Undermanned Grizzlies Embarrass LeBron's Listless Lakers
Seeking to take a 2-0 series lead over a Memphis team missing injured players Ja Morant, Steven Adams, and Brandon Clarke, the L.A. Lakers sleepwalked through the first quarter and barely woke up the rest of the way as the Grizzlies evened up the series with a 103-93 win. The Lakers took homecourt advantage by winning game one, but they must play a lot better to make sure that their first win in the series is not also their last.
Xavier Tillman--who may not be a household name in his own household, to borrow an old quip--led Memphis in scoring (22 points on 10-13 field goal shooting) while grabbing a game-high 13 rebounds, outplaying Anthony Davis (13 points on 4-14 field goal shooting, eight rebounds), who is a member of the NBA's 75th Anniversary Team. Davis did not look like the 75th best player in the NBA now, never mind being one of the 75 greatest players of all-time. Jaren Jackson Jr., who just won the Defensive Player of the Year award, added 18 points, nine rebounds, and three blocked shots. All five Memphis starters scored in double figures, and they were joined by Luke Kennard, who contributed 13 points off of the bench.
This game was not about offense, though. The Grizzlies shot just .427 from the field, but they held the Lakers--who have not one but two members of the NBA's 75th Anniversary Team--to .412 field goal shooting. Despite being without Adams and Clarke, the Grizzlies outrebounded the Lakers 49-47 and held the Lakers to a draw in the paint, with each team scoring 50 points. That draw is a win for the undersized Grizzlies.
LeBron James, the Lakers' other member of the NBA's 75th Anniversary Team, had one of his quintessential stat padding performances, scoring 28 points on 12-23 field goal shooting while grabbing 12 rebounds. I can think of at least two ESPN "journalists" who are probably writing articles (or filming standups) about how James cannot be blamed for this loss--without mentioning that James had a game-worst -17 plus/minus number. How does the self-proclaimed greatest player of all-time score 28 points while his team "loses" his on court time by 17 points? One clue can be seen in James' three point field goal shooting: 1-8. James is a force of nature, and Memphis is an undersized, undermanned team, so the Lakers' winning formula is obvious: attack the paint to score layups and draw fouls. James refused to do that on a consistent basis, and this cannot just be dismissed as something caused by his advanced age; James playing passively and not attacking the paint has been a recurring theme throughout his career, and this is made all the more glaring by the fact that in the playoff runs when he attacked the paint his teams won championships. We know that James can attack the paint because we have seen him do it. We also know that some of the Lakers' best plays in this game happened as a result of James attacking the paint.
What we don't know is why James often refuses to attack the paint; I have said for 20 years that James confounds me more than any other great player who I have ever watched or studied. His greatness is indisputable, and Skip "Clueless" is a moron for suggesting otherwise--but it is also indisputable that James does not always play in an optimal way for team success, resulting in some baffling and inexcusable losses.
The NBA is often a first quarter league, and the Grizzlies attacked the Lakers throughout the first quarter, pounding them in the paint 20-8 en route to leading 30-19 by the end of the first stanza. All season, we have heard nonsense about the Lakers needing "lasers," about Russell Westbrook being a washed up player who is supposedly a bad locker room influence, and about James needing more help. What James needs to do is attack the paint on offense and defend the paint on defense--and he needs to convince Anthony Davis to do both of those things as well.
Instead, the Lakers continued to play listlessly in the second quarter, trailing by as many as 16 points and being outscored 59-44 in the first 24 minutes. During TNT's halftime show, Kenny Smith declared that the Lakers "should be ashamed."
Charles Barkley echoed that sentiment, and identified the Lakers' unfounded self-belief as the reason "why the Lakers have been inconsistent all year." James
led the Lakers with 12 first half points--and he had a team-worst -15
plus/minus number.
I picked Memphis to win this series despite Adams and Clarke being injured (Morant got injured in game one) because the Grizzlies have been the second seeded team in the Western Conference each of the past two seasons. They are a young squad that is building a winning culture. In contrast, during the five seasons that LeBron James has spent with the Lakers the team has missed the playoffs twice, lost in the first round once, and snuck into the playoffs this season via the Play-In Tournament, needing overtime before dispatching the shorthanded Minnesota Timberwolves. Of course, the Lakers won the 2020 "Bubble" title, so James and his fans will always be able to unfurl the "Mission Accomplished" banner.
That championship does not--or should not--absolve James of responsibility for the Lakers' consistent mediocrity throughout his time in L.A.
All season long, "experts" like Dave McMenamin and Brian Windhorst insisted that all that the Lakers needed to do was get rid of Westbrook and the team would improve significantly. After the Lakers traded Westbrook, the Lakers were singled out as the proverbial "team nobody wants to face."
So far--as noted above--the mighty Lakers stumbled into the playoffs via the Play-In Tournament, won one game against an undermanned Memphis team, and then fell asleep in game two. The next predictable propaganda narrative will be that the Lakers are in great shape because they have homecourt advantage. The reality is that homecourt advantage only matters if you play hard and play smart. For the past five years, the one constant with LeBron's Lakers is that they do not consistently play hard and play smart.
Media members heap praise on the three players who the Lakers acquired for the much-maligned Westbrook, so let's look how
those players did versus Memphis in game two.
D'Angelo
Russell had five points on 2-11 field goal shooting, plus four assists and three turnovers. He is averaging 12.0 ppg on .321 field goal shooting in the first two games of this series.
Jarred Vanderbilt had eight points on 3-5 field goal shooting. He is averaging 6.0 ppg on .556 field goal shooting in the first two games of this series.
Malik Beasley had seven points on 2-4 field goal shooting. He is averaging 3.5 ppg on .333 field goal shooting in the first two games of this series.
The Lakers traded a future Hall of Famer for two unproven role players (Beasley and Vanderbilt) plus one player who has never proven that he can be an effective rotation player on a winning team (Russell)--but we are supposed to believe that this was a stroke of brilliance!
The Lakers could still win this series; they have the two most talented players in the series and they have a size advantage--but I picked the Grizzlies because I have seen who these Lakers are for five years, and because I neither respect their team culture nor do I expect it to improve, and thus I believe that even a shorthanded team with a winning culture will prevail against a full strength team that does not consistently play the right way.
The Lakers run hot and cold, so I would not be surprised if they win game three in a blowout, lose a close game four at home, lose by 10 again on the road in game five, and then fall apart at home in game six. Every time the Lakers have one good game, some media members get so excited that they forget--or refuse--to look at the big picture. Outside of the protective 2020 "Bubble," none of the Lakers' "momentum wins" in the past five years have had any long-term significance: the Lakers' game one win did not mean much, and the same will be true if they win game three.
A team that does not consistently play hard is doomed to mediocrity. That is the truth about the Lakers; anything else is propaganda that will not stand the test of time (and of teams that play hard).
Labels: Anthony Davis, Jaren Jackson Jr., L.A. Lakers, LeBron James, Memphis Grizzlies, Xavier Tillman
posted by David Friedman @ 11:42 PM
7 Comments:
Westbrook got too much blame, but he was a bad fit with this team. That said for a supposed good shooter D'Angelo Russell can't shoot. Especially in the playoffs. 2-11 is ghastly. The Lakers may luck around and win this series, but they aren't winning in the 2nd round.
Anonymous:
If a versatile future Hall of Famer who plays hard is a "bad fit," it is worth delving deeper and asking why he is a bad fit; after doing that, we notice that most if not all great players who play alongside LeBron are called upon to sacrifice their games--we see that with Wade, Bosh, Irving, Love, etc.
If LeBron and the Lakers were willing to defend the paint, rebound, and give the ball to Westbrook to push the pace, then Westbrook would have been a perfect fit--but LeBron is no longer willing or interested to consistently be a plus defender, and LeBron does not want to push the ball (unless he is doing the pushing) because that could interfere with his stat padding (which was even more important before he broke Abdul-Jabbar's regular season career scoring record).
It is interesting that Westbrook immediately fit in just fine with Leonard and George (before George got hurt).
LeBron is marketed as a team-first player who is easy to play with, but the reality is that it is not always so easy to play alongside him.
Russell has been with multiple teams and has never proven that he can be a productive rotation player with a winning program. I noted this when the Lakers made the trade, so I am not surprised at all with Russell's performance.
Westbrook was obviously a bad fit with the Lakers for various reasons. The trade worked out for both parties, though the Clippers aren't exactly improving with him either. The Clippers were a lowly 5-7 with George/Westbrook playing together. After George's last injury, the Clippers actually did better going 6-3 to finish out the regular season.
James is a clown and a walking contradiction, but what do you expect out of someone his age? He's not just old for the NBA, he's ancient. His level is still super high and at an AS level. Of course he can't play at a top 75 all-time level anymore. Davis is still a great player, but obviously very inconsistent. The Lakers supposed size advantage is very minimal at best. Both teams looks quite similar. Not that I want to defend James, but in all fairness, +/- isn't a very good indicator often. He was the Lakers most effective player and had the worst +/-, that should tell you something. On contrary, Vanderbilt did little and was a +8. James is an obvious stat-padder, but that doesn't apply to this game. He scored his 25th/26th points to make it 88-94 with 3 minutes left, and only had 2 points after that. He was 4-7 in the 4th.
Anonymous:
A future Hall of Famer who scores, rebounds, and passes at a high level is "obviously a bad fit with the Lakers for various reasons." That is a very interesting take. I have given my evidence-based reasons why the Lakers did not accept Westbrook, and blamed him for their own shortcomings, so I will not repeat myself.
The most relevant point about the Clippers and Westbrook is not the team's won/loss record. McMenamin, Windhorst, and the rest of LeBron's p.r. team masquerading as journalists assured the public that (1) Westbrook is washed up, (2) Westbrook is destructive in the locker room, and (3) any contending team would be foolish to sign him because he would destroy the team.
All three assertions are demonstrably false. Westbrook can still score, rebound, and pass at a high level. There is no evidence that Westbrook has been a negative locker room presence. Westbrook has certainly not destroyed the Clippers. Ty Lue is a championship-winning coach who is highly respected, and he installed Westbrook as his starting point guard.
What I expect of James is not the point. I am reacting to and refuting the false assertions made about him.
If you don't think that the Lakers have a size advantage over the Grizzlies then I wonder if you actually watched the games.
I know and acknowledge that plus/minus can be noisy in small sample sizes, but here it tells a compelling story: LeBron put up big numbers, but his team did worse with him on the court because he is out there collecting individual stats outside the context of what his team needs for him to do. LeBron jacking up three pointers, playing indifferent defense, and not consistently attacking the paint is not a winning formula for the Lakers. He is so talented that even his bad games look good by mortal standards, but he is not held to mortal standards: he is portrayed and portrays himself as the greatest of all-time, and by that standard he had a bad game, and a game that is typical of his tenure with the Lakers.
Marcel
The Lakers are better without Westbrook and Westbrook is better with the clippers
It was a win win move
Westbrook like Lonzo ball and Danny Green and many others. they didn't do well with the pressure of playing on Lakers.
There no pressure in OKC, Houston, Washington, or the clippers
They got no history of winning except rockets in Hakeem era.
Westbrook had the worst ft percentage, one of the worst turnover rates, and one of the worst fg percentages. While he played for the Lakers, plus his defense was terrible
With those other teams he the primary ball handler, with the Lakers LeBron control the ball more
Also reaves been one of the better players in the league since he left, Schroeder as well
Russel scored 17 in all but 3 games he played for the Lakers, he actually played well for them
Vanderbilt is one of the better wing defender in NBA, he gave ja fits first game. And held jjj to 5 of 12 after he scored 34 in first game
Micheal Beasley a hot and cold shooter
The Lakers lost cause ad didn't show up
Like he didn't vs Knicks, warriors in one
Clippers and other teams
Ad inconsistent and motor doesn't always run
Bron played well yesterday
The Lakers are better than Memphis
An will win this series in 5 or 6 games
Marcel:
In what way are the Lakers better? Are they more likely to win a championship before LeBron retires? Are they better positioned to win a championship in the post-LeBron era?
I don't think the Lakers are better in either way--and no other way matters: the Lakers are trying to squeeze at least one more title out of LeBron and they are also trying to not be awful for the next 10 years after LeBron retires.
Comparing a Top 75 player like Westbrook to Ball and Green is so ridiculous that I won't even comment other than to say that a player who averaged a triple double for multiple seasons, won an MVP, and played a key role for multiple Western Conference Finalists (including one NBA Finalist) has more than proven his ability to perform under pressure.
Westbrook is so washed up that he just put up 30-11-8 in a playoff game with both Leonard and George sidelined--and, unlike LeBron and the Lakers, the Clippers won Westbrook's minutes by one point but lost the non-Westbrook minutes by six points.
The Lakers treated Westbrook disgracefully while he was there, and then they slandered him--through LeBron's p.r. flacks McMenamin and Windhorst--after they got rid of him.
Russell has never been a rotation player for a contending team, and he shows no signs of becoming one now.
Vanderbilt is a solid defender/hustle player.
I am not sure what Michael Beasley has to do with any of this. Malik Beasley is so great that he has basically fallen out of the rotation not long after the Lakers acquired him.
LeBron played well in terms of putting up gaudy individual stats, but the Lakers lost ground with him in the game and gained ground with him out of the game.
The Lakers should be better than a Memphis team missing its best player and two of its best big guys, but I picked Memphis because the Lakers have provided zero reason to trust that they will play hard on a consistent basis. Unless the Grizzlies lose yet another key player to injury, I feel comfortable with my pick.
Todd said...
This was a very bad loss for the Lakers in my opinion. Sure they were playing on the road against a Grizzlies team that had the best home record in the NBA, but losing to them without their best player is a bad look. I predicted the Grizzlies to win in 7 games, and now feel very confident in saying that if the Grizzlies are able to snatch home court away from the Lakers in either Game 3 or 4 (and Morant is eventually able to make a return in this series), then that prediction will come true.
As a Thunder fan, it's great to see Westbrook playing at a high level in the playoffs. All-time great player performing like we all know he can. Hopefully Kawhi and PG can come back in that series.
Post a Comment
<< Home