JordansBulls wrote:HotRocks34 wrote:JordansBulls wrote:Was there starting center there? Not to mention wasn't Iggy playing with back spasms as well? Imagine a starter on the 2013 Heat out in game 7 do they beat the Spurs at home in game 7?
The turnaround for the Cavs against the Warriors started before Bogut got hurt and before Green got suspended. I know this because I analyzed all the data and posted about it last year after The FInals.
Also, Bogut got hurt early in Game 5, did he not? So if Bogut getting hurt was a key factor, then I guess Green being suspended or not doesn't affect the outcome of Game 5 no matter what.
The contortions people go through on this subject are amazing.
No it didn't because CAvs lost game 4. Draymond got suspended for game 5. Not to mention that one thing triggers another. With Draymond there, Bogut probably doesn't get injured. Not to mention we are talking about a tied game at the half in game 5 with no Draymond and then Bogut goes down, so now Warriors have absolutely no inside presence at all.
Ok, here's the thread I made on the subject. Pretty sure this is it but I need to look it over a bit more to make sure. If it is not "the" thread I made on the subject, it is certainly related to that thread.
"
Golden State's Secret Weakness -- High Pace In The Playoffs"
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1471360Part of what showed up in the research/analysis I did had to do with pace/points in the paint/fastbreak points. And the Cavs started to exploit the Warriors in that zone of things (Pace/FBP/PIP) before Bogut got hurt or Green was suspended. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Additionally, Ty Lue mentioned this (pace in particular, and FBP) at the time. As in, he knew that in order for the Cavs to beat the Warriors they had to pick up the pace and get more FBP. Lue and his staff understood, at the time, what I was picking up when looking at the data in hindsight.
The Cavs did those things, and they were huge parts of why they won the series. I believe the turnaround started in Game 3.
Game 4 was the "aberration" game of the last 5 games of the series and my guess is that it was because the Cavs only had one day of rest and gameplanning as compared with every other game in the series (two days off). But even in that game (Game 4), the stats trends I found still held up, I'm pretty sure.
You know as a data analyst that if you do enough data analysis, it's like forensically 'solving' a crime. I also do a lot of data analysis and there comes a time in a project where you know you have figured out what happened or is going to happen.
I reached that point after going through the data for the 2016 Finals. The Cavs were the better team, and would have won under any circumstances. At least based upon the coaching of both teams at the time and based upon whatever level Curry was at coming into the series.
