Lakers or Kings?

Mavs. Or Rockets.

 

I think it will come down to who is healthier. Valde and Webber are older, so I went with the Lakers.

I don't agree with this perspective much. It is just as much equally waited that teams that just miss their chance may never get another. Think the late 90s Jazz, early/mid 90s Suns & Sonics, the early 90s Knicks (against the Rockets). Truth is those teams had their chances to grab it all on the biggest stage and some players didn't step up (Malone, KJ, GP, Scrempf). Those guys never will get another oppertunnity.

 

ZRB never said that every team taht can't get over the hump, eventually does... Of course when you have 16 playoff teams every year, more than most will never win the title in a 10-20 year span.

I can't think of a New England Patriots-type NBA title winner, that sucked the year before winning it all. It's usually a slow progression to the top.

 

in all honesty, it all depends on the refs. if they call it like games 1-5 (like there's a rule that knocking down your defender is an offensive foul) then i say the kings. if they call it like game 6 (more the norm over the years) then the lakers. if they call it like game 7 then i don't know. actually i hope they call it like game 7, that was pretty fair (shaq got away with some stuff but wasn't allowed to go completely wild) and it produced one of the best playoff games i can remember.

and like zrb said, everyone acts like the lakers are this unstoppable machine. true they always eventually win but they've gone to game 7 in two of the last 3 nba finals (i don't consider the Annual Eastern Conference Ass-whooping to be a playoff series) and needed overtime in one of those. it's not as if no one else has a chance. you just have to keep dick bavetta really far away.

 

That's even more reason to believe LA is unstoppable. They win every imaginable Game 7. They have a decided mental edge over teams like SA and Sac. The talent-gap isn't that big, if there is a gap at all. It all has to do with mentality.

The 94 and 95 Rockets had it, same with the Bulls during their 6 title run, and now the Lakers seem to have it.

 

I said this before and I'll say it again, if the Kings run into the Lakers again in the playoffs they're going to hand them their ass. Talent for talent the Kings are the superior team and playoff jitters cost them last year. I don't consider a team that needed to win Game 7 in overtime unbeatable. They're good, but not unbeatable. Nobody is unbeatable.

 

It's going to be close this year, but I am routing for Sac Town to beat the Lakers this year.

 

Maybe when they hire a coach to replace Adelman. Kings just lack physical and mental toughness for me to think they can win against LA.

I wouldn't be surprised if Sac takes 3 out of 4 from LA in the regular season. Nor would I be surprised if Sac had homecourt advantage over LA. But when the chips are down, my money is on LA, until they actually lose.

I use this same logic on deciding whether or not Utah misses the playoffs. I've been burned by my prediction that they would miss out, that I just will assume they will be in the playoffs every year.

 

Kobe's numbers weren't efficient during the first three games. Icall it cheesecake poisoning while some of the other members might call it something stinkier...

Whatever's the case, the challenge has been laid down, and hopefully this series will have all players healthy. This is the highlight playoff series of the NBA, isn't it?

 

Oh please.

I suppose the Lakers shooting 27 free throws in a quarter is a reflection on the Kings' mental toughness.

The Kings should beat the Lakers. Period. Going into that series, I don't know if they truly believed they could do it. Now, they have to. Game 1, and especially game 4, were circumstances where you could just feel that they were playing not to lose, instead of playing to win.

Whether or not they technically won the series, the Kings proved to themselves that they could beat the Lakers. The Lakers-Kings series, to me, was somewhat like the Yankees-Diamondbacks series in baseball last year. The series standing was close in terms of games won, but for the majority of the time, the Kings dominated the scoreboard, like the Dbacks. They just let a couple slip away late, when you could feel they weren't comfortable. However, as the series went along, and the Kings won more games, you could see that they really started to believe they could win.

They should have the confidence this year, and they are a better team... they just need to go out and execute. Even with the controversial game 6 calls and the losses mentioned earlier, the Kings still had the opportunity to win the series by making free throws in game 7. The Kings should win, but it's no lock.

 

You can't blame Adelman for that, there is no way you can prepare a team to be ready for their first conference championship series, especially with the 2-time world champions sitting there waiting for you. But the Lakers had the experience advantage last year, not so much this year. When it's money time it wouldn't surprise me at all if the Kings learn from last year's game 7 loss and use that as motivation. The Kings aren't intimidated of the Lakers, give the Lakers match-up problems, are hungry, and have playoff experience now.

Then again the Rockets are going to eliminate both of them on their way to the Finals so it's a moot point anyway!

 

I didn't say he did, I was just pointing out there have been as many if not more near misses in the NBA where those teams thought they would get back and they never did. I was pointing out "you better seize your moment because you may not get another like it" perspective is every bit as descriptive as the "Champions go through hard knocks perspective" for the NBA. Remember the Rockets first and Spers only ring came after years where they didn't even make it to the WCF--you don't have to have a near miss the year before.

Call it a "gut feeling", but I believe a lot of things went right for the Kings last year and they still could not snatch it. The Kings can in from an easy series, Shaq had been hobbled late season, Kobe got the flu, Fisher and others were not shooting as well as normal, they had home court advantage, they had 2-0 & 3-2 leads--and they couldn't get it done (not saying these things as excuses--just describing the situation that favored the Kings). Kind of the same thing for one of the Jazz series, where they had homecourt and health, where the Bulls had lots of injuries and wear, yet the Bulls team stepped up to the challenge when only Stockton did for Utah (kid of like with Bibby last year). In sum what happened I think that is more of a bad sign than a near miss confidence builder as much as the owner and Adelman speak differently. It wasn't like Christie, Peja, Webber and Vlade are spring chickens in need of a little seasoning. They were veterans who choked (well except for Webber, who may not have choked but certainly did not play above himself as you expect from one fo the few great players in the league in his potentially defining moments) when the going got tough.

Again more based in my gut than fact, I just sense way too much KJ, Malone, Bryan Russell, Starks, Charles Smith, Jalen Rose, Payton, Schempf, Nick Anderson, Steve Smith, Pippen, Wallace, Stoudimire, Kersey, or Porter in this Kings team to deliver the big prize when all the marbles are on the floor. And I was one of the only people early last offseason who said they were going to threaten the Lakers. I do like what the Kings did this offseason also (re-signing key people, adding Clark), but they will carry a lot of extra baggage if they can get in the same position. And don't be totally surprised if they get upset in the 2nd round when all the pressure and expectations are on them.

 

I think the ability of winning close games (also known as "clutch") is overrated. Winning a close game is as much about luck and officiating as mental toughness. I am not saying that mental toughness has no part in it. But luck is also a big part too. A lot of close games simply could have gone either way.

For example, you may say that Horry (I love Horry, BTW, one of my favorite Rockets) is the best clutch shooter. You may also say that a few of his the shots he made in his career happened to be game winning shots.

 

Easy,

let's put it this way. Do you think there are players who "choke," or are they just unlucky or got bad calls?

Of course, there are clutch players, and clutchness is not overrated. Maybe what you are saying is that some player's clutch label is overrated, just like some people's choke label is overrated. For instance, the '94 Rockets got labelled Choke City mainly because the Oilers choked.

 

HP,

If you read my post, you should see that I did not say being clutch is JUST lucky. I said mental toughness was a part of it. I think choking is very different from being clutch. You don't need bad luck to choke. Mentally weak players choke. I think Chris Webber choked in that Game 7 OT. But to be clutch, you need BOTH mental toughness AND luck.

If you ask Horry how he feels shooting a last second shot as compared to shooting an ordinary shot, I am pretty sure he'll say not much different. That in itself shows his toughness. But do you think that it is more likely for Horry to make a shot when it is at the end of the game than to make a shot during the game? I don't think so. It is the same percentage shot. They just HAPPENED to go in for him.

And all these are about individual players. My original intent was to address the team. People think that the Lakers are a superior team because they could pull off some close ones. I just don't think winning some close playoff games necessarily has any connection with greatness. To me, a total domination (like they did the year before) is a better indication of being great. In the same way, a consistent domination throughout the game is a better indication of a player's quality than hitting a few clutch shots at the end.

 

If they do meet, my eyes are going to be glued to my television set. Last year's WCF was one hell of a series, and with that as an indication, this year's should be even better with the storyline thickening.

 

I think they are the superior team because they can play superior defense than the Kings. When both teams are playing their hearts out and both teams ordinary offense is bogging down--the Lakers have Shaq. The way for the Kings to win is to build a big lead, and though their offense is probably better than the Lakers, their defense of the Lakers (i.e., Shaq) isn't good enough to take full advantage to get the lead they need.

My rant on their lack of clutchness just speaks to that I think they missed out a golden oppertunity and I don't think they have the fortitude and too much baggage to get through--even if all the happen to ducks fall in place like they did for the Kings last year. Could be wrong, but I doubt we will see a ring in King-land any time soon--I think last year was the best chance that team will get.

 

Do you ever NOT get tired of repeating yourself over and over? My God, you can be so damn annoying at time.