1980 NBA Finals Game 2

That’s an 18 point lead (which had been as large as 21) going into the 4th quarter only to end up a three point win. I’m grinding my teeth and clenching my fists 44 years later as hurricane winds try to Oz-ward translocate me; I can only imagine what the poor Philadelphia fans were feeling on the day as they watched their glorious lead grow ever more in doubt. 

I had a real internal debate over the player of the game this time. It seems self-evident that a player from the winning team should be chosen, but excluding Kareem Abdul-Jabbar’s massive 38 point showing didn’t exactly clarify the issue. It came down to Darryl Dawkins and Maurice Cheeks. My emotional response and the eye-test gave the edge to Dawkins. His two blocks came back to back in an epic tower defense; he was like King Kong swatting aircraft

This, along with a titanic dunk off of an errant Bobby Jones midrange jumper,

are only some of the fist-pumping reasons to give him the edge. He was also sharpshooting from the outside; this and the fact that he led his team in scoring should close the question. However, I couldn’t let my heart override the fact that Cheeks shot almost 85% from the field, led his team in assists(10), and had six steals. So even though his contributions are less highlight worthy, I feel confident saying they were just as vital to the outcome of the game and a strong inspirational force for the players around him.(Though if you press me on any given day I’m likely to waffle terribly on the issue)

These two, while instrumental in the win, are certainly not the only stories here. Most notable of the tide turning elements would have to be the narrative of free throws. The 76ers had a 13 point advantage on 21/27 from the line. Contrast that to the Lakers 8/12 and you quickly find that getting to the line and shooting successfully can make or break a game. 

Another thing I’m noticing is how unforgiving a task it is to be a ref in basketball- not that it isn’t likewise in other sports. However, on many occasions, even with the benefit of replay and slow motion, I find it hard to convince myself of one call over another, and even the announcers are often at odds on whether to fault the offense or defense on a given play. By way of example, here’s an epic loose ball scramble involving Henry Bibby and Mark Landsberger

Now Bibby is called for the foul on this play and neither the announcers, coaches, nor players, seem to put up much of a fuss over it. To my untrained eye, I see nothing but a quality steal and great effort to get to the ball first (which he does). In an attempt to understand the play as called, I guess an argument could be made that Bibby boxed Landsberger out in order to get to the ball first, but I just don’t think the tale of the tape spins that yarn. If anything Bobby Jones’s dive into the scrum from the far side is by far the more egregious. As an aside, this wasn’t the only instance of Bibby’s great effort in this game. He also had an amazing save which landed him in the laps of the fans sitting courtside

In short, blocking or charge, hand or ball, these calls are so minute and instantaneous that it’s hard to believe any calls get made correctly. This makes fouls and the calling thereof  a uniquely intertwined element of the game that might be unique to this sport. I will have to think much more on the subject, but these are my first impressions. 

It is also interesting to note how little impact the 3 point line has had on the games to this point. Through two games there have only been four attempts and none of them successful. My impressions of modern basketball are that the 3-pointer is much more common. In fact, a cursory search of the internet suggests that a full 40% of all shots in the modern game are from beyond the arc. This might be a train of thought worth pursuing in my quest to understand why I seem to have such a preference for these older games. 

The game was not all fouls and free throws though. There were pitch perfect Magical assists,

A left turn at Albuquerque reverse dunk by Kareem,

A house call by the Doctor,

And a last second dagger by Bobby Jones to salt the game away.

I told myself this would not be the forum to call out deficiencies in any player’s game. The game is over four decades old after all. However, as the game was ultimately a win for Philadelphia, and my reaction is genuine, I feel I can be forgiven discussing my game 2 frustration with Lionel Hollins. I really liked the fluidity of his shot in game 1, and 16 points 8 assists and 5 steals is a solid line, so I came into the second game of the series having decided to look out for him in particular over the course of the game. Now even in game 1 he shot well below .500 for the day but still demonstrably higher than the .286 he posted for game 2. I found that my special attention led me to feel every miss of his 4-for-14 day to the point where every time he put one up I couldn’t help but feel badly for him when it went awry.  

Beyond the game on the court, there was one oddity that involves the broadcast rather than the game. For a few minutes there appears to have been some trouble with the television feed. I was assuming that the issue was due to the recording or its subsequent conversion to DVD, but it became so prevalent that Brent Musburger even commented on it during the broadcast, and for a split second CBS was forced to display this image.

While there was no Walter Matthau sighting for game 2, Jack Nicholson returned this time sporting an interesting green hat that is reminiscent of Spanky from the Little Rascals.

And lest we forget