ESPN

MORE EXIT INTERVIEWS:

• Ramon Sessions
• Jordan Hill
• Metta World Peace

Second year forward Devin Ebanks began the year as the starting small forward, playing 81 minutes in the first four games before Mike Brown replaced him in the first five with Matt Barnes.

Over the next 52 games, Ebanks logged a total of 73 minutes before a shin injury to Kobe Bryant and Metta World Peace's suspension put him back in the starting lineup for the last 10 regular season games and the first six against Denver in the opening round of the playoffs. In the first five games after World Peace's return, Ebanks played a total of four minutes. Monday night in Game 5, Ebanks served as the backup 3 over a slumping Barnes, playing 16 minutes.

Fair to say Ebanks rode the playing time roller coaster this year, a difficult thing for young players.

(Read full post)

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)

Throughout April and the playoffs, Mike Brown has periodically employed a backcourt of Ramon Sessions and Steve Blake, with the latter at the two and almost inevitably overwhelmed by his defensive assignment. The most recent example came in the first half of Game 4, where Andre Miller continually bullied Blake while matched against him. It's not Blake's fault he struggles in these situations. He's simply giving up a lot of size. All the while, Devin Ebanks, who proved himself capable at the spot while filling in for Kobe Bryant, sits on the bench watching. Land O' Lakers regulars are well aware of my recurrent frustration at Brown's unwillingness to use the bigger/longer Ebanks in these scenarios whenever possible.

In the grand scheme of things, this is hardly the worst move Brown could make as a coach, but it's one I've nonetheless found curious. Thus, after Monday's practice in El Segundo, Brian and I got Brown's perspective on the matter. Below is a transcript of the conversation:

Land O' Lakers: What's the thinking behind keeping Sessions and Blake together, because it seems like, more defensively, it causes some problems? Andre Miller, for example, has been pushing Steve around, although he pushes a lot of people around.

Mike Brown: Yeah, he has. Steve has actually fought him fairly well. He's fought better than Sesh, to a certain degree. But we do that because [it's] more ball handling, more ball skilled guys out on the floor. If you look at last year's NBA champions, the Dallas Mavericks, they played with even two smaller guards in J.J. Barea and Jason Terry. So to have two ball-skilled guys out there, especially with the second unit at times, is good for us.

Part of it, too, is because we know Denver is doubling often and when they double right now, Steve is shooting a little bit better than Matt (Barnes) and/or Ebanks. So that is another reason we do it, because we don't feel like we drop dramatically on the defensive end when we have Steve on the floor instead of Ebanks or Matt.

LO'L: Even in those situations where someone like Miller has that size advantage?

MB: Well, he hasn't done a good enough job to -- knock on wood -- hurt us down the stretch for it to be effective. He hit a couple of buckets [Sunday night] that I thought were extremely tough. Like the one he drove and kind of threw up the play.

LO'L: Sure. Down the stretch, it was much different than during the first half.

MB: Correct. But the first half, stuff's gonna happen over the course of the game. We watched [film] today with the team, if we would have doubled [Miller] the correct way or at least helped out on him the correct way in the first half like we did in second half, then he wouldn't have had the first half that he had. Our first half defense, and in particular our first quarter defense, was not good. That was one of the things I talked with our guys about. Guys didn't do what they were supposed to do defensively in guarding the pick-and-roll, the post-up and pin-downs. We kind of made up our own coverages at times and we paid the price. That's why it was 28-26 in the first quarter, but if you watch the game, every quarter we got better and better, because we got tighter with our coverages and we did it without fouling.

(Editor's note: Later, Brown actually led Brian and I onto the court, and walked us through situations where doubles didn't arrive. He also noted how doubling off a non-scoring big like Kenneth Faried was an option often available, and how generally uncomplicated the approach was.)

(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)

A few themes played prominent Monday afternoon after the Lakers finished practice in El Segundo. Trust was a big theme, looking back at the final minute of Sunday's Game 4 win in Denver. Mike Brown talked about the play of L.A.'s small forwards in the absence of Metta World Peace, as well as the work Andrew Bynum did last night.

More than anything, though, the Lakers talked about ending the series Tuesday night in Game 5. Don't screw around, don't give the Nuggets life, don't add wear to the collective tread. (And should anyone think the Lakers might intentionally look to toss Game 5 so that World Peace might be eligible for Game 1 of the next round, please stop. A) It's a horrible idea. B) Asked about it this afternoon, Brown thought the reporter was joking.)

Here are all the moving pictures from Thursday ...

Kobe Bryant, on showing trust in his teammates late in Sunday's game, adjusting to officiating, and the nature of closeout games:

Bryant, on pick and roll execution, and some interesting comments on why having stars matters late in games. "It's not really about having one guy, it's about having somebody that's going to demand double teams and free everybody up. That's really what it's about. We have three."

Click below for more video from Brown and Bynum...

(Read full post)

Sitting at the podium an hour or so ahead of Game 1, Denver coach George Karl spoke about the serious star power at the top of the Lakers roster. You do your best, he said, but sometimes only so much can be done about Kobe Bryant, Pau Gasol, and Andrew Bynum.

What Karl really wanted to avoid were the "wild cards." If the big names beat you, so be it. Don't let it be the other guys.

For most of the season, suppressing L.A.'s supporting cast didn't exactly require a yeoman's effort. Generally, they took care of it themselves. The Lakers bench was the NBA's least prolific, and the starting small forward and point guard brought little to the table, as well. However, things turned around down the stretch. Metta World Peace found his groove (before getting suspended for an elbow to the head of James Harden). Steve Blake showed signs of life. Jordan Hill squeaked into the rotation at the 59th minute of the 11th hour, and Matt Barnes, consistent all season, put up big numbers in the final weeks.

Their improvement greatly increased the odds of a genuinely noisy postseason run for the Lakers. Such things take a village, after all. Now four games into their opening round series against the Nuggets, the L.A. has a 3-1 lead.

How have the most notable "wild cards" impacted things thus far? Taking a look at four...

(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)

Put away the brooms, Lakers fans! Visions of a sweep are officially dead.

The Nuggets got out to an early lead Friday night in Denver, and parlayed that hot start into a 99-84 win. As has been the case in all three games, Denver crushed on the offensive glass, and rebounding was probably the single biggest reason the hosts controlled the game from nearly start to finish. That, and defense. The Nuggets played some, while the Lakers only periodically bothered, especially in the first quarter, and especially when it came to protecting the rim. Thus, Ty Lawson did his thing, and JaVale McGee suddenly became a factor.

On tonight's show, we detail the ginormous hole the Lakers put themselves in thanks to a lackluster start, as well as...

• A tale of two halves for Andrew Bynum. Scoreless in the first, dominant in the third, worn out by the end.
• Tough sledding for Kobe Bryant, who continues to struggle offensively at the Pepsi Center. Was his 7-of-23 a blip in the series, or the start of a trend?
• Limited help from the supporting cast. There were no "wild cards," as George Karl put it before Game 1.
• Questions about the limited burn for Devin Ebanks. Would it have hurt to have him on the floor more than 16 minutes?

That, plus some funky, funky timpani!

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 may be up 2-0 over Denver in the playoffs, but that doesn't mean there isn't plenty of issues rattling around in the head of the average Laker fan.

What becomes of Devin Ebanks once Metta World Peace returns from suspension? What can the Lakers do to prevent the Nuggets from replicating Game 2's track meet pace? And do LeBron James and Dwayne Wade owe Kobe a royalty check on every chase-down block?

The transcript is here.

The Lakers remain undefeated in the Mike Brown postseason era, despite the Nuggets' pesky refusal to wave the white flag. The showing in Game 2 on Tuesday wasn't nearly as dominant as in Game 1, and I imagine Brown will point out more mistakes in Wednesday's film session. But the bottom line is the Lakers are up 2-0, and you can't ask for anything better. Here are four takeaways from the game.

1) When Kobe gets rolling, it's just ridiculous.
Heading into this series, Kobe Bryant hadn't shot the ball well against Denver this season. Thus, after his slow first half in Game 1, 14 fourth-quarter points and a steadily increasing efficiency felt like a nice omen of his having figured out Denver's scheme against him. Then again, Tuesday night didn't necessarily present a big mystery to unravel. George Karl opted largely to guard Kobe in single coverage with either Arron Afflalo or Corey Brewer, the first among the better wing defenders in the NBA, and the second certainly credible. And in both cases, they were rendered pretty helpless. Bryant's first basket was a rather emphatic dunk off a cross-court baseline feed from Matt Barnes, quite the announcement of his intentions to own this game. From there, the reins were never relinquished en route to 38 points on 15-for-29 shooting.

Shots were drained from inside, outside and all points in between. Whether attacking the rim, working in isolation, spinning baseline, fading away, jab-stepping, head-faking, pulling up or using his super status to get away with the mother of all push-offs, Bryant emptied his proverbial bag. And as we've learned over the years, it holds an awful lot of tricks. The second half probably featured a little too much one-on-one for the good of the overall offense. But at the same time, his night was pretty efficient and often spellbinding.

The timeliness of his makes also was key. With just more than four minutes in the game and Denver starting to gain momentum, Kobe found himself faced up against Afflalo yet again. This was a possession on which the Lakers really needed a basket, a moment their leader always knows. A few jab steps later, a 3-ball dropped, and the Lakers were back up by eight. He also drained a pair of free throws with 9.4 seconds on the clock, keeping the lead at five and essentially ending Denver's quest to push overtime.

Although really, Bryant's best plays of the night might have come on the defensive end. In the second half, after Steve Blake missed a 3-pointer, Denver was off to the races yet again, with Al Harrington on the receiving end of a home run pass from Andre Miller. Kobe, 33 years old and hopped up on German medicine, chased down Big Al from behind and blocked what should have been a flush. Then, with 2:21 left to play, Kenneth Faried couldn't hang on to a home run pass from Ty Lawson, and a scrum ensued for the loose ball. Kobe came up with the rock, sped down court, absorbed contact from one defender, and wrapped a pass around Danilo Gallinari to Andrew Bynum for a dunk and a six-point lead.

In a game in which Denver continued to claw for survival, Kobe made sure to cut off the oxygen supply whenever possible.

(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)

The three most common ways the word "discipline" is applied to the Lakers:

1) As a verb to convey punishment handed down by the league. The most recent examples include Metta World Peace's current seven-game suspension, or the four-game sentence served at the beginning of the season by Andew Bynum.

2) With the prefix "un" in front of it, and a "d" at the end.

3) As part of the phrase "a team that lacks discipline."

One element that's always impressed me about the Spurs throughout the Popovich/Duncan era is the methodical nature of those teams. Whether up 15, down 15, or in the middle of a close game, they always seemed to be playing exactly the same way. Players become metronomes in high-tops, plugging away towards a common purpose rarely if ever abandoned. Obviously, like all teams, the Spurs will experience mental lapses. But rare are the games where I've seen San Antonio beat itself, and that's in part because, collectively and consistently, they're an exceptionally disciplined bunch.

On the flip side, this is my seventh season covering the Lakers, and even during the winning titles stretches, a disciplined approach has never been their calling card. This is a group with a penchant for inexplicably breaking away from what's working, typically because they'd rather settle for jumpers than make an extra pass to find a better shot. Impatience rears its ugly head on a regular basis. Short cuts will be taken in an attempt to knock out a team in the third quarter, rather than systematically build a lead through four. Minds will wander with a cushion, and that daydreaming allows an opponent to get back into a contest.

In broader terms, the issue would be labeled "inconsistency," but I've always felt the root of the problem is a lack of personal discipline.

Thus, it kind of blew my mind Sunday watching the Lakers play what was certainly their most disciplined game of the season, and perhaps the last few years. When you go down the checklist of matters requiring restraint against the Nuggets, the Lakers passed with flying colors.

- From start to finish, the Lakers controlled tempo through an insistence on forcing their pace and refusing to get sucked into Denver's running game. Shots were launched sensibly within the offense, which cut down on run-out opportunities against an unbalanced defense. They also took care of the ball, turning it over just 11 times against a squad capable of inducing turnovers. And on the occasions where Denver did shift into fifth gear, transition defense was in furious effect, the angles cut off and the lane protected. Even Matt Barnes, playing on a bad ankle, managed to track down Corey Brewer from behind and poke the ball away.

On the season, the Nuggets led the league in points in the paint (53.4) and fast break points (19.8), while ranking third in points off turnovers (19.7). On Sunday, they scored just 44 total in the paint, 19 fast break points and 12 points off turnovers. The Lakers can easily live with those results.

- Defensively, the Lakers were as alert, alive and active. Denvers shooters were rarely left wide open, even by bigs forced to challenge in space or along the perimeter. Rotations were crisp and purposeful. Bynum clearly turned the game upside down with his paint presence, but Pau Gasol and Jordan Hill also blocked a pair of shots. Denver shot a miserable 35.6 percent from the field and 28.6 percent from Downtown en route to a scant 88 points, all far below the seasonal averages of the NBA's most prolific team.

- On Friday, I wrote about the pressure facing Devin Ebanks, Hill and Ramon Sessions while making their postseason debuts. All three are young players, potentially prone to the magnitude of this moment. But rather than attempting to do too much or playing out of control, we saw a trio of composed performances. Unfortunately, Hill is now dealing with a potential distraction, but in theory, this was a nice sign for the less experienced Lakers moving forward.

Again, it was a triumph of discipline, the importance of which can't be overlooked.

(Read full post)

He's not exactly healthy -- asked what causes pain for his sprained right ankle, he replied "Moving." -- but Matt Barnes will play Sunday when the Lakers and Nuggets open up their first round series at Staples Center.

Needless to say (but I'll say it anyway), this is spectacularly good news for the Lakers.

Already down Metta World Peace to suspension, facing Denver's depth and versatility the Lakers could ill afford to lose Barnes, leaving Devin Ebanks as the only available small forward not named Christian Eyenga. Now they have to hope Barnes, so reliant on energy and activity, can press through the pain and play his game, something he wasn't fully able to do last spring while fighting a knee injury. If he can't cut hard, move out on the break, or aggressively crash the glass, Barnes isn't nearly as effective. This is before we talk about the defensive side of the ball.

Coach Mike Brown still plans to start Ebanks, a smart choice allowing him to maintain continuity with the rest of his rotation, but Barnes is slated for heavy minutes. One of the more interesting things to watch over the course of the series will be the effectiveness of both on the offensive glass. Both Ebanks and Barnes posted offensive rebound rates near the top of the league among small forwards.

It doesn't serve the Lakers for them to be timid, but awareness will be key (with the 3's and the team as a whole). Well executed, aggressive work on the offensive glass will force the Nuggets to stick around the defensive end a little longer, taking some starch out of their transition game. On the other hand, mistakes will fuel Denver's attack.

"You've just got to pick and choose," Barnes said Saturday after practice. "We watched a lot of film on what we've done this year, what's been effective, and there are still times to go to the glass with them. You just have to pick and choose, because [Ty] Lawson's a one-man break, and Andre Miller likes to get the ball out and throw it ahead. So I've just got to be smart about when I crash."

Brown made it clear he doesn't want either to feel limited, but also emphasized judgment. A miscue here and there can be tolerated, but should either string a couple together Brown won't be shy about making substitutions.



Click below for more video from Saturday's practice, including Kobe Bryant, Ramon Sessions, Andrew Bynum, and Ebanks.

(Read full post)

A lot of factors can swing a playoff series. Individual and stylistic matchups. Home court advantage. Coaching. Unconsciously hot shooting. Injuries. Star power. And of course, experience. While oodles of "been there, done that" doesn't guarantee a championship (just ask the 2011 Los Angeles Lakers), it's never a bad thing to be well acquainted with the postseason. To a man, every player I've every spoken with has readily acknowledged the playoffs are an entirely different animal from the regular season. If you're not ready, that shift can be quite the eye-opener.

Over the last few years, we've grown accustomed to the Lakers as one of the NBA's more playoff-ready teams. In 2009, they won the title with a core one campaign removed from a trip to the Finals. In 2010, they repeated with an entire team -- save then-Ron Artest -- armed with at least one ring. 2011 may have ended with a whimper, but on paper, the Lakers' pedigree was perfect: A mix of reigning champions and seasoned veterans (Matt Barnes, Steve Blake) hungry to join the club.

This year, however, the roster composition is fairly different. Beyond the team being down to just four players with championship credentials (low by recent standards), they're not nearly as playoff-tested. In the "Pau" era, the only rotation player with essentially no playoff experience was Shannon Brown in 2009. This season, there are three. Ramon Sessions, Devin Ebanks and Jordan Hill all figure to play notable minutes, and all are making their postseason debuts this Sunday. (Oddly enough, Troy Murphy only has three minutes of playoff experience after 11 seasons, but at least he's a 11-year vet and his minutes will likely be sporadic.) Much is particularly expected of Sessions, but all will be asked to contribute on this elevated stage. There's no real way to comprehend what's in store for them beyond actually experiencing it. But that doesn't mean wisdom can't be imparted. With that in mind, I gathered perspective and memories from some of their teammates who've been there.

KOBE BRYANT
First playoff game: 4/25/97 vs. Portland, as a member of the Lakers

What felt immediately different in the playoffs?
"It's more physical. The game speeds up. The opposition really gets a chance to study your game and take away your strengths, so you have to make sure you have a well balanced attack. You have to make sure you think the game all the way through, because in the playoffs, things don't happen by accident. In the regular season, sometimes they do. In the postseason, they don't."

The Preparation
"Oh, man. I crammed so much. I knew every single play before they were running it. I was so hyped up, man! I studied the entire playbook, and Nick (Van Exel) and them were looking at me like I was crazy. 'What are you going?'

I was like, 'Isn't this what we're supposed to do?'

"Okay, young fella."

"Well, this is what I do."

Were there moments it paid off?
"It didn't really pay off much for me. I didn't play worth a s--- anyway." (laughs) I'm serious. But I learned a lot about the plays and different pro sets and from series to series, it was interesting to see how many teams essentially ran the same thing. So it was a good learning opportunity for me.

"If you don't do your preparation before Game 1, you don't know what adjustments are coming anyway. You have nothing to base if off of. For me, I did a great deal of studying, so I was able to watch from the bench, see what adjustments they made. See how they played Nick on screen/rolls. How they played Eddie (Jones') cuts. Shaq (O'Neal) in the post and all this stuff. So I learned a lot.

"They're small adjustments, but they're big adjustments. Sometimes the smallest moves give you the biggest returns."

Do you plan to talk with Sessions, Ebanks and Hill?
"Yeah, but the only message is to be fundamentally sound and minimize mistakes. That's really what it's about in every profession. In basketball, all it's about is minimizing your turnovers, controlling the glass, and controlling the tempo. And then everything else kind of gets into the execution of things."

(Read full post)