It’s no surprise the LA Clippers and Dallas Mavericks have played to a stalemate through four games of their first-round NBA playoff series. It’s just surprising how it’s happened: The Clippers stole Games 1 and 4 without Kawhi Leonard while Dallas bested LA twice with him on the court.
To assess where the series is at the honorary halfway mark, The Athletic’s Mavericks writer Tim Cato and Clippers writer Law Murray analyze what’s happened so far and what’s still to come.
Tim Cato: Law, this isn’t how we expected this series to go. The Leonard melodrama, which sadly continues as he’s out indefinitely with right knee inflammation, has affected this series in the exact opposite way than expected.
After Game 2, I believed Leonard was rounding into form and the Mavericks were too. I also believed this would be a long series of incredibly high-level basketball between two of the league’s best six teams. Then, once Game 3 was finished, I thought Dallas would march to a decisive, if not easy, series win in six games, if not five. Now, I have no idea. I have thoughts, sure, but how have you processed this series’ emotions on a game-to-game basis?
Law Murray: I mean, shoot, the Mavericks were coming back from 31 points down, and I’m talking to you about Kyrie Irving catching fire like NBA Jam and how Luka Dončić has Ken tendencies from Street Fighter II. I’m about as calm as Gordon Hayward at a gender reveal.
Cato: Seriously, that argument we had about whether Irving’s and-1 jumper that preceded two made 3s counted toward “On fire!” or whether he was still “Heating up!” nearly required an intervention from human resources.
Murray: Sure, this series has been a quarter-to-quarter roller coaster, but this is what we came to see. This is what happens when history is involved, with real disdain at least from a competitive standpoint, although there is mutual respect and disrespect. The emotions have been high.
But I’m a Capricorn, and I’ve been told I’m not emotional, so I’m just vibing. I haven’t even reached for the popcorn yet, although I’m sure that will be different this week.
Cato: What’s up with the Clippers’ offense? Is there actually something to Leonard’s absence making them better? Is it possible that, as Irving said after Game 4, the players have more “liberation” in their hierarchy and roles? Or is the simpler explanation just that the Clippers shot 50 and then 62 percent from 3 in their two wins?
Murray: The last six games the Clippers have played with their full rotation (excluding Leonard) have been Clippers wins with some extreme game-flow swings. In all six, including Games 1 and 4 of this series, the Clippers have either led by an extraordinary amount or come back from significant deficits against quality opponents (down 17 against Denver, trailing by 26 to Cleveland).
Irving made a fantastic point about the Clippers playing freely. Leonard is both a ceiling-raiser and a floor-raiser. When Leonard is feeling decent, it gives the Clippers a turnover-averse midrange and post threat to play through, a player who is mechanically efficient from several levels on the floor offensively. Leonard’s presence also takes pressure off Paul George and James Harden, while the role players kind of just settle into their assorted roles.
Respectfully, Leonard’s cameo in this series brought out the worst in too many players. Leonard was anything but efficient or careful with the basketball, and he went from missing every 3 he took in his return to failing to even attempt one in Dallas in Game 3. George disappeared in a cloud of fouls, and when he is battling the officiating, he doesn’t always recover on the offensive end.
But when Leonard is not there, George can’t defer. Neither can Harden, who is not shy to remind the traveling beat that he can still get his. The Clippers role players all have specific areas of talent that allow them to elevate their games. Terance Mann,
This article was originally published by a theathletic.com . Read the Original article here. .