The Eastern Conference “bad offense” myth, debunked in the Finals
A couple of weeks ago, I debunked the myth of bad offense in the 2004 NBA East playoffs. Today, I’d like to make an announcement: I’m a genius, and all the “experts” can sniff my earthy aroma.
#bball {
border: solid 1px #aaa;
}
#bball TD {
border-top: solid 1px #ccc;
}
| Detroit Pistons | L.A. Lakers | |
|---|---|---|
| Game# | FGM-FGA (shots blocked) | |
| One | 30-65 (4) | 29-73 (4) |
| Two | 32-81 (3) | 38-80 (6) |
| Three | 31-76 (4) | 31-76 (4) |
| Four | 29-68 (1) | 33-78 (4) |
| Five | 35-76 (2) | 31-75 (2) |
| Series total (net) | 157-352 | 162-362 |
| Series shooting% (net) | 44.6% | 44.8% |
Soooo… Where are the “experts” now? I thought that the NBA Eastern Conference Finals were painful to watch? That the teams couldn’t shoot? That the offense was pathetic? And the Lakers were here to save us. Oh thank Heavens—the Lakers and their drama and their tel-e-vis-ion ratings have arrived for the Finals!
Uh, no. What we had there was an utter blowout of a series. If a team has ever won more than four games in an NBA Finals, it was Detroit, who won about 4.9 to take the series. And yes, their defense was superb. But look at their offense! Phil Jackson complained about the refs (yawn) allowing an Eastern Conference, rougher style of basketball, but why couldn’t the Lakers use that style against the Pistons? Quite simply, why were the Pistons better than the Lakers offensively? How come they scored more points in 4 of the 5 games?
Because the “experts” are idiots. Because the Eastern Conference has respectable offense. Because the Western Conference teams never played defense and the Lakers’ offense looked great—until it ran into a decent Eastern team. (Hey, the same thing would’ve happened with Indiana and LA). But most importantly, because Tom Sherman is always right, baby.