[Razz]

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.

I can buy that. That's why I think the no-call at the end was the right call. Bowen had been reaching, pushing, doing what he always does, and getting a way with most of it (he wasn't the only one by any means, just the best example), so you don't change anything down the stretch.

[Razz]

Well, I'm going to try to address your long-winded post with another long-winded post. What Karl Childers doesn't seem to understand is that we are concentrating on the mental aspects of the pregame, not the 48 minutes when the bet was decided. Personally, this thread has probably done me more good from a philosophical standpoint than any on a specific game will ever do.

"about Gibson starting rather than providing the spark from the bench"

This is probably the key point that we sort of glossed over. I was very excited that he would be playing more minutes. While he was a vast improvement defensively, the spark was never really there. He looked very nervous on the offensive end, realizing it was the NBA Finals instead of playing like it was a Big 12 game as he had previously done.
Future reference, we probably need to keep this in mind. Like some coaches are good assistants and terrible head coaches (Brown), some players thrive coming in off the bench (Ginobili, perhaps Gibson, Stackhouse, etc.)

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.

I had a hard time figuring out any possible reason Lebron was on the bench when the lead was cut from 8 to 3. There was a 0% chance of Lebron fouling out last night.

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.

The thing I honestly cannot figure out is why the Jazz could pull away in the second half and the Cavs could not. The Spurs have, over the course of their history as an elite team, always struggled in these game 3s when they had a 2-0 lead (1-9 SU, 2-8 ATS).
Cleveland is more experienced than Utah. Now, the Jazz do have one of the ten best coaches of all-time and the Cavs have one of the worst. But I, and I'm sure thousands like me, reasoned that James and a renewed spirit at home would be enough to push the Cavs over the edge. Why this never happened is the great question from last night's game. It's not just Brown - the other numbers reflect that he had his team ready. While his in-game decisions may have been questionable at best, the Cavs brought the competitive fire and defensive energy they needed to win the game.

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?

Obviously the clear play was under, nice going with that. It seems neither side was a strong play. But I don't buy that Cleveland's shooting percentage last night was solely the result of SA's defense. I mean, they missed a hell of a lot of wide open shots. Gibson was nervous I think, every time he shot. Lebron missing two layups in the last four minutes was standard too.

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.

I didn't think you were, and I realize I've said some things that could have been taken as inflammatory towards the Spurs. I really enjoy watching them play (when I'm not betting against them). They do things the right way, except for Ginobili, who is a blemish on the whole organization.
Anyway, as to your wife, etc. - That's one of my favorite angles, and one that rarely lets me down. Whenever I hear the public (my non-gambling friends, sportscasters, and so on) talk about that type of thing, I generally love the other side. I don't think she had it pegged any more than anybody else did, and I'll continue to go against that whenever reasonable.
On the other hand, maybe the square approach is best at times. If you can sift through the shit, there are plenty of things that are stated in the media and other outlets that can provide the reasoning that we, as contrarians, generally gloss over, or consider less important than most. And maybe that was the case here.

I didn't proofread this, so don't kill me if I repeated or contradicted myself, or rambled incoherently.

[babaoriley]

Yeah, in summation, I think the square play was the right angle here. Home court, Lebron will explode, Gibson getting more minutes, the officiating question... All were intriguing subplots for gamblers but they detracted from the main point: San Antonio is just head and shoulders above Cleveland. And more importantly, Cleveland is just happy to be here (the finals) while SA had a singular mission from the preseason: win it all. Experience just can't be accurately capped, and likewise experience vs. inexperience can't be capped. How in the world did Sideshow Bob think his spinning, well-defended shot was actually a good decision? If he gives that ball back to Lebron, then you have an ideal scenario. Oh well, we've beaten a dead horse here. Let's move on to game 4. This has been a great discussion. Actually, this is why I joined this board in the first place.