ballershorts.com
Archive for Lakers
November 13, 2009 at 8:31 pm · by bteitelbaum · Filed under Game Analysis, Lakers
That’s the way it seemed for the Lakers when they beat up on the Suns last night. The final score of 121-102 does not even come close to describing the extent of Los Angeles’ domination. This was more lopsided than the hunchback of Notre Dame, and no, I’m not referring to Charlie Weis.
What a disappointing outcome for Phoenix, a team that had started the season 8-1 and was trying to establish themselves as legitimate contenders to the Lakers’ crown. Feeling rejuvenated, the new old Suns believed that they could compete with anyone.
News flash: They can’t.
They will have serious trouble against any decent team with a large, scoring center. I don’t mean just any good big man, but rather a strong 7-footer with skills to boot.
I’m not making this judgment based solely on the Laker game; that would be rash and unfair. However, if you look at this season’s young history, you will see a disconcerting trend emerging. The Suns, who went to Boston and took down the previously unbeaten Celtics, get thrown off their game when dealing with a behemoth.
Let’s start with the game last night. Los Angeles outscored Phoenix 78-48 in the paint. Andrew Bynum went off, totaling 26 points and 15 rebounds, while the entire team shot 58% from the field and 50% from downtown. This wasn’t a fluke lucky shooting game either, as the Lakers repeatedly found very good looks at the basket. They played inside-out, moved the ball, and allowed Bynum to manhandle Channing Frye, Amare Stoudemire, or whoever else tried to stand in his way. The Suns don’t have a post defender capable of making life tough for big guys, not to mention stopping them. Furthermore, if you have to double hard every possession, you will give up open shots and get tired constantly trying to rotate.
The defensive issues, though, may not even be what hurts Phoenix the most. Against the Lakers, the Suns were often taken completely out of their offensive rhythm. I attribute this to two things. Firstly, it is much harder to push the tempo after permitting a made basket. I know that the Suns still try to run, and they do so more effectively than other teams in the league, but they’re less potent after a miss. Secondly, Phoenix was found scrambling on defense a lot more than usual, which again makes it more difficult to score in transition. When you need to worry extra about rotating and boxing out, you aren’t as ready to run. All this was evident as the Suns struggled to reach the century mark on the scoreboard.
Phoenix seemed oddly uncomfortable and forced the action more than usual. They took uncharacteristic shots and looked frustrated.
Prior to the Laker game, the Suns had faced two other teams with dominant big men, the Magic and the Clippers (this isn’t your mother’s Chris Kaman). Orlando also blew out Phoenix, winning 122-100 behind Dwight Howard’s 25 points in 23 minutes. They barely beat the lowly Clippers by 2, as Kaman dropped 22 and 9.
What about the Celtics? you ask. Kevin Garnett is a great offensive big man. I’ll reiterate what I mentioned earlier, though. The Celtics do not have a scoring center. Garnett is long and has a bevy of moves, but he won’t go through or over people. Despite Channing and Amare’s defensive limitations, they won’t get physically eaten up by KG. That slight distinction is enough to cause a world of difference.
I also know that this criticism was made several years ago, when Mike D’Antoni held the reigns to Phoenix’s wild horses, but this time around they were hoping it would be different. Alvin Gentry is supposedly trying to instill the ability to play defense in specific bunches, and to do so in a way that hides their lack of size. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to be working yet.
Here’s the good news: Not the many teams own the type of player that destroys the Suns, so they should have a very successful regular season.
The bad news: They still won’t be able to get out of the West.
October 29, 2009 at 11:06 pm · by bteitelbaum · Filed under Lakers, NBA
There has been no shortage of discussion concerning the Lakers’ off-season acquisition of Ron Artest. Fans and pundits have alternately lambasted and praised the move, each side giving a compelling version of the truth about Ron. There has been debate over what role he will play on the court, whether his offensive style can adapt to the triangle and whether he is declining defensively. But conversation on Artest unfailingly returns to the subject of personality. Is he a self-indulgent, knuckleheaded, clubhouse cancer who could spring into the stands at any moment? Or is he a misunderstood, maturing man who is mentally ready to put the team first? (ESPN recently posted a fascinating video highlighting Artest’s complexities. See it here.)
Well, after one game I don’t think we can give a definitive answer. Nevertheless, I would like to posit a theory that to my knowledge has not been proposed before. It is somewhat counterintuitive, but I think it makes sense. Artest will be better in Los Angeles for two reasons: what the team is asking from him and the nature of the city. I know that broad topic sentence would probably earn a red underline in school, but please bear with me.
Coupled with his mercurial disposition, Artest’s unearthly talents may have been more a curse than a blessing. From the outset he faced expectations of being a star when he may actually be more suited to being a role player. The general public seems to assume that athletes who act out are pompous chasers of the spotlight, such as Terrell Owens. However, there is another completely different, often overlooked option: some people don’t know how to deal with the attention that is thrust upon them and therefore misbehave. Alongside Jermaine O’Neal, Artest was supposed to carry the Pacers to a championship. He might have been deluded into believing he was the right guy, even though it was never really possible. When he asked the Pacers for a leave of absence to pursue his rap career, he may have been subconsciously running away from the spotlight, rather than towards it.
Disregarding talent, there are people who, for psychological, emotional, or behavioral reasons, are unable to devote the type of unswerving concentration to a specific pursuit necessary to become the best. While most would theoretically like to get there, not everyone can be Michael or Kobe. Yet we are always anointing successors, telling players that they should be the next great one. Battling the disconnect between expectation and reality has rerouted many promising careers and may have pushed Artest over the edge.
The Lakers aren’t asking Artest to be great on the court. They’re merely asking him to be good and fit in. Maybe that’s all he’s needed to hear his whole career. Last year in Houston was the first time he was told something similar, as he was meant to complement Yao and TMac, and he was a solid citizen throughout. Free from the pressures of being a go-to-guy or the face of a franchise, Ron-Ron might be much more comfortable and less volatile.
Now let’s move to my second contention, that LA might be the perfect place for Artest to thrive. I’ve heard critics claim that the city holds too many distractions for Artest to be successful on the court. For years everyone said, “If only he could focus solely on basketball…” Well maybe Artest simply can’t. Maybe he needs diversions, needs to focus on more than basketball, to maintain equilibrium. As I mentioned earlier, he doesn’t appear to have that singular drive when it comes to hoops; Having no other outlets may have prompted his outbursts. He admittedly has various interests and hobbies that he won’t abandon for basketball, and LA gives him the easiest access and biggest opportunities.
So perhaps we should embrace the many facets of Ron Artest. Perhaps we should encourage him to get in the recording studio or go bowling with his fans. The happier he is in life, the happier he’ll be on the court. And perhaps if he isn’t required to focus exclusively on basketball, he will be more focused when it actually matters the most.
June 14, 2009 at 8:07 am · by bteitelbaum · Filed under Lakers, Playoffs
- I’m a little worried because last night I dreamt that the Lakers lost the Finals. The rest of the dream is a little fuzzy. I know that my dad was working in the TV crew and that we were not playing the Magic, but otherwise the details are evading me. So what does it mean? Freud argues that dreams represent the unfulfilled wishes of one’s id. But I don’t ascribe to the Oedipus Complex, so I won’t buy this either. Jung claims that Freud is too simplistic, that dreams reflect a much more complex and rich projection of the subconscious, and that you need to be really in tune with all the archetypes of your interior and exterior personality to attempt comprehension. Or something like that. Hmm. That sounds pretty intelligent. Almost too intelligent. So I would like to briefly posit a simple dream-theory which, if nothing else, will help ease my mind as to why I envisioned a Lakers loss. It’s kind of an anti-Freudian notion. Dreams might be representations of things you hope not to happen in real life. You may often repress thought about those anti-desires, which must therefore escape somehow. Your body/mind can might also be using dreams to prepare for dealing with these anti-desires if they actually occur. Now I’ve got myself thinking too deeply, for I think that my recurring flying dreams (which I love) represent wishes. But maybe, just maybe, my subconscious knows that an ability to fly would in fact be harmful for me or for the world, and I just shallowly believe I want to fly. Who knows. Maybe I’ll go back to school, study psychology, and write world-renowned books that no one understands.
- A word about experience. After Orlando’s Game 4 loss, Stan Van Gundy repeatedly denied experience being a factor. To paraphrase: “They’ve all played hundreds of basketball games in their lives, many of them important, and it’s just a basketball game.” Then the studio analysts opined that SVG was completely wrong and experience is a key component in the finals. Well, I dispute their claims and would like to opine right back. I just don’t know how the well-paid pundits could overlook certain crystal clear evidence supporting SVG. Firstly, why did the Lakers lose Game 3? Possibly because Kobe Bryant, the most experienced, supposedly unfazable closer, missed 5 of 10 free throws. Furthermore, who was making the loudest case for experience? One Earvin “Magic” Johnson, who I seem to remember carrying his team as just a rookie and winning the Finals MVP. You want more? In the critical close-out game against Cleveland, which I contend is a pretty pressure packed moment, Dwight Howard shot 12 of 16 from the line. In one playoff win against Boston, he shot 5-12. Superman is a very inconsistent, borderline horrible, foul shooter. He has missed pairs of free throws many times in his life. Of course, though, it fits the narrative much better if we blame inexperience. I could go on, but I think you get the point.
- The difference between winning and losing is very small.
- This may seem counter-intuitive, but I think the Magic help the Lakers out when they double Kobe. Hear me out. We know that Kobe trusts his teammates, but he so intensely focused on winning that he appears to occasionally forget that fact. As the most dangerous offensive weapon in the league, he truly believes that he can and should score in almost any situation, especially whenever he is single covered. Because he hits such ridiculously hard shots, he sometimes forces up questionable attempts rather than moving the ball within the offense. When Orlando doubles, traps, or helps, then Kobe is impelled to give up the rock. This allows his teammates to stay involved and it reminds Kobe that they are available options.
- I think the Lakers close it out today.
May 20, 2009 at 3:37 pm · by bteitelbaum · Filed under Lakers, Playoffs
I disagree with many pundits regarding things being said about the Western Conference Semis. In fact, I think the Lakers will win this in 5 or 6 games. Here are my thoughts:
- I’ve read a lot of stuff lately saying that the Nuggets are more talented than the Lakers. I just don’t understand how any intelligent basketball observer can come to that conclusion. Both teams have two top-tier talents: Kobe and Pau on Los Angeles, Carmelo and Chauncey on Denver. After that, the Nuggets can really only boast one other really gifted offensive player, JR Smith. Nene and Kenyon Martin can finish around the rim, but I dare you to find me something they can do on their own. Furthermore, Dahntay Jones, Anthony Carter, and Chris Andersen are three of the worst offensive players to get consistent burn on a playoff team. On the other hand, the Lamar Odom is one of the most versatile guys in the league, Andrew Bynum has the size and skills to be a beast down low, Derek Fisher is a proven knock-down shooter in crunch time, Sasha Vujacic can heat up in a hurry, Jordan Farmar can score the ball in a variety of ways, and Trevor Ariza can finish and is becoming a more reliable shooter. I know most of those guys are either inconsisten, unconfident, or slumping at the moment, but let’s not confuse mercurial with untalented. If the Lakers were to really play, like they did at the beginning of the season, they would blow the Nuggets out. Now I know that’s unlikely to happen, but let’s not suddenly believe that Los Angeles is zapped of offensive potency.
- The Lakers are sh0wing something that every championship team needs, and it is going mostly unrecognized. What am I talking about? Grit. Yes, they have struggled. Yes, they haven’t played the way we all expected. They’re not shooting well and they’re having severe defensive lapses. But they’ve won the first two rounds and they pulled out Game 1 against the Nuggets. Why not give them credit for grit. Last year, Boston struggled in the opening rounds. They ended up winning the championship. I’m happy that the finesse team is having to grind a bit.
- There are more adjustments for the Lakers to make than the Nuggets. At the beginning of the game, Kobe wanted to make a statement. I think that next game they will try to establish the bigs. Whether Kenyon Martin is guarding Gasol or Bynum, there will be a huge size advantage that needs to be exploited. Defensively, the Lakers can try so many more options. Kobe could stay on Anthony while Ariza moves to Billups. Or Kobe could guard Jones and play a lot of help D. Already having a size advantage, I would love to see the Lakers go really big. At least to try. I’m talking Bynum, Gasol, and Odom on the court at the same time. Odom could either guard Carmelo or one of the non-scorers. They would definitely have matchup advantages somewhere in the post and dominate even more on the boards. I know Phil won’t do it but I would love to see it.
May 9, 2009 at 3:47 pm · by bteitelbaum · Filed under Lakers, Playoffs
A lot of people have been worried about the Lakers in the last couple weeks. They have seemed “vulnerable” according to many pundits, myself included just over a week ago. However, after studying box scores and finally watching a full game last night, I think there are a couple of reasons why the Lakers and their fans need not be too concerned. Some of them are very obvious and being overlooked, while others are a little conspicuous.
They’re not turning the ball over: They’ve only coughed up the rock 30 times so far against Houston. (For those of you bad at math, that’s only 10 a games. The low per game this season was San Antonio at 11.7) Shotmaking comes and goes, but there are some fundamental things you can do consistently to avoid beating yourself. The more shots you get at the basket and fewer easy buckets you relinquish, the better chance you have to win. It’s one of most basic things that coaches preach, and yet players remain careless with the ball and risky with their passes.
They’re capitalizing on Houston’s turnovers: In a tough dogfight, anything that you can get easy is an important bonus. Los Angeles has scored more than 18 points off Houston’s TOs in each game. Witness Jordan Farmar’s hustle play that led to Trevor Ariza’s wide open dunk. If you work hard on the defensive end, you don’t have to worry as much about execution and shotmaking. It seems like the Lakers have realized that they’re a little out of sync in their halfcourt, so they have helped themselves out. The story of many people’s lives is wasted opportunities. The Lakers aren’t gonna let that happen.
Expectations were too high: Yes, this does appear to be a strange reason why the lakers shouldn’t be worried. But hear me out. Firstly, Los Angeles always has higher expectations than almost any other team in professional sports. Secondly, before the season everyone was pegging them as the favorites to win the title. Thirdly, they started the season super hot and looked unbeatable. Then they started to get beat a little and people got concerned. This is the NBA playoffs, folks! Teams lose games. Even great teams lose games against worse teams. Michael Jordan’s 1995-1996 Bulls – the team that won 72 games – dropped three games in the playoffs. It’s supposed to happen, and yet it causes all sorts of hullabaloo when it actually does. As the Spanish say, tranquilo, it’s gonna be ok.
Despite all the “problems,” they’re still winning by double digits: The Lakers are missing shots, blowing leads, getting nothing from Bynum, getting little from the rest of bench, etc… and yet every one of their wins has been by double digits. Winning consistently by more than 10 is something done by very good teams, despite what you might say about the quality of Los Angeles’ play.
The matchups get better: What do these current Lakers struggle with? Quick point guards and big men that demand double teams. The Rockets have both. (Aaron Brooks was the key to the win in Game one and perhaps the reason why Houston lost Games 2 and 3.) The Nuggets, Mavs, and Cavs have neither. Please don’t mistake “good” with “quick” and “demands double teams. Celtics are done. In fact, Orlando is the only team that actually worries me a bit, because the Lakers probably need to double Dwight without a healthy Bynum, and Turkoglu and Lewis usually knock down threes better than Artest and Wafer. But otherwise, the matchups are pretty good for the Lakeshow going forward, and they also won’t face defenders as capable as slowing Bryant.
I’m not a betting man (anymore) but I would definitely put money down on LA.
February 11, 2009 at 7:43 am · by bteitelbaum · Filed under Lakers, Rants and Raves, Stats
As we all know by now, Kobe and LeBron tore up Madison Square Garden in back-to-back games last week, prompting reinvigorated debate over who is better. One of the many persistent arguments used by King James backers focuses on passing ability. They claim that LeBron is far superior at getting his teammates involved and creating easy shots for them. Furthermore, the stats back them up; James averages 7.1 assists/game, as compared to Bryant’s 5, and the Knicks saw them drop 11 and 3 dimes, respectively.
I don’t deny that LeBron is a fantastic passer, and I’m not going to contend here that Kobe is better in that facet of the game. However, I will say that the above argument ignores a vital piece of the big picture. I have read a lot of sports articles recently, and not one has mentioned the LAKER’S PASSING ABILITY AS A TEAM. Kobe gets a ridiculous amount of “hockey assists” – plays in which he makes the second pass before a bucket, or in which his pass directly leads to someone else’s assist. How often have we witnessed the following chain of events: Bryant gets doubled or at least draws help, then Bryant passes to a big (Gasol/Odom) in the high post, then that big goes high-low to another big (Gasol/Odom/Bynum) who finishes the play. It happens all the time. Although this hockey assist stat is not recorded, it is a crucial aspect to a team’s offense efficiency. Kobe and LeBron average practically the same amount of shot attempts per game (20.9 – 20.3), so it’s not as if Kobe is looking to score significantly more than LeBron. And whereas Kobe’s passes may not lead to direct baskets as often as LeBron’s passes, I would definitely argue that Kobe puts his team in a position to get a good shot as much as anyone in the league.
Check out these stats:
- The Lakers are the second best team in the league in terms of total assists, at 23.2 per game, while the Cavs sit at lowly number twenty-four, with only 20.2.
- Only two Cleveland players aside from LeBron average more than 1.7 assists/game, while Los Angeles has six who do it besides Kobe.
- Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Ben Wallace, and Anderson Varejao dish out a combined 3 helpers, while Pau Gasol, Lamar Odom, and Andrew Bynum dish out 7.4
- Ilaguskas averages 15.1 shots per 36 minutes and makes 50% of them, while Gasol makes 56% of his 12.3 attempts.
If Pau shot the ball with the same frequency as Big Z – that is to say, if he hoisted up a midrange jumper every time he got the rock after a pick-and-roll – Kobe would definitely average more assists per game. But Gasol is more circumspect and tries to find the best shot possible for his team. In fact, most of the Lakers play that way. Thus Kobe’s specific assist totals are relatively modest.
So let’s not forget that Kobe knows how to move the ball and is a willing passer. He’s shooting the best percentage of his entire career because he’s forcing things less than in past years. He now completely trusts his teammates, and that’s why the Lakers are the best offensive team in the league. And obviously there are still nights when he just feels it and wants to score. Please stop preaching critically about Kobe’s scoring in garbage time against the Knicks. If you had the opportunity to break the MSG scoring record, you would totally gun for it. Don’t even pretend that you wouldn’t. Just because you could never shoot 19-31 or go down in hoops history doesn’t mean you should begrudge Kobe.
For visual evidence that Kobe (and the Lakeshow) can drop dimes, see the video clips below.
Behind the back
Showtime
Ridiculous
December 28, 2008 at 12:28 pm · by bteitelbaum · Filed under Game Analysis, Lakers
Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn, and cauldron bubble.
No, the Lakers haven’t gone Macbeth just yet. They haven’t quite killed the king or claimed the throne. However, the weird sisters are beginning to prognosticate a Los Angeles ascendance, and uneasy lies the head that wears the crown. Alack and alas! I’m mixing up my Shakespeare again.
The bard’s perpetual display of timeless relevance does not stop there. In fact, Lady Macbeth’s incisive inquiry into her husband’s ability to murder King Duncan is the very question we asked of Los Angeles before this season and particularly before this game: Art thou afeard to be the same in thine own act and valour as thou art in desire?
After their embarrassing exit to the finals, a 39 point game 6 loss to the Celtics, it is undeniable that the Lakers yearn to write a different conclusion to this season’s final act. However, their play has not always lived up to their talent or ambition. While they have been great at times, they have also offered unimpressive performances that seem to challenge their resoluteness, willpower, or chemistry. Case in point, a blown 16 point lead against the anemic Pacers. During these last few weeks, you never knew which Los Angeles squad would show up: the one that decisively kills or the one that is nervously unsure of its character.
Though several pundits discounted the importance of the Lakers’ Christmas Day game versus the reigning champion Celtics even before it occurred – Charles Barkley said this game meant virtually nothing to the Celtics – I disagree with that cavalier attitude. It was a clear opportunity for the Lakers to test their mettle against the best team in the league, a confident bunch in the midst of a 19 game win streak. You don’t win that many in a row unless you play with unparalleled intensity, heart, skill, and cohesion, so this was definitely a barometer game for LA. And while the thrilling finals rematch witnessed last week, a 92 – 83 Lakers win, does not give us any concrete answers, it undoubtably holds very real implications.
So what did we learn on Christmas? Here are my thoughts:
- Los Angeles was not and is not afraid of Boston. The Lakers’ body language and style of play was clear evidence of that. They weren’t concerned about the Celtics’ physicality and they more than matched the C’s trademark intensity. Boston’s psychological advantage will no longer be a factor when they meet in the future.
- Though they refuse to admit it, the Celtics miss James Posey, especially against teams with a player like Kobe Bryant. While it may not be apparent on a nightly basis – the record suggests that the improvement of Rajon Rondo and Kendrick Perkins has compensated for any bench shortcomings – it was surely conspicuous here. Firstly, Tony Allen cannot defend Kobe nearly as well as Posey; he’s simply too small. (Posey is listed at 6′8, Allen at 6′4.) When Allen was guarding Kobe, Black Mamba found it much easier to get good shots, many of them in the pinch post. Posey’s length bothered Kobe’s turnaround and pull-up jumpers and his toughness deterred Kobe’s driving ability. Though he is a relatively good defender, Allen can do neither against Bryant. Posey’s defense was a key reason that Kobe shot under 40% in 4 of the 6 finals games, whereas Allen’s deficiencies contributed to Kobe’s 13-23 performance on Thursday. I’m not trying to give Posey all the credit or Allen all the blame, but this is certainly a factor. (It might also be something to monitor if the Celtics have to match up with LeBron James). Secondly, Posey spaced the floor and consistently hit big threes. Tony Allen, a career 30% 3-point shooter, is down under 17% this season. The Lakers were content leaving him to double more dangerous Celtics, and he didn’t make them pay. He shot 3-9, 0-2 from deep, and had no serious offensive impact on the game.
- Andrew Bynum matters, even if Kevin Garnett won’t acknowledge it. It’s true that he was not a direct difference-maker on offense, with 9 points and 7 boards, but his influence was significant. There were two specific areas in which the Lakers benefited from his mere presence in the lineup:
- Gasol’s assertiveness. His 7 points in the last two minutes are the talk of the town, and everyone is wondering where this was in the finals. Mark Heisler of the LA Times made this point: “Last spring, Gasol was single-covered and held to 14.7 points a game by the physical Kendrick Perkins. Now Perkins guards Bynum with Garnett on Gasol. As great as KG is, he won’t beat Gasol up.” Neither Heisler nor I am intimating that Perkins is a better defender than Garnett. He’s not. But he’s a different kind of defender, more physical and brutish. Garnett doesn’t abuse his marks in that manner. Additionally, Pau was afforded more rest on the bench than any game in the finals (except the game 6 debacle). While KG did a good job slowing Gasol for the game’s first 46 minutes, the Shaggy Spaniard was fresher and thus more aggressive in crunch time.
- Defensive strength around the basket. With Bynum and Gasol sharing the court, the Lakers had two legitimate shot blockers on the court for much of the game. Lamar Odom just doesn’t give them that same capability. Andrew rejected 2 shots and Pau swatted 3. But the numbers don’t fully measure their impact. The Celtics got relatively few points in the paint. Pierce and Rondo were not effective driving to the basket. And in the second half, Garnett shot mostly jumpers. Bynum’s presence was a deterrent for the Celtics and a safety net for the Lakers.
- Trevor Ariza makes a huge difference. The stats may not show it, but he always gives the Lakers a dynamic playmaker off the bench that they lacked last year. He defends hard, crashes the offensive glass, and makes all the hustle plays. Consider the second quarter moment when Ariza chased down the loose ball and found Sasha Vujacic while falling out of bounds. Absolutely fantastic!
- I don’t know if they can do this on a regular basis, but the Lakers did a phenomenal job of defending without fouling. Pierce, who got to the line almost 9 times per game in the finals, only managed 4 attempts and Garnett didn’t shoot a single foul shot. Furthermore, Pierce’s fouls occurred away from the basket when Los Angeles was in the penalty. The Lakers gave the Celtics nothing easy and did not bail them out of tough situations. The best defensive teams, like Boston, make opposing offenses work hard for everything.
If the Lakers and Celtics again meet in the finals, will the Lakers win? We don’t know. There is a lot of basketball to be played, late season pickups to be made (cough cough PJ Brown), and injuries to be sustained. But this December game is not irrelevant. The Celtics and the rest of the league know that this Lakers team is a different beast. More than ever, the dagger in Kobe’s hand is not a figment of our imagination.