Would Cleveland Have Beat LA in the Finals?

[s1ickd]

It almost seemed like the Cavs gave us a harder time than the Lakers. In fact, if it wasn't for Pierce's heroics in game 7, we wouldn't have even advanced past the second round.

Ben Wallace on Odom would have taken care of that matchup IMO.
Ilgauskas isn't nearly as mobil as Gasol, but he's long and disruptive.
The Lakers have ZERO answer for Lebron. They're too soft for his menacing drives to the hoop. He'd probably score 35 a night.
The Cavs have no answer for Kobe, but they do have some pretty decent team defense.
Cavs bench is better with Verejao, Gibson, Joe Smith, and Pavlovic.

Coaching edge clearly goes to Phil Jackson.

Thoughts?

[sh00n]

Not at all.

[Fencer reregistered]

It's not obvious. LA had some real mental softness, and hence might have played better against the Cavs even beyond the "Of COURSE a good team makes you look bad" level.

[Al-Haqq]

The playoffs are a lot about match-ups.

Although it seems the Cavs match up better against us than the LA Lakers did, doesn't mean the Cavs can beat the LA Lakers.

It's all about match-ups.

[icewill36]

The playoffs are a lot about match-ups.

Although it seems the Cavs match up better against us than the LA Lakers did, doesn't mean the Cavs can beat the LA Lakers.

It's all about match-ups.

yes it is all about matchups, and thats why i feel cleveland would have had a great chance to beat LA. if you look at the head to head matchups the last few years, the lakers really struggle with cleveland. the lakers D is not good enough to keep lebron from wreaking havoc upon them, while clevelands D can limit the lakers offensive efficiency.

i dont think the lakers D would be good enough to stop them in the end because i think the lakers up and down style would actually play into cleveland's hands and improve their offense. the more cleveland gets out of that stagnant half court offense the better they are. cleveland is closer to a title than a lot of people think IMO.

here is kobe vs lebron head to head.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/ ... =bryanko01

[pballa]

CLE is not close to a title at all, no way LBJ is winning one with that team.

especially given their current off-season agenda.

[GuyClinch]

Cleveland would have MAYBE won one game. The C's were struggling as Ray Allen was playing like a loser out there. Let's not forget that. If that wasn't enough their size gave us a ton of trouble.

Pete

[cisco]

I believe Cleveland could have beaten LA simply because of their defense (which we shouldn't forget wins championships). Cleveland played excellent defense and LA played none. There is a reason why the Eastern teams are winning most of the championships lately and the only Western team to win are the ones that play good defense (San Antonio). Same reason the Pistons beat the star studded LA in '04... they played better defense.

I know LA beat San Antonio, but San Antonio was not the same team that won the championship the prior year. Their bench was much older and unproductive in the playoffs and Ginobli was hurt.

[Truthiracy]

Hell no, Cleveland is not that good, the only reason the "Cavs" took us to 7 is because of Ray Allen's shooting woes, period, end of story, that's it.

Cleveland would have been swept.

[MyInsatiableOne]

CLE is not close to a title at all, no way LBJ is winning one with that team.

especially given their current off-season agenda.

Agreed. Cleveland avoiding a sweep by stealing one game would have been a huge accomplishment. Detroit, on the other hand, would have handled the Lakers, perhaps not quite as easily as we did, but still they'd have won in 6 or 7.

[Athanacropolis]

Hell no, Cleveland is not that good, the only reason the "Cavs" took us to 7 is because of Ray Allen's shooting woes, period, end of story, that's it.

Cleveland would have been swept.

You, GuyClinch, and Insatiable got it in one. When the Celtics are clicking, they can beat ANYONE by 30. When they struggle, they still can beat the best players in the world in 6 or 7. I feel that if LeBron James had ONE off game against L.A., that would be all she wrote.

I recall game 1 of the series against Cleveland where LeBron struggled mightily, and the Cavs lost by 4 or so points. Two reasons the Celtics won that game: 1) KG. Pierce and Allen were struggling, but KG had a huge game. LBJ has no other backup. 2) Role players. Posey, especially, was huge. Who has James' back when he is struggling? Please don't say Delonte.

Cavs would maybe have taken one in Cleveland against L.A.

[Kefa461]

Folks...stop it.......don't you get it......we have to be good......on our board .....on their board....on the general board.....on any board......we must not be mean or say anything to piss off the Laker fans.
They get mad, they whine, they cry, our posts get locked, we get warned, we are labeled as bad winners. We are not to do this......play nice......say only good things......that is all......... ... ......I just love it..............

[Athanacropolis]

^^^ But most of us think that the Lakers would have beaten the Cavs. If they get pissy about this, then watch out!

[Celtsfan1980]

From what I remember in the past year or two, the Cavs have played the Lakers very well. I think it's very possible it would be a 6- or 7-game series. I'm not sure who would win though.

[Man_Up]

No they wouldn't. Bad match-ups across the board for the Cavs. Wallace can't guard Odom, and he's to small for Gasol. Here's a better question. If you swapped Kobe with Lebron would L.A. beat us in the Finals?

[ParticleMan]

No chance.

Cleveland was only close to us because Ray mysteriously forgot how to shoot against the Human Turnstile Wally. My theory is that he was so flustered at being guarded by such a lame defender that he never got a rhythm. In any case I don't think the Lakers would have too much trouble with Cleveland.

And great question Man_Up, my answer is probably. At least they would have had a much better chance.

[cavsfan_osiris]

The close series between Cleveland and Boston is misleading. Atlanta was able to take the Celts to 7 games also. Boston didn't come on strong until the Detroit series then peaked at the perfect time, when it mattered the most.

Ray Allen in particular elevated his game to the level we all expected to see from him. If Ray had been playing like that in the first and second rounds the Celts wouldn't have had any trouble with either the Cavs or Hawks.

The Cavs might have beaten Detroit, but they would not have beaten the Lake Show. The Lakers would have had home court, but even if the Cavs had home court I wouldn't have expected them to beat the Lakers. Boston reached their peak at the perfect time.

[floyd]

We beat LA because we pounded them on the glass, played more physical, and their SFs couldn't guard anyone. Cleveland has more size, is more physical, and has a better version of Pierce in LBJ. I think it would have been a series if Cleveland could get by Detroit.

[tombattor]

I think the Cavs would have won the title, if we didn't beat them in 7 games. Cavs have as good of a defensive team as the Celtics and unlike Kobe, you can't shut Lebron down.

[ParticleMan]

against us...
Lebron: 35% shooting, 23% from 3, 27 ppg, 5.3 TO/gm
Kobe: 40% shooting, 32% from 3, 26 ppg, 3.8 TO/gm

i'd say we shut down Lebron better than Kobe in the playoffs.