A few NBA Championship Series thoughts:
*OK, allowing for the tendency to overanalyze games and plays within a game, and also allowing for the axiom that hindsight is perfect sight by a damn site, how in the world do the Magic allow Derrick Fisher to get that open on the Lakers' final possession of regulation last night?
While Jameer Nelson gets the lion's share of heat for leaving Fisher alone, Orlando coach Stan Van Gundy must take some blame for electing not to foul with a three-point lead and 11 seconds to go.
Van Gundy's post game explanation, that there was too much time on the clock given how poorly his team was shooting free throws, is, to my mind, weak. Let's assume that Fisher or Trevor Ariza or Kobe Bryant, for that matter, hits one or two foul shots in that instance, leaving about six or seven seconds on the clock. If you're Van Gundy, you call time out and get your five best free throw shooters on the floor. If that means that Dwight Howard, who had just missed two, has to sit briefly, so be it. As former Jets coach Herm Edwards so famously noted once, "You play to win the game.' If Howard's ego gets momentarily bruised, you have two days to salve his psychic wounds, with a 2-2 series tie, rather than where the Magic are now, down 3-1.
Said Hedo Turkoglu afterwards: "We had it but just kind of slipped away because of our stupidness." You get no arguments here, and let's hope that the careers of both Nelson and Van Gundy aren't defined by one horribly stupid lapse on the biggest stage in basketball.
*Again, the Magic made this moot by their play down the stretch, but can someone explain to me how Bryant could plant an elbow into Nelson's jaw on the overtime play where Fisher hit another open three to give Los Angeles the lead and not get called for an offensive foul.
I despise the conspiracy theory shorthand that follows the NBA. I believe the league is on the up-and-up all the time, and I share David Stern's fury whenever he has to answer questions that never get posed to Bud Selig or Roger Goodell. But, by essential allowing Bryant and other stars to run roughshod without consequences, the NBA practically invites that kind of talk.
*I can't let this series end without expressing my disdain for the 2-3-2 format of this series. Actually, disdain is what I feel for beets. I really hate, hate, HATE that format that grants home court for the first and last two games to the team with the best record, with the middle three games going to the other team.
In every other series, the breakdown goes 2-2-1-1-1, with the team with home court advantage hosting the first two games, Game 5 and Game 7. In this scenario, the team with the advantage still has an advantage, but not so much of one that the other combatant can't overcome it, say, by splitting one of the first two games on the road, winning Games 3 and 4 at their place, then clinching the series at home in Game 6.
With the 2-3-2 set-up, the advantaged team need only win two of the first five games to ensure having the last two games at home. In order to clinch at home, the disadvantaged team must either win the series in five games (unlikely) or win twice in the other guy's place. That hardly seems like the best way to crown a champion.
The change was made in the 80's when CBS complained of having to move camera crews across country as many as four times in a seven game series rather than twice. It's time to go back to giving both teams a reasonable chance to win a title, though it may be too late for the Magic.
4 comments:
Nelson's brain fade and Van Gundy's (reasonable enough) decision are mooted by the Magic's gawdawful free throw shooting and turnovers last night. If Dwight Howard hits just 1 of his 5 consecutive misses at the end of the game, this series is tied.
Van Gundy deserves more second guessing for the decision to play Jameer Nelson during crunch time. Nelson's not in sync with his teammates, and his presence on the floor (1) removes a shooter, (2) reduces the Magic to a half-court offense -- two tactics that play to the Lakers' advantage. His mental lapse against Derek Fisher was bad enough, but did Nelson ever attack the basket in the 4th quarter?
As for the 2-3-2 format, it does not disrupt the competitive balance of a playoff series whatsoever. First, the odds are against either opponent winning three consecutive games -- even while playing at home. Second, the home court advantage in a best of X, multi-game playoff series is for the final game, or in the case of a the NBA Finals, Game 7. A top seed that wins the first two games of a seven game series is guaranteed to return home no matter what for at least 1 game and the opportunity to employ its advantage in the final game.
Van Gundy's other big mistake was not calling a TO when he saw the Lakers were going to inbound the ball at the other end of the court. This let the Lakers spread the court out and find an open shooter.
Nelson was wrong not to foul there, why he even backed up confused me even more.
Lastly, is there a rule in the NBA that doesn't allow teams to pass to the backcourt?
Sorry I'm just getting back to replying to these, but I have to counter something you said MIB. The home court advantage is not about the seventh game. Home court provides the team who has it the chance to win a series by winning all of its home games. In a 2-2-1-1-1 format, a top seed that wins its first two games is not guaranteed a chance to return home for a seventh game, if the other team wins Games 3, 4, 5 and 6.
To Gene, the rule prohibiting passing inbounds to the backcourt was changed a couple of years ago. The Nuggets should have done that in Game 1 of the Western Conference championships.
The home court advantage is not about the seventh game. Home court provides the team who has it the chance to win a series by winning all of its home games. In a 2-2-1-1-1 format, a top seed that wins its first two games is not guaranteed a chance to return home for a seventh game, if the other team wins Games 3, 4, 5 and 6."
The provision of a home field/court advantage has nothing at all to do with ensuring a top seed wins all its games at home. In fact, it's just a nod to sportsmanship to a top seed in case of a tie of an otherwise level (or fair) competition.
I can't believe you goofed this point so easily. If a lower seed wins Games 3, 4, 5, and 6 in a seven game series, there is no Game 7 to be played. The higher seed loses (deservedly) the series.
Additionally, in a 2-3-2 format, Game 6 is played at the top seed's home. A team that returns home for Game 6 down 3-2 after winning the first two games, has really earned its likely default of a Game 7, and hence any home field/court advantage.
Post a Comment