Posted by HoopsAvenue on June 19, 2008 under General NBA, NBA Playoffs | 
Will Kobe ever be compared to Jordan again? Yes, of course. That’s what the media does.
Should he? No, probably not.
The biggest reason is that Jordan never really had an Achilles heel. His biggest weakness was probably that he was not a good three point shooter, but he always found other ways to score no matter who was guarding him. And, his intangibles were always in a league of their own. Kobe, on the other hand, has at least two Achilles heels: his inconsistency in inspiring his teammates and bad timing when it comes to taking over the game.
Let’s look at the cold hard facts. Kobe and the Lakers have now lost two consecutive Finals series and both times his team didn’t even show up for half the series. In 2004, it was Kobe’s selfishness and the Lakers’ overall lack of respect for the Pistons (the Malone injury didn’t help either) that did them in. Now, in 2008, Kobe has matured a bit, but you still have to question his leadership when a team falls flat on its face in the most important games of its season. No, it is not all Kobe’s fault, not by a long shot, but ask yourself if Michael Jordan would ever lose a Finals game by 30+ points. He never did. The most a Jordan-led Bulls team ever lost by in the Finals was by 21 to Seattle in 1996. Oh, and that was a Game 4 with the Bulls up 3-0.
With all that said, Kobe is still the best player in the game. You can make good arguments for a few other players (Pierce is creeping up there), but I would still put Kobe at the top of the list. He’s now got a good supporting cast and has a good chance to return to the Finals next season, but we’ve seen that he doesn’t quite have the it factor that Jordan did. Jordan would take over a game before it got out of hand. Kobe should have done that last night, but he didn’t. He should have never allowed himself to get so out of rhythm in Game 4 either despite the big lead. We know Kobe has the ability to take over, but his timing just seems off sometimes. Jordan seemed to know when to take over a game. He understood the idea of momentum a lot better than Kobe does. Last night I got the feeling that Kobe never really got worried until it was too late. I don’t think he gave up, but he had the memory of coming back from 24 down in Game 4 in the back of his head and by the time he felt a sense of urgency, there was no way to stop the Celtic onslaught. He underestimated the determination of KG, Pierce, and company. This was simply not a game you were going to overcome a big deficit.
Kobe might become a better leader and he might get a better feel for when to take over a game, but after last night, his legacy simply cannot live up to Jordan’s. Even if he wins six titles, three of them would have been with Shaq. That, plus the black scars on his legacy from 2004 and 2008 preclude him from being mentioned alongside Jordan as the Greatest Ever. He may be Jordan’s equal as far as talent, but Jordan had that innate intangible that Kobe is still learning on the job.
Posted by HoopsAvenue on June 18, 2008 under Boston Celtics, NBA Playoffs |
It’s hard not to root for the Celtics to win the championship every year if we get to see Kevin Garnett go crazy every time they do. Seriously, someone get that guy some sleeping pills. At least he didn’t forget his Adidas plug to precede all his shoutouts. The NBA just isn’t going to be the same anymore without KG having a chip on his shoulder. Oh, and how about Paul Pierce ruining Doc Rivers shirt with the gatorade dump? Major bonus points for some originality in their celebrating.
This championship was a 21st century championship like no other, though (if KG’s “Anything is Possible” take on Adidas slogan didn’t tip you off). Nearly the entire team was put together in one season. There was, first, the Ray Allen deal which was reasonable. Then, the KG deal, which…well, let’s just remember it was Danny Ainge dealing with Kevin McHale. Yes, the Wolves did get some potential and 1st round picks, but they couldn’t find any other team to get a slightly better deal from? Hmm. Then, there were some smart free agent pickups like James Posey. And, Sam Cassell, successfully pulled off the tried and true veteran maneuver of riding coattails. So, Boston made just enough smart moves to put together a team that even Doc Rivers couldn’t screw up.
Danny Ainge is validated as a GM? Kevin Garnett doesn’t have a chip on his shoulder? The NBA just won’t be the same anymore.
Posted by HoopsAvenue on June 17, 2008 under NBA Playoffs |
If there’s one aspect of David Stern’s personality that is decidedly unbusiness-like, its his burning desire to show you that he just doesn’t give a darn what you think. The guy is a rebel. How else can you explain the Commish sending conspiracy theorist lightning rod Dick Bavetta out to referee a crucial Game 5 of the NBA Finals? In public, Stern says all the right things to try to diminish the rampant conspiracy theories, but then he picks the one referee who most fans are at least suspicious of and who is perhaps even under investigation, if you believe former referee Hue Hollins.
Oh, and what happened last night? Ray Allen fouled out. Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett picked up five fouls and Kobe got away with a foul on the game turning steal. Now, I don’t think there were any officiating improprieties last night (but I’m sure you could easily find a different perspective on another blog), but why would the Commish set himself up for this scenario? It’s as if he enjoys playing this cat and mouse game with his conspiracy theorists. Nah nah na nah nah, you can’t prove it. Maybe not yet, but is your stubbornness really good for the game?
As for the series, I don’t know how the Lakers are still alive. Perhaps the only reason they were able to win last night is they were so motivated by the potential embarassment of blowing another huge lead that they did just enough to win or maybe the Celts let them win so they can win a title on their home floor. Oh, and did anyone recognize the defense they were playing on Paul Pierce? It wasn’t zone or man, I think they call it let-him-score defense. I’d never count a team with Kobe on it out, but the odds look long for L.A. Then again, this team has been so hard to figure out this series that maybe they have some magic left (although the actual Magic in his prime would be preferable).
Posted by HoopsAvenue on June 12, 2008 under Boston Celtics, NBA Playoffs |
What would you do if your Doc Rivers? You can either stick with Rajon Rondo or give more minutes to Eddie House and Sam Cassell. Each of the three come with major liabilities. So, here’s the breakdown:
- Rajon Rondo - He’s the best out of the three at running the offense, but everybody knows he can’t\won’t shoot. It reminds me of Avery Johnson when he was on the Spurs. Eventually Avery hit a few jumpers and the Spurs were able to win the ‘99 Championship. If Rondo can knock down a few shots, the Celts would be on their way, but the smart money says he isn’t going to bother shooting them. The real problem is that the Lakers are putting Kobe on Rondo and just letting Kobe roam on D. Not everyone thinks Kobe is a great defender, but I think most would agree he is great when he has the opportunity to roam. I don’t think the Celts can afford to play Rondo in crunch time.
- Eddie House - House is clearly the best shooter out of the three, but his ballhandling is shaky, very shaky. For good reason, Doc Rivers is uncomfortable having House on the floor as a point. However, Ray Allen is a decent ballhandler and it would make sense to go with a backcourt of House and Allen on occasion. This is a pretty good option when the Lakers start exploiting Rando’s lack of shooting.
- Sam Cassell - Unfortunately for the Celts, Sam is not the man he used to be. It’s a wonder he gets any minutes at all. I’d keep him on the bench.
Conclusion - There’s no good solution here, but I would give House more minutes late in the game and let Allen do some of the ballhandling. Every possession gets so important late in the game and having to play 4 on 5 only amplifies the pressure on The Big 3. House would make their lives a whole lot easier.
What would you do?
Posted by HoopsAvenue on June 11, 2008 under NBA Playoffs, Tim Donaghy |
As fixed as Game 6 of the 2002 Western Conference Finals actually looked, it always felt better to assume it just looked fixed and wasn’t actually fixed. Now that disgraced former NBA referee Tim Donaghy is alleging that it was indeed fixed, it makes you wonder. Of course there is the possibility that Donaghy just picked the two series (also ‘05 Mavs-Rockets) that looked the most fixed to give his claims some credibility.
It’s impossible to ignore the allegations though, especially if you recall what happened during the 2005 Mavs-Rockets series (the Lakers-Kings situation was mostly just fan outrage). In that series, then Rockets coach Jeff Van Gundy asserted after one particular game that he had received a call from a referee not working the playoffs that the league had issued a directive to its referees to call more fouls on Yao Ming. Van Gundy was fined $100,000 and refused to reveal the identity of the referee. It’s the fact that Van Gundy actually gave some details that makes you think maybe something was going on.
Here’s a look at Donaghy’s actual claim (Team 3 = Mavs, Team 4 = Rockets):
“Team 3 lost the first two games in the series and Team 3’s owner complained to NBA officials,” the letter says. “Team 3’s owner alleged that referees were letting a Team 4 player get away with illegal screens. NBA Executive Y told Referee Supervisor Z that the referees for that game were to enforce the screening rules strictly against that Team 4 player. Referee Supervisor Z informed the referees about his instructions. As an alternate referee for that game, Tim also received these instructions.”
Not so interesting if you ask me. Doesn’t this happen all the time? The league office notices something isn’t being called and asks that it be called. There seems to be little merit here. Donaghy is going to have to draw up more of an anti-Rockets conspiracy than that to make me a believer.
Obviously the Lakers-Kings Game 6 looked fixed, but the free throw discrepancy there was only 40-25. Game 2 of this year’s Finals favored the Celtics 38-10. So should we believe every game is fixed?
I’m sure the mainstream sports media will have fun with this one for a while, but it’s only the surface facts that are intriguing. Once you get to the details, Donaghy sounds like your average conspiracy nut.
Posted by HoopsAvenue on June 10, 2008 under NBA Playoffs |
38-10. That was the free throw disparity last night. 38-10 in the Celtics favor. Now, Kobe, if you ignore sarcasm, “didn’t notice it,” but Phil Jackson was less politically correct talking about how his team will have to do a better job creating “illusions” for Game 3. Illusions, after all, are what the referees make calls based on, argues Jackson. You’ve gotta love the Zen Master. Every post-season, especially in the Finals, he creates the best in-between-game story lines. The best thing about his quotes is that they aren’t just vociferous rants, but they actually hold quite a bit of substance and truth to them (Yes, Sacramento is basically a cow town, get over it, Kings fans).
Let’s break down the genius of the Zen Master here. First off, instead on a Mike Ditka-esque tirade, he brings up the idea of how referees are influenced by the crowd noise, intensity of the teams, and other intangible factors. He is right. Referees are refereeing an illusion, but nobody ever brings it up that way. Coaches might rant about how the fans get in the ref’s head and other cliches ad nauseam, but to label it an illusion somehow adds some sort of intrigue to the criticism. Subconsciously, the Zen Master has just created his own illusion that the referees are too weak-minded to objectively call the game. He’s called into question their ability to block out distractions and do their job. It’s almost a subtle challenge. Whether or not it’s the right time to bring up the point with 3 straight home games coming up, though, is up for debate. Regardless, maybe the Lakers ought to show up for the first 40 minutes of the game.
Posted by HoopsAvenue on June 7, 2008 under NBA Playoffs |
So all anybody is talking about after Game 1 of The Finals is whether or not Paul Pierce aka The Truth really hurt his knee as badly as his theatrics would lead you to believe. Ok, let’s see, guy goes down, needs about half the team to carry him off the court, rolls to the tunnel in a wheelchair, and he’s back in about a minute of gametime (knocking down 2 big 3s shortly later no less)? Any Laker fan would tell you he was faking it, but I’m going to have to disagree. He was merely exaggerating. First of all, watching the replay, it’s clear his leg moved a bit awkwardly after Kendrick Perkins landed on him. There’s no way to fake that in the heat of the moment. So the next question is whether he was really hurt by the play. I think he was, but not to the extent he led us to believe. Pierce might be a relatively smart player, but he’s no evil genius ready to concoct a fake injury plot in the split second he had to react to that play. He is, however, very capable of exaggerating the extent of his pain as all players are (just watch any player be in excruciating pain on defense only to look perfectly healthy when his team gets the ball back).
The thing is you can’t blame Pierce for exaggerating the extent of his injury. I would argue he wasn’t even conscious that he was exaggerating. It’s just what NBA players do. It’s almost like an extension of flopping. You don’t even realize you are doing it, but you become so accustomed to it that when you get hurt, you lie down, have everyone feel bad for you, and then sometimes it isn’t really that bad and you return as the hero. Saying Paul Pierce was exaggerating would be like saying Allen Iverson carries the ball on his crossover or Manu Ginobili flops. Duh.
Loading ...