Lakers Repeat? In Terms of Other Contenders...

In order to judge a possible dynasty I feel like u have to look at the other contenders…

The Cavs upgraded with Shaq. The Lakers would have beaten the Cavs pretty easily in 2009 if they made it to the finals, this addition simply puts them in the discussion. But, now the Lakers got better as well (in terms of talent + guarding LBJ). The Cavs are somewhat of a threat, but if we re-sign LO and everyone is healthy we would beat them in a 7 game series.

The Spurs look to be more healthy and added young Richard Jefferson. We beat the spurs in 2008 but Ginobili was a bit injured. It was a close series, but we didn't have Bynum or Ariza. Now that we have Bynum and an upgrade with Artest, if the entire Spurs team can stay healthy, this is a pretty even matchup in my opinion with the Spurs' additions.

The Nuggets haven’t made any big changes yet…and if they don’t, they won’t be a real contender.

The Celtics won the title in '08, but they were pretty unconvincing in doing so, even against LA (except for game 6). They beat us without Bynum and Ariza, and i feel like if we had those pieces we would have been champions in '08. Regardless, they are back to '08 form with KG minus James Posey but with a new-and-improved rondo, plus a Rasheed Wallace. But, Bynum+Artest>>>Wallace, just isolating those pieces, it looks like we would be able to handle them like we didn’t do in 08, because we are MUCH better without the injuries in 08 and the Artest addition, and they are marginally better than the 2008 Celtics (remember the Big 3 are aging as well).

The Magic have lost Turkoglu, Gortat, and Lee, while they’ve added Vince. I think AT BEST they’ve stayed even, and we’ve improved with Artest after already beating them pretty easily in the '09 finals. I think the Lakers would handle them if things don’t change much.

All in all, I see the order of highest threat to repeat to lowest threat as:
Spurs, Celtics, Cavs, Magic, Nuggets.

The Celtics have a big time player coming back from injury + a new addition, but we didnt have 2 key players when we faced em in '08.

If the Spurs come back healthy and Jefferson is effective, they look scary, but again we beat them in '08 without Bynum and Ariza and now we’ve upgraded Ariza to Artest.

The net change from the 2008 matchup between the Lakers and Spurs becomes:

A healthy Ginobili (injured in '08) + Richard Jefferson VERSUS Bynum + Artest. I'd take Bynum and Artest in that matchup, but even if that is a wash, the Lakers still have the edge after winning in 2008 against the Spurs.

The drop-off after that in my opinion is pretty steep. The Cavs and the Magic are still one piece away.

All-in-all there is a good shot the Lakers can repeat if they stay healthy and driven, but look for other teams to make more moves from now till before the trade deadline in February.

Some NBA Preview E-Mail Thoughts

Nick:

Just wanted to know everyones thoughts on all the most recent free agent developments. Of course I'm most interested in Boston's signing of Rasheed and the likely signing of Big Baby by the Spurs. Hedo to the Raps and the Pistons signings are not as much of an issue in terms of turning them in to contenders in the short term. I think Rasheed is a great fit for the Celtics off the bench, a huge upgrade over Big Baby because while Big Baby can hit the midrange, Sheed can hit from just about anywhere on the floor. Big Baby to the Spurs by itself is not a huge deal but if the Spurs are healthy they have to be the favorites after the Lakers out of the West..a healthy big three, + the new blood of Richard Jefferson, DaJuan Blair, Jack McClinton (Eddie House style player out of Miami) and Big Baby is pretty scary. In light of all the movements I'm warming up to Artest more and more, the Lakers couldn't have just stood still during this off season. If we keep Odom, this could be an amazing team.
What do you guys think about the other teams moves?

Devinder:

Rasheed is 35 years old and the Celtics are betting on experience, which is crucial in the playoffs. This move is similar to the lakers moves to get gary peyton and karl Malone in the 2004 season. I think age will (has) caught up with the Celtics and the rigor of keeping up with Cleveland and Orlando in the rest will takes its toll on the 4 30 something stars that they have - RA,PP,KG and RW.

The lakers probably have a deal with lamar which will be announced on Wednesday and, with artest, they get a good defender, a good three point shooter as well as someone who will use some technicals to intimidate opponents. Phil coming back is a huge deal and he probably pushed for the artest trade.

If Portland had landed turkoglu that would have been a definite upgrade for them and I am glad he went to Toronto. The magic are weakened and, unless Dwight learns some other moves (and improves his free throw shooting) the magic will not make it back to the finals.

Shaq will disrupt lebron's game too much and Cleveland will regret getting him. At 37 shaq is too heavy to be effective on a consistent basis, expecially in 7 game series that are played over 14 days. He helps them against other big men but will not work out overall.

Finally the lakers (and kobe) have to play just as hungry and motivated this year as they did this past year. Kobe has to enforce. Bynum has to come out strong and consistent.

Prashant:

The Spurs biggest knock has been their age but they just got a huge upgrade with Richard Jefferson and if Big Baby or Shawn Marion go to the Spurs they look scary out West. They could match the Lakers in shooting for a 70-win season if everyone stays healthy.

Ginobili is a scoring beast and any team is going to have difficulties matching up with both him and Jefferson on the wing, as well as Duncan down low and a quick-as-hell Tony Parker.

Just looking at the Lakers, we are probably the only team in the league that can truly guard the Spurs' wings effectively with both Kobe/Artest, but we would still have trouble with Duncan and Parker.

I think the Lakers realized that they were good, but with Ginobili/Garnett/Nelson injured they did have an easier time than they would have. With that said, the path was easier but we still struggled at times, and the Artest upgrade merely matches the trades other teams have made and the teams that have people coming back from injury. We need one more piece in ADDITION to LO in my opinion to match all the improved and now-healthy teams out there.

That piece could be internal: Andrew Bynum being as dominant for a season as he is for certain stretches we have seen. It could be Farmar taking over the point from Fisher and flourishing. It could be Vujacic returning to 2008 form. But other than that, Kobe, Odom, and Gasol are basically playing the best they will play. I think the Lakers will make one more move before the trade deadline involving Odom/Morrison/Yue/Farmar/Vujacic/Walton and MAYBE, maybe, maybe even Bynum (even though he has been off-limits in the past) if they can convince themselves to part with him.

Sunday, July 5th Bullets

Sports:

• Andy Roddick's 2nd set tiebreak in the 2009 Wimbledon Final is probably going to haunt him the rest of his career. He was up 6-2 with a serve, lost the set point on a missed backhand volley that could have easily been a winner as Federer was stretched all the way to the right of the court. Federer held his 2 service points and Roddick lost on his serve again at 6-5 for set point. Then he lost his next service point and Federer won the tiebreak 8-6 on his serve. That set would have given him a 2-0 set lead and might have dampened Federer's resolve.
  
• The third set tiebreak was Federer's all the way, but you have to wonder about the "what if" in the 2nd set with the way Roddick was serving. Roddick wasn't broken until the last game of the entire match, and if he can hold through the 3rd or 4th set after winning the 2nd set, he's got a great shot at winning the 2009 Wimbledon. Really heart-breaking.
• Roger Federer seems a bit off when he talks after winning titles. He told Roddick not to feel bad after the tough loss because he went through the same thing in 2008 at Wimbledon with Nadal, and Roddick joked back that Federer had already won 5 at that point, but seemed genuinely upset by the comment. Federer is a humble guy, but not as humble sometimes as he could be. He talks about winning more grand slams and winning in straight sets and things like that which greats usually avoid doing. Most will just talk about how fortunate they are to win at all and don't touch on any of their confidence in facing opponents or winning again. The best way I can put it is that he talks about winning with "certainty", whereas other greats talk about "possibility".
  
• Tiger Woods competing in his own tournament seems a bit weird, but I guess when you're the best in the world you can do whatever you want. He does donate all his personal winnings to his charity foundation. Federer should have his own tennis tournament.
• The first day that NBA free agents can actually sign contracts is Wednesday. Look for any surprises with all the players who have "verbally committed" to teams including but not limited to: Turkoglu, Artest, Lamar Odom and Ariza. Players like Iverson, Kidd, Rasheed Wallace, Marbury, Johnson, Marion, and David Lee are still undeclared.

• It's weird to imagine that sports is really just a bunch of random happenings. When sports can be merely reduced to statistical probabilities it really takes the fun out of it: Some amazing thing happens only 5% of the time, and when it does happen we celebrate it and remember it and revel in it, but would we do as much if we knew it was just something that had a 1-in-20 chance of happening and just happened to occur?
  

Friday, July 3rd Bullets - Obama's Lose-Lose

Sports:

• The Lakers upgraded the 3 spot with Artest, Bynum at the 5 is looking for a strong return from 2 years of injury, and Kobe didn't go anywhere. But what about the point-guard position which was the most glaringly inconsistent of the 2009 Lakers?
• Shannon Brown is seemingly locked up for slightly over $1 million dollars in a qualifying offer. With all this trade talk involving the mid-level exception and qualifying offers and unrestricted/restricted free agents and sign-and-trades, it would be useful to read up on the NBA Salary Cap.
  
• Tiger Woods is looking poised at the tune-up Memorial to have a good shot at capturing the 2009 British Open next week, what would be his 15th major.

Politics:

• Palin resigns as Governor to "effect change outside of government". Sounds like something's up on her agenda, and I don't think it's about effecting change anywhere.
• People are criticizing Obama for taking a soft stance against the injustices in Iran, but what can he do? Using any sort of military force to hold a re-election or remove Ahmadinejad would bring up the memories of a mistaken Iraqi war to the general public, and not doing anything attracts the scorn of all conservative hard-liners AND liberals who want democracy for Iranian citizens. If he acts, most criticize, at least in the long-run, if he doesn't act, all criticize to some extent. Maybe this is how conservative war-hawks usually get their way, by constructing lose-lose situations...
• Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak announces his intent to liberalize the banking and investment in the country and free it from Malay-favorable ethnic quotas and other limiting reagents.

Economics:

• Asian countries have absorbed the blow of the worldwide recession much better than their western counterparts. This is due to the theory/concept of "decoupling" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoupling#Economics).
  
• The US economy doesn't seem to be going in any particular direction. 1 piece of good news is met by 2 pieces of bad quarterly profits, which is then followed by 2 reports of credit markets opening, and then one bad employment outlook. Obama's policies are still in the wait-and-see column; not successes yet, but not failures either.
• Come November 2010 Obama's policies are going to be a large part of either the Democratic platform if the economy recovers and his policies had some part in that, or the Republican platform if the economy is either 1) sluggish or 2) recovering but his policies had no part in that.
  

Kobe: From The Best, to Best Closer

Whenever a great player is mentioned, people like to have a catchphrase or nickname to go with. Most players will carry their nicknames on forever, and there are usually two types of nicknames for each player. One based on personality (this one usually lasts forever), and one that applies to their game while they are active, which they eventually pass on (think most dominant, best scorer, best rebounder, etc).

For Michael Jordan it is the "greatest of all-time". He was the best in the game when he was playing, and retained the all-time aspect when he retired, and has since kept it.

For Jerry West it is "Mr. Clutch" or "The Logo", and for Bill Russell it was "Most Dominant" when he was playing, and "Winning-est Center Of All-Time" after he was done.

For Shaq he was considered the "Most Dominant Player" in his prime, and "The Big Aristotle", one of many self-coined nicknames that will live on with his legacy.

Kobe Bryant, in creating his image and brand, had his people come up with "The Black Mamba" to describe his snake-like killer instinct personality.

Recently the vague title of "best closer in the game" has been bestowed upon the Black Mamba. It seems like this season, both regular and playoffs, every time Bryant is mentioned, there’s also a plug for how good of a closer he is. It is reaching a point of absurdity, as almost every article or talking head out there says it like they’re getting paid to do it with every mention of Bryant.

Don’t get me wrong. I do believe that Kobe Bryant is the best closer in the game. I also believe he is the best player right now. But it’s interesting that it has become basketball fact in such a short span of time. Not one major writer or talking head has disputed this "fact", and it’s very rare that you see an entire community of fans and media agree on something in professional sports.

I haven’t seen one media member question this title. It would probably be impossible to trace the beginnings of the spread of this well-accepted title, but the acceptance stems from the fact that most people want the ball in his hands at the end of a game.

But Kobe has been the best player in the NBA for a few years before this, so how come he only recently became synonymous with this "best closer" title?

I have a theory for why:

For the past three or so years most people recognized Kobe Bryant as the premier player in the NBA. He didn’t win the MVP award until the last of those years (2008), but poll upon poll in the last few years has shown that coaches, players, and general managers alike would take Kobe Bryant over any other player if starting a team. Those same polls also indicate that if there was one current player they wanted taking the last shot of a game, it was Mr. Bryant.

With the introduction of LeBron James this year as the new de facto "face" of the NBA, it is harder and harder for people to maintain that Bryant is almost unanimously the best player. In fact, most would select James for that title.

It used to go without saying that he was the best period, and the best at the end of games (closing). But now, there is a divide between those titles, with most people giving James the" best player" title, and Bryant the "best closer" title.

However the distinction is not so clear-cut. Many Kobe loyalists and analysts still believe that Kobe Bryant is the best player in the NBA. They cite his more refined game as an advantage over James, and his more established career as a backbone that James has yet to earn.

That is why you hear Bryant referred to as the best closer by the ABC commentators, ESPN talking heads, sports writers, and radio broadcasters. While the "best player" title is in dispute, the media have found another less controversial hyped-up title, which is seemingly important and weighty, to grant Bryant.

The odd thing is, I've never heard of this title existing on its own, it's usually just synonymous with the best player or the most dominant player. The title has been invented for Kobe Bryant, who presents a unique case now that LeBron has elevated his game.

The reasoning makes sense. Bryant is too good of a player to not have a title to go everywhere his name does. All great players before him have had titles to go with every mention of their name. Kobe now has his. It used to be simply the best, but now he’ll have to settle for best closer.

When he retires, he will recede back into the Black Mamba shell, just like all the greats before him who pass on their playing-day titles to the next generation. He has already passed on the "best player" title to LeBron in most people's eyes, and in a few years will probably relinquish the "best closer" title to somebody else.

But for now, he is Kobe Bryant AKA the Black Mamba. The best closer in the world.

No Rebounds, No Rings

The Lakers dodged a bullet in Game 2, as they were one Courtney Lee layup away from heading to Orlando for 3 games without homecourt.

Many things went wrong for the Lakers; offensive flow, shooting, foul trouble, turnovers, closing out, and missed calls.

But many things also went right. They did a good job on Howard by crashing in and poking the ball away numerous times for 7 turnovers on the day for D12. Even though he got his numbers he had to work for them.

The Lakers also played the pick and roll pretty well for most of the game, and didn't allow too much penetration. Out of 79 shot attempts for Orlando, 30 of them were behind the arc. The guards for Orlando were a miserable 6-26 shooting. Closing out on shooters quicker is one noticeable thing the Lakers need to improve on for Game 3, as Rashard Lewis kept Orlando in the game by getting hot in the 2nd quarter and carrying that throughout the game.

As for the Lakers' offense, Kobe had too many mental errors (7 turnovers). Also, their offense wasn't as fresh and flowy as it usually is. Kobe, Gasol, and Odom carried most of the scoring load, and the 3rd biggest shooter of the night was Ariza, who went 3-13 for 8 points. The Lakers need more from starters Ariza and Bynum, and the bench, which other than Odom only provided 4 measly points.

The Lakers had 12 steals and 12 turnovers, while the Magic had only 5 steals while amassing 20 turnovers. The Lakers won the defensive battle this time around (41.8% shooting for ORL, still below their average significantly).

The Lakers can do better on a few things, but the list for the Magic seems a little bit longer. There was one reason the Lakers didn't win comfortably like they did in Game 1: Rebounding.

The Magic outrebounded the Lakers by 9, a 23 rebound net swing from Game 1. They also won the offensive rebounding battle 10 to 4. 4 is a disappointing number of offensive rebounds for an entire game in itself (with overtime), let alone with two 7-footers on the court at multiple times in a game. Pau and Bynum had zero offensive rebounds combined, and Pau is usually a good offensive rebounder. He has to get after it more on the offensive glass. A difference of 6 offensive rebounds is 6 more possessions in addition to a huge momentum boost every new opportunity.

The most disappointing stat of all:

Bynum: 16 minutes, 1 rebound.

That kind of production isn't worth $14 million a year, especially when only coupled with as many fouls as points (5).

Game 2 was close as the Magic won the rebounding battle but the Lakers won the steals/turnovers battle, and that will change at home for Orlando. One of the main reasons the Lakers won by 25 in Game 1 is that the Lakers had a good rebounding effort (+14), but if they carry their rebounding from Game 2 on to Orlando, their winning ways might not continue if the Magic take better care of the ball with their expected energy and shooting bump at home.

Cautious Confidence for the Los Angeles Lakers

The Lakers have played three of their best 5 games of the playoffs in succession, which should give them confidence heading into game 2 (the other two IMO are Houston Game 5 win, Denver Game 6 win). However, members of Laker Nation, especially the ones outside Staples after Game 1, need to take a step back and consult the statistics and game trends before calling for the brooms.

The Lakers had over a 16% FG% differential over the Magic. The only other times in this postseason that kind of a differential has existed have been in games where one team shoots extremely well, like LA did in Game 6 against Denver shooting 57%. One team will shoot above 50% and another team will shoot near 40%. Shooting 30% is unheard of and the Magic will never come close to that again. The Lakers should take some confidence away from their defensive performance, because part of that 30% can be attributed to the Lakers defense. But, they amassed only 7 blocks, 1 less than the Magic did, so the numbers indicate that the Magic missed more than the Lakers made them miss.

Their offensive performance seemed stellar but they only shot a respectable 46%, and when you take away the garbage time from the 4th quarter the Lakers shot a hair over 50%, a far cry from the 57% they shot a game earlier. These statistics are skewed from the 4th quarter where the scrubs didn't play well at all and Kobe heaved up a bunch of shots just to get to 40 (for the first time in Finals), but they do tell a part of the story. Phil Jackson was asked in the postgame whether the Lakers can play better and he wavered around the question, but the truth is the Lakers can and will have to play better to beat a Magic team that even has an average shooting game.

If you up the Magic FG% to 40%, which is still low for an NBA team especially with a guy like Dwight who shoots over 60% usually, that equals 8 more made shots out of the 77 they took. If you assume 2 of those are 3's, that is 18 more points to add to their total. That makes this game look a lot closer than it really was. The media after the game would have you believe that the Lakers crushed the Magic in every way possible, but it might just come down to the Magic making shots post game 1 NBA Finals stage-fright.

A few individual points to note:

Pau Gasol had 8 rebounds in 37 minutes, and needs to do a better job rebounding. Lamar had 14 rebounds in 32, which accounts exactly for the 14 rebound difference in team totals. Early on in the 1st half the Magic seemed to be getting 2 or more looks on many occassions on offense, and when Gasol is out on the floor for 37 minutes he needs to make sure that happens less. Anything less than 10 rebounds means he isn't putting in the effort at 7 feet.

For as much as Bynum is getting lauded for a good defensive game, he only guarded Howard less than half the game (Lamar took a shot at him and Pau got the rest of the assignment). He collected four fouls and seemed to get discouraged when his offensive game was frustrating him (which is usually the case for players like him and Sasha in particular). The problem is, he was frustrated on offense, missing an easy layup and seeming to fumble the ball on multiple occasions. He finished 3-8 which is sub-par for a guy that is capable and has had games of 7-9 and 8-10 shooting.

Also, Howard struggled, but still went to the line 16 times, above his average for the regular season and the playoffs. Much is being made about him only making 1 field goal, but he still finished with 12 points and 15 rebounds. Most of the plays where he would have gotten layups or dunks we fouled him, so the 1-6 field goal line is a bit misleading. Without foul trouble Dwight would have had a 20/20 game.

While the Lakers did win by 25 points, cautious confidence, which Kobe emitted in full (if not in excess) during his postgame conference, should be the word around Staples before Game 2. Kobe Bryant was sensational in the 3rd quarter, and ended up having an average shooting night a little under 50%, but added 8 rebounds and assists a piece. After the game in a response to a philosophical question from a purple-and-gold clad wizard reporter, Kobe said "it's one game. It's no big deal. It's one game." Fans should adopt his face after the game, and share that focus.

Let's wait a few more games before we start calling for the brooms.