|
United States22883 Posts
On October 18 2014 16:21 Xeris wrote:
I don't really get the criticism of the Lakers (aside from the fact that they're really bad) this preseason, focusing on "oh man they're shooting NO 3's!"
To me it makes perfect sense, they don't have 3 point shooters, why would they shoot 3's. Nick Young and Kobe are probably the best shooters they have, their whole roster consists of people who play inside mid-range - Lin is one of the best attacking guards, Kobe has one of the best midrange games ever, Nash is primarily a pick/roll player and someone who uses the paint to create offense... West Johnson/Henry are more slashers, etc.. their entire roster is designed to be 15 feet from the basket or closer, so why shoot 3's? Obviously they're hitting an extreme right now but I'd imagine that is done on purpose to get them to play into the style that Byron Scott wants.
Whether it'll be good or bad, who knows. I do think though that what he's trying to do is create a style that attempts to play to the strengths of his players. It isn't what the norm is in the NBA, but the Lakers aren't a good team anyway, maybe the idea is to get them to play what style best suits them and they may be a better team by maximizing their comfort zones than trying to pigeonhole themselves into the predominant trends even though they aren't equipped to do so.
Their defense has been utterly atrocious, as a side note. It's almost funny.
The Lakers were #3 in 3pt % last year. They lose Meeks but they have 5 other guys that took >100 attempts and made >35%, and then they added Lin who also fits that category.
I don't think it's a bad 3pt shooting roster at all. More than that, Scott's comments make it sound like he doesn't understand how the NBA is played anymore. 3pt shooting doesn't win championships? That's just nonsense.
|
On October 19 2014 17:01 Ace wrote:
As for the bolded I have issue with that. There is no evidence that it's easier to build around say, Duncan, than it is to build around Dirk or Nash. For one it's damn difficult to measure the absolute value of individual offense and defense for guys playing the same position never mind different ones. Then there are issues of measuring things like passing, matching up, and scoring ability that may change team strategy that isn't easy to figure out. Add in organizations having more control over player success than the players themselves and it gets trickier. Of course the gold standard is KG vs Duncan where I doubt swapping them would have any noticeable effect on their teams' success in any year except pre 2001.
I was on board with the Suns changing the league, and everything, but I just can't imagine ever agreeing to this. First of all, the benefit of the two-way player is you just put them in the lineup and build around it. Parker and Ginobili were never great defenders and for most of his career Duncan has anchored a solid defense behind them. Or KG, he is probably the unluckiest elite-2 way big man ever in that he only has 1 ring (and we know why, its because the TWolves are a terrible organization), I really can't think of another at the moment because its just so easy to plug and play around those guys.
On the other hand, Dirk really needed a well constructed team, even in his prime, to showcase his talents. The reason that Duncan > Dirk, is that with Dirk, your best case is a rich man's 2013-14 Knicks where you are like, "I'd love to have more shooters out there, but then they will score 120 PPP."
Anyways, we have discussed positional scarcity before, but IMO its pretty clear that Dirk/Duncan type players are much more valuable than Nash type because of that alone. Plus I think the ability to influence the defensive side is greater, while the offensive side is fungible.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
lakers are not going to contend anytime soon anyway. they'll just put on a show for fans and hire lakers people to make the fanbase feel proud.
|
oh man ariza has looked sweet this pre-season. really good fit
|
On October 20 2014 00:00 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2014 16:21 Xeris wrote:
I don't really get the criticism of the Lakers (aside from the fact that they're really bad) this preseason, focusing on "oh man they're shooting NO 3's!"
To me it makes perfect sense, they don't have 3 point shooters, why would they shoot 3's. Nick Young and Kobe are probably the best shooters they have, their whole roster consists of people who play inside mid-range - Lin is one of the best attacking guards, Kobe has one of the best midrange games ever, Nash is primarily a pick/roll player and someone who uses the paint to create offense... West Johnson/Henry are more slashers, etc.. their entire roster is designed to be 15 feet from the basket or closer, so why shoot 3's? Obviously they're hitting an extreme right now but I'd imagine that is done on purpose to get them to play into the style that Byron Scott wants.
Whether it'll be good or bad, who knows. I do think though that what he's trying to do is create a style that attempts to play to the strengths of his players. It isn't what the norm is in the NBA, but the Lakers aren't a good team anyway, maybe the idea is to get them to play what style best suits them and they may be a better team by maximizing their comfort zones than trying to pigeonhole themselves into the predominant trends even though they aren't equipped to do so.
Their defense has been utterly atrocious, as a side note. It's almost funny. The Lakers were #3 in 3pt % last year. They lose Meeks but they have 5 other guys that took >100 attempts and made >35%, and then they added Lin who also fits that category. I don't think it's a bad 3pt shooting roster at all. More than that, Scott's comments make it sound like he doesn't understand how the NBA is played anymore. 3pt shooting doesn't win championships? That's just nonsense.
hahahahaha
Scott sounds like one of those run the ball/defend the run coaches long after that has been disproven.
|
On October 20 2014 09:28 Doraemon wrote:
oh man ariza has looked sweet this pre-season. really good fit
Yeah it looks like a pretty good contract if he keeps this up.
|
This season will be worse than the last if LA sticks with 45+ midrange jumpers a game...
|
How Kobe Costs the Lakers
It's pretty much what I always thought was happening with Kobe. The question I have been asking for several years is what star wants to come be "Scottie Pippen" to an aging Kobe? Kobe is still going to put up good individual numbers. He does want to win bad, but as the article says, he only wants to win if he is the primary reason for winning. He doesn't want to be the 2nd or 3rd option on a championship team, much less a role player off the bench.
I respect Kobe's skill level, and his drive, but his personality is a primary reason I can never root for him.
The Lakers have long term problems beyond just Kobe now though. The Clippers no longer have Donald Sterling holding them down. They are at least an equal option for anyone who wants the LA experience, right now they are a preferable choice. No Jerry Buss is a bigger deal than people make it out to be. They basically have new ownership, so there is no guaranteed that his kids can duplicate Dr. Buss's success. I'm not convinced that there are a bunch of players who would love to come to the Lakers just because of their past history even if Kobe wasn't there. Sure free agents would consider it like any major market team, but if the Lakers are lottery teams for the next few years of Kobe's tenure, how much will that past winning reputation be tarnished?
|
On October 21 2014 06:06 karazax wrote:How Kobe Costs the LakersIt's pretty much what I always thought was happening with Kobe. The question I have been asking for several years is what star wants to come be "Scottie Pippen" to an aging Kobe? Kobe is still going to put up good individual numbers. He does want to win bad, but as the article says, he only wants to win if he is the primary reason for winning. He doesn't want to be the 2nd or 3rd option on a championship team, much less a role player off the bench. I respect Kobe's skill level, and his drive, but his personality is a primary reason I can never root for him. The Lakers have long term problems beyond just Kobe now though. The Clippers no longer have Donald Sterling holding them down. They are at least an equal option for anyone who wants the LA experience, right now they are a preferable choice. No Jerry Buss is a bigger deal than people make it out to be. They basically have new ownership, so there is no guaranteed that his kids can duplicate Dr. Buss's success. I'm not convinced that there are a bunch of players who would love to come to the Lakers just because of their past history even if Kobe wasn't there. Sure free agents would consider it like any major market team, but if the Lakers are lottery teams for the next few years of Kobe's tenure, how much will that past winning reputation be tarnished?
only the lakers. jesus christ espn lol.
|
On October 21 2014 07:09 rabidch wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2014 06:06 karazax wrote:How Kobe Costs the LakersIt's pretty much what I always thought was happening with Kobe. The question I have been asking for several years is what star wants to come be "Scottie Pippen" to an aging Kobe? Kobe is still going to put up good individual numbers. He does want to win bad, but as the article says, he only wants to win if he is the primary reason for winning. He doesn't want to be the 2nd or 3rd option on a championship team, much less a role player off the bench. I respect Kobe's skill level, and his drive, but his personality is a primary reason I can never root for him. The Lakers have long term problems beyond just Kobe now though. The Clippers no longer have Donald Sterling holding them down. They are at least an equal option for anyone who wants the LA experience, right now they are a preferable choice. No Jerry Buss is a bigger deal than people make it out to be. They basically have new ownership, so there is no guaranteed that his kids can duplicate Dr. Buss's success. I'm not convinced that there are a bunch of players who would love to come to the Lakers just because of their past history even if Kobe wasn't there. Sure free agents would consider it like any major market team, but if the Lakers are lottery teams for the next few years of Kobe's tenure, how much will that past winning reputation be tarnished? only the lakers. jesus christ espn lol.
That's what I thought when I was going through that issue this weekend (and I skipped over that one). There was actually a good piece on the NBA and biometrics testing, yet it has gotten a lot less attention.
|
On October 21 2014 06:06 karazax wrote:How Kobe Costs the LakersIt's pretty much what I always thought was happening with Kobe. The question I have been asking for several years is what star wants to come be "Scottie Pippen" to an aging Kobe? Kobe is still going to put up good individual numbers. He does want to win bad, but as the article says, he only wants to win if he is the primary reason for winning. He doesn't want to be the 2nd or 3rd option on a championship team, much less a role player off the bench. I respect Kobe's skill level, and his drive, but his personality is a primary reason I can never root for him. The Lakers have long term problems beyond just Kobe now though. The Clippers no longer have Donald Sterling holding them down. They are at least an equal option for anyone who wants the LA experience, right now they are a preferable choice. No Jerry Buss is a bigger deal than people make it out to be. They basically have new ownership, so there is no guaranteed that his kids can duplicate Dr. Buss's success. I'm not convinced that there are a bunch of players who would love to come to the Lakers just because of their past history even if Kobe wasn't there. Sure free agents would consider it like any major market team, but if the Lakers are lottery teams for the next few years of Kobe's tenure, how much will that past winning reputation be tarnished?
Tarnished by exactly 0% WTF kind of article is this? Kobe was a huge part of 5 championship teams. The Los Angeles Clippers don't have a single championship or Finals appearance or WCF appearance in their history. Professional sports have built in short memories, but Basketball Jesus Christ, Kobe Bryant is one of the best players in league history. He signed a contract extension that was offered by Lakers' management. It was also a pay cut. Holy smokes, players like Ramon Sessions and Andrew Bynum don't matter, Kobe's personality only matters insofar as he has won. Where is this article about Kyle Lowry and his attitude? Are we going to have a glossy piece of crap article about James Harden when he never wins a single championship?
"He only cared about drawing fouls and phat-ass skrippers." A source close to James Harden says, on the condition of anonymity.
Henry Abbot needs to relax. Sad to see a once decent writer degrade to click bait. I'm so angry. I'm writing the ombudsmen. I don't even like Kobe.
|
skipped that article because I kind of knew what it would come down to lol
|
On October 21 2014 10:40 Ace wrote:
skipped that article because I kind of knew what it would come down to lol
It's a Henry Abbot ESPN article, why does anyone even bother clicking it?
|
Damn Drose drops 30 on Cavs with no TO but team loses, lack of Butler not enough scoring.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
oh man that kobe article. eye bleach territory
|
United States22883 Posts
On October 21 2014 09:14 slyboogie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2014 06:06 karazax wrote:How Kobe Costs the LakersIt's pretty much what I always thought was happening with Kobe. The question I have been asking for several years is what star wants to come be "Scottie Pippen" to an aging Kobe? Kobe is still going to put up good individual numbers. He does want to win bad, but as the article says, he only wants to win if he is the primary reason for winning. He doesn't want to be the 2nd or 3rd option on a championship team, much less a role player off the bench. I respect Kobe's skill level, and his drive, but his personality is a primary reason I can never root for him. The Lakers have long term problems beyond just Kobe now though. The Clippers no longer have Donald Sterling holding them down. They are at least an equal option for anyone who wants the LA experience, right now they are a preferable choice. No Jerry Buss is a bigger deal than people make it out to be. They basically have new ownership, so there is no guaranteed that his kids can duplicate Dr. Buss's success. I'm not convinced that there are a bunch of players who would love to come to the Lakers just because of their past history even if Kobe wasn't there. Sure free agents would consider it like any major market team, but if the Lakers are lottery teams for the next few years of Kobe's tenure, how much will that past winning reputation be tarnished? Tarnished by exactly 0% WTF kind of article is this? Kobe was a huge part of 5 championship teams. The Los Angeles Clippers don't have a single championship or Finals appearance or WCF appearance in their history. Professional sports have built in short memories, but Basketball Jesus Christ, Kobe Bryant is one of the best players in league history. He signed a contract extension that was offered by Lakers' management. It was also a pay cut. Holy smokes, players like Ramon Sessions and Andrew Bynum don't matter, Kobe's personality only matters insofar as he has won. Where is this article about Kyle Lowry and his attitude? Are we going to have a glossy piece of crap article about James Harden when he never wins a single championship? "He only cared about drawing fouls and phat-ass skrippers." A source close to James Harden says, on the condition of anonymity. Henry Abbot needs to relax. Sad to see a once decent writer degrade to click bait. I'm so angry. I'm writing the ombudsmen. I don't even like Kobe.
Well, it sets the stage by saying business as usual for the Lakers isn't the same as business as usual for the Rockets or Raptors, which used to be true in the past. Obviously it's not true today (the Lakers are the same as everyone else, besides larger revenues and costs), but it didn't change because of Kobe's personality. The culture of the NBA just changed and being in LA and NYC really isn't that much more attractive.
Kobe hurts LA's attractiveness insofar as his contract hamstrings them (which I've been saying forever) but there are plenty of other players whose contracts hurt their teams, and Harden probably has a worse attitude towards his teammates than Kobe.
The only interesting part of that article is that someone within the Lakers organization was willing to say Kobe isn't as effective and efficient as he believes he is. True, but surprising that someone would fess up to it.
|
I agree that Kobe certainly doesn't want to be a role off-the-bench player, but it seems to me that he would be willing to take a step back from huge offense contributions nowadays and would not mind so much (well, he would bear, I should say) being a second scoring option. Playing time cuts and more emphasis on playmaking than slashing point to that, he can't hope to stay the big #1 scoring superstar until the day he retires.
|
I think the angle that the dude took on the article is click-bait but I would believe the agents who said that playing with Kobe would be a huge turn-off.
|
On October 21 2014 11:33 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2014 09:14 slyboogie wrote:On October 21 2014 06:06 karazax wrote:How Kobe Costs the LakersIt's pretty much what I always thought was happening with Kobe. The question I have been asking for several years is what star wants to come be "Scottie Pippen" to an aging Kobe? Kobe is still going to put up good individual numbers. He does want to win bad, but as the article says, he only wants to win if he is the primary reason for winning. He doesn't want to be the 2nd or 3rd option on a championship team, much less a role player off the bench. I respect Kobe's skill level, and his drive, but his personality is a primary reason I can never root for him. The Lakers have long term problems beyond just Kobe now though. The Clippers no longer have Donald Sterling holding them down. They are at least an equal option for anyone who wants the LA experience, right now they are a preferable choice. No Jerry Buss is a bigger deal than people make it out to be. They basically have new ownership, so there is no guaranteed that his kids can duplicate Dr. Buss's success. I'm not convinced that there are a bunch of players who would love to come to the Lakers just because of their past history even if Kobe wasn't there. Sure free agents would consider it like any major market team, but if the Lakers are lottery teams for the next few years of Kobe's tenure, how much will that past winning reputation be tarnished? Tarnished by exactly 0% WTF kind of article is this? Kobe was a huge part of 5 championship teams. The Los Angeles Clippers don't have a single championship or Finals appearance or WCF appearance in their history. Professional sports have built in short memories, but Basketball Jesus Christ, Kobe Bryant is one of the best players in league history. He signed a contract extension that was offered by Lakers' management. It was also a pay cut. Holy smokes, players like Ramon Sessions and Andrew Bynum don't matter, Kobe's personality only matters insofar as he has won. Where is this article about Kyle Lowry and his attitude? Are we going to have a glossy piece of crap article about James Harden when he never wins a single championship? "He only cared about drawing fouls and phat-ass skrippers." A source close to James Harden says, on the condition of anonymity. Henry Abbot needs to relax. Sad to see a once decent writer degrade to click bait. I'm so angry. I'm writing the ombudsmen. I don't even like Kobe. Well, it sets the stage by saying business as usual for the Lakers isn't the same as business as usual for the Rockets or Raptors, which used to be true in the past. Obviously it's not true today (the Lakers are the same as everyone else, besides larger revenues and costs), but it didn't change because of Kobe's personality. The culture of the NBA just changed and being in LA and NYC really isn't that much more attractive. Kobe hurts LA's attractiveness insofar as his contract hamstrings them (which I've been saying forever) but there are plenty of other players whose contracts hurt their teams, and Harden probably has a worse attitude towards his teammates than Kobe. The only interesting part of that article is that someone within the Lakers organization was willing to say Kobe isn't as effective and efficient as he believes he is. True, but surprising that someone would fess up to it.
This has very little to do with Kobe. He's an aging superstar and icon. The team decided, under current management, to extend him on a fairly gigantic contract. He was 35 at the time. Did he betray the Lakers by signing the contract? He's a 5-time 35 year old champion. Is his personality going to change?
Why is Abbot intimating that Kobe's contract hurts the Lakers? What is this source getting at? Here's an idea: Don't offer him an extension! The organization is complaining about a known quantity that they've had under their employ for 15 years! They are complaining about the crippling structure of a contract - that they themselves offered!! Good God!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
