Laker's supporting cast - over rated ?

[Jordan23Forever]

Sample size for Artest is small, granted. Unfortunately he was suspended/injured for much of the next two seasons. How can you not call 40% shooting struggling? You said that he's never struggled against Bowen, and I just showed you a 5+ season stretch (17 meetings) that most would consider struggling (on average; he did have a couple of good games in there). I'm actually not dogging Kobe for his shooting here (though I could ), just saying that I don't think your point is necessarily valid.

[Silver Bullet]

Sample size for Artest is small, granted. Unfortunately he was suspended/injured for much of the next two seasons. How can you not call 40% shooting struggling? You said that he's never struggled against Bowen, and I just showed you a 5+ season stretch (17 meetings) that most would consider struggling (on average; he did have a couple of good games in there). I'm actually not dogging Kobe for his shooting here (though I could ), just saying that I don't think your point is necessarily valid.

The point is not necessarily that Kobe struggles/doesn't struggle against Bowen, it's that it is unreasonable to infer Player A struggles against Player X, Player B doesn't struggle against player Y, therefore Player B is better.

I would expect the opposing players percentages to go down when going up against Bowen, by at least a few points. -3 ppg on 40% shooting is not necessarily struggling, though I don't have problem against anyone who chooses to characterize it as such.

[Jordan23Forever]

A 5% drop in FG% plus a 1-2 ppg drop in volume is about the best anyone can hope to do against an elite scorer like Kobe. For reference, that's basically what the Pistons in the '04 Finals accomplished relative to Kobe's averages that season (24.0 ppg/43.8% FG on the season vs. 22.6 ppg/38.1% FG in the Finals). And I don't know anyone who wouldn't say that he struggled that series.

EDIT: I do agree with your first paragraph, however. All defensive players have different strengths/weaknesses, as do all offensive players; hence, some defenders will be better matchups vs. some offensive players than others.

[wreck]

LA's bench sucks this year, with the exception of lamar (he plays starter minutes though). if you are consistently giving up a 20 pt lead that the starting unit built up, you suck.

What 20 point lead do the starts build up? Are you using Game 5 vs. Utah as your only example?

Last I checked, in most games the bench normally comes in to start the 2nd quarter and takes the lead or increases the lead until the starters come back in and make the game close again.

[EHL]

Kobe averaged 28 ppg on just a hair under 45% shooting against Bowen and the Spurs during their 3 combined postseason matchups (2002, 2003, and 2004). If you include the 2008 postseason it's even higher after he averaged 26 ppg on 53%. No one cares about regular season matchups if he was consistently dominating in the postseason. And that overall that's against defense better than at any prior point in NBA history including any team Jordan ever saw (as if anyone here is really impressed with someone dominating 6'4" 190lbs John Starks who can't touch Bowen, or even driving on Ewing himself who was really, in the end, as soft as David Robinson).

[shobe_81]

LA's bench sucks this year, with the exception of lamar (he plays starter minutes though). if you are consistently giving up a 20 pt lead that the starting unit built up, you suck.

What 20 point lead do the starts build up? Are you using Game 5 vs. Utah as your only example?

Last I checked, in most games the bench normally comes in to start the 2nd quarter and takes the lead or increases the lead until the starters come back in and make the game close again.

Last you checked, you must have seen 1 or 2 games of the Lakers the entire season. Believe me, as a person who has watched almost all of the games this season, the Lakers bench is notorious for giving up huge leads and then the starters have to come back and bail them out.

[Frosty]

And that overall that's against defense better than at any prior point in NBA history including any team Jordan ever saw (as if anyone here is really impressed with someone dominating 6'4" 190lbs John Starks who can't touch Bowen, or even driving on Ewing himself who was really, in the end, as soft as David Robinson).

[guy1]

Kobe averaged 28 ppg on just a hair under 45% shooting against Bowen and the Spurs during their 3 combined postseason matchups (2002, 2003, and 2004). If you include the 2008 postseason it's even higher after he averaged 26 ppg on 53%. No one cares about regular season matchups if he was consistently dominating in the postseason. And that overall that's against defense better than at any prior point in NBA history including any team Jordan ever saw (as if anyone here is really impressed with someone dominating 6'4" 190lbs John Starks who can't touch Bowen, or even driving on Ewing himself who was really, in the end, as soft as David Robinson).

John Starks might not be as good of a defender as Bowen, but since he was allowed to do more on defense because of lesser rules, he was probably just as effective as Bowen is. And you lose credibility with that last statement. Robinson is without a doubt one of the greatest defenders ever, and Ewing was great also.

[WadeKnicks2010]

You can't call the best supporting cast in the NBA overrated.

[Silver Bullet]

Kobe averaged 28 ppg on just a hair under 45% shooting against Bowen and the Spurs during their 3 combined postseason matchups (2002, 2003, and 2004). If you include the 2008 postseason it's even higher after he averaged 26 ppg on 53%. No one cares about regular season matchups if he was consistently dominating in the postseason. And that overall that's against defense better than at any prior point in NBA history including any team Jordan ever saw (as if anyone here is really impressed with someone dominating 6'4" 190lbs John Starks who can't touch Bowen, or even driving on Ewing himself who was really, in the end, as soft as David Robinson).

John Starks might not be as good of a defender as Bowen, but since he was allowed to do more on defense because of lesser rules, he was probably just as effective as Bowen is. And you lose credibility with that last statement. Robinson is without a doubt one of the greatest defenders ever, and Ewing was great also.

that's really a myth. Premier defenders in the NBA, in the post-season, are allowed as much contact as they ever have. Are you telling me the Celtics were called for touch fouls and hand checks.

[SimonAdebisi]

Bowen is definitely allowed to play more physical than most players, he gets the defensive superstar calls. He's definitely a guy that will go on Kobe's resume. Even at his current old age, he's completely shutting people down, as he did to Jason Terry in the series.

[EHL]

Kobe averaged 28 ppg on just a hair under 45% shooting against Bowen and the Spurs during their 3 combined postseason matchups (2002, 2003, and 2004). If you include the 2008 postseason it's even higher after he averaged 26 ppg on 53%. No one cares about regular season matchups if he was consistently dominating in the postseason. And that overall that's against defense better than at any prior point in NBA history including any team Jordan ever saw (as if anyone here is really impressed with someone dominating 6'4" 190lbs John Starks who can't touch Bowen, or even driving on Ewing himself who was really, in the end, as soft as David Robinson).

John Starks might not be as good of a defender as Bowen, but since he was allowed to do more on defense because of lesser rules, he was probably just as effective as Bowen is. And you lose credibility with that last statement. Robinson is without a doubt one of the greatest defenders ever, and Ewing was great also.

No doubt, both Ewing and Robinson were brilliant defenders, mostly terrific weak side and help. But there's a reason Ewing has always had the choker tag and Robinson the flounder tag (or dolphin, can't remember which fish). In fact, I'll revise my previous statement and say for sure that Robinson was softer than Ewing, that was a mis-statement on my part. I just get a kick out of posters that continue to not give Bryant (a clearly inferior player to Jordan no questions asked) any credit for dominating the Spurs for years, including 2001 when he averaged 30/7/7/50% against Duncan AND Robinson (Bowen didn't arrive until a year later). The Spurs were an historically fantastic defensive team during every single one of Bryant's postseason matchups with them too. And in reality, the defensive rules between 2000 and 2004 were clearly more stringent than at any time in NBA history including any period in the 90's. That's not just observation, that can be backed up statistically; teams such as the 03 and 04 Pistons and 2000-2004 Spurs routinely racked up some of the best defensive efficiencies of all time.

Granted, I don't necessarily think the defensive personnel on those Pistons or Spurs teams of this decade were necessarily better than the Bad Boy Pistons or Ewing Knicks of the early 90's, but the rules enforced at the time effectively allowed this decades' Pistons and Spurs teams to be superior defensively to both those early 90's Knicks/Bad Boy teams (statistically and otherwise). In fact it wasn't even close, Spurs' average defensive efficiency was statistically superior every single season between 2000 and 2004 (rule changes started in 04-05) than any team Jordan ever faced. And it's not like the NBA didn't try to minimize contact themselves in the 90's, they cleaned up contact in the 1994-1995 season, specifically stating so publicly. And it clearly showed in the defensive efficiency statistics; the best defensive team allowed 98.2 points per 100 possessiosn in 1993-94 but skyrocketed up to 103.8 allowed per 100 in 94-95. The rule changes in 04-05 simply corrected the very same thing they had corrected a decade earlier; i.e. the best defensive team allowed 94.1 points per 100 possessions in 2003-2004, skyrocketing up to 98.8 in 04-05.

And Jordan, while clearly superior, did look more human than is admitted against great defensive teams and it wasn't just one time; he averaged 32.2 ppg on 40% shooting (on 26 shots per game), 7.3 rpg, 7 apg, 2.5 spg in the 93 ECF (still a terrific all around series). In the 96 Finals, he averaged 27.3 ppg on 41.5% shooting (on 25 shots), 5.3 rpg, 4.2 apg, 1.7 spg. Those were pretty much the best two defensive teams he ever played statistically; Knicks allowed 99.7 per 100 possessions in 1993 and Sonics allowed 102.1 points per 100 possessions in 1996.

[EHL]

Kobe averaged 28 ppg on just a hair under 45% shooting against Bowen and the Spurs during their 3 combined postseason matchups (2002, 2003, and 2004). If you include the 2008 postseason it's even higher after he averaged 26 ppg on 53%. No one cares about regular season matchups if he was consistently dominating in the postseason. And that overall that's against defense better than at any prior point in NBA history including any team Jordan ever saw (as if anyone here is really impressed with someone dominating 6'4" 190lbs John Starks who can't touch Bowen, or even driving on Ewing himself who was really, in the end, as soft as David Robinson).

John Starks might not be as good of a defender as Bowen, but since he was allowed to do more on defense because of lesser rules, he was probably just as effective as Bowen is. And you lose credibility with that last statement. Robinson is without a doubt one of the greatest defenders ever, and Ewing was great also.

that's really a myth. Premier defenders in the NBA, in the post-season, are allowed as much contact as they ever have. Are you telling me the Celtics were called for touch fouls and hand checks.

Exactly. Anyone dumb enough to even pretend defensive contact, even with the less stringent rules today, is somehow inferior than it was at any other point in NBA history just doesn't like statistics. Particularly when it comes to certain players like Bowen, whose vieled perimeter hacking is up there with anyone in NBA history and I challenege anyone here to come up with examples or video showing otherwise. Hell, take a look at the BS the 04 Pistons get away with the Finals; they won legitimately and Kobe just had a bad series period, but no way would he have had the series he had if the rules were anywhere near what they were today.

[guy1]

Kobe averaged 28 ppg on just a hair under 45% shooting against Bowen and the Spurs during their 3 combined postseason matchups (2002, 2003, and 2004). If you include the 2008 postseason it's even higher after he averaged 26 ppg on 53%. No one cares about regular season matchups if he was consistently dominating in the postseason. And that overall that's against defense better than at any prior point in NBA history including any team Jordan ever saw (as if anyone here is really impressed with someone dominating 6'4" 190lbs John Starks who can't touch Bowen, or even driving on Ewing himself who was really, in the end, as soft as David Robinson).

John Starks might not be as good of a defender as Bowen, but since he was allowed to do more on defense because of lesser rules, he was probably just as effective as Bowen is. And you lose credibility with that last statement. Robinson is without a doubt one of the greatest defenders ever, and Ewing was great also.

that's really a myth. Premier defenders in the NBA, in the post-season, are allowed as much contact as they ever have. Are you telling me the Celtics were called for touch fouls and hand checks.

I disagree. It has been overexaggerated how much teams are limited physically, but even though its overexaggerated, that doesn't mean they haven't limited. It is somewhat of a myth because it is overexaggerated, just like its somewhat of a myth that Jordan never played against zone defenses (they were illegal, but they were still used at times) and was never double or triple-teamed. Its also a myth that the allowing of zone defenses today has had such a negative effect on offenses, because the fact is zone defense is still not used that much.

[eatyourchildren]

Really? Because the Lakers use a strong side zone defense pretty much all game long.

[bigchee]

Actually, I believe Lebrons supporting cast is routinely underrated.

Great article on Lebron's supporting cast here.

http://www.talkingpointfreesports.com/a ... rting_Cast

[Silver Bullet]

Excellent article - A few choice quotes.

Why do people continue to overlook what any Cleveland player not named LeBron brings to the table? Because most people have a very narrow, shallow definition of talent. For the average person, talent means an ability to create your own shot and score in a one-on-one situation. Why? Because that’s the skill most visible to the casual, naked eye. More subtle skills like boxing out, rebounding, position defense, setting screens, and rotations escape the notice of the average observer.

It’s easy to see why the Lakers are perceived to be so talented. One has to pay a little attention to notice Gasol’s softness (uncontested dunks galore, from Leon Powe to Carlos Boozer, and an inability to rebound in double figures), Odom’s inconsistency, and how little Bynum has actually shown. This isn’t to say the Lakers aren’t talented. They are one of the most talented teams in the league, without a doubt. It just so happens that their talent is exaggerated while Cleveland’s talent is overlooked. Superficial observers and media hype are the reasons.

[SimonAdebisi]

Lebron's supporting cast is clearly underrated, but it doesn't mean much. They're completely built around him. There isn't another guy in the NBA that could do what Lebron does for the Cavs. He anchors them on both sides of the floor at an elite level. They really aren't individually talented. Lamar Odom and Andrew Bynum would be the 2nd best players on the Cavs.

Lebron's team is built exactly the same away as Duncan's 2003 Spurs were built, which isn't surprising, since their organization is currently built by Ferry and Brown, 2 former Spurs during that time.

[guy1]

Excellent article - A few choice quotes.

Why do people continue to overlook what any Cleveland player not named LeBron brings to the table? Because most people have a very narrow, shallow definition of talent. For the average person, talent means an ability to create your own shot and score in a one-on-one situation. Why? Because that’s the skill most visible to the casual, naked eye. More subtle skills like boxing out, rebounding, position defense, setting screens, and rotations escape the notice of the average observer.

It’s easy to see why the Lakers are perceived to be so talented. One has to pay a little attention to notice Gasol’s softness (uncontested dunks galore, from Leon Powe to Carlos Boozer, and an inability to rebound in double figures), Odom’s inconsistency, and how little Bynum has actually shown. This isn’t to say the Lakers aren’t talented. They are one of the most talented teams in the league, without a doubt. It just so happens that their talent is exaggerated while Cleveland’s talent is overlooked. Superficial observers and media hype are the reasons.

Just cause Lebron's supporting cast is underrated that doesn't mean Kobe's is overrated. Maybe it shouldnt come as a shock if the Cavs beat the Lakers, but unless Kobe plays absolutely amazing while the cast stinks it up and they lose which I highly doubt will happen, then Kobe fans can't blame it on the cast for losing and they should acknowledge that Kobe's legacy takes a hit. And unless Lebron plays like absolute crap, if the Lakers lose to the Cavs, Lebron should be considered by everyone to be the better player.

[Silver Bullet]

Excellent article - A few choice quotes.

Why do people continue to overlook what any Cleveland player not named LeBron brings to the table? Because most people have a very narrow, shallow definition of talent. For the average person, talent means an ability to create your own shot and score in a one-on-one situation. Why? Because that’s the skill most visible to the casual, naked eye. More subtle skills like boxing out, rebounding, position defense, setting screens, and rotations escape the notice of the average observer.

It’s easy to see why the Lakers are perceived to be so talented. One has to pay a little attention to notice Gasol’s softness (uncontested dunks galore, from Leon Powe to Carlos Boozer, and an inability to rebound in double figures), Odom’s inconsistency, and how little Bynum has actually shown. This isn’t to say the Lakers aren’t talented. They are one of the most talented teams in the league, without a doubt. It just so happens that their talent is exaggerated while Cleveland’s talent is overlooked. Superficial observers and media hype are the reasons.

Just cause Lebron's supporting cast is underrated that doesn't mean Kobe's is overrated. Maybe it shouldnt come as a shock if the Cavs beat the Lakers, but unless Kobe plays absolutely amazing while the cast stinks it up and they lose which I highly doubt will happen, then Kobe fans can't blame it on the cast for losing and they should acknowledge that Kobe's legacy takes a hit. And unless Lebron plays like absolute crap, if the Lakers lose to the Cavs, Lebron should be considered by everyone to be the better player.

If he is played the way he was played by the Celtics last year, then absolutely there is very little Kobe or anyone can do.

I will consider Lebron the better player if they both matchup, play each other one on one, and Lebron outplays Kobe - regardless of which team wins.

If the Cavs out rebound the Lakers by 10 boards each game, then obviously the supporting cast is to blame.

I by no means consider the Lakers the overwhelming favorite to win it all. In fact, I would not be surprised If either Dallas or Houston beats them, however I would be very surprised if the Nuggets do.