Me or Kreskin? Who's better?
Technically, the Lakers are 42 games into the season, but that's close enough to the literal halfway point that a mid-season report of sorts feels appropriate. But instead of doing the traditional "Who should win Award X?" material, which is often interesting but overdone, I decided to take a look at some of my pre-season predictions and see how they're holding up. As always the case whenever I open my mouth on any subject, there's a halfway decent chance I'll come out looking reasonably informed. Unfortunately, that other half equals me looking like a man with his head buried in his own hindquarters. But without further adieu, let's check out the odds of a few prognostications becoming brilliant calls.
1) The Los Angeles Lakers 2006-2007 season
Happily, 48-34/3rd in the Pacific/6th in the West is appearing a mite conservative. According to my math (which is admittedly equal to a third grader's, so feel free to correct), their 27-15 record puts the Lakers on pace for either a 52 or 53 win season, with Pacific Division runner up status looking probable. They've admittedly lucked out with a home-heavy first half (breaks further accentuated upon checking out their record outside the 213), but the Lakers don't create their schedule, they just play it. And by and large, business was handled during this stretch.
My gut feeling that the injury history of a few players (Kobe and LO in particular) would rear an ugly head was certainly reasonable. I seriously underestimated, however, the team's ability to play without Kobe, then Lamar and Kwame (not to mention Chris Mihm). Newbies Mo Evans (a pick up I liked from the jump) and Jordan Farmar (whom I never understood why folks feared PJ wouldn't play) helped, as did the improvement of Andrew Bynum, Luke Walton, and Ronny Turiaf, plus Smush Parker picking it up after a sluggish start. But success was mostly due to an entire squad's collective chemistry, Phil Jackson's coaching, and the leadership of Kobe Bryant. You can't possibly be unhappy with the results, particularly under such circumstances.
That being said, after witnessing a recent two-game losing streak broken by a struggler "W" against Golden State, I think we can agree this team's pushing its luck. Even Laker homers agree (judging by the rampant complaints during the live blogs) that a squad playing such porous D can't keep this up. Obviously, the return of LO and Kwame will help, but they weren't exactly the Bad Boys before those two went down. A clampdown effort is in order. I would also prefer they break this ugly habit of losing to squads just north of a rec team. And to label the Vlad Rad signing a mere "disappointment" would be kind. But all in all, the season's been terrific. Health provided, I don't see any reason the Lakers can't continue making opponents quite nervous.
Odds of being right: 15%. It wouldn't take a huge slump to round out at 48, which is why I'm not entirely ruling it out. But I don't see any reason why one would happen, either. The odds overwhelmingly favor me having guessed too low. Sweet.
2) MVP
Scroll down a few comments and you'll read my opinion that if Kobe continues playing like he closed out 2005-2006 and the playoffs (which he's not only done, but actually improved upon) and his team finished 6th or higher (see above), The New Jack Bauer will take home the trophy. Should everything hold to form, I still think he wins. I know Nation residents hate Dirk and Nash's heavy presence in the media conversations, but Kobe's on their radar, too. A few folks have given him the preliminary nod. To some degree, Dallas and Phoenix's records are giving their stars an early leg up. But I also think some are expecting a shoe to drop for L.A., since they're playing better than many predicted. If you're skeptical about the Lakers keeping it up, you're by definition (for most voters) downgrading Kobe. But since I don't see any signs of a massive letdown coming, it'll eventually come back to the criteria I predict will win it for Kobe in the first place.
Another factor working in Kobe's favor? Ain't no way Nash is three-peating. I simply don't buy it.
I don't care if he's a front runner. I don't care that his team is stomping ass. I don't care that he's actually deserving. There was already backlash over the second trophy. The idea of putting him in the same company as Magic, Kareem, Wilt, Russell, Bird and MJ (the only guys to win 3 or more) will eventually put off too many writers. Frankly, I don't think that's fair to Nash, since the only true criteria should be the worthiness of his season (in the same way a writer's theoretical distaste for Kobe as a person shouldn't matter, either). It's like the nonsense often accompanying Oscar votes. For example, I understood the Academy's collective sense of regret in 1993 that Al Pacino hadn't won yet. I agreed it was ridiculous that performances in The Godfather I and II, "Serpico," "And Justice For All," and "Dog Day Afternoon" (not mention worthy turns in "Scarecrow" and "The Panic in Needle Park") struck no gold. But guess what? You done effed up, Mr. and Mrs. Voter. And you can't fix it by retroactively giving him a "make up" Oscar for "Scent of a Woman." Especially when it's among the worst performances of his career. You'll also read voters say (always off the record, of course) that they won't give it to some young actor because "he'll have more chances down the road." Tell that to James Dean.
Did I mention I'm a movie geek? But I digress...
Odds of being right: 50%, since I think the Lakers won't fall off and it's really a two-man race between Kobe and Dirk. For what it's worth (and given that I don't actually get a ballot, probably not a whole helluva lot), #24 would get my vote.
3) LVP
Let's see. The Kandi Man has played in 15 games, averaging 1.6 ppg on 39% shooting -bad if he were a jump shooting guard, much less a center with a three foot range- and snagging 2 boards a game at 7 feet tall. Obviously, there will be competition from BK's perennial horse Jerome James, who's yet to record an assist this season. But my man's never let me down before, so I'm not hopping off the bus anytime soon.
Odds of being right: 59.7%, in honor of the man's career clip at the stripe.
4) The Clippers will finish better than the Lakers.
Uh... not looking so good at the moment. Actually, you could say this one looks pretty poor. I do think the team has a shot at salvaging their season, since they're playing better, getting healthy and I honestly think feature too much talent to be so bad. They're actually in the 8 spot as we speak. But even if they go into the playoffs rolling, the prediction was "finish better than the Lakers." That feels like a tall order seven games back. I did, however, predict Tim Thomas was a crap signing. Then again, save Donald Sterling, Elgin Baylor, and Mike Dunleavy, name one guy who didn't.
Odds of being right: 3%, mostly because it's not mathematically impossible. But I'm really thinking of it as a 0% dealie.
5) Phoenix will not only finish ahead of the Lakers, but will win it all.
This one's looking uncomfortably spot on. Man alive, are these kids good! Were it not for an overtime loss to Washington and Agent Zero's 54 points and a buzzer beater by Dirk, they'd currently be on a 33-game winning streak. Wrap your head around that for a sec. Yeah, Dallas is also sick, but these cats seem like they're on a mission. And say what you want about Nash's lack of D (assuming you haven't exhausted every potential insult), but the dude's been playing more than just good. He's actually been playing nasty. He looks like a guy who really wants an O'Brien. I'm betting he'll get it.
Odds of being right: I'll leave it at 88%, because of a fairly short bench, the potential for injury and it's impossible to say "100%" without coming off like a complete tool.
6) Most Valuable Blogger: Mom
In one game against the Nets, she said the gangly and dreaded Mikki Moore looked like "half a spider" and speculated how Vlad Rad would fare on "What's my Line?" BK and I haven't come up with anything that good since we landed this job and she didn't break a sweat. She didn't even realize either line was funny. This prediction looks unstoppable.
Odds of being of being right: 135%
AK
I STILL DON'T THING PHOENIX CAN WIN IT ALL.
I will be shocked if that happen.
If Phoenix play against Lakers before going to the finals....
Lakers will win.
Posted by: jorema | January 25, 2007 at 05:57 PM
AK, as much as I respect the Suns, I guarantee you that 88% for their "winning all" is too high. Maybe....50%, and that's being generous. As high as they are now in the standings with their winning streak (and as good as Nash and the rest of the starters are playing) they have not played the top 10 teams like the Mavs have and their victories come from those weaklings in the East with losing records. I mean, all the games they have played against the good, top 10 teams have been losses. AND, AND they simply play no D; they are a team built for the regular season, not the playoffs. The teams they will face in the future and the team that will eliminated them will focus on penetration and how to beat individual players, not like the regular season. See, Marion and Stoud. will help out the board, but without D (Nash can't defend anybody), they are not going to beat the elite teams like the Spurs or the Mavs, especially come crunch time. Did you see how they suffered under the Lakers? Well, the Lakers (with angered Kobe & rejuvenated Lakers squad will not make it easy) it looks like they will fall short again of victory, and maybe this will be the Mavs' year. Then again, they were robbed last year. Just like Kobe was robbed of the MVP.
Here's to the Lakers finishing strong, Kobe winning MVP, Suns NOT winning all, and Snaq showing just why Mitch chose Kobe ;) !!!!
Sorry, I couldn't help but poke a jab at Shaq.
Posted by: becktorrent | January 25, 2007 at 06:12 PM
Beck,
88% was supposed to be somewhat tongue in cheek, referrencing how confident I am with the pick. Obviously, it's pretty early for such a high number.
As for your points, though, I don't think you can discount these wins no matter who they come against. One mark of a truly great team is they go out and beat the crap out of bad opponents on a regular basis. That's exactly what Phoenix is doing. And if those teams are so bad, then why have the Lakers lost to some of them? Some is injury, I guess. But some is a lack of poise and focus on the Lakers' part, which Phoenix hasn't experienced.
As for your talk of the D, I'm reprinting something I wrote a couple days ago when I debating Phoenix. I apologize for the cut and paste, but I'm too lazy to rephrase.
While certainly not drawing any comparisons to the Bad Boy Pistons, the Suns are actually a better defensive squad than they get credit. Their Pts allowed is high, but they also purposely draw more opponent shot attempts than any team in the league. Naturally, that's not gonna equal holding teams to 80 points.
Their actual FG percentage allowed, however, is only 45%, tying them for Dallas as 10th in the league. Whether that's the result of baiting bad shots or forcing them (a little of both, I think), the bottom line is that it's a more than respectable percentage. And they're tied for 6th in the league in defending the 3. And in the meantime, they have a few very good individual defenders. Bottom line, you can't win that many games in a row playing nothing but ole' team D.
Again, are they a lockdown team? No. I just think they're better than their rep. And because they're now playing reasonable enough D (which I suspected would happen going into the season) while scoring at a ridiculous rate, I think that's gonna end up the winning combination. But we shall see, come playoff time. I'd love for the Lakers to prove me wrong.
But here's the thing. If you don't buy any of what I said about Phoenix's D, that's fine. But there's no way you (not you specifically, but the "royal you") can say the Suns are specifically too weak on defense to win a title, then turn around and tout the Lakers as a legit contender with a straight face. The Suns sport better defensive stats in almost every category than L.A., and that's while allowing 5 more FGA per game. Yeah, LO and Kwame have been out, but the Lakers played bad D when they were healthy. Until some serious adjustments are made, they have just as many defensive issues as the Suns, in my opinion.
AK
Posted by: Andrew Kamenetzky | January 25, 2007 at 06:31 PM
Ak I can't bvelieve you are putting Phoenix ahead of Maverics to win the in the West.
Steve NAsh has a history of imploding in Playoffs.
Since in the playoffs he has to play hard to do his things, by second round he is already fatigued and done, and since Phoenix base his system just in Nash distribution of the ball, and the guy is too fragile, they will be eliminated second round this time.
Posted by: jorema | January 25, 2007 at 06:42 PM
Jorema,
Steve Nash has a history of imploding in the playoffs? What are you talking about? His team has been in the Western Conference finals three of the last four seasons. He actually has a history of raising his game significantly in the playoffs? Have you watched him or checked out his stats?
Just because his teams haven't won a title doesn't mean the guy personally collapsed. Unless you mean it for a different reason, that's a pretty narrow definition.
AK
Posted by: Andrew Kamenetzky | January 25, 2007 at 06:50 PM
i don't know about Nash being likened to Pacino in "Scent of a Woman". I mean, if he "was ten years younger, (he) would take a flamethrower to this place" - understood, but Nash is taking that team to incredible records. They've "almost" won 32 games in a row, so you have to give them that credit.
How about the "LTV" MVP? I give it to James Worthy. Just because he loves to lean on his arms so heavily during pathetic losses. Lean on, james, we're with you.
Posted by: logan | January 25, 2007 at 06:52 PM
My theory is this:
Since all the team in the west are strong,
--The teams with better bench will win.
--The team with better winning percentage against strongest team, should be favored.
--Better coach in a competition of equal talented team, always win: Phil, Pop, Sloan should have some advantage.
Posted by: jorema | January 25, 2007 at 06:53 PM
I'm so sick of this "but for those 2 losses they'd have won 33 straight" reasoning. You know what makes a 33 game win streak like the 72 lakers had impressive? THEY NEVER LET THEIR GUARD DROP ENOUGH TO LOSE IN OT OR AT THE BUZZER. Let alone twice. Win streaks are streaks with a win.
What was Detroit's record at this time last year?
Posted by: Mannie Jenkins | January 25, 2007 at 06:54 PM
AK,
I agree with you, no way Nash wins 3 in a row.
Its between Kobe and Dirk, and I like Kobe's MVP chances better (what with his supporting cast compared to Dirk's). The way he's playing, you can throw that "not making his teammates better" argument out the window. Unfortunately, you effin sportswriters (ok, not AK and BK) will have something to complain about...
Posted by: The Waterboy | January 25, 2007 at 06:54 PM
Also, I dont really havean opiin o PHX v. DAL right now. I agree that they are the best teams in the league right now, but so what? There's WAY too much time to say anything other than "They're the 2 best teams in the league right now." At this time last year, find anyone who didn't have San Antonio and Dtroit in the finals.
So, while I understand it's a billion dollar industry, debating which would win the title if the playoffs started today is nothing but an answerless thought experiment.
On the other hand, what else am I going to do with my time? Here's a link to a fascinating analysis as to why Dallas should get the (meaningless) edge. Very well researched:
http://www.forumblueandgold.com/2007/01/24/i-beg-to-differential/#comments
Posted by: Mannie Jenkins | January 25, 2007 at 07:04 PM
Logan,
I don't mean Nash winning a third straight would be the equivalent of "Scent of a Woman." Like I said, I think Nash is plenty deserving this season, even if I'd personally vote for Kobe. I'm saying that writers who wouldn't vote for Nash because they think he doesn't stand up to other 3+ winners is unfair and irrelevant, because it has nothing to do with the actual season he had. And that to me is similar to how, with Pacino and "Scent," voters took into account about 10 different things, the least of which was the actual performance, which should have been the #1 priority.
Does that make my thought more clear?
AK
Posted by: Andrew Kamenetzky | January 25, 2007 at 07:08 PM
What's unfair is Gilbert Arenas being ahead of Kobe in some sportswriters' votes. Like this idiot...
http://www.hoopsworld.com/article_20550.shtml
Gilbert's performance this year pales in comparison to Kobe's performance last year. Yet he has gotten more credit than Kobe got last year.
Posted by: The Waterboy | January 25, 2007 at 07:21 PM
Long time reader, first time poster. I just wanted to say something about Nash's possible 3peat MVP run. I do agree he won't get it this year because of what you said AK, even though he does clearly deserve it the most. The thing is, he didn't deserve it the two previous years he got the award, so now we have this situation where he does deserve to win the award, but won't get it. The voters have screwed up the past two years, and they will once again.
Posted by: Mike | January 25, 2007 at 07:29 PM
You guys dont get ahead of yourself with all this PHX/MAVS talk cause even though both teams will finish with better records we will still beat them, tonight MAVs shot 31% and lost to the Bulls because of that D, we can beat BOTH of those squads in a seven game series cause they cant stop anyone down low, LAKERS ALL THE WAY!!!
Posted by: Rizzo | January 25, 2007 at 07:41 PM
The Waterboy,
Regarding that article you posted, you're right, clearly an idiot. His picks across the board were sketchy.
Posted by: Jon F. | January 25, 2007 at 07:43 PM
Phoenix at 88%? Hm...what happened to defense wins championship?
If one looks back at the NBA champions over the past 25 years an overwhelming majority of them are great defense teams, San Antonio, Lakers of 2000 to 2002, Detroit, Rockets and Chicago can get stops at the critical time of the game. Even the Lakers of Magic and Jabbar, though known for Showtime, can clamp down at crunch time.
Does Phoenix have this in them?
Posted by: Leo MaLau | January 25, 2007 at 08:12 PM
Great Predictors in History
1.Nostradomus
2.Kreskin
3.Jimmy the Greek
4.Madamme Gilzilda
....
....
....
967.AK
Sorry, I know its cold, but you went against my Lakers
Posted by: Fatty | January 25, 2007 at 08:13 PM
Cotton Fitzsimmons on why the 80s Suns' fastbreak style of play kept losing to the Showtime Lakers "they have racehorses, we have ponies".
Win it all? I still see ponies. Dallas and San Antonio have racehorses. Lakers have a 2 year old. You need a 3yr old to win the kentucky. Next year.
Posted by: p ang | January 25, 2007 at 08:22 PM
http://www.nba.com/nba_news/arenas_duke_070125.html
Everyone is so in love with this guy...I just don't see it. No class.
Posted by: mel | January 25, 2007 at 08:27 PM
Kreskin has better hair. And he's, you know, Amazing. So I have to give him the nod.
Posted by: Gary C | January 25, 2007 at 08:31 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/jack_mccallum/01/25/second.half.predictions/index.html
Check out numbers 3 & 4 on the list...
Posted by: mel | January 25, 2007 at 08:40 PM
steve nash has been the peyton manning of the NBA. Always does great in the regular season, wins mvps, best record, etc. BUT like peyton he has historically lost in the playoffs. Also like peyton he had been to the Confrence finals and lost. But Peyton made it to the superbowl this year... hears hoping nash does not
Posted by: gabe | January 25, 2007 at 08:52 PM
AK,
Re your 6:50PM post to Jorema
This year may turn out to be different, Suns may go to the finals, but still Jorema's right: Steve Nash has a history of imploding in the playoffs. Favorite but failed to win western finals 3 times proves the point. It doesn't matter if his stat go up when other team goes way higher in the playoff.
Posted by: Joshua | January 25, 2007 at 08:59 PM
I hate to toot my horn...but I take full responsibility of our atrocious defense. The thing is...without me in Lakerville, it's gone consistently worst. Just look back at the blog archives. And I can't blog cause of the bot...hence all blame goes to the bot...but I take responsibility cause I am responsible.
Course the fact that we didn't have LO and Kwame took part in it...but I still say my absence is a huge contributing factor.
Thankfully we continue to win because of my presence in Loloblog. LOL
Just Kidding folks! But if it was true...man, easy to solve lol.
P.S. thanks for the sentiment Sonny Belfast.
Posted by: Faith in my Treo because I remain blocked ;-) | January 25, 2007 at 09:06 PM
Bright Lakers Predictions, if anyone cares:
Whichever team wins in the West will be NBA champ based on current standing.
The Lakers already prove they can beat the Suns, the Mavs, the Spurs and the Rockets. They just need to get past these top teams in the playoffs.
Lakers have not yet lost 3 in a row (knock on wood) a good sign for a best-of-seven series.
Posted by: Pres24Logan | January 25, 2007 at 09:17 PM
AK,
What would be wrong with having only the Coaches and GM's voting on the MVP? The process could be very simple. Let them assume the NBA is reorganizing and redistributing all the players. Each GM or coach would have the 5th pick in the mock reorganization draft and they must submit a list of five players, in order of preference, and assume the first available player would be their draft selection, but they only get that player for the next year. (That is meant to eliminate draft consideration based on age, or future potential.)
Each #1 selection would receive 5 points, a #2 would get 4 points, etc.. I think the Coaches and GM's would be pretty honest about it and at the end of the day the player with the greatest point accumulation is by default "truly" the most "valued" player. In my opinion, that would translate into the MVP.
Posted by: Laker Larry | January 25, 2007 at 09:33 PM
Facts: Kobe will not win MVP this year. Kobe will win a MVP or multiple MVP's in the future. Lakers will never trade Bynum. Lakers are under-rated. Spurs are over-rated. Nuggets are under-rated. Gasol is over-rated. Players on rookie contracts and draft picks are under-rated. Chris Sheridan is not a NBA expert(Wrote Lakers could trade Bynum,Kwame,Farmar and Mckie for Gasol) Chad Ford is not a NBA expert(Wrote Depends what Jerry West thinks of Bynum) Bynum is untouchable. T.J Simer is a clown. It hurt A.K to say Kobe is MVP. A.K. says Kobe is MVP to get less heat from us bloggers. When the game is tied 82-82 it is a good feeling that Kobe is on your-side. Long-shot Heat-Lakers(lakers in 6)
Posted by: Laker Insider | January 25, 2007 at 10:11 PM
Nash's numbers are up b/c of Amare's return. Kobe is the real mvp. he got screwed last year. the thing that bothers me the most is that most writers don't want to credit kobe at all for improving the lakers. instead, they say luke has improved his game and phil is a genius. those are all valid and true points, but most writers will do anything to throw credit to anyone not named kobe. is avery johnson or mike d'antoni not great coaches? you don't hear the media giving any credit for their coaching. instead, they go google eyes for nash and dirk.
Posted by: fkillah | January 25, 2007 at 10:31 PM
WHO WILL WIN THE WEST THIS YEAR? - A MATHEMATICAL FORMULA
First off, the question is really "who will win it all" cause Miami, Cleveland, and Detroit collectively have only two chances of beating ANYONE from the West - "slim and none" (as Chick used to say).
So who will win the West? Actually I have a mathematical formula. You see its INJURIES that will decide. So, all teams being 100% healthy the beginning point values are:
Suns - 10
Mavericks - 9
Spurs - 8
Lakers - 8
Rockets - 8
(the Jazz are going nowhere - probably out in the first round against us or the Rockets or Spurs)
Now subtract the following number of points if these players go down:
Suns - Nash 3, Amare 2, Marion or Barbosa 1
Mavericks - Nowitzki 3, Terry 2, Howard 2
Spurs - Duncan 3, Parker 2, Genobli 1,
Lakers - Kobe 3, Odom 2, Kwame 1
Rockets - McGrady 3, Yao 2, Battier 1
Just subtract the injury numbers from the opening total and you have the winner.
Word.
Posted by: Jay Jay | January 25, 2007 at 10:52 PM
no wonder the Clips haven't been winning this year. take a peep at their "hottest cheerleader"... you know, the one that got selected to be part of the inaugural all star game cheerleader squad.
http://www.nba.com/allstar2007/dance/lac_b.html
So yes, that had nothing to do with this thread, but i thought it was hilarious. Actually, after re-reading, my point has the sought after answer and support to answer QUESTION 4.
If i'm not mistaken, PJ always sandbags in the first half of the season and starts pushing through during the second half. That's when the team really starts to get going and makes the push for the playoffs. This is based on the recollection of an abuser of alcohol, so take it lightly if the actual details of assumed fact is incorrect.
Let's go LAKERS! KB for MVP! No way could the Lakers be where they are today without the all around play of KB24. As stated many times before, KB is THE MOST VALUABLE PLAYER and no other person could step in and do the job that he's currently doing.
TJ Simers, keep on hating you old hag.
Posted by: socalife | January 25, 2007 at 10:52 PM
I really enjoyed that article and I liked the movie analogy.I remember that a lot of people wanted to reward Shaq for years gone by the first year that Nash won it as they felt one MVP was too few for him...I thought it was dumb.
Steve Nash has actually had some of the sickest playoff performances in history...his series against Dallas in 2005 was something else man...statistically and otherwise it was mind boggling how he raised his game I'll never forget his clutch 4th period play in dallas in game 6 it seemed like every time he got the ball he did something incredible with it...I think people forget exactly how hard it is to win championships especially from the western conference.Look at all the great players who never led a team to a championship in their prime but that doesnt mean they didnt raise their game in the playoffs.
One more thing about the MVP...if Nash doesnt win it and goes on to the title this season it will be remembered as a robbery....in the same way by not winning a title last year made him undeserving and Kobe will probably be remembered as being robbed...becasue its a regular season award but all anyone remembers or cares about is the playoffs theres alot of MVPs that dont seem to make much sense looking back but it generates so much discussion that Im glad it exists as an award.It makes it much more interesting than if we were just voting for the best player
Posted by: kiwi | January 26, 2007 at 02:44 AM
I must have missed something, but at what point what Phoenix the favourite to win the west? last year when they didn't have Stoudamire? The year before, when nobody believed they'd come close because of their style of play, and they had injuries? Joshua, what are you talking about? And please, try to answer in complete sentences, just a hint. It does make communication better.
AK, I think you're right. I've heard enough writers bring up the "3X in a row" thing to believe that Nash won't win it either, although I think this is probably his best year. But I haven't actually decided who I think should win it, and won't think about it until much later in the season. It's too early...
Posted by: Michael A | January 26, 2007 at 06:20 AM
Hey the Lakers just made an offer for Jason Kidd. Anyone have any more info on that ?
Posted by: Tyson | January 26, 2007 at 06:53 AM
Lakers Insider,
"It hurt A.K to say Kobe is MVP. A.K. says Kobe is MVP to get less heat from us bloggers."
I fell OUT laughing. One of the funniest blogs EVER!
--FearlessWhackJob
Posted by: FearlessWhackJob | January 26, 2007 at 07:31 AM
Fatty,
Dang right!
--FearlessWhackJob
Posted by: FearlessWhackJob | January 26, 2007 at 07:40 AM
Kobe was MVP last year and didn't get it. He took a team of also-rans into the playoffs and into game 7 again PHX (which doesn't really count, but just proves the point). When a team rides your back to success, then you are the MVP. Wasn't that the reason Nash won his first? The no-Amare excuse?
So, I won't shed a tear if Nash, who may be MVP this year doesn't get it and Kobe does. Kobe, in my mind, should be looking at possibly repeating. Because he, like Nash, is deeper into his MVP-ness process. Carrying the team even more this year than he did last year. Because, he is both carrying and improving his team at the same time.
Nash may be improving his teammates. But, I just don't get the impression that he is carrying them as well.
--FearlessWhackJob
Posted by: FearlessWhackJob | January 26, 2007 at 07:47 AM
Denzel Washington should have won that oscar for "Malcom X", not Pacino.
Wes
Posted by: wesjoenixon | January 26, 2007 at 08:05 AM
You guys have little faith, we have beat MAVS/SPURS/JAZZ/SUNS/HOU all without the full team but yet i hear all this negative talk about how "ELITE" these teams are and how we have no chance to win it this year but i think we will prove everyone wrong with a very strong finish to the season. We have something none of these teams have and thats KB24. Lamar is back,soon we will get KWAME, OH ITS ON!!!!
Posted by: Rizzo | January 26, 2007 at 08:07 AM
Laker Insider,
With all sincere respect to my readership, y'all ain't capable of bringing enough heat to make me say what I don't believe. And it actually makes me feel good saying I think Kobe is currently the MVP, because I love how he's playing and leading this season.
Besides, whenever I write something good about Kobe, everyone accuses me of hating him, anyway. haha. So either way, I have no reason to say anything other than what I feel.
AK
Posted by: Andrew Kamenetzky | January 26, 2007 at 08:14 AM
I hope we somehow pull off this Kid trade. i don't know what is going on, but The nets said that they are looking for Expiring contracts and young players with small contracts in a New Jersey article.
Smush Sucks, please bring on J Kiidd.
Let's Go Lake Show!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Zakee | January 26, 2007 at 08:16 AM
Laker Larry,
I don't think there'd be anything "wrong," per say with having coaches and GMs pick the MVP. As a writer who doesn't get a vote (and may not ever get a vote), it certainly doesn't threaten me. But I don't think it'll do anything to eliminate bias, if that's what you're talking about. Believe me, coaches and GMs carry plenty of grudges themselves. They also may be tempted to vote for their own guys.
In the end, whatever voting body is chosen, they're still human. It's impossible to come up with a 100% neutral base.
AK
Posted by: Andrew Kamenetzky | January 26, 2007 at 08:20 AM
Tyson,
I don't think the Lakers can afford Kidd. I mean, they would have to give up some power for him and the Lakers in my opinion don't want to touch that. That is what makes the West strong. Basically, your talking about giving up Kwame and Radmanovich for a point guard. Do that and L.A. will have no interior "D".
JayJay,
That was a pretty ridiculous assumption you came up with. But hey, sometimes we all get on here and make silly suggestions like 16 player/4 team trade scenerio's and stuff like that, so no harm. But anyway, I don't think you can put a number (tag) on a player on what he's worth if he was lost to injury.
OK, now on to the Suns, there gameplan is quite simple. They run as a fastbreak team, and I believe we all know that. Basically, as soon as they get a defensive rebound, it's off to the races. That is where most of their scoring comes from. And yes, they do depend on the three quite a bit. Amare Stoudemire does have a low post presence (One of the best centers in the league) however, that is all Phoenix has. So the key to beating this type of ballclub is doing it on the boards and playing more aggressive then they do. Basically, if you remember the Detroit Pistons back in the Late 80's, early 90's, I'm talking that kind of play.
Now unfortuntatly, if you are a Dallas Mavericks fan, your not beating the Suns in that style of play. Actually, Dallas plays a similar style of game that Phoenix does play however with less talent. Basically, Dirk is the only player on Dallas in my opinion that outplays his Suns opponent.
The San Antonio Spurs however, could play that style but they are missing a big man. I mean yes, they have Duncan but from what I remember, he isn't known for his aggressiveness style of play. More of a Finess player.
I do agree with the most of you that the Lakers do have a legitament chance of beating the Suns in a 7 game series however, it's going to take beating up the suns physically. I'm talking about fighting for every offensive and defensive rebound, taking the ball to the rack strong and slowing down their gameplan. I mean, if you look at the match up's between the Suns and Lakers, the Lakers have better physical capibilites whereas the Suns outweight the Lakers in finess play.
So with that being said, if the Lakers want to advance this year past the Suns, we need to play physically, and I'm sure if that happens, the Suns would only be known for having an impressive NBA season record, and yes "Defense does win Championships".
Posted by: Ron | January 26, 2007 at 08:22 AM
I'm just now catching up on the blog and I'm sure everyone already knows this but the Kidd talks supposedly happened a couple weeks ago and were primarily about expiring K's (Mihm, McKie, ect., etc.,)... nothing came of it.
dave m
Posted by: dave m | January 26, 2007 at 08:46 AM
zakee- get a freakin brain man...do you think the nets are going to let go one of the best pgs in the L for peanuts? better believe that they'd be asking for bynum or odom...SMUSH SUCKS SMUSH SUCKS SMUSH SUCKS SMUSH SUCKS SMUSH SUCKS...damn thats annoying
Posted by: chucky | January 26, 2007 at 08:57 AM
Shouldn't it have been "Kreskin or I"?
Don't mind me. Or I. Or whatever.
Posted by: akr_68 | January 26, 2007 at 09:07 AM
Austin Mascot "da Bull" hangs on rim during game causing his team a tech and nearly the game.
But who pushes him away from rim and knocks his head off?
Von Wafer!
We need Physicallity and who's not afraid to knock the head off of a Mascot.?!
I nominate Von Wafer as our enforcer.
That head could easily have been Raja's, or the punk Nash.
Wafer is a tough cookie. Did I say he took the guys head off!!
48% from the 3 line. 6'5". Knows the triangle. And is capable of knocking someones head off with a single blow.
Sign "Super Wafer" now before the Pistons or Miami get him.
Posted by: Fatty | January 26, 2007 at 09:10 AM
Kobe finished 3rd in all star votes behind Lebron and Yao:
TOP 10 ALL-TIME SINGLE SEASON LEADING
NBA ALL-STAR VOTE-GETTERS
Player Year Votes
1. Yao Ming, Hou 2005 2,558,278
2. LeBron James, Cle 2007 2,516,049
3. Shaquille O’Neal, Mia 2005 2,448,089
4. Yao Ming, Hou 2007 2,451,718
5. Michael Jordan, Chi 1997 2,451,136
6. Yao Ming, Hou 2006 2,342,738
7. Kobe Bryant, LAL 2006 2,271,631
8. LeBron James, Cle 2006 2,207,697
9. Shaquille O’Neal, Mia 2006 2,192,542
10. Kobe Bryant, LAL 2007 2,138,777
2007 NBA ALL-STAR BALLOTING TOP 10
OVERALL LEADING VOTE-GETTERS
Player Votes
1. LeBron James, Cle 2,516,049
2. Yao Ming, Hou 2,451,718
3. Kobe Bryant, LAL 2,138,777
4. Dwyane Wade, Mia 2,029,591
5. Tracy McGrady, Hou 1,942,796
6. Allen Iverson, Den 1,813,638
7. Shaquille O’Neal, Mia 1,622,446
8. Kevin Garnett, Minn 1,616,575
9. Steve Nash, Pho 1,504,826
10. Dwight Howard, Orl 1,464,613
Posted by: marc | January 26, 2007 at 09:13 AM
AK,
How about if Coaches and GM's voted however couldn't vote for their own players. They would have to pick their top five players from around the league, but again, cannot pick players from their own team. Would that work?
Posted by: Ron | January 26, 2007 at 09:14 AM
Chucky
So what. I think Smush Sucks and I like saying it. I am not complaining about the fact that people are telling me to get over it.
Smush Sucks!!!!!!!!!!!!!It is just a reminder.
Do Like everybody else and look over my post.
Thank You.
Posted by: Zakee | January 26, 2007 at 09:14 AM
Tyson,
I heard something about the kid rumor, but from what I read it seems like we took a shot in the dark throwing out mostly our garbage and hoping to get lucky. Unfortunatley Rod Thorn is quite competent and could get a much better package from someone else.
I for one would love to get Jason Kidd. He's having the best year of his career and would be the perfect PG for this squad.
Posted by: Andrew Z | January 26, 2007 at 09:19 AM