Lakers down 0-2

[slinslin]

I say San Antonio takes at least one game at Staples and the series end at 5 or at worst 6 games.

Lakers lose, Kobe bolts!

 

[carey]

Is that boxscore right? Tony Parker scored 30 pionts on the glove? Right after he was complainging about playing time?

 

[elindholm]

I watched almost the entire game. Parker destroyed Payton. Because of switches, they weren't matched up one-on-one all the time, but Parker was just too quick and too fluid without the ball. And it didn't hurt that he sank every shot he took.

I'm still expecting the Lakers to win the series and the title thereafter. If they don't, however, I can see where I will have been wrong about their season: Payton. I expected Payton to have a bigger impact than Malone, but instead he has been below average among the league's starting point guards this season. And in the playoffs, he's been even worse.

 

[George O'Brien]

When you look at the box score, it is pretty amazing. The Lakers shot 51% from the field (but the Spurs shot 52%) and out rebounded the Spurs 42-33. But the Lakers had 15 turnovers to only 8 by the Spurs and the Spurs took 30 foul shots to only 18 by the Lakers. Shaq led the clank parade by hitting only 2 of 7 fould shots.

Shaq had 32 points, but Kobe had only 15 (7-17).

 

[F-Dog]

I'm still expecting the Lakers to win the series and the title thereafter. If they don't, however, I can see where I will have been wrong about their season: Payton. I expected Payton to have a bigger impact than Malone, but instead he has been below average among the league's starting point guards this season. And in the playoffs, he's been even worse.

Payton's defense had fallen apart by last year--that's why Seattle traded him and Milwaukee let him walk. One reason he took the MLE from the Lakers is that nobody else was offering him much more.

(From what I read, though, Tony Parker has always dominated Payton--even in the exhibition season of Parker's rookie year.)


The reason I didn't expect the Lakers to win this year, even after picking up two more HOFers, is that they really didn't address the problems that got them knocked out last year: lack of team speed and (to a lesser extent) lack of quality depth. Obviously, they improved in the other direction--more star power, more physical play, more offense--but my thought was that that improvement wouldn't matter much, thanks to the law of diminishing returns.

This year's Lakers are one-dimensional. Any team that can compete with them in that dimension and also has some team speed has got to be favored against them--not just the Spurs, but a healthy Wolves or Kings team as well.

 

[elindholm]

The reason I didn't expect the Lakers to win this year, even after picking up two more HOFers

I expected the TV issues to override that. The league needs the Lakers to do well. In close games, that should be enough to make a difference. But if the Spurs keep blowing them out, the "marquee advantage" won't do enough good.

 

[F-Dog]

The reason I didn't expect the Lakers to win this year, even after picking up two more HOFers

I expected the TV issues to override that. The league needs the Lakers to do well. In close games, that should be enough to make a difference. But if the Spurs keep blowing them out, the "marquee advantage" won't do enough good.

The TV issues were there last year too, though.

 

[elindholm]

The TV issues were there last year too, though.

Not really. The Lakers had won three years running and the league could more easily afford a different champion. The Spurs-Nets series put up terrible ratings, but if you get burned like that only once in a while, it's not so bad.

Also, Game 6 of the Kings-Lakers series in 2002 sparked outrage in fans across the league. Even Ralph Nader got in on the act, as you probably remember. The officials were more conscious than ever not to give the Lakers too much in the way of judgement calls in 2003, and that's why they lost.

 

[F-Dog]

The TV issues were there last year too, though.

Not really. The Lakers had won three years running and the league could more easily afford a different champion. The Spurs-Nets series put up terrible ratings, but if you get burned like that only once in a while, it's not so bad.

Also, Game 6 of the Kings-Lakers series in 2002 sparked outrage in fans across the league. Even Ralph Nader got in on the act, as you probably remember. The officials were more conscious than ever not to give the Lakers too much in the way of judgement calls in 2003, and that's why they lost.

That may be true.

In any case, it now looks as though the referees' love of the Lakers was favoritism for the established, powerful team rather than a response to dictates from above. The Lakers didn't seem to bring much home cooking with them to San Antonio.

 

[elindholm]

In any case, it now looks as though the referees' love of the Lakers was favoritism for the established, powerful team rather than a response to dictates from above.

Just to clarify, I for one have never seen it as "dictates from above." I think the bias operates on a much subtler level. Officials know that it's better for everyone if the Lakers win, and that influences their calls in ways they aren't even aware of. But I don't think they were ever "instructed" to tip the scales.

The Lakers didn't seem to bring much home cooking with them to San Antonio.

You can say that again! If anything, I thought the Lakers were getting the short end of the calls in Game 2. (I couldn't watch Game 1.)