Tag: Detroit Pistons

Can we please stop with the pointless clichés?

The Raptors-Cavaliers series should put one of these nonsensical phrases out for good

In our world, the direction of humanity seems to be plummeting towards the toilet with each passing day (with a few exceptions). Part of that free-fall is heard with all of these overused, robotic sayings, otherwise known as clichés. In sports, some of the most spoken terms include “It’s the biggest game because it’s the next game,” “keep the main thing the main thing,” and everyone’s favorite, “it is what it is (probably the worst out of the bunch).” As much of an attempt to keep any feeling out of the equation these clichés amount to, there’s one that definitely misses the mark when it comes to competition, and while there’s an understanding why it’s used, it’s hard to get behind when truth is completely missing.

What’s that specific cliché ? It’s the one that says a series doesn’t begin until the road team wins a game. The origin of this misplaced saying is unclear, but it’s typically used around the NBA and NHL (MLB also), sports associations that use series as their playoff format. There’s a lot that is put into having a home court or ice advantage. The feeling of playing in front of a home crowd, particularly for the role players who don’t get as much spotlight as the stars, can elevate their performance. Therefore, when the road squad is able to steal that advantage, it’s seen as a monumental shift in the tone of the series. For an example, the Minnesota Timberwolves were able to win Game 1 of their Western Conference semifinals battle with the San Antonio Spurs Monday night in San Antonio. Now, the Timberwolves have the advantage as long as they win at least their home games, and the Spurs have to get it back (their first opportunity comes Friday night in Minneapolis). Of course, the rest of the series has to work itself out, but if we’re supposed to follow the meaning of this cliché, it officially became real when Minnesota won.

But what happens if a whole series happens without a road team winning, or said away team wins for the first time to actually advance to the next round? If any of those two instances occur, there’s factually no way anyone can use that saying, which frankly makes it sound idiotic. Case in point, let’s use the recent first round series between the Toronto Raptors and Cleveland Cavaliers, won by the Cavaliers in seven games (Cleveland is battling the Detroit Pistons in the Eastern Conference semifinals). The home squad won all of those contests, and it’s certain the players, coaches and fans who watched the series knew they were in a battle, regardless of result. If we’re to believe the cliché in question, that means the Raptors and Cavs never played, and a whole series can actually play out before it even begins. A road squad can win Game 6 (or perhaps Game 7 if the series makes it that far), ending a series the home team won the first five games, before it starts. How crazy does that sound?

Even with going to the other side of the aisle, lets say the away team wins every game in the series. Does that mean the battle never happened because the home team lost every time, or could it be deemed one of the best of all-time because nothing but road victories occurred? Are we going to tell the players and coaches who went through the series, making all of these adjustments physically and mentally, the series never began because the home team won all of the games? What if a player gets injured during one of these contests? The injury never happened (I guess) because the series never began, due to the road team losing time and again. There’s too many items available to poke holes at this cliché, and it’s not because of any deep searching. Stories are written, and items are documented. The combination of the two equals said analogy being factually not true.

It’s understood clichés are used to explain a lot of the experiences we go through in life. There are even a few, such as “the more things change, the more the stay the same,” that make more sense than others, and are probability more appropriate with today’s times. This one about the series beginning when the road team wins is not one of those clichés that hit the mark. Sometimes, a fancy saying in an attempt to sound philosophical isn’t necessary. Let’s cut the complications out of it (which is hard to do for most), and say a series begins when the ball is tipped, or the puck is dropped (or first pitch), to start Game 1. After all, it’s not like the teams involved are caring about when and where they win. They just want to win, and frankly, so do the masses.

Bucks coaching fiasco latest example of crumbling under expectations

Apparently, having one of the best records in the NBA isn’t enough for a head coach’s job security these days

It’s understood the NFL is king when it comes to the talking points, and plenty of time will be spent previewing the Super Bowl in short order. Meanwhile, stuff is happening in the other leagues, and there’s one topic that definitely came and stayed in the radar. It involves the NBA’s Milwaukee Bucks, and their decision to fire first-year head coach Adrian Griffin after (only) 43 games. The factors as to why the Bucks made this move, at this point in the regular season, will be discussed in a little bit. Just know situations like this point to a larger issue when it comes to the pressures of trying to produce winning results quick, fast and in a hurry. Such expectations can lead to executives in front offices everywhere to misunderstand the personnel they have, and horrible lapses in judgment altogether.

Let’s start with this stat. At the time, Milwaukee sat at 30-13, good enough for second in the Eastern Conference (behind the Boston Celtics). In and of itself, that record should have had the Bucks feeling great about hiring Griffin to replace Mike Budenholzer, who coached Milwaukee to an NBA title in 2021. As stated earlier, expectations are to get back to the top of the mountain again, and frankly, the Bucks should believe they can hang another championship banner. Above everything else, they have a perennial MVP-candidate in Giannis Antetokounmpo, and they traded to bring Damian Lillard, who is one of the league’s most potent scorers, to help assist. When a squad has those assets, it’s easy to see where a head coach could crumble under the weight of the pressure, especially one in his inaugural season. Based off of the record, Griffin was doing a good job, but apparently, not good enough. So why the sudden change to fire him? According to reports, the way Milwaukee was playing defensively was a chief reason, ranking 24th in points allowed per game this season. In back-to-back contests against the Detroit Pistons, the Bucks gave up 135 and 113 points, respectively. The Pistons have the NBA’s worst record at 6-43. Griffin would become the fall guy because of these struggles, but there are reasons to believe other factors contribute to the lack of defense.

The first factor is nobody in the league plays defense anymore, especially in the regular season. For context, the Minnesota Timberwolves, who are in a four-way tie for first in the Western Conference, lead the league in points allowed per game at 107.1. Years ago, that total might have been last in the NBA, but now, it’s a miracle if a team is held under 100 points after three quarters. The second factor is the Bucks’ roster isn’t one that’s built to stop anyone. Besides Antetkounmpo, anyone who had something like a defensive mentality went out the door with the Lillard trade, and all of the scoring punch the guard brings is equaled by his defensive liabilities. In other words, it shouldn’t surprise anyone Milwaukee is bad defensively, regardless of who the head coach is. It’s understood the NBA is a league that’s player-driven, which means they will get the benefit of the doubt in most cases when teams have rifts. With that said, it makes it too easy to blame other factors as to why strife is occurring, and the head coach is the one who becomes the sacrificial lamb.

So who did the Bucks decide to bring in as Griffin’s replacement? None other than Doc Rivers, of course. After all, it would make sense to bring in a guy who was a team consultant while working on the lead commentary team for ESPN (sounds dirty). At any rate, maybe things can be different in Milwaukee, but there’s not many reasons to believe this would be the case. Rivers was just fired by the Philadelphia 76ers at the end of last year, and has been the head coach of teams that have blown numerous series leads in the playoffs, including last season’s 3-2 advantage to the Celtics in the East semifinals. There was a time where Rivers was considered one of the best coaches in the NBA, and some may still have that view. Now, it’s harder by the day to continue living off of the title he won as Boston’s head coach in 2008, especially when every place he’s been to afterwards has been left in dysfunction when the time to part ways came. Frankly, having Rivers replace Griffin says Milwaukee is caving in under the pressure to win now.

Nobody knows the true reason(s) why the Bucks let Griffin go, except the people within the organization. If the team’s lack of defense was a main reason why, then it might be fair to say every coach in the league should be on the hot seat. For Milwaukee, the record since Griffin was fired on Jan. 23 is 3-5, and opponents haven’t scored less than 112 points in any of those games. Unless Rivers has some sort of secret to magically fix the squad’s lack of defense, many of the same problems will persist, and the Bucks will find themselves falling short of those lofty expectations. At that point, maybe the front office will look at the players, and find these are problems (by their own creation) a coach can’t necessarily fix with schemes alone. Time will tell, but at this moment, it appears Griffin got a raw deal.