NBA Playoff Predictions

My opinion (for what its worth) San An should beat Cle in 6, but after last years finals, and watching how cle performed vs deet, I think Cle has a good chance to at least make it interesting.

San Antone has bruce bowen who I think will cover bron bron like a blanket and make the rest of cle beat them. gibson will again have to come up big. Ilgauk can I think do some damage against duncan.

Manu will flop himself silly (as usual).

I think that the networks got at least one of the teams that will make thier ratings go - cle with bron bron.

Should be fun

 

Not always.

Yes, a team consists of individuals. Which individuals from Cleveland would start in Detroit's lineup? Or if you put both teams together, who would the starters be? Here's hte answer: Four piston and one Cav.

I don't know. Brown hasn't done much. He may be a very good coach. But he is young. Saunders I am not that impressed with. I don't think he makes good adjustments.

I don't know. I think Wallace will be gone (good riddance). I think there is at least an even chance Billups will be back. I think Detroit will bel looking for two big men to replace Wallace and Webber.

[quote[Detroit was in no position to sweep Clevelnad.[/quote]Sure they were. They lost those games by three points and didn't play well down the stretch.

Because Detroit was ahead. They didn't need the ball.

He didn't.

He wasn't fouled. Hamilton was straight up and moving away from the play. It was similar to Billups at the last of Game 5. The putback is the real beef.

Which makes them loads better the Cleveland.

Yes, I would be surprised if it wasn't.

Based on what though? They haven't really done much aside from beat the Pistons. Which was a great step for them. But the flow of the series was not good. I did think that Game 6 was the best game Cleveland played, and probably the best game Detroit played. But San Antonio is a lot different and a lot better.

 

Moot point, because this isn't the way the league is structured.

In the regular season, Dallas was the best team. They couldn't get the job done in the playoffs. Golden State was the better team. Sorry, Jimmy.

All of this "Detroit is the better team" stuff is the same sort of nonsense we heard 2 years ago when Detroit lost to San Antonio. It was as much sour grapes on the part of Pistons-lovers then as it is now.

 

Hey CC,

Let's try this: Define team and how it is constructed and then tell us who the better team is.

Here's my definition: Team is the collection of players, judged mostly by the starters. It is constructed by pulling together the best players possible.

By that definition, how can you argue that the Cavs are the better team? Which Cavalier players would start in Detroit? How do the benches compare?

It seems to me that it is obvious that Detroit has the better collection of players and by comparing them we can see that. That's not a knock on Cleveland. If anything, it is a compliment. They came together a beat a better team.

 

So you are saying head coaches, assistant coaches and GM's aren't part of it?

 

Yes, always. The team that plays the best is the better team. The team that plays the best wins. The team that wins is the better team.

Z would start over Webber in a heart beat, leaving your spread 3/2. That's irrelevant, anyways, as a "team" consists more of 5 starters.

Your kiddng right? Two 50 win seasons...two playoff appearances...one finals...in his first two year. Quite impressive.

Not the point. Cleveland did have the ball with the last shot. If they make those last shots series is over in 4.

If they were "loads better" they wouldn't have been swept in the season series. I think you are sounding like the "homer" now.

In one breath you claim the Pistons are far superior to the Cavs...and then state they haven't done much besides beat these "superior" Pistons? Deserves some respect, if the Pistons are the best team on the planet, no?
I'm smelling sour grapes...

 

We could compare them on paper and compare each player individually all you want. On paper, maybe the Pistons are better. I don't really know and I don't particularly care about how it plays out on paper. What's odd about this argument is that it's atypical of Pistons-lovers argument. What I hear from Pistons-lovers is usually this:

"We may not have the best individual players, but we have a great TEAM."

And usually, the team is in caps just like that to emphasize the point.

Before and during the series, I never argued, not even once, that the Cavs were the better team. I wish you guys would pay attention to what I actually said. Please go find a quote where I said that the Cavs were the better team. I never said this.

What I said was that the Cavs had a chance, which they clearly did after losing a 2 point game in Game 1. Tim just got mad at me because I dared to challenge the notion that the mighty Pistons could be beat. I didn't put the Pistons up on a pedestal, so he accused me of saying the Cavs were the better team and you bought into it.

 

I have yet to see a head coach make a shot.

 

CC no quibbles here - the mavs were horrible against golden state, golden state was (gasp) the better team. ( that hurt, but I said it and the healing has begun)

Bron bron has showed himself to be an amazing player - and a team player. In game six he told his teammates that deet would do everything in thier power to shut him down (and they did) but that would give the rest the opportunity to win the game. If dirk could pass out of a double or triple team the way bron bron does, the mavs might still be playing. My respect for him as a bball player, and the maturity on the court he has gained this playoff run has increased ten fold

 

No, the team that plays best is the team that plays best. They are not necessarily the better team. I don't think Detroit was better than LA is 2004. But they beat them in five games.

Actually, James would start in place of Webber. My starting five would be James, Billups, Hamilton, Prince, and Wallace.

Yes very impressive ... for two years. I think "doing much" is measured in terms of more than two years. What will he do over ten or 15? that's the point.

Cleveland had the ball because they Detroit had made the previous shot as I recall. If Detroit makes shots in games 3 and 4, they sweep in four. So you can't play the "if they had made it" card. They didn't. Having the ball with a chance to win means you were not leading the game.

The Pistons are not the best team on the planet. They are the best team in the east, probably the fourth or fifth best team in the West. The Cavs beat a beat up Miami team and a weak New Jersey team. You and I with couple of ladies could have given those teams a good series.


But hey, I love debating somethign completely irrelevant.

 

I am not a great Pistons lover. In fact, I used to hate them. I was always (and still am) a Laker's fan. What I hear from Pistons-lovers is usually this:

"We may not have the best individual players, but we have a great TEAM."

And usually, the team is in caps just like that to emphasize the point.

At 10:31 today you said, All of this "Detroit is the better team" stuff is the same sort of nonsense we heard 2 years ago when Detroit lost to San Antonio. It was as much sour grapes on the part of Pistons-lovers then as it is now.

It seems that you are discounting the argument that the Pistons are a better team, meaning that you think the Cavs are the better team.

I didn't read your earlier comments so I have no idea what Tim said. I wasn't responding to that at all. My only resposne to your "sour grapes" argument.

 

I was thinking about this and just realized that I was imprecise on what I was talking about.

Before, and during, the series, I didn't say that the Cavs were the better team. Now that they've proven it on the court, I think they are.

Sorry about the confusion.

Who doesn't? :laugh:

 

You can continue to argue this, but it's simply not true. The team that plays the best wins. The team that wins is clearly the better team at least in that series. As of today...the Cavs are the better team.

That's a small lineup, and while it may be your preference, it's not the obvious choice if you are going with two guards, two forwards and a center.

Subjective.

If they are the best team in the East...they'd be the ones in the Finals.

They played the other beat up team...the Wizards. Chicago beat up Miami.

 

Not always. Good teams have bad days. Bad teams (or not so good teams) have good days.

It is smallish, but very talented. would you really replace Wallace with a stiff like Ilgauskas? I wouldn't. That was the exception I suggested earlier, but it would be a hard sell. It would also depend on the team. Playing a big center would require something different than playing a team with a small center. But in that line up you have two guards (Billups and Hamilton), two forwards (James and Prince), and a center (Wallace).

Not necessarily.

You're right. I had forgotten that. That makes it worse.

 

The point of having a 7 game series is so that a team can have one "mulligan".

Doesn't the very definition of a better team mean that they are the team that plays the best?

Sorry to break it to you, but Detroit was the better team in 2004.

 

Not always in a short series. Across the season, the Pistons won more games. Why? Because they are the better team. Head to head in a short series, they went 2-3 in five very close games, and lost the last one in the fourth quarter.

The better team is the team with the better skills that plays together better. Overall, that is hte Pistons, compared to the Cavs.

I don't think so. Detroit played together better. But LA had the better team of players.

 

Many reasons can factor into this. That doesn't mean they are the better team (playing teams with injuries, back to back games, coaching moves, etc.). According to you, then, the two best teams are Detroit and Dallas. Let's bump the Cavs and Spurs out of the Finals and put them in. That's the reason you have a 7 game series. When the first round was only 5 games, the argument was made that the best team didn't always win. A 7 game series settles that.
As of today, the two best teams are Cleveland and San Antonio. Period.

 

Kind of irrelevant...no? The fact is they are in the East. They are the Eastern Conference Champions...today, the best in the East.
The way the Cavs were playing in the last series defensively, they could run with any team in the West. Bad teams don't win 50 games and acvance to the Finals.

That would work only if you didn't have divisions / conferences. Since you do, the current format is correct. I do think they should be seeded 1 - 8 within each conference, however. It was unfair to the Bulls to be a 5th seed this past year.