Why the Cavs Will Lose: The Magical Disappearance of Antawn Jamison

If you look at the history of the NBA, the truly elite teams had more than one superstar on their roster. The Celtics of the 1950s and 1960s are great examples, as are the Knick teams of the early 1970s, the 76er teams of the early 1980s, the Laker and Celtic teams of the mid-1980s, the Piston teams of the early 1990s, the Bulls teams of the 1990s, and the Laker teams of the early 2000s. Conversely, the teams that fell short routinely had a weaker lineup.

I bring this up because not only am I fascinated with the Empty Numbers Theory (something I made up), but I'm convinced that this year's Cleveland Cavaliers team is not an elite team and, as currently assembled, has no shot of winning this or any championship.

First, the Empty Numbers Theory: A good or even great player on a weak team will put up inflated statistics simply because there's no one else on the team to do it. Even bad teams put up 70 - 100 points a game, and those points have to come from somewhere. Performing well on a bad team can have two results: either the player accepts it and plays to pad his stats, or he becomes so motivated to win that he lobbies hard to change his situation.

(The opposite of the Empty Numbers Theory is the Dwight Howard Effect – mediocre players who put up inflated statistics on great teams because of a once-in-a-generation type of teammate (for example, the presence of Dwight Howard on Hedo Turkoglu's stats).)

League history is littered with stars putting up empty numbers on bad and mediocre teams. A great current example of this is Antawn Jamison. When he was on the Wizards, he averaged over 20 points a game for five years. But how many games did those Wizard teams win? Over the five-year period, Jamison's Wizards squads put up a high yearly win total of 45 games (2004-2005), and a low of 19 (2008-2009).

We all know what happens when a Dwight Howard Effect player moves to a situation where he's more of a focus (see Turkoglu on the Raptors), but what about when an Empty Numbers guy joins a good team?

I think it goes back to that player's mindset: he either is playing for the stats or is playing to win. I don't know how Jamison approaches the game, but because he hasn't really shown himself in this Cavaliers/Celtics series, I would have to say he hasn't changed his mindset from his bad-team days and is playing for the stats. And that will cripple the Cavaliers' chances of beating the Celtics.

Now, about this year's Cavalier team. The big problem is that they are built around LeBron James. This in and of itself is not a problem; James is a bona fide superstar. If the team wasn't built around his game, heads would roll.

But there are problems with his game that he hasn't addressed, ones that hold him back from establishing himself as a winner in a league that desperately wants him to be a winner. For one, he disappears when his team is down (unlike Dwyane Wade). Second, he isn't automatic from the free-throw line (unlike Kobe or Durant). Third, his presence on the floor doesn't make his teammates better (unlike Dwight Howard). LeBron James is mortal, and that really hurts his current team – and, unless he improves his game, any future team he's on.

Which comes back to my original point: teams need more than one superstar to be elite. Look at the great teammates: Cousy, Sharman, Jones and Russell; West, Baylor and Chamberlain; Frazier, Bradley and Reed; Kobe and Shaq; Jordan and Pippen; Bird, McHale, Parish and Dennis Johnson; Magic, Kareem and Worthy; Hakeem and Drexler; Garnett, Pierce, Allen and Rondo. James and ... who?