Lakers Handle Pistons as Kobe Finds Balance
Lakers fans understand what I mean when I say that sometimes, watching Kobe Bryant play, it's almost as though the game in progress becomes secondary. The greatness of Kobe Bryant simply transcends the moment, and you could almost forget that there is an event taking place, the outcome of which matters quite a bit to the players, coaches, and indeed, Kobe Bryant himself. You could almost forget that anything bigger was happening than you, sitting transfixed, watching Kobe be Kobe. This was one of those nights — not quite to the extent of 81 points, or 62 in three quarters, but nonetheless.
And yet, even as Kobe Bryant finished with 40 points for the 100th time in his career — only the third player in history to reach that mark — there was a game taking place. And it just so happens that it was a game that mattered just a little bit more than your average November NBA game against middling competition. The Lakers were on their first "losing streak" of the season, having lost their last two games, and those two losses had been bad ones. Too soon to be freaking out? Yes, of course. Important to right the ship? Also, yes.
So while it would be so tempting to simply bask in the beauty of Kobe's one hundredth 40-point game, and the way in which he scored those 40 points, we're going to resist that urge and get into some other observations about this mostly encouraging game.
Okay, so maybe we'll bask for a moment, at least. Let's do this quasi HP-style.
Thing That Mesmerized Me
Kobe Bryant. Perhaps it was poetic, in some sense, that Kobe started the night with an unchallenged airball, before roaring out to a frustrating 1-6 start. Then, in a performance that is indicative of Kobe's challenge this year, he shot 16-23 for the rest of the game, including an unbelievable stretch in the second and third quarters in which he hit 12 of 15 shots.
The challenge for Kobe, this year perhaps more than ever before, is adaptation. As most of you know, I'm a huge fan of his significantly augmented post game, and I'm not alone. I think it could equate to a leap in Kobe's overall game, as well as increased longevity at a very high level as he plays into his thirties. However, as dominant as Bryant's post game has been in the early season, it has at times been so much the focus that it has rendered both Kobe and the team one-dimensional. If Kobe is going to play almost exclusively from the post, and the Lakers are going to force the ball into him on every possession, then defenses will pack it into the paint and both Bryant and the Lakers as a whole will sputter. Even Stu and Joel picked up on this, admiring Kobe's new post moves while also calling for him to mix it up, keeping opponents guessing rather than falling into a predictable routine.
Last night, he did just that, and he was brilliant. If the last few years have been "Good Ol' Kobe," and this year has been "Post Kobe," then his 100th forty-point game was a devastating combination of the two. At times, he posted up. At others, he attacked from the perimeter, off the dribble or on cuts within the offense. At times, he created head-shakingly easy shots for himself with superb footwork and the full utilization of the broadest, most fundamentally sound skill set in existence. At others, he simply hit impossible shots, as he always has done — fadeaway jumpers after absorbing the foul, super-extended hook-layups, and no-look, over-the-head toss-ins that have no business finding the net. But best of all, while busy being unstoppable, he still found time to look for his teammates.
As Kobe's game changes, and the needs of his team also change, teams will adapt to counter him. For Kobe, continued dominance — both for himself, and for his team — depend not on any one skill, but on his ability to balance all of his many skills, keeping defenses guessing and playing not only to his strengths, but to his team's. This is what he did last night.
Oh, and 40 points on 29 field goal attempts. Sweet.
Things I Liked
The second and third quarter efforts. The Lakers played very good defense during these two periods, holding the Pistons to 0.90 points per possession. They were active and persistent, and the Pistons' offense often struggled to find a shot at all (let alone a good one) before the buzzer. On the other side of the ball, the Lakers' offense was untouchable, scoring at a jaw-dropping rate of 1.45 points per possession. Their passing was crisp, willing, and frequent, and it was a thing of beauty to watch. Of course, it didn't hurt that the Lakers' new dynamic duo were on fire in these two quarters, with Kobe scoring 27 on 12-15 shooting, and Andrew Bynum hitting 6-8 for 14 points, along with four rebounds.
Andrew Bynum. Offensively, it's safe to say the kid has arrived. He is so long, so soft of the hands, and so talented, that few teams can keep Bynum from getting his points these days, and at a very efficient rate. Tonight, however, his effort was there in every aspect of the game. He was moving his feet on defense, showing on pick and rolls and even challenging guards on the perimeter. He was altering shots, lunging after rebounds, and even scrambling after loose balls. Offensively, he wasn't forcing it, made good decisions, and knew when to kick the ball out, resulting in an open shot for a teammate or a re-post for himself. He has had better numbers, but it is with all-around efforts like these that he is at his best, and makes the Lakers that much harder to beat.
The Bench. They didn't mesmerize me, but they were good enough. Josh Powell remained steadily consistent, Jordan Farmar attacked the basket and remained under control, and Shannon Brown continued to be a spark of energy whose impact on the game was far more positive than his 4-12 shooting line would seem to indicate. Yes, I was watching in the fourth quarter ... see below.
Ron Artest, role player. Has he ever been less noticeable, or less noticed, in his entire career? At this point, he is flying so low under the radar, playing with such poise, and fitting so well into the system without drawing attention to himself, being a distraction, or wasting Laker possessions, that I don't feel like it fits to call him anything but his full name, at this point. No Crazy Pills, no Tru Warier, not even Ron Ron. When you forget he's there, he's just Ron Artest. And it's a very good thing.
Pau Gasol, hopeful. The Spaniard has been very vocal about his frustration with his injury, and has shown a rare willingness to express some pretty serious negativity regarding it to the press. The fact that during the third/fourth quarter interview, he was hopeful and positive, and seemed to think it very possible that he could be back by Thursday, was encouraging to me. Also, Phil Jackson was tickled pink not to have to do said third/fourth quarter interview.
Things I Didn't Like
The First Quarter. The second and third quarters were a relief, because the first was continued frustration. Non-existent defense, sloppiness on offense, overall lack of effort and interest, and general bobbleheadedness. The Lake Show was discombobulated and distracted in the first quarter, and a good team would have put us in a pretty decent early hole.
Pau Gasol choosing the wrong CSI. I'm all about Gasol branching out. The dude's a scholar and a philosopher, and was studying to be a doctor before he decided to go pro ball. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he can act, and I wish him the best of luck. And since I just like the guy so damn much, if he does act, I'm probably going to want to see it. Which now poses a problem, since watching CSI: Miami is against my religion. Seriously, Pau?
Thing I Hated
Staples Center Boo-ing Kwame Brown. Disappointing doesn't say it. Appalling is closer. Way to stay classy, Los Angeles.
Thing I Didn't Care About
The Fourth Quarter. Perhaps you're upset about the end-of-game lapse. You wanted the bench to come in and hold the 25-point lead. You wanted a good, old fashioned blowout. The fact that the Pistons cut the lead from 25 to eight, before finally losing by 13, really frustrates you, and you can't see how I could list the bench as a positive.
Frankly, I could care less whether we win by 13 or 25. I fully expect that a team up 25 in the fourth is going to let up a bit, play with less intensity, and thereby let the other team back in a bit. Let's be honest, a 25-point fourth quarter comeback is virtually impossible — consider, for example, that between the two teams, only three times (out of eight) did a team score more than 25 total quarter points. 25 more than your opponent in a single quarter? Not happening. So yeah, a team up 25 in the fourth quarter relaxes a bit, and the other team gets back in it a bit. The game was never in danger, so I couldn't care less.
Thing I'd Like To Leave You With
Clearly, this season is still a process. If you honestly thought the Lakers could win 70 games, you didn't consider that this team still has many lessons left to learn — and to Phil Jackson, the regular season is for learning those lessons, not for chasing meaningless records. Because there are still lessons left to be learned, there will be ups and downs. The weekend was a down, and a bit discouraging. As of this moment, we're back on the up. No, all problems are not fixed, and this team is not ready to win a championship yet. But we're seeing very good potential from them, and an ability to understand their own problems, along with a willingness and ability to address and resolve them. While not enough to inspire entitlement arrogance supreme confidence, it is certainly an encouraging indication.
0 recs |
30 comments
|
Comments
Kobe broke out the Dober-Mamba last night.
We played great defense on Detroit’s guards last night. Once the Lkaers realized that Detroit’s big men aren’t likely to score, the game turned. Kobe, Fish, Farmar, Shannon, Ron Ron. All of them. They did a great job moving their feet and being active and intense pressuring the man with the ball.
whither travel?
I’m new to SS&R but as an avid Cleveland-based Lakers fan (yes…even me…in the land of LeBron, LOVES Kobe and the Lake Show), I can’t believe I’m the only one making this startling observation: WHAT SCHEDULE-MAKER HATES THE LAKERS SO MUCH??
This team is playing somewhere around 70-75% of its home games in the first half of the season. This is truly a recipe for destruction. Out of all the “elite” teams in the league—to say nothing of the rise of the Nuggets and the surprise thus far of the Suns—LA is in the worst shape.
Come April and May, when it’s so important for a squad to start hitting their groove, LA’s headed for a buzz saw.
Am I wrong about this? Please lemme know!
I think that looking at the schedule it might look that way
but I think that any adversity is good because it tests a teams resiliency. Last year when Bynum got hurt I think it helped this team out a lot. They beat the Celtics and Cavs and broke their streaks during that 7 game road trip (not sure if it was 7 exactly) and the team looked so much better after that. It just depends on the type of fan, to some it may seem like a downside while to others it seems like a good test. It’s my opinion that a true champion should be able to handle and type of challenge that the scheduling may bring. just my opinion.
I think smashing the Suns made me realize how far Kobe and the Lakers have come from five years ago, when the Suns had the world at their feet.
by PURPLE AND GOLD FOR LIFE on Nov 18, 2009 6:35 AM PST up reply actions
Easy schedules do nothing for championship contenders
Easy schedules are great for racking up regular season wins. Phooey.
For championship contenders, easy schedules and blowout wins do NOTHING to foster championship preparation.
Cases in point: the Lakers romped in the 2008 playoffs, got to the Finals easily, and were then blown out in the Finals; and the Cavs set records in sweeping the first 2 rounds of the 2009 playoffs, then were manhandled in the ECF.
Meanwhile, in 2008 the Celtics struggled quite a bit in the 2008 playoffs — causing them to respond to their issues, preventing them from getting overconfident, and leading to a dominant Finals performance. In 2009 the Lakers struggled some in the early rounds of the playoffs, adversity which they responded to by becoming a better team with each game they played, resulting in a pretty solid 4-1 Finals victory.
For championship contenders, easy doesn’t help anyone. Challenges and adversity in the regular season and early rounds of the playoffs enable truly championship worthy teams to discover and address their weaknesses, keep them from becoming complacent, and eventually lead to them becoming better teams before the championship round. Better they face that adversity in the regular season (where losses matter less) and early rounds of the playoffs (where they can win on talent even while they’re still figuring out their shortcomings), rather than discovering their weaknesses in the Finals, where losses matter, there isn’t time to correct and learn, and the competition is good enough to punish you for it.
Also, don’t think the Lakers early schedule has been as easy as it may seem. Their strength of the schedule (the only thing Hollinger’s power rankings are good for) has been 4th toughest overall, and toughest in the last 10.
Strength & Honor
It's good to be the Champs
That's my take, too...
Whereas most of the talking heads were fixated on the Lakers’ easy opening, there is an evil twin — a hellacious turn of the schedule that’s probably going to have them running at a sub-.500 clip for at least a month… Things finally get easier towards the end again, but there’s gonna be a big, nasty stretch and the Lakers need to be at full strength for it…
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
Ah, the ever-pessimistic Timbo ... it never fails.
Tell me, what about the last two years suggests that the Lakers can’t pull off better than .500 ball in even a tough stretch?
Is it the way they still managed to play .500 ball when Bynum went down, and before Pau arrived?
Is it the way they dominated their 7-game road trip last March? Or the 3-game trip against Houston, San Antonio, and Portland, also last March?
Is it they swept their 6-game road trip last January/February, immediately after losing Bynum, culminating in visits to Cleveland and Boston?
Clearly, you’re being optimistic. I’d say it’s obvious that the Lakers tough late schedule — something they’ve never experienced before, right? — will have them playing sub-.500 ball for at least a 6-8 weeks. We’ll be lucky to have home court advantage in the first round.
Strength & Honor
It's good to be the Champs
Perma-bear Timbo
"This is not a game for boys. This is a game for men." - Phil Jackson
by Gils_Keloids on Nov 18, 2009 4:56 PM PST up reply actions
Nice post, agree with everything
Just one other thing I’d like to add:
Interior defense has been horrible all season long. Let’s tighten it up a bit.
Anybody see UPS’ crab dribble in the 4th, lol?
PJ still can’t recognize the danger of playing Powell and Mbenga at the same time. Neither guy defends the pick n roll very well.
Farmar and Brown also need to improve and body up the big if a center or PF flashes on D until the flasher has time to retreat.
Josh,
It seems to me that Phil didn’t want them to shoot for 70. Erratic substitutions gave me the feeling that he was doing his Zen and would rather have a focused on the little things team than a burnt out team come playoffs.
Also I am a big fan of your writing which is why I wanted to throw out the “I could care less” about the fourth quarter and give you “I could not care less”. I realize this makes me one of those people, but hey I couldn’t care less.
Right and wrong
First, I’ll tell you right now that I won’t even pretend to have the slightest idea what’s going on in his head, not now, not in the past, not in the future. I just like the ultimate results.
Onto your grammar comment. First, know that writing not only well, but also correctly, is important to me, so no offense is ever taken when someone points out an error (so long as it’s not part of an ad hominem attempt to invalidate my point by making me look stupid). As to your comment itself, technically, you’re right. Practically … not sure.
You see, this is one of many elements of contemporary English that is sort of in a gray area, riding straddling the fence of acceptability. Technically, the literal meaning of the words, “I could care less,” is that you actually do currently care to some undefined extent — since it’s only possible to care less if you currently care at least a little. Clearly, that’s not what the phrase is intended to convey.
However, this is where we get into that gray area. Human language is not, for example, like computer language. Computer language is prescriptive, in that the rules of the language determine how it is used. That is, you use it how the rules say you should use it, or it doesn’t work. Human language, on the other hand, is not prescriptive. It is self-defining; it creates its own meaning.
As my dad, the linguist, says: A word’s meaning is determined by its usage, not by its etymology. Essentially, what he’s saying is that, at a certain point, it doesn’t matter what a word meant once upon a time, and it doesn’t matter what the root words were that were combined to create that word, and why it came into existence. It only matters what it means to the person using it, and to the person hearing it in use, today.
Take the word “butterfly”. Frankly, I haven’t got a clue why that’s what we call them. I’m sure if you look up the etymological history of the word, there’s some sort of reason for it. But it doesn’t matter. All that matters is that today, regardless of the original meaning, it refers to a specific kind of insect.
Or how about “google”? The term originally came from the word “googol,” which is the extremely huge number 1 × 10^100. But while it may be amusing trivia to learn where the term came from, and why Google chose to name their company after that massive number, it doesn’t actually have anything to do with the word “google” today, which is in no way related to numbers or mathematics. “To google” is to search online, and that definition came about not because the writers of a dictionary decided it should be — that is, it was not prescribed — but simply through practice in an evolving English language. People started using it that way, and so it came to mean what they were using it to mean.
At a certain point, when that usage becomes widely enough accepted and recognized, it has to be considered valid. This, basically, is the concept of descriptive grammar and linguistics (meaning that we describe how language is used), as opposed to prescriptive grammar and linguistics (meaning that we prescribe how language should be used).
This is also true with idiomatic phrases. Take, for example, the phrase, “off the hook.” Technically, this phrase means off or no longer in trouble or accountable. As in, “I screwed up, but he screwed up worse, so I’m off the hook.” Or, “Everything’s cool, you’re off the hook.” It can mean that you no longer need to fear negative ramifications, or simply that you are relieved from some previously held expectation (i.e., drinks were on you, but someone else decided to get them, so you’re “off the hook”).
But in the last few years, ignorant misled young people have started using it as synonymous to the very similar phrase, “off the charts.” As in, “Dude, that party was off the hook!” Relative to the phrases original and historical meaning, as well as its literal implication, this makes no sense whatsoever. However, it is beginning to get to the point, at least in younger subcultures, where it is used so organically, recognized so universally, that it is becoming valid.
You see, it doesn’t matter what it should mean — its actual meaning is whatever the speaker uses it to mean and the hearer understands it to mean. If, based on the context, it can organically be used to mean something that is consistent and easily understood by both parties, then that usage has valid meaning.
This is the case with the phrases “could care less” and “couldn’t care less.” Because nobody but nobody reads or hears either phrase and naturally thinks, “Ah, so clearly it does matter quite a bit to you,” — instead, we all hear, “I don’t care at all, not one iota,” when we hear either version — the technical meaning really doesn’t matter. Both versions, even if one is “technically” incorrect, mean the same thing in contemporary English.
That said, when there actually is an option, I personally tend to prefer to use the more historically and technically correct version. That doesn’t make me more correct because I used one phrase over the other — it’s simply my preference, my style. So, thanks for the correction.
Sorry for the book. As the son of a linguist, these things interest me more than they do most people.
Strength & Honor
It's good to be the Champs
by Josh Tucker on Nov 18, 2009 11:44 AM PST up reply actions
Language is Living
It’s like the words “Who” vs “Whom” and “Fewer” vs “less”. Who cares? What purpose does it serve to have these differentiations, you can communicate just as well without indicating that one is a direct subject, or that one is countable. I almost think some usage rules were developed as class indicators, so that the snobs could feel superior to others and acknowledge each other because they knew the rules.
In other news, “Ain’t” is now in the dictionary.
All I care about is clarity of communication. If grammar rules serve that, great. If they don’t, we don’t need to acknowledge them.
"This is not a game for boys. This is a game for men." - Phil Jackson
by Gils_Keloids on Nov 18, 2009 2:23 PM PST up reply actions
Indeed
Actually, my dad (the linguist) would tell you that most of this comes from Latin. It was imposed on English, a language that it does not actually fit. And yes, I’m there were some ulterior motives/implications there. Those who insist on those rules today, especially those who should know better, are indeed snobs.
Not that I don’t use many of them when I write. I know when to use “whom,” etc. But not all of them. I’ll end a sentence with a preposition as much as I damn well please, because that’s a Latin rule that does not fit English, and makes our language, both written and spoken, absurdly awkward.
Still, it’s a difficult line. Where do we draw it? We can communicate clearly without proper punctuation, capitalization, or even decent vocabulary. Should we encourage this? Should we allow it? Should we be actively be against it? Personally, I think there’s a pretty blurry line — I’m okay with many of the more moderate ways in which the rules can be relaxed, though I tend to actually observe the stricter ones in practice.
Strength & Honor
It's good to be the Champs
It should all depend on context
When it’s called for in order to be clear, be precise. When it don’t matter, don’t.
You wouldn’t use a scalpel to spread butter, although you could, but you’d better damn sure not use a butter knife to perform surgery.
I think I’m so clever.
"This is not a game for boys. This is a game for men." - Phil Jackson
by Gils_Keloids on Nov 18, 2009 4:55 PM PST up reply actions
And the Lakers are now 5-0
When Kobe takes more than 25 shots.
"This is not a game for boys. This is a game for men." - Phil Jackson
Ba-zing-ga!
Strength & Honor
It's good to be the Champs
by Josh Tucker on Nov 18, 2009 11:45 AM PST up reply actions
getting pau back is only gonna make us flow even better
he helps our game flow really smooth when hes out on the floor, cant wait to get him back.
I was disappointed Kobe had to come back in the 4th. . .
and expend that much energy. Especially since he’s nursing an injury. But it was important to get this win after dropping the last two.
It will be interesting to see how long it takes Pau to come back to form and how long it takes the others to get used to playing with him again. Hopefully it will also shore up the 2nd unit having Lamar & Pau or Drew play with them. So maybe Kobe can finally rest a bit.
Lastly, I know Artest has not been perfect but I have appreciated his consistent effort and mostly good play. He’s been better than I expected. And as I read somewhere that Fisher said that Ron would pick up the offense even more quickly if his teammates were doing things properly and making the cuts/movements they’re supposed to be making.
And yes I am a 2009 World Champion Fan.
I think that's the bench's problem
It doesn’t seem like they care … even in a blowout, most other team’s benches look to push the lead … my problem with the bench is that they shouldn’t be going into the 4th quarter garbage time thinking it is garbage time – thus it’s a waste of time. If they don’t put any effort or hustle into garbage time, then no wonder come game time they’re always so hilter kilter.
It’s just disheartening that they don’t use the time to execute the triangle, figure it out, etc. They’re always getting outhustled come garbage time in the 4th quarter.
Lakers 2009 Road to Redemption: TREVOR, DEREK, LAMAR, PAU & KOBE.
Play the game of which Lakers reminds you of: TA - TI, Shannon Brown - Chris Brown, Pau Gasol - Jesus, Machine - Luis Scola/Russell Brand, PJ with mustache and beard - Colonel Sanders.
by PeanutButterSpread on Nov 18, 2009 11:37 AM PST reply actions
i was saying the samething last nite.
they just seem to cruise and not play all out. they play unorganized like thay dont know what to do.
especially on D.
they have their moments when they are good and thats when it looks like they are focused and they play to win, and then they have their just cruising moments
by true_lakerfan on Nov 18, 2009 1:06 PM PST up reply actions
Hasn't been a little over a year since the Lakers had a three game losing streak?
I can’t quite remember the last time they had that sort of streak.
it last happened right before we got gasol...
from january 23rd to the 27th
we lost to dallas and san antonio on the road
and lost to cleveland at home…
Leave Chad Billingsley alone!!!
At this point, it's actually closer to 2 years than it is to 1
Strength & Honor
It's good to be the Champs
About the "win by less than 10
"I don't want to be the next Michael Jordan. I only want to be Kobe Bryant,"
-Kobe Bryant
woops I meant "About the not win by too much" thing
It doesn’t matter if you go 82-0 and sweep all the playoffs by winning by 1 every game. You still did all those things and won the title. Someone here once said (and if that person is here, right now speak up I’m not trying to plagerize) “Blowing out teams consistently isn’t what makes you great, It’s what makes you the Cavaliers” ANd also whoever said that, do you think I should make it my signature
"I don't want to be the next Michael Jordan. I only want to be Kobe Bryant,"
-Kobe Bryant
Better yet
“Blowing out teams consistently isn’t what makes you great; it’s what makes you Eastern Conference Finalists.”
or
“Blowing out teams consistently isn’t what makes you great; it’s what makes you the Orlando Magic’s victims.”
Strength & Honor
It's good to be the Champs
just ask mike brown
they beat up easily on the bad/ average teams
but against the lakers, celtics,and magic
they crumble…
a setup where 1 player runs the entire offense just wont work…
Leave Chad Billingsley alone!!!

by 






























