After the amazing first round of the NBA playoffs, I knew the second round would be a bit of a letdown and it has been just that so far. These playoffs will have several great moments between now and the finals, but it may never be as good as the ridiculously fun first round, which featured five game 7s including a record breaking three game 7s in one day. There were fifty games total in the first round - which was the highest ever, and eight overtime games with Memphis and OKC playing four straight OT games. There were a couple of buzzer beaters, one of which brought Vince Carter back from the dead and the other pushed Damian Lillard on to the mainstream. Now the playoffs have settled into more of a regular rhythm with the big boys and the upstarts fighting it out as usual. The unpredictability of the first round is gone, but there should still be enough drama for us fans to enjoy. The Heat and the Spurs seem to be having it too easy right now at home. I am sure their lives will get a little tougher and the series will become a lot tighter on the road - especially for the Spurs. But those two teams look like they might be replaying their finals series from last year.
The Pacers and the Thunder are locked in a 1-1 tie and even if they win their respective series - which I expect them to, I am not sure if they can seriously challenge the Heat or the Spurs. The Pacers have home court, which they worked real hard for throughout the season. Of course their story is now well chronicled as they started floundering after the all-star game and their troubles are continuing through the first and second round of the playoffs. I think they will step up and play their best against the Heat because that team has been the red-rag to the Indiana bull for almost three years now. Thats why they wanted home court and if they can't get up for a Eastern conference finals against the Heat, God save them. But they do need to get there first and I won't be surprised if they get dumped by the Wizards. The upstart Wizards are surprisingly a great team with a lot of talent, athleticism, and size and they are gelling at the right time. Game 3 will tell us a lot about both the tied series.
I have always had this theory that the winner of game 3 takes the series if the series is tied 1-1. I believe the theory has been confirmed by some stats as well lately. But in the crazy first round, my theory was right only with two of the five series that were tied 1-1 after two games. I was wrong with two other series, with the weird Indiana team being one of the outliers. The Spurs were the fifth team which almost won game 3 on the road before Vince Carter rolled back the clock by a dozen years and hit that buzzer beater. Basically that game 3 doesn't count in my book. In general, if the road team wins one of the first two games on the road against the higher seed, the higher seed either wrests the momentum with that game 3 win or the lower seed establishes control and equality with a home win. There is always this talk about "stealing home court" with one of those wins in the first two games, but it really doesn't mean a whole lot if the team gives it right back in game 3. This has especially been true this year where the games have been so tight in round 1 with a lot of road wins and upsets.
I am especially interested in seeing what the Clippers do in their game 3 against the Thunder. The Clippers probably have the most complete roster in these playoffs, but I think they are still a year away from challenging the real top dawgs. DeAndre Jordan and Blake Griffin's development this year has catapulted them into the elite category. DeAndre can be an absolute beast on certain days against some teams. They are a little young and still make way too many mistakes to challenge the Spurs. Whoever comes out of the West this year should be able to legitimately challenge and win against the Heat.
The Clippers-Warriors series was the most fun in the first round though it ended up costing Mark Johnson his job. Mark Jackson was definitely good at motivating and leading his players, but he was not a great coach when it came to X's and O's and by all reports, was not too good with other details of coaching either including dealing with his management. He got a lot of credit for turning around a down-trodden franchise, but honestly, neither Jackson, nor his players, nor the owners had anything to do with how bad the Warriors were in 1999 or 2003. So how does the history matter here except for some feel good sentiment among the fans over the last 2 years? It's not like Jackson took Latrell Spreewell and Tood Fuller to the playoffs. This is a different team altogether. He should be evaluated purely on the basis of what he did with this team. They won 51 games, and he deserves a pay raise if he took a 45-win team and manufactured 51 wins out of them. But the coach will get fired these days if he took a team with 55-win talent and won 51 games with it. It's hard to tell what's the reality with this good, but not great Warriors roster. But his bosses clearly think they could and should have done better. That doomed M-Jax at the end. No need to shed any tears or cry foul at this. We have seen way too many 50-win coaches get fired lately. M-Jax will land on his feet anyways and good luck to him rest of the way.
The Pacers and the Thunder are locked in a 1-1 tie and even if they win their respective series - which I expect them to, I am not sure if they can seriously challenge the Heat or the Spurs. The Pacers have home court, which they worked real hard for throughout the season. Of course their story is now well chronicled as they started floundering after the all-star game and their troubles are continuing through the first and second round of the playoffs. I think they will step up and play their best against the Heat because that team has been the red-rag to the Indiana bull for almost three years now. Thats why they wanted home court and if they can't get up for a Eastern conference finals against the Heat, God save them. But they do need to get there first and I won't be surprised if they get dumped by the Wizards. The upstart Wizards are surprisingly a great team with a lot of talent, athleticism, and size and they are gelling at the right time. Game 3 will tell us a lot about both the tied series.
I have always had this theory that the winner of game 3 takes the series if the series is tied 1-1. I believe the theory has been confirmed by some stats as well lately. But in the crazy first round, my theory was right only with two of the five series that were tied 1-1 after two games. I was wrong with two other series, with the weird Indiana team being one of the outliers. The Spurs were the fifth team which almost won game 3 on the road before Vince Carter rolled back the clock by a dozen years and hit that buzzer beater. Basically that game 3 doesn't count in my book. In general, if the road team wins one of the first two games on the road against the higher seed, the higher seed either wrests the momentum with that game 3 win or the lower seed establishes control and equality with a home win. There is always this talk about "stealing home court" with one of those wins in the first two games, but it really doesn't mean a whole lot if the team gives it right back in game 3. This has especially been true this year where the games have been so tight in round 1 with a lot of road wins and upsets.
I am especially interested in seeing what the Clippers do in their game 3 against the Thunder. The Clippers probably have the most complete roster in these playoffs, but I think they are still a year away from challenging the real top dawgs. DeAndre Jordan and Blake Griffin's development this year has catapulted them into the elite category. DeAndre can be an absolute beast on certain days against some teams. They are a little young and still make way too many mistakes to challenge the Spurs. Whoever comes out of the West this year should be able to legitimately challenge and win against the Heat.
The Clippers-Warriors series was the most fun in the first round though it ended up costing Mark Johnson his job. Mark Jackson was definitely good at motivating and leading his players, but he was not a great coach when it came to X's and O's and by all reports, was not too good with other details of coaching either including dealing with his management. He got a lot of credit for turning around a down-trodden franchise, but honestly, neither Jackson, nor his players, nor the owners had anything to do with how bad the Warriors were in 1999 or 2003. So how does the history matter here except for some feel good sentiment among the fans over the last 2 years? It's not like Jackson took Latrell Spreewell and Tood Fuller to the playoffs. This is a different team altogether. He should be evaluated purely on the basis of what he did with this team. They won 51 games, and he deserves a pay raise if he took a 45-win team and manufactured 51 wins out of them. But the coach will get fired these days if he took a team with 55-win talent and won 51 games with it. It's hard to tell what's the reality with this good, but not great Warriors roster. But his bosses clearly think they could and should have done better. That doomed M-Jax at the end. No need to shed any tears or cry foul at this. We have seen way too many 50-win coaches get fired lately. M-Jax will land on his feet anyways and good luck to him rest of the way.
No comments:
Post a Comment