Lakers aint gettin it done against good teams

MG

It's also true. And see today for a sample of how the boston celtics are doin against good teams. The only guy on your team I've seen do hurt somebody type things is Fisher.

Damn man I hate to admit it but the Cavs look awful damn good. Jamison really makes them better and they have very nice offensive flow.

Also Mg it has been really good for me to have quality guys like you and sky around to temper and make me examine my hate for Kobe and Phil. Always a good thing ...to look on those dark corners and see whats there.

Every time i type something about the lakers I think of you guys first.

Thanks Jeb.

I will let you in on a couple of secrets. When Phil was a coach of the Bulls, I use to hate him, and the Bulls. Ok, hate is a little harsh. I use to strongly dislike him. Now, I just tolerate him. I think, he thinks, that he is so much smarter or better than anyone else. I have two line of thoughts on whether he is a great coach, or good coach with great players. Most people look at his success with MJ and Pippen, Kobe and Shaq. What most don't remember is the years that those players were in place and could not get over the hump before Phil showed up. Probably a combination of both. Really good coach with great players. Still, he seems a little to smug for me.

I was one of the first that I know of that came out and publicly stated on BDC 2 years ago that I thought Kobe was pretty phony when addressing the media. I know Kobe is selfish, and believes the whole world should revolve around him. I also said that I have been a Lakers Fan since the early 70's and players come and go. I cannot jump from team to team everytime an arrogant, self cenetered player ends up on the roster. Although, I will say that definition of self centered arrogant player could fit the bill for many others around the league. Kobe just gets the most attention from it because of what happened in Colorado and being such a great player.


You are correct. The Cavs do look pretty good. I am still not convinced that their is a clear cut favorite to win it all. I believe health and match-ups will play an important part in deciding the 2010 NBA Champion.

Take care and have a good week.

MG

babyskyhook wrote:

steve3344 wrote:

tjmakz wrote:Nice win by LA last night at Phoenix.
LA will be where they need to be for the playoffs.

Lakers don't win that game if Channing Fry didn't have to sit it out because of a suspension. They have played an extraordinary amount of games vs teams missing either their best player or a very key one.

Hey Steve- bitter much ? Do you want a little cheese to go with your whine ?


Channing Frye ? That's pathetic. He doesn't even start for PHX. They went on their recent run after BENCHING him. Not a coincidence.

If it was Nash or Amare you'd have a point, but Channing Frye ? Please.

That would look like me saying the only reason the Cs won the other night is because they played the Pacers. You play who you play in the NBA. And every team loses guys to injuries. Or maybe you didn't notice #24 on the bench for LA when Boston came to town.


And outside of getting the Cavs w/o Mo Williams once, and Denver w/o Melo once (both games which the Lakers lost), please give some examples of the "extraordinary amount of games vs teams missing either their best player or a very key one". I can't think of any, so I can't wait to hear them.

This isn't the NFL where you are playing 16 games, and getting the other team's backup QB 8 times makes a huge difference in a season.

Lakers have won without Kobe, Gasol and Bynum at various times this year. Part of the game is to play through injuries and overcome adversity.


I am the first one to admit the Lakers' flaws, and have documented them frequently on this board. And I was one of the first people saying they weren't as good as their record back around Christmas, since they were benefitting from a home-heavy early season schedule vs a lot of weak teams (NJ, NY, etc).

But they're certainly not where thy are because they've played an "extraordinary amount of games vs teams missing either their best player or a very key one".

Or perhaps you can enlighten me as to which games comprise this "extraordinary amount" ?

If all you can remember of games the Lakers played against teams missing either their best player or a very key one other than one against the Cavs w/o Mo Williams and one against the Nuggets with no Melo, here are a few more for you:

Both games this year vs Detroit when the Pistions were without both Richard Hamilton and Prince.

Two games vs the Kings w/o Kevin Martin, their top scorer.

12/1 vs New Orleans without either Chris Paul or Peja Stojakovic.

1/8 vs Portland without Oden and 7 others.
2/6 vs Portland without Brandon Roy, Oden, Pryzbilla, Outlaw, etc.

2/3 vs Charlotte without Gerald Wallace or Tyson Chandler.

Add those eight to the two you mentioned and you got ten.

Everyone has injuries and you can dismiss Channing Fry's absence all you want in the Phoenix game, but he's played nearly 28 minutes a game this year, scores 11.6 a game, hits 43% of his 3's and is another big the Lakers didn't have to deal with Friday night in a close game that LA won. You state the Suns "benched" him, but they didn't bench him. He's their sixth man, and even as a sub gets nearly 22 minutes a game. To say they "benched" him is ridiculous. Benching someone means not playing them. And to say Phoenix "went on their recent run after BENCHING him" (your caps) is offbase. They played .600 ball with him as a starter and .640 with him as their top reserve. Virtually no difference.

MustangGator wrote:Jeb,

Very, very good and honest post. I remember when everyone on the other site 2 years ago was always saying the Lakers were softer than....I don't know what. Rightfully so. So now they try to get tougher and are called dirty. Fine line between dirty and physical. I have seen some dirty plays the past two years from the Lakers. Does that make them a dirty team? Is Denver dirty or just a physical team? I think of dirty when they first come to mind, but that is probably because I am use to them getting physical with the Lakers.

Can't win for losing.

MG

the Lakers are more physical,but my comment had nothing to do with that,they are dirty as in a bunch of cheapshot artists,Fisher has always been dirty in my book,Artest is physical,but also dirty,those guys always get away with alot of holding.Lamar Odom is dirty,Kobe is dirty always initiating contact with his elbows with the ball,then two soft Euros trying to be physical,but don't have that dynamic blend of strength and athleticism to really be physical are taking cheap shots,Sasha and Gasol got away with dirty cheap shots.....because this is such a poorly officiated league,they get away with it.

steve very informative post

cowens/oldschool wrote:steve very informative post

[/i]

All I was pointing out is 10 games is on the high side of games one team has gotten to play against a decidedly undermanned opponent. babyskyhook was saying it was 2.

And we all remember last year's playoffs where LA wouldn't have gotten past Houston in the second round and gotten their cherished championship had Yao Ming not broken his foot after game 3 of a series that took LA the full 7 to win. Lakers even lost two games (by 12 and 15) to that Rocket team minus their MVP and were ripped in the LA press for that. VERY fortunate injury for them to take advantage of.

Yeah, they won it all last year and are the defending champs. Hopefully it's just a one year reign.

MG

Yeah with me the thing with Phil is it's hard for me to see how a man of his age and accomplishments can maintain such arrogance. It just does not make sense in my belief system. Hell maybe the guy is just painted with magic but most people I meet that have his level of success are pretty humble. It's usually the insecure people that try to mask their self hate and lack of confidence with excessive pride.

cowens/oldschool wrote:

the Lakers are more physical,but my comment had nothing to do with that,they are dirty as in a bunch of cheapshot artists,Fisher has always been dirty in my book,Artest is physical,but also dirty,those guys always get away with alot of holding.Lamar Odom is dirty,Kobe is dirty always initiating contact with his elbows with the ball,then two soft Euros trying to be physical,but don't have that dynamic blend of strength and athleticism to really be physical are taking cheap shots,Sasha and Gasol got away with dirty cheap shots.....because this is such a poorly officiated league,they get away with it.

So if you think all these guys are dirty, how do you feel about Rondo clocking Brad Miller in the jaw, Big Baby coming down on Shaq's thumb or Big Baby's takedown of Brandon Jennings ? Good hard fouls or dirty play ? Do you apply the same standards in your book to those guys? Or do you have a different standard for your team ?


The Lakers don't do anything stronger than the Cs do in terms of hard fouls, physical contact, etc. I call it tough, physical basketball, and frankly, I wish the Lakers played even more in that style.

Off the top of my head, the only truly dirty players in the league I can think of are Dahnaty (The Trip Artist) Jones and Reggie (Nutcracker) Evans.

steve3344 wrote:

babyskyhook wrote:

steve3344 wrote:

Lakers don't win that game if Channing Fry didn't have to sit it out because of a suspension. They have played an extraordinary amount of games vs teams missing either their best player or a very key one.

...

And outside of getting the Cavs w/o Mo Williams once, and Denver w/o Melo once (both games which the Lakers lost), please give some examples of the "extraordinary amount of games vs teams missing either their best player or a very key one". I can't think of any, so I can't wait to hear them.

.....

If all you can remember of games the Lakers played against teams missing either their best player or a very key one other than one against the Cavs w/o Mo Williams and one against the Nuggets with no Melo, here are a few more for you:

Both games this year vs Detroit when the Pistions were without both Richard Hamilton and Prince.

Two games vs the Kings w/o Kevin Martin, their top scorer.

12/1 vs New Orleans without either Chris Paul or Peja Stojakovic.

1/8 vs Portland without Oden and 7 others.
2/6 vs Portland without Brandon Roy, Oden, Pryzbilla, Outlaw, etc.

2/3 vs Charlotte without Gerald Wallace or Tyson Chandler.

Add those eight to the two you mentioned and you got ten.

Everyone has injuries and you can dismiss Channing Fry's absence all you want in the Phoenix game, but he's played nearly 28 minutes a game this year, scores 11.6 a game, hits 43% of his 3's and is another big the Lakers didn't have to deal with Friday night in a close game that LA won. You state the Suns "benched" him, but they didn't bench him. He's their sixth man, and even as a sub gets nearly 22 minutes a game. To say they "benched" him is ridiculous. Benching someone means not playing them. And to say Phoenix "went on their recent run after BENCHING him" (your caps) is offbase. They played .600 ball with him as a starter and .640 with him as their top reserve. Virtually no difference.

You're right about Gerald Wallace. I forgot about that game. That's legit. He's their best player and has only missed a couple of games. Ok, that's three.

As for the rest ? There's no extraordinary benefit gained when playing a team that's missing a player who has been injured for most of the season (Oden) or for about half of the season to date (Kevin Martin, CP3, Chandler, Hamilton, Prince) because every team that's playing those teams is receiving the same benefit. So the Lakers aren't gaining an extraordinary advantage when playing those teams because every other team is getting the same advantage. That's called the schedule and the reality of injuries.

And the 2/6 game vs the Blazers ? The Lakers were missing both Kobe and Bynum. So who was benefitting there ?


Speaking of which, Gasol has missed 17 games, Kobe missed 5 and Bynum's missed 4 (plus 47 minutes of a 5th). So how does the Lakers missing their second-best player for 1/4 of the season factor into things ?


Like I said in the other post, you can say they're not playing as well this year and you'd be right, but to say they're getting some extraordinary benefit because of other teams' injuries is laughable and has no basis in reality. They're not benefitting any more or less than any other team. It all evens out.


As for Channing Frye, your definition of "benched" is incomplete, while your math and your conclusion are just flat wrong.

When Frye was a starter the team was 24-17 (.585%). After they lost four out of 5 (and five out of eight) games in January, Frye was taken out of the starting lineup and moved to the bench (aka "benched"). You can call that "ridiculous". We call that getting "benched" where I come from.


And since Frye's benching, PHX has gone 17-9 (.653%), and has won 9 of their last 12.

You concluded that there was "virtually no difference" in the Suns' success whether he was starting or coming off the bench.

Now that's what I would call "ridiculous", as the difference between winning at a clip of .653% vs .585% in the West is the difference between being the 3 seed and being out of the playoffs in ninth place. "Virtually no difference" indeed.

steve3344 wrote:

cowens/oldschool wrote:steve very informative post

And we all remember last year's playoffs where LA wouldn't have gotten past Houston in the second round and gotten their cherished championship had Yao Ming not broken his foot after game 3 of a series that took LA the full 7 to win. Lakers even lost two games (by 12 and 15) to that Rocket team minus their MVP and were ripped in the LA press for that. VERY fortunate injury for them to take advantage of.

Oh yes- very informative. Lakers clearly wouldn't have gotten past Houston if Yao had been playing. I mean, after all, they were only 2-1 vs the Rockets in that series when Yao went out with his injury. No way LA gets two more wins at that rate.

It seems to me that, although the Lakers have suffered from some inconsistency, they have two safeguards that most other teams do not. The first is height, which is not variable. The second is the Kobe bail-out option, which seems to be at least a threat as long as he can breathe and move his arms.

So they may be less susceptible to periods of boredom or being out of sync or injury than a lot of teams because they have the two fallback positions. If Kobe's out with injury, chances are good that their tall guys aren't going to shrink. If some combination of a tall guy and any other player aside from Kobe is out, they just need to stay close and wait for Kobe to bail them out at the end. It certainly doesn't work 100% of the time, but they're more fortified against contingencies than a team like the Celtics.

In my estimation, the Celtics depend more on being in synch and less on physicality or hero ball than most teams in the league.

Sam

I am probably going to get burned for this but...

I think the key to if the Celtics will suceed in the playoffs or not is if Pierce comes back to being a threat or someone else manages to do what Pierce used to do.

I feel like the Celtics have lacked those easy basket of maybe not iso but just Pierce being better than his defender. A couple of baskets every here and there.

Lately Pierce seems to have to fight and struggle for every point and to a certain degree they seem to still base the play around him being able to score a lot easier. If Pierce becomes a threat, the double teams come and the rest of the starters will benefit exponentially.

We need Pierce to be Pierce!! If he would come on I bet so much else would fall into place.

I better start running

It is funny how people on this board talk about LA not having to play against Outlaw, Oden and Peja S like they are superstars. LOL.

The West is so much better then the East and Boston still gets smoked at home by the weakest teams in the conference.

LA will be fine in the playoffs.
They will breeze by the #8 team, then probbaly beat Utah in 6 games.
Then they will have to play the Dallas/Denver winner.
If Dallas wins, LA will win in 5 games.
If they play Denver, that will be a 6 or 7 game series.

tj

seems only about 2-3 people make that an issue.

You play the games as they come, period.

As for the west a ways to go before matchups are decieded.
Lakers should do OK in most series agains any of them with perhaps Denver being the only real roadblock.

beat

looonnnngggg lliiivveeeee dddyyyynnnnaaassdsttttyyyyyyyyy

Sam wrote:It seems to me that, although the Lakers have suffered from some inconsistency, they have two safeguards that most other teams do not. The first is height, which is not variable. The second is the Kobe bail-out option, which seems to be at least a threat as long as he can breathe and move his arms.

So they may be less susceptible to periods of boredom or being out of sync or injury than a lot of teams because they have the two fallback positions. If Kobe's out with injury, chances are good that their tall guys aren't going to shrink. If some combination of a tall guy and any other player aside from Kobe is out, they just need to stay close and wait for Kobe to bail them out at the end. It certainly doesn't work 100% of the time, but they're more fortified against contingencies than a team like the Celtics.

In my estimation, the Celtics depend more on being in synch and less on physicality or hero ball than most teams in the league.

Sam

Sam-

I think you're right about this. unfortunately, I also think the Kobe aspect has a follow-on effect where even when everyone is healthy, the team frequently defers too him too much and looks for him to bail them out of too many possessions where the shot clock has would down to like 4 or 5 seconds, then they throw it to KObe and he heaves something up. And this happens throughout games= not just at the end. So there is a detrimental side effect that comes along with having a guy of Kobe's ability (and eagerness/willingness) to take over and create his own shot. It frequently bails the team out, but it also gets them in trouble in terms of becoming too passive.

One thing Phil has done lately which I think is smart is he has been emphasizing Odom in the 4th quarter and letting him work on whatever mismatch he has (he usually can either drive and attack the rim if a bigger guy is guarding him or post if a smaller man is on him). This forces the rest of the team to be more active and alert and keeps them more involved in the offense, and puts a specific burden on LO to score, which is not his first inclination.

swedeinestonia wrote:I am probably going to get burned for this but...

I think the key to if the Celtics will suceed in the playoffs or not is if Pierce comes back to being a threat or someone else manages to do what Pierce used to do.

I feel like the Celtics have lacked those easy basket of maybe not iso but just Pierce being better than his defender. A couple of baskets every here and there.

Lately Pierce seems to have to fight and struggle for every point and to a certain degree they seem to still base the play around him being able to score a lot easier. If Pierce becomes a threat, the double teams come and the rest of the starters will benefit exponentially.

We need Pierce to be Pierce!! If he would come on I bet so much else would fall into place.

I better start running

good call,agree with you 100%

lakes eke out a win in san fran...captain, there are doubts.

LA is no lock to win the championship.
They are a very good team, not a great team.
Hopefully they can grind out another championship this year, then trade for Devin Harris or Monta Ellis in the off season.
Add in a signing with the mid-level exception money and they will be ready for another few years.

Fisher, Morrison and Farmar will not be Lakers next year.
I am not too unhappy about that.

jeb65 wrote:lakes eke out a win in san fran...captain, there are doubts.

jeb,

The 18-47 GSW played without their usual centers (Biedrins and Turiaf are both out). Undrafted D-leaguer Chris Hunter (6'11, 240#) started against Bynum (7'0, 280#). Scored 22 points on 8-14 shooting. Bynum scored 19. Bynum had 8 turnovers, Hunter 0.

They played without their usual starting PF Anthony Randolph. Undrafted D-leaguer Anthony Tolliver (6'9", 240#) started against Gasol (7'0", 250#).

Monta Ellis shot 5-23.

In addition to losing Biedrins, Turiaf and Randolph, GSW also doesn't have the services of: Raja Bell, Brandon Wright, Radmanovic and Azuibuike.

I didn't watch the game, but I was told yesterday by a friend of mine who's a Laker fan that replay clearly showed Fisher fouling Ellis on a 3pt shot at the buzzer that was not called. Those 3 fta could have tied the game and sent it into OT. This from a Laker fan.

I think GSW did themselves proud and I think the Lakers are looking a little shaky. Certainly, Gasol has been talking about how their offense is stagnant (who could he be talking about?). They got past the 23-45 Kings last night too by 7.

bob

/

bob,

How about posting about a game you watched.
It was Shannon Brown near Ellis and he didn't even touch him.

Golden State is a very hard team to defend for the Lakers slow point guards. LA out rebounded them by 30+ but LA has no answers for quick guards.

As a Lakers fan, I am hoping they play Portland (Andre Miller), Utah (D. Williams) and then Dallas (Kidd) because they have a hard time with fast guards like Brooks, Parker, Rondo, Kidd and Curry.

tjmakz wrote:bob,

How about posting about a game you watched.
It was Shannon Brown near Ellis and he didn't even touch him.

Golden State is a very hard team to defend for the Lakers slow point guards. LA out rebounded them by 30+ but LA has no answers for quick guards.

As a Lakers fan, I am hoping they play Portland (Andre Miller), Utah (D. Williams) and then Dallas (Kidd) because they have a hard time with fast guards like Brooks, Parker, Rondo, Kidd and Curry.

tj,

1. About Ellis' last shot, I said that I was quoting someone else. That is called a "caveat".

2. Most of my post was about the loss of starting players by GSW and how they did pretty well against a healthy Lakers team. You saw the game, dispute that.

3. D-leaguers Hunter and Tolliver scored 36 points. Bynum and all-star Gasol, starters on the world champions, scored 47. I think that's pretty good performance for a couple of D-leaguers (or maybe not so good performance by the champs). Dispute that.

4. Could the reason why LA outrebounded GSW so much be because GSW was playing with their 3rd string, nobody center and their 3rd string nobody PF? See point #2 above.

5. The performances by Hunter and Tolliver have nothing to do with the speed, or lack therof, of the Lakers' point guards.

bob

/

bob,

1-The video of Ellis shot is easily accessible on espn.com
2-GS did very well against a healthy Lakers team. If they get a legit big man, they will be a playoff contender.
3-Hunter and Tolliver had open shots all night because the Lakers bigs had to help with Ellis andCurry drives through the lane.
4-LA is much bigger then GS. GS is much faster.
5-Hunter and Tolliver's performance had EVERYTHING to do with LA's point guards. See #3.

Man, you write a lot about a game that you didn't watch or see the highlights of...

tj

I concur that la struggles against team quickness. Specialy guards. They also struggle against team size. Denver is going to be tough for them because of their size and Smith and Lawson. That said the lakes are a very good tall team. No bench...outside Odom and Brown...two studs.

You need to ease off the trottle a little bit. Nobody is trying to scoop you. Were happy to speak to Laker fans if they know what they are talking about and understand polite discourse. You seem to know your hoop. Welcome to the board.

Jeb