Golden State Versus L.A. Lakers Preview
Western Conference Second Round
#6 Golden State (44-38) vs. #7 L.A. Lakers (43-39)
Season series: L.A. Lakers, 3-1
L.A. can win if…Anthony Davis and LeBron James consistently make their presence felt in the paint at both ends of the court. Davis is capable of being an elite rebounder and shotblocker. Davis averaged 13.7 rpg and 4.3 bpg in the Lakers' 4-2 first round series victory against the Memphis Grizzlies after averaging 12.5 rpg and 2.0 bpg in the regular season--and he played in all six playoff games after missing 26 out of 82 regular season games. James averaged 11.2 rpg and 1.3 bpg in the first round after averaging 8.3 rpg and .6 bpg in the regular season--and he played in all six playoff games after missing 27 regular season games.
When Davis and James attack the paint on offense they create easy shots for themselves, they force double teams that create open shot opportunities for their teammates, and they draw fouls that get the opposing team in the bonus, creating free throw opportunities for all of the Lakers.
For the first part of this season, James focused on breaking Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's regular season scoring record, which is a tremendous accomplishment. After James reached that milestone, he seemed more focused on using his prodigious talents to help his team win, and the Lakers won six of their final seven regular season games.
Austin Reaves has emerged as the Lakers' third best player. He averaged 16.5 ppg, 5.3 rpg, and 5.0 apg in the first round. D'Angelo Russell spent most of the first round missing shots, but a big performance in game six lifted his series numbers to 16.7 ppg, 5.8 apg, and 3.7 rpg; this is the first time in his career that Russell played on a team that won a playoff series. Rui Hachimura (14.5 ppg, 4.7 rpg, team-best .569 FG%) had a very solid first round series.
Golden State will win because…the Warriors' defense will make things difficult for the Lakers' sporadically effective offense, and Stephen Curry will continue to add to his impressive legacy. Curry is unlikely to match his iconic game seven masterpiece versus the Sacramento Kings, but it would not be surprising if he averages 30-plus ppg versus the Lakers while also contributing 5-plus apg and 5-plus rpg. He has averaged at least 30 ppg in eight of his 27 career playoff series, including four times in his last seven playoff series. Curry averaged 33.7 ppg, 4.9 apg, and 4.9 rpg versus Sacramento; that is the fourth highest scoring series of his career, and his highest scoring series since 2019.
The Warriors' defense was inconsistent during the regular season, but the Warriors shut down the high-powered Kings offense in game seven, holding Sacramento to 100 points on .375 field goal shooting. Kevon Looney grabbed 21 rebounds, and he leads all 2023 playoff rebounders with 15.1 rpg. Looney is listed at 6-9, but he plays like an old school big man and not like a new school undersized "big" who drifts to the perimeter.
Other things to consider: The mainstream media narrative is that the Lakers transformed their team by trading future Hall of Famer Russell Westbrook for role players D'Angelo Russell, Jarred Vanderbilt and Malik Beasley. Read that sentence out loud to emphasize how foolish it sounds, and how foolish it is.
To quantify the foolishness, here are the first round numbers for the "tremendous trio": Russell averaged 16.7 ppg on .435 field goal shooting, Vanderbilt averaged 7.2 ppg on .548 field goal shooting, and Beasley averaged 4.2 ppg on .292 field goal shooting. Meanwhile, Russell Westbrook averaged 23.6 ppg on .410 field goal shooting while also contributing 7.6 rpg and 7.4 apg for the shorthanded L.A. Clippers during their five game first round loss to the Phoenix Suns; those numbers, which are in line with Westbrook's career playoff averages, may never be matched in any playoff series by any of the players acquired in exchange for Westbrook.
As noted above, Davis missed 26 regular season games, and James missed 27 regular season games. Davis missed 24 of the Lakers' first 51 games and just two of the Lakers' final 31 regular season games.
The best midseason trade that the Lakers made was the one in which they traded the player known as "Street Clothes" to acquire Anthony Davis!
The Warriors went 33-8 at home and 11-30 on the road during the regular season. Their chemistry seemed tenuous at best after Draymond Green slugged teammate Jordan Poole in the face during a preseason practice. They kept talking about championship DNA and putting everything together when it mattered, but their desultory play suggested that they did not believe what they said, so it was no surprise when they fell down 2-0 versus the Kings--and it was no surprise when Green stomped on Domantas Sabonis' chest during game two, earning an ejection and a one game suspension.
What is surprising is how quickly the Warriors turned things around. They won the next three games to seemingly take command of the series before being embarrassed at home in game six, setting the stage for Curry's epic game seven performance.
Who are these Warriors? It seems unlikely that they can reach the dominant level of their repeat championship teams from 2017-2018, but it seems probable that they can eliminate a Lakers team that was even more inconsistent than they were during the 2023 regular season. The Warriors beat a quality playoff opponent, while the Lakers defeated an injury-riddled Memphis team.
I would not be shocked if the Lakers win their first two home games after falling behind 2-0, but the Warriors will win this series in six games.
Labels: Anthony Davis, Draymond Green, Kevon Looney, Klay Thompson, L.A. Lakers, LeBron James, Stephen Curry
posted by David Friedman @ 10:18 PM
22 Comments:
Marcel
Lakers in 5 or 6
They got too much size with ad and fire power for warriors
The warriors are a inconsistent offensive team
And there defense is not as great this year
I expect ad to dominate
Reaves
Will avg 18
Rui around 16
D lo around 19
Schroeder 12
Remember the Lakers best Grizzles in 6 and Bron averaged 22ppg and shot 20 percent from 3
Warriors is not beating my Lakers
The Lakers are bigger and better
And Lakers are the better defensive team.
D lo avg 17 on 44 percent shooting
Westbrook shot 40 percent in the suns series, including a 3-18 game 1 and 3 -19 game 5.
So if dlo was missing everything what was Westbrook doing?
It boggles my mind how u sell the trade didn't help the Lakers?
Lakers would be the same team if they kept Westbrook, Beverly, Nunn
3 guys who can't shoot or play defense
Russell
Played well for Lakers
Vanderbilt been a great defender for the lakers
Marcel-
Just to be clear, you're expecting Reaves + Rui + D-Lo, none of whom have an established playoff resume, to average about 14 more PPG in a road playoff series against the defending champs, who just clamped down the best statistical offense in history, than they did in the regular season?
Marcel:
I'm not surprised you picked the Lakers. You always pick LeBron's teams, and they have won a lot of course--but this team is not as good as you think it is.
What Westbrook does that D'Angelo Russell does not consistently do is rebound, pass, play hard all the time, and serve as a team leader.
I have already explained multiple times exactly what I think about the trade specifically and the Lakers in general, so I am not going to repeat myself.
You still haven't answered my original questions to you in previous threads when you insisted that the Westbrook trade is so great:
Do you believe that the Lakers as presently constructed are a legit championship contender? If not, do you believe that they are well positioned for the post-LeBron era?
"To quantify the foolishness, here are the first round numbers for the "tremendous trio": Russell averaged 16.7 ppg on .435 field goal shooting, Vanderbilt averaged 7.2 ppg on .548 field goal shooting, and Beasley averaged 4.2 ppg on .292 field goal shooting. Meanwhile, Russell Westbrook averaged 23.6 ppg on .410 field goal shooting while also contributing 7.6 rpg and 7.4 apg for the shorthanded L.A. Clippers during their five game first round loss to the Phoenix Suns"
It looks real bad when you put it that way, splitting the three dudes up like that, but when you put it all together it looks a lot better.
The guys Russ was traded for scored 28.1 PPG on .436 shooting with 8.5 RPG and 7.3 APG. They also had 3.8 TOPG, 1.7 BPG, and 1.5 SPG. They took 23.3 shots and 4.2 FTAs per game.
Russ had 23.6 PPG on 41% shooting with 7.6 RPG and 7.4 APG. He had 4 TOPG, 1.4 BPG, and 1.2 SPG. He took 21 shots and 5 FTAs per game.
So purely statistically they gave the Lakers an extra 4.5 PPG on 2.6% better shooting, plus roughly an extra rebound and slightly more blocks/steals, while using about 1.5 to 2 more possessions to do it (depending on how many of everybody's FTAs were And-1s, techs, 3s, etc.). At worst that's two extra possessions for 4.5 extra points, which is a deal every team in the league would take.
They chewed up more minutes, on account of there being, you know, three of 'em, but that's a win too for a Lakers team that's pretty thin beneath them on the depth chart, especially since Vando's their best defender. Like, the ability to not have to play scrubs like Gabriel or Walker is almost more valuable than everything else.
Essentially they improved on Westbrook's scoring and held serve on his rebounds and assists while also improving the D thanks to Vando and reducing reliance on their worst lower bench guys.
That seems like a pretty clear win to me, TBH.
He's better than any one of 'em for sure, but at least for a paper thin team like LA he's not better than having all three.
Last Stand:
Your analysis does not hold up for several reasons:
1) One player who can produce 20-plus ppg, 7-plus rpg, and 7-plus apg creates a matchup problem for the opposing team, which leads to foul trouble, open shots for other players, and so forth. Westbrook is a dynamic game changer. The three guys who replaced him are (1) an inefficient shot chucker (D'Angelo Russell), (2) a scrappy role player who can only score by picking up loose change near the hoop, and (3) a guy who is not even in the rotation, so his numbers are garbage time stat padding when the outcome has already been decided one way or the other.
2) No one in the "triumphant trio" has ever played meaningful minutes for a team that did anything of consequence in the postseason. Westbrook has had big performances in playoff runs to the WCF and even to the NBA Finals. That may not matter against a Memphis team missing two big men, one Ja Morant hand, and half of Dillon Brooks' brain, but I suspect that it will matter against Golden State.
3) I agree with the notion that Vanderbilt's defense can be an asset in certain situations, but it is funny to hear so much about how that one aspect of his game is valuable despite his inability to make a shot outside of the paint when supposedly the main reason the Lakers had to get rid of Westbrook was his poor shooting. Is Vanderbilt's situational defense really more valuable than Westbrook's rebounding, passing, energy, playoff experience, and capability to reliably score at least 15-20 ppg and potentially score more than 30 in a given game?
Put another way: Championship-winning coach Ty Lue immediately inserted Russell Westbrook in the starting lineup of a team that was considered a championship contender until Kawhi and PG got hurt; how many playoff teams other than the Lakers would be putting Vanderbilt in the starting lineup?
I like Vanderbilt; he makes the most of what he has--but let's not pretend that he is the second coming of Dennis Rodman, Ron Artest, or even Bruce Bowen, and let's not pretend that he is more valuable than Russell Westbrook.
Let's be honest. LeBron needed a scapegoat for the Lakers' failures this season, and his friends in the media helped him make Westbrook into a scapegoat, which might have fooled almost everyone if Westbrook had not landed with the Clippers and immediately reemerged as a productive starter for a quality team.
Before the Clippers signed Westbrook, media members were seriously suggesting that Westbrook's career may be over because he is washed up and not able to be a rotation player on a good team. That is insanely stupid, but highly paid commentators on Sirius XM NBA Radio (Justin Termine, for one) and ESPN (Dave "Vampire" McMenamin most prominently) put that nonsense out there.
Now, instead of admitting that they were wrong, the idiots just say stuff like, "Westbrook is a better fit with the Clippers."
Anyone with a brain who watched Westbrook with the Lakers could see that--despite the Lakers jerking Westbrook around and messing with his game--he could still rebound, still blow by defenders off the dribble, still pass, still score when given the opportunity, and he still played hard. He's never been a highly efficient scorer. People are acting like that is a newsflash. He won scoring titles and helped lead teams deeply into the playoffs while not being a particularly efficient scorer. There is more to basketball than True Shooting Percentage; otherwise, Rudy Gobert would be the greatest player ever, DeAndre Jordan would be number two, and Michael Jordan would be number 123.
I am also waiting to hear a good explanation for why Westbrook's four three point attempts per game at .296 accuracy were allegedly just killing the Lakers, but LeBron's seven three point attempts per game at .321 accuracy are wonderful.
While Westbrook is prone to some bone-headed decisions at times, he is still a Hall of Famer and his apparent failure in LA is more due to Lebron and AD being out so much.
All fans like the "what if" and if you still had Caruso, KCP, Kuzma, Monk, etc of course the team would be much more well-rounded.
Curious to see how well DLo will play this series. It's funny how careers and reputations can change so quickly. I still remember when Warriors fans were waiting to get out of the massive Wiggins contract. Now he is an indispensable member of the team.
I can be right while Skip or whoever's saying he was washed are still wrong, so I'm not going to defend their nonsense.
My POV is that for the Lakers, having three guys (or two, if you don't think Beasley counts) they can trust is more valuable than having one, partly 'cause the rest of their bench is trash.
The way the Lakers used Westbrook did not create big matchup advantages most nights. He can still do that when he's the team's primary mover, but not when he's standing in the corner watching Lebron and AD pound the rock, which was his job in LA. That LA wanted to use him that way isn't Westbrook's fault, but it is what happened, and in some ways it made them easier to guard instead of harder because teams would just leave him alone if he didn't have the ball and LA wouldn't punish them for it.
I didn't say Vanderbilt was better than Westbrook and I don't think he is. Pretty sure I said the opposite, even. But for a team who used Westbrook badly and who's alternative is trotting out YMCA-level trash like Lonnie Walker? Having Vanderbilt + D-Lo out there helps them more than having Westbrook out there did, almost as much because it spares them the other guys as because of what they bring themselves.
You can blame Lebron or Ham for using Westbrook in a way that made him less than what he oughtta be and you'd probly even be right to do it to 'em, but it doesn't make it not what happened.
For the Lakers Russ was averaging 15/6/7.5 on 13 shots. Just D-Lo + Vando averaged 24.6/9.6/7.6 on 18.4 shots. Add in Beasely it's 35.7/12.9/8.8 on 28.5 shots. Those extra 15.5 shots are giving you an extra 20.7 points, which is a lot more than you were getting when those remainder possessions were going to Lonnie Walker or Kendrick Nunn.
In the playoffs it's 23.9/7.5/7 on 19.4 shots. That's still great value, about what "used right" Russ on the Clippers is giving you, on better efficiency with better defense. Can D-Lo or Vando pressure a defense as your primary option the way Russ can? No, but on a team with Davis and Lebron that's not really what you need. You just need dudes who capitalize on the attention they draw. These cats aren't as good as Westbrook but they make more sense next to the guys they're next to than he did.
Lemme try and frame it a different way. It's not that they traded a bad player for good players like your least favorite figures in the media say. It's more like they traded a 7/10 (who they were using like a 5/10) for two 4/10s and a 3/10. On a deep team, that'd be a downgrade, no doubt. But on a team where the bench is all zeros, it's a decent little upgrade.
Look at Phoenix for an example of this going the opposite way. They traded a 8/10 and a 6/10 (and a 4/10 they weren't using) for a 10/10, but now that means they gotta fill the rest of those minutes with 1/10s and it's killing 'em, partly because they already had some guys who were good at what the 10/10 does and now they don't have guys to do what the 8 and the 6 did.
Sometimes depth and fit matter more than talent.
Last Stand:
If the Lakers had utilized Westbrook correctly--which falls on either Ham or LeBron, depending on who you believe is running the show--then the Lakers would not have to give up a future HoFer for three role players. I am skeptical that a team that is unable or unwilling to figure out how to maximize Westbrook's skills is going to get more out of less with three role players.
Can you cite an example when a team gave up a still productive HoFer for three role players and improved because of the trade?
To the extent that the Lakers are better now than they were earlier in the season, that difference can be explained by "trading" Street Clothes for Anthony Davis. That has proven to be a great deal. LeBron obtaining the career scoring record and refocusing on team success has also been helpful.
The Suns are better with Durant than they were with the players they gave up to get him--but they are not better enough to win a title (in my opinion). The Nets received an All-Star caliber player (Bridges) plus role players in exchange for Durant, and they received better role players for Irving than the Lakers obtained for Westbrook. When the Nets had two future HoFers who were healthy they were rocketing up the standings. Did getting a bunch of 4s or 5s or whatever number you want to use in exchange for Durant and Irving make the Nets better? No--and the Lakers are not better now because of the Westbrook trade, either.
David & Last Stand
I think you're both right.
To David's point, the biggest difference for the Lakers is AD being healthy.
To Last Stand's point, the Lakers are getting more production from the guys they traded Westbrook for than they did from him, mostly due to misuse but nonetheless, and turning one guy into two or three guys has made them deeper and less reliant on G-league level talent.
I do think the Nets are much better set-up for long term success after their trades. Small sample size, but Bridges has arguably been more valuable than Durant since the trade (largely due to availability but that is part of the package with Durant and their overall numbers are closer than you'd guess). Durant is better than Bridges but not by so much that Phoenix is better off with one guy than they were with two given their complete lack of depth.
Two years ago Phoenix made the Finals. Last year Phoenix lost in the second round in seven games (and that was underachieving). At this point it would be a surprise if they make it that deep this year, and given the ages of Durant and Paul they seem unlikely to be better next year. There are other variables (Paul is worse now, Booker is better) but it's hard to say, barring a massive comeback, they look better after the trade than they were the two years before it. It kind of reminds me of when they made the Shaq trade, flipping an All-Star level wing (Shawn Marion) and a few role players for an aging MVP who's productive but doesn't address the team's main weaknesses and hurts their already dubious depth. That trade aged poorly despite strong individual numbers from Shaq and I kind of think this one will too.
In a playoff series would you rather have 44 minutes of Durant + 40 minutes of Josh Okogie/Torrey Craig, or 44 minutes of Mikal Bridges + 40 minutes of Cam Johnson?
To use Last Stand's napkin math above, Durant's giving Phoenix 28/8.5/5 on 19 shots and 7 FTAs in the playoffs. Bridges + Johnson gave Brooklyn 42/11/6.8 on 33 shots and 8 FTAs. Durant's giving you a lot more than either but a lot less than both. If you had half-decent players to soak up those leftover 40 minutes obviously you'd rather have Durant but when you don't it gets interesting.
Anonymous:
I understand the theory being proposed and the back of the napkin math being supplied.
Provide examples of this theory working in practice. OK, the Nets "may" be better and the Suns "may" be worse, and the Lakers "may" be better after the trade because Street Clothes has transformed into Anthony Davis.
The 76ers traded Wilt to the Lakers for a bunch of players. How well did that work out for the 76ers?
The Bucks traded Kareem for a bunch of players. How well did that work out for the Bucks?
The 76ers traded Barkley for a bunch of players. How well did that work out for the 76ers?
I understand that there are a host of contextual factors, and I am not saying that Westbrook is as great as Wilt, nor am I doing an in depth comparison of every role player involved in such deals.
I just provided three examples above off the top of my head. I don't think that there are a ton of examples of future HoFers being traded for a bunch of role players, but if either of you can provide an example of this working out well for the team that gave up the HoFer let me know.
The Lakers are most likely going to lose in the second round this year, and be worse next season. After LeBron retires, a Laker team led by Street Clothes playing 50 games a year with the great DLo at point guard is a Play-In Tournament team, at best.
I just don't see how this Westbrook trade is the brilliant move that media members are making it out to be. The Lakers misused Westbrook, blamed him for all of their problems, and traded him for three role players, one of whom has already played his way out of the rotation.
Look at recent championship teams, and figure out where DLo, Vanderbilt and Beasley would fit in their eight man rotations. Beasley would be out. We know that; he can't even make the Lakers' rotation. What is DLo on a championship-caliber team? Is he taking minutes from Poole or Payton last year? Vanderbilt is a 3 and D guy without the 3 (and I am not sure that he is an 82 game defensive stopper, either).
The media notions about the Lakers are silly. We kept hearing that Buddy Hield is the big answer--because, clearly, Buddy Hield has established himself as an indispensable player for winning programs. I mean no disrespect to Hield, but people should stop disrespecting a future HoF like Westbrook by comparing him to Hield and DLo. It's just ridiculous.
I don't think they are high-tier championship level players (though they could probably make the rotations for some of the thinner title teams like the '09 Lakers or '03 Spurs), but I also don't think it's fair to couch the argument in terms of "does it win them a title?"
It made a mediocre team into a decent one. That is forward progress. A decent team isn't going to win the Finals without a lot of luck but at least they've put themselves in a position to try and find that luck.
I think the HoFer point sort of gives Westbrook credit for the player he is outside of LAL, not the player he was on their team. With how the Lakers were deploying him he was not providing HoF value so it's a different scenario than giving up Wilt or Kareem or Barkley when they're clearly giving you Top 5 production.
Perhaps the "third option" version of the Lakers that used Westbrook the way you and I think most of us would prefer would have been better than the version with the pieces they traded for him, but that version didn't exist. The comparison is the Lakers misusing Westbrook vs. the Lakers without Westbrook, and to me one of those teams seems better than the other.
It can be an upgrade without making them title favorites. They are getting more production from the pieces they got than the piece they gave up. I think most GMs would say that's the goal of a trade.
As for star-for-role player trades, they're rare but some that benefitted the teams that got the role players might include the 2010 Melo trade or the Suns trading Larry Nance and then making the WCF the next season (KJ turned out to be pretty great but he was just a rookie at the time). Neither of those players are as good as Westbrook at his peak but both were providing more value than the LAL version of him.
Obviously if Westbrook was providing All-NBA production for the Lakers this would be a dumb trade, but he wasn't, even if he probably could have been with better coaching. They're getting more out of what they got than they were out of what they gave up.
Anonymous:
Aren't the Lakers in "championship or bust" mode? How much time can they spend building at LeBron's age?
There are only two sensible considerations for the Lakers now: (1) Acquire players who can help win right now while (2) having a roster that will not fall off of a cliff after LeBron retires.
I didn't think that the Lakers were going to win a title this season, but they had a better chance to contend with a properly used Westbrook than with the three role players they acquired, and I am going to maintain that position until proven otherwise.
If the Lakers were unwilling or unable to use Westbrook properly then they should have never acquired him--his playing style was not a secret--or they should have changed whatever internal circumstances prevented them from using him properly: that could mean hiring a different coach, or instructing LeBron to focus on playing, not coaching. Maybe you think that is not realistic, but then you are just admitting that it is not realistic for the Lakers to contend in LeBron's golden years--and if the Lakers cannot realistically contend then they have to build for the future. The Lakers have given away most of their draft picks and young players, so after LeBron retires they have Davis, Reaves, Rui, and DLo. How many wins is that nucleus worth?
The Lakers traded Street Clothes for Anthony Davis. That was a great midseason deal. The "triumphant trio" are just along for the ride.
I agree that the Lakers should probably not have traded for Westbrook given how they used him.
I also think trading him for D-Lo and Vanderbilt did increase their chances of winning the title, albeit probably only from 0% to like, 5-10%.
I further agree that Davis being healthy is a bigger deal. I don't think the two things both being good for them are mutually exclusive however.
I also agree they are poorly set up for the future, though that was at least as true before the trade as after it. All three of the players they got are 26 or younger; Westbrook is 34. They may yet improve, while Westbrook is more likely to decline. He would also have been due a new contract at the end of this year, and was likely to leave for nothing given the disconnect between him and the James.
I just do not agree that the trade was a lateral or negative move. It reduced their reliance on their terrible bench and replaced the production Westbrook was giving them. It did not replace the production Westbrook was theoretically capable of giving the but it seems pretty clear they were not willing to play in a way to allow that either way.
It was a small win, but still a win in my book.
Anonymous:
It is not smart to trade for a future HoFer, misuse him, slander him in the media (which decreases his trade value), and then trade him for three role players.
I do not understand why people are so fascinated by the Lakers acquiring three role players, barely making the Play-In Tournament, barely surviving the Play-In Tournament, and then beating a Memphis team missing two big men, one of Ja Morant's hands, and half of Dillon Brooks' brain.
It makes no sense to just look at one trade, one small sample size of games, and act like the Lakers pulled off a Red Auerbach-like move. If I just listened to the talking heads, I'd think that DLo is Kevin McHale and Vanderbilt is Robert Parish and the Lakers just pulled off the best deal since Auerbach put together the Bird-McHale-Parish frontcourt.
If Westbrook is the starting point guard for a Clippers team that makes a deep playoff run next season while the Lakers struggle to make the playoffs, will this still be considered a brilliant trade?
Respectfully, I think you're conflating the positions taken in this thread with the positions taken in the media.
I said it was a "small win." Not "brilliant." I certainly didn't compare it to Red Auerbach. I don't think he other guy did either. The temperature here seems to be more "nice, small upgrade given they weren't using Westbrook properly" not "giant win that makes them title favorites."
To answer your question I think what Westbrook does next year is immaterial to whether or not it was a good trade for the Lakers because we know whatever he does is probably not something he would be empowered to do on the Lakers.
Anonymous:
The "win" for the Lakers is that Street Clothes (1) decided to play in the second half of the season and (2) most of the time he decided to play in the paint.
The trade was not brilliant, or a small win, or a minuscule win, or even particularly relevant.
When Davis and James play in the paint, the Lakers have a chance. When they don't play in the paint, the Lakers don't have a chance.
The Lakers' inability or unwillingness to maximize Westbrook's talents suggests that there is something wrong with the Lakers' thought process, and that kind of flawed thinking tends to be exposed by the better playoff teams.
It is also hilarious that Westbrook was pilloried for his .296 three point shooting on four three point attempts per game but no one says anything about LeBron's .321 three point shooting on seven three point attempts per game.
Westbrook's three point shooting was supposedly killing the Lakers, but replacing him with "lasers" supposedly cured all the team's ills.
The Lakers shot .310 from three point range versus the Grizzlies in the first round. LeBron shot .195 from beyond the arc and he took the second most threes on the team. No one in the media is calling him LeBrick or other "clever" names like the ones bestowed on Westbrook.
The Lakers won the series despite their bad three point shooting and despite LeBron's bad three point shooting because Davis and LeBron played in the paint enough at both ends of the court to make a difference.
Yes, I know that the great DLo made 16 three pointers in the first round. Five of them came in the 40 point blowout in game six. Take away those 15 points, and the Lakers win that game by a mere 25 points.
I don't know bro, D-Lo had 19 and 6 with one TO tonight. Vando held Curry to 10-24 shooting and led the team in +-. More specifically we were +8 Vando's minutes and -9 in the 11 minutes we tried anybody else on Steph. Turned him over a couple times too.
I don't wanna overreact, Steph will figure him out in time, probably by next game, but against a team like this every little bit helps.
I think those cats matter some, and I don't think we win this game with Westbrook instead of them.
Last Stand:
What do you think had the most impact: the performances of Davis and James, or the performances of Russell and Vanderbilt?
Is it more significant that Davis is a full-time player who actively plays in the paint--something that was not true during the first 51 games of the season--or that the Lakers acquired a three point shooter who shoots poorly and a 3 and D guy who can't shoot threes?
Of course Davis being right is bigger, but he can be playing better AND Vando/D-Lo can be helping out, those two premises aren't mutually exclusive and it's weird you keep pretending they are.
You know AD was healthy for 30 games with Russ this year, right? They went 14-16. AD's 17-9 in his non-Westbrook games, or 22-11 if you wanna count the playoffs.
It ain't like those two cats never played together.
They weren't any better last year, going 17-22 together. It was an awkward marriage, neither guy can really shoot from range (though both are rock-headed enough to keep trying) and they want to play at pretty much opposite speeds.
There's a hypothetical version of the Lakers where those two click and just murder fools on a pick and rolls together, but that just wasn't the reality of the collaboration, and we saw a big enough sample to know it was never gonna be.
You keep banging this drum like only one thing can matter. AD playing better doesn't mean Vando and D-Lo aren't helping. They're more-or-less replacing Russ' statistical production on higher efficiency, Vando's an impact wing defender, and there being two of 'em means bums like Lonnie Walker are getting less run.
You don't need to cape so hard for Westbrook here, man. This is your audience, we come here to read your takes, and we all pretty much agree with you the Lakers did him dirty. But pretending they aren't better off without him given how poorly they used him and how bad the vibes were between him and the stars is just being willfully obtuse.
Westbrook can still be a great player who just was not a good fit for the Lebronified Lakers.
Last Stand:
I agree that Davis and Westbrook could have been a great pick and roll combo.
It is interesting that the Lakers acquired Westbrook in full knowledge of his skill set, misused him, blamed him for everything, and then traded him for role players.
How much are Russell and Vanderbilt really helping and for how long? Are they helping enough to do more than win a series against hobbled Memphis? Are they helping enough to win a title?
Davis does not play hard all of the time, and he was unwilling or unable to mesh his skills with Westbrook.
When I look at the Lakers, I see a team that when pushed hard enough will collapse.
I disapprove of the media's reluctance to hold Davis and James responsible, and I attempt to correct that here.
I feel like I have heard a lot more Westbrook bashing elsewhere relative to how much time I devote to the opposite take. I am writing about every series, in addition to posting historical content, so it's not like Westbrook is the only thing on my mind--but I do think that when the Lakers win it is important and relevant to focus on why they are winning, and not be misled by false narratives.
Just because Westbrook is a future HOFer doesn't mean he's currently a big time player. There's not too many playoff teams he'd be starting with, and there's several starting PGs who missed the playoffs who are better(Haliburton, Lillard, Irving, Doncic to name a few). He's still a quality player, but the Lakers are obviously much better post trade. There's nothing wrong admitting this. There's other reasons than just Westbrook for their improvement, but the trade is one of them. They're a top 2-3 team in the league since the trade. That's definitely something to be excited about if you're a Lakers fan. 4 of the top 7 regular season teams lost in the 1st round. The other 3 of those 7 teams look vulnerable. Though Denver is looking very good through 2 games vs Phoenix. However, Phoenix is surprisingly disappointing. I didn't realize just how bad their team was after their 1st 4 players. Durant has been disappointing in that series.
The Lakers size even without a center is substantial compared to GS. Even if Looney is averaging 10, 20, 5 which he accomplished in game 1, GS will have a tough time winning this series.
Anonymous:
Right after the Lakers unceremoniously dumped Westbrook, a playoff team recruited him and he became their starting point guard.
I don't base my analysis on how excited a team's fans are.
The main reason that the Lakers are playing better now is that Davis and James (1) are actually playing and (2) they are playing in the paint at both ends of the court. Without those two things, nothing else would matter.
Post a Comment
<< Home