NBA Finals, Game #4: Boston 97, Los Angeles 91
Series to date: Boston 3-1
1. Changing Reputations
It is just a matter of when now. Because surely you don't think Lamar Odom finds his composure, Pau Gasol unearths some grit, and Kobe Bryant recaptures his magical mojo in sufficient quantities to take these unrelenting and surprisingly deep Celtics to the woodshed three times in a row. Not after last night. Not when all the pundits such as yours truly have proven to be dunderheaded false prophets. The "best player" has not been, and won't become, the best player. The "best coach" has not been, and won't become, the best coach. And the "better bench" has not been, and won't become, the better bench. Lakers in 5 or 6, I said. Wrong.
But more high profile reputations than mine are being altered by this star-studded, commercially attractive matchup. Here are the ones most shocking to me.
* Phil Jackson--It has been a bad, bad series for the Zen Master. Throwing gasoline on the fire by using a very stale Trevor Ariza on Paul Pierce as first off the bench in Game Two was bad enough, but leaving Derek Fisher on the bench in favor of the callow and selfish Bobbsey Twins, Vujacic and Farmar, while his lead disappeared last night was even worse. When Fish left the game with 2:58 to go in the third, the Lakers were up 11, 72-61. Incredibly, the man with three rings and more than 100 starts and 4,000 minutes in the postseason, the man who kept stepping up to staunch the momentum shift in the Celts' comebacks in the second period and early in the third, sat for more than 12 minutes, entering with 2:10 left to play and the Lakers down 5, 88-83. Ostensibly, Farmar and Vujacic were in the game to provide some ball pressure on Eddie House, a better shooter but less adept on the handle than Rajon Rondo. Didn't work. The only Celtic turnovers in that 12:48 Fisher sat were offensive fouls on Pierce and KG. Meanwhile, House had 5 points and his backcourt mate Ray Allen had 4. So perhaps Vujacic and Farmar provided some offensive counterpoint and helped spread the floor so Kobe could go to work and have a capable safety valve on the perimeter? If that was the idea, it failed miserably. Vujacic and Farmar combined to shoot 0-5 FG during that stretch, and nothing from the line--zero points--while the Lakers' team as a unit managed just 11, in 12:48. By the way, Derek Fisher finished the game 5-6 FG and led the Lakers in plus/minus with a plus +7.
* Kobe Bryant--The Black Mamba. The crunchtime assassin, best closer in the NBA, able to make the big shot when it matters most. With Kobe in the lineup, LA can always stop the bleeding. An all NBA Defensive First Teamer, able to lock down any perimeter player. A more mature teammate whose generosity of spirit and willingness to shoulder most of the responsibility relieves the pressure on his teammates and enables them to play freely and easily, knowing that Kobe always has their back. You can ball that assessment up and throw it in the trashcan.
* Ray Allen--Aging fast and with bad ankles his already mediocre defense has become subpar. That was the rap on Mr. Shuttlesworth, who merely played all 48 minutes last night, and, unlike Kobe Bryant and Kevin Garnett and even Paul Pierce, didn't seem the slightest bit winded or gimpy at the end. His up-and-under wraparound layup through Gasol and two other Lakers to bump the lead from one to three was simply cool to savor for the next decade or so; his seizing on Vujacic's lean in to blow past him for another layup that sealed the win will perhaps leave a permanent stain on Sasha's psyche. But that's not why I'm so surprised by Ray Allen. No, it has been his remarkable defensive effort on Kobe (although Pierce deserves more credit for last night), the nine rebounds he corralled while nobody really noticed, and the two perfect dishes to James Posey for treys that broke the Lakers in the 4th quarter. Ray Allen has the entire package.
* Paul Pierce--Again, it is the defense that is most surprising. Pierce's block of Vujacic at the close of Game Two, and his block on Kobe--when was the last time you saw Kobe's fadeaway get swatted? Never? Me too.--was just part of it. His positioning and ability to use his length and strength to maximum defensive advantage was something I simply didn't know he possessed until the Cavs series, and in retrospect, playing two long dudes like LeBron and Tayshaun probably really helped Pierce prep for Kobe. So did the fact that many people guarded Kobe. But in the second half last night, Pierce was mostly the guy. In the corners of our TV screens the last few games, we saw Kobe and Pierce constantly trash talking each other. Guess what? The best player on the floor in these playoffs has been Paul Pierce (in a close shave over KG).
2. Garnett and McHale In Their Rightful Places
During Kevin Garnett's last two or three years here, there was clearly some mutual frustration going on that began to morph into disrespect. Both men were pretty careful not to say so in public too often, but Garnett thought McHale's lack of prowess in evaluating personnel was the reason he was getting further from a ring instead of closer as he entered his 30s. For McHale's part, he thought KG didn't do the things that turn a star into a champion: Go down and bang for shots and box-outs in the low block, get to the foul line, set nasty picks, and simply do what it takes when the game is on the line to secure the victory.
McHale has gotten the prototype player he wanted in Al Jefferson, and Big Al, who should never be judged as the KG compensation because it just isn't fair to him, played well enough that all the homers around the Wolves in the local media crowed that Minnesota actually got the better of the KG trade. One columnist for one of the local dailies even said he wouldn't trade Jefferson for two KGs. Well it is pretty close to final accounting time and what we see is that the Celtics won a league best 66 games, had the greatest single season improvement in NBA history, and are one victory in three chances away from being crowned NBA champion over the MVP on the favored squad from the better conference.
As should be obvious to all of us by now, the Celtics win with defense, stifling defense. As should be equally obvious, the Celtics would be at-best a mediocre defensive team without Kevin Garnett. It is KG's unparalleled combination of length, quickness, instinct and intelligence that enables the Celts to extend their schemes so far out on the perimeter and so wide toward the sidelines. By all accounts from the folks in Boston, it was KG's selfless passion and relentless work ethic--we saw that work ethic for a dozen years and that passion for about ten a half here in Minnesota--that catalyzed the culture of the revamped roster and created the attitudinal synergy, the pride and trust that are as important as athleticism to creating great team defense. KG is the foundation of the Celtic D: more than any other player in the game today, he is "everywhere" when his squad is defending the ball and he doesn't take plays off. (That's why Bill Russell has such a blatant man-crush on the guy.) When the Celts were hopelessly behind last night, he made two plays--denying putbacks to Odom and Gasol about four minutes apart--that are the sort of crucial, unsung bits of grit that help get you out of a hole. It is no coincidence that Gasol always shot from in close with a hurried lack of confidence, and why, except for last night's first quarter, Odom suffered from lead in the paint.
Having spent a dozen years up close and personal watching KG, I too was unsure about his crunchtime capability at the offensive end, his desire to seize the game via brutish willpower of the sort he constantly demonstrates at the other end of the court. After years and years of rebutting KG haters, and, less convincingly, KG skeptics, I wavered as I watched the Hawks extend the Celts to 7 games, knowing that their best player was not most comfortable being atop the crunchtime pecking order. And I bought into the alpha theory of hoops I so frequently disdained, picking first the Cavs and LeBron and then the Lakers and Kobe to overcome KG and his other Big 2. But last night, with everyone screaming for Garnett to get down in the damn low block and go to work, he did was he always does: played his game his way, with a share of low post moves and a share of midrange jumpers and a share of high picks and deft passes. He took more shots than anybody on the team and made half of them, led them in rebounding, and, of course, defense. He finished fourth on his own team in points and second to Eddie House in overall plus/minus with plus +17 in 37:09, which means the Celts were minus -11 in the 10:51 he was off the court. And the team that has adopted his personality is one win away from the NBA Championship.
Put me in the long line of people who need to apologize for doubting Kevin Garnett, who in his first year away from the dysfunctional gulag of Minnesota, is on the verge of accomplishing all anyone could ask of him. And remember that the man who belongs at the head of that line is Kevin McHale.
3. Kudos and Brickbats
As Bob Horry packs up his trunk load of rings and heads into the sunset it is time to come up with a cool, catchy nickname for James Posey, the new man with the golden touch from outside when championships are being decided.
Doc Rivers has outcoached Phil Jackson in this series but one thing that mars his great performance is the number of people, me included, who kept hollaring for more minutes for Eddie House at the expense of Sam Cassell. Give Rivers at least half a kudo for seeing how effective House was in keeping Kobe honest on defense, and riding him over Rondo down the stretch. And give Mr. House a full kudo for doing what the Vujacic/Farmar combo couldn't--make big shots from outside in the second half.
Gasol and Odom will have a very hard time recovering from this no-show. Even playing a small lineup for much of the second half, the Celts managed to essentially break even with the Lakers on the boards and in points in the paint. What's more, all the Lakers except for Fisher were frontrunners, Odom worst of all. When LA was rollin' easy, he was driving like a banshee, pulling up and sticking the 17-footer, and even twirling the ball around his back by the sideline on one play. When crunchtime beckoned, he not only disappeared, he hid. Neither he nor Gasol wanted anything to do with the final outcome of this game--you could see it in their body language. Kobe had yet another bad game. But Kobe also had ten assists and it should have been 15 or 18. Kobe was on an island. It will be a very very hard thing for him to forget this summer.
When I was a high school and college student, KG was kind of a role model, in the sense that I saw how intensity and passion can get a person far. He didn't demand a trade, stayed loyal to his fans, and always gave maximum effort. McHale and Taylor did him a great disservice by wasting his prime years with no draft picks and stopgap measures. I never doubted that he could be successful as a Celtic.
However, the reason for the Celtics' success this season has as much to do with who KG's teammates are as it does with KG. KG was lucky to enter the league with two All-Star caliber players on his team in Googs and Marbury. Yet, he always assumed that he needed two all-stars to be successful, and because he now has them, the assumption is that it's completely the front office's fault that he didn't get them. However, the 04-05 season showed that were times when some of the stars (Sprewell and Cassell) were benched because other good players (like Wally) were playing better, yet he always stuck by those stars. There have been many teams who went further in the playoffs or made the playoffs because the lead player took the team on his back and led them there. I think he's one of the top 30 players in NBA history, but how many of those players missed the playoffs three years in a row? I'm not saying that it's completely KG's fault that the Wolves didn't have more success when he was here, but I also think he's not completely blameless.
With the role players, the Celtics have guys who play off of the three stars. In all of KG's best seasons here, the role players understood which play was the best team play and which play wasn't. He didn't have that here for the last few years, but he also couldn't adjust to his new position of veteran leader, which is much different than just leading by example. He doesn't need to do anything more in Boston than what he wants to do -- play with passion and lead by example. I also don't remember seeing him on the bench playing the Mark Madsen role here like he does for the Celtics this year.
In short, I agree with the general idea that KG is showing that the past failures had a lot to do with factors outside of his control. Until Al Jefferson leads the Wolves to the second round of the playoffs, this trade can't be judged in favor of the Wolves. However, this is a very ideal situation for a player like Garnett because he's a creature of habit who, in a sense, is the ultimate role player. I don't think it's wrong to think that he could've made more adjustments to improve his results here.
This post was a very interesting follow-up to my "KG vs Kobe" post, because in a lot of ways it gets to the heart of the point I was trying to make. Kobe and KG are, in a lot of ways, archetypes for a certain type of player. Kobe is the scorer/assassin/1-man-band that in the post-Jordan era has become synonymous with "best player" or "champion". To be the #1 option on a champion, many expect a player that fits in that mold.
KG, on the other hand, is the do-everything/intensity/team-first guy that many suggest really makes him the "ultimate role player" or "next generation Pippen".
One of the assumptions inherent in this archetype is that the Kobe-type can do it pretty much by-themselves while the KG-type requires other "true" stars (i.e. those in the Jordan archetype) to get it done. In other words, if the Lakers would have won then Kobe would get the glory, but if the Celtics win it is because of KG's teammates.
I happen to disagree with this assumption, and one of my hopes if KG-led teams can win title(s) is that it will open the question of whether this is a valid assumption. Because while KG doesn't win this title without having a strong team, the reality is that Kobe also doesn't win a title without having a strong team. And that Duncan, Shaq, or even Jordan don't win their titles without having strong teams. The scoring archetype is not what made those players true #1 options, what made them #1 options is that they were the BEST player on teams that won titles. Just like KG has great perimeter scorers and role players, so did Duncan (Ginobili/Parker) and Shaq (Kobe), yet no one ever says that their success is only a function of their teammates the way many argue with KG.
So like I said in my other post...this Finals is an interesting chapter in that debate. It won't be case-closed for anyone, as many of those that believe that KG is just the ultimate role player will still believe it because of Allen's and Pierce's strong play and those that think that Kobe is the greatest of this generation won't be completely dissuaded IF it happens that the Lakers fall to the Celtics (I'm not one that believes that this is over yet). But it is a chapter, and one that IF this series continues the way it has would add some nice texture to this debate as it continues into next year and beyond.
Good post. I wasn't necessarily assuming that KG doesn't deserve a lot of credit for what's happening here; he's the foundation of their defense, and it's obvious how much the Wolves missed him, especially in those first 40 games. My point was more that he's such a creature of habit that if a formula works for him, he wants to stick with it. These Celtics are similar to his successful teams in MN because they include two other co-stars and a bench of veterans and/or role players. However, he's such a creature of habit that he's been unwilling to accept alternative structures of his team and alternative roles for himself. Part of this is because the Celtics formula has worked for so many teams in the past (the 80's Celtics, Lakers, and Sixers; the 90's Bulls; the 05 and 07 Spurs).
However, other great players have led youthful teams, dysfunctional teams, and/or teams lacking talent into the playoffs and past the first round. Some have even led them to championships. The fact that KG didn't isn't completely the fault of the Wolves' front office and coaching staff. He deserves a lot of credit if the Celtics get a ring, and he deserves some of the blame for what happened in his last 3 seasons with the Wolves.
The last 3 years KG was here were painful, but I doubt that (m)any teams can be found with the level of youth, dysfunction, lack of talent AND lack of coaching that KG had that made it to the playoffs in a conference as stacked as the West, let alone past the first round. And I flatly defy you to find one that won a championship. In his last year here, KG's starting line-up was Mike James, Trenton Hassell, Ricky Davis (2nd best player) and Mark Blount (3rd best player). James and Hassell were both journeymen before Minnesota, and couldn't even get off the BENCH for other teams after leaving Minnesota. And Davis and Blount went on to be arguably the 3rd/4th best players on a Heat team that managed to win only 15 games despite the presence of Wade, Shaq, and/or Marion for the majority of the season before they went into full tank mode. And that was being coached by Pat Riley, in the EAST. With that in mind, it is amazing that KG was able to lead his team to more than twice as many wins before the team went into full tank with that surrounding crew, coached by Randy Wittman in the West.
I have steadfastly maintained that KG caused his teams to be over-rated in hindsight, because he makes them look better than they really are. When you really go back and look at it, those early 2000s teams had no business being 50+ win teams in that ridiculous Western conference. But because of KG they overrachieved to reach that status. The irony is that KG was the one that led to the over-achieving, but in hindsight many look at those teams as evidence that KG came up short.
No team epitiomizes that effect, IMO, more than the 2003-04 WCF team. Entering that year, NOBODY believed Sam and Spree to be superstar players anymore. They were a combined 67 years old, both were earning the reputation of being malcontents, and neither were expected to be among the best of their position in the NBA. They were expected to be an upgrade in talent over the previous status quo of Wolves talent (not hard considering the previous 2 seasons had ended with Wally as the 2nd best player and a FA journeyman as the PG), but they were not considered by any means to be two can't-miss superstars added to the mix. And that's just the start...
Wally was hurt for most of the year. Two of the top 6 members in that rotation (Hoiberg and Hassell) had just been cut by the lowly Bulls, one of the worst teams in the NBA. The center combination was Ervin Johnson (extremely old, throw-in in the Cassell trade) and Olowokandi (obviously one of the worst centers in basketball). And the back-up PGs on that team were Troy Hudson on 1 ankle and CBA 10-day signings (which eventually led to that team's downfall).
That was a team of cast-offs. Looking at it in HINDSIGHT people talk about how great that team was based on the results, but based on pure talent...I don't think it cracks the top-8 of surrounding talent on Duncan's teams over his career (if that...it might not have cracked top-10). I don't think it cracks the top-10 of surrounding talent on Shaq's teams through the years. And that was BY-FAR the best talent that KG ever had before this year.
I think one has to keep things like that in mind when making the statement that other superstars have carried bad teams further than KG. When you look at not only the talent, the coaching, the personalities, and the competition...I just don't think that's true.
Drza,
Excellent post. Anyone questioning KG's brilliance at this point is doing so from the sour grapes perspective.
People is there any doubt this entire thing should be laid at management's feet?
If we had a decent GM, we could have been this year's Celtics. Think about it...one good pick by McHale...say a Brandon Roy could have maybe been parlayed into a Paul Pierce trade. Then we give last years 1st rounder and change to the Sonics for Ray Allen. Improbable? Hey Danny Ainge did it, and he's about to get another ring.
... and he owes this one to McHale, too.
Meanwhile, didn't it seem like KG was completely out of gas last night, even with the extra time on the bench. Besides missing his free throws short, he was tipping rather than grabbin rebounds, and Gasol was able to outwork him repeatedly. Perkins has been in so much foul trouble, it doesn't seem like his absence could have made that much of a difference.
Yes, he does owe this one to McHale. But, don't forget Boston was shopping Pierce. He could have been ours for the taking if McHale had been able to stockpile some decent talent.
I thought KG looked tired too. I think Perkins being out, along with Doc going small a lot was significant. More than anything, probably mental and physical exhaustion due to playing from way behind the last two games.
No big deal. He'll come out swinging back in Boston, and it'll be better to see them win it at home anyways.
I'm not going to get caught up again in predictions or analysis about this series until it's over...I learned my lesson last time, Britt. But I will say that this Finals has been a fascinating chapter in the evolution of the KG vs. Kobe debate.
The "KG vs. Kobe debate" has rarely been discussed in exactly those terms...you don't often hear KG compared directly to Kobe the way that you hear KG vs. Duncan or Kobe vs. LeBron, but in a very real way they are exact opposites of each other that make a perfect contrast. Kobe is arguably the best offensive player in the NBA that also is strong on defense. Garnett is arguably the best defensive player in the NBA that is also strong on offense. Kobe has three rings as a sidekick but has never shown he can win as the leader. KG had a decade of moderate success as the leader but never had the talent to play on the big stage. KG is known as one of the best starters in the league with a reputation for carrying his team for the first 46 minutes while Kobe is known as one of the best finishers in the game with a reputation for not knowing how to get the most out of his team in the first three quarters. Kobe is the ultimate individual player...almost to a fault, while KG is the ultimate team player...almost to a fault.
In 2004 the late writer Ralph Wiley wrote an article titled "The Good, The Bad, the Next MJ" in which he said there were two players in the NBA with the ability to carry the league to the next level of evolution after Michael Jordan's retirement: Kobe Bryant and Kevin Garnett. He wrote that Bryant had all of the individual brilliance, but needed to learn to use his team while Garnett knew how to make his team better but needed to learn when to get mad and take the game by the throat.
I blogged right before the series started that for both Bryant and Garnett, their current teams are in many ways PERFECT for them. Kobe knows that he needs talent around him to win a title, but by all indications he wanted talent that would submit to his leadership and support him without challenging his authority (or his glory). Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom are, without exaggeration, two of the 20 most talented players in the NBA. Perhaps even top-10. But both are flawed, in that neither want any part of leading nor seem to have the mentality to responding to adversity on the basketball court. And though both can score, neither of them are dominant individual scorers and each are willing to defer (not to just share responsibility, to defer. An important distinction). That made them perfect lieutenants for Kobe. Same with the bench...a bunch of young and talented shooters who can play off Kobe.
By the same token, KG also knows that he needs talent around him to win a title. But instead of wanting to be the stand-alone chief, KG wants to lead a team of leaders. It can be argued that neither Pierce nor Allen are among the 20 most naturally talented players in the NBA, but both have led their teams through wars and they know how to battle. And both are natural scorers that score in different ways than KG, which allows each of them to share the offensive burden while following KG's lead on the defensive end of the court. Same with the bench...a bunch of grizzled veterans with an emphasis on defense who can fit the team scheme.
I don't think that Kobe could coexist with two personalities and skill-sets like Pierce and Allen to make a cohesive team. It would be interesting to see what KG would do with two players like Gasol and Odom, but ultimately that wouldn't be his ideal support either. But through 4 games, this Finals seems to be showing us that having a leader that wants 11 guys willing to fight WITH him can lead to a stronger, tougher, more well-balanced team than having a leader that wants 11 guys willing to play FOR him. And once you get past their basketball skills, that is one of the biggest differences between Garnett and Bryant.
D-44,
You make some great points and I agree. But, it didn't necessarily have to be Garnett vs. Kobe. In many ways what you are saying is that Kobe and KG are the perfect complements to each other and that almost happened. According to reports, a trade was offered of was in the works with LA for the rights to KG too and KG might have preferred going there to Boston to play with Kobe at the time. Had it happened, what do ya think? Would LA be in the finals and would KG get his trophy vindicating the both of them. I can just hear KG defering to Kobe while holding up the trophy saying, "It is wonderful to play for the greatest coach in the game who supports his players and to play next to the greatest player in the game. Its been a great year. I LOVE LA!!!"
I would have been devastated if KG had been traded to LA to play with Kobe. I was sad to see him traded from Minnesota at all, and growing up the Celtics had been by-far my least favorite team. But for me, the NBA is more about individuals than teams (an effect of having no natural home team, probably). And just as KG is my favorite player of all-time, Kobe is probably my least favorite player (perhaps of all-time). Having to pull for KG and against Kobe simultaneously would have overloaded my circuits...I may have just exploded.
As for how such a tragedy would have played out...I would think utter NBA domination. Are you serious? Garnett running the defense with press-up perimeter defenders like Kobe and Fisher? Kobe running the offense, with KG as a second offensive engine/facillitator? The NBA would have been in serious trouble. And the really scary thing is that the Lakers would have still had the pieces that they traded for Gasol, so that robbery could have still taken place, at which point they could have simply canceled the NBA schedule for the next several years and moved the trophy to LA.
The only question would be if KG screamed at Kobe in practice the way that he reportedly did with Pierce, would Kobe have him traded? Kobe's personality always struck me as a steroided version of Wally's...we know how the KG/Wally situation worked out, but maybe the fact that Kobe is so good would have prevented a blow-up? I would have absolutely LOVED to hear rumors of a backstage fist-fight that people only spoke of in whispers...
Excellent post.
Was anyone else surprised by the revelation that KG didn't sleep for four consecutive days during the Eastern Conference finals?
That is just ridiculous. I'm not surprised KG would say that, but what he means is he had trouble sleeping. I don't believe he, nor anyone else, goes four consectutive days without sleeping unless a person is kept awake in captivity by torturers to render the prisoner insane. KG slept, he just had a little trouble sleeping and probably slept less than the amount he is accustomed to.
From Bill Simmons: "For instance, it was revealed after the Detroit series that Garnett hadn't slept for four days, a period that started after Game 4 and stretched past Game 6." I haven't found another source for this, but that doesn't mean it's not partially true. Also, it didn't say that KG said that. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he went 4 straight nights without sleeping more than 3 hours a night or something like that, which is much different than "he just had a little trouble sleeping."
Paging,
I love Bill Simmons, but he is known for hyperbole when if comes to his favorite team and players. I have no doubt KG said "I haven't slept for 4 nights" to someone, meaning he tossed and turned while sleeping full nights sleep or he had a little trouble sleeping and Bill Simmons ran with it.
I think the fans' and media's expectations of this series were shaped entirely by the first three rounds of the playoffs and not at all shaped by the hall of fame careers of Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce and Ray Allen, or their 66-win regular season. For three rounds, Kobe Bryant played one the greatest stretches of basketball these eyes have ever seen, and I fell victim to what many did, thinking that it would be enough to beat a team stacked with three hall of famers and a slew of aggressive and perfectly tailored supporting players. Well, it turns out that it isn't enough. Garnett has always been great, and Pierce and Allen have been great a lot more than they've been average. Allen has broken out of his shooting slump, and they are now nearly unbeatable, as they were in the regular season. Britt and many others can feel validated in their long-time defense of KG, and many like myself can now (or in a few days) concede that he is a champion and better qualified for comparisons against players like Larry Bird, instead of mere Hall-of-Famers Barkley/Malone/Ewing.
It still frustrates me that there is such an unwillingness by most fans to accept that another player might overtake Jordan as the game's greatest player. In 1993-94, after Jordan retired, Chicago had three All-Stars, including two starters. To me, that is one helluva supporting cast; probably one of the better supporting casts that any star player has been surrounded by. There are plenty of things to dislike about Kobe Bryant, so fans unwilling to make a reasoned comparison can feel great about his major setback last night. But if, as a basketball fan and spectator, what you're most interested in are things like talent and competition, you should pay closer attention, because on most nights, what he does out there is not all that different from what Jordan did, aside from having a much worse marketing team and perhaps less-likeable personality.
Maybe LeBron will get a fair shake, since Kobe at least warmed America up for the debate.
Britt,
I just wonder though if Doc will go back to Sam instead of House in any of the next (if need that many) 3 games. Or do you think he's gonna ride House from here on out?
Also, do you beleive the 2 days rest helps Boston more than LA? My thinking is that with Boston having more age and more guys banged up, it does more for them. But then again, as you pointed out, Ray Allen looked ready to go for another 48- non-stop.
I really like your point about KG. He did it his way. I can't tell you how many times I've been yelling at the TV telling KG to take it inside. KG himself even noted "I'm letting them off the hook too often" by not doing so and settling for a jumper. But, you're right. He's played his game and it looks like it's working.
Finally, LA may win the next game, but if it gets back to Boston. I think it's over in 1 of the 2 games there. Boston has played a few game 7's so far, and I just think if it comes down to it, that they will have the mental edge in a 1 game so much on the line atmosphere. It's a lot like the game coming up (game 5).
Lastly, about the Jordan and Bryant comparisons. Different era, different player, different (championship) teams. Sorry the discussion starts and ends there with nothing in between. Kobe =/= Jordan. Never will. Jordan > Kobe .
Finally, Lastly...sorry I meant to edit that and change one. Apologies for that.
One last comment. One more annoying aspect of this playoff's aside from the meeting of storied franchises and the Donaghy allegations. There was one inevitabity we could be sure of before the final's series evan began. There were going to be one of two possible outcomes. Either KG demonstrates to the world that he coesn't have the cahunas to win the big one and does not have the heart of a champion or Kobe will prove he is an asshole, poor teammate and way overrated. I was guilty of believing the first scenario, although I could be convinced of either depending on the outcome. But, how about the finals just being the meeting fo two superstars with their posses and neithers reputation as a champion suffers from whatever results. They each led their team to the finals and, why, Why the hell is that not good enough to say that they are both great players?
I'll submit a few things:
1- Phil Jackson never has been, is, or will be a great coach. He is a fantastic manager and quite possibly the greatest handler of top-end talent in league, but the Triangle Offense has never been a system so much as the hokiest (and most effective) way of institutionalizing the Alpha Dog concept into an offensive "set" that can be talked about ad nauseum. As has been mentioned elsewhere, he is good at two things: winning and whining. Oh, he can whistle loud too. This isn't a slight against the man as he has obviously figured out what 99% of other NBA coaches haven't, but x's and o's have never been his forte. He's the Coach K of the NBA.
2- Kobe Bryant will never, ever win a championship without a Shaq-like side kick. Imagine what Lebron could have done with this lineup. The very idea that he was a solid teammate was a tall tale on par with the NBA having good reffing in Game 6 of the 2002 WCF. The only way he wins is if there is another top-end talent on the team who can actually lead and who has the respect of his teammates. This has been obvious for years; so much so that Ray Allen called it as soon as Shaq left. Plus, he's simply not as good as people would like to believe. He's a fantastic, amazing one-on-one scorer, but he's behind Lebron, Chris Paul, KG, Dirk, Duncan, and maybe Amare as far as overall impact. He's a 6'6" Iverson--no joke, but no MVP either.
3- The Lakers bench is awful. Again, to go back to the Real Kobe: this is exactly why he was calling for a trade before the season began. Now that Pau and Odom have imploded, will he be back at it this off season? It will be interesting to see what they do with Bynum. He's a restricted FA after next season. Odom's $14 mil (!!!) will be off the books but they'll still be in the mid-50s before they can even address the big fella. Beyond that, their roster is simply Wolves-esque. Luke Walton = Ryan Gomes, Sasha V = Shaddy, Jordan Farmar < Randy Foye, Al Jefferson > Pau. Again, it would be interesting to see what Lebron could have done with the Lakers and Kobe with the Cavs. I can only imagine how well Kobe and Wally would get along.
4- Outside of the jerseys, how are this year's Celts any different than San Antonio? They're both defensive minded teams built mainly around 3 players; an all-time power forward, 2 scorers, and a bunch of 3-point oriented role players. Outside of the pre-game montages and the Bird/Magic sightings, the Celts are bringing this thing home in a decidedly Spurs-like fashion.
Something's gotta give. Phil's not a great coach, Kobe's not a great player, and the Laker bench is awful. Somewhere in there, there's something that cruised through the most competitive Western Conference in league history. Maybe it's Lamar Odom?
Just to be clear, I'm not saying that Phil isn't a great leader of men/winner of championships or that Kobe isn't a great player (especially on the offensive end). They do what they do better than almost anyone else on the planet. I'm simply saying that Phil's strength isn't x's and o's and that Kobe's isn't team play.
Personally, I believe that Phil Jackson *is* a great coach. And perhaps too good. I'll opine that he has such a long, wide angled viewpoint that it seems like he's doing nothing, or, for example, getting "out coached" for leaving in Vujavich/Farmar. It's my thinking that he's giving his players the chance to learn by actual experience what he's talking about. That Doc Rivers seems to be a similar kind of coach is simply kudos to Phil. But perhaps you prefer watching the little Lord Fauntleroy method of coaching, i.e. the Van Gundys, the Hubie Browns, and dare I say it here, the Flip Saunders trying desperately to control their team's every move.
And I'll opine that the mysterious "Triangle", or triple post, offense is not hocus pocus or a flim flam. If anything, it minimizes the Alpha and Phil's biggest problem has been to get his superstars to play it.
Again, Phil Jackson is one of the best that has ever been at the head of the bench in the NBA. It is to his great credit that he has figured out a way to get the most out of the top talent in the league. This is no small feat and I am in no way diminishing it. His great weakness is that when he does get involved in situations where the x's and o's matter, and they do from time to time, he is no better than the Doc Rivers and Randy Wittmans of the world. Tex Winter is the guy who brought it to Jackson and he's the guy with all the videos and books on the subject. I don't even think Tex used it when he was a head coach.
Perhaps this is a semantic argument on my part, but I think your assessment speaks to his managerial approach to letting players play. There is nothing wrong with this and I don't prefer it or not prefer it to pretty much anyone else except Popovich. I understand that there is a basic idea behind the Triangle and that it fosters proper spacing which allows superior performers like Shaq, Kobe, MJ, and Pippen to do their thing by overloading the strong side with wing, corner and block positions, but as far as Jackson being a guy where you'd want to place your bets on him making the right rotations in crunch time or drawing up an amazing in bounds play, he is very much with equal. That's all I'm saying. Again, it is to his great credit that he realizes (and can achieve) what the Van Gundys, Browns, and Saunders cannot: you live and die by your ability to allow your best players to be able to function efficiently on their own.
To be fair, I was reading right off your list of points. You said, Phil's not a great coach, and you then listed six players better than Kobe as all-around players. Then you said they had an awful bench. If all those things are true, then you either think much more of Kobe's fellow starters than I do, or you must think their run was something of a fluke (which is unlikely since no series went to seven games, and two were over in less than six). Or...something has to give.
Not at all. I think I've been very clear that I think Jackson is an excellent manager of talent, not a great x's and o's guy and that Kobe is a great scorer. They played Denver and a gimpy Spurs team for 2 of their 3 series wins. They are a good team. In a league where coaches are merely asked not to piss off the star players and where being able to go for 25-30 puts you in the top 5% of your profession, these are qualities that will get you a long way, as Jackson's 9 titles and Kobe's many accomplisments can attest to.
"Phil Jackson never has been, is, or will be a great coach." That was what I was going off when I interpreted your post as saying Jackson is not a great coach. As for playing (and sweeping) Denver, they have two players "able to go for 25-30" and a coach who has almost always been an excellent manager of talent.
And I'm not sure that Spurs team was "gimpy" as much as aging at role-player positions. They beat a New Orleans team with CP3, a player included in your "better than Kobe" group. I think Peja-West-Chandler might be better than Radmanovic-Odom-Gasol, so perhaps CP3 is a step behind Kobe at this point, given that he's been watching the games on TV for a couple weeks now, in spite of his superior supporting group. And as unfathomable as this idea might seem to some, CP3's nicer personality, mild-mannered demeanor and more genuine popularity with teammates (an assumption made by fans) didn't translate over into greater team success. I've read so much nonsense about Kobe being a bad teammate that I'm seriously wondering if teenage girls have infiltrated the NBA blogs and newspaper columns. Bill Simmons is actually the #1 culprit of this, and he makes it ever-so-clear that he never played basketball at any significant level. His MVP column was heavily directed at how popular both KG and Chris Paul are with their teammates, and he dismissed the wild notion that the award should go to the best player in the league. And since when did knocking out teammates with your fists, ala Michael Jordan and Kevin Garnett, become a lesser offense in the laws of being a teammate than yelling at young players when they make stupid decisions. I've always considered the latter to be a natural part of team sports, but never have I witnessed a KO punch in any basketball practice. I'm sure it happens, but it's usually in hockey, and probably not by great teammates.
That was a major tangent, but my over-arching point behind all of this is that, LA is a very, very good team, and that is primarily due to Kobe Bryant and Phil Jackson. Bryant is clearly the best overall player in the league today, and I think Jackson is one of the best coaches. However, like it did in the regular season, the whole "3 Hall-of-Famers in their prime" thing is starting to work its magic in these Finals. That doesn't mean anyone needs to forget how great LA's run has been with a mostly-young and inexperienced group.
I can only repeat it so many times: Phil and Kobe are very, very good at what they do but they, like everybody else, come with limitations. Phil's limitations are with x's and o's and Kobe's are with team play. I brought these up because there seems to be some surprise that the team with the "best coach" and "best player" have been neither during this series.
Kobe Bryant, not Bill Simmons, is the #1 culprit of people thinking he is a selfish player and a bad teammate. From Ray Allen to Shaq to his breakaway from Charlotte to his actions before the season began--to say nothing of his history of on court play--he's got a screw loose when it comes to working well with others. I don't think I'm rewriting the bible on this point.
You are right that the Spurs had aging role players but they also had a gimpy Manu and without his ability to get into the lane, the whole deck of cards comes crashing down, as Parker can't shoot for shit and Duncan can then be swarmed.
As for the Spurs and NOLA, they went 7 and nearly each game was a run-away in the 3rd quarter. They took their best swings at one another and the Hornets almost walked away with it. The series could have gone either way and each team would have presented the Lakers with a different threat. Some teams play different against others. Look at the Wolves and Suns this year. I'd also argue that a 22 year old point's performance did lead to massive team success as a 2007 lottery team became a high seed in the toughest conference in NBA history in 1 year. And, as a Spurs fan who watched each contest closely, Paul may be mild mannered off the court, but he can be an SOB on it. He out-Bowened Bowen if such a thing is possible.
I got on a rant there that wasn't entirely directed at your previous posts. I think Kobe became a punk when he was 22 and winning titles, but I also think he grew out of most of it. Now, I think the main things people can point to involve screaming at teammates. While I don't always think he's right to do it, I also think it serves an often-missing piece in pro basketball, which is discipline and accountability. Most coaches can't get away with it, either because of young player attitudes, or the veteran player's lack of credibility (see Wittman, Randy). However, Kobe's resume' speaks for itself and I think, like KG's impact on the Boston culture, his constant demands of those young guys is part of the reason they made it so far.
Arguments like this--struggling hard to be respectful, yet involuntarily testy nonetheless--are what happen when two very smart and fair people both have legitimate points that are slightly reprioritized by the other.
As one who long hated Kobe and this year came to respect him, and applaud him for his maturity, I think the disappearance of his teammates, especially Odom and Gasol, has generated a frustration that has brought back signs of the arrogant, snarky Kobe--but Jesus, who can blame him? The guy is only human, he knows how many people have it out for him, and that these playoffs are a significant chapter in his non-Shaq legacy. By now he also knows that the way he played all during the regular season and in the first three rounds have raised expectations to an unrealistic level--unless, of course, his teammates show up and help him out.
Both S+P and d44, make solid, valid points, and if you look at my post, which prompted this discussion, after all, I am not at all kind to either Jackson or Kobe. But what I don't want to see happen, and what always bothered me about Dan Barreiro, for example, a guy who knows sports quite well in my opinion, is that you are either a champion or a chump. I essentially considered Kobe and KG to be co-MVPs this season--it really was an apples and oranges comparison, even more than usual--and had no problem with Kobe getting the award. I felt like Phil Jackson belonged in the conversation for coach of year--he was in my top 3 or 4 for the regular season. As I wrote in an earlier post, MJ, Shaq and Kobe have exactly one ring away from Jackson. Kobe Bryant is an incredibly talented basketball player who should receive his due, and not the shitstorm he's been getting lately from Simmons and others (I suspect Simmons is responding to the avalanche of email he got from Beantown partisans after he ripped KG's crunchtime capability and called it for the Lakers in the Finals), for elevating the aspect of his game that most needed honing, the leadership part. The guy had ten assists the other night, and it should have been many more. The best defense in the NBA is swarming him and his teammates aren't picking up the slack. As for Phil Jackson, I do think his performance in these Finals is less defensible, but that's the way it goes sometimes--you are either an automaton who always goes by the book or you play your hunches. Jackson's hunches are usually right. In this series, they haven't been. Nine rings says that he is right more often than any coach alive today.
Bottom line, the Mamba and the Zen Master will almost certainly not be champions this year. But reasonable people should conclude that both have enhanced, rather than damaged, their estimable legacies by their performances this season. I know that seems to contradict what I wrote in the above post, but the context I was operating in when I wrote it was the perception if LA had won the Finals (as I had predicted), instead of falling short as now seems almost certain.
I'm trying my best not to contradict our exchange after the first Boston-MN game when the Bird-KG comparison was prompted by someone in the Boston media. In that exchange, I was dismissing Garnett entirely from the conversation, due to a lack of rings, and now I'm defending Kobe in MJ debates, in spite of his pending sixth consecutive non-title season. I guess I'm trying to establish some middle ground, by conceding that teammates matter very much to team success, but also think Kobe has done a great deal by leading a soft (but skilled) front line and young and sporadic bench all the way to the Finals. However, that debacle the other night just about puts a fork in the argument, since the critics are correct when they say MJ wouldn't have let that happen. However, that could be partly because Scottie Pippen was there to help stop the bleeding in similar situations. In any case, I love Bill Simmons' work and look forward to reading his regular columns/mailbags, but his collection of Kobe-related writings are simply awful, and cater to the large group of fans that either A) are still brainwashed by Jordan's Gatorade/Nike/etc commercials; or B) simply hate Kobe for things like getting falsely accused of rape after cheating on his hot wife, being a selfish prick on a team that should've won 5 titles instead of 3, and constantly bitching at refs. I understand the second group of people, but still find it troubling that so few seem to grasp the quality of his on-court product for the past three or four seasons. It's one thing to cheer against him, but another to deny what he's done.
I can honestly say that my appreciation for Kobe is 100% related to the joy I get from watching what he does on the basketball court. Maybe like movie stars and other celebrities, I worry less about his personal life since we probably know a lot less about it than we expect or wish we did. And by comparison, we probably don't know as much about the so called "good guys." Kirby Puckett was a great example of that, and I still respect the hell out of what he did for Minnesota sports, in spite of the nasty stuff that emanated from his divorce.
To be fair, I can't tell how much of my opinion is driven by my complete dislike of the Lakers and Kobe. I try to keep things as objective as possible but I do have to admit to being an anti-Laker homer. There are 30 years of feelings wrapped up in this opinion and it probably plays in my final take. To me, Kobe is the ultimate poser star athlete. From the lip smacking to the vocal tones to the way he thinks he should look on the court, it's almost some sort of clinical diagnosis in the way which he tries to be like Mike. Of course, I give Lebron a free pass on this account so I'm not exactly consistent on this point either. Oh well, when it comes down to it, the only 2 teams I really care about are the Wolves and Spurs so I should probably just enjoy the finals and hope for some good ball.
I get what you're saying about Phil and Kobe and I don't think it contradicts what you wrote earlier. It makes sense.
Not to go on *that* big of a tangent, but I've always got a chuckle out of Barreiro's champ or chump take. The feast or famine thing seems to be almost compulsive with him and he's since moved his feelings about KG and championships (and 4th quarters) over to Joe Mauer and home runs. For someone who builds the rest of his schtick around finding "nuance" in the mushy political middle (which is meaningless), it's kind of a goofy place to suddenly start seeing things in a bit more black and white than he usually does...or at least claims to do.
I guess where I'm coming from on the Kobe and Phil thing is that I think they are both very good at what they do but their performance this year and in the playoffs haven't been out of the ordinary and they have reached their current heights (this year) due to some very explainable things like an insane trade, favorable playoff matchups, and so on and so forth.
We can talk about benches and coaches all day long, but the final result still comes down to, in my opinion - KG, Pierce and Allen. Kobe could very well be champion this year without Shaq. He just got through beating SA and Utah with Jackson as his coash, Gasol and Odom by his side and his bench. If Ray Allen doesn't regain his form and become a legitimate threat on offense anc continued to play as he did against Cleveland and Atlanta, Kobe has his fourth championship.
If comes down to pick your poison. KG on the block, with Allen and Pierce as the other scoring threats. You can double down on KG and put Kobe on Pierce, but then you have Allen. Jackson had to resort to moving Kobe around and wherever Kobe ain't, Allen or Pierce has the advantage. LA could not do the same thing with Odom and Gausol, and I suppose we could say that pretty much proves that KG had a larger impact on this series than Kobe with the caveat that, sometimes its not the opposing team that shuts players down but the player himself for wahtever reason. Who was responsible for Ray allen's shooting slump during the Eastern conference playoffs afterall besides Ray Allen himself. Odom and Gausol didn't show up for this final series the way Allen and Pierce did and I think all that proves is that Allen and Pierce wanted it more - much more.
I thought LA had the game, even as Boston wittled down the lead until Pierce blocks Kobe's shot in the third. That was the first time I realized Boston could win the game - and after that, the game was over.
Before the series started, I knew that Paul Pierce would have to be the guy to defend Kobe in the crunch. The Celts could find ways to shoulder his offensive load, but no one else can really defend Kobe in the crunch -- which, by the way, includes "respect" from the referees. After the knee issue in Game One, I said that the series outcome depends on how well he can defend Bryant.
And if my name was Red, I'd have been lighting a cigar at the end of the 3rd when PJ Brown posterized the Black Mamba with an in your face dunk.
btw, not only did Pierce block Kobe's unblockable fadeaway, it was the way he did it. It was not one of those overrated stat blocks. This block went from Kobe's hands to Pierce's, who then hustled it up the floor. It was truly a great block and a game changing moment.
Kobe and Phil just led what was thought of as a fringe playoff team on a dominant post season run and finals birth. Jackson perhaps isn't a xs and os wonk but schemes and plays are over-rated in the NBA, where coaching is 95 percent teaching and managing talent and personalities.
Maybe the Lakers bench got over-rated headed into this match-up, but it's laughable to suggest it's comparable to the T-Wolves. No one but Jefferson could even sniff LA's rotation. The Lakers have been pretty damn successful this year, they've just run into a hungrier and more experienced team.
It's Boston's year. I couldn't be happier for KG and hope that all his doubters in Minnesota will finally realize that the Wolves problems had next to nothing to do with him and everything to do with McHale, whose reputation around the league must be ridiculously low.
"Kobe and Phil just led what was thought of as a fringe playoff team on a dominant post season run and finals birth."
...they were the #1 seed in the West in arguably the toughest Conference in league history. As for the rest of the Lakers roster, here's their PER:
Fisher: 13.95
Farmar: 15.58
Vujacic: 15.25
Walton: 12.49
Radmanovic: 12.79
Turiaf: 15.19
McCants: 14.80
Gomes: 15.89
Smith: 16.92
Jaric: 12.20
Foye: 12.89
All 5 of those Wolves players could easily get burn on the Lakers and perform as well as their Laker counterparts. The Lakers have Bryant, Odom, and Gasol who are clearly better than non-Jefferson Wolves (Kobe's clearly better than Big Al), but beyond that, Kobe was right to be pissed in the off-season as his non-Bynum surrounding cast (without the ridiculous Memphis trade) is crap, and not just any type of crap: easy-to-wilt crap.
Those are some interesting PER comparisons. One must keep in mind though, that the PER number is rigged so that 15.0 is the *average* of all players in the NBA.
Using your numbers (they don't match the PERs I use from the 82games.com site) let's compare those Lakers and Wolves you selected, by position:
PG:...Fisher:...13.95........Foye: 12.89
.........Farmar:..15.58.......Jaric: 12.20
Nah, Randy and Marko wouldn't crack the Lakers lineup, even as reserves.
SG:....Vujacic: 15.25.........McCants: 14.80
I'd take Sasha, but your mileage may vary. And again, that's as a reserve.
SF:.....Walton: 12.49..........Gomes: 15.89
...........Radmanovic: 12.79
Hooray for Ryan! Giving up an inch or three to Luke and Vlad might hurt his chances, though.
PF:......Turiaf: 15.19..............Smith: 16.92
And a big "Hooray" for Craig. But we also must realize that Craig just doesn't have the body size to match up against most starting PFs in the league, nor the quickness to defend at SF.
So, what I see is that only Craig and Ryan have the PER numbers to displace current Lakers on the basis of that stat alone.
I was talking about how LA was viewed before the season started, when no one picked them to get the top spot in the west. The Lakers exceeded expectations during the regular season and up until this point, the playoffs. If their bench was "crap" that would never have happened, especially since Phil and Kobe, according to you, are apparently over-rated.
I disagree with your assessment of LA's bench compared to the Wolves. Can you really imagine McCants, Foye Craig Smith or Marko Jaric contributing to a deep playoff run??
Please.
I don't disagree with your point about getting this far but only if you are acknowledging that the little team who could only got there because of one of the most ridiculous trades in league history. Without Gasol, they aren't the #1 seed, Kobe maybe opts for surgery, and they get bounced in the 1st or 2nd round of the playoffs when their fearsome front duo of Radmanovic and Kwame Brown go up against West/Chandler and/or Duncan/Thomas.
As for the point about the Wolves players and them being involved in a post season run....Luke frickin' Walton is getting minutes on the Lakers. Sasha Vujucic is a white European Shaddy...right down to the streaky shooting and matador defense when it matters. At this point in his career, Derrick Fisher isn't as good as Foye and Marko could fill in for that spot as well. So in short, yes...yes I can imagine them on a Finals team. They would have virtually nothing to do with the fact that the team was in the Finals (as can be said about Walton, Farmar, etc), but they would be there, taking up space while getting the evil eye from Kobe.
That's a good take. Still, for the life of me I can't imagine Foye/McCants/Smith/Marko participating in an important late regular season game, let alone the NBA finals.
I do think your off if you think D-Fish is worse than Foye or McCants. His experience alone makes him a pretty valuable commodity in the playoffs. Personally I think Radmanovich can be a damn good player and I'd probably trade all four of the above mentioned Wolves for him. I haven't watched Sasha enough to have a strong opinion but he has hit some fairly crunch shots, which McCants has never done even in meaningless preseason games.
I understand what your saying about Gasol, but the Lakers probably could have gotten this far if Bynum stayed healthy.
Foye vs. Fisher is an interesting comparison, since both are pretty terrible playmaking point guards, but both are very good spot-up shooters. Two obvious differences stick out in my mind.
1) Fish plays next to Bryant, who does all the point-guard duties from the two guard position.
2) Fish is five times the defender that Foye is (or at least what Foye showed last year. Let's hope that was the knee.)
"2) Fish is five times the defender that Foye is (or at least what Foye showed last year. Let's hope that was the knee.)"
...you're exactly right about hoping about the knee. His defense was simply awful.
I see where you're coming from: The Wolves were so bad that it's hard to think of any of their players being a part of a championship team. The Lakers would be a tough out if Bynum was healthy and could patrol the lane. Ray-Ray would have had a bit tougher time with his reverse layups had a real post player been down on the block.
A lot of it's the intangibles when it comes to role players. No one has confidence that guys like Marko or McCants could keep their composure in a highly charged pressure situation. I can just imagine Marko bringing the ball up in crunch time, getting trapped, then going out of control and throwing the ball out of bounds, or Shady pounding the ball on the floor as the shot clock dwindles before launching a ludicrous three.
I've defended both but playoff basketball takes a level of mental toughness neither has demonstrated. The Lakers, if anything, have proved they can handle the bright lights. They'll be better in the future because of the experience they got this year.
Agreed.
PS: I'm not saying that Kobe and Phil are garbage. Not even that they're overrated. Simply, that they're not what they're portrayed as 95% of the time. Kobe is a fantastic scorer but he's not a team guy who can lead his team to a championship. He's easily a top 10 player in the league and he's fun to watch, but he's not the droid most people are looking for (i.e. the 2nd Coming of MJ).
Phil is an amazing winner who "gets it" to the extent that the NBA isn't a coaching league as much as it is a game where you get your best players to play their best at the highest levels. There's a reason you don't see Phil Jackson coaching videos on the Breakthrough Basketball newsletter. There's a reason why the Triangle Offense video doesn't get screenings in gyms across the country. How many Phil Jackson coaching proteges can you name? He's the Tom Peters of the NBA. I'm sure he's valued more in boardrooms than in lockerrooms for the managerial wisdom he brings to the table. He's more Jack than Donnie Walsh if that makes any sense. I think this is why Red got so pissed at him. He's not a "coach" in the traditional sense of the word; or at least in the way Red probably saw things. However, where Red went wrong was to minimize that sort of approach vis-a-vis traditional x's and o's when it comes to winning championships.
You make a great point (#2). I was thinking the same thing about LeBron. Kobe is certainly smoother and a better shooter, but I am convinced that LeBron is a better player. His size and strength trump Kobe's slightly higher skill level and he's not a complete asshole to boot.
I'll second the points that Stop-n-pop makes: the Lakers' bench has been exposed as vastly inferior to the Celts, and that was after just about every pundit thought it was a key advantage in this series. Ariza, Turiaf, Sasha and Farmar are all a bunch of novices in playoff terms who don't bring anything to the game except streakiness, and Walton, while generally a brilliant passer, isn't athletic/defensive enough to make good teams like the celts respect him. Compare that to the Celtics, who bring a bunch of playoff tested guys who know their roles and execute those roles. In many ways, the Celts' bench has been more consistent than the big 3 in terms of delievering in this series.
Again, echoing S-n-Ps point, it almost seems as if the coaches have had their brians transplanted -- Jackson turning to Ariza as basically his first guy off the bench (who's been hurt and hasn't played at all this playoffs) is a sign of desperiation and the type of rotation-experimenting that Doc Rivers was skewered for throughout his career (until this season/playoffs). His substitutions have been hapazard at best and he hasn't been able to get his best players playing as a team, which used to be his strength.
I'll make one other point, however: given Boston's defense/phisical play, Bynum is sorely missed. I don't think it would make a difference this series -- I can't see how he wouldn't have been at least as affected by the stage/pressure, particularly if your two supposed "mentors" have gone in the tank like Odom and Gasol, but that extra skilled big man (and the only player on the Lakers who can really protect the rim), would have made a difference last night. I don't see the Celtics getting all of those layups, particularly Allen's highlight reverse (it wasn't Dr. J, but given the stage, it will go down as a close second), if Bynum was playing like he did this year. Now, given the state of the officiating, maybe the celts get the call anyway.