Why do you always go with hyperbole instead of stating what really happened? You are allowed to make ridiculous statements and then say I'm making excuses when I call you out on them? It's not an excuse when you say the Lakers dominated the Spurs and I reply saying they didn't. It's not an excuse when you talk like the Spurs were at their best and playing hard when they clearly hadn't been for weeks. I haven't put you in any position. Maybe if you objectively analyzed the game and made reasonable comments about them I wouldn't be replying to your posts. You have some good points but in the end you come off as a troll because you can't prevent yourself from taking those good points to over the top levels.
With all due respect gmoney411, the Laker are exactly as I said they were: better without Kobe. Everyone assumes because I dislike Kobe that this is some baiting statement or "trolling", but you don't consider that maybe I dislike Kobe specifically because I believe his style of play makes the team worse, and yet he gets credit for it. You have people in this very thread calling me out, telling me I'd better be prepared to "show my face" at the end of the year after the Lakers lost to the Spurs and/or Rockets, yet they've disappeared since my predictions came to fruition. All I've done is presented a case for the facts and although they may be counter-intuitive to how people want to think about certain players, they are right there, as solid as can be. Is it hyperbole to say the Lakers dominated the Spurs? They held a double-digit lead in the 4th against a team most thought would kill them, so I don't think so. Remember, this is the same Laker team that struggled against the Hornets, Wizards, Raptors, etc. The Spurs were playing everyone except Ginobili, and it's not like they sat Parker because he was injured-- he just wasn't getting it done. This is the same Spurs team that my Clippers have struggled with all year long so I know just how good they are, and I do believe the Lakers played a great game against them (albeit mostly defensive, which is the most important part IMO). However you want to take my words, all I'm really saying is that the Lakers are a pretty good team now that they are playing inside-out ball and branding themselves as a defensive, gritty team. This wouldn't have happened if Kobe hadn't been injured. That doesn't mean Kobe is a bad player-- but he was holding them back from being a good team.
It most definitely is hyperbole. It was a tie game after three quarters and a four point game until 6 minutes left in the 4th. Pointing out that they had a double digit lead for the first time during the entire game with 4 minutes left in the 4th quarter does not mean they dominated. The Lakers did not dominate the Spurs. We will see how good they look in the playoffs.
You also said it was like printing money to bet on the Blazers against the Lakers. How did that genius prediction turn out? Congratulations on picking the Lakers to win two home games when they had a lot a stake. One of which I know for sure they were favored in. Who is the next Vegas favorite that you can predict to win? The Thunder? Nuggets? Knicks? Dare I say the Heat???
The Blazers are almost always a lock to cover the spread @home against the Lakers and I believe they did so in this game as well (I think the spread was 8?) Anyway, I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again but I would continue to bet the Blazers in that matchup. The Spurs were favored by 4.5 against the Lakers. I didn't check the Houston game but I assume the Lakers were favored by prob. 4 or so. I have consistently said all year long that the Lakers would be a good team if they would simply make the bigs the focus, and that the only way to do that would be either to get a coach that could control Kobe's ballhoggery (eg, put him in the Ray Allen Celtics role), or for Kobe to miss extended time. In fact, if you go back in this thread around January, I said as much. Now that this has happened, we are seeing this is in fact the case. It's not really a crazy prediction because it has years and years of data behind it (and also to me it's common sense that when you have a mismatch, you focus on it); however, it is against the grain because the media has marketed Kobe as a very important player when he is in fact very replaceable. You think the Lakers are only winning because these are "must win" games at home but I'm actually just talking about the way they are playing. Even in their wins during the last month or so they've looked very bad because they weren't playing any defense and letting awful teams make huge runs. As such, I knew they would be a very easy out in the playoffs because teams that don't play defense don't go far. Now they have a different mentality as they've won the last two (as well as two previous when Kobe was out) with gritty defense and that bodes well in the playoffs. I don't know why you and others can't see this. Here's a prediction: the Lakers will do a heck of a lot better in the playoffs than the Rockets.
And how do you know how they are playing? Are you basing it off of one Spurs game? You already admitted you didn't watch almost all of the Rockets game. Every team not named the Bucks will likely do better than the Rockets in the playoffs.
I watched the games Kobe missed earlier in the year, the Spurs game, and the 4th/OT of the Rockets game. It was pretty clear that their defense takes a huge step up when Kobe sits. It's not just because Kobe is such an awful perimeter defender (although that's part of it), but also because you can see that Pau and Dwight just try a lot more when they are getting touches on the other end. It really doesn't take that much viewing to see a change in a team. Eg, when Chris Paul is out for the Clippers I only need to watch a single game to see how different the team is. Yeah, that prediction isn't much of a stretch because OKC is so good and the Rockets suck pretty hard. I guess to me the difference is I give the Lakers a very real chance of upsetting the Spurs-- I wouldn't call them the favorites but I can definitely see that series going 7. If the Spurs finish them off like they exited the last two years (eg sweep or 5 not very close games), I'd be pretty surprised. I guess we'll have to see. I'm still rooting against the Lakers but I am intrigued by this matchup now and I also don't find them nearly as hateable with the diva at home.
Damn I don't know how those oddsmakers get it so close. Anyway, IIRC the Blazers were in that game the whole time, and weren't they sitting everyone but Lillard? Something about Portland just kills the Lakers. It's really one of the best bets you can make.
It takes more than a game for sure and that is all you are basing this Pau and Dwight trying harder theory on.
I remember Bynum having like a 30 rebound game to beat the Spurs when Kobe was out last year too. I'm not sure why this is such a difficult theory to believe-- people just play better when they are involved in the game. Kobe may put up stats but it's so obvious watching him that he fundamentally does not trust his teammates, because in the big moments, he will not give them the ball. So these guys are walking on eggshells the whole game. Let's just watch the series and we'll see which Pau and Dwight show up. Because all year long I heard about how these guys were the problem and Kobe was doing everything to will this team into the playoffs. And all year long I said that they weren't the problem but needed to be the focus. Right now there are some growing pains because, frankly, they haven't been in this position the whole year long but I think that as the series goes on, they'll show improvement on offense to match what will be a very good defense.
Nobody is doubting that the bigs can't or won't play better with Kobe out. The argument is that there won't be a net positive by taking him out.
Usually I go off on you but I'll keep it civil and not be a douche. But honestly you can't blame Kobe for Pau and Dwight not playing as intensely as they are now early in the season. Mike D'antoni didn't want to use Pau the right way and Pau pretty much checked out around late November~Early December. Dwight was still struggling with injuries and just relationship with Kobe. But I do agree with your post earlier talking about how Kobe's defense is bad but I don't see how Kobe was to fault for all of Lakers defensive problems. The effort they have right now is something that wasn't there at all earlier in the season. You might be right, it might be due to touches or it's not. That said, they should still have had the effort since they knew going into the season not everyone was going to be the alpha male, yet Kobe didn't get that memo. Also you really think Steve Nash of all people will make a difference in the Spurs series? He's been possible the worst defensive player for the past 4-5 years (i'm not looking at any stats on this one) and you think he'll keep up with the "gritty defense" of the Lakers recently? I seriously doubt that. Last thing, they'll miss Kobe tremendously because you can already see how much Lakers were struggling when Dwight and Pau couldn't get shots to fall because they have no perimeter player who can get their own shot or even get Pau or Dwight an easy basket here and there.
I appreciate the civility. I'll try to do the same. I have no idea if I'm right about this, but I have a feeling that the Lakers feel a lot less pressure now that Kobe is not in the game. You can tell Pau is a sensitive guy and Dwight is under a lot of pressure to be the next big Laker big. Then you have Kobe basically being pissed off all game long and, then not so much with words, showing his disgust with his teammates by ignoring them in crunchtime (this may just be how he approaches the game but if I was his teammate I'd be like "wtf man"). All season long, Pau & Dwight have been making little comments in the press like "we need to play inside out" or "we're good when we move the ball" which is basically just a way of telling Kobe to pass the ****ing ball. So basically now that Kobe is out, these guys are playing a lot more freely and that results in more of an effort on both ends. They certainly miss Kobe's offensive talent but ultimately I think it is addition by subtraction because you now have more guys involved in the game. Also, any good gameplan can shutdown a perimeter player in today's rules, so the Lakers were going to be a quick out against the Spurs if the plan was to play Kobe ball. Now they are more dangerous. Nash is an awful defender but most PGs are; on the Lakers the dropoff from Nash to Blake isn't all that significant (or last year the Laker had Sessions who wasn't any good either). The reason is that PGs aren't generally built for defense. But swingmen are expected to be good defenders since they have to body up on the best athletes in the league, and Kobe has just been awful this year. It's not so much guys scoring on him directly, but the fact that he is nowhere in the play so these guys are getting into the lane and causing the whole defense to breakdown. You see that with Nash with some of the top PGs, but with Kobe it's pretty much every guy he faces.
Oh wow, you are really going out on a limb, aren't you? Rockets and Lakers play an even game to finish the season (where both looked like garbarge) and one will do much better than the other. Wonder why? OKC is playing like a machine and the Spurs have two tires missing because Tony Parker is playing like a scrub. If that continues, either of the Rockets, Warriors and Lakers would have a decent chance to knock them off in the 1st round. Otherwise, the Spurs will roll. None of those three would have a snowball's chance against OKC.
