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.
June 9, 2009 at 12:28 pm · by bteitelbaum · Filed under Playoffs
I generally think I’m lucky. I haven’t had any cavities, my dog neither barks nor bites, and my mother’s father had a full head of hair on the day he passed away. Even more profound, I often find my reality to be an elegant confluence of art and life. As an aspiring effete snob, these recognitions provide me invaluable opportunities to reflect glowingly on my education and perspicacity.
But seriously, in this instance there is an eerily apt conundrum facing the characters in the book I am reading (Catch-22) and the Orlando Magic, spelled out pretty clearly by Joseph Heller and Jeff Van Gundy. The responses to this quandary should greatly influence the fates of both.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with Catch-22, it’s about a group of World War II fighter pilots who are looking for a way to avoid combat. Here is the paragraph from Chapter 5: “There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one’s own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn’t, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn’t have to; but if he didn’t want to he was sane and had to.” Tricky situation, no? I’m only 70 pages deep, so I’m not yet sure if or how they will resolve this dilemma.
Orlando is facing a somewhat similar predicament. Since Lamar Odom is playing significantly better than Andrew Bynum and being the series’ pivotal x-factor, the Magic would be crazy to desire more PT for LO. To keep Odom off the court, the Magic have to stop getting Bynum in foul trouble, which means Dwight Howard has to stop attacking the basket. If he stops attacking the basket, though, then the Magic become eminently one-dimensional and guardable.
So what should the Magic do? You hear basketball announcers constantly using the term pick-your-poison when discussing dangerous offensive players such as Kobe or LeBron, and this is also a no-win state of affairs. Do they sacrifice offensive versatility/efficiency in order to save themselves defensive issues? I am a die-hard Laker fan and I hate to give pointers to the enemy, but I also take pride in my journalistic objectivity. Therefore, I will disclose a hint to Stan Van Gundy. Why are there no cross-screens in the post? They would either force Gasol to switch onto Howard or allow Dwight deep post position. That way Dwight could be aggressive without fear of sending Bynum to the pine. There are obviously other things the Magic needed to do well to get back in this series, like stop turning the ball over and receive better guard play. Still, it all might be too little too late.