Just a quick post to get my picks on record (not that I'm willing to wager).
It seems many experts have gone mostly chalk for the first round matchups. It makes sense. It's hard to beat a favorite four times. So as much as one might like Memphis or Portland or even Denver there's a tendency to go with the top seeds.
The West
Spurs-Grizzlies:
I hate the Spurs, although this season's incarnation is a little more tolerable since they often try to outscore opponents. They're still better than anybody in limiting the quality of possessions of opponents. By which I mean they play smarter than you do, don't take bad shots and can occasionally run you off the court with their three-point shooters. Their path to the playoffs is not that different from the Lakers but with better results. They've saved their big three for this time of the year. That is, they had until Pop played them in the final game and Ginobili hyperextended his right elbow. In a career filled with brilliant coaching moves, this might be Coach Pop's worst. He says he wanted them to be sharp but if you sit them for the Lakers then why not the Suns. Don't get it.
The Grizz have played well without Rudy Gay, rallying behind (of all people) Tony Allen. They play good defense and create a lot of turnovers. They also turn the ball over a good deal themselves. Give Z-Bo the edge over Duncan but I don't think they have enough O to win four. Spurs in six.
Lakers-Hornets:
My boys were five seconds and a Kobe three away from playing Portland. NOLA should be a much easier task even with Bynum a bit hobbled. I think he'll play Sunday for limited minutes. CP3 is not the same player he was two years ago. David West is one of those Laker killers but he's hurt. Carl Landry manages to beat up on the Lakes too, but he's not as good as West. I like the Lakers in five.
Mavericks-Blazers:
A lot of people love the Blazers in this matchup especially now that Gerald Wallace is on board. I'm kind of on the fence. Whenever I watch Portland, I'm not all that impressed. Batum is decent and no one is laughing at the Wesley Matthews signing now. But Aldridge is the key. In fact, I'd say whoever has the bigger series between Aldridge and Nowitski will determine which team wins. I'll take Portland in seven.
Thunder-Nuggets:
Thank god both of these teams are on the other side of the bracket although I think the Lakers could take Denver because of matchups. The fashionable pick is OKC and who could disagree after the last two games between the two. Still, I think the Nuggets make it interesting. Thunder in seven.
The East
Bulls-Pacers:
I agree with the idea of playoff teams being able to focus on taking away Rose's scoring and generally making things tough for him. The Pacers are not the team to do it though. I like Chicago in five.
Heat-Sixers:
For all the talk of the Bulls' great second half, there's no team I'd rather not play than the Heat. In fact, I'm tempted to pick them to go all the way even though I hate their guts. Philly is banged up but I still see them taking a game. Miami in five.
Celtics-Knicks:
As bad as the Cs played down the stretch, they rarely looked worse than the Knicks. New York could take two but neither will be on the Celtics' home court. Boston in six.
Magic-Hawks:
Two teams with almost zero heart. The Hawks are a mess as usual. And for all the talk of how Mike D'Antoni's system can't win championships, you rarely hear people say the same of Stan Van's three-happy offense in Orlando. I'll say it. It's a terrible, feast-or-famine system which is a shame because they're a good defensive team. Howard has molded himself into a great player but as much as I like Stan Van, I think he should get even more out of his center. Seriously, why isn't he averaging 30 points a game? Atlanta won the season series 3-1 but I don't see them winning more than two here. Magic in six.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Sunday, October 24, 2010
How to beat the Heat
The Heat may be a dynasty in the making, a new prototype for the future NBA championship contenders and an instant highlight machine. But there’s a good chance this season after the hype has worn off that they will resemble an NFL ball control offense that needs to grind out wins. That’s my prediction for the NBA’s biggest non-lockout story heading into the 2010-11 season. I’m not saying there won’t be flashes of brilliance, especially now that LeBron James has assumed the Magic Johnson role. Put together two of the top five players in the L, especially ones as physically gifted as James and Dwayne Wade, and you’ve got some serious posterization potential. Add in Chris Bosh’s penchant for filling the stat sheet and I think Miami could win 60 games. But it might not be that pretty.
My reasons? Take a look at last year’s free throw leaders per attempt. James was number 3. Wade was four. Both attempted over 700 free throws. And you don’t have to glance far to see Bosh at 7. He shot 590 in 70 games. Added together the big three shot 26 free throws a game. That’s more than all but seven teams averaged in 2009-10.
While all three players might see a drop in their statistical averages across the board, free throw attempts should remain high particularly for James and Wade. The two perimeter players have made a healthy living by taking opponents off the dribble and drawing fouls. Some would say too healthy considering how NBA referees often bail them out. Still, last season free throw makes accounted for over 25 percent of the points per game for both players.
Bosh’s case is a little different. Even though he’s 6’11”, he is far more comfortable facing the basket. In fact, anyone who had the misfortune to watch the Raptors a lot can tell you just how boring Toronto’s offense could be. It centered around Jose Calderon getting Bosh the ball at the elbows, free throw line extended or occasionally on the block and then the latter going one-on-one.
That’s why Bosh’s numbers are even more skewed. A third of his points usually come from the charity stripe. Of the three, Bosh knows his game will probably have to change the most. Miami just doesn’t have the height to compete without Bosh doing some dirty work down low and he has vowed to do just that. Which means that while his scoring average (24 per last season) should dip, his free throws may not.
I know what you’re thinking. The Heat cannot be defended with LBJ handling the ball and either taking it to the rim or setting up Wade, Bosh or a wing like Mike Miller. But teams can avoid a seemingly endless (and boring) march to the free throw line by doing something even more boring: Playing zone. Miami’s signing of Miller was intended to offset opponents’ ability to pack the lane. He shot 48 percent from three last season (in just 54 games). Now Miller has hurt the thumb on his shooting hand and is out until January. But even with Miller, I’d definitely experiment with a zone against Miami. Wade is just a 29 percent career shooter from three. And even though James has come a long way with his jumper, long range is not his strength. The key in playing against a zone for Miami may be Bosh working the baseline for easy buckets since the Heat have virtually no low post presence. Teams like Boston, Orlando and the Lakers can beat the Heat by wearing them down inside, limiting possessions, and muddying the track Miami plans to run on.
As much hype as has been bandied about (like Jeff Van Gundy saying Miami will win 70 games and not lose back-to-back all season), Miami is still something of an experiment. This team has serious firepower, but it’s not the Showtime Lakers or the “Seven-seconds-or-less” Suns. In addition, the preseason has shown the team is thin, perhaps Indianapolis Colts-thin with Wade playing the Bob Sanders role. From what I’ve heard James is on a mission and is trying to put his stamp on the team in practices. That’s good because every team in the league wants to take down the Heat. In the end, any karmic justice on behalf of the other 29 NBA teams may come in the Heat being frustrated by a zone, which may not be all that fun to watch.
My reasons? Take a look at last year’s free throw leaders per attempt. James was number 3. Wade was four. Both attempted over 700 free throws. And you don’t have to glance far to see Bosh at 7. He shot 590 in 70 games. Added together the big three shot 26 free throws a game. That’s more than all but seven teams averaged in 2009-10.
While all three players might see a drop in their statistical averages across the board, free throw attempts should remain high particularly for James and Wade. The two perimeter players have made a healthy living by taking opponents off the dribble and drawing fouls. Some would say too healthy considering how NBA referees often bail them out. Still, last season free throw makes accounted for over 25 percent of the points per game for both players.
Bosh’s case is a little different. Even though he’s 6’11”, he is far more comfortable facing the basket. In fact, anyone who had the misfortune to watch the Raptors a lot can tell you just how boring Toronto’s offense could be. It centered around Jose Calderon getting Bosh the ball at the elbows, free throw line extended or occasionally on the block and then the latter going one-on-one.
That’s why Bosh’s numbers are even more skewed. A third of his points usually come from the charity stripe. Of the three, Bosh knows his game will probably have to change the most. Miami just doesn’t have the height to compete without Bosh doing some dirty work down low and he has vowed to do just that. Which means that while his scoring average (24 per last season) should dip, his free throws may not.
I know what you’re thinking. The Heat cannot be defended with LBJ handling the ball and either taking it to the rim or setting up Wade, Bosh or a wing like Mike Miller. But teams can avoid a seemingly endless (and boring) march to the free throw line by doing something even more boring: Playing zone. Miami’s signing of Miller was intended to offset opponents’ ability to pack the lane. He shot 48 percent from three last season (in just 54 games). Now Miller has hurt the thumb on his shooting hand and is out until January. But even with Miller, I’d definitely experiment with a zone against Miami. Wade is just a 29 percent career shooter from three. And even though James has come a long way with his jumper, long range is not his strength. The key in playing against a zone for Miami may be Bosh working the baseline for easy buckets since the Heat have virtually no low post presence. Teams like Boston, Orlando and the Lakers can beat the Heat by wearing them down inside, limiting possessions, and muddying the track Miami plans to run on.
As much hype as has been bandied about (like Jeff Van Gundy saying Miami will win 70 games and not lose back-to-back all season), Miami is still something of an experiment. This team has serious firepower, but it’s not the Showtime Lakers or the “Seven-seconds-or-less” Suns. In addition, the preseason has shown the team is thin, perhaps Indianapolis Colts-thin with Wade playing the Bob Sanders role. From what I’ve heard James is on a mission and is trying to put his stamp on the team in practices. That’s good because every team in the league wants to take down the Heat. In the end, any karmic justice on behalf of the other 29 NBA teams may come in the Heat being frustrated by a zone, which may not be all that fun to watch.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
What Happened
In a few years we may look back on Game 5 of the 2010 Eastern Conference semis with little more than simple amusement. It was supposed to be a defining moment for LeBron James, the time when, bad elbow or not, he willed them to a 3-2 series lead and eventually on to his first NBA title. Instead an old but still heart-willing Boston Celtics went into Cleveland and won a game few expected them to, won again in Game 6 in Boston and ended James’ career as a Cav.
At the time, the Cavs’ loss registered as a knock to James’ legacy. So often it was the team that surrounded him that was not up to the task. One need only remember the Eastern Conference finals exit against Orlando from the year before to cite an example of the cast not being up to the range of the star. But this year’s Game 5 (and to a lesser extent, Games 4 and 6) was on James. Not only did he have a bad game. He looked like we had never seen him before, as if he was going through a crisis beyond the basketball court. He looked resigned, defeated, like a goner. He was.
The greatest players, even Michael Jordan, have all tasted defeat. But what makes Jordan the greatest basketball player ever is not just that his losses on the big stage were so few, but that he always believed he could win no matter the circumstances. That is what separates Jordan, Bird, Magic, and Kobe to name a few from everyone else. Today, the same cannot be said of James. He may well win a bushel of titles in Miami but he will never garner the respect winning “on his own” with good but not great supporting players deserves. And any talk of LBJ as the greatest ever is over.
James’ signing with Miami has created a whole lot of negative karma and not just in Cleveland. Few outside of South Florida want to see him succeed now even though now one has to believe he’ll eventually win a championship. “The Decision” show itself was so contrived that some have likened it to a pro wrestler turning from good guy to heel. The analogy is not far from the mark although I think it gives James too much credit. The question now is will success in South Beach change our opinion of him? LBJ must think so and he’s probably right. Because “The Decision” revealed more than a future place of employment for a 25-year-old star. It showed once again that we, as fans, are suckers.
We tuned in (a whopping 9.6 rating for the 15 minutes leading up to James’ revelation). How could we not? Our addiction to sports and sports news runs so deep that we hung on every new free agency development like dispatches from a war zone where a loved one is serving. Except for us, the week (wow, an entire week) of free agency and The Decision felt more real and more important than a war. And that should be deeply disturbing. I would like to think few came away feeling good about the whole thing, but I’m not so certain.
In the recently published book Although Of Course In The End You Become Yourself, A Road Trip with David Foster Wallace, the man himself speaks of an endpoint to our addiction when we fail to discipline ourselves regarding how much time we spend being passively entertained and society itself grinds to a halt. We’re not there yet and perhaps the true lesson of “The Decision” is that we may never get there. We’ll keep tuning in, trying to commune with people we can’t touch and who can’t touch us. We’re eager to see if Wade and LBJ can play together and how the Heat will fill out its roster.
The corporatization of sports is inescapable. I’m old enough (but not too old) to remember when outfield walls were one solid color and not a patchwork of advertising. Still, I live in LA. I can barely stick my head out the window without being bombarded with another frickin’ Geico ad. But the degree of cynicism powering The Decision was on an entirely different level. It was pure greed in a tattered guise of goodwill.
Of course, the James’ camp doesn’t see that. They point to the ratings, the $2.9 million of free advertising time and $6 million in ad revenue raised (all of which was supposed to go to charity, although I’ve only seen $2.5 mil as going to Boys & Girls Clubs of America. Where did the rest go?) as a reason to down the line subject us to another one of these things. Will next year be “Melo’s Moment”? Oh wait, there might not be a next year thanks to the anticipated lockout. Don't worry, NBA, we'll still be here.
At the time, the Cavs’ loss registered as a knock to James’ legacy. So often it was the team that surrounded him that was not up to the task. One need only remember the Eastern Conference finals exit against Orlando from the year before to cite an example of the cast not being up to the range of the star. But this year’s Game 5 (and to a lesser extent, Games 4 and 6) was on James. Not only did he have a bad game. He looked like we had never seen him before, as if he was going through a crisis beyond the basketball court. He looked resigned, defeated, like a goner. He was.
The greatest players, even Michael Jordan, have all tasted defeat. But what makes Jordan the greatest basketball player ever is not just that his losses on the big stage were so few, but that he always believed he could win no matter the circumstances. That is what separates Jordan, Bird, Magic, and Kobe to name a few from everyone else. Today, the same cannot be said of James. He may well win a bushel of titles in Miami but he will never garner the respect winning “on his own” with good but not great supporting players deserves. And any talk of LBJ as the greatest ever is over.
James’ signing with Miami has created a whole lot of negative karma and not just in Cleveland. Few outside of South Florida want to see him succeed now even though now one has to believe he’ll eventually win a championship. “The Decision” show itself was so contrived that some have likened it to a pro wrestler turning from good guy to heel. The analogy is not far from the mark although I think it gives James too much credit. The question now is will success in South Beach change our opinion of him? LBJ must think so and he’s probably right. Because “The Decision” revealed more than a future place of employment for a 25-year-old star. It showed once again that we, as fans, are suckers.
We tuned in (a whopping 9.6 rating for the 15 minutes leading up to James’ revelation). How could we not? Our addiction to sports and sports news runs so deep that we hung on every new free agency development like dispatches from a war zone where a loved one is serving. Except for us, the week (wow, an entire week) of free agency and The Decision felt more real and more important than a war. And that should be deeply disturbing. I would like to think few came away feeling good about the whole thing, but I’m not so certain.
In the recently published book Although Of Course In The End You Become Yourself, A Road Trip with David Foster Wallace, the man himself speaks of an endpoint to our addiction when we fail to discipline ourselves regarding how much time we spend being passively entertained and society itself grinds to a halt. We’re not there yet and perhaps the true lesson of “The Decision” is that we may never get there. We’ll keep tuning in, trying to commune with people we can’t touch and who can’t touch us. We’re eager to see if Wade and LBJ can play together and how the Heat will fill out its roster.
The corporatization of sports is inescapable. I’m old enough (but not too old) to remember when outfield walls were one solid color and not a patchwork of advertising. Still, I live in LA. I can barely stick my head out the window without being bombarded with another frickin’ Geico ad. But the degree of cynicism powering The Decision was on an entirely different level. It was pure greed in a tattered guise of goodwill.
Of course, the James’ camp doesn’t see that. They point to the ratings, the $2.9 million of free advertising time and $6 million in ad revenue raised (all of which was supposed to go to charity, although I’ve only seen $2.5 mil as going to Boys & Girls Clubs of America. Where did the rest go?) as a reason to down the line subject us to another one of these things. Will next year be “Melo’s Moment”? Oh wait, there might not be a next year thanks to the anticipated lockout. Don't worry, NBA, we'll still be here.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Coach Wooden
I met John Wooden a couple of times. The first meeting, when I was eight, came in his office at UCLA. He had retired the year before but kept an office at school. My father, 84 years now and counting, was doing some promotional work at the time that incorporated the Pyramid of Success. I'm not sure how he did it, but he managed to get us a few minutes with Coach. Wooden was very warm and engaging. He offered me jelly beans from a jar on his desk, talked to us for about 20 minutes and signed my Pyramid of Success which I still have somewhere.
The second time I met up with Coach was at one of his basketball camps in Thousand Oaks. All the campers had one-on-one time with Wooden and when I reminded him we had met before he claimed to remember me. I didn't doubt him.
One would be hard pressed to find a player more identified with Wooden than Bill Walton. The one time I visited Bill's home in San Diego for a story on Luke, Big Bill gave me a book. Not one of his own, but one of Wooden's. He signed it: "To John, Learn from the master teachers. Go Bruins. Bill Walton UCLA '74."
In my interview, Bill managed to compare Jerry Garcia to Wooden and I can't read the quote without hearing the Big Redhead's voice. "It's the creativity and the imagination, the electricity, the rhythm, the explosiveness, delivering peak performance on command, making other people's lives fun, creating joy and happiness for others, the leadership, the willingness to make the hard decisions, keeping everybody together. They are definitely the same person."
Walton and Wooden are linked forever, but the one relationship Coach had with a player that to this day has fascinated me was with Kareem. I don't think Wooden ever referred to Kareem by his Muslim name. It was always Lew or Lewis. That bugged me and I'm not sure if Kareem has ever addressed it. Regardless, Kareem had great affection for Coach. And I'll always remember the last time I saw the two of them together. It was at the Stanford game in 2007 in which UCLA celebrated the 40th anniversary of the 1967 team. At halftime, the team gathered at halfcourt and when the ceremony was over Kareem escorted Wooden back to his seat. There was a purity in that moment that overwhelmed me. The middle-aged Abdul-Jabbar towered over the cane-assisted nonagenarian as the two walked off the floor not arm-in-arm, but with hands clasped.
Goodnight, Coach.
The second time I met up with Coach was at one of his basketball camps in Thousand Oaks. All the campers had one-on-one time with Wooden and when I reminded him we had met before he claimed to remember me. I didn't doubt him.
One would be hard pressed to find a player more identified with Wooden than Bill Walton. The one time I visited Bill's home in San Diego for a story on Luke, Big Bill gave me a book. Not one of his own, but one of Wooden's. He signed it: "To John, Learn from the master teachers. Go Bruins. Bill Walton UCLA '74."
In my interview, Bill managed to compare Jerry Garcia to Wooden and I can't read the quote without hearing the Big Redhead's voice. "It's the creativity and the imagination, the electricity, the rhythm, the explosiveness, delivering peak performance on command, making other people's lives fun, creating joy and happiness for others, the leadership, the willingness to make the hard decisions, keeping everybody together. They are definitely the same person."
Walton and Wooden are linked forever, but the one relationship Coach had with a player that to this day has fascinated me was with Kareem. I don't think Wooden ever referred to Kareem by his Muslim name. It was always Lew or Lewis. That bugged me and I'm not sure if Kareem has ever addressed it. Regardless, Kareem had great affection for Coach. And I'll always remember the last time I saw the two of them together. It was at the Stanford game in 2007 in which UCLA celebrated the 40th anniversary of the 1967 team. At halftime, the team gathered at halfcourt and when the ceremony was over Kareem escorted Wooden back to his seat. There was a purity in that moment that overwhelmed me. The middle-aged Abdul-Jabbar towered over the cane-assisted nonagenarian as the two walked off the floor not arm-in-arm, but with hands clasped.
Goodnight, Coach.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Lakers Chances
Jeff Van Gundy had an interesting thought late in the Lakers loss to San Antonio on April 4th. The gist was that if Kobe has a poor shooting night and the Lakers are without Bynum they become a very beatable team. Well, Kobe played today and for the third straight game had trouble shooting the ball. I think it's still the finger but his knee injury certainly doesn't help. He had very little lift today and had trouble going to the hole.
Kobe is banged up. Bynum is still hurt. Odom, Artest, Farmar, Sasha and Brown all have injuries as well. The Lakers are hurting and their bench has been a joke for a good month now. But the fact remains that since the All-Star break LA has not played with any rhythm and little purpose. With today's loss, Orlando holds the home court advantage should the two teams meet in the Finals.
So who is to blame? Well, I would start with the coach. By his own admission, PJ has said when guys start tuning you out it's time to move on. A coach not only has to prepare a team for each opponent but to get that team geared for the playoffs. For months now, even when they were relatively healthy, the Lakers have looked poor on defense. They've shown flashes. Last month's game at Houston was a revelation, at least the second quarter. But most of the time the effort is not there. It's Phil's job to coax that effort out of his team. It's Phil's job get the team to move the ball on offense. It's Phil's job to sit Fish when he's not contributing. It's Phil's job to inspire.
Today was another very uninspired effort. Even when they closed the gap late in the fourth, the Blazers' Andre Miller got a layup to put Portland back up by five. I've been hearing about the Lakers defensive philosophy all year. The idea of guards funneling opponents to the middle. It doesn't work. Pau is a mediocre shot blocker and a terrible pick-and-roll defender. Bynum is slow to come from the weak side.
As I've said so many times before, the Lakers seem to survive by Kobe bailing them out with his unbelievable shot making while they give up layups on the other end. And now Kobe can't even make free throws. He better get well soon or the Lakers might be toast in the first round. They can't simply rely on their offense keeping them in games. With five minutes left today, they had scored four points in the fourth Q and were something like 4-20 from three on the game.
Just once, I'd like to see LA come out and dominate from beginning to end in a game. Look at some of the first quarters the Cavs have had this year, 40-45 points against some teams. By my account, the Lakes have played maybe three quality games since the beginning of March. Three! Wins at Phoenix and San Antonio and one against Utah at home. Mixed in those 20 games are the three game road losing streak against Miami, Charlotte and Orlando, a two-point win over Toronto and three-point win over GS (both at home), embarassing losses at OKC, NO and ATL, a 19-point loss at home against the Spurs, and today's loss against a Portland team without Brandon Roy.
LO says every team turns on a switch when it comes to the playoffs. The best thing you can say about the Lakers now is they've been saving energy for a month and a half with their switch set at "off".
Kobe is banged up. Bynum is still hurt. Odom, Artest, Farmar, Sasha and Brown all have injuries as well. The Lakers are hurting and their bench has been a joke for a good month now. But the fact remains that since the All-Star break LA has not played with any rhythm and little purpose. With today's loss, Orlando holds the home court advantage should the two teams meet in the Finals.
So who is to blame? Well, I would start with the coach. By his own admission, PJ has said when guys start tuning you out it's time to move on. A coach not only has to prepare a team for each opponent but to get that team geared for the playoffs. For months now, even when they were relatively healthy, the Lakers have looked poor on defense. They've shown flashes. Last month's game at Houston was a revelation, at least the second quarter. But most of the time the effort is not there. It's Phil's job to coax that effort out of his team. It's Phil's job get the team to move the ball on offense. It's Phil's job to sit Fish when he's not contributing. It's Phil's job to inspire.
Today was another very uninspired effort. Even when they closed the gap late in the fourth, the Blazers' Andre Miller got a layup to put Portland back up by five. I've been hearing about the Lakers defensive philosophy all year. The idea of guards funneling opponents to the middle. It doesn't work. Pau is a mediocre shot blocker and a terrible pick-and-roll defender. Bynum is slow to come from the weak side.
As I've said so many times before, the Lakers seem to survive by Kobe bailing them out with his unbelievable shot making while they give up layups on the other end. And now Kobe can't even make free throws. He better get well soon or the Lakers might be toast in the first round. They can't simply rely on their offense keeping them in games. With five minutes left today, they had scored four points in the fourth Q and were something like 4-20 from three on the game.
Just once, I'd like to see LA come out and dominate from beginning to end in a game. Look at some of the first quarters the Cavs have had this year, 40-45 points against some teams. By my account, the Lakes have played maybe three quality games since the beginning of March. Three! Wins at Phoenix and San Antonio and one against Utah at home. Mixed in those 20 games are the three game road losing streak against Miami, Charlotte and Orlando, a two-point win over Toronto and three-point win over GS (both at home), embarassing losses at OKC, NO and ATL, a 19-point loss at home against the Spurs, and today's loss against a Portland team without Brandon Roy.
LO says every team turns on a switch when it comes to the playoffs. The best thing you can say about the Lakers now is they've been saving energy for a month and a half with their switch set at "off".
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Books
"And then Amalfitano walked into his devastated front yard and looked up and down the street, craning his neck he didn’t see any car or Rosa and he gripped Dieste’s book tightly, which he was still holding in his left hand. And he looked up at the sky and saw the moon, too big and too wrinkled, although it wasn’t night yet. And then he returned to his ravaged backyard and for a few seconds he stopped, looking left and right, ahead and behind, trying to see his shadow, but although it was still daytime and the sun was still shining in the west, toward Tijuana, he couldn’t see it. And then his eyes fell on the four rows of cord, each tied at one end to a kind of miniature soccer goal, two posts perhaps six feet tall planted in the ground, and a third post bolted horizontally across the top, making them sturdier, the cords strung from this top bar to hooks fixed in the side of the house. It was the clothesline, although the only things he saw hanging on it were a shirt of Rosa’s, white with ocher embroidery around the neck, and a pair of underpants and two towels, still dripping. In the corner, in a brick hut, was the washing machine. For a while he didn’t move, breathing with his mouth open, leaning on the horizontal bar of the clothesline. Then he went into the hut as if he were short of oxygen, and from a plastic bag with the logo of the supermarket where he went with his daughter to do the weekly shopping, he took out three clothespins, which he persisted in calling perritos, as they were called in Chile, and with them he clamped the book and hung it from one of the cords and then went back into the house, feeling much calmer."
The Part about Amalfitano, 2666 by Roberto Bolano
Who hasn’t, even among book lovers (especially among book lovers), thought of clothespinning a particularly irritating tome? Or burying a book in one’s garden (http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/05/20/fashion/20090521-poison-slideshow_6.html)? To let nature really have at it, in the same way it erodes rock or bone. As Roberto Bolano acknowledges, the idea was Duchamp’s. The surrealist once encouraged his sister to first buy and then fasten a geometry book from strings hanging from her balcony. He called it “Unhappy Readymade” with the idea being for the wind to “go through the book, chose its own problems, turn and tear out the pages.”
I’m hoping Pau Gasol won’t be tempted to do the same with 2666, the book Lakers coach Phil Jackson recently gave him. I read Bolano’s final book last year and now rank it among my favorites, often brutal, but beautifully so. At first I wondered whether Gasol received the English or Spanish edition. But the LA Times said it was the 898-page edition which means English. As my friend Steve points out, the paperback Spanish edition runs around 1100 pages. It sometimes takes longer to say things in Spanish, although I’m sure Gasol would prefer to read en Espanol.
Phil’s annual rite of giving out books to members of the team got me thinking about what books I’d give to my beloved Lakers including ones from my own library. So here it is just in time for their return from an eight-game roadie:
Ron Artest – The Basketball Diaries by Jim Carroll
From one New York City hustler to another. I love this book. I first read it growing up out here in LA and when I lived in New York I used to read it on the subway on my way to parties and the like. I have the thin, pocketsized paperback with the gangly, seated Carroll on the cover. There’s another one with the late JC in a tank top with his arms just popping out. God just molds some people to be junkies. The caveat is not to give Ron Ron the Leonardo DiCaprio cover edition. I like Leo and all but his basketball playing in the film version set hoops films back 20 years.
Shannon Brown – Gravity’s Rainbow by Thomas Pynchon
Not expecting a book report from Shannon any time soon, but title seems apropos for this year’s slam dunk champ.
Kobe Bryant – No Country for Old Men by Cormac McCarthy
When you think about it, Kobe is like the NBA equivalent to Anton Chigurh, a cold-blooded killer with a code who leaves nothing in the chamber (see Nike ad). “You’re asking that I make myself vulnerable and that I can never do,” Chigurh says to Carla Jean Moss moments before dispatching her. “I have only one way to live. It doesn’t allow for special cases.”
Andrew Bynum – The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (lifetime subscription)
It’s hard to finds a book for a 22-year-old making 12.5 million a year. This subscription gives him the ability to argue going under the knife versus in-season, three-month rehab. Sit down, Gary Vitti.
Jordan Farmar – Less Than Zero by Bret Easton Ellis
People in Los Angeles are afraid to merge on freeways, or in Jordan’s case consistently hit the three.
Derek Fisher – The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald
Clutch shooter. Union rep. Caring father. Great guy. Fish is all of these things, but like Jay Gatsby he’s got a dark side as well. He occasionally flops and some consider him to be a dirty player. The guy is crafty. For all we know, he could be secretly be running a bootlegging operation.
Pau Gasol - 2666 by Roberto Bolano.
Honorable Mention, Hopscotch by Julio Cortazar. The title eludes to the fact that you can play around with the order of Cortazar’s narrative, reading it straight through or following his suggested skips at the end of each chapter. It reminds me of Pau’s recent play. He’s great one night. Skip ahead and he goes 5-14 and misses six free throws.
D.J. Mbenga – The Day of Creation by J.G. Ballard.
Ballard’s tale of a doctor who discovers a third Nile is hallucinatory read set in a fictional land that could be Mbenga’s native DRC. Not that he pines for his homeland.
Adam Morrison – Everything Ravaged, Everything Burned by Wells Tower
I actually gave Adam a book once (Greil Marcus’ Lipstick Traces). This time I'm giving him Tower's book of short stories to send him on his way to his next destination. Plus the title sounds a bit like a summation of AmMo’s career. Note: Nothing about Che. I know he’s exhausted the subject. Honorable Mention: Trotsky: Downfall of a Revolutionary by Bertrand M. Patenaude.
Lamar Odom – The Big Rock Candy Mountain by Wallace Stegner
Just looking at the title sitting on his shelf should make LO’s mouth water. Honorable Mention: Roald Dahl's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
Josh Powell – Edisto by Padgett Powell (no relation)
I don’t know much about JP other than he can roll out of bed and hit a fifteen footer. But he’s from Charleston, SC, a jumper away from the setting of Padgett’s best novel.
Sasha Vujacic – Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
I’m going big guns here. The current Mr. Maria Sharapova needs to know how a Russian woman thinks and this classic offers the best insight.
Luke Walton – Wooden, A Lifetime of Observations and Reflections On and Off the Court by Coach John Wooden with Steve Jamison (Bill Walton autographed copy)
Learn from the master teachers, Luke. And no parties in Papa’s house.
The Part about Amalfitano, 2666 by Roberto Bolano
Who hasn’t, even among book lovers (especially among book lovers), thought of clothespinning a particularly irritating tome? Or burying a book in one’s garden (http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/05/20/fashion/20090521-poison-slideshow_6.html)? To let nature really have at it, in the same way it erodes rock or bone. As Roberto Bolano acknowledges, the idea was Duchamp’s. The surrealist once encouraged his sister to first buy and then fasten a geometry book from strings hanging from her balcony. He called it “Unhappy Readymade” with the idea being for the wind to “go through the book, chose its own problems, turn and tear out the pages.”
I’m hoping Pau Gasol won’t be tempted to do the same with 2666, the book Lakers coach Phil Jackson recently gave him. I read Bolano’s final book last year and now rank it among my favorites, often brutal, but beautifully so. At first I wondered whether Gasol received the English or Spanish edition. But the LA Times said it was the 898-page edition which means English. As my friend Steve points out, the paperback Spanish edition runs around 1100 pages. It sometimes takes longer to say things in Spanish, although I’m sure Gasol would prefer to read en Espanol.
Phil’s annual rite of giving out books to members of the team got me thinking about what books I’d give to my beloved Lakers including ones from my own library. So here it is just in time for their return from an eight-game roadie:
Ron Artest – The Basketball Diaries by Jim Carroll
From one New York City hustler to another. I love this book. I first read it growing up out here in LA and when I lived in New York I used to read it on the subway on my way to parties and the like. I have the thin, pocketsized paperback with the gangly, seated Carroll on the cover. There’s another one with the late JC in a tank top with his arms just popping out. God just molds some people to be junkies. The caveat is not to give Ron Ron the Leonardo DiCaprio cover edition. I like Leo and all but his basketball playing in the film version set hoops films back 20 years.
Shannon Brown – Gravity’s Rainbow by Thomas Pynchon
Not expecting a book report from Shannon any time soon, but title seems apropos for this year’s slam dunk champ.
Kobe Bryant – No Country for Old Men by Cormac McCarthy
When you think about it, Kobe is like the NBA equivalent to Anton Chigurh, a cold-blooded killer with a code who leaves nothing in the chamber (see Nike ad). “You’re asking that I make myself vulnerable and that I can never do,” Chigurh says to Carla Jean Moss moments before dispatching her. “I have only one way to live. It doesn’t allow for special cases.”
Andrew Bynum – The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (lifetime subscription)
It’s hard to finds a book for a 22-year-old making 12.5 million a year. This subscription gives him the ability to argue going under the knife versus in-season, three-month rehab. Sit down, Gary Vitti.
Jordan Farmar – Less Than Zero by Bret Easton Ellis
People in Los Angeles are afraid to merge on freeways, or in Jordan’s case consistently hit the three.
Derek Fisher – The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald
Clutch shooter. Union rep. Caring father. Great guy. Fish is all of these things, but like Jay Gatsby he’s got a dark side as well. He occasionally flops and some consider him to be a dirty player. The guy is crafty. For all we know, he could be secretly be running a bootlegging operation.
Pau Gasol - 2666 by Roberto Bolano.
Honorable Mention, Hopscotch by Julio Cortazar. The title eludes to the fact that you can play around with the order of Cortazar’s narrative, reading it straight through or following his suggested skips at the end of each chapter. It reminds me of Pau’s recent play. He’s great one night. Skip ahead and he goes 5-14 and misses six free throws.
D.J. Mbenga – The Day of Creation by J.G. Ballard.
Ballard’s tale of a doctor who discovers a third Nile is hallucinatory read set in a fictional land that could be Mbenga’s native DRC. Not that he pines for his homeland.
Adam Morrison – Everything Ravaged, Everything Burned by Wells Tower
I actually gave Adam a book once (Greil Marcus’ Lipstick Traces). This time I'm giving him Tower's book of short stories to send him on his way to his next destination. Plus the title sounds a bit like a summation of AmMo’s career. Note: Nothing about Che. I know he’s exhausted the subject. Honorable Mention: Trotsky: Downfall of a Revolutionary by Bertrand M. Patenaude.
Lamar Odom – The Big Rock Candy Mountain by Wallace Stegner
Just looking at the title sitting on his shelf should make LO’s mouth water. Honorable Mention: Roald Dahl's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
Josh Powell – Edisto by Padgett Powell (no relation)
I don’t know much about JP other than he can roll out of bed and hit a fifteen footer. But he’s from Charleston, SC, a jumper away from the setting of Padgett’s best novel.
Sasha Vujacic – Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
I’m going big guns here. The current Mr. Maria Sharapova needs to know how a Russian woman thinks and this classic offers the best insight.
Luke Walton – Wooden, A Lifetime of Observations and Reflections On and Off the Court by Coach John Wooden with Steve Jamison (Bill Walton autographed copy)
Learn from the master teachers, Luke. And no parties in Papa’s house.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
I like the Horns
Alabama barely beat Auburn, LSU, and Tennessee. I like Texas to win 17-10 and for Colt McCoy to have a big game. Texas had a couple of close calls as well and I know a lot of people in Austin even doubt the team. They're not a great team and not as good as the VY championship team. But Alabama is not great either and in the Battle of Macs, I'll go with the QB that has won more games than any in the modern history of college football.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Gil
Just before Christmas, as I was snaking my way along Sunset between Pacific Palisades and Santa Monica, I thought of Gilbert Arenas. Off to my right in the canyon below was Pali High (home of the Dolphins!) where we had conducted a photo shoot with Gil shortly after his last season with Golden State. Arenas had done some pretty crazy stuff his first two years in the league. Before he was actually given some decent burn he used to practice dunks jumping off the trampoline with the Golden State mascot (a feat he repeated at the 2007 All-Star Game weekend). He bought an Escalade for around 50 grand and then used another 50 Gs to trick it out even though he was the 31st pick in the 2001 Draft and making non-guranteed rookie money. During halftime of a game against San Antonio, Arenas was so upset with his play that he walked into the shower in full uniform and turned on the water. He supposedly played the second half in his wet uni.
The last exploit was the theme of our photo shoot. Gil stood in uniform on a Pali High handball court while the photographer's assistant threw bucket after bucket of lukewarm water on him. It was late afternoon and getting cool in the canyon, but Gil didn't care. He was a photographer's dream, putting up with being drenched for a good hour and a half. His girlfriend, Laura Govan was there as well.
Arenas' off-the-wall personality and his back story about growing up with his dad in LA and sleeping in the car when they first arrived from Florida made for a pretty good piece. And Gil was a good quote. When I interviewed him I went through the first round of the 2001 Draft naming all the guys who had been drafted before him. With the tape recorder running right in front of him he went off on several of the picks. He said a monkey could shoot better than Gerald Wallace and justifiably called Jeryl Sasser "terrible". He was especially miffed with the Celtics who had three first round picks and took Joe Johnson, Kendrick Brown and Joe Forte (ouch). "If I could pick one team to score 100 points against it would be Boston," he said.
The day the story went to print I got a phone call from Arenas while covering a tennis tourney in Indianapolis. Gil was pissed. He claimed that all the things he had said about the other players in his draft were off the record. Of course, he never said anything like during the interview and his girlfriend was there the entire time. He claimed that the next time he faced each player he dissed he was going to have to throw down with them. I tried to reason with him but he just wanted to vent and went off on what I thought was a very fair and positive story. The thing that really killed me was that he had just signed a 60 million dollar deal with the Wiz. He finally had all this respect. But as many people have said about Arenas, he's never trusted his success. As Mark Heisler suggested in his story on Arenas this past Sunday, Gil's always feared that everyone is going to discover that he's a fraud and abandon him just like his drug-addicted mom did when he was a little kid.
As Arenas went on to bigger and better things with Washington, became an All-Star and a cause celebre among the media (especially bloggers), I've always kept this idea of Gil in mind. Even now,in the wake of his gun trouble, I really don't think he's a bad guy. When I relayed my story to people who know him they said that Gil challenges everyone, even friends or teammates (look at his relationship with Deshawn Stevenson). He's got to know if you're on his side or not and even those that are in his court are perpetually tested. It's a matter of trust, is it not?
Occasionally people that have everything (fame, money, respect), if they want to go higher, they need to drum up controversy or sharpen their edge. That's what makes someone like Kobe so great. Maybe that's what MJ was looking to do with his HOF acceptance speech. Arenas isn't nearly the player those two are, but he's achieved some pretty big things in his NBA career and he's nobody's fool. While he does foolish things, deep down he's thinking 'Hey, it's just me, Gil, Hibachi, Agent Zero.' I'm not saying bringing guns to an NBA lockerroom was a totally calculated move, but on some level, how could it not be? His whole career, from his free throw routine to his use of the media, is defined by his ability to provoke and bewilder.
So what happens now? In the wake of Tiger mania, the press is quick to dole out advice and/or punishment. Jemele Hill thinks Arenas and Crittenton should be suspended for the season and that the Wiz can use this episode to void Arenas' hefty contract. I think he'll get a month suspension (Steven Jackson received 7 games for his gun going off in a nightclub). I doubt the Wiz can play a morality card with this and ax Arenas. I just don't see it happening. As Washington should have learned long ago, when ride with Gil you get the good and the bad.
The last exploit was the theme of our photo shoot. Gil stood in uniform on a Pali High handball court while the photographer's assistant threw bucket after bucket of lukewarm water on him. It was late afternoon and getting cool in the canyon, but Gil didn't care. He was a photographer's dream, putting up with being drenched for a good hour and a half. His girlfriend, Laura Govan was there as well.
Arenas' off-the-wall personality and his back story about growing up with his dad in LA and sleeping in the car when they first arrived from Florida made for a pretty good piece. And Gil was a good quote. When I interviewed him I went through the first round of the 2001 Draft naming all the guys who had been drafted before him. With the tape recorder running right in front of him he went off on several of the picks. He said a monkey could shoot better than Gerald Wallace and justifiably called Jeryl Sasser "terrible". He was especially miffed with the Celtics who had three first round picks and took Joe Johnson, Kendrick Brown and Joe Forte (ouch). "If I could pick one team to score 100 points against it would be Boston," he said.
The day the story went to print I got a phone call from Arenas while covering a tennis tourney in Indianapolis. Gil was pissed. He claimed that all the things he had said about the other players in his draft were off the record. Of course, he never said anything like during the interview and his girlfriend was there the entire time. He claimed that the next time he faced each player he dissed he was going to have to throw down with them. I tried to reason with him but he just wanted to vent and went off on what I thought was a very fair and positive story. The thing that really killed me was that he had just signed a 60 million dollar deal with the Wiz. He finally had all this respect. But as many people have said about Arenas, he's never trusted his success. As Mark Heisler suggested in his story on Arenas this past Sunday, Gil's always feared that everyone is going to discover that he's a fraud and abandon him just like his drug-addicted mom did when he was a little kid.
As Arenas went on to bigger and better things with Washington, became an All-Star and a cause celebre among the media (especially bloggers), I've always kept this idea of Gil in mind. Even now,in the wake of his gun trouble, I really don't think he's a bad guy. When I relayed my story to people who know him they said that Gil challenges everyone, even friends or teammates (look at his relationship with Deshawn Stevenson). He's got to know if you're on his side or not and even those that are in his court are perpetually tested. It's a matter of trust, is it not?
Occasionally people that have everything (fame, money, respect), if they want to go higher, they need to drum up controversy or sharpen their edge. That's what makes someone like Kobe so great. Maybe that's what MJ was looking to do with his HOF acceptance speech. Arenas isn't nearly the player those two are, but he's achieved some pretty big things in his NBA career and he's nobody's fool. While he does foolish things, deep down he's thinking 'Hey, it's just me, Gil, Hibachi, Agent Zero.' I'm not saying bringing guns to an NBA lockerroom was a totally calculated move, but on some level, how could it not be? His whole career, from his free throw routine to his use of the media, is defined by his ability to provoke and bewilder.
So what happens now? In the wake of Tiger mania, the press is quick to dole out advice and/or punishment. Jemele Hill thinks Arenas and Crittenton should be suspended for the season and that the Wiz can use this episode to void Arenas' hefty contract. I think he'll get a month suspension (Steven Jackson received 7 games for his gun going off in a nightclub). I doubt the Wiz can play a morality card with this and ax Arenas. I just don't see it happening. As Washington should have learned long ago, when ride with Gil you get the good and the bad.
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Hurry Back Ron Artest
The Lakers knew that signing Ron Artest meant they'd encounter a few bumps and bruises along the way. They just never imagined it would be Ron Ron's own bumped head and a bruised elbow that would keep him out of the lineup for what has been four games now. For the most part, Artest has been a model Angelino. He's embraced the city, giving out his phone number on more than one occasion and keeping his tweeps well versed. He gets frustrated with opposing players from time to time, but he almost never has a problem with a referee. He even mixes in the old school raising of the hand when whistled for a foul.
As a player, he is still trying to find his role within the triangle. But if the last five games are any indication, the Lakers are lost without his defense. In the first of LA's four games in five nights, Artest had a so-so game against Cleveland and LeBron. LBJ had a solid all-around game (he missed a triple-double by one assist) and Artest fouled out, but James didn't dominate scoring-wise. Yeah, it's odd to say since he scored 26, but he mostly killed the Lakes as a facilitator. Overall, the Lakers D was terrible and they missed their own share of bunnies (see Gasol). Then Ron fell down some stairs and blacked out. The Lakers have struggled to wake up in his absence. In the four games Artest has missed, LA has given up 103, 118, 118, and 108 points.
Were it not for the heroics of the Kobester, they could be riding a five-game losing streak. Seriously. In the first game in Sacramento, they blew a six-point lead in the last three minutes and they were down by seven in the first OT. They were blown out in Phoenix and they followed that up by yielding 118 to a Golden State team playing the second of a back-to-back. The first game for the Warriors was a win over the Celtics! In fact, GS played Phoenix, Boston and LA in consecutive games (who made up that sked?) Joel and Stu kept marveling at how the Warriors were shooting close to 60 percent. "It's easy," I screamed at my TV, "when you give up layup after layup." Then, of course, last night the Lakers went down by 20 against the Kings at Staples and won on Kobe's third game-winner in a month.
Maybe that's an omen. Like I've said before, there's a tendency for decent teams who lose close games one year to come back and win a majority of those the next season (assuming most of the personnel is the same). The Lakers were great in close games last season. In fact, they were rarely blown out. So one wonders if the pendulum will swing the other way this season. For every blowout (Cleveland, Phoenix) which you think will serve as a wakeup call, recently there have been even more alarming near-catastrophes against GS and Sac-town. Will this team win 60 games? Are they good enough on defense to repeat? Heaven knows when they move the ball on O, they can be scary good.
I thought it was refreshing though to hear Artest say recently he thought that despite their record he felt the Lakers have played well as a unit in less than ten games this year. To repeat as champs, you need to generate hunger. To their advantage, the Lakes have not only the NBA's best player but the league's hungriest in Kobe. Even Artest is amazed by how much Kobe wants to win every night. But if this recent spell of poor play means anything it's that LA needs Artest. They need his shot, his hustle, his defense. Maybe, Trevor Ariza will end up having a better season stat-wise than Ron Ron, but Trevor can't guard guys like Carmelo or LBJ. It may be difficult to sum up just how much Artest means to this team. The past week has been a pretty good testament to his value, but ultimately it will be whether or not the Lakers are holding the trophy in June.
As a player, he is still trying to find his role within the triangle. But if the last five games are any indication, the Lakers are lost without his defense. In the first of LA's four games in five nights, Artest had a so-so game against Cleveland and LeBron. LBJ had a solid all-around game (he missed a triple-double by one assist) and Artest fouled out, but James didn't dominate scoring-wise. Yeah, it's odd to say since he scored 26, but he mostly killed the Lakes as a facilitator. Overall, the Lakers D was terrible and they missed their own share of bunnies (see Gasol). Then Ron fell down some stairs and blacked out. The Lakers have struggled to wake up in his absence. In the four games Artest has missed, LA has given up 103, 118, 118, and 108 points.
Were it not for the heroics of the Kobester, they could be riding a five-game losing streak. Seriously. In the first game in Sacramento, they blew a six-point lead in the last three minutes and they were down by seven in the first OT. They were blown out in Phoenix and they followed that up by yielding 118 to a Golden State team playing the second of a back-to-back. The first game for the Warriors was a win over the Celtics! In fact, GS played Phoenix, Boston and LA in consecutive games (who made up that sked?) Joel and Stu kept marveling at how the Warriors were shooting close to 60 percent. "It's easy," I screamed at my TV, "when you give up layup after layup." Then, of course, last night the Lakers went down by 20 against the Kings at Staples and won on Kobe's third game-winner in a month.
Maybe that's an omen. Like I've said before, there's a tendency for decent teams who lose close games one year to come back and win a majority of those the next season (assuming most of the personnel is the same). The Lakers were great in close games last season. In fact, they were rarely blown out. So one wonders if the pendulum will swing the other way this season. For every blowout (Cleveland, Phoenix) which you think will serve as a wakeup call, recently there have been even more alarming near-catastrophes against GS and Sac-town. Will this team win 60 games? Are they good enough on defense to repeat? Heaven knows when they move the ball on O, they can be scary good.
I thought it was refreshing though to hear Artest say recently he thought that despite their record he felt the Lakers have played well as a unit in less than ten games this year. To repeat as champs, you need to generate hunger. To their advantage, the Lakes have not only the NBA's best player but the league's hungriest in Kobe. Even Artest is amazed by how much Kobe wants to win every night. But if this recent spell of poor play means anything it's that LA needs Artest. They need his shot, his hustle, his defense. Maybe, Trevor Ariza will end up having a better season stat-wise than Ron Ron, but Trevor can't guard guys like Carmelo or LBJ. It may be difficult to sum up just how much Artest means to this team. The past week has been a pretty good testament to his value, but ultimately it will be whether or not the Lakers are holding the trophy in June.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
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.
Monday, June 15, 2009
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!"
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!"
Thursday, May 28, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, May 15, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, May 1, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
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.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
