For optimistic Cleveland fans, the 2016 NBA Finals offer a glimmer of hope. While recovering from a 3-1 playoff deficit is exceptionally rare, the Cavaliers famously accomplished it against the formidable 73-win Golden State Warriors. This historic feat raises the question: if they could overcome Stephen Curry and that Warriors team, surely they can overcome Tyrese Haliburton and the No. 4 seed Indiana Pacers, right?
However, the situation is complex. Most pressingly, if the ankle injury Donovan Mitchell sustained in the first half of Game 4 proves serious, the series likely ends there. Mitchell was averaging an outstanding 41.3 points per game before the injury and was arguably Cleveland`s only consistent positive factor in the initial games. While lineups featuring Darius Garland, Evan Mobley, and Jarrett Allen without Mitchell performed well in the regular season (outscoring opponents by 11.7 points per 100 possessions), the Cavs are grappling with numerous other issues.
Key players like Garland, Mobley, and Isaac Okoro (the original text incorrectly stated De`Andre Hunter) are currently playing through injuries and, more concerningly, frustration. Okoro`s hard shove on Bennedict Mathurin in Game 4, while not resulting in an ejection, reflects a problematic team mindset. Mathurin`s agitation throughout the series seems to be affecting the Cavaliers, with Garland committing excessive fouls and the Pacers seemingly getting into their heads.
While the team`s mental state is something they can address, shooting variance is largely uncontrollable. No NBA player exceeded 40.2% on catch-and-shoot threes this season. The Pacers, who shot 38.3% in the regular season, have surged to 44.8% in this series, while Cleveland has dropped significantly to 31% from their regular-season 39.3%. Some of this variance is due to defense, but a substantial portion is simply luck.
Typically, a superior team can absorb a loss influenced by bad luck, perhaps even two. The Boston Celtics, for example, remain favored over the New York Knicks despite trailing 2-1, as betting markets recognize those losses were partly due to uncharacteristically poor shooting. Yet, these losses still count. They eliminate margin for error. In the Pacers-Cavs series, the numerous mistakes and mishaps at the end of Game 2 might prove to be the pivotal moment.
That Game 2 loss stings the most. Despite a blowout loss in Game 4, Cleveland also had their own dominant win in Game 3 as a counterpoint. The series hasn`t been a complete dominance by Indiana. There have been two blowouts, one for each side, and two close contests where the Cavaliers failed to secure the win. These missed opportunities in close games leave them exposed to further negative shooting luck. If the Pacers have another hot shooting night, or if Cleveland`s shooters go cold, the series could end swiftly. Close games, if balanced, at least offer the chance to compete in late-game coin-flip scenarios.
However, confronting Indiana in clutch situations is currently disadvantageous. The Pacers boast a 4-0 record in clutch games this postseason. Remarkably, the league has only seen three instances of a seven-point comeback within the final minute of regulation or overtime to win a playoff game, and the Pacers are responsible for two of them in the last two weeks alone.
Are there potential strategic adjustments? Certainly. In Game 4, the Pacers largely moved away from their two-big lineup, partly as a response to Indiana`s spacing. Jarrett Allen played only eight minutes in the first half. Yet, the Allen-Mobley pairing was incredibly effective in Game 3, posting a +41 differential, though much of that was attributed to a 3-2 zone Rick Carlisle seemingly figured out by Game 4. Playing two traditional bigs against a team with five-out spacing is challenging, but abandoning the Allen-Mobley duo, which is central to Cleveland`s identity, so quickly seems desperate.
Moreover, playing smaller didn`t necessarily boost Cleveland`s offense. The improved spacing remained theoretical, as evidenced by scoring just 32 points in the paint in Game 4. Cleveland`s shooters didn`t convert, and the team lacked rim gravity on the floor. Perhaps the better strategy is to physically dominate Indiana on the glass (the Pacers ranked 28th in rebounding) and at the basket. This would require living with the risk of Indiana`s less consistent shooters taking and making threes, but if the Pacers catch fire again, as noted earlier, the series outcome is grim.
Even if Mitchell is healthy enough to play, others must step up offensively. Cleveland had the greatest offensive series in NBA history against Miami, making the struggle to score against the Pacers unexpected. Ty Jerome has shot just 4 of 25 over the last three games, eliminating bench creation. Darius Garland`s toe injury is also a significant factor; he`s visibly playing for fouls rather than finishing drives, and his jumpers aren`t falling. Evan Mobley was notably uninvolved offensively in Game 4. Cleveland`s leap to the second-best offense historically this season was built on Mobley`s ability to stress defenses as a ball-handler, creating advantages for open shots. In his current state, Mobley may not be capable of generating those advantages. Consequently, an offense that once featured creation from multiple sources has devolved into primarily relying on Donovan Mitchell.
It`s worth remembering Cleveland still holds two home games and has already secured one road victory. If Mitchell is available, they will likely be favored in at least two, potentially all three, of the remaining games. The capabilities of the 64-win regular-season team are still within this roster. They have simply been out-executed, out-coached, and out-lucked significantly through four games. Momentum can shift rapidly, but numerous factors must align perfectly for Cleveland to win three consecutive games. If the 2016 comeback against Golden State was achievable, this one is theoretically possible. For the moment, however, the probability appears low.
Jasper Hawthorne