Cornell Falls in Title Game, Andy Bernard Weeps

After two blowouts in the Men’s Division 1 Lacrosse Semi-finals, Syracuse and Cornell put on a game for the ages today, as the Orangemen knocked off the Big Red in overtime, 10-9. For Cornell, this one definitely stings as the Big Red blew a 3 goal lead with under four minutes to play. I can’t confirm if Andy Bernard was in the audience, but I can say there won’t be a post game performance by “Here Comes Treble” for the Cornell faithful.

It must be disappointing for Cornell as they turned into Cor-NOT in the final five minutes, allowing a furious Syracuse comeback.

For non-lacrosse followers, I’ll break down the game using more mainstream analogies. In this contest, game-planning played a huge role as Cornell head coach Jeff Tambroni turned into a combination of Dave Wannstedt and John Calipari (circa the 2008 NCAA Championship) in the 4th quarter. Cornell held a 1 to 2 goal lead much of the second half, but instead of going for the jugular, The Big Red took a page out of Dave Wannstedt’s book and played not to lose. (Surprisingly, Jay Fiedler was nowhere to be seen.) Cornell had opportunities to score, but instead of trying to add to the lead; they decided to hold the ball and try to run the clock down. It’s been proven in football and basketball that when you play not to lose…well, you often put yourself in a better position to lose.


As a result, Syracuse roared back and cut the deficit to 1 goal with under a minute to play. This brings us to our second point, as Tambroni decided to take another page out of the non-award winning book, “How to Lose a Game in 10 Minutes.” In this instance, he re-enacted a not-so-great moment in John Calipari’s career by not using timeouts. In the 2008 NCAA Championship, Memphis held a 3 point lead over Kansas near the end of the game. Calipari elected not to use a timeout before the Jayhawks final possession, and Mario Chalmers hit a three to send the game into OT. This backfired, as conventional wisdom shows when up by 3 late, you should foul the opposing team so they can’t attempt a three point bucket. By not re-iterating this to his team, he hurt their chances of winning.

Today, with Cornell holding the ball in their own end with twenty seconds to go, they were in immediate danger of turning the ball over. Instead of calling a timeout and instructing his team to throw the ball as high and deep in Syracuse territory, Tambroni did nothing. As a result, Cornell lost the ball and allowed the Orangemen to score with four seconds to go.

However, despite Cornell’s mistakes in the end, you’ve got to give a ton of credit to Syracuse for valiantly fighting back in this contest. In an ending that strongly resembled the 2008 NCAA Men’s Basketball Championship, the Orangemen never gave up, and were able to capture another lacrosse title. For Cornell, this was a team that overachieved through the postseason and has nothing to hang their heads about. They played fantastic for 55 minutes, but fell apart in the final five. It’ll be tough to get the taste out of their mouths from this loss, but Cornell will still be there in the future if Tambroni decides to take a page out of Bill Belichick’s book, instead of Dave Wannstedt’s.

Memorial Day Weekend NBA Ramblings

With two games down in the Eastern and three games down in Western Conference Finals, it is definitely time for another NBA column. I can't remember a string of nights where there were so many great games back to back to back. All I can say is that I am thankful.

Speaking of things that I am thankful for from this past weekend:

Lebron James, Beer (even Keystone), Marv Albert's “YES” call, that new Dos Equis commercial, the NBA having 69 year old refs who are good at evening up series, Whiskey, Ron Jeremy (the NBA coach), NCAA Lacrosse Final Four Memorial Day Weekend (especially Quint Kessenich, with his insights and coaching corner), Cornell upsetting UVA in the semifinals (hopefully they can win one more for the Nard DAWG) and last but least Mike Brown...for being incompetent.

Thanks, Mike Brown for making games 1 and 2 so close. On this site we may already be notorious for giving certain people a continued hard time on the regular, but certain individuals give us no choice. Let me give a hypothetical situation. Say you’re a coach in the NBA with a rebound machine on your roster that has little to no offensive skill, but can be a good defensive match-up for the other team's best player.

How would you use this guy? Well, if you’re Mike Brown, you bring him in to stop the other team's power forward who plays more like a small forward. Yes, I'm talking about Rashard Lewis who spends most of his time away from the basket, effectively taking away player X's biggest strength of rebounding. In addition, now Lewis can take a breather on defense until it comes time to box out player X. So by playing player X, you are not effectively defending the Magic's small lineup, and at the same time you do nothing to punish the other team for going small against you. Rather, it is almost like you’re saying, “We know your main advantage is playing small, what other lineups can we play that take no advantage of this and encourage you to do this more.”

By the way, Player X is Ben Wallace but I could have tricked you and said player X was Anderson Varejao. At this point in his career, Ben Wallace is just a poor man's Anderson Varajao. Both Varejao and Wallace don't effectively guard Lewis, while subsequently doing nothing to challenge him on the other end either. How about going small with LBJ at power forward? This way you can rest your big guys and keep them fresh throughout the game.

The other thing I don't get is having Lebron James guard Rafer Alston the whole game. This is a clear case of Mike Brown trying to out coach himself. We know you’re a good defensive coach, but when another team has two swingmen (Lewis and Turkoglu) that can hurt you, why not put the runner-up for Defensive Player of the Year on one of them. Seriously, this is about as smart as pinch running with Harold Baines (for non Orioles fans maybe I should have gone with pinch running with Mark McGuire). Lebron is your best defender and you’re using the logic that he is also your best help defender to use such an asinine strategy.

However, this raises a more important question: WHY ARE YOU ENCOURAGING YOUR TEAM TO HELP AGAINST ORLANDO. They have a bunch of guys who just want to sit back and shoot threes. Look at Hedo Turkoglu, he relies on a stepback jumper as his only move, almost as badly as Seth Rogen relies on his dice move to knock up Katherine Heigl. Cleveland's defensive strategy should be to play up on all of Orlando's players and to help as little as possible. Don't let them play to their strengths and shoot 3's. Make them beat you off the dribble. You have 3 serviceable centers with 6 fouls to give each. So rather than help on Howard, single cover him and put him on the free throw line to earn it because he shoots terrible from the line.

I haven't talked about the LA/Denver match-up in a while and I have to admit that I was wrong. I thought that Denver was going to win because LA wasn't going to bring it. Now I think Denver is flat out better, and if they don't win, it will be either because they blow it like they did in game one or because Kobe takes it from them like he did in game three. Kobe isn't going to make me take everything I said about him back after one game, but if he continues to dominate in the crunch like he did last night, I might have to. He has a chance right now to throw himself into the stratosphere of great players and Kobe realizes how much is at stake for his career. There is no one on the court that wants it more than Kobe and you can see this during crunch time of games. It will take a superb effort to beat him, even from a better team. Compound Kobe's play with the mistakes they’re making and Denver may have an uphill climb. It’s clear that Carmelo will have no problem scoring this entire series but they need to get him the ball. The Nuggets have shown throughout this series they are the aggressors, ready to take it right at the Lakers but they need to finish games. I said two columns ago that Denver is capable of beating LA, but if the Lakers flip on the switch that Denver can’t take this series. However, I am convinced that Denver is capable of winning regardless of how LA plays; they are just more talented. But they need to play smart at the end of games and take care of Kobe.

NBA Eastern Conference Ramblings

(Editor’s Note: This column was written before Game 1 of the Eastern Conference Finals…Honestly.)

We got it a week ago and now we get it again. That's right, another edition of Guy #2 NBA playoff ramblings. This iteration of the ramblings column is going to focus mainly on the Eastern Conference with a little Kobe bashing thrown in for good measure (I just can't help myself).

To breakdown the match-up between Orlando and Cleveland, we first have to mention one of the most interesting subplots. On one bench is Stan Van Gundy who many thought should have won Coach of the Year and on the other end is Mike “Caretaker of the Year” Brown.

This series is all going to revolve around two main questions. First, how will Mike Brown answer to Stan Van Gundy's small front court of Hedo Turkoglu, Rashard Lewis, and Dwight Howard? Second, how much help-defense will Orlando use to stop Lebron, and how much help will Cleveland use to stop Dwight Howard? This second question could end being the difference maker but we'll start with the small ball debate. We know from playoff history, especially with the Mavericks-Golden State round one series in 2007, that if you are the favorite you really shouldn't play into your opponent’s hands. But would going small if you’re Cleveland in this scenario really be playing into your opponents hands? I think Mike Brown needs to realize a couple of things: A) I have Lebron James on my team. So rather than thinking of how I can win this series, I need to NOT be thinking of ways I can lose this series. B) I have Lebron James on my team. Who on Orlando is going to stop him...HEDO TURKOGLU...RASHARD LEWIS...JJ REDICK? Yea, I can see that happening. C) Mike Brown, you can't out coach yourself, so don't even think about it.

I know I didn't answer the question but let me elaborate.

If you’re Cleveland, go with what got you here, but at the same time don't be afraid to go small. Coach based on feel and what's working. Lebron at the four might be your best line up, so don't be afraid to go with it. There are two main examples of how not to combat sneaky lineups that go small. One would be how the Boston Celtics played Orlando last round. They didn't really adapt to the small lineup and were left with Glen “Big Baby” Davis guarding Rashard Lewis in crunch time. Anderson Varejao might be more up to the challenge, but if he isn't you need to adjust, especially if you just won coach of the year and even more so if you look like Mr. Potato Head.

Another futile attempt at combating small ball was what Avery Johnson and the Mavericks did in 2007 against the Warriors. From the start of the series, they went small instead of playing the way they had all year. By the same token, if you’re Mike Brown, you're sending the wrong message to your team if you come out with Sasha Pavlovic, Wally Szczerbiak, or Daniel Gibson in the starting lineup in place of Ilgauskus or Varejao. Your best lineup to combat them going small might end up being small, but I think you may give Orlando the mental edge by saying: We can’t stop you with our normal lineup.

Of course this all comes down to my second question: How much help will Cleveland give to stop Howard, and how much help will Orlando give to stop Lebron, as both teams have virtually no answers for each player. This will be key because although both Lebron and Howard have immense skills, their true worth will be in creating offense for their teammates. Cleveland has the advantage here because as mentioned before, Orlando has no one who can guard Lebron so Orlando will need to help. This will free up Cleveland shooters, who will need to perform for the Cavs to advance. On the other hand, Cleveland should want Dwight Howard as Orlando's main option, because their three point shooters are deadly and as good as he is, Howard's offensive skills are underdeveloped.

Another thing before these ramblings end. Orlando won the season series 2-1 and in their last game on April 3rd, Orlando won by 29. They did shoot 48% from behind the line and Cleveland only shot 37% from the field, but you have to think that Orlando is comfortable with this match-up. They can play without fear and they know if they play to their ability they are capable of winning any game.

The big question in the end is who do I pick to win this series. The more I look at it the better Orlando looks on paper. But I think therein lies the problem... PARALYSIS BY ANALYSIS. I could probably talk myself into Orlando and make an interesting article about it, but why do that when Lebron is on the other team. As much as I think this is a tough match up for the Cavs dealing with the small lineup on paper, with Lebron, the Cavs are just better than they look on paper

Also in unrelated news, Kobe is not doing work, the refs are doing work for him. That's right I said it. Way to get an undeserved documentary about you and then have the refs give the game to you.

Back From the Dead?

I always hate Wednesdays without Lost. But this Wednesday, we got our Lost fix with the Heat's game 2 victory over the Hawks. Dead man who comes back to life: check. Mastermind who is one step ahead of everyone else despite seeming behind: check. With the Heat game, we got all the drama we expect from Lost on a weekly basis.

Last night, all the pieces were in place. Jermaine O'Neal played the role of the dead guy who came back to life, as he played a pivotal role in the Heat's game 2 win. He was the initiator of the Heat offense, as the ball went into him at the beginning of almost all the Heat sets. He passed well out of the post and effectively took the pressure off D-Wade as the focal point of the offense. Wade and other scorers were given the opportunity to move off ball and not have the sole attention of the defense on them while they were creating shots. The question remains though: did he die and come back to life like John Locke, or is he some kind spirit incarnation like Christian Sheppard? We'll have to see if he can keep it up in game 3.

As for the mastermind, Erik Spoelstra did a tremendous job of filling in for Ben Linus Wednesday. He may have taken his beatings in game 1, but he bounced back strong in game 2. It helps when you shoot the way the Heat did, with a record 14 threes, but credit has to be given to Spoelstra for the changes he made in game 2. My theory is that most of the adjustments he made for game 2, he thought of during game 1. However, he realized that at best, they could have cut the deficit to around 10. So he kept his cards close to his chest to give them the advantage for game 2. The team came out with a completely different midset, realizing that they had to keep the pace they wanted, rather than play into the hands of the Hawks. Also, inserting James Jones into the starting line-up gave them a defensive boost as they were able to effectively contain Joe Johnson.

Lastly, we can't parallel a sports game to Season 5 of Lost without a character being redeemed; and last night, D-Wade did not disappoint. Like LaFleur, he was able to change himself, realizing that he wasn't going to get the calls or a clean path to the basket in the playoffs. Instead, he shot the lights out and was able to lead his team to a victory.

Our last parallel between the game and Lost is with Matthew Fox. Sorry, I forgot. There's nothing interesting about Matthew Fox.

Caretaker of the Year?

We were shocked when we turned on ESPN to find out Mike Brown was named NBA coach of the year. Mike Brown? Say what!?! The same guy who bears a striking resemblance to Mr. Potato Head? We don't think that Mike Brown is a bad coach by any means, but did he really do the best coaching job in the NBA this year?

What does Coach of the Year even mean anymore? Does it go to the coach on the team with the best record, or the coach of the team that shows the greatest improvement? How do you quantify the coaching aspect? The best coach of the year is next to worthless (a ridiculous claim but Guys Who Like Sports don't just make ridiculous claims, we back them up). In every other award, you can statistically determine the impact of the candidates. Mike Brown coached for Cleveland last year. He coached for them this year. Did he improve as a coach between these two seasons? Honestly, he did what he should have done. He let a great player flourish, he shouldn't get any extra credit. He did what he was supposed to.

Coaches are becoming the CEO's of NBA teams. Over the year, 8 coaches have been fired. Coaches take the blame when something goes wrong; and when something goes right, the credit goes to the players, rightfully so. Does Mike Brown really deserve an award for staying out of Lebron's way and only making him run two high screens with Ilgauskas a game. This is a players' league, coaches need to stay out of their star's way.

So what we are proposing is an award to bring to light the coach that did the worst job of caretaking and tried to over-coach. Terry Porter, we choose you. Thanks for ruining the Suns. Mike Dunleavy made a strong case for our award but who cares about the Clippers anyway. Our apologies to Malcolm in the Middle. To be in the running coaches need to have lasted more than 30 games, sorry Reggie Theus, even though you could have been up for this award in “Hang Time.”