Lakers Bounce Back From Blowout Loss, Rout Warriors
When Anthony Davis and LeBron James play effectively in the paint, the L.A. Lakers can be very good--and game three of their second round series versus the Golden State Warriors dramatically illustrated that: Davis and James dominated inside, and the Lakers won easily, 127-97. Davis led both teams in scoring (25 points), rebounds (13), and blocked shots (four). He had a tremendous impact at both ends of the court, but particularly on defense: he proved that he can both disrupt screen/roll actions on the perimeter and drop into the paint to contest shots and grab rebounds. The Lakers held the Warriors to .396 field goal shooting while forcing 19 turnovers. There is not a boxscore number that connects those team numbers to Davis' play, but he had more to do with the Lakers' dominant defense than any other player.
James finished with 21 points, eight rebounds, eight assists, and no turnovers. He played with more energy on defense than he has in a long time. Before the game, ABC's Jeff Van Gundy declared, "LeBron James has to have a throwback game where he lives in the paint and in the post." During the game, Van Gundy added that the Lakers cannot win this series if James only plays hard sporadically. James did not attempt a shot in the first quarter for the first time in his playoff career, an odd look for the NBA's all-time scoring leader in both the regular season and the playoffs. ABC's Mark Jackson labeled James' passivity "inexcusable," emphasizing that James is not being guarded by a lockdown defender and that the Lakers' game plan does not involve James refusing to shoot.
After the first quarter, James played the way that the Lakers
need for him to play and that--combined with Davis controlling the
paint at both ends of the court--lifted the Lakers to a convincing win.
In the first quarter, D'Angelo Russell scored 13 points on 5-7 field goal shooting (including 3-4 from three point range)--and he had a -6 plus/minus number as the Warriors enjoyed a 30-23 lead after the first 12 minutes. Russell scored eight points the rest of the game, and the Lakers won going away. There could not be a more vivid example of what factors make the Lakers good, and what factors are not only irrelevant but potentially even counterproductive. I am not suggesting that Russell played poorly. Obviously, he played well. I am pointing out that both the eye test and the statistical evidence show that Russell hitting three pointers does not have a cause/effect relationship with the Lakers winning. The Lakers took command of the game when Davis and James took command of the paint; after Davis and James asserted themselves, the Lakers transformed an 11 point second quarter deficit into a 59-48 halftime lead.
Not only did the Lakers play very well in game three, but the Warriors displayed the worst version of themselves: they had careless turnovers, they missed defensive assignments, they committed silly fouls, and they were whistled for three technical fouls plus one flagrant foul at times when the outcome was still in doubt. Van Gundy noted that even experienced teams can struggle with maintaining the focus that is necessary to win two consecutive games in a playoff series, particularly because of psychological factors that he asserts favor a team that just lost in a blowout; if he is correct about the latter observation and if that pattern holds true in game four then it bodes well for the Warriors.
Stephen Curry led the Warriors with 23 points, but he shot just 9-21 from the field and he only had three assists after dishing for 12 assists in game two. Andrew Wiggins added 16 points, a team-high nine rebounds, and four assists. Klay Thompson scored 15 points on 5-14 field goal shooting. Draymond Green, who raves about his high basketball IQ, had more fouls (five) than points (two) and rebounds (two) combined, and he had the same number of field goals made and technical fouls (one each). He may want to focus more of his attention on the task at hand and less of his attention on making videos mocking Dillon Brooks. We understand that Brooks is a knucklehead without Green telling us; Green's primary job is playing for the Warriors, not being a social media influencer, and he should remember that.
This was an impressive win for the Lakers, and it sets up a crucial game four for both teams: the Lakers need to win to maintain the homecourt advantage that they obtained by winning game one at Golden State, while the Warriors need to win to avoid falling into a daunting 3-1 hole. It is fair to say that the game four winner will also win the series: the Lakers have been inconsistent all season, but they are unlikely to blow a 3-1 lead, and the Warriors are unlikely to lose another home game if they wrest back homecourt advantage.
Labels: Anthony Davis, D'Angelo Russell, Golden State Warriors, Klay Thompson, L.A. Lakers, LeBron James, Stephen Curry
posted by David Friedman @ 11:58 PM
8 Comments:
Marcel
Dlo played great for them
And he the point guard they needed
He shot well so far, he been solid floor general, solid on defense
His 21 in first half kept them in the game.
Bron and ad controlled paint
Ad had to get like 15 deflection
Bron played great at end of second and 3rd
The warriors will be better in game 4
I expect a close game that the Lakers will win
Marcel:
Did you notice that the Lakers were trailing by double digits when Russell did most of his scoring, and that they took over the game once LeBron started shooting?
There is a direct correlation between how well Davis and James play in the paint and how well the Lakers do. If you don't believe me, just listen to what Van Gundy and Jackson said during the telecast: it was like they were reading straight from one of my articles when they talked about the importance of James playing hard all the time, James attacking the paint, and Davis attacking the paint as well.
Marcel
LeBron and ad they best players I expect they take off when they play well.
And klay Thompson had 11 in the first quarter
4 the rest of the game
That also played a factor why
That don't take away from Russell playing well, and getting them off to a good start
If Westbrook did it u be singing a diff praise
Or if Russell didn't play well u explain why his play impacted the Lakers negative
Any way u slice it
Russell was a very positive factor in game 3
Marcel:
It's not just about Davis and James playing well or having good-looking stats. It is about Davis and James playing actively in the paint at both ends of the court. In my series preview, I wrote that the Lakers could beat the Warriors if that happened--and I picked the Warriors to win the series because I don't think that it will happen four times. It has happened twice so far. We'll see what happens the rest of the way.
Davis and James shutting down the paint and forcing the Warriors to rely on long jumpers played a role in the performances of Thompson and the other Warriors.
I said that Russell played well. I also said that whether or not he plays well is not the main reason for the Lakers winning or losing. If you listened to the broadcast or read my quotes from Jackson and Van Gundy you know that they said the same things that I have been saying all along. I am providing the kind of analysis that otherwise only comes from former coaches who are being honest about what is happening on the court.
Why do you speculate about what I would say regarding Westbrook? I have written many Lakers game recaps and many articles about Westbrook. Quote from a specific article that supports your argument, if you can find one.
I have consistently said that the Lakers' success is determined by Davis and James playing actively in the paint. Whether Westbrook played great or OK or not so great was not the main determining factor. That is one thing that many media members kept distorting and that I kept correcting.
The Lakers could bring in a lot of guys to do what Russell does. Westbrook could score 21 points while also providing more rebounds, more assists, and more energy. None of that matters when Davis and James sit out, or when they drift to the perimeter.
In your first comment, you mentioned Davis' deflections. That is not an official stat, but you are right that it is very important. If Davis scored 30 points on jump shots but had zero deflections, the Lakers probably would have lost because the Warriors would have scored too easily and Davis' 30 points would not have mattered.
Most people are just watching the games with a rooting interest and not really thinking about why teams are winning or losing. Many media members have various agendas, and they slant their coverage to suit those agendas. My articles delve into what makes teams successful or unsuccessful.
But you're neglecting Russell's contribution in the 1st quarter too much. If he doesn't go off in the 1st quarter and just gets his 3-5 points average/quarter in that 1st quarter or less, the Lakers are down 15-20 after 1. While there's 3 quarters to make that up, that's a substantial deficit, and the game might already be over at that point. He kept his team in the game. That was huge. We saw Memphis in 1-2 games vs the Lakers get down huge early, and that was it for them in those games. If Memphis had 1 player, regardless who it is, have a great start to the game and keep them within striking range, Memphis would've had chances to still win in those games.
Anonymous:
I understand your point, but I don't agree that Russell's contribution is as valuable as you suggest. You are correct that without him it is possible that the Lakers would have trailed by even more, but I would counter by arguing that (1) if the Lakers had played that way the whole game then they would have probably lost by 20 points even if Russell scored 40 points, and (2) the way that the Lakers came back specifically involved focusing on playing in the paint as opposed to relying on Russell's perimeter game.
You talk about how important 1st quarters are often which can set the theme for the game. Seems odd you're neglecting the 1st quarter here so much. I stand by, regardless of whatever game it is, that if a team is down 15-20 after the 1st quarter, they're in huge trouble. It's very important to stay within striking range. Russell was the #1 reason for that. The Lakers turned a 180 starting in the 2nd quarter somehow, but a lot of that has to do with GS absolutely falling apart, too. GS is good and they have occasional lights-out shooting nights, but they don't look like a contender at all.
The Lakers held GS to 97 points in game 3. If Russell goes for 40, they're winning handily. Through 4 games of this series, GS has only achieved their season average in points once, and 2 games nowhere near it. The Lakers are winning primarily because of their defense, similar to the Memphis series.
Anonymous:
It is unfortunate that you do not understand the difference between analyzing what happened in the first quarter--which is what I did in this article--and "neglecting the 1st quarter here so much."
I explained what happened in the first quarter and what happened in the subsequent quarters, but I cannot make you understand what I explained. The good news for you is that there are plenty of other media outlets that provide the perspective that you are seeking.
Post a Comment
<< Home