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.

Kobe In The Clutch, Part 2

In games 2 and 3, Kobe has had two missteps on crucial game-deciding possessions.

In game 2 he got blocked from behind by Hedo Turkoglu and gave Lee an opportunity for Orlando to win the game. He also passed on a wide open Ariza and Odom. He did get touch-fouled on the way up by Lewis if you watch replays, but that's a tough call for refs to make.

In game 3, he lost the ball to Pietrus with 28 seconds left trying to split a double team while down by 2. Ironically, this was almost the exact same way he lost the ball at the end of Game 2 in the Denver series , which eventually led to a jump ball the Lakers fumbled (including the JR Smith jump ball violation no-call). Kobe shouldn't be so risky at the end of games trying to split double teams if defenders are able to poke the ball away.

There are also many clutch plays he has made in the last minute, some of which are: The pass to Gasol for the And 1 in Game 2 in OT, the step back jumpers he hit in both regulation and OT (I believe one in each), and free throws down the stretch in both the first home games.

This is a short post just to balance the bias here. Kobe is good in the clutch, but he isn't perfect and can and should do better in the games to come. Turnovers in the clutch are one of the worst outcomes possible, because it denies even the worst of opportunities a chance. Getting blocked and having the ball stolen are much worse than getting off even a bad shot that doesn't go in.

J.A. Adande of ESPN wrote a good article about Kobe's recent "closing" efforts.

Kobe has earned this title of "best closer in the game", largely because people can't say "best player in the game" anymore like they have for the last 3 years when LeBron just won the MVP and most people think he is better than Kobe. While Kobe has stepped up for the most part this entire postseason in the clutch, the Finals are where clutch legends are made. Kobe needs to prove that he deserves the title of best closer, which he hasn't done so in the past two games.

Kobe in The Clutch

The site Bill Simmons (ESPN) referred to is this one:

http://www.82games.com/gamewinningshots.htm

Interesting, but it includes 04-07. And we all know the things Kobe tried to do in those years, especially at the end of games. Also, those stats don't account for the TS%, because some people may be taking more 3's than others, and some might be driving more often.

Simmons conveniently uses the 25% stat on game-winning shots for his clutch shooting....but we all know that it completely depends on what guidelines you are using. The reason why people pick Kobe is that he is the best in the game at creating his own shot and getting ridiculous shots off with a decent chance of making them, which is sometimes what you need with only a few ticks on the clock.

Also doesn't this: http://www.82games.com/0809/CSORT11.HTM

prove Simmons is just being selective? He's 45.7% in the clutch (last five minutes of a game) in a more broad, applicable definition, which is close to his regular shooting % anyway. When you account for some of the ridiculous heaves he makes, the percentage goes way up.

A further Kobe clutch exploration:

Right at the top of +/- with LBJ:

http://www.82games.com/0809/CSORT3.HTM

And he's 92% in the clutch from FT's and 40% from 3's. That 92% is ridiculous as the only relevant players ahead of him (stars that take more than a couple) are Nash and Allen, two of the best free throw shooters this game has seen.

(this site defines clutch as last 5 minutes of game, neither team ahead by 5 points).

Andrew Bynum

I think ardent Bynum supporters are irrationally coddling a player without the basketball acumen he needs that will not come with time. Footwork can be taught in part, but awkwardness can't be removed. He doesn't have a nose for rebounding, you can't learn how to. Writers continually mock his vertical, as he doesn't seem to have one, or doesn't use it. Please find me the last time a decent center got 1 rebound in 16 minutes of play.

I was reluctant with praise after Game 1 for the kid because I didn't get caught up in the 25-point win and wanted to dig deeper on the defense played on Howard. I gave as much credit as most of the media gave Bynum after Game 1 in terms of presence and patrolling the paint, just in more tempered terms, while recognizing that Pau had more to do with Howard's difficulties (2 offensive fouls). You didn't mention the things that Pau did and chose to defend Bynum when I wasn't attacking him, rather just downplaying his success which I thought was going overboard.

My analysis after Game 1 was that the media needs to relax about Howard's 1 field goal, because his game wasn't THAT bad when you looked at it closer. And in turn, the praise for Bynum reduces as we realize Howard did a little better than the media was portraying. That isn't reluctant, it's just prudent. To not get carried away with praise when he was the majority of the reason Howard got 16 free throws. Sure he played good D some plays, but he fouled a lot as well (which is what he is supposed to do).

He didn't earn that 12 and 15 stat line for Howard on his own at all, and I would argue he contributed to the 12 points from Game 1 more than either Gasol or Odom, because he committed more of the shooting fouls proportionally to the time he played Howard versus the other two.

In a per-minute analysis or a per-touch analysis for Howard, I will bet you that Odom and Gasol would fare better in points allowed, rebounds allowed, and fouls given to Howard in Game One and ridiculously so in Game Two.

He needs to make Howard work harder for his boards when he is on the court.

My criticism after Game 2 should be brutal. So should yours. 16 minutes, 5 points, 5 fouls, 1 rebound, 2-5. For a 7 footer who is due to earn 60+ million? I don't even have to say anything. The STAT LINE itself is brutal.

Excuses like youth, injury, and needing time to develop are bogus. If he wants to make demands through the media and criticize the most winningest coach of all-time, he should only do so if he is ready. If he isn't ready because of whatever reason, he should "just shut up".

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.

Kobe Bryant meets Roger Federer

Even though Kobe Bryant isn't in the Gillette ads with Tiger Woods and Derek Jeter like Roger Federer is, the comparisons between the two couldn't be clearer today. Federer captured his first ever French Open title, cementing his legacy by finally winning the Slam that has eluded him for so long. Before Sunday, he had lost to Rafael Nadal three straight years in the French final, while only managing to win a total of two sets. Federer brushed off the Roland Garros demons cursed unto him by the Matador of Spain by handling Robin Soderling convincingly in straight sets in the championship match.

Roger Federer has now won 14 Grand Slams, and at least 1 at every major Grand Slam event. He has tied Pete Sampras at 14, but has something that Sampras never achieved: a Career Grand Slam (winning all four major championships at least once). Most in the tennis world consider him the best of his era, if not the best of all-time. A younger, flashier, rising star in Rafael Nadal is clipping at its heels, having taken chunks out of Federer in the last few years. Federer has lost 8 times in the relevant years of his career after he matured into a dominant professional. 5 of those losses have come at the hands of Nadal in Grand Slam Finals. Their 2008 Wimbledon Final has been lauded as the greatest match ever played (which Nadal won).

You might ask why Kobe Bryant is even in the title of this article with so much about Roger Federer?

Because it's actually about both of them.

Federer had lost 3 straight French Open Finals, Kobe? 2 straight NBA Finals.

Kobe Bryant is looking to exorcise his demons from Finals past, by redeeming the Lakers of their loss to last years Celtics on the NBA's biggest stage. We can't forget 2004 either where his Lakers lost 4-1 embarrasingly at the hands of the up-and-coming Detroit Pistons in the Finals. Roger needed to win the French to cement his legacy and it seemed to be slipping away from him the last few years as Nadal became more and more dominant on clay. But Federer finally did it in 2009. Kobe needs to win this championship in 2009, without Shaquille O'Neal, no matter what he or the media will say, to finally cement his championships and legacy as legitimate. He won't be mentioned in the conversation as the greatest ever if he can't win one being the best player on his team. Federer needed the French to make the "greatest-ever" debate between him and Sampras a little easier.

Federer is unwillingly passing the torch to Nadal. Kobe? To LeBron James.

The younger, flashier nemesis? Watch any sports channel for about 5 minutes and you'll see his face about 13 times. He goes by simply "The King", or LeBron James. He's flashier, he's more outgoing, and he's right there. Most consider LeBron the best player in the game today, a title he snatched from Kobe who held it for about the same time as Federer held the No. 1 ATP Ranking. LeBron's rise is validated by the fact that he won the Most Valuable Player award this season. Most tennis pundits consider Nadal the best in the game today, validated by his No. 1 Ranking which he took away from Federer after a record 237 consecutive weeks for the Swiss.

Both need to silence the critics, but...

Sadly, because Federer didn't beat Nadal (who lost to the guy Federer beat in the Final), some don't consider this championship legitimate, contending that he must go through Nadal, the King of Clay, to truly cement his reputation. Kobe and the Lakers can't fully redeem themselves either as they never got a chance to go through the Celtics that thrashed them last year and brought Kobe to tears at the conclusion of last years' Finals. The Celtics suffered a knee injury to arguably their best player and never had a chance to make it to the Finals to face the Lakers. Ironically enough, Nadal was suffering from a knee injury as well.

But Kobe doesn't care, and neither did Federer.

Both have time catching up with them as they age, and can't rely on youth to get them by. Both have younger challengers to the throne of their respective sports. Both need to validate something this year. Both need to lay claim to their respective sports' title of the best-right-now. Both have legacies to build, cement, and protect. Federer did his part on Sunday, June 7th, 2009. Can Kobe do the same?

We'll know before the month is over.

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.