At first I thought the Lakers of course, but the Suns have a history of beating the Lakers. So I went with the Suns in 6. If it goes to a game 7, however, I don't think the Suns can win in LA in a game 7.
The Suns aren't too bad on defense this year. Also, J-Rich and Jared Dudley will be guarding Kobe. Jason is very underrated in defending shooters, and he doesn't defend from under the pick. Kobe is not going to have an easy time against him. He has the strength, height and vertical to contest Kobe's shots. Really, I think Amare is going to punish the Lakers. Steve Nash is smarter with the ball than Flopper..err Fisher. You also have the X-factor in Grant Hill who can change an entire game with his leadership, and Channing Frye who will hurt Bynum or Gasol if they don't come out to contest the three-point line. He reminds me of a younger Sam Perkins this year. Suns in 6.
My source is knickerblogger.net , I think the reason that they are different is because different people calculate what a possession is differently. Look at the "pace" numbers on both pages and they are all 1-3 points higher on espn. Either way, the point is made. Phoenix's defense is pretty dreadful.
Phoenix's defense improved a lot post the all star break. Phoenix's defense will also look worse than it is just like it's offense will look better than it is because of their style of play.
A few things I disagree with here: 1) They were ranked 19th or 23rd depending on which site you are going by. Even if their defense improved after the All-star break, what would you think their "true" defensive rating is? It certainly can't be in the top 10, that would imply they were one of the worst defensive teams in the league before the break... and I refuse to believe a team could make such a jump within the course of one season without a drastic roster change (and even then it's doubtful). 2) I question the fact that their defense got better after the break. I'd like to see some numbers, or at the very least some kind of logical argument to support that fact. 3) Their style of play doesn't effect defensive efficiency. Pace is factored into the formula. I suppose you could make the argument that they put a lot of focus on the offensive end so in essence they "take a break" on defense... so in that way their offensive style of play DOES effect their defense. But that's not really a good argument for "they are a good defensive team", or anything better than average really.
Well, either their defense improved or their offense EXPLODED, because they were the best (or maybe second-best to Orlando) team in the NBA after the all-star break. They really are a different team than they were prior to that, when they went through a particularly bad month of games that took them out of playoff contention for a long time. Also, in the playoffs, their defensive efficiency has been improved (8/16 over heralded defensive stalwart San Antonio, for one).
In order to play defense... half court defense, you have to have some kind of size. PHX doesn't have size, I don't know what possible defense they can play on the Lakers bigs... If they do play half court offense/defense... because you can't play half court defense and also run on offense... it clearly favors LA.
They can play the same defense the undersized '09 Rockets or '10 Thunder played against the Lakers, which is to swarm the post or even play a full-on zone until the Lakers show they can beat it. The Lakers are one of the worst outside shooting teams in the NBA-- you can leave Odom & Artest on the perimeter and they'll still only hit 1/3. Also, a miss outside nullifies the huge offense rebounding advantage the Lakers have because those tend to bounce long, playing into the opposition's transition game (where the Suns are the best in the league). The Jazz actually played this defense in game #3 and although Artest & Fisher shot well, it was by far the Jazz's best chance to win.. and they are always owned by the Lakers. Phoenix has a much better offense than the Jazz and, I'd argue, a better defense so if they simply pack the paint they will have a real chance.
The fact is... the Thunder tried that in the first round. It didn't work. The Lakers have been known to settle for the perimeter shot but as the playoffs have gone on, they've gone to the basket more even with double teams to Gasol and Bynum. The Lakers are also a way better half-court defense team... and although the Suns are a great offensive team and an improved half-court offensive team, I don't see how they'll be able to score any points if they don't run. I just don't see them getting both ways... if they play half-court defense... they also play half-court offense... the pace still favors LA. The only shot that they have IMO is to run. The same theory that the TNT crew had.
Kwame Brown aint walking through that door. Smush Parker aint walking through that door. Brian Cook aint walking through that door. Lakers in 5.
The Thunder tried that strategy and it worked very well-- no one gave them much chance but they came a tip-in away from game #7. And that is coming from one of the worst offensive teams in the NBA (compared to the Suns, who are the defacto best). The Jazz only played this way in one game (#3) and the Lakers did in fact settle for jumpers; to their credit, Artest, Fisher and Odom all hit big shots but I'd take that gamble any day. You allow Laker's MVP Pau to get touches and it's over. Also, playing half-court defense does not imply half-court offense. In fact, with a swarming defense it is the opposite. You deny the post and give up open jumpers, and on misses you are much more capable of going into transition because they bounce long.
There's a small picture on the NBA section of yahoo sports right now showing Nash in a Kobe choke hold.
can both teams just go away, go on strike, or just get hurt? if the rox can not win it then no team should! trust me i cleaned this reply up a whole lot. i wanted to write something more harsh but i did not.
