Pacers beating Cavs.

[Roy Hobbs]

Generally, "it came on a short-handed night" is an excuse.

"Cavs lost because they were short handed" is an excuse. 

No, the Cavs lost because Lebron decided he was going to be the entire offense in the first half, without getting his teammates involved.  If he'd played a team game (which he normally does) the Cavs win that game going away. 

But, you wouldn't have mentioned "on a short-handed night" if you didn't think it had some relevance.  That's an excuse, when compared to how short-handed the Pacers were.

[markketch]

No, the Cavs lost because Lebron decided he was going to be the entire offense in the first half, without getting his teammates involved.  If he'd played a team game (which he normally does) the Cavs win that game going away. 

But, you wouldn't have mentioned "on a short-handed night" if you didn't think it had some relevance.  That's an excuse, when compared to how short-handed the Pacers were.

You know that his team was 6 of 31 in the first half, right? LeBron HAD to be the offense. No one was making anything.  He passed - they missed. 

It's not an excuse - it's a game FACT.  You're reading in to it too much, which I understand.  I am saying that I don't think it's an excuse, but you're neglecting to acknowledge that.

[NoraG1]

Generally, "it came on a short-handed night" is an excuse.

"Cavs lost because they were short handed" is an excuse. 

Not a good one if the other team is short handed as well...

[markketch]

Generally, "it came on a short-handed night" is an excuse.

"Cavs lost because they were short handed" is an excuse. 

Not a good one if the other team is short handed as well...

Sweet Jesus - I've said I do NOT think it's an excuse for the loss. Are you people not reading my responses?

[ChampKind]

Just got back from the game.  Seeing it in person, I don't think that you could blame it on LBJ.  Mo Williams wasn't playing well, and Big Z was getting beat by Roy Hibbert on both sides of the court.  No one else was stepping up on their end, with the exception of a burst from Mo in the 2nd half.  Offensively, the Cavs just looked stuck outside of Lebron.  He also had one move in the 1st half that I still can't comprehend, so that was fun to watch.

The Pacers are a maddening team, but an exciting one to watch.  I've seen them beat the Celts, Lakers, and now the Cavs at home, but also watched them lose to the Wolves and the Bobcats.  This was a great game, highlighted by Travis Diener (!) stepping up and being the difference for the Pacers.  This was not a game that an elite team would lose those...Granger was 1/2 strength, and the Cavs got beat by a committee of role players.  Makes me feel a little better about the Celtics losing here early in the season.

[Roy Hobbs]

Generally, "it came on a short-handed night" is an excuse.

"Cavs lost because they were short handed" is an excuse. 

Not a good one if the other team is short handed as well...

Sweet Jesus - I've said I do NOT think it's an excuse for the loss. Are you people not reading my responses?

Eh, I guess we're just curious why you brought this fact up, especially on a Celtics blog?  I mean, the part about them being the last team to lose consecutive games was interesting.  You sullied that up, though, by throwing in the "fact" that looked like an excuse.

[NoraG1]

Generally, "it came on a short-handed night" is an excuse.

"Cavs lost because they were short handed" is an excuse. 

Not a good one if the other team is short handed as well...

Sweet Jesus - I've said I do NOT think it's an excuse for the loss. Are you people not reading my responses?

Look at whaty you say in your responses and maybe you will find why people are maybe taking something a different way then you meant it.

[ChampKind]

Regardless, 50 games into the season the Cavs are the last team to lose two games in a row, and it came on a short-handed night.

No need to make excuses.  The Pacers weren't exactly playing at full strength, with Jeff Foster and Marquis Daniels sitting.

Dunleavy was out as well.  Hence the minutes for Diener.

[Roy Hobbs]

Just got back from the game.  Seeing it in person, I don't think that you could blame it on LBJ.  Mo Williams wasn't playing well, and Big Z was getting beat by Roy Hibbert on both sides of the court.  No one else was stepping up on their end, with the exception of a burst from Mo in the 2nd half.  Offensively, the Cavs just looked stuck outside of Lebron.  He also had one move in the 1st half that I still can't comprehend, so that was fun to watch.

The Pacers are a maddening team, but an exciting one to watch.  I've seen them beat the Celts, Lakers, and now the Cavs at home, but also watched them lose to the Wolves and the Bobcats.  This was a great game, highlighted by Travis Diener (!) stepping up and being the difference for the Pacers.  This was not a game that an elite team would lose those...Granger was 1/2 strength, and the Cavs got beat by a committee of role players.  Makes me feel a little better about the Celtics losing here early in the season.

What's the sense out there about Granger?  Do fans want him playing through his injury?  It's clearly affecting him in a very negative way.

[markketch]

Look at whaty you say in your responses and maybe you will find why people are maybe taking something a different way then you meant it.

I understand and already acknowledged that I understand why people think that.

It's semantics, and unfortunately this is the internet.

[Hoyo de Monterrey]

Champ what are your thoughts after seeing Hibbert live? He's interested me I thought he was going to be a stiff coming out of school but he's really played better then I thought this year especially lately.

[markketch]

No, the Cavs lost because Lebron decided he was going to be the entire offense in the first half, without getting his teammates involved.  If he'd played a team game (which he normally does) the Cavs win that game going away. 

I would still like you to explain this. If you missed it, LeBron's team shot 20% in the first half.  What is he supposed to do if they miss 25 of 31 shots? He's the only reason the Cavs were in the game.

[ChampKind]

Just got back from the game.  Seeing it in person, I don't think that you could blame it on LBJ.  Mo Williams wasn't playing well, and Big Z was getting beat by Roy Hibbert on both sides of the court.  No one else was stepping up on their end, with the exception of a burst from Mo in the 2nd half.  Offensively, the Cavs just looked stuck outside of Lebron.  He also had one move in the 1st half that I still can't comprehend, so that was fun to watch.

The Pacers are a maddening team, but an exciting one to watch.  I've seen them beat the Celts, Lakers, and now the Cavs at home, but also watched them lose to the Wolves and the Bobcats.  This was a great game, highlighted by Travis Diener (!) stepping up and being the difference for the Pacers.  This was not a game that an elite team would lose those...Granger was 1/2 strength, and the Cavs got beat by a committee of role players.  Makes me feel a little better about the Celtics losing here early in the season.

What's the sense out there about Granger?  Do fans want him playing through his injury?  It's clearly affecting him in a very negative way.

"Fans"...well honestly it's tough to gauge.  Tonight was only the 3rd game I've been to where the fieldhouse has been more than half full.  They love Granger out here, but he's honestly their only chance for a playoff shot, and the way the team is now, it's a slim proposition.  If they can't get a good big man at the trade deadline, then I think they should sit him and let him heal - but his injury doesn't seem severe enough to hurt him in the long run, and I can't imagine Granger being ok with being told to sit as long as he can hobble out onto the court (remember Granger getting his teeth knocked out in garbage time when Pierce fell on him?)

[ChampKind]

Champ what are your thoughts after seeing Hibbert live? He's interested me I thought he was going to be a stiff coming out of school but he's really played better then I thought this year especially lately.

Hibbert generally has been about what everyone expected...solid in short minutes, but generally unimpressive.  Not much of a shot and not enough lateral quickness or strength to be a legit inside defender.  Tonight though, it looked like he's improved his footwork and he did a great job when isolated in the post against Ilgauskas - but maybe that should be taken with a grain of salt.  Personally, I'd like to see him rebound more...most of his games have lacked any memorable impact so far, but there's some potential there.

[Roy Hobbs]

Just got back from the game.  Seeing it in person, I don't think that you could blame it on LBJ.  Mo Williams wasn't playing well, and Big Z was getting beat by Roy Hibbert on both sides of the court.  No one else was stepping up on their end, with the exception of a burst from Mo in the 2nd half.  Offensively, the Cavs just looked stuck outside of Lebron.  He also had one move in the 1st half that I still can't comprehend, so that was fun to watch.

The Pacers are a maddening team, but an exciting one to watch.  I've seen them beat the Celts, Lakers, and now the Cavs at home, but also watched them lose to the Wolves and the Bobcats.  This was a great game, highlighted by Travis Diener (!) stepping up and being the difference for the Pacers.  This was not a game that an elite team would lose those...Granger was 1/2 strength, and the Cavs got beat by a committee of role players.  Makes me feel a little better about the Celtics losing here early in the season.

What's the sense out there about Granger?  Do fans want him playing through his injury?  It's clearly affecting him in a very negative way.

"Fans"...well honestly it's tough to gauge.  Tonight was only the 3rd game I've been to where the fieldhouse has been more than half full.  They love Granger out here, but he's honestly their only chance for a playoff shot, and the way the team is now, it's a slim proposition.  If they can't get a good big man at the trade deadline, then I think they should sit him and let him heal - but his injury doesn't seem severe enough to hurt him in the long run, and I can't imagine Granger being ok with being told to sit as long as he can hobble out onto the court (remember Granger getting his teeth knocked out in garbage time when Pierce fell on him?)

Yeah, I really like the way Granger approaches the game.  I've been following his comments related to his injury, and the way he's playing through pain is admirable.  I like the fact that he's playing in the all-star game, too; it shows that it means something to him.  That being said, I see his situation as somewhat similar to Pierce's elbow injury a couple of years ago, and I remember at the time that I was calling for Pierce to sit.  Ah, the tanking years.