My Theory About the Detroit Pistons
It's very simple: if their opponent's best player is a big man, they have a harder time winning a series than if their opponent's best player is a wingman/guard.
I not only say this due to yesterday's results, but also aslo because of the last two NBA Finals appearances for this current Detroit team.
NBA Finals 2004: The Lakers had Gary Payton, Karl Malone, Shaq and Kobe Bryant. Sure Shaq was still dominant, but it was pretty clear that Kobe was the team's best player.
NBA Finals 2005: The Spurs had Tim Duncan, Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili. Although Parker had proven himself as a key component, Duncan was still "The Man."
One might say that overall offensive output played a factor, but they averaged more points than San Antonio (86.71 points to the Spurs 84.86 points). I'd think it's safe to say that the deciding factor was that the 2005 Spurs had a player that could give them a high-percentage shot in the closing minutes of a close game, whereas the 2004 Lakers were still trying to decide between Kobe and Shaq.
What does this have to do with now? Well, it says here that as long as the offense goes through Garnett, the Celtics have a chance at heading to the NBA Finals this year. But if Boston tries to funnel everything through Paul Pierce, the team may struggle. The Pistons are designed to shut down perimeter-based teams; post-up teams, I think, are a different story.
I not only say this due to yesterday's results, but also aslo because of the last two NBA Finals appearances for this current Detroit team.
NBA Finals 2004: The Lakers had Gary Payton, Karl Malone, Shaq and Kobe Bryant. Sure Shaq was still dominant, but it was pretty clear that Kobe was the team's best player.
NBA Finals 2005: The Spurs had Tim Duncan, Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili. Although Parker had proven himself as a key component, Duncan was still "The Man."
One might say that overall offensive output played a factor, but they averaged more points than San Antonio (86.71 points to the Spurs 84.86 points). I'd think it's safe to say that the deciding factor was that the 2005 Spurs had a player that could give them a high-percentage shot in the closing minutes of a close game, whereas the 2004 Lakers were still trying to decide between Kobe and Shaq.
What does this have to do with now? Well, it says here that as long as the offense goes through Garnett, the Celtics have a chance at heading to the NBA Finals this year. But if Boston tries to funnel everything through Paul Pierce, the team may struggle. The Pistons are designed to shut down perimeter-based teams; post-up teams, I think, are a different story.
Comments