Lakers fall versus Bucks: 3-on-3

J.M. Poulard —  March 28, 2013

With the Los Angeles Lakers losing against the Milwaukee Bucks tonight, the Forum Blue and Gold staff broke the game down in this latest installment of 3-on-3.

1. What’s the biggest takeaway from the game in Milwaukee?

J.M. Poulard: Sadly, Laker fans might recognize tonight’s team all too well. It’s the one they’ve seen for most of the early portion of the season that committed multiple turnovers and didn’t get back in transition.

The Lakers coughed up the ball 18 times and gave up a whopping 30 fast break points.3on3 truehoopnetwork

30 fast break points!

Philip Barnett: Sure, the Lakers lost another winnable game, but the biggest take away from tonight’s game for me was the fact that Steve Nash wasn’t healthy enough to play the fourth quarter. Nash said it was a hip spasm that has been a problem since the game against Golden State — which isn’t good any way you look at it moving forward for this team. They’ve already lost Artest for the rest of the season, Jordan Hill isn’t coming back any time soon and guys like Kobe, Gasol and Howard still aren’t 100 percent healthy. He said that he’d likely play on Saturday, but if Nash misses any time for the rest of this season, the Lakers playoff hopes would be in serious jeopardy, if they aren’t already.

Emile Avanessian: The main takeaway from the Lakers’ visit to Milwaukee is that consistently cranking out a full 48 against (in the case of the Bucks, just barely) playoff caliber opposition, under anything less than optimal conditions, is a bridge too far.

At times this season the Lakers have shown themselves capable of going toe to toe with the NBA’s best, but performances like the one we saw Thursday night highlight the difficulty this team will face in securing four wins in seven outings against top shelf competition – or even clinging to their now-half-game edge in the race for the West’s last postseason berth. Despite little contribution from the bench, prolific first half efforts from Kobe Bryant and Steve Nash had the Lakers poised to make relatively easy work of their hosts. However, after a stellar opening 20 minutes, they began to scuffle, allowing the Bucks to trim a 13-point lead to just three by halftime.

After the break, the Nash-less (for the last 17+ minutes) Lakers were done in by the inability to contain Monta Ellis (a near triple-double, with 18, seven rebounds and nine assists), Brandon Jennings (20, including three 3-pointers, and seven assists) and Larry Sanders (13 boards to accompany a career-high 21, 13 of which came in the third quarter), while also struggling to create and convert easy opportunities at the rim. The Bucks turned up the heat as the second half progressed, and on this night the Lakers could not find the extra gear that would have allowed them to prevail. Simply put, with the stakes raised and few soft patches remaining on the schedule, in the absence of Metta, the Lakers’ are ill-equipped to consistently trouble the league’s best.

2. Thoughts on Pau Gasol’s play tonight?

J.M. Poulard: Gasol looked like a bully at times on offense tonight, punishing Ersan Ilyasova on the low block. He hit him with a left hook, a reverse layup, a fall-away jumper and an overpowering basket right at the rim.

Defensively though, Pau was a huge liability. According to NBA.com’s advanced stats tool, most of the lineups the Lakers have used this season featuring Pau Gasol without Dwight Howard have been abysmal on defense. And this was obvious tonight.

The Bucks attacked the Spaniard repeatedly in the pick-and-roll with Howard on the bench and they produced scores with relative ease in these situations. Couple that with the three-guard lineup and the paint was wide open.

Philip Barnett: If I had to give him a grade, I’d give him a C+/B-. Since his return from injury, the game against the Timberwolves was easily his best showing. Tonight’s game was his second best, but wasn’t nearly as good as the game in Minnesota. I was more impressed with his passing acumen more than anything else, but he was able to get into the flow of the offense for a few possessions, knocked down a couple shots and finished around the basket.

Emile Avanessian: Pedestrian.

After a first half in which he played a vital role in building a double digit lead, Pau Gasol was relegated to little more than bit player status after the break – more appropriately, after Steve Nash’s back forced him to call it a night. Pau did connect on half of his twelve field goal attempts en route to 12 points, he did grab nine rebounds and hand out three assists, and he did hold Ersan Ilyasova to just four rebounds, but there is a case to be made that of the ten starters on both teams, only Jodie Meeks turned in a less impactful Thursday night at the office.

Pau’s opposite number (Ilyasova) outplayed him offensively, scoring 20 points (including a stealthily huge 3-pointer just before halftime) and swiped possession from the Lakers four times and, more importantly, with a sweep of the season’s penultimate back-to-back well within reach and Nash indisposed for the remainder of the game, Pau did not make a single meaningful second half play. Far be it for me to lay the entirety of the blame for Thursday’s come-from-ahead shortfall at Pau’s doorstep, but I would be remiss to ignore his conspicuous silence at the game’s vital moments.

3.  The Lakers faded late in the fourth quarter because…

J.M. Poulard: They simply could not make shots. Antawn Jamison was the only player to convert more than one field goal in the fourth quarter against the Bucks.

Everybody else struggled from the field.

Kobe was a mere 1-for-5 in the final period and complicated matters a little by forcing a few isolations. He invited the double team but only attracted Pau Gasol’s defender, which for the most part was a win for Milwaukee given that Pau camped out on the perimeter.

In the same breath, Bryant himself gave the Lakers a fighting chance by virtue of all the fouls he manufactured. Kobe attempted 10 freebies in the last quarter alone, but it just wasn’t enough.

Philip Barnett: The turnover issue has gotten out of hand in the last two contests. The Lakers recorded 15 turnovers in the first half of the game against the Timberwolves. Tonight, the Lakers recorded eight in the third quarter, which ultimately decided the game. The Lakers made a short push early in the fourth quarter, but didn’t lead again in the last seven minutes of the game. Had the Lakers kept things a bit cleaner in the third, their fourth quarter woes might not have come to fruition. Other than that, it was pretty much a matter of young legs v. old legs. The Bucks essentially ran them out of the building in the last half of the fourth quarter. Couple that with some bad shots, and you have a Lakers loss.

Emile Avanessian:            The Lakers simply lacked the horses to go the distance against a quality opponent. Kobe characteristically tried to engage Mamba, but his effort fell short. This, combined with the absences of Steve Nash and Metta, and with no one markedly outperforming expectations, is little more than a one-way pass to disappointment in Lakerland.

J.M. Poulard

Posts

10 responses to Lakers fall versus Bucks: 3-on-3

  1. Probably be easier to just the keep tge above up as it appears to be the recurring store of the season.

    Kobe and Nash turn ball over.
    Pau disappears
    Dwight gets out played by a unknown.
    Kobe forces the ball in the 4th and shoots 20%.
    Old guys get hurt.
    Lakers burn out and coach Daaaa does nothing.

    There you go the write up for last 9 games. Thank you.

  2. The fat lady is tuning up!

  3. “Far be it for me to lay the entirety of the blame for Thursday’s come-from-ahead shortfall at Pau’s doorstep, but I would be remiss to ignore his conspicuous silence at the game’s vital moments.”

    Is it just me or has this exact same sentence been used before? I think I’m either going insane or there’s some brutal dejavu going on here

  4. Kobe went to free throw line 10 times in the 4th quarter and we complaining about him?

  5. Emille nailed it in his answer on the first question.

    I am very disappointed with this season, but I am absolutely terrified about the future. It might take years to adjust to this CBA, clear out contracts, and start over. All being done without a superstar (I am reserving judgment on Dwight for now). Feels like we might be looking at a repeat of the mid 90s. I hope not.

  6. While watching our performance in the 2nd half last night, I knew that, in my mind, I had finally come to the conclusion that our season is over. One thing brought me to this realization: I kept thinking about moves that would need to be made in the off-season in order for us to be able to get back to a Championship Level Squad. For myself, it’s that simple. Whenever an individual is, sadly, watching what’s transpiring right in front of their eyes and @ the same time, they’re contemplating on how the team can improve NEXT season to secure a Championship, that’s telling you something. It’s understood that one can say, ‘Tra, with the way we’ve been playing all season, I’m surprised that it’s only now that you’ve come to this realization.’ True indeed, and maybe, somewhere subconsciously, I was hoping that we could shock the nation like Dallas did in 2011, but last night, reality finally sunk in for me. Does this mean that I’m going to stop watching our games and supporting my Lakers? Hell No. Lakers 4 Life – Ryde or Die .. But my focus is definitely on this off-season.

  7. Acceptance is the first step on the road to recovery. I see a lot of it on this board but wonder if it is shared by management.

  8. Watch your language in the comments or your comment will be deleted. Read the commenting guidelines and we’ll all be better off for it.

  9. I agree with Funky Chicken. Whenever the Lakers are eliminated–either at the end of the regular season or after the first round — I am dreading management going on the radio and playing the “if we had only been healthy” card. An overhall is needed, even one that will bring more pain in the short term.