SB Nation User Blog: WildYams

Remember the Alamo

WildYams — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 23:33:39 -0000

More photos » by Tony Gutierrez - AP

The end of an era?

I come here not to bury the Spurs, but to praise them.

That's right, me, a Laker fan, has come here to write a postmortem of sorts and to pay homage to the Lakers' greatest rivals over the last 15 years: the San Antonio Spurs. Last night the Spurs were eliminated in the first round of the playoffs for the first time since 2000, and for the first time in Tim Duncan's storied career in the NBA. Some have said that the defeat marks the end of the Spurs' time as championship contenders, that their championship window has closed, that the sun has set on this most successful team of the post-Jordan NBA. The Spurs are a team that for many, myself included, conjured up extremely strong feelings of distaste, disgust and dismay for many, many years. But they conjured up a couple other things as well: fear, and then later, respect.

The Spurs, of course, are one of many Western Conference teams that has long considered themselves a big rival of the Lakers; but as I've said before, this did not make them unique. The Spurs joined the NBA after the ABA was merged with the league back in 1976, and thus began what was originally a rather one-side rivalry with the Lakers, the likes of which many Western teams are still embroiled in. This finally began to change in the 1990s, first with the arrival of now Hall of Fame center, David Robinson, and then later with the arrival of future Hall of Fame power forward, Tim Duncan. Following Robinson's arrival, the Spurs ascended to the elite ranks of the Western teams, a spot which was up for grabs following the end of the long dominance of the Lakers' Showtime Era.

Robinson led the Spurs to the Western Conference Finals in 1995, after an MVP season and 62 regular season wins; but along the way the Spurs ran into another upstart team that gave them some problems in the second round: the Nick Van Exel-Eddie Jones led Lake Show. In a series that few Laker fans who were watching at the time will ever forget, those young Lakers threw a real scare into the Spurs, pushing the Spurs to six games, including one of the all-time great Laker playoff finishes by Nick Van Exel in Game 5 with his three point shot to send the game to overtime and his three pointer to win it in the overtime period. Thus begun what has since become the NBA's greatest rivalry of the last two decades, with the two teams meeting six more times in the playoffs, and collecting seven championships between them.

But even though the history of the rivalry existed between these teams prior to that meeting in the playoffs in 1995, and even though the seeds for many truly epic battles were first planted in that year, this rivalry didn't really begin in earnest till the three biggest players were all added to these teams. Namely Shaquille O'Neal, Kobe Bryant and Tim Duncan. As any true Laker fan knows, Shaq and Kobe were both added together, in the summer of 1996, and this kicked off a run of success which lasted till 2004 when Shaq was traded and the Lakers were reformed into the team they've become today. The Spurs got their own final piece a year later when they drafted Tim Duncan following a disastrous 1996-97 season (which some have pointed to as the beginning of "tanking" in the NBA).

The Spurs soon learned, as the Lakers have known for a while, that when you're very successful for an extended period of time, you create a bunch of rivalries; and they started right away, eliminating the Phoenix Suns in the first round in Tim Duncan's rookie year. This became a recurring theme for the Men in Black, as San Antonio went on to meet, and beat, the Suns in 2003, 2005, 2007 and 2008, with Phoenix's one win in this rivalry coming in 2000 in a series that Duncan missed due to injury.

However, with the above paragraphs as evidence to the contrary, my aim here is not really to summarize the entire history of the Spurs or even their rivalry to the Lakers. I would assume even a casual fan of either team is well familiar with the battles these teams have had with each other and their seven title runs the teams have had between them. Instead I want to focus on what has happened with the Spurs since the last time they won, in 2007, and what their future looks like (and whether that championship window is indeed shut). Following their sweep over the LeBron-led Cavs in 2007, I for one thought entering last season that the Spurs would again be the team to beat, and we would most likely be looking at a Spurs over Celtics NBA Finals. The Spurs were just such a well-oiled machine and had so much championship pedigree, and so much talent and depth that I didn't see how they could lose.

Of course, as we all remember last year, it soon became apparent that the much-heralded bench of that 2007 championship Spurs team had suddenly gotten real old, real fast. Players like Bruce Bowen, Brent Barry, Robert Horry, Kurt Thomas, Fabricio Oberto and Michael Finley all of a sudden looked a step (or two or three) slow, and as a result the Big Three of Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili and Tim Duncan were suddenly surrounded by a bunch of question marks, rather than a group of solid veteran role players. The Spurs still had a rather typical Spurs run through the regular season, finishing third in the West, and ultimately battled the Lakers in the Western Conference Finals; but their depth was further weakened with an ankle injury to Manu Ginobili, and just like that the Big Three became the Dynamic Duo, and the Lakers won in five.

Last summer I felt that the Spurs were not dead, or in serious trouble, and that odds were good they'd do some of their usual reloading, including a diamond plucked from the rough (which usually has meant foreign-born gems), and they'd be a serious threat once again. But oddly enough the Spurs did what I least expected them to do and basically did nothing. With the obvious problem of age and lack of athleticism staring the Spurs in the face they did not overhaul their roster, but instead did some minor tinkering and decided to give it a go with essentially the same flawed roster from the previous year. Only this year the injury problems worsened, as Ginobili went down multiple times and ultimately for the season, and Tim Duncan began to have knee problems; and as a result this time it was the Mavs who beat San Antonio in five, only they did it in the first round as opposed to the Conference Finals.

So what now for the Spurs? I'm seeing a lot of talk out there that they are washed up and finished, but honestly I feel the same way now that I did about them a year ago: they've still got a great trio of players in Duncan, Ginobili and Parker, and ultimately they just need to add a little bit to that core and they'll be very dangerous again in the fall. But who could they add?

This is promising to be one of the most interesting offseasons in recent memory, for two main reasons: 1) the economy stinks right now and so owners are losing money hand over fist as attendance threatens to plummet, so there is a good likelihood of another NBA lockout looming on the horizon; and 2) the summer of 2010 has long been seen as this golden conocopia, brimming with untold free agent riches, so it is assumed many teams will be unlikely to blow their 2010 salary cap on free agents this summer. As a result, while there are a number of fairly high profile free agents expected to be hitting the market this summer, it's unknown who, if any, of them will command more than MLE money. If this is true, it is likely that teams who are expected to compete for a title next season will probably try their hardest to acquire some of these players.

So what players are out there that could help the Spurs? Well there are a couple Lakers for starters: Lamar Odom and Trevor Ariza. It's currently up in the air and/or somewhat unknown as to what the Lakers might be willing to spend to retain these two players, but if San Antonio is able to work something sweeter than what the Lakers offer, who's to say what could happen? Odds are good that LA would outbid the Spurs to keep these players, but San Antonio doesn't necessarily need to get into a bidding war with LA to get some quality free agents. Other players out there who may be forced to sign for less than they'd prefer are the Pistons' trio of Allen Iverson, Rasheed Wallace and Antonio McDyess, and any one of those three could offer some real help to the Spurs (assuming Greg Popovich could work his magic and get them to buy into the San Antonio system). Another possibility out there could be someone like Shawn Marion. That's the thing about this summer: it's one big question mark.

So that's why I said at the beginning that I didn't come to bury the Spurs, because I for one don't think that they're dead quite yet. I think we haven't seen the last of these guys, so you shouldn't be surprised if they pop up again next year in that old familiar role of "thorn in the Lakers' side". But I also said I came to praise the Spurs, and that's because if they are in fact dead, then they really are truly worthy of praise and respect. The run they've had over the last decade is among the best that any team in league history has ever had, probably ranking fourth behind Bill Russell's Celtics, Magic & Kareem's Lakers and Michael Jordan's Bulls. Many have accused the Spurs over the years of being boring, or too defensive-minded, or even dirty at times, but IMO they have proven to be one of the hardest-working and classiest teams in the league. They have never been a team to make excuses and have always accepted defeats and setbacks by taking the blame squarely on their shoulders, and often with a sly amount of humor to boot. If the Spurs are truly dead, then I for one am going to miss them. We Laker fans couldn't ask for a better rival.

Playoff Rotations

WildYams — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 18:29:24 -0000

Something really jumped out at me last night and I was glad to see Phil Jackson voluntarily addressed it afterwards:

"I think it was my fault," he said in a rare mea culpa. "Substitution probably hurt us a little bit in the course of the game, and I think that I tried to play too many players at that time in the game to get us going, which created a little bit of hesitancy."

With that in mind, let's discuss the playoff rotations.

Point Guard

No offense to Jordan Farmar, but at this point in the season the bench should be shortened to 8-9 guys max, because the time to showcase what you got and audition for your role is over. Farmar has not produced for a while now, while Shannon Brown has been stepping up consistently for the last few weeks with all the playing time he's got. Farmar's role at this point should be to keep himself ready in case there is some foul trouble or an injury, but otherwise we shouldn't be seeing him in the games unless it's a blowout.

There are 48 minutes of playing time to be allocated to this position, and there is no reason they shouldn't all be going to Derek Fisher and Shannon Brown. Fish should probably be getting the bulk of those minutes, say 28-30, with Brown getting the rest (18-20). You're not going to find any successful team at this time of year that has a three man rotation for one position.

Shooting Guard

Obviously Adam Morrison is out here, and all the minutes should be going to Kobe Bryant and Sasha Vujacic. Phil's been pretty on point with the rotation here, with Kobe getting 40 minutes in Game 1 and 38 in Game 2; and Sasha getting 12 in Game 1 and 15 in Game 2. However, Phil shouldn't be afraid to play Kobe more than 40 minutes per game if need be. After all, the best way to get Kobe some rest is by sweeping the opponent, rather than by sitting him for a few extra minutes in a game where the opposition is rallying from a deficit. Ideally Kobe should be playing 38-42 minutes a game with Sasha only picking up the extra 6-10 minutes. There's just no real reason for Sasha to be getting more unless it's a blowout, and even then those extra minutes should come in garbage time in the 4th quarter, not when the Lakers are up 20 in the first half.

Small Forward

There's really only two true small forwards on the team, so obviously all the minutes here should be split between Trevor Ariza and Luke Walton. Luke has been playing well lately, but Trevor has been playing great, and as such Trevor should be getting the large majority of the minutes. With the way Trevor is playing he should be getting 34-38 minutes a game, with Luke filling in for the remaining 10-14. So far neither one is getting enough playing time, IMO. Trevor only played 34 minutes in Game 1 and only 32 minutes last night; while Luke has only played in 11 minutes in each game.

Additionally, outside of garbage time at the end of a blowout game, there's really no reason for both Luke and Sasha to be on the floor at the same time together, especially if Kobe and Trevor play the number of minutes that they should be. Personally I don't see a reason for why Phil can't keep Trevor in while Sasha is playing, and to keep Kobe in while Luke is in the game. If Phil can do that, then it ensures that at worst the lineup looks like this:

Bynum/Gasol - C; Gasol/Odom - PF; Luke - SF; Kobe - SG; Fisher/Brown - PG

Bynum/Gasol - C; Gasol/Odom - PF; Trevor - SF; Sasha - SG; Fisher/Brown - PG

Imagine seeing a Laker game whether either of those two lineups are the absolute worst collection of players you ever see on the floor together! I'd love to hear an argument for why that shouldn't be the case

Power Forward

This position and center are easy to call, and Phil is already basically perfect with his rotations for both frontcourt spots. Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom should get all the minutes here, with Josh Powell on hand in case of foul trouble, or for mop up duty in garbage time at the end of a blowout win. Gasol also splits time with Andrew Bynum at center, and between those two and Odom each player should be getting somewhere between 30-40 minutes each game, with Gasol getting the most of the three.

Center

As mentioned above, Andrew Bynum and Pau Gasol should get all the minutes here. With DJ Mbenga not being active for these games, the Lakers don't really have a third center, although even if DJ was on the roster, he wouldn't be expected to see any non-garbage time minutes.

The only thing to really worry about or manage here is what to do if there is foul trouble. If there is foul trouble for Gasol, Bynum or Odom, then the other two players should be expected to play more minutes for that game. Gasol should be reasonably expected to be able to play 42 minutes if needed, while Odom and Bynum should both be able to go up to 38 apiece if one of the other three has their minutes shortened due to foul trouble. If two or more of these players is limited with foul trouble, only then should Josh Powell be brought in.

Summation

The Lakers have a lot of depth, and have one of the best benches in the league. I saw a quote the other day saying the Lakers went 13 players deep, and there is some truth to that, but the reality is that in the playoffs the best teams lean on their top players more than they do in the regular season. All that depth has hopefully helped the Lakers get through the grueling 82 regular season games with their most important players not being worn down too much; but the reason for that is so that those top players can now play a lot of minutes and carry the team without the 9, 10, 11 and 12th men on the bench being expected to do much more than cheer a lot and keep ready in case of an injury or excessive foul trouble for the players ahead of them.

As good as the Lakers' depth is, their real strength lies in all the talent at the top of their rotation, not the relatively good amount of talent at the bottom of it. The Lakers have seven players who should be getting the bulk of the minutes right now (Kobe, Gasol, Bynum, Odom, Ariza, Fisher and Brown) and they have two players who should be getting some spot minutes (Luke & Sasha), but that should be it. Farmar, Morrison and Powell should mainly be there to support their teammates and be ready in case they're needed, but it's time to officially shorten the rotation.

Opening Credits: Saturday

WildYams — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 08:53:03 -0000

Can you feel it in the air? Hell, can you taste it in the air? The playoffs are here. At long last we get to see the cream rise to the top as the 8 best teams in each conference battle it out to see which two will compete for the title. But before we see if our Lakers have a Hollywood ending in store for us in June, we've got to sit through the opening credits.

First the bad news: Jordan Farmar is being listed as day-to-day with tendinitis in right foot. The good news is that X-rays, a CT scan and MRI all came back normal. The other good news is that point guard is currently the Lakers' deepest position.

In other injury news, Mehmet Okur is starting to look questionable for Game 1 against the Lakers on Sunday. CJ Miles is more probable, but his availability is in doubt as well.

The Top 10 Reasons the Jazz Can Beat the Lakers and five reasons the Lakers will win in five.

The enormous pressure to win that comes when there are no excuses for losing.

Ever wanted to know who Phil Jackson preferred coaching between Smush Parker, Samaki Walker and Jack Haley? This video will give you the answer.

In case you were wondering, Kobe's greatness is in large part due to a lot of hard work.

Kobe has Stephon Marbury's vote for MVP: "I think Kobe’s the best player on this planet, forget the NBA.”

ESPN has pages set up for every playoff series including Lakers-Jazz.

Some great insight from our friends over at Forum Blue & Gold breaking down what the Lakers have to do defensively in this series when Utah has the ball.

Sunday is going to be a bittersweet moment for the Jazz, who will be playing in their first playoff game since the death of longtime owner Larry Miller.

All five writers for Sports Illustrated pick the Lakers over the Cavs in the NBA Finals. Let's hope the SI Jinx isn't real.

An online gambling site is having a bizarre promotion to get people to not bet on the Lakers: if you bet on any other team to win the title and the Lakers end up winning anyway, they will refund your money.

NBA Fanhouse offers its preview of the Lakers-Jazz series.

Some Advice For Visiting Fans of Other Teams

WildYams — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 16:40:33 -0000

Since the Lakers are generally one of the higher-profile teams in the league, and because LA is one of the favorites to compete for the title this year, I wanted to give fans of rival teams a view of things from a Laker fan’s perspective.

1. You know how you hate the Lakers more than any other team, to the point where you almost want them to lose more than you want your own team to win? Where if someone asked you who your two favorite teams are you'd say "Team X and whoever is playing the Lakers."? You have to realize that Laker fans don’t feel the same way about your team. I mean, if the Lakers are playing against your team or if your team represents some threat in terms of playoff seeding or something, then we hope they lose; but honestly otherwise we don’t really think about them too much. In the last couple years some "old rivals" like the Celtics and Blazers have risen back to prominence and have been excited to renew their rivalry with the Lakers, but from my perspective as a Laker fan I honestly didn't spare many thoughts about those teams when they were down, and really for the most part just kinda forgot they were there except on days when they were playing the Lakers. In the same way that other more recent rivals like the Suns and Kings have fallen off in terms of being good teams, I generally don't even think about them, let alone spend time high fiving other Laker fans that those teams aren't good right now.

2. It’s not arrogance or some sort of cockiness that makes me say this, or that makes Laker fans have this kind of attitude, it just wouldn’t make sense for Laker fans to fixate on any one team year after year in this way. The Lakers have had long-running and intense rivalries with a whole number of teams over the years, especially in the Western Conference. Sometimes the Lakers have lost, but more times than not they've won (they wouldn't have been in The Finals 29 times otherwise). So you might come here thinking you're a fan of the team that is the Lakers' biggest rival, but the truth is the Lakers' don't really have one biggest rival. Some might say the biggest rival is the Celtics, but that's really just because the teams have always met in The Finals, something the Lakers can't do with all the other teams from the West. To wit, has the Laker rivalry been bigger with Boston in this decade simply because the two teams played for the championship this year, or was the rivalry bigger with Portland, San Antonio, Sacramento, or even Phoenix or Utah? Who can say? All I know is that as a Laker fan you really can't afford to just fixate on one team out there year after year, because the Lakers' biggest rival every year is whoever represents the biggest threat to LA winning another championship. You could argue right now that that team is the Cleveland Cavaliers or the Orlando Magic, so why would any Laker fan get overly caught up in worrying about what teams like San Antonio or Portland (or even more to the point, Phoenix or Sacramento) are up to? The Lakers might not even play any of those teams this year, so there's no reason to worry about them right now. If the Lakers meet them in the playoffs, then we'll care about them, but for the immediate future the Lakers' biggest rival is Utah.

3. Your unflinching dislike for the Lakers is not unique. Maybe you fans of rival teams don't think about the Lakers when your own teams aren’t that good, or maybe you guys all tune in to vociferously root against LA even when your team isn't even in the playoffs, I don’t know. I do know that the attitude you have towards the Lakers is something that any Laker fan gets from fans of just about every other team. And I mean, the exact same attitude, right down to the comments about how awful California is, or what a fake city LA is, or how Kobe is so selfish, or how Laker fans are so smug, how you can’t stand all the celebrities at the games, and how the crowds at Staples center arrive late, etc. We even get that same stuff from Clipper fans, who maybe hate the Lakers more than fans of any other team. Remember: they chant "Beat LA" in every arena, not just in the one your team plays in.

4. In short: we don’t hate you as much as you hate us. We may get annoyed if you come here and make a stink and talk a bunch of trash or try to start a flame war, but otherwise we're probably not even thinking about you or your team unless the Lakers are playing them. It's obvious from the way many fans of rival teams act when they go to Laker websites like this one that they expect to encounter a bunch of Laker fans who dislike their team as much as they hate the Lakers; but honestly when I see that I'm just surprised that it's assumed the intense feelings of rivalry go in both directions like that. Generally I just chuckle and say to myself "oh look, another person who hates the Lakers. How novel."

So in summation, you just need to realize that Laker fans look at fans of other teams in a very different way than how you view us. If you root for a team that the Lakers might play in this year's playoffs, then we simply see your team as an obstacle to overcome on the way to what will hopefully be another championship. So when you come here all worked up and expecting a battle cause you're in "enemy territory" or something, try to take a second to look at things from our perspective, and remember that the Lakers face a big "rival" in every round of the playoffs each year. It just isn't realistic to expect Laker fans to feel as strongly about your team as you do about ours.

Kobe, LeBron, the MVP Award and the NBA Championship

WildYams — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:17:52 -0000

[Ed. Note: Folks, please welcome Wild Yams, our first community volunteer author here at SS&R. Like many of you, I'm sure, I've seen Wild Yams' comments on various blogs across these internets, and have always been impressed with the insight and analysis he provides. SS&R is lucky to have him on board. He kicks off his tenure here at SS&R with an excellent discussion of the 2009 regular season MVP race.]

I'm new around here, but then again I guess we all are, and Josh gracefully asked me to help out with some of the writing duties on SS&R, so I thought I should hurry up and make my first post. With the regular season over there's a lot to talk about, from the upcoming series with the Jazz, to the speculation that Kevin Garnett is done for the year, to other playoff matchups around the league, including who the Lakers might meet in the second round ~~after beating~~ if they beat the Utah Jazz. But as always seems to be the case at this time of year, the thing that is foremost on everyone's minds is who will win the MVP, and this year is no different.

For me I think the debate about who should win the MVP this year is somewhat silly, because I expect LeBron to win it in a landslide. The press has tried to paint it like it's a 2 or 3 man race with Kobe and Dwyane Wade thrown into the discussion, but I think realistically it's been LeBron's award to lose for quite some time this season. He probably would have won it last year if his team had won more games, and now that his Cavs have finished with the league's best record, there's really no chance he won't win it. This news may anger some Laker fans, but I think we have to ask ourselves why shouldn't LeBron win it?

The reasons why LeBron will win are simple and obvious, and there are two of them: he was the best player on the team with the league's best record, and his individual stats were astounding. Now I know the arguments from Laker fans against these two reasons would be that the only reason the Cavs finished with a better record than the Lakers is because they play in the Eastern Conference, which is much worse overall than the West is; and that the only reason LeBron's stats are so much better than Kobe's is because he simply has to do more for his team, and that Kobe shouldn't be penalized simply for having a better team around him. While on the face those are valid objections, allow me to show you why they're going to be ignored by virtually anyone who has a vote.

For one thing, the East may be a weaker conference, but it's not as weak as you think. Three of the league's top four teams this year were in the East, while six of the league's seven worst teams were in the West; so while the middle of the pack was better out West, the tops and bottoms in the East had the edge. Additionally, last year the Celtics (who we Laker fans should be willing to acknowledge was a really great team) had the same record that Cleveland has this year, and you could argue the East was worse last year than they were this year. 66 wins is a great record for any team to have, and I think it's especially impressive that the Cavaliers were able to achieve that many wins.

This brings us to the second part of the argument for MVP: LeBron's individual stats vs the fact that Kobe wasn't asked to do as much for the Lakers this year. LeBron's personal stats aside, I think it's downright incredible that he was able to take that collection of players to anywhere north of 50 wins, let alone to the league's best record with 66.

Let me ask you a question: as Laker fans, how many players on Cleveland's roster would you be willing to have LA give up a roster spot for? I mean, if you took out whatever every player's salary is and didn't factor in whether they'd be better in the future or whatever, and instead were just going to collect the best 12 players on one team for this season, how many of them would be from Cleveland's roster and how many would be from the Lakers'? Obviously you'd want LeBron, and you'd probably want Mo Williams (though you might wonder if there'd be enough basketballs to go around with him at the point instead of Fish/UPS/Farmar), but how many guys after that?

Assuming you'd drop Mbenga (or Morrison, depending on who the real 12th man is) to make room for LeBron, would you then want to drop Josh Powell to make room for Zydrunas Ilgauskas? I guess so, but how many more minutes would Z get over what Powell is getting, now that the 3 man rotation of Drew, Pau and Lamar is back? Presumably Trevor would go to the bench in favor of LeBron, so maybe Luke would then become expendable, so you could drop him for Mo Williams. But then who else? Drop Farmar for Delonte West probably, but honestly that's probably about all you'd want to do. I mean you could also drop Brown and add either Ben Wallace, Anderson Varejao, Boobie Gibson or Wally Sczerbiak, but really you're talking about the 12th man at that point. So even assuming you did that, the new Laker rotation would still be Drew & Pau up front, with Lamar off the bench in probably the same substitution patterns they're in now, then you'd have LeBron at SF with Trevor backing him up, Kobe at SG with Sasha, Mo Williams or West behind him, and you'd start Mo Williams at PG with either Fisher or West coming off the bench. In other words, only LeBron and Mo Williams would be players who would ever see significant minutes if they were added to this Laker team, and that to me says a lot about how much less LeBron has had to work with this year, and how much more impressive it is that his team won the league's most number of games this year.

But I'll tell you what else it tells me: if the Lakers and Cleveland do meet in The Finals, the Cavs are going to have one hell of a time trying to contend with all the weapons and all the depth that the Lakers have. The MVP award is an individual award, but the championship goes to the best team. It also should be noted that just because LeBron is going to be this season's Most Valuable Player that it doesn't mean he's a better player than Kobe is. If Kobe played on a team with me and three other random guys who don't play professional basketball, it wouldn't make Kobe any worse of a player, but it would certainly make his value to that team jump astronomically. If at the end of the year Kobe is holding the Larry O'Brien trophy in one hand and the Bill Russell award in the other, I know you, me and every other Laker fan will be perfectly content, even if LeBron's got the Maurice Podoloff Trophy sitting on his shelf at home.