ESPN

With their backs against the wall, it's obvious what the Lakers must do to send this series back to L.A.: Play near-perfect basketball against a team that's not only more talented, but better at closing tight contests. Nothing less will likely get the job done, especially in the Thunder's insanely loud building. The confidence of fans, based on the LO'L chatter, appears low, but what actually matters is the confidence of Lakers players. We'll get an idea of their collective belief -- and what that's worth -- soon enough.

For a look ahead to Game 5, we had an IM conversation with Royce Young, who covers the Thunder for the TrueHoop network's Daily Thunder blog. Below is the transcript.

Andy Kamenetzky: What stood out most to you in the Thunder comeback/Lakers collapse?

Royce Young: The obvious thing people want to point out is Kobe Bryant's shot selection the final few minutes, but what stuck out to me was Russell Westbrook. He's been steadily improving at sensing his moments, where he can separate from Kevin Durant, and he picked an outstanding place in Game 4. He did the heavy lifting, and Durant carried them across the finish line. But like I said, it seems Kobe-ball had a lot of people talking.

AK: I watched the fourth quarter again, and there were definitely possessions where he went into "head down/Mamba/iso" mode and most weren't terribly fruitful. But Metta World Peace and Steve Blake also over-dribbled some possessions. Andrew Bynum was getting fronted, and as a team, they adjusted poorly. In the meantime, the Lakers' D went to pot.

Oh, and the mother of all bad turnovers from Pau Gasol!

It was just horrible execution on both sides of the ball, and OKC capitalized.

RY: One thing that's really hit home is just how fragile a playoff game can be. Each possession is priceless. The Thunder have valued the ball more than ever, and have approached games with a crazy amount of focus. Down seven, down 13, they see it as just pressing on and not letting up until the clock officially runs out. Whether that's just the natural evolution of maturity, or a voice in the locker room like Derek Fisher, the team doesn't lose focus even when times are tough.

Brian Kamenetzky: Still, the Lakers have played three straight competitive games. Royce, do you see in those any reason for Thunder fans to worry?

RY: To be frank, no. The Lakers are in a position where they need to win three straight, two of those games in Oklahoma City, and the Lakers weren't a strong road team this season. It's obvious not much separates the teams, but the Thunder are deeper and more talented than the Lakers. Unless they get tight and anxious about closing, they should handle their business.

Some are probably thinking about Game 4 in Dallas last season for the Lakers. Is this team different, or could they be headed toward a clunker in Game 5?

(Read full post)

The Lakers came up with a crucial win Friday night, and get to try and replicate the victory less than 24 hours later!

We preview Saturday's Game 4, video style.

There is a popular saying that a series doesn't really begin until the home team loses. History, however, says that when the home team holds serve in the first two games, the series is over. Courtesy of ESPN Stats & Information, teams up 2-0 have won 94.2 percent of any series. Even the Lakers, among the most successful franchises in sports history, have only won 10.5 percent (2-of-19) after falling into this hole. The last successful bucking of the odds required a miracle shot from Derek Fisher (ironically now playing for the squad looking to eliminate the Lakers). That's what ultimately made the inability to close out Game 2 even more painful. A split in Oklahoma wouldn't have put the Lakers in the driver's seat, but an upset at least would have felt somewhat feasible. Instead, a battle uphill from the outset has taken on the feel of K2.

For more thoughts on Game 3, we conducted an instant-message exchange with Royce Young from the True Hoop network's Daily Thunder blog. Below is the transcript.

Andy Kamenetzky: As much as Game 2 was about the Lakers' failure to execute down the stretch, it was also reflective of the Thunder not giving up and remaining opportunistic. How characteristic is that of their nature?

Royce Young: Very. Game 2 Wednesday was extremely similar to Game 1 against Dallas in which OKC came back from a seven-point deficit with a few minutes remaining, capped by a Kevin Durant game winner. The Thunder have made a habit out of those types of wins. They feel like as long as they have time on the clock, they're alive. Which they should, because at any moment Durant, Russell Westbrook or James Harden can go on a burst and get them back in a game.

From the other side, is it like the Lakers to let a lead slip like that?

AK: Unfortunately, yes. Not necessarily at the end of a game, because the Lakers were 10-4 this season in games decided by three points or fewer. But a loss of focus is always a threat to plague them at any moment. All season, this team has suffered inopportune and self-induced lapses. Sometimes, they've resulted in losses. Other times, wins became more complicated than necessary. But either way, the Lakers are a team of bad habits, which makes slippage in the last two minutes not necessarily stunning.

But full disclosure, I was jaw-dropped by this. I just kept staring at the TV with this far-gone look on my face, like Private Pyle during his last scenes in "Full Metal Jacket."

RY: Allow me to be honest, as well: I had given up on the Thunder after Bynum's hook shot went down to make it seven. I just didn't see a way back, not with the way they were executing offensively.

AK: Speaking of execution, you've mentioned before the Thunder's periodic tendencies to go iso-happy and bog the entire offense. Wednesday night felt like one of those nights. Do you agree, and if so, to your eye, what caused it?

RY: I'm not entirely sure the Thunder played all that differently than they did in Game 1, but two things stifled the offense: The pace favored the Lakers, and the shots didn't fall with great regularity. Durant had attempted only eight shots entering the fourth quarter, instead choosing to kick out off his drives. The Lakers adjusted well on Westbrook and forced him into a poor shooting night. And the bailout guy, Harden, wasn't able to get going. That's where that ugly, ugly offense can come from. It's a strange thing, since they're so wildly talented on that end. But sometimes, it just doesn't work. But the Lakers deserve a lot of credit for that.

Brian Kamenetzky: I thought the Lakers' adjustments in the pick-and-roll, with the aggressive trapping and activity from the bigs, frustrated OKC. Coverages were more proactive and consistent, a big change from Game 1. Combine that with the work they did limiting the Thunder's transition opportunities, and it seemed like OKC was frustrated.

(Read full post)

It's fitting NBA games are now flooded with "Men in Black III" ads (there's even one with an NBA tie-in), because after Game 1, Lakers fans had the urge to "flashy thing" themselves. Who'd blame any member of the Laker Nation for making every last memory of a 29-point beatdown instantly disappear? That's not a bad plan for the actual players, too. Dwelling on what can't be changed is pointless and could perhaps hinder moving forward. Of course, this is also contingent on having addressed the problems causing their nightmare. Otherwise, the "flashy thing" would just be creating space in their brains for a brand-new set of horrors.

To help preview Game 2, Brian and I conducted an IM chat with Royce Young from the True Hoop network's Daily Thunder blog. Below is the transcript.

Andy Kamenetzky: I'll start with a question for Royce. Wha happa?

Royce Young: Yeah, that was something. I expected the Thunder to win, but definitely not a 29-point victory. The Thunder weren't rusty, and were foaming at the mouth to get on the court. OKC is good and has maybe the NBA's most explosive offense, but if they're going to turn it over just four times, the Lakers might as well hit the beach right now and save themselves the trouble.

Brian Kamenetzky: How sustainable is OKC's performance? The starters shot 63 percent. As a team they hit 60 percent between 10-15 feet. Russell Westbrook barely missed from 10 feet-plus, etc. Even if the Lakers don't do anything differently -- and they'd better do some things differently -- do you expect the Thunder to come back to earth?

RY: That's definitely about as good as it gets, although not completely out of left field. The Thunder have rolled up big offensive games before: Game 3 against Dallas, in the regular season against Miami and Chicago. But the mid-range game can dry up at a moment's notice, 3s might not fall and transition opportunities might not be available. Then it's about executing in the half court, getting to the line and finding easy buckets. They're capable of doing that every night, actually doing so isn't entirely realistic.

Is there an adjustment the Lakers can make to slow down Westbrook and Kevin Durant?

AK: Metta World Peace must do better staying with KD despite the constant screens. MWP's bulk can work against him fighting through bodies, but he's succeeded better than on Monday. Considering that his were the freshest legs of any Laker, I was disappointed by his general lack of defensive tenacity. As for Westbrook, when he's running pick-and-roll to that elbow spot, the Lakers bigs need to hedge harder to challenge shots or make him give up the ball. I realize the recovery after showing is tough for someone like Andrew Bynum, but Russ' looks were too clean, and he pulls up so quickly to begin with.

RY: Here's the dirty little secret with Westbrook: Everyone thinks you give him that mid-range shot and take away his path to the rim, but it's actually the opposite. Give him the jumper, he'll eat you alive. That's the hinge to his game. It opens the door to everything else. Actually, in hindsight, let's scratch my previous paragraph from the record. I don't want anyone to know this.

BK: If Mike Brown waits for game previews to get his scouting report for that night, I think you're OK.

(Read full post)

With sincere respect to the Denver Nuggets, that it took the Lakers seven games to defeat them suggests how well the Lakers must play against Oklahoma City to have even a hope of advancing. Kevin Durant and the gang were the preseason favorites to come out of the West, with some pundits predicting they'd win the whole enchilada. An erratic April cost them a No. 1 seed, but any doubts about their viability were put to bed by an opening-round sweep of the Dallas Mavericks. Matched against L.A., at full strength, the results have been pretty lopsided in OKC's favor. The Lakers enter this series in the unfamiliar position of being underdogs and have their work cut out to pull the upset.

For a look ahead to the series and Game 1, I spoke via instant message with Royce Young of the True Hoop network's Daily Thunder blog. Below is the transcript.

Andy Kamenetzky: What was your biggest takeaway from OKC's opening series?

Royce Young: I was most impressed with the way the Thunder closed games. Last postseason, Oklahoma City's crunch-time offensive struggles became a well-discussed topic, with Russell Westbrook the focus. This playoffs, it was the opposite. Three big fourth quarters are what won the series in four. Of course, just because James Harden was able to dice the Mavericks doesn't mean it will be so with the Lakers.

AK: As long as you mentioned Harden, might as well jump right into the prominent B-plot. Do you expect any lingering trepidation or animosity from Harden toward Metta World Peace?

RY: I don't think so. Carrying anything like that onto the floor would be too obvious. And it wouldn't reflect well on the team's focus. You're not there to get payback on Metta. You're here to advance. A vendetta in Game 1 doesn't make much sense. Then again, it'll have Thunder fans charged up, and many people feel as if World Peace is feeding the beast with his comments.

AK: Well, I was there as MWP addressed this issue, and actually took his words at face value. Starters never go out of their way for pregame handshakes with opposing reserves, so why would anyone necessarily expect it from Metta? And I honestly understand why he doesn't think now's the time and place for a reconciliation of sorts (if there's even a feud to begin with). These guys are about to enter competition. Frankly, I doubt Harden wants MWP to seek him out before Game 1 anyway. It would be awkward for both.

RY: For the record, I totally agree with that assessment.

AK: In any event, Harden is so important for OKC. You can make an argument he's their most important player, which is why I don't put much credence in the Lakers' double-OT win, Harden missing the second half and all.

(Read full post)

When the Lakers won Game 4 in Denver to take a 3-1 lead, the odds that this series would reach seven games seemed long. L.A. absorbed a quality shot from the Nuggets, trying to even things up, and now had a chance to close at home in a building where Denver has historically seen little success.

Two games later here we are, with the season -- and in many ways the future composition of the Lakers -- in the balance.

On Saturday night at Staples, the Lakers have a chance to move on and start fresh (if somewhat weary) against Oklahoma City on Monday. Andrew Bynum and Pau Gasol have a chance to redeem themselves on both sides of the ball following Games 5 and 6. The Lakers can show the sort of competitive grit displayed in the fourth quarter against Oklahoma City a couple of weeks back, but seen too little in the postseason.

To set the mood, as we've done all series, we fired up the chatting machines for a conversation with TrueHoop's Roundball Mining Company, where Kalen Deremo provided a look at the game from Denver's POV.

Land O'Lakers: After winning two straight and three of four, how confident are the Nuggets heading into Staples for Saturday's game?

Kalen Deremo: As confident as they'll ever be. I think the Nuggets have always been so intimidated by the Lakers, but something is different this time around. They have a confidence they've never had, which has to be one of the scarier things for L.A. to face.

Do you plan on seeing an entirely different Lakers team Saturday? Nuggets fans sure do.

LOL: I'd like to think so. Unless there's a Game 8 I don't know about, they don't get another chance.

More than the issues of execution, the problems with effort, energy, and commitment have bothered Lakers fans, and certainly Lakers coaches. Those can be catch-alls, used as easy explanations for losses. "We didn't match their energy." But particularly in Games 5 and 6 it's been true. Denver has flat out-hustled and outworked the Lakers. As for players needing to play a full 48, it starts with the bigs. Bynum had 16 boards Thursday, but faded in and out defensively and in transition. Gasol was worse, disappearing completely in what might have been his worst game in the NBA, context considered.

They have to be better Saturday, right? And if as a team they don't allow themselves to be outworked, the Lakers should win.

(Read full post)

That the Lakers failed to close out Denver on Tuesday wasn't horrible in and of itself, but the reason for failure certainly was. It's one thing to get outplayed, especially by a quality team desperate to stay alive. Getting outworked, however, is another story. The Lakers' inability to match the Nuggets' energy, intensity and desire was inexcusable, and as Brian noted, costly on a practical level. Still, what's done is done, and now is the time to make lemonade from lemons. The Lakers get two more cracks to wrap this up, but success on the first try equals that much less energy expended before battling the Thunder. The task won't be easy, especially in Denver. But it's doable, assuming the Lakers are willing to focus, execute and work enough.

For more thoughts on Game 6 (Thursday, 7:30 p.m. PT), I had an IM exchange with Kalen Deremo from the True Hoop network's Roundball Mining Company. Below is the transcript.

Andy Kamenetzky: Heading into Game 5, you weren't sure how this inconsistent Nuggets team would react to an elimination scenario. What did you make of the way they played?

Kalen Deremo: Shocked. Well, maybe not shocked, but thoroughly (and pleasantly!) surprised. For years, this team has exited the playoffs in embarrassing fashion. Tuesday, they played with heart, soul and passion. For once it looked like they actually cared about showing pride in the playoffs. What was your reaction?

AK: In the meantime, Denver continues to improve as the series progresses, certainly more than the Lakers.

KD: That performance was probably the Nuggets' best in the playoffs since 2009, when they reached the Western Conference finals. I think no matter what team they were playing, the Nuggets were gonna give it their all. What I want to know is what happened to Pau Gasol? Andrew Bynum and Kobe Bryant have showed up for the most part, but Pau just seems invisible.

AK: In fairness to Pau, he's been asked to facilitate more than score, and his passing has been very effective. Nuggets coach George Karl has even cited Gasol as a weapon hurting them in this respect. However, his rebounding numbers are down a bit from the regular season, problematic in a series where Denver's control of the glass makes or breaks L.A. His defense around the rim has also been erratic. And like Bynum, he was pretty MIA for most of Game 5.

In the meantime, JaVale McGee! Have you ever seen a player improve more over a series?

Kalen: McGee, man, I don't even know what to say. Seeing a 7-footer operate like a champ in the post, seeing his pure physical attributes dominate his counterpart, is a sight to behold. The Nuggets haven't had that type of center since Dikembe Mutombo, although Marcus Camby was nice defensively. Wow, I'm just getting way ahead of myself. Yeah, McGee was just unreal. It's so nice to see his maturation with the Nuggets. The guy has so much talent and potential. Seeing him discover it during a time like this is beautiful for Nuggets fans.

Do you think he could even end up outplaying Bynum two games in a row?

(Read full post)

"Closeout games are actually kinda easy. Teams tend to fold if you come out and play hard in the beginning. So we wanna come out and establish an early lead and protect it."

This was Andrew Bynum's response when asked about the inherent difficulty of closeout games. And to some degree, Drew's correct. I've seen many a team on the ropes fall behind in an elimination game, then exhibit body language that reeks of fate acknowledged and summer plans being imagined. On the other hand, if an opponent starts out hot or at least able to trade blows, they may become less amenable to the notion of fading quietly into the night. The Lakers would be best served to treat Denver as a squad desperate to remain alive, then upon tangible signs of the towel being thrown in, continue pummeling them in case an elaborate game of possum is being played.

For thoughts on what could be the final game of this series, I had an IM conversation with Kalen Deremo of the True Hoop network's Roundball Mining Company. Below is the transcript.

Andy Kamenetzky: Well, that was a very strange Game 3. No flow. No consistency from the refs. The refs at times let fouls go that would be called inside Rikers Island, then whistled the tickiest of tack. Andrew Bynum called for traveling with JaVale McGee over his back was... interesting. Plus, stalkers on the court! An entertaining game, but odd nonetheless. And I actually thought Denver would win for much of it.

KD: They led for the first three quarters, but it was so obvious L.A. had them trapped from the get go. That pace proved deadly. Nuggets played with fire... and got burned... bad. They've known from the very start they had to speed up the game to win. In Game 3 they finally managed to get out on the break more, and as a result they won in convincing fashion. The Nuggets thrive off energy. On Sunday, the Lakers looked like they were sleepwalking for much of the game and instead of countering with energy, the nuggets emulated the Lakers, and paid the price.

As we saw on Sunday, even if the Lakers aren't playing up to their potential they'll still win as long as they can entice the Nuggets to play a slow, half-court game. Give the Lakers credit for good defense, too.

AK: Yeah, they clamped down when it mattered most, and managed to keep Denver off the offensive glass in the second half. That's been a huge weapon for the Nuggets all series.

(Read full post)

On one hand, nobody with grounded expectations should have expected the Lakers to sweep their way into the second round of the playoffs. In that respect, seeing them drop Game 3 to the Nuggets isn't necessarily alarming. On the other hand, the Nuggets have steadily improved with each game, while the Lakers have moved in the opposite direction since an absolutely devastating Game 1 victory. I wouldn't say the scales of control have tipped in Denver's favor, and the purple and gold remain the better team in my estimation. But the Nuggets are absolutely capable of forcing a tough series, which means the Lakers need to step their collective effort and efficiency back up a notch.

For more perspective on the first three games and what may lie ahead for Sunday, I conducted my IM exchange with Kalen Deremo of the TrueHoop network's Roundball Mining Company. Below is the transcript.

Andy Kamenetzky: The Nuggets have gotten steadily better in each game. Why is this happening and how sustainable is it?

Kalen Deremo: It's probably just experience and their comfort level adjusting. For many Nuggets, this is their first playoff experience. The more time goes by, the more relaxed they will likely become. And going back home to Denver definitely helped as well.

AK: In particular, Denver has controlled the offensive glass to create second-chance points. Is that a staple of their game?

KD: Not really. Kenneth Faried is an excellent offensive rebounder. JaVale McGee certainly helps out, too. When he's rebounding, the Nuggets just become a more dominant team on the glass in general. But outside of them, the Nuggets aren't particularly strong in this sense and I don't know if they can contend with the Lakers' bigs for an entire series.

AK: Maybe they can if Andrew Bynum isn't "ready" for any of Games 4-7, as was the case in Game 3.

KD: Yeah, that's interesting. The Lakers' bigs, like all superheros, have their Kryptonite as well. Bynum just seems like a guy who's easily irritated and not always 100 percent prepared mentally. Is this true, and how much could you see it affecting the outcome of this series?

AK: It's an absolutely accurate assessment, and the potential effect is devastating. No Laker controls this team's prospects for a deep playoff run more than Bynum. His ability to change games defensively, on the glass and (to a lesser but still sizable degree) as a low-post scoring threat is the difference between the Lakers controlling games and merely surviving/actually losing them. Unfortunately, the mental lapses and admittedly inconsistent engagement are recurrent issues. Drew must force himself to be dialed in from start to finish.

KD: What about McGee, though? I could see him perhaps giving Bynum problems. He's a superior athlete and could prevent Bynum from doing whatever he pleases offensively.

AK: There's no question McGee's presence has increasingly become a factor. Even before blowing up statistically in Game 3 (16 points, 15 rebounds), his wingspan has been problematic. He's blocking shots and altering others. Players think twice with him in proximity. Whatever McGee can add offensively is gravy. I don't know how much scoring he can reliably provide, but it's sure fun to watch him try. Dude's got some of the weirdest physicality I've ever seen around the rim. He'll attempt that scoop shot -- apparently his one "move" besides a dunk -- from mindbogglingly bizarre angles.

(Read full post)

With a 2-0 series lead, the Lakers couldn't ask for a better position as their opening round moves to Denver. On the other hand, while the Nuggets never controlled Game 2, they were able to make it far more competitive, and more importantly, they often dictated the style of basketball played. Can this development, along with a home crowd's energy, be converted into the first win of the series, or are the Nuggets simply overmatched against the Lakers' size and a certain 2-guard?

To preview what Game 3 may have in store, I had an IM exchange with Jeremy Wagner of the True Hoop Network's Roundball Mining Company. Below is the transcript.

Andy Kamenetzky: Denver lost Game 2, but how much encouragement did you take from the way the Nuggets managed to push pace, attack the paint and generally play their game?

Jeremy Wagner: The Nuggets can bring some confidence into Game 3. They always knew they could run on the Lakers, but running alone does not equal winning. It just means they have a chance to keep the game close in the final few minutes. Their ability to continually fight back and control certain portions of the game is encouraging, but that feeling only goes so far.

But I do think Game 3 will be very competitive. Denver knows a loss will be the final nail in the coffin. If Denver wins Game 3, Game 4 should be a fantastic battle. If they lose, Game 4 might be much like Game 6 in 2009.

AK: Beyond continuing to run the break, what can Denver realistically do to finish Friday at 2-1?

JW: Denver must hit some 3s. The Nuggets are a very poor 3-point shooting team, but they do have capable 3-point shooters. If they had made a couple more in Game 2, things would have been interesting. The Nuggets are doing a great job on the offensive boards and running. If they can add one other positive characteristic, they will be in good shape.

The big discussion among Nuggets fans is whether to go with bigger lineups to try to beat L.A. at their own game, or go even smaller and risk completely sacrificing the paint? From a Lakers perspective, what lineup would be more concerning? Ty Lawson, Arron Afflalo, Corey Brewer, Danilo Gallinari and Al Harrington (small and fast), or Lawson, Gallo, Kenneth Faried, JaVale McGee and Timofey Mozgov (big and still fast)?

AK: It depends on how successfully the Nuggets pushed tempo, whether by getting the Lakers to take the bait or just fall apart defending in transition. Were that the case, I'd probably use the smaller lineup, since that feels like the group best at forcing the issue. But if the Lakers stay disciplined, you might need to hedge your bets with the bigger group to avoid being comically overwhelmed. However, I'd be concerned about how little McGee (lobs aside) and Moz would force the Lakers' bigs to defend. That's not exactly a frontcourt you run an offense through.

(Read full post)

The Lakers' postseason got off to as incredible a start as even those with wildly active imaginations could envision. Suffocating defense, spearheaded by Andrew Bynum in a performance that literally made NBA history. Balanced offense with six players in double figures and Steve Blake just behind them at nine. And as I wrote yesterday, the collective focus was off the charts. In the meantime, Denver made a few pushes, but largely found itself increasingly overwhelmed.

A sign of things to come for the entire series, or just one game in which both teams played at the opposite ends of the spectrum? To get to the bottom of matters, we had an IM conversation with Roundball Mining Company's Jeremy Wagner. Below is a transcript of the exchange.

Brian Kamenetzky: We focused so much on how L.A.'s size would help on the offensive side of ball, but it was really the defensive end -- led by Bynum but supplemented by Pau Gasol and Jordan Hill -- that changed the game. How much did that surprise Denver, and how do they address it?

Jeremy Wagner: It was obvious the Nuggets were not prepared for shot-blocking Bynum. They never adjusted and kept throwing up weak attempts. One key is Denver will to have to move much more on offense. I think it was six of Bynum's blocks came on an iso set when four Nuggets stood and watched. Denver also must look to pass when it doesn't have a shot at the rim. The corner was open on nearly all of Bynum's blocks and Denver must take advantage of that.

Do you think Bynum will be content to play Dikembe Mutombo, or will he demand more shots? We know he likes shots.

Andy Kamenetzky: I'd like to think this mindset will be maintained. It's important to note, Drew actually got the ball, but constant multiple defenders forced him to pass out. Even more important, Drew was aware of this, which makes me think pouting isn't imminent. However, I'm not necessarily confident he'll be as successful passing out from double/triple teams. Sunday's one turnover is the exception, not the rule, and that could give Denver more chances to run, which creates problems for the Lakers' D. Not to mention frustration for Bynum.

BK: You'll hear "tempo" come up about 700 times in a day's worth of interviews with Lakers players and coaches. Jeremy, what are you expecting from Denver in terms of changes to either the game plan or approach?

JW: I do not honestly know what to expect, because I do not think George Karl even has a solid plan of attack. Denver must respond better to the Lakers' length by showing better interior passing and look for more drive-and-kick options. The lack of movement on offense caused them to constantly attack a defense set and ready to respond to any penetration. You can tell by Karl's rotations he does not know what combination of players to put on the court, another major issue. Denver has lived playing small, especially in crunch time, but with the Lakers' length, that is suicidal. On the other hand, players like JaVale McGee did nothing to show they belong on the court. Denver is in a very tough place and I am not sure there is a clear solution.

(Read full post)

I had looked forward to these three April games between the Lakers and Spurs with great anticipation. I thought they'd be an instructive gauge of the prospects of a deep playoff run for the Lakers. But the results so far have been anticlimactic. Two games with blowout scores in either direction. And both played without Kobe Bryant.

Tonight, however, might buck this disappointing trend. Kobe's set to hit the hardwood after a seven-game absence, putting both teams at full strength. A win for the Lakers creates even more space between them and the Clippers for the Pacific Division title. And despite apparent indifference toward the one-seed, I imagine the Spurs would enjoy the psychological advantage of two wins over L.A. should these teams meet in the postseason. Stakes are in play, and I expect to see both teams working hard for a win.

To preview this game, I had an IM conversation with Timothy Varner from the True Hoop network's 48 Minutes of Hell blog. Below is the transcript.

Timothy Varner: During our last chat, the subject was whether the Spurs could contain Andrew Bynum. I think we have to ask whether the Lakers can contain Tony Parker?

Andy Kamenetzky: I think the Lakers can do a better job. Obviously, Parker is an elite point guard and a handful for every team. But he can't be allowed to become such a devastating scorer and facilitator. 29 points is okay. 13 assists is okay. Both stats aren't. The Lakers need to do a better job forcing the ball out of Parker's hands. Hard traps, hedges and doubles to make him give up the rock, then defend him so it's harder to get the ball back. Also, Ramon Sessions must attack Parker and hopefully draw more fouls. Parker can't do much damage from the bench.

TV: That sounds like a good strategy, but my worry if I'm Mike Brown is the Spurs' offense does such an excellent job of moving the ball -- hard traps, hedges, and doubles might lead to open three pointers.

AK:Sure. That's the problem facing an opponent as talented and versatile offensively as the Spurs. Everyone will need to help and communicate. In the meantime, the Lakers' offense gains a new wrinkle with the return of Kobe. How do you expect the Spurs to defend 24?

TV: By committee—Danny Green, Kawhi Leonard, Manu Ginobili and Stephen Jackson. I'm curious whether Popovich gears his defense more toward Kobe or Bynum?

AK: Were I Pop, Bynum. Not just because Drew's been an exceptionally efficient scorer all season alongside Kobe, but he's also still vulnerable to getting taken out of a game mentally when struggling offensively. When that happens, Bynum's defense can suffer in turn, which hurts the Lakers as a whole. Plus, when you throw the kitchen sink at Drew, he's vulnerable to turning the ball over. And as you may have noticed Tuesday, transition D isn't the Lakers' strong suit.

Kobe sometimes gets caught up in individual battles, and having missed seven games, could work too hard trying to "prove" he's back. But overall, the Lakers live or die with Drew.

TV: I'm also curious what frontcourt the Spurs start. One could make a case for returning to Tiago Splitter, but he and Tim Duncan are not a great pair. Splitter's inability to shoot makes him a better match with Bonner or Diaw. I wouldn't be surprised to see Boris Diaw or Matt Bonner get the start, with Splitter subbing for Duncan.

(Read full post)

After sprinting through 62 games, including Tuesday's disappointing loss to San Antonio at Staples, in what feels like 32 days, the Lakers are in Oakland tonight for a date with a bad Golden State squad. It's the sort of game that, even in this crazy year, should be a cakewalk. Particularly given the question of whether Golden State, having traded or shut down almost all of its high-end talent, is doing whatever it can to lose down the stretch, preserving a first-round pick ticketed for Utah should it fall outside the top seven.

Still, the Lakers would be wise not to take any chances. With guys like Dorell Wright, Nate Robinson and Klay Thompson, at the very least the Warriors will want to get up and down, drawing the Lakers out of their Happy Tempo Zone into something a little too fast. Kobe Bryant will likely miss the game, the last trip to Oracle wasn't exactly satisfying and the Pacific Division is still up for grabs.

More than incentive to stay focused and bury the Dubs, which, given a season-long tendency to play down to the competition, would actually constitute a genuinely positive evening's work. To help gain a little more insight into the team upon which the Lakers should toss an abundance of dirt, we hit up J.M. Poulard of the always entertaining Warriorsworld.net.

1. So word is the Warriors are tanking. True? If so, how's it going?

The Golden State Warriors have lost 17 of their past 22 games, which coincides with the Monta Ellis trade to Milwaukee (for Andrew Bogut). Mind you, it’s one thing to tank and not give the fans anything to cheer about -- yes, Charlotte, I’m looking at you -- but it’s something completely different when the team is able to get the young guys a look, get them to play hard and remain competitive for most of the game and then finally fall to a more talented team late.

The Warriors have been tanking since early March but the fans have had the chance to cheer for their team given their effort. So in short, it’s been a resounding success!

(Read full post)

It's been nearly a week since the Lakers put a very unexpected beatdown on the San Antonio Spurs at the AT&T Center without Kobe Bryant. Since then, the Lakers have ripped Mamba-free wins against Denver and Dallas, and are steadily jelling as a well-rounded team in ways not witnessed all season. Of course, this was also a game in which Andrew Bynum grabbed 30 rebounds and the Spurs' Big Three (Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker) combined for 27 points. In other words, more extreme circumstances than reliable outliers in terms of gauging how these teams match up in a series. The Spurs haven't been one of the NBA's best all season by accident. Assuming they play at full strength (always a question mark with Gregg Popovich), I expect a tighter sequel.

For some thoughts on Lakers-Spurs Part Deux, I had an IM conversation with Timothy Varner from the True Hoop network's 48 Minutes of Hell blog. Below is the transcript.

Andy Kamenetzky: What was the cause of the Spurs' collapse in the first meeting? From start to finish, they just laid an egg.

Timothy Varner: Those who think the Spurs are legitimate contenders always qualify their confidence by saying, "But they're not great against size." For the most part, I agree, although the Spurs did sweep Memphis this season. I suspect the first game was something of a tempest in a teapot. The Spurs should play better against the Lakers in the postseason. However, I will say this. DeJuan Blair is a major defensive liability. He might assume the unusual distinction of starting the majority of games this season, then find himself outside of the playoff rotation. The Spurs' best big-man rotations feature one of Tim Duncan, Tiago Splitter, or Boris Diaw with ... Matt Bonner. Odd, huh?

So is Bynum capable of playing that way for an entire series?

AK: "Thirty rebounds a night" capable? No. The kid's talented, but a joke's a joke. But dominating a series is absolutely realistic. And it's important Drew makes domination a goal. More than any player on the Lakers, Bynum dictates wins or losses. There was a three- to four-week stretch after the All-Star break when his effort and intensity fluctuated, particularly on defense, and the team suffered. Over the past few games, he's been focused, and the difference is as massive as his frame. Bynum's presence on the boards and in the lane makes or breaks the Lakers.

You mentioned Blair's defensive issues. On the season, the D has been merely acceptable for San Antonio. Given how the Lakers have evolved into a team with an increasingly prolific and varied scoring attack, do you picture S.A. able to slow them?

(Read full post)

I've said it many times. In a season in which consistency has been as rare as a four-leaf clover discovered on top of a copy of Superman No. 1, there's been one solid trend for the Lakers. Opponents regarded with contempt on a personal level receive their best efforts, as evidenced by a 3-0 clip against the defending champs. The players on hand, whether Derek Fisher, Ramon Sessions, Brendan Haywood or Delonte West, have changed, but the Lakers' vibe has been metronome-steady. Kobe Bryant might not be available Sunday, and Lamar Odom absolutely won't, but I expect that intensity to be maintained. Particularly in light of Friday's rather promising win over the Nuggets.

To discuss the matchup, I had an IM conversation with Jeff Caplan, who covers the Mavs for ESPN Dallas. Below is the transcript.

Andy Kamenetzky: From a psychological standpoint, what does Odom's departure do for Dallas?

Jeff Caplan: The first thing is it removes daily frustration and exasperation from the locker room. His behavior was such that I believe players questioned his commitment, and have for some time. Mark Cuban and Rick Carlisle were as patient as possible, believing at some point he would turn things around and contribute. Finally, Cuban saw zero desire emanating from Odom and pulled the plug. The Mavs thrived with an all-for-one mentality last season and now can get back to that.

AK: Even acknowledging Odom's disengagement and poor play, has he been a convenient scapegoat at all for Dallas' underwhelming season?

JC: Absolutely. For evidence that it wasn't just Lamar, just look at Thursday night at Golden State. The Mavs were up 19 in the first half, then allowed the Warriors to cut it to three early in the fourth before turning it on again. That's a staple of this team this year: No lead is safe. That's mostly due to an offense ranking around 20th all year in scoring average and field goal percentage. But I don't think anyone within the organization has said, "It's all Lamar's fault" or "Now that he's gone, we're about to roll." I think there's now just more of a workmanlike mentality, with players going about their business. This is mostly a drama-free locker room led by Dirk Nowitzki, who is unlike any superstar I've ever been around.

The big question is will Shawn Marion have anyone to defend? What's Kobe's status with the shin and is anybody getting worried?

(Read full post)