Donaghy

I was watching a replay of Game 6 of the 1991 Western Conference finals the other night, the game where Magic throws the ball away to try and drain the clock in the final seconds. Essentially, it was Magic’s last stand as Magic. Before HIV and the comebacks and the coaching. Sad, really when I think about it.

It was interesting though because late in the game, Portland’s Clyde Drexler is called for a couple of seriously cheap fouls. I had the sound down so I’m not sure, but I think Jake O’Donnell was one of the officials.

The history between O’Donnell and Drexler is well known. O’Donnell’s quick, two-tech hook of Clyde in a 1995 Western Conference final game pretty much cost him his job. He never worked another game. O’Donnell was also thought to hold a grudge with Buck Williams, one of Drexler’s teammates in both 1991 and 1995.

Many NBA fans assume referees have biases and hold grudges toward certain players. When I was younger, I would cringe when I heard Mike Mathis or Steve Fucking Javie (as my friends and I called him) was assigned a Laker playoff game. After New Jersey’s 1984 playoff series with Philadelphia, we referred to Jess Kersey, Kess Jersey because we felt he was favoring the Nets. Referee bias, whether it means superstars like Dwyane Wade getting all the calls or players like Allen Iverson getting none, has always been acknowledged as part of the game. Just ask the 1994 Chicago Bulls about Hue Hollins or Tim Duncan about Joey Crawford.

Over the past several days, former NBA ref Tim Donaghy has adamantly denied fixing games, saying he bet, for the most part, according to referee tendencies. The folks at TrueHoop and economist Joe Price have done a great job in debunking some of Donaghy’s claims (Price runs into the problem that which of three refs makes a call in a game is not quantifiable. Not even watching the game on tape can always reveal that.) But what exactly is the point in doing this? Is it to establish Donaghy as a liar? Is it to call into question whether or not he fixed games? Maybe, as Price postulates, Donaghy’s claim that betting on blowouts when Dick Bavetta is calling a game, does not make for a winning formula. Although to be clear, one can fix a game by not making calls as well. That's something I haven't heard anyone bring up, probably because it's nearly impossible to quantify non-calls.

But refuting Donaghy’s claims how he won money doesn’t erase the fact that he won. This has been established not just by Donaghy, but by his money source, James Battista. According to Battista and Donaghy, they won between 70-80 percent of the time. This, of course, is an incredible number for any professional gambler. And they weren’t the only ones. In a piece by ESPN’s Wayne Drehs, R.J. Bell, the president of Pregame.com, a sports betting info site, cited 10 straight games in 2007 that Donaghy refereed where the line moved by 1.5 points or more, a clear tipoff that a lot of money was being bet, and conceivably won.

The example of Donaghy is not necessarily proof that referee bias does exist, but the fact that he and Battista won money seems to prove the former did indeed fix games. Battista won't come out and say it. But he doesn't have to. When Battista states he won money only on the games Donaghy called and not as a result of Donaghy's theories on various refs, one can only draw one conclusion: The fix was in.

Quick thoughts

So I think Kevin Harlen was sick tonight? He sounded like his dog had just died.

Another loss from the Spurs. I'm sorry, I don't see them going on some big run. I know they have a ton of injuries. No TP or Manu (I think) again tonight. But they are old. Like Celtic old.

Things are looking better and better for the Lakes with Gasol back. It's early, but Cleveland and Boston have both looked a lot more vunerable than last year. I'll say it now without any inside info. This is LBJ's last year in the wine and gold. It' not going to end well.

I like it

Just got home and have read the news as final. The Lakes are landing Artest and Ariza is gone. I'm sad in a sense. Trevor brought a lot to the team. He was athletic. He hit big threes. He gave LA something they didn't have in other players. The Lakers have the personnel to play half court with anyone. Ariza was often a wild card for them with his hustle plays. That said, Trevor has gone from a journeyman to a key contributor on a championship team. But he is nowhere near as good as Ron Artest. In a way, TA is a victim of the economy. But the Lakers also played him in his free agency. Can he really improve to the level of Artest? I doubt it. And I doubt he'll be able to prove it in Houston which sports a similar player in Shane Battier. Artest brings toughness, rebounding, and defense. He's not a great shooter, but he's as good as TA and with fewer attempts I see his percentage improving. Moreover, Artest gives Kobe protection in the way Mo Lucas did for Bill Walton or Rodman did for Jordan. It might just extend KB's career. Yes, Ron Ron is nuts. He may well cost the Lakers a few games and lose some more to suspension. But PJ loves him and thinks he can coach him ala Rodman or Brian Williams. It would have been great to bag both RA and TA and the Lakers need to get more athletic (maybe Shannon Brown is resigned now?), but Mitch K has just assembled the best frontline in the league especially if Odom returns. Pau, Artest, Bynum, LO and throw in Kobe if you want at small forward. Wow, that's a lot of talent, a lot of rebounds, and a ton of versatility. If the Lakers can somehow shore up their PG situation I think they're hands on faves to return to the Finals. They need to get younger in spots but Mitch just made a power play to try and repeat next year and contend for a few more. If there's another GM who has made better moves in the last two years I don't know his name. The Ariza deal was a steal. Pau, ditto to the nth. I didn't like the three-point ability the Lakes gave up in the Vlad Rad deal but it brought them Shannon Brown and whatever AMO ends up being worth (throwaway expiring contract or reclamation project). Last night I couldn't sleep thinking TA was gone. He ends up signing for more years and more overall money, but in the end it might be just like Turiaf to the Warriors; a better paycheck but not necessarily a better career move. Tonight, I can't wait for next season. Win or lose it's going to be wild ride with Ron but one I think might end up being a marriage made in heaven.

Champs!

I thought the Lakers would win in six but I had a feeling about yesterday's game. They played so well in Game 1 that I figured they were due to play another good one. The fact that the Magic didn't capitalize on chances to win Games 2 and 4 obviously didn't bode well for them. Since Orlando is always fairly erratic they were equally due for a similar performance to Game 1. And that's what we got.

As I've said before, one great thing about the Lakers is they hardly ever get blown out. That's why the Rockets series was such a puzzlement. PJ admits that it puzzled him as well. The point is that even when they don't play great, they're still close in most games. This, and the fact they have the greatest player on the planet, allowed them to steal games like 2 and 4 and to almost win Game 3. Many people, including a reader, feel that the Lakers won only because Denver and Orlando played poorly. There's some truth to that. But no matter how bad LA plays they almost always in the hunt. This team maybe didn't dominate the way that the Shaq-Kobe Lakers did but, in the end, they knew how to win. Good or bad, playing to the level of your opponent means you play a lot of close games. The Lakers did this year and that, I think, turned out to be a huge help because by Game 5 of the Denver series, you could sense they were getting on a roll. There were some shaky moments but after that win their confidence remained pretty high.

As for the Magic, I think they probably went as far as they could. Even with Jameer Nelson at a hundred percent (and he was far from that in the series), this is a very flawed team. They live and die(d) with the jump shot and a young post player who needs to work on his game. (BTW, one of the funniest moments of the Finals was when Breen said his free throw form is good. Huh? You mean cus he keeps his elbow in or something. The guy has zero touch. He puts way too much spin on the ball without following through with his arm. He just kinda flings the thing up there with his wrist.)

But what might have cost the Magic the most was SVG. The fact that JVG hardly ever criticized him was a travesty. SVG made some huge coaching blunders in the playoffs. Talk all you want about how PJ wins because he has great players. How many times have you seen him fail on his inbounds pass coverage? Or not have the right guys on the floor? True, some of his early second quarter lineups left me scratching my head, but he didn't screw up his point guards by playing the backup at the expense of losing his starter's confidence. In fact, Phil rode Fish to the end and eventually (many Aaron Brooks layups later), it paid off big.

I like Van Gundy and I think his opinions are a breath of fresh air. When he was asked about a possible 20-year-old age requirement to play in the L, he ripped the NCAA as one of the worst organizations out there. Bravo. But his in-game coaching left a lot to be desired. Look at how many times the Magic lost at or near the buzzer. Once to Philly. Once to Boston (in Orlando). Once to Cleveland. And once to LA. That's four possible wins they left on the table and it wasn't all about execution. It was also about putting the right guys in the right place. As a coach, you can live with Paul Pierce giving up the rock and Big Baby beating you. But giving Iguodala and LBJ the chance to beat you is not good. Add to the fact that he didn't foul up three against the Lakes in Game 4 and he has just as much to answer for as the bone-headed plays Hedo and Howard made from time to time. But because the press likes him you might not hear much about it.

That being said, congratulations to the Lakers. I've had Chick Hearn's voice in my head all week. "The Lakers are the World Champions!"

Through 5

Great piece by Simmons on the refs on ESPN.com today. I agree with most of it. One exception was last night's game against the Nuggs. I thought it was the best officiated game of the series. Maybe that's because Game 4 was the worst, but with a few exceptions, I thought it was pretty fair. Were there a couple of bad calls on Nene? Yeah. Although his sixth could have been judged a block (and was) depending on the ref's angle. As it turned out, it was a bad call. Did Luke Walton foul out on a bunch of bad calls the game before? Sure. But you can chalk that up to home court to a certain sense. In a way, Game 5 was the first home game I thought the Lakers received more calls, got some home cooking. That happens. That's part of one's home court advantage.

But of all people, George Karl complained about last night's game while weasily saying he didn't want to complain. Specifically, he and Simmons mentioned all the times Melo got hacked. As if the Nuggets haven't been grabbing and clawing at the Lakers in the paint. Several times last night Kobe went to the rim and was unrewarded by the officials. That's ok by me. He gets too many calls to begin with. But the refs have treated Melo with kid gloves in every single game prior to last night. And he still took 13 foul shots. I know that's part of his MO. Be aggressive, drive to the hole, draw fouls but Game 5 was the fourth straight game where he shot double-digit free throws and two of those have been on the Lakers home court. And in Game 1, the only game he didn't shoot at least ten FTs (he had 8 in a game where he was 14-20 from the field), the Nuggets went to the line 35 times to the Lakers 24. Add in the terrible no call on JR Smith's jump ball violation in Game 2 and I'd say Denver has had it pretty good in this series. If anybody has been given calls it's them. If Chauncey Billups runs into you and falls down it's always a call. His four-point play against Kobe in Game 3 was an awful call.

As LO pointed out this was probably the Lakers best game of the playoffs. And it wasn't because Kobe and Pau dominated and the offense flowed. It was beacuse they scrapped and played D at the rim. They put in the effort and it paid off. One more effort like that and they'll be playing for the title.

Still, one thing scares me about the officiating and that's this 7 techs equals a suspension rule. It's a horrible rule and it just might cost either Kobe or Dwight Howard a game down the line. I can't speak to how dumb the league would look if one of their marquee guys couldn't suit up for an NBA Finals game because he had too many techs in the playoffs. About as dumb as they looked in the Phoenix-SA series two years ago. People want to see the stars and teams at full strength. I don't know why Denver doesn't have Jason Hart enter the game and try and mug Kobe and get him mad. Thankfully, the L rescinded Howard's sixth T after Varejao tackled him on the way to the basket and I think the league will do everything it can not to let one of these two superstars miss a game. But you never know. Just ask Amare.

Bullish on Bryant, not on Billups

After Sunday's escape I like the Lakers against the Nuggs. As I've said before, the playoffs are about matchups and against Denver the Lakers win almost every one. I'll take the Lakers in six and the Cavs in seven. I think Cleveland finally gets a test.

What I like about the Lakes boils down to their bigs (assuming they come to play) and Kobe. Bryant had a very mediocre series against Houston. He settled for jumpshots which is what he did in the regular season against the Rockets. The results were some poor shooting nights. I was encouraged to see though that in both Game 5 and 7 he took the ball to the basket a little more. In Game 5, it was a quick and read and go. In Game 7, he ran into a ton of congestion and didn't get a whole lot of calls. Believe me, Dahntay Jones is a welcomed sight for the Bean. And what happens when/if Jones goes the the bench? The Nuggets can't rotate someone like Artest or Battier over to try and stop the Kobester.

I can't stress how important a free Kobe is. At times, PJ puts a bunch of guys on the floor that are all mostly facilitators. Some of those early second Q lineups had me screaming at the TV. You need guys on the floor that can create and make shots. And as good as the Lakers are offensively, Kobe carries a lion share. If he's not lighting it up for 40 points, he can create opportunities for others just by being out on the floor.

Secondly, even though KB has a more than a tendency to go tit for tat when playing another superstar, he should recognize that against Denver he can get his more easily when the bigs are scoring. He always pulls playground stuff against both Wade and LeBron. I'm hoping he doesn't do this with Carmelo or even Billups. I really like Chauncey's game but I don't think he can win a series for you anymore. I know he had a big game against the Hornets in Round 1, but I don't think he's ever played as well as he did against the Lakers in the 2004 NBA finals.

Third, as everyone is jumping on the Nuggets bandwagon I'd say look at their competition so far. The NOH did not have a healthy center and the Mavs' best big rarely ventured below fifteen feet. Yes, the Nuggets are 8-2 but they could be 8-0. And now they don't have home court. I also think it's an advantage for the Lakers to play a quick turnaround in Game 1. LA should be pumped tonight and I think they'll win. Maybe not Vegas big but by around ten I'd say.

I give up

As someone who watches nearly every Laker game I'm really at a loss to explain their play last night or against the Rockets in general. At one point, after I had resigned myself to a Game 7, I thought the Lakers would come back and win Game 6. It was there. After the first half, or even first Q, Houston didn't play all that great. Unfortunately, the Rockets hit enough clutch shots late in the third and into the fourth to win it. After LA gave them that comfortable cushion.

I've written before on how the Lakers seem to add a degree of difficulty to their play this year. This has been highlighted even more in the Houston series. Take for instance Pau Gasol. I thought he was terrible in Game 6. Why he can't catch the ball deeper or back in Chuck Hayes (who is half a foot shorter) on every play is beyond me. Add in his awful defense against Scola and this was one of his worst playoff games as a Laker.

If you look at the stats, excluding their palty 80 total points, you might think LA didn't play that poorly. They took 13 more shots than Houston. They outrebounded the Rockets. They had fewer turnovers. And yet they never led. Take a gander at the Lakes' plus/minus numbers. Everyone gets an F on that one. For all intents and purposes, they were in the game for a few minutes in the third. Then Houston hit some big shots and it was over.

The biggest stat is that this was only the second time the Lakers have lost a game wire to wire. The first was Game 4. That's a telling stat. Even when they endured embarassing losses during the regular season, nearly all of them were close games that the Lakers had a chance to win (nearly every game against the Rockets this season was close). This was also a quality, if you can call it that, of last year's team. Sometimes they played down to their competition but they always were competitive. They never got blown out, with the exception of Game 6 in Boston.

So why are the Rockets such a difficult puzzle to solve? Are the Lakers really playing as poorly as it seems? And who is to blame? The best I can do is this: Despite their February trip through the east coast where they really played decent defense (see the second half at Cleveland), the Lakers have relied way too much on their offense. PJ basically threw the towel in on LA improving defensively early in the season. The caveat to this is they can defend, they're capable of defending against certain teams. The playoffs are about matchups and the Lakers match up well against slower methodical teams (Utah, Houston, Cleveland). That's why they were psyched to play the Rockets, who with Yao are a grind away team. Without him or TMac they are, as Charles says, a bunch of scrappy pit bulls.

The Lakers players are to blame in much of this but Phil Jackson's refusal to adjust to the Rockets new lineup I believe has cost them a chance of closing this out earlier. As was evident in Game 3, late in Game 4 and in Game 5, using Farmar and Brown to combat Houston's quickness on the perimeter is a good thing. So why is PJ so married to playing Fish, to starting Fish until he shows he doesn't have it. The Lakes bigs are bad enough rotating to a driving guard. But they have no chance with the way Fish has escorted Brooks to the basket.

Also perplexing is why PJ has stuck with Sasha throughout this series. Even in their forty-point win he sucked. Cut the cord. Play the players who are doing reasonably well like Brown and Jordan. I'm not even going to get into how Vlad might have helped this roster. Brown has played well enough. Give him more minutes and earlier. And pressure the Rockets ballhandlers. It works.

All this said, I and I'm sure most Laker fans, expect a win on Sunday. And should that happen I wouldn't be surprised to see the Lakers beat the Nuggets and the Cavs. The way LA played Games 2, 3 and 5 certainly means something, right? But for all the time I've spent watching them this year, I'm really struggling to explain what exactly that is. I'm not sure even Sunday will tell us but right now Sunday is all we have.

Celts-Bulls

After sleeping on it, I think the refs made the right call on Rondo in assessing him a flagrant 1 (although I still think he could have been tossed). He wasn't and finished with a pretty incredible game. He can't shoot (4-17) but 19 assists and nine boards and zero turnovers is impressive. Throw in Ray Allen's amazing output (his ball has so little backspin and I can't think of a great shooter with a similar shot) and it was a great game.

As for the greatness of the series, I am tempering my praise. There have been some great finishes, particularly, as Sir Charles pointed out last night, on the part of the Cs. It seems like Allen and Paul Pierce have made about 20 game-tying shots. But the one problem I really have is the Bulls blowing leads and their inability to finish. They should have won Game 2. They blew a 13-point lead in Game 5 and a ten-point lead last night.

Part of this is attributed to their youth. Derrick Rose had five turnovers last night and looked shakey down the stretch aside from his block on Rondo, one of the best game-saving blocks of all time. To recover like that takes a special player. The Bulls real problem is their coach. In Game 1, Vinny Del Negro ran out of timeouts. Ok, rookie coach. In Game 2, the same thing happened and it cost Chicago a chance to advance the ball and get a better game-ending shot.

I'm not sure that mattered so much considering the plays the Bulls run out of timeouts. There's no movement and too many times they end up going one on one with Gordon, Rose or Salmons taking contested shots. At the end of the second OT last night, they didn't even get a shot up with Brad Miller handling and losing the ball around half court. When Perkins fouled out, only once did they take the ball to the hole.

You notice these things when you're rooting for a team (I'm actually rooting against the Cs because I hate them). I'm certainly not the first to say it but Del Negro looks so over his head. If it wasn't for the clutch shots Gordon and Rose and last night Miller and Salmons have made, this series would have been over in five in favor of the Cs. It's no compliment to VDN that Bulls could have won this series in the same amount of games.

The fix is in

My god, the Celts are getting away with murder in their series with the Bulls. Not only is Rondo not suspended for this game, he should have been tossed for throwing Kirk Hinrich into the scorer's table. WTF? The officiating has been and will continue to be a problem for the L as the playoffs go on. My bet is Boston wins Game 6 and then Rondo is suspended for Game 1 of round 2. A lot of good that will do the Bulls. Is there any doubt Rondo is a dirty player? It's like let's see what I can get away with next. And yet the League's reaction to the face slap on Brad Miller was that he didn't wind up. HE HIT HIM IN THE HEAD. I seem to remember Trevor Ariza getting suspended for hitting Rudy Fernandez in the head during the regular season. What a joke.

Heels

I was glad to see the Heels run Michigan State out of the State on Monday night. Not that I'm a Carolina fan. Not that I dislike Izzo and the Spartans. But MSU (does anyone really call them MSU) played way above their heads in the three games leading up to the final. I picked SC to beat them and the Trojans came closer than either Louisville or UConn. They couldn't compensate for Travis Walton having a career game, an 18-point career game I might add. Sparty was also lucky to get by KU which with the exception of Sherron Collins was not a great Jayhawk squad.

But that's the thing. For all the hype the 'Ville got coming into the tourney or UConn received all season long, no one was that great. Because no one in college ball is anymore. At least, not on a team level. Both these Big East teams have some future NBA players on their squads. But no one that intimidates you with their game. Not yet at least.

Which brings me back to the champs. Clearly, they were the best team. In fact, I think future NCAA championships are going to decided just on which big time program (UNC, Florida, Kansas UNC again), can hold on to their recruiting classes the longest. This was always the case. It's just that now holding on to your recruits means keeping guys who could sneak into the mid-first round if they declared. The exceptions you'll note are guys like Marvin Williams or Ed Davis, projected lottery picks who play fewer minutes on loaded squads. Roy Williams has had the luxury of hiding Davis all season, bringing him along slowly. In the end it means he'll be back for another year even though he's a top ten pick as of this moment. Who knows, if he pans out, he could be top five in 2010.

As for the other guys, many people have spent the last few days comparing them to the 2005 team that beat Illinois for the title. That team was led by Sean May, an absolute bust as a pro and Raymond Felton, a streaky, mediocre point who should be a career backup. Then there was Rashad McCants. I, like many other people, thought he was a stud in college. He's done nothing in NBA and is now in purgatory with the Kings.

The best player has turned out to be Williams. I was wondering about him earlier in the year since I hadn't seen the Hawks much. But he's a nice player. He averages 14 points a game, has turned into a decent three point shooter and he's only 22. He hasn't played since early March when he hurt his back, but he still has a big upside.

Now look at this year's Heels. Is there anybody outside of Davis that can make some noise in the L? I'm not sure. Wayne Ellington is a good shooter with size, but can he do anything else? I think it was Jalen Rose who compared him to Vince Carter in size. He has nowhere near the game Vince had or has.

Ty Lawson is an awesome college point and answered a lot of questions about his game this year. I think he's better than Felton, although that's not saying much when you consider Ray hits less than 30 percent from three. But Lawson is not big. He may be strong but he's not a little tank like Kyle Lowry or Will "Diesel" Bynum. Again, I think he's a career backup.

Which brings us to Tyler Hansbrough. Sure, I admire his motor and the numbers he put up, but there are some serious deficiencies in his game. HE HAS NO LEFT HAND. Does anyone notice this? When he reverse pivots back to the center of the lane from the right side, he shoots with his right hand and with two hands. This is not going to wash in the NBA. Factor in his small size, his so-so jumper, his inability to handle and I just don't see him playing much on the next level. I certainly wouldn't waste a first round pick on him even in this crap draft.

UNC was the best team this year but that means less and less these days because there's less talent in the college game. Which is just another reason I've soured on it. I would rather watch say, Warriors-Clippers, than watch a regular season college game or a lot of tournament games for that matter. The play is slow (don't even get me started on the 35-second clock) and the shooting is bad (see UConn-Syracuse in the Big East Tourney). It's supposed to be about the drama but in reality the thrills are far and few between.

UConn

My blog is where I give my two cents, even if the clink of change is heard by few. So here's what I think about the Yahoo! story on potential violations by the University of Connecticut. First, it's a fine job of reporting and the two guys who did it are to be commended for their diligence. I know one of the reporters and I respect both of the guys. Second, you can't blame Yahoo! for pumping up the story to rival that of a mafia indictment. But, three, does anyone really care?

It's no secret among college basketball people that UConn is a dirty program. Give them credit for the fact they haven't faced something worse than this. Unless, you count stealing computers as worse, which you might. But there are just so many ways to get kids to go to school in Storrs. Or Syracuse for that matter, but that's a different story.

My point is the entire NCAA system is a crock. The NCAA and their member schools make billions of dollars off the backs of basketball players that receive very little in recompense. An education? Maybe for those who take advantage of it. But how much money does the school make off those players? There's just no comparison. Can you imagine any other system where you're met with a delay when it comes to bartering your wares? How about Miley Cyrus, for instance, having to sing or perform for basically free until she is 19. That's not America. That's not even Mexico.

That's why I believe the path of people like Brandon Jennings is the future. The kid is getting paid and realistically has made enough money for his lifetime in one year. He's struggled in Europe and yet he's still going to be a first-round pick. And to think that if he had passed his SAT (or whatever test he took), he might be playing this weekend for Arizona for free.

The biggest joke is that for all of Yahoo's great reporting, the end result is that it is defending a system that takes advantage of kids. But no one will say what the biggest problem here is. It's the NCAA.

Wow

Yes, Mike Bresnahan, I was expecting the Lakes to go 0-3 on this trip. Sorta. I certainly didn’t see them pulling off the Texas Two-step.

But something happened at halftime of the Rockets game. The Lakers really didn’t play that badly in the first half. But they were a different team in the second. I can’t remember the last time I saw them rotate so well to shooters and lock up the opposition. Maybe the game in Cleveland, but the Cavs couldn’t hit anything in that game.

The Rockets were similarly icy on Wednesday night, going 5-28 from three. That’s 18 percent, y’all. And get this, they shot 51 percent for the game! Attention, Aaron Brooks. Throw the ball to the huge Chinese guy. How can Yao miss only two shots and not get more than nine attempts.

The Lakes did have a few breakdowns. I think Fish dropped to double Yao and left Brooks wide open for a three late in the game. But they got big contributions from Josh Powell, Trevor Ariza and Luke Walton. Oh, and Ron “You’re not ready for me, Kobe” Artest.

That was just plain weird and its shows you just how insane Ron-Ron is. The whole time I was thinking, ‘Wait, aren’t these guys friends?’ Not that you can’t get in a squab with even your best mate from time to time. But for it to go on and on, even after Mamba was crushing him. Wacky.

If Wednesday was a surprise, last night was a shocker. As Big Game James said at halftime, if the Lakers play D like this, they’ll be champions. I couldn’t agree more. And you know all it takes is a little more effort. I know the season is long and the Lakes aren’t the most athletic team (neither is Houston or SA, but then neither in Portland), but just getting a hand in guys’ faces or chasing guys off the three helps. That was big since the Spurs scored 33 points from long range and not all were wide-open treys.

Again, there were some late game goofs. After they regained a seven-point lead I engaged the TV in the following conversation:

“Why is he (LO) handling the ball? Why is he (Luke) shooting?”

Then Kobe hit that monster three and Lamar made a great pass to Pau and all was forgiven. They didn’t panic like the Laker teams of a few years ago and they overcame some adversity (aka the atrocious no-call on Tony Parker pushing Farmar out of bounds at the end of the third that cost LA at least three points).

So wow. I can’t believe that’s my team.

Blazed

Well so much for being resuming the role of road warriors. To be honest, I didn't see much of last night's game with Portland since I was making my famous fried chicken. What I did watch of the first half, viewed in the reflection of our kitchen sink window was a lot of Brandon Roy abusing Luke Walton in the half court. I know Luke isn't the best defender to say the least but please, can't PJ show a little more respect for Portland's all-star than that.

This was easily the worst L of the year, but maybe (if the Mighty Stern doesn't suspend Trevor and LO), the Lakes can take something out of this game. As I said following the Phoenix loss, LA has played way too many close games against lesser opponents. Tonight, they were plain punked by a team that has been struggling (mostly on the road) recently. Maybe it serves as a wake-up call that the Lakes can't coast into the third quarter before turning on the offense. Maybe they can learn to play some straight up D before the fourth Q. As it turned out, they finally did show up in the 4th and didn't quit, even when they were down by 28. They showed some pride which is as good a sign as you can hope for heading into Houston and SA.

Any fool who watched the Ariza-Fernandez play can tell you TA doesn't deserve a suspension. He was clearly going for the ball. Yeah, it was a hard foul but you can't start giving out suspensions just because the end result is someone getting hurt. The league didn't suspend Bynum after Gerald Wallace's lung collapsed. They shouldn't suspend Ariza for this. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if they suspended both Ariza and LO. LO was not on the floor, but he did join the fray and I can't imagine suspending him and not Ariza. If Kobe can be suspended for hitting Ginobli in the nose a couple of years ago this seems a no brainer for the halfwits (Stu Jackson) in the league office who make these calls. I hope I'm wrong.

The Rookie Age Limit

O.J. Mayo returned to LA last night with the Griz and while Kobe torched him in the first quarter, he still managed to finish with 17 points including three treys. As USC fans know, Mayo has the ability to be a game changer. Last year, the Trojans offense ran through him whether he was at the point or not. And though he can certainly handle the ball, his future is as a big-time scorer. He currently averages 19.2 points per game and has been around the 20-point mark all season. The last NBA rookies to average at least 20 per are Kevin Durant, Lebron James, Elton Brand, Tim Duncan, Allen Iverson, and Shaquille O’Neal.

That’s heavy company and yet Mayo is not a lock for ROY. Russell Westbrook, Derrick Rose and Brook Lopez are all viable candidates with some people giving Westbrook the nod off his fabulous February. The 2008 draft was not thought to be a strong one (2009 almost undoubtedly will be weaker still), but there’s something to be said for the depth of last year’s class. In addition to the four named above, players like Kevin Love, Eric Gordon, Rudy Fernandez, Marreese Speights and Michael Beasley all have made significant contributions. And of the ten top rookies (you can throw in Greg Oden for ten), eight of them played one year or less of college ball.

It’s interesting because if you believe the tea leaves being deciphered by the likes David Falk and Bill Simmons, the NBA is in such bad shape financially that the players are a virtual lock to be locked out come 2011 when the current CBA ends. And both Falk and Simmons say that whenever the new CBA is ratified (Simmons doesn’t put a possible year or two-year shutdown past the owners), a 20-year-old age limit for rookies will be imposed. In the recent NY Times piece, Falk suggested the age limit be raised to 20 or 21 because current rookies lack fan familiarity and have eroded play.

Taking into account the economic climate, it’s clear the players are in line to make big concessions and I doubt whether they really care about the union members who are not members yet. Afterall, rookies have to take someone’s job. But I just don’t see how this makes sense for the owners. Today’s rook, as opposed to the days of Larry Johnson, is relatively cheap. Even if Greg Oden never lives up to being the number one pick, the Blazers could cut ties with him in two more years at a cost of a little over 10 million. That’s less that Joel Pryzbilla (13.1 million) is set to make.

Second, in today’s media saturated sports landscape, Falk’s notion of fan familiarity couldn’t be more antiquated. I don’t know how much more familiar people could have been with Durant who so dominated college basketball that he was POY as a frosh. What would it mean if he had to return for his sophomore season? If the next Durant or Kobe or Lebron came from a low-income background, why wouldn’t he just pull up sticks and go to Europe like Brandon Jennings. Biding your time with a year of college is one thing, but two years means you’re leaving a lot of money on the table. Right now European clubs appear willing to soften the blow. Jennings is making over 3.5 million from his contract and an Under Armour endorsement. And he’s not becoming any more fan familiar playing for Lottomatica Roma.

As for eroding play, just look around the league. If you use the All-star game rosters as a barometer, only six players (Granger, Nelson, Pierce, Duncan, West, and Roy) went to school for more than two years while ten All-stars did not play any college ball (LBJ, Kobe, Garnett, Lewis, Howard, Amare, Yao, Dirk, Gasol, Parker). Add in Bosh and it’s eleven who played one year or less. Two of the L’s three best players, Kobe and Lebron, are straight out of high school, and the third, Dwyane Wade really only played two years at Marquette since he sat out his freshman year because of academics.

It’s only a matter of time before players like Mayo, Rose and Durant become all-stars themselves (If you ask me Durant should have made this year’s team over David West). So while the owners may get just about everything they ask for in the next CBA, changing the age limit would be a mistake. The NBA, not the NCAA or Europe, showcases the best players in world. Keeping it that way should be a priority.

Degree of Difficulty

Toward the end of last season, after the Lakers acquired Gasol, and into the playoffs, I used to play this game in my head. The Lakes had some unbelievable record when they scored 100 points first and when games got into the third Q I'd calculate what they needed to score to win. "Okay, just twenty more points," I'd think to myself. Or "If they put up another fifteen, there's no way they're losing this one." For the most part, it worked. But then they got to the Finals and everybody thought they'd blow by the slower Celts who had to play two seven-game series just to reach the conference finals. I wasn't so sure because deep down I knew the Lakers would eventually have to play some defense and as everyone always says you can't just turn it on. True, they were without Bynum, who even if he's not scoring is a deterrent down low, and Ariza was just coming back off his injury. But the playoffs are about dictating tempo and against good teams you can't always expect to outscore everyone.

Fast forward to this year's Lakers team and you see a lot of similarities. Phil Jackson has tried to make this a better defensive team but when things didn't work early on he was the first to say, "I guess we're just a good offensive team." At times, LA can be a great offensive team. Just look at how many double-digit leads they've raced to only to let teams get back into (and occasionally win) the game. Some may say it's the nature of the NBA and to an extent it is. But people who watch the Lakers know they're not a good defensive team. That's not to say they can't play decent D. They've done it in the past. They held Cleveland to 30-some points in the second half there after surrendering 60 in the first. But basically their MO is to outscore opponents.

I know. I know. It's hard to quibble with a 48-12 record including four wins over the Eastern’s best. But if you look back at the games individually, you'll see that the Lakers don't blow too many teams out. The good thing is they themselves are rarely blown out. I'd say the Sacramento loss early on (113-101) and Friday night's loss in Denver are probably their worse defeats of the season. Which means two things. One, they're in every game with a chance to win. Two, so are their opponents. And while a mark of good team is to win the close ones, three-point Ws over Miami and Indiana and a two-point win over New York (all at home) are a scary sight to behold, let alone witness in real time.

You don't have to watch the Lakers much to know that they give up a lot of open threes. Sometimes I have a hard time understanding why they double so much and it doesn't help that more times than one would hope, someone like LO or Sasha ends up doubling way out on the floor, leaving somebody, usually a good shooter with an open look. It doesn't surprise me that the Magic beat them twice. Orlando lives by the three and even though the Lakers know that they gave them look after open look. Obviously, part of the problem is slow rotations. With the exception of Ariza, the Lakers have to be one of the worst show and recover teams in the L.

But a bigger problem in my view is the degree of difficulty with which LA plays. Case in point is today's loss to the Suns. The Suns 56 percent shooting included at least four uncontested layups/dunks and two makes off missed free throws. If you look at the shot chart, Phoenix had 30 points off layups/dunks. THAT'S A QUARTER WORTH OF POINTS. It helped that the Suns missed 16 free throws, otherwise the game wouldn't have been close. But at some point, you just can't give up so many easy baskets and expect to win (it's great to have Fish and Farmar penetrate, but there's no responsibility when they turn the ball over). And yet, game after game the Lakers will come down on O, move the ball for Gasol to score or have Kobe make some ridiculous shot only to give up a layup on the other end. It’s like they’re trying to invent new ways to win without playing D every single night.

What's more is the Lakers routinely start slow, get behind, ratchet up the D somewhat or ride Kobe back into the game. How many games recently have they given up 60 points in the first half? Now, it's a long season and I'm as confident in PJ's ability to get guys rested and sharp for the playoffs. And I know this is a much better defensive team with Andrew in the middle. But just once I'd like to see the Lakers come out and play aggressive D from the start of the game. If you look back to the first two games of the season, that's exactly what they did. But ever since then they've been playing to the level of their opponent. How else do you explain wins over Cleveland and Boston and Ls to Sacto, Indiana, Charlotte and the depleted Suns?

The No-Stats All-Star

I really enjoyed Michael Lewis’ piece on Shane Battier in the NY Times Magazine a couple of weeks ago and thought I would touch on it for my first entry here on TSBS. Nice, I already have acronymed myself.

As has been cited elsewhere, Lewis is a little fuzzy with the math. He notes that Battier is a plus 6 in plus-minus and quotes Daryl Morely as saying, “It’s the difference between 41 wins and 60 wins.” Really? Even if that is so, Lewis has just stated that certainly helps to have other players on your team with a good plus-minus. Lewis notes other players that were a plus 6 last season including Tracy McGrady. But he doesn’t tie in the fact that McGrady plays right alongside Battier. Or did until recently.

As for Battier’s “role” on winning teams, Lewis, as Talking Point Free noted, doesn’t mention Battier started just one game during the Grizzlies 50-32 season or that the main reason Houston went 34-48 the year before Battier’s arrival was because Yao Ming and McGrady only played 31 games together.

He also says some crazy things like the reason you don’t want to foul Kobe Bryant. “It isn’t that Bryant is an especially good free throw shooter.” Huh? When is shooting 87 percent from the line not “especially good”? He also lets Houston VP Sam Hinkie get away with calling a Trevor Ariza three, a “near-random event”. That might have been true last year. Coming into this season, Ariza had made just 8 career threes. He’s made 40 (for 33 percent) so far this season with several coming in clutch spots as in the recent Golden State game. He’s not Brevin Knight.

In many ways, Lewis’ article argues against itself. Stats, at least traditional ones, don’t mean much. There is a selfish tinge to them, whereas the secret stats that the Rockets use reveal real value (although it’s not enough to help them beat the Lakers on the night in question). But then Lewis hints at a much larger, and some may say, controversial insight to fallacy of applying stats to basketball. In deciphering whether the biracial Battier’s game is more black or white, he writes: “For instance, is it a coincidence that many of the things a player does in white basketball to prove his character–take a charge, scramble for a loose ball– are more pleasantly done on a polished wooden floor than they are on inner-city asphalt? Is it easier to “play for the team” when the team is part of some larger institution?”

These are wonderful questions. Clearly, Battier’s game is defined as more white than black. Toward the end of the game, Battier is praised for positioning himself for a three (and making the shot) during a frenetic sequence against the Lakers. And, blacktop legend Rafer Alston notes that Battier’s game doesn’t translate to the street. But does that make it more valuable? Not necessarily.

Battier might do a decent job guarding Kobe, forcing him into areas of the floor where he’s not as effective. And forcing Kobe to take 30 shots to make 30 points has value. Then again, in certain situations, I can’t think of anyone else the Lakers would rather see attempt 30 shots. This could certainly be said, at times, of Allen Iverson’s turn as a Sixer. Do you want thirty shots for AI or 25 and five more for Eric Snow? I thought so.

The point is that Lewis hints at but doesn’t pursue is that if you can define a player’s “whiteness” (my whiteness btw is extremely high) and give it a value (and we’re led to believe the Rockets’ admiration of Battier is due to his ability to do all these “white” things really well), isn’t there is an invisible value to the “blackness” of Kobe’s or AI’s game? I believe it was Chet Walker (it may have been Hal Greer) who talked about the importance or dunking in playground games. For inner city kids that don’t have a lot, Walker said a dunk means more than points. Dunking on someone else or breaking ankles implies ownership. Not just in ‘I got the best of you’ (“Got ‘em”), but that I own this moment (and maybe you so to speak).

This idea of one-upmanship translates itself to the NBA game in many ways. Maybe blocked shots don’t mean much if your team doesn’t grab the loose ball. But then maybe when a guy goes to the hole the next time he’s thinking twice about getting his shot roofed. The guys at The Basketball Jones think that Lebron never goes to the hole with trepidation except for when he plays against the Magic. The reason is Dwight Howard, perhaps the only physical specimen in the league to match James. Obviously, there’s a value there that is almost impossible to quantify.

But one-upmanship manifests most notably in the NBA in the ability to score.
Being able to get one’s own shot and convert is what separates players like Kobe, Lebron, Dwyane Wade and Paul Pierce from the rest of the L. Not only is it impossible to guard these stars with one player, they also have the ability to score (in late game situations) often despite the efforts of all five defenders. The point is the NBA is both a team game and an individual one and I wouldn’t want it any other way.

As a Laker fan, I don’t care about how Kobe has missed on 86.3 percent of 51 threes taken from 26.75 feet out in end of game situations since 2002-03. I can’t count how many times he’s made clutch shots that I couldn’t dream of other players even attempting. There’s something to be said for having the guts to try and win games on your own and coming through. Even if Kobe only makes 13.7 of those longs, I’ll take my chances.