Disclaimer: I’m going to be critical of the Cavs on one point, and then I’m going to defend them. Here are a few stats that are going to feed into the criticism:
Game 4: 4-21 3P (19%) , -6 OREB, -14 TRB, -10 pts in paint
Game 3: 5-12 3P (44%), -3 OREB, +15 TRB, +18 pts in paint
Game 2: 4-21 3P (19%), -1 OREB, -10 TRB, +2 pts in paint
Game 1: 4-12 3P (33%), -1 OREB, even TRB, +2 pts in paint
SERIES: 17-66 3P (25.8%), -11 OREB, -9 TRB, +12 pts in paint
Over the regular season, the Cavs averaged 19.3 three-point attempts per game. For the series, they’re averaging 16.5 three-point attempts per game, or about 3 fewer per game. More importantly, their percentage for the series is a dismal 25.8%.(For reference, the league average over the regular season was about 35%. The Cavs’ average was 38%.) So against Boston, the Cavs are shooting significantly fewer threes and having a significantly lower success rate on those fewer attempts.
Are the Celtics doing something to take away the Cavs’ long-distance shooting? Not as far as I can tell. The team as a whole—with the exception of Anthony Parker, a clause I can’t believe I just wrote—has been getting many of the same open looks they’ve been getting all season. They’re just not connecting.
The reality is that one of the things that has made the Cavs so difficult to beat all season is their ability to stretch the floor by shooting and making a high volume of 3s. If that aspect of their game can’t be depended on in the playoffs (and given the number of attempts it doesn’t even look like they’re trying to depend on it), there’s a ripple effect through the entire offense. I would suggest it’s not a coincidence that the only game in the series where the Cavs shot well from behind the arc was the same game where they dominated points in the paint. Why? The fewer long shots the Cavs take (and make), the more the Celtics can sag back into the paint to make things difficult for drivers, posters, and Cavs rebounders.
You’re going to read a lot about the Cavs’ effort level in this game. Their performance on the glass will be one of the main pieces of evidence writers use to make that point. As noted above, the Cavs have won the rebounding battle only once in the four games. But instead of just saying the Cavs should try harder, I’m going to at least suggest that a part of their problem is that the Celtics don’t have to fear the stretched floor the way the Cavs need them to. This makes defensive rebounding easier for the Celtics for the reasons I mentioned above. It also ends up resulting in forced passes to the interior, turnovers (LeBron had 7 today, by the way), and lower offensive production in the paint.
So when you get down to it, my overall point is this: effort is important. But some of the raw stats of the game that people construe as “lack of effort” might not be there if the Cavs would hit something in the neighborhood of the same number of threes they hit in the regular season.
This leads me into the part where I defend the team.
Overall, the Cavs did not play as poorly as other people would have you believe. They held the Celtics to 44.7% FG and 7.1% 3P (1-14). They drew four more fouls on the Celtics, shot only one fewer FTA, and had a higher FT% (74.4% CLE vs 70% BOS). They matched the Celtics’ team assist total, and held the Celts under 100 points.
The problem was Rondo was an absolute demon (28 points, 13 assists, 18 rebounds, 2 steals, only 4 TOs, and only 1 minute of rest). He dominated every aspect of the game, single-handedly outrebounded the Cavs in the 4th quarter, and in a straight-up player comparison made LeBron an also-ran (22 points on 7-18 FG, 9 Reb, 8 ast, 2 stl, 1 block, but 7 TOs and 0-5 3P). It should be taken with a grain of salt because of the usual media exaggeration, but before the game was even over, the broadcast team was discussing that Rondo’s game could be one of the greatest playoff performances in Celtic history.
If there’s one thing that Cavs fans should understand by now, it’s that games can be won by great individual performances. Even when the opposing team plays well. That’s what the playoffs are all about some times. In this case, the Cavs’ superstar had a worse game than the opponents’, who had a performance for the ages.
Overall, the Cavs did some things right. But the Celtics—really, Rondo—did more things right, so they won the game. It’s not sorcery, and it’s not completely our guys’ fault. It’s basketball, and some times, it’s life. So let’s all quit acting like the entire thing is just a result of the deficiencies on our own side, and that if the team would’ve just tried harder, they’d be going back to Cleveland 3-1.
-T
