Thank You RichDaDCLakerFan...
... Because we could use a break from debating Smush vs. Farmar, Pinnock vs. "The System," and "KG Joining the Lakers" vs. "Ain't Gonna Happen." And your comment presents a pretty cool topic of discussion.
"Of all of the role players we have had over the years, do you think there are some role players worthy of having their jersey retired? The first one that comes to mind who should be considered is Michael Cooper. He was on all 5 Showtime Laker championship teams, defensive player of the year 86-87, and played his entire career with the team. Any thoughts?"
Interesting question, indeed.
I remember when Robert Horry was en route to winning his sixth ring with San Antonio (and hitting his typical array of clutch shots to make it happen), it spurred (sorry!) a debate between BK and I that lasted roughly a week. The subject? Should role players be allowed in the Hall of Fame? I won't subject y'all to a complete rehash of our yapping. You good people certainly don't deserve that. But in a nutshell, even though there would be inherent problems (how to truly judge one role guy against the next, since much of what they do isn't stat heavy), I liked the idea simply because rewarding standout guys of that nature appealed to me, imperfections be damned. BK was against it because he hates Robert Horry. Or more accurately, because aside from issues already presented, guys who simply weren't good enough to be HOF players — as opposed to sacrificing stats for team — could end up enshrined (which may diminish the point of the Hall itself) and someone like Horry may have an unfair advantage due to the teams he played with. In the end, nothing was decided for sure (other than BK and I having way too much time on our hands), but it was a lively discussion. And it sort of reminds me of Rich's question. If the HOF is indeed too much, even for the best of role players, perhaps the team should be doing something on their behalf.
As far as literally retiring the numbers, put aside the "who's to say blah blah blah is better than blah blah blah?" arguments. The biggest problem I see is eventually running out of numbers for current players. Seriously. Say there are one or two outstanding role players every few seasons (and with the Lakers' stellar track record in this regard, that could be guesstimating on the low side). If each of those guys' numbers go the way of the Logo, Cap or Goodrich (not to mention inevitable candidates like Kobe and Shaq), we're eventually gonna see Lakers with decimal pointed digits, letters or shapes under the names on their jerseys. They'll even burn through the weirdo numbers like 73 and 91 that only the Rodmans and Artests of the world wear. Therefore, a formal retirement may require the kabash on a purely practical level.
What I do think could work and would definitely be cool, though, is some item next to the retired jerseys that lists all the exceptional role players. It could be an oversized jersey, a plaque, whatever. Those invaluable guys get their due and a suitable assortment of numbers remain open for use.
Would you get behind this? Or do you think while role players should be appreciated, there are certain honors reserved for stars and stars only?
—AK
Andrew Z:
As always, you’re a good sport and blog friend. No way I could let that pass, but you know I respect your posts and your take on anything purple and gold.
Actually, I always try to focus on the upside of any of the guys on my teams, whether it’s the Lakers, Yankees, or Niners. And believe me, sometimes it‘s trying when the guys let me down. I am still praying that Alex Smith and ARod can pull it together for my Niners and Yankees this year.
Although I will deny I ever posted this, I am at heart a dreamer and the best dream one can enjoy is when all of the pieces to come together. Farmar becomes Nash. Kwame becomes Moses Malone. LO becomes Pippen. Etc.
I do like the team we have assembled, though, and think that enough of the guys will come through for us to win it all if not this year then next. I was very impressed with the job that Phil and the coaching staff did last year. With the moves we have made in the off-season, I think we won’t be as fragile when we get to the playoffs this year.
The great thing about the blog is going to be the day we win it all and there is nothing but unanimous agreement from all of us that the sun is shining on Laker fans again.
Tom
Posted by: LakerTom | September 01, 2006 at 12:49 PM
Exhelodrvr:
I agree. I wish everybody on our team had Kobe’s work ethic and desire to be great. You would think it would be hard to show up in camp and face Kobe if you hadn’t given your all to upping your game during the off-season.
This is one of the reasons you should really be higher on Farmar. I think he may be a Kobe-clone as far as his heart and dedication to becoming better. It’s a major reason why I have gotten behind him so strongly.
Peace and Lakers all the way.
Tom
Posted by: LakerTom | September 01, 2006 at 12:58 PM
dan:
It’s always a good idea to keep your day job. I hope Smush remembers that because Farmar is definitely going to be out to get it.
Tom
Posted by: LakerTom | September 01, 2006 at 01:02 PM
Any discussion of this sort that does not begin and end with Derek Fisher is flawed, and the people participating in the conversation should be castrated and shot. In that order.
That is all.
Posted by: Jimbo | September 01, 2006 at 01:11 PM
LakerTom,
This is pretty random but in reference to your last post, I see LO's game as being more similar to Magic's than Pippen's. Not that you're doing it, but overall (probably based on the Kobe-MJ and Phil as coach deal) I think it's unfair to pigeon-hole LO into a Pippen-esque player.
LO is a pretty damn unique talent, it's tough to find anyone to compare him to.
Posted by: Andrew Z | September 01, 2006 at 01:34 PM
Guity,
I see what you're saying but we also have to remember that most of the teams we are playing have been together for years, and the team we are throwing out there has been together for a couple months. As important as talent is, continuity, and chemistry are just as if not more important.
No doubt having the best baller in the world will help, but this team being together for 2 more years will help even more. Would Kobe have helped today? HELL YEAH, but the point is the only way to beat the rest of the world is to be a good TEAM.
Posted by: Weave-Man | September 01, 2006 at 03:07 PM
Weave-Man:
You are 100% right in your post to Guity. The way for Team USA to win in Beijing or for the Lakers to win in 2006/7 is to play as a TEAM. That is what the Lakers did to end last season when we beat all of the other teams that supposedly had more talent and athleticism than we did. That is what the media, the naysayers on the blog, and the critics of Team USA need to remember. It is a TEAM game and the best TEAM will win. We should just stop this foolishness and send the most recent NBA championship TEAM to these tournaments rather than these all-star teams that don’t believe they need to play as a team to win and haven’t had enough time to learn how.
Tom
Posted by: LakerTom | September 01, 2006 at 04:56 PM
Andrew Z:
I actually agree with you about Lamar. I actually erased the Pippin analogy twice but couldn’t find a better one at the time. I do like your Magic comparison, however, but I also don’t want to see Lamar outside when he is so great in the paint. You are right, though, that his versatility is really unique in the league and big reason why I believe the Lakers can develop into a great team.
Tom
Posted by: LakerTom | September 01, 2006 at 05:00 PM
T-Woody,
That's a good idea mix the women with the men's team to make them straight shooter on those 3 pts. How come the women can do it gracefully and consistently while the Men has to dunk the ball with machismo to show their manhood which is only counted as two. haha!
Posted by: Edwin Gueco | September 01, 2006 at 11:31 PM
Guity,
I know Kobe could be the difference and Duncan in the post rather than Bosch. Here is one observation, this team has no strategy against the other team, they just kept on running and outshoot them. Like Baby Shaq, why don't they plan foul baiting him until he gets four fouls and sit down. What USA team they match speed against speed in the end, they noticed they were really slower. In the olden days, when there was no time limit how long you will hold the ball, once you get into lead, players just dribble until time is up. What I'm saying they should have paced themselves rather going on a get-go at all times. If they have Magic Johnson in Chris Paul, then the ball will go to the free man, not w/ Wade and Lebron doing a one-on-one acrobatic layups.
Posted by: Edwin Gueco | September 01, 2006 at 11:39 PM
LakerTom
Agree with you about the championship team going to the World Championship and Olympics. I'm pretty darn sure that if the US had send that '04 Pistons at the Olympics, no way the Argentinians would have beat them.
Prince would have shut everybody down from the perimeter, and interior defense ? Come on, not a chance in hell Baby Shaq would have scored on the Wallaces. Yep, that Pistons team had strong arguments when it comes to international basketball : good outside shooting, great team spirit and a suffocating defense. And they sent a team with Marbury ? I always thought that any team that got the self-proclaimed best point guard in the world (seriously, you gotta tell me he was on drugs when he said that) has to lose. HAS to. It's just an insult to basketball.
Saga
Posted by: Saga | September 02, 2006 at 08:50 AM
Saga:
Thanks. You are right that the Pistons would not have lost in the last Olympics or even the Heat in the FIBA games.
It really is ludicrous that the media and some posters seem to actually believe that the rest of the world has caught us in basketball. rdlee said it best when he said that the international games were the "minor leagues."
Too bad that we continue to send "all-star" teams, which is an oxymoron since a groups of all-stars really aren't teams, which is why they can be beaten.
Tom
Posted by: LakerTom | September 02, 2006 at 12:47 PM
LakerTom,
As I responded to Exhelodrvr yesterday, let's let these players decide on the court who starts and who doesn't. It's really a waste of our energy to keep this going, and training camp is not that far away.
Frankly, I think the decisions the team makes about the center postion will ultimately have more impact on the team than the PG positon.
If we had a shaq-type center (which would take Brown and Bynum developinng far beyond where they were at the end of last leason), we could be less concerned about PG. Remember, Ron functioned well as a combo guard, during our 3-peat, even though he was no all-star.
This year, if we have strength and consistency at our C position, then Odom will do fine at PF.
I like Mihm and hope we can keep him beyond his current contract. I dislike Brown for the reasons that he demonstrates what is wrong with the NBA.
However we still have to put the best players on the floor to win games. Our personal preferences are secondary.
Let's hope Bynum & Farmar have breakout seasons, and that Kwame makes exponential improvement as well. Having too many good centers would be a pleasant problem to have.
Posted by: LakerAl | September 02, 2006 at 01:23 PM
LakerAl
"However we still have to put the best players on the floor to win games. Our personal preferences are secondary.
"Let's hope Bynum & Farmar have breakout seasons, and that Kwame makes exponential improvement as well. Having too many good centers would be a pleasant problem to have."
Nothing there that I don't agree with 100%, Al.
Have a nice weekend.
Tom
Posted by: LakerTom | September 02, 2006 at 07:02 PM
LakerTom,
My comments were more reflective of the fact that there are a lot of uncertainties on the team: especially the competition at PG, how well Kobe comes back from surgery, the effectiveness of Rad Man at SF, how consistent Odom can become at PF, and whether Kwame will continue the improvement he showed last year. I am not as convinced as you are that this team is ready to be a finalist in the WC.
Posted by: LakerAl | September 08, 2006 at 12:08 AM
Who was that guy that James Worthy sitting on the bench for 2 or 3 years? Oh yeah, His was is Jamal Wilkes, and he is not in the Hall of Fame, the 20 foot layup!!
Posted by: Toi | March 01, 2008 at 04:43 PM