Skip to main content

Celtics knock out LeBron

So ESPN 3 didn’t work for me at all last night, so after finally getting home I was unable to follow the game on anything nicer than a Gamecast. So I didn’t actually see the Cleveland Cavaliers’ last meaningful game of the decade. But if you did, let me know about it in the comments.

The big question: does this loss tarnish LeBron’s legacy? I don’t know. Michael’s Bulls lost to the Pistons three years in a row, and no one cares now. So I’m inclined to say it won’t, depending on how LeBron fares on his new team, of course. That said, Jordan’s Bulls didn’t choke away the best record in the league two seasons in a row, either. And how was LeBron last night, anyway?

Comments

John said…
Why don't you just man up and get cable again?

My thoughts on yesterday's game:

(1) The Cavaliers are a team of conscripts. The whole game I was thinking that, other than Shaq, I never would have heard of any of these guys if they didn't play with LeBron. Anderson "Sideshow Bob" Varejao would still be suing the Simpsons for misappropriation of likeness if it weren't for LeBron. And Zydrunas Ilgauskas would be trying to buy the Nets right about now.

(2) LeBron played ok, but not great. He had a decent stat line in points, rebounds, and assists, but had way too many turnovers. He was trying to force things, but also seemed absent when it mattered most. It was a weird performance. But I almost suspect that he had mailed it in, not just on the game and the series, but on Cleveland as well.

I think it is too early to talk of this game tarnishing his legacy, because I don't think he has one yet. So I would say it may in part define his legacy, particularly if he is unable to break through to the next level. He is now 7 seasons in: at a similar career point, many pundits were suggesting that MJ couldn't get it done. So the jury is still out on LeBron, although he has not shown me that all he needs is a Pippen-esque sidekick to get it done.

(3) I predict LeBron will be gone. As I mentioned, he just looked like he had mailed it in, and the Cavs as presently constituted aren't a good enough team for him to win it all with.

(4) Major hats off to the Celtics. They played well as a team and fed off of each other when it mattered most. They are legit title contenders. The only thing is that I was surprised that they won by only 9 - it felt like a lot more, but they kept letting Cleveland climb back in, which may hurt them down the stretch of the postseason.
blaine said…
I'm with John, get some cable!

I thought that LeBron's stats from last night's game are misleading because as John pointed out, he wasn't involved in the most of the key moments of the game. Other than making (2) key threes in a row in the second half, he did nothing to help his team down the stretch. I think he was careful to do just enough statistically so that it looked like he had a good game and his teammates quit on him so he could justify his move to N.Y.

Even if LeBron didn't manipulate these last two games, at the very least we learned he may not be as great as we were led to believe by the great hype machine that is ESPN. Really, the series was lost in game 5 when LeBron only took 14 shots on his home court in an absolute MUST-WIN game.

I also thought his demeanor after the game was interesting. He didn't seem depressed or even upset. He took the time to hug virtually every Celtic player and coach, which is very different from his reaction after they were eliminated last year by Orlando and he stormed off the court without talking to anyone.
The Goreman said…
It seems to me that Lebron gave up at the end of the game. If I were him, I would be off to New York.

Other than that, Go Celtics! Kevin Garnett is the man! I think the Celtics are the only team that can beat The Lakers.

Popular posts from this blog

National Basketball Association Finals Preview Blowout!

If you're looking for a stereotypical matchup breakdown for the NBA Finals between the Detroit Pistons and San Antonio Spurs, (Game One is tonight, 7 o'clock Mountain, ABC), you've come to the right place! Center: Ben Wallace, Pistons vs. Nazr Mohammed, Spurs Wallace might be the league's top defender, winning his third Defensive Player of the Year award this season and leading the Pistons in both blocks and steals. It's said he's an improved offensive player, but he still scores primarily on tips and wide-open dunks. "Big Ben" is horrific from the foul line, connecting on 42.8% this season. Also, his brother has taken on NBA players and can probably beat up Mohammed's brother. Mohammed has been a good fit for the Spurs since being traded from the Knicks. It appears Isiah Thomas may have finally made his first mistake as general manager in New York, as Mohammed has started every Spurs' playoff game, averaging 8.1 points to go with a solid seven...

Forget Brett Favre (*)

From my 2007 NFL season preview : Favre's not as good as he once was-who is?-but he's not the disgrace people make him out to be...I don't think he "deserves" to go out with another Lombardi or anything, but I hope he gets to leave on a good note. Oops. What a mistake. And I even knew this day was coming. Let me say that Brett Favre deserves to go down in history with whatever records he earns, so long as a giant asterisk is placed by each and every one of them. As you may have heard, Sunday's victory over the New York Giants made Favre the winningest quarterback in NFL history. I don't know what ESPN did on TV, but this record practically went unnoticed in the places I follow sports. But it's of crucial importance to me. Why? "Maybe someday down the road it will mean a lot," a typically humble Favre said after the 149th win of his career, moving past Hall of Famer [and indisputable greatest quarterback of all time] John Elway. Humble...

Did CU ever win the Pac-12?

In 2010, I bet a college buddy of mine (who longtime readers may remember as the only other contributor to Hole Punch Sports) that CU’s football team would not win the Pac-12 in the next 15 years. Guess what? It’s time for me to gloat, because I was right. Why we were doomed Back in the day, a lot of people made the argument that CU should join the Pac-12 because we’d get so much more TV money there. Of course, given college football is the answer to the question, “what if you had a sport where multiple teams were like the Yankees, and you created a whole universe of haves and have-nots?”, then yeah, you want to be aligned with some of the haves. But the question in my mind wasn’t, “will CU be better off with more money?” That’s an obvious yes. The question I asked was, will CU be any more competitive in their own conference if they’re competing against teams who are also getting more money? I couldn’t see why they would be. The mathematical angle Legend has it that Cowboys runn...