San Antonio put a quick end to the media frenzy around LeBron James with a 85-76win to take Game 1 of the NBA Finals Thursday night. The combination of Tony Parker, Tim Duncan, and Manu Ginobili scored a total of 67 points and went a collective 27-of-52 from the floor. What could Cleveland really have done?
It is true. LeBron James played quite poorly. There's no other way to spin 4-of-16 from the field and 6 turnovers. But Cleveland's problems were not just limited to their star. Zydrunas Ilgauskas? He was 1-of-8, never touched the free throw line, and only pulled down 6 boards to boot. Horrible for a center. Larry Hughes? He was just 1-of-5, and also never got to the charity stripe. No other Cavaliers positioned themselves as offensive threats except for Daniel Gibson, (7-of-9 for 16 points), and the lack of legitimate scoring options allowed San Antonio to focus more on James.
If you can believe it, it even goes further than just Cleveland not hitting shots. True, they were only about 43% from the floor and were really under 40% until some buckets started to fall near the end. But despite all these misses, Cleveland managed to get only 9 offensive rebounds and didn't give themselves many opportunities for second chance points. Considering how good Cleveland usually is at rebounding, it's worrisome to see them so outworked on the boards. For the sake of comparison, it should be noted that San Antonio had 13 offensive rebounds of their own, resulting in 19 second chance points. All that despite shooting over 45% from the floor themselves.
Cleveland also didn't do a very good job working within the context of the offense and using ball movement to get open looks. Of their 30 field goals made, only 9 had corresponding assists. This says to me that Cleveland was trying to work the Spurs one on one and create shots for themselves. Again, compare that to the Spurs excellent running of offensive sets and using good ball movement to get high percentage shots for their big scorers. San Antonio had 18 assists amongst their 34 made field goals, and this increased distribution is a big reason for why Cleveland came up short.
Article comments
1 - RJ
Great article, as always.
Seriously, I would have gleefully bet anyone 100 dollars that SA would win Game One, straight up, five-to-one odds. And I wouldn't have lost a drop of sweat in placing that bet. (Which makes me wonder why I didn't place that bet...)
SA is gonna win this series. The only question is how many games. Four, five, or six? (Seven is not a serious option.)
I still say: Spurs in 4. :-/
2 - Jared Wright
Agreed. Everyone saw this win coming from so far away it's nasty.
Game 3. Cleveland'll get Game 3.
3 - Akhilleus13
I think the Spurs will win in six (Cavs take games 3 and 5). Let's hope this series can produce some close finishes and more excitement than we saw in game one. That's what this article hopes for, too.