The 2014 Playoffs thread

[Celtics18]

I thought it was pretty common knowledge that this season was a joke in the NBA. I don't think you can say it was even average with a straight face.

The East might as well not existed the entire season,  the east playoffs were a complete joke. Yeah some good games here and there, with teams that were ultimately going to get smoked by the heat. The 2 biggest stories during the playoffs were Sterling and Lance Stephenson blowing in LeBron ear.  Awesome!!

Oh yes the Heat.  Who wouldn't love to see them in the finals for the 4th year in a row?  How awesome would it be to see them there next year too!?!?

I guess it's cool seeing the Spurs there at least since they've rarely been in the NBA finals.

The Western Conference playoffs were amazingly good this year.  Every single team was dangerous.  San Antonio deserves to win this for getting through the West. 

I'll admit that I found it hard to engage myself as much in what was happening in the East. 

[GreenWarrior]

I think this playoff season has been pretty horrible. like I've mentioned throughout the duration in this thread it's been filled with bad officiating that gets glossed over in one way or another - ie. the spurs thunder game 5 - bad, bad calls against the thunder(perk specifically) but there were also some bad ones against the spurs as well but the thunder won so everyone forgets about the bad officiating. the clippers and golden state was plagued with bad officiating, some calls directly impacted the outcome of plays.

then there were all the blowouts. I can't believe all these so called great teams have so many lopsided games.

the 1st rnd. where we had so many "great series" seemed more like a joke than anything. it seemed more like a bunch of teams that didn't deserve to be there because they could never finish a team off.   

[HomerSapien]

The Portland vs. Houston series was outstanding.   

[Rondohara]

Let's hear more from the usual crowd about how Westbrook is terrible and a chucker and how OKC will never win with him. 

Let's talk about this today, why not? 

Westbrook played so well against the Clippers that his evil twin the good ol' Villain Westbrick appeared very little. More points in the paint, more free throws drawn (or phantom calls made)  and a lower Usage rate resulting in a decent shooting percentage. (other then that series it looks so bad I can't even describe it.)

He shot a "good Sully-esque" 28% from 3 resulting in 42% overall (this number get better during his controlled clippers series, against the other tougher defensive teams the stats are undescribable).

Westbrook got some talents, but that evil twin Westbrick takes a huge toll, that shooting is just too horrid. And the Thunder won't be winning with him unless they get real lucky.

[GreenWarrior]

making bad shots doesn't make 'em good. this will always hurt the thunder with westbrook.

[doinky]

I thought it was pretty common knowledge that this season was a joke in the NBA. I don't think you can say it was even average with a straight face.

The East might as well not existed the entire season,  the east playoffs were a complete joke. Yeah some good games here and there, with teams that were ultimately going to get smoked by the heat. The 2 biggest stories during the playoffs were Sterling and Lance Stephenson blowing in LeBron ear.  Awesome!!

Oh yes the Heat.  Who wouldn't love to see them in the finals for the 4th year in a row?  How awesome would it be to see them there next year too!?!?

I guess it's cool seeing the Spurs there at least since they've rarely been in the NBA finals.

The Western Conference playoffs were amazingly good this year.  Every single team was dangerous.  San Antonio deserves to win this for getting through the West. 

I'll admit that I found it hard to engage myself as much in what was happening in the East.

This is why I wish the nba would just can the whole conference thing and the top 16 teams in the league go to the playoffs.

[staticcc]

I have been hearing a lot of Lebron legacy and MJ comparisons on talk radio. Many have used the 6 for 6 stat but I do not think it should be part of the argument when talking about how MJ is greater than Lebron. He is better because of his skills, willpower and killer instinct but not because of this flawed "6 for 6" statistic.

E.g. If Lebron wins 6 but loses 3 times, he'll be 6 for 9. IMO, 6 for 9 > 6 for 6 because 6 NBA titles and 9 Conference titles is greater than 6 NBA titles and 6 Conference titles. I guess 6 for 6 is a "sexy" stat for people.

Oh well, GSG!

[bdm860]

I have been hearing a lot of Lebron legacy and MJ comparisons on talk radio. Many have used the 6 for 6 stat but I do not think it should be part of the argument when talking about how MJ is greater than Lebron. He is better because of his skills, willpower and killer instinct but not because of this flawed "6 for 6" statistic.

E.g. If Lebron wins 6 but loses 3 times, he'll be 6 for 9. IMO, 6 for 9 > 6 for 6 because 6 NBA titles and 9 Conference titles is greater than 6 NBA titles and 6 Conference titles. I guess 6 for 6 is a "sexy" stat for people.

Oh well, GSG!

Ya, I always hated that argument.  Somehow it's better to lose in the 1st round (like Jordan did 3 times, but LeBron never did) than to make it the Finals and lose?

It's funny though, because all those people using ridiculous stats to hate on LeBron now in comparisons to Jordan, were probably doing the same thing in the 90's when people were comparing Jordan to Magic and Larry.  Jordan's titles aren't as meaningful because the league was watered down, he had no competition, never faced a team in the Finals with a dominant Center, etc. so Larry's 3 and Magic's 5 are more impressive...

[D.o.s.]

I have been hearing a lot of Lebron legacy and MJ comparisons on talk radio. Many have used the 6 for 6 stat but I do not think it should be part of the argument when talking about how MJ is greater than Lebron. He is better because of his skills, willpower and killer instinct but not because of this flawed "6 for 6" statistic.

E.g. If Lebron wins 6 but loses 3 times, he'll be 6 for 9. IMO, 6 for 9 > 6 for 6 because 6 NBA titles and 9 Conference titles is greater than 6 NBA titles and 6 Conference titles. I guess 6 for 6 is a "sexy" stat for people.

Oh well, GSG!

Ya, I always hated that argument.  Somehow it's better to lose in the 1st round (like Jordan did 3 times, but LeBron never did) than to make it the Finals and lose?

It's funny though, because all those people using ridiculous stats to hate on LeBron now in comparisons to Jordan, were probably doing the same thing in the 90's when people were comparing Jordan to Magic and Larry.  Jordan's titles aren't as meaningful because the league was watered down, he had no competition, never faced a team in the Finals with a dominant Center, etc. so Larry's 3 and Magic's 5 are more impressive...

People still do that. All the time. Esp. on here.

[slamtheking]

Jordan's titles aren't as meaningful because the league was watered down, he had no competition, never faced a team in the Finals with a dominant Center, etc. so Larry's 3 and Magic's 5 are more impressive...

of course they're more impressive. why wouldn't they be

in all seriousness, having seen the 80's Celtic and Laker teams and the Sixer teams of the early-to-mid 80's as well as all Jordan's championship teams, the teams of the 80's would beat Jordan's teams.  they had more talent and better depth.   

[GreenWarrior]

I do wish we got to see Jordan's bulls vs olajwon's Rockets.