The Lakers had a leadership problem

I've been digesting the Lakers' defeat at the hands of the Mavericks, a team they shouldn't have been swept by, and one common theme is that fact that Kobe didn't practice during the regular season so he wasn't able to keep everyone as sharp and intense as they need to be.

The problem was that he wasn't practicing and thus able to be as intense as need be, but also that he lacked the moral authority to yell at his teammates and really impose discipline on them.  Its just a fact of leadership that he has to be "one of the troops" and sometimes even a 5-time champion like Kobe loses credibility when he can't practice.  When he gets to receive treatment and lift weights while everyone else is sprinting around, banging bodies and hurting out on the practice court.  It adds up and takes a toll on his leadership ability.

Game 2 Thoughts and Game 3 preview

Game 2 of the NBA Finals featured Ray Allen setting the 3 point shot record in the NBA Finals, with seven consecutive and 8 total three-pointers made. Despite his record performance, the Celtics trailed by 3 with five minutes remaining at a score of 90-87. The Celtics squeaked out a victory with the help of Rajon Rondo's triple double and amazing offensive rebounds.

Lamar Odom played 15 minutes due to over aggressive play; he's probably so amped up after sitting on the bench that he plays with too much energy at the start and ends up collecting fouls. His desire to contribute and play is actually hurting his performance.

Ron Artest had a 1-10 shooting night but is still doing amazing work on Paul Pierce defensively. They are simply letting Ron Artest guard his straight up on the perimeter knowing that Bynum and Gasol are simply camping in the paint waiting for a drive.

Which reminds me: Kendrick Perkins and Bynum are basically having a war in the paint and its working out in the favor of the Lakers as the Lakers perimeter defenders can be up in everyone's jersey, knowing that dribble penetration will be met by a rejuvenated Bynum and the ever-active Gasol.

Kevin Garnett looks so fragile I think I could guard him one on one. He knows that Gasol is taller, stronger, heavier, quicker, and younger. Advantage: Lakers.

If Ray Allen didn't have the GREATEST NIGHT IN FINALS HISTORY the game wouldn't have even been close. If he had shot his season average 40 percent and made four instead of eight, those missing points would have meant they were down 15 with five minutes to go instead of 3. An insurmountable lead.

Nate Robinson comes in cold off the bench and hits a fall away 3 pointer? I'm comfortable letting a castoff from one of the leagues worst teams shooting as many fall away 3-pointers as he wants.

Ray Allen was making catch and shoot 3s all night. Thats an amazing feat and he's legitimately the best shooter in the NBA right now. But thats all he's making. He isn't creating off the dribble or beating them one on one like Kobe can. So how about Shannon Brown quits leaving him to help in the lane and Derek Fisher fights through some screens? I mean get serious here. The Lakers will win Game 3 and they will win the series in 6.

Kevin Garnett dominated Rashard Lewis in the Orlando series? Rashard Lewis, a 6'10" power forward who needed to take HGH to average 5 rebounds a game? Really? Now that he's been suspended and off the juice for a year Kevin Garnett is boasting of his performance over him? Gasol is taller, heavier, stronger, and mentally tougher and most importantly, has faced the KG blitz before. He failed in 2008. He won't again.

The Lakers and Celtics are in the Finals

To prepare for the Finals, which start tomorrow, I'm going to do a player by player comparison to determine which team has the advantage in the series.

Home Court: advantage goes to the Lakers. However, both are veteran teams, and both played well on the road. So I'd have to say that I doubt home court advantage will be a big factor in this series.

Point Guard: Rajon Rondo vs. Derek Fisher. Rajon has had some monster games this season and also led his teams in WP. Derek Fisher is 35 and not much of a dribble penetration kind of guy. The Celtics have a huge advantage in Rondo v Fisher.

Shooting Guard: Kobe Bryant vs. Ray Allen. Obviously, Kobe is Kobe, skilled at everything, and performing really well now that his knee is in better shape. The Celtics have Ray Allen, who is adept at moving without the ball, rolling around multiple screens, and hitting open shots. The problem for the Lakers is that it forces Kobe to spend energy on defense chasing Ray Allen. The problem for the C's is that Ray Allen will probably have to guard Kobe, which is very tough to do.

Small Forward: Paul Pierce versus Ron Artest. PP is a very good player, especially on offense. Ron Artest is a good player, especially on defense. Its a situation of one players strengths going against anothers strengths, which is rare. Most players make it to the NBA based on offense. Ron Artest was brought to the Lakers for defense. Also, Ron Artest has been hitting corners threes very well lately and playing under control. So while the Cs have the advantage when it comes to their best player, its not as much of one as I'd suspect. Ron Artest is happy to play like a pitbull all game against Ron Artest and nothing else.

Power Forward: Keven Garnett versus Pau Gasol. Advantage Lakers. With all due respect to KG and what he's done over the years, Pau is better. Hes much better on offense. However, same situation as the last position. Pau is great on offense, KG is great on defense. Tireless, relentess defense. Also, KG has always been a good outside shooter and has an array of post moves. Over the course of a season, Pau is better. A seven game series? Not as sure. Advantage Lakers, but not a big one.

Center: Two guys who are there for their defense, defending each other. Great. I expect 2.45 ppg for each player! Ha, we'll see. Between Kendrick Perkins technical foul trouble and Bynums knee problems, I expect both players to miss significant playing time this series. Advantage: No one.

6th Man: Lamar Odom vs. Glen Davis/Rasheed Wallace. Neither Cs sub has the combination of mobility and strength to match Lamar. He is also rebounding very well (see his 19 rebound performance against the Suns). Davis and Wallace both have their strengths, also Wallace has had back problems and is as likely to throw up a clunker of a game as he is a good game. Wallace does seem dialed in and focused, however. Advantage Lakers.

Bench: Both benches are erratic. The Lakers PGs may be able to help with Rajon Rondo ( Shannon Brown and Farmar) but beyond that, its a toss up as to which team's bench will have a good game and which one won't. Whoever blinks first losses the championship.

Coaches: Both veterans, both experienced. Doc Rivers had a reputation for being overmatched and incompetent before the Big 3 arrived, and he is now hailed as an amazing coach. Probably somewhere in between. Jackson's main coaching strategy has been to have Jordan, Pippen, Rodman, Shaq, Kobe, and now Gasol, as his players. I thought Stan Van Gundy did a better coaching job last year in the Finals.

Prediction? I don't know.

Are the Lakers focused enough?

The latest Laker debacle, a 126-113 defeat at home to the Denver Nuggets (playing without Carmelo Anthony) has made me want to write about the Lakers and there possible lack of focus.

Ron Artest wears shoes from a Chinese shoe company; he complains about foot pains and says that it feels like he is wearing lead boots and it has resulted in a lack of quickness on the court. Why is he doing this? The money. He is sponsored by them and has refused to switch to a better shoe.

Kobe Bryant has suffered many small injuries and has repeatedly refused to rest his body or seek treatment to fix them. He simply tries to play through the pain. But this will have a long-term cumulative effect on his game play and could manifest it self after a sustained period of stress....such as the playoffs.

They continue to take a band-aid approach to their point guard position, continuing to start Derek Fisher despite his defensive struggles and limited offensive creation. Rather than develop a younger talent and hope that he is ready for the playoffs, than are hoping that they won't need a good point guard to win the championship.

All these factors make me think the Lakers simply aren't as focused as they need to be to win a championship. Its not easy, after all.

Kobe's game winning shot

I watched Kobe hit a crazy game winning shot over Dwayne Wade in a game recently. And after he hit it, he was surrounded by teammates who were cheering, congratulating him, etc.

The teammates all like each other. Any complaints about Kobe dividing the team or being a negative influence on the team appear to be overrated.

Ariza/Artest and three point efficiency

One thing I’d be curious about with the Ariza/Artest swap is if Ariza can remain as productive when not playing with Kobe and Gasol or players of their caliber. I recall from the playoff run that Ariza had a lot of open threes. I mean it seemed like thats all he was shooting.

So he was very productive but I don’t know if he was doing it with defenses focusing on him or he was getting opportunities because he was playing alongside greatness.

And Artest is definitely older and will not be playing as well or efficiently. But on the Lakers he won’t be the focal point of the offense so depending on how he adjusts his efficiency will either go up (taking advantage of Kobe and Gasol) or decrease if he tries to maintain his previous levels and jacks up shots when he does touch to ball to make up for his decreased touches in general.

All this reminds me of what I read on Forum Blue and Gold, a Lakers blog, which talked about how a lot of players saw their PER increase when playing alongside Kobe. And that is in part because Kobe pushes everyone so much and also in part because his success in one-on-one situations leads him to be double teamed which leads to opportunities for his teammates that are easier to deal with.

Logically it is easier to deal with a defender who is rotating to you on transition and may be out of position (i.e. SG guarding a SF) than one's assigned defender who is locked in and waiting for you to get the ball.

I also read a great but complicated post about three point shooting efficiency, controlled for different positions, corner three versus long three percentage, and age of player.

And the peak shooting age is 29 years old and shooting the corner three. Corner threes are made 10% of the time more than top of the key threes. Interesting information. So I still have four years left till my peak!

Lakers Magic Preview

My 3/5 method used to preview the Finals:

Point Guard:  Alston slightly better (approx. tie?)

Shooting Guard:  Kobe better than Courtney Lee

Shooting Forward: Turkoglu better than Ariza

Power Forward: Gasol better than Rashard Lewis

Center: Howard better than Bynum

6th Man: Odom better than Pietrus

So Lakers win 3-2 with one tie.  Coach?  Van Gundy better than Jackson.

I think whoever wins the first game will win the series.  It will force the other team to adjust.  

There are a bunch of mismatches on the offensive/defensive ends.  Its about who can force the other team to adjust.  I.e. who can outscore the other and force the other team to make adjustments and get out of their preferred set.  

Whats the deal with facial expressions

I watched the highlights of Lakers/Nuggets game 3.  With a minute to go, and the Lakers down by two, Kobe Bryant has the ball at the 3-point line, dribbles about three times, and then makes a three pointer.  

It was dramatic.  It was a game winner.  And then he did something totally surprising.  He made a facial expression that I'm still trying to understand the meaning of.  He glared and jutted his lower jaw out while huffing air pretty hard.  And I just can't figure out the mindset that would make that expression.  

Its a fun game to try to mimic someones facial expressions; it really gives you an idea of the emotions they are feeling.  It is a useful tool for figuring out how people really feel about a situation.  Words say one thing.  The face tells reality.  One can pick up on subtle emotions, signs of defeat, of defiance, etc.  

And Kobes facial expression?  I have no idea what it means.  

The closest thing I can think of is that of a wounded animal, or a person who was just tackled and hit but is now on his feet after fighting off an attacker.  That same glaring, defiant, but also scared? look.  

Lakers/Rockets game 5 and Streak update

Game 5 of the Lakers/Rockets series was a complete blowout.  The final margin was forty points.  The spread was twelve.  So that is a major, major difference.  And I thought that spread was high but my quick analysis was that it would be a close game.  Boy was I wrong.  I wonder a few things.  Namely, what is home court advantage worth?  These two games occured on different home courts; Houston blew out LA in game 4 only to fly to LA and get blown out over there.  

What happened?  

Well the Yao Ming injury happened, which forced Houston into a smaller lineup and totally changed their style of play.  They also had the home crowd and played extremely motivated, worried about the loss of Yao Ming.  Conversely, the Lakers seemed to think the series was over (it is) and didn't come out with any passion and intensity.  

So those two factors: the energy and effort disparity, plus Houston playing a style that was completely different and unexpected from what the Lakers had seen and prepared for, combined to make them lose the game.  

Also, games happen quickly.  That was one thing that I noticed; there aren't chances for many major in-game adjustments.  If the other team is doing something totally different than expected it can really throw a team off.  The Lakers were ready to play a methodical, slowed-down game tempo;  and that just never happened.  Houston was ready to play fast, had early success, and played even faster, urged on by the home crowd.  

Streak update:  record is 3-3.  I lost my third pick, Orlando to beat Boston, and then lost two random picks trying to get a win so I could start a new streak.  Finally got it on the Dodgers-Phillies game today.  And I don't think its possible to pick 27 baseball games in a row.  

Streak for the Cash

I watched the Lakers/Rockets game yesterday, and Lakers just gave the game away.  From the first possession to the last possession, it really seemed like no one gave a crap.  It was astonishing.  And I don't think they will win the championship.  They almost looked bored with the game.  I've never seen anything like it.  And I haven't spent that much time watching games this season or over the course of my life, but it was really, really bad.  

Contrasted to the Celtics last season in the finals, who were also leading a series 2-1, who were also down by about 20 at half time, and who came roaring back to seal the series with a 3-1 lead.  That was amazing to see the difference.

Also, I'm starting to play the "streak for the cash" on ESPN.  Its a lot of fun.  This is a great way to practice making picks and work on my theories that is free with a small chance at reward. 

And I noticed that the crowd is usually wrong, so no surprise there.  I would have picked Rashard Lewis to outscore Ray Allen (he did) but I picked a minute too late so I randomly picked the Red Sox to beat Tampa Bay at home to start my streak out.  And they won!  So hurray for that!

Thoughts on Yao Ming's injury and the next game

This is so far shaping up to be a classic motivational game.  A star player is injured for the home team.  The team is down and struggling in the playoffs.  

The other team has a strong offense and mediocre defense.  

And everyone thinks that because the star is injured the series is over.  And it probably is.  

But the next game?  The home team has started ferociously and is winning by 16.  It hasn't been close the entire game.  

Lakers at SacTown

As I write this I this the Lakers are winning 86-72 at Sacramento.  They are only two point favorites on the road.  That seems a little silly to me.  Perhaps oddsmakers are thinking their motivation has wavered and they have lost focus.  

However, two nights ago the Lakers nearly lost to the Clippers after blowing a big lead.  The only thing better for tonight would have been if they'd lost to the Clippers.  Then they would have been very focused and vengeful.  

As it is they will still likely blowout the Kings.  The question is why was the spread so low?  

I think it was because of their near defeat to the Clippers.  But remember the lag factor.  By the time everyone has profiled the Lakers as losing focus, they have switched gears and become focused and wary.  By the time everyone thinks they are focused and playing hard, they will be slipping back into mediocre habits.  And so the pendulum swings, back and forth, back and forth.

The important lesson is that one needs to anticipate.  A close loss to a bad team will spur greater effort the next time a bad team is played.  A dominant win over a bad team will encourage less effort and focus the next time it is played.  There is the back and forth between expectations and effort.  Strong effort yields results and overkill which encourages less effort.  Rarely do players play hard for no reason.  A series of dominant wins will usually provoke less effort from the top team, steadily dropping until a bad loss wakes them up and spurs greater effort.  

Bleacher Report and Mavs Follow-up

I recently wrote my second article at bleacherreport.com 

Article writing is not my main focus but it is a great community to voice ideas, receive feedback, and generally communicate and learn.  I wrote an article about the Lakers (specifically Andrew Bynum) and one about the Dallas Mavericks (specifically Mark Cuban).  

My first article received over 240 reads and one comment.  

My goal is to use the website as a way to post about various predictions and effort-skewed results.  These are games results which are heavily biased or skewed by either lack of effort or extra effort.  Blogging on here and writing on bleacher report will let me keep abreast of what happens in the NBA and record my observations for future use.  

I also want to reprint my articles here so that I can have a back up copy.  

Lastly, I'm hoping to meet one or two other people who are interested in my effort-based investigations in the NBA and have a similar eye for it.  

Two losses, one cause?

Recently the Lakers and Boston both lost games.  

The Celtics lost 93-91 at the Clippers.

Selected quotes:"I thought we played slow all night, we pouted all night, we just thought we could show up and win a game -- and we didn't. I just didn't think we played with the type of spirit we played with on this entire trip.- Coach Doc Rivers.  

"We looked at their record, and not at their personnel."

The Clippers also had guard Baron Davis back, a player known to play up to the level of his competition...or down, as the case may be.  

The Lakers lost 90-79 at the Denver Nuggets.  

The Lakers, who brought the NBA's best record (48-10) into town when they checked into their hotel at 4 a.m., 

"That was a garbage game, no doubt about it," Lakers coach Phil Jackson said. "I wish we could repay the fans some money for that game. Neither team played very well, but they played better than us."

"Tonight, we [played] as active and as intelligent of a defensive game as I think we've played all year long or maybe ever since I've been here," Karl said. "We challenged a lot of shots, it was a tremendously active defensive game."

Mix this "with our offensive skills, we can be great," Karl said. "This is a playoff type of game for us. I'm not sure they played it that way, but it's going to be a good night and a good sunrise."

Bryant said this was the perfect storm of a fatigued team facing a fired-up team on little rest with little room for error.

"We've got a totally different team, a totally different mind-set."

One he hopes will finally lead to his initial playoff success after five straight first-round flame-outs.

Four nights after suffering a 38-point blowout by Boston at the Pepsi Center, the Nuggets hung tough with the Lakers, leading 66-63 after three quarters before pulling away.

"We really looked forward to playing another team like this after that Boston massacre," Billups said. "They came into town with the best record, best team in basketball, it was a great opportunity for us."

This last quote is especially important.  It shows that after getting embarassed, the Nuggets, a division leader, saw the Lakers as an immediate chance to take on another highpowered team.  And they came out popping while the Lakers were flat.  

Its a quality team rebounding after a bad loss.

Lakers Watch: Game 2

Tonight the Lakers played game two of Laker Watch at Minnesota.  They were favored to win by ten points and only won by three.  

Notably, they were losing at the end of the third quarter and it was close the whole way.

The question is:  how long will this continue?  

Also: when will this predictably happen?  What was the exact trigger?

I just happened to start Laker watch at game 1.  I saw that the two previous games they had failed to cover the spread.  So since the break they are 2-2 ATS but since I started watching, they are 0-2.  

still, I would suspect they will have trouble on this road trip and for a few more games fail to cover the spread, perhaps even losing a game or two. 

Laker Watch: Game 1

Game one of Laker watch:  Lakers 115, New Orleans 111.

The purpose of Laker Watch is to follow their performance relative to the spread over the next two weeks and see if their performance has been hurt due to Andrew Bynum's injury and the aftermath.  

My theory is that all professional teams respond to an injury the same way:  with increased intensity and effort.  Their are public doubters, players on other teams doubt them, and the overall intensity is ramped up a notch.  

However, there can be no action without a reaction.  The increased effort and intensity helps them in the short term but is followed up by a period of lower intensity where the players are forced to recharge their batteries and will perform at a below-average level.  

Their energy was expended, pshychologically and physically, during their six game road trip.  The trip was right before the all-star break so it gave them a definite end to their push, it was on the road (so they had to focus more), and Bynum is not their super-star, but still a major factor.  And he is a big-man, so the loss is magnified.  

The spread was nine points.  It took overtime (and a late Fisher 3) for the Lakers to even make overtime.  Also of note, the Lakers missed 15 of 16 shots during one stretch in the first half.  This is the type of thing that a fatigued team does. 

Lastly, nobody responds better (or more predictably) to adversity in the NBA than Kobe.  During his rape trial in Colorado, he would fly in from games and be so mad and focused that he would hit game winning shots and have great performances.  

So of course Kobe will ratchet up the intensity and play harder, but he is human too, and that takes a toll.  

Kobe Bryant and a *statement* game at MSG

When Andrew Bynum went down with a torn MCL on January 31st, the Lakers were shocked and disappointed with the news.  Their emerging star center was hurt and it was a serious blow to their playoff hopes.  

The next game Kobe Bryant turned on the power and scored 61 points at New York, setting the single-game record at the modern Madison Square Garden.  They played hard and played well throughout the road trip.  

Now they are back home.  The question is this: when will the sense of urgency wear off?  Has their play been boosted by a temporary feeling of nervousness and a need to prove that they are an elite team even without Bynum?

An injury to a player or being short handed can often spur greater effort from everyone else; but that will wear off as fatigue sets in and players return to their normal level of effort and play, perhaps even dipping lower than normal.  

So as we go forward with the next week or two, can we expect an extra lakers loss or two?  Or at least see them not cover the spread?  

Words of Wisdom from Phil Jackson/ Don Nelson

Phil Jackson has been a coach a long time and has some (hopefully) well thought out opinions about basketball.  Two gems from a recent article:

1) The Suns recently complete a trade, shipping out a large portion of their core players to the Charlotte Bobcats in exchange for some role players.  The day they played the Lakers, because of the logistics of the trade, they were short-handed, suiting up only nine players.  The game was very close and the Lakers narrowly won; however, PJ said that he knew it would be a very close game because teams that are short-handed like the Suns always play with extra intensity, and thats what happened.

This ties in to what I read in a book by RJ Miller, where he said that teams of professionals can usually step up their game when they are short-handed, because everyone knows the game will be that much harder.  

The second-level projection would be finding out when teams that are short-handed then have a drop-off in intensity.  Essentially, when do they let down their guard?  I think that would happen very consistenly amongst "effort-sports", such as hockey, basketball, and football.  

I think that all people can maintain a sense of urgency and "extra" intensity for a set amount of time before they drop off to a level below normal levels as a result of the burned energy called forth during the time of crisis.

2)  Coach Jackson said that no team from the West Coast would ever win 72 games because of the time-zone difference.  Teams travelling from the West to East suffer because they lose two or three hours of sleep/travel time, whereas teams going from East to West get extra time to sleep and prepare.  

The Bulls are from Chicago, which I think is in the Central Time Zone, (GMT -6).  

3) An interesting thing I read from Don Nelson in a news article during the 07-08 season.  He essentially said that the Warriors knew they would lose to the Pistons and said they conceded the game, throwing in the subs in the third quarter.  Obviously, it would be great to know when the Coach and team "know" they will lose a game.

Also, it is interesting to note how easily he mentioned it and it sparked no real outrage or commentary, as far as I can tell.