94 pts per game vs 79 ppg

[Fabbs]

Spurs over Cavs offense finals for Spurs
85
103 (in which we let up in the 4th, only scored 14 pts)
75
82

Did the Cavs change their defense?

Gm 1 and 2 94 pt ave. 3 and 4 79 pt ave.

Tony had 27 and 30 in 1 and 2. Yet he takes one shot attempt in the 1st 18 minutes of Gm 3. Obviously having been ordered to feed the ball to Tim. To me, the Cavs did not change their D much, it was Pop who ordered a return to Tim Dump. Last 6 minutes of the half of Gm 3 Tony returned to driving and finishing, had i think 10 points in that short spell.

[Extra Stout]

Game 2 was the outlier. Whatever adjustments Brown made after Game 1 failed miserably.

Cleveland had a choice: let the game flow normally, and lose 105-80, or turn it into a grinding hackfest, and lose 85-80. Obviously, they chose the latter for the two games in Cleveland.

It's what the Cavs did all year against the better teams in the NBA. Counting the playoffs, they had about two dozen "ugly" games. That's what you have to do to compete when your one-dimensional offense is stymied (see Spurs circa 2001).

[Obstructed_View]

The Spurs were in a shooting slump throughout the finals, but they hit shots in the paint in games 1 and 2. They played like crap in games three and four but hit a couple of threes and came up big in the fourth of the closeout game. It's a testament to the ineptness of the Cavs that they still managed to lose games three and four. The Spurs typically get blown out when they shoot like that.

Short answer, the Cavs just really suck.

[Fabbs]

Game 2 was the outlier. Whatever adjustments Brown made after Game 1 failed miserably.

Cleveland had a choice: let the game flow normally, and lose 105-80, or turn it into a grinding hackfest, and lose 85-80. Obviously, they chose the latter for the two games in Cleveland.

Obstucted View
Short answer, the Cavs just really suck.

And see, that's what begets my question. Not so much game 4, but game 3.
Did they initiate a grinding hackfest in Gm 3 or did Pop?

[Extra Stout]

Obstucted View

And see, that's what begets my question. Not so much game 4, but game 3.
Did they initiate a grinding hackfest in Gm 3 or did Pop?
The Spurs really didn't have many games like that all year -- maybe 5 or 6, and that included both low-scoring regular season games against Cleveland. The Spurs have offensive potency, and like to use it. It isn't necessary for them to slow the game down to a crawl to shut down the other team. Game 2 proved that.

Keep in mind who Cleveland's coach is ---> Mike Brown. He developed defensive schemes for the Spurs back when they really were a grind-it-out team night in and night out. That's the only card he had in his hand to play.

You be the judge: Cleveland played two dozen games like that, while the Spurs played a handful. And, the beautiful thing about the Spurs is that you can control the pace of the game, and they will beat you anyway. They don't force the issue.

[Obstructed_View]

Obstucted View

And see, that's what begets my question. Not so much game 4, but game 3.
Did they initiate a grinding hackfest in Gm 3 or did Pop?
We've all seen the Spurs go through offensive cold spells before, we've seen them come out flat when they are doing well, and we've seen them play down to their competition. The fact is they couldn't hit the broad side of a barn against the Cavs, in my estimation that was due to the week off. I cannot accept that Mike Brown's defense was so good that it prevented the Spurs from hitting undefended jumpers that they normally make, and that they'd been hitting on at a higher rate for the entire playoffs. The only reason it wasn't noticable in the first two games is because the Spurs scored at will in the paint.

They did finally key on Parker and seemed to slow him down (a defensive adjustment that's worked wonders for the Lakers in the past), and that could be the reason he was unable to penetrate, but sometimes he just stops being aggressive and the whole offense suffers for it. Coincidentally, the Spurs still couldn't hit jumpers and Duncan's short game suddenly went to hell and he started missing shots that had been falling before. If the Spurs had been able to bring any part of their offensive game consistently neither of the games in Cleveland would have been close.

Just my opinion. If someone can point out an actual adjustment that would explain the poor outside shooting I'll change my mind. I think the Spurs just came out flat for game three and managed to win with their defense. It certainly didn't hurt that the majority of the jumpers they actually made were threes.

[Solid D]

Just from observing the games, the 1st half of Game 3 was definitely a different strategy by Pop. TP didn't even test the defense. They went to Timmy in the post. Very noticeable...and a bit frustrating.

Yes, Cleveland did sag their D more and they trapped the ball a lot more in games 3 and 4. That led to lower scoring, junked-up games.

[EvenFlow]

One thing I thought I noticed about the Cleveland home games was that the Spurs strayed from the bread and butter play that had been ripping Cleveland apart: the pick and roll. Whether it be with Tony or Manu being the one running it, the Spurs were always able to get good looks at the basket. Instead the Spurs started feeding the ball into Duncan first and foremost which stymied the offense with all the hacking, and blitzing the Cavs were doing to Duncan down low. And the ball movement sucked in games 3 and 4, Manu specifically was taking rushed shots and going one on one against a solid defense that was packing the lane quite often. It didn't help that the Cavs were dominating the off boards which allowed them extra possession. It is a testament to how inferior Cleveland is when they couldn't win either game when the Spurs were caught playing their style.

[Obstructed_View]

Just from observing the games, the 1st half of Game 3 was definitely a different strategy by Pop. TP didn't even test the defense. They went to Timmy in the post. Very noticeable...and a bit frustrating.
But like I said, sometimes Parker just isn't aggressive, and the whole offense goes to hell. I seem to recall thinking that Pop went to four down way too early during game three, now that you mention it. He sometimes over-coaches. That may have been one of those times. It would have been a great decision if Duncan's shots had been falling.