Question of the day: Olympic hoops
The Olympic basketball tournament is about to start (word is that Kobe guy is playing). I'll admit, in terms of attention paid and depth of emotional investment, I've been pretty lax regarding both the hoops contest and the Games in general. Now that things are rolling (I'm currently watching men's rowing), I'll probably pay closer attention ... but generally prefer watching sports I otherwise wouldn't see (men's rowing, for example). I'd by lying if I said I was wrapped up in whether the U.S. wins a hardwood gold. Not that I'm rooting against them, I've just become accustomed to the notion that it's an international game now, and the rest of the world is pretty good. Add in the different rules (and often questionable whistles) of FIBA ball, and the days of an American team -- no matter who is on it -- being guaranteed victory are over. That said, it should be some entertaining ball, worth watching.
Which brings me to the QOTD: Very simple. On a scale of 1-10, how much do you care about the "Redeem Team" and the Olympic basketball tourney? Are you watching as a Kobe fan? Hoops fan? Should the U.S. not win gold, how will you react?
BK
Having grown up in Inglewood, the 84 Olympics left a big impression on me and established a real sense of national pride for me when it comes to international competition. Growing up in Inglewood also established my love for the Lakers. My favorite USA basketball team was the one that won gold that year. Oddly enough, the thing I remember most was how they did an exhibition tour against NBA teams and basically destroyed them.
So, it's a 10 for me. My two favorite sports are basketball and golf. So the Ryder Cup will be a 10 for me as well. The American Ryder Cup team is in a very similar position to USA Basketball. I'll be really disappointed unless both team win it all.
Posted by: lakers_sth | August 10, 2008 at 11:35 AM
LGC,
Here we go again with the Kobe haterade. Most of Kobe's shots are at the 3 point line and it is wide open. It just didn`t go in.
I guess you didn't watched the game...
Sun Yue looks great today but he needs more muscles....
Posted by: TinidorS | August 10, 2008 at 11:38 AM
No "hateraide" mate. Everyone on Team "USA" gets the same looks, but Mr. "I can get off at anytime" miraciously shoots the most.
Coincidence?
LGC is an objective observer to counter the over "luv" for the Fakers Starlet.
Cheers.
Posted by: LGC | August 10, 2008 at 11:56 AM
Nest to PP being the real "best player in the world", I really like the game of Lebron and Wade.
Wade already has a Finals MVP, Lebron will get on also.
But not next year. Next year, it's going to be KG.
"Anything's possible" kg
Posted by: LGC | August 10, 2008 at 11:58 AM
Jim Lamply just said on NBC that "option one Lebron James"
Repeat. OPTION ONE LEBRON JAMES.
Ouch, that hurt for Laker Nation.
Massive ego buster for yoos.
hhahhhaahhhah
Posted by: LGC | August 10, 2008 at 12:01 PM
Aloha Hobbit,
I guess we are just going to disagree on this, but I will break my points down one more time, just for fun.
You sort of danced around my point about the Celtics losing a 25 point lead in 6 1/2 minutes while we lost our lead over 1 1/2 quarters. They were a foul on Paul Pierce away from the biggest collapse in NBA history, much bigger then what happened to us. Yet in your eyes the Celtics are this great defensive team and we arent. My point, even great defensive teams lose big leads in the NBA.
On Lamar. I used David West of the Hornets on purpose as an example of Lamars defensive ability. West is a very quick, under sized athletic Power Forward who could easily play the 3 in the NBA. He struggles against Lamar because Lamar is one of the few Power Forwards in the league that is quick enough to stay with him. Just watch Lamar run the floor in transition and you see a guy that not only picks up small fprwards but guards as well in the open court. I really dont see where your Lamar is slow argument is coming from.
On Andrew. Matchups are everything in the NBA. While everyone is impressed by a good on ball defender. Help defense in the NBA is much more important because everyone is so good, that you are going to get beat. Just look at Luke. His on ball defense is horendous. Based on that he wouldnt even be in the NBA. But he is a very good help defender. His rotations are very good, plays the passing lanes, etc. Andrew will be there to patrol the paint when someone gets beat. And when Andrew is guarding a D Howard(who he plays very well) Yao or Shaq, Pau will be free to help. KG and Camby were not Defensive players of the year because of there on ball D. They won the awards because of their help defense.
On match ups. This is where our team will be dominant. Matchups are everything. Thats why you see certain teams that are not as good often has a better team but have their number because of match ups. Our team with its flexability will be able to throw a scarry amount of differnts looks at teams and be able to adjust to what the other teams does.
I really do not think anyone is arguing the point that defense isnt important, it is. I think what is being argued is that we will be o.k with this team. When i watched the finals through the 1st 5 games I saw 2 evenly matched teams fighting it out down to the wire. Remember the Celtics lost the only game their starting center missed. We didnt even have ours. Thats all I am talking about.
MH
Posted by: michael h | August 10, 2008 at 12:04 PM
Sun Yue looked good. Sasha better watch his back.
Kobe looked OK, but as if he was trying too hard at times.
Wade looked spry and James was amazing.
Melo is on my weak list.
Posted by: Korey | August 10, 2008 at 12:05 PM
I watched Greece vs. Spain for 3 quarter till 1AM and I don't see any impressive moves on those two teams. Well, there are many 3 pt shooters with Team Spain like Navarro, Calderon and Fernandez but I don't think they can keep up with Team USA, not being cocky we're just prepared this year and that's always has been the trend 2nd and 3rd quarters when pts. come in bunch.
Posted by: Edwin Gueco | August 10, 2008 at 12:12 PM
"Lakers 2007-08 defense - 5th best in the league"
That's a joke. Try 19th in the league on defense.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/stats/byteam?cat1=
Total&cat2=opponent&conference=NBA&year=season_2007
The Lakers gave up 101 pts per game. That's 19th best.
How can anyone watch the finals and say the Lakers had the 5th best defense in the league?
mike t.
Posted by: Michael C. Teniente | August 10, 2008 at 12:23 PM
So Im watching the Olypmic basketball because I love watching the game. But does that mean Im hardcore for USA? Not necessarily. I mean its kind of fun to see other countries now playing so well and even beat USA, because it just shows how much the game has spread. Healthy competition is always more fun than boring blowouts.
That being said, great to see the other players. Yi Jilian looks like a bust because he has a bad attitude. Did you guys see Yao keep yelling at him?
Second, tho, Sun Yue looks pretty good for the Lakers. I guess we can expect to see him play in the D League next year and then perhaps on the team in two years. He had some athletic ability and a quick release. Obviously needs more weight and muscle, but he seems crafty and kind of fearless. I enjoyed watching Kobe try to get in his face and intimidate, and also seeing Sun Yue drain a three in his face. Kobe gave a little pat on the head in the post game.
Also, after watching that game, you HAVE to have big respect for Yao Ming. Hes not only grown as a player, but as a person. He is carrying tremendous weight on his shoulders and has so much heart. Fantastic.
Posted by: The Lake Show | August 10, 2008 at 12:34 PM
All of this assumption about the value of the dollar being weak, so players will leave. I will contest that the value of currency is extremely dynamic, and because of that, you can't assume that in the future the value of the dollar will be as weak as it is now. If they can offer a ton more over there, that's a different story, but don't bank on the dollar's value being a prime reason unless that's the case at the time.
Posted by: "Pig" Miller | August 10, 2008 at 01:52 PM
Pat Forde hates on Kobe for no reason:
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/summer08/basketball/columns/story?id=3528438
Simply put,
The Kobe hate is sickening.
This should be about Team USA basketball not personal opinions about players from reporters who dont even cover basketball (Forde doesnt even do that well @ CFB but I digress...)
If you want to go into who played well and who didnt lets do that and use some stats and scenarios to point that out.
But to say everyone is unselfish save for Kobe is unnecessary, untruthful, and just flat out bad reporting.
Dang, if selfish gets you MVP of the league and to the NBA Finals 5 of the last 9 years then I need to start be selfish too!
Posted by: Korey | August 10, 2008 at 02:12 PM
BK,
It's a joke that Kidd is starting. I know they want to show him respect and he barely plays any minutes, but jeez when the gap is that big between your starters and young bench guys it's hard to defend.
I think D-Will should be starting at the point. His combination of size, skill and speed makes him the perfect international point guard. And of course, he's the third PG behind Kidd and CP3. Go figure.
Posted by: Xodus | August 10, 2008 at 02:34 PM
Michael T. is a tool whose feeble mastery of rhetoric makes him look stupid, IMHO.
Posted by: -j'taime | August 10, 2008 at 02:55 PM
Groove69,
I am sorry, Kobe will no longer be relevant to the Lakers when he leaves this town. This happened to AC Green, Byron Scott, Bob McAddoo, Kurt Rambis etc. Lakers will only cheer for their active Lakers. Therefore, if Kobe goes to Italy, then he will be history to the Lakers, maybe a jersey hanging in the rafters.
With regards to your statement that 50M is tax-free, I beg to disagree. We're aware of the disparity of Euro to Dollar, however USA is not a 3rd World Country that there is no more hope of rallying to get to an even par. USA is still the biggest producer based on GDP and also the biggest consumer per capita income and the only Superpower who can afford to send spaceship to explore the Universe on a regular basis, therefore under a good administration, the dollar could rally and bring it back to even keel with the Euro. FYI, the Euro is being threatened by developing members due to the shaky economic situation of small european countries, many of them want to get out of Euro and with their own currency under the old system because their population could not sustain the inflation within their economies. Many developed countries do not subsribe to Euro like: UK, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, Eastern europe. Are you also aware that many businesses in Europe are currently floundering because the value of dollar is down, it means less tourists, less purchases from Americans on their quality products. They would prefer a strong dollar than a strong Euro. Therefore, once the dollar stabilizes so with this socalled international drafting of players. Maybe it can be relevant to rookies coming from NCAA. Secondly, with regards to taxes, even Josh Childress is paying 49% taxes, therefore those 40 or 50M dream offer equivocated by Kobe and Lebron cannot be tax-free that'd be equivalent to $80M to 100M per year on one player. I believe that's ridiculous even based on pound sterling standard. Europeans are tight and frugal businessman, therefore those price quoted by Kobe and LBJ are not realistic to earn a profit in the Euro League. Why don't you compute on the number of games, the cost per ticket per game, the size of their stadium if such contracts are feasible? Soccer is the most popular sport in Europe that could fill an open stadium and yet Ronaldinho and Ronaldo are only being paid 6.3 M euros by their teams.
Therefore, the salary mentioned by Kobe and Lebron can only happen in EuroDisney using Mickey Mouse money. LOL!
Posted by: Edwin Gueco | August 10, 2008 at 03:12 PM
Actually Sun Yue played more than I thought he would. They probably wanted to see if he could have any affect on Kobe (vice versa, in reality, cuz you know Kobe was sizing him up)...My opinion. For his size, he as at least 2 inches taller than Kobe, he moves very well and pretty quick for his size. His shot was good, but will get better. C'mon, look at the years that we watched Sasha clank the rim, and here we see an equally young player not be rattled. Passing was good. e didn't play point, but I hope he does as a Laker, with Odom and Kobe at the 2-3, that would give us a ball handler (Yue), a rebounder (Odom) and a defender (Kobe) at the 1st 3 positions, and we pray that their games expand as teamates so that they become interchangeable. So there, that is why I say we don't trade Odom. We will always have Fisher and Farmar to play the traditional point guards when need be, but imagine a starting lineup of Bynum, Gasol, Odom, Kobe & Yue. (7-0, 7-1+(gasol),6-11, 6-6, 6-9.....) Anybody worried about rebounds? I'm not. Defensive intensity....Everyone gets labeled as a dog. Kobe started it....No poodles allowed!!!!
Posted by: humanomaly | August 10, 2008 at 03:15 PM
AK/BK
Why was my post in reponse to biglakerfan3408 not posted?
Why the censorship?
Posted by: JustaLakerFan | August 10, 2008 at 03:18 PM
"...feeble mastery of rhetoric..."
That's a good thing, isn't it?
LOL!
mike t.
Posted by: Michael C. Teniente | August 10, 2008 at 03:43 PM
BK,
It doesn't really matter whether Kidd is a starter, he does not finish the whole 1Q, he's immediately replaced based on match ups. In the end, he plays less minutes than CP3 and/or Deron. Let me reiterate, being a starter in this team is good only for the EGO b/c all of them are superstars or starters w/ their own team. The new working concept here is team chemistry and camaraderie, Jason Kidd is the moral leader w/ gold standard. They call him an old Cap but never lose their utmost respect on the old reliable. He was chosen by Colangelo as the only player in this team who has won Gold in 2000 to impart others the objective why they are playing in the Olympics? - to bring back the Gold medal to Team USA.
Posted by: Edwin Gueco | August 10, 2008 at 03:44 PM
JustaLakerFan-
There was a post this morning that I didn't push through because it was way past the line on our basketball-not-politics policy (even allowing for the quasi political nature of the Olympic question. Not sure if it was yours or someone else's, but perhaps it answers your question.
Edwin-
I realize he doesn't always get the minutes in total, but I don't really think he should get them much at all, at least relative to those two. But really, like I mentioned, I'm curious as to whether or not he'll get them in close games. There will be some, I'm sure, and if he does in fact play in those spots the US will be doing themselves a disservice. Just my opinion, of course!
BK
Posted by: Brian Kamenetzky | August 10, 2008 at 04:21 PM
The hot topic seems to be J Kidd's role....let's compare this to one which was even more extreme. 1992 and John Stockton. His leg was injured and he wasn't useable. The team voted, I believe to keep the team intact, instead of replacing him with Isiah Thomas...who was not the most loved player around the league, except for those almost more than Hollywood "air kisses" that he and Magic used to exchange before games. His antics from the previous years did not place in in a good favor with the majority of the Dream Team. They chose, to sacrifice and to move forward with who they had, and that John Stockton would be part of the team because he deserved to be. J. Kidd is there because we need him for his experience, there will come a time when he will get his 10 points, 10 boards, and 10 assists....He does not need to do it everygame, don't overanalyze. The Redeem Team is who they are, it is up to the coaches guiding the players to bring the trophy home for good.
Posted by: humanomaly | August 10, 2008 at 04:36 PM
Mike T,
>>>"Lakers 2007-08 defense - 5th best in the league"
>>>
>>>That's a joke. Try 19th in the league on defense.
>>>
>>>The Lakers gave up 101 pts per game. That's 19th best.
Okay. In Mike T land, where pace has nothing to do with defensive
effectiveness and only the exact number of points given up
matters, the Lakers were 19th best.
If you look at point differential (which takes pace into account),
the Lakers were 3rd best in the league.
If you look at rebounds per game, the Lakers were 4th
If you look at blocks, the Lakers were 5th
If you look at steals, the Lakers were 6th
If you look at opponents' shooting %, the Lakers were 6th
What I was going by was a composite "defensive rating" stat
from basketball-reference. It's points allowed per 100 possessions. That kinda rolls steals and blocks and pace
into the number so is more realistic.
Just like you can't base your analysis of the Lakers on one
game, you can't base the analysis of their defense on one
statstic.
If you can base who's going to win on how many points
each team gives up, then how in heck did the Lakers
(who gave up 101.3 ppg) DOMINATE the San Antonio Spurs,
who only gave up 90.6 ppg?
And in fact, Detroit gave up less ppg than Boston, so by
the "Mike T" theory that best defense always wins in the
playoffs, Boston never should have made it to the finals.
Posted by: Long Time Laker Fan | August 10, 2008 at 04:46 PM
Aloha Mike H,
Didn't mean to dance around your point. Let's see if I can clean this up.
You wrote: You sort of danced around my point about the Celtics losing a 25 point lead in 6 1/2 minutes while we lost our lead over 1 1/2 quarters. They were a foul on Paul Pierce away from the biggest collapse in NBA history, much bigger then what happened to us. Yet in your eyes the Celtics are this great defensive team and we arent. My point, even great defensive teams lose big leads in the NBA.
My response: A foul on Paul Pierce means what? That the Lakers are
then free to score at the SF position? Why is 24 pts vs. 25 pts
significant? Those would both be about the same, although you could
argue that the time it takes to lose is significant. Both would be big
collapses. The Celtics didn't lose and the Lakers did. It's that simple.
The Celtics are a great defensive team because they held the Lakers
to 15% below there average score. They are a great defensive team
because they *took* the Lakers out of their game. We did not take the
Celtics out of their game.
re: David West. I believe David West to be slower than Josh Smith
of the Atlanta Hawks. Did you watch him play during the post season?
I don't believe that Lamar can keep up with Brandon Roy at SF. I
believe he has had trouble with Travis Outlaw. My argument that he is
slow for the SF position is based upon watching how he moves vs.
how other's move. Perhaps this is my track background showing up.
He's slow. Gangly. Moves great for a big man, but that's relative. He's
slow for an athletic SF. Please note. Roy, Outlaw & Josh Smith are
examples of the type of player that I believe Odom will have problems
staying with.
re: Matchups. You wrote: Matchups are everything in the NBA. While everyone is impressed by a good on ball defender. Help defense in the NBA is much more important because everyone is so good, that you are going to get beat.
This is false. Vlade isn't beating Josh Smith off the dribble in this
lifetime. :) In order to be a good defensive player, I would expect to
see a good on ball defender and a good help defender. You're making
the assumption that Andrew will be able to be a good help defender.
I question this statement. It's not that he can't be. It's that teams will
come up with defensive strategies which negate this. That's why
*everyone* needs to commit to defense. I'm also talking about in the
playoffs not the regular season when we play the Grizzlies.
On matchups. You wrote:
Our team with its flexability will be able to throw a scarry amount of differnts looks at teams and be able to adjust to what the other teams does.
The scary amount of different looks don't matter if we can't execute
and if we can't get stops. Luke has been inconsistent for 3 years.
Vlad has been inconsistent for 2 years. Lamar has been inconsistent
for 9 years. Potential means nothing if you can't deliver. For 9 years
people have spoken about Lamar's versatility and that versatility has
never materialized in to game breaking ability. Consider: Lamar didn't
start to flourish until he was the #3 option. All of that versatility was
there when he was the #2 option. Why didn't it translate into success?
From my perspective: Give me 5 guys who are *really* good at their
position and we can win. When I look at the historical NBA champions
I don't recall a "lot" of versatility. I recall people who were fundamentally
sound in basketball skills playing fundamentally sound basketball. Spurs,
Pistons, Celtics, showtime Lakers, Lakers with Kobe & Shaq. etc. etc.
[ Yes, Magic could & did play PG, SG, SF & C. A complete aberration
that hasn't been duplicated since. It also didn't work when they played
the bulls. ]
re: defense. You wrote: I really do not think anyone is arguing the point that defense isnt important, it is.
My response. I disagree. Everyone who talks about this team being fine
says: Our offensive matchups will destroy them. Or Andrew's shot
blocking will change everything. For a clearer example: LTLF wrote:
"And offense vs defense is a battle of wills. In 2001 and 2002,
the Lakers faced the best defensive team in the league in the
playoffs and SWEPT THEM BOTH TIMES. They did it by imposing
their offensive will over the opponent's defensive will."
Notice there's nothing about becoming better defensively in this
statement. There's actually not very much
conversation about Ariza's defensive skills because there's a desire to
have Odom, Bynum & Gasol on the floor at the same time. That only
leaves Kobe and Fisher/Farmar for the other two spots. That's not
significantly changing the mental makeup of the team that got manhandled
by the Celtics.
I actually agree that the Celtics and the Lakers were fairly evenly
matched. That's what makes it worse. The Lakers lost because of
their offensive mentality and the Celtics won because of their
defensive mentality. In the end, we just weren't tough enough. We
weren't commited to the fundamentals of championship basketball.
Defense wins championships. It is a historical observable trend.
To put it a different way: What do the Spurs, Bulls, Pistons & Celtics
have in common? Championships and commitment to defense.
Posted by: hobbitmage | August 10, 2008 at 04:49 PM
In answer to BK's questions -
As an Australian, an NBA fan, and a hoops fan in general (although admittedly, I don't watch any NBL (the Australian basketball league) because I find it... dull)), I'm watching the Olympic basketball more out of interest than out of any rabid desire to see the US men's team win.
Obviously the hoops played at the Olympics are a different brand of basketball entirely. There is no question whatsoever that the US men's team is the most talented, athletic and powerful force in world basketball today. Yet in FIBA basketball (or really, in any basketball for that matter), that isn't going to immediately equate to gold.
If anyone out there questions that, let me remind you of something with just two words.
Lakers. 2004.
Oh yes. That's right. Remember?
Shaq. Kobe. Payton. Malone. Fisher. Grant. Fox.
Quite the team, wasn't it. More talented than any other team in the NBA, without question.
And they lost to whom?
That's right. The Detroit Pistons.
The reason I'm watching the Olympics isn't to see if the US can carry back gold. And I could honestly care less if Australia does (which it won't).
I'm watching because I love to see the discipline, the teamwork, the sheer efficiency that some of the teams in world basketball display.
How many times in the pre-olympic exhibition games did we see the US team abandon simple, disciplined play in an attempt to create highlights? How many times did they overplay on defense only to allow easy scoring opportunities for the other team?
Coach K's Duke teams win for the same reason FIBA teams do. They play disciplined basketball.
if the US can bring that discipline into their game, they'll take home gold. If not, a far less talented, far less capable team will carry the gold home.
Because, despite what the commentators on various channels keep saying, Spain, Greece, Argentina... these teams aren't even close to the US in terms of talent. However, the discipline and fundamentally sound players on these teams play basketball to the letter.
Time to see if team USA can do the same.
Posted by: Benjamin | August 10, 2008 at 05:07 PM
Clearly this Laker Tom playing the role of Long Tim Laker Fan,
You judge a team's offense by the amount of points they score.
FOR EXAMPLE: The Lakers scored 108.6 pts per game. That made them 4th in the league.
Golden State scoring 111.0 -- 1st
Denver 2nd scoring 110.7 -- 2nd
Phoenix 3rd scoring 110.1 -- 3rd
Los Angeles 4th scoring 108.6 -- 4th
YOU DON'T CHANGE THE RULES WHEN DETERMINING THE DEFENSE.
You don't say the Lakers' offense is the best when they score 120 pts a game and then say well we don't use the same logic when caluculating the defense. Only a fool would do something like that.
The number one defense in the league this year was:
Detroit allowing 90.1 -- 1st
Boston allowing 90.3 -- 2nd
San Antonio allowing 90.6 -- 3rd
Houston allowing 92.0 -- 4th
Los Angeles Lakers allowing 101.3 -- 19th in the league.
But really what can I expect from a guy who's logic says the Lakers will average 120 pts a game this season. Gee, the thinking on this guy is like a comic book. Batman wins everytime! Even he gets manhandled in the finals! I was just a mirage!
LOL!
mike t.
Posted by: Michael C. Teniente | August 10, 2008 at 05:12 PM
Actually the Lakers were good, but not great, defensive team this season.
Points per possession
It's not really fair to judge a team's defense solely on the basis of the number of points given up per game. An up tempo team will always look inadequate when judged by that metric. A fairer way of judging a team's defense is to calculate the number of points allowed per 100 possessions.
Fortunately, Hoops Addict has already done the calculations.
http://tinyurl.com/554wm2
"Defensive rating then measures points allowed per 100 possessions. This standardizes how we measure defense and does not reward teams such as Cleveland that play its games at a very slow pace. The rating was developed by Dean Oliver, a leader in APBRmetrics movement whose work focuses largely on evaluating players and teams on possession and situational analysis. The top 10 for Defensive Rating is below:
Defensive Rating
1 Boston 98.9
2 Houston 101.6
3 San Antonio 101.8
4 Detroit 102.9
5 Los Angeles 105.5
6 Orlando 105.5
7 New Orleans 105.7
8 Philadelphia 106.0
9 Dallas 106.1
10 Denver 106.3
League Average 107.5"
Posted by: giantsquid | August 10, 2008 at 05:18 PM
humanomaly,
I enjoyed the Stockton/Isiah Thomas story about the Dream Team. Thanks.
GO USA!
GO LAKERS!
Posted by: Jon K. | August 10, 2008 at 05:28 PM
Points per possession?
I don't use that calculation.
I use yahoo's rating. It's simple. You give up over a 100 points and your defense is that great.
All the points per possession is a flawed system because everytime you give up a possession is added.
That's a big problem for the Lakers because they play the triangle. The triangle is a set offense. And a set offense not relying on pic' 'n rolls and screens is supposed to be controlled ball. That means lower scoring. For the Lakers to be scoring 108.6 pts per game says that there's a breakdown somewhere.
The breakdown is on the defense because teams attack the rim and create a faster pace than what the triangle is supposed to be running in.
The pace of the game is set by a teams defense. The Lakers lack of ability to set a defensive tone is why they're in high scoring games. If the Lakers were a good defensive team they would control the pace of the game and run their set offense out of the triangle.
But because they can't set a defensive pace they abandon the triangle and just go at a fast pace, which Boston put a halt to.
Boston controlled the pace of the game because of their defense. That made the Lakers score low points. And it also made the Lakers dazed and confused because they rarely run the triangle in the first place. They rarely run the triangle in the first place becaue they can't control the pace of the game because their defense is too weak.
THAT'S THE WAY IT WORKS!
Gee, the ignorance of these people. They have to have everything explained to them. But watch some knucklehead say it's isnt so.
mike t.
Posted by: Michael C. Teniente | August 10, 2008 at 05:29 PM
giantsquid,
So we've got the fifth best defense in the league? That's surprising.
GO LAKERS!
Posted by: Jon K. | August 10, 2008 at 05:33 PM
Points per possession:
Teams run because they know their weak in the middle.
That's why the Suns were always running. They figure they can outscore teams. That's why D'Antoni was fire! Because Steve Kerr figured out that philosophy of ball was all wrong with Shaq in the middle.
That type of ball is from Don Nelson school of thinking, who has never wanted true big men in his rotations.
The Lakers don't play that type of ball. So all those possession that led to giving up 101 pts per game was based on their lack to plug the middle. When you can't plug the middle you have to 'OUTSCORE' your opponent.
THAT'S THE WAY IT WORKS!
But no! We'll score 120 pts per game and our defense will be fine because we'll control the pace of the game...so it's ok if we allow 115 pts per game. IT'S BECAUSE OF THE PACE!
LOL!
The comedy never stops from this guy.
mike t.
Posted by: Michael C. Teniente | August 10, 2008 at 05:39 PM
I check in for the first time since the finals (I had already blocked it out of my mind and was rudely reminded that we indeed had made the finals) , expecting to find some news. The biggest news is that Mike T. is back? Bizarro
Posted by: mel | August 10, 2008 at 05:41 PM
Hoop Addicts Offensive rankings (points per 100 possessions}
"How does Offensive Rating work? The formula is: Offensive Rating = (Points Produced / Individual Possessions) x 100. Here are the league leaders in Offensive Rating:
Rank Team Offensive Rating
1 Utah Jazz 113.8
2 Phoenix Suns 113.3
3 Los Angeles Lakers 113
4 Golden State Warriors 111.8
5 New Orleans Hornets 111.5
6 Detroit Pistons 111.4
7 Orlando Magic 111.3
8 Dallas Mavericks 111.1
9 Boston Celtics 110.2
10 Toronto Raptors 110.2"
Posted by: giantsquid | August 10, 2008 at 05:42 PM
Sorry forgot the URL for the offensive rankings
http://tinyurl.com/6nypvg
Posted by: giantsquid | August 10, 2008 at 05:47 PM
Defensive Rating
1 Boston 98.9
2 Houston 101.6
3 San Antonio 101.8
4 Detroit 102.9
5 Los Angeles 105.5
The pace of the game isn't determine by how you play offense. It's determined by the way you play defense.
For the Lakers to give up 101 pts per game and then to say: Well, it's the pace we wanted to play. That's crazy! The truth of the matter is this: It's the pace they HAD to play to win because thier defense doesn't allow them to control the pace of the game.
When a team plays defense against the Lakers the Lakers are left with nothing but the triangle. See the Finals again.
The Lakers are so unaccustom to playing the triangle as their style of ball that they were left with nothing but a stalled offense. Check game 6.
The Lakers triangle is a joke! They played right through it and just tried to outscore teams all season long. That was easy because 97 percent of the teams in the NBA don't play defense to begin with. And the 3 percent that do...they'll beat the Lakers if they're not too old.
mike t.
Posted by: Michael C. Teniente | August 10, 2008 at 05:48 PM
giantsquid,
If we have the third ranked offense and the fifth ranked defense, how the hell did we lose to the Celtics?
HOW?
HOW?
Urgh. Losing the Championship in 2004 hurt worse, but Game 6 of 2008 Finals will always leave the taste of metal and whale vomit in my mouth.
GO LAKERS!
Posted by: Jon K. | August 10, 2008 at 05:50 PM
Mike T
So you can't do division? How about addition and subtraction?
Posted by: giantsquid | August 10, 2008 at 05:51 PM
I explained why points per possession is a flawed system.
And that's the way it works.
mike t.
Posted by: Michael C. Teniente | August 10, 2008 at 06:18 PM
"So you can't do division? How about addition and subtraction?"
I give a detailed explanation of why I think the way I do.
I don't through out a bunch of stats that someone else provided.
What does that mean? So tell me: So you don't understand logic? No no no! Look at the numbers!
LOL!
mike t.
Posted by: Michael C. Teniente | August 10, 2008 at 06:22 PM
Opponent FG%
1 Boston 0.419
2 Houston 0.433
3 Detroit 0.437
4 Dallas 0.443
5 San Antonio 0.444
6 Los Angeles 0.445
7 Orlando 0.446
8 Portland 0.451
9 Chicago 0.453
10 Indiana 0.454
Posted by: giantsquid | August 10, 2008 at 06:23 PM
giantsquid,
You are throwing out the stats tonight, baby! Nothing boils a Troll or a Hater's skin like airtight stats!
BOOM!
Still the stats have me befuddled. On paper it sure looks like we should have beat the Green Goblins of the Northern Wastes in the Finals.
But we didn't.
And I somehow need to make sense of that fact.
GO LAKERS!
Posted by: Jon K. | August 10, 2008 at 06:30 PM
I'm rooting for the US as an American and hope the US wins gold. If the US were not to win gold l don't know what l would do...l just haven't thought about it.
Posted by: Thomas | August 10, 2008 at 06:33 PM
And yet the Lakers made it to the finals when just a year ago AMARE and his boys blew out Kwa-mey Brown the so called "defender of all times". Not only that but AMARE torched Kwa-mey Brown also.
Gasol the marshmellow man limited TIM Duncan to less than 42.66% shooting during the Western Conferance Finals :) And before someone can use the excuse "oh Tim Duncan is OLD", well Timmy torched the SUNS for 49% shooting, the Suns that tried to play DEFENSE with a used up diesel truck.
LOL! :)
Thanks for playing.
Posted by: thekobebryantblitz | August 10, 2008 at 06:40 PM
wow, I just saw the game and I'm stoked about Sue Yue. Clearly stamina is going to be an issue, maybe the Lakers could contact him after the Olympics and set up some kind of running/training program before the season starts? Why lose all of next season letting him learn on his own about this? I've never understood why guys come in the first season and THEN figure out they need an offseason training program to develop better stamina.
Yue was playing aginst the best in the world out there, he had Kobe on him some of the time, I saw him banging with Carmelo, he showed some good instincts, he's much futher along than I thought he would be. He does indeed have the makings of an outside shot, he would need to to work with someone like Craig Hodges on this during the season. He appears to have good hands, I think Mitch might have pulled off a major steal with this pick.
Clearly there's one big issue, he appears to tire quickly which will definitely become a concern around the middle of the season after 40 some odd games. I think this guy could get some decent playing time, at least early on in the season when Phil likes to screw around with the lineups. You can probably put a fork in him after the allstar break though...
Posted by: King Mihminus III, 4th Earl of the Secret Society of the Burning Achilles | August 10, 2008 at 06:59 PM
Jon K,
The Celtics beat us because their defensive efficiency was the third best ALL-TIME since 1973. So we ran into one of the best defensive teams of all time, which destroyed all the offensive continuity we had. A defense that plays as well as Boston did last season is an anomaly in a sense.
We played solid defense hold the Celtics 4 points below their average PPG and 5% below their regular season FG%, but they were just better defensively. Which is why it's fairly safe to assume that with a healthy Bynum and Ariza next season we'll have a strong chance to be the last team standing next season, because Bynum will improve our D and get us easier buckets and Ariza will improve our D and athleticism.
Don't let Mike T and Jon Barry's rants about us being soft fool you. Paul Pierce won the Finals MVP mostly because of his Game 1 heroics and had an average series overall, and KG had a subpar NBA Final.
We lead Game 1 by 8 points at the half and Game 4 by 19, but in both games Boston brought our O to a halt. If we're able to get a few more easy buckets we likely win both those games and the title.
Posted by: Xodus | August 10, 2008 at 07:18 PM
King Mihminus III,
With regards to Sun (Soon) Yue...
I like your statement to screw PJ's lineups, Karl and Yue are good combination to replace Farmar and Sasha while the other three would be:
Kobe/Ariza/Mitchell
Gasol/Lo
Bynum/Mihm
the two bench would be Luke and DJ as plugs, if there holes or injuries they play, otherwise they become cheerleaders on the bench. Luke is the spokesman like his ad (4 is LA) and DJ will act the body guard for any errant fights.
Karl and Yue are both shooters out there, that's the pinnacle of the 3rd man in the triangle. Kobe is going to love this, it will open Gasol and Bynum in the post and Kobe for the mid jumpers.
When it comes to defense, there is Ariza and Mitchell on the wing and Bynum in the post. I think the four tall men Gasol, LO, Mihm and Bynum can compensate the lost Ronny. If Mihm does not work, there's Mbenga and Vladdy. So Mitch sign Mbenga than the slow Tractor.
PS. Did you all notice that one of the announcers at the Olympic basketball was Paul Sauderland, the guy who replaced the late Chick, later on fired by Jeanie Buss to accommodate the quintessential snake-oil salesman, Joel Myers? If Joel was there, he could have interviewed his contemporaries: George Bush Sr. or Kissinger!!!!!
Posted by: Edwin Gueco | August 10, 2008 at 07:50 PM
"The pace of the game isn't determine by how you play offense."
LOL!
Posted by: exhelodrvr | August 10, 2008 at 07:51 PM
"Don't let Mike T and Jon Barry's rants about us being soft fool you."
You have got to be kidding. Every major paper in the nation has called the Lakers soft. The only place where they are not called soft is on this blog. Gee I wonder why?
mike t.
Posted by: Michael C. Teniente | August 10, 2008 at 08:07 PM
Most of the national media has called the Lakers soft. Rick Fox called the Lakers soft. Jerry West called them "not mentally tough". Eddie Johnson called the Lakers soft. I could go on and on and on. The difference between me and the national media is that I called it on the day the Lakers traded for Gasol. The national media had to see game 6 in the finals to say: Damn: There's nothing we can say but SOFT.
They didn't want to say that because they picked the Lakers to win in 5 or 6 games. But it was so shocking that it left them with no choice but call a spade a spade. They are SOFT!
But I don't want to take credit. I knew Gasol was soft because of everything I read about him. That's why Memphis wanted to trade him. He couldn't guard anyone is what I read.
But my ability to know it was coming was from studying the difference between Chris Mihm and Kwame Brown. When I saw the Lakers winning in the regular season with Kwame as the starting center and losing with Chris...it took some time but I eventually figured it out.
Well, when we got Gasol...that, to me, was just a better scoring option than Mihm because their defensive ability is the same. They're both finesse offensive players with no defense at all to their game.
Knowing the Lakers were soft with Gasol was the easiest thing to know before the finals.
mike t.
Posted by: Michael C. Teniente | August 10, 2008 at 08:32 PM
In still remember Mihm when he got to Lakers and was healthy, he was mobile, aggressive, and not soft. But he got alot of foul calls which made him play soft. I think he has definitely had a game, and hopefully can regain some form of it.
Posted by: humanomaly | August 10, 2008 at 09:00 PM
actually, I'm thinking Coby Karl is a goner. Yue looks like a lock to make the team, so thats:
Fish/Farmar/Yue
Kobe/Sasha then ? possibly Mitchell for spot defense?
Ariza/Odom/Walton - Radmanovic? or some kind of trade here?
Gasol
Bynum/Mihm
Clearly the Lakers are trying to find ANYBODY to sign besides Mbenga. If it's the Tractor or a project like Mata, that guy is going to be a spot player/practice dummy. There's no minutes available for Karl with this group.
But that's 13 on the above list, add a Tractor and that's 14, so #15 should be somebody young to develop and I don't see Karl or Mbenga meeting that criteria. Maybe Karl stays as a goodwill story for the press if nobody else is available...
Posted by: King Mihminus III, 4th Earl of the Secret Society of the Burning Achilles | August 10, 2008 at 09:03 PM