semi-sentient wrote:TrueLAfan wrote:You're actually kind of making the case for Kareem...noting that when Kareem played poorly, the Lakers couldn't win. (And, to be honest, Kareem's Game 4 was still good--he only had 6 boards, but he had 21 points on 12 shots, and held Parish to 10 points on 4-10 shooting.) On the other hand, when Kareem played great, he carried the team--and that's what stars do. Magic was great, but I don't really remember anyone saying "Y'know, this Finals MVP could be Magic!" When you were watching, Kareem played like a man possessed. I can't put Cap over Magic overall, because I thought Magic had the better regular season. But in the finals, I think there was a very, very strong consensus that Kareem led the team and was the best player on the court.
I should have been more specific, but my response was primarily to refute Kareem ahead of Magic overall. I'm fine with Kareem being Finals MVP, but I don't think he out-played Magic to a point where he should be getting ranked higher in terms of POY. I still believe there's a case to be made for Magic due to consistency, but I certainly have no issue with Kareem getting it. He was just as (if not more, like others believe) deserving and had some very dominant performances (30pts/17reb/8ast in game 2, 26pts/14reb/7ast in game 3, 36pts/7reb/7ast in game 5).
Admittedly cursory look at the series -- what drove it -- but I see, simply, a Lakers team that won or lost based on pace.
Game 1, as a prime example. No control.
Game 4, a lost opportunity and, at least bordering on, something that could have been a series-killer, if not choke.
Who was blamed for that game? It would seem, with the addendum of this being a singular piece of evidence, that Magic was:
And especially tough for Magic, because he suddenly finds himself being criticized by certain members of the national media for making a crucial mistake that cost the Lakers another big game.
It occurred with 4:50 left in the game and the Celtics ahead 97-96. Magic was dribbling the ball out at the head of the key and it slipped from his hands right into the grasp of Larry Bird, who went to the other end and hit an 8-foot fall-away.
Magic, it has been charged, was guilty of gagging on the last few minutes of a tight situation again. But while there were enough similarities to what occurred a year ago to let one's mind get carried away, it would seem to be foolish to blame Johnson for this one.
To do that would be to overlook a brilliant triple-double of 20 points, 12 assists and 11 rebounds by Johnson. To do that would be to overlook the fact that it was he who hit an offensive rebound basket after a missed sky hook by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar with 19 seconds remaining.
To do that would be to ignore the fact that there were 17 possessions by the two teams after Johnson's turnover. To do that would be to overlook Abdul-Jabbar's total of just
six rebounds in Game 4 after pulling down 31 in the previous two games. If the Laker team captain had attacked the boards with anywhere near the ferocity he showed in the previous two LA victories, the Lakers would have won by double digits and owner Jerry Buss would have the championship rings on order already.
When it is all over, perhaps following another seventh-game classic at Boston Garden, it will have been the fourth game that turned it all around. The difference is that last year Game 4 is when the series turned physical, but this time it was the night when a physical turned mild.
Were the Lakers intimidated by the pregame talk that Scotty Stirling, NBA vice president of operations, had with head coaches K.C. Jones and Pat Riley about cutting out the rough stuff?
Did Riley make a mistake in stressing the talk with Stirling to his team in his pregame comments?
And what about the late strategy of Riley that kept the defensive specialist, Cooper, on the bench for the final play and opting to go with the double-team on Bird, which allowed Johnson to rotate into the open spot in the defense to get off his game-winning shot?
Yet it seems to be Magic who is the only Laker having to defend himself, despite his brilliant effort.
Ah yes, the critics say, wasn't D.J. the man that Magic is responsible for guarding one on one?
"Bird has hit too many big shots to ignore him and not double," Johnson said. "You've got to go over there and double up on him in that situation. You'd always rather have somebody else beat you than the best guy on their whole team."
Game 5, then, is the true lynchpin for this series and, though Kareem had a spectacular game, I think Magic may have been better, based on what is typically described as 'intangibles' (don't strictly agree with the description, but...): basically, pace control.
The Lakers put Boston on their heels from the beginning. And, even more telling, they were able to not only play their game but get the Celtics to play it as well -- there was little sense of the Celtics expressing their will or presence in the halfcourt in game five, with them often willingly and moronically running the ball and taking shots that implied or plain explicated desperation.
From what I saw, Magic gets the majority of the credit on pace-control, as one would assume of a truly great playmaker.
Further, when the Celtics made a couple of runs, one in the fourth, it was created with Magic on the bench, and the halfcourt game finally (finally!) working; on the other hand, this was with Kareem on the floor, yet it again was redundantly driven home that the Lakers were pretty miserable in this context. As far as praise, one typically expects a post-presence to create great halfcourt results, but this did not happen in game five for Kareem and the Lakers.
An argument against Magic, from my vantage, is that it seems the Celtics saw him, however wrongly (as he proved; nothing like disconnecting a supposition in its preface), as a liability on offense from range; very concerned, rightly, with Kareem.
This also contrasts strongly with Bird whom, it's obvious again and again, is either the biggest presence on the court as far as defensive gameplanning or 1b.
Don't get that feeling from Magic here. A big argument to the side of Bird, even Kareem.
And, despite the arguments on stats, I saw a lot of creation from Bird in the Memorial Day Massacre. Huge presence.
But that's a macro and proxy argument, though different on skillsets, for Magic and his career: more than his base stats. Saw that in game five.
Addendum would be that for all of Magic's pace-control and leadership in that game, it looked as if LA was tight in the fourth. Like they were waiting to cough it up.
But credit due, they overcame that. At the same time, how impressive can that be for a team that was so big on talent?
That, in fact, is another concern I have with really high rankings for both Kareem and Magic. Two of the top five players in the game, on the best and deepest roster overall, yet a beat up Larry Bird, playing under par, and a Celtics team struggling, relatively, on depth and talent, push the Lakers pretty hard over the six games?
It would seem that Bird is going to get my number 1 yet again. The only question is whether Kareem and Magic hurt each other's arguments. I think it's arguable.
