I think a lot of people believe Lebron is the single best defender in the league when he chooses to be but him and the Heat did not play like the best defensive player/team all season long. They did in spurts, perhaps because they were resting for the playoffs or maybe due to complacency. Either way, the Heat are a team that saves their best for the playoffs, and the Grizzlies strike me as one of those teams that almost always tries their hardest in the regular season but get slowed down in the playoffs because everyone else is finally trying just as hard and they don't have an extra gear. They're still very, very good but what you see during the regular season is what you get in the playoffs, and that wasn't the case for the Heat. If you had a Defensive Player of the Playoffs award, I bet Lebron would win it.

Perhaps another aspect is that while Lebron is unbelievably versatile, people see him primarily as a perimeter defender and on the Heat, perimeter defenders are replaceable. They have two young ballhawks (although at least one usually has questionable decision making), plus Battier and Wade, who is also a top 5 perimeter defender and might even be better on-ball than Lebron. Marc Gasol, on the other hand, is irreplacable on that team and in most of the league.

Jerubaal

United States7684 Posts

April 25 2013 22:09 GMT

#763

See, I see it as the other way around. I think Gasol would be more highly rated if there were fewer good defensive big men. There are very few perimeter defenders who can be extremely disruptive to star level players. Still, I think that a good defensive big man is more impactful than a more perimeter oriented defender. Lebron might be more irreplaceable but that doesn't mean Gasol wasn't more productive as a defender.

andrewlt

United States7702 Posts

April 25 2013 22:33 GMT

#764

The Lakers may be without Blake, Nash and Meeks for game 3. The only guards left on their roster would be Duhon, Morris and Goudelock.

Goudelock there.

seiferoth10

3362 Posts

April 25 2013 23:09 GMT

#765

Nice, all 4 of Lakers guards who played minutes are out. Sweet deal.

Jerubaal

United States7684 Posts

April 25 2013 23:26 GMT

#766

Well the only real change between the start of Game 2 and 3 is Blake's hamstring. Nash and Meeks are only listed as doubtful. I'm sure Nash could play, but is it really worth it?

a176

Canada6688 Posts

April 25 2013 23:29 GMT

#767

On April 26 2013 07:33 andrewlt wrote:
The Lakers may be without Blake, Nash and Meeks for game 3.

this matters because ... ?
;d

edit
Dave McMenamin: Stave Blake is out indefinitely with a strained hammy. Nash received two epidurals and a cortisone shot and is doubtful. Meeks also doubtful

Jibba

United States22883 Posts

April 25 2013 23:41 GMT

#768

Blake has been killing it for the Lakers lately. It sounds weird saying it but losing Steve Blake will hurt them a lot.

Scarecrow

Korea (South)9175 Posts

April 25 2013 23:48 GMT

#769

On April 26 2013 08:41 Jibba wrote:
Blake has been killing it for the Lakers lately. It sounds weird saying it but losing Steve Blake will hurt them a lot.

Shooting 39% in the series so far is hardly killing it, plenty of bricks and airballs. Decent defence I guess and he does throw himself around the court. It's just the Laker's depth is so terrible it makes scrubs like Blake look relatively good. Same goes for Meeks, though he can at least shoot a bit.

Jibba

United States22883 Posts

April 25 2013 23:51 GMT

#770

Ray Allen has sucked in the playoffs these last two years.

Jibba

United States22883 Posts

April 25 2013 23:53 GMT

#771

On April 26 2013 08:48 Scarecrow wrote:

Show nested quote +

No, he's still playing bad defense but the Lakers don't have any other perimeter players that will put up 15+, without Kobe. No one even expects that from Blake, but somehow he's averaged 18/4/4 the last 5 games. Plus he's shooting a lot of 3s, so that FG% is misleading. His eFG% has been better.

Jerubaal

United States7684 Posts

April 26 2013 00:01 GMT

#772

Something of a zany way of looking at it, but if every player on each team scored as much as the average backcourt production, the Lakers would have scored 91 points and the Spurs would have scored 155 points for that game (and the back courts had equal playing time).

So I guess that means their backcourt was actually as good as their frontcourt for that game, while the Spurs' backcourt was much better absolutely and relative to their frontcourt.