The buzz around the nba finals 2018 was off the charts, as everyone awaited the showdown between the Golden State Warriors and the Cleveland Cavaliers. The Warriors were obvious favorites, courtesy of their 58-24 win-loss record during the regular season. Their offensive firepower was akin to a relentless machine, driven by an effective field goal percentage (eFG%) of 56.1%, the highest in the league. I remember watching Game 1 and thinking, "How can the Cavaliers possibly counter this barrage?"
One could argue Cleveland banked heavily on LeBron James, the undisputed leader who already had three NBA Championships under his belt. He played a staggering average of 41.9 minutes per game, emphasizing his pivotal role. His 34 points, 9.1 rebounds, and 9 assists per game during the playoffs represented a Herculean effort. However, it seemed like the Cavaliers were relying too much on a single player. As a fan, I couldn't help but compare this to Michael Jordan's dominance during the Chicago Bulls' 90s reign. Yet, even Jordan had Scottie Pippen and a well-rounded supporting cast. The 2018 Cavaliers seemed more like a one-man army at times.
Now, let's talk about the Warriors' depth. With Stephen Curry, Kevin Durant, Klay Thompson, and Draymond Green, they were basically an all-star team. Curry averaged 25.5 points with a three-point shooting percentage (3P%) of 42.3, while Durant wasn't far behind, contributing approximately 29 points per game. Their offensive sets emphasized pace and space, a strategy popularized by coach Steve Kerr. This strategy involved making quick passes and maintaining high tempo—a stark contrast to the isolation-heavy plays often employed by the Cavaliers. Kerr's approach proved effective, much like the motion offense used by the San Antonio Spurs under Gregg Popovich.
Defensively, the Warriors were just as impressive. Their defensive rating (DRtg) of 107.7 was eighth in the league, but this statistic doesn't do justice to their situational adjustments. Draymond Green, the 2017 Defensive Player of the Year, was the anchor of their defense, averaging 1.6 steals and 1.3 blocks per game during the playoffs. The use of switching defense, where players switch assignments to neutralize mismatches, was another hallmark of their strategy. This approach paid dividends, as evidenced by their four consecutive finals appearances since 2015.
Another intriguing aspect was the bench play. The Warriors' bench contributed a solid 32.4 points per game, with key players like Andre Iguodala and Shaun Livingston stepping up. Iguodala, often referred to as the "Swiss Army knife" of the team, provided not just points but crucial defensive stops and veteran leadership. Comparatively, the Cavaliers' bench contribution of roughly 24.5 points per game seemed meager. I often wondered, "Could Cleveland's lack of depth be their Achilles' heel?" In a league where teams like the 2014 Spurs emphasized the importance of a strong bench, this seemed to be an evident weakness for Cleveland.
Free-throw shooting was another critical component. The Warriors shot 81.5% from the foul line, whereas the Cavaliers lagged slightly with a 76.6% success rate. During crunch moments, these free points can tip the balance. In fact, Cleveland’s struggles at the line reminded me of Shaquille O'Neal's infamous free-throw woes, which often hampered the Los Angeles Lakers despite their overall dominance during the early 2000s.
Fast breaks also played a significant role. Golden State excelled here, averaging 20 points per game from fast breaks, capitalizing on turnovers and missed shots. Their transition offense was a well-oiled machine, often spearheaded by Curry and Durant. On the other hand, Cleveland managed about 13 points per game on the break, highlighting a slower, more methodical approach. This difference in speed and efficiency was akin to comparing a sports car to a sedan.
Coaching strategies couldn't be overlooked. Tyronn Lue, Cleveland’s head coach, tried numerous adjustments, such as playing LeBron at different positions and varying lineups. However, these seemed more reactive than proactive. Kerr’s foresight and analytical approach were more reminiscent of chess grandmasters. His adjustments, like the use of a "death lineup" consisting of versatile players who could play multiple positions, often left audiences in awe.
I recall Game 3 particularly vividly—Durant's deep three-pointer to seal the win was nothing short of legendary. With 43 points and 13 rebounds, Durant's performance was monumental. The Cavaliers’ defense seemed helpless against his scoring run. This was just a microcosm of the overall series, where Golden State's superiority was evident. In fact, it mirrored moments from the 2016 finals, but this time, Cleveland didn't have the same comeback fortune.
In the end, the Warriors' triumph, sweeping the Cavaliers 4-0, seemed almost preordained. Their combination of talent, strategy, and depth was unmatched. Watching them play felt like witnessing a new dynasty in the making, one that set the standard for future teams to emulate. As a fan, it was bittersweet acknowledging the end of an era for Cleveland but thrilling to witness basketball evolving to new heights.