Losing 20 points and falling behind 1-3, with a 4.5% chance of advancing. US media said the No. 1 seed Cavaliers are overrated

This game made people scratch their heads. In the G4 of the Eastern Conference semi-finals, the Cavaliers were pressed from the opening game as if they were pressed to the "pause button" - they were 41 points behind 39-80 at halftime, and lost to the Pacers 109-129 in the game. In the last game, Mitchell scored 43 points and was directly beaten back to its original form.

scored only 39 points in the whole game, the lowest in the halftime this season. The problem of the knight is not a single point of a bad point, but a collective "power outage". Mitchell + Garland made 9 of 22 shots in the backcourt, Mitchell made 3 of 11 shots and only 12 points, with the worst plus and minus value -35; Mobley + Allen made 3 of 8 shots, and the two combined only 12 points. This side made a mistake and gave the opponent 35 points 22 times, and the Pacers scored 58 points in the inside. Turner made 4 of 4 three-pointers by himself, directly sieve the Cavaliers' penalty area.

What's even more outrageous is that Mitchell was suspected of being injured in the half-warming up and did not come back in the second half. In the last game, he became a "savior", and this game became a "invisible man". This state fluctuation is more exciting than a roller coaster.

In contrast, Pacers are completely "team basketball" textbooks. Six players scored in double digits, three players scored 20+, and the bench scored 58 points. Halliburton scored 18 points and 10 assists, Turner scored 20 points and 7 rebounds, and even Mathering scored 17 points, playing anywhere and defending anywhere. The Knight wants to defend one? They just changed their tricks.

1-3's probability of turning the table is 4.5%, historically difficult.

In the history of NBA playoffs, the probability of falling behind 1-3 is so low - 4.5%. The last time the Cavaliers did this was in the 2015-16 season finals, with James + Irving winning three consecutive games against the Warriors and winning the championship. But do the current Cavaliers have the "Jian-European combination" of that year? Mitchell + Garland? If you can still bear the last game, you will be awkward in this game; if you have a double tower in the inside line? Completely defeated by Turner + Smith; coach? G4 was 41 points behind in the first half, and the timeout adjustment was ineffective.

US media Hoops fired directly: "The Cavaliers are the most overrated No. 1 seed in history?" This sounds heartbreaking, but it is really not unfair. The regular season won 60 wins, and narrowly won the East in the playoffs against the Hawks and tiebreakers. The Pacers fell behind 1-2 in the first three games, and G4 collapsed directly. The so-called "popularity in the championship" looks like paper.

To be honest, there are signs of the problem with the Knights. In the regular season, we rely on double-gun scores and inside-line protection. As soon as the intensity of the playoffs increases, double-guns are easily targeted, and all the weaknesses of single inside-line offensive methods are exposed. In the last game, Mitchell won 43 points, and the fans even shouted "The Return of the Mi God", and was beaten back to "mortals" - this shows that the team relies too much on the stars and lacks a stable tactical system.

G5's return to home is the last chance. But even if you win a game back, 1-3 turns 2-3, will G6 want to win the Pacers away? Disaster. More importantly, if the semi-finals are terminated this year, how can the Cavaliers adjust during the offseason? Do you want to remove the two guns? Should I change the inside line to more flexible? Coach JB-Bixtstaff still stays? These questions are now question marks. The miracle of

16 years depends on James' super god performance + team resilience. Do knights today have this kind of determination to "take a single gamble"?

Do you think the Cavaliers can replicate the 16-year reversal? Or is it that the "overestimation" doubts of the US media should have come true long ago?

Statement: The information in this article comes from the Internet and is not guaranteed to be completely correct and is for reference only.