You can't spell "Los Andgeles" without a 'd.' Oh wait, yes you can! "Los Angeles," see? No 'd,' there you have it (Look what my college degree gets me!). Maybe that's why the Los Angeles Lakers (no "d" there either!) don't play it very well. I don't even need to back that statement up, either (but fear not, I'm going to!). The proof is in the pudding, and by pudding I mean last night's loss to the Trail Blazers in Portland.
Now, you might be attempting to chastise me right now for only using last night's game as an indicator of LA's 'd'eficiency (har-har), but remember, I can't hear you (no comments thus far, anyhow). Besides, boys and girls, you should know by now that I've got the stats to back it up (I'm good for it, I swear!). What's that you say? Stop fooling around and get on with it? Right, here we go.
Last night, the Lakers gave up 112 points to the Portland Trail Blazers on 41-81 shooting from the field and 10-22 from the land of plenty (behind the three-point line). You could chalk it up to hot shooting from Portland, but when you consider that the Lakers had only four steals and two blocks, you start to get the feeling that the Lakers aren't exactly committed to the defensive end of the floor.
And then, there was the decisive play of the game (watch the highlight), in which Brandon Roy dribbles right past the entire Laker team, marches down the lane right to the rim and lays it in while getting fouled by Pau Gasol (in the closing minute of a 3 point game!). Watching the play, you will realize that not even Charlton Heston playing Moses (R.I.P.) could have parted the defense quite like that or make a wider lane for Brandon Roy to drive through. Pau Gasol was woefully late with his help defense, and he didn't even have the sense to commit a hard enough foul to stop Roy from getting the hoop. That's two defensive lapses on one play that ended up costing LA the game (more if you consider how easily Roy got up the floor and by the perimeter players).
But that was just one game. It couldn't be that the Lakers are 23rd in the NBA in opponent's made field goals, or 20th in the Association in points allowed per game, could it? Next you'll tell me that their 27th in the NBA in opponent's offensive rebounding, or 22nd in opponent's total rebounding, or 16th in the league at opponent's 3-point field goal percentage. I mean for them to be ranked that poorly in the NBA, they'd have to be letting their opponents make 38.3 field goals per game and score 101.8 points per game on average while giving up 12.2 offensive rebounds per game and 43 rebounds per night overall. That would mean that they might let the Blazers shoot more than 50% from the field and 45% behind the arc and lose in Portland for the sixth straight time. What's worse, those numbers would put them in the bottom half, maybe even the bottom third of the league defensively. Huh? All of that is true? My God! How could this be?
The answer, rhetorical idiot literary device who provides a premise for my sports blog, is that the Lakers, one of the best teams in the league despite this 'd'eficiency (still hilarious!), have a style and a roster full of guys built to score, not play defense. They only actually have one outstanding defender, and he also happens to be outstanding at pretty much everything else he does on the court as well (who's he referring to? Let me think...).
Because of their success, I can't knock the Lakers too much for now, but I think that their problems on defense might sink the Lakers in the Playoffs this year. Part of their problem is some personnel, but I think that a large part of the reason why the Lakers suffer on defense is because of the style of basketball they play. Despite giving up 101.8 points per game, the Lakers own the Association's fourth best scoring differential at +6.7 points per game. That figure would seem to imply that the Lakers score 108.5 points per contest and play at a high tempo condusive to lots of scoring.
While having a differential that strong is great for LA, it certainly doesn't make them invulnerable or excuse some serious flaws on the defensive end of the floor. A huge problem is the fact that LA gives up so many shots to the other team. LA's opponents are hoisting up 85.8 shots per game and making 38.3 on average. Though their opponents don't shoot a great percentage, LA only averages 1.3 more made field goals than their opponents do, a slim margin to say the least (by contrast, Boston averages 4 more made field goals than it's opponents per game). This means that if LA's shots aren't falling, or they're even a little off, they put themselves in danger of losing the game.
The Lakers showed this last night, where they shot a respectable 45% from the field but lost because they couldn't stop Portland from shooting over 50%. The Lakers weren't off by that much, but they couldn't get stops when they needed to or stop giving the Blazers uncontested looks from all over the perimeter. Because of their style and strategy that relies on blowing the doors off of people instead of clamping down on them and squeezing, the Lakers become very vulnerable when facing hot shooting or the stifling defense of an opponent.
Why not change the style, then? Another excellent question, rhetorical voice, why not? Because the Lakers don't have guys on their roster (at least, not healthy ones) who have the tools or the mindset to be great defenders. Pau Gasol, though long and talented and incredibly smart, has always been a bit soft and isn't capable of banging around inside and making a big impact for the Lakers interior defense. Similarly, Lamar Odom, despite being a great rebounder who is long and quick, does not make a great impact on defense and definitely doesn't have the mindset to play lockdown defense (he doesn't really have the mindset to be anything resembling what he's paid to be).
The same diagnosis of Gasol and Odom as "talented but unwilling or unable" fits fairly well for the rest of the Lakers (aside from Ronny Turiaf), though I'm convinced that Vladimir Radmanovich is genetically unable to guard anyone anywhere and is only mildly talented. From top to bottom, it seems, the Lakers are missing the tools and the blueprints to successfully stop .500 teams from getting uncontested looks anywhere they want them and scoring more than 100 points per game.
That is, of course, with the exception of one guy on LA's roster named Kobe (not you Karl, I said Kobe, not Coby!). Kobe has all the defensive tools and the mindset (maybe he stole the tools from his teammates, he's so selfish!) that are essential for great defenders. Unfortunately, he's the only one on his team and he is handicapped by the flaws of his teammates. Kobe is tenacious on defense, but it's hard for him to make a huge impact playing where he does. Kobe can't protect the rim like KG or Tim Duncan, and he's really only responsible for disrupting the oppostion's best perimeter player. That's a crucial task, but it only affects one player and against elite teams in the NBA, tha's not nearly enough to win it all.
As long as the Lakers play the style they do, they'll struggle against great defensive teams and occasionally against medium-bad teams as well. If the Lakers can't score, they can't win, plain and simple. They're tons of fun to watch and I think they'll do well in the Playoffs this year (particularly if Andrew Bynum can return and make an impact), but as long as they are incapable of getting stops in critical moments, they'll be ripe for the picking for any West contender.
