***Official NBA Playoffs Thread***

HFCS

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2010
67,772
54,951
113
LA LA Land
Before game, Boston guaranteed an emotional advantage. Better not tell me after the game they lost because of a supposed advantage. Can't have both. Speaking about overwhelming majority of media.
 

LLCoolCY

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Apr 28, 2010
9,798
15,874
113
Minneapolis
Maybe the Cav's really were trying to avoid the Bull in round one. I know they didn't have a great year but Butler, Wade, and Rondo have a lot of big game experience.

Bull did expose the Celtics biggest weakness rebounding.
 

HFCS

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2010
67,772
54,951
113
LA LA Land
Maybe the Cav's really were trying to avoid the Bull in round one. I know they didn't have a great year but Butler, Wade, and Rondo have a lot of big game experience.

Bull did expose the Celtics biggest weakness rebounding.

Rondo and Wade have the experience, Butler and Lopez are the kind of players built for the playoffs. The biggest unknowns frankly are Fred and Mirotic. Mirotic almost always gives you an all star level game or not much at all. Pretty good sign they won with a "not much" game from him. Portis really covered for it.
 

jbindm

Well-Known Member
Dec 2, 2010
13,073
7,604
113
Des Moines
I feel sorry for Lillard and McCollum. The rest of their team is ****.

They were starting to click before Nurkic got injured. Without him in the middle they don't look all that great. Even if he was healthy I don't think that series goes past five games, max. Not a knock on the Blazers. It's just that the Warriors are on another level.
 

jbindm

Well-Known Member
Dec 2, 2010
13,073
7,604
113
Des Moines
I'm not surprised Boston dropped game 1. It was a weird vibe there with the Isaiah Thomas story and all. But I also won't be surprised if Boston wins the next two or three in a row. Yeah, they're a flawed one seed. But they've generally been pretty consistent all year. With the Bulls it's a mystery what team will show up from one game to the next. Can't trust 'em.
 

32Cyclone Fan

Member
Jan 31, 2008
275
7
18
Maybe the Cav's really were trying to avoid the Bull in round one. I know they didn't have a great year but Butler, Wade, and Rondo have a lot of big game experience.

Bull did expose the Celtics biggest weakness rebounding.
It crossed my mind also that the Cavs might be losing on purpose when it looked like the Bulls might be their first opponent in the playoffs. Many may be surprised that the Bulls have won 7 of 8 games over the Cavs with Fred as coach all 4 games this season and 3 of 4 last season including the Bulls beating the Cavs at home in Fred's first game as coach. They also have beat Toronto 6 of 7 games under Fred and went 2-2 with Boston this season. They went 1-1 with both Golden State & San Antonio, It's the bottom feeders the Bulls have difficulty with.
 
Last edited:

Desiigner

Well-Known Member
Jul 6, 2016
1,177
609
63
28
Maybe the Cav's really were trying to avoid the Bull in round one. I know they didn't have a great year but Butler, Wade, and Rondo have a lot of big game experience.

Bull did expose the Celtics biggest weakness rebounding.
Yeah idk about this, the bulls could have easily been the 7th seed. I don't think Lebron is scared of anyone in the playoffs
 

cyhiphopp

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 9, 2009
33,267
14,536
113
Ankeny
I don't watch NBA until playoff time. Watched to Bulls game tonight. Great win. I hope they can make it far and maybe somehow make a title run, but that would be damn near impossible.

Since 2000, no team higher than a 4 seed has made the finals (2006 Mavericks and 2010 Celtics). And the highest seed to win the championship in that period has been a 3 seed.

There's not a lot of parity in the NBA. More often than not, the best teams win it all.
 

IASTATE07

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
May 30, 2016
12,024
18,813
113
Since 2000, no team higher than a 4 seed has made the finals (2006 Mavericks and 2010 Celtics). And the highest seed to win the championship in that period has been a 3 seed.

There's not a lot of parity in the NBA. More often than not, the best teams win it all.

2000 seems like a good cutoff point. I can't remember what happened the year before. It seems like there was a strike or something.
 

Desiigner

Well-Known Member
Jul 6, 2016
1,177
609
63
28
Since 2000, no team higher than a 4 seed has made the finals (2006 Mavericks and 2010 Celtics). And the highest seed to win the championship in that period has been a 3 seed.

There's not a lot of parity in the NBA. More often than not, the best teams win it all.
That's because it's a 7 game series. The better team will win in a 7 game series more often than not
 

ComCY

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Oct 31, 2016
1,538
2,150
113
Is no one going to talk about how big Bobby Portis was in game 1?

If he plays like that going forward, Bulls could take it to game 7 or beyond.
 

cyhiphopp

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 9, 2009
33,267
14,536
113
Ankeny
2000 seems like a good cutoff point. I can't remember what happened the year before. It seems like there was a strike or something.

Yep. Lockout in 99. Though the 8 seed Knicks did make the finals that year.

Since the playoffs expanded to 16 teams in 84, there are only two more seeds 4 or higher that made it to the finals. 99 Knicks and and 95 Rockets. The 95 Rockets, a 6 seed, are the only team since 84 higher than a 3 seed to win the championship. Prior to that only the 69 Celtics were the only 4 seed to win the title.

There just aren't many Cinderellas in the NBA playoffs.
 

cyhiphopp

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 9, 2009
33,267
14,536
113
Ankeny
That's because it's a 7 game series. The better team will win in a 7 game series more often than not

True. I also think it has a lot to do with "Super Teams" the past several years. But in general, you are either a championship caliber team or just outside the lottery. There's not a lot of middle ground.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: jbindm

cyclonespiker33

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
Jan 19, 2011
14,733
7,945
113
From strictly looking at the box score, the entire Bulls' bench was the reason they won. +/- of +12, +11, +6, and +11 for the bench players. The only starter with a postive +/- was Wade with +3.
 

jbindm

Well-Known Member
Dec 2, 2010
13,073
7,604
113
Des Moines
Maybe the Cav's really were trying to avoid the Bull in round one. I know they didn't have a great year but Butler, Wade, and Rondo have a lot of big game experience.

Bull did expose the Celtics biggest weakness rebounding.

I suppose it's possible, but I doubt it. How could they when the Bulls weren't locked into the eight seed until the last night of the regular season? I guess they might have tried it, but even if they did it's not like the alternative was much better. It looks like Paul George and the Pacers are going to give them all they want.

But it's early in that series, just like in the BOS - CHI series. Everyone loses their heads over a one game sample. Let it breathe a bit.
 

jbindm

Well-Known Member
Dec 2, 2010
13,073
7,604
113
Des Moines
True. I also think it has a lot to do with "Super Teams" the past several years. But in general, you are either a championship caliber team or just outside the lottery. There's not a lot of middle ground.

That, and coaching matters more in the playoffs. Who can make the right adjustments from half to half and game to game? Inexperienced and/or bad coaches get exposed. That's partly why I'm still not sold on the Bulls after Game 1. I love Fred, but Brad Stevens is a much better NBA coach at this point in their respective careers.
 

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron