2012 NBA Finals
To start off, I'd like to give myself a small pat on the back for doing pretty well in my championship odds post to preview this year's playoffs. I listed the Miami Heat at #1, OKC at #2, and San Antonio at #3. My only major errors were the Bulls losing (who saw that coming?) and, to me, the Clippers' shocking upset of the Grizzlies. To get to the Finals this year, OKC had a pretty easy path. They swept the Mavs, lost just one game to the Lakers, and won four straight against the Spurs after losing the first two games (by the way, either the Mavs, Lakers or Spurs had played in the Finals every year prior to this year since 1999!!!). The Heat destroyed the Knicks in five games, then struggled a bit against the Pacers when Bosh got hurt, winning in six, then fought for their lives against the Celtics, winning in seven after being down 2-3.
Although I predicted the Heat to win the championship prior to the start of the playoffs, by the start of the Finals I thought the odds had switched to the Thunder. While dismantling the Mavs was no big deal, they took care of the Lakers surprisingly easily, and then had one of the finest playoff series I've ever seen in beating the fantastic Spurs four times in a row, a team that had won their previous twenty games. Both their offense and defense seemed to be at their highest levels ever. Meanwhile, the Heat was just getting Bosh, their third best player, back into the lineup after a nine-game absence. A short-handed, aging Celtics team had just pushed them to seven games. Oh, and OKC had home court advantage. Virtually everything seemed to be in OKC's favor.
Game 1 went pretty much how I thought the series would go, with OKC swatting away Miami's halftime lead and basically holding them off at arms length throughout the fourth quarter. But then in game 2, OKC got off to another terrible start. Miami held their lead in the third quarter, and barely held off the Thunder's fourth quarter charge. Of course, they benefited from a no-call on LeBron's foul on Durant's game-tying attempt with ~12 seconds remaining. I was confident that OKC would steal at least one game in Miami, but the Heat won an ugly game 3 by scoring at will in the paint and somehow making 31 of 35 free throws while the Thunder missed too many of their own. The Thunder finally got a fast start in game 4, but the Heat erased it completely in the second quarter and slowly took control in the second half. Despite Westbrook putting in the best individual performance of the 2012 Finals, the Heat's PGs (Chalmers and Cole) gave them the advantage. And in game 5, Miami built up a sizable lead before halftime and then just buried the Thunder in the 3rd quarter with insane 3-point shooting and a thunderstruck young OKC squad.
So, how did the Heat upset the Thunder and even win in a paltry five games? I think the biggest reason was coach Spoelstra's starting lineup, using Chalmers, Wade, Battier, James and Bosh. In fact, Bosh's earlier injury may have been the reason, forcing Miami at the time to use Haslem/Anthony at center and make Battier the starting small forward. In this series, that small tweak (rather than using the traditional lineup of Chalmers-Wade-James-Haslem-Bosh) wreaked havoc with the Thunder's big men. Ibaka and Perkins dominate the paint defensively when they can guard post players. But Ibaka was forced to guard Battier, who of course lives at the 3-point line. With the old lineup, I think the Thunder likely would have won in 5 or 6; that smaller Heat lineup caused chaos for the Thunder starters, though, and got them out of their comfort zone.
In addition, Battier, after playing quite poorly in the regular season and playoffs, finally came around. In the first three games he hit 11-15 from 3-point range (!!) and slowed down Durant enough to take defensive pressure off James. On the other hand, while James Harden won 6th Man of the year during the regular season and was great earlier in the playoffs, he flat out stunk in games 1, 3, and 4, and when forced to guard LeBron was completely destroyed. Overall, the Heat simply had different players step up when they were needed, from Wade all the way down to Norris Cole and Mike Miller, while the Thunder had to rely way too much on Durant and Westbrook. Despite this being the Thunder's third postseason run together, the Heat simply seemed more comfortable with the Finals pressure. And, of course, the Heat had the best player on the court and on the planet, LeBron James.
***
Finally LeBron James, or "King James," or "the chosen one," of whose greatness we were all "witnesses," won his first championship. Most of you probably know that I am not a fan of James - my first post for this blog was a criticism of James' Decision, after all. But as a basketball fan, I have to say that there is some small satisfaction in seeing the best player of his generation finally come through and perform to his potential when it mattered the most. His performance against Boston in game 6 should go down as one of the greatest ever in the NBA playoffs, reminding me of both Jordan, and LeBron's own game years earlier against the Pistons when he scored the Cavs' last 25 points. After last year's epic, historic fail in last year's Finals, LeBron played brilliantly throughout this time. He set the pace for his team on offense with consistent aggressiveness and then shut down Durant on defense when he needed to. So while I'm still not a LeBron James fan, I greatly respect his performance in this year's playoffs and Finals and for the sake of the game am glad to see him finally rise to his potential.
One other thing I would like to address about LeBron, though. In all the hoopla over the Heat's victory it's been said/written many times that this somehow nullifies everything that happened in the summer of 2010. Ummm, what? LeBron's performance and the Heat's championship does these things: 1) end legitimate criticism of LeBron's play in both high pressure games and high pressure moments (ie: 4th quarter); 2) end speculation that LeBron is content with statistical dominance yet not competitive enough to win at the highest level; and 3) end debate about whether the James-Wade-Bosh trio can win a championship. If Miami had lost the Finals this year, pundits would have a much better argument that the anger over summer 2010 was overrated because then there might have been some question that that trio is not as disgustingly unfair as it seemed to be. To me, though, LeBron's and the Heat's success does nothing to change my great disappointment in LeBron's decision and my disgust in the way that he made it. Whatever; I look forward to seeing the Thunder's organic big three (Durant, Westbrook, and Harden - all drafted and developed by the same team) battling the Heat's artificial big three (James, Wade, and Bosh - brought together by impatience and fear of failure) for years to come.
Tennis
At the French Open last month, #2 ranked Rafael Nadal won yet again, keeping his phenomenal streak there alive (ignoring 2009 when he was injured). Federer and Djokovic met in the semi-finals again, where Djokovic got some sweet, sweet revenge for last year, yet Nadal then prevented him from achieving the calendar Slam (winning four Grand Slams in a row). Sharapova also achieved an impressive accomplishment, getting a career Grand Slam (has won each tourney once - only tenth woman to ever do so) by winning the ladies' section.
In two days the most important tennis event of the year begins: Wimbledon. Here are some of my predictions.
Men:
(1) Novak Djokovic: after destroying Nadal in last year's finals, Djokovic is probably the favorite this year. I'm hoping that my favorite player can indeed repeat, but it's never easy at Wimbledon. On grass, Federer is probably his biggest threat.
(2) Rafael Nadal: after Djokovic knocked him off the top perch bewilderingly quickly last year, Nadal has gotten his mojo back this year. Nadal has won Wimbledon twice, but grass is not his best surface; still, with his consistency and current momentum, he should get to the semifinals at least.
(3) Roger Federer: he just keeps defying "old" (for tennis) age, although it's clear he prefers playing in doors now. Still, he has both the skill and experience to know what it takes to win at Wimbledon, even if he has been shocked by non-Big Three opponents in the last few years.
(4) Andy Murray: the wobbly fourth leg of the men's stool, Murray has really struggled this year after losing in the semifinals to Djokovic. With the huge pressure to win his home tourney at Wimbledon, Murray is unlikely to get as far as his fans would like. (5) Tsonga is probably more likely to go deep into the tourney than Murray is.
Women:
(1) Maria Sharapova: very competitive and hard-working, Sharapova is always a threat and now finally back on top as the favorite. Her serve is often a concern, however, and it's been years since a woman has won back-to-back Slams in this era lacking any dominant players.
(2) Victoria Azarenka: after a great start to the year (including a brief rise to #1), she has struggled a bit. However, she did get to the semifinals at Wimbledon last year. To be honest, I haven't seen her play enough to know what her strengths and weaknesses are.
(3) Agnieszka Radwanska: with consistent play, she has risen to #3 in the world. She's a smaller player with more of a solid, precision game, and it could be tough for her to beat the stronger servers on the fast courts at Wimbledon.
(4) Petra Kvitova: speaking of strong servers, she can hit just about anybody off the court if she's on her game and won the title last year. However, like so many other Eastern Europeans (sorry to stereotype), she often has mental or emotional breakdowns that lead to shocking and/or lopsided losses. Still, Wimbledon suits her game (and there's also Serena Williams still lurking...)
Men's winner: Novak Djokovic
Women's winner: Petra Kvitova
No comments:
Post a Comment