When most sports fans picture the NBA Finals, they picture iconic moments in close games. Chicago Bulls guard Michael Jordan’s iconic shot in Game 6 in 1998. Los Angeles Lakers guard Magic Johnson’s so-called “junior, junior skyhook.” Cleveland Cavaliers forward LeBron James’s block in 2016.
These memories obscure the fact that there has been a lot of slop on basketball’s biggest stage. Did you know, for example, that there have only been five NBA Finals Game 7s in the last 30 years?
This article is a celebration of the Finals’s unsightlier moments. Here are a few questions about the NBA’s championship series beatdowns, answered.
On June 7, 1998, the Bulls smashed the Utah Jazz 96–54 in Game 3 of the NBA Finals to take a 2–1 series lead.
Pretty much out of nowhere! Chicago and the Jazz had played in the 1997 Finals and the series was competitive, with no game decided by more than 12 points. Utah won Game 1 in ’98 88–85 in overtime, and the Bulls won Game 2 by five.
Chicago led just 17–14 after the first quarter in Game 3 but pushed its lead to 49-31 at the half. The Jazz’s final total of 54 points represented, at the time, the lowest point total of the shot-clock era in any game—regular season or postseason.
The Bulls’ 42-point margin of victory is an NBA Finals record. Predictably, Jordan led both teams with 24 points.
The second-most lopsided game will be more familiar to younger fans: the Boston Celtics‘ 131–92 win over the Lakers in Game 6 of the 2008 Finals. That game gave the Celtics their most recent title, and remains basketball’s most lopsided championship clincher.
Rounding out the top five biggest Finals margins of victory: Game 3 in 2013 (San Antonio Spurs 113, Miami Heat 77), Game 6 in 1978 (Washington Bullets 117, Seattle SuperSonics 82), Game 1 in 1985 (Boston 148, Los Angeles 114; the so-called Memorial Day Massacre), and Game 1 in 1961 (Celtics 129, St. Louis Hawks 95).
Could Dallas Mavericks coach Jason Kidd be engaging in a little gamesmanship ahead of Game 2 of the NBA Finals on Sunday?
Kidd minced no words during Saturday afternoon's press conference when he called Celtics star Jaylen Brown, not Jayson Tatum, Boston's best player.
Naturally, NBA fans and media alike were wondering if Kidd was trying to influence how Tatum and Brown come out and play in Game 2.
It's not the first time the Celtics' co-stars have been dealing with media narratives such as this, and they're clearly not interested in taking the bait.
"I don't have no reaction," Brown said. "It's a team game, we're trying to focus on that. Everybody has their own opinions."
Jaylen Brown on Jason Kidd calling him the best player on the #Celtics
“I don’t have no reaction… it’s a team game… everyone has their own opinions.” pic.twitter.com/yNRUmwWhaT
When asked if he thought Kidd was trying to drive a wedge between himself and Tatum, Brown complimented his teammate, while reiterating that the team is locked in on the task at hand.
"I'm not sure. I don't know," Brown said of Kidd's perceived tactics. "We've been just extremely focused on what our roles and our jobs are. We've all had to sacrifice. Jayson's had to do that at the highest of levels, right? And I respect him and tip [my] cap for it. But right now, at this point, it's whatever it takes to win and we can't let any outside interpretations get in between that."
Jaylen Brown was asked if he thinks Jason Kidd is trying to divide the team with his comments.
Brown went on to say he has the utmost respect for Jayson Tatum’s sacrifice this season:
Tatum wasn't surprised that another media narrative was surfacing trying to divide the two best players on the team.
"No reaction," Tatum said when asked about the comments. "This is a team sport, right? We understand that. We wouldn't be here if we didn't have JB on our team. And we can say that for a lot of guys, right? We've all played a part in getting to where we're at, we understand that."
"You know, people try to drive a wedge in between us. I guess it's a smart thing to do or try to do. But we've been in this position for many of years of guys trying to divide us and say one of us should be traded or one's better than the other. It's not our first time at the rodeo."
"We understand people try to drive a wedge between us ... This is not our first time at the rodeo."
-Jayson Tatum on Jason Kidd saying Jaylen Brown is Boston’s best player 👀
Editors’ note, June 5, 4:40 p.m. ET: This story has been updated to reflect the Boston Celtics' injury report for Game 1 of the 2024 NBA Finals.
There are many impressive aspects of the Boston Celtics' march through the Eastern Conference to the NBA Finals. Perhaps most impressive is that they ran through all their opponents without Kristaps Porzingis.
Porzingis, who averaged 20.1 points and 1.9 blocks in 29.6 minutes per game this season, went down with a calf injury on April 29 during Game 4 of the Celtics' first round series against the Miami Heat.. He hasn't seen the floor since, but Boston still posted an absurd 12-2 record over the first three rounds of the playoffs. Since he was healthy for one of those losses, that means the Celtics lost only one game in the month Porzingis has missed.
It is remarkable in many ways and speaks to the depth of the roster that president of basketball operations Brad Stevens built. And with Boston securing its place in the 2024 NBA Finals by way of sweeping the Indiana Pacers on Monday night, the time has finally arrived to see if the franchise can earn its 18th championship. The health of Porzingis will play a substantial role in that quest, and the Celtics earned themselves an extended break to get everybody (including their Latvian big man) healthy as can be.
Will Porzingis return in time to help the Celtics battle in the NBA Finals? Here's the latest on his right soleus strain.
Over the last week all signs have been pointing to Porzingis being ready to go for tip-off on Thursday for Game 1 of the NBA Finals. He confirmed this to be the case while speaking to reporters on Wednesday, stating plainly that he plans to play.
As the Celtics have made abundantly clear over the last four weeks, they can win without Porzingis. But to reach the mountaintop and cement themselves in NBA history, they will take all the help they can get. A possible return at full health would be a game-changer against the Mavericks.
UPDATE, June 5, 4:40 p.m. ET: The Celtics released their injury report for Game 1 of the Finals, and Porzingis is not listed. That means he's going to suit up.
While the Celtics, by and large, match up well with the Mavericks, Porzingis would alter both ends of the court drastically. His ability to score on smaller defenders would severely limit the effectiveness of the switch-everything defense the Mavs have employed so successfully this playoffs. It's one thing when Luka Doncic or Kyrie Irving is switched onto Rudy Gobert, who for all his value does not punish defenders in the post. But when they end up on Porzingis, who averaged 1.09 points per possession on post-up attempts (ninth in the NBA)? It means an easy bucket for Boston more often than not, and easy buckets are not supposed to happen in the NBA Finals.
If the Mavs don't switch, then Porzingis needs to space the floor in order to ensure Daniel Gafford and Dereck Lively II don't live in the paint. Dallas's pair of big men have been excellent locking down rim attempts in the postseason, which is especially crucial given Irving and Doncic's energy can wane on that end. Keeping Porzingis out beyond the three-point line means head coach Jason Kidd has to choose between guarding the 7-foot-3 center with one of Gafford/Lively, taking away easy chances to contest layups, or put someone smaller out there and start with a mismatch on Porzingis.
Defensively the Celtics may be challenged to play to Porzingis's strengths. He's best in drop coverage, and drop coverage is tough to play against shot-makers like the Mavs boast. Al Horford is a better switching defender and may end up playing big minutes as he did throughout the opening weeks of the playoffs. But Porzingis did average 1.9 blocks per game. He is a great rim protector whose skills are always useful, even if they may not be exactly optimal in this series.
As noted in a previous article about this very topic, Porinzigs' injury history is concerning and why the Celtics are taking it so slow.
His most serious injury came in February 2018, when Porzingis tore his ACL while playing for the New York Knicks. He missed the rest of the 2017-'18 season and the entirety of the 2018-'19 season in recovery. Since then, Porzingis has accumulated all sorts of bumps, brusies, and strains that have forced him to miss considerable time. He missed 39 games in 2020-'21, 31 games in 2021-'22, and 17 games in 2022-'23.
This past season, Porzingis missed 28 regular season games as he dealt with a variety of small injuries, the most severe of which was a calf strain that forced him to sit out a handful of contests. After suffering his right soleus strain, Porzingis has now missed 10 games.
Halftime shows are like commercials. A necessary evil and a perfect opportunity to load up on more snack mix or perform a fluids check. Few people in the history of sitting on their couches have ever been deeply intrigued by a Coming Up At the Half tease. And the hardworking broadcasting crews that try to capture eyeballs and attention are fighting an uphill battle.
That's the bad news. The good is that all of this combines to create a low-stakes environment because, let's face it, average viewers don't really care if the halftime show is good or average or a trainwreck. As long as the second half begins on time then everyone wins and no one loses.
So it's kind of perplexing to see the aggregating of grievances concerning ESPN/ABC's mid-game fare during the NBA Finals. Awful Announcing got out the stopwatch and crunched some numbers following Game 1's halftime show.
All told, the studio crew got roughly a minute and 20 seconds of air time. And remember, that time was split between five people. Much of that time was spent on intros from and outros to commercial breaks.
Is this ideal? Certainly not. But is it a new phenomenon? Also no.
ESPN/ABC has been dinged for stuffing shot-clock-length opinions and observations between a crushing amount of bells and whistles for years. Those critiquing the operation are right when they say there's no flow and it can all be a bit disorienting. But they are also a bit silly for tuning into the Finals games and expecting anything different than what has been standard operating procedure for some time now.
It feels weird to defend something that could certainly be better yet at the same time complaining that viewers aren't getting enough opinions or analysis during what is essentially a content oasis feels a bit weird. Those are available on the network before the game and after the game, plus on-demand and on social media for anyone who may have missed the thousands of words and hundreds of segments devoted to Celtics-Mavs under the ESPN umbrella.
There simply cannot be a real world faction significant enough to warrant concern-trolling that Bob Myers and Josh Hart weren't given enough time to explore the space. Or that the real world is pining for another minute of Stephen A. Smith to fire off whatever he's going to fire off.
For as often this crew is compared to TNT's iconic foursome on Inside the NBA, which does move at a more beneficial pace, there's little apples-to-oranges consideration. First, broadcasting a champioship is going to afford the opportunity — and necessity really — to be more sponsor- and commercial-heavy. Then there's the problem of people conflating TNT's long postgame coverage with its halftime hits. Sure Barkley or O'Neal might say something hilarious and go viral during the mid-game break but more often than not the focus will be on Team X not turning the ball over or how Team Y looks sleepy out there.
Sunday night's Game 2 brought more of the same because, honestly, who would think it would change in the span of a few days. Unofficial numbers suggest the commercialization outpaced the analysis at around a 6-1 clip. But we're not going to go back and chart it ourselves because almost anything is a better use of time.
Something to keep in mind for Game 3 instead of hoping for a miracle that simply isn't going to come.
