For example, consider this date in L.A. Lakers history.
On February 14, 2006, the Lakers had a 26-25 record. The undisputed best player for the 2006 Lakers was Kobe Bryant, who is
not cited as often for making his teams better as he should be
when one considers who his teammates have been, how well they performed alongside him, and how much his teams won. The 2005-06 L.A. Lakers finished sixth in the Western Conference with a
45-37 record. They then pushed the third seeded Phoenix Suns to seven
games in the first round of the playoffs.
The top five scorers for the 2005-06 Lakers were Kobe Bryant (35.4 ppg), Lamar Odom (14.8 ppg), Smush Parker
(11.5 ppg), Chris Mihm (10.2 ppg), and Brian Cook (7.9 ppg). Lakers not
named Kobe Bryant combined for one career All-Star selection before,
during, and after that season (Andrew Bynum, who played 338 minutes in
2005-06, made the All-Star team in 2012).
On February 14, 2022, the Lakers have a 26-31 record. The undisputed best player for the 2022 Lakers is LeBron James, who is often credited with "making his teammates better" despite the fact that every All-Star who has played alongside James has suffered declining statistics: that list includes Kyrie Irving, Kevin Love, Dwyane Wade, Chris Bosh, Anthony Davis, and the much-maligned Russell Westbrook, who played at an MVP level in the second half of last season before being thrown on the proverbial trash heap in L.A. so far this season. The top five scorers for the 2021-22 Lakers are LeBron James (29.0 ppg), Anthony Davis (23.3 ppg), Russell Westbrook (18.3 ppg), Carmelo Anthony (13.4 ppg), and Malik Monk (13.0 ppg). Lakers not names James combined for 36 All-Star selections plus three selections to the NBA's 75th Anniversary Team.
Comparing the two teams without counting Bryant and James, the 2022 Lakers have three 75th Anniversary Team members, while the 2006 Lakers had one player who made one All-Star Team six years later. Yet, the 2022 Lakers are ninth in the Western Conference, and if the season ended today they would have to earn a playoff spot via the Play-In Tournament; the 2006 Lakers were one defensive rebound away from beating the powerful Suns in game six in the first round of the playoffs.
James is an extraordinarily talented player who has accomplished a lot during his incredible career, but everything on his teams happens on his terms, and the main focus is not always team success. Davis is in his prime. Westbrook was playing at an MVP level just a few
months ago. Anthony provides scoring punch off of the bench. Monk would
have been the third best player on the 2006 Lakers behind Bryant and
Odom. If you took Bryant and James out of the equation, and arranged a time machine game between the 2022 Lakers and the 2006 Lakers, the 2022 Lakers would win by 20 points--but the difference is that when you put both players in the equation James has been unwilling/unable to elevate the 2022 Lakers, while Bryant figured out how to push, pull, and drag a 2006 Lakers team with very limited talent not just into the playoffs but almost to the second round--and after the Lakers added one one-time All-Star to that limited roster in 2007, Bryant carried the Lakers to three straight NBA Finals, winning back to back titles in the 2009 and 2010 seasons.
There is a good reason that every time I hear the ridiculous comparisons of LeBron James to Michael Jordan my response is, "LeBron James has not even passed Kobe Bryant yet, so why is anyone comparing James to Jordan?" James has won fewer championships than Bryant with a worse Finals winning percentage, and James has demonstrated that he needs multiple All-Stars alongside him to win titles. It is not 100% clear that James surpassed Tim Duncan on the list of great players in the post-Jordan era; Duncan and James faced each other in three NBA Finals, with Duncan's teams winning two out of three--and Duncan was one Ray Allen three pointer away from going 3-0 versus James in the NBA Finals. Shaquille O'Neal did not stay at his absolute peak as long as Bryant, Duncan, and James did, but are we absolutely sure that peak James is better than peak O'Neal? I'm taking peak Jordan over any of those players, and James has to establish clear superiority in the post-Jordan era before being compared to Jordan.
James is a great player, but the media-driven narratives asserting that he is the greatest player of all-time and that he is the best at "making his teammates better" are demonstrably false.
Commissioner Stern Should Not Have Voided the Chris Paul Trade
Remember the old Saturday Night Live skit about "Bad Idea Jeans"? The NBA created a real-life version a year ago when it assumed ownership of the troubled New Orleans Hornets franchise. What could possibly go wrong when the league office--which is supposed to impartially run the NBA's affairs without showing favor to any team or player--is in charge of a specific team? Phil Jackson, then the L.A. Lakers' Coach, immediately mentioned one possibly unsavory scenario: "When Chris (Paul) says he has to be traded, how's that going to go?...Someone's going to have to make a very nonjudgmental decision on that part that's not going to irritate anyone else in the league." If this were an SNL routine, one character would say, "Nah, that could never happen" and then the "Bad Idea" logo would fill the screen.
In theory, the NBA is running the Hornets essentially like a blind trust, assuming formal ownership until a suitor can be found who will hopefully keep the team in New Orleans: the league technically owns the team but the team's front office executives are supposed to be free to make whatever decisions they think are in the team's best interests without interference from league headquarters. That theory went up in smoke in stunning fashion on Thursday when Hornets General Manager Dell Demps completed a three team deal that would have shipped Chris Paul to the L.A. Lakers in exchange for Lamar Odom, Kevin Martin, Luis Scola, Goran Dragic and a first round pick while sending Pau Gasol to the Houston Rockets. The NBA cliche is that the team that receives the best player "wins" a trade; technically this would be considered a "win" for the Lakers but it was hardly a lopsided transaction: the Lakers received an elite point guard but gave up two quality big men, the Hornets gave up an elite point guard but received four potential starters and the Rockets gave up a lot of depth but received an All-Star big man to replace Yao Ming in the middle. Obviously, the Hornets would be disinclined to trade Paul if they thought that they had a realistic chance to re-sign him after this season but the so-called Derrick Rose rule in the new CBA will unfortunately not be of much use to New Orleans or Orlando (in the future, young superstars who have made the All-NBA Team and/or won an MVP will receive much more lucrative contracts by re-signing with their original teams than they would by seeking their fortunes elsewhere but this stipulation does not apply to Paul or to Orlando's Dwight Howard).
After word of the proposed deal had already leaked out, NBA Commissioner David Stern announced that the league had voided the entire transaction, supposedly for "basketball reasons." There is much speculation about who may have pressured Stern to take this action: perhaps "small market" owners do not want to see the Lakers profit at the expense of the Hornets or perhaps "large market" owners do not want to see Paul go to the Lakers because they had their own designs to woo Paul either now or after this season. Cleveland owner Dan Gilbert reportedly sent an email to Stern complaining that if such deals are permitted it will only be a matter of time before the NBA consists of five superteams and 25 other teams that should each be known as the Washington Generals. This is indeed a valid theoretical concern in the sense that, if the NBA operated as a totally free market with no salary cap or other restrictions, all of the top players would probably end up in New York, L.A. and Miami. Henry Abbott and others keep banging the same drum saying that it is wrong for the league to in any way restrict how much money stars can make and/or prevent stars from deciding where they want to play but a league run by Abbott's rules would not last very long; a successful professional sports league needs a common draft that gives weaker teams first crack at young talent and it needs a business model that provides for ample compensation to the best players while also making sure that all of the best players do not end up on one or two teams. If you take Abbott's way of thinking to its (ill)logical conclusion, then the NBA should not have a draft, a salary cap or any free agency rules: the New York Knicks should be able to offer $150 million to Chris Paul and $100 million to Jared Sullinger (or whichever college star they like next summer), while Dan Gilbert fills out his roster with players from Cleveland State University--but once you accept/understand why a league should have a draft, a salary cap and rules regarding free agency then the next step is to figure out specifically how to construct a business model containing those elements; such issues can only be solved through collective bargaining and that is why the NBA just had the second longest work stoppage in its history: the business model needed to be fixed. Abbott and his favorite economist may have determined that LeBron James and other stars are supposedly underpaid relative to their alleged true market value but if the NBA paid James what Abbott thinks James is worth then the whole enterprise would collapse and James would ultimately receive nothing. If James or other players dislike the terms of the league's CBA then they are certainly free to sell their services to the highest bidder in other leagues--but until Abbott and Costello (Dave Berri) find someone with very deep pockets to put their economic "theories" to a real world test (by creating a rival league based on "advanced basketball statistics") the fact is that James' true "market value" is what the NBA can afford to pay him without destroying its entire business model.
The Dream Team was fun to watch in 1992 in the Olympics but if the NBA's rules permitted a handful of wealthy owners to buy up all of the elite players then the NBA would indeed become nothing more than the Harlem Globetrotters versus the Washington Generals. Abbott and others say that competitive balance has never existed in NBA history but that depends on how you define competitive balance with regard to pro basketball. Competitive balance does not mean that every team has a 100% equal chance to win a title in a given year or even in the next 10 years; obviously, history has shown that to win an NBA title you almost always must have an elite player on your roster and there are only a handful of elite players in the NBA at any given time (plus another 20-25 All-Star caliber players). Competitive balance means two things in the context of the NBA: (1) No one team can simply spend $1 billion and buy up the All-NBA First Team; (2) any team that drafts well and makes sound free agency decisions has the opportunity to put together a solid playoff team and that the handful of teams that acquire/nurture an All-NBA First Team caliber performer have a reasonable opportunity to contend for a title and to retain the services of that All-NBA First Team player when his initial contract expires.
The Showtime Lakers were not built because top players decided to leave small market teams; while the Lakers acquired Kareem Abdul-Jabbar via a trade with a small market team, they did not become a dynasty until they surrounded him with shrewd draft picks (including Norm Nixon, Magic Johnson and James Worthy). The 1980s Boston Celtics drafted Larry Bird and his Hall of Fame frontcourt partner Kevin McHale. LeBron James had every right under the old CBA to form a power trio in Miami but it is historically incorrect to suggest that this is how dynasties have previously been built in the NBA--and it is foolish to think that what James, Carmelo Anthony and Deron Williams did last year set a healthy precedent for the NBA. How many casual fans really missed the NBA during the lockout? There was a very real backlash against the NBA, a "pox on their houses" mentality that can be largely traced back to the resentment that fans outside of New York/New Jersey and Miami feel about what James, Anthony and Williams did.
So, I understand Gilbert's concerns and I can even understand why Stern felt that he had to stop the Paul trade--but I think that Stern has made a horrible mistake and that, ultimately, this trade (or one like it) is inevitable. The new CBA does not prevent Paul and Howard from following in the footsteps of James, Anthony and Williams so there is no way that the NBA can stop them from forcing their way out of New Orleans and Orlando respectively; moreover, it is a horrible conflict of interest for the NBA to reject a deal unless that deal is clearly lopsided--particularly when the NBA technically owns one of the teams involved in the deal. Stern has potentially disrupted the functioning of not only the Hornets (who now have a very disgruntled Paul on their roster) but also the Lakers and Rockets, who now have to welcome back players they just tried to ship out.
The extremely ironic sidebar to this situation is that, while I agree with Gilbert's theoretical objection about big market teams trying to corner the market on elite players, I disagree with Gilbert's apparent belief that the specific deal in question is lopsided in favor of the Lakers. While the Lakers certainly need to upgrade the point guard position (something that I have been saying for years, much to the chagrin of Lakers' fans/Derek Fisher lovers), two quality big men is a steep price to pay for a small point guard who has been somewhat brittle in recent years. Gilbert seems to think that this deal would have paved the way for the Lakers to also acquire Dwight Howard; if that were true, then the Lakers would indeed be in great shape with a Bryant-Howard-Paul trio but with Gasol and Odom out of the picture it is unlikely that the Lakers could have persuaded Orlando to part with Howard. An aging Bryant paired with a brittle Paul and an even more brittle Andrew Bynum hardly looks like a sure-fire championship nucleus; Bryant and Paul could perhaps have carried a team to a title three years ago or perhaps could do so now if they (and Bynum) stayed healthy but what the Lakers really need to do to make a last run at a Bryant-led title while also laying the groundwork to contend as Bryant declines is to acquire Howard in exchange for Bynum and Gasol or (preferably) Bynum and Odom.
However, the actual skill set evaluation of the proposed Chris Paul trade is going to be largely ignored because of the serious implications of how the trade was cancelled. I wonder how many casual NBA fans even realized that the NBA has owned the Hornets for the past year, let alone thought about all of the potential ramifications of this: not only is it a bad idea for a league to own a team but the fact that for more than a year the NBA has searched in vain for a suitable owner tends to reinforce the contention that the league did in fact have a broken business model under the terms of the old CBA. Sure, it might be easy to find someone who wants to buy an NBA team in Philadelphia (or to move a team to Brooklyn) but who wants to buy one in New Orleans? New Orleans is home to a championship team under the NFL's business model but under the NBA's old business model it hardly attracted much interest among prospective NBA owners. It cannot be emphasized enough that the San Antonio Spurs--considered a small market team in NBA parlance even though San Antonio is hardly a small city--lost money in recent seasons even though they have won four titles in the past dozen years and are considered to be a model franchise. The NBA has some deep seated problems with its business model that the new CBA tentatively addresses but the Chris Paul trade/non-trade fiasco could potentially not only overshadow those issues but perhaps even scuttle the tenuous peace agreement between the owners and the players.
The NBA may be back but it is hardly in good shape: the compressed 66 game season is going to be tough to watch--featuring a lot of out of shape and/or fatigued players--and whatever happens on the court is likely to attract less attention than the off court dramas surrounding Howard and Paul.
Lakers Face Crossroads After Being Swept by Mavericks
The Dallas Mavericks swept the Lakers out of the second round of the playoffs with a 122-86 victory marked by great Dallas teamwork, a stunning lack of effort by nearly every Laker not named Kobe Bryant and two cheap shots by Laker players--the second of which ranks among the dirtiest plays seen in the NBA in quite some time. The stunning end to the Lakers' "three-peat" quest will no doubt inspire a lot of commentary devoid of logic and context; this article is a preemptive strike intended to provide some much needed perspective about the era that just ended and about what the future holds for the Lakers. I am not in any way slighting the Mavericks by focusing on the Lakers; the Mavericks have the opportunity to write their own championship ending in the next six weeks, so the story of their season (and the story of the Dirk Nowitzki era) cannot be completely told until after their playoff run is over.
**********
Evaluating the 2008-2010 Lakers
There will most likely be a lot of overheated rhetoric about how the Lakers' loss supposedly tarnishes Kobe Bryant's legacy (interestingly, that kind of argument has yet to be heard regarding Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker in the wake of the San Antonio Spurs' first round loss to the eighth seeded Memphis Grizzlies). The Lakers' "failure" this season has to be put in the larger context of what they accomplished from 2008-2010 and the nearly unprecedented nature of what they were trying to do this season; during that period of time the Western Conference has arguably been as strong as either conference has ever been but the Lakers finished with the best record three years in a row, backed up that regular season success by advancing to the NBA Finals each time and won two championships after losing in the 2008 Finals to the Boston Celtics. The 2008 Celtics were anchored by three future Hall of Famers and were one of the greatest defensive teams ever. The Lakers avenged the 2008 loss by defeating the Celtics in an epic seven game NBA Finals in 2010.
The 2011 Lakers were trying to advance to the NBA Finals for the fourth straight season, a feat that has only been accomplished by three teams: the 1984-87 Celtics, the 1982-85 Lakers and the 1959-66 Celtics. If the Lakers had won the 2011 championship then they would have been the only team other than Bill Russell's Celtics to advance to at least four straight Finals and win at least three championships (the Jordan-Pippen Bulls "three-peated" twice, the O'Neal-Bryant Lakers "three-peated" once and the Mikan Lakers "three-peated" once but none of those teams also made it to four straight Finals).
Think for just a moment about the facts in the preceding paragraph: the Lakers were trying to do something that has only been achieved by the greatest dynasties in the history of the sport! Then think about this for a moment: Russell's Celtics were loaded with other Hall of Famers (including Top 50 players Bob Cousy, John Havlicek, Sam Jones and Bill Sharman), the 1980's Celtics had three Top 50 players (Larry Bird, Kevin McHale and Robert Parish) plus another Hall of Famer (Dennis Johnson) and the 1980's Lakers had three Top 50 players (Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Magic Johnson and James Worthy). Each of those dynasties brought current or former All-Stars off of the bench during at least some of those seasons.
Some people try to fool the public by saying that the current Lakers team is talented and/or deep but in 2009 I wrote a detailed refutation of both notions (the 2010 Lakers added some talent by essentially swapping Trevor Ariza for Ron Artest but that did not materially change the truth of what I asserted in 2009); the 2009 and 2010 Lakers were among the least talented and least deep champions of the past two decades and they were not even close to being as talented or deep as the Russell Celtics, Bird Celtics or Johnson Lakers: while the latter three teams had multiple Hall of Famers/Top 50 players, the current Lakers have one player of that caliber (Kobe Bryant), one All-Star who had not won a single playoff game prior to joining the Lakers (Pau Gasol), a solid sixth man who often had to start (Lamar Odom), a talented but raw young center with chronically bad knees (Andrew Bynum) and a collection of role players (Artest made his only All-Star appearance seven years and three teams ago and thus can hardly be compared to the perennial All-Stars who played alongside Russell, Bird and Johnson).
Much has been made of the Lakers' vaunted size but the reality is that Gasol, Bynum and Odom were hardly ever on the court together at the same time and Bynum was a hobbled 20 mpg role player during the playoffs in the Lakers' two championship seasons. Gasol, Bynum and Odom comprised a nice three man rotation of bigs but what really made them deadly was the fact that opposing teams had to send multiple defenders at Bryant, enabling those bigs to play one on one in the post and/or have free lanes to crash the offensive boards.
In order to really understand the evolution of the Lakers' roster and what made the Lakers tick from 2008-10 it is useful to think back to the 2006 and 2007 seasons; Kobe Bryant set various scoring records while twice carrying the Lakers to the playoffs with Kwame Brown as the starting center, Smush Parker as the starting point guard and Luke Walton as the starting small forward. Brown never started a playoff game before or since that time, Parker has been out of the league for several years and Walton has become a seldom-used reserve. Bryant arguably did more with less in those seasons than just about any other superstar in NBA history and it was clearly evident that if the Lakers could surround him with even a semi-adequate supporting cast then they would once again be championship contenders.
During those years, no one thought of Gasol as an elite player; Gasol made the All-Star team in 2006--his only All-Star selection in the first seven years of his career--but after his Memphis teams were repeatedly swept in the first round of the playoffs Memphis' management realized that it would not be possible to build a legit contender around Gasol so they decided to trade him and rebuild. Meanwhile, the 2008 Lakers reacquired Derek Fisher to take Parker's spot, inserted Bynum into the starting lineup and started out 25-11. When Bynum got hurt the Lakers realized that if they could replace him with a big man who could walk and chew gum at the same time (i.e., not Brown) they could make some noise in the playoffs; their short term need provided a perfect match with Memphis' long term need, so the Lakers sent Kwame Brown, Marc Gasol and other considerations to the Grizzlies in exchange for Pau Gasol. Many people reacted as if the Lakers had pulled off the heist of the century but, as I wrote right after the Lakers-Grizzlies trade, "All that can be said at the moment is that this is the right kind of move for Memphis to make, because there was no future for the team the way it was composed prior to this deal. In an odd way, there is a slight similarity between what Memphis is doing now and what the Lakers did with Shaq several years ago; the Grizzlies are getting rid of their best player and taking a short term step backwards with the hope of being better off long term, while the Lakers are shedding some youth in order to make a championship run now. Two obvious differences are that Gasol is not nearly as good now as Shaq was in 2004 and the talent that the Lakers acquired as a result of the Shaq trade (which, after several deals, has crystallized, essentially, as Bynum, Odom and Gasol) should give the Lakers a multiple year window in which to try to win titles, while the Heat narrowly escaped with one championship before the bottom fell out." My assessment proved to be quite prophetic as the Lakers enjoyed a nice three year run with Pau Gasol while the Grizzlies rebuilt their squad and may actually advance farther in the playoffs this season than the Lakers did.
Pau Gasol has never been a dominant player or an especially tough player but he is intelligent and he has a multi-faceted skill set; a screen-roll play featuring him and Bryant can be lethal because the opposing team must trap Bryant, thus enabling Gasol to roll to the hoop, spot up or catch a pass from Bryant and quickly swing the ball to a wide open player on the weak side. The Lakers did not need for Gasol to carry a huge load as a franchise player but merely to be a legit second option, thus relegating Odom to his proper role as the third option. Although some teams struggle after making significant moves, the 2008 Lakers bonded quickly as Bryant and Gasol instantly formed a very good on-court chemistry. The Lakers rolled all the way to the NBA Finals, where a bigger, tougher, more talented and deeper Celtics team took them out in six games.
Statistically, Gasol was essentially the same player in L.A. that he had been in Memphis except for two differences: his field goal percentage and his offensive rebounding both increased in L.A., a direct result of the openings created for him when opposing teams trapped Bryant.
With Gasol on board Bryant no longer had to score at a record setting pace during the regular season but in order to advance in the playoffs the Lakers needed for Bryant to play at roughly the level that Michael Jordan performed at during the Bulls' second "three-peat"; I provided an indepth analysis of this subject in my June 24, 2010 article titled Placing Kobe Bryant's Career in Historical Context but the shorthand confirmation of that assessment is a simple comparison of Jordan's playoff numbers from 1996-98 with Bryant's playoff numbers from 2008-10:
Here are Jordan's playoff averages from 1996-98 when the Bulls won three championships:
Here are some other important stats/facts about Bryant's 2008-10 playoff productivity:
1) Bryant averaged at least 40.1 mpg in each of those postseasons. 2) Bryant scored at least 30 points in 12 of the Lakers' 21 playoff games in 2008, 15 of their 23 playoff games in 2009 and 14 of their 23 playoff games in 2010. 3) Bryant set an NBA record by scoring at least 30 points in eight straight potential road closeout games (the previous record of six was held by Elgin Baylor). 4) In addition to carrying the aforementioned scoring load despite facing constant double and triple teams, Bryant also led the Lakers in assists and played a major role defensively, alternating between being a lockdown one on one defender in some matchups and being a roaming help defender in other matchups (Boston Coach Doc Rivers asserted that Bryant is the best help defender since Scottie Pippen). 5) Bryant accomplished these feats despite multiple finger injuries (including an avulsion fracture to the index finger on his shooting hand) and a 2010 right knee injury that ultimately required surgical correction after the playoffs.
Two things should be quite obvious:
1) Kobe Bryant carried a huge load during the 2008-10 playoffs. 2) Kobe Bryant's 2008-10 accomplishments plus his contributions to the 2000-02 championship teams, his 2008 regular season MVP, his two scoring titles and his numerous All-NBA and All-Defensive Team selections mean that his legacy is very secure regardless of what happens during the rest of his career; he can add to his legacy by winning more championships but his legacy will not be diminished if he fails to win another title.
When thinking about Bryant's legacy it is useful to consider that LeBron James is 26, has logged over 25,000 regular season minutes and has yet to win an NBA championship. Even if James' Heat win the 2011 championship they will have to capture four more titles in a row--something that has only been accomplished by Russell's Celtics--just for James to tie Bryant with five rings; otherwise, James will have to win some rings well past the age of 30 in order to match Bryant's total, a task that may not be so easy for a player who is very dependent on size, speed and strength but whose midrange game and footwork are not nearly as good as Bryant's. Bryant won two championships and made three straight Finals appearances with Pau Gasol, who was a one-time All-Star prior to joining the Lakers; James not only has his own Gasol (Chris Bosh) but he also is playing alongside Dwyane Wade, a perennial member of the All-NBA Team.
**********
The 2011 Lakers: Lack of Focus and Toughness Culminates in Missed Assignments, Flagrant Fouls and an Embarrassing Sweep
Bryant ranks 27th on the all-time regular season minutes played list (40,145). What does that mean? Here is what some other NBA legends were doing by the time they had logged that many career minutes: Michael Jordan was a 39 year old Wizard averaging 20 ppg in his final season, Julius Erving was a 34 year old All-Star averaging 20 ppg, Hakeem Olajuwon was an injury-prone role player averaging 10.3 ppg and Oscar Robertson was averaging 15.5 ppg in the second to last season of his career. Ageless wonder Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was still an All-NBA level performer well past the 40,000 minute mark but that just shows how remarkable (and underrated) he is; Larry Bird, Elgin Baylor and Magic Johnson each retired thousands of minutes shy of the 40,000 barrier.
Bryant also ranks second on the all-time playoff minutes played list (8165), trailing only Abdul-Jabbar (8851). It is remarkable--and nearly unprecedented--for any player, let alone a perimeter player, to still be an All-NBA First Team caliber performer after accumulating as much mileage as Bryant has. Bryant has transformed himself from a high flyer with a jump shot to a jump shooter who can still occasionally fly. Prior to the 2011 season, Bryant and Coach Phil Jackson agreed upon a minutes restriction plan to preserve Bryant's health and hopefully enable Bryant to peak at playoff time; Bryant had averaged between 36.1 and 41.5 mpg from 1999-2010 but in 2011 Bryant averaged just 33.9 mpg, nearly five mpg less than he averaged in 2010. Since Bryant played in all 82 games that amounted to saving more than 400 minutes of wear and tear--but it also meant sacrificing some regular season wins; Bryant used to say that he never worried about the Lakers' reserves playing poorly because if the situation got out of hand then he would just check himself back into the game but that was not the case in 2011: when the Lakers' reserves blew leads or allowed deficits to grow in the fourth quarter Bryant stayed on the bench. Bryant also rarely practiced with the team, another concession to age that had a domino effect on the team; Bryant is a notoriously intense practice player but it became evident that without him setting the tone the Lakers' practices lacked a certain edge and that soon spilled over into how they played during games.
Jackson and Bryant hoped/believed that during the playoffs they would be able to unleash a rested, healthy Bryant but that did not really turn out to be the case; Bryant severely sprained his left ankle in March and then he reaggravated that injury in game four of the Lakers' first round series versus New Orleans. Bryant averaged at least 10 FTA/g during each of his three peak seasons and he settled in at around 7 FTA/g from 2009-2011 but he averaged fewer than 5 FTA/g in the Lakers' final six playoff games this season after attempting at least seven free throws in each of the first four games. Bryant averaged at least 5.2 rpg in each of the past five postseasons but in 2011 he averaged just 3.4 rpg, including games with 2, 1 and 0 rebounds after reinjuring his ankle. I don't know how seriously Bryant's ankle is injured--Bryant only talks about injuries when he is directly asked about them and he refused to have an MRI done on his ankle during the playoffs--but it is obvious from both a visual and statistical standpoint that he was not the same player after game four versus New Orleans; during the 2008-10 Finals runs Bryant played like Jordan circa 1996-98 but in the 2011 playoffs Bryant was "merely" an All-Star caliber player (22.8 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 3.3 apg). Ironically, the reduction of Bryant from Superman to just a very good player proved the validity of everything that I have been saying about Bryant's importance to the Lakers and the Lakers' lack of talent/depth; during previous playoff runs when the Lakers got into trouble Bryant uncorked a 35-40 point game and/or locked down any perimeter player who was hurting the Lakers. Bryant nullified traps by either scoring over them or picking them apart with pinpoint passes. Bryant still attracted double teams during the 2011 playoffs but he could not power through them, he could not stay on the court for 40-plus minutes to buttress the team's weak bench (he played more than 40 minutes just once in 10 postseason games after doing so 15 times in 23 postseason games in 2010) and he could not consistently produce the scoring barrages that simultaneously boosted his team's confidence while demoralizing the opposing team.
Logically, the slack should have been picked up by the highly touted frontcourt of Gasol, Bynum and Odom but that did not happen. Bynum had some good moments but he completely disappeared in game one and game four versus Dallas. Odom was very inconsistent and shot poorly from the field (.459) and from three point range (.200). However, the biggest disappointment by far was Gasol, who some people were foolishly touting as a league MVP candidate just a few months ago; instead of stepping up to become a legit number one option, Gasol completely melted down, shooting just .420 from the field, becoming invisible defensively and committing numerous gaffes at both ends of the court. In 10 playoff games Gasol never exceeded 17 points and he only reached double figures in rebounds three times; Lakers' fans are now painfully aware of exactly why the Memphis Grizzlies decided that it is not possible to build a championship team around Gasol.
Everything came to a head in game four versus Dallas. Bryant scored 13 points on 6-8 field goal shooting in the first quarter, repeatedly nailing midrange jumpers, but the other Lakers combined to shoot 2-11 from the field. I don't know if anyone said "1,2,3, Cancun" on the Lakers' sideline but--other than Bryant--the Lakers' body language and production spoke very loudly and very clearly about their mindset. Despite Bryant's efficient scoring outburst the Lakers trailed 27-23 after the first 12 minutes and you could already see the writing on the wall: as soon as Bryant cooled off (or took a rest) the game would clearly get out of hand.
In the always entertaining--but rarely informative--post-first quarter interview, ABC's Heather Cox asked Coach Phil Jackson "What did you tell him (Kobe Bryant) you need from him today?" Jackson answered, "I don't have to tell him anything. He knows what he has to do." Then she asked Jackson what Jackson had just said to Lamar Odom on the sideline and Jackson replied, "Lamar's getting confused with their matchup zone. He just has to move the ball. He's trying to dribble with it at the top of the floor."
Odom and the rest of the Lakers remained confused on offense but their defensive effort and execution were even worse as the Mavericks outscored the Lakers 36-16 in the second quarter to effectively end the game by halftime. The Mavericks aggressively trapped Bryant and dared any other Laker to shoot. The notion that Bryant took the Lakers out of rhythm by shooting too much is absurd; no Laker other than Bryant displayed the willingness or ability to generate any kind of offense. Bryant did not have the necessary burst to explode past the double team to score but he made the correct passes that led to wide open shots for Gasol and other Lakers; Gasol and company either misfired or hesitated to shoot for so long that the Mavericks could easily recover. After his hot start, Bryant shot 1-10 from the field in the final three quarters but still finished as the Lakers' high scorer with 17 points.
The only thing uglier than the final score was the way that Odom and Bynum completely lost their composure in the fourth quarter; Odom received a flagrant two foul (and an automatic ejection) for hitting Dirk Nowitzki with a cheap shot elbow to the midsection and then Bynum got a flagrant two foul for smashing his forearm into an airborne J.J. Barea's ribcage, a reckless act that could have seriously injured Barea. TNT's Chris Webber made two excellent points about the cheap shots delivered by Odom and Bynum: (1) It is easy to seem tough/act tough (in previous seasons) when Kobe Bryant is bailing you out by making big plays and hitting tough shots; (2) if the NBA does not respond forcefully to Bynum's foul--a particularly vicious and dangerous blow--then the league runs the risk that game four of any series in which a team is losing 3-0 could devolve into a procession of head-hunting by the team that is about to get swept.
Phil Jackson clearly reached his wit's end with this team; Jackson has long been a vocal exponent of positive coaching--the very antithesis of someone like Bobby Knight, who used to rant and rave on the sidelines--but the softness and lack of focus exhibited by Gasol incited Jackson to literally strike out at Gasol twice during timeouts in game three of the Dallas series. Jackson--like John Wooden and most other members of the coaching pantheon--knows that most of a coach's job is done during practice and that is why Jackson's default demeanor on the sidelines usually was very calm no matter what was happening on the court; if a coach prepares his team properly then there is no reason for him to get overly excited during the game. Jackson's reaction to Gasol in the Dallas series is a powerful indictment of just how poorly Gasol played.
After the game, Jackson and Bryant shook hands with Dallas owner Mark Cuban, Dallas Coach Rick Carlisle and several Dallas players; Jackson's teams have always lost with dignity--I am thinking in particular of the 1994 Bulls who stayed on court to congratulate the Knicks after a very hard fought series--so it must have been very disturbing to Jackson that Bynum and Odom acted so disgracefully in Jackson's final game as a coach.
**********
The Future of the Lakers
If you understand how the Lakers achieved the success that they did from 2008-2010 and you understand what went wrong in 2011 then you can only draw one conclusion: the Lakers as presently constituted are not likely to qualify for the playoffs in 2011-12. If you think that statement sounds crazy then consider the reality that since 2008 the eighth seeded team in the West has won 50, 48, 50 and 46 games; four of the Lakers' five starters started all 82 games in 2010-11, with Odom filling in for Bynum when Bynum was hurt, and the Lakers ended up with 57 wins. If the Lakers keep the current roster intact it is highly likely that they will not enjoy similar health at the top of their rotation and it is also highly likely that Bryant's minutes will have to be further reduced as a concession to all of the mileage that he has accumulated; every minute that Bryant is not on the court is a minute that must be filled by one of the Lakers' ineffective bench players.
The Lakers clearly cannot expect Gasol to eventually become the team's number one option nor is it a good idea to hand that role to Bynum, a player who has yet to make it through an entire season while playing starter's minutes. Artest provides almost nothing on offense and his focus on defense wavers at times; without Jackson on the bench Artest may revert back to being completely uncoachable.
Derek Fisher has been a consummate professional throughout his long NBA career and at one time he was both a tenacious defender and a dangerous clutch shooter. Now, though, he is quite simply the worst starting point guard on any of the 16 playoff teams--and he would not even receive any minutes at all if he were on the Dallas roster competing for playing time against Jason Kidd, Jason Terry and J.J. Barea. The Lakers brought in Steve Blake to serve as Fisher's backup and to be the primary defender against quick point guards but Blake had a very disappointing season, as did free agent acquisition Matt Barnes; the Mavericks' reserves obliterated the Lakers' bench, a group that consists of Odom (who starts nearly half the time due to Bynum's chronic injury problems), Shannon Brown (who rarely saw any action when he was a member of a legitimately deep team, the 2007 and 2008 Cavs), Blake, Barnes and a bunch of players (including former starter Walton) who collected cobwebs sitting uselessly next to Jackson.
Magic Johnson has received some heat for publicly saying prior to game three of the Dallas series that the Lakers must blow up the roster and that no one should be safe except for Bryant. The Lakers must get younger, deeper and more athletic. Historically, the Lakers have always responded in times of crisis by acquiring the best available big man: they nabbed Wilt Chamberlain in 1968, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in 1975, Shaquille O'Neal in 1996 and Pau Gasol (who really should not be mentioned with those other guys but was a serviceable second option for three-plus years) in 2008. The obvious, logical solution for the Lakers is to find a way to acquire Dwight Howard but that may turn out to be easier said than done; the Lakers are way over the salary cap and it is not clear what the new CBA will look like. If Howard decides to stay in Orlando or if the Lakers are not able to trade for Howard due to changes in the CBA then their fans may be in for a season that will make the game four meltdown against Dallas feel like a picnic: optimistically pencil Bryant in for 22-23 ppg in 30 mpg next season, factor in the team's obvious lack of chemistry, consider the number of rising teams in the West, do the math and without an infusion of talent on the roster it adds up to less than 50 wins--which does not equal a playoff berth in the West; the Kobe Bryant who worked miracles in 2006-07 and who carried a good team to great heights in 2008-10 will only be appearing at the Staples Center in highlights played on the video screen above the court.
If you believe the headlines and the soundbites, the two-time defending NBA champions L.A. Lakers have been in perpetual decline for several seasons; it seems like every year around this time we hear all the reasons that the Lakers cannot win the championship--and then by the time June rolls around the Lakers are back in the NBA Finals. Obviously, the Lakers will not make it to the Finals indefinitely, so one of these years the naysayers will be able to smirk and say, "I told you so." Kobe Bryant responded curtly to the newest spate of critiques: "People that criticize, they can all kiss my ass. I don't give a s---. I really don't. I keep the train moving. We're gonna keep on moving and in June, they'll say nothing."
Most of the people who are doubting the Lakers are not even worth listening to, let alone answering, but Jerry West's recent remarks should not be cavalierly dismissed; the Hall of Fame guard/member of the Lakers' 1972 championship team said that the Lakers are old and slow, that they do not consistently play good defense because they are no longer capable of doing so and that the Lakers' run as an elite team is nearing the end. I am not sure why those comments, delivered at a luncheon of car dealers, created such an uproar; unlike the Mike Wilbon/Bill Simmons/Henry Abbott form of basketball "analysis" that consists of little more than mindlessly saying that Kobe Bryant shooting too much/not being a great clutch player is the Lakers' primary problem, West's blunt assessment rings true in many ways. Here is my take on each of West's assertions:
1) The Lakers are old: By the time the 2011 NBA Finals end, the Lakers' primary starters this season will be 36 years old (Derek Fisher), 32 years old (Kobe Bryant), 31 years old (Lamar Odom), 31 years old (Ron Artest) and 30 years old (Pau Gasol); Andrew Bynum, the only other Laker who has started any games this season, will be 23 but apparently his knees are aging in dog years. Bynum and Shannon Brown (25 years old) are the only players younger than 30 who are currently part of the Lakers' nine man rotation.
2) The Lakers are slow: Without testing the team individually and/or collectively in a sprint, this is a subjective statement but watching the Lakers lumber/labor down the court in transition defense hardly conjures up thoughts of Usain Bolt. As Jeff Van Gundy often says, horses trot, players run; in his taxonomy, the Lakers often look like donkeys that are suffering from arthritis in their legs.
3) The Lakers do not consistently play good defense because they are no longer capable of doing so: By the numbers, the Lakers are a very good defensive team; they rank a solid 11th (out of 30 teams) in points allowed and they are among the elite teams in rebounding differential (third) and defensive field goal percentage (fourth). However, West is quite correct that the Lakers are very inconsistent defensively, both from game to game and also from quarter to quarter within games. West clearly believes that this is a result of the aging process impacting the Lakers' ability to play intense defense on a consistent basis and he may be right; we will not know the answer for sure until after the playoffs but one factor that will be in the Lakers' favor during the postseason is the extra days off between games: even if the Lakers are a bit old and fatigued they will have more recuperation time during the postseason.
4) The Lakers' run as an elite team is nearing the end: This is almost certainly true. The Lakers have already made it to the NBA Finals for three straight years, winning back to back titles. The last team to make it to four straight Finals was the 1984-87 Boston Celtics, who alternated victories with defeats in those seasons; the 1982-85 Lakers overlapped that Celtics run by sandwiching two championships around back to back defeats. The only other NBA teams to make it to the Finals for at least four straight seasons are the 1957-66 Celtics, who won nine championships during those years (including eight straight from 1959-66). Yes, that's right--while some fools are crunching meaningless numbers regarding how many times Kobe Bryant shoots the ball they have missed the larger story: Bryant's Lakers are attempting to make their fourth straight Finals appearance, something that has only previously been accomplished by Larry Bird's Celtics, Magic Johnson's Lakers and Bill Russell's Celtics. It will be remarkable if Bryant and the Lakers pull this off but it certainly will not be easy to do so--and even if the Lakers win a third consecutive title while making their fourth straight championship round appearance the road to the 2012 Finals will be exponentially more difficult: Coach Phil Jackson has committed to retiring after this season, 13 years after his "Last Dance" in Chicago and seven years after his first retirement from the Lakers; although Jackson came back twice before, his age (and, just as significantly, Kobe Bryant's age) makes it very unlikely that Jackson will grace an NBA sideline after this season concludes. Based on both historical factors and on an objective evaluation of the Lakers' current roster, this season will probably be the last season as an elite team for the Lakers as currently constructed: to stay at the top they will have to bring in an excellent coach to replace Jackson and they will also have to retool the roster, adding more speed and more players who can create shots for themselves and others.
What does all of this mean? Simple: it is foolish to write off the Lakers as championship contenders this season--they still are, at worst, one of the top four or five teams in the league and unless Bryant's body completely falls apart in the next six months they will be very difficult to beat four times in seven games this spring. However, if the Lakers win the 2011 championship that will likely represent the crowning, final achievement for this unit before major changes are made.
Indiana Jones once famously lamented, "It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage." Kobe Bryant is 31 years old and he keeps himself in great condition but he has already logged over 39,000 regular season minutes in 1070 games, plus an additional 7811 minutes in 198 playoff games; West retired at 35 after playing 36,571 regular season minutes in 932 games, while by the time Michael Jordan had played 39,000 regular season minutes he was a 39 year old Washington Wizard. Bryant has admitted that his right knee--which was surgically repaired last summer, the third time he has undergone such a procedure on that joint--is already essentially bone on bone; as a concession to that condition and to try to prevent injury, Coach Jackson minimized Bryant's practice time and he has slashed Bryant's minutes this season to just 33.5 mpg, Bryant's lowest average since his second season in the league and more than five mpg fewer than he averaged last season. It is evident that without Bryant logging full practice time the team has lost some of its sharpness and intensity but I assume that during the stretch run Bryant's activity level will be ramped up to some degree in the practice sessions. Remarkably, despite that extra half a quarter of rest per game, Bryant has nearly maintained his other per game averages, which means that his per minute productivity has increased; he is playing some of the most efficient basketball of his career: his overall field goal percentage (.465) is the fourth best of his career, his assists per minute average is his second best ever and his rebounds per minute average is his fifth best ever. On the downside, his steals rate is down and his turnover rate is up. Overall, though, Bryant is playing at a very high level--MVP caliber in fact, though his name seemingly is no longer mentioned when that award is discussed (LeBron James is still the best, most productive regular season player in the league, but Bryant is a more legitimate MVP candidate than just about anyone else right now). Part of the reason that the Lakers have slipped a bit in the standings compared to previous seasons (besides the fact that the Spurs have been incredibly good) is that the drawback of keeping Bryant fresh and rested is that this comes at the cost of losing some games that the Lakers likely would have won if Bryant had played 38-40 minutes like he did in the past; presumably, Bryant's minutes will go up during the playoffs and that will most likely cure (or at least mask) many of the team's other problems.
Sift through the hype and the reality is that not much has changed since a month ago when I wrote an article titled What is Wrong With the Lakers?:
Bryant is performing at a comparable level to the way he played the three previous seasons but his supporting cast is playing worse--so much worse, in fact, that Bryant has been unable to carry the Lakers to the finish line with the score close enough for him to attempt many game-winning shots, let alone nail half a dozen of them. Pau Gasol's productivity and efficiency have plunged after he initially started off the season playing as well as he ever had during his career. Gasol is a talented player but he seems to need to be incessantly pushed and prodded by Jackson and Bryant in order to play up to his full capabilities. Jackson wants Gasol to be a presence in the paint at both ends of the court but Gasol has a tendency to drift and play very passively. If Gasol wants more shot attempts then all he needs to do is to either post up aggressively or else set aggressive screens and then roll strongly to the hoop: in the first case he will often get one on one coverage because the defense is tilted to Bryant and in the second case he will often get a free run to the hoop because both defenders trap Bryant to make him give up the ball. It seems like Gasol goes through stretches when he wants to play without having to deal with a lot of physical contact but when Gasol does what he is supposed to do Bryant delivers him the ball on time and on target; I have seen many instances when Bryant encouraged Gasol to cut harder or take an open shot but I have never seen Bryant criticize Gasol for shooting too much. There is no reason to suggest that Bryant is intentionally hogging the ball or trying to diminish Gasol's role.
Bryant referenced the film "Black Swan" recently when describing the transformation he would like to see Gasol make: "It's against his nature. He's very white swan. I need him to be more black swan." As NBA TV analyst (and Hall of Fame post player) Kevin McHale recently explained, Gasol and the other Laker bigs must demand the ball by being active and aggressively posting up in the paint. McHale's fellow NBA TV analyst Chris Webber offered a more blunt take: "Very honestly, 90% of the people that play with Kobe are frontrunners. When you are a frontrunner that means you will be lackadaisical in the game." Lakers General Manager Mitch Kupchak has publicly said that if the team does not play better he may make a trade; Webber translated what that message means: Bryant is the only untradeable Laker, so the other Lakers who were "mere mortals" (Webber's words) prior to joining the team need to get their acts together. That may sound harsh but it is true: even Gasol, who is clearly the team's second best player, was just a one-time All-Star who had never won a single playoff game before he hooked his caboose to the Kobe Bryant gravy train. No one--not general managers, not coaches, not TV analysts, not beat writers, not fan bloggers--called Gasol an "elite" player until he settled into a comfortable role as the Lakers' second option. I seriously doubt that the Lakers would trade Gasol but Webber's point is valid: instead of standing around watching Bryant play hard and then complaining afterward about not getting enough shots, Bryant's teammates need to play with a lot more intensity and toughness at both ends of the court.
Epilogue: Snapshots from the Lakers' last two games
The Lakers lost 109-96 to the Boston Celtics on Sunday and then bounced back to beat the Houston Rockets 114-106 in overtime on Tuesday. Several plays from those games provide meaningful glimpses into what is going on with the Lakers right now but before we examine those plays here is a quote from an article that I wrote after game one of the 2008 NBA Finals (Kobe Bryant's Missed Shots and the Torrent of "Psycho-Basketball Analysis" That They Unleashed): "Kobe Bryant's shot selection is subject to a play by play microscopic evaluation that I have never seen applied to any other player of his status; literally every time he shoots--or doesn't shoot--someone questions his judgment and motivations, alternately suggesting that he is either forcing the issue or else playing too passively in order to allegedly make some kind of point. All great scorers are expected to shoot the ball 20-plus times a game and shots that would rightly be termed 'forced' if someone else took them are not forces if they are shots that the great player has a reasonable chance of making or if the shot clock is winding down and there are no other good options left."
The relevance of that quote now is that Bryant scored 41 points on 16-29 field goal shooting versus the Celtics yet if you only watched the highlight shows and/or read the articles by certain misinformed writers you would assume that the Lakers' primary problem was that Bryant selfishly shot the Lakers out of the game. I am a student of basketball history and I am straining to think of an example of another player who had such an efficient game and yet received such disproportionate blame for a loss. It is interesting that game analysts Mark Jackson and Jeff Van Gundy had a much different (and more honest) take; I often wonder if Jackson and Van Gundy ever talk about basketball with Mike Wilbon and, if so, how those conversations go.
Much has been made of the fact that Bryant did not log a single assist versus Boston; apparently, there are a lot of people who do not understand that (1) in order to get an assist the recipient of the pass must make a shot and (2) assists are, at best, a semi-bogus stat. Here is a sampling of some of the Lakers' offensive possessions versus Boston:
1) Bryant feeds Lamar Odom the ball in the paint but Odom hesitates to shoot despite being at point blank range.
2) Ron Artest conducts a dribbling exhibition before passing to Andrew Bynum in the post. Bynum then passes to Bryant well outside the three point line for what I call a "hand grenade" shot--i.e., the shot clock is about to expire so the recipient of the pass has to get rid of the ball before it "explodes" in his hand. Thanks to tentative post players like Gasol, Odom and Bynum, Bryant may very well lead the league in "hand grenades" (I distinguish "hand grenade" shots from the kind of low percentage shots that players like Gilbert Arenas and J.R. Smith fire by choice after wasting time dribbling aimlessly)--and those "hand grenades" increase Bryant's field goal attempt total while decreasing his assist total.
3) Bryant feeds a wide open Shannon Brown for a three pointer that was such a brick I thought it might shatter the backboard.
4) Gasol catches the ball at the elbow versus Kendrick Perkins and settles for a jump shot that barely grazes the rim instead of using his length and mobility to create a better shot.
5) Gasol catches the ball on the left block and shoots a fadeaway jumper over the much shorter Glen Davis, again barely grazing the rim. After Gasol misses, Mark Jackson declares, "If I'm Kobe Bryant I'd shoot more. After watching that last post move by Pau Gasol against Glen 'Big Baby' Davis--that's a soft move. If I'm Kobe Bryant, I'm thinking, 'Get me the basketball and we're running offense through me.'" Bryant scored 11 points on 5-10 field goal shooting in the final 6:58 of the game but the Celtics pulled away thanks to horrible defense by the Laker bigs, who Jackson and Van Gundy lambasted for playing softly on offense and for trotting back on defense while the Celtic bigs sprinted past them for layups. As Bryant went on his scoring binge, Van Gundy noted that it is difficult to beat great teams with isolation plays; Mark Jackson agreed but said that through three-plus quarters the Lakers had already proven that they could not win the other way by feeding their "soft" big men so Bryant trying to take over was the team's last, best hope. Van Gundy conceded that Jackson was right about that and added, "I always feel like they can go to Bryant pick and rolls and get great shots every time because you have to double team the ball." I have said for years that the Lakers' deadliest offensive option is the Bryant-Gasol screen/roll action but it is most effective when Gasol sets solid screens and rolls to the hoop with authority; versus Boston, Gasol often acts like there is an electric fence sealing him off from the paint, particularly if Perkins is involved in the play. Mark Jackson concluded that the Celtics are very confident that they can beat the Lakers in a seven game series because the Laker bigs look like they don't want to play against the Celtic bigs.
The Lakers also had some inexplicable breakdowns in their perimeter defense; everyone knows that Rajon Rondo is a pass first player with a suspect jumper, yet Shannon Brown went over a screen while guarding Rondo (instead of going under the screen, protecting the paint and daring Rondo to shoot a jumper), starting a chain reaction that led to a Celtics score. During the ensuing timeout, both Bryant and Coach Jackson went up to Brown and repeatedly said, with great emphasis, "Under, under."
No discussion of this game is complete without mentioning Odom's play at the end of the first half, an action that defies rational explanation: Odom fouled Davis at halfcourt just before the buzzer, giving away three free throw attempts. Odom would not even look Bryant in the eye after this gaffe and Bryant, sensing that Odom was probably suffering enough, tried to make light of the situation (at least publicly), joking that Odom's foul should make ESPN's next list of "Not Top 10 Plays."
*****
The Lakers jumped out to an early lead versus the Rockets as Bryant spoonfed several of his teammates for layups or wide open jumpers--he had seven of his game-high 11 assists in the first quarter--but the Rockets eventually recovered from a 12 point deficit (including a six point margin with just 2:05 left in the fourth quarter) to force overtime thanks to some mindboggling defensive lapses by the Lakers that resulted in layups on inbounds plays. The Lakers ultimately needed a game-high 32 points from Bryant on 13-25 shooting in 45 minutes of play in order to barely squeak past a sub-.500 Houston team. Gasol and Odom were much more effective than they had been versus the Celtics but no one is going to confuse Houston's hardworking but undersized frontcourt with Boston's talented and deep rotation of bigs.
During the pregame, halftime and postgame shows, McHale and Webber kept emphasizing that the Laker bigs must energetically run the floor and aggressively fight for post position. McHale said that the only way to prove whether Bryant shoots a lot because he has to or simply because his teammates are not carrying their weight is for the big guys to camp out in the paint until they get the ball--if Bryant does not pass to them then there will be a three second call. Bryant has been the Lakers' leading playmaker for the better part of the past decade and he is all but begging Gasol to get into the post so it is exceedingly unlikely that Bryant will not pass Gasol the ball if Gasol aggressively posts up.
Bynum is the Lakers' most aggressive big--at least offensively--but he hurt his knee versus Boston and thus sat out the Houston game. We have been hearing for years how valuable Bynum is and/or could be but in his first five full seasons he played all 82 games just once, in 2006-07, and since that time he has missed between 17 and 47 games a year. He did not play at all in the 2008 playoffs, was largely a bystander in the 2009 playoffs and was dragging his injured leg around for most of the 2010 playoffs. Bynum's size is certainly useful but the reality is that he has spent most of his career either out of the lineup or trying to get in good enough shape to be effective for more than short bursts. The Lakers should not be planning on him being anything more than a role player once again during the 2011 postseason.
Odom has never made the All-Star team in his 12 year career but some people have been touting him as a potential reserve this season (the reserves will be announced later today). Odom had a great game versus Houston (20 points, 20 rebounds) and he is shooting a career-high .566 from the field this season but his overall numbers (15.4 ppg, 9.6 rpg) are in line with his career averages (14.7 ppg, 9.0 rpg) and he is his team's third option; since Odom never made the All-Star team before with those numbers--even when the Lakers had the best record in the West--it is hard to understand, from a general standpoint, why he should make the All-Star team this season. More specifically, how could one justify selecting Odom over the league's leading rebounder (Kevin Love), a rookie who is putting up scoring/rebounding numbers that have not been posted by a first year player since Shaquille O'Neal (Blake Griffin) and a legit MVP candidate from one of the West's top teams (Dirk Nowitzki)? Pau Gasol is clearly more productive and valuable than Odom, so if the Lakers are going to have a second All-Star then Gasol should get the nod. For that matter, even though his individual numbers are down (in large part because his minutes have been reduced), Tim Duncan is the defensive anchor for the team that has the best record in the league by far and a very good case could be made that Duncan is more worthy of All-Star honors this season than Odom. The coaches select just two forwards, two guards, one center and two wild cards, so I will be surprised if they choose Odom over the players listed above, particularly since at least one of the wild card slots will probably be used to deal with the glut of top notch point guards. Odom's only chance is probably if the coaches bend the rules and put Gasol and Duncan at center but even if that happens I still suspect that Odom will be left out.
Kevin Durant Leads the Way as Team USA Wins FIBA World Championship for First Time Since 1994
FIBA World Championship MVP Kevin Durant capped off a spectacular tournament with a game-high 28 points plus five rebounds to carry Team USA to an 81-64 gold medal game victory over Turkey. Durant set Team USA FIBA World Championship records for points in a tournament (205) and scoring average (22.8 ppg) while shooting .556 from the field (including .456 from three point range) and .912 from the free throw line. In Team USA's 89-74 semifinal win versus Lithuania, Durant set a Team USA single game FIBA World Championship record with 38 points. The seemingly effortless way that Durant scored at will throughout this event was remarkable to watch and was reminiscent of how Brazilian legend Oskar Schmidt poured in points in FIBA play during his prime years.
Team USA can win the gold medal if they play smart and tenacious defense, force turnovers and score a lot of points in transition--but even if this team plays the best basketball that they are capable of playing they will probably have at least one or two close games; it should not surprise anyone if Team USA fails to win the FIBA World Championship.
Team USA followed the above prescription en route to posting a 9-0 record in the tournament but--as I expected--they had to survive a couple close games: they slipped by Brazil 70-68 in the third game of the preliminary round after the Brazilians missed a potentially tying shot at the buzzer and they trailed as late as midway through the second quarter in the quarterfinal game versus Russia before prevailing 89-79.
Team USA's defensive execution was inconsistent during the early part of the tournament but they used their depth, their athleticism and Durant's scoring punch to get victories. They hit their collective stride defensively in the elimination portion of the event but even at that stage I think that depth was an underrated factor in their success; while Durant was far and away the best player on Team USA, the other main players in the rotation were largely interchangeable (at least in terms of their overall impact in a FIBA setting): opposing teams could often hang with Team USA in the early going but when both teams went to their benches Team USA experienced little or no drop off while the opposing teams became significantly less effective.
Players are listed in order of minutes played because that statistic provides a hint about Coach Mike Krzyzewski's evaluation...It should go without saying--but I'll say it anyway--that it is not meaningful to compare a player's numbers in 40 minute games played under FIBA rules with his numbers in 48 minute games played under NBA rules...
The grades listed below represent how well a particular player filled his respective role on the team; obviously, some players had bigger roles than others, so a bench player's "B" does not mean the same thing as a starter's "B." Production when games were close is given a heavier weight than production that took place after the victories were already well in hand.
Using those same standards, here are my grades for the 2010 version of Team USA:
Kevin Durant (28.2 mpg, 22.8 ppg, 6.1 rpg, 1.8 apg, 13 steals, six blocked shots)
Durant led Team USA in scoring, three point field goal percentage and free throw percentage, he ranked second in both rebounding and steals and he tied for second in blocked shots. No opposing player had the right combination of foot speed and length to be able to guard him effectively; the only method that has a chance versus Durant is to play him very physically (a la Ron Artest in the first round of the 2010 NBA playoffs) and it is surprising that Team USA's opponents did not try that approach more consistently: frankly, while it is true that Durant made some very impressive one on one moves, it is stunning how often Team USA's opponents left Durant open for face up jumpers--particularly since Eric Gordon was the only other regular member of the rotation who was consistently making jump shots.
"Mr. Big Shot" looked like "Mr. Brick Shot" for much of this event: his .391 overall field goal percentage was the worst on the team and he fired up the second most three point attempts despite shooting just .318 (seventh on the team) from long range--and FIBA's "long range" (20 feet, six inches) is actually a midrange NBA jumper. As an All-Star and former NBA Finals MVP, Billups was supposed to be a stabilizing force for his younger, less experienced teammates but instead he seemed to be channeling the shot selection of his NBA teammate J.R. Smith; Billups attempted more than twice as many three pointers as two pointers, a ratio only approximated by Eric Gordon--but Gordon was this team's version of Vinnie "Microwave" Johnson off of the bench (particularly against weaker opponents), while Billups was misfiring from all angles regardless of how closely he was being guarded or how much time remained on the shot clock. Billups scored 19 points on 5-7 three point field goal shooting versus overmatched Angola but he had just four points and missed all five of his field goal attempts in the gold medal game versus Turkey. In the semifinal game versus Lithuania, Billups scored three points on 1-5 three point field goal shooting. Billups scored 15 points on 4-8 three point field goal shooting in the quarterfinal game versus Russia. One out of three may get you into the Baseball Hall of Fame but one good game out of three in the final stanza of this event when you are supposed to be one of the team's leaders is hardly impressive.
Billups ranked second on the team in scoring and assists, he had the best assist/turnover ratio among the team's primary ballhandlers and he played solid defense against bigger, slower opponents (though he struggled versus quick guards); those are the reasons that he started every game and played relatively heavy minutes but he was not nearly as efficient as he should have been as a scorer.
Grade: "B-/C+"
Derrick Rose (23.1 mpg, 7.2 ppg, 2.1 rpg, 3.2 apg, 10 steals, three blocked shots)
Rose led the team in assists but after playing very well in the first four games of the preliminary round he slumped in the next four games, culminating in a scoreless performance versus Lithuania during which he played just 12 minutes and was benched for the entire fourth quarter. He struggled to make outside shots and could not find his way to the hoop as consistently or as effectively as Russell Westbrook did.
Grade: "C-"
Lamar Odom (22.0 mpg, 7.1 ppg, 7.7 rpg, .4 apg, five steals, six blocked shots)
As I predicted in my preview article, Odom led Team USA in rebounding. Despite all of the talk about Odom's versatility, the reality is that the one skill set area in which he is significantly above average is rebounding. He is an erratic shooter (and therefore an inconsistent scorer) and his ballhandling decisions are at times questionable (leading to offensive fouls or other turnovers) but there is no doubt that he is a very good rebounder and he did yeoman's work for Team USA despite playing out of position as the starting center. One of Odom's best contributions to Team USA is that he attempted just four three pointers, making three of them; he is not a great outside shooter, so he showed good judgment with his shot selection.
ESPN's Fran Fraschilla heaped praise on Odom throughout the tournament, particularly during the final two games. There is no question that Odom played very well versus Lithuania (13 points, 10 rebounds) and Turkey (15 points, 11 rebounds); in those games he not only did excellent work on the boards but he emerged as the second scoring option behind Durant, connecting on drives, putbacks and cuts to the hoop. However, his 28 points in those two games nearly matches his scoring output in the first six games (36 points). Odom only had four total assists, though it must be noted that he made some outstanding outlet passes that fueled fastbreak scoring opportunities.
Odom is an excellent complementary player because he understands and accepts his role, something that proved to be as true when he played for Team USA as it is when he plays for the Lakers.
Grade: "B+"
Russell Westbrook (19.4 mpg, 9.1 ppg, 2.8 rpg, 2.6 apg, 12 steals, four blocked shots)
Westbrook ranked third on the team in scoring, assists and steals despite not starting a single game. There were extended stretches when he was Team USA's most effective guard. In contrast to Billups, Westbrook did not pad his stats against Angola but he scored in double figures in each of the final three games, though his two point field goal percentage versus Russia and Turkey was not great. Westbrook drew Fraschilla's ire sometimes for missing dunks or attempting flashy plays but overall he had a very positive impact off of the bench, providing a change of pace (literally and figuratively) that opposing teams could not match.
Grade: "B+"
Andre Iguodala (18.8 mpg, 5.7 ppg, 4.6 rpg, 1.9 apg, 16 steals, zero blocked shots)
Iguodala started every game at small forward and he emerged as the team's designated defensive stopper on the perimeter. Like Odom, he wisely limited his three point attempts (seven, making just two of them) and he pretty much restricted his shot attempts to dunks and layups. He led the team in steals and ranked fourth in rebounding. Iguodala is used to dominating the ball as an NBA player but he adjusted very well to being a complementary player for Team USA.
Grade: "B+"
Eric Gordon (17.6 mpg, 8.6 ppg, 1.6 rpg, .6 apg, eight steals, two blocked shots)
Gordon's main role on this team was to hit open jumpers, particularly from three point range, and he did an excellent job, ranking fourth on the team in scoring, second in three pointers made and second in three point shooting percentage despite not starting a game and ranking just seventh in minutes played. However, Gordon did most of his damage versus Tunisia (21 points) and Angola (17 points) while making very minimal contributions in the final three games, scoring six, three and zero points against Russia, Lithuania and Turkey respectively. He did what he was asked to do but his lack of production versus the top teams in the most important games lowers his grade.
Gay is the kind of athletic, versatile forward who is perfectly suited for FIBA play and that is why in my preview I suggested that he could be an X factor for Team USA. He started out strongly with double figure scoring efforts in the first two preliminary round games but he did not score in double figures again except for the Angola game. Minutes were a bit hard to come by for him at times because he could not match Durant's scoring or Odom's rebounding.
Grade: "B-"
Stephen Curry (10.6 mpg, 4.6 ppg, 1.4 rpg, 2.1 apg, four steals, zero blocked shots)
I love watching Stephen Curry play and his father Dell Curry is one of my favorite non-superstar NBA players of all time--but it was quite predictable that Stephen Curry would have a small role for Team USA. As I have repeatedly stated in my articles about FIBA play, contrary to popular belief it is not necessary or desirable to stock Team USA's roster with players whose primary and/or exclusive skill is three point shooting; the FIBA three point shot is a midrange NBA shot anyway and it is much more important for Team USA's perimeter players to be able to defend and to be able to handle the ball against pressure than it is for them to be able to hit spot up shots.
Curry almost got whiplash a few times as he watched quicker guards drive around him and on other occasions he had some trouble defending screen/roll sets, either ending up out of position or switching on to a bigger player and getting abused in the post.
Again, I love watching Stephen Curry and I think that he has a great NBA future but Coach Krzyzewski's substitution patterns tell you all you need to know about Curry's role on this team: Curry played double figure minutes in the first game versus Croatia and in the blowout wins versus Iran, Tunisia and Angola but he did not play at all in the nailbiter versus Brazil and he logged just five, two and seven minutes respectively versus Russia, Lithuania and Turkey.
When the "experts" say that Team USA needs shooting specialists but Coach Krzyzewski wins gold medals while deadeye shooters like Michael Redd (in 2008) and Curry ride the bench except for garbage time are you going to believe the "experts" or are you going to believe Coach Krzyzewski?
Grade: "B-"
Kevin Love (8.8 mpg, 5.7 ppg, 4.9 rpg, .8 apg, three steals, one blocked shot)
Fraschilla repeatedly raved about Love but I never quite understood the fuss; before the tournament I predicted that Love would "put up impressive per minute statistics during garbage time" and that is exactly what he did. Although I was not correct that he would be the team's 12th man (he logged 11 more total minutes than Granger and played two more total minutes than Chandler), Love--like Curry--saw very little action against the top teams: Love played just five minutes versus Brazil, three minutes versus Russia, eight minutes versus Lithuania and one minute versus Turkey.
I like Love as an NBA player and I think that he will be a better pro than many people originally predicted but the prototypical FIBA big man is lithe and mobile (Chris Bosh, Kevin Durant, Lamar Odom, Rudy Gay), two words that do not accurately describe Love.
I am sure that "stat gurus" everywhere are salivating over Love's per minute numbers and wondering why he did not play 30 mpg but I'll trust my own eyes and Coach Krzyzewski's judgment over "advanced statistics" that are the product of Love's garbage time production against inferior opponents.
Grade: "A" (again, keep in mind that the grade is based on production relative to one's role, so this does not mean that I am equating Love with Durant)
Danny Granger (9.7 mpg, 4.1 ppg, .9 rpg, 1.0 apg, one steal, one blocked shot)
As I expected, Granger did not crack the regular rotation and most of his minutes came in garbage time--in two of the nine games he did not play at all. I don't see how to fairly give him any grade other than "incomplete."
Grade: "I"
Tyson Chandler (8.6 mpg, 2.6 ppg, 2.7 rpg, .4 apg, two steals, five blocked shots)
Chandler was probably the most disappointing player on the team. Despite being the only true center on the roster he not only failed to hold on to the starting center spot but he dropped out of the main rotation entirely as Coach Mike Krzyzewski elected to go predominantly with a "small" lineup--a strategic decision that I predicted in my preview article, though I still thought that Chandler would be part of the regular rotation.
Despite his limited minutes, Chandler tied for fourth on the team in fouls committed. He failed to provide much of a presence defensively or on the glass and, as usual, his offensive repertoire was largely restricted to point blank shots.
Grade: "D"
Final thoughts:
I analyze NBA games from an objective perspective, not as a partisan fan, but as an American I am happy that Jerry Colangelo, Coach Krzyzewski and a dedicated corps of players (the 2008 Olympians plus the current members of Team USA) have helped USA Basketball earn respect not only by winning gold medals but by doing things the right way on and off the court. Basketball was invented in America, so it was embarrassing to go a decade and a half without winning the sport's world championship, but the exemplary way that this team conducted itself en route to the gold medal wipes out the horrible memories of the desultory performances of previous editions of Team USA (with the nadir being the sixth place finish in the 2002 FIBA World Championship held in Indianapolis, Indiana).
While I enjoyed watching this team play, it is hilarious to read/listen to much of the mainstream commentary about FIBA play in general and Team USA in particular; we are consistently told that in order to win in FIBA events you have to have big men and you have to have shooters, despite the fact that both of these contentions have repeatedly been refuted: Team USA's winning recipe consists of stingy defense--particularly versus screen/roll plays and versus opposing three point shooters--forcing turnovers and scoring in transition. Team USA's halfcourt offense will never be as smooth or sophisticated as the halfcourt offenses of the other elite FIBA teams, true back to the basket big men are not as valuable as versatile, mobile forwards who can face the basket offensively and guard multiple positions defensively and the ability to hit three point shots is not nearly as important as the ability to defend against opposing three point shooters; reread the preceding sentence and you will understand why Michael Redd and Carlos Boozer hardly played for the 2008 version of Team USA and why Stephen Curry and Tyson Chandler reprised those players' respective roles on the 2010 version of Team USA--but I have no doubt that prior to the 2012 Olympics we will once again hear "experts" declaring how important it is for Team USA to add shooting specialists and big men to the roster.
Team USA Faces Major Challenge in FIBA World Championship
The FIBA World Championship begins on August 28. This competition rarely receives much publicity in the United States but for many basketball-minded nations it is very important, equal to--if not even greater than--the Olympics in terms of prestige; American kids who play basketball dream of winning an NBA championship but kids in other countries dream of leading their homeland to the FIBA World Championship title.
The significance of this year's FIBA World Championship for Team USA is that the winner receives an automatic bid for the 2012 Olympics (Team USA captured the 2008 Olympic gold medal but the previous Olympic champion is not guaranteed a spot in the next Olympic games); if Team USA does not win the FIBA World Championship then the United States will have to qualify for the Olympics by playing in the 2011 FIBA Americas tournament and that could be a dicey proposition if the NBA endures a strike/lockout: during the 1998 lockout, the U.S. fielded a team of non-NBA players that worked very hard but only managed to win a bronze medal in the 1998 FIBA World Championship (after the lockout ended, Gary Payton, Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett and Tim Hardaway led Team USA to a 10-0 sweep in the 1999 FIBA Americas Tournament to qualify for the 2000 Olympics). It is extremely unlikely that a Team USA squad consisting entirely of non-NBA players could win the FIBA Americas Tournament in 2011, so if Team USA fails to win the FIBA World Championship and the NBA suffers the work stoppage that many people are anticipating then the United States may not send a basketball team to the 2012 Olympic Games for just the second time ever (the first time was when the U.S. boycotted the Moscow Olympics in 1980 to protest the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan).
Team USA sent the "A" team to the 2008 Olympics--including Kobe Bryant (the sport's best all-around player), 2000 Olympic gold medalist Jason Kidd (who has never lost a game in FIBA play), LeBron James (who subsequently won two NBA MVPs) and 2006 NBA Finals MVP Dwyane Wade--but for a variety of reasons none of the members of the so-called "Redeem Team" will be participating in this year's FIBA World Championship; this year's squad is headlined by Kevin Durant, who has never played for the national team before. Durant, Chauncey Billups, Danny Granger and Derrick Rose are the only members of the team who have ever been NBA All-Stars, while only Durant and Billups have made the All-NBA Team. Billups and Lamar Odom are the only Team USA players who have won an NBA championship. This year's team lacks star power, championship experience and FIBA experience.
Team USA has historically not fared well in this event, finishing first just three times in 15 FIBA World Championship appearances (in contrast, the U.S. men's national basketball team has captured 13 of a possible 17 Olympic gold medals); the last U.S. team to earn a FIBA World Championship gold medal was the 1994 squad (the so-called "Dream Team II") led by a star-studded cast including Shaquille O'Neal (18.0 ppg, 8.5 rpg), Reggie Miller (17.1 ppg, .526 3FG%), Dominique Wilkins (12.6 ppg) and Joe Dumars (12.6 ppg). After that came the lockout-depleted 1998 team that earned a bronze medal, the embarrassingly inept 2002 team that finished sixth despite enjoying homecourt advantage (in Indianapolis) and the 2006 team that settled for a bronze medal despite featuring some big name players (including LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, Carmelo Anthony, Chris Paul and Chris Bosh) who have been in the news for various reasons this summer.
In a September 4, 2007 article titled The Real Story Behind Team USA's Losses in Previous FIBA Events, I refuted some misconceptions about why the United States suffered humiliating defeats in the 2002 FIBA World Championship, the 2004 Olympics and the 2006 FIBA World Championship. The points that I made in that article are still relevant regarding Team USA's prospects this time around:
1) Most FIBA teams rely on the ability to drive to the hoop, draw in the defense and then kick the ball out to open three point shooters. In order to be successful, Team USA's guards must control dribble penetration. Also, Team USA's defense must be "on a string" when opposing teams run screen/roll actions, because otherwise their opponents will either shred Team USA with wide open layups or bombard them from three point range.
2) It is certainly a nice luxury for Team USA to shoot well from three point range but it is far more important to shut down opposing three point shooters without compromising the interior defense; this requires communication, discipline and hustle, because otherwise at least one player will be out of position and the whole defense will fall apart, something that was a recurring theme during Team USA's dreary performances in 2002, 2004 and 2006.
FIBA play is more physical than NBA play, particularly on the perimeter; expect to see opposing teams be very physical with Durant, who did not fare well in the first round of the 2010 NBA playoffs versus Ron Artest's bump and run defense. No FIBA team has an individual defender who is as skilled and as strong as Artest but the FIBA rules allow for a lot more contact than NBA rules do so it will not be easy for Durant to rack up 25-30 ppg while shooting a good percentage from the field and he likely will not be granted as many free throw attempts per game as he receives in the NBA.
Tyson Chandler is the only true center on the roster but I am not very concerned about Team USA being outrebounded or having a lot of trouble defending the post; Team USA is athletic enough to compete with anyone on the glass and the nature of the FIBA game (the wide lane and the general style of play) is such that it is very unlikely that opposing teams will just pound the ball into the low post. Team USA will certainly go "small" for a significant percentage of the time, putting Lamar Odom or another forward at the center spot.
NBA TV's Steve Smith declared that Odom is the second most important player on the team (behind only Durant) but, with all due respect to Smith's basketball acumen and Odom's skill set, if that turns out to be true then Team USA will settle for the bronze medal again. Derrick Rose has to be the team's second best player and he will have to be the go-to player in clutch situations if the opposing team smothers Durant. Rudy Gay may not be the third best NBA player on the roster but his size and athletic ability should enable him to have an impact from either forward spot; he could prove to be a real X-factor and should be one of the team's leading scorers after Durant. Chauncey Billups will likely be the other starting guard alongside Rose and the team will rely on him for calm, veteran leadership, rugged defense and timely three point shots. Odom's primary responsibility for Team USA will be the same as it is for the Lakers: rebounding. Odom may very well lead Team USA in that department. Other than that, Odom needs to monitor his shot selection (i.e., stop shooting three pointers and long jumpers) and cut down on his turnovers (he had a 6-3 turnover/assist ratio during the four game exhibition tour).
Andre Iguodala started all four exhibition games at small forward but he shot just .333 from the field and .125 from three point range, bringing back (bad) memories of Richard Jefferson's performance during the 2004 Olympics (Jefferson started all eight games despite shooting just .321 from the field and .261 from three point range). Iguodala should be a valuable player because he can score, pass and defend but it remains to be seen how well he will adjust to the FIBA game.
Eric Gordon's ability to both shoot and defend could earn him a key spot in the rotation but it will be difficult for him to supplant Billups or Rose; likewise, Russell Westbrook's athleticism could be valuable but there are only so many possible minutes at the guard spots (keep in mind that FIBA games last 40 minutes, not 48).
Stephen Curry will be this team's version of Michael Redd on the 2008 Olympic team: the dead-eye three point shooter who mainly gets in the game when--or, in this team's case, if--Team USA has a comfortable lead. Curry actually is a better all-around player than Redd, though, and his ability to play both guard positions could help him to carve out a slightly larger role than Redd had two years ago.
Danny Granger played sparingly during the exhibition tour and he struggled with his shot, so even though he has been an All-Star it will probably be difficult for him to move up the depth chart at this point.
Kevin Love is the designated 12th man, a rebounder/passer who will put up impressive per minute statistics during garbage time.
The nightmare scenario for Team USA (other than an injury or foul trouble sidelining Durant) is for an opponent to carve them up with screen/roll plays, hit a high percentage of three point shots and use physical defense to frustrate finesse wing players such as Durant and Gay. Team USA's players are mostly young and inexperienced and could get that "deer in the headlights" look if an opposing team hits them with a 10-0 run. Team USA lacks a lock down perimeter defender--a role that Bryant filled brilliantly in the 2008 Olympics--and does not have a defined go-to scorer other than Durant.
Team USA can win the gold medal if they play smart and tenacious defense, force turnovers and score a lot of points in transition--but even if this team plays the best basketball that they are capable of playing they will probably have at least one or two close games; it should not surprise anyone if Team USA fails to win the FIBA World Championship.
Amare Stoudemire, Lamar Odom's "Lucky Game" and What it Means to be a Superstar
After Lamar Odom had 19 points and 19 rebounds as his L.A. Lakers defeated the Phoenix Suns 128-107 in game one of the 2010 Western Conference Finals, the Suns' Amare Stoudemire dismissed Odom's effort as a "lucky game." The Lakers went on to win that series and eventually capture the 2010 NBA Championship but during a red carpet interview at the ESPYs Stoudemire stuck to his guns when an L.A. reporter asked him about that remark:
Starting around the 1:36 mark in the above video, Stoudemire said, "I was just being honest. That's all. But they played great; they did a great job during the season. Congratulations to those guys and Lamar personally for winning another championship. It is a great accomplishment."
"Lucky" literally means "occurring by chance." How unusual was it for Odom to tally 19 and 19 during a 2010 game? He averaged a career-low 10.8 ppg and 9.8 rpg while playing in all 82 regular season games, scoring 19 or more points just eight times; the most rebounds that he had in any of those games was 13 (his season high for rebounds was 22 and he had just one other game with at least 19 rebounds). In 23 playoff games, Odom averaged a career-low 9.7 ppg and 8.6 rpg; the 19-19 game was easily his most productive contest (during the postseason he had two 17 point games--both against Phoenix--plus a 15 rebound game versus Utah).
Stoudemire's comment may have been ungracious and it may have been an unwise thing to say in the midst of a playoff series but--from a literal standpoint--it was quite true: a 19-19 game by Odom is truly something that happened "by chance."
However, in a game of skill nothing really happens purely "by chance." The skill set based reason that Odom had a wide open path to the hoop for layups and rebounds is that the Suns had to double team Kobe Bryant--who still scored 40 points on 13-23 field goal shooting--and then rotate a defender to Pau Gasol, who took advantage of the Suns' scrambling defense to notch 21 points on 10-13 field goal shooting. The Suns managed to create the worst of all possible worlds from their perspective: they neither slowed down Bryant nor corralled Gasol and in the process of focusing on those players they let Odom run amok.
Although the numbers mentioned in the previous paragraphs provide a rough draft version of what happened, this game--meaning both game one of the Lakers-Suns series in particular and the game of basketball in general--can only be completely and deeply understood by actually observing the action with an educated eye. Bryant played with great force, aggression and energy and his actions manipulated the Phoenix defenders like chess pieces being moved around by a grandmaster: Bryant created open shots for himself and his teammates and the disruption left in his wake helped Odom to snare a game-high seven offensive rebounds. Bryant's value is expressed not merely by his statistics but also by the impact that his actions had on both his teammates and on his opponents.
Contrast Bryant's approach with the by now notoriously indifferent way that LeBron James played during Cleveland's series versus Boston, particularly in game two and game five. Many people who watched those games--from Cavaliers' owner Dan Gilbert to sportswriters to casual fans--say that James quit. That is a very incendiary charge to make--it is the worst accusation that one can make about an athlete other than saying that he intentionally threw a game (throwing a game means purposely trying to lose, while quitting is simply not trying while being indifferent to the outcome). A player's shooting percentage, good or bad, does not really tell us whether or not he quit: a player can try very hard but have an off night (think Ray Allen during the NBA Finals after he set the single-game record for three pointers made and suddenly could not hit the broad side of a barn with a medicine ball) and a player can drift through most of a contest but score some buckets in a flurry to pad his statistics.
The striking thing about James' performance versus Boston in games two and five is how lethargically he played; he rarely attacked the hoop, which means he put no pressure on Boston's defense. If James had been injured and out of the lineup entirely or if the team had had some idea that he would just quit in the middle off the series then the Cavs could have run some offensive sets involving other players--but how do you just take the ball out of the hands of the reigning two-time MVP? The other Cavs' players looked confused and hesitant, waiting for James to be aggressive.
Most of the published comparisons of James' supporting cast with Bryant's supporting cast have been nonsense. Yes, Bryant had the benefit of playing alongside one of the NBA's 15 best players, All-NBA Third Teamer Pau Gasol--but during the 2010 playoffs Bryant also played alongside a one-legged center, a small forward who never quite learned the team's offensive system, a point guard who was older and slower than the starting point guards on the other elite teams, a sixth man who was terribly inconsistent and a bench that was so unreliable that earlier in the season Coach Phil Jackson said that their performances made him feel like vomiting. James' supporting cast was not perfect but it included three players who have made the All-Star team as recently as 2008 plus a fourth player who is a two-time All-Star; the Cavs' remarkable depth and balance enabled them to play "big" or "small" and to overcome injuries, trades and other disruptions en route to posting the league's best regular season record for the second year in a row.
People can crunch "advanced basketball statistics" as much as they want but the major difference between the Lakers and the Cavs during the 2010 playoffs is that Kobe Bryant played aggressively and thus maximized potential opportunities for himself and his teammates, while LeBron James literally acted as if he could not wait for the season to be over so he could rip off his Cavaliers' jersey and head for (what he presumes to be) greener pastures. The phrase "making one's teammates better" is a cliched, imprecise way of saying "Great players create openings and opportunities for their lesser talented teammates to do what they do well"--and Odom's "lucky game" is a perfect example of this dynamic. If James had played with more aggressiveness then it is much more likely that one or more of his teammates would have had a "lucky game" versus Boston; that does not mean that James should be held entirely responsible if some of his teammates perform below their expected levels but it does mean that when the best player on the team stops trying hard it is logical to expect that the efforts and productivity of his teammates will be adversely affected.
"A work of art contains its verification in itself: artificial, strained concepts do not withstand the test of being turned into images; they fall to pieces, turn out to be sickly and pale, convince no one. Works which draw on truth and present it to us in live and concentrated form grip us, compellingly involve us, and no one ever, not even ages hence, will come forth to refute them."--Alexander Solzhenitsyn (Nobel Lecture)
"The most 'popular,' the most 'successful' writers among us (for a brief period, at least) are, 99 times out of a hundred, persons of mere effrontery--in a word, busy-bodies, toadies, quacks."--Edgar Allan Poe
"In chess what counts is what you know, not whom you know. It's the way life is supposed to be, democratic and just."--Grandmaster Larry Evans
"It's not nuclear physics. You always remember that. But if you write about sports long enough, you're constantly coming back to the point that something buoys people; something makes you feel better for having been there. Something of value is at work there...Something is hallowed here. I think that something is excellence."--Tom Callahan
