Countering the NBA Finals hyperbole: What's not at stake in Cavs vs. Warriors III
The next few weeks will not decide the LeBron James vs. Michael Jordan debate
•
8 min read
The NBA Finals begin on Thursday, and this represents the culmination of 11 months of hype. The Golden State Warriors signed Kevin Durant last July after their storybook season collapsed in six days at the hands of LeBron James and the Cleveland Cavaliers. Since then, this third straight meeting with a championship on the line has seemed close to inevitable, even when Cleveland was struggling. This is the greatest player of his generation against the most absurd collection of talent the league may have ever seen.
This website first published a tale of the tape on these teams back on October. Regardless of what you thought of Durant's decision, the Cavaliers' regular season or the first few rounds of the playoffs, it's all about this one series now. Golden State is the decided favorite, and if it comes up short again, it will be seen as an enormous disappointment. In light of what happened last year and how the Cavs have played in the playoffs, though, it's reasonable to expect them to at least challenge the Warriors. If the defending champions pull off another upset, it would be seen as perhaps the most impressive part of James' legendary resume. There is a lot at stake.
Unfortunately, all of this is not enough for everybody. Over the next two or three weeks, there will be loud voices yelling about how whatever happens in this year's Finals affects the state of things in the NBA or this or that person's legacy. Most of the time, that sort of talk exaggerates or misses the mark entirely. Here's what's not at stake:
The legitimacy of Durant's move
Durant has only been to the Finals once, and James' Miami Heat beat his Oklahoma City Thunder. This was 2012, and Durant was 22 years old, with seemingly endless trips to the game's biggest stage in front of him. In Oklahoma City, Durant learned the hard way how tough it is to be one of the last two teams standing, largely because untimely injuries kept derailing the team. Now that he's back, better and wiser and surrounded by another former MVP and two more All-Stars, it's easy to see this as a defining moment in his career.
It would be incorrect, however, to make this into a referendum on his free-agency decision. Durant joined Golden State to win titles, sure, but not only to win titles. He has said in numerous forums that he went there because it was the best place for him. He wanted to live in the Bay Area, he wanted to play the Warriors' style of basketball, he wanted to play with those specific players and be a part of the culture they have built.
"I made the 100 percent correct decision, win or lose," Durant told The Undefeated's Marc Spears recently. "I feel like this is the place I was supposed to be. I appreciate everything I've done before this. But I'm here now, and I feel like it's a great spot for me to be."
The key phrase there: win or lose. Durant signed a one-year deal, but he has said over and over again that he plans to stay for the foreseeable future. He made the move for the next phase of his carer, not just for the 2016-17 season. Losing in the Finals would hurt, but Golden State does not have to win in order to justify or validate what Durant did. It was his choice, and he seems happy with it.
The reputation of Love
After stopping Stephen Curry and grabbing 14 rebounds in Game 7 last June, Kevin Love had by far his best season as a Cavalier, averaging 19 points and 11.1 rebounds. He has been even better in the playoffs, making 47.5 percent of his 3-pointers and absolutely torching the Boston Celtics in the Eastern Conference finals. He looks to be in the best shape of his life, and he is finally starting to receive praise for his solid positional defense in the postseason. If he plays poorly against the Warriors, though, the conversation could quickly shift.
Even in the immediate aftermath of Cleveland's championship, there were questions about how Love fits on the team, particularly against Golden State. He told ESPN's Zach Lowe that it was a "strange series for me," adding that his job was to mostly "run to the corners and get out of the way." Since the Warriors employ Draymond Green, simply giving Love the ball in the post is not a great idea. Since they move the ball and space the floor so well, Love's lack of speed can be an issue. Golden State forces its opponents to switch, and it's generally a mismatch when Love is defending a smaller playmaker.
It's up to Love to play as hard as humanly possible and compete defensively. It's up to his team to communicate and rotate so he's not exploited. The Cavs need him on the court because he's an awesome scorer, passer and rebounder, so it would be a win for the Warriors if he wound up playing a more limited role.
If Love does end up on the bench in a key moment, though, that does not mean he is suddenly a fundamentally flawed player who should be shipped to New York for Carmelo Anthony. Love is imperfect, sure, but he's still an All-Star, and Cleveland couldn't have asked for much more from him this season. His place in the league and value to his team should not be in question simply because of a difficult matchup.
The health of the NBA
It feels like there's a lot of pressure for the Finals to redeem the playoffs, which have been full of blowouts and short series. This makes sense -- for many of the people who argued that the boring postseason was not a crisis, the argument was that this was simply the byproduct of having two truly transcendent teams at the same time. The payoff, then, is supposed to come in June.
Let's say this series doesn't give us beautiful basketball, though. Let's say it fails to live up to the incredible hype. If this isn't particularly compelling or competitive, does the NBA have a serious problem on its hands?
I say no. It could take a hit from a public relations standpoint, but even if this is a sweep, it's not time to pretend to be concerned that fans are tuning out and the league is losing money. In the big picture, the very factor that made this season predictable -- Durant going to the Warriors -- generated a ton of interest in the NBA. It also had zero effect on the league's new television deal, which has resulted in the owners and players being richer than ever. Nobody can credibly cry poor here.
Everyone wants the Finals to be fantastic, but that's the case every year. The NBA is in a good place, not at some kind of crossroads or breaking point.
Steph's stature
Curry did not play as well as he could have in last year's Finals, and the degree to which that was the result of his health is still up for debate. This means there will be an element of revenge at play here, just as there is for the entire Golden State team. This does not, however, mean that Curry is playing to redeem himself or re-establish himself as a superstar. He has remained a superstar this whole time.
Look at how Curry has handled this season, first deferring to Durant and then learning how to stay aggressive and keep his teammates engaged. Look at his insane playoff numbers: he is averaging 28.6 points with a 67.5 percent true shooting percentage and a plus-24.3 net rating. He may never produce like he did in 2015-16 for a full season, but I'd argue he has improved. With Curry, the number of shot attempts is not most important -- it's all about his confidence and mindset. For his entire career, he has balanced his killer instinct and ability to take over games with his desire to please others and prove that he's a capable point guard. This is not easy, but right now he is doing that just about perfectly and giving his team exactly what it needs.
The Cavs are going to do everything in their power to slow Curry down. They will show him different looks, they will make him work on defense, they will try to get the ball out of his hands and they will be as physical as possible with him when he's running around screens. The mere fact that they will treat him like that is evidence that he's just as dangerous as he was when winning back-to-back MVPs, if not even more so.
LeBron vs. Jordan
You can make the case that Michael Jordan never played a team as talented as last year's Warriors in the NBA Finals, let alone this year's powered-up version. Since bringing a championship to Cleveland, James has been honest about how he uses Jordan's status as the greatest player of all-time to motivate himself, saying he is chasing a ghost. This has led some to say that, if James somehow topples Golden State again, he should be seen as on Jordan's level or above him. This is a little insulting to both players.
James should already be in the conversation with Jordan -- the comparison started being a fair one years ago. Now that James is the most durable and consistent great player through 14 seasons that the league has ever seen, it's silly to say he must beat a Curry-and-Durant-led team to be close to Jordan. This is especially true when you consider that James still has at least a few more excellent seasons ahead of him.
It's also silly to say that, while Jordan won six championships, he has to relinquish his throne the day that James wins his fourth. The fact that titles shouldn't be the only measure of greatness -- Robert Horry is not better than Jordan, after all -- is inherently part of any argument for James being on Jordan's level, but it's also ironically the reason why the result of these Finals shouldn't swing this one way or the other.
Reasonable people can disagree on the LeBron vs. MJ debate, and it's difficult to determine the exact criteria needed to call one or the other the absolute best ever. If you believe the totality of Jordan's career is more impressive than what James has done so far, then you should probably still believe that three weeks from now. Same goes for those who think that James has surpassed him.
