How Did the Lakers Sans LeBron and AD Beat the Celtics in Boston?
We are told by many media members (also known as LeBron James' public relations staff) that the L.A. Lakers lack talent and can only win games if the 39 year old James plays at a superhuman level. There is no doubt that James is a Pantheon level player, and there is no doubt that the way he is playing at his advanced age is impressive and unprecedented--but is James correct to declare himself "The Greatest Player of All-Time" and is it true that the Lakers are helpless without James?
One game is the ultimate small sample size theater, but we can still learn something from each game. On Thursday night, the L.A. Lakers trudged into Boston without not only James but also Anthony Davis, who joined James on the NBA's 75th Anniversary Team and joins James on the 2024 Western Conference All-Star team as well. Surely the shorthanded Lakers--who have been worse than mediocre for most of this season (other than winning the inaugural NBA Cup) even with James and Davis--would collapse against the mighty, league-leading Celtics.
Not so fast my friend, as Lee Corso says.
The Lakers jumped out to an 11 point first quarter lead and never trailed in the second half en route to a 114-105 win. All five Laker starters plus bench player Rui Hachimura scored in double figures, led by Austin Reaves' game-high 32 points. The Lakers shot 19-36 (.528) from three point range, and they only committed seven turnovers. The Lakers rank 15th in the league in three point field goal percentage (.365), and they rank 21st in turnovers per game (14.3).
In contrast, the Celtics shot just 16-48 (.333) from three point range, and they coughed up 15 turnovers. The Celtics rank fourth in the league in three point field goal percentage (.380) while leading the league in three pointers made and three pointers attempted, and they rank sixth in turnovers per game (12.5). MVP candidate and 2024 All-Star Jayson Tatum paced the Celtics with 23 points on 8-21 field goal shooting. Kristaps Porzingis and Sam Houser each scored 17 points. Jaylen Brown, who last summer signed the richest contract in NBA history and is a 2024 All-Star, managed just eight points on 4-12 field goal shooting.
The words "aberration" and "regression to the mean" come to my mind. The Lakers are not as good as they looked, nor are the Celtics as bad as they looked. Nevertheless, it is instructive to consider why the Lakers looked so good and why the Celtics looked so bad.
The three point shot is considered the most efficient shot by "stat gurus," but it is also a high variance shot. When the treys are going down, you can look like the Lakers did last night or like Gilbert Arenas looked when some media members--including the vampire who for the past several years has made a living by praising James and using anonymous sources to slander Russell Westbrook--touted Arenas as an MVP candidate; when the long balls fall short, you can look like the Celtics looked.
A .400 three point shooter is more efficient statistically than a .550 two point shooter--but if that .550 two point shooter has a steady diet of high percentage shots in the paint then his numbers are not going to vary much from game to game. In contrast, that .400 three point shooter may go 6-10 one game and 2-10 the next game. Where are the missing points coming from during those 2-10 games? The 2018 Daryl Morey/Mike D'Antoni/James Harden Houston Rockets are still looking for those missing points after missing 27 straight three pointers while going down in flames versus Golden State in game seven.
Celtics other than Tatum and Houser shot 6-29 (.207) from three point range versus the Lakers. Davis and James are the Lakers' two best defensive players, and without Davis the Lakers have no shotblocking (they blocked just two shots versus the Celtics). I am not sure who is going to beat the Celtics in the 2024 NBA playoffs, but if the Celtics fail to win the championship despite having the league's best record their downfall will probably be a game seven during which they miss a ton of three pointers while being unwilling or unable to make up those missing points. The Celtics should lean more on their defense and on attacking the paint on offense instead of this foolish quest to jack up 50 three point shots per game. They have the most talented starting five in the NBA, and they are setting themselves up to shoot themselves into a devastating playoff loss against a team that is less talented but more resilient, more gritty, and less stubborn about shooting three pointers.
All of that being said, Thursday's result did not happen just because the Celtics missed a lot of three pointers. The Lakers played well at both ends of the court, and that must confound the "experts" who view the Lakers as James, Davis, and a bunch of dudes who could not play dead in a cowboy movie. Why did the Lakers' supporting players perform so well versus the Celtics?
The reality--and this is something that I have written about throughout James' stellar career--is that James often plays in a way that maximizes his personal statistics but does not necessarily maximize his team's winning chances. On the surface, that may seem like nonsensical "hate." I am not ignoring the indisputable facts that (1) James has been the best player on four championship teams and (2) James has authored some incredibly clutch playoff performances. There is no doubt that James has had a major impact on winning for each of the three franchises that employed him, as reflected by the fact that he led each franchise to at least one championship. Nevertheless, one cannot escape the impression that James is very conscious of his statistics and of how to shape narratives. Sometimes, he puts up big numbers after the outcome is no longer in doubt; always, he controls the ball and decides who will shoot the ball, which means he controls his points, his assists, and everyone's field goal percentage.
James makes many great decisions. I am not questioning his basketball IQ--far from it. My point is that Bill Russell used his genius level basketball IQ to figure out how to maximize the likelihood that his Boston Celtics would win, and Russell did not care how many points he scored or how many triple doubles he amassed. In contrast, after James quit versus Boston in game five of their 2010 playoff series he bristled at questions about his performance, and he petulantly stated that he had spoiled fans with his greatness. I covered that game in person, and I covered that press conference as well. I was flabbergasted by James' performance and by his excuses. I cannot imagine Russell (or Magic Johnson or Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant) uttering such words after such a bad performance. For Russell, Johnson, Jordan, and Bryant, the game is about doing whatever it takes to win championships--no excuses. For James, the game is often about maintaining the narrative of his greatness. After that devastating 2010 game five loss to the Celtics, James' first thought was not that his league-leading 61-21 team was facing playoff elimination; his first thought was how to spin his performance in a way that did not reflect negatively on his greatness, and he did that by directing attention away from how he played versus Boston and toward how he had played overall in previous years. Whether or not it is a valid point to say that James had few bad games, that is not the way that the greatest of the great think about when they fall short of the high standard they set for themselves. I recall Jerry Rice saying that if he caught 15 passes and dropped one he only thought about the dropped pass; in the same situation, James would say, "I caught 15 out of 16 and I spoiled the fans by setting so many records over the years."
In short, James' talent often lifts his teams, but it also can suffocate his teammates. The Lakers played free and loose without James controlling the ball, and several players showed that they are capable of creating their own shots and playing solid defense. Does that mean the Lakers are better without James? Of course not. Those players are not conditioned mentally or physically to play that way for 82 games. However, the Lakers would benefit if James consistently played in a way that focused less on narrative and more on team success.
Labels: Anthony Davis, Boston Celtics, Jaylen Brown, Jayson Tatum, L.A. Lakers, LeBron James
posted by David Friedman @ 3:08 AM
