game, so he only would've needed to make one free throw.

Just so you know, if the refs had called Blatt on it, the Bulls would've gotten a technical free throw and the ball back. It was a tie game. They could've missed the technical free throw and it would've just been a one possession game and possibly went into overtime.

Even if they made the free throw, they would've been fouled immediately and the Cavs would've had time to get the ball up the court and shoot one at the buzzer.

So it's not even guaranteed the Bulls would've won that game (very likely but still not a 100% certainty).

Bartlee23
10-14-2015, 06:58 PM
LeChoke? Lol you must hate the guy. It was a tie game, so he only would've needed to make one free throw.

Just so you know, if the refs had called Blatt on it, the Bulls would've gotten a technical free throw and the ball back. It was a tie game. They could've missed the technical free throw and it would've just been a one possession game and possibly went into overtime.

Even if they made the free throw, they would've been fouled immediately and the Cavs would've had time to get the ball up the court and shoot one at the buzzer.

So it's not even guaranteed the Bulls would've won that game (very likely but still not a 100% certainty).

Actually quite the opposite. I think Lebron is a great player but he is not my first choice (by far) when any game is on the line for taking the last shot,free throw,etc. I'll tell you what I do "hate" though. Cleveland fans who burned his jersey,hated every minute he played with Miami,booed him every chance they got at every game,did everything they could to disrespect the man. ( Sound familiar ????)

Do you read what you write? Like I said if the tech was called there is a huge swing in the way that series goes.... yes it was tied but as you stated yourself Chicago would have had a free throw and the ball. Chicago is going to put the best player on the line to shoot it and Chicago is more than likely going to put in strong free throw shooters at the end. Yes Cleveland may get another shot but if I'm a betting man my money is on Chicago to win that game.

Again I never said fouls,calls,etc aren't missed but that was blatant an even a homer should admit that.

Vee-Rex
10-15-2015, 12:42 AM
Actually quite the opposite. I think Lebron is a great player but he is not my first choice (by far) when any game is on the line for taking the last shot,free throw,etc. I'll tell you what I do "hate" though. Cleveland fans who burned his jersey,hated every minute he played with Miami,booed him every chance they got at every game,did everything they could to disrespect the man. ( Sound familiar ????)

Do you read what you write? Like I said if the tech was called there is a huge swing in the way that series goes.... yes it was tied but as you stated yourself Chicago would have had a free throw and the ball. Chicago is going to put the best player on the line to shoot it and Chicago is more than likely going to put in strong free throw shooters at the end. Yes Cleveland may get another shot but if I'm a betting man my money is on Chicago to win that game.

Again I never said fouls,calls,etc aren't missed but that was blatant an even a homer should admit that.

lol there was like a handful of guys that burned his jersey. Keep on hating on c-town and Lebron. I'm sure it gets you far in life.

Also I was just stating it's not guaranteed Chicago win that game. But nevermind it.