Playoffs?!

Well, it's been an ugly season . . . how ugly, you ask?

Just about that ugly.  But then, no one said that basketball is a pretty sport.  Well, actually someone did, maybe even a lot of people, but they weren't talking about Tyler Hansbrough.  That's okay though, because sometimes ugly gets the job done.  And this year, in spite of all the ugly, the Pacers are in the playoffs.  And, really, that's all we wanted, right?

Three teams in the Western Conference will miss the playoffs with better records than the Pacers.  Of those three, two of them (Houston and Phoenix) would have to be considered favorites in a series against the Pacers.  The third (Utah) essentially imploded halfway through the year when they lost HoF coach Jerry Sloan and traded away perhaps the best young point guard in the league (Deron Williams).  The Pacers could probably handle them right now, but it is worth noting that the Jazz stole one from the Lakers the other night.

They rally to play well against the good teams, occasionally even stealing a win or two, then turn around and play the dregs of the league like just another lottery hound.  They started out the year as a legitimate defensive team, then clinch the playoffs by scoring 136 points while shooting almost 60% from the floor . . . all while giving up 112 to the lowly Wizards (at home, even!).  So much for defense.

New coach Frank Vogel stands at 19 - 16, which is good enough for a solid handshake and a pat on the back, but probably not enough to keep him in the seat next year.  I'm sure the front office will do what they can to keep him around, but not so sure that what they will do includes naming him head coach.

As for the rest of the team, everyone is valuable (in their own way), but everyone is expendable.  They are a team of good role players without a leader.  Someday, Danny Granger will be the best third scoring option in the league.  Right now, he's a shaky first option.  Roy Hibbert is a potential force in the pivot just looking for the confidence that will smooth out and reinforce his game.  Hansbrough's coming on while McRoberts is fading . . . except on the nights where Hansbrough's fading and McRoberts is rising.  And Collison looks for all the world like a young point still learning the game, which he is.  The big question is if he ever will learn it, and that answer is not clear.

But, forget all that.  The team plays hard, even when they are at their most confused.  They give us some amazing stretches of basketball, even if they almost never put together a whole game.  They are a bunch of good kids who are really easy to root for.

Forget the record - they're in the playoffs.  Screw all the whining about lowered expectations: steal a game or two from the Bulls and we'll call this season a big success.

*          *          *          *          *

I wish Gordon Hayward would have stayed in college and helped Butler last night instead of kicking our butt. -- Phil Jackson, after the Lakers lost to the Jazz 86 - 84 behind Hayward's 22 points.

Oh, my Bulldogs sure missed young Mr. Hayward Monday night.  And after a rough rookie season (though expectedly so), he broke out with a series of double figure scoring games to close out the year, capped by this game, where, matched up against Kobe for most of the evening, he managed to outscore him by a bucket.

Which led to another splendid example of Kobespeak.  From J. A. Adande's True Hoop column:

Bryant said he was “very, very fond” of Hayward. 
“He’s a very skilled, all-around player," Bryant said. "I think he’s going to have a very bright future in this league. He reminds me of a more talented Jeff Hornacek. Jeff couldn’t put the ball on the floor as well as he can.” 

Which we shall now translate with our patented Kobespeak Translator:

Nice game, rook.  You remind me of another guy who had a cup of coffee in the league . . . now what was his name?  If you're still around when the Jazz play us again . . . which, I'd like to point out, won't be in the playoffs, 'cause you jagoffs didn't even make it . . . then I'm a gonna rip your throat out.  If I even remember to be pissed at you.  Wait, who am I kidding?  I'll rip your throat out even if I don't remember to be pissed.  'Cause that's who I am.  Kobe fucking Bryant.  And, just who are you again?  By the way: you're white.

Shut Up and Show Me the Ring(s)

In amongst all the LeBron mania, it's easy to look past what the Lakers have been doing this summer. They tried hard to get Raja Bell, but ultimately failed. They re-signed Derek Fisher, who, in spite of his limitations, is money in the playoffs. They signed Steve Blake, a good half-court quarterback, to back up Derek Fisher. And now, they've added Matt Barnes.

Sure, not as sexy as Bron-Bron and Wade and Bosh (or even Mike Miller), but I like the method to this madness. Think about it: when the Lakers titled in 2009, they knew that they couldn't stand still, so what did they do? They added Ron Artest who, even at his worst, is going to cause problems for the opponent's 2 or 3, and sometimes even the 1 and 4. Turns out that the mercurial Artest was just enough to push the Lakers over the top for 2010.

Unlike LeBron, who decided he was going to use his influence to put together a fun-time he-man's club with all his friends, Kobe decided to go after the players that pissed him off the most (on the court, at least) - last year Artest, this year Bell and Barnes. Kobe figures that if a player is annoying (and good) enough to get under his skin, then he can do the job against anybody. LeBron, Wade, and Bosh are big kids, Kobe is an assassin.

When you're champions, you don't rebuild, you tune up. What the Lakers have done is to make the NBA's best team even better. Right now, they can go with lineup of Fisher, Bryant, Artest, Gasol, and Bynum, and then sit them all down and run out a lineup of Blake, Vujacic, Odom, Barnes, and Theo Ratliff. Now, that second platoon in and of itself isn't going to scare anybody, but mix it up a bit, get a scorer on the court (maybe leave Gasol out on the court as a pivot with the second unit, put Odom out with the first unit and use Bynum in the middle), and with the exception of Bryant, there's not a hell of a lot of drop off.

The other thing that bothers me about the whole LeBron thing is that, in basketball, a team is never the sum of its parts. Both LeBron and Wade need the ball to be effective, and last time I checked, there's only one ball on the court when the whistle blows. Now, I take all of the Miami Three at their word when they say they will check their egos at the door, but that's not the same as meshing together as a team. Bosh won't be a problem, since he can get a fair amount of action cleaning up underneath. If I'm the point distributing the ball at crunch time, I'm looking for Wade first, LeBron second. As a matter of fact, force of nature though LeBron may be, Wade is easily the better offensive player. The question is this: will LeBron step aside to become the second option on the offensive end? Can he be a role player? More to the point, willing or not, does he even know how to be a role player? It's not like he's ever had to before.

From the beginning, I thought James and Bosh made sense. Or Wade and Bosh. Or James and Stoudemire. Or Wade and Stoudemire . . . well, you're starting to get the idea. Think of a modular basketball team: players have roles defined to varying degrees, but if two players with similar tendencies trying to do the same things are on the floor at the same time, then they're going to get into each other's way. And, as referred to earlier, scorers (as opposed to pure shooters) need the ball to score, and there's only one ball on the court. Both James and Wade make their living the same way: ball in their hands on the wing, creating, moving in to the rack and finishing, or dumping off to the big (Bosh, in this case), or kicking it back to an open shooter on the wing. Who's going to be the creator? Neither Wade or James is going to be the shooter on the wing. James could be one of the orbiting bigs, but Bosh has to be the main offensive focus underneath. There is no clearly defined role on offense for James. It would seem to me to be best if he became an offensive opportunist, maybe a pick and roll guy a la Karl Malone (with Bosh as the low post back-to-the-basket guy).

Whatever . . . they may be able to make this work, but it won't be easy, and at least one player is going to have to move far out of his comfort zone, and ego or no, that will be difficult. It is much easier with clearly defined modular roles, like maybe a slasher and an inside scorer . . . like Bryant and Gasol. The Lakers have a clear blueprint with two top notch scorers, and it is demonstrably hard to kick them off the track. There's not only one solution to the problem, or even a best solution, but the Lakers' solution is clearly effective.

As US National coach Mike Kryzewski has pointed out, one place where Miami will be immediately dominant is on defense. This will give them time to figure out the offense, and ultimately be the key that opens the door to a championship for them. Ironically, if Miami does win it all this year, it will most likely be in an ugly, Detroit Pistons-style championship team, not the super flashy Dream Team-style team. If you remember, the most recent superstar trio (the Celtics' Pierce, Allen, and Garnett), was also a defensive grind-it-out unit in spite of the offensive talents of all three.

But until the confetti falls, don't talk, show me the rings. Kobe has them, LeBron doesn't. Right now, if forced to bet, my money's still on the Lakers.

* * * * *

Don't take this to mean I'm down on LeBron for his free agent soap opera. While the whole TV special was appalling, and while I value a certain hometown fidelity, I am glad to see a player in control instead of the owners for a change.

But I've never been a Miami fan, and now I want them to loose every game. And I'm pissed at them for turning me into a Lakers fan again, no matter how marginally.