I love this

**moses millsap** · 06-12-07, 12:22 AM

Posts like this usually lead to horrible things, but I tend to agree with your prediction.

**Razz** · 06-12-07, 12:29 AM

Originally posted by OWNED

Posts like this usually lead to horrible things, but I tend to agree with your prediction.

I know, I'm tempting fate, but I'm bored and pretty sure I'm right, so figured I'd write it up the way I truly feel.

**moses millsap** · 06-12-07, 12:31 AM

Originally posted by Razz

I know, I'm tempting fate, but I'm bored and pretty sure I'm right, so figured I'd write it up the way I truly feel.

You inspired me to do the same in the Baseball forum.

**Mistaflava** · 06-12-07, 12:32 AM

**austintx05** · 06-12-07, 01:34 AM

Originally posted by Mistaflava

**babaoriley** · 06-12-07, 03:13 AM

Originally posted by Razz

ESPN.com poll. Will the Cavs win a game in the NBA Finals? Only 45% said yes. Hilarious.
Looking at SportsInsights, out of 2,749 bets, 74% of the side bets are on the Spurs and 98% of the moneyline bets are on the Spurs.

Here's the deal. The Cavaliers are going to win Game 3. I'm certain of it. Mostly for intangible reasons, though a lot of tangible reasons exist to support the Cavaliers in this game, mostly the success of the 0-2 home teams this season.

Also, Gibson is finally going to see the bulk of the minutes, and there are plenty of reasons to think the Cavs' role players will perform much better at home, and Gund Arena will certainly be buzzing in the first Finals appearance in team history. Giricek and Fisher had 11, Millsap and Harpring had 8, and Jarron Collins had 7 in Game 3 of the Jazz/Spurs series. I think the difference in this game will also be the role players. I expect a much better effort out of Z, Gooden, Marshall, etc.

Utah won that game by 26 points. Are the Cavs really that much different from the Jazz? I don't think so. Deron Williams is pretty comparable to Lebron, slightly inferior, and the rest of the Jazz team is slightly superior to the rest of the Cavs' team. But here's the difference. While there is no public appeal with Utah - thus the biased officiating outside Game 3 last series - the NBA would love to see Cleveland make this competitive. Lebron will be given every opportunity.

Here's what I have done. I have made a large play on the Cavaliers ML +107. I love the play, it's going to win, end of story. I have also bought 15 contracts on the Cavaliers to win the NBA Championship for $8 apiece at WSEX. I'll re-evaluate the time I want to unload them at a later point, but as for the time being, I think Cleveland ties this series at 2. From that point, anything goes, I'll probably sell a couple contracts and guarantee a profit - Game 5 is the only game I give the Spurs any advantage in Cleveland - and keep a couple and see if they can win it all and give me a real nice payout.

(Don't take any absolute statement I make as the gospel truth. Though I strongly believe the Cavs are money in the bank for Game 3, anything can happen.)

The Jazz are quite different from the Cavs. A much better all around team than Cleveland. Look, we all are aware of the shaky officiating platform that could very well help Cleveland out, but SA will NOT (and I'd be willing to bet a large, large sum on this) lose two in a row to a clearly inferior team. Not gonna happen. No chance. None. Zero. The End. To put it another way, I went to game 2 last night and I said my goodbyes to everyone (bartenders, friends that I only see at games, etc). This one is done in 5, 4 if the officiating is even.

**abacus30** · 06-12-07, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by Razz

Also, Gibson is finally going to see the bulk of the minutes, and there are plenty of reasons to think the Cavs' role players will perform much better at home

Razz - What makes you think Brown is finally going to play Gibson more this game after refusing to play him the last few? Did he announce that he finally saw the light - that Hughes is horrendous and Gibson is a scoring machine?

**Razz** · 06-12-07, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by abacus30

Razz - What makes you think Brown is finally going to play Gibson more this game after refusing to play him the last few? Did he announce that he finally saw the light - that Hughes is horrendous and Gibson is a scoring machine?

Hughes is listed as "not expected to start". Now, Brown could totally **** that up and start Eric Snow or somebody else, but considering Gibson has been his best player since Game 6 of the EC Finals, I think even he will give Gibson the minutes in this one.

**babaoriley** · 06-12-07, 02:48 PM

Gibson (a fellow UT alum and a good guy) is not enough to shift the balance of this series. His shooting is streaky, at best, and while he represents a significant upgrade over a hobbled Hughes, he is merely window dressing in this case. He helps obscure the fact that the cavs are the inferior team. He gives false hope to those fans hoping for a decent series and for those hoping that Lebron will put on his Superman cape and lead Cleveland to take 4 of the next 5. The only way Cleveland wins this game tonight is if Lebron goes to war (and by that, I mean, he needs to be taking it to the basket like his life depended on it--no settling for jumpers) and if the cavs get the benefit of some serious shaky officiating. This cleveland team is no better than Utah or Denver and both got beat in 5 against S.A. If Cleveland is going to win one, it will be tonight and will be because Lebron goes for 35+ and cleveland benefits from shaky officiating. On a related topic: Does anyone know where I can get the referee assignments for tonight's game?

**abacus30** · 06-12-07, 04:45 PM

I'm with you Baba... Spurs are on a whole 'notha level.

**ShowMeDaMoney** · 06-12-07, 05:03 PM

Tend to agree with Cavs backers in this spot. SA has lost 7 of 9 when going up two games in the post season. In addition, I think you are going to get a real solid performance out of LeBron tonight, and quite honestly... I just see the Spurs feeling a bit comfortable up 2-0 (and for good reason)

I myself thought a Detroit\SA series would be a close one, and we saw Cleveland win four straight against Detroit..so why can't they win one at home?

I don't see where you are getting 98% of money line bets on SA, wagerline.com definitely doesn't show those numbers?

**Razz** · 06-12-07, 10:46 PM

Oh well. If you can't make a shot the whole game, you deserve to lose. At least they brought the intensity and defensive energy I knew they would bring. Doesn't really do me a whole lot of good, but whatever.

**babaoriley** · 06-13-07, 12:15 AM

Razz, I love you and all (in a nonsexual way--My wife is gorgeous), but again, I think you were too smart and outsmarted yourself by overthinking this. Isetcap and I never agree and I acted like a prick to him the other day, kinda talking smack. I respect you and your overall wagering ability, but I think you overthought this game. m I think a lot of people did. to be honest, I almost overthought the game, myself. I was VERY ready to bet against my Spurs in game 3, but (as stated in another post) couldn't get past the Mike Brown coaching /Lebron leadership angles. I played the Under for a LARGE bet (bet as soon as the line was posted, I absolutely hammered it...), had S.A at 1.5 and then bet them at even (+120) when they were down by 4 in the 1st half right before SA went on that mini-run.I bet a semi-large series wager on Spurs in 5, so I certainly hope that the Cavs take Game 4, but this is comparing apples and rotten apples. Spurs win game 4 badly. I'll play a smaller bet on the adjusted line (like Spurs -6 or whatever) and again POUND the under. POUND. POUND. POUND. POUND. POUND. P.S. BET THE F*ckin UNDER!

**Razz** · 06-13-07, 02:21 AM

Originally posted by babaoriley

Razz, I love you and all (in a nonsexual way--My wife is gorgeous), but again, I think you were too smart and outsmarted yourself by overthinking this.

I do have a tendency to do that, I can't disagree, but I really think I was right about this. Watching the game, it seemed to me the Cavs did everything to win expect make their open shots. It honestly played out exactly like I thought except the game was very evenly officiated, which I think surprised us both.

Better defense? Check. Better rebounding? Check. Better performance from role players? Check (Z, Gooden, and Pavlovic had big games). The Cavs stopping Hughes and Ginobili better without Hughes? Check. You just can't win a game when you shoot 3-19 from 3 and the other team shoots 10-19 from 3. Cleveland beat San Antonio in every statistical category except shooting percentage, and it still wasn't enough to overcome that.

Oh well, no regrets, except the final score.

**Razz** · 06-13-07, 02:24 AM

It also would have been nice for Lebron not to get in foul trouble and miss over half the second quarter so that a pretty lead turned into a halftime deficit. That's the problem with betting a one man team, but that's one of the things he's going to have to learn to avoid, just like Deron seemed to learn as the playoffs progressed.

**Dark Horse** · 06-13-07, 03:54 AM

I think Cavs was the right play as well. How on earth did they not at least cover? Came down to a millisecond, which goes to show once again that too often basketball spreads have a margin for error many digits to the right of the decimal point, well into the realm of chaos theory.

How many football or baseball games are decided in the final second? The Spurs sucked tonight and could have easily dropped this game (as is their pattern for game 3 when up 2-0), but they didn't because the Cavs sucked even more and couldn't hit a shot. Hard to believe these are the NBA finals.

**Doc JS** · 06-13-07, 07:25 AM

San Antonio played about as bad as you can realistically expect them to play and they still won.

I think I heard on the radio this morning on Mike and Mike that of the 11 teams that have been down 3-0 in the NBA finals that 7 went on to get swept and only one team was able to force a game seven and, of course, none came back to win after being down 3-0.

It would appear that the fat lady is getting ready to sing!

Doc JS

**babaoriley** · 06-13-07, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by Razz

I do have a tendency to do that, I can't disagree, but I really think I was right about this. Watching the game, it seemed to me the Cavs did everything to win expect make their open shots. It honestly played out exactly like I thought except the game was very evenly officiated, which I think surprised us both.

Better defense? Check. Better rebounding? Check. Better performance from role players? Check (Z, Gooden, and Pavlovic had big games). The Cavs stopping Hughes and Ginobili better without Hughes? Check. You just can't win a game when you shoot 3-19 from 3 and the other team shoots 10-19 from 3. Cleveland beat San Antonio in every statistical category except shooting percentage, and it still wasn't enough to overcome that.

Oh well, no regrets, except the final score.

Razz, with all due respect, that was one of the worst officiating performances of all time. Duncan's off-the-ball foul (which made him sit for about 14 minutes of the first half was an egregiously horrendous call. And don't get me started on the whole Gibson/Lebron "who's shooting the FT's" deal. That was bush league. The Lebron non-call at the end was pretty bad too. But the Cavs, without Duncan on the floor, should have opened up a nice lead. He was on the bench for the entire second quarter, for god's sake. Why didn't Lebron just drive mercilessly to the hole, every single possession. There were about 5 other off-ball fouls that got called that would NEVER get called in a Finals situation. Manu was as bad as a player could be. The Spurs played a "C" game, at best, but still managed to take the game. It's the intangibles here that make the difference. I have no doubt whatsoever that Lebron will win a ring eventually, but anyone expecting the Cavs to beat the Spurs in a 7 game series was either outsmarting themselves or being overly optimistic. This one is done in 4. I wish it would make it to 5, so my 9-2 odds would pay out, but it isn't going to happen. Hammer the under. Hammer the Spurs. I was with my dad last night watching the game and predicted the whole shaky officiating angle (and yes, that second or third foul on Timmy was just ridiculous), ended up betting the under and the cavs 1st quarter, lost a bundle on Lebron +27 points, and hit the whole game spread and total. The only thing that surprised me was Lebron again settling for jumpers instead of layups, FT's, etc. The Cavs are clearly the inferior team and the reason they lost last night was exactly that fact of being inferior. Add in the shaky coaching (and I'm being nice here) and you have a recipe for a sweep. Unless Joey crawford gets suddenly reinstated for game 4, this one is done.

**Razz** · 06-13-07, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by babaoriley

Razz, with all due respect, that was one of the worst officiating performances of all time.

The only time the officials made an egregious error - other than the Gibson thing, which they corrected - was when the official right next to the play did not call what replays clearly showed to be a clean block with no body contact by Gooden and the trail official, from 25 feet away, called a foul. The foul on Duncan was questionable, but if it's on any other player, there's no real debate about it.
Spurs' players and fans are spoiled. They have gotten shady officiating throughout the playoffs - Spurs/Jazz game 4 is second only to Kings/Lakers Game 6 a couple years ago in my all-time worst officiated games - and now an evenly officiated game (More fouls were actually called on Cleveland in the game) seems like everything goes against them.

**The Prick** · 06-13-07, 12:36 PM

TD shot the ball 17 times and earned exactly 2 free throw attempts. that stat prolly means something

**babaoriley** · 06-13-07, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by The Prick

TD shot the ball 17 times and earned exactly 2 free throw attempts. that stat prolly means something

Yessah. It does. It's not necessarily the fouls that were actually called, but the ones that weren't. And as for Spurs fans being spoiled... Well, I can't completely disagree with that statement, but last night was an especially horrific game, in terms of officiating. The Spurs got screwed. Then the Cavs got screwed on that final Lebron shot. It was just a continuation of the shaky officiating that has plagued the NBA all season (especially during the playoffs). If the Cavs would have capitalizeed on the Duncan foul problems, then the entire focus on game 3 would have been the officiating determining the outcome by taking Duncan out of play. On that note, I would have bet my house that Duncan would get into foul trouble yesterday. He could have been on the bench and picked up a few quick fouls...

**Razz** · 06-13-07, 01:50 PM

That stat means nothing. The Cavs only shot 15 FTs, and they had 11 more shot attempts than the Spurs. The Cavs didn't get screwed on the final shot attempt, IMO the officials had let the players play all game (oddly with the exception of LBJ and TD in the 1H - but 2 of 3 fouls for both were mortal locks to be called), and they stayed out of the way in the 4th quarter. Bruce Bowen was the most physical player on the court all night and only got called for one foul.

**Razz** · 06-13-07, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by babaoriley

If the Cavs would have capitalizeed on the Duncan foul problems, then the entire focus on game 3 would have been the officiating determining the outcome by taking Duncan out of play.

Let's not forget that James missed the last 6:01 of the 2nd quarter with 3 fouls and the Cavs scored 8 points the rest of the way. SA ended the first half on a 10-0 run. The chances of either happening are virtually nil if James is playing.
And while I'd rather have Duncan (who picked up his 3rd foul with 5:24 remaining in the 2nd) than James, James is much more integral to Cleveland's success than TD is to SA's.

**dodif** · 06-13-07, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by Razz

Let's not forget that James missed the last 6:01 of the 2nd quarter with 3 fouls and the Cavs scored 8 points the rest of the way. SA ended the first half on a 10-0 run. The chances of either happening are virtually nil if James is playing.
And while I'd rather have Duncan (who picked up his 3rd foul with 5:24 remaining in the 2nd) than James, James is much more integral to Cleveland's success than TD is to SA's.

blah blah blah

ur pick ****in sucked ass.

say my bad and move on

learn from a loss but this rehashing nearly 20 hours later is retarded. The only thing shittier than the pick is talking shit about the shitty pick. Just embed Mike & Mikes rehash of the game and end it! GAME 4 anyone?

**Razz** · 06-13-07, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by dodif

blah blah blah

ur pick ****in sucked ass.

say my bad and move on

learn from a loss but this rehashing nearly 20 hours later is retarded. The only thing shittier than the pick is talking shit about the shitty pick. Just embed Mike & Mikes rehash of the game and end it! GAME 4 anyone?

You're wrong on so many levels you probably can't understand it. I'm not making excuses at all - most Cleveland fans, players, and backers think James should have been shooting 3 FTs at the end, I disagree - baba and I have been talking philosophically about the game, series, and the tendency of gamblers to outsmart themselves. The game itself is merely window dressing for a much larger issue. The discussion, while it is vaguely about this individual game, is about much more than that.

**dodif** · 06-13-07, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by Razz

You're wrong on so many levels you probably can't understand it. I'm not making excuses at all - most Cleveland fans, players, and backers think James should have been shooting 3 FTs at the end, I disagree - baba and I have been talking philosophically about the game, series, and the tendency of gamblers to outsmart themselves. The game itself is merely window dressing for a much larger issue. The discussion, while it is vaguely about this individual game, is about much more than that.

you live in alabama, so outsmarting anything is out of the ?

Simply watch NBA Access on ESPN with Ahmad Rashad. They showed the one where he showcased the spurs yesterday six hours before the game. Outsmarting???? Do u realize how many times the spurs have been here? U need to go watch that nba access cuz then u may realize u were dumb, not outsmating anything. The Spurs are as close to as perfect of a team and orginization as we have ever seen.. And not to see that is outdumbing everyone.

**Razz** · 06-13-07, 02:39 PM

I'm the first to admit when I've made a bad play. I made a terrible play on the Diamondbacks +165 last night. But this wasn't one. The Spurs played their worst game of the playoffs. The Cavs outrebounded them by 7, had 4 more assists, 2 fewer turnovers, 3 more blocks, and 11 more shot attempts.
The bigger questions that baba and I are trying to answer, or at least come to a middle ground on, are

a) Did I outsmart myself making a large play on the Cavs in Game 3 and thinking they had at least a reasonable chance of getting back into the series?
b) Is there ever a time to take a blatantly inferior team that falls into a strong situational angle?
c) Did I gloss over the disaster that is Mike Brown too much?
d) Were we right about the NBA giving the Cavs every chance, or was the officiating relatively even?

I tend to think the answers are No, Absolutely, Probably, and generally even.

**Razz** · 06-13-07, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by dodif

Simply watch NBA Access on ESPN with Ahmad Rashad.

LOL. Yeah, that guy knows his stuff.

**Razz** · 06-13-07, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by dodif

you live in alabama, so outsmarting anything is out of the ?

Simply watch NBA Access on ESPN with Ahmad Rashad. They showed the one where he showcased the spurs yesterday six hours before the game. Outsmarting???? Do u realize how many times the spurs have been here? U need to go watch that nba access cuz then u may realize u were dumb, not outsmating anything. The Spurs are as close to as perfect of a team and orginization as we have ever seen.. And not to see that is outdumbing everyone.

Eighty percent of my schooling was done in Virginia, not that it really matters. But I would like to congratulate you on spacing between "the" and a question mark, random capitalization, "cuz", multiple misspellings, and improper usage and construction of ellipses.

**imgv94** · 06-13-07, 02:51 PM

Cavs going to win Gm 4..

**dodif** · 06-13-07, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by Razz

Eighty percent of my schooling was done in Virginia, not that it really matters. But I would like to congratulate you on spacing between "the" and a question mark, random capitalization, "cuz", multiple misspellings, and improper usage and construction of ellipses.

oh my!

its the internet retard. i just write. I quit caring about that crap when i graduated from law school.

And u just outed urself hick. The space between the "the" and the "?" was cuz the "?" was used so i didnt have to type the word question. You didnt get that. Now stop trying to look smart redneck and go do whatever it is u do in ur hick state.

Arent slack jawed yokels hilarious. Go watch WWE.

**The Prick** · 06-13-07, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by Razz

That stat means nothing.

I brought it up to illustrate the fact that the officials let the players decide the game. officiating was essentially a non-factor in the outcome of the game. the 31 total fouls in game 3 are considerably less than with the 43 total fouls in game 2. both Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili historically have struggled in physical games of this nature when the officials are less whistle-happy.

**dodif** · 06-13-07, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by Razz

LOL. Yeah, that guy knows his stuff.

my point wasnt ahmad though he is best friends with jordan so he must know something.

the point was after watching that 22 minute piece on the spurs u realize these guys are great winners and champions and u would have to be some hick in Alabama to bet against them

**babaoriley** · 06-13-07, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by Razz

I'm the first to admit when I've made a bad play. I made a terrible play on the Diamondbacks +165 last night. But this wasn't one. The Spurs played their worst game of the playoffs. The Cavs outrebounded them by 7, had 4 more assists, 2 fewer turnovers, 3 more blocks, and 11 more shot attempts.
The bigger questions that baba and I are trying to answer, or at least come to a middle ground on, are

a) Did I outsmart myself making a large play on the Cavs in Game 3 and thinking they had at least a reasonable chance of getting back into the series?
b) Is there ever a time to take a blatantly inferior team that falls into a strong situational angle?
c) Did I gloss over the disaster that is Mike Brown too much?
d) Were we right about the NBA giving the Cavs every chance, or was the officiating relatively even?

I tend to think the answers are No, Absolutely, Probably, and generally even.

Yes, i respect Razz quite a bit on this forum. My general point was that a gambler/capper can outsmart themselves in certain situations, and I believe game 3 was one of them for a LOT of people who wagered on the Cavs. I also lost on that D-backs game, by the way, simply because I figured that Webb would continue his recent dominance. Never mind the fact that those last three outings were against inferior competition. That was simply a case of being ill-prepared and not fully examining the info. However, I think the difference in team chemistry (not necessarily talent, mind you) and experience, poise, coaching, etc. between SA and Cleveland is huge. I was bouncing from cleveland and the points to SA and the chalk all day yesterday. Every time I got to cleveland, I thought "crowd will be worth 6-8 points, officiating will be worth 6-10... Will that be enough?". Then, just as I was about to place my wager, I thought about Mike Brown, about Gibson starting rather than providing the spark from the bench, Lebron's steadfast refusal to take the ball to the hole, the overall chemistry of the Spurs and their unflappable attitude. Finally, I had myself convinced that the Spurs were the play. I went into game 3 believing that Duncan and/or Parker would somehow get into quick foul trouble, that Cleveland would own the first quarter, that Cleveland would be in a good position at halftime, that SA would own the 3rd and beginning of the 4th, and that Cleveland would make a push at the end of the 4th, possibly aided by the officiating. I knew the under was a lock and absolutely hammered it.

In hindsight, I outsmarted myself on a number of different levels. The way the 1st half played out, I felt like a genious except for a couple things: Cleveland did own the first quarter, but Lebron didn't really turn it on and a 18-16 lead at the end of the 1st quarter wasn't exactly "owning" the first quarter. I expected them to be up by 6 or so, and they should have been. As for Duncan, he sat out 11 of the final 13 minutes of the 1st half. In a game where the officials "let them play", I find it ironic that the most valuable Spur was on the bench for most of the first half in a game in which every NBA/ABC exec wanted cleveland to win, with that second foul being absolutely atrocious officiating (especially in a game where they let minor contact go).

Now, that said, which was the right play? You could make very compelling cases for each. First of all, when Lebron picked up that 3rd, he should have stayed in the game. In game 2, as Lebron sat on the bench and SA built an insurmountable lead (or so it seemed) I couldn't believe that Brown wouldn't trust a perimeter playing Lebron to NOT pick up his 3rd. This is the finals. Leave your hoss out there with the explicit instructions NOT to pick up that foul. He's simply too valuable to have on the bench because he MAY pick up his 3rd foul. Likewise, in game 4, with Duncan on the bench, Brown should be burned in effigy for sitting Lebron at a time when the game's outlook could have been altered. He left with the cavs up 30-25 and the Spurs closed out the quarter on a 15-8 run. If Lebron stayed in, you could have been looking at a dd cavs lead at half. Instead, they were down by 2.

As for the Spurs angle, I stated before the game (in one of these very threads) that I was curious as to how much ref tampering would be necessary to lead Cleveland to a win. While the level of officiating wasn't quite as bad as I thought it would be, it was umm... fortunate that Duncan played 13 minutes in the first half.

As for Razz's point b) above... Yes, there are times to take the clearly inferior team. Last night just happened to not be one of them. And anyone betting clevleand in game 4 should remember that A) Manu played one of the worst games of his career, B) Duncan wasn't really effective due to his limited minuted, C) Parker played his worst game of the series, D) Cleveland hasn;t shot well all series--what makes anyone think that a game 4 will find a hot-shooting Cleveland team? Isn't it possible that SA's defense has completely flustered cleveland? Isn't it probable that Donyell Marshall is a waste of space on the court, that Gibson was playing over his head, that cleveland is completely outcoached, and that the Spurs are simply a far superior team? Razz, i was never attacking you or your opinion and I hope that was made clear. I just think that people with a ton of gambling experience can outsmart themsleves from time to time. case in point: my wife, who watches as a casual fan but follows my gambling history, asked what the line was yesterday. I said "Spurs by 1 and a half" and she said "Really, it's that low?". She's a novice NBA follower, but she had that game pegged while I was busy trying to talk myself into betting on the Cavs. Thankfully, Mike Brown's involvement cleared my clouded mind and I made the right choice. But I was damn close to out-thinking the game.