Don't Let ESPN Paint Your View of 'The Finals'

Photo via Associated Press.

For months basketball fans have eagerly anticipated what many call, "the start of the NBA season."

After seven months of regulated competition, we are yet again left with the same two teams that have played in the last two NBA Finals, a conclusion that surprised hardly anyone. For months, we've been force-fed this narrative that the Finals will justify the lackadaisical and equally tedious NBA postseason and regular season (which I actually personally enjoyed as a basketball fan).

For months, ESPN has ran countless talk shows debating the height of LeBron's greatness and legacy, while billing the Cavs-Warriors 'rivalry' as the best thing since Bird's Celtics and Magic's Lakers owned a majority of the '80s.

Now, the mainstream media has created a narrative that the Cavaliers are heavy underdogs against the Warriors and that if LeBron pulls this off, maybe, just maybe he becomes the best to ever lace them up.

The problem though? It's all professional wrestling.

Here's how ESPN in the year 2017 tends to operate
There's less emphasis on reporting, and more emphasis on shock value. It's why they've bumped the morning Sportscenter to ESPN 2, while moving First Take to primetime. It's why they cut dozens of reporters two months ago, while paying Stephen A. Smith well over $3.5 million to shout his opinions. It's why they've turned two different Sportscenter hours into opinion-shows hosted by Scott Van Pelt, Michael Smith and Jemele Hill.

ESPN strategically uses its various opinion forums to promote the sports it has the rights to air. In other words, ESPN doesn't have any NHL shows and spends little time talking about hockey on its opinion shows, because ESPN doesn't have the rights to air NHL games. Instead, ESPN has invested a great deal of money into the NFL and the NBA. The network wants people to watch and to talk about both sports, because good ratings are going to benefit the mothership, as well as the league.

It doesn't mean anything to ESPN what the Stanley Cup ratings are, because its money isn't involved there.

Nevertheless, ESPN is going to push narratives and talk about the sports the network has on its various debate shows. For example, I can recall a day last summer when ESPN had the Cubs and Dodgers playing on a Wednesday Night Baseball game. That entire day, morning and afternoon talk shows posed the question: Is Jake Arrieta better than Clayton Kershaw? with "be sure to watch the Cubs and Dodgers tonight on ESPN!" ad spots in-between. However, neither pitcher was scheduled to pitch that night.

ESPN looked for the most interesting debate regarding the two teams and conveniently used it to draw interest to the game, while leaving out one minor detail. Is this deceptive? Manipulative? I don't know. But to some extent, it shows us that ESPN is capable of crafting whatever convenient storyline it wants to help sell the product.

Meanwhile, many of the debaters on the network's opinion shows are encouraged to create hot takes. Whether or not they believe in them, these opinion people will say outrageous or outlandish things to create controversy or conflict. Good or bad, the audience will react to and talk about the figures that share loud opinions. So in addition to these shows serving as product promotion, they're also a form of self-promotion for the writers.

FS1 has been trying to replicate the model of ESPN's opinion shows, snagging some of ESPN's exiled talent. Now FS1 is trying to compete with ESPN for the attention of afternoon viewers looking for the same amount of buzz and controversy. But that's another story.

ESPN's attempt to hype the Finals
Between the Conference Semifinals and the Conference Finals, 30 games were played. Only five of them were single-digit games (one of these likely would not have made this list, had Kawhi not gotten hurt). The rest? Blowouts to various degrees.

But wait! It gets good soon! Remember last year's awesome NBA Finals? One of the best series ever???

I do remember last year's Finals, but not in the way we are told to remember it. The smallest margin of victory in the first six games? 11. The average margin of victory among those first six games? 20. ON AVERAGE, TEAMS WERE WINNING BY 20??? In the first six games of a series played by the NBA's new great rivalry? Two of those games were decided by 30 points or more.

Last year's Finals were not awesome. After the two teams took turns blowing each other out, we got one thrilling game that changed the history of Cleveland sports. But even then, Golden State looked gassed and Curry, the league's MVP, was atrocious, shooting a measly 31% on 6-19 shooting.

If the third part of the Golden State-Cleveland trilogy wasn't enough to hook you into watching the Finals, do not fret! Because ESPN found another moneymaker.

I feel bad writing this, because LeBron is without a doubt an all-time great player and physically-gifted freak and I don't want to take anything away from what he has accomplished as a basketball player. But given the circumstances, I have no choice but to highlight the next tactic of ESPN's marketing scheme.

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar may have been the greatest basketball player to ever play when he retired. But once he started to age and Magic and Bird arrived, the young duo became the selling point of the NBA in the '80s. Once their careers came to an abrupt ending, Jordan became the new face of the league. Suddenly, he was the new hot thing, and to his credit, he didn't disappoint; he rightfully earned the unofficial 'GOAT' title. Years later, talk radio hosts would ask, Is Kobe better than Michael? which transitioned into, Could LeBron become the best ever?

From a business perspective, you don't want your product to ever jump the shark. You don't want people to ever think that your product isn't as good as it used to be and that you've gone downhill since. Businesses are expected to rapidly grow and rapidly expand. Each new iPhone is supposed to be better than the previous one. So naturally, the NBA wants people to think that it hasn't peaked yet, and we are seeing its best product right now. ESPN wants the same things as the NBA.

This is where we insert the If LeBron defeats this super-team, he becomes the GOAT narrative from mainstream media personalities, which also benefits themselves. The fans have seen LeBron in the Finals for seven straight years, and maybe ESPN thinks some people are tired of seeing his teams competing. In most cases, his teams were favored over what appeared to be weaker opponents, such as the elderly Mavericks, the young-and-dumb Thunder, the elderly Spurs and the young, but unproven Warriors. So now it's time to sell LeBron as the heroic underdog, who may complete his quest in passing Jordan by bouncing the new-and-improved Warriors. (And yes I know this isn't the first time LeBron's been an underdog; '07 vs. Spurs and '16 vs. Warriors count too).

ESPN's Basketball Power Index gives the Cavaliers a 7% chance of defeating the Warriors. I have no idea how it arrived at that conclusion. If the Cavs actually did have just a 7% chance of winning, wouldn't Vegas' odds be insane? Instead, they're +210, which equals as a 32.29% win probability for the Cavs, which makes much more sense than 7%. A 1 in 3 chance isn't bad. But even I think that's a little low.

Still, I think this shows that the network is strategically setting itself up for whatever the outcome is of the Finals. If the Cavs fall short, ESPN can make excuses for LeBron (whether or not they are warranted, which they may be; we'll have to watch and find out) with the tired, LeBron just needs some more help narrative (this also allows for the LeBron can still pass MJ topic to live on). If the Cavs win, they'll bill it as the greatest upset in NBA history.

Why the Cavs should garner more respect/Why I expect them to win
Last year, the Cavs' took advantage of the loss of Andrew Bogut, and the Warriors' greatest weakness, their lack of a rim-protector. Once Bogut went out of the series and Iguodala's back started to bother him, LeBron was able to run crazy and attack the basket without much contention. Tristan Thompson bullied Anderson Varejao and any Warrior that tried to play in the paint got crushed. America's sweetheart Steph Curry was disappointing for the second straight year in the playoffs and Kyrie kicked his game up to a new level.

This year? Bogut's gone. The Cavs don't even have to worry about him. Iguodala (the 2015 Finals MVP!) is another year older and could be a step slower; he's already missed a game this postseason.

The Warriors sacrificed some key role players from last year's team for Durant and now have a weaker bench. Shooting was never a weakness for the 2016 Dubs. Instead of improving their weaknesses, they just upgraded their strengths while losing role players as a result.

Though there's an incredibly high upside to signing Durant, the move also comes with much risk. Durant had a serious foot injury two years ago, and the Warriors took a big gamble, losing a lot of their depth. If one of their "Big 4" players gets injured, they could be in a lot of trouble. Durant missed a lot of time with a knee injury earlier this season and missed a playoff game with a leg injury. Knee injuries aren't taken lightly in this league. If somebody gets injured, or Draymond mouths off to a ref, suddenly the Warriors could be in big trouble.

Steve Kerr, who I believe to be an elite coach, sadly is unable to coach for the remainder of the postseason. That's a big loss.

Meanwhile, Kyrie is playing off the confidence of hitting a huge shot in last year's Finals and Kevin Love is playing better than he ever has since joining the Cavs. Tyronn Lue has finally figured out how the Cavs can best utilize Love inside and out. In contrast to the Warriors', the Cavs have upgraded their bench. No more clumsy Dellavedova chucking up bricks, instead, a grizzled, but seasoned Deron Williams is the backup point guard. The Cavs lost nothing and added Kyle Korver, a shooter capable of being LeBron's poor man's version of 2013 Ray Allen.

Let's not forget that the Cavs won the title last year and most importantly, have the best player playing in the series. They're playing the same team that blew a 3-1 lead last year, which added another player that also blew a 3-1 lead last year. We've also seen new-and-improved super-teams come off the rails in the Finals, with the '04 Lakers and '11 Heat serving as prime examples.

It's hard for me to picture the team with the association's highest payroll, with the league's best player as a heavy underdog. I'm sorry. I can understand one's logic that favors the Warriors to win, but 7%? C'mon.

Though the Cavs got blown out Thursday night, I'm not too concerned after picking them to win the Finals in 6. The Cavs still have all three home games and the two teams are still feeling each other out; there's plenty of basketball left to be played. Blowouts seem to be the new trend in the NBA playoffs and I have a theory. There is such a competitive imbalance in the NBA today (with ya know, seven All-Stars playing on two teams) that the top dogs don't play a lot of close games. They're just not accustomed to it. So when another team goes on a big run against them and they experience turmoil and adversity, I'm not sure they're primed to handle it. So we could watch these two teams take turns blowing each other out yet again.

So how great will these Finals be? We'll have to wait and see. At the end of the day, I don't know what's going to happen. But don't let ESPN shape your opinion of what you're seeing. You're smart and you can come up with your own conclusions and takeaways.

Still, regardless of how ESPN sells its product to us, I know I'll be watching.